Shakti and Shâkta : essays and addresses on the Shâkta Tantrashâstra

SHAKTI AND SHAKTA

Lester Ward and others as to the alleged pre-eminence of the female principle. We are not here dealing with questions of science or sociology. It is a common fault of western criticism that it gives material interpretations of Indian Scriptures and so misunderstands it. The Shakta doctrine is concerned with those Spiritual Principles which exist before, and are the origin of, both men and women. Whether, in the appearance of the animal species, the female “antedates” the male is a question with which it is not concerned. Nor does it say that the “female principle” is the supreme Divinity. Shiva the “ male” is co-equal with Shiva the “ female,” for both are one and the same. An Orientalist might have remembered that in the Sangkhya, Prakriti is spoken of as ‘‘ female,” and Purusha as “male.” And in Vedanta, May4 and Devi are of the feminine gender. Shakti is not a male nor a female “ person,” nor a male nor a female “ principle,” in the sense in which sociology, which is concerned with gross matter, uses those terms. Shakti is symbolically “female” because it is the productive principle. Shiva, in so far as He represents the Chit or consciousness aspect, is actionless (Nishkriya), though the two are inseparably associated even in creation. The Supreme is the attributeless (Nirguna) Shiva, or the neuter Brahman which is neither “* male ” nor ‘‘ female.” With such mistaken general views of the doctrine, it was not likely that its more subtle aspects by way of relation to Shangkara’s Mayavada, or the SAangkhya Darshana should be appreciated. The doctrine of Shakti has no more to do with “Feminism” than it has to do with “ old age pensions” or any other sociological movement of the day. This is a good instance of those apparently “smart” and cocksure judgments which Orientalists and others pass on things Indian. The errors would be less ridiculous if they were on occasions more modest as regards their claims to know and understand. What is still more important, they would not probably in such case give unnecessary ground for offence, 98