IN T R O D U C T IO N TO

t a n t r Al o k a

INTRODUCTION TO THE

t a n t r Al o k aA Study in Structure

NAVJIVAN RASTOGI

MOTILAL BAN ARSIDASS Delhi Varanasi Patna M adras

M O T I L A L B A N A R S I D A S S Bungalow R oad, Jaw abar Nagar, Delhi 110007

Branches Chowk, Varanasi 221001

Ashok Raj path, Patna 800 004 120 Royapettah H igh R oad, M ylapore, M adras 600 004

ISB N ; 81-208-01S0-

PRINTED IN INDIA BY JAINENDRA PRAKASS JAIN AT SHKI JAINENDRA PRESS,

a-45 naracm a p ra se r , new d e lh i 110028 a n d p u b lished b y n a rb n d ra pkakash JAIN f o r MOTILAL BANARSJDASS, DELHI 110 007.

To the lotus fee t o f my parentsSI-1RIM ATI INDRAN1 DEVI

SHRI BITHAL DASS

PREFATORY NOTE

When I ucccptod the proposal o f the publishers to contribute an introduction to the Tantraloka some time hack, I welcomed the opportunity to reacquaint myst;ft' with the most towering personality o f the medieval India. But, when face to face with the text, I could easily gather that it was a sheer case of overestimation o f my capacities. In addition to other failings I was confronted with one very serious handicap. 1 did not know Italian into which R. Gnoli translated the Tantraloka.* This has remained a constant drawback. Shortage o f time was another major

* I am extremely thankful to Prof. Harvey P. Alper o f the Southern M ethodist University, Dallas. Texas who very kindly provided an English rendering o f the table o f contents from G nolis translation. I reproduce befow the relevant portion o f Prof. Alpers letter o f the 15th July, 1983 verbatim

The m ost important thing to note about the introduction to the TA is that the vast bulk o f it is drawn virtually verbatim from the earlier and longer introduction to the TS! Below I provide a table in which the left hand column lists the sub-sections o f the TA Introduction, the middle column lists the pages in G nolis translation where they appear, while the third column lists the pages from the Introduction to the TS from which they have been taken. Frankly I don't think that this speaks very well o f G noli; did he have nothing new to say? does he really think that the TA is identical in all respects to the TS in spite o f the vast difference in length?The bibliographical information on the TA translation is: Luce delleSacreSerittiire (Tantraloka) ill Abhmavagupta (CJassici deile religioni, sezione prima: Ie religions oriental]) Torino; Unimie Tipografico-editrice torinese. 1972.

handicap. As the Tantraloka is the magnum opus of Abhmavagupta, one o f the greatest Indian encyclopaedic thinkers o f all times, all that I have been able to do is to touch the outer fringe alone o f his great contribution.

The Tantraloka is both an inspiration and a challenge for the students o f the tantric lore. It is an indispensable guide and no study on tantra should

1. The Saivite Scriptures 11-142. Schools and Masters 15-193. Kashmiri masters and thinkers

o f the 9th and 10th centuries 19-204. The school o f recognition 20-215. Buddhist and grammatical

speculation 21-22 25-276. Light (prakasa) and thought

(vimarsa) 22-24 27, 29-337. Will 24-25 33 368. The theory o f images (abhasa) 26-27 36-399. The I 27-31 29-40, 42-46

10. Language and mantra 31-33 47-49, 51-5311. M aya and the divine powers 33-37 53-5912, The authority o f the holy

scriptures 37-40 59-6313. The m ethod o f realization 40-42 63-6714. The vital breath 43-44 67-7015. The wheel (cakra) 45-46 70-7116, Initiation (diksa) 46-48 81-8317. The 36 principles 48-53 83-86,86-88,89,Similarly Goudriaans follow ing remark about G noli's trans

lation is quite illustrativeTrsl. into Italian by Raniero Gnoli; Luce d el leS acre Scrittu-

rure, Torino 1972, a pioneer work o f great merit, although the translator allowed him self too much freedom on some points, while in some cases he paraphrases Jayarthas com m ents without noticing the reader.

(Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literature, p. 162)

be deemed complete if it does not take the Tantraloka into account. Written on very scientific principles it offers a most uptodate (of course till his period), extremely comprehensive and truly systematic account o f the tantric material and thereby offers a model for modern research. It also constitutes the most important single source of authentic tantric information and material. It poses ail enormous challenge when it comes to identify the sources cited and decide on their precise whereabouts and the issues involved. A detailed and critical study o f the Tantraloka is, therefore, desperately needed for which this Introduction cannot even be a poor substitute. However, being guided by Abhinavas own maxim1 that each small step forward brings us nearer the goal, an humble attempt is contemplated in the following pages. A t the moment, besides Gnoli, there is only one study that addresses itself to the study o f the Tantraloka proper.2 Since this study is limited to first three Ahnikas and does not examine other aspects than the philosophical, most o f the Tantraloka remains practically unexplored. There are three other

1. at: cmfe i'PT IIfw jqvt SR-qfWr EP-TJTHffl W I

?rf?T fwrTnr nffFTTfwnra ^ tTFzhr f^rfenfn' i

Abhinavabharati on N .S. 6.31

2. The Philosophy o f the Tantraloka in th e First Three Ahnikas with translation into English, by Ira Bajpai, thesis submitted to the Lucknow University for Ph. D . Degree in 1971 (unpublished).

studies1 which merit special mention here. Pandey and myself have constantly dwelt on the Tantraloka, but the whole exercise becomes o f secondary importance because it is Abhmavagupta or Krama system, as the case may be, that is being studied and not the Tantraloka and as such, only the relevant material is being referred to. For example, Pandeys mainstay are the 1st to 5th and 29 th Ahnikas, while mine are the 1st, 4th, 13th and 30th. Goudriaans observations are important, but he takes up the Tantraloka for a very brief treatment.5 Recently a major work that has come to our notice is the Upodghata (Sanskrit introduction to the Luptagamasamgraha3 by B.V. Dwivedi). It comes as an appendix to the first two volumes o f the Luptdgamasarhgraha which are the compilation o f citations from the Agamas in various sources and has assumed the form o f an introduction to the 2nd Volume. The Upodghata deals, inter alia, with the citations in the Tantraloka and the Tantra- lokaviveka. In the first part Dwivedis perspective is

I. (i) K.C. Pandey Abhinavagupta : An Historical and Philosophical Study (Abhi,), Chow- khamba, 2nd Edition, 1963.

(ii) T, Goudriaan Hindu Tantric And Sakta Literature and S. Gupta (HTSL), A History o f Indian Litera

ture Vol. II-Fasc 2, Wiesbaden

... 198L(iii) N . Rastogi Krama Tantrjcism o f Kashmir

(K.T.), Vol. I, M otiial Banarsidass, Delhi, 1979.

2. Cf. HTSL, pp. 5,20, 29, 37, 40 etc., 162._ 3. The work was under print at (he time o f the writing o f these

lines. I h e proofcopy was supplied by the author. The Upodghata is being published by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi.

primarily historical while in the 2nd he deals with the doctrinal/theoretical issues in a wider tantric framework. Although the Tantraloka is not Dwivedis immediate problem, his study throws sufficient light on many aspects particularly the historical one. We shall have occasion to refer to these works as and when necessary.

In this Introduction an attempt is made only to introduce the principal work. It should be treated as an elementary study o f some of the material which appeared to me more important to begin with. I have taken special precaution to confine myself to the contents o f the Tantraloka proper and allow the conclusions emerge on their own. How far I have succeeded in my efforts, it is for the scholars to judge.

The following pages that comprise the Introduction actually constitute the Volume One o f the ambitious eight-volume reproduction o f the KSTS edition by the present publishers in a much enlarged form. During the course o f printing it was felt by them that the Introduction, if published separately in the form o f a book, might serve the needs of common readers better who otherwise would not immediately require the text or are already possessed of the original KSTS text. As the idea sounded reasonable, the Volume One is simultaneously being brought out as an independendent work. I had a keen desire to add one more chapter on the basic/agamic sources of the Tantraloka. in the present volume, but the idea had to be abandoned for reasons of time and space. A monograph, to be published shortly, will take care of this desire. The present volume, nevertheless, incorporates a detailed Karika-wise table o f contents in Sanskrit as Appendix 17 which has been divided

volume-wise in the reprinted edition of the Tantraloka text.

