– Jnanendralal Majumdar’s introduction to the Shakta commentary of Acharya Sri Satyanananda Sarasvati.
The final authority on which Tantra as every Shastra rests is Shruti. The world is eternal though it is sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest. In dissolution, it exists undistinguishable from consciousness, as the potentiality of the creation yet to be. Veda too is eternal, being the seed of the world as an idea existing in Ishvara consciousness which emanates in creation as the world-idea or word (shabda), of which the world is the meaning (artha). The first revelation of Veda is thus the cosmic ideation (Srishtikalpana) of ishvara for whom there is no difference of shabda and artha such as exists in the divided consciousness of the Jiva. When, however, Jiva’s mind is purified he sees that the world is nothing but a kalpana of Ishvara. This is the secondary revelation of Veda in the minds of the Rishis or seers (drashta) who see the truth in the clear mirror of their purified minds and proclaim it in language which as heard by ordinary men is Shruti. The Samhitas and Brahmanas are the Vaidika Karmakanda designed to purify the mind and, like Karma, are necessarily dualistic. The Aranyakas including the Upanishads are the monistic Jnanakanda as understood by the minds purified. Every system of Hindu spiritual culture must therefore be in consonance with the teaching of the Upanishads. So the exponents of different systems explain them in the form of commentaries. Using Veda in its secondary sense there are other revelations than those contained in the Shastras which are ordinarily called the Vedas. Even these are not a single revelation, for otherwise the Vedas could have had but one Rishi. They are a collection of fractional revelations in the minds of many Rishis at different times and occasions and expressed in different styles of language. Their compiler was Vyasa. As Veda in its secondary sense is but the appearance of pure truth in a pure mind occasioned by the necessity of the time there can be no ground for supposing that the Shastras called the Vedas are the only revelations. As the ages pass and changes take place in the conditions of the world’s races, revelations are made in the minds of their great men to guide and teach them. These revelations have given rise to the different religions of the various people. The world is yet far from ablate in which all its inhabitants are at the same stage of civilization. No present success will therefore follow any attempt to bring the whole world within the fold of a single religion. For this reason, Hinduism does not seek to proselytize. Comparative Theology has shown that there are some underlying elements common to all religions. But these by themselves cannot form a system of practical religion capable of guiding and sustaining men of differing capacities and temperaments. Amongst such other revelations and speaking of the Indian Shastras there are the Dharma Shastras spoken by Rishis, the Tantra Shastra and Puranas. This is not to say that all which is contained in any Shastra so-called have the character and authority of revelation. The fundamental truths in all these Shastras (Veda, dharma shastras, purana, and tantra) are and must be the same but the presentment and application of these truths vary according to the changes in and needs of the Ages. Thus neither the capacity nor the temperament of the people of our time nor its condition permits the elaborate ritual prescribed by the Vaidika Karmakanda. The spiritual necessities of men also have to some extent changed. This is explained in many places, amongst others, the Mahanirvana Tantra (I, 20-50). What is there said may have a rhetorical and therefore exaggerated form, a common trait in Indian Literature seeking to enforce truth by emphasis? We may not believe that at one time man was wholly free from wickedness and has gradually degenerated so as to be almost entirely bad at the present time. Life has doubtless always been attended by inherent evils. The Vedas themselves, the scripture of the Satya age, contain accounts of want and poverty, crime, wickedness, wars, disease, and death. Yet it is not to be denied that the age which produced the ritualism of the Brahmanas and the sublime teaching of the Upanishads was an age superior to the present in which so-called civilized man has scarcely time to say his daily prayers and the soul seems to be irretrievably world-bound. This degeneration from the conditions of the glorious Vaidik ages is the fruit of racial Karma.
The Brahmavidya of the Upanishads has, however, permeated every section of Hindu society in varying degrees and given it a culture that even in the present day of its degeneration sustains the individuality of the race. There has been, notwithstanding all changes, a continuity from the more ancient times until today in the basal ideas of the Hindus which are to be found in all Shastras. Changes have occurred more in the form of expressions and the disciplines by which those ideas were realized. Throughout, the Jnanakanda has remained the same. The main principles of it are:
(1) Correlation as cause and effect between the Jiva’s Karma and his existence as an individual bound to the world
(2) the chain of Karma which, binds the individual is beginningless but can be brought to an end
(3) transmigration of the individual from body to body until his Karma is destroyed
(4) the individual’s connection with the world in which he appears as the enjoyer and the world as the object of enjoyment is thus incidental and not essential
(5) the individual’s attachment to the world and his habit of identifying himself with his body are bred of his ignorance of his real free nature
(6) Karma and ignorance work in a circle, Karma breeding ignorance and ignorance breeding Karma
(7) realization of his true nature and the consequent destruction of ignorance is the cause of the destruction of the individual’s Karma and his liberation from the bondage and suffering of the world and
(8) liberation is the realization of the truth (however interpreted) that all is Brahma.
