+copy.jpg)
Gorakhnath
Regarding the influence of Gorakhnath’s tradition on the Aughars, George Weston Briggs writes:
Aughars are followers of Gorakhnath who have not undergone the final ceremony of having their ears split. A legend is current, which serves to justify them in not completing initiation. Once two Siddhas (perfect yogis) tried to split the ear of a candidate who had been at Hing Laj; but they found that the slits closed as fast as they were made. So they gave up the attempt. Since then Aughars have dispensed with the custom. Briggs lists several legends of gorakhnath. One story says that formless creator, produced gorakhnath from the sweat of his own breast. Another legend from Nepal states that shiva recited the yoga doctrine to parvati once while they were at the seashore. Matsyendranath, the future guru of gorakhnath, was a fish in the sea at that time and heard the teachings. At that time he gave a woman something to eat with the promise that she will bear a son. The woman something to eat with the promise that she will bear a son. The woman did not eat the substance but cast it upon a dung hill instead. Twelve years later Matsyendra passed by the same spot and asked to see the child. When he heard what the woman had done they searched in the dung heap and discovered a boy of twelve years. That boy was named gorakhnath and Matsyendranath became his spiritual master. Briggs cites another version of this story from the tahqiqat I chishthi, where a devotee of shiva desirous of off spring received ashes from Shiva’s sacred fire. The devotee’s wife was to swallow the ashes but she, instead, threw it upon a dung hill. Eventually a child was found there who was named Gorakhnath by shiva.
Gorakhnath is supposed to be a true siddha, a perfect yogi with power over his own body and mind, over people as well as over gods. In fact, there is even a legend where Dattatreya and Gorakhnath are portrayed as playing at power. Briggs cities from Dabistan: the record of a contest of power between gorakhnath and a sannyasi, datateri, in which Gorakhnath disappeared in the water in the shape of a frog. But the sannyasi was able to find him and bring him forth. Then Datateri concealed himself in the water and Gorakhnath in spite of all his searching could not discover him, for he had become water, “and water cannot distinguished from water”.
Many attempts have been made by scholars to find the exact dates when gorakhnath existed. Some relate him to kabir, some with madhusudan saraswati, and some with jnana Deva:
The age of Gorakhnath or of his Guru Matsyendra is not known with certainty. The tradition connecting him with kabir (1500AD.) and with Madhusadana saraswati (1700AD.) is not probably of any historical value. But jnana Natha, alias jnana Deva, who is usually assigned to the thirteenth century, mentions his own spiritual pedigree in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita in which Gorakh Natha appears as his third predecessor thus: Adinatha, Matsyendra Natha, Gorakh Natha, Gahini Natha, Nivrtti Natha and jnana Natha. This would place Gorakh in the beginning of the 12th century AD. This date agrees with the tradition which makes Gorakh and Dharmanatha contemporaries and Dharmanatha is generally assigned to the 12th century A.D. But there are other views according to which Goraksa lived in 500 .A.D. or 700 A.D. 100 A.D.
However, Briggs even cites source that dates him back to 78 C.E. It is significant to note here that legends of Gorakhnath place him as hailing from Punjab, Bengal, and even Nepal(Gorkha the name of the place where he blessed the king of Gorkha who became the king(Prithivi narayan Shah) of Nepal. His Guru Matsyendranath(who resided in Nepal) is believed to be the Buddhist yogi Avalokiteshwara or padmasambhava, and their stories form substantial part of the Buddhist tantric lore. Shastri is of the opinion that aghora and sarbhanga traditions have sprung from the prevedic streams of thought are supported by Vedic tents, and are mediated by the tantra scriptures and Buddhist tantric principles. The philosophical tenets of the Buddhist Siddhas, such as the concepts of shunya (void) shunyalok (the world of nothingness), sahaj (natural easy), and khasam (husband), moon, sun, samras (‘constant flavour’), and so on, are found in ample evidence in the Aghora and sarbhanga literature as well. The tendency to contradict fossilized social traditions of Hindus as well as of Muslims, seen among Aghora and sarbhanga ascetics, is also found amongst the Buddhist Siddhas. The tendency towards infinite faith in guru, and non reliance, Buddhist siddha tradition, and the Aghora Sarbhanga traditions. The use of panchamakaras is found amongst Buddhist Siddhas as well as Aghorasarbhang ascetics. In the Buddhist tradition, pragya is a form of Shakti and Shakti is the primary goal of worship in tantra. Within the Buddhist traditions three exits a unique sub stream of tantric Buddhists whose philosophy and literature are very similar to the shaiva Shakta tantric literature. Thus, it appears that the Agamas and tantras influenced Buddhism, and the tradition of Buddhist Siddhas influenced the Aghora and sarbhanga traditions.