Before proceedi ng further I must seek the readers indulgence for certain inconveniences he is likely to be put to while wading through the pages o f the present work. In between the appendices on texts, persons and systems certain words/references may be found common or overlapping leading to some sort of confusion. This has been unavoidable due to one of thefollowingfactors-(a) uncertainty about theprecise status owing to incomplete data, (b) a word denoting not only a text but also a system or school, (c) a word standing for a person as well as a school. The reader is requested to kindly to bear this in mind.

As the new edition (text reprinted by MLBD) was not available when the printing o f the Introduction began, all the reference to the text appearing here were made to the volumes of the KSTS edition. This however, would have turned vexatious for the reader o f the new edition. It was, therefore, thought desirable and expedient to have references to both the editions e.g., KSTS as well as MLBD, so that the entire community of readersthose who possess the KSTS edition and those who own the MLBD one may be equally benefitted. All the relevant appendices, accordingly, have been re-done. Moveover, since this decision came when almost the entire Introduction (excluding the appendices) had already been printed, a table o f conversion comprising Appendix-20 has been appended in order to facilitate the reader. This development has put the publication somewhat behind the original time-schedute.

In the absence of a critically edited text (the editors of the enlarged reprinted edition have not attempted

volume-wise in the reprinted edition of the Tantraloka text.

Before proceeding further I must seek the readers indulgence for certain inconveniences he is likely to be put to while wading through the pages o f the present work. In between the appendices on texts, persons and systems certain words/references may be found common or overlapping leading to some sort of confusion. This has been unavoidable due to one of thefollowing factors(a) uncertainty a bout the precise status owing to incomplete data, (b) a word denoting not only a text but also a system or school, (c) a word standing for a person as well as a school. The reader is requested to kindly to bear this in mind.

As the new edition (text reprinted by MLBD) was not available when the printing of the Introduction began, all the reference to the text appearing here were made to the volumes o f the KSTS edition. This however, would have turned vexatious for the reader o f the new edition. It was, therefore, thought desirable and expedient to have references to both the editions e.g., KSTS as well as MLBD, so that the entire community o f readersthose who possess the KSTS edition and those who own the MLBD one may be equally benefitted. All the relevant appendices, accordingly, have been re-done. Moveover, since this decision came when almost the entire Introduction (excluding the appendices) had already been printed, a table o f conversion comprising Appendix-20 has been appended in order to facilitate the reader. This development has put the publication somewhat behind the original time-schedute.

In the absence of a critically edited text (the editors of the enlarged reprinted edition have not attempted

a critical edition of the text for various reasons) some other problems have also surfaced. Under the D etailed Table o f Contents (Appendix 17), marking of numbers has been a difficult affair. Abhinava has scruplously adhered to what Jayaratha calls Sancaya- nyaya (see pp. 76, 164 inside) even in between the individual Karikas. He usually introduces the next idea in the second half-verse. I have, therefore, lol lowed the practice of the editors o f the KSTS edition (retained by the editors o f the reprinted edition as well) and have alluded to the subject-matter as being denoted by the existing printed numbering even if the idea has continued upto the first half of 11 ic next verse or has already exhausted itself in the second half o f the preceding verse. The reader will kindly bear with the occasional over- or under-lapping ol certain ideas which has been unavoidable under the circumstances. Exceptions have been made only when I was sure of the completion of an idea in the parti- culiir K:irikfi/s. In this context a further observation regnrdinjT the Dctmled Table of Contents may be of some help. Here the basic thrust has been marked by twin objectivesone, it should give a precise idea of the content of the Karika/s concerned and two, even a cursory peep into the Table should unravel the underlying thematic progression o f the concepts independently o f the text An earnest effort has been made to! secure both these ends but, in all fairness, it must be acknowledged that even the limited success has been far from easy to achieve. It is particularly true of the thirty-first Ahnika which has proved most enigmatic. '

I have been increasingly conscious o f the fact that this Introduction has turned out to be an intro due-

tion to the study of the Tantraloka, instead of being an introduction to the text itself. In sum, the present endeavour has crystalized into a sort of more or less structural analysis and a groundwork, as it were, for more intensive future investigation in this area.

Before I wind up I must take this opportunity to thank Jain brothers (M/s. N.P. & J.P.), directors o f M/s Motilal Banarsidass, for affording me an opportunity to pay once again my tribute to the all-time genius called Abhmavagupta and study a little bit o f his magnum opus. 1 am deeply indebted to Prof. Braj Vallabha Dwivedi, the retired Head,Y oga & Tantra Department, Sampumanand Sanskrit University, who was extremely generous in sending the proof-copy of his Upodghata to the Luptagama- samgraha. I am also thankful to him for discussing the proposed format and scope of the Introduction, although I am guilty o f not using some o f his suggestions with regard to the discussion on philosophical/doctrinal matters. My reasons for eschewing philosophical issues are simple. Something must be said over and above what has already been said by Pandey and other learned scholars. With the limited amount of time at my command it was not possible to make such a deep study as is demanded by philosophical and theoretical issues. I am indeed beholden to Thakur Jaidev Singh, a great authority of our times on Kashmir Saivism, for offering his valuable suggestions about the proposed direction and contents o f the Introduction. Prof. H. P. Alper of the Southern Methodist University, USA has put me under a dept by discussing the proposed format and agenda of the Introduction and for finding time

to translate contents o f Gnolis Introduction to his celebrated translation. In this context I am happy to record my appreciation o f the kind gesture o f Dr. Andre Padoux (Direetor, Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, Paris) in presenting a copy o f Naudous valuable book to me. I must remember two more scholars with gratitude. It was Dr. Ashok Kumar Kalias (my esteemed colleague in the Department of Sanskrit, Lucknow University) idea to furnish all available information in respect of the texts cited by Abhinava and Jayaratha. Dr. Mark Dyczkowski, then camping in India, made this work easier by allowing me to have a photostat copy of the relevant extracts from some o f the MSS - catalogues, so assiduously compiled by him. As a result the Appendix One was completely Tevised for which I once again thank these two friends. Dr. Kalia has also earned my gratitude for going through the entire Table of Contents (Visayanukramanika in Sanskrit) and sug- gusting various improvements. The list will remain inutmiplcte without mention o f my esteemed friends, Professors Marsh Narain (of late Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Aligarh University) and Kameshwar Nath Misra (Central Institute o f Higher Tibetan Studies, Sariiath) and Dr. J. P. Sinha (my senior colleague in the Department o f Sanskrit, Lucknow University) for maintaining sustained and constructive interest in the progress o f the work. I also sincerely thank Drs. K.S. Pandey, H.S.B. Sinha and Sri K.M. Vishnoi for valuable secretarial assistance. Besides, I remember Dr. M. R. Yadav with affectionate gratitude for his manifold selfless cooperation.

This Introduction is now being humbly placed

before the discerning judgement of the scholars for what it is worth with a citation from the Tantraloka itself :

(T.A. 36.45)

Lucknow,Maha&varatri, 86. Navjivan Rastogi

Prefatory N ote vii

Abbreviations xxiv

Select Bibliography xxvi

Chapter One: EX PLO R IN G TH E TA N TRA LO K A ( i -17)

I. Traditional Approach to the Tantraloka 1-4

fl. Four M otives Behind the Composition 4-12(a) Samgraha-Grantha 4(b) Prakriya or Paddhati Grantba 5(c) Sastra Grantha 9(d) Stuti Grantha 11

111, Five Objectives Behind the Composition o f theTantraloka 12-17(a-i) Attainment o f Bhairavahood 12(a-ii) Propounding fourfold redemptive knowledge 12(b) Presenting Hie ultimate textual authority 14(e) Kiisy comprehension o f the tantric wisdom 15 (i!> licstoraiion & preservation o f the tradition 15

Chapter Two: A B O U T TH E A U TH O R (19-85)

I. Biographical D ata 19-55(a) Name 19(b) Pupils, colleagues and family circle 22 (c> Place o f com position 26(d) Time 27

Tabular chart 28(c) Ancestors & parents 28

Tabular Chart o f Abhinavas Family 32(f) Tcachcrs 32

(i) Mathikagurus & 34(ii) Jiianagurus 34

Tabular Chart o f his Teachers 54

H. Works 55-63

III. M ethodology 63-85(a) Guiding principles o f explanation 64(b) Multi-tier handling o f the source-material 66(c) Interpretation and its norms 72(d) Presentation: multi-ended style 75(e) Purpose-oriented diction 83(f) Presenting the esoteric matter 83

