43
Esoteric Knowledge and the Tradition of the Preceptors
When the esoteric traditions and texts known collectively as “tantra” first came under scrutiny in the late nineteenth century, Western scholars dismissed them as intellectually corrupt and morally degenerate. Though the basic elements of tantric ideology were as yet still largely unexplored, judgments had already been rendered. Sir Monier Monier-Williams, Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, wrote in 1894 that “the Tantras are generally mere manuals of mysticism, magic, and superstition of the worst and most silly kind. . . . Indeed, Tantrism . . . is Hinduism arrived at its last and worst stage of medieval development” (Hinduism [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1894], p. 129).
Monier-Williams was correct in stating that Hindu tantrism reached its zenith of development in medieval India. Further, much of tantrism can be rightly called mystical, inasmuch as it consists of secret or privileged theories and practices that demand special qualifications and promise experiences that confer divine knowledge and empowerment. Hindu tantrics have been particularly interested in establishing an extra-canonical body of text and tradition that could complement and augment exoteric scriptures. Rather than merely reject the status quo, some tantrics appropriated or self-consciously inverted “orthodox” concepts and values in order to reinvigorate and reinterpret what they viewed as a moribund tradition. Efforts to create alternative scriptural authorities and ritual practices were not necessarily directed against the interests of entrenched social and religious authorities, namely, those from priestly castes. Further, “mainstream” or classical categories, such as revelation (śruti) and law (dharma), were employed to add legitimacy and authority to tantric undertakings. Although it is true that tantrics deliberately violated conventional ethics and ideology in their practices, they are best understood as an extra-Vedic, rather than an anti-Vedic movement. In other words, the tantric strategy is to claim that they represent a legitimate and alternative secret, exclusive, and easily misunderstood tradition from within the legacy of traditional Hindu orthodoxy.
Only in the past twenty-five years have scholars begun to appreciate the variety of Hindu tantric traditions and the very different religious and social interests that appear within tantric texts. Monier-Williams, like other scholars of his day, based his opinions about Hindu tantrism on private studies of texts and on discussions with informants. He tells us that, “None of the actual Tantras have, as yet, been printed or translated in Europe” (p. 129). Despite his admission to knowing little about the tantras’ origins, the people who composed them, or those who have made use of them, he assures us repeatedly that they contribute nothing of significance to understanding Hinduism. Yet, his own remarks suggest otherwise; perhaps unwittingly, he raises important questions about the historical and intellectual origins of tantrism. He writes, “So little is known about the composition of these mystical writings that it is not possible to decide at present as to which are the most ancient, and still less as to the date to be assigned to any of them. They are all said to be founded on the Kaulopanishad” (p. 131).
Contemporary scholarship is rarely more decisive about the probable dates and authorship of tantric texts than was Monier-Williams nearly a century ago. However, we no longer treat Hindu tantrism as a homogenous tradition with a single canon emerging from an isolated text, and we are not likely to accept any exclusive claim about tantrism’s origins or its textual foundations or authority. Monier-Williams’s last statement that all the tantras are founded on the Kaula Upaniṣad (“The Secret of the Preceptors”) is certainly not correct, but he did establish an important precedent. For, despite his hasty and often unwarranted generalizations, Monier-Williams was among the first to suggest that students of Hindu tantrism must take seriously the claims tantrics make about themselves. Unfortunately, he did not differentiate what he learned from consulting a handful of titles in Sanskrit and Bengali from the judgments of his native informants.
If Monier-Williams’s remark about Kaula Upaniṣad had come from reading the text itself, then he might have said the same thing about other texts he mentions by name, since nearly all make similar claims. If, however, he concluded that the Kaula Upaniṣad is the source because it is the scriptural (that is, the Vedic) revelation on which the tantras are founded, he would merely have adopted the position of those with an interest in such claims. A select group of tantrics would claim that the Kaula Upaniṣad is among the texts on which the tantras are “founded.” Further, they would probably argue that the Kaula Upaniṣad’s status as revelation (śruti) makes it ancient, authoritative, and foundational to all other texts that reflect (smṛti) on its content or appeal to its authority. Not all Hindus, or even all tantrics, would agree that it deserves to be treated as the authoritative revelation foundational to tantric tradition, but it is true that the Kaula Upaniṣad is part of a legacy within Hindu tantrism that seeks to reinforce rather than reject priestly methods of establishing authority, one that is intent on expanding the boundaries of the canon in order to substantiate claims to sacred knowledge and social legitimacy. In other words, the Kaula Upaniṣad is important precisely because its teachings represent the social and religious interests of a particular segment of Hindu tantrism.