Like shastri, scholars like Mishra find ample evidence of the fundamental building blocks of Aghor philosophy and practice not only in the vedas, Upanishads and the puranas, but also into tantras of the shaiva Shakta tradition, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. He considers Aghora to be a ‘unique’ tradition, which cannot be subscribed exclusively to either the Dattatreya or the Gorakhnath tradition. In his opinion it is an ancient and valuable link not only between the Dattatreya and the Gorakhnath traditions, but also an important link between the tantra practices and philosophies of the Hindu and the Buddhist streams.
Since Aughar seekers have elements of tantra in their practice, and as their dress, appearance and behavior resemble that of the ascetic shiva, they are also called Avadhut, ascetics who wear necklaces of bones, live naked, and apply either ashes from the cremation ground or the paste of red sandalwood on their body, carry a staff, or deerskin or shiva’s hourglass drum in their hands. In fact, the words Aughar, Avadhut and Aghora are often used interchangeably for the same kind of Shakti worshipper. Some even think that it is impossible to be an Avadhut without being an Aughar. Seekers of the kinarami tradition use clay utensils and live a seek imposed life of poverty. They wear white, saffron or khaki clothes. They also wear a red loincloth, a jhool (a one piece long shirt made from rags) and a lungi, while some also go about without clothes. Shastri explains that Baba Kinaram and his followers regard a true saint to be an Avadhut. Etymologically this word implies ‘one who is discarded’. But followers of this tradition do not use it as this adjective, but as an adverb, which implies ‘one who controls his senses and desires, and discards this illusory world’. In a sense, an avadhuta acts as discarded by the world, which is to say that his life and behaviour are unique: they are of this own making. The word can call him names; criticize him, but all that matters not to him. He lives in the world, but he is not of it.
Regarding the influence of Gorakhnath’s tradition on the Aughars, George Weston Briggs writes:
Aughars are followers of Gorakhnath who have not undergone the final ceremony of having their ears split. A legend is current, which serves to justify them in not completing initiation. Once two Siddhas (perfect yogis) tried to split the ear of a candidate who had been at Hing Laj; but they found that the slits closed as fast as they were made. So they gave up the attempt. Since then Aughars have dispensed with the custom. Briggs lists several legends of gorakhnath. One story says that formless creator, produced gorakhnath from the sweat of his own breast. Another legend from Nepal states that shiva recited the yoga doctrine to parvati once while they were at the seashore. Matsyendranath, the future guru of gorakhnath, was a fish in the sea at that time and heard the teachings. At that time he gave a woman something to eat with the promise that she will bear a son. The woman something to eat with the promise that she will bear a son. The woman did not eat the substance but cast it upon a dung hill instead. Twelve years later Matsyendra passed by the same spot and asked to see the child. When he heard what the woman had done they searched in the dung heap and discovered a boy of twelve years. That boy was named gorakhnath and Matsyendranath became his spiritual master. Briggs cites another version of this story from the tahqiqat I chishthi, where a devotee of shiva desirous of off spring received ashes from Shiva’s sacred fire. The devotee’s wife was to swallow the ashes but she, instead, threw it upon a dung hill. Eventually a child was found there who was named Gorakhnath by shiva.
Gorakhnath is supposed to be a true siddha, a perfect yogi with power over his own body and mind, over people as well as over gods. In fact, there is even a legend where Dattatreya and Gorakhnath are portrayed as playing at power. Briggs cities from Dabistan: the record of a contest of power between gorakhnath and a sannyasi, datateri, in which Gorakhnath disappeared in the water in the shape of a frog. But the sannyasi was able to find him and bring him forth. Then Datateri concealed himself in the water and Gorakhnath in spite of all his searching could not discover him, for he had become water, “and water cannot distinguished from water”.