These essential principles form the basis of all Shastras: Dharmashastra, Purana, Tantra, or Agama ó and form the basis of their Upasanakanda which though differing in many respects from the Vaidik Karmakanda are equally effective to develop spirituality in the differing types to which they are applied. This is not to say that there are no points of difference in these Shastras. Different conceptions are exemplified in the various systems of worship expounded in them. Thus there are some Puranas, such as the Vaishnava Puranas, which are, according to some sects, dualistic, and others, such as the Shakta Puranas, which are unquestionably monistic. So in the Tantras or the Agama the Shakta Tantras are pre-eminently Advaita, others are Vishishtadvaita, and so forth. Though the Shakta Agama is a Sadhana Shastra, it and the Shakta Puranas teach that while good Karma enables the aspirant to purify himself, Jnana alone will give liberation which is a monistic experience.
Man, however, is naturally a dualist and his Karmayoga presupposes the existence of both ishvara and Jiva. But what is it which makes the latter different from the former? Pure consciousness or Atma is the same in both. Diversity is then possible only in the unconscious elements which constitute mind and body composed of the gunas of Prakriti. All things exist to serve the purpose of some other, and Prakriti and its Vikritis exist for the service of the conscious Purusha. Dualistic philosophy holds that Prakriti is a permanent, independent, unconscious Principle, distinct from the conscious Principle, Purusha, of which there are many. This is not the place to enter into the defects of this system which are obvious, it being enough to point out that if Prakriti is a permanent independent Principle then its bondage is real and its influence on Purusha is necessarily permanent and liberation is impossible. Again, that bondage that is real has no beginning but an end and liberation has a beginning but no end. Both these suppositions are, however, opposed to the fundamental principle that what truly exists cannot cease to exist and what does not exist cannot come to exist. Something cannot be anything and out of nothing cannot come something. What is real cannot be unreal nor can what is unreal be real.
Shruti, moreover, says, “All this is Brahma.” How then can we deal with Purusha and Prakriti in order to reach this monistic conclusion? This duality can be overcome by one or other of the following two ways, namely, (i) eliminating Prakriti as being nothing or (2) identifying Her with Purusha or consciousness.
The first method is that of Shankaracharya who posits only one reality, Atma or Purusha. He identifies Prakriti with ignorance (ajnana), holding that the material world has no other existence save in this ignorance. The three gunas are thus constituents of ignorance. Potentially the latter is adrishta and actually, it is the material world of desire, objects of desire, and means for their attainment, that is, the senses and mind. The essence of creation is thus nothing but ignorance. The latter may be destroyed by knowledge. But what is a reality cannot be destroyed and made unreal. Conversely, what can be destroyed is not a reality. Hence Prakriti or ignorance is not essentially a reality. Yet it appears to be real. This appearance of unreality as reality is the great world -riddle. So Prakriti is called Maya or that by which the impossible becomes possible (Aghatanaghatanapatiyasi). It is from the world-standpoint something inexplicable and undefinable (anirvachya), neither unreal nor real; not unreal because the Jiva feels it to be real and not real because it is transient and unknown in liberation. Maya is real to the ignorant who do not seek to analyze it; it is inexplicable to those who seek to analyze its phantom being. It is a negligible thing (tuchchha) to those who feel that, however much it may appear real to the senses, it is in reality unreal. Shankara thus treats the world both from the transcendental or spiritual (Paramarthika) and practical (Vyavaharika) points of view. The former point of view does not in fact treat the world at all, for the world from such standpoint being nothing no question arises of its origin and so forth. The origin cannot be given of that which does not exist. It is only from the lower or practical standpoint that there is the necessity of assuming the existence of the world, discussing its nature and origin, and so forth.
The practical point of view is that of ignorance, From this standpoint, the world is a great reality affording pleasure and pain to multitudinous Jivas or imperfect forms of consciousness – Chidabhasa as it is called in Mayavada, that is, an image of consciousness distorted by its reflection on ignorance with which it is connected. This ignorance is either the ignorance of the individual unit in creation called Avidya or, collectively, is the sum total of the ignorance of the units when it is called Maya. Chidabhasa on Avidya is Jiva and on Maya Ishvara. Great is the difference between them since in Avidya the gunas have lost their equilibrium whereas in Maya they are in equilibrium. Jiva, as the Kularnava Tantra says, is bound by the bonds (that is, gunas of Avidya), Maheshvara is free of them. Ignorance is the cause of the world. But it is not the ignorance of anyone Jiva, for in that case, the liberation of a Jiva would mean the disappearance of the world or there would be different worlds for different Jivas. It is, therefore, the collective ignorance that is the material cause of the world. But ignorance, whether individual or collective, must have the consciousness to rest upon. This consciousness is in the case of individual ignorance called Jiva and in the case of collective ignorance Ishvara. In collective ignorance, there can be no inequilibrium of gunas, for in that case it would provide worldly happiness and pain and become individual and cease to be collective, and this larger individual ignorance with the smaller ones would form another collective ignorance and so on indefinitely. Nor can it be said that the happiness and pain provided by the collective ignorance is nothing but the sum total of the happiness and pain provided by the individual items of ignorance, for the ignorance of different Jivas gives rise to diverse forms of happiness and pain out of the same act so that if they could be totaled at all the total would be zero. The Chidabhasa which constitutes Ishvaratva is almost an exact likeness of true consciousness on account of its being associated with Prakriti in equilibrium and consequently unperturbed by the gunas in action. He is Saguna Brahma whilst true consciousness is Nirguna Brahma.
