Vedic vs Tantric Shaktism

What would you classify as the biggest differences between the more Vedic and the more Tantric schools of Shaktism?

Is it as simple as saying one is a left hand path and one is right hand path? That one is "mainstream" and one is more "folk?" Or, in reality, is the line more blurred and there is a fair amount of overlap between the two?

I'm still learning about Tantra but the biggest difference seems to be that Tantric Shaktism relies more heavily on Guru instruction and involves more intense ritual activity. Vedic feels more accessible if that makes sense. There is some overlap but I think Tantric Shaktism delves more deeply into mysticism.

Is there any Shakta tantrism in Vedas? To me, it seems a completely indigenous thought.

Exoteric vs. esoteric- and then the further branching within Shakta tantrik thought...

Fireside_Hindu said:

I'm still learning about Tantra but the biggest difference seems to be that Tantric Shaktism relies more heavily on Guru instruction and involves more intense ritual activity. Vedic feels more accessible if that makes sense. There is some overlap but I think Tantric Shaktism delves more deeply into mysticism.

Click to expand...

StarryNightshade said:

What would you classify as the biggest differences between the more Vedic and the more Tantric schools of Shaktism?

Is it as simple as saying one is a left hand path and one is right hand path? That one is "mainstream" and one is more "folk?" Or, in reality, is the line more blurred and there is a fair amount of overlap between the two?

Click to expand...

I think the frst thing is that there is a lot of cross over between the two - many shakti temples in their puja and worship might come over as Vedic; yet walk outside a few meters and then tantric worship is being performed

On another level what makes one form of worship vedantic and another tantric? There are so many different levels to this ......

StarryNightshade said:

What would you classify as the biggest differences between the more Vedic and the more Tantric schools of Shaktism?

Is it as simple as saying one is a left hand path and one is right hand path? That one is "mainstream" and one is more "folk?" Or, in reality, is the line more blurred and there is a fair amount of overlap between the two?

Click to expand...

Shakti means power, attaining strength. There is no such thing as Vedic Shaktism. The Vedic life was centred around the varna organisation in which different varnas had different roles assigned to them. Tantra is like worshipping the tamasic God or goddess to acquire that strength and power. It is the only form of Shaktism.

The idea that Tantra has to be Left Hand seems kind of weird to me. I'd say, particularly in the cultural contexts Shakta Tantra more "regular" and orthodox where it's more popular... as opposed to say where Vedic Shakta is the more regular or orthodox. It's relative, really. As Aup' put it, more related to indigenous beliefs.

But I don't think it's that simple anyway, it looks like others are on the right track of discussion on this. I just wanted to make that point about Left Hand Path... ect

IMHO, the goal is the same in Tantra also. To cut our attachments to the world and be free.

I think it's tantric when the five Ms are used:
madya (wine)
māṃsa (meat)
matsya (fish)
mudrā (parched grain)
maithuna (sexual intercourse)

Shrew said:

I think it's tantric when the five Ms are used:
madya (wine)
māṃsa (meat)
matsya (fish)
mudrā (parched grain)
maithuna (sexual intercourse)

Click to expand...

No, that would fall under vamachara, of which it's well known for (among other things) although IMO those are not necessary to practice vamachara it's just very common in a lot of traditions and lineages. Substitutes can be used instead too. Tantra doesn't have to be vamachara and usually isn't. Tantra to me in the widest definition is an at least somewhat esoteric or almost magical(more like ritualistic) tradition, with a focus on yantra and mantra work... I guess in a literal sense I see Tantra as mantra+yantra as my understanding is that in someway linguistically it means that. I'm no expert though, I could be wrong on the etymology.

But on a certain level when you really come down to it, there isn't much difference between the many kinds of practices when you strip them to their functional core. There are only so many ways you can worship, meditate and chant ect even if the tools you use vary wildly... it seems a lot of definitions come down to historic usage and culture and so is one huge gradient with overlapping terms, different spins on meaning and different connotations, not some kind of top-down categorization where things fit in discretely.

EDIT: some small clarifications

I think perhaps Shakti worship started as Tantric and was slowly Brahminised over time. Those Goddesses who were easy to co-opt, like Saraswati and Lakshmi, were welcomed into Tantric worship whereas Parvati, Durga and Kali went the other way slowly becoming tamed and Brahminical but even then Parvati, Durga and Kali do not take so easily. They are quite insistent; meat and wine thank you very much. (Parvati less so but I think that's because She was absorbed a bit into Shiva's cult.)

Both paths lead to the same thing but the way of doing it is different. Sometimes tantra is stupid quick and that's why it's sometimes seen as dangerous but there are plenty of people who have followed Brahminical worship and achieved the same.