From its title and the use of archaic language, the author or authors of Kaula Upaniṣad seek to confer on it an antiquity and authority reserved for scriptural or Vedic revelation. The Upaniṣads—nontantric and tantric—are understood to offer privileged, powerful, and secret types of knowledge. Further, the genre is assumed to be authoritative because, as revelation, such texts are either “without origin” (apauruṣeya), that is, they have no human author, or have God as their author. Placing tantric ideas within the genre of “Upaniṣad” or “secret teaching” confers on them antiquity and authority equal to nontantric counterparts, and further distinguishes the specific tantric elements as matters of greater secrecy, power, and importance. Thus, tantric secrets, special requirements for initiation, and promised benefits are all justified in terms of Vedic precedents. The exclusive category of Upaniṣad also justifies the concealment of such potentially dangerous and powerful teachings from “mere beasts.”
Other ideas in the Kaula Upaniṣad suggest a late medieval composition from within a mature, sectarian tantric tradition. By declaring that one should “inwardly worship the goddess, outwardly follow Śiva, and in worldly affairs follow Viṣṇu,” the texts create a hierarchy of theological possibilities in which goddess worshipers are clearly superior. The details of this worship purportedly represent the Preceptor (Kaula) tradition; though the Upaniṣad does not specify precisely what is meant by its Preceptor tradition, there can be little doubt that it focused on relatively narrow sectarianism of goddess-centered or Śakta tantrism. Texts in Sanskrit about goddess-centered tantrism do not appear in written form until at least the ninth century.
The Kaula Upaniṣad (“The Secret of the Preceptors”) is not mentioned by name before the eighteenth century, though its views are current by at least the twelfth century. It is important not because it is ancient or, as Monier-Williams thought, because it is the “original source” of the tantras but for three related reasons. First, it collects in a single place ideas crucial to understanding Hindu tantrics who sought legitimacy within the religious and social mainstreams of priestly orthodoxy. Its views are not unique but rather commonplace for so-called high-caste tantrics, and, it represents the interests of those who seek to introduce sectarian tantric ideas and values into the priestly discourse. Second, The Secret of the Preceptors drew the attention of Bhāskararāya Makhin, who is among the great Indian intellectuals of the eighteenth century. Bhāskararāya, born into a brahman family, was a polymath; he wrote poetry, logical and grammatical treatises, commentaries on classical religious texts, and was a practitioner of the esoteric ritual arts of tantra. He was renowned in his day for his writing and teaching, managing to win the political favor of his local sovereign and gain the esteem of priestly traditionalists despite his advocacy of controversial tantric ideas. Though he is not as well known as many other Indian scholars, his intellectual legacy is best compared to that of the great Kashmiri Śiva-centered tantric Abhinavagupta: everyone in his wake has felt compelled to acknowledge his influence and comment on his contributions. In short, The Secret of the Preceptors has become an important text within the goddess-centered Hindu tantric corpus because Bhāskararāya wrote a commentary on it. A curious absence of commentaries prior to Bhāskararāya does not diminish the importance of its remarkable content. This leads to the third reason one gains from a study of this text.
The Secret of the Preceptors is rare among texts that assume a goddess-centered tantric bias since it discusses philosophical positions and religious goals as well as practical instructions for worship. Goddess worshipers generally prefer to express their theological positions in the form of ritual liturgies and instruction in secret types of yoga. In fact, most tantric goddess-centered texts assume the intellectual doctrines of their first cousins, the Śiva-centered tantric traditions of Kashmir. In contrast to these more practical manuals detailing ritual instruments and techniques, The Secret of the Preceptors is a pithy, first-hand account of the key philosophical issues in goddess-centered esotericism. Seen in light of Bhāskararāya’s commentary, these philosophical issues are interpreted first in terms of Preceptor tantrism and second, in the narrow sectarian terms of the goddess-centered tradition known as Śrīvidyā or Auspicious Wisdom.
For Bhāskararāya, Preceptor tantrism entails two components. First, it involves specific forms of knowledge and techniques by which one gains the realization that divinity is embodied within one’s own body and in the cosmos. In this sense, the Preceptor (kaula or kaulika) is the divinity itself and the knowledge about reality that liberates the soul from death and rebirth. Second, Preceptor tantrism focuses on the relationship between guru and student, which is deemed the only means by which the secret power of divinity can be realized and identified within oneself.
The Preceptor, Bhāskararāya states, is none other than the ascetic god Śiva (“Auspicious”), who is identical in essence with all sages, gurus, gods, and goddesses. Śiva, however, is another means by which one can gain access to Power or Śakti, the goddess. It is the goddess, he tells us, that stands at the head of the pantheon of divinities. Śiva is one’s own guru and “one should serve only one guru who fits the defined prescriptions.” The Preceptor tradition may permit many interpretations since “all views are without condemnation,” but if an authoritative teacher “argues against his own tradition, one should not count him as an authority.” In other words, one must have an unthreatening, private relationship with only one Preceptor, but that Preceptor must measure up to prescriptions which demonstrate that he is an embodiment of the divine.
The divine concentrates its presence in other forms, as well. When the divine is knowledge mediated through law (dharma), it manifests as one’s judgment and is derived from the intellect. In this sense, knowledge takes the form of one’s guru and of the eternal law prescribed in one’s own tradition.