Now, this Chidabhasa, which is thus the creator and enjoyer in the world as Ishvara and Jiva, must be, even in its falseness, an emanation from true consciousness, and of this emanation true consciousness must, on account of its perfect conscious nature, be conscious. Again, true consciousness or Nirguna Brahma being the only one existence, the three gunas constituting ignorance must, even though they are unreal, have Nirguna Brahma as the source of their unreal existence, and Nirguna Brahma being all consciousness must be conscious of this fact of unrealities drawing their existence from it. Again, it must be Nirguna Brahma, which causes Chidabhasa, an unreality, to appear as real consciousness and operate in the VyavahArika world as the doer, enjoyer, sufferer, and so forth. All this seems an oxymoron on account of the contradictory character of Nirguna Brahma or Atmik consciousness and the ignorance or unconsciousness which constitutes the three gunas or Prakriti. But to explain the Yyavaharika existence of the world, we must take it all for granted in spite of seeming contradiction. The power (Shakti) of pure unlimited consciousness is infinite (ananta) and inscrutable (achintya). No worldly or Vyavaharika law can put a limitation to the free Shakti of Brahma. The unreal world draws its unreal existence from the sole Brahma reality. It is a vision in Brahma (Brahmakalpana) having no independent existence and yet different from it. It should, however, be remembered that all this is connected with the practical point of view of the existence of the world. So long as the world is considered existing, it must be existing in Atmii (atmastha), although it is essentially different from Atma, (Atmavilakshana) and does not exist for its purpose. In reality, however, the world is non-existent, and pure Atmik consciousness is not cognizant of it. Hence the whole question of the cause of the world is a question bred of ignorance or Maya, and has absolutely no connection with pure Atmik consciousness. Ignorance or Maya, so long as it is supposed to be existing, has also to be supposed to be possessed of the power of receiving an influence from Atma which enables it to evolve the world out of itself. In this creation of the world, Atmik consciousness is neither an instrumental nor a material cause, but is merely an efficient cause, exerting an influence on ignorance or Maya by virtue of its proximity (sannidhimatrena upakari). But even this idea of Atmik consciousness being the efficient cause of creation is a false idea, proceeding, as it does, from a search for the cause of creation which is really non-existing. From the spiritual point of view, there is no world and no creation. Atma alone exists. The Vedantist of Shankara’s school speaks of an inscrutable Shakti of Atma being the cause of creation simply to provide the Vyavaharika world, that is to say, the world of the worldly man, with a worldly interpretation of its worldly existence. It is the effect of looking at Brahma through the world.
The above is a short exposition of what may be called Shankara’s Vedantism, the keynote of which is:
“Brahma is true, the world is false.
Jiva is Brahma and none else.”
It remains to consider the second possible way of reducing dualism to monism, namely: Identifying Prakriti with Purusha or consciousness.
The Prakriti of Shankara’s Vedantism is unconscious and cannot consequently be in any way identified with consciousness. To identify Her with consciousness, we must, consequently, look for some other definition for Her.
“After merging Earth in Water, Water in Fire, Fire in Air, Air in Space, and Space in Ahankara and Ahankara in Mahat Tattva, Mahat should be merged in Prakriti and Prakriti in Atma.” (Devi-Bhagavata XI,8,9-10.)
Here it is laid down that just as the Vikritis derived from Prakriti can be merged, step by step, in Prakriti, so Prakriti also can be merged in Atmik consciousness. This is laya yoga, that is, unity caused by merging. But it is impossible for a thing to be merged in and lose itself in that which is wholly contradictory to itself. As darkness is destroyed by light so unconsciousness may be destroyed by consciousness, but just as darkness cannot be said to be merged in light so unconsciousness cannot be said to be merged in consciousness. It cannot also be said that the word “laya” in the above verses means destruction and not merging, for the Vikritis are not destroyed by Prakriti but are merged in Her in an order inverse to that in which they were derived from Her. Hence the Devibhagavata defines Prakriti as :
“‘Pra’ denotes excellence and ‘kriti’ denotes creation. Therefore, that Devi is called Prakriti who excels in creation. By Yoga He who is Atma appeared as two for the purpose of creation. The right half of His body is called Purusha and the left half Prakriti. She (Prakriti) too is Brahma itself and She is also everlasting and eternal. And as Atma is so is Shakti (Prakriti) just as heat is in the fire. Hence, great yogis make no distinction between female (Prakriti) and male (Purusha). All is Brahma and, O great Narada, ever-existing too.” (Devi Bhagavata IX, 1, 5, 9-1)
“Thus Shakti is all-pervading. She should be considered as Brahma. She should be worshiped in various ways,and be always pondered upon by wise men.” (Devi Bhagavata I, 8, 34)
“Shakti creates the Universe. It is She who maintains all. And it is She also who, by Her will, destroys this world composed of moving and non-moving things.” (Devi Bhagavata 1. 8. 37)
Prakriti or Shakti thus identified with consciousness is again considered Nirguna as well as Saguna.
