Shakti and Shâkta : essays and addresses on the Shâkta Tantrashâstra

amt oom Ee

SHAKTI AND SHAKTA

given or taken (Madyam apeyam adeyam agrahyam)” but the yet greater Manu states, “ There is no wrong in the eating of meat or the drinking of wine (Na mangsabakshane dosho na madye) though he rightly adds, as many now do, that abstention therefrom is productive of great fruit (Nivrittistu mahaphala). The Tantrik practice does not allow extra-ritual or “ useless” drinking (Vrithapana).

Further it isa common error to confound two distinct things, namely belief and practice and the written records of it. These latter may be comparatively recent, whilst that of which they speak may be most ancient. When I speak of the ancient past of this faith | am not referring merely to the writings which exist to-day which are called Tantras. These are composed generally in a simple Sanskrit by men whose object it was to be understood rather than to show skill in literary ornament. This simplicity is a sign of age. But at the same time it is Laukika and not Arsha Sanskrit. Moreover there are statements in them which (unless interpolations) fi: the limits of their age. I am not speaking of the writings themselves but of what they say. The faith that they embody, or at least its earlier forms, may have existed for many ages before it was reduced to writing amengst the Kulas or farnily folk, who received it as handed down by tradition (Paramparyya) just as did the Vaidik Gotras. That such beliefs and practices, like all other things, have had their development in course of time is also a likely hypothesis.

A vast number of Tantras have disappeared probably for ever. Of those which survive a large number are unknown. Most of those which are available are of a fragmentary character. Even if these did appear later than some other ShAstras, this would not, on Indian principles affect their authority. According to such principles the authority of a Scripture is not determined by its date ; and this is sense. Why, it is asked, should something said 1000 years ago be on that account only truer than what

67