There are two views on Anukalpas. Some of the tantras that have a slant towards dakṣiṇācāra, allow the use of anukalpas. Again, the anukalpas are recommended, in such tantras, for brāhmaṇa and also for paśu. It is probably because of this reason that some medieval texts that now get passed around as tantras, came to identify brāhmaṇa as always the paśu. It must be noted that many such tantras which speak of anukalpas for brāhmaṇas on the basis of varṇa are hardly given any importance by the hardcore Kaulas. These are mainly used for quotations by the brāhamaṇas treading dubious double paths. But if one examines tantras based firmly on Kaula vidhi, they advise anukalpa only when the pratyakṣya is unavailable. There is no other justifiable reason for anukalpas to be used. Moreover, it is clarified in many of these tantras that the Kaula path is the mahāvrata that supersedes everything else including the Vaidika nitya karma, agnihōtra, and other vratas and hence a brāhmaṇa who takes to Kaula path can give up all these as well as the need to follow the injunctions in smr̥ti. From this, what becomes clear is that consumption of meat, liquor, or even parastrīgamana is not seen as niṣēdha in Kaula circles for the scriptures that advise these are not held as pramāṇa therein. Thus, be it for a brāhmaṇa or someone else, the original reason to use anukalpa seems to have been the unavailability of the actual ingredients.
Then there is the sanction for the paśu, which slowly seems to have become a natural refuge for those brāhmaṇas with conflicting minds, slowly leading to a popular but incorrect identification of a brāhmaṇa with the paśu. After all, be it rightist or leftist, the well-known teachers, scholars, and commentators, whatever their actual spiritual achievements were, have been mostly brāhmaṇas. Brāhmaṇas using anukalpas to suit their dogma is explained by contemporary teachers and scholars from the leftist school as based on ānukūlya rather than śāstra pramāṇa or genuine sampradāya, especially because they seldom like to be identified as paśus based on their practices. A lot of such confusion arises because of two groups of pranksters. The first is a group of brāhminical intelligentsia who want to pick and choose elements from Kaula tantra to suit their needs and ignore what they thought would alienate them from the mainstream, an attitude that is reflected in many medieval texts. While this is agreeable to an extent to other groups, especially to those following dakśiṇācāra like ours where we recount pramāṇas from Dēvī Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa, etc., Kaula tantra does not promote the same. The second is the New Age cult of a few Indian and many Western elements that have no clue whatsoever but would like to cash in on all the taboos associated with tantra. When questioned about śāstra, they claim direct revelation by a Balaji, Babaji, or some eccentric Avadhūta and some naive beings even seem to buy it! The second category really needs no attention for the bubble bursts sooner or later by itself.
Now that we touched on this topic, Kaula is not about makāra entirely! Here is what Srī Bhāskararāya explains:
kulaṁ sajātīyasamūhaḥ – a group of elements with commonalities is a kula. And the trika of jnātr̥, jñēya and jñāna due to their sajātīyatva constitute the kula. The same is stated elsewhere:
mēyamātramiti lakṣaṇaṁ kulaṁ
prāntatō vrajati yatra viśramam ||
The secondary interpretation would be in terms of ācāra as ācāra originates from the root concept and not vice versa:
na kulaṁ kulamityāhuḥ ācāraṁ kulamucyatē ||
Bhāskararāya also explains the name kulāntasthā from Lalitā Rahasya Sahasranāma, interpreted incorrectly by a recent commentator as the central figure of Bhairavī chakra:
kulasya antaḥ mātr̥ mēyayōrmadhyē mānarūpēṇa sthitā |
kulaśāstrasya madhyē jñēyatvēnāvasthitā ||
Now Bhāskararāya, a scholar par excellence whose learning is both deep and wide, does not ignore the popular interpretation of Kula as related to acāra:
bāhyākāśāvakāśē cakraṁ vilikhya tatra pūjādikaṁ kaulamiti rūḍhyōcyatē ||
It is interesting to note what he speaks about Samaya:
daharākāśāvakāśē cakraṁ vibhāvya tatra pūjādikaṁ samaya iti rūḍyōcyatē ||
While the definitions for both Kaula and Samaya appear similar, the difference is brought out by the use of the words- bāhyākāśē-vilikhya and daharākāśē-vibhāvya. It should be noted that Bhāskararāya does not interpret Samaya here as an ācāra bound by rules that some Kaula tantras speak of. Moreover, apart from simply citing pramāṇas, he states here the actual prevalent practice of the two ācāras (rūḍhi) that he observed, understood, and probably even practiced. He further says:
sa ca sarvaiḥ yōgibhiḥ aikamatyēna nirṇītō’rtha iti | saṅkētarūpatvādapi samayaḥ ||
This bhāvanā of śrīcakra in the dahara is what is Samayācāra and the saṅkēta for the same has been determined equivocally by the great Yogis.