Chapter Three: ABO V T THE C O M M E N T A TO R (87-153)

I. Biographical D ata 87-102(a) Ancestral and preceptorial Uncage and rich

parental heritage 87Tabular View o f His Two Genealogies 92

(b) Two groups o f teachers: second group casting stronger formative influence 95

(c) Personal achievements 100

II. The Tantrdlokariveka 102-146(a) An extention o f and supplement to the Tantraloka 102(b) Title 105(c) Fundamental motives 106

(i) Attainment o f the Godhead 106(ii) Resurrection o f tradition 107

(iii) Restoration and preservation o f tlie Tantraloka 107

(iv) Furnishing chronological continuity 114(d) Handling o f the sourcc material 115

(i) Four progressive phases and their several dimensions 115

(ii) Material drawn upon by Abhinava 116(iii) Pre-Abhinavan tantric material 125(iv) Source material provided by the known

authors 128(v) Post-Abhinavagupta tantric material:

general 129(a) Jayaratlia vs. Ksemaraja 130

(vi) Restoring tradition: fathoming inter se relations hi p among Agamas 136

iCONTENTS XIX

(e) An exclusive guide to the Tantr&loka 138(i) Sevenfold assistance 138

(ii) Discharge o f twin editorial obligations 142

III. M ethodology 146-153(a) Guiding principles 146

(i) Conformity to Abhinava, teacher andscripture 146

(ii) Thoroughness and authenticity 147(iii) Absence o f fascination for word-by-word

commentary: eight key factors 147(iv) Fear o f undue extension a ad deviation

from the original line 149(b) Differences from Abhinava & deviation

from the original line 151

Chapter Four: A B O U T TH E TE X T (155-243)

I. K S T S Edition: Editorial and Printing lapses 155-167Tabular View 156

(u) T wo types o f textual anarchisms 160(h) Uivsic MSS o f the KSTS edition 160(O Printing m istake 162(d ) NiiiiibcrinjJ, errors 164

II. Mefrtx Entphiyvrf 167-168

HI. Topical Organisation and Structural Analysis 168-196(a) D ivision into Ahnikas 168(b) Three devices to indicate subject matter 169(c) D ivision o f Ahnikas into groups 171

(d) demarcation o f the primary and secondary topics 173Tabular View 174

(e) Treatment o f ancillary topics 187(f) Three broad divisions o f the text and other

schematisation by Jayaratha 191(g) Non-organisation o f the Tantraloka into

Jnana, Yoga, Kriya and Carya 195

IV. Cross-references: A Collateral Source o f Thematic Organisation 196-243

(a) First Ahnika 197(b) Second Ahnika 200(c) Third Ahnika 201(d) Fourth Ahnika 203(e) Fifth Ahnika 206(f) Sixth Ahnika 207(g) Seventh Ahnika 211(h) Eighth Ahnika 211(i) Ninth Ahnika 214 (j) Tenth Ahnika 218

(k) Eleventh Ahnika 219 (1) Twelfth Ahnika 220

(m) Thirteenth Ahnika 221(n) Fourteenth Ahnika 225(o) Fifteenth Ahnika 225(p) Sixteenth Ahnika 229(q) Seventeenth Ahnika 230(r) Eighteenth Ahnika 231(s) Nineteenth Ahnika 231(t) Twentieth Ahnika 232(u) Twenty first Ahnika 232(v) Twentysecond Ahnika 233(w) Twenty third Ahnika 233(x) Twentyfourth Ahnika 234(y) Twentyfifth Ahnika 234(z) Twenty sixth Ahnika 234

(aa) Twentyseventh Ahnika - 235(bb) Twentyeighth Ahnika 235(cc) Twentyninth Ahnika 236(dd) Thirtieth Ahnika 239(ee) Thirtyfirst Ahnika 240( f0 Thirtysecond Ahnika 240

(gg) Thirtythird Ahnika 241(hh) Thirtyfocrth Ahnika 242

(ii) Thirtyfifth Ahnika 242(ii) Thirtysixth & Thirtyseventh Ahnikas 242

Chapter Five: AGENDA FOR FUTURE R E SE A R C H (245-252)

APPENDICES (253-589)1. Texts referred to by name in the Tantraloka 253-2642. Persons referred to by name in the Tantraloka 265-2693. Systems/major doctrines referred to by name in

the Tantraloka4. Implied or incomplete textual references in the

T antrdhka as identified and/or completed by Jayaratha

5. Texts named and also quoted and sometimes explained by Abhi navagupta(a) Directly quoted(b) Indirectly cited(c) Quoted partly directly and partly indirectly(d) Quoted and explained

G. Persons named and also quoted by Abhmavagupta 7. Systems impliedly referred to in the Tantraloka

and identified by Jayaratha K. Implied personal references in the Tantraloka as

i tic i it i Red by JayarathaTextual references in the Tcmtraloka citations IruiA'd/idi'iiinied by Jayaratha

10 Il'iMiii:tl itlt'ivnci'H in the Tantrabka citations ii;u ril/iili-Mliliiil l>y .layaratlia

11. I iim 1 persona! references in the Tantraloka12. A git mas forming one group on specific issues in

the Tantraloka13(A) Texts named and/or quoted by name by Jaya

ratha in the Tantralokaviveka 13(B) Sixty four Bhairava Tantras and their eightfold

classification in the groups o f 8 each in the Sri- kanthl as referred to by Jayaratha

14. Persons named and or quoted by Jayaratha in the Tantralokaviveka 326-341

15. Systems/major doctrines referred to by name by Jayaratha in the Tantralokaviveka 342-354

16. Unspecified citations/references in Jayaratha 355-41417. Detailed table o f contents o f the 'Tantraloka in

Sanskrit { 415-556

270-274

275-279

280-284280 2 SO 284284285

286-287

288-290

291-298

299300-301

302-304

305-323

324-325

419

^rd^iflpFTT 420

426432436443

spsnrTTff^ rir 445453

^ w q r f^ fn r 462ir^r^q-rf^^TlT 469S T ? W f ^ T 472a^SiPTllfpfiT 473^JFTFfrff^Tr 483'T^srqrf^T 484* fts? u n % ^ 500f l^ j f p r r f i^ r 507sr=s.iwnf^^Tr 510

ft"?rfrRPTJnf^7JT 512513

STF^ i^fdd^JTTf^qnt 514

^ T w fer iT J n f^ F r 518

' 520

jt 523534542545

Sr%?TTTJ% i^T 548^TfejSTfTlf^fW 550

553

W fSO T T f^F^ 554

18. W ord-index (to the Introduction) 557-57219. Corrections 573-57420. Table o f conversion o f references appearing within the

Introduction to the Tantraloka from the KSTS editionto the M LBD edition o f the Tantralokaviveka 575-589

Abhi. Abhinavagupta: A n Historical and Philosophical Study

A. Bh. Abhinava-bharatiAh. AhnikaComm. CommentaryDh. L. Dhvanyaloka-locanah .t .s .l . Hindu Tantric and Sakta LiteratureI.P.K. isvara-pratyabliijna-karikaI.P.K.V. Kvara-pratyabhijaa-karika-vivrtiI.P.V. Isvara-pratyabhijna-vimarsiniT.P.V. (Bh.) Bhaskari on Is vara-pratya bhijna-vim ar3 i niI.P.V.V. Is vara-pr atyabhij fia-vivrti-vi mars iniJ.M .V, Janma-marana-vicaraK .M . KavyamalaK.S. Kashmir SaivismK .S.S./K .S.T.S. Kashmir Series o f Texts & StudiesK.T. Krama Tantricism o f Kashmir: Vol. IM.M.P. M aha rtha-mafij a ri-pa ri malaM .P. (T) Mahanaya-prakasa (Trivendrum Sanskrit

Series)M .S./M SS Manuscript/sM.V.T. M alini-vijayottata-tantraM.V.V. M a lin i - vij ay a-vart i k aNagarajan Contribution o f Kashmir to Sanskrit Litera

ture (by K.S. Nagarajan)N .S. N atya SastraN .S.T . Nitya-sodasikarnava (-tantra)Philosophy The Philosophy o f the Tantraloka in the

First Three Ahnikas with Translation into English

P.T. Para-trimsika or Para-trlsikaP.T.V. Para-tri riisi ka-vi va ra n aSp.K. Spanda-karikaS.T. Sarada-titaka (-tantra)SV.T/Sv.T Svaccanda-tantra

SV.T.TJ. /S .T .U . Svaccanda-tantra-uddyotaT.A , TantralokaT.A .V . Tantraloka-vivekaT.S. Tantra-saraTa.Sa. Tantrika SahityaT.V .D . Tantra - vata-dhani kaUpodghata Upodgliata to the LuptagamasarngrahaV.M .V . V araa kcs vari-mata-vivarana

Abhmavagupta

Bajpai, Ira

Dwivedi, B. V.

