Source: TW
Fact is, it is the Āgamika-Tāntrika religion that saved the Vaidika-Paurāņika religion.
Firstly, it supplemented the latter in the form of material incorporated into the Purāņas.
Secondly, the developed methods in Tantrāgama have been incorporated into vaidika praxis (nyāsa, mudras, etc).
Thirdly, when the Aupanișada Vidyās and Upāsanas had mostly died off due to broken transmission, it is the Upāsanakrama of the Tantrāgama that was adopted by the Yatis of the different schools of Vedānta: Śrīvidyā by the Advaitīs, Pāñcarātra by the Vaișņavas.
Tantrāgama massively built on Sāńkhyā and its Tattvajñāna has proven to be an invaluable supplement to the Dharma as a whole.
Those who think Tantrāgama is about worship or Kșūdradevatas have zero idea of what they are discussing.
Even outside the realm of theology, Tantrāgama has helped the Vaidika-Paurāņika religion. For example, Kāmikāgama has a whole chapter dedicated to gifting qualified Vipras for their Vedic learning.
It is to the credit of Siddhānta (which falls under Tantrāgama) that Vedic institutions were supported in TN by groups across the board and a large group of non-Brāhmaņas became teetotalers and took up an Ācāra that was compatible with Vaidikācāra.
Who do you think made large swathes of people adopt such an Ācāra? Vaidikas?
No. It’s the Ācāryas of the Siddhānta who drew upon the power of Śiva to impress Vaidikācāra and its associated norms and habits on large groups of families, which were otherwise untouched by Vaidikācāra. The Pāñcarātra too made similar contributions.
Pure Vaidika is a rhetorical device and fiction, not reality. “We follow only Vedic injunctions Saar”—joining Utsavamūrti’s procession and reciting Śatarudriyam behind the Utsavamūrti is under which injunction? Performing Caṇḍiyāga or going deep into Lalitāsahasranāma’s commentarial tradition falls under which Vaidika injunction?
Pūrvamīmāmsakas were not fond of temples (as can be seen in the manubhāșya of Medhātithi) but when temples became the beating heart of Dharma and the grand force which sustained even Vaidikam (temples did so much for Vaidikas who are forever indebted to Hara and Hari for this), their spiritual descendants switched to “temple okay bro but Tantrāgama is not”.
One is reminded of a Śloka from Bhavișyapurāņa, which appears to have been inserted by a Devālayadveșī, which states that Sattras (very complex, often year-long Vedic sacrificial sessions performed by a group rather than an individual Yajamāna) should not be hosted by temples, probably the only institution which could have actually afforded to perform Sattras in the first place. Mātsarya/Jealousy…
Distasteful veda?
Almost everything you may find distasteful in the large world of tantra (which may constitute a mere 10% of it at the very most) has a prototype/predecessor in the Veda. Unfortunately, most who do Veda-Tantra-compare-&-contrast know neither of those.
There is no one more naive than who uses “Vaidika” branding for their version of “good & pure” but hasn’t delved deep into the Veda at all. Sometimes, these people also happen to end up branding Śaivam as something “dark, impure & dangerous”.
They don’t know what all the Veda contains, including the lofty Upanișads. They also don’t know that the wildest practices of a Sampradāya like the Siddhānta are way way milder than even the “not-the-wildest” parts of the Veda.
And they also don’t know that the wild practices of other Śaiva streams often have prototypes in the Veda itself.
There is more than meets the eye.
At the end of the day, the Sampradāya—that will give you solid, conceptual tools to make sense of the whole continuum of practices in the Dharma (including all of the Veda) place them at the appropriate place in a Tāratamya & stitch all sects & practices into a cogent narrative—is the superior one.
One that does not have the ability to do so—conveniently “skips” the vast ocean of the karmakāṇḍa in the Śruti or, worse, render their existence meaningless through weak exegesis, waters down the Veda to a few Sūktas and Upanișads, & then slaps feel-good-ism on it—is not a Sampradāya that can be trusted to honour the 1000s of years worth of collective heritage of the Dharma out together.
Proktā hyaśuddhistatraiva
tasya kvāpi viśuddhatā
Pañcagavye pavitratvaṁ
somacarvaṇapātrayoḥ
Vidhiścāvabhṛthasnānaṁ
haste kṛṣṇaviṣāṇitā
Na patnyā ca vinā yāgaḥ
sarvadaivatatulyatā
Surāhutirbrahmasatre
vapāntrahṛdayāhutiḥ
Pāśaveṣvapi śāstreṣu
tadadarśi maheśinā 🙂