Tantras (Brill\'s Encyclopedia of Hinduism)

Tantras Because of its historical fluidity, traditional secrecy, and frequently insalubrious associations, the term tantra is one of the most difficult to define in all of Hinduism – more difficult still in that its boundaries are by no means limited to Hindu practice. Given the complications in definition, which will be addressed in some detail below, it will be useful to first understand the term as used in popular discourse. “Tantra” has distinct, but related, connotations as it is employed in modern Indian languages compared with its usage in contemporary Western popular culture. While these popular usages of the term differ somewhat from the more technical understanding of the term according to its historical emergence and developments, they nevertheless provide a useful entry into a fuller evaluation of Tantra (see also → Tantrism). Modern Indian languages frequently use tantra in a sense more or less equivalent to the concept of black magic. Tantrics are marginal and mysterious supposed practitioners of the dark arts, and as such they are regarded with suspicion by the mainstream culture, be it in a traditional village or modern urban context. Tantrics are often blamed for causing misfortune for their neighbors and enemies with their sorcery, and occasionally they are even accused of more serious and scandalous acts, such as the kidnapping of children or even cannibalism. Still, some Tantrics play vital roles in the community as → healers, mediums, and prognosticators who are called upon for assistance in all areas of life: to heal a disease, exorcise a troublesome spirit, woo a potential lover or mate, settle a score with a neighbor, or pass an exam. Tantrics by no means constitute a singular, discretely defined community, and many who are said to be (or are accused of being) Tantrics may not in fact identify themselves as such. There are, however, a wide range of individuals and institutions today that do claim to be Tantric; among these, too, the adoption or nonadoption of the term is often political rather than descriptive. Some self-identified Tantrics retain the term in connection with a particular lineage and will often attempt to distance themselves from the more unsavory implications of the term. Others court and cultivate the mystery and power surrounding the designation: the “Tantric”

label serves as an effective means of attracting customers, while ensuring that outsiders keep their distance (Khanna, 2010). In the global West, contemporary popular culture has repackaged tantra in a very particular way, as an Asian religious-inspired “spiritual sex” technique – a consciousness-expanding spiritual practice that allows one to access deep levels of insight and bliss, by means of certain allegedly ancient techniques of mental and physical selfcontrol and awareness practice. Here too there is a great variety in defining the specifics of tantric practice. In many articulations of Western Tantra, the distinctively Hindu/Buddhist focus on gnostic illumination and insight is frequently conflated, or in some way blended, not only with the literature pertaining to Indic Kāmaśāstra (treatises on erotics, especially the well-known Kāmasūtra; see → kāma), but also with traditional Chinese sexual techniques for enhancing energy and longevity. Tantra, which in this context usually means tantric sex, is held to be a means of accessing the highest levels of insight usually associated with the more austere and worldrenouncing paths of asceticism. Unlike these traditions, however, the tantric path achieves its goal of insight, not through an ascetic reigning in of sensual experience, but through its very opposite: a full and conscious embrace of sensuality. Another distinctive feature of Western articulations of Tantra is its commercial commodification: the primary means by which contemporary Western Tantra is propagated is through the marketing of seminars, retreats, and popular books and magazines, competing with a wide range of other spiritual self-help techniques in the crowded marketplace of New Age spirituality (Samuel, 2005; Urban, 2003, 203–263; see also → Hinduism and commodification). The present essay will not debate the authenticity of either of these two popular perspectives, but will attempt a broader historical survey of its emergence, development, and characteristics. Scholarly attempts to purify the term tantra of its overly exoticized modern associations are legion, but these popular understandings of the term, besides being a legitimate subject of scholarly study in their own right, can serve to highlight some of the most distinctive features that have

Tantras characterized Tantra from its origins. In particular, these are esotericism and erotic mysticism.

Esotericism Not only are tantric practices mysteries, secret and accessible only through initiation and affiliation with a lineage (paramparā), but they are also potentially dangerous, involving the manipulation, control, and propitiation of powers that can yield tremendous results, but can also cause great harm. It is often said that Tantra is a path of power. Distinguished from the rules and practices deemed suitable for mainstream practice, Tantra is deemed fit only for the most qualified practitioners. This particular transgressive character evolved in response to the ideas of → purity and impurity peculiar to the Indic cultural context, including prominent taboos related to → caste, and to the normative practices of monastic orders (both Hindu and non-Hindu), or those represented in texts such as the → Dharmaśāstras and → Purāṇas. It is clear in many tantric texts that the most secret tantric practices involved the ritual consumption of prohibited substances such as alcohol and meat, and the practice of ritualized sex. The more mainstream and elite tantric traditions, however, tended to symbolize these aspects of the tradition, at least in public. The historical development of Tantra thus features a dynamic of alternately affirming and sanitizing a core of transgressive practices. In many tantric texts and even within traditions of practice themselves, the line between the literal and the symbolic transgressive practices is frequently – and often quite deliberately – blurry.

Erotic Mysticism Many Indic Yoga traditions focus on the control and sublimation of the energies of the subtle body. A central current of tantric discourse borrows from, and overlaps with, these meditative and bodily practices of yoga. Within Tantra, however, the internal powers that the tantric practitioner works with within the microcosm of the body are at the same time thought to be intelligent (and often feminine) macrocosmic forces. With its extensive discourse on these feminine energies, Tantra shares important historical and genealogical overlaps with traditions of goddess worship, often succinctly summarized in its focus on the term → śakti ([feminine] “power”; see below).

169

Thus, while popular understandings of Tantra frequently decouple tantric traditions from their historical context, they also preserve elements that have characterized Tantra from its origins. The present essay will focus on the historical origins and development of the concept in South Asia. Given this focus, it is important to highlight a crucial element of Tantra often lost in popular assessments: namely, the ritual worship of a wide range of deities. Though the specifics of the practices and the deities worshipped vary considerably from tradition to tradition, tantric worship tends to focus on divinities with fierce and erotic characteristics, and it almost always involves the use of specialized → mantras. This ritual context is the most crucial of the elements of Tantra in terms of its historical development, as it appears to have been the primary means by which tantric traditions distinguished themselves. At the same time, they integrated into mainstream practice, interpenetrating other religious forms. A closer investigation into the historical emergence of the texts, known as Tantras, is necessary to elucidate this dynamic.