tatpratipādakatvāt vasiṣṭha śuka sanaka sanandana sanatkumārākhya tantrapañcakamapi samayapadēna vyavahr̥yatē ||
The five tantras (śubhāgama pañcaka) which deal with this saṅkēta are also called Samaya. Thus it becomes clear that even the famed Bhāskararāya was aware of these scriptures and considered them as valid śāstras. He even gives a brief summary of these works:
samaṁ sāmyaṁ yātīti samayaḥ śivaḥ, atō’nupasargē kaḥ samayā dēvī tayōrēkaśēṣaḥ |
sāmyaṁ ca parasparaṁ śivaśaktyōḥ pañcavidham |
adhiṣṭhānasāmyaṁ anuṣṭhānasāmyaṁ avasthānasāmyaṁ nāmasāmyaṁ rūpasāmyaṁ cēti ||
Elsewhere he describes two totally different interpretations of Samayācāra:
1. Rudrayāmaḷē daśabhiḥ paṭalaiḥ upadiṣṭaḥ ācāraḥ samayācāra ityucyatē ||
In Rudrayāmaḷa, the ācāra taught in ten chapters dealing with a set of rules mainly aimed at the paśu is called Samayācāra (‘samayācaraṁ vakṣyē, etc., till ‘paśupācavimōcanam in about 450 shlokas that later got encapsulated as a quasi-upaniṣad named Samayācarōpaniṣad). This is one interpretation of Samayācarabut nōt thē ōnly ōnē. īn sōpāna krama, he next illustrates the alternate interpretation suited for the uttamādhikārin.
2. Yadvā dīkṣitasya gurukaṭākṣavaśāt ṣaḍvidhaikya cautrvidhaikyānyatara anusandhānadārḍhyē mahāvēdhākhya samskārē ca mahānavamyāṁ jātē sati – mūlādhārakuṇdaṁ praviśati tāvattatraiva samayaṁ pratīkṣatētyākārō gurumukhaikavēdyaḥ samayācāraḥ. This is exactly what is described by Lolla Lakṣmīdharācārya in his commentary on the Saundaryalaharī when dealing with verse forty-one, as also what is outlined in Vasiṣṭha Samhitā.
While it is clear that the two Samayācaras are not the same, there was probably some confusion even in those days in this regard. Bhāskararāya further clarifies this below:
tayōrubhayavidhayōrapi tatparā āsakta. It is surprising to see how on the basis of mere speculation, some reject Shubhāgama Pañcaka altogether as lost, non-existent, or instrumented. Apart from speaking about these scriptures with great regard, Bhāskararāya even quotes from them frequently. While Lakṣmīdhara’s views can be rejected as being partial to svaśāstra, how does one account for this explanation from Bhāskararāya who was a self-professed Kaula? All one needs to do is to examine the process of antaryāga taught by Bhāskararāya which is simply a verbatim of the Yōgōpadēśa chapter of Sanaka Samhitā.
As a side note, we have dealt earlier with how a follower of Dakṣiṇācāra or Samayācāra should contemplate on names such as Kulāntasthā, etc., in accordance with the metaphysics of sva-sampradāya.
