[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Nevertheless a missionary or some traveler might tell him that he did.An absurd attitude on the part of the superior Western is that in which the latter not merely tells the colored races what they should believe, but what notwithstanding denial, they in fact believe and ought to hold according to the tenets of the latter's religion.The charge of idolatry is kept up, notwithstanding the explanations given of their beliefs by those against whom it is made.In fact, the conviction that Eastern races are inferior is responsible for this.If we disregard such beliefs, then, anything may be idolatrous.Thus; to those who disbelieve in the "Real Presence," the Catholic worshipper of the Host is an idolater worshipping the material substance, bread.But, to the worshipper who believes that it is the Body of the Lord under the form of bread, such worship can never be idolatrous.Similarly as regards the Hindu worship of images.They are not to be held to worship clay or stone because others disbelieve in the efficacy of the Prana-Pratishtha ceremony.When impartially considered, there is nothing necessarily superstitious or ignorant in this rite.Nor is this the case with the doctrine of the Real Presence which is interpreted in various ways.Whether either rite has the alleged effect attributed to it is another question.All matter is, according to Shakta doctrine, a manifestation of Shakti, that is, the Mother Herself in material guise.She is present in and as everything which exists.The ordinary man does not so view things.He sees merely gross unconscious matter.If, with such an outlook, he were fool enough to worship what was inferior to himself, he would be an idolater.But the very act of worship implies that the object is superior and conscious.To the truly enlightened Shakta everything is an object of worship, for all is a manifestation of God who is therein worshipped.But that way of looking at things must be attained.The untutored mind must be aided to see that this is so.This is effected by the Pranapratishtha rite by which "life is established" in the image of http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas26.htm (10 of 33)07/03/2005 16:04:36Chapter Twenty-six: Shakta Sadhana (The Ordinary Ritual)gross matter.The Hindu then believes that the Pratima or image is a representation and the dwelling place of Deity.What difference, it may be asked, does this really make? How can a man's belief alter the objective fact? The answer is, it does not.God is not manifested by the image merely because the worshipper believes Him to be there.He is there in fact already.All that the Pranapratishtha rite does is, to enliven the consciousness of the worshipper into a realization of His presence.And if He be both in fact, and to the belief of the worshipper, present, then the Image is a proper object of worship.It is the subjective state of the worshipper's mind which determines whether an act is idolatrous or not.The Prana-Pratishtha rite is thus a mode by which the Sadhaka is given a true object of worship and is enabled to affirm a belief in the divine omnipresence with respect to that particular object of his devotion.The ordinary notion that it is mere matter is cast aside, and the divine notion that Divinity is manifested in all that is, is held and affirmed."Why not then" (some missionary has said) "worship my boot?" There are contemptible people who do so in the European sense of that phrase.But, nevertheless, there is no reason, according to Shakta teaching, why even his boot should not be worshipped by one who regards it and all else as a manifestation of the One who is in every object which constitutes the Many.Thus this Monistic belief is affirmed in the worship by some Shaktas of that which to the gross and ordinary mind is merely an object of lust.To such minds, this is a revolting and obscene worship.To those for whom such object of worship is obscene, such worship is and must be obscene.But what of the mind which is so purified that it sees the Divine presence in that which, to the mass of men, is an incitement to and object of lust? A man who, without desire, can truly so worship must be a very high Sadhaka indeed.The Shakta Tantra affirms the Greek saying that to the pure all things are pure.In this belief and with, as the as the Jñanarnava Tantra says, the object of teaching men that this is so, we find the ritual use of substances ordinarily accounted impure.The real objection to the general adoption or even knowledge of such rites lies, from the Monistic standpoint, in the fact that the vast bulk of humanity are either of impure or weak mind, and that the worship of an object which is capable of exciting lust will produce it, not to mention the hypocrites who, under cover of such a worship, would seek to gratify their desires.In the Paradise Legend, just as amongst some primitive tribes, man and woman go naked.It was and is after they have