On May 3, 2012, at 5:41 PM, cardemaister wrote:
FWIW:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/29172
Nice find Card. Comments interleaved:
Makuta, Chandrajnana and Parameshvara Agama
(...)
There is a major disconnect between what we read of Hinduism in the
vedas,
upanishads, itihasas and puranas, and what is practised today.
Thats because the
entire religion practised today is based on the Agamas; of temple
worship, of
home altar worship, of home sacraments, of festivals, pujas, homas,
abishegams,
of vratas and tapas, of annals of the Dieties, dikshas, gurus and
birth to death
sacraments, etc.
This is precisely the case. There's actually very little left of
Vedic religion other than some sacrificial rituals.
There is not much of the philosophy of the upanishads reflected at
the ground
level. When one enters the temple, one is aware of the Diety, the
Vahana, and
the Altar - pati-pasu-pasam. One knows this is the philosophy of the
siddhantist*, an agamist, a tantrik, and not anything else. When
one conducts a
marriage or a funeral ceremony today, one is a siddhantist or
agamist. Whether
one cremates or buries, one is an agamist. When one mentally
focusus on the
Diety in the temple or home shrine, with the eyes open or closed
during pujas,
one is a tantrik.
Again, right on the mark. The vast majority of Hinduism as it is
practiced today is from the Agamas or the Tantras.
This disconnect between what is read and what is practised is
serious, and
served to provide an imbalanced and lopsided, nay, wrong view of
Hinduism, both
to the Hindus and the world at large. It distorted Hinduism. The
writings on
Hinduism in the last two hundred years did not contain anything on
the agamas.
A lot of this has to do with the inheritance of the puritanical
British who armed with their own religion, assumed 'the Hindus had to
have their own Bible like we do'. The most highly placed folks were
likely Brahmans and so the Bhagavad-gita and the Vedas got cast as
"Hindu Bibles". Never mind the vast majority of what they're seeing
in practice was Tantric or Agamic.
When one is not talking of the agamas, one is not talking of
Hinduism, one is
probably talking of something else, some other religion, probably
some tradition
that may have existed in the subcontinent in the remote past, or
existed in
parallel, or some socio-cultural myths and legends, all of which
has little to
do with Hindus today. When the agamas are juxtaposed with Hinduism
on the
ground, it matches perfectly! What it says is what we practice.
These shastras, the vedas, upanishads, puranas and itihasas, manu
shastras,
etc., and the books written about them did not reflect the Hindu
religion. It
talked of something else while the Hindus believed and practiced
something else.
Thats because the agamas were not available, in devanagiri, hindi
or english. It
was only recently in the last few years that is was translated into
english and
these reviews of it in this last three months are the very first in
all time. I
know of no others.
This is so true. Very little of the vast literature of the Agamas,
Upa-agamas, etc. have never been translated.
It may be probable that when the early european indologists
enquired about
Hinduism, afraid that their shastras may be lost or stolen, the
Hindus guided
the indologists by leading them down the garden path on a goose
chase with the
vedas and puranas, but keeping quiet about the agamas. Then the
early Indian
writers followed that chase. And so on. Today we have a few
thousand books that
does not talk of the religion of the Hindus, but only on the
fringes of it.
One teaching is exoteric, one is esoteric.
The only contribution from the 'vedic shastras' as mentioned above
to Hinduism
that is practised today are the mantras which are used in
conducting pujas to
the dieties. Nothing more than that. Period!
Bingo.
Even the vedic mantras are
'modified' in that with the addition of 'aum', 'bija' mantras as
prefixes,
'namaha' as suffix and where appropriate, 'svaha', these then are
now converted
to agamic or tantrik mantras.
TM being a good example.
The agamas does not use the philosophy of the
upanishads at all. To be sure, it does not conflict with the
upanishads, rather
praises it and the vedas, but overrides it completely and have its own
philosophy which may be called agamanta or simply siddhanta. The
philosophy
provided in the agamas is exacting and voluminous. As explained
earlier,
philosophy, meditation and yoga in the Ajita Agama is more than in
the 108
upanishads combined. It is this philosophy that underpins all the
rituals and
practices of the Hindus. Philosophy is not just for introspection
and discussing
as many are apt to think, but to be used in everyday life, built
into our daily
actions. What is the philosophy underlying the act of placing a
flower at a
picture of a Diety while gazing at it with devotion, earnest hope
and a silent
prayer?
The view obtained from the vedic shastras is on chanting of
mantras, stress on
dharma especially varnashrama, and myths. The view obtained from
the agamas is
worship of the dieties, and bakti. Period. Worship of the gods is
the be all and
end all.
The restating, or re-presenting of Hinduism in a more balanced view
would be the
first step in reforming it as it immediately becomes clear that in
Agama
Hinduism, there is no discrimination in temple entry, or in spiritual
initiations and sacraments, or study of shastras, as it is open for
all men and
women, regardless or race, caste or gender. And that salvation is
open to all
worshippers in this very life, regardless or karma, birth, gunas or
even self
realisation. The emphasis in on worship with little or no emphasis
on dharma.
The question of castes, outcastes, varnashrama dharma or study of
vedic sanskrit
texts and chants does not arise in Agama Hinduism. It is this that
should be
made clear to all Hindus and the world at large. This would be the
centrality of
Hindu reform.
Agama is a generic term for any revealed shastra, however in
popular usage the
saiva agamas are called agamas, the vaishnava agamas are called
samhitas, and
the shakta agamas are called tantras. The etymology of agama is
that, 'a'
denotes that which is originated, 'ga' means emerging, and 'ma'
means the
religion. Another understanding is that 'a' means knowledge, 'ga'
means
liberation, and 'ma' denotes the means of destroying the bonds.
Well said.
Whereas the vedas reaches out to God through devotional hymns, the
agamas aims
at invoking god within one's own self, and the worship and
sacraments are geared
towards this. The shastra that emerged where this special path
which is founded
on a definate principle on its own, and which is different from the
vedic
tradition, is known as the agama. The agamas are not just about
temples and
pujas, rather it has its own philosophy, independent of the
upanishads, and its
own myths, and its own worship and meditative practices. In short,
its complete
and represents an entire religion, an entire tradition.
These three agamas were first translated and published in english
between
1994-96. Clearly these three are Virasaiva agamas and extols that
sect as
supreme among all sects. The Makuta, Chandrajnana and Parameshvara
agamas are
listed as number 17, 19 and 26 respectively, making them late and
of lesser
importance compared with the early agamas.
The translator, Dr. Ms Rama Ghose merely translated without an
analysis of its
historical dating, authenticity and possible accretions. We do not
know the date
of these agamas but it appears very late, possibly 12th-15th
century, or perhaps
even later. These agamas do use jaati and varna terms but there is no
condescension of the different castes. It does note the jaati
social observances
of the times, without being critical. It outrightly rejects
varnashrama dharma.
Unfortunately with secret traditions, they've often been passed down
orally and so dating them by when they were written down is not
typically a good dating mechanism.