When the Upaniṣad states that “knowledge is the only cause of liberation,” Bhāskararāya comments that knowledge is identical with the secret power of the great goddess Śakti, who “alone you indeed are.” Knowledge is therefore “an unmediated personal experience of the Absolute” which “everyone experiences under the pretext of the ‘I’ ” as their own self (ātman). In every entity, animate or inanimate, resides the same self which is nothing other than the goddess Śakti.
In Bhāskararāya’s view, there is an ultimate identity between the teacher, the teaching, and the one who is taught, just as there is an identity between all selves and the goddess. Such views are potentially dangerous to those ill-equipped to understand their implications. Thus “one should not discuss this [secret of the self] even with one’s friends because they might talk about it openly,” while, at the same time, one must follow the practical teachings of one’s own guru, which can take “priority over revelation and recollection [scriptures].” The reasons for this deference to the guru, we are told, are both theological and practical. On the one hand, the guru as preceptor is none other than God embodied; on the other, Bhāskararāya uses the analogy that when a great writer uses a word that defies the rules of grammar, thereafter the writer’s practice is considered authoritative. Thus, one must defer to guru who teaches “what works” over what is prescribed by this or that authority. For Bhāskararāya, the secrecy of a preceptor’s teachings is a function of the potential danger of knowledge in the wrong hands; the authority of a preceptor’s interpretations is rooted in the notion that knowledge and the divine Power—the goddess herself—is embodied in the guru.
Preceptor tantrism, in Bhāskararāya’s view, leads one to conclude that everything must be divine in origin and in whatever form it takes. This uncompromising view, that every “I” is identical to every other self, and that everything is nothing other than the Absolute, forms the logical basis for many of the text’s more puzzling comments. What appear at first to be patently absurd statements are interpreted as the highest expressions of ultimate truth. For example, when the text states that “The absence of knowledge is knowledge,” Bhāskararāya takes this to be a statement about the nature of reality. He writes, “Even the absence of knowledge is a form of state-of-being; that [absence] too is a form of knowledge that is only Power.” In other words, an absence is always a “something,” and, therefore, the universe is divine whether viewed as one permanent reality or as a plurality of impermanent realities. Thus when the text states, “The impermanent is permanent,” Bhāskararāya uses a mundane example to make his point: “Even such things as pots, which appear to be impermanent, are permanent inasmuch as they are only Power.”
As for other apparently absurd statements such as, “The scriptures do not exist,” and “The unjustified is justified,” Bhāskararāya insists that logic alone rarely provides a single, definitive answer and that even revelation, when viewed as something human beings learn, is merely an object of knowledge. “The difficulty,” he reminds his readers, “is with the advocates [who interpret] rather than with logic.” Although much of The Secret of the Preceptors appears in the form of paradoxes, riddles, and absurdities, the underlying purpose of these statements is clear to Bhāskararāya: “Objects, living beings, yoga, liberation, ignorance—all of these are only knowledge. [Why?] The meaning is that there exists nothing different from [the supreme goddess] who is Power.” Following the preceptor’s path insures knowledge so powerful that “even liberation” from death and rebirth “is . . . an insignificant matter.” A follower of the path knows that ‘This [tradition] is the only worship from which [one acquires] wisdom,” and that “outsiders” are “really beasts because they lack a wisdom tradition” even though they might be learned in sculpture or other sciences.
When the Upaniṣad identifies the supreme goddess Śakti in more personal terms, it prefers either ancient names, such as Varuṇī (“the West”), who is the female counterpart of the Vedic god Varuṇā, or obscure names, such as Śambhavī (“Birth”). The text never uses the name of the goddess that Bhāskararāya prefers—Tripurasundarī (the “Beautiful Three Cities”), the deity of choice for adherents of the sectarian tantric tradition known as Auspicious Wisdom or Śrīvidyā. Neither does the text mention the specific sound formula (mantra), the fifteen- or sixteen-syllable “auspicious wisdom” (śrīvidyā), or the diagrammatic image known as the “auspicious wheel” (śrīcakra), that would identify it with the theological and ritual elements of the Auspicious Wisdom school. Nonetheless, Bhāskararāya takes for granted that the Preceptor tantrism expounded here is none other than the Auspicious Wisdom.
As for the goddesses the text does mention by name, he states that “meditation on [the goddess] Tripurasundarī makes no distinction [between her and other goddesses, such as Śambhavī].” For Bhāskararāya, the issue cuts much deeper than the text’s explicit pronouncements. The relationship between the text, the reader, and the goddess Tripurasundarī is one of absolute identity: “You are The Secret of the Preceptor and [the supreme goddess] Tripurasundarī.”
Bhāskararāya, like the text itself, declares his views without justification or apology. Like so many other tantric texts, the commentary on The Secret of the Preceptors does not offer positions to be debated. Rather, it claims to make a definitive statement about reality that would otherwise remain hopelessly obscure even to those who aspire to ultimate truth. Opponents are scoffed at as inferiors unworthy of the teaching; like mere animals, they are best left to manage their lives in comfortable misconceptions.
