History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c92.132.1

v7.c92.132.1

The Mahānirvāṇatantra and a few others endeavour to stem the tide of sexual immorality and promiscuity. For example, Rāmeśvara, the commentator of Paraśurāmakalpasūtra, says that one that has not conquered his senses has no *adhikāra* for Kaulamārga (p. 153). This is in direct conflict with what even the Mahānirvāṇatantra says that all men from brāhmaṇas to the untouchables have adhikāra for Kula practices. Modern apologists for Tāntrism emphasize that the instructions embodied in the Guhyasamāja, the directions for the mode of life to be led by followers of Vajrayāna, apply only to the Yogis who have attained some degree of yogic perfection. But the obvious reply is 'who is to decide that a particular person had attained the minimum spiritual level except the man himself and, supposing that all the directions were meant for Yogis, why was it necessary to say in a blatant manner and language that a Yogi practising Vajrayāna may engage in what common and less sophisticated people deem to be incest? This is not the place to reply to all apologists for ancient and medieval Tāntrik works. But a few must be dealt with because they are liable to create misunderstandings, if allowed to go uncriticized. In his Preface to 'Principles of Tantra' Part 2, Sir John Woodroffe states (p. IX.) that the use of flesh, fish and wine was common in the Vedic age and that the Mahābhārata and some Purāṇas like the Kālikā, Mārkaṇḍeya and Kūrma refer to consumption of wine, meat and fish.