26/06/2025
Disclaimer:
The following is an English rendering of a Bengali post originally composed by a devoted sādhaka from our paramparā. I’m sharing it from this Page to reach those who seek to understand but do not read Bengali.
The translation was done with the help of AI. Please forgive any errors or imperfections—they are not deliberate.
Here is the original post: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BFHHx9r38/
Recently, a sannyāsī has raised questions about a well-known Tāntrika paramparā from Bengal. In the tradition of Bhāratīya jñāna-charchā (Indian intellectual discourse), questioning holds immense significance. Our śāstras—including the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad Gītā, the Devī Māhātmya (Caṇḍī), the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and many others—are all structured as dialogues centered on inquiry.
Even in the method of refuting a pūrvapakṣa, it is through praśna (questioning) that the parapakṣa asserts its brahmāstra (ultimate argumentative weapon). We find testimony of this in the writings of various ācāryas. When Ācārya Rāmānuja refuted Ādi Śaṅkara, he too employed this very method.
Yet, he also reminded us that in the process of khaṇḍana (refutation), one must never compromise the dignity of others.
It is thus disappointing that the revered sannyāsī, in reacting to what he perceives as the decline of Bengal's Śākta kula, has resorted to both pen and speech, but without upholding the dignity of either the alternate sampradāya he critiques or his own role as a renunciate.
He has said that his protest was born out of enduring constant insult and provocation from some apogaṇḍa arbacīna (immature and undisciplined individuals). Yet the nature of this protest feels more like a struggle than a process of reform.
To him, I ask a simple question: If one claims the adhikāra for sannyāsa, should not one remain equipoised in both insult and praise?
tulya-nindā-stutiḥ pūjyaḥ — Only such a person is truly eligible for the sannyāsa āśrama.
After all, would a person of true prajñā (wisdom) be agitated by what others say?
As the Bhagavad Gītā (2.56) teaches:
duḥkheṣv anudvigna-manāḥ sukheṣu vigata-spṛhaḥ |
vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ sthita-dhīr muniḥ ucyate ||
“One whose mind is undisturbed by sorrow, who has no craving for pleasure, who is free from attachment, fear, and anger — such a person is called a sage of steady wisdom.”
This is what is expected of a true sannyāsī.
You may say, “A gṛhastha has no right to judge a sannyāsī.” But why not?
There are countless examples in the Upaniṣads and Purāṇas where common householders were entrusted with the discernment of dharma, guru-tattva, and even the eligibility of spiritual leaders. Above all, if Ādi Jagatguru himself entrusts the judgment of a pīṭhādhiśa’s qualification to the common people, then who are you, still an infant by comparison, to deny them that role?
As the śāstra states:
uktalakṣaṇa-sampannaḥ syāc cen mat-pīṭha-bhāg bhavet |
anyathā rūḍha-pīṭho'pi nigrahārho manīṣiṇām || (10)
“Only one who possesses the prescribed qualifications is entitled to occupy the pīṭha. Otherwise, even if one sits on it, he deserves to be restrained by the wise.”
Of course, our questions likely do not concern him in the slightest, since he does not acknowledge our worth or relevance. Fair enough. But it would have been gracious of him to at least inform us who determined his worth. That would allow us to discern whether quality and status are indeed aligned.
Let it be. In this marketplace, sādhakas and even sannyāsa itself have been commodified for a long time. Perhaps that is why he is so well-versed in bargaining. He appears to be quite the experienced marketplace traveler.
Now, turning to the subject of his discourse, let me proceed point by point.
Disclosure of Initiation in Kālī-kula:
First, I offer him my salutations for his declared intent to reveal the dīkṣā paddhati of the Kālī-kula. Such a project could be meaningful. Though in practice, his usual method involves collecting books authored by others and publishing them under his own name. Let him do as he pleases.
It cannot be denied that the khātā (initiation manual) in question has probably been photocopied more times than it has been printed. Nowadays, even in homes that don’t keep the Satyanārāyaṇa Pañcālī, this khātā is a staple. So he’s not doing anything new.