Bhāskararāya’s commentary on The Secret of the Preceptors provides an example of esoteric Hindu tantrism at its most mature and bedeviling stage of development. He asserts that the most secret and powerful knowledge requires one to transcend the boundaries of law (dharma) and logic. One must transcend difference itself, which is nothing but an “error.” In other words, one must realize for oneself that the universe in its entirety is nothing other than the goddess who is Power (Śakti).
At the same time that he asserts the views of a radical nondualist philosopher, he demands a commitment to the tradition of the Preceptors that excludes and diminishes other options. All other views, he claims, are incapable of bringing one to the highest forms of knowledge and power. Most people, he reminds us, will neither understand nor appreciate the arguments and ideas presented here.
The text that has been translated here comes from Kaula and Other Upanishads with Commentary by Bhāskararāya, edited by Sītārāma Śāstri (Calcutta: Agamanusandhana Samiti, 1922).
Further Reading
More on tantrism will be found in my two books: The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Śakta Tantrism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); and Auspicious Wisdom: The Texts and Traditions of Śrīdivyā Śakta Tantrism in South India (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992). Also relevant are: Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega, The Triadic Heart of Śiva: Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989); and Deba Brata SenSharma, The Philosophy of Sādhana, with Special Reference to the Trika Philosophy of Kashmir (Albany: State University of New York, 1990).
Prosperity!
Bhāskararāya’s commentary on Kaula Upaniṣad
Salutations to the Auspicious Teacher!
Bhāskararāya (“Sun King”), in whose heart obstruction has been dispelled by the spreading rays emanating from the lotus feet of the auspicious teacher, explains The Secret of the Preceptor [Kaula Upaniṣad] which belongs to The Scripture of Fire [Atharva Veda]. The gods are petitioned to remove the obstacles that will inevitably occur when the meaning of instruction, which is very secret, is being related.
May the Preceptor be well-disposed to us! May Varuṇī be well-disposed to us! May Purity be well-disposed to us! May Agni be well-disposed to us! May all [the gods] become [well-disposed to us]!
The one who founded the Preceptorial path is the Preceptor, the supreme [god] Śiva [“Auspicious”]. [To explain the words used in the opening salutation: the word meaning “well-disposed,” śannaḥ, consists of two parts, the first is the particle of speech;] śaṃ means attaining the bliss of one’s own self, which is preceded by removing obstacles [while the second part, the particle] naḥ [means] us; [the verb is used to express a wish, meaning] let that one become. Varuṇī [“the West”] is first [mentioned and] worthy and is the great goddess—and may she be well-disposed to us! Purity who is second [mentioned] and [likewise] worthy is also a god—may he be well-disposed to us! Agni [“Fire”] means splendor. And so it should be that all [the gods, who need not be listed here,] are pleased!
Homage to the Absolute! Homage to the Earth! Homage to Water! Homage to Fire! Homage to the Wind! Homage to the Teachers!
[The idea is that] homage [should be paid] to the four gods, beginning with the Earth up to the supreme Absolute, and to [the Preceptors] beginning with the supreme Śiva up to one’s own teacher. Space [which is the fifth element] is also implied [among] the four elements [mentioned in the verse].
You alone are immediate. She is you alone. The immediate is only you. I will describe her.
The immediate is the Absolute which everyone experiences under the pretext of the “I.” She alone [is that Absolute experienced as “I,” as] you indeed are. You are The Secret of the Preceptor and [the supreme goddess] Tripurasundarī [the “Beautiful Three Cities”]. Hence, [the verse means] I will describe The Secret of the Preceptor which is not at all different [from me] to you alone [who is not different from that, either].
I will describe the sacred. I will describe the true. Describe that to me! Describe what is said about that! Tell it to me!
The word “sacred” means the supreme Absolute and likewise the word “true.” When there is an expectation [such as the verse suggests,] there is repetition. The rest [of the verse] is clear.
Oṃ Peace, Peace, Peace
This is a prayer for pacifying [forces of] obstruction.
Then, therefore, the desire to know the law.
[The word] “then” [means that] following the desire to know the Absolute [is the desire to know the law (dharma)]. [The word] “therefore” [is used to indicate that only after this desire to know the Absolute] can there be knowledge with respect to the law. [Analyzing the compound] “the desire to know the law,” [the goddess who is] Power (Śakti) is the reflection of law; the desire to know [means that] analysis for the sake of knowledge should be undertaken.
And knowledge is judgment.
Knowledge is an unmediated personal experience of the Absolute. Judgment is mediated knowledge which causes that [unmediated personal experience]. So in such statements as, “For one who has a personal experience is led into the reality of judgment,” the meaning is that when there are two conflicting established rules both of them are indeed the embodiment of law [and therefore they do not conflict]. With regard to [essential] laws derived from the intellect and the like, not stated [explicitly but] listed by scholars such as Nāgānanda [“Blissful Cobra”], [these are] included [through the verse’s use of the word] “and.”
Knowledge is the only cause of liberation.
The meaning is explicit.