“Wise men say that She is both Saguna and Nirguna. As Saguna She is worshiped by men attached to the world. As Nirguna She is worshiped by men who have no attachment.” (Devi Bhagavata I, 8, 40)
Saguna and Nirguna Shakti are defined as follows:
“O Shambhu, I am always the cause and never the effect. I am Saguna on account of being the cause and I am Nirguna when 1 am merged in Purusha.” (Devi Bhagavata III, 6, 71)
Nirguna Shakti and Nirguna Purusha are both spoken of as perfect consciousness:
“Nirguna Shakti is hard to reach and so is Nirguna Purusha. But by Munis they can be reached by knowledge and meditated upon also. Always know Prakriti and Purusha to be unbeginning and indestructible. By faith, they can be known and never by want of faith. What is consciousness in all beings, know that to be Paramatma (Supreme Atma), the Light (tejas) which, O Narada, spreads everywhere and stably resides in various forms of existence. Him and Her, O high-souled One, know to be all-extending and all-pervading. Nothing exists in the world, devoid of them. They should always be thought of as existing, mingled in the body, always imperishable, both the same, both conscious Atma, both Nirguna, and both pure. Shakti is the same as Paramatma and Paramatma is the same as Shakti”. (Devi Bhagavata III, 7, 10-15)
In the Gita, Bhagavan says:
“I (Parabrahma) am the source of all; all evolves from Me; thus comprehending, the wise, who are mindful (of the supreme truth), worship Me.” (Gita X, 8)
“He, the Supreme Purusha, O Partha, may be reached by unswerving devotion, in whom all beings exist and by whom all this (world) is pervaded.” (Gita VIII, 22)
Prakriti is called Purusha’s own:
“All beings, Kaunteya, enter into My own Prakriti at the end of a Kalpa, and I create them again at the beginning of a Kalpa. Ruling My own Prakriti, I create again and again.’ (Gita IX. 7-8)
Prakriti is spoken of, in Gita, as of two kinds, Apara (inferior) and Para (superior), corresponding to Saguna and Nirguna stated above:
“Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, and egoism, these are the eight-fold division of My Prakriti. Apara (inferior) is this. Know My other Prakriti, the Para (superior), who is Jiva (consciousness) and by whom, O mighty-armed this world is upheld. Know these to be the source of all beings. I am the source of all the world as well as the dissolution.” (Gita VII, 4-6)
“Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both without beginning, and know also that Vikritis and attributes are all born of
Prakriti. Prakriti is called the cause of the generation of cause and effect. Purusha is called the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain.” (Gita XIII, 19-20)
Thus the word Prakriti is used in two senses. In its wider sense, it includes both the source of the Enjoyer Purusha or Jiva and the source of the world composed of the three gunas. In its narrower sense, it means only the latter. Purusha (nirguna) is Nirguna Prakriti and Prakriti in its narrower sense is Saguna Prakriti as defined before.
“I give heat; I hold back and send forth the rain. O Arjuna,I am immortality and death, and Sat (effects) and Asat (cause).” (Gita IX. 19)
The above verses express the same doctrine as that taught in the Shakta Tantras. In the doctrine above illustrated Prakriti is identified with Purusha or consciousness.
Satyananda clearly points out that there is in reality nothing unconscious in the world. In his commentary on the first Mantra of the Ishopanishad he says :
“Although in a worldly view things of the world are worldly, in a spiritual view they are considered to be consciousness. It is the Mayashakti of Brahma, which is possessed of infinite and inscrutable powers, which evolves as the world. And this Mayashakti is consciousness because Shakti and possessor of Shakti not being different, She is not different from Brahma. She, again, is Mulaprakriti, the material cause of the world composed of the Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas Gunas. This Shakti controls her own consciousness and appears as unconscious in order to enable Jivas to enjoy the fruits of their Karma. In reality, however, there is nothing unconscious in the world, as shruti says, ‘Certainly all this is Brahma’ and so forth.”
This view is fully borne out by the researches of modern science, especially those of Dr. Jagadish Chandra Basu on plant life. All that seems unconscious is, in reality, imperfectly conscious, and this imperfection in consciousness is the one mystery in creation arising from the inscrutable power of Brahma-consciousness which creates the imperfect consciousness out of and yet without any loss to itself. Karma, birth, death, and so forth belong to this imperfect consciousness. All the diversity in the world appertains to imperfect consciousness, while perfect consciousness is thoroughly homogeneous. Satyananda puts it as follows (commentary on Mantra 4):
“In Nirguna Brahma which is pure and perfect consciousness, there can be no diversity either in itself (svagata) or in own class (svajatiya) or in a different class (vijatiya). But when its connection with Gunas becomes manifest, then there appear in it, as the Supreme Ishvara possessed of infinite and inscrutable powers, diversities in itself (svagata) appertaining to its secondary aspect.’ And, again, “Brahma assumes the aspect of Maya and, producing the movement (kshobha) of desire for creation in itself, creates the world, constantly changing out of that movement”.