Gnoli, R.

Gonda, Jan

(i) Abhinavabharati (A, Bh.), a commentary on the Natya Sastra, Vo], I, ed. Ramkrishna Kavi, 2nd edition, Baroda, 1956.

(ii) Maliru-vijayottara-vartika, ed. M . S Kaul KSTS No. XXXI, 1921.

(iii) Paramarthasara, with Vivrti by Yogaraja, ed. J. C. Chatter] i, KSTS N o. VII, 1916.

(iv) Para trim Si ka ~ vi va rart a (P.T.V.), ed. M .R . Shastri, KSTS N o. XVIII, 1918.

(v) Tantrasara (T.S.), ed. M .R . Shastri, KSTS N o. XVII, 1918.

(vi) Tantraloka, with Viveka by Jayaratha, 12 volumes (Part I ed.by M .R . Shastri and Parts II-XII ed. by M. S. Kaul), KSTS, 1918-1938.

(vii) Tantravafadhanika, ed. M. R. Shastri, KSTS No. XXIV, 1918.The Philosophy o f the Tantraloka in the First Three Ahnikas with Translation into English, doctoral thesis submitted to the

_ Lucknow University, 1971 (unpublished).(i) Upodghata (Upodghata) to the Luptagama-

samgraha, Vol. II, S, Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1984.

(ii) Upodghata to the Ni t yasodasikarnava with two commentaries Rjuvimarsinland Artha- ratnavaii, S. Sanskrit University, Varanasi 1968.

(i) Luce delle Sacre Scritture (Tantraloka) di Abhmavagupta, translated into Italian with Introduction, Torino, 1972.

(ii) Essenza dei Tantra, translation o f the Tantrasara with notes in Italian, with a long introduction by R. Gnoli, Torino, 1960. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit (A History o fln d ia n Literature Vol. II), Wiesbaden, 1977,

Goudriaan, T. and gup ta, S.

Jayaratha

Kane, P. V.

Kayiraj, G. N.

M isra, K . K.

Nagarajan, K.

Nmtdou, Jean

I'tmtU'y, K. r.

/ iitliak, V. S.

Jiaghavan, V.

Rastogi, N.

Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literature [HTSL] (A History o f Indian Literature Vol. II- Fasc 2), W iesbaden, 1981. VamakeSvarimata-vivarafla, ed. M.K.. Shastri, KSTS No. LXVI, 1945.The History o f Sanskrit Poetics (published together with the Sahityadarpaija o f ViSva- natha), 3rd edition, Bom bay, 1951.Tantrika Sahitya (Ta. Sa.), Hindi Samiti, Lucknow, 1972.Significance o f the Tantric Tradition, Varanasi, 1981.Malinivijayottara Tantra, ed. M. S. Kaula, KSTS No. X X XVII, 1922.Contribution o f Kashmir to Sanskrit Literature (contribution), doctoral thesis submitted to the University o f Poona, 1961 (unpublished).*Buddhists o f Kashmir, translated from French into English by Brereton & Picron, Delhi, 1980.Abliinavaf'upta : An Historical and Philosophical Sludy (Ablii.), 2nd revised edition, Vitiimasi, 1963.History o f SnivtL Cults in Northern India (From Inscriptions 700 A .D . to 1200 A .D .), ed. G. C. Pandey, Allahabad, 1980.Prati sthalak? anasara s am uccay a, ed. Dam odar Sharma, two volumes, Nepal, Sam-2023.

(i) Abhinavagupta and His W orks, Varanasi- Delhi, 1981.

(ii) New Catalogus Catalogorum, Vols. I-XI, University o f Madras, 1935-82.

(i) The Krama Tantricism o f Kashmir (K.T.),

* While these lines were under print we cam s to ie.Eirn from D r. KoseUya W alli, U niversity o f Jam m u, that tho work has since been published by the author.

Vol. I (Historical and General Sources), Delhi, 1979.

(ii) Abhinavagupta Ke Stotra: Eka Adliyayana, dissertation submitted to the Lucknow University for partial completion o f postgraduate course, 1959 (unpublished).

Silbitrn, L . Le Paramarthasara de Abhinavagupta, Translation into French with Introduction, Paris, 1979.

Svacchanda Tantra (SV.T), with Uddyota byKsemaraja (SV.T.U.), 6 volumes (Vol. 5 in two parts), KSTS, 1921-35.

Togin, Madhuraja Gurunatha-ParamarSa,(i) ed. P. N . Pushp, published in Kashmir

Research Bi-annual, Vol. I, Srinagar, 1960 plater published as KSTS N o. 85);

(ii) ed. V. Raghavan, included in his Abhinavagupta and His works .

CATALOGU ESAn Alphabetical List o f Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute, Baroda, ed. R .N . Shiro- inam, two vols., GOS XCVI1 & CXIV, Baroda, 1942/1950.

Aryabhasa Pustakalaya Nagari PracariijI Sabha KasI M em Upalabdha Hastalikhita Saihskrta-grantliasiicI, ed, S. Pandey, K. Tripathi and M Tewari, lln d Vol., Varanasi, 1967.

Bharatiya Itihasa Samsodhaka-Mandalastha HastalikhitagranthanukramanLka, ed. Khare K .H . Ganesh, Shivajinagar, 1960.

Catalogue o f Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Raghunath Temple Library o f His Highness the Maharaja o f Jammu and Kashmir, ed. M .A, Stein, Bombay, 1894.

A Catalogue o f Palm Leaf and Selected Paper Manuscripts belonging to the Darbar Library, Nepal, ed. H.P. Sastri and C. Bendall, two volumes, Calcutta 1905, 1908.

Catalogue o f the Sanskrit M SS in the Sanskrit College Library, Benaras, 1911 antra Section).

Catalogue o f VVRI Manuscript Collection, two parts, ed. Visvabandhu and others, Hoshiarpur, 1960.

A Catalogue o f Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts in the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute (Jodhpur Collection), ed. Muni Jina Vijaya, Jodhpur, 1963,

Catalogue o f Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Punjab University Library, Vol. I, (Sections VHI-IX), 1932,

A Descriptive Catalogue o f the Sanskrit Miiiiuscripls in Die Collections o f the RoyalAsiatic Sucidy o f Bengal, Vol. VIII, Pts. ^ H, ed. ChiiHaharana Chakravarti, Calcutta, 1938,1940.

Descriptive Catalogue o f Raj Manuscripts preserved in the Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University Library, Darbhanga, ed. B.R. Sarma, Darbhanga, 1969.

A Descriptive Catalogue o f the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Private Library oFHis Highness Srlrajarajesvaia Maharajadhiraja Maharaja Sri Harisinghji Bahadur o f Jammu and Kashmir, ed. Ramcanda Kak and Nowa- bhatta Shastri, Poona, 1927.

Descriptive Catalogue o f the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Government Oriental M anus- cripts Library, Madras, Vols. X & X II-X V Madras, 1910-1913.

A Descriptive Catalogue o f the Government Collection o f Manuscripts deposited at the Bhandarkai Oriental Research Institute, ed. H .D . Sbarma, Vol. XVI, Pt. II, Poona, 1976.

A Descriptive Catalogue o f the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Taajore Maharajas Sarfojis Saraswati Malial Library, ed. P.P.S. Sastri, Srirangam, Vols. XVIIT-XIX.

A Descriptive Catalogue o f Sanskrit M anuscripts in the Curators Office Library, Trivendrum, Vol. V, ed. by K. Mahadeva Sastri; Vol. VI, cd. by P,K, Narain Pillai, Trivendrum, 1939-40.

Descriptive Catalogue o f Sanskrit M anuscripts in the Gaekwad Library, Bharata Kala Bhavan and Sanskrit M ahavidyalaya Library, Banaras Hindu University, Vol.VI, ed. R.S. Tripathi, Varanasi, 1971.

Srinepalarastriyabhilekhalayastka Hasta- likhitapustakanam Brhacchucipatram, ed. Buddhisagar Sharma, Vol. IV (in two parts), Kathmandu, 1964-1969.