As for anukalpas, I did state earlier that there are two schools of thought in this regard:
1. Use anukalpa when the actual dravya is unavailable.
2. Use anukalpa if the practitioner has not attained mastery over his senses.
We should start with the second case first. That a brāhmaṇa, to save his śrautādi dharma, should adopt anukalpa during Kaula rituals, is simply baseless as there is no śāstra pramāṇa. This seems to be more for the sake of convenience than anything else. The Kaula tantras declare their path as mahāvrata and state one of the following:
1. Argue with their own set of pramāṇas to prove that pratyakṣa svīkāra is acceptable and in line with the śruti.
2. State the superiority of Kaulācara over śruti and more so over smr̥ti and sanction the use of makāra for all qualified ones (we shall see what the qualification is, shortly) even if it is against smr̥ti pramāṇa.
So, in either case, acceptance of pratyakṣa dravyas is recommended for a follower of Kulācāra. The only time one is suggested to use anukalpa would thus be the first case, i.e., during the unavailability of pratyakṣa. This does not stem from my imagination but this is also what Bhāskararāya states by quoting Paramānanda Tantra:
mukhyālābhē cānukalpō nānyathā tu kadācana ||
Bhāskararāya also deals with acceptable categories of meat in Ratnālōka and uses the first person to talk which indicates that he indeed used pratyakṣa.
Now, the next argument posed is regarding the use of anukalpa for those who are not jitēndriyas. In such a case, Bhāskararāya and Rāmēśvara (the commentator on Paraśurāma Kalpasūtra and a praśiśya of Bhāskararāya who frequently differs with Umānandanātha, a direct disciple of Bhāskararāya and the author of Nityōtsava) state repeatedly that there is no adhikāra into kula mArga! Where then comes the question of a Kaula ritual and to top it, the use of anukalpa?
फेत्कारिणी तन्त्रे:
सर्वथा गोपनीयेयं विद्या स्यादजितेन्द्रिये ।
तेन वीर्यवती विद्या न विद्या स्यात् प्रकाशतः ॥
कुलपुष्पं कुलद्रव्यं कुलपूजां कुलं जपम् ।
नेदृशानां प्रवक्तव्यं यदीच्छेत् प्रियमात्मनः ॥
अजितेन्द्रिये प्रवचनमपि निषिध्यते । किमु वक्तव्यं स्वीकारे! तस्मादजितेन्द्रियस्य कौलमार्गे नास्त्यधिकार इत्यलमतिविस्तरेण ॥
Thus, Bhāskararāya who himself was a brāhmaṇa, states clearly his view that an ajitēndriya cannot adopt Kaula mārga, and hence the question of sanction of anukalpa for him does not arise. An adhikārin has no other reason to use anukalpa except when the mukhya dravyādikas are unavailable. So, if someone thinks he cannot use literal makāras, it would only suggest his ineligibility for this path. There is no reason why a Kaula enthusiast should disregard the statements of a reputed Kaula like Bhāskararāya or the words of authority from reputed Kaula tantras. So, the attitude of those who like to pick and choose is nothing but hypocrisy. And the assertiveness that Bhāskara and Rāmēśvara exhibit in negating such claims proves that such hypocrisy existed even in those times.
Again, using anukalpa is generally passed off as Dakṣiṇācāra, which is not acceptable to even Bhāskararāya, a Kaula, leave alone someone following Dakṣiṇācara. One should refer to his commentary on the name Savyāpasavyamargasthā for greater clarity:
upāsanā kramē dvau mārgau dr̥śyētē | vāmamārgō dakṣiṇamargaścēti ||
In upāsanā krama, there are two paths seen: Vāmācāra and Dakṣiṇācāra.
तत्र वाममार्गो नाम स्वस्ववर्णाश्रमविहितानि यावन्ति कर्माणि, श्रौतान्यग्निहोत्रादीनि, स्मार्तान्यष्टकादीनि, तान्त्रिकाणि मन्त्रसिद्ध्यदीनि तेषु सर्वेषु या या देवताः प्रधानभूता अङ्गभूता वा तत्तत् स्थाने स्वोपास्यामेव देवतां सर्वत्र भावयेत् | तत्तद्देवतावाचकपदोत्तरं विशेष्यत्वेन स्वदेवतावाचकपदं सर्वेषु मन्त्रेषु निक्षिपेदित्याकारकः ||
A person following the leftist path, whether performing śrauta/smārta karma according to his varṇa and āśrama or a tāntrika karma for mantra siddhi, always addresses his own upāsya dēvatā (say Bhairavī for example) even if these activities are directed towards itara dēvatās (both presiding over as mukhya and aṅga dēvatās).
ईदृशे मार्गे देवर्षिपितृणां ऋणशोधनाभावजन्यं पातकम् ||
This leads to the sin arising out of not absolving dēvarṣyādi r̥ṇas. It is with this in mind that the Kalpasūtra states: nirbhayatā sarvatra, a leftist needs to be fearless of the sins that he may accrue on his path for he believes that those would be finally absolved.
दक्षिणमार्गे तु श्रौतादि तत्तत्कर्माङ्गदेवतास्थाने स्वोपास्यदेवत्वेन भावनीयेति न निर्बन्धः अपि तु तत्तद्देवताविषयक तन्त्रेषु यानि कर्माणि विहितानि तदङ्गत्वेनैवेति सर्वकर्माणां उपरोधाभावात् अस्मिन् मार्गे तादृशं पातकं नास्तीति झडिति मोक्षः ||
Due to the lack of such a pātaka in the case of Dakṣiṇācara, mōkṣa here is much quicker.
वाममार्गे तु विळम्बितः ऋणशोधनाभावेन कञ्चित्कालं प्रतिबन्धात् ||
In vāma mārga, due to the delay in r̥ṇaśōdhana, mōkṣa is delayed. Thus, even a Vāmācārin gets mokSha but with a delay. So, this would be no real brownie point! One should note here that the r̥ṇas here are absolved not by respective means (śrāddhā, nityakarma, etc.) like in Dakṣiṇācāra but rather on the merit of upāsanā bala. If a follower of Dakṣiṇācāra does not perform mighty good upāsanā, he simply does not gain anything. But if a leftist fails in his upāsanā, these r̥ṇas will come to haunt him and that is the reason why bhaṣṭōpāsakas on this path are seen to suffer from poverty, ill health, lack of progeny, etc. Thus, upāsanā dhārḍhya assumes greater importance in vāmācāra. Hence also is the analogy of walking on a sword for the pitfalls are greater and damage, if caused, takes millennia to heal.
kaṭhinē mōkṣāmśē.pi viḷambitē sādhanē kathaṁ śiṣṭānāṁ vāmamārgē pravr̥ttiriti vācyam ||
So, we spoke of the difficulties associated with the leftist path as also the delay in mōkṣa. Then why do people adopt this path? Bhāskara answers below.
ऐहिकानां इहैव जन्मनि भोगलिप्सया मोक्षे स्वल्पविळम्बस्य सोढव्यत्वात् ||
Those desirous of attaining aihika bhōga bhāgyādikas enter this path and feel it is acceptable to have a certain delay in mōkṣa for they will utilize that delay in worldly enjoyment. As yukta bhōga is achievable even in dakṣa mārga, we can assume that Bhāskara here talks of a greater scale of bhōga. The statement śrīsundarīsādhaka tatparāṇāṁ bhōgaśca mōkṣaśca karatśa ēva, seems to be indicative of the leftist path. Shaṅkarāraṇya reads this as referring to sundarī krama or hādi krama, which represents the leftist path, stressing on the use of the word sundarī. Meanwhile, Lord Hayagrīva describes Kādi vidyā as mōkṣaikahētuvidyā sā śrīvidyā nātra samśayaḥ – indicating the attitude of those interested in caturtha puruṣārtha alone.
ऐहिकभोगविरक्तशिष्टानां तु मोक्षविळम्बस्यासोढव्यत्वात् दक्षिण एव मार्गे प्रवृत्तिरिति विवेकः ||
For those shiṣṭas who are disinterested in aihika bhōga and want to avoid delay in mōkṣa, the path prescribed is of Dakṣiṇācāra.
Thus, Bhāskararāya does not see varṇa, āśrama, etc. as decisive factors in choosing the left or right path. It is simply the goal that guides one towards a path. This is his opinion which he bases on solid śāstra pramāṇa as always.