Shakti: the World as Power

First of all, let us assess the new form that Tantric metaphysics assumed following the assimilation and transformation into a main hermeneutical principle of the ancient idea of the Devi, or Great Mother, who is conceived as the supreme deity. The starting point is represented by the acknowledgement that the principle and measure of every real being and form is a multiform energy, an acting power that expresses itself in various ways. It is not a coincidence, as someone remarked, that the German word for reality, Wirklichkeit, comes from the verb wirken, "to act." This is also the case in Tantric metaphysics. With regard to power (shakti), even what we call "person" occupies an ontologically subordinated rank, including Ishvara, who is the God of theism. This

radical version of Shaktism denies the existence of a principle "endowed" with power, yet distinct from it. The argument runs on these lines: "If

everything exists in virtue of shakti, why look for its source? You feel the need to identify the principle or support on which shakti is based. Are you not then compelled to explain on what principle shakti foundation is based?"1 The similarities between Tantrism and older Hindu metaphysical systems may easily be established as follows: These systems did

not stop at the concepts of "being" and "person." The counterpart of being (sat) is nonbeing (asat). Beyond both of them we find the Absolute (brahman, which is neuter, should not be confused with the name Brahma, which is masculine). Hindu metaphysics did not employ a theistic notion of "God," conceived

as a person (Ishvara, Brahma, and analogous hypostases), as the ultimate reference point. Rather, brahman is something that transcends the personal deity and is thought of in terms of primordial and abyssal energy. The Tantric Shakti eventually came to be identified with it, but in the course of this process

she lost all of her specifically feminine traits,2 since brahman is beyond the masculine/feminine differentiation. Shakti also lost the primacy she enjoyed as the feminine element, which is typical of ancient civilizations. That primacy derives from the capability of giving birth and from being thought of, in

a cosmic context, as an incubating womb. Generating as well as creating are, however, still considered to be subordinated and partial functions, and Brahma's rather than brahman's prerogatives.

Shakti is therefore characterized by the same attributes usually associated with brahman; nothing exists outside of her, since she is "one without a second" (advaya). All living beings find their origin, life, and purpose in her: "Thou art all power. It is by thy power that we are powerful."3 It is also said:

Shakti is the root of every finite existence. The worlds are her manifestation; she supports them and one day they will be reabsorbed into her. . . . She is the supreme brahman (Parabrahman). ... She is the mother of all the gods; without Shakti they would cease to exist.4

She is called Paratpara, "supreme of the supreme,"5 that is, the brahman invoked in Hindu Brahman metaphysical tradition. She is the "eternal energy of him who sustains the universe" (vaishnavishakti), and in relation to the trimurti, the divine triad of Hinduism, it is said:

It is by Thy [[[Shakti's]]] power only that Brahma creates, Vishnu maintains, and, at the end of things, Shiva destroys the universe. Powerless are they for this but by Thy help. Therefore it is that Thou alone are the Creator, Maintainer, and Destroyer of the world.6 And also: "Thou supportest everything, without being sup

ported yourself."7 Only Shakti is "pure," "naked": "Though having a form, yet thou art always formless."8 In this context Shakti is given the name Parashakti, to emphasize that no other being or principle ranks higher than her. The ancient pre-Aryan understanding of Shakti as the magna mater, or

mother of the gods - a sovereign divinity from whom every life and existence derives - undergoes a radical transformation as a consequence of the encounter with Aryan Upanishadic metaphysics. Shakti there becomes "she who dwells in everything in the form of power" (Shaktirupa). From the texts we gather a

further, particularly relevant element. If we consider the principle of the universe merely in terms of primordial energy, we may be induced to think that its manifestation in the world is nothing but a random, centrifugal movement. That being the case, we would then be reminded of the notion of "life" as it

is found in some Western irrationalist philosophies and even in Spinoza's pantheist system. According to Spinoza, the world proceeds eternally and almost necessarily from the substance of the godhead, in the same way that the properties of a triangle derive from its definition. In Tantrism, on the contrary,

