{"collection":"tantra","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/tantra/htg/htg01.htm","path":"tantra/htg/htg01.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/tantra/htg/htg01.htm","text":"Hymns to the Goddess, by John Woodroffe (Arthur Avalon), [1913]\nTHE Goddess or Dev\u012b (as the Hindus call Her) is God (as the Western worshippers address Him) in Its Mother aspect. The latter not uncommonly deem such attribution of feminine quality to be \"heathenish\"; but this condemnation (for the criticism has, of course, this intendment) is itself singularly foolish in that it is thereby implied that of two sets of terms (neither of which is in its strict sense applicable to the Deity as the Author of forms), one is, in fact, a more correct description than the other. In the Navaratne\u015bvara it is said: \"That Dev\u012b, who is existence, consciousness, and bliss, should be thought of as a female or as a male, or as pure Brahman. In reality, however, She is neither male nor neuter (that is to say, that She is not bound to any particular form).\" No one contends that the Brahmatattva in the supreme abode beyond appearances is masculine as opposed to feminine, or the latter as contrasted with the former. Like all else in this matter, words are but the babbling endeavour of our plane to express that which is above it. It is not easy, then, to explain the condemnation except upon the assumption that those who pronounce it think their mother's sex to be inferior to their own, and that thus Deity is unworthily described by any other terms than those of masculine excellence. But Hindus, who ever place the name of mother before that of father, and to whom garbha dh\u0101ra\u1e47apo\u1e63\u0101bhy\u0101m pitur m\u0101t\u0101 gariyasi, have no\npartiality for such mistaken notions. On the other hand, it is possible that they might not understand the Christian expression \"Mother of God,\" nor approve it even after they had learnt the limited and special sense which theology gives to this epithet. The T\u0101ntrika would least of all admit the insufficiency of the conception of God as Mother. For the Dev\u012b manifests in his own mother, in his prak\u1e5bti (as he calls his wife), and in all women. As the Kubjik\u0101 Tantra says: \"Whosoever has seen the feet of woman let him worship them as those of his guru\" (Strin\u0101m p\u0101datalam dri\u1e63tv\u0101guruvadbh\u0101vayet sad\u0101). Whilst male and female are both Her aspects, yet \u015aakti is, in a sense, said to be more revealed in the female than in the male form. And so the Mu\u1e47\u1e0dam\u0101la Tantra says: \"Wherever there is a \u015bakt\u012b (female), there I am.\" On account of this greater manifestation, women are called \u015aakti. From this, however, it must not be supposed that \u015aakti is less present in such forms as \u015aiva and K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a and others. If, as the author of the Tantra Tattva says, a s\u0101dhaka who is a worshipper of the K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47am\u016brti desires to see Him as K\u0101l\u012b, Bhagav\u0101n, who fulfils the desires of devotees, will assume that form. All forms come into existence upon the manifestation of consciousness in the play of Her whose substance is consciousness.\nThough the S\u0101kt\u0101nandatarangin\u012b says: Dev\u012b is worshipped on account of Her soft heart (komal\u0101ntahkara\u1e47am), yet the use of the term \"Mother\" has other grounds than those which are founded upon an appeal to the natural feelings which the sweetness of the word \"Mother\" evokes. The meaning of the term \"Dev\u012b\" is prak\u0101s\u0101tmik\u0101, or that which is by its nature Light and Manifestation. And the word is used in the feminine gender because the One, as \u015aakti and Prak\u1e5bti, bears and\nnourishes all things as their Mother. The Dev\u012b is therefore the Brahman revealed in Its Mother aspect (\u015arim\u0101t\u0101) as Creatrix and Nourisher of the worlds.\nWorshippers of Dev\u012b or \u015aakti are called \u015a\u0101ktas. But those who have a true knowledge of \u015aakti-tattva without which, according to \u015a\u0101stra, Nirv\u0101namok\u1e63a is unattainable, will in thought surpass the sectarianism which the terms \"\u015a\u0101kta\", \"Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava\" and \"\u015aaiva\" ordinarily connote. Whatever forms the Dev\u012b assumes in Her aspect with attributes are but Her forms. As the author last cited says, the s\u0101dhaka will know Her, whether the appearance be that of K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a, Durg\u0101, or Mah\u0101deva. The Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava may consider Her as Vi\u1e63\u1e47u in the form of \u015aakti, or the \u015a\u0101kta may look upon Her as \u015aakti in the form of Vi\u1e63\u1e47u. To those who, immersed in the ocean of Her substance, which is cits'akti, are forgetful of all differences which appertain to the world of form, K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a\u015bakti, \u015aiva\u015bakti, or K\u0101li\u015bakti, and all other manifestations of \u015bakti, are one and the same. And so R\u0101mapras\u0101da, the Bengali poet and T\u0101ntrik, sang: \"Thou assumeth five principal forms according to the differences of worship. But, O Mother! how can you escape the hands of him who has dissolved the five and made them into one?