Shakti and Shâkta : essays and addresses on the Shâkta Tantrashâstra

PREFACE

accounts given by Western authors of Eastern beliefs so generally fail to give their true meaning. Many I think do not even make the attempt. They look at the matter from the point of view of their own creed, or, (what is much worse), racial prejudice may stand in the way of the admission of any excellence or superiority in a coloured people. The method [ follow is that of the Indian commentator, who, for the nonce, adapts himself to the standpoint of the doctrine which he explains. I mention this because two of my critics seem to think that my object is to establish the superiority of this particular form of Vedantik teaching over others. One may of course have one’s personal preferences, but it is not my object here to establish the superiority of any school of Indian thought. This isa matter which each will decide for himself. One of these critics has said ‘The Tantras are claimed to be the specific Shastra for the Kaliyuga by the Tantriks. Mr. Avalon seems to have taken these later at their own valuation; and this has considerably influenced his whole estimate of these books as Shastras or authorities on the Hindu system. In doing so he has fallen into a series of curious errors in regard to other and particularly the Vaishnavic denominations.” This criticism which was passed on one of my earlier books has been repeated as regards this. What these errors are my critics have not told me. I did not intend to deal, nor am I aware of having dealt, with the Vaishnava system beyond pointing ‘out in the most general way that there is a Vaishnava and Shaiva as well asa Shakta Agama. I have criticised neither this nor the Shaiva Agama, both of which schools are also of high value. Though the instructed Western reader is aware that there are other interpretations of Ved&nta besides that of ° Shangkara, many write as if the Vedanta meant his May4évada. Thisis notso. Vedanta is Upanishad of which there are varying interpretations. Each has certain merits and certain defects, as must necessarily be the case when we apply logic to that which is alogical. Indeed the point ix