Shakti's manifestation is considered to be free. Since she is not bound by any external or internal laws, nothing forces her to become apparent: "Thou art power. Who could tell you what to do or not to do?"9 Since in human experience the ideal prototype of unrestrained action is play (lila), the Tantras do

not hesitate to call Shakti's manifestation "play" and to say that (1) her essence is play (lilamayishakti); (2) her name is "playful," lalita;10 and (3) the supreme Shakti's (Parashakti) solitary game finds expression in every form of manifested and conditioned existence, whether~human, subhuman, or

divirierTantric symbolism merged with Shaivist symbols and even appropriated the theme of the dancing god, Nataraja. Dance is something free and uninhibited, representing the unfolding of the manifestation. It is no longer Shiva who engages in the dance, but the goddess Shakti, portrayed with a

flaming halo to symbolize her properly productive aspect. As a natural consequence of this development, the theses of radical Shaktism, which reflected the goddess's ancient sovereignty and ontological priority, were subsequently articulated. This led to the assimilation of Sankhya's metaphysics and to the reappraisal of the maya doctrine during the same period in which Shankara had formulated it. Sankhya is a darshana11 based on dualism. As its hermeneutic

principle it adopts an original duality, that of purusha and prakriti, corresponding to the masculine and feminine elements; spirit and nature, and consciousness and unconsciousness. The former is unchangeable, the latter is the principle of movement and of becoming. Sankhya meticulously excluded from

the first element, purusha, anything that is not pure, impassive, or action-oriented. Creation derives from a peculiar connection of these two principles and from an action originated by purusha (called "catalysis" in chemistry) and determined just by its presence. The closest analogy I can think of comes

from that Aristotelian doctrine which explains the world and its becoming in terms of motion and of the desire awakened in matter (ule = prakriti) by the nous, or "unmoved mover." Prakriti, as such, is thought of as an equilibrium of three powers (the socalled gunas, which I will discuss later). Purusha's

reflection on prakriti breaks this equilibrium, and by virtue of an impregnating action it causes motion and thus prakriti's unfolding into the world of forms and phenomena, which is called samsara. Sankhya also contemplates a "fallen condition," corresponding to a fundamental notion found in both Hindu and

Buddhist metaphysics, namely avidya, or ignorance. Purusha identifies with its own reflection in prakriti, the so-called elemental Self (bhutatman), thus forgetting it is "other" that is, the impassive being whose substance is pure light, or the "spectator":

The immortal soul [[[atman]]] is like the "drop of water on the lotus leaf." This elemental soul verily is overcome by nature's [[[prakriti]]] qualities [[[gunas]]]. Now, because of being overcome, he goes on to confusedness; because of confusedness he sees not the blessed Lord [[[Wikipedia:Para Brahman|Parabrahman]]], the causer of action who

stands within oneself [atma-stha]. Borne along and defiled by the stream of qualities, unsteady, wavering, bewildered, full of desire, distracted, this one goes on to the state of self-conceit (abhimanatva). In thinking "This is I" and "That is mine" he binds himself with his self as does a bird with a snare.

. . . The person is not overcome. This elemental soul (bhutatman) is overcome (abhibhuta) because of its attachment to qualities.12 Sankhya lent its tenets to classical yoga, which indicated the way leading from prakriti to reintegration with a purely purushic state, which we may call "Olympian," or mukti (release). Yoga pointed the way by promoting detachment from consciousness and from the I (atman = purusha), and by neutralizing those modifica

tions (vritti) that are consciously believed to be one's own rather than proper to the other principle (prakriti). At this point we are not yet dealing with practical applications, but still with cosmological views. Let us proceed. Sankhya offers an explanation of the world, not in terms of pure spirit, or

of pure nature, or as being immutable or in a process of becoming, but rather by introducing the purusha-prakriti dyad. These two principles become connected in various ways: following the loss of equilibrium of the gunas, prakriti, after being fertilized by purusha's reflection, "becomes" and grows in

