History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c92.97

v7.c92.97

Dr. H. V. Guenther has published a book styled 'Yuganaddha' propounding the Tāntrik view of life based only on Buddhist Tantras and endeavours to prove in that work (of about 190 pages) that the Buddhist Tāntrikas try to restore life in its entirety, which is neither an indulgence in passions nor a rejection and escape, but a complete reconciliation to the hard facts of life, that the sexual aspect of the Tantras is but the corrective against the one-sided intellectualism and rationalism of mere philosophy which is unable to cope with the problems of everyday life and that the symbol of Yuganaddha points to the unique harmony and interpenetration of masculinity and feminity, of blunt truth and symbolic truth, of intellect and humanity. It is not possible even to summarize this work or criticize it here. The core of the doctrine of the Vajrayāna tantras is found in the passages quoted in notes 1720-21, 1723-24. The argument is: according to these Tantras perception of wholeness is the most joyous of all human experiences and man's experience will not be full but only partial if he has no experience of feminity i. e. of everything female. He may experience feminity through all female members of his family. Therefore, it is not to be wondered at, says Dr. Guenther, that 'this experience so often has an incestuous character'. Then he offers (on pp 106-112) a lengthy explanation of what he means which, the present author has to confess, is not quite clear to his moderate mental abilities. Dr. Guenther appears to be steeped in all the latest theories of modern psychologists like those of Freud and tries to expound that Buddhist authors of the 8th century A. D. like Anaṅgavajra and Indrabhūti had plumbed the depths of the psychical life on the lines of modern psycho-analysis. Granting for a moment all that Dr. Guenther says about bi-sexuality, about sexual partnership being the best expression for the most intimate relation between two opposites, about woman being for the male a material object and a goddess, the present writer feels that one question appears to have been not satisfactorily answered or explained, viz. why did not the Buddhist Tāntrikas simply exhort the sādhaka to understand the emotions, viewpoints and value of woman as a mother, sister, wife, daughter or as a woman in general and why did they frequently and blatantly harp upon sexual intercourse of even an incestuous kind as a quick method of realizing the goal?