Sri Aurobindo
Early Cultural Writings
(1890 — 1910)
Part Eight. Reviews
“Hymns to the Goddess”1
This is one of a series of publications by Mr. Arthur Avalon consisting of texts and translations of the Tantras.
The hymns collected and translated in this volume are, however, taken from other sources besides the Tantras.
Many of them are from the considerable body of devotional hymns attributed by tradition to the philosopher Shankaracharya, a few from the Mahabharata and the Puranas.
Most are well-known stotras addressed to the various forms and names of the female Energy, Mother of the worlds, whose worship is an important part of that many-sided and synthetic whole which we call Hinduism.
The work of translation has been admirably done.
The one slight defect is the preservation untranslated of Sanskrit words other than names which might well have been rendered into English.
The translation is at once faithful, simple and graceful in style and rhythm.
No English version can reproduce the majesty of the Sanskrit rhythms and the colour and power of the original, but within the limits of the possible the work could hardly have been better executed.
The translation is accompanied by brief but numerous notes.
Mr. Avalon has made a principle of submission to the authority of the Hindu2 commentators and learned men whom he has consulted or taken as his guides in the study of the Tantra.
He writes, “It is necessary to study the Hindu commentators and to seek the oral aid of those who possess the traditional interpretation of the Shastra.
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 Nilakantha on the Mahabharata, of Gopala 
Chakravarti and Nagoji Bhatta on Chandi, and of Nilakantha on the Devibhagavata.
As regards the Tantra, the great Sadhana Shastra, nothing which is both of an understanding and accurate character can be achieved without a study of the original texts undertaken with the assistance of the Tantric gurus and pundits who are the authorised custodians of its traditions.”
This careful scrupulousness is undoubtedly the right attitude for the work which Mr. Avalon has set himself, — to present to the English-reading public the philosophy and worship of the Tantra and the way of the Shaktas as they have been traditionally practised and understood in mediaeval and modern India.
The method followed assures a sound basis free from the vagaries of learned ignorance and unfettered ingenuity which render so much of the work of European scholarship on Indian subjects fantastic, unsound and ephemeral.
It cannot, we think, be the final attitude; an independent scrutiny of the ancient scriptures and forms of philosophy and religion is needed through the whole range of Indian thought and devotion both to recover their more ancient and original forms and principles often concealed by later accretions and crystallisings and to separate from them whatever is of imperishable worth and utility for the spiritual future of mankind.
But meanwhile, and especially when a great and difficult subject is being for the first time brought forward in an adequate manner to general notice, the conservative method is undoubtedly the most desirable.
Commentators, however, even the most learned, are subject to error, as Mr. Avalon has had to recognise in his translation of the verse which declares that all women without exception are forms of the Great Mother.
The commentator would have us believe that the phrase striyaḥ samastāḥ sakalā jagatsu means all women who possess the sixty-four arts and are devoted to their husbands, are modest, etc.
The translator rightly rejects this conventional distortion of a great and profound philosophical truth; he translates “all women without exception throughout the world”.
We wonder whether the phrase does not admit of a different shade cutting deeper into the heart of things.
The lines are,
Vidyāḥ samastās tava devi bhedāḥ
Striyaḥ samastāḥ sakalā jagatsu.
Is there not a hint of a distinction between the simple bhedāḥ and sakalāḥ?
“All sciences, O Goddess, are different parts of thee, all women entirely in the worlds.”
The sense would then be that wherever the feminine principle is found in the living personality, we have the entire presence of the world-supporting maternal soul of the Divinity.
The Devi with all her aspects, kalās, is there in the Woman; in the Woman we have to see Durga, Annapurna, Tara, the Mahavidyas, and therefore it is said in the Tantra, in the line quoted by Mr. Avalon in his preface, “Wherever one sees the feet of Woman, one should give worship in one’s soul even as to one’s guru.”
Thus this thought of the Shakta side of Hinduism becomes an uncompromising declaration of the divinity of woman completing the Vedantic declaration of the concealed divinity in man which we are too apt to treat in practice as if it applied only in the masculine.
We put away in silence, even when we do not actually deny it, the perfect equality in difference of the double manifestation.
There are other instances in which the translators seem to us not to have escaped the misleading wiles of the commentator.
We may instance the passage in the Hymn to Mahadevi in which the Goddess is described as being “both black and grey”.
“Smoke-coloured” would be a closer rendering of the epithet dhūmra.
We are told in the note that it means “that which is with smoke, the sacrificial rite, here the knowledge of the rites”.
This is a scholastic interpretation which we cannot accept.
The different hues of the Goddess are always psychologically symbolic and Mr. Avalon has himself an excellent passage to that effect in his Introduction.
But, although occasionally provoking dissent, the notes are throughout interesting and instructive and often throw a new light on the implications of the text.
Mr. Avalon in his publications insists upon the greatness of the Tantra and seeks to clear away by a dispassionate statement of the real facts the cloud of misconceptions which have obscured our view of this profound and powerful system.
We shall 
have occasion to deal with this aspect of his work when we come to speak of the Mahanirvana Tantra.
In this volume he justifies against European prejudice the attribution of the feminine form and quality to God and against modern ignorance generally the image-worship which the Tantra in common with other Hindu systems makes part of the first stage in religious progress.