the manifested world of "names" and "forms" (namarupa is the classical Hindu designation for the differentiated universe). The Tantric synthesis takes up this paradigm again and reappraises it. Unlike the Sankhya system, purusha and prakriti are no longer conceived as an eternal, primordial duality, but

rather as two differentiations or forms of Shakti. Shiva, the personal god now transformed into an impersonal metaphysical principle, corresponds to the former. Shakti corresponds to the latter, though in a limited sense, since she assumes the role of Shiva's counterpart, namely, that of the god's companion

and bride; she is also believed to be his power (traditionally the term Shakti had the meanings of both "power" and "bride"). As it was the case in Sankhya, Shiva retains the attributes of "being," immutability, and the nature of atman, or conscious principle. On her part, Shakti retains the

characteristics of movement and mutability. She is the source of productive activities, generation, and vivification. While Sankhya spoke of "reflection" and "action" in terms of pure presence, in the Tantric synthesis the idea of "fertilization" was widely accepted: the union of Shiva and Shakti is believed

to generate the universe, with both its static and dynamic components, and with both its immaterial/ conscious and material/unconscious forms. The introduction of the purushic, or Shaivist element, discredits the idea that a radical version of Shaktism had upheld instead, namely, that the manifested

world is the result of a wild outburst of an undifferentiated, elementary energy. Hindu Tantric iconography enhanced in various ways the authentic characteristics of the two principles. First, we may recall the icon of Shakti's dance over Shiva's outstretched and still body. In this instance,

immobility represents the immutability of the male principle. According to the canons of Hindu religious art, his tall stature signifies the superior ontological status he enjoys vis-a-vis Shakti, who is in motion. Second, we may recall the symbolism of

the union between Shakti and Shiva (as well as of equivalent divinities in the Hindu and Tibetan pantheon) in viparita maithuna, namely, the sexual position in which the male sits still and the woman, wrapping her legs around him, undulates her body over him. We may recall at this point that Western

"activistic" axioms operated an inversion of the traditional idea according to which the true male principle is characterized by "being." This principle does not act, since it is sovereign and capable of generating action without becoming involved with it. Therefore, everything that is action, dynamism, and

development, by virtue of not being self-sufficient, is said to fall under the aegis of the feminine element, nature, or prakriti rather than under the aegis of spirit, atman, or purusha. It is an instance of active immobility versus passive activity. The activist Western world has forgotten these truths,

and it is therefore ignorant of the meaning of true virility. In the period in which Tantnsm was developing the doctrine of the metaphysical dyad, the Vedanta system had already been outlined in rather extreme terms by Shankara. I previously mentioned this in the context of a Tantric critique of Vedanta's

version of monism. Following the lead of the Upanishads, Shankara upheld in a rigorous way that whatever changes and is differentiated (kalatrayasattva) cannot possibly be real. Considering that our experience of the world is not one of nirguna-brahman, namely, of an absolutely pure, impersonal, and

solitary purusha, and considering that we live in a qualified, conditioned, and ever-changing world, Shankara concluded, as we have seen, that such a world is nothing but an illusion and a lie. As a result of this explanation, however, the problem is not solved but rather recast in different terms, since we

still have to explain the source of this appearance, or fiction, and also how it came to be. Shankara therefore introduces the notion of maya, attributing to it the cause of solitary nirguna-brahmans dimming and of saguna-brahman's arising. The latter is thought of as brahman's manifestation and unfolding

in a world of forms and conditioned beings, with Ishvara, the personal, theistic God, at the top. Maya is conceived as something that cannot be explored or grasped; it is enigmatic (anirvakya) and beyond imagination. The followers of Vedanta claim that we cannot say that it either is (since maya is not pure being) or is not (since it acts and grows its roots in ordinary experience), nor that it both is and is not. Maya remains a mystery, something that is eminently irrational. Obviously, Shankara denied any relation between brahman and maya. All of this merely identifies, rather than solves, the main diffi

culty encountered by radical Vedantic monism. The dilemma cannot possibly be solved by leaving the realm of ontology in order to take refuge in the notion of "different perspectives." In ancient Greece Parmenides, who was concerned to safeguard the notion of pure being, formulated the theory of double-sided