Many attempts have been made by scholars to find the exact dates when gorakhnath existed. Some relate him to kabir, some with madhusudan saraswati, and some with jnana Deva:
The age of Gorakhnath or of his Guru Matsyendra is not known with certainty. The tradition connecting him with kabir (1500AD.) and with Madhusadana saraswati (1700AD.) is not probably of any historical value. But jnana Natha, alias jnana Deva, who is usually assigned to the thirteenth century, mentions his own spiritual pedigree in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita in which Gorakh Natha appears as his third predecessor thus: Adinatha, Matsyendra Natha, Gorakh Natha, Gahini Natha, Nivrtti Natha and jnana Natha. This would place Gorakh in the beginning of the 12th century AD. This date agrees with the tradition which makes Gorakh and Dharmanatha contemporaries and Dharmanatha is generally assigned to the 12th century A.D. But there are other views according to which Goraksa lived in 500 .A.D. or 700 A.D. 100 A.D.
However, Briggs even cites source that dates him back to 78 C.E. It is significant to note here that legends of Gorakhnath place him as hailing from Punjab, Bengal, and even Nepal(Gorkha the name of the place where he blessed the king of Gorkha who became the king(Prithivi narayan Shah) of Nepal. His Guru Matsyendranath(who resided in Nepal) is believed to be the Buddhist yogi Avalokiteshwara or padmasambhava, and their stories form substantial part of the Buddhist tantric lore. Shastri is of the opinion that aghora and sarbhanga traditions have sprung from the prevedic streams of thought are supported by Vedic tents, and are mediated by the tantra scriptures and Buddhist tantric principles. The philosophical tenets of the Buddhist Siddhas, such as the concepts of shunya (void) shunyalok (the world of nothingness), sahaj (natural easy), and khasam (husband), moon, sun, samras (‘constant flavour’), and so on, are found in ample evidence in the Aghora and sarbhanga literature as well. The tendency to contradict fossilized social traditions of Hindus as well as of Muslims, seen among Aghora and sarbhanga ascetics, is also found amongst the Buddhist Siddhas. The tendency towards infinite faith in guru, and non reliance, Buddhist siddha tradition, and the Aghora Sarbhanga traditions. The use of panchamakaras is found amongst Buddhist Siddhas as well as Aghorasarbhang ascetics. In the Buddhist tradition, pragya is a form of Shakti and Shakti is the primary goal of worship in tantra. Within the Buddhist traditions three exits a unique sub stream of tantric Buddhists whose philosophy and literature are very similar to the shaiva Shakta tantric literature. Thus, it appears that the Agamas and tantras influenced Buddhism, and the tradition of Buddhist Siddhas influenced the Aghora and sarbhanga traditions.
Like shastri, scholars like Mishra find ample evidence of the fundamental building blocks of Aghor philosophy and practice not only in the vedas, Upanishads and the puranas, but also into tantras of the shaiva Shakta tradition, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. He considers Aghora to be a ‘unique’ tradition, which cannot be subscribed exclusively to either the Dattatreya or the Gorakhnath tradition. In his opinion it is an ancient and valuable link not only between the Dattatreya and the Gorakhnath traditions, but also an important link between the tantra practices and philosophies of the Hindu and the Buddhist streams.
Since Aughar seekers have elements of tantra in their practice, and as their dress, appearance and behavior resemble that of the ascetic shiva, they are also called Avadhut, ascetics who wear necklaces of bones, live naked, and apply either ashes from the cremation ground or the paste of red sandalwood on their body, carry a staff, or deerskin or shiva’s hourglass drum in their hands. In fact, the words Aughar, Avadhut and Aghora are often used interchangeably for the same kind of Shakti worshipper. Some even think that it is impossible to be an Avadhut without being an Aughar. Seekers of the kinarami tradition use clay utensils and live a seek imposed life of poverty. They wear white, saffron or khaki clothes. They also wear a red loincloth, a jhool (a one piece long shirt made from rags) and a lungi, while some also go about without clothes. Shastri explains that Baba Kinaram and his followers regard a true saint to be an Avadhut. Etymologically this word implies ‘one who is discarded’. But followers of this tradition do not use it as this adjective, but as an adverb, which implies ‘one who controls his senses and desires, and discards this illusory world’. In a sense, an avadhuta acts as discarded by the world, which is to say that his life and behaviour are unique: they are of this own making. The word can call him names; criticize him, but all that matters not to him. He lives in the world, but he is not of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment