In the previous post on this scripture, Bhairava (a personification of divine consciousness) unveiled the central teaching of the tantra that bears his name, namely that his embodiment, his fullest expression, is none other than the Goddess, who is realized in human experience as an absolutely full state of Being, blissful with the experience of that which is inmost. He said (in my translation):
“Know that in reality, the one pure universe-filling embodiment of Bhairava is that absolutely full state of being called Goddess Bhairavī.”
Now, in the second half of verse 16, Bhairava follows up his revelation with a rhetorical question:
एवंविधे परे तत्त्वे कः पूज्यः कश् च तृप्यति || १६ ||
evaṃvidhe pare tattve kaḥ pūjyaḥ kaś ca tṛpyati || 16cd ||
“When this is the ultimate reality, who is to be worshiped, and who gratified?”
In its original context, this is an extraordinary statement, because classical Tantra is absolutely predicated on the non-optional daily worship and propitiation of a mantra-deity. That practice is at the very core of traditional Tantrik Yoga. As a tāntrika, every day you venerate a deity in the form of their mantra (which mantra-deity being determined at the time of initiation). Now of course, in the mid-ninth century, many tāntrikas thought of these deities as distinct powers or supernatural entities. They thought: in some sense I am connected to these deities, and they are within me also, but they are also separate beings with their own agency.
Here, Bhairava is making a radical, nondual statement: when this is the ultimate reality, who will you worship but an icon of your own essence-nature? Who else are you going to gratify? He’s referring to these ritual acts where you seek to gratify the mantra-deity—you make offerings to please the deity, much like in any form of religion. He’s undermining that modality in this revelation, which at the time was radical because the mid-ninth century is precisely when the nondual teachings first appeared. The great Tantrik master Kṣemarāja even acknowledges that the nondual teachings that we see in the Upanishads (written 1000 years earlier) had almost died out by this time, when the nondual View made this resurgence within the context of Shaiva Tantra in the mid-ninth century.
Bhairava goes on:
एवंविधा भैरवस्य यावस्था परिगीयते |
सा परा पररूपेण परा देवी प्रकीर्तिता || १७ ||
evaṃvidhā bhairavasya yāvasthā parigīyate |
sā parā pararūpeṇa parā devī prakīrtitā || 17 ||
This state of Bhairava [called Bhairavī] is celebrated as supreme. It is proclaimed to be Parā Devī, the Supreme Goddess, in her ultimate nature. || 17 ||
He’s playing with words very cleverly here, because Parā Devī, whose name just means “Supreme Goddess,” is not only a generalized concept of feminine divinity but also the specific lineage-deity of the Trika. The Sanskrit word parā means ‘supreme’ in the feminine, but also refers to the Goddess of the Trika, who has a specific iconography and set of attributes. Here, he’s saying that Parā Devī and Bhairavī are the same. This inner state (avasthā) of Bhairava called “Bhairavī” is taught as supreme, as parā. It is proclaimed to be Parā Devī in her ultimate nature (para-rūpa). He’s reassuring the followers of the Trika that he’s not talking about anything different from Parā Devī—he’s just calling Her Bhairavī here. Why? Partially because the deity Bhairava was already well-established, and at the time of this scripture we’re seeing a shift in some quarters towards a more Goddess-centric version of the tradition. Also, calling the Goddess Bhairavī allows Her to be linked more firmly to the state she is said to embody. Remember that the absolutely full state of consciousness is called bhārita-avasthā in Sanskrit. The word bhārita is etymologically related to the word ‘Bhairavī’, both coming from the root √bhṛ. This overflowing state of fullness, bhāritāvasthā, is Bhairavī. So, the Goddess is that state of fullness, so when you experience that state, you’re experiencing Her.
In other words, the absolutely full state of consciousness (bharitākārā avasthā) which Bhairava describes as ‘the Goddess’ is a joyously expanded field of awareness free of mental filters or projections; it is the state of opening to and welcoming in the whole of the present moment without conditions; it is the granting of the heart’s consent to the moment as it is, releasing mental fantasies of how it could or should be; and it is the feeling of deep connection and presence that comes from surrendering into true intimacy with the qualia of reality as they offer themselves and permeate awareness in the now. In this state, one’s innermost being (antaḥsva) is revealed as it really is: permeating the whole of reality (viśva-pūraṇa) while filled with the joy of experiencing (anubhavānanda). The Tantrik scholar Alexis Sanderson comments, “It is this state of fullness, this complete centeredness in the essence of consciousness, rather than the composite images or mantras of ritual, that the Trika scriptures really mean when they speak of the Goddess Parā.”
In this Kaula scripture, Bhairava and Bhairavī, Shiva and Shakti, are presented as equals, whereas in some other scriptures one or the other is dominant. Since some people might see Tantra as dualistic because it teaches both Shiva and Shakti as aspects of the Ultimate, this implicit objection is addressed in the following verse.
शक्तिशक्तिमतोर्यद्वद् अभेदः सर्वदा स्थितः |
अतस् तद्धर्मधर्मित्वात् परा शक्तिः परात्मनः || १८ ||
śakti-śaktimator yadvad abhedaḥ sarvadā sthitaḥ |
atas tad-dharma-dharmitvāt parā śaktiḥ parātmanaḥ || 18 ||
There is never the slightest separation between Shakti and her Host (i.e. Shiva); thus, because there can be no separation between a quality and that in which it inheres, the Power (śakti) of the Supreme Being is itself Supreme (parā). || 18 ||
He says, “There is never the slightest separation between Shakti and the one who holds her.” In the compound śakti-śaktimator, the first word, śakti, means energy, power, the goddess; and the second word, śaktimat, means the one who holds her. Since Shiva means consciousness in this nondual literature, we are taught here that consciousness should be understood as that which hosts or holds space for the dance or play of energy. And despite the dualism implied by that metaphor, in truth there is constant unity (abhedaḥ sarvadā sthitaḥ) of energy and consciousness. Shiva and Shakti are never apart: we never find energy without consciousness, nor consciousness without energy. This statement must of course be understood from a first-person perspective, not a third-person one. From the first-person perspective of direct experience, we never find energy without consciousness because all energy that is perceived is perceived within and by means of consciousness.
