|
"Shakti in Taoism" by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe)
From:
"jagbir singh" <www.adishakti.org@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Nov 8, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: "Shakti in Taoism" by Arthur Avalon
(Sir John Woodroffe)
|
Shakti in Taoism
by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe)
The belief in Shakti or the Divine Power as
distinguished from the
Divine Essence (Svarupa), the former being generally
imagined for
purposes of worship as being in female form, is very
ancient. The
concept of Shakti in Chinese Taoism is not merely a
proof of this
(for the Shakti notion is much older) but is an
indication of the
ancient Indian character of the doctrine. There are some
who
erroneously think, the concept had its origin in "Sivaic
mysticism,"
having its origin somewhere in the sixth century of our
era. Lao-tze
or the "old master" was twenty years senior to Confucius
and his
life was said to have been passed between 570-490 B.C. A
date
commonly accepted by European Orientalists as that of
the death of
Buddha (Indian and Tibetan opinions being regarded,
as "extravagant") would bring his life into the sixth
century s.c.,
one of the most wonderful in the world's history. Lao-tze
is said to
have written the Tao-tei-king, the fundamental text of
Taoism. This
title means Treatise on Tao and Tei. Tao which Lao-tze
calls "The
great" is in its Sanskrit equivalent Brahman and Tei is
Its power or
activity or Shakti. As Father P. L. Wieger, S. J., to
whose work
(Histoire des Croyances Religieuses et des Opinions
Philosophiques
en Chine, p. 143 et seg. 1917) I am here indebted,
points out, Lao-
tze did not invent Taoism no more than Confucius
(557-419 B.C.)
invented Confucianism. It is characteristic of these and
other
Ancient Eastern Masters that they do not claim to be
more
than "transmitters" of a wisdom older than themselves.
Lao-tze was
not the first to teach Taoism. He had precursors who,
however, were
not authors. He was the writer of the first book on
Taoism which
served as the basis for the further development of the
doctrine. On
this account its paternity is attributed to him. There
was reference
to this doctrine it is said in the official archives (p.
743). The
pre-Taoists were the analysts and astrologers of the
Tcheou. Lao-tze
who formulated the system was one of them (ib. 69). The
third
Ministry containing these archives registered all which
came from
foreign parts, as Taoism did. For as Father Wieger says,
Taoism is
in its main lines a Chinese adaptation of the
contemporary doctrine
of the Upanishads ("or le Taoisme est dans ses grandes
lignes une
adaptation Chinoise de la doctrine Indienne
contemporaine des
Upanisads"). The actual fact of importation cannot in
default of
documents be proved but as the learned author says, the
fact that
the doctrine was not Chinese, that it was then current
in India, and
its sudden spread in China, creates in favor of the
argument for
foreign importation almost a certain conclusion. The
similarity of
the two doctrines is obvious to any one acquainted with
that of the
Upanishads and the doctrine of Shakti. The dualism of
the
manifesting Unity (Tao) denoted by Yin-Yang appears for
the first
time in a text of Confucius, a contemporary of Lao-tze,
who may have
informed him of it. All Chinese Monism descends from
Lao-tze. The
patriarchal texts were developed by the great Fathers of
Taoism Lie-
tzeu and Tchong-tzeu (see "Les Péres du systéme Taoiste"
by the
same author) whom the reverend father calls the only
real thinkers
that China has produced. Both were practically prior to
the contact
of Greece and India on the Indus under Alexander. The
first
development of Taoism was in the South. It passed later
to the North
where it had a great influence.
According to Taoism there was in the beginning, is now,
and ever
will be an ultimate Reality, which is variously called
Huan the
Mystery, which cannot be named or defined, because human
language is the language of limited beings touching
limited objects, whereas Tao is imperceptible to the
senses and the unproduced cause of all,
beyond which there is nothing: Ou the Formless, or Tao
the causal
principle, the unlimited inexhaustible source from which
all comes,
("Tao le principe parceque tout derive de lui") Itself
proceeds from
nothing but all from It. So it is said of Brahman that
It is in
Itself beyond mind and speech, formless and (as the
Brahmasutra
says) That from which the Universe is born, by which it
is
maintained and into which it is dissolved. From the
abyss of Its
Being, It throws out all forms of Existence and is never
emptied. It
is an infinite source exteriorizing from Itself all
forms, by Its
Power (Tei). These forms neither diminish nor add to Tao
which
remains ever the same. These limited beings are as a
drop of water
in Its ocean. Tao is the sum of, and yet as infinite,
beyond all
individual existences. Like Brahman, Tao is one,
eternal, infinite,
self-existent, omnipresent, unchanging (Immutable) and
complete
(Purna). At a particular moment (to speak in our
language for It was
then beyond time) Tao threw out from Itself Tei Its
Power (Vertu or
Shakti) which operates in alternating modes called Yin
and Yang and
produces, as it were by condensation of its subtlety
(Shakti
ghanibhuta), the Heaven and Earth and Air between, from
which come
all beings. The two modes of Its activity, Yin and Yang,
are
inherent in the Primal That, and manifest as modes of
its Tei or
Shakti. Yin is rest, and therefore after the creation of
the
phenomenal world a going back, retraction, concentration
towards the
original Unity (Nivritti), whereas Yang is action and
therefore the
opposite principle of going forth or expansion (Pravritti).