fallen that nakedness is observed by minds no longer innocent.Rightly, therefore, from their standpoint, the bulk of men condemn such worship.Because, whatever may be its theoretical justification under conditions which rarely occur, pragmatically and for the bulk of men they are full of danger.Those who go to meet temptation should remember the risk.I have read that it is recorded of Robert d'Arbrissel, the saintly founder of the community of Fonte d'Evrault that he was wont on occasions to sleep with his nuns, to mortify his flesh and as a mode of strengthening his will against its demands.He did not touch them, but his exceptional success in preserving his chastity would be no ground for the ordinary man undertaking so dangerous an experiment.In short, in order to be completely just, we must, in individual cases, consider intention and good faith.But, practically and for the mass, the counsel and duty to avoid the occasion of sin is, according to Shastrik principles themselves, enjoined.As a matter of fact, such worship has been confined to so limited a class that it would not have been necessary to deal with the subject were it not connected with Shakta worship, the matter in hand.To revert again to the "missionary's boot": whilst all things may be the object of worship, choice is naturally made of those objects which, by reason of their effect on the mind, are more fitted for it.An image or one of the usual emblems is more likely to raise in the mind of the worshipper the thought of a Devata than a boot, and therefore, even apart from scriptural authority, it would not be chosen.But, it has been again objected, if the Brahman is in and appears http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas26.htm (11 of 33)07/03/2005 16:04:36Chapter Twenty-six: Shakta Sadhana (The Ordinary Ritual)equally in all things, how do we find some affirming that one image is more worthy of worship than another.Similarly, in Catholic countries, we find worshippers who prefer certain churches, shrines, places of pilgrimage and representations of Christ, His Mother and the Saints.Such preferences are not statements of absolute worth but of personal inclinations in the worshipper due to his belief in their special efficacy for him.Psychologically all this means that a particular mind finds that it works best in the direction desired by means of particular instruments.The image of Kali provokes in general only disgust in an European mind [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Nevertheless a missionary or some traveler might tell him that he did.An absurd attitude on the part of the superior Western is that in which the latter not merely tells the colored races what they should believe, but what notwithstanding denial, they in fact believe and ought to hold according to the tenets of the latter's religion.The charge of idolatry is kept up, notwithstanding the explanations given of their beliefs by those against whom it is made.In fact, the conviction that Eastern races are inferior is responsible for this.If we disregard such beliefs, then, anything may be idolatrous.Thus; to those who disbelieve in the "Real Presence," the Catholic worshipper of the Host is an idolater worshipping the material substance, bread.But, to the worshipper who believes that it is the Body of the Lord under the form of bread, such worship can never be idolatrous.Similarly as regards the Hindu worship of images.They are not to be held to worship clay or stone because others disbelieve in the efficacy of the Prana-Pratishtha ceremony.When impartially considered, there is nothing necessarily superstitious or ignorant in this rite.Nor is this the case with the doctrine of the Real Presence which is interpreted in various ways.Whether either rite has the alleged effect attributed to it is another question.All matter is, according to Shakta doctrine, a manifestation of Shakti, that is, the Mother Herself in material guise.She is present in and as everything which exists.The ordinary man does not so view things.He sees merely gross unconscious matter.If, with such an outlook, he were fool enough to worship what was inferior to himself, he would be an idolater.But the very act of worship implies that the object is superior and conscious.To the truly enlightened Shakta everything is an object of worship, for all is a manifestation of God who is therein worshipped.But that way of looking at things must be attained.The untutored mind must be aided to see that this is so.This is effected by the Pranapratishtha rite by which "life is established" in the image of http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas26.htm (10 of 33)07/03/2005 16:04:36Chapter Twenty-six: Shakta Sadhana (The Ordinary Ritual)gross matter.The Hindu then believes that the Pratima or image is a representation and the dwelling place of Deity.What difference, it may be asked, does this really make? How can a man's belief alter the objective fact? The answer