LalitavistAra, a famous Buddhist work, makes mention of buddha’s denouncement of tAntric cults in its seventeenth chapter. Buddha himself condemned the tAntric worships of brahmA, indra, viShNu, kAtyAyanI, gaNapati and others. So also the allegation that the tantras are of Post-Buddhistic origin can be easily refuted. The above argument of the Indologists that the tantras are of recent origin later to the purANas, can be easily refuted by pointing out that in the various purANas themselves we find mention made both of the vaidiki and tAntriki forms of worship. If that is so, tAntric literature is to be considered as of very late origin and cannot be deemed as pari passu with the vedas as claimed earlier in terms of the accredited convictions of the orthodox schools. They are of the further opinion that the purANas themselves are newly created Post-Buddhistic literature specially formulated in such a way as to offset Buddhistic influences and boost Hinduism. These very same indologists are of the opinion that the Agamas and tantras are of later origin than the vedas and that they are definitely later than the purANas. If the vedas have their authors, then the tantras will have to have their authors. The point relevant here is that the shrutis lose their claim as revealed literature. I do not wish to enter into the controversy whether the vedas are apauruSheya or pauruSheya. Recent excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro and also Tilak’s researches have pushed back the origin of the Vedas by many thousands of years. While the orthodox believe so, Indologists are of the opinion that the authors of the vedas may be assigned various dates upto 1500 B.C. There is of course the long-standing controversy whether the vedas are really apauruSheya (authorless). Why, the sAmkhya kArikA does so itself, by calling its own darshana a tantra in kArikA. For instance, shankara calls sAmkhya, a tantra. If manu could call the vedas ‘veda shAstra’, veda shAstraM sanAtanam (12-99), the tantras can be called ‘siddhAnta shAstra’ with equal force.

Often great scholars are conferred with the title ‘sarvatantra svatantra’ extolling their erudition and mastery of the shAstras. For instance, shankara in his brahmasUtra bhAshya (3.3.53), while commenting on pUrva mImAmsA darshana, refers to it in the style - prathama tantre - thereby implying that darshana and tantra are interchangeable terms. The different established systems of thought such as the mImAmsA, nyAya, vaisheShika usually delineated as darshanas are also often referred to as tantras. He who is well-versed in the siddhAnta is called a tAntrika.įor the price of a book, we can share that book online forever. Amarasimha says: tAntriko j~nAtasiddhAntaH He means thereby that Tantra is siddhAnta - an established system of knowledge and practices. TAntrikI shruti is called a siddhAnta Agama, a sAdhanA shAstra. S Rangachar Often tantra shAstra is characterized as ‘prayoga shAstra’ - a spiritual technique, a religious technology, a ‘Do-it-yourself’ shAstra for the aspirants.

Brahma tantra in hindi pdf