The Tantras: Texts and Contexts In history-of-religions parlance, the term tantra refers to a range of esoteric ritual practices that emerged in the Indic world around the 5th– 6th centuries CE and became an identifiable category of discourse some centuries later. As esoteric traditions, these practices were open only to initiates, and they frequently involved the real or symbolic transgression of conventional religious and social practice. The usage of the term tantra as a mode of esoteric practice derives from its application to the texts known as Tantras. By the 7th century CE, a distinctive range of divinely revealed texts that came to be classified collectively as Tantras had begun to proliferate and came to be collated into canons. These texts present a wide array of practices that differ in their sectarian focus and ritual specifics, yet have demonstrable commonalities in both form and content. Though texts of similar content also bear alternate titles (such as Āgama, Saṃ hitā, Yāmala, and Mata), Tantra became the most common designation for this particular type of treatise, and it eventually, as mentioned, came to signify

170

Tantras

the mode of esoteric ritual practice that these texts propagate. The original meaning of the Sanskrit term tantra was “loom” or the “warp of a loom,” deriving from the verbal root tan-, “to stretch,” “to extend.” From this primary meaning, Tantra came to designate a system of thought or a treatise – originally, likely in the sense of an “interwoven” network of ideas. More fanciful, or rather more interpretive, etymologies are frequently found in tantric texts. For example, the Kāmikāgama explains the term according to its component syllables tan and tra: It is called tantra because it promulgates (tanoti) profound principles concerning tattva (ritual substance) and mantra, and because it liberates (trāṇaṃ kurute). (KāmĀg. 3.29)

Eventually, the contents of the Tantras are traditionally said to cover a specified range of topics, although the list of topics does vary somewhat across traditions and over time. One of the earliest and most extensive canons of Tantra is that of the Āgamas (→ Śaiva Āgamas) of the → Śaiva Siddhānta school. For the Siddhānta, each Āgama is said to consist of four topics: jñāna (theology and cosmology), yoga (methods of practice including mantras and their use), kriyā (ritual worship), and caryā (rules of conduct and initiation guidelines). Buddhist Tantras, primarily known to us as they are preserved in the Tibetan canon, maintain a strikingly similar scheme, but understand the terms somewhat differently. In the Buddhist tantric canon, each Tantra falls within one of the five categories: kriyā, caryā, yoga, mahāyoga, and anuttara ( yoga). For the Buddhist texts, the scheme moreover seems to represent a historical development in the focus of the texts, from external ritual and conduct (kriyā, caryā), to internal ritual (yoga), and finally culminating in practices that involve ritual sexual practices (mahāyoga) and visualizations of the practitioner as deity. It is worth noting that in both the Śaiva and Buddhist cases, it seems clear that the categories were reified only in the later stages of the literature, being rather loosely employed early on. The Tantras chiefly describe various practices (sādhanās) for the worship of a range of deities. These worship rituals are both external and internal: that is, there are methods prescribed for the ceremonial worship of an image (mūrti), often assuming a temple or home shrine, and also for the worship of a divinity, or series of divinities,

imagined to be invoked within the body of the practitioner. Distinctively, the tantric techniques for worship, at least symbolically, prioritize the internal worship (see below). In the Tantras, both the internal and external worship processes are accompanied by mantra recitation: indeed, the use of mantras becomes a distinguishing characteristic of tantric practice, as noted by the alternate designations of the Śaiva Mantramārga (the way of mantras) and Buddhist Mantrayāna (the mantra vehicle); both terms refer to the tantric mode of practice. As these terms would suggest, the employment of mantra is often seen as the fundamental component of tantric practice (see below). Individual tantric practices are known as sādhanās. In theory, each sādhanā results in one or more siddhis (accomplishment, ability) in the sense of a perfected action. While siddhi is often used in a general sense to signify a successfully completed action, the term commonly connotes a particular kind of mastery of certain supernatural abilities. Several tantric and yogic texts specify a range of powerful siddhis: powers such as clairvoyance, invisibility, and flight. When successfully practiced, then, each tantric sādhanā is said to yield a particular siddhi, ranging from mundane rewards, such as the acquisition of wealth or influence, to these magical powers, and culminating in the highest reward of liberating insight (mukti; see → liberation), or identity with the deity. While the attainment of siddhi is not exclusive to tantric worship, it is a distinctive feature. Tantra is more or less unique in its frequently explicit claim to combine the goals of worldly enjoyment (bhukti), including even the siddhis, along with the higher-order goal of final release (mukti); the more conventional systems of practice, especially those associated with the → Vedānta schools of orthodox philosophy, typically consider these two categories to be mutually exclusive. In general, it can be said that the attainment and use of siddhis is the sought-for outcome of the more distinctively tantric traditions, whereas in more conventional traditions, the siddhis are often thought to be a dangerous distraction to the attainment of mukti. Like the Purāṇas (a genre with which Tantra bears strong, but to this point largely understudied, similarities, and perhaps genealogical connections as well), the Tantras are framed as conversations between divine and semidivine beings, recorded by legendary sages and passed down through generations, primarily through guru–

Tantras disciple lineages. As a textual genre, then, Tantras is literature considered to be divinely revealed, and not composed by human hands. The tantric revelation, however, was not singular. With their rapid spread through various teaching lineages and sects, there came to be countless, overlapping layers of Tantra texts and traditions. Tantric textual canons, therefore, are exceedingly fluid and complex – another characteristic that is shared with the Purāṇa corpus. Often a particular tantric practice tradition (mata) consisting of a “family” of initiates (kula) shared a series of esoteric practices that are represented, at least in part, in a series of texts. Usually the texts of a particular tradition consist of a “root text,” which is transmitted, clustered with other ancillary texts and commentaries. Another type of tantric text is the so-called tantric compendium (Nibandha), which collects tantric sādhanās and mantras from a variety of sources. Examples of this type of text are the Śāradātilakatantra of Lakṣmaṇadeśika (11th cent., Kashmir), the Mantramahodadhi of Mahīdhara (16th cent., Varanasi), and the Tantrasāra of Kṛsṇ ạ̄ nanda Āgamavāgīśa (17th cent., Bengal). Most of tantric literature consists of texts that are devoted to the propitiation of forms of either → Śiva, Devī (→ Mahādevī), or the Buddha. There are in addition a number of Tantras that focus on other deities, such as → Viṣnu ̣ and Gaṇeśa (→ Gaṇapati/Gaṇeśa). There is also some evidence of the existence of tantric traditions dedicated to Sūrya (→ navagrahas), whose worship in India in either esoteric or exoteric form is only slimly attested in historical records. This may be a result of cults of the sun god being subsumed under Śaivism (Sanderson, 2009, 53–58). Each Tantra text is said to have originally sprung from a divine source. Śaiva and Śākta Tantras, then, are said to be revealed by Śiva or the Goddess in their various forms, while Vaiṣnạ va Tantras (chiefly the important canon of texts known as the → Pāñcarātra Āgamas) are said to come directly from Viṣnu ̣ , and so on. Beyond Hinduism, there are also Buddhist Tantras that purport to be the esoteric teachings of one or another of the cosmic Buddhas. There are also Jaina Tantras, a series of ritual manuals dedicated to the worship of fierce female “protector” deities that attended upon the tīrthaṅkaras (Cort, 1987). There is little evidence, however, that the Jainas adopted any of the more antinomian and transgressive tantric practices (Samuel, 2008, 232;