is, it does not.God is not manifested by the image merely because the worshipper believes Him to be there.He is there in fact already.All that the Pranapratishtha rite does is, to enliven the consciousness of the worshipper into a realization of His presence.And if He be both in fact, and to the belief of the worshipper, present, then the Image is a proper object of worship.It is the subjective state of the worshipper's mind which determines whether an act is idolatrous or not.The Prana-Pratishtha rite is thus a mode by which the Sadhaka is given a true object of worship and is enabled to affirm a belief in the divine omnipresence with respect to that particular object of his devotion.The ordinary notion that it is mere matter is cast aside, and the divine notion that Divinity is manifested in all that is, is held and affirmed."Why not then" (some missionary has said) "worship my boot?" There are contemptible people who do so in the European sense of that phrase.But, nevertheless, there is no reason, according to Shakta teaching, why even his boot should not be worshipped by one who regards it and all else as a manifestation of the One who is in every object which constitutes the Many.Thus this Monistic belief is affirmed in the worship by some Shaktas of that which to the gross and ordinary mind is merely an object of lust.To such minds, this is a revolting and obscene worship.To those for whom such object of worship is obscene, such worship is and must be obscene.But what of the mind which is so purified that it sees the Divine presence in that which, to the mass of men, is an incitement to and object of lust? A man who, without desire, can truly so worship must be a very high Sadhaka indeed.The Shakta Tantra affirms the Greek saying that to the pure all things are pure.In this belief and with, as the as the Jñanarnava Tantra says, the object of teaching men that this is so, we find the ritual use of substances ordinarily accounted impure.The real objection to the general adoption or even knowledge of such rites lies, from the Monistic standpoint, in the fact that the vast bulk of humanity are either of impure or weak mind, and that the worship of an object which is capable of exciting lust will produce it, not to mention the hypocrites who, under cover of such a worship, would seek to gratify their desires.In the Paradise Legend, just as amongst some primitive tribes, man and woman go naked.It was and is after they have fallen that nakedness is observed by minds no longer innocent.Rightly, therefore, from their standpoint, the bulk of men condemn such worship.Because, whatever may be its theoretical justification under conditions which rarely occur, pragmatically and for the bulk of men they are full of danger.Those who go to meet temptation should remember the risk.I have read that it is recorded of Robert d'Arbrissel, the saintly founder of the community of Fonte d'Evrault that he was wont on occasions to sleep with his nuns, to mortify his flesh and as a mode of strengthening his will against its demands.He did not touch them, but his exceptional success in preserving his chastity would be no ground for the ordinary man undertaking so dangerous an experiment.In short, in order to be completely just, we must, in individual cases, consider intention and good faith.But, practically and for the mass, the counsel and duty to avoid the occasion of sin is, according to Shastrik principles themselves, enjoined.As a matter of fact, such worship has been confined to so limited a class that it would not have been necessary to deal with the subject were it not connected with Shakta worship, the matter in hand.To revert again to the "missionary's boot": whilst all things may be the object of worship, choice is naturally made of those objects which, by reason of their effect on the mind, are more fitted for it.An image or one of the usual emblems is more likely to raise in the mind of the worshipper the thought of a Devata than a boot, and therefore, even apart from scriptural authority, it would not be chosen.But, it has been again objected, if the Brahman is in and appears http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas26.htm (11 of 33)07/03/2005 16:04:36Chapter Twenty-six: Shakta Sadhana (The Ordinary Ritual)equally in all things, how do we find some affirming that one image is more worthy of worship than another.Similarly, in Catholic countries, we find worshippers who prefer certain churches, shrines, places of pilgrimage and representations of Christ, His Mother and the Saints.Such preferences are not statements of absolute worth but of personal inclinations in the worshipper due to his belief in their special efficacy for him.Psychologically all this means that a particular mind finds that it works best in the direction desired by means of particular instruments.The image of Kali provokes in general only disgust in an European mind [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]