Thus the term Maya is, in this theory, used for Brahma itself when Brahma appears as the source of creation. As the source of creation, Brahma has in itself the seeds of creation, namely, the three gunas, which also are nothing but consciousness. Hence Satyananda says (commentary on Mantra 4):
“As Brahma, which is without a second, is only consciousness, it cannot change into what is different. Nevertheless, on account of its being possessed of inscrutable powers, it appears as Maya in creation. Maya, who is Brahma (Brahmamayi) and is consciousness (Chidrupini), holds in Herself un-beginning Karmik impressions in the form of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas Gunas. Hence She is Gunamayi despite Her being Chinmayi. The Gunas also are nothing but Chitshakti on account of the absence of any second principle. Brahma who is perfect consciousness creates the world in the form of Maya composed of these three gunas and then Itself assumes the character of Jiva therein for the accomplishment of its world-play.”
Thus in creation, Brahma has two aspects, the aspect of perfect consciousness and the aspect which evolves imperfect consciousness. The first is Svarupabhava or primary aspect and the second Tatasthabhava or secondary aspect. The Svarupabhava is pure Nirguna Brahma or Atma and the Tatasthabhava is Saguna Brahma who, in creation, appears as the Creator (Ishvara) and the created.
The contradictory qualities of Nirguna and Saguna Brahma are explained in the commentary on Mantras 4 and 5. Nirguna is inactive, Saguna is active, and so forth. And in Mantra 5 the relative functions of the two as Kutastha Atma, and Jiva and body, are explained. “He (Atma) becoming Saguna encompasses, in the forms of Jiva and body, Himself in the form of Kutastha who is white, bodiless, painless, nerveless, pure and sinless” (Mantra 8). Creation is thus an emanation from Brahma, and may be illustrated as a system of concentric spheres, Nirguna Kutastha Atma being the center with spheres, representing the Jiva, causal body, subtle body, and gross body, surrounding it. The consciousness of the outer spheres is more and more imperfect in proportion as they are removed from the central Perfect Consciousness. The consciousness of the inner sphere extends to all the spheres, while that of an outer sphere extends only to the sphere or spheres outside it or is, in the case of the outermost gross body, confined to itself only. Thus the Kutastha is cognizant of the whole creation, the Jiva is cognizant of itself and the three bodies, the causal body is cognizant of itself and the two other bodies, the subtle body is cognizant of itself and the gross body, and the gross body is cognizant of itself only. In this way, consciousness is more or less suppressed in the evolution of the world. Satyananda puts it as follows (commentary on Mantra 8):
“Nirguna Atma who is pure Chit (consciousness) is encompassed by Saguna Atma by means of three bodies characterized by wakefulness, dream, and sleep. In spite of being thus encompassed the Atma is really bodiless; for although He presides over bodies it is not possible for Him, on account of His having no connection with gunas, to be endowed with the characteristics of bodies. The Chandogyopanishad says, ‘O Maghavan, this body is mortal, in the grasp of death; it is the seat of this immortal bodiless Atma. Good and evil influence him who has a body. Good and evil do not forsake a thing that has a body. But good and evil do not touch that which has no body.’ The meaning is that Atma as Nirguna Kutastha is bodiless and as Saguna Jiva is possessed of body. The pure consciousness of Saguna Atma is more or less suppressed by the gunas in Himself and thus he becomes a Jiva and body. Nirguna Kutastha Atma is encompassed by these Jiva and body aspects of Saguna Atma.”
The question then naturally arises, how does perfect consciousness become imperfect? This question the commentator answers as follows:
“It is the opinion of all Upanishads that only one principle exists and nothing else. This principle is Brahma which is consciousness. In creation, this consciousness appears in the body both in perfection and in imperfection. In perfection it is Kutastha and in imperfection, it is Jiva and body. How does perfect consciousness become imperfect? Because of its unbeginning Creative Shakti (Srishtishakti), possessed as it is of inscrutable Shaktis. Is this Shakti consciousness or something different from consciousness? She (Srishtishakti) is consciousness on account of there being actually no difference between a Shakti and the possessor of a Shakti. How does creative Shakti who is consciousness take away (lit. reduce) consciousness? We have said because Brahma is possessed of inscrutable Shaktis”.
