CHAPTER I

AUTHORITY AND ANTIQUITY
It is a common-place belief among the people that anything to be of authoritative character in matters of religion, should have the sanction of ages; as if authenticity of truth depends upon mere antiquity. Hardly anything new in the domain of religious faith is looked upon with rever- ence ; nay more, sometimes it is sternly put down as a sacrilegious profanation of sacred truths ! Every pioneer of a new truth, every prophet of anew creed, every reformer of a popular superstition has to fight against this stolid conservatism of the populace. Sometimes, one has to pay with his life for the audacity of his new innovation or faith. Socrates had to drink hemlock, and Christ was crucified for revealing new light to their country- men. Such is the antipathy of the people against all new doctrines in matters of religion. It takes along time even for an worn out creed to die a natural death.
Likewise, there is a feeling of aversion among the Hindus in general to almost every article of faith, that is not to be traced to the Vedas. Anything of later date than that of the Vedas is not entitled to that amount of veneration in which even the most insignificant Vedic triflles are held. But this is neither logical nor sound. , Hindu religion itself has undergone radical changes in various things since the time of the Vedas. It is only Lord Sree Krishna in the past who had the courage to raise a voice of protest against such blind veneration tor the Vedas,
‘both in the Gita and in the main body of the
i a)
Mahabharat.' He said that the Vedas were not all comprenhesive, nor fully exhaustive in matters of religion, new cases and new situations and new conditions may arise even in matters of religion, which should be solved by one’s inference in the light of reason and truth. To put in the words of Edmund Burke: “Position is the dictator of one’s duty.” The Vedas themselves were not the last word on religion, so they could not be conclusive about everything in religious matter’ That the Vedas are not fully exhaustive in matters of religion is proved by the very existence of the Upanishads and the Sanhitas and other ancient Hindu Scriptures.’
/
Thus one has to- plead for an exemption from such a blind veneration for the Vedas, if he has to speak about any new article of faith or any religious creed, or any new form of worship that has no origin in the Vedas. But the tense of revelation is not indefinitely past, but infinitely future. It is upon this incontrovertible truth that science, with all its branches, rests. A truth may be revealed in a later age and that should not be any reason for rejecting it from the domain of truths. Youth is not an _ atrocious’ crime in nature, nor it should be soin human affairs. But sometimes an exception is sought in matters of religion from this general scientific principle. But such an attitude of mind is neither rational nor liberal. Catholicity of views is as essential in religion as in science and in other secular matters.
Now, one of the reasons for which’ a non-Sakta | has little regard forthe Tantras and for Tantrick religion is that the Tantras are of later date than
1 Vide the present writer's Lord Sreekrishna
2 Vide Mahabharat the Udyoga Parva and the Karna Parva
3 In one sense they are regarded asso many branches of the Vedas because they are called Veda’ngas. :
ae
that of the Vedas. Certainly, the Tantras are of later origin than the hoary Vedas, but the essence of Tantrick religion is not. The Tantras are of later dates, but their creed is not of later age, nor it is of recent origin. The great Sanskritist, Kalluka Bhatta, the illustrious commentator of Manu, has held the Tantras as a Sruti. He says: “There are two classes of Sruti,— Vedic and Tantrick.’”’
Most of the Tantras are of recent origion no doubt, but the Tantrick creed and the worship of the great Sakti are of hoary antiquity and we find it even in the Rig Veda. In the Tenth Mandal of the Rig’ Veda we get the famous Devi Sukta, containing hymns to Durga, another name for Sakti (goddess Kali), the main Deity of the Tantras and of Tantric faith.
Thus, it is evident that Tantrick religion, even judging from the point of antiquity, is not of ‘recent origin, but it is as old as any other form of the Vedic religion, although it must be admitted on all hands that formal treatises upon Tantrick religion were compo:ed in later times. It is also clear that the Tantrick form of worship was in vogue at the time when Srimad Bhagabatam was written. There, in the Srimad Bhagabat, we find the Broja Gopis worshipping Yogamaya ( Goddess Sakti) for obtaining Sreekrishna as their husband and there are ample references to Tantric gods and goddesses in it.
That Tantrick religion was in vogue in the days of the Purans is also sufficiently clear from the Purans themselves, as from the Markandeya Puran, Linga Puran etc. References to Tantrick ‘deities and to the Tantric form of worship are also to be found in many ancient Sanskrit works. Even in the Atharva Veda we meet with many rites and rituals which are quite similar to what we find
1 “Vaidekita’nerikiscnaiva Dwividha’ Sruti Kirttita’ ”
C4
in the Tantras. The Tantras are of comparatively recent date, but Tantrick religion existed from the most early stages of Hindu religion, and we have already mentioned the Devi Suxta of the Rig Veda. To contend after this that Tantrick religion is of recent origin is to go against historical facts. Thus, the popular notion that Tantrick creed is of modern date falls to the ground. An instance from the realm of science will make our position clear. Long before the birth of Organic chemistry, there were in use among the ancient civilised nations several organic compounds, though regular treatises on Organic chemistry came to be written only towards the later part of the Nineteenth Century. Again, ignorance is sometimes responsible for regarding a thing to be new or of recent date. We all know that Newton has discovered the Law of Gravitation, but only very few of us know that five hundred years before the birth of Newton, Arya Bhatta had discovered and established the Law of Gravitation. Long, long before the birth of Copernicus, the Hindus discovered the truth that the earth revolves round the sun, and upon the basis of this scientific truth they calculated exact time of the eclipse, which is still now found to be precisely accurate, even according to the calculations of modern Astronomy. Thus formal treatises on a particular subject might be written in later times, though its subject-matter and its truth might be known from the earliest time of human civilisation. And this, in all force, applies to the case of the Tantras and Tantric religion. Tantrick religion with its rites and rituals were prevalent among the people long, long before the Tantras were written.