truth. He opposed the truth characteristic of rigorous thought (nous), according to which "only being is," to the truth characteristic of opinion (doxa), which accounts for becoming and nature, all the while denying to them ("according to justice") the status of "being." Likewise, Shankara opposes a secular,

empirical perspective (vyavakarthika) to an absolute one (paramarthika). In the latter perspective maya does not exist. This means that achieving the enlightening knowledge that this view aspires to is contingent upon seeing maya disappear as if it were mist or a mirage, at which point one no longer

needs to explain it. Maya is but a product of ignorance (avidya), a projection of ignorance on the eternal and immutable being. Yet even now the difficulty remains unsolved, since we must ask how, generally speaking, ignorance and relative perspectives arise. We could find a solution if we were operating in

the context of a creation theology typical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Since theistic religionspostulate the existence of created beings (who are somehow separated from God, who is their principle, and therefore are not to be identified with Him), we could attribute to them the relative

perspective that arises as a consequence of maya. Unfortunately, in Vedantic monism there is no place for such a notion. Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the

illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in

some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed. The following are some further Tantric criticisms. In a sense we may say that the world is not absolutely "real" and that maya, its source, is not totally unreal. A dream may be said to be

unreal, but not the power that generates it. If maya is unreal, whence comes samsara, namely, the finite and ever-changing world? Somebody said: "If maya is unreal, samsara becomes real." This means that the unreality and contingency of phenomena and of becoming (samsara)

may be upheld only if it can be successfully demonstrated that they do not exist in and by themselves, but that they rather have their source and reason of being in a higher power. If one denies the existence of that power, in no way may the contingency and unreality of samsara be maintained. In such a case,

samsara must be thought of as an external and autonomous reality, limiting and altering the supreme principle. According to the Tantras, the only solution to the problem consists in relating maya to a power, or Shakti. As an alternative to Vedanta's mysterious maya, the Tantras speak of maya-shakti, which is

a manifestation of the supreme Shakti or Parashakti. They even appeal to an alternative meaning of maya, namely "magic" [[[maya]] yoga refers to a particular kind of yoga pursuing magical purposes). In this context the term designates a creative art producing real, effective results rather than the art creating

tricks proper of illusionists and magicians. Once maya is reduced to maya-shakti, there is no further need to deny empirical reality and to consider everything as an illusion.

In her freedom, and in virtue of being "playful," Shakti produces the world of samsara and displays herself in it. Thus the unity of the supreme principle is preserved. It may rightfully be stated that:

To form a concept of the Godhead that one worships, the idea of Shakti, or power, is for the devotee a surer guide than the nebulous idea of atman [[[spirit]]]. It is very hard for those who have no faith in Shakti to trace the "one without a second" through the physical to the spiritual plane of existence, there being no appreciable link to chain the planes together. But a worshiper of Shakti need contend with no such difficulty. In all planes of existence he finds the one power all-pervading. It is therefore laid down in the Tantras: "O Devi! without a knowledge of Shakti, mukti [[[liberation]]] is mere mockery!"13

Again, it is not a matter of affirming or denying that various things are "unreal." One should rather ask: "To what degree can you make a single blade of grass 'unreal' (that is, not existing in itself, which implies a power over it)?" Whatever exists does not cease to exist at one's whim or thought. The

power of action would dissuade anybody from pursuing such fancies: Until brahman is perceived to be everywhere, and until the chains of the laws of nature are broken and the distinction between the I and the not-I is abolished, the particular living being [[[jiva]]] will

doubt this dualistic universe and call it a lie, a dream, and so on. Eventually, the efficiency of karma, namely, the power of action, will force the jiva to believe in it, against his or her will.14

Speculative Tantrism, which does not share creationist perspectives, developed a metaphysics suitable for the sadhaka, one who is committed to the path of spiritual realization. This metaphysics overcomes both Sankhya's dualism of purusha and prakriti as well as the dualism between brahman and maya that

