Both the veda (nigama) and tantra (Agama) are taken to be revelatory in character, pertaining to the extra-empirical or esoteric knowledge of reality. If this is so, then what need is there of the Tantra if we already have the veda? Is the Tantra redundant or does it have some special significance? Side by side with the veda, the Tantra does have special significance; in fact it is complementary to the veda. According to both veda and Tantra, Ultimate Reality is Consciousness (chit or samvit), which is called brahman. The nature of this consciousness is both knowledge (jnAna) and activity or dynamism (kriyA), and it is the dynamic aspect of Reality that is responsible for the manifestation of the world. This concept of dynamism though not explicitly explained, is implicitly present in the vedas and upaniShads, and the implicit is made explicit in the Tantras. The upaniShadic utterances regarding creation clearly suggest the existence of a dynamic principle in brahman. It is said in the upaniShads that the world comes out of or emanates from brahman, and that He willed, let me become many’. These statements tend to suggest kriyA or spanda. The statement that all these things arise out of Bliss itself refer in unequivocal terms to spanda. These statements cannot be explained away by calling them AkhyAyikAs as some advaitins do. Thus the upaniShads do accept the dynamic aspect of Reality, but they do not fully explain that dynamism. This task is fulfilled by the Tantras. In the Tantras, the dynamism of Reality is completely spelled out; the immanent aspect of brahman is brought to the fore. As a result, in the Tantra there is an extremely positive attitude towards creation. There is another important sense in which Tantra is complementary to the veda. The veda is called nigama or nigamana, which means deduction, while the Tantra is called Agama or Agamana, which means induction. The veda is believed to have been revealed from a higher source, the seers did not author the statements of the veda; they simply received or perceived them. Therefore, the vedic statements have to be taken as accepted premises from which conclusions are then deduced. Hence vedic knowledge is deduction (nigamana) from revealed premises. Agama or Tantra, on the other hand, is based on the evidence of the experience of the seers and yogins. It is really a yogic tradition. Abhinavagupta calls it the anubhava-sampradAya (tradition of experience). It is not that the veda does not believe in the verification of revealed knowledge or that the Tantra does not believe in revelation. Both believe in both, but the vedic knowledge comes mainly through the process of revelation, whereas the Tantric knowledge comes mainly through experience. In the Indian tradition, revelation and experience are considered complementary to each other - what is revealed can also be confirmed in actual experience. The vedic knowledge is confirmed in experience and this experiential confirmation is the function of the tantra. In this sense the Tantra is complimentary to the veda. The external form of Tantra suggests that it is revealed by Lord Shiva, as it is presented in the form of a dialogue between shiva and pArvatI. It is quite possible to conceive the Tantra as revelation, but the special nature of the Tantra is that it is based on experience. The yogins and seers have experienced the truth; the Tantra may be understood as a record of their experience, the dialogue of shiva and pArvatI being a literary device meant to make that record attractive.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:38:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015