History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c92.165

v7.c92.165

Some of the Tantras practically inculcated what appears to non-tāntrikas unbridled licence. The Kaulāvalī-nirṇaya (IV. 15 ff) asserts: 'The Śāktas have no higher means of happiness and liberation than the fifth tattva (i. e. maithuna); a sādhaka becomes *siddha* only by the (practice) of the fifth tattva. If he resorts only to the first (i. e. wine) he becomes only Bhairava, if only to the 2nd (meat) he becomes Brahmā, by the third (fish) he becomes a mahābhairava, by the 4th (mudrā) he becomes foremost among sādhakas.¹⁷⁶⁹ The same Tantra goes further and frankly says 'all women are fit for intercourse to a (Śākta) worshipper except the wives of his guru or of those Śāktas who have attained to the status of *Vīra*, that for those who have reached the stage of *advaita* there is no prohibition nor is anything enjoined. To the pure everything is pure, it is only the hankering that is blamable.' In this connection that work advances certain puerile and obscene arguments (in VIII. 223-225) about illicit or incestuous intercourse that cannot be set out here. That tantra does not stand alone in such statements. For example, the Kālīvilāsatantra (X. 20-21) allows adulterous intercourse to a 'Śākta' devotee provided it is not carried to the last stage of emission and avers that, if he observes the condition in the proviso, he would become the master of supernatural powers in spite of adultery. It should be noted that the author of this work has unabashed hardihood to make Śiva tell this to Pārvatī. About wine that work remarks 'just as drinking of soma¹⁷⁷⁰ is prescribed for brāhmaṇas is solemn Vedic sacrifices, similarly wine should be drunk at proper times (or according to the practice of Kaulas), since it confers enjoyment as well as mokṣa; drinking wine is blamable in the case of those who hanker after benefits or who are egoistic; but in the case of those that are free from egoism there is neither prohibition (of drinking) nor the enjoining of it. One who is free from the fetters of making distinctions should practise drinking wine for the purpose of remembering the meaning of the mantras and for making his mind fixed (on worship) but he who resorts to wine, and other tattvas merely for pleasure is sinful.' The teachings of works like the Kaulāvalī-nirṇaya about drinking wine and sexual intercourse with all sorts of women as the highest means of Śakti worship by persons professing to be *advaitins* led to great depravity and sexual immorality and orgies as indicated by the criticism in medieval works cited above (pp. 1073-76) that regarded Tāntrik teachings as execrable, though some medieval Hindu works admitted into religious practices nyāsa, mudrā, yantra and the like, which were deemed to be innocuous and which would be described in this work later on. The mere intention of doing good if certain conditions were fulfilled is not enough excuse, when it is most likely that the means proposed for attaining a high spiritual level and for liberation would have the opposite effect on most people. Taking all things into consideration, the present author is constrained to observe that medieval and recent writers who severely criticized Tāntrik works were on the whole largely justified in their condemnation of Tāntrik practices as enunciated in many Tāntrik works and of the works themselves. For one man that attained super-normal powers, high spiritual level and great mystic experience there must have been hundreds of hypocrites, charlatans, and licentious men who deluded trustful and ignorant men and particularly women.