ON THE CONCEPT OF SAHAJAParis 1969, p.409-54. For a broader phenomenological study, see Eliade. The Two
and the One, London 1965, p. 19-77.
155 Extrovertive mystical states dealt with p.62-81, summary p.79; introvertive
p.81-lll, summary p.ll0-11. General summary and conclusion p. 131-33. I
slightly abridge the conclusions arrived at by Stace.
156 A great number of other sets of criteria have of course been proposed in this connec-
tion; the classical one is perhaps that of W. James, The Varieties of Religious
Experience, New York (paperback ed.) 1961, p.299-301, viz. "ineffability", "noetic
quality", "transiency", and "passivity". A discussion of these and other criteria
would of course go far beyond the scope of the present study.
157 I take this expression from E. C. Dimock, Jr., The Place of the Hidden Moon, Chicago
1966, p.222, where it is used to refer to the Vaishnava sahajiya ritual of union.
!58 See his chapter on "Mysticism and Logic", p.251-76.
159 See the translation of the relevant passage in the preceding chap.
160 J. Findlay, "The Logic of Mysticism", Religious Studies, vol. !I no. 2 (April 1976),
p. 145-62.
161 See Stace p.278-80. However, his treatment of the subject is, in my opinion, inade-
quate. The examples which he quotes must by no means (as does Stace) be inter-
preted as "alleged scientific revelations". That the mystical experience involves
some kind of "knowledge" may be shown to be the case in a great number of widely
scattered instances. Here attention will only be drawn to the fact that "knowledge" is
regarded as a part of satori in the case of several prominent Zen-masters; this is
significant, as Zen is generally recognized as being particularly "anti-cognitative".
Cf. H. Dumoulin, A History of Zen Buddhism, New York 1963, p. 252.
162 J. B. Pratt, The Religious Consciousness, New York 1920, p.408, quoting Herman
Joseph.
163 Quoting Snellgrove, HVT Part I p.29.
164 R. K. Mukherjee, The Song ofthe Self Supreme, Delhi 1971.
165 N. Smart, "Interpretation and Mystical Experience", Religious Studies vol.I no.
(October 1965), p.75-87.
166 This unity is particularly stressed in PVS.
167 A. Bharati, The Tantric Tradition, has protested against the alleged monism implied
by this interpretation which in substance agrees with that of H. P. Shastri (A VS,
Preface, p.xiii). Bharati's protest is due to his insistence that tantric Buddhism is
"non-ontological" (op.cit. p.27-28). However, I fail to see how such a position can
be maintained.
168 Sii.haja is a derivative of sahaja. The use of sahaja in the present context has the
broader sense of"spontaneous".
169 Shastri's ed. has nijabedha^0 which cannot be correct.
BibliographyA. StudiesBharati, A., The Tantric Tradition, London 1965
Dasgupta, S. B., An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism, Calcutta 1950, reprint Berkeley
1974 (see in particular p. 86--217)
-Obscure Religious Cults, Calcutta 1946, rev.ed. 1962 (Part I. The Buddhist Sahajiya
Cult, p. 3-109)
Eliade, M., Yoga. Immortality and Freedom, Bollingen Series Vol. LVI, New York 1958
(Chap. VI. Yoga and Tantrism, p. 200-273, bibliographical notes p. 399-414)