Vedanta unsuccessfully attempts to eliminate. Dualism is substituted, in this context, with a dyad typical of every free manifestation. Thus we may talk about an "immanent transcendence," corresponding to Shiva, or better, to the Shiva form of the supreme principle. All the powers found in reality have

their roots in him, who is both their cuImen et fons. Shiva is called the "naked one" (digambaram, namely, free of determinations) and at the same time "he whose body fills the entire universe." Shiva is portrayed, in a symbolism closely related to Tantric ethics, as one who, while immersed in the vortex of

passions, remains free and in control of them. He is the master of eroticism, yet he remains free of lust. Although he always becomes associated with various forms, energies, and powers, he is nevertheless eternally free, invulnerable, and attributeless. The elements that in Shakti's cosmic play appear to be differentiated still do not affect the immanent unity of her Shiva form. Even what is finite and unconscious derives from consciousness, as the byproduct of maya-shakti, which is not unconscious in itself. It is important to notice that finitude no longer constitutes a problem whenever it is related to a power determining it.

This context may be further clarified when we consider the meaning assumed by Shakti's manifestation and the "movements" through which she displays herself. While a particular power may be focused on any object, the supreme Shakti has only herself to display, since outside of her, by definition,

nothing else exists. In a Tantra it is written: "You are your own birth place; in and for yourself you have become manifested." This manifestation still implies a "proceeding from" (prasarati), a centrifugal movement "coming out from" a state of static stability and "self-projecting." It corresponds to the first movement originated in the feminine substance by the fertilizing action of the motionless Shiva, or purusha. Incidentally, it is analogous to what, in Aristotelian metaphysics, is responsible for awakening the form

less power of "nature." The texts refer to an "inwardly cognitive state" (bahir-mukha) and also consider phenomena to be Shakti's bursting forth and projecting herself outward, under the influence of a desire or elementary yearning, or of a cosmogonic Eros aimed at creating an object in which to find

delight. This phase is called pravritti-marga, "the way of determinations," of "finite forms" (vritti), which are generated and assimilated by Shakti. In this "descending" phase, Shakti's role is one of negation, since the manifested forms are just partial possibilities of the unmanifested principle resting

in itself. It is also said that maya-shakti is a "measuring power," since it creates determinations or delimitations corresponding to various beings and to various forms of existence. Ignorance, or avidya, is inherent to power, since it is an "outwardly cognitive state," contemplating something other than

itself, which is proper to the yearning and identifying movement of the objectification process. That process eventually comes to an end. After a descending phase of the manifestation comes an ascending one: thus the circle is complete. The power must eventually recognize itself in everything that is

differentiated, turned into an object, an "other," by maya-shakti. The process must also be consummated in a possession, since the Shaivistic element must prevail again over the purely Shaktic element and bring it back to itself with all of its productions. Following the centrifugal movement comes a

centripetal one; that is, an inner detachment ensues the "outwardly cognitive state," which was characterized by a passionate attachment to those objects produced by maya-shakti's magic (the so-called nivritti-marga as opposed to pravritti-marga). In the first phase Shakti prevailed over Shiva and almost

absorbed him into her own nature. Now it is the other way around. Shiva takes control of Shakti and makes her subject to himself, until an absolute, transparent unity is achieved. The Hindu Tantras of the Northern School (Kashmir) conveyed this notion through these words: "Shakti is like a pure mirror

through which Shiva experiences himself."15 This resembles Hegel's notion of "absolute spirit," which first exists "in itself," then becomes an object unto itself, and eventually comes to recognize itself in objective forms that exist "in and for itself." This also reminds us of analogous schemata found in

Western idealist philosophies, especially when we consider that a commentary on the text previously referred to speaks of the I or "I-ness" in a transcendental sense, or as the essence of the highest experience of Shakti one could possibly achieve.