GHAFrER ONE

EXPLORING THE TANTRALOKA

Strange as it may appear, the Tantraloka happens to be the only major original work o f Abhinava while his all other important works1 come to us in the lorm o f a commentary on some earlier valuable text notwithstanding his own description o f the Tantraloka as a gloss, as we shall see in the sequel.

(i) Traditional Approach to the Tantraloka

A peep into and a look around the Tantraloka offers many illuminating insights. Towards twelfth cen- ury Sivananda, the author o f the Rjuvimarsini, refers

to it as the Trika-sastra- or Trika-sarasastra and the verses cited are traceable to the published edition of the Tantraloka. It, therefore, appears that by that time it came to be regarded as the most representative / system- Ksemaraja, the illustrious pupil

o f Abhmavagupta, talks o f two characteristics o f the text. One, it was composed in the state o f Absolutic trance and other, it is a key to the secrets o f entire

t h e w t w T v ^ ther m ai r WOrkS inchlde A 'Bh- (Comm, onI P K v \ ^ I P K )i LP V V- (Comm, on thei .m v . v .) and Locana (Comm, on the Dh. L.).

ed B N ST w ith ^ v im a r s im and Artharatnavalf,

to a !' S S J : *p' 19, The verses quoted are traceabie3- y w f c n T T O i I Ibid., pp. 138-139. The verses are

traceable to T.A. 15.285-287.

4. r

agamic literature.1 In the Tantrasara, Abhinavagupta invariably describes the Tantraloka as a detailed treatise and asks the author to turn for detailed discussion o f the problem to the latter which incorporates all the prescriptive and negative injunctions emanating not only from Vedic but from Saiva, Tan- tra and Trika sources also.* The view has been consistently hammered again and again.3 According to the Tantrasara, the Tantraloka was not only a repository o f agamic lore but a critical text which minutely recorded even internal and mutual divergences.4 Thus the image o f the Tantraloka as a single, extra-comprehensive and authoritative source book appears to have been projected by Abhinavagupta himself. The central theme o f the Tantraloka, according to Abhinavagupta in his Locana5, however revolves round

' m l5i IIbid., ITT, p. 268

2.

3pr aft f r w r faftr; 3T M > it ^T.S., p. 32

Ibid., p. 97arsnapr i

3. d 'd H W I ' * * *

?iwr to r tw :: irfWMId: l^'i"SKiV^ >i=rr i i.p.v.v., IIJ, p. 279

* * *

TTcfW

the transcendental Absolutic reality called Brahman (i.e. Anuttara). The prime concern o f the Tantraloka was to explain, to unfold and to explore. It therefore assumed the form of a gloss, or a commentary and was therefore termed, as the Vartika1 (gloss), Sloka- vartika* (versified gloss) and Sadardhaslokavdrtika (versified gloss on Trika system).* Possibly in designating the Tantraloka as Vartika Abhinavagupta was inspired by Katyayanas example in whose case Vartika is defined as an explanatory or supplementary rale which explains the meaning o f that which is said, o f that which is left unsaid, and o f that which is imperfectly said.4 This amply applies to the Tantraloka as we shall have occasion to see later. Elsewhere in a very significant remark Abhinavagupta describes the Tantraloka as a mix o f all the varieties (e.g. brief, regular and large) o f glossarial work bassd on Aga- mas. Thus it is a Vartika, a Bhasya and a Vrtti all at

1. ^ sqrcmpr i I.P.v.v., in , p. 259The verses purportedly quoted from the Vartika here are the

same as the T. A. 1.152-1 55.

2. 3 j^ r tdiici ^ i Ibid., pp. 106-7The use o f 'c a 5 is very ambiguous and m ay lead one to conclude

that the Tantraloka and Slokavartika were two independent texts (vide K .T., p. 159). But in view o f the overwhelming collateral textual evidence as produced above and non-discovery o f any text by the name o f the Slokavartika (pertaining to K.S.) so far it seems appropriate to identify Lhe two. M y earlier view on this stands modified (vide K .T., p. 159). In such a situation the text is to be construed as under

3. lifted- W T cWMl% I I.P.V.V., I, p. 334. I P k i ( f e n ) g tThe Students Sanskrit-Engfish Dictionary, V.S. Apte, Delhi

1959, p. 503

a time.1 It is perhaps the reason why Abhinavas in- terpretations-cum-explanations on specific issues in the Tantraloka are recalled as testimony/ The Tantraloka was also k n o w as Tantravaloka?

(ii) Four motives behind the composition

( a ) S a m g k a h a - G r a n t h a

Abhinavagupta composed the Tantraloka from several angles. Obviously the first and the most striking intention o f his is to present a d igest o f the available tantric literature and lore.4 Technically;, therefore, the Tantraloka is a compendium (Samgraha-gran- tha)\ In creating a compendium Abhinavaguptas primary objective seems to handle not only the Trika material alone in its tantric sources, but the non-Trika material in its agamic sources as well." Abhinavagupta himself sets at rest all conjectures in this regard. His avowed intention is to introduce all the agamic material in its varied sources7. Abhinavagupta has been, therefore, quite appropriately hailed

1, sretnffl ^ 3TPIW4 PhmI T.P.V.V., TII, p. 304

2. cfWT5fl% I

3. FTfTrf fp?nwr% I Srinivasabudha in his DTpika on the Tripura-rahasya, Jn ana khan t a^, Varanasi, p. 193

4. H-'ffrf

6, smftRTH I

Parasuramakalpasutra, Baroda, 1950, p. 44

pfT^r ftwT qTT^q; Tffe I T.A . 37.85 : S^TSft^ cr: l5, Tr^ Elwr

T.A .V ., I, pp. 14-15

Ibid., I, pp. 29-30

as Samgrahakara1 and the Tantraloka as the Sam- graha2 by Jayaratha.

( b ) PHAKRIYA OR PADDHATI G r ANTHA

Abhinavaguptas second, but rather more significant, intention is to produce a Prakriya or Paddhati, perhaps employed as interchangeable terms in the context, Abhinavagupta was perturbed over the fact that there was no Paddhati text in his source-system,i.e. the system o f transcendental triad (Anuttara-sada- rdharthakrama), although there were plenty of them in other source systems.5 In order to overcome this drawback he decided to write the present Prakriyai.e., Tantraloka, complete in all respects.4 Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha both do not give any clue to Abhinavaguptas concept o f a Prakriya-grantha, although Jayaratha is full o f references to Abhinava- guptas professed aim to undertake a Prakriyagran- tha.s In this context one comes across four observations :

(i) The Prakriya under reference namely, the Tantraloka, is totally based on the M .V .T ?

Jayarathas introductory observation preceding the above verse is very suggestive5=p t ^ ^ rfT sn * h r t o ^ n ^ r r c k s t t t ? r r ^ w srraT fa : f% *Tf$-

T.A .V ., XII, p. 3891. cfdWlTiHci^1 srawrr:.............i

T.A.V., V, p. 19 (8th A h.)2. qT5$m p?pfl[.................................................................... I

Ibid., p. 1863. TswfWcn-: wto io Ci

3Fj?ir

(ii) There were two Prakriyas within the monistic fold namely, Kula-prakriya and Tantra-pra- kriya;

(iii) ICula Prakriya is superior o f the two;1 and both together represent Trikaprakriya;

(iv) A sizable section o f the learned scholars subscribing to the system but not possessing uninterrupted tradition required a guide in respect o f the matters they did not know. The Tantralokas composition as Prakriya was a significant step towards fulfilling this desideratum/

Now let us see what the Tantraloka as a Prakriya text means. If we compare the T.A. 1.14 and 1.15, we find that Prakriya and Paddhati denote the same thing. Another thing to be noted is that both terms stand for a particular class of books. Naturally the grammarians usage o f Prakriya in the sense o f an etymological work docs not fit in here. The Vacas- patyam includes among its meanings a chapter or a section (Prakarana) which lays down an order3 and the Sabdakalpadruma interprets it as a definite procedure4 (Niyatavidhi). Similarly, Paddhati is taken to stand for a treatise that brings out the gist or the

1. ire ^ fwenfkrFTRW ffgfM fonmnftr i T.A .V., I, p. 31

2. STcftSWRIW m IJTWT*nW 11 T.A. 1.19

3Trr n w w armorer i ffr srfw-T W T I T.A .V ., I, p. 50

3. "ST Jlferr 3T J TpfgRfsrfW : I Vacaspatyam, VI Part, Varanasi, 1962, p. 4438

4. fcimfkftr: iSabdakalpadruma, Part III, Varanasi, 1967, p. 245

essential meaning. The Vacaspatyam1 and Sabdakal- padruma1, both lexicons agree and both cite Hema- candra3 in support. Thus we see that according to these lexicographers a Prakriya text constitutes a work or a section thereof composed to convey the essential purport of the subject and to lay bare the procedure, if any, involved in realizing the primary purpose. A close examination of Abhinava will reveal that his concept o f the Prakriya or Paddhati was closer to the above definition.

