The early history of Tantra remains shrouded in mystery, however, what seems more clear is how the bhakti movement altered the course of Tantra and Tantric practice, not only across the Indian sub-continent but in its more modern Western iterations too.
Most academics date the scriptural phase of Tantra between the 4th and 10th centuries - that is the period when most “Tantras” (they didn't all have the word Tantra in the title) were written. However, imagery, iconography and ideas that would form an influential aspect of what became Tantra can be dated to a much earlier period.
Perhaps the earliest (albeit contested!) evidence of proto-Tantric ideology exists in the Pashupati Seal, which appears to show a Shiva-like figure seated naked and erect in yogic meditation and surrounded by wild animals. It would appear that at some point the idea of practicing yoga fused with the concept of being possessed by a deity and this led to the emergence of written Tantric texts.
Following the scriptural phase, there was an intellectual period of commentary, where the various texts were analysed and expanded upon, perhaps in an attempt to make them more accessible to an increasingly literate and urban population. This period saw a more sophisticated and philosophically complete form of Tantra emerge, and it has sometimes been referred to as a period of “high Tantra”.
The logical culmination of this phase can perhaps be found in the Krama school. This Tantric lineage was ardently non-dual, the Krama deities were concepts associated to the cycle of expansion and reabsorption rather than actual gods or goddesses with their associated iconography, and they opposed traditional rituals, viewing them as unnecessary superstition.
However, this peak of “high Tantra” remains largely forgotten - certainly amongst modern practitioners of Tantra. Currently in India perhaps the largest population of Tantric practitioners (although they may not necessarily recognise themselves as such) are related to the Vaishnava Sahajiya sect, whilst many western practitioners are consumers of neo-Tantra.
Borrowing from Tantric concepts of self-deification and divine unity the Vaishnava Sahajiyas believe that they can unite with the divine by deifying a lover and devoting themselves to sensual and sexual union with them. Similar ideas abound in neo-Tantric schools in the west, where “sacred sexuality” is a central feature of Tantric practice. But these ideas have very little in common with the sophisticated philosophy of the period of “high Tantra”. So, what happened?
What happened was the bhakti movement. The bhakti movement emerged in India between the 7th to 12th centuries and was characterised by devotion to the deity - usually imagined as Krishna. It was argued that salvation could be achieved through devotion and was therefore available to everyone - it did not rely on elaborate rituals or an expensive priesthood. However, when this concept of devotion merged with the earlier pre-Tantric concept that a person could be possessed by a deity and that this deity could be appeased through sexual intercourse, the seeds of the Sahajiya cult - with its focus on the divine couple of Krishna and Radha - were sown.
It was this melding of devotional Hinduism and a simplified understanding of early Tantra that resulted in the creation of commercialised neo-Tantra with its focus on sacred sexuality. During the period of high Tantra the yoni (vagina) and lingam (penis) were often exalted as physical manifestations of divine power in the human body. However, following the bhakti movement there was a shift in emphasis. Female breasts and hips were glorified as symbols of fertility, whilst devoted women were told to worship their male partners as though they were Krishna himself.
This naturally resulted in a patriarchal society that accepted female objectification rather than one that honoured the power of sexually liberated women. This confusion - between sexual liberation and patriarchal objectification - still infects many neo-Tantric schools today, as can be seen by the sexual scandals surrounding a number of male gurus.
The intellectuals of the high Tantra period would not have necessarily rejected neo-Tantric practitioners. For them, Tantra was a select philosophy and practice that was not suitable for everyone. For those not yet ready to receive the secret knowledge and training of the high Tantric schools - such as the Krama - simpler teachings were available. These schools were perhaps gateways to the more esoteric schools that sat at the pinnacle of Tantric thought. However, whilst neo-Tantric practitioners would not have been scorned, they may have perhaps been viewed with a sense of pity and regret, that they have replaced hard non-dualism with misplaced devotionalism.
The challenge then, for those of us who may call ourselves “Tantrikas”, is to root out any devotionalism in our own practice and to question its source. Is it from a sense of inadequacy? A feeling that we are perhaps incomplete? Does it stem from a fear of following our own passions? Is free will so frightening to us that we replace it with submission? Or is it merely a surrender to sexual desire hidden behind the legitimising mask of spirituality? Only when we force ourselves to reflect in this way, to deconstruct our sense of self, will we be forced to confront our own divinity and the hard truth of non-dualism.
コメント