Vaiṣṇavas are the Pure Śāktas
By Prabhupāda Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura
Śakti and Śaktimān are to be worshipped together
In the world of material affairs (vyavahārika-jagata), there has been a longstanding feud between Śāktas and Vaiṣṇavas that has even found a place in the histories of the Purāṇas. We find mention of this in the account of the Vaiṣṇava king Candrahāsa. But if one considers the matter with a proper understanding, one cannot discern any distinct difference between a pure Śākta and a Vaiṣṇava, because one is a worshipper of infinite Śakti and the other of the singular Śaktimān. One cannot be a worshipper of Śakti without becoming the servant of Śaktimān, and the servant of Śaktimān is a worshipper of Bhagavān who is endowed with Śakti; his upāsya-tattva (worshipful truth) is not without Śakti. “Śakti-śaktimator-abhedaḥ”—by this conclusion, a Śakti-less Śaktimān cannot be worshipped. Alternatively, how can worship of Śakti as a principle separate from Śaktimān be possible? Hence, what is the difference between a Śākta and a Vaiṣṇava who are situated in the immaculate dharma of service? The differences that are observed are because of the corruption of a pure service mentality or, in other words, the rise of an enjoying mentality.
Worship born of the guṇas is not eternal
Whenever inclinations born of the guṇas take possession of the living entities, they very effectively cause their inclination to serve to wane or disappear. Causing the disappearance of service to Śakti along with Śaktimān, they beckon sensual indulgence (bhoga). In place of viśuddha- (immaculate) sattva, rajas and tama come and incite people to indulgence. The dharma they have in this condition is not their nitya-dharma (eternal function). Only if, by some good fortune, their propensity for enjoyment and the domination of the guṇas lessens, then this temporary dharma ceases to possess them. Those jīvas will then become established in viśuddha-sattva and regard themselves as eternal servants of Bhagavān, knowing that pure service is their only genuine propensity. At the moment, in some places, it is this dharma of the bhogīs, which is dominated by rajas and tama, that is referred to as Vaiṣṇava- or Śākta-dharma, though it is but a perverted form thereof. In such cases, these various forms of worship, wherein there is not a genuine attitude of service (sevā-buddhi), there exists at their root the pursuit of personal, mundane sense gratification.
Gauṇa-Vaiṣṇava and Gauṇa-Śākta
The purpose of entertaining the general populace is to gain wealth and fame, to eradicate or outdo one’s enemies, as well as to gain power and influence. The execution of gauṇa (secondary, or “born of the guṇas”) Vaiṣṇava- or Śākta-dharma is when we stand before Lakṣmī, Kātyāyanī, and other forms of Śakti, seeing Them as presiding deities of the material realm and seeking from Them the things we need for our convenience while living on this Earth. These prayers are, ultimately, our sakāma-kṛtya, or activities we engage in for the sake of our own aims. Therefore, though at their root there is no difference between Śakta and Vaiṣṇava-dharma, we have taken the inclinations of ours that arise from the guṇas and, by our lustful hankerings, separated the these two dharmas from what is true and pure. All who introduce themselves as Vaiṣṇavas are not the selfless servants of Viṣṇu’s Śakti (Lakṣmī) and Viṣṇu Himself. Many are Vaiṣṇavas and Śāktas of bhoga-mārga (the path of enjoyment). The pristine dharma of sevā cannot exist where there is indulgence of these prayers to Viṣṇu and Viṣṇu’s Śakti for worldly fortunes with the idea that They are presiding deities of the material realm. Even if these sorts of worshippers of Viṣṇu present themselves as Vaiṣṇavas and bear the markings of Vaiṣṇavas, they are nothing more than gauṇa-Vaiṣṇavas or gauṇa-Śāktas.
The agency of Śakti alone without Śaktimān is opposed to the Vedas
To acquire the ingredients for one’s own bhoga (sense enjoyment), one must resort to the bahiraṅgā-śakti (external energy), because all that can be done in this world of bhoga arises from Śakti. This is why the enjoying mentality is not capable of beholding the Vaikuṇṭha of Śaktimān. It can only perceive Māyā-śakti, which is characterized by the experience of bhoga. The enjoying mentality does not stay appraised of Śaktimān. That is precisely where the discordance is created. Otherwise, if one considers from a neutral point of view whether or not it is possible for Śakti to exist independently, then, as per the Vedas, we see that Śakti exists within Bhagavān alone. The idea of leaving Śaktimān aside, of Śakti being first and Śaktimān coming later, is pursuant to Kapila’s anti-Vedic doctrine. Though such philosophers may deem prakṛti alone to be the kartrī (causal agent), such notions are not accepted in the Vedas.