Abhinava refers to the P.T.V. as Anuttaraprakriya * It will simply amount to saying that the P.T. V. was also a Prakriya-grantha.6 Abhinavas use o f the word Prakriya elsewhere reminds6 one o f something relat-

Vacaspatyam, Vol. V, p. 42252. I

S abdakalpadr uma, Part III, p. 403. Hemacandras observations as per footnotes above assume

significance because Hemacandra was quite close to Abhinava chronologically -a gap o f a century obtained between the two and was in know of Abliinavas works as his treatment o f Rasa in the KavyaniisUstma betrays unmistakeable impact o f Abhinavas Abhinavabharat I

4. 3T^TOrF=Mr^i i t . a . 9.3135. A question may naturally arise as to whether there were two

Prakriyas on Amittaratrika System, because as Abhinava has already said, that (vide Fn. 3, p. 5 supra) there were no Prakriya texts or Paddhatis on his system. The answer perhaps lies in the fact that, as we shall see later, the P.T . V., M .V .V . and T.A. constitute one whole and as such may be part o f a larger textual framework.

6. fTcfTst'T PrWfST Isrrt ii

^ ' T.A ., 8.5; Jayaratha explains

A

ing to practice or Sadhana, The idea becomes clearer when Abhinava concludes that in the SV.T. knowledge docs not involve action or practice.1 Jayaratha leaves no doubt that the mutual difference between the several Tantras, even though sometimes belonging to the same sect, stems from the practices enjoined.2 This leaves us in no doubt that Prakriya must have meant a special practiceintra- and trans-ritualistic bothand the text that lays down the relative code is a Prakriya-gran tha. The other term used in this context by Abhinava is Paddhati, as we all know. What was his model we do not know. However he refers to one Paddhati by ISanaSiva3 which clearly brought out the essential procedure as laid down in the famous Krama Agama Devyayamala. This ISana- Siva is, no doubt, different from his namesake author o f the Gurudempaddhati or Tantrapaddhati and who definitely flourished after 1073 A .D . and was, according to Dwivedi, identical with the great-grand tea-

TA ., 8.11; Jayaratha adds zrj# era "jrrfer sterrcnrt * feiT m m qrr ia

'T 5 [fW T ( fTrfer i f (S V .T . 11.198)2. sTiftuid-dW pPTirrf ?r

w : WcT: Ic

1 tIa .V., V, p. 163. Tftemra1 ?r s f r w q^TH i ^ w - n w : t

ihn?M^f>r=K: n

Jayaratha s interpretation o f the term Abhyupaya removes the last tinge o f difference between Paddhati and Prakriya

Ibid., X , p. 254

cher o f SomaSambhu, the author o f the Karmakanda- kramdvall1 DharmaSiva, a teacher o f Abhinavaif we go by the authority o f Ksemaraja3also wrote one Paddhati which had the indirect initiation as its central theme and it is which has been referred to by Abhinava1, though not by name. These are possibly the Paddhatis whose presence led Abhinava to lament the absence of one in his own system. The Siddha-siddhanta-paddhati, the famous text o f Natha cult, which is much later, a text full o f references to Pratyabhijfia system, similarly seems to be a work in Paddhati tradition. Dwivedi refers to several Paddhatis such as the Udayakarapaddhati4 and Vanina Paddhati5 and MaheSvarananda in his M .M .P. refers to one Mahdnayapaddhati.* It may be, therefore, quite logical to conclude that the Tantraloka was a text in Paddhati or Prakriya tradition and was composed as a complete manual for the adherents o f the Trika way of life.

(c) jSa s t r a G r a n t h a

The third intention o f Abhinava was to project the Tantraloka as a full-fledged Sastra (scripture) or Sas- ana.? As such it turned out to be a Prakriya Sastra

I. For details see Upodghata, p. 21. A lso see History o f Saiva Colt in Northern India, B.S. Pathak, D elhi, 1980, pp. 46-50.

^ s w r a r : I s v . T .U ., VI, pp. 8-93. T.A . 21.50-55.4. Upodghata, p. 36

(mannalistic scripture), to be precise.1 It is why Jaya- ; ratha frequently remembers Abhinava as Sastrakani.2 Jayaratha, while summing up the initial sentence J(Adivakya i.e., T.A. 1.1 to 1.21) tries to highlight the ^formal Sastric character of the Tantraloka as under

(i) T.A. 1.1 to 1.5 (it is manifold).(ii) T.A. l . l6 t o 1.20( a ) n f f r ? T ^ J T

(b) *m-spfr5pw= a?qffT5mn^

(iii) T.A. 1.7 to 1. 13srftrcnr

(iv) T.A. 1.14 to 1.15^er:=(a) (^ r=*r ; &1.2454 is tiPwr and x^wr> is f fa r ^ ) . ;

i1. "aifRft i h. ) afasrrcT: s t f w w era- 1

9% rFWWfTVTF r^W WRpr {1 . T A ) 1 1 l > f - f cFTm H ; ^rf^TETFW I T .A .V ., I, p. 53

2. 'ji 4 dy st((w mtt4T4>'i wiwtr: nrmrSr ie. ,T .A .V ., I, p. 3; 3*tlfT iill'H W U R lM ^ I Ibid., I, p. 52 etc. j|

3. Abhinava defines Adhikarin in T.A . 1.337 eloquently J^ To^nsm f^r^^rwri $rfaftap% i :TvT rfEpm'if sScHST? t a r 11

The same may well be compared with the second concluding verse o f the Viveka

ifrstfrcfr frfermiw T5ftr -aft i^ rdw: F4rwrf*T?rT^ iii ^ +?-d < fa^-yawr ^ emr^qrsiHf^a ArfwwKfERTRBrr^ T^rf ^ 11

(T .A .V ., XII, p. 428)Abhinava m akes it abundantly clear that sncha com petentper

son is difficult to locate

t^nwsrfERrr

(b) ^WTSpft'SFpft: iTTSWr=FTWR:(hte^t is and htsris or srfw }.

(v) T.A. 1.6gwstft TT-tT^ f^ fFrrraT^ f^ fff:1

( d ) S t u t i G u a h m ia

The fourth and the final approach consists in Abhi- navas contemplation of the Tanraloka as a full scale Sluti (prayer hymn). In the concluding part o f the initial sentence2 as well as in the ultimate verse3 Abhinava leaves no ambiguity about his intention. Whenever he gets an opportunity he grabs the occassion to project the devotional theme o f the Tantraloka. In his eyes the entire subject matter o f the Tantraloka acquires meaning when it leads one to attain Siva- hood owing to His grace alone. The Tantraloka outlines the path and procedure to invoke such divine gracc and once it is attained the clouds of nescient doubts disappear and one shines in ones pristine splendour.1 Such an approach lends credence to the views of many a modern scholar who takes Kashmir Saivism as theology or transcendental theology hoping to reach and realize the personalistic Godhead and not as a pure metaphysics concentrating on an

1. According to Jayaratha Abhinava wants to make it sure that the Tantraloka is a Tantric Scripture and as such must contain veneration to GaiieSa and Vatuka.

2. TTpr^^di: i t .a . 1.213. ^ srfa^ rr *rr

Ibid. 37.854. MH4 11 do -i -a ^

T^RTwraTSfsT?^ f^ernrrF'T i

sr^ rT: sm T.A.2.49

abstract Absolute. It is only from this deep religious point of view that the Prakriya character oF the Tan- traloka can be more meaningfully explained. Possibly this is the significance o f this view being vouched in the beginning and in the end (Uparkrama and Upasamhara, to put it traditionally) o f the Tantraloka.