The same idea is expressed through a conventional analysis of the word for "I," aham. The first letter in the Sanskrit alphabet, a. represents Shakti. The last letter, ha, represents Shiva. The formula of the manifestation is not just a or ha, but rather a + ha, aham, which is "I" according to the

abovementioned meaning of active selfidentification, mediated by Shakti, as if through a mirror. The "Iness" is therefore the supreme word, which includes all the phenomena and the entire universe, which in the doctrine of mantras (on mantra-shastra, see Chapter VIII) is symbolized by the letters between a

and ha.16 Likewise, in Tibetan Buddhism the various powers of the manifestation are ascribed to various parts of the sacred syllable AUM, which in Tibetan too means "I." This is the meaning of the cosmic act of Parashakti, in which a whole world of forms and of finite beings is displayed. A movement ensues in

which "duality is dissolved into unity, only to unfold again in the dualistic play." In this movement "brahman, which is perfect consciousness [we are dealing here with the Tantric version of the active brahman], generates the world in the form of maya consisting of qualities [[[gunas]]], and then takes the

part of a particular living being [[[jiva]]] in order to fulfill its cosmic play."17 The same principle that achieves the supreme experience of the "inwardly cognitive state" experiences the world as samsara through an "outwardly cognitive state." In regard to the various ages in which the manifestation took

place, a relationship is established between them and the doctrine of the two ways (Right Hand versus Left Hand) in the following terms. The creative and productive aspect of the cosmic process is signified by the right hand, by the color white, and by the two goddesses Uma and Gauri (in whom Shakti appears

as Prakashatmika, "she who is light and manifestation" 1. The second aspect, that of conversion and return (exitus, reditus), is sienified by the left hand, by the color black, and by the dark, destructive goddesses Durga and Kali Thus according to the Mahakala-Tantra, when the left and right hands are in

equilibrium we experience samsara, but when the left hand prevails, we find liberation. A further interpretation of Kali's role is found in popular iconography. There Kali appears black and naked, wearing only a necklace of severea heads. Under this aspect the goddess is Shiva's shakti, namely, his

power of active transcendence. The color black represents transcendence over any manifested and visible thing. According to a" well-received etymology of the word, her name is Kali, since she devours time, "becoming." and progress, which

constitute the law of samsaric existence. Her nakedness symbolizes her being free of forms. The fifty heads she wears around her neck (which""in popular mythology belong to slain demons) are made to correspond to the fifty letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, which in turn symbolize the various cosmic powers presiding over the manifestation (matrika, which Greek speculation identified as logoi spermatikoi). The heads allude to those powers because they are removed from Their elementary nature, proper to the descending phase. Therefore, if the role of maya-shakti's power in the Tantras is one of negation, then

Kali's role, in the aspect so far considered, may be said to be "a negation of the negation/Here we begin to witness the self-destructive and self-transcending orientation of a power that in Tantrism plays a considerable role, especially in the context of Left Hand practices and rituals. "To destroy"

and "to transcend" should be seen mainly in terms of (1) going beyond manifested and conditioned forms, and (2) getting rid of the habit of identifying oneself with external forms, whether human or cosmic. The "destruction" considered here concerns the elements of "desire" and of "enslaving fascination

with the self." It is considered a matter of secondary importance if, at an individual or social level, this attitude may eventually require severing relationships and personal attachments. When we talk about the process of destruction at work in the multiform world of nature, we should not confuse it

with Kali's attributes, since they serve the transcendental purpose of leading "upward" and beyond (this, incidentally, is the Latin etymology of the word transcendence). That is why in a Tantric hymn Kali is presented under that particular Shaktic form in which she picks up what preceded her. In this

context, the term employed to describe her action is vikvasamghera. In it, Shiva's power, or shakti, is clearly manifested. Traditional Hindu cosmology knew the theory of the emanation and reabsorption (pralaya) of the worlds, which obey cyclical laws. Such a theory should not be confused with what was

previously discussed. It is inappropriate to speak of two ages, times, or phases, if those terms are interpreted in a temporal sense, as if they were consecutive stages in a temporal series. In this second age, we still do not find an elimination or disintegration of the current order. What we find is only a change of polarity and an experience of being as "formless yet endowed with every form"18 and as "it appears at the same time, with forms and without forms" (ruparupaprakasa), which is what Tantrasara claims. Under the aegis of Shakti,