Liberation is obtaining the nature of all selves.
“The nature of all selves” [means that] one’s own self is not different from [the self] of others. “Obtaining” that [nature of all selves means] manifesting that object [of knowledge] through the elimination of ignorance. Therefore in [The Ancient Lore of] The Blessed Goddess (Devībhāgavatā [purāṇa]) it is stated in verse, “Everyone says the same thing, there is nothing other than the eternal.” In this way it is suggested that knowledge of identity causes liberation. Or, the same knowledge is brought about by a different activity [which is] undivided [knowledge as well].
The five objects are expansion.
The word “all” [in the previous verse] is explained as the five [objects] beginning with sound and [here, in this verse,] by the word “expansion.” With respect to this [expansion] there is no difference between [the five] gross elements and the subtle elements. Even though there are thirty-six categories [of reality], these are included [in the five gross elements]. The [sage] Vasiṣṭha [the “Controlled”] [concurs], “Everywhere are the five elements, there is no sixth.”
Those [elements] have as their very nature knowledge.
Having so far discussed that which arises as inanimate, the discussion [turns to] that which is born with consciousness. [The word] “knowledge” (jñāna) [can be] distilled to jña plus na. The meaning is that the one who knows (jānāti) the object [is knowledge] and is animate. The sense is that one who has this very nature [as knowledge, as the verse says,] is called “living.”
Yoga is liberation.
Yoga is the cessation of the [mental] whirlwind and it is [a means to] liberation.
Knowledge is only ignorance, which causes the antinomian.
The antinomian (adharma) is the supreme Absolute because it is bereft of qualities (dharma). With regard to this [statement], “knowledge” is only that ignorance whose root is the object which causes knowledge. The word “only” suggests a different rendering: objects, living beings, yoga, liberation, ignorance—all of these are only knowledge. [Why is this the case?] The meaning is that there exists nothing different from [the supreme goddess who is] Power. The implication is that [the very notion] of difference is an error.
The Lord is the expansion [of the universe].
[One can argue logically that] because [the expansion of the universe] is pervaded by difference, which is unreal, the expansion is only the Lord. [This is because the Lord,] even in his role as controller [of the process] and [that which is] controlled, is prevented from being [only] the pervader [since the Lord is both the pervader and the pervaded].
The impermanent is the permanent.
Even such things as pots, which appear to be impermanent, are permanent inasmuch as they are only Power.
The absence of knowledge is knowledge.
Even the absence of knowledge is a form of state of being; that [absence], too, is a form of knowledge which is only Power.
The absence of a quality (adharma) indeed is a quality (dharma).
Even a quality is a form of Power because there is nothing other than that; yet the Absolute alone has the form of a qualifier who provides the basis for the quality.
This is liberation!
This alone is the path to liberation, no other.
The five bondages have for their very nature knowledge.
[The first and second bondages] begin: “that which is self is thought of as other than self; whatever is other than self is thought of as self.” This is knowledge in the form of bondage. The Verses of Śiva (Śivasūtra) [state that] “knowledge is bondage.” [The third bondage that is a type of knowledge is] the difference between one embodied soul and another; [the fourth is] the difference between the Lord [and the embodied soul]; and [the fifth is] the difference between the conscious and that which is different [from the conscious]. These three types of knowledge taken together [with the first two] make five.
Because [one feels] insignificant, [there is] birth.
Only because there are [five types of] bondage of this sort is one born as an entity [feeling] insignificant.
Even under those circumstances there is liberation.
However, by virtue of the greatness of the knowledge of the Preceptors, even liberation is merely, under those circumstances, an insignificant matter. Yet [for one who has the knowledge of the Preceptors] there is no delay [in obtaining] the form [of final] liberation by way of [having first to control] the more than one hundred channels [through which yogic energy flows], then traversing the path of the gods [as the next, higher stage in the cycle of rebirths], and then by having to come together with the Absolute. Other statements from revelation as, “For him the delay is only that much,” [and] “The vital breaths do not cause him to go beyond,” [corroborate what is said here].
This is knowledge.
First, having stated the conclusions reached in texts, [the sage-author] states the essence of knowledge: This statement [means that what is stated hereafter] is only about knowledge.
Of all the senses, the eyes (nayanam) are foremost.
One should lead (nayet) [the senses] toward the Absolute. With regard to the knowledge about the self generated by the six senses which one fashions in statements such as, “I know this,” the Absolute that shines as the very knower [in these statements] is foremost. When revelation states “Only that is shining, all [the rest] reflects,” it means to say that all other things are mere reflections of that [one Absolute which is the knower behind the “I”]. This type of discernment with regard to all [mental] variables one should obtain in just such a way [as this analysis of “I” and through study of texts, including revelation]. Although knowledge can be generated by one sense without discernment, it should lead to the foremost [that is, to the Absolute]. In statements such as [from The Consciousness of Bhairava (Vijñāndbhairava), verse 106, where it says,] “The consciousness of object and subject is common to all embodied [beings], but [the yogis] are distinguished by an awareness of this relationship,” [we can infer similarly that] the meaning [of this text] is that the nonexistence of nondiscrimination is very essence of knowledge.