Let us once more make our position clear. Even if the Tantrick creed, inspite of incontrovertible historical evidence, is held to be of recent origin that alone will not take away a bit from the intrinsic worth of the Tantras and of Tantric
A.)
religion. Truth is truth, whether discovered in the hoary past or at the present moment, and it cannot be brushed aside because it has very recently come to our knowledge. Nor any truth gives any additional value, like old wine, because it was revealed to our fore-fathers in the hoary past. Time has no influence on truth. Hence the great spiritual truths which Tantrick religion embodies and which have been elaborated in the Tantras in later times, can not lose any value or usefulness simply because they are of recent origin, though we have fully proved, both on historical and literary evidence, that Tantric religion is as old as any other form of Vedic religion.
Again, it is not antiquity, but the real intrinsic worth of a thing which should be regarded as authoritative in the domain of religion and morality. And that is authoritative which is really uplifting, enlightening and chastening, and which is helpful for the attainment’ of perfection and felicity in life, and conducive to our final emanci- pation from all sins and sorrows. Simply because a thing is old it is no reason to hold that it should be authoritative in matters of religious faith. A thing might have its usefulness once, but now may be not only quite useless, but even harmful. Nay more, irrational conservatism, even in matters of religion, hinders improvement and progress and induces us to makea fetish of an old, worn out
creed.
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”
These wise words of the poet we often forget in our idolatrous veneration for the past.
Thus, a thing is not good simply because it is old, nor itis bad simply because it is new. Hence
( G: )
truths of a particular religion can never lose their intrinsic value simply beéause they were not known in ancient times. Judged by the standard of mere antiquity as the only test of authority and authen- ticity of truth, Christianity and Mahomedanism will appear to be less authoritative than old Jewish religion and heathanism of ancient Arabia. We need not speak more about it and tire out the patience of the learned readers. The great truths of Tantrick religion and of the Tantras will remain quite unaltered in their usefulness and worth whether they are found to be old or new.
There is one thing more and we shall be done.
There are some prejudices even among honest people against the Tantrick creed on account of some of its rites and rituals, which on superficial survey appear to be either highly licentious, or extremely cruel, or exceedingly loathsome. But if one only takes the trouble of going deeper into thing, he will find that they are neither licentious, nor cruel, nor loathsome, but they are some mystic rites and rituals ‘ which have been degraded by the vicious people for their selfish ends and for the gratification of their animal appetites ) calculated to help the devotee to advance along the path of moral perfec- tion, which is absolutely essential for one’s final emancipation. Again, some are designed for furthering concentration of the devotee, some, for " augmenting self-control, and some, for the restraint of his senses, feelings and innate propensities. Ina word, they are intended for the attainment of com- plete mastery over one’s senses and passions, which are indispensable both for spiritual emancipation -and fcr moral perfection, both of which go together. These rites and rituals consisting of many mys- tic symbols, constitute some of the occult secrets of the Tantras and of Tantrick religion which on closer examination will be found to be of very great psychological value for moral disci-
Cary)
pline as well as for the attainment of spiritual bliss. We shall speak of them in their proper places.
Thus, the prevalent belief among the non- Tantricks, or the non-Saktas that Tantrick religion is of recent growth and it isfull of corrupt and cruel practices are not only quite unreasonable and unfounded, but go direct against truth and history. We should, therefore, proceed with the subject with an unbiased mind, and should remember that some of the greatest saints of India were Tantricks in their faith, and they observed in practice Tantrick form of worship and Tantrick rites and rituals. Good many men, whose public and private lives were uniform records of unsullied purity, whose moral perfection and_ spiritual greatness can never be questioned even by the tongue of calumny, and who in their lives proved to their contemporaries what great divine perfection a man might attain by devotion and piety, were “Tantricks in their profession of faith. We need not go to remote antiquity for instances of it. There are such saintly persons among the Saktas even in our own days. One may find them if he ‘only takes the trouble of finding them out. We need not even refer to Ramkrishna Paramhansa and his world-famous disciple Swami Vivekananda, there are others even like them, though we know little about them. They live and work unseen and even avoid popularity and public noise. They are born ‘to blush unseen and waste’ their ‘sweetness on the desert air.’
They will never themselves come to lime- light. It is one of the main characteristics of the Hindu saints ( to whatever sect one might belong ) “that they never seek popularity or fame; they do not, at all, wish to reveal themselves to their countrymen. They remain absorbed’ in their “own pursuits and deeply immersed in their spiritual bliss. Fame sometimes follow their foot-prints
roa
‘and drag them out from their obscurity, as gold and diamonds are dug out from pitch-dark mines. To all impartial seekers of truth, our statement, we believe, will appear to be quite modest. What is in-itself base and corrupt can never produce anything great or noble. A tree is known by its fruit. This we should remember in judging the Trantras and Tantrick creed.