who is now reduced to her principle, and of the implementation of that principle, "the world and samsara remain and become the true place where liberation may take place" (according to the KularnavaTantra's formulation). In this fashion, Tantrism agrees with that peculiar truth found in Mahayana Buddhism

according to which nirvana and samsara are identical and coextensive. This truth will also find expression in the Zen experience of satori. It is necessary at this time to add a couple of references taken from the Upanishadic tradition, in the hope that they will clarify what I have expounded so far. Let us adopt as a reference point the atman, or spiritual Self, The Upanishads mention four possible states of the Self in regard to the manifestation. In the

first which is that of consciousness experienced during wakefulness, the world appears under the of exteriority. In the second, it is perceived under the species of productive shaktis (tajasa). Their experience is possible only if one elevates the Self, still operating at a level of consciousness, to a superconscious" dimension that in ordinary people's lives corresponds to the chaotic life of dreams. In the third stage, prajna, the world of these energies is seen as one; it is perceived in the function of its unity, and personified by Ishvara on the religious plane.One arrives at such a stage when

the ego plunges into that ultimate depth which ordinary people experience as dreamless sleep..The law of cause and effect applies only during the first two stages. In the third stage there are only principles in the form of pure causes. Finally, a fourth stage is contemplated, called turiya. We say "fourth" in

an improper manner, since it follows the other three only from sadhana's and yoga's perspective. By itself, ontologically speaking, this stage resumes and transcends all the previous three. Here is the level of "selfhood" in which the world of manifestations is consumed. When describing the turiya stage, the

Upanishads say that "it destroys the entire phenomenic world" by "devouring Ishvara as a self-subsistent being."19 Another reference is found in the Nrisimha-Uttara-TapanyaUpanishad. Atman, the one and only, during the first stage is "contained" (ati), or embodied, in the material of its experience.

This, in a Tantric perspective, corresponds to the function of mayashakti. During the second stage atman exists as Anyatri, "he who affirms": "Atman affirms this world by donating to it its own being; it affirms its own self [as the I of the world] since the world is selfless." There is another

expression designating this stage: "it says yes (aum) to the whole world," thereby "giving substance to a

world that does not have one." The external reality is thus seen as a projection of the spiritual principle's reality, which "affirms" the world. In the

third stage experience is simply anujna, namely, pure affirmation without a subject or person. This force is then overcome and what follows is the supreme stage, a reference point unto itself called avikalpa. Here atman "knows and knows not," which is another way of saying that it does not know according to

knowledge that implies an objectification, or "something else," since knowledge in this context refers to something "simple," anubhuti. "Atman both differs and does not differ from becoming." It is itself "under all the forms of being from which it differs." Hence the following view, which is identical to the

"perfect knowledge" (prajnaparamita) of Mahayana Buddhism: "Truly there is neither disappearing nor becoming. There is nobody who binds, or who acts, or who needs liberation, or who is liberated"20 Aside from these metaphysical insights concerning the nature of the world, the bottom of the descending or the

extroverted process is represented by the material objectivity of the world itself, that is, by physical "matter." In matter, the extreme form of "thinking the other" is found in a condensed state. Both the ChandogyaUpanishad and the Gandharva-Tantra speak of the self-hypnotic and magical power whereby an

object's thought generates itself and is transformed into it. Consciousness, by thinking "other," namely, a distinct reality, and by following the law of craving, eventually generates "other" and becomes other. Matter therefore is the experience and the symbol of a self-identification carried to its extreme

consequences. Only ignorance arising out of desire and self-identification (maya-shakti as kamarupini), which takes place during the outward phase, makes nature appear to be actual. In the West, Meister Eckhart wrote that even a stone is God, except it does. not know it. It is precisely the lack of awareness

