Tantric philosophy

An Interview with Deba Brata Sensharma by Maryellen Lo Bosco Moksha Journal

The ultimate goal, according to this Tantric philosophy, is somewhat different from either Yoga or Vedanta. The yogi seeks an end to pain by discerning the difference between consciousness (purusha) and manifestation (prakriti) and to realize his or her identification with purusha, the seer. The end goal of Yoga is kaivalya - sometimes translated as isolation. The Vedantins seek to unmask maya (the root cause of the manifest world, which is called unreal, because it is subject to death, decay, and destruction) and become established in the Self (Brahman, the Real). But the goal of the Shaivists is to recognize their true nature as Shiva (consciousness) and then turn to all of creation and see it as divine.

There is a level to which all these systems go. For instance, the practitioner of Vedanta is interested in realizing his Brahman nature. As soon as he realizes that, the world disappears. That is one idea. The Samkhyan is interested in kaivalya. He wants separation of purusa from prakrti. The Yogi also tries for that. And they get it. But here it is different. In Shaivism it is integration. You want to divinize the entire creation. You want to experience it as if it is your own glory, your own projection. The ideal here is a broader one.

The Upanishads say amritatva is the ultimate goal of life. The Upanishads use this word 52 times, but use the word moksha only twice. Why? Are the two ideals, moksha and amritatva, the same or different? What I feel is that they are not the same. Moksha is based on negation. You want to negate what is unreal (maya-or the world as we normally perceive it) and live in the real (Brahman, or the Self). That is the goal of Vedanta philosophy. But in striving for amritatva, you want extension of yourself. You want to enjoy the bliss underlying the creation. Everything should appear to you as if it is of the nature of Brahman.

There is a famous mantra occurring in the Rig Veda, which loosely translated means, "The air, the breeze which is blowing, is giving bliss. The water is oozing bliss. The entire universe is full of bliss." I consider this to be a superior idea. You want to divinize the entire creation, to taste its bliss nature. You want to integrate it. That is what Shaivites want. I feel that this idea of amritatva is far more comprehensive and more significant than becoming Brahman and losing one's identity.

Actually, these practices are not meant for all-it is said again and again. They are meant for those who understand the symbolism. These rituals are symbolic. Unfortunately, people read about these things in books and misunderstand or misuse them. Such texts speak in sandhyabhashya-which means the twilight language. It has one meaning to ordinary people and another meaning to initiates. Sri Aurobindo says that the Vedas use this kind of language. When the Vedas speak of agni, for example-it's not material agni-material fire. What is meant there is the fire of consciousness.

Sri Aurobindo explains this in his beautiful introduction to the Hymns to Mystic Fire. This was the practice in ancient times, to speak in twilight language. And in Tantra, you find the same thing. Actually, these practices are not meant for all-it is said again and again. They are meant for those who understand the symbolism. These rituals are symbolic. Unfortunately, people read about these things in books and misunderstand or misuse them. Such texts speak in sandhyabhashya-which means the twilight language. It has one meaning to ordinary people and another meaning to initiates. Sri Aurobindo says that the Vedas use this kind of language.

When the Vedas speak of agni, for example-it's not material agni-material fire. What is meant there is the fire of consciousness. Sri Aurobindo explains this in his beautiful introduction to the Hymns to Mystic Fire. This was the practice in ancient times, to speak in twilight language. And in Tantra, you find the same thing.