On both points we are in general agreement with his standpoint, though we do not hold that religious evolution must necessarily follow the line laid down by the Tantra.
Human conceptions of the Divine divide themselves first into the worship of the formed and the aspiration towards the formless, secondly, into the adoration of the Qualified and the urge of the rarest spirits towards the Unqualified, the Absolute.
For all these stages the Tantric worship and discipline provides.
How can the Formless invest Himself with form, asks the religious rationalist.
The universe is there to reply.
Hinduism worships Narayana in the stone, the tree, the animal, the human being.
That which the intellectual and spiritual pride or severity of other religions scorns, it makes its pride and turns into its own form of logical severity.
Stocks and stones, the quadruped and the human being, all these are equals in God, our brothers in the Divine, forms that the Omnipresent has not disdained to assume.
But beyond the material forms there are others that are ideal and symbolic, but not less, if anything more real, more full of divine power than any actual physical manifestation.
These are the mental images in which we worship God.
The Hindu believes that to whatever form he brings his devotion, the love of God is bound to assume and vivify it, and we cannot say that the belief is irrational.
For if there is a Consciousness in the universe and transcending it which answers to the yearning of all these creatures and perhaps Itself yearns towards them with the love of the Father, the Mother, the Friend, the Lover, and a love surpassing all these, then it is idle to suppose that It would assume or create for its own pleasure and glory the forms of the universe, but would disdain as an offence to Its dignity or purity those which the love of the worshipper offers to It and which after all Itself has formed in his heart or his imagination.
To these mental forms mental worship may be offered, and this is the higher way; or we may give the material foundation, the pratiṣṭhā, of a statue or pictured image to form a physical nodus for a physical act of worship.
In the formless also we worship God, in His qualities, in His Love, Power, Bliss, Wisdom, in the great cosmic Principles by which He manifests Himself to the eye of knowledge.
We worship Him as the Impersonality manifested in these things or the Personality containing them.
And we rise at the apex of the pinnacle into that which is not only formless, arūpa, but nirguṇa, qualityless, the indefinable, anirdeśyam, of the Gita.
In our human ignorance, with our mental passion for degrees and distinctions, for superiorities and exclusions, we thus grade these things and say that this is superior, that is for ignorant and inferior souls.
Do we know?
The Theist looks down with reprobation on the form-adoring man-worshipping idolater and polytheist; the Adwaitin looks down with a calm and tolerant indulgence on the ignorance of the quality-adoring personality-bemused Theist.
But it seems to us that God scorns nothing, that the Soul of all things may take as much delight in the prayer of a little child or the offering3 of a flower or a leaf before a pictured image as in the philosopher’s leap from the summit of thought into the indefinable and unknowable and that he does best who can rise and widen into the shoreless realisation and yet keep the heart of the little child and the capacity of the seer of forms.
At any rate, this is an attitude towards which these Hymns to the Goddess bring us very near.
They are full of the glories of her form, her visible body; full of the thinker’s perception of her in all the shapes of the universe; full of the power of her psychological aspects; pervaded too by a sense behind and often expressed of her final unity and transcendence.
Mr. Avalon brings this out with great force and vividness in his Introduction.
But it should be manifest even to a careless reader of the Hymns.
Take the following passage: —
Reverence to Her who is eternal, Raudra,
To Gauri and Dhatri, reverence and again reverence,
To Her who is moonlight and in the form of the moon,
To Her who is supreme bliss, reverence for ever.
That4 is from the famous hymn in the Chandi-Mahatmya, deservedly one of the best known in sacred literature; but everywhere we find the same crowding of different aspects.
In a hymn of which the eleventh verse is a sensuous description of the physical goddess, —
O Gauri! with all my heart
I contemplate Thy form,
Beauteous of face,
With its weight of hanging hair,
With full breasts and rounded slender waist,
Holding in three hands a rosary, a pitcher and book
And with thy fourth hand making the jnanamudra, —
(mark how the close passes naturally into the psychological symbolism of the form), the ninth is a remarkable piece of Yogic imagery, —
O Mother! like the sleeping King of serpents
Residing in the centre of the first lotus,
Thou didst create the universe.
Thou dost ascend like a streak of lightning,
And attainest the ethereal region; —
and the opening is the highest philosophy expressed with great poetic force and interspersed with passages of the richest poetic5 colour —
The cause and Mother of the world,
She whose form is that of the Shabdabrahman,
And whose substance is bliss.
Thou art the primordial One,
Mother of countless creatures,
Creatrix of the bodies of the Lotus-born, Vishnu and Shiva,
Who creates, preserves and destroys the worlds. . . .
Although Thou art the primordial cause of the world,
Yet art Thou ever youthful.
Although Thou art the Daughter of the Mountain-King,
Yet art Thou full of tenderness.
Although Thou art the Mother of the Vedas,
Yet they cannot describe Thee.
Although men must meditate upon Thee,
Yet cannot their mind comprehend Thee.
This hymn is quoted as culled from a Tantric compilation, the Tantrasara.
Its opening is full of the supreme meaning of the great Devi symbol, its close is an entire self-abandonment to the adoration of the body of the Mother.
This catholicity is typical of the whole Tantric system, which is in its aspiration one of the greatest attempts yet made to embrace the whole of God manifested and unmanifested in the adoration, self-discipline and knowledge of a single human soul.