Many Hindus have a very poor appreciation of the importance of ritual/spiritual technology & what it can do. A robust & powerful ritual/metaphysical technology can transform even the most primitive (whether apparent or actual) of religions into something very profound & this can create an extremely strong attachment to the Deity & its coterie which undergird that system, including becoming subjected to that Deity’s limitations (if the Deity is truly not transcendental or “enlightened”).
It’s precisely because of this potential one has to be very careful because getting initiated into a system with such ritual technology can leave a very deep mark/stain “on” the soul (figuratively, since the soul can’t be stained & the actual locus of the mark is the innate malaśakti obscuring the soul but this gets very technical), which can be very difficult to remove without a truly competent master.
Such a mark can prevent a soul from progressing towards the higher end of spiritual traditions & obstruct them from realizing the fruit even if they get initiated into such a higher-end Sampradāya. This is why, in the Siddhānta, prior to Dīkṣā (initiation), a rite called Liṅgoddhāra has to be first performed for a convert from another system in order to remove the mark (Liṅga) from the initiate, though many teachers (particularly those who are completely outside Saṁskṛta scholarship, are exclusively vested in the Tamizh tradition & are not well-versed in the Āgama) are sadly not well-equipped to do this.
Many Hindus often find it cool to clap back with retorts like “all these Abrahma religions are barbaric & worship false gods”, mirroring what the Abrahmas say. What they don’t get is that we have to confront them precisely because they are real & they have complex spiritual technologies which work but are ultimately not beneficial.
In this regard, those in a position to understand should be able to see something like the below & see in it a diminished version of a similar technology used by the Śaiva-Mantramārga (particularly the Siddhānta) &, to a much lesser extent, the Pāñcarātrikas. It also shows how the use of a proper, ritual technology (even if ultimately limited) can transform a religion even if the base framework is primitive/crude .
The below table is based on the Yahudas’ Kabbalah. What parallel concept/ritual technology in the above-mentioned Āstika Sampradāyas does it remind you of?
Screenshot in above tweet missed the last column. See this:
Further correspondences:
1. Map between the worlds in above table & different prayers
2. Correspondence between the 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet & the sefirot (these are emanations within Yahava; like his Guṇas/Kalās)
Based on these, some of you can see the parallel ritual technology used in Siddhānta-Śaivam (and rarely these days in the Pāñcarātra).
Ok, the parallel is with the concept of Ṣaḍadhvan, as briefly explained here:
1. Between the Bhuvanādhvā & the worlds of Atzilut, etc (2nd/blue column of 1st image)
2. Between the Kalādhvā & the five Sefirot (3rd purple column of 1st image). Kalādhvā in Siddhānta comprises of five special powers, which are personified as certain high Deities, which appear to be paralleled by the Partzufim (light violet/4th column). These powers represent the different stages of grace & the awakening of light of Cicchakti in the soul. Interestingly, the Kabbalah places a huge stress on the filling of the soul with light in “vessels”. In Pāñcarātra, the Kalādhvā is different, comprising of Vāsudeva’s six qualities, which is paralleled by the fact that the Sefirot are Yahava’s qualities.
3. Between the Padādhvā (81 words of the Vyomavyāpī mantra) & the individual letters of the Tetragrammaton & spelt-out names of Yahava (yellow & green, 5th & 6th columns of 1st image).
4. A limited, partial correspondence between the Tattvādhvā (36 Tattvas, which contains within itself the 24 Sāṅkhyatattvas as Ātmatattvas—which includes various faculties of the soul) & the grey/1st column of the first image.
5. Between Mantrādhva (consisting of 11 mantras in the Siddhānta) & the Hymns—see 2nd image which maps the hymns to the different worlds.
6. Between Varṇādhva (50 akṣaras of the Saṁskṛta alphabet) & the letters of the Hebrew alphabet - See 3rd & 4th images.
Overall, the Kabbalah’s layout looks like a smaller version of the Ṣaḍadhva in Siddhānta, in terms of the metaphysical extent it covers.
However, it is still very interesting to observe these parallels since the Kabbalah is most often paralleled with Vedānta (because of the supposed Nirguṇa-brahman & Ein Sof equivalence) but there appears to be richer parallels between the Ṣaḍadhva concept of the Āgamika universe & the Kabbalah. One wonders if these ideas somehow reached Medieval Southern/Mediterranean Europe.