(iii) Five objectives behind the composition o f the Tantraloka

( a - i ) A t t a in m e n t o f B h a ih .a v a h o o d

After examination o f the underlying motives of Abhinava a study o f Abhinavas objectives behind his composition of the Tantraloka will be immensely helpful. The fundamental aim is the same as that of his philosophical discipline in general. It is the achievement o f Bhairavahood i.e., the divination o f the mundane. Abhinava proudly declares that one who constantly practises all the tenets o f thirtyseven Ahnikas is oneself transformed into Bhairava, the Absolute.1 If a consistent perusal o f 37 chapters leads to ones attainment o f essential divinity, it is all the more reason to conclude that the microscopically finite being is capable o f attaining cosmic personality.

( a - i i ) P r o p o u n d i n g f o u r f o l d r e d e m t iv h k n o w m iijg k

Abhinava is never tired o f reiterating hispreferences. He says thatthe original commitmentof the Tantraloka is to understand the nature o f Absolute Awareness2.

1 ^ rrfsra^ T f f s w W. w : I-a

w r i1% |^T n t . a . i. 284-86

2. rrarsfr%sf^

The four varieties of redemptive knowledge, as discussed in the Tantraloka, are primarily designed to master both the worldly accomplishment and the spiritual transcendence.1 While making a passing reference in his Locana,3 as we had occasion to note earlier, Abhinava finds the transcendental Godhead as occupying the central focus of the Tantraloka. It is descent of His grace (Saktipata) that alone constitutes the driving force for the aspirants movements and it is why the problems o f bondage and emancipation assume a kind o f primacy over other issues.3 Abhinava goes on positing that the basic purpose o f the Tantraloka is inculcation of the intuitive awareness1 (Pratibha- samvitti) which once thoroughly inculcated transforms the discursive perspective o f mankind into the unitive one.5 Abhinava (and his commentator Jayaratha also) refutes the charge of being arrogant in self-eulogy, as to him it is just a statement o f facts.6

I. ^ A f f o r d icRTTrT 3Tra% II Ibid. 1.245

f ^ l X # r i | w w I Dh.JL, K .M ., i v , p. 193. ^ T ^ w w fw T R P ta tr r d ^ i w ^ u i K i ^ y

......... ^ . . . ......... ?f%.. . .s?rtter-

W .........gTEWTfr ^I T .A .V ., I, pp. 52*54,

4. 5nrftrTT?rfw w t w t f r w ' fernr iijw t n t .a . 13.160

5. M ^RrpT'trm JTft? ^FWTWtWFR; 3TFT- wrw inf?rR# srn&s ?r 0} =r snlwr

" T .A .V ., V in , p. 1026. T^PT,

x ^ fT w ftw few sp T fRr 1 t . a . v . , v m ,p .i0 2

( b ) P r e s e n t in g t h e u l t im a t e t e x t u a l a u t h o r it y

This brings us to another objective o f Abhinava in presenting the Tantraloka as the ultimate textual authority. Self-realization is the goal o f all spiritual disciplines and the standard effective tool conceived by them is the power o f the Godhead. No other text has been able to drive this truth home more than the Tantraloka and the reason for it lay in Abhmavas taking recourse to his own discerning judgement, unfailing sense o f right logic, vast command over Saivis- tic scriptures and above all his deep insight into Trika ideology, in that order.1 All these combined together lent enormous width and intense depth to Abhinavas treatment. Knowledge in order to earn transcendence has to pass through three successive stages:

(i) it must emanate from a scripture;(ii) it must be thoroughly investigated under a

knowledgeable guide; and(iii) it must ultimately form basic core o f ones

experience.2Jayaratha throws a veiled hint that Abhinavas

intellectual/spiritual equipment very much betrayed such a wholistic framework o f mind.3 Under such circumstances the Tantraloka could not but bccome the most ideal, complete and reliable textual autho

T.A. l . io e2. I

sn w srw fw II T.A . 4.773. While com m enting on T.A . 7.1 wiW raT-

p f W ' t R f O T ) Jayaratha explains as ^nW-

11 I W-trAI WsErfsfeftftr (fflstfw ? )f m n I T .A .V ., TV, p. 203

rity. We are, therefore, tempted to suggest that threefold epistemic methodology consisting o f verbal testimony, reasoning and perception (Agama, Yukti and Pratyaksa) emerged from the triple sources o f agamic understanding scripture, guide and self.

(C) liASY COMPREHENSION OF THE TANTRIC WISOOM

Easy comprehension of the tantric wisdom was the third objective o f Abhinava.1 It was from this point of view that he concentrated mainly on those issues or opinions which would be useful for all. Not that he shunned controversial issues rather, on the contrary, he took them up in his other works for a specialists treatment.3

( d ) R e s t o r a t io n a n d p r e s e r v a t io n o f t h e t r a d it io n

A careful look into the Tantraloka brings out one more objective which is however treated by Abhinava in a low key. His three references, one (Sampradayo- jjliiUiih)1 in the beginning and two others (Vidam- hilfil.i1 ami Miraste Vkklh;mf') in the middle o f the Tantraloka are quite conspicuous by their mention.

!. i T .A . 11.51

" - T .A .V ., X, p. 57

3. aTcffs^ T'^ PFW iR I3F|S7 TpFiT^mm 11 T.A. 1 .19

4. TTcSiTfTTWWfm II ' t d I I [bid. 9.55

5. f a IIT^OIT: I Ibid. 15.134-35

KrRn:... ........ yr^rRmr.. . . , kimi-Jprn: ! T .A .V ., IX , p. 71

In the first, Abhinava seems to suggest that there were people who, though learned, were deprived o f the uninterrupted tradition and hence did not have access to the doctrinal secrets. In the second, he hints at the existence o f the people who were neither conversant with the text nor had waited upon the teacher for guidance. As such, being easily misled by the similarity o f expression, they showed considerable gap in their knowledge. In the third, he implies that in certain sections the traditional secrets or specific procedures were lost or corrupted beyond recognition. In the first and sccond case, he undertook to propound the traditional wisdom inherited by him and in the third, he enjoins alternative course to be followed by taking recourse to the assignment (Nyasa) called MalinL Jayarathas observation, that whenever Abhinava quotes an agamic authority and recites a particular reading he does so to remove any misgivings about that source,1 further strengthens the above premises. The foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that one o f the undeclared objectives o f Abhinava is to restore and preserve the existing and traditionally acquired tantric literature and practices. We will have to say something on this aspect again while examining his style and method.

From the above noted account we note that Abhinavas motives and objectives could be classified into two groups i.e., the one declared and the other undeclared, and may be briefed as under:

1 . . MIri V- l e f "s l "r i T% H IA I-rK ifar *TT W SfifT f: 1

T.A .V ., V, p. 186

Motives

( a ) D e c l a r e d

To compose the Tantraloka(i) as a compendium,

(ii) as a manual,(iii) as a prayer.

( b ) U n d e c l a r e d

(i) To produce a scripturistic treatise (Sastra).

Objectives

( a ) D e c l a r e d

(i) (a) To realise self and make others realisethe same,

(b) To propound fourfold redemptive knowledge,

(ii) To afford easy comprehension o f the abstruse traditional secrets,

( l i j UNDr:c:t.AR['D

(i) To devise an-overriding textual authority,(ii) To restore the tantric learning and practices.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR (a b h i n a v a g u p t a )

(i) Biographical dataIt will be appropriate if we begin with the biogra

phical data as made available by Abhinavagupta in the Tantraloka. Abhinavagupta gives graphic details o f his ancestry, parentage, teachers, pupils and circumstances under which the Tantraloka was written.1

(a) N am eAccording to the Tantraloka Abhinavagupta was

not his actual name. It was a title which he earned from his teachers in recognition o f his devotion to ami reflection upon Siva.2 This fact has already been emphasized earlier3 where, according to Jayaratha, his name implied uulhoritativeness.4 Abhinavagupta is never tired of repeating this fact. He calls himself competent.6 This leads to the natural conclusion that

1. The reader is advised, for further details, to see Abhi. (pp. 1-77), K.T. (pp. 157-165), Kanes The History o f Sanskrit Poetics, Bombay, 1951 (pp. 226-233) and RagTiavans posthum ous work, Abhinavagupta and His Works (pp. 17-30), which is the reprint from JORI, V ol. XIV, IV, 1933.

