Vedas and Tantras

In the origins of Indian philosophy, two traditions can be distinguished - the Vedic, Aryan, brought to India by pastoral tribes with a patriarchal organization, with male gods, the leading role of masculinity, the creative absolute Spirit, etc., as well as tantric, pre-Aryan, rooted in agricultural magical rites of the matriarchal era, with female deities, the leading role of active femininity and creative energy - Shakti. Although the tantric tradition, in all likelihood, is much older than the Vedic, its provisions began to be fixed in writing only at the end of the last era. The very word Tantra is found already in the Rigveda:

“When friendly brahmans gather together, with fast-moving minds, for sincere conversation, they drive the ignorant from the altar and proclaim the knowledge of the Vedas.

These ignorant people, not following the path of the Brahmins and the Soma sacrificers, by creating sinful words and being Sirikh, spread Tantra without possessing Knowledge. ”

Obviously, tantrism, due to its inevitability, has been widely popular and influential since antiquity, representing the strongest opposition of the Vedic tradition: the leading role of the feminine in tantrism entails numerous consequences that make it almost an alternative to the teachings of the Vedas.

For us, this alternativeness is of interest primarily from the point of view of Yoga. In the most general terms, it can be determined that if the Vedic tradition attaches crucial importance only to the fundamental, “final” yogic experience of Self-comprehension and is protected from everything intermediate as from the skill of Maya, then the tantric tradition deals with the process of Self-comprehension, that is, various forms and steps of “intermediate »Yoga experience, as well as ways to achieve them.

Immediately, it should be clarified that in reality there has long been no separation into the "purely Vedic" and "purely tantric" traditions, since throughout the development of Indian philosophy there was a clear tendency for the interpenetration of these two currents. Indeed, when it came to defining the fundamental reality underlying both the world being drawn by consciousness and consciousness itself, the tantrists could not ignore the experience of such a definition already existing in the Vedic tradition; and vice versa, when it was nevertheless necessary to give some theoretical picture of a relative reality divided into the sighted and the visible, the Vedantists widely used tantric ideas.

However, a separate consideration of the two traditions, being a purely conventional technique, not only contributes to the systematic presentation of the material, but helps to reveal their “functional structures”, and thus more deeply understand their hidden mechanisms. The ability to navigate among the “deep currents” allows us, using these currents consciously, to avoid that usual disappointment, when half the way it turns out that once a long time ago you made a mistake by the door.

Let us begin with the fact that although the restoration of the connection of a person with the “remaining” reality is the main theme of both traditions, the main TOOL of this connection is understood by them differently: if for Vedanta such is human consciousness, then for Tantrism is his body. Further, if the main METHOD of Vedic self-comprehension is the so-called spiritual experience - changing the relationship between the perceiving subject and the perceived object, that is, changing the self-consciousness of the actual subject of perception (the actual object of perception can remain unchanged), then the main method of the tantric tradition is the so-called mystical experience is a change in the actual object of perception (a partial, but not obligatory effect of this can be a partial change in the actual tenant).

Consequently, their “INTERIM TARGETS” are different. If, for the Vedic tradition, this consists in a sequential change of the subject of perception, that is, the actual perceiver (“sighted”), then for the tantric one, in the sequential change of the object of perception, the actual perceived (“visible”).

Despite the differences in instrument, method, and intermediate goals, in theory both traditions ultimately represent Yoga and have a common goal. In fact, in our conditions, following one or another tradition implies, as will be shown, a difference in FINAL OBJECTIVES.

So, if the first paradox was that, in asserting an existing, already existing Self-Exercise, a consistently Vedic approach eliminates the possibility of any Sadhana, the second paradox is that the possibility of achieving Self-Realization through a really existing Tantric Sadhana remains highly problematic.

The essence of tantric Sadhana is to develop the capacity for inner, let's say, introspective perceptions, the penetration into the universe, the “otherworldly” of our closed eyes. Such a mystical search requires tremendous work and faith, full and reckless return to him of all our aspirations.

These qualities are extremely rare, one might say, almost never occur. Further, it is impossible to advance on this path on your own, since there is constantly required more and more new, very specific special knowledge and skills that cannot be learned from books or from the depths of the soul. Sufficiently this specific information, as well as guidance on its use, can only be provided by an initiate teacher, that is, who has inherited his art from another dedicated teacher and continues the line of continuity, the beginning of which is lost somewhere in the distant past. It is almost impossible to find such a deep teacher who is really capable of teaching Yoga, since he himself chooses his students. The following, and probably the biggest “but” tantric Sadhana, is that it is very difficult to withstand Yoga on the path of mystical experience: there is a constant tendency to follow the path of Magic, that is, mastering the infinite variety of side effects of this Sadhana.

Since, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is still reduced to magic, it is said about the actual difference between the ultimate goals in the case of following different traditions. Nevertheless, acquaintance with Yoga begins, as a rule, precisely with the tantric tradition. Whether it will be some form of practice or a structure of thinking, everything seems to be in sight, and “what to do” leaves no doubt. In this sense, it can be said that tantric Sadhana is nothing but “signaling” Yoga, the “main entrance” from which one enters Yoga. And indeed, units “pass to the goal” precisely in this way. But for the rest, he is one of the fascinating (if they come to magic), sad (if they come to the hospital) or boring (if they do not come anywhere) the adventures of their lives. There are those who once realized that this path was a "trick" for them - that he did not lead at all to what they consciously sought (for example, to read other people's thoughts or sit in the Lotus position), but to Vedic Self-comprehension; in this case, the person, as a rule, leaves any form of instrumental practice, directly referring to the spiritual questioning “who am I?”.

So, tantric Sadhana is really the path to Self-comprehension, but it is the path of units. The Vedic Yoga, which is open to everyone in the form of a spiritual search for the “one who is seeing" (You are That), is at first few people able to regard anything other than a “theory” and therefore people generally begin their “practice” of Yoga with well-known and it seems that the forms of tantric Sadhana are “obvious” in their concreteness. Thus, there is a need not only to acquaint these people with the complexity of the problems that make up this area of ​​human activity, but also to some extent point out their non-obviousness. In particular, the clarification of the origins of Tantrism may contribute to this.