Whatever is opposed to the law should be done.
Beginning with this [verse], the methods to be adopted by worshipers are enjoined. It is enjoined on adepts who depend solely on such discriminating knowledge to counteract that which is opposed to treatises on law [and] to use their intellect and the like, even during the time of ritual, for the sake of stabilizing the mind.
What is prescribed as the Law should not be done.
Even though they have been prescribed by treatises on law, ritual sacrifices such as those involving Soma [“Nectar”], can be appropriately countermanded when they are assumed to oppose a given tradition. This injunction to act or not to act does not prohibit [all sacrifices] but depends on the context [in which the countermand is made]. Even [the ritualist] Gautama [“Rich-in-Cows”], who prescribed forty external and eight internal rites for the sake of internal purity, has said that the external aspects can be eliminated. Also Manu [“Man the Law-giver”], having explained the whole law in detail, has stated at the conclusion of the treatise that when enjoining reflection on the Absolute, previously stated laws need not be applied. For all these recollections (smṛti) [of revealed (śruti) texts] this [Upaniṣad or secret teaching] alone is the original revelation (śrūti).
Everything has the form of Śambhavī.
When applicable, as it were, to prescriptions as well as to prohibitions, the meditation on [the goddess] Tripurasundarī makes no distinction [between her and other goddesses, such as Śambhavī (“Birth”)]. What is suggested here is that worshipers who think there is [such] difference [and] are mistaken are still bound to act according to injunctions and prohibitions. Hence, in the words of the Blessed One,
If a man who does my ritual should lapse in action, the 300 million great sages will perform that action.
The scriptures do not exist.
Because they are [merely] learned, even revelation [that is, the scriptures] do not exist. This is why the Venerable (Bhāgavata) [Śaṅkara (“Propitious”)] in his Commentary [on the Stanzas on the Absolute (Brahmasūtrabhāṣya)] has said, “As far as the ignorant are concerned, the treatises are objects.” The stanza [cited by Śaṅkara] has the form of a recommendation [rather than an injunction, since it provides] a reason authorizing both what is said and what should be first done.
The guru is one.
The meaning of this is that one should serve [only] one guru who fits the defined prescriptions that have been discussed. When there are many gurus there are bound to be a variety of contradictory instructions and certainly doubt [in the mind of the student.] Hence the [authoritative] Stanzas on Ritual [of The Joyful One with the Axe (Paraśurāmakalpasūtra)] state, “There is no doubt when one serves one guru.” This [Secret of the Preceptors] is the original revelation for the restriction stated in The Ocean of Precepts (Kulārṇava) [Tantra or esoteric treatise]: “Having obtained a preceptorial guru, one should not resort to another guru.” By using the term “having obtained,” [the text means,] as the Secret of Power (Śaktirahasya) states, “In the tradition of the preceptors there are countless gurus,” [but] such a guru is not usually obtained.
Insight at the end [of life] of the oneness of everything.
[One should note that the word] “oneness” (aikyam) is formed by [employing the grammatical affix] syan [which transforms the word “aikya” into “aikyam” without changing the sense.].
Thus, a practitioner who possesses such an attitude, even if it occurs at the end of life, surely obtains insight into nonduality.
Up to the time of accomplishment in the mantra.
This is a governing rule [in which what is stated here is understood in every subsequent statement under the following condition]. The meaning is that beginning here those prescriptions that are mentioned [in the following stanzas] are restrictions that should be carried out [only] up to the time of accomplishment in the mantra. By this [governing rule] it is suggested that neglect of but one [of the prescriptions] which are going to be mentioned will be detrimental to accomplishment [in the mantra].
Intoxication and so forth should be shunned.
Intoxication is that peculiar malady produced by using an intoxicating substance; take the phrase “and so forth” to mean other [substances] that [produce] change. The six enemies [that is, desire, anger, greed, delusion, intoxication, and envy] and the collection [of other acquired faults] should also be shunned. After accomplishment in the mantra, however, desire, anger, and so forth naturally do not develop. But even before one deals with the peculiar malady [induced by wine and so forth], [the six enemies] should be shunned. And so with regard to the two statements, “[You should drink] until your eyes can’t move” and “You should drink [intoxicating] substances only up to your neck [and not more],” there is no contradiction [with the recommendation of this text] because the first is addressed to a practitioner who has yet [to experience] accomplishment in the mantra, whereas the other is addressed to one whose accomplishment is fixed.
Publicity should not be given.