Indeed, many sādhakas of the Kālī-kula have indiscriminately revealed the Kaula path, turning what was once a sacred housewife (kulabadhū) into a public dancer (vārāṅganā). And this has not begun today—it has been happening for quite some time.
I speak from within this very kula. Out of deep devotion, I could not turn a blind eye and dismiss these matters as “Mā’s will.” Many of our ācāryas have sown poisonous seeds, and certain individuals are now reaping their bitter fruit. Still, even those individuals, however flawed, are part of this sacred yet decaying forest of the Kālī-kula.
Some have changed gurus more times than I changed pencil boxes in my childhood. So be it.
On Sectarian Disputes: Kālī-kula vs. Śrī-kula
But this ongoing conflict between the ṭopā-kula (coarse lineage) and nārikela-kula (refined lineage)—I have never approved of it, and even today I cannot accept it.
I fail to understand these weight-based valuations: “Kālī costs two and a half śoṭāk, Lalitā five poā, Bagalā five and a half sikka”. Such calculations are absurd. We must remember: divisions exist for our understanding—not for Īśvara.
So let us abandon this idea that doing “this” makes one Kālī-kula and doing “that” makes one Śrī-kula. That is not the path of a true sādhaka. It is enough to follow one’s guru-paramparā and act according to śāstra-pramāṇa.
Testimony from Śṛṅgerī Paramparā
In the text Reminiscences of Abhinava Vidyā Tīrtha, the Jagadguru of Śṛṅgerī recounts how, at a very young age, he experienced a state of samādhi. To validate that experience through the śāstric lens, his guru, Śrī Candraśekhara Bhāratī, referred to a text written by a Bengali Tāntrika — the Ṣaṭcakra Nirūpaṇa.
Interestingly, many Śrī-kula scriptures have adopted the dhyāna and mantra of Dakṣiṇā-Kālī, which originally derive from Kālī-ta**ra. Should we now say “discard it, discard it, discard it”?
Likewise, for centuries, Bengali sādhakas have revered texts like the Jñānārṇava Ta**ra, Paraśurāma Kalpasūtra, and Rājarājeśvara Ta**ra as authoritative sources of Śrī-sādhana.
But just as in the stories told by Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, while Śiva and Rāma may resolve their conflicts, it is often the bhūta (spirits) and bāndara (monkeys) that continue to quarrel endlessly.
Now let us move to the second issue.
It has been claimed that a particular Bengali sampradāya has borrowed all its mantras from the Śrī-kula and organized its structure around them. That may very well be true. I too believe so.
However, it is not so much a case of borrowing and assembling, as it is the natural confluence of two sacred rivers—like the meeting of Gaṅgā and Alokanandā. It is clear from the mantra-vinyāsa (mantric arrangement) within this paramparā that these Śrī-kula elements have merged into the Kālī-kula.
The beauty lies in the fact that the movement didn’t stop there. This synthesis has brought not only expansion in breadth but also deepened the philosophical depth of the lineage.
Let me offer just one example—though there are many, I won’t go into all of them now due to constraints of time.
Mantra Order vs. Mahāvidyā Krama
Traditionally, the Śrī-kula follows a mantraic sequence such as:
• Bālā, Pañcadaśī, Laghu-ṣoḍaśī, Mahā-ṣoḍaśī, and so on.
The Kālī-kula, by contrast, proceeds in accordance with the Mahāvidyā-krama:
• Kālī, Tārā, Ṣoḍaśī, Bhuvaneśvarī, etc.
But this specific Bengali sampradāya interestingly adheres to both the mantra-krama and Mahāvidyā-krama simultaneously—a feature also observed in certain esoteric lineages in Nepal.
This is a point that the sannyāsī-ṭhākura could have articulated clearly. But in the heat of mockery and polemic, perhaps the essence was lost.
So I shall speak on his behalf:
The textbook of this sampradāya is the Śakti-saṅgama Ta**ra—which is indeed a text of the Śrī-kula. It seems that this amalgamation happened centuries ago, and it would not be far-fetched to believe that a link with Śaṅkarācārya may have existed.