171

see also → Hinduism and Buddhism; → Hinduism and Jainism). Tantra, then, is by no means specific to Hinduism (“Hinduism” being a term that is anachronistic for the time period in which the Tantras emerge). That said, while it is not exclusively so, Tantra is most distinctively Śaiva (or ŚāktaŚaiva) and Buddhist, as the Tantras of other traditions appear to have been historically derivative from these traditions. The relative priority between Śaiva and Buddhist Tantra has been an issue of considerable scholarly debate. There seems to be strong evidence of at least some relatively early instances of Buddhist borrowings from Śaiva texts (Sanderson, 2009, 124–243). There is no doubt, however, that certain prototantric Buddhist texts, most notably some of the Dhāraṇī collections (Mahāyāna compilations of Buddhist spells and mantras), date as early as the 4th century CE (Bhattacharyya, 2005, 211–212). Our records of the earliest strata of tantric texts remain far from complete and at the present stage of research offer no firm conclusions on the matter. Upon the historical emergence of Tantra texts, there rapidly developed a diverse range of Tantras representing different lineages of practice and transmission, distinct in sectarian focus but related in their practices. This proliferation of Tantra texts led to efforts at canon formation, wherein competing catalogues of tantric revelations were enumerated. Even the earliest extant Tantras feature lists of tantric revelations, organized into various hierarchical schema; these clearly represent attempts to systematize a baffling array of texts and practices. Many of these enumerations of tantric traditions also included mainstream traditions, such as Vedic or → Smārta orthopraxy, at the lowest levels of revelations. The mainstream traditions were thus accepted as legitimate, but they were subordinated to the tantric practices in terms of authority and effectiveness (see below). Needless to say, each tradition arranged its hierarchical canon in a way that privileged its own revealed doctrines and practices, and even within certain practice traditions the lists of included texts or revelations varied in their details. The result of this canonizing is a dizzying assortment of frameworks of tantric revelation. Among the most enduring of these is the trope of the five “streams” (srotas) of Śaiva revelation. According to the Śaiva Siddhānta and the later

172

Tantras

exegetical traditions that sprung from it (notably those that flourished in Kashmir between the 10th and 12th cents., or so-called → Kashmir Śaivism), five distinct revelation traditions (āmnāyas) are said to proceed from each of the five faces of Sadāśiva, a reference to the important iconographical representation of the five-headed Sadāśiva, which formed the basis of Śaiva Siddhānta worship (Dyczkowski, 1988, 66–86). This, however, was only one of several canonizing schemes.

The Origins and Definition of Tantra: Difficulties and Solutions Before discussing the various individual elements of Tantra in more detail, it will be helpful to develop an understanding of just why this term is so difficult to characterize in a succinct manner. While Tantra is a vitally important and distinctive stream of ritual praxis that has left a deep imprint on the history of Indic religions, its precise boundaries and characteristics are notoriously difficult to specify. Scholarly attempts at defining the scope of Tantra (or even more problematically, the English term “Tantrism”) have been fraught and highly contested (Padoux, 2002, 17–24). One commonly cited obstacle in the interpretation of Tantra is that many tantric texts and traditions are deliberately opaque and ambiguously metaphorical; these techniques of obfuscation – such as the use of esoteric, coded language (sandhyābhāṣā; Bharati, 1966, 164–182) – have been used to baffle and repulse the uninitiated, preserving the secrecy and integrity of the esoteric traditions. This all leads to confusion over what is literal and what is symbolic in tantric texts. More crucially, while tantric texts begin to emerge before the 6th or 7th century CE, the various elements, which comprise the practices and forms detailed in these texts, each have their own prehistory, as practically any single element of Tantra seems to have origins far earlier than this period. Dating of the emergence of Tantra thus depends entirely on how widely or narrowly the term is defined (Lorenzen, 2002, 25). The academic task of determining just which aspects of Tantra to emphasize in conceptualizing it has often led to inconsistent results. Ascertaining a precise definition of Tantra is thus complicated mainly because of the extreme

interpenetration of tantric elements with other forms of practices in Indic religions. These include the internal “subtle-body” practices of yoga, as well as magical practices for protection, health, seduction, control of others, and the destruction of enemies. Tantric forms are so varied and pervasive in Indic (and pan-Asian) religious practice that it becomes quite an impossible task to isolate Tantra from a wide range of other practices and discourses. It has been argued, for example, that the esoteric focus on the subtle energies of the body and bodily praxis is the single most distinctive characteristic of Tantra (Flood, 2006). But even if certain elaborations of Tantra uniquely focus on the internal transformation and divinization of the body, tantric discourses on the nodes, channels, and currents of the subtle body overlap profusely with similar treatments in Yoga literature. Such discourses are traceable even to the earliest → Upaniṣads in their discussions on the vital energy (prāṇa) of the subtle body and permeating the cosmos at large (McEvilley, 2002, 543–547). Tantric and yogic discourse on the subtle energies of the microcosm and macrocosm are so related that it is barely possible to distinguish between the two. Similarly, highlighting Tantra’s magical ritual aspect (spells and charms for protection and control) as its defining characteristic leads to problems distinguishing it from magical practices, such as those prevalent in the Atharvaveda, that also occur in the Brāhmaṇas (→ Vedas and → Brāhmaṇas) and Upaniṣads (Banerji, 1989, 12; Samuel, 2008, 232). Especially given the fact that it is in these spells where the crucial practice of mantras finds an early expression, this aspect of Tantra is no less essential to the constitution of the category. Perhaps most confusingly, the link between Tantra and feminine divinities has prompted some scholars to seek the origins of Tantra in the pre- and non-Vedic worship of various types of spirits of nature and fecundity (White, 2003, 27–66), with some going so far as to trace tantric origins to prehistoric fertility cults and goddess worship, leading even to an assertion of the presence of Tantra in ancient Greece (Bhattacharyya, 1999, 9–14). This certainly casts the net too widely and loses the distinctiveness and historical specificity of the term tantra. Indeed, while each of these accounts highlights a single aspect of Tantra, none captures the full scope of the term.

Tantras Given the above mentioned difficulties, many scholars have favored a fluid and open-ended account of tantric elements rather than attempting to give it a strict definition. This polythetic approach to defining Tantra has been endorsed as the most sensible approach to an otherwise unwieldy subject (Gupta, 1979, 7–9; Brooks, 1990, 55–72; Davidson, 2002, 118–120). For all its advantages, however, this fluid method of definition does little to succinctly characterize Tantra, and it may also obscure the dynamics of its historical development. A more salient definition is possible through evaluating the complex relationship between Tantra and the dominant orthoprax traditions against which it has been historically defined.