of being God (avidya) that causes it to be a stone. This is also the case of that particular phase of the manifestation in which Shakti prevails: nature is then perceived not as a self-subsistent reality but rather as a magical/cosmic participation in an idea, in a state of being. We would not perceive nature in these terms if there were in us no maya-shakti, which is a similar function at work in our being. Beyond the limits of nature, the steps of the ascending process which correspond to degrees of awakening and of knowledge (vidya) - are reflected in the hierarchy of beings under the aspect of objectifications and cosmic symbols. Once these beings overcome the dark passions of matter and

break free from the control of their inferior and prehuman nature, they will arise in forms animated by an increasingly conscious and free life. The corresponding limit is the state in which the spirit no longer exists in the form of an object or an "other" (under the species of "otherness"), but rather

as it is in itself (atmasvarupi). In it. Shakti, instead of being a binding principle, manifests herself as Tara, "she who imparts freedom." Thanks to her, even what seems imperfect and finite now looks perfect and absolute. From an immanent point of view, the experience in terms of nature and matter of what corresponds, metaphysically speaking, to a series of stages of the one and only spiritual reality, depends on each individual's degree of avidya. It

constitutes maya-shakti's action in him. However, Shiva, the subject and lord of this function, dwells as a principle in everybody. He is the same supreme power that is experienced in a given aspect of the cosmic play, and he is as he chooses to be 21 One can only remain passive before mayashakii and be unable to assume it and reduce it to its principle. That is the only reason why the original Shakti cannot be found free and wholesome in every form and aspect of reality, and also why the world is not experienced as release, according to the KularnavaTantra's formulation and Mahayana Buddhism's deepest

insight. More specifically, a peculiar encounter or dynamic connection between maya-shakti and shiva-shakti must be acknowledged in every form and being of the universe. The supreme synthesis may be compared to a flame that, after consuming the matter from which it was kindled, has finally become pure energy

or pure act. With respect to that synthesis, every particular finite existence is characterized by a certain inadequacy of the two principles and by different degrees of power. According to Tantric metaphysics, materiality, unconsciousness, conditioned beings, and maya (in the Vedantic sense of the

word) all have their roots in these various degrees. In every finite being, the two primordial forms of Parashakti (male and female; Shiva, who is "knowledge," and Shakti, who is "ignorance"; centrifugal and centripetal movement) are found in a different relationship and quantity. According to this

point of view, whatever power is to be found in a given being that has not yet become actualized in the form of Shiva is said to be Shakti. Shiva or shiva-shakti is instead identified with whatever is unified, transformed, transparent, and luminous. More specifically, matter, body, and soul correspond to the former, the atman element to the latter. In any event, in Tantrism both of them are considered to be simply

two different manifestations of the same principle, of the same reality. Since the union of Shiva and Shakti in both states of existence is not perfect and absolute as in the level reached by the supreme synthesis, the spirit therefore experiences its own power as shakti and as maya-shakti, or as something

different, even as a phantasm of the external world. The nature of finite beings consists in being dominated by shakti rather than by dominating it. According to the Tantras the difference between Ishvara (God, in theistic Hinduism) or Shiva and the finite living being, jiva, is that despite their being

both conjoined to maya and metaphysically the same thing, the former dominates maya, while the latter is dominated by it.22 To sum up what has been discussed in this chapter, we may conclude that the Tantras state the intention of reconciling a transcendental truth, namely, monism, or the Upanishadic doctrine of nonduality (Advaita), with the truth proper to every living being's dualistic and concrete experience.23 This reconciliation is accomplished by

thinking of brahman as an actual unity of Shiva and Shakti, which are two principles superseding Sankhya's purusha and prakriti. The notion of shakti is what mediates between the I and the not-I, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the conscious spirit and nature, the mind and the body (physis), and the

will and reality. This notion brings those apparently antithetical principles into a higher transcendental unity, whose implementation is offered to man as a real possibility. In the Kularnava-Tantra (1:110) Parashakti says: "In the world some desire nondualistic, others dualistic knowledge, but those who have known my truth have passed beyond dualism and nondualism."