\"\nThe hymns to the Dev\u012b in this volume (introduced by a stotra to Her Spouse the K\u0101labhairava) are taken from the Tantra, Pur\u0101\u1e47a, Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, and \u015aankar\u0101c\u0101rya, who was \"the incarnation of devotion\" (bhakt\u0101vat\u0101ra) as well as a great philosopher; a fact which is sometimes ignored by those who do not wish to be reminded that he, whose speculative genius they extol, was also the protagonist of the so-called \"idolatrous Hinduism.\" As his great example amongst many\nothers of differing race and creed tell us, it is not, from the view of religion, the mark of discernment (even though it be the mode) to neglect or disparage the ritual practice which all orthodoxies have prescribed for their adherents. Stava and puj\u0101 are doubtless the s\u0101dhana appropriate to the first of the several stages of an ascent which gradually leads away from them; but they are in general as necessary as the higher ones, which more immediately precede the attainment of brahmabh\u0101va and siddhi.\nApart, however, from this aspect of the matter, and to look at it from the point of view of that modern product, the mere \"student of religions,\" who is not infrequently a believer in none, a knowledge of ritual (to use that term in its widest sense) will help to a greater and more real understanding of the mah\u0101v\u0101kya of the \u0100ryas than can be gained from those merely theoretical expositions of them which are now more popular. Those, again, whose interests are in what Verlaine called \"mere literature\" will at least appreciate the mingled tenderness and splendour of these Hymns, even in a translation which cannot reproduce the majesty of the sanskrit \u015blokas of the Tantra and Pur\u0101\u1e47a, or the rhyme and sweet lilting rhythms of \u015aankara.\nOf the Hymns now published, those from the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata and Cand\u012b have already been translated; the first, in the English edition of the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, by Protap Chandra Roy and by Professor Muir in his \"Original Sanskrit Texts,\" and the second by Mr. Pargiter, whose rendering of the M\u0101rka\u1e47\u1e0deya Pur\u0101\u1e47a (of which it is the most celebrated portion) has been printed by the Asiatic Society of Bengal.\n[paragraph continues] \u0100dy\u0101k\u0101lisvar\u016bpastotra has also been previously published as part of a rendering by myself of the Mah\u0101nirv\u0101\u1e47a Tantra. The first two sets of Hymns have been translated afresh. In the translation of such works a Sanskrit dictionary (however excellent) is not either a sufficient or reliable guide. It is necessary to study the Hindu commentators and to seek the oral aid of those who possess the traditional interpretation of the \u015a\u0101stra. Without this and an understanding of what Hindu worship is and means, absurd mistakes are likely to be made. I have thus, in addition to such oral aid, availed myself of the Commentaries of N\u012blakan\u1e6dha on the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, of Gop\u0101la Chakravarti and N\u0101gog\u012b Bhatta on Cand\u012b, and of N\u012blakantha on the Dev\u012bbh\u0101gavata. As regards the Tantra, the great S\u0101dhana \u015a\u0101str\u0101, nothing which is of both an understanding and accurate character can be achieved without a study of the original texts undertaken with the assistance of the T\u0101ntrik gurus and pandits, who are the authorized custodians of its traditions.\nThe other stotras are now rendered in English for the first time; at least, I have come across no translation of them.\nThe text of the Tantras\u0101ra which has been used is that edited by Shr\u012bjut Rasik Mohun Chatterjee. It is not free from faults, which have necessitated reference to other Manuscripts. A more correct text of the T\u0101r\u0101shtakam, from the N\u012bla Tantra, is given in the Brihatstotraratn\u0101kara, to which reference has also been made for the hymns of V\u0101lm\u012bki and Indra.\nBoth Ellen Woodroffe and myself have collaborated in the translation of the hymns by \u015aankara. For the\nrest, as also for the Introduction and Commentary, I am alone responsible. Some of the notes deal with matter familiar enough to the Hindu reader but have been inserted for the use of his English friends. Other portions of the commentary will, I believe, be found to be of use to both.\nJOHN WOODROFFE\nMarch 1, 1913","title":"Hymns to the Goddess: Preface","type":"page"}