Tantra and the Exotic One of the more fundamental debates in the assessment of Tantra is the problem of whether to locate the origins of Tantra in mainstream elite or marginalized non-elite discourses. Some scholars, observing the worship of non-Vedic deities with mantras, substances, and practices that are not found in orthoprax traditions but were likely prevalent in “tribal” contexts, have argued for Tantra being a popular resistance to elite Vedic models, a “religion of the people” that emerged as a challenge to the dominant religious ideologies (Bhattacharyya, 1999, 19–50). Other scholars take an opposite approach, suggesting that the origins of Tantra lay in the psychospiritual experiments of religious specialists (prototypically, Buddhist and Śaiva monastics in large institutional settings) who developed tantric techniques as a life-affirming path to liberation that circumvents the more abstinent ascetic disciplines (Banerji, 1989, 12). In fact, both these explanations have some basis. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive. Historically, there is little doubt that the tantric aesthetic, and its early practices, were based on traditions that were unambiguously heterodox, and offensive to mainstream sensibilities. Whatever the later permutations of the various tantric schools of practice, there can be no doubt that the tantric aesthetic derived from the real and (at least as importantly) imagined practices of the more extreme forest ascetic traditions that were often associated with magical power, sex, and the conquering of death. These, in turn, overlapped considerably with non-Vedic shamanic traditions

173

of healing and communion with spirit beings, including the phenomenon of ecstatic ritual → possession. Some of the deities that formed the basis of these cults became the inspiration for the bloodthirsty gods and (especially) goddesses that would eventually be incorporated into tantric pantheons. There are thus two related streams that formed the inspiration for the tantric religious forms: the nonmonastic ascetic and yoga practices on the one hand, and the worship of indigenous deities on the other. These liminal deities and practices represented a danger to the social orders upheld by the orthodoxies. But while many of the elements that make up Tantra were associated with non-elite, marginal peoples and sects, even the earliest representations of tantric practices to which we have access cannot be said to have been accurate representations of folk or non-elite praxes, nor were they intended as such. Instead, these exotic elements were bounded and transformed through a remarkably rigorous ritualization, leading to a profuse elaboration of precise rules for ritual conduct. This makes it clear that tantric ritual was hardly a cult of hedonistic freedom as it has often been characterized, based on its proliferation of practices that willfully subverted norms of mainstream social and religious praxis. If anything, Tantra was not a loosening of orthoprax rules, but a hyperritualization of the exoticized practices of nonmainstream groups. Tantric practices, it is clear, were not the actual practices of these groups, but deliberate transformations and elaborations of them. More pointedly, it is also certain that the elaboration of tantric doctrine, and its codification and propagation in textual form, was made possible through transregional institutional networks – notably, Śaiva and Buddhist monastic and academic centers. This would seem to suggest that the earliest formulations of properly tantric doctrines and practices be attributed to educated Buddhist and Śaiva monks, transmitting their esoteric practices not only orally, but also via texts composed in Sanskrit. While the debate between positing either an elite or a non-elite origin of Tantra seems at first glance irresolvable, it may itself hold the key to the problem of identifying the fundamental characterization of Tantra. It is likely that early tantric practices emerged precisely in the interaction between orthoprax traditions and the varied cultural and religious practices that were marginalized

174

Tantras

by these dominant discourses. While Tantra does indeed possess demonstrable connections with the diverse sets of folk, magical, and yogic practices that are included in the web of Indic cultural life, it is not equivalent to these traditions, nor is it an accidental amalgamation of them. It is instead a mode of discourse developed through contact with these traditions, while in dialogue with the mainstream orthodoxies: caste-based rules of conduct for householders, and the disciplinary rules applying to Buddhist or Śaiva monastics. Understood in this way, Tantra first emerged as a purposeful foray into the realm of the exotic and taboo, in a quest for power and siddhi. Many (if not most) tantric deities indeed seem to have been incorporated from local non-Brahman worship traditions that existed beyond the pale of orthoprax norms. A similar process of assimilation is on full display in the early Purāṇas, where local deities and practices are incorporated into a mainstream praxis founded on the maintenance of caste norms (varṇāśramadharma) and tempered by an ethos of → bhakti. But where the Purāṇa traditions were deliberately excluded certain practices and deemed impure and dangerous (vedabāhya, outside the Veda), Tantra exploited the very marginality and otherness that Purāṇa eschewed. Tantra’s power was drawn from the fact that the traditions that inspired it did not conform to orthoprax rules of purity and conduct, creating an aesthetic of the exotic that comes to characterize tantric practice throughout its history – indeed, into the present day. This is evident in a series of Tantras devoted to the fearsome tantric sādhanās related to the goddess Tārā. In texts such as the Rudrayāmala, Brahmayāmala, and Tārātantra, the sage (→ ṛsị ) Vasiṣtḥ a is said to travel from India to the land of Mahācīna (China, though possibly indicating Tibet), the “land of the Buddhists,” in order to learn, from the Buddha himself, the secret rites on the worship of the fierce goddess Tārā. The sādhanā that Vasiṣtḥ a receives includes the consumption of meat, alcohol, and blood, as well as sexual intercourse with low-caste women. In this series of texts, these antinomian practices are frequently called cīnācāra: “the Chinese method” (Bhattacharyya, 1999, 107–111; Bharati, 1993, 66–70). Given that it is unlikely that this particular sādhanā indeed had its origins outside of India (the textual provenance seems to be eastern India), the fact that this tradition projects the origins of a set of particularly antinomian practices onto a for-

eign land (and non-Brahman religious culture) illustrates the tantric aesthetic preference for the exotic and socially taboo.

Tantra and Orthopraxis Tantra is, at its core, a distinctive mode of ritual praxis, framed as an alternative to some normative praxis, be it Brahman Smārta conduct, or the monastic institutional disciplines of a Buddhist or Jain monk. Tantric methodologies, then, evolve in dialogue with the conventions of orthopraxis. Tantric forms run counter to the mainstream and frequently transgress the rules of orthodox conduct in seeking what is claimed to be a fuller spectrum of power, enjoyment, and knowledge. Tantra, then, does not constitute an independent religion, because the various tantric traditions (Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu) derive their specific contours only in contradistinction to their respective orthopraxes. While there is a difference between Tantra and orthopraxis, the relationship between the two is not simply one of direct opposition and mutual exclusion. The extent to which Tantra is considered to be competing with or compatible to orthopraxis varies according to different tantric texts and traditions, though non-Tantrics generally consider Tantra to be unorthodox and impure. Many Tantrics, however, practice their rites in secret, while maintaining conventional, orthoprax identities in public. So while there is always a distinction made between Tantra and orthopraxis, the relationship between the two is complex and varied. In the Brahman context, where orthopraxis is defined by a range of caste-specific disciplines enjoined by the prescriptive Smarta texts, and resting on the ultimate authority of Vedic revelation (śruti), both tantric and nontantric sources typically distinguish between Vedic (vaidika) and tantric (tāntrika) revelation. The history of this distinction is somewhat difficult to trace. Perhaps because of its brevity and clarity, the most cited exposition of this idea is found in the Manusmṛti commentary of K. Bhaṭṭa (c. 13th cent.). In fact, the tāntrika/vaidika distinction is attested in both tantric and nontantric Brahman sources from quite an early period, as it occurs with some regularity in the Sanskrit Purāṇas. Though these texts are notoriously difficult to date, one of the more securely dateable Purāṇas is