However, in today's context, this sampradāya can no longer be classified purely under the Śrī-kula.
Why?
Because even Tarkālaṅkāra Mahāśaya, in his Nitya-pūjā grantha, while discussing śrī-pātra and viśeṣārghya-pātra, clearly refers to his own pātra as a śrī-pātra—a symbol that is actually a property of the Kālī-kula.
He also notes in the Ānanda-stotra chanted during cakra-anusthāna that the hymn is traditionally part of the Śrī-kula's canon (although rarely used today). However, based on his own practices and self-identification, he does not incorporate himself into the Śrī-kula. He remains steadfastly a sādhaka of the Kālī-kula.
In Rahasya Avataraṇikā, his worthy descendants and disciples have upheld the same view. Thus, to reject the position of the ācārya of the sampradāya in favor of an external narrative would be neither rational nor respectful.
On the Conduct of a Sannyāsī
The body of a sannyāsī is meant to serve para-jana-hitāya, para-jana-sukhāya—for the benefit and welfare of others. But here, the context is even more intimate. The person he is disparaging is not an outsider, but a spiritual descendant of his own kula.
If he truly felt a dhārmic compulsion to correct the course of his tradition, he would not have resorted to public ridicule and theatrical denunciation.
Thirdly, the sannyāsī raised an objection regarding a guru pādukā mantra, claiming it to be invalid since its final bīja does not contain the Śiva–Śakti-saṅyukta bīja.
I humbly ask him: Could he please point out how many guru pādukā mantras are in use that lack a Śiva–Śakti bīja entirely—or perhaps contain one but not the other?
May I kindly suggest he consult texts like Śyāma-rahasyam by Pūrṇānanda Giri, or works by the revered Dāntiā Svāmī. He will find clarity there.
Also, for the record—the guru pādukā mantra he objected to is indeed correct. It is validated by none other than the Rudrayāmala Ta**ra. Allow me to provide the reference:
paramānanda-rasāpūrṇaṁ smaret tan-nāma pūrvakam |
tāra-trayaṁ samuccārya ha sa kha phreṁ tataḥ param ||
ha sa kṣa ma la ba ra yuṁ sa ha kṣa phreṁ hsauḥ tataḥ |
amukānandanāthānte amukī-devy-anantakam ||
ambā śrī-pādukāṁ dattvā pūjayāmi namo'ntakaḥ |
ayaṁ śrī-pādukā-mantraḥ sarvābhīṣṭa-phala-pradaḥ ||
You will also find the proof of the gotra ‘parama-brahma’ in that same ta**ra.
Please inform your associate—who tends to misspell ten words in a single line of English—that if your institution indeed possesses the much-claimed 200 volumes of the Rudrayāmala, perhaps now would be a good time to examine them and extract the relevant passages. I have offered one proof—the rest, you are encouraged to discover through your own diligence.
After all, one cannot wage war merely by quoting others.
As for the sannyāsī’s theatrical approach, what shall we say? Perhaps he is the Meghanāda of Rāṇīkuthi?
On the Validity of Brahma-mantra
You do not accept the Brahma-mantra? That is your prerogative. Just as there are many who do not accept you as a sādhu. That’s the way of the world.
The Brahma-mantra is sourced from the Mahānirvāṇa Ta**ra. You might say, “Oh, that’s a late text.” But sir, that is a matter of textual history. If you wish to dismiss something simply for its perceived modernity, then even the Vedas will no longer remain apauruṣeya (unauthored by humans).
On that note, might I ask you—if you please—can you cite a specific mantra from the Vedas that directly declares their own apauruṣeyatva? I seem to have forgotten. Perhaps, as the newly-anointed Śaṅkara of Bengal’s dramatic stage, you could remind me?
You have pointed out that many of the mantras in the khātā are incorrect. Certainly, some errors exist. Perhaps a few were committed during initial compilation. In some cases, it appears no effort was made to revise them later. And yes, a few mistakes were likely introduced intentionally.