Shankara’s Vedantism also explains the world by the inscrutable Shakti of Brahma. But it further holds that in reality, world does not exist and consequently, no such Shakti of Brahma is actually displayed. In the present view, however, the world is a real outcome of the actual display of such a Shakti of Brahma. It is Brahma’s creative play. Says Satyananda (commentary on Mantra 8):
“It is owing to the Karmik impressions of Jivas consisting of desires for enjoyment that the phenomenal world (prapancha) appears in vyavahara as unconscious. Under the influence of impressions Jivas desire enjoyment, and the phenomenal world of enjoyment appears for the satisfaction of these desires. It is owing to the imperfect consciousness of Jivas that they desire enjoyment and regard the phenomenal world as unconscious and enjoyable. Hence impressions (samskara) are the cause of Jivas’ imperfect consciousness. These impressions are composed of gunas and evolved (parinama) out of gunas. Maya, the Gunamayi Creative Shakti of Brahma, covers Her own perfect consciousness in the aspect of Karma and Karmik impressions and appears as Jiva and so forth. This is Brahma’s creative play. ‘He desired. I shall become many for creation. He performed tapas. Performing tapas He created all this, everything that is in the world. Creating it He entered into it’ – this Shruti proves that the creation is derived from desire, that is, Karmik impression, and tapas, that is, knowledge. Hence there are two aspects of Maya, who may also be called Creative Shakti, Mulaprakriti, or Saguna Brahma, namely, the aspect of desire and the aspect of knowledge. In the aspect of desire, She is composed of the three gunas (trigunatmika) and in the aspect of knowledge, She is consciousness (chinmayi). As composed of the three gunas, She is the cause of the gross, subtle, and causal bodies and, as consciousness, She is the cause of all sensations and perceptions in the bodies. The three gunas also are not different from consciousness. In dissolution, they exist in the form of Brahma. And at the end of dissolution also the gunas exist as consciousness, in a state of equilibrium, as the self of Ishvara (Ishvaratmana), for which reason Ishvara is possessed of the qualities of omniscience, rulership, and so forth. Shruti says, ‘They, the Yogis, saw the Shakti who is the Deva (shining Brahma), hidden by Her own gunas,’ that is, the primary aspect of Creative Shakti in which She is perfect Brahma-consciousness is hidden when She appears as the three gunas. For the purpose of creation, this Bhagavati Shakti forsakes, in part, the state of equilibrium and homogeneity (ekarasatva), and becomes heterogeneous as three gunas by virtue of Her possessing inscrutable powers. Hence the world, in which She, again, enjoys as Jiva owing to Her connection with the gunas in equilibrium and rules everything as Ishvara owing to Her connection with the gunas in equilibrium. Never do the gunas exist separated from consciousness, because consciousness is all-pervading. Hence the theory of their being different from consciousness becomes untenable, as also for the reason that at the end of dissolution they appear out of Brahma, which is consciousness, and, again, at dissolution merge into It.”
This is the scheme of creation outlined by Satyananda by identifying Prakriti with consciousness. The outstanding points in this scheme are:
(1) One only Principle exists and that is Consciousness.
(2) There is nothing unconscious in the world.
(3) What seems unconscious is in reality imperfectly conscious.
(4) Perfect consciousness is thoroughly homogeneous without any svagata, svajatiya or vijatiya diversities.
(5) Imperfect consciousness is heterogeneous, being possessed of svagata diversities.
(6) Perfect consciousness is Brahma and is possessed of unlimited and inscrutable powers.
(7) By virtue of its being possessed of such powers perfect consciousness is capable of suppressing its consciousness to a certain extent and appearing as imperfectly conscious.
(8) When it assumes the role of suppressing its consciousness to a certain extent, perfect consciousness receives the names of Srishtishakti, Mulaprakriti, Prakriti, or ishvara.
(9) Srishtishakti, Prakriti, or Ishvara is perfect consciousness but evolves imperfect consciousness out of itself.
(10) The elements of imperfect consciousness are the three gunas, Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.
(11) In Prakriti they exist in a state of equilibrium. In creation, they are in inequilibrium.
(12) The effect of the gunas being in inequilibrium is the Jiva and the bodies.
(13) The Jiva is the cognizer under the influence of the three gunas in inequilibrium and the bodies are the means and objects of cognition composed of them.
(14) Prakriti thus considered the cause of the world is Saguna Prakriti as defined above in the quotation from the Devi Bhagavata. In Pralaya or dissolution, this Saguna Prakriti becomes Nirguna. She is Gunamayi (Srishtishakti) as well as Chinmayi (Chitshakti). In creation, She is manifest as both. In dissolution, Her gunamaya aspect is merged in her chinmaya aspect.
The two views described above as those of Shankaracharya and Satyananda, in which Prakriti is respectively held as unconsciousness and consciousness, are apparently contradictory. But, nevertheless, each has its place in Advaita spiritual culture.
Shankaracharya’s position is that of a man who has risen above Karma. As the Gita says, “But the man who rejoices in Atma and is satisfied with Atma and is content in Atma, for him no duty exists”. Atma is perfect consciousness. A man who is established in Atma may, from the monistic standpoint, be said to be not cognizant of imperfect consciousness or unconsciousness. To him, the world does not exist, because perfect Atmik consciousness is not in the world. Very important is the passage in the Devi Bhagavata which says, “O Shambhu, I am always the cause and never the effect”. Prakriti who is identified in the Devi Bhagavata with perfect consciousness is the cause and never the effect which is the world. Hence to him who is established in the cause, the effect may be said to be non-existing. The Gita says:
“Know that the Bhavas (states) that are Sattvik, Rajasik, and Tamasik are from me; not I int hem, but they in me. All this world, deluded by these Bhavas composed of the three gunas, knows not me who is above these and imperishable. This divine Maya of mine, composed of the gunas, is hard to cross. They who come to me, they cross this Maya”. (Gita VII. 12-14)
Behind the world of unconsciousness or imperfect consciousness is perfect Atmik consciousness, but behind perfect Atmik consciousness, there is no world.