Tantras the 10th-century Bhāgavatapurāṇa. This most celebrated of Vaiṣnạ va Purāṇas recommends the worship of → Kṛsṇ ạ “according to the method prescribed in the Tantras” (tantroktena vidhinā). Here, the “tantric method” is an optional worship method that is to be practiced alongside the universally prescribed Vedic injunctions (BhāgP. 11.30. 34–55). The tantric method, the text explains, is characterized by the worship of an image (mūrti), accompanied by mantras. It is noteworthy that in this Purāṇa, the potentially antinomian tantric revelation is legitimized and placed alongside the mainstream Vedic path, indicating complementarity between the two modes. A great deal (indeed, the vast majority) of Hindu tantric literature that has come down to us makes a sort of rapprochement to the Vedas and sees the tantric method as extracting the essence of the Vedas, or the secret (rahasya) portions that are hidden from conventional, exoteric practice. In the view of most authors on Tantra, the tantric methodologies complement Vedic revelation, rather than subvert it (Chakravarti, 1963, 30–37; Brooks, 1990, 17–32). Tantrics tend to look upon Vedic orthopraxis as a legitimate but less advanced path, fit for the lowest level of practitioner, whereas the tantric path is held to be a secret and elite dispensation that only a very few are qualified to receive. In keeping with this idea, the tantric practitioner is often styled a “hero” (vīra). Tantric practices are expected to be closely safeguarded in lineages of tradition, or esoteric “families” of practitioners (kula; kaula). These are open only to those who are deemed worthy and ritually prepared and accepted into the community through ritual initiation (dīkṣā). Within Buddhism as well, the Buddhist Tantras are held (by Tantrics, of course) to be a higher order of teachings than those found in the conventional canon. In the Buddhist case, this development is a clear extension of the model already set up with the early evolution of the Mahāyāna (great vehicle) scriptural canon, in parts of which one can glimpse the seeds of → maṇḍala and deity-visualization practices that would become elaborated in the Tantras (Samuel, 2008, 218–220, 224–228). Just as the Mahāyāna is posited as a higher revelation than the so-called Hīnayāna (lesser vehicle), the tantric Vajrayāna (diamond vehicle) is a secret and even higher order of revelation. Several Tantras divide humankind into three categories: the paśu (beast), vīra (hero), and

175

divya (divine). According to the Kulārṇavatantra (2.122), for example, the paśu is qualified only for the basic, exoteric rites of the Vedas and nontantric Vaiṣnạ vism. The “hero” personality is qualified for initiation into tantric rites and may practice the esoteric elements of the tradition. The highest stage is that of the divya adept, where the “divine” initiate is perfected in the tantric rites and gains access to even higher levels of the tradition (Bhattacharyya, 1999, 293–294; Gupta, 1979, 72–74). Sometimes overlapping with the above, another common classification is the well-known distinction between “right” (dakṣiṇa) and “left” (vāma) styles of conduct (ācāra) in Tantra, where the right indicates “pure” traditions that do not violate Vedic rules of conduct, and the left, traditions that do. The history of this term is uncertain, but it becomes a commonplace shorthand, even in nontantric circles, for distinguishing between those tantric practices which were in accordance with the Vedas and those which were not (Gupta, 1979, 44–45). Tantric identities frequently overlapped with mainstream ones – that is, one could be a Tantric and a Brahman of a particular Vedic śākhā, or a Buddhist monk whose (secret) tantric practices technically violated (or, rather, transcended) the normative monastic regulations. This idea is stated succinctly in the 16th-century Yonitantra: Inwardly Śāktas, outwardly Śaivas, and in the public assembly proclaiming Vaiṣnạ va views: Kaulas (tantrics) move in the world bearing various forms. (YonT. 4.20)

With regard to the mainstream traditions, tantric practice is not necessarily exclusive, but can be practiced alongside them. In a similar vein, tantric concepts sometimes extend rather than replace orthodox doctrines. An example of this is seen in the tantric elaboration of the tattvas (cosmic principles) known in → Sāṃ khya discourse, a concept that traces back to some of the oldest yogic and philosophical speculations recorded in India. In the Sāṃ khya there are 25 (or 24, depending whether the last is included) of these tattvas, ranging from the gross elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ākāśa; → mahābhūtas) to the subtler aspects of mind and matter, culminating in the principles of primordial matter (→ prakṛti) and pure spirit (puruṣa). In the → Śaiva Āgamas, a series of increasingly finer tattvas is appended to this list, from the principles of space (niyati)

176

Tantras

and time (kāla), and culminating in Śakti (→ Mahādevī), the consort and literal “power” of Śiva, and finally Śiva himself, making a total of 36 (Woodroffe, 2001, 198–201). Here again, Tantra does not contradict the orthodox as much as it extends it.

Elements of Tantra The above suffices as a general historical introduction to Tantra and an overview of its defining characteristics. What follows is a somewhat more detailed description of some of the prominent features of tantric thought and practice.

Mantra In Tantra, the primary means of propitiating deities is through mantra, wherein each god or goddess (or aspect thereof) is worshipped by means of a mantra considered appropriate to that deity. A mantra is a phoneme or series of phonemes believed to be of suprahuman origin that possess power to effect change within the body/mind of the practitioner, and also in the greater cosmos. The mantra is, of course, familiar to normative Vedic practice itself. The uniqueness of the tantric mantras is the simple fact that they are distinguished from Vedic ones: the Tantras boast a mantric vocabulary entirely distinct from the word texts of the Vedas. Additionally, the tantric perspective on mantras holds that they not only are a means of approaching or propitiating the deity, but also in fact are the deity in “sound form” (Gupta, 1979, 105). While the utilization of mantras is not the sole aspect of tantric practice, it is one of the most characteristic: so much so that the tantric path is frequently referred to as the Mantramārga (way of mantras). Included among tantric mantras are the “seed” syllables (bījamantras), or single-syllabled mantras ending in an anusvara (a nasalization; in Roman script, ṃ ). Just as a tiny seed contains, in potential form, a fully developed tree, the bījamantra is thought to contain within itself the full realization of the teachings of the tradition (Bhattacharyya, 2005, 295). Bījamantras are often appended to other mantras, or strung together to constitute a mantra of a deity. They are also independently linked to various deities, though these links sometimes vary across different texts and traditions. Hence, hrīṃ is the bījamantra of the