These
modes appear in creation under the sensible forms of
Earth (Yin) and
Heaven (Yang). The one original principle or Tao, like
Shiva and
Shakti, thus becomes dual in manifestation as
Heaven-Earth from
which emanate other existences. The state of Jinn is one
of rest,
concentration and imperceptibility which was the own
state (Svarupa)
of Tao before time and things were. The state of fang is
that of
action, expansion, of manifestation in sentient beings
and is the
state of Tao in time, and that which is in a sense not
Its true
state ("L'etat Yin de concentration, de repos,
d'imperceptibilité,
qui fut celui du Principe avant le temps, est son êtat
propre.
L'etat Yang d'expansion et d'action, de manifestation
dans les
êtres sensibles, est son êtat dans le temps, en quelque
sorte
impropre"). All this again is Indian. The primal state
of Brahman or
Shiva-Shakti before manifestation is that in which It
rests in
Itself (Svarupa-vishranti), that is, the state of rest
and infinite
formlessness. It then by Its Power (Shakti) manifests
the universe.
There exists in this power the form of two movements or
rhythms,
namely, the going forth or expanding (Pravritti) and the
return or
centering movement (Nivritti). This is the Eternal
Rhythm, the Pulse
of the universe, in which it comes and goes from that
which in
Itself, does neither. But is this a real or ideal
movement?
According to Father Wieger, Taoism is a realistic and
not idealistic
pantheism in which Tao is not a Conscious Principle but
a Necessary
Law, not Spiritual but Material, though imperceptible by
reason of
its tenuity and state of rest. ("Leur systéme est un
pantheisme
realiste, pas ideâliste. Au commencement était un étre
unique non pas intelligent mais loi fatale, non
spirituel mais
matériel, imperceptible a force de tenuité, d' abord
immobile.") He also calls Heaven and Earth unintelligent
agents of
production of sentient beings. (Agent non-intelligents
de la
production de tous les étres sensibles.) I speak with
all respect
for the opinion of one who has made a special study of
the subject
which I have not so far as its Chinese aspect is
concerned. But even
if, as is possible, at this epoch the full idealistic
import of the
Vedanta had not been developed, I doubt the accuracy of
the
interpretation which makes Tao material and unconscious.
According
to Father Wieger, Tao prolongates Itself. Each being is
a
prolongation (Prolongement) of the Tao, attached to it
and therefore
not diminishing It. Tao is stated by him to be Universal
Nature, the
sum (Samashti) of all individual natures which are
terminal points
(Terminaisons) of Tao's prolongation. Similarly in the
Upanishads,
we read of Brahman producing the world from Itself as
the spider
produces the web from out of itself. Tao is thus the
Mother of all
that exists ("la mére de tout ce qui est"). If so, it is
the
Mother of mind, will, emotion and every form of
consciousness. How
are these derived from merely a" material" principle?
May it not be
that just as the Upanishads use material images to
denote creation
and yet posit a spiritual conscious (though not in our
limited
sense) Principle, Lao-tze, who was indebted to them, may
have done
the same. Is this also not indicated by the Gnostic
doctrine of the
Taoists? The author cited says that to the cosmic states
of Yin and
Yang correspond in the mind of man the states of rest
and activity.
When the human mind thinks, it fills itself with forms
or images and
is moved by desires. Then it perceives only the effects
of Tao,
namely, distinct sentient beings. When on the contrary
the action of
the human mind stops and is fixed and empty of images of
limited
forms, it is then the Pure Mirror in which is reflected
the
ineffable and unnamable Essence of Tao Itself, of which
intuition
the Fathers of Taoism speak at length. ("Quand an
contraire l'esprit
humain est arrêtê est vide et fixe, alors miroir net et
pur, il
mire l'essence ineffable et innomable du Principe lui-meme.
Les
Pêres nous parleront au long de cette intuition.") This
common
analogy of the Mirror is also given in the
Kamakalavilasa (v. 4)
where it speaks of Shakti as the pure mirror in which
Shiva reflects
Himself pratiphalati vimarsha darpane vishade). The
conscious mind
does not reflect a material principle as its essence.