The same thing is said in the Chandogya Upanishad in a very important and well-known passage, namely, “Wherein is He, the Lord, established in His own greatness or perhaps not in greatness”.
It is doubtless easy to say, “The world is Brahma”; but to realize it is beyond ordinary powers. On realization, it ceases to exist as the world which was known to us. It, therefore, one is called to explain the Universe with all its variety, the only answer can be Maya – an unexplainable manifestation of Brahma as non-Brahma yet nothing in truth but Brahma. It is thus anirvachya, or avitarkya as the Mahanirvana Tantra calls it. It is also on this anirvachya doctrine that Satyananda stands, for the fact that consciousness has clouded itself and materialized can only be accounted for by the existence of Achintya Shakti which both systems must ultimately assume. The difference between the two arises perforce from the fact that, unlike Shankara, Satyananda speaks for those who look at the question from the world standpoint. In fact, Satyananda’s theory is that of monistic Karmayoga. To men who have not attained to the sublime height of self-realization, the world cannot be nothing, however much they may be monists from the merely intellectual point of view. Satyananda’s commentary is written from their standpoint. Having direct realization of the world only and mere indirect knowledge of perfect consciousness, their monism consists in training their minds to regard the world as a manifestation of Brahma and, in this sense, Brahma itself. The underlying principle is stated in the Gita (XIII, 30), “When he perceives the diversified existences of beings as rested in one and proceeding therefrom, then he attains to Brahmahood.”
Satyananda’s commentary is of great value as indicating the philosophy underlying Tantrik Sadhana of the Advaita school and as- showing that that Sadhana is in principle Vedantik. The aim of such Sadhana is to achieve monism through dualism, the practice of dualistic Karma under the inspiration of the monistic idea. And so on waking the Shakta Sadhaka says: “I am, O Devi, Brahma and none other.” By such monism is held not by the elimination of Prakriti out of existence but by identifying her with Purusha. The Mahanirvana Tantra (second Ullasa) first speaks of the Svarupa Bhava of Brahma as pure Chit, and the Devi is described as the Para Prakriti of Brahma. Then the world is said to draw its existence from Brahma. The aspect of Brahma in which It appears as Ishvara, Jiva, and the world is the secondary aspect or Tatastha Bhava.
That is set forth clearly by Satyananda in the commentary on Mantra 8. The Kularnava Tantra (first Ullasa) says, “Sachchidananda is Nirguna, Jivas are but portions of Him,” by which is meant that in and as Jivas Brahma appears as imperfect consciousness. So in the Gita (X. 42) Bhagavan says, “I am pervading all the universe with a portion of myself.”
Raghava Bhatta in his commentary on Sharadatilaka (1.7) quotes from the Prayogasara Tantra and Vayaviya Samhita to show that Prakriti is an emanation from consciousness:
“She who is ever-existing, all-pervading and the source of the universe, issued from it.” (Prayogasara)
“By the desire of Shiva the Supreme Shakti becomes unified with the Principle of Shiva and at the beginning of creation emanates from it like oil from sesamum.” (Vayaviya Samhita)
Raghava Bhatta quotes the following also from Shaivadarshana to show that Prakriti and Purusha are not different:
“Shakti does not exist without Shiva and Shiva does not exist without Shakti. Truly speaking, there is no difference between the two just as there is no difference between the moon and the moon-light.”
The Sharadatilaka by Lakshmanacharya deals, in its first two chapters, with the Tantrik Philosophy of creation in the most masterly way. In it “Eternal Shiva” is spoken of as possessed of two aspects, Nirguna and Saguna. The Nirguna aspect is the aspect unconnected with Prakriti and the Saguna aspect is the aspect connected with Prakriti.
“Eternal Shiva is to be known as Nirguna and Saguna. Nirguna is unconnected with Prakriti, Saguna is said to be associated with Prakriti.” (Saradatilaka I. 6)
In the next verse, it is said that the world evolves out of Saguna Shiva who is as much Sachchidananda as Nirguna Shiva.
“Out of the Supreme Ishvara associated with Prakriti and possessed of the wealth of Sachchidananda, there appeared Shakti, out of Shakti appeared Nada and out of Nada Bindu.”
The appearance of Shakti or Prakriti out of Ishvara associated with Prakriti is explained by the commentator Raghava Bhatta to mean that “the eternal Prakriti who was lying in a subtle state in the greater dissolution identified with consciousness became ready for creating the world of Sattvik, Rajasik and Tamasik persons and things by causing a disturbance in the equilibrium of the gunas.”
Thus the eternality of Prakriti is recognized. Lower down in verses 11 and 12 it is said that out of the Supreme Bindu (derived from Shakti as stated above) appeared Shabdabrahma.