How do I know this?
When studying your second book, Bīja-vidhāna, one notices that beside several incorrect mantras, the initials "ma ma" are written. At first, I couldn’t understand what that meant. Later, I came across two texts whose titles begin with "ma ma":
1. Mantra Mahārṇava
2. Mantra Mahodadhi — this second one is especially relevant here.
Given this, it’s hard to believe that someone quoting from such primary sources would continuously copy wrong mantras unintentionally. It seems far more likely that the deliberate alteration was a protective measure—intended to shield these mantras from unqualified hands.
It is also noted in the text that:
“parāpara gurudeva-ra khātā haite…”
– meaning: “from the notebook of the parāpara-guru”.
But we, the inheritors, have never seen this original khātā. No one even knows where it currently resides.
On Internal Negligence and External Exploitation
In this murky water, many have tried to fish for gain. Truth be told, Bengalis are often more enchanted by rhetoric and gossip than by authenticity. Instead of sincerely working for the preservation of the sampradāya, many have indulged in tall tales and self-glorifying myths. “How mighty is my guru’s horn”—that seems to be the real subject of interest.
People like you—those who itch at the sight of a broken fence—seize this very opportunity. (Though how many feet you have, I can’t say.)
Yet, the leaders of this sampradāya, those who carry its burden—none of them stood united to protest the insult of their own guru. What a misfortune.
Let me clarify: protest does not mean slanderous retaliation. It means rising above petty interest, sitting upright, and fulfilling the ancestral debt to the mahājanas.
This is my sincere plea to all Kaula practitioners. Although, I already know—you will likely do nothing.
On Responsibility, Respect, and the Khātā
I do not initiate anyone. I truly do not consider myself worthy of such a task. Thus, my silence would neither hurt nor improve the situation.
But those of you who do offer dīkṣā, should feel ashamed—you fail to protect the honor of your own lineage, of your mātṛkula.
For instance, in the nitya-pūjā paddhati, there is no mention of Dhumāvatī’s āvaraṇa. But does that mean we perform her worship without āvaraṇa? Or that the original grantha-kartā did not know of it?
The truth is: in the compilation of ancient traditions, errors are inevitable—be they from oversight or printing. After the copyright expired, one publisher in College Street reprinted this very book, filled with even more mistakes.
If you were to use that edition as your "proof", you’d find hundreds more errors to mock.
But again, in every ancient sampradāya, synthesis is inevitable. That is natural. It has happened here too. The pūrṇābhiṣeka saṁskāra has merged with Tāntrika virajā rites. These two must be understood as separate components.
Yet, as I said earlier—the negligence of sincere sādhakas has only enabled staff-wielding weeds to grow unchecked.
Still, this sampradāya has something of its own—a khātā. Yes, we are the khātā-kula, and I feel proud of that. My forefathers never passed off someone else’s writing as their own. How many other lineages can say the same?
You use Karpātrījī’s Śrīvidyā-ratnākara—a Śrī-kula text, no doubt. But where is your own sampradāya’s vidhi? If you say it’s gupta (secret), then let me say—our original khātā too is gupta, and for good reason: to protect it from sleepy souls like you, who would otherwise erase it in the name of reform.
Mistakes or not, those before us made a genuine attempt, and succeeded in giving it a coherent and practical form.
A father's burden, after all, must be carried by the son. Let us, the next generation, carry the rest.
Hypocrisy and Open Secrets
Those who now dance with arms raised—be it in some damp lane of Rāmpurhāt or at a street corner in Sinti—they too depend on this same khātā. They come here, take from it, and then rebuild their own multipurpose spiritual stores.
This is all an open secret, dear vidūṣaka mahāśaya—forgive me—sannyāsī-ṭhākura.
You proclaimed loudly that Śrīvidyā is the highest path—clapping your hands in agreement. No one disputes that.
Yes, she is the Naikā of the Ūrdhvāmnāya. But did you say anything new? You speak of Śrīvidyā-pūrṇa dīkṣā as if it is a revolution—whereas, it is in fact, the Sarva-sāmrājya Dīkṣā, through which the right to all other mantras is granted.