The tradition should be kept secret in such a way that one’s own worship ought not to be known to any one who does not [continue in] worship after initiation in the mantra of your own [tradition], those who are committed to other teachings, and those who practice your mantra but are phony. This is similarly applicable to those with other initiations. [This is confirmed] from statements treating [similar] matters such as [those in scriptures and ritual texts in which it is said], “Those who are not initiated should not observe the one who performs rites.” Just because initiation is prescribed only in the Forest Text (Āraṇyaka) portion of the scriptures (Veda) [which is restricted to those qualified by birth and initiation], one may think that secrecy is maintained as it is in the preliminary Soma ceremony which is ancillary to the [main] sacrifice. However, even then performing [the ceremony] in full voice, such that someone from another secret tradition [could hear it], is forbidden. In the case of other teachings, when a secret is divulged it results merely in an imperfection in the sacrifice, whereas in a case such as this it leads to hell. And so [for the same reason] the blessed Paraśurāma [“Joyful One with the Axe”] [has said], “Publicity [leads to] hell.”
One should not converse with bores.
Indeed, all outsiders are really beasts because they lack a wisdom tradition. This [tradition of the Preceptors] is the only worship from which [one acquires] wisdom. [We know this] from such statements as, “The term ‘learned’ should not be used for those well-versed in sculpture and such other [branches of] knowledge.” With such beasts one should not have conversation merely for the sake of gladdening one’s own heart, though there is no prohibition against incidental conversation.
The unjustified is justified.
If someone who likes to talk, using the logic of the [schools] of Earlier and Later Analysis, tries to condemn the practice of the Preceptors, even in such a case one should not become the slightest bit angry—this is what is meant when “unjustified” is said [in the verse]. The negative [particle that generates “un-”] means only slightly opposed [rather than adamantly against]. The statement intends to suggest that the opponent’s justification [for opposition] is only slight justification, [though] even that is justification [of a sort]. For even an opponent’s [justification] is another proposed justification. Hence, even in similarly accomplished justifications, traditions [say] this too [should be considered another form of] justification. And in the current instance, how can we be confident [in the usefulness of logic] when there are exceptions to traditional logic such as this? Because of the variety of different opinions expressed by the sages in [sundry] traditions, [various] interpreters have taken to them severally and with multiple meanings despite their mutual contradictions. As a consequence, we see many views made with reference to the tantras, the gods, and [various] statements [of other texts]. The idea is that the difficulty [with interpretations of texts] is with the advocates rather than the logic [of the texts]. So the Lord Vyāsa [the “Editor”] has said, “Reason is inconclusive [because humans always think themselves correct and so see their views as logical].”
And so it is said [elsewhere], “Those experiences [previously] unimaginable cannot be explained by mere logic.” Such statements have as their sole purpose to assuage the mind and should be explained as violations of tradition. [With respect to the authority of sources,] the latter is less [authoritative] than the former, such that [first comes] revelation, then recollected texts, [and finally] tradition. But in the relevant esoteric treatise (tantra) [cited above, in which it is said that previously unimaginable experiences are not explained by logic alone,] the reverse order [of priority for ascertaining what is authoritative] is to be inferred. Neither [method for deciding the priority of texts] is entirely illogical. But those adept in treatises on law have, in most cases, accepted the restriction that the earlier [text] is [more authoritative] than those that follow, rather than the [the principle that] the later [listing is more authoritative than] those that precede.
Even then one should not count [as an authority].
Even if one is a priest, if he argues against his own tradition one should not count him as an authority. The meaning is that one should not have unqualified belief in him. Hence the ritual [text] states, “the authority is that which one maintains with conviction.”
One should not discuss the secret of the self.
The meaning is that one should not discuss this even with one’s friends because they may talk about it openly.
One should discuss it with a disciple.
Hence, in recollection (smṛti) it states, “By instruction from ear to ear, it has reached the earth.” Similarly, if one requires learning from a single source of tradition in order to obtain a correct interpretation, then that practical source takes priority over revelation (śruti) and recollection. With respect to the rules of grammar, for example, a form that is used by a great writer [is likewise given priority over the rules].
Inwardly a goddess worshiper, outwardly a follower of Śiva, in worldly affairs a follower of Viṣṇu.
Even though [being a follower of the goddess] should not be known publicly, [the author] describes how one ought to behave. One should make others know about the worship of the goddess only through one’s inner nature. “The essence [of the goddess’s transcendent form] is displayed by the red sandalwood paste on the brow of the goddess worshiper,” yet despite these prescribed marks one should only wear the holy ash of the Śiva worshiper by which one’s nature as a goddess worshiper is concealed. There is no [ultimate] difference between the worshiper of Śiva and the the worshiper of goddess: “I am the masculine form who is ambrosia in the eyes of the maidens.” By such statements, which refer only to forms of Viṣṇu [the “Universal”], one learns the meaning of the three verses [pertaining to how one should worship]. That is, one should only proclaim publicly the worship of Viṣṇu by such acts as repeating his names, because Viṣṇu is that explicit form in whom [the secret and powerful goddess] Tripurasundarī is hidden and within [Tripurasundarī] the supreme Śiva is concealed. Hence in the Thousand Secret Names (Rahasyasahasranāma) it has been said that [the worship of] Viṣṇu yields lesser goals than Śiva, that Śiva yields less than the goddess and, comparably, that Viṣṇu is secret [in nature], Śiva more secret, and that the goddess is more secret still.