Then the author says, “because there can be no separation between a quality and that in which it inheres, the power (śakti) of the supreme being is itself supreme.” In other words, they’re equal. Śakti is just as supreme as Śiva. The power or potency or energy of supreme consciousness is itself supreme.
If that doesn’t make perfect sense, the next verse clarifies it absolutely, because he uses the example of fire and its capacity to burn. Often you hear this metaphor phrased as “fire and its heat,” but the Sanskrit of verse 19 is much more precise. It says, “the power of fire to burn cannot be considered as separate from the fire itself.” Śakti is analogized to the power of fire to burn, and Śiva is the fire itself. They’re utterly inseparable.
न वह्नेर्दाहिका शक्तिर्व्यतिरिक्ता विभाव्यते |
केवलं ज्ञानसत्तायाम् प्रारम्भोऽयम् प्रवेशने || १९ ||
na vahner dāhikā śaktir vyatiriktā vibhāvyate |
kevalaṃ jñānasattāyām prārambho 'yam praveśane || 19 ||
The power of fire to burn cannot be considered as separate from the fire itself. Shakti is only considered distinct [from Shiva] initially, to aid in our entry into the state of insight (jñāna-sattā). || 19 ||
In other words, Shakti is initially considered distinct only as a teaching tool to aid in our process of entering into the state of insight or wisdom-beingness—both phrases translating jñāna-sattā. This point is further clarified in the next verse.
These four verses (18-21) are really all saying the same thing. He’s just hammering the point home, and for good reason. Even today most people don’t actually understand the nonduality of Shiva and Shakti.
शक्त्यवस्थाप्रविष्टस्य निर्विभागेन भावना |
तदासौ शिवरूपी स्यात् शैवी मुखमिहोच्यते || २० ||
śaktyavasthā-praviṣṭasya nirvibhāgena bhāvanā |
tadāsau śiva-rūpī syāt śaivī mukham ihocyate || 20 ||
The nondual meditation of one who enters into the śakti-state will certainly develop into an expression of Shiva-consciousness. In our way, Shiva’s śakti is said to be the entryway [into Shiva]. || 20 ||
In verse 20, he says, “In our way (i.e., the Kaula way), Shiva’s śakti is said to be the entryway into Shiva.” How could it otherwise if they’re inseparable? Here Shiva is being seen as the foundational awareness, the ground of being: absolutely still silent presence. So Shiva is still, spacious, open presence, and Shakti is the pulsing energy of phenomena, that is, the contents of consciousness. They seem opposite, but they’re not. The text argues that energy is easier to work with initially because it attracts one’s attention more easily, and yet becoming intimate with the energy of experience can lead you into this state of profound stillness, because all energy subsides into, and is ultimate grounded in, that open awareness, that still silent presence.
And that’s the whole reason for the existence of this text. The purpose of the author in writing the text is to present us with techniques that allow us to access forms of energy that lead us into an experience of stillness not divorced from energy; blissfully quiet presence that remains so in the presence of the energy of experience without needing to transcend it. The scripture is teaching us that through the marriage of Shiva and Shakti in our direct experience, we attain the highest; not through abandoning one in favour of the other. In this way, you end up with a perfectly unified experience of energy and consciousness beyond concept, arising as this absolutely full state of being that is blissful with the experience of that which is intrinsic in all of us.
The next verse simply reinforces the point of the previous verse.
यथालोकेन दीपस्य किरणैर्भास्करस्य च |
ज्ञायते दिग्विभागादि तद्वच् छक्त्या शिवः प्रिये || २१ ||
yathālokena dīpasya kiraṇair bhāskarasya ca |
jñāyate digvibhāgādi tadvac chaktyā śivaḥ priye || 21 ||
Just as different areas of any given space are known through the light of a lamp or the rays of the sun, in the same way Śiva is known through Śakti, O beloved. || 21 ||
Remember this is a personified form of Shiva speaking to a personified form of Shakti, so he’s effectively saying “I am known through you.” Now look at this metaphor just for a moment: different regions of space are illuminated, made apparent, cognized, through the light of a lamp or the rays of the sun—you need a light source and then you see what’s there. There’s energy that pervades and fills the space and makes the contents of the space appear within awareness. So energy illuminates consciousness and makes it aware that it is conscious.
Since the mind cannot itself grasp consciousness, the latter being the context and precondition for the former, we need to experience our energy states in a non-conceptual way to illuminate the nature of consciousness.
We’re constantly experiencing consciousness, but we’re not able to recognize its nature. So, by penetrating to the heart of things through non-conceptual experience of the inherent energies and capacities of consciousness, we can actually realize that which is always already the case, the ever-present consciousness pervading everything. We have to penetrate to the heart of our experience to recognize the timeless ground, that which is in every moment. Therefore we can’t simply transcend experience, energy, and embodiment (Shakti): in this way, the Kaula way, it’s the gateway to understand and realize the nature of consciousness (Shiva) as it really is, as opposed to some transcendental abstraction of it.
Next Bhairavī will ask the question that these verses naturally lead to: how? How do we actualize what is here discussed theoretically? What do we actually do? Stay tuned for the answer in the next post!