Shakti and Shâkta : essays and addresses on the Shâkta Tantrashâstra
SHAKTI AND SHAKTA
which I took, and which I had hoped I had made plain was this—Tantra Shastra does not simply mean the Shakta Tantra. The latter is only one division of Agama which has to-day three main schools, Shakta, Shaiva, and Vaishnava. There are certain things common to all. There are certain matters wherein they differ. -When it is said that the Tantra Sh4stra is the scripture of the Kali age, what is meant is that the Agama in all its schools is that. There are some ancient schools of Vaishnava Agama such as the Pancharatra, and there are comparatively modern developments of Vaishnava teaching and practice such as that of the great Chaitanya. ‘“TAntrik” does not mean only “Shakta.” This is the main error of these critics and others. Naturally I have taken the Shaktas “ at their own valuation,” for my object is not that of a missionary sectarian to show that they are right and others wrong, or the contrary, but to state what they the ShAktas hold. They alone can say this. A quarrelsome attitude as regards other creeds is the mark of a lower mind and of what the Shaktas call a Pashu. I believe a different position is assumed by all higher Sadhakas to what every denomination they belong. Certainly a wide and liberal view is taken by the Shakta. The Sammohana Tantra (Ch. TX) says that “it is only a fool who sees any difference between RAama and Shiva.” Each has his path which, if sincerely pursued, will procure for him the fruit of it. Whether some paths in the Indian or other religion are better and surer than others, and gain for their followers greater fruit, I do not here discuss, The present work deals only with its subject in a very general and, as far as the matter permits, popular way. I refer those who wish to pursue it further to the other works on Tantra Shastra which are published under the name “ Arthur Avalon” to denote that they have been written with the direct co-operation of others and in particular with the assistance of one of my friends who will not permit me to mention his name. I do not desire sole credit for what N