This alone is the practice.
Even though there are many texts [among the tantras] that address the practice named for the Preceptors, among all of these the one that best attempts to conceal revealing publicly [the tradition’s deepest secrets] is the [most] important: This is the meaning [of the verse].
Liberation is knowledge of the self.
One should not be indifferent to meditation on the self because one performs the rituals prescribed in [the portions of] revelation devoted to ritual. Rather both [ritual and knowledge] should become established correctly in order to remind one of this [fact that liberation is knowledge of the self], which the verse repeats [as a point that] has already been made.
There should be no condemnation from the world.
In the stream [of tradition] there have been a variety of authoritative textual views that pertain to different qualifications. Those [different textual views] should not be condemned in any way. By accusations [that undermine one view or another], one doubts the qualifications [of the texts and the traditions of the Preceptors] and loses faith in the insights on which one depends. Without the qualification for the tradition of the Preceptors, there is the danger of losing both [assurance in different qualifications and faith in the insights], in which case [practitioners] disperse like so many scattered clouds. Therefore it is undesirable [for practitioners] to feel in danger of condemnation because they are practitioners [of the Preceptor’s tradition in which there are various authoritative textual views]. So the Lord Kṛṣṇa [the “Black One”] says, “One should not splinter the judgment of the ignorant who are attached to action.” And Bhārgava Rāma [the “Joyful One Who Bears the Axe”] [who makes a similar point in the Ritual Verses of Parasurāma (Paraśurāmakalpasūtra)], “All views are without condemnation.”
So it is with respect to the self.
When there is a doubt about the statement, “In what cases should one apply [the principle that] all views are without condemnations?” one is in danger of feeling inferior oneself because [the opinions of] others are dispersed like so many scattered clouds over the nature of the self of all. The meaning is that the tradition [in all its variety] helps one obtain knowledge of the self.
A vow should not be taken.
Vows for the sake of the [four] human aims [that is, law, wealth, sensuality, and liberation] should not be taken. For those [who make such vows], the aims achieved will not be more than what is obtained [from this practice of the Preceptors]. Whichever legal obligations pertaining to one’s social estate and stage in life are met through systematic discipline with regard to the [four] human aims, those obtained as subordinate to a function of the daily and occasional rituals, such as the new moon rites and its accessories, which are vows whose purpose is sacrificial, must be done because no injunction exempts one from [the duty to perform] daily and occasional rites.
One should not abide by restriction.
This is the only interpretation of this [verse]: a restriction that takes the form of a demand is inconsistent with the examination of the self.
There is no liberation from [observing] restriction.
The reason for this [statement] is [that following the restriction entails] the danger of delaying liberation because [restriction] is contrary to examination of the self.
One should not establish the Preceptor [tradition].
If someone is proficient in expounding the tradition of the Preceptors to the extent that he is capable of establishing it expertly, he should not establish it because of the danger of making the path public. Hence, with respect to the concerns of this treatise, the author, because of the prohibition on establishing the Preceptor [tradition], writes in various places that what is to be learned should come only from the mouth of the teacher—instead of divulging some portions of the tradition publicly.
One should be the same to all.
The injunction that should be drawn from this treatise is that one should feel the same way toward living or inanimate beings, that is, one should consider them to be not different [than oneself]. Hence in [texts] such as the [The Ancient Tale of] the Blessed Viṣṇu (Viṣṇubhāgavata [purāṇa]) [it sky, wind, fire, water, or earth [all are identical].”
He has become liberated.
He is surely liberated immediately should he become wise in such matters. The intention is that those who are deficient in one way or another are liberated only little by little.
“The teacher, arising early in the morning, should recite these verses. For him, there will be accomplishment and power to command”—this is the command of supreme Goddess.
Hence the true teacher is one who recites these verses before examining [the self]. So to paraphrase, he alone has obtained accomplishment and the power to command through identity with Śiva. Thus, the idea is that the supreme Lord has commanded it to be so, and hence there should be no doubt.
And the one who is bereft of practice or who does not perform worship, if he does not consider this to be the best he will enjoy the forest of bliss [that is, the garden of the god Indra rather than liberation].
One who has doubts about practice as it was taught previously does not perform the prescribed worship as it was taught.
The [grammatical] disagreement [in the Sanskrit of the above-cited stanzas between the singular subject and the plural ending of the verb] is archaic verse [that is, grammar found in the scriptures].
For the one who does not think, “This path [of the Preceptors] is higher than all [others],” though the fruit that has been discussed [that is, liberation] is not obtained, even such a defective practitioner surely obtains heaven. The intention is this: how much more will be the fruit obtained as it has been taught for the practitioner [who is not defective]?
May the practitioner of the precepts be well-disposed!
Oṃ! Peace! Peace! Peace!
The Secret of the Preceptors has been completed.
So ends the commentary on the Secret of the Preceptors composed by the auspicious Bhāskararāya, who has crossed over from the near to the far shore [and so has obtained liberation while living].