The Kaula mārga begins and culminates in Kālī and Śrī—between samayātatā and samayā, between amā-kalā and pūrṇa-kalā.
Even Satyacandra Siddhāntabhūṣaṇa, in Kaula-mārga-rahasya, has revealed this truth.
It is also declared in our much-maligned “bāzārī khātā”:
śrīvidyā sarva-sāmrājya-dīkṣā sarvottarā bhavet |
tato'pi dīkṣā deveśi nāstika brahmāṇḍa-golake ||
daśa-vidyā-prabhedaś ca mahāvidyā-prabhedajāḥ |
siddhavidyā-prabhedaś ca mahāmantrāntatheva ca ||
tadaṅgamantrāś ca deveśi śābaraṁ deśa-śābaram |
kāla-śābarakaṁ devi śābaraṁ siddha-śābaram ||
sarva-darśana-mantrāś ca ṣaḍ-āmnāya-kramodbhavāḥ |
kādi hādi ka-hatvena ūrdhvāmnāya kalau śive ||
tathāyatana-mantrāś ca yat kiñcin mantra-jālakam |
sarvādhikāro deveśi etad-dīkṣā-vidhau bhavet ||
Let me close with a few final thoughts.
Understand this—errors and imperfections exist everywhere, whether in the Kālī-kula or the Śrī-kula. No tradition is immune. For even Īśvara, in His play of māyā, does not make perfection excessive.
You did not know the name of Kubjikā—well, that is not a great loss in itself. (But dear brother, you are a self-declared pūrṇa-dīkṣita sādhaka of Śrī-vidyā. Surely, the Mahāyoni-kavacha is part of your daily recitation. Perhaps in dividing your attention across too many directions, you missed a few details.)
No one is regularly performing nitya-pūjā to Kubjikā anyway. Likewise, the presence of imperfect or incomplete aṅga mantras in the khātā does not immediately invalidate a person’s sādhana—unless the errors are fundamental.
If this were not the case, then commentators like Nīlakaṇṭha wouldn’t have needed to consult multiple manuscripts of the same text just to compile a coherent ṭīkā.
And speaking of errors, your own published books contain so many typographical mistakes—but should I call you an ignoramus for that? Certainly not. Mistakes exist in all eras, in all cultures.
On Lineage, Gotra, and Respect
You may want to investigate the family of Bāmamārgī Cidānandanātha, a luminous figure of the Śrī-kula. Many Śrī-kula paramparās do not have gotra identification. Most are solely focused on Śrī-sādhana. But this absence does not grant license to insult or invalidate them.
You mention “purity of lineage”—yet wasn’t one of your own Śrī-kula’s great sannyāsīs the very person who initiated and gave daṇḍa-sannyāsa to someone whom even you now describe as a “corrupted śūdra”? What about that?
Even the Jagadguru of Śṛṅgerī is known to have given daṇḍa-sannyāsa to a vaiśya—this is no secret. Should we now question your own gurumahārāja for having initiated someone allegedly “unauthorized,” as per your logic?
On Yantra and Ritual Practice
You claim there is no proper yantra-pūjā in the Kālī-kula. But in the āvaraṇa-pūjā system, the presence of aṣṭakoṇa and bhūpura is clearly described—what do you think these are, geographical maps of India?
You ask sarcastically, “Does everyone worship on the vāṇeśvara-yantra?” And I say—what if they do?
In southern traditions, the Śrī-yantra is used for nearly all Devī worship—be it Kālī, Durgā, or others. Even Śaṅkara, at Kāñcī and Kāmakhyā and elsewhere, installed only Śrīcakras.
Why? Because the Śrī-yantra is the collective embodiment of all yantras. If this burns the pride of some Kālī-kula sādhakas, so be it—it remains the truth.
If we follow your logic, just because Śaṅkara never published separate yantras for every Devī, it must mean he didn’t know of their existence? Absurd.