“Out of the dividing Supreme Bindu arose the unmanifested sound which wise men versed in all Agamas call Shabdabrama.’
And then in verse 13, this Shabdabrahma is considered the consciousness in all beings.
“It is my opinion that Shabdabrahma is the chaitanya (consciousness) of all beings.”
Thus the consciousness in all beings, the jiva-consciousness, is derived from Prakriti. Lower down, again, in verse 17 and the following verse the creation of the tattvas – mahat, ahankara, mind, the indriyas, the subtle bhutas, and the gross bhutas — which form the ingredient of the material to which the jiva-consciousness spreads is deprived of the same Supreme Bindu.
“Then from the fundamental unmanifested Supreme Being, when changed, there appeared the tattva called Mahat consisting of the gunas and the source of mind and so forth.”
Thus Prakriti is, according to the Sharadatilaka, the source of both the jiva-consciousness and the objects of jiva-consciousness composed of the three gunas in inequilibrium.
This is exactly what Satyananda says in his commentary on Mantra 8 — “Hence there are two aspects of Maya, who may also be called Creative Shakti, Mulaprakriti or Saguna Brahma, namely, the aspect of desire and the aspect of knowledge. In the aspect of desire, She is composed of the three gunas and in the aspect of knowledge, She is consciousness. As composed of the three gunas She is the cause of the gross, subtle and causal bodies and as consciousness, She is the cause of all sensations and perceptions in the bodies.”
The monistic dualism of the Tantra is little understood. There seems to be a conflict between Shankara’s Mayavada and Tantrik sadhana though both are avowedly monistic. Shankara’s Mayavada and Tantrik sadhana, however, belong to different fields of spiritual realization and do not consequently cross each other. In the field of sadhana, Mayavada is more speculation than a realization and should not interfere with the sadhaka’s struggle for spiritual achievement by means of Karmayoga. His monistic Jnana must not be allowed to hamper his Karma. They should go together and thus give the sadhaka the highest reward of liberation from worldly existence. If the two do not go together, it is better that he should abandon Jnana, which is bound to be in his case but a mere shadow of True Jnana, and perform Karma than that he should abandon Karma, which alone can raise him by purifying his mind, and hold to that shadow. The Tantrik sadhana is the sadhana in which the two, Jnana and Karma, join hands to shower spiritual benefit on the sadhaka.
It may be asked, where is the authority for this coalition between these natural enemies, Jnana and Karma? Tantra Shastra, which is believed by its followers to be true Revelation, no doubt furnishes this authority. But the authority of the Tantra itself will be of no account and fall through if it contradicts the first and foremost revelation, the Shruti. The value of the present commentary consists in this that it shows that the Tantrik principle of monistic dualism which allows a coalition between Jnana and Karma is advocated for sadhakas in the Shruti. The Ishopanishad distinctly says:
“Vidya and Avidya, he who knows the two together surpasses death by Avidya and tastes of immortality by Vidya.” Avidya means Karma and Vidya means Jnana. Being accompanied by Karma this Jnana is the Devata jnana of the sadhaka, that is to say, his Jnana that the Devata he worships in his Karma is Supreme Brahma. He can perceive Brahma only through the Devata he worships. Brahma is not an object of his direct perception. But gradually as he practices Karma and Jnana together, the Karma purifies his mind and enables the light of monistic knowledge to shine on it more and more till ultimately through perfect purification of the mind the sadhaka, becoming free from attachment to worldly enjoyment, is free from descent to the mortal world and through the perfection of monistic knowledge directly realizes the one Brahma, Which is the true immortality.
There is thus a sequence in the effects of Karma and Jnana in the upward elevation of the spirit till liberation is attained. Karma purifies the mind and places the sadhaka on the path to liberation from which there is no fall to this mortal world, while Jnana alone gives absolute liberation in which the individual attains Nirvana, that is, merging in and unification with the one homogeneous Brahma existence. This Jnana is Aparoksha Jnana, that is, the direct realization of Brahma, and should not be confounded with the Devata jnana, explained above, which is Paroksha Jnana, or indirect knowledge of Brahmahood, coalescing with Karma to purify the sadhaka’s mind and establish him in Aparoksha Jnana. There can be no association of Karma with Aparoksha Jnana, for its attainment is tantamount to the liberation of the Jiva. This matter is very clearly dealt with by Satyananda in his commentary on Mantra 9. There is, in fact, an antagonism between Karma and Aparoksha Jnana. Where there is Karma there is no Aparoksha Jnana and where there is Aparoksha Jnana there is no Karma, It must, however, be understood that hereby Karma is meant sakama or nishkama Karma done by one who has no Aparoksha Jnana. All such Karma bind the Jiva to individual existence, however highly placed that existence may be. But he who possesses Aparoksha Knowledge is liberated even in life so that whatever he may do is a mere activity of his senses without binding effect, for the individual having become one with Eternal Brahma there is none whom it can bind, as explained by Satyananda in his commentary on Mantra.