Without the shelter of Śaktimān, taking shelter of Śakti is impossible
Brāhmaṇas, for whom the Vedas alone are the only recourse, cannot justify rejecting Śaktimān to take shelter of Śakti. And more importantly, Śakti cannot be deemed to be only acit (non-conscious). Śakti is a tadīya-tattva, a principle or truth belonging to the Supreme Being [referred to here by the word tad “that”]. If there are brāhmaṇas who cannot accept tad-vastu, or tattva-vastu, which is, in other words, śaktṛimattatva (the state of being the possessor of śakti), then they cannot be pure Śāktas. This is because viśuddha- (totally pure) brāhmaṇas are those who adhere to sattva-guṇa. How will they give up sattva and become subservient to rajas and tama? Instead, they will gradually adopt the nirguṇatā (transcendence of the guṇas) in the form of viśuddha-sattva and eventually become real Vaiṣṇavas. They are themselves nitya-bhogya-tattva (eternally aspects of a principle that is to be enjoyed), or śakti, so they will not retain the slightest propensity for enjoyment. They will become established in the eternal dharma of their svarūpa, which is immaculate service to Bhagavān (viśuddha-bhagavat-sevā). Then they will no longer mistake forms of worship performed for the sake of mundane indulgence to be bhakti. They will not accept bhukti (material enjoyment) as bhakti and will not think of prayers based in bhukti as non-different from bhakti.
The bhoktā (enjoyer) is not a bhakta
Can demanding as much as one can from one’s mother, the keen effort to acquire something from her, be called mātṛ-bhakti (devotion to one’s mother)? “People who have milk to drink also get to add sugar to it, whereas all I have are wild greens and on top of that, there is sand in them.” If this sort of agitation and malcontentedness were deemed to be bhakti, then there would be no scarcity of bhaktas in the world, and bhaktas would not be such a revered tattva. Rāvaṇa also worshipped Mahā-māyā for the fulfillment of his desires, but he is not known as a bhakta.
The difference between Dhruva and Prahlāda Mahārāja
Dhruva Mahārāja’s initial endeavours were not of the sort that is condoned by Vaiṣṇavas, because he set out in search of Padma-palāśa-locana Hari (“the lotus-eyed Hari”) simply out of greed for a kingdom, and to eradicate his distress. That is not śuddha-bhakti (pure devotion). Later, by his good fortune, under the shelter of Devaṛṣi Nārada, by the effect of such sādhu-saṅga, that inferior mentality of his was dispelled, and then he became foremost among bhaktas. In the life and character of Prahlāda Mahārāja, however, this propensity for enjoyment was never seen. One cannot find there to be any recommendation of Vaiṣṇava or Śākta-dharma that is bereft of service.
Vaiṣṇava and Śākta worship of Śiva
From time to time, the perverse Vaiṣṇavas or Śāktas who are prone to material indulgence are seen to be adherents of Śaiva-dharma. When they become inclined towards the achievement of mokṣa, then they adopt the path of the Śaṅkaraite Śaivas. When they make demands of Mā—“I cannot stay in this jail of saṁsāra any longer; please deliver me from this jailhouse,”—in other words, when they indulge in bhoga and see that there is no undiluted enjoyment of happiness, that it is always mixed with the experience of suffering, then the efforts to attain mokṣa, to become totally free from unhappiness, become very pronounced in them. Due to ignorance, we may think that too to be bhakti, but there is no place for śuddha-bhakti amid these ambitions to attain mokṣa. That too is but the worship of presiding demigods for the sake of some temporary gain.
The characteristic of nirmalā (immaculate) bhakti
Nirmalā-bhakti is not tainted by the desire for bhoga and mokṣa. The pure Vaiṣṇava or those who have taken refuge of Viṣṇu’s Śakti are performers of śuddha-bhakti. If one considers all these things, there can be no disagreement between Śāktas and Vaiṣṇavas. People will perform bhajana according to what is prāpya (attainable) for them. Where is there room for argument and debate in this regard?