Its essence
must have the principle of consciousness which the mind
itself
possesses. It is to Tei, the Virtue or Power which Tao
emits from
Itself ("ce Principe se mit a êmettre Tei sa vertu")
that we
should attribute what is apparently unconscious and
material. But
the two are one, just as Shiva the possessor of power (Shaktiman)
and Shakti or power are one, and this being so
distinctions are apt
to be lost. In the same way in the Upanishads statements
may be
found which have not the accuracy of distinction between
Brahman and
its Prakriti, which we find in later developments of
Vedanta and
particularly in the Shakta form of it. Moreover we are
here dealing
with the One in Its character both as cause and as
substance of the
World Its effect. It is of Prakriti-Shakti and possibly
of Tei that
we may say that it is an apparently material unconscious
principle,
imperceptible by reason of its tenuity and (to the
degree that it is
not productive objective effect) immobile. Further
Wieger assures us
that all contraries issue from the same unchanging Tao
and that they
are only apparent ("Toute contrariété n'est qu'
apparente"). But
relative to what? He says that they are not subjective
illusions of
the human mind, but objective appearances, double
aspects of the
unique Being, corresponding to the alternating
modalities of Yin and
Yang. That is so. For as Shamkara says, external objects
are not
merely projections of the individual human mind but of
the cosmic
mind, the Ishvari Shakti.
We must not, of course, read Taoism as held in the sixth
century
B.C. as if it were the same as the developed Vedanta of
Shamkara
who, according to European chronology, lived more than a
thousand
years later. But this interpretation of Vedanta is an
aid in
enabling us to see what is at least implicit in earlier
versions of
the meaning of their common source -- the Upanishads. As
is well
known, Shamkara developed their doctrine in an
idealistic sense, and
therefore his two movements in creation are Avidya, the
primal
ignorance which produces the appearance of the objective
universe,
and Vidya or knowledge which dispels such ignorance,
ripening into
that Essence and Unity which is Spirit-Consciousness
Itself.
Aupanishadic doctrine may be regarded either from the
world or
material aspect, or from the non-world and spiritual
aspect. Men
have thought in both ways and Shamkara's version is an
attempt to
synthesize them.
The Taoist master Ki (Op. cit., 168) said that the
celestial harmony
was that of all beings in their common Being. All is one
as we
experience in deep sleep (Sushupti). All contraries are
sounds from
the same flute, mushrooms springing from the same
humidity, not real
distinct beings but differing aspects of the one
universal "Being".
"I" has no meaning except in contrast with "you" or
"that". But who
is the Mover of all? Everything happens as if there were
a real
governor. The hypothesis is acceptable provided that one
does not
make of this Governor a distinct being. He (I translate
Father
Wieger's words) is a tendency without palpable form, the
inherent
norm of the universe, its immanent evolutionary formula.
The wise
know that the only Real is the Universal Norm. The
unreflecting
vulgar believe in the existence of distinct beings. As
in the case
of the Vedanta, much misunderstanding exists because the
concept of
Consciousness differs in East and West as I point out in
detail in
the essay dealing with Cit-Shakti.
The space between Heaven and Earth in which the Power (Vertu,
Shakti, Tei) is manifested is compared by the Taoists to
the hollow
of a bellows of which Heaven and Earth are the two
wooden sides; a
bellow which blows without exhausting itself. The
expansive power of
Tao in the middle space is imperishable. It is the
mysterious Mother
of all beings. The come and go of this mysterious
Mother, that is,
the alternating of the two modalities of the One,
produce Heaven and
Earth. Thus acting, She is never fatigued. From Tao was
exteriorized
Heaven and Earth. From Tao emanated the producing
universal Power or
Shakti, which again produced all beings without
self-exhaustion or
fatigue. The one having put forth its Power, the latter
acts
according to two alternating modalities of going forth
and return.
This action produces the middle air or Ki which is
tenuous Matter,
and through Yin and Yang, issue all gross beings. Their
coming into
existence is compared to an unwinding (Dévidage) from
That or Tao,
as it were a thread from reel or spool. In the same way
the Shakta
Tantra speaks of an "uncoiling." Shakti is coiled
(Kundalini) round
the Shiva-point (Bindu), one with It in dissolution. On
creation She
begins to uncoil in a spiral line movement which is the
movement of
creation. The Taoist Father Lieu-tze analyzed the
creative movement
into the following stages: "The Great Mutation" anterior
to the
appearance of tenuous matter (Movement of the two
modalities in
undefined being), "the Great Origin" or the stage of
tenuous
matter, "the Great Commencement" or the stage of
sensible
matter, "the Great Flux" or the stage of plastic matter
and actual
present material compounded existences. In the primitive
stage, when
matter was imperceptible, all beings to come were latent
in an
homogeneous state.
I will only add as bearing on the subject of
consciousness that the
author cited states that the Taoists lay great stress on
intuition
and ecstasy which is said to be compared to the
unconscious state of
infancy, intoxication, and narcosis. These comparisons
may perhaps
mislead just as the comparison of the Yogi state to that
of a log
(Kashthavat) misled. This does not mean that the Yogi's
consciousness is that of a log of wood, but that he no
more
perceives the external world than the latter does. He
does not do so
because he has the Samadhi consciousness, that is,
Illumination and
true being Itself. He is one then with Tao and Tei or
Shakti in
their true state.
Shakti in Taoism
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas11.htm
|
|