It is important to appreciate that parallels do not amount to equal spiritual validity of the Kabbalah vis-a-vis Āstika paths. As noted in first tweet of this thread, getting initiated into a system has consequences for the soul.
It would be interesting to do a Saiddhāntika-Śaiva conceptual critique of the Kabbalah’s metaphysical & soteriological claims.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Came, by chance, across a passage from Aitareyabrāhmaṇa that ties in with the point in the thread below as to how in rituals, the ritualist is given a taste of the universal power (sarvārthakriyā) that becomes manifest in Paramukti. Explanation of the Śruti in subsequent tweets:
The Śruti speaks of how the Agnihotrī leads (nayati) humans & all other beings as dakṣiṇā (ritual fees) to the Devas through the evening Agnihotra (hence the rest of creatures in the evening).
He leads the Devas themselves & all other beings as dakṣiṇā to humans through morning Agnihotra (from other Śrutis, we know that Devas preside over cognitive faculties). This is why when a human wakes up, he finds himself charged with the will to go places & do things.
Śāstra fails to be taken seriously because of 2 reasons:
1. Where it does contain precious teachings, it fails to be taken seriously because of arrogance on part of a small-minded reader.+++
+++ 2. There is an undeniable bit of genuinely uninspired, over-the-top frivolity, which cannot be taken seriously but unfairly offers a justification for some to not take seriously the śāstravākyas in No.1. Such tripe should have been tempered, done away with or explained away.
We did have a culture of auditing Śāstras, although this is not a free-for-all exercise but an authority reserved for only Śiṣṭas.
Those who belong to Satsampradāyas which have Paśubali-krama & defend it in SM, you owe it to your Sampradāya to defend it eloquently with deep Śāstra/Tattva-jñāna at your disposal & avoid the “if you don’t do this, He/She will get angry” line of argument. +++
You belong to the larger world of Śaiva-Śākta mantramārga (36-Tattva system) & your Devata is non-different from the same Nirmala Cidghana-Paramaśiva & His Parāśakti. Portraying that Nirmala-Cidghana as “vengeful”is doctrinally wrong & you end up making Him/Her look like a Paśu.
The dangerous consequences of not doing bali in line with Vidhi can be easily & properly explained, without having to resort to the “angry/vengeful deity” approach. There are good, stimulating explanations. Focus on the Śāstra & Tattvas & try to come up with them.
Prior to Schomerus, see G U Pope, who tried to present Tamizh Siddhānta through a Pretamata lens in his translation of the great Śaiva hymn, “Tiruvācakam”. Such efforts became possible due to Tamizh Śaiva texts being cut off from its root, the Sam̐skṛta Āgama textual tradition.
Like it or not, it’s predominantly & sadly “Mleccha-led” research that has completely overturned the myth of Siddhānta’s tamizh origin (the position taken by likes of Pope, Schomerus & others) & has established, once & for all, the pan- Bhāratīya & SE-Asian presence of Siddhānta.
This has served to undermine the use of Siddhānta as a “prefiguration” of Xtianity at least in Western Academic circles, where the sheer competitiveness-fueled rigour will shut off any such output.
Religion needs common worship & ritual but a competing concern is that young gens across the world increasingly have a “standardised” sense of what they want from a religion & find it important to obtain a “profound/sophisticated” basis for popular rituals, lore/myths, etc.+++
A case in point is the situation of folkish Daoism in Sim̐hapurī (Daoism has a remarkably sophisticated cosmology, metaphysics & ritual but the way it is articulated & experienced in SG is what matters) vs that of Buddhism.++
Among all non-Abrahamic religions, in a very materialistic & increasingly “godless” generation of Chinese youth, Daoism as it is currently practiced - Stands zero chance of survival unless it attempts something drastic.
A common misconception many Hindus have about the Siddhānta, including many Śaiva-s but also others, is that the Siddhānta is centered on the supremacy of a "particular deity". Yes, Siddhānta upholds Śiva-paratvam but how to understand this?
In the Siddhánta, every Ātmā (sentient) is Cidghana (a pure mass of consciousness) whose inseparable Cicchakti consists of knowledge & power. These two are obscured by mala for all sentients except one, who is eternally unlimited & pure & beyond name & form.
It is the case that the names & forms associated with that one, for the purposes of visualization & worship, happen to be the names & bodies actually possessed by deities we will call Śaiva or Raudra.