zakti [was vajra]

[Ven. Tantra]

Subject: zakti [was vajra]

Thanking Stephen Hodge, who patiently wrote:

<<I believe that the consensus view is that Taaraa was
of Buddhist origin from the start>>

Another consensus view might be that the Goddess is
the origin. Academically, of course, I was under the
strong impression � probably from Eliade (_Yoga_,
1964) � that early in the 2nd century CE, two new
feminine deities entered Mahaayaana Buddhism:
Praj~naapaaramitaa and Taaraa. As you intimate, the
first is an invention/'origin' of the Doctors of the
Church. Perhaps it could be said that She is the
feminine embodiment of perfected intelligence, and the
corporal expression of an entire metaphysical system
contained in the Mahapraj~naapaaramitaazaatra, which
advances the doctrine of zuunyataa.

Taaraa on the other hand, had seemed to be one among a
dozen or more Indian goddesses of independent origin
that made their way into Tantric Buddhist ritual and
iconography. In this way, I was led to believe that
Taaraa could justifiably be interpreted as the
epiphany of aboriginal India's Great Goddess Zakti,
the Eternal Saviouress; and that when Buddhism
recruited Her, it thereby conferred on India's Savage
Goddess the distinguished status of Knowledge
Personified as a Voluptuous Goddess. This would not be
without its Western parallel. I believe that the
Biblical Sophia has also been regarded as the
personification of higher intelligence.

Elsewhere, I gathered � perhaps also wrongly (my
resources are limited) � that Taaraa (lit. "star") is
also one of the Ten Mahaavidyaas or "Great Knowledge
Bearers" that figure prominently in Hindist, Jain and
Buddhist tantric traditions. The Jain connection
strengthened my assumption that her history was
earlier than the Buddhist Tantras; given that Jainism
predates Buddhist Tantra and has undergone practically
no doctrinal change throughout its exceedingly long
history. In the Hindic or pan-Indian perspective, I
learned that Taaraa is typically identified as an
aspect of Braahman's Zakti who opens the way to
paraa-vidyaa, "higher knowledge," the direct,
intuitive transcendental knowledge that leads to
ultimate illumination and release. However, it is
Taaraa's combination as 'goddess' AND 'savioress' of
compassion that has made her the most admired Devi
among the Buddhist faithful. In another
interpretation, her name means, "to cross," as she
enables her devotee to cross the ocean of birth and
death. But she is mostly adored for protection and
material advantage. She is typically depicted as a
slender young woman. In sculpture, Her expression is
refined and alert. Her hands often take the form of
graceful muudras, one hand showing the sign for
teaching, the other lowered in the sign of granting
boons.

<<. . . so she would not have been called a `sakti I
suppose.>>

Your "suppose" is a little telling. There seems to be
caution over assigning terms. Pardon the
not-altogether-rhetorical question if you will, but
have terms such as 'divinity,' 'goddess,' 'devi,' and
'consort,' etc., been used in the Buddhist Tantras? In
some quarters today, zakti is nearly an English loan
word.

The goddess Maamakii is another �devi� that found her
way into Mahaayaana ritual and iconography (Hodge, 8,
May, 2000). So, again I pose this question. Prior to
Maamakii's divine �expansion� (or recruitment), is She
not considered a zakti-to-be? Are we to assume that
any pre- or extra-Buddhist feminine divinity submitted
herself to or simply underwent a transformation of
divine essence upon her appearance midst the
'revisionist' Buddhic milieu? Or would she possess a
sort of Krsna-esque "inconceivable simultaneousness"?

Interestingly, we have now learned that the Buddhist
Tantras do in fact employ the contentious term zakti,
as you�re your mention of Kaalacakra-tantra � and why
not. It's natural. But could you kindly throw some
light on this? How might we address the Good Woman?

<<Also as far as I can see, in the Buddhist tantric
material I have read, there is quite a difference
between a vidyaa/praj~naa and a `sakti -- the female
component is basically "passive" in Buddhism (the male
is active = upaaya) while a `sakti is, as the word
suggests, "active" through this distinction may have
got blurred in later Buddhist yoginii tantras.>>

". . .this distinction may have got blurred. . ." =
the editors weren't doing their job? Is this the old
spiritual apartheid machine at work again? :)

And yes, your active/passive distinction is widely
recognized. But as you well know, though the devi may
be outwardly keeping right still, you are inwardly
flying to the seventh heaven. Would you be willing to
offer a set of parameters for defining and clarifying
the big "D" you perceive between a `sakti and a
vidyaa? From you own experience please.

My own take on this is that when goddess/consorts
entered Mahaayaana their external associations with
fecundity and the life-giving energy of earth,
vis-a-vis Ziva�s better half, and the strong connected
to The Sacred Mountain, etc. were set aside � in so
far as that was possible � in preference of the
internal mirror-like imagery of Her intelligence,
discernment, illumination and compassion. With the
"later Buddhist yoginii tantras" (as you mention) I
suppose this interiority was maintained but in a
rather laya-yogic/body-energy sort of way. All the
same, the Buddhist devis are fundamentally aspects of
zakti, here seeing "zakti" symbolically, and using it
as a general anthropological interpretive tool. Thus,
in the Buddha-cult, zakti are typically conceived as
embodiments of the active feminine
intelligence-function and commonly depicted in
passionate embrace with their "active" male consorts,
vis-�-vis Vajra-dhara (=Ziva-Buddha). Call this
"reductionism" if you like, i.e., reducing things to a
common interpretive format? or "destructuralism,"
making things strange. These are not bad labels. These
are appropriate methodologies for one who is not
interpreting things from within the church of
traditional commentary. Independent religious
anthropologists find no fun in that.

<< OK, perhaps a bit hyperbolic. But my point is that
Walker (and others) are extrapolating from just one
text and apparently generalizing . . . His further
statement, that the truth discovered by Gautama is
that "Buddhahood abides in the female organ" seems a
bizarre fiction of his own making. I wonder what his
grounds are for saying this, given that "Gautama" is
never one of the persona dramatis in the relevant
tantras . . . to state this of Gautama seems rather
sloppy scholarship>>

Is not the entire Tantric literature a bizarre fiction
of somebody's making? Why are we so attracted to it? I
am not offended by any of this. Perhaps his reasons,
if any, were the same as why we translate vidyaa as
"consort." In other words: How to convey the
iconographic dramaturgy? The Tathagata is supposed to
mean something like "The Buddha." The Buddha is
supposed to mean something like "Gautama." Perhaps its
to make people scratch their heads and figure out what
this vast Buddhic enterprise has been up to all along.

<<Publishers & Sensationalism.>>

It�s a publishers market. To publish implies a
literate public. (Who reads Sanskrit?) But as humans,
indeed, we are sensual beings. The whole tantric
episode could well be interpreted as an exercise in
sublimated tabloid scandal-mongering in order to
arouse a diverted public. And by stashing Truth in the
virgin�s little jungle book, the punters come
a-panting in their gallant bid to unseat the living
goddess!

Regarding Benjamin Walker, please don't presume that
citing equals endorsing. Books are awfully scarce
around here. . . I've run too long. Shows what "I"
know.

The Malabar jasmine blooms at noon � right outside my
cave.

high regards,

VT

References:

1.) Eliade, Mircea. _Yoga: Immortality and Freedom_.
Translated from the original French (Paris, 1954) by
Wilard R. Trask. Bollingen Series LVI. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1964.
2.) Hodge, Stephen. �Buddhist Goddess Identification.�
Email. Indology Archives.
<http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0005&L=indology&D=1&O=D&P=3964>,
8 May 2000.
3.) Walker, Benjamin. Hindu World: An Encyclopedic
Survey of Hinduism_ London: George Allen and Unwin,
Ltd., 1968.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/