In fact, the Kālī-kula scriptures include numerous prescriptions for yantras drawn with different substances, including rakta-candana (red sandal) on tāmrāṭaṭa (copper plates). However, due to practical and economic constraints, the vāṇa-liṅga became popular, being more easily available.
On Āmnāyas and Misrepresentation
You have asserted that only Śrī’s āmnāya exists. But when someone cited the Meru-ta**ra as proof for Gaṇeśa, Sūrya, and others having their own āmnāyas, you simply waved your hand and called him a “fool.” In doing so, you held up a mirror to yourself.
According to Śakti-saṅgama Ta**ra, even Kālī, Tārā, and Tripurā have their distinct āmnāyas. You can find the full list in the Chinnamastā-khaṇḍa.
A more apt use of your parasu-daṇḍa (ritual staff) might help illuminate this further.
On Rhetoric and the Horn Model
What you have done is engage in what logicians call the “breaking the horn” model of argumentation—where any answer becomes self-incriminating.
For example, if someone were asked: “Do you still beat your wife like before?”—there’s no safe answer. Yes or no, either way he’s condemned.
You, too, can be asked such questions.
For instance:
• What was Ācārya Śaṅkara’s Tāntrika name?
• Was he a Giri, Purī, or Sarasvatī?
• If he himself did not receive these titles, how did he bestow them upon others?
Historical sources suggest that Gauḍapāda—his teacher’s teacher—may well have hailed from Bengal. Does that make Ācārya Śaṅkara a follower of Kālī-kula?
You call your paramparā “Govindapāda’s lineage.” Why then do you refer to it as Śaṅkara’s?
Also—could you kindly share the exact location in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa where the Lalitā-sahasranāma is found? Perhaps a photograph would help.
It is well known that for a sannyāsī, pātra-sthāpana pūjā is prohibited—though North Indian traditions often disregard this restriction. But your lineage is South Indian, is it not?
Neither the ācāryas of Śṛṅgerī nor of Kāñcī have ever recognized the practice of rahasya-pūjā for a sannyāsī. Yet, in the Kaula mārga, regardless of whether one follows the northern or southern stream, this ritual is indispensable at least once a month, as it is ordained by Sadāśiva himself.
So I must ask you—are you a Kaula? Or a sannyāsī?
If you claim to be a divyācārī, I will respond by saying: “Then even a cockroach is a bird!”
This is what happens when argument is made only for argument’s sake—no siddhi, no spiritual attainment, can come from it.
The root of the problem lies here: what was once a five-story mall entirely occupied by Kaulas, has now had a Śaṅkara showroom inserted into every floor. The result? It is neither fully Kaula nor fully Śaṅkara—but a curious hybrid.
And people like you are the Bhagīrathas of this hybrid Gangā—its architects and promoters.
Yet the paramparā you criticize has produced countless siddha-sādhakas—revered by saints, sages, even avatāra-kalpa mahājanas. Their legacy does not need your stamp of validity.
From Bāmadēva to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, from the profoundly learned Sāradānandajī, to Śrī Śrī Mā’s companion Vijayā Yoginī Mā—if they all chose not to comment on such matters, then I, too, shall simply offer you a distant pranāma, as Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa himself advised: “To madmen and drunkards, offer salutations from afar.”
As for these khātās that you are publishing—surely, you won’t be distributing them for free. So let me suggest: since these books will help you secure bhikṣānna (alms), would it be too much to ask that you treat the sampradāya from which they come with some respect?
Let us set aside the personal attacks for now—otherwise, it will harm both sides. Discussions about whose mātṛkula is what, who disguised themselves as brāhmaṇas to receive dīkṣā, or who whispers initiation formulas in the dark—perhaps these matters can be discussed some other day.
I now await your next round of satirical compositions in response to this. Much has been said already. In the end, I ask—what have you truly gained from all this?
I also urge my Kaula brothers to reflect. What shall we do with this lineage of ours?
With reverence to the Divine Mother’s feet,
A most unworthy sādhaka,
A seeker of Her grace
(mātṛpada-prārthī, adhamātmā sādhaka)