goddess Māyā, raṃ is that of Agni (fire; → Vedic gods), and krīṃ that of → Kālī (Gupta, 1979, 105). The origins of tantric bījamantra practice may be linked to the Vedic oṃ (which itself is also commonly employed in the Tantras), an ancient syllable that was originally an exclamation of affirmation or assent, but developed into an esoteric symbol that became the subject of certain types of → meditation techniques, and thereafter the subject of a great deal of philosophical speculation. In certain tantric traditions, speculation on the mantra develops into elaborate theological systems that posit sound/language as the fundamental constituent of the cosmos. The universe proceeds from a primordial, pre-articulate “word” that evolves into increasingly grosser forms, becoming human speech, and ultimately, material reality (Padoux, 1990; Beck, 1993; Sferra, 2007). Tantric deities most fundamentally, the Tantras feature details on the worship of pantheons of deities; some of these tantric deities are rarely worshipped in mainstream traditions, but most come to be identified with aspects of the great deities such as Śiva, Devī, or the Buddha. Distinctively, many of these deities are feminine, fierce, and/or erotic in their iconography. Goddesses such as Kālī, Tārā, and Lalitā (Tripurasundarī), for example, are primarily associated with tantric worship and practice traditions. While tantric worship is not limited to the propitiation of feminine, fierce, or erotic divinities, there is a strong correlation between deities with these characteristics and the tantric cults. Also distinctively tantric are a number of goddess “families,” such as the ten mahāvidyās (see → Kālī), the seven mātṛkās (see → Śiva), and the sixty-four → yoginīs, which are venerated both individually and as sets, and also have associated tantric sādhanās that are said to result in power, knowledge, and material benefits for the practitioner. From a relatively early period in both Buddhist and Śaiva Tantras, the figure of the yoginī (often called ḍākinī in Buddhist texts) gained prominence and may have served as a prototype for later tantric goddesses. Yoginīs are flying, shapeshifting female divinities associated with occult powers. They are commonly depicted as drinking wine and blood, wearing human skulls, and frolicking wildly in cremation grounds. These powerful beings could grant favors when approached properly and satisfied, or they could wreak great havoc when angered, thus their attributes were equally demonic and divine. According to various

Tantras narrative traditions and some tantric texts, yoginīs were to be satisfied with vital bodily fluids, including the blood of sacrificed animals, and often the seminal fluids of the male practitioner. If invoked and left unsatisfied, they could torment and destroy the vitality of the aspirant. The yoginīs could also enter human females, through birth or possession, where they were especially sought after by male tantric practitioners seeking their occult powers and favors. As humans, yoginīs almost always assumed the form of women and girls from low-caste and untouchable groups (→ untouchability), or those from otherwise marginalized social groups such as prostitutes. Tantric yoginī-centered texts detail how the practitioner is to recognize yoginīs through signs, and they offer details on how to seduce them into serving as helpers in practicing their rites and attaining siddhis. The Buddhist Hevajratantra, for example, provides elements of a coded language (sandhyābhāṣā) that would allow an aspirant to communicate with yoginīs in the context of secret tantric ritual gatherings (gaṇacakra; see Davidson, 2002, 262–269). They were also frequently considered to be attendants of the central cult deity: usually a form of either Śiva (for Śaivas, most commonly one of the many forms of → Bhairava, considered the fierce aspect of Śiva) or the Buddha (for Buddhists) or the great Goddess. These attendant yoginīs thus constituted the subsidiary powers of the central deity (White, 2000, 9–13).

Maṇḍala and Yantra These groupings of deities may be thought of as mirroring the “clustered” configurations of tantric textual traditions described above, where a series of commentary and subsidiary texts become attached to a root text. Tantric deities are similarly arranged into pantheons, or “families” of related deities, bearing varying iconographical forms particular to each tradition. The worship of each deity form requires its own specialized mantra or series of mantras, and set of ritual procedures (sādhanā). The hierarchical relationship within such deity families comes to be encapsulated in the maṇḍala (lit. circle), the diagrammatic representation of the deities of the tradition. The maṇḍala consists of a central figure of worship surrounded by ancillary deities (āvaraṇadevatā) that are considered personified “powers” of the central god or goddess. The prominence of clans, series, or

177

cycles of deities, genealogically related and approached via a series of practices passed down in esoteric traditions, is a distinctive characteristic of tantric traditions. In addition to their use as meditation aids, maṇḍalas are also utilized in rituals of initiation: during this important ceremony of accepting the aspirant into the family of initiates, the tantric guru assigns the student a deity of the maṇḍala deemed appropriate for the individual and provides the mantra, along with the secret instructions for the particular sādhanā into which he is being initiated. Related to the tantric maṇḍala is the yantra (lit. device, instrument). Yantras are magical diagrams for invoking and controlling esoteric forces for specific ends. Most frequently they are inscribed in metal (gold, silver, or copper being preferred) or a more perishable material and used as receptacles for external worship. Yantras come in many different varieties, and their forms are specific to different purposes. Hence, some texts will describe the construction of different yantras for healing, harming enemies, or seduction, and also yantras specific to different deities, such as Agni, Lakṣmī (→ Śrī Lakṣmī), or → Gaṇapati. In short, any deity can theoretically be depicted in yantra form, just as every deity has its accompanying mantra (Gupta, 1979, 113–114). While the maṇḍala is circular in form and frequently employed in religious art and as an aid to meditation, yantras vary in their shape, constitution, and function as an instrument of external worship. In practice, however, there is considerable overlap between the two categories, and the maṇḍala is sometimes considered a subset of the yantra (Gupta, 1979, 111–113).

Śakti and Royal Cults In its Hindu varieties at least, Tantra is strongly associated with the concept of → śakti, a Sanskrit word meaning “power,” which is, significantly, grammatically feminine. Śakti comes to be identified with the supreme Goddess, or with the female counterpart to the supreme God (usually in this context: Śiva). This theological concept is usually traced to the Devīmāhātmya of the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, a text that features the firstknown theological exposition of the cult of Devī, the supreme Goddess of whom all goddesses, females, and indeed all feminine-gendered concepts or forces are aspects (→ Durgā). In one of

178

Tantras

the most popular episodes from this text, the Devī is formed from the combined energies of the gods for the purpose of defeating the buffalo-demon Mahiṣāsura (→ asuras). The Devī, then, represents the individual powers of each of the gods, and ultimately the combined powers of the universe. An individual or tradition that reveres the Goddess in this way is called (a) Śākta, the adjective of śakti. The image of the Devī representing the combined powers of the gods has a precedent in the ancient idea of the king, representing the combined powers of his tributary lords (MaSm. 7.11). Indeed, the tantric emphasis on śakti may be related to its militaristic iconography and focus on rituals tailored towards royalty and imperial temple building. Kings, of course, would seek the aid of supernatural powers to vanquish their enemies and augment their ability to rule. An early instance of the overlap of goddess worship and the royal cult is seen in the worship of the aforementioned mātṛkās (mothers) by several of the kings of the vaunted Gupta lineage (4th–6th cents. CE). The mātṛkās seem to have had associations with local, non-Brahman peoples and likely were the objects of their worship. The Gupta kings seemed to have appropriated these powerful goddesses as a way of effecting and symbolizing their dominance over the peoples (Harper, 2001). The mātṛkās were incorporated into the mainstream Brahman tradition as consorts of the gods of the Brahman pantheon. In the meantime, it would seem that the religious specialists that served as the royal advisors and priestly officiates were developing secret techniques for propitiating and taming these wild warrior goddesses, with the result of these esoteric techniques being codified in the Tantras later on. In a later period, the rise to prominence of the ascetic and scholarly lineages of Śaiva Siddhānta, in particular from the 9th to the 12th century, helped spur the widespread popularization of tantric cults. Serving as royal preceptors to prominent royal lineages such as the Kalacuris of central India and the Cholas in the south, Śaiva Siddhānta teachers developed a vast array of tantric Śaiva rituals for use in state ceremonies. The texts of this tradition, the Śaiva Āgamas, bear the imprint of this relationship between royalty and Śaivism, with a great percentage of the Āgama canon detailing rites for the protection and maintenance of their royal patrons. These include, for example, extensive rituals of consecration, as well

as details for the construction of large, imperial temples for conducting worship (Davis, 1991). Some scholars have suggested that the tantric “imperial metaphor” is one of the primary reasons for the widespread success of tantric ritual technologies, corresponding with the increasingly regionalized, feudal political structure of Indian society after the dissolution of the Gupta Empire. This relationship is encapsulated in the parallels between the tantric maṇḍala and the military ideal of the transregional ruler (adhipati), receiving power and tribute from a series of subsidiary rulers, imagined as the king’s “manifestations” (Davidson, 2002, 113–168).

Tantric Worship: Outer and Inner The tantric worship of external deities (→ pūjā) features the offering of a standardized series of items (upacāra) to an external image, usually via a yantra or other ritually sanctified receptacle such as a clay pot, copper vessel, or symbolic emblem (e.g. śivaliṅga; → liṅga). The number of items offered is often fixed at 10, 16, or as many as 64 in rare cases, depending on the specific ritual. All worship involves the recitation of mantras, along with the presentation of a range of hand gestures (→ mudrā), both of which are understood to aid in harnessing subtle energies for the purpose of the ritual. Recipes for both regular (nitya) and occasional (naimittika) rites (karman), along with specialized sādhanās such as expiation (prāyaścitta), are detailed in tantric texts and also codified in tradition-specific manuals known as Paddhatis. Despite certain sources making nominal distinctions among tantric, Vedic, and “mixed” styles of pūjā (Gupta, 1979, 124), it is evident that the structure and content of mainstream pūjā techniques clearly originate from tantric sādhanās. While the external worship of deities is a main focus of tantric practice, the inner dimensions of tantric worship are its hallmark. The worship of the external image usually requires the ritual transfer of the internal powers to the external image as a means of enlivening the image before the proper ceremonial worship – the offering of items such as incense (dhūpa), lamp (dīpa), flower (puṣpa), and so forth – begins. Internal tantric worship techniques are worship and meditation. As in yogic traditions, in Tantra there is a special emphasis on the creative transformation of consciousness, especially through

Tantras the ritual transformation of the body–mind complex of the practitioner, into its superpowered, divine equivalent. In tantric practice, however, there is an additional level of discourse that focuses on correspondences between the worshipper and the deity. An example of this is the process of “purification of the elements” (bhūtaśuddhi), a purification ritual of the physical and subtle body of the worshipper, which is almost universally included in sectarian ritual manuals as a preparation for external pūjā. During the bhūtaśuddhi, the body is ritually incinerated (using the bījamantra of Agni, raṃ ), and then re-created in a purified, divine form (bhūtaśuddhi: see Flood, 2000; tantric pūjā: see Gupta, 1979, 121–162). After the bhūtaśuddhi, the purified body is enlivened with sacred mantra phonemes that correspond with the divinity that is being worshipped. This technique is called mantranyāsa, “placing” (nyāsa) or ritual installation of mantras, a process that divinizes the body and charges it with power (Gupta, 1979, 109–110). Frequently there are accompanying visualizations that underscore the identification of worshipped and worshipper. Similar practices occur in tantric Buddhist (Vajrayāna) contexts. Whether this divinization of the body is the “central metaphor” of Tantra, as some have argued (Flood, 2006, 10–12), is debatable, but it is certainly one of the most distinctive aspects of tantric practice. Of the various forms of tantric inner worship or bodily mysticism, perhaps the most recognizable is kuṇḍalinī yoga, a distinctive form of subtle body practice mentioned as early as the Tantrasadbhāva (8th cent.), and fully elaborated in texts such as the Kaulajñānanirṇaya (9th– 10th cents.), the Śāradātilaka (11th cent.), and the Kulārṇavatantra (13th–14th cents.; White, 2003, 229–234). Largely borrowing from related yogic traditions, kuṇḍalinī yoga focuses on the (usually seven) energetic centers (Skt. → cakras: lit. wheel, circle) located along the central spinal column of the subtle body. Unlike in yoga traditions, however, the tantric iteration of the subtle body posits a source of potential spiritual power as lying dormant in the mūlādhāracakra (root cakra) located at the base of the spine. This energy, called kuṇḍalinī, is considered a goddess in the form of a coiled serpent. The purpose of the practice is to awaken this goddess and have her ascend up the spine, passing through each of the cakras until uniting with the supreme Śiva in the uppermost cakra above the top of the skull. As the kuṇḍalinī

179

touches each cakra, the cakra is enlivened and animated, which is said to correspond with a spiritual awakening and acquisition of particular siddhis. When she finally ascends to the sahasrāracakra, the aspirant attains liberation and identification with Śiva (Silburn, 1988).

Tantra and the Taboo There are numerous tantric practices that specifically violate orthoprax norms. In terms of the orthoprax Hindu traditions, one of the most fundamental ways in which Tantra challenged normative practice is in the realm of caste (varṇa). In theory at least, tantric initiation was and is open to all, regardless of caste. A strong formulation of this statement occurs, for example, in the Mahānirvāṇatantra: “All humans on the face of this earth – from the Brahman to the outcaste – should be considered qualified for this kula (tantric) practice” (MNirT. 14.184). This, however, is not to say that caste is not recognized in Tantra. On the contrary, many texts prescribe different practices for aspirants according to their caste. It is clear, however, that the fluidity with which many tantric traditions approached the normative varṇa injunctions is the primary way in which Tantra distinguished itself from mainstream Hindu religiosity. One of the most controversial elements of tantric practice is the employment of the “five substances” (pañcatattva), also known as the “five m’s” (pañcamakāra), because the Sanskrit names for these five terms all begin with “m”. The five are madya (liquor), māṃ sa (meat), matsya (fish), mudrā (probably an aphrodisiac grain), and maithuna (sexual intercourse). There are some ambiguities about the original meaning of the fourth of these, but the implications of the set are clear: these substances are all taboo in orthoprax circles and are meant to be ritually taken in certain tantric practices. Generally speaking, a tantric tradition might be considered left-handed (vāmācara) if all of these are employed literally; right-handed tantric schools tend to use symbolic equivalents (Bharati, 1993, 242–244). Similar is the category of the “six rites” (ṣaṭkarman), another pervasive grouping that is strongly tied to the more dangerous and forbidden aspects of tantric practice. These are the six major aims that can be accomplished by certain tantric rites. The specifics of the offerings and

180

Tantras

rituals vary depending on which of the six is the desired effect. The six are pacification (śānti), control (vaśīkaraṇa), immobilizing (stambhana), causing enmity (vidveṣaṇa), driving away (uccāṭana), and killing (maraṇa). This group of six can be said to succinctly characterize the black-magic aspect of Tantra. Needless to say, the use of these spells is eschewed by those tantric traditions oriented more toward meditation and gnosis (Bühnemann, 2000). The term kaula is often used to describe the most secret, transgressive, and dangerous aspects of tantric practice. The term is employed extensively in certain tantric traditions: indeed, in some it is more pervasive and consistently used than tantra. Kaula derives from the word kula ([esoteric] family or clan), a designation that emphasizes the initiatory structure of tantric traditions (White, 2003, 17–22).

Tantric Theology and Philosophy Along with these practices, there are also concomitant theological and philosophical elaborations of tantric practices that, while diverse in their sectarian and doctrinal particulars, might be said to constitute a distinctively tantric worldview. This tantric view takes as its basis the ultimate nonduality of conventional existence and its transcendence: the postulate that → saṃ sāra is no different from nirvāṇa, or that Śiva (the absolute static principle of consciousness) is inseparable from Śakti (the dynamic principle of activity that makes creation possible). In the meditative wisdom traditions where Tantra is elaborated, the transgressive elements of tantric practice are held to be a high-risk means of circumventing dualism. That which is considered impure and an obstacle to insight (in normative praxis) is seen as the expression of perfect wisdom from the perspective of nonduality. Instead of avoiding desire in traditional ascetic fashion, the tantric adept embraces it and presses it into the service of liberation, while acquiring divine powers and bliss. These philosophical understandings of tantric practice rely on the philosophical assumption of nonduality. According to this view, dualistic distinctions between purity and impurity, → auspiciousness and inauspiciousness, while necessary at the lower, exoteric levels of practice, are held to be ultimately unreal in Tantra and in fact are hin-

drances to the ultimate nondual insight. At the highest levels of practice, tantric practices frequently involve the visualization of the practitioner as the divine: a perfectly enlightened Buddha, for the Buddhists, or equivalent to Śiva, for the Śaiva-Śākta traditions. In these gnostic traditions of Tantra, the tantric deities and their corresponding mantras are seen not as external forces, but as aspects of the practitioner’s own consciousness to be integrated and realized. Not all tantric ritual practices adopt the particular nondualistic framing that the above focus on liberating insight suggests. The influential Śaiva Siddhānta lineages of teachers were philosophically dualistic, positing a theology of liberation that depended on the saving → grace of Śiva (Davis, 1991, 22–41). Thus, while there are trends in philosophical discourse that are distinctively tantric, there is no singular tantric philosophy that encompasses the diversity of traditions that fall within the category. This shows, once again, that Tantra is best understood not as an abstract category of thought, but rather a particular mode of practice.

Bibliography Banerji, S.C., A Companion to Sanskrit Literature, New Delhi, 1989. Beck, G., Sonic Theology: Hinduism and Sacred Sound, Columbia, 1993. Bharati, A., Tantric Traditions, New Delhi, 1996, rev. ed. 1993. Bhattacharyya, N.N., History of the Tantric Religion, New Delhi, rev. ed. 1982. Brooks, D., The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Śākta Tantrism, Chicago, 1990. Bühnemann, G. “The Six Rites of Magic,” in: D. White, ed., Tantra in Practice, Princeton, 2000. Coburn, T., Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the Devī-Māhātmya and a Study of Its Interpretation, Albany, 1991. Cort, J., “Medieval Jaina Goddess Traditions,” Numen 34/2, 1987, 235–255. Chakravarti, C., The Tantras: Studies on Their Religion and Literature, Calcutta, 1963. Davidson, R., Indian Esoteric Buddhism: a Social History of the Tantric Movement, New York, 2002. Davis, R., Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshiping Śiva in Medieval India, Albany, 1991. Dyczkowski, M., The Canon of the Śaivāgama and the Kubjikā Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition, Albany, 1988. Flood, G., The Tantric Body: The Secret Tradition of Hindu Religion, London, 2006.

Tantras Goodall, D., The Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta, Pondicherry, 2004. Gupta, S., “Tantric Sādhanā: Pūjā” in: S. Gupta, D. Hoens & T. Goudriaan, eds., Hindu Tantrism, Leiden, 1979. Harper, K.A., “The Warring Śaktis: A Paradigm for Gupta Conquests,” in: K.A. Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The Roots of Tantra, Albany, 2002, 115–132. Khanna, M., “Whose Tantra? Reflections on Bazaari Tantra: A Critical Category of Discourse in the Study of Tantrism,” in: I. Keul, ed., Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond, Berlin, 2010. Lorenzen, D., “Early Evidence for Tantric Religion,” in: K.A. Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The Roots of Tantra, Albany, 2002, 25–36. McDermott, R.F. Mother of My Heart, Daughter of My Dreams: Kālī and Umā in the Devotional Poetry of Bengal, New York, 2001. McEvilley, T., The Shape of Ancient Thought, New York, 2002. Padoux, A., Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras, Albany, 1990. Padoux, A., “What Do We Mean by Tantrism?” in: K.A. Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The Roots of Tantra, Albany, 2002, 17–24. Sanderson, A., “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period,” in: S. Einoo, ed., Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo, 2009, 41–350.

181

Sanderson, A., “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain,” IIJ 47, 2004, 229–300. Sanderson, A., “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions,” in: S. Sutherland, L. Houlden, P. Clarke & F. Hardy, eds., The World’s Religions, London, 1988. Samuel, G., The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge UK, 2008. Samuel, G., Tantric Revisionings: New Understandings of Tibetan Buddhism and Indian Religion, New Delhi, 2005. Schoterman, J.A., The Yoni Tantra: Critically Edited with Introduction, New Delhi, 1980. Sferra, F., “Materials for the Study of the Levels of Sound in the Sanskrit Sources of the Śaivasiddhānta,” in: D. Goodall & A. Padoux, eds., Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, Pondicherry, 2007, 443–474. Silburn, L., Kuṇḍalinī: Energy of the Depths, Albany, 1988. Urban, H., Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religions, Berkeley, 2003. White, D.G., Kiss of the Yogini: “Tantric Sex” in Its South Asian Contexts, Chicago, 2003. Woodroffe, J., Śakti and Śākta: Essays and Addresses on the Śākta Tantraśāstra, 1912, repr. 2001.

Τravis L. Smith