2. 3rPw

he alone was competent to undertake a work like Tantraloka which was professedly a digest o f the entire Sadardha (lit. half of six i.e., Trika) scriptural literature.1 Abhinavas academic, intellectual, spiritual and yogic attainments were o f very high order. The very nature o f his physical birth, in the tantric parlance, underlies this. In the first verse itself which refers to his parents he suggests his Yogimbhutva2 (i.e., arising from Yoginls.). Such a suggestion assumes added significance in the context of the Tantraloka whose committed goal, as we have seen, is to enable the listener-aspirant achieve Bhairavahood (Absolutic being). Here the parents achieve Bhairavahood which is transmitted to progeny.1 Thus there is very suggestive relationship between his birth and composition of the Tantraloka. This view gets strengthened_by another remark o f Jayaratha. In the thirteenth Ahnika while discussing the various kinds o f fall of

2. Yoginibhu is a typical Kula concept. In the 29th Ahnika called Rahasyavidhiprakasana, this concept has been discussed under Dautavidhi (i.e., practice relating to the fem ale messenger). When parents unite identifying themselves with Siva and Sakti giving birth to progeny, the latter who is the Siva-incarnate and instant repository o f knowledge is designated as Yoginibhu

Also see fn. 1 above.3 wfef: Hif'Tf PflSi'i iMi1 h 'i.'h II . . . .

^ cfnrfaT n^rfV w ptw srrtem n

T.A.V ., I, pp. 14-15

f^rsfr

grace (Saktipata), Abhinava. points out to the characteristics,1 laid down in the Sripurvasastra, o f an aspirant who is endowed with MadhyativraSaktipata;

1. Unflinching faith in God;2. Realization of Mantras;3. Control over all the objective principles;4. Successful conclusion of the activities under

taken;5. Poetic creativity; and6. Sudden or spontaneous knowledge of all the

disciplines.All these signs or a few o f them show themselves

in varying degrees according to the quantum o f grace bestowed. But, Jayaratha, on the authority o f his teachers, says all these signs were patently visible in the author o f the Tantraloka? This is why such a man whose wisdom (Saltarkaright logic) dawns on its own. is said to be initiated by ones own deified awareness and exercises universal jurisdiction.* It is, therefore, nol dilficull. to understand as to why Abhinava assumes the role o f an Aciirya (Leather) throughout his work.4

i . iJT 'qfw: ^fT^sTT I!

T F s r fa fe itl Ib id . 1 3 .2 1 4 -2 1 5

Pandey refers to five cliaracteristies leaving K avitva (Abhi,, p, 17) which needs review.

2 ffq-WT f^ 3^TRT F ffK sfafe I^

ST^ TF qT?CTiNTF3T!T ST^ TT^ T I

T.A .V ., VIII, p. 1373. q n r ttopf: ?JT'Nrfa';Trrr r^ r^ it

3Tf?rfeir: m II T.A. 4.42-434. I Ibid., 11,53

(b ) P u p i l s , c o l l e a g u e s a n d f a m il y c ir c l e

Two factors prompted Abhinavagupta to undertake the writing of the Tantraloka. He was implored by his students and colleagues1 and was ordained by his teacher Sambhunatha2 to write a complete manual and bring out the aspects that the heretics were not able to see. Abhinavagupta in his concluding remarks even names his important pupils who were instrumental to his writing the Tantraloka. Mano- ratha, who happened to be his brother1, was foremost among them. However, before he could go ahead to favour Manoratha, other disciples including his cousins also approached him with a similar request.4 Of

remarks W l f ^ -

T .A .V ., VII, p. 44 (11th Ah) A lso see FT W T.A. 37.70

1. HSf* fWySipWrfTfff IFT^^iM jrf^mfiTtTriT u ibid. 1.15

2. 3Tcfrs^ raJT^ m iiWdtj+ff T W IT O T II Ibid. 1.19

3.

Trwi^ r: 3rftrRE[Tf!rcflX^nT: ^fOTfT^TJJTIWR' 11 T.A. 17.64

Pandey (Abhi., p. 13) takes M anoratha as Abhinavas yoimger brother. It is, however, dilficolt to maintain for the reasons com ing later.

4. 5sft;'i1RtiTid'iC f e T WTTfTT ?ft fM^aWTWgc^TR: I

^ jrfh" g^Tr^ frCTT^ TWJT 11srftrs: i i iHepcm: )

grow ufw^swrr: ,Ppr?rfem5sr: i

q- ijw raj iRr|Ecif ff? 11Trqwnr i^ ffer*Ta^"^TTf% i

these Kamathe son o f Sauri, MandraKama's boyhood friend and son o f a minister, Ksema, Utpala, Abhinava, Cakraka, Padmaguptaall cousins, and Ramagupta are remembered by name. A few others also bcscachcd Abhinava who accommodated all of them as it was against his training to turn down a request. We have already come across his brother Manoratha, Kama and Ramadeva in the concluding verses o f the Paratrimsikavimraria1 being described in extremely eloquent terms. His brother was a great devotee o f Siva and displayed command over all the disciplines, Kama, though quite young, bad grasped the essence o f Saiva principles and was totally averse to mundane attractions. He is the same Karna who, together with Mandra, requested Abhinava time and again to write a commentary on the Malini-rijayot- tamtantra.2 Karna had one son, Yogevaridatta by name, who displayed personal qualities justifying his name.1 Kamas young wife Amba4 also grew detached from the worldly affairs and devoted herself exclusively Lo the worship of Siva when her husband died later at an advanced age.B 11 is clear from Abhi-

9^7 3PT: P*i=f>alW-ii

navas remarks that although Kamas entreaty was a forceful factor behind Abhinavas undertaking, the former did not live long to see the work complete. Amba, Kamas wife, was perhaps Abhinavas sister elder or younger it is difficult to say. Because, on the strength of Abhinavas own statement, she looked upon Abhinava as her teacher and Siva personified although he happened to be her real brother and as such she was successful in keeping the filial emotions at bay.1 And when it came to Abhinava, though a brother, he justified her trust, respect and faith in him as a teacher by his virtuous conduct where the joy of knowledge aggravated his lust for further knowledge 2 but who also actively nurtured all the efforts annulling the sense, of delimited existence from heart This perhaps explains why Abhinava devotes so much space to the description o f Karna and his family.

Next comes Ramagupta who is referred to as Ramadeva in the P.T.V. He was exclusively given to the study o f Saiva scriptures and having fully comprehended the nuances o f Vidhi and Mandala in Trika scriptures was rather impatient to serve his teacher, Siva as well as scriptures. From the P T V.

f t h t w t w w r f ^ r r ^ i

T.A. 57 58i- s t o t

itrfeni iq'i ^ 11> T1

- . Ibid. 37.792. wrr ?t % f^ vr^ iT^ TTq ^ ; (

w w w ^ r r w q - ii

ET 'Tfrw- TWTO*Ibid. 37.80-81

we learn that he had thoroughly mastered grammar, Mimamsa and logic also.1

The list includes his live cousins including Ksenia and one his namesake. All these cousins showed in common their absolute devotion to Siva and rejection of worldly possessions. Wc do not know if Ksema amongst them was identical with Abhinavas illustrious disciple Ksemaraja, the author o f several erudite works. But all the circumstantial evidence tends to favour this identification. Although all these are mentioned as 4Pitrvyatanayah, Abhinava in his Tantraloka does not indicate who his uncle (Pitrvya) was. According to Pandey he mentions his uncle as Va- managupta m the Abhinavabhdrati.'2 From this quotation he appears to be a man o f literature. While discussing Abhinavas teachers we shall revert to him. Since he is the only person alluded to as his uncle, it may no I be illogical if Ksemas father and Vamanadatta are identified.

The only pupil we have yet to talk about is Mandra. lie happens lo be a boyhood friend o f Karna and his cousin also, as is gathered from the fact that Vatsalika, Sauris wife, has been called his aunt (Pitr- vyavadhu).* The possession o f all the necessary basic qualities makes his personality very pleasing and he was gifted with enormous riches and learning in equal measure. It was he who made Abhinavas stay at his suburban residence where all the members of house-

! I P.T.V. 9 (concluding verses, p. 2S0)

2. aw iwr*rraT A. Bh., Voi. I, p. 297, quoted, Abhi,, p. 735

3. w r w i i i t . a . 37.73

2 6 in t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e t a n t r a l o k a

hold including children were dedicated to the divine worship.

It was the combined request o f allthese pupils andins fellow-students who were longing to learn the entire tantnc literature that he could not desist from wmrng the Tantraloka* In fact it was his own deep rooted desire that was awaiting an excuse for an outlet just as a dancer, desiring to dance, cannot resist step- pmg when he gets an instrument for accompaniment Not only the request from students, but also the advice o f his teachers to this effect was found by him rull o f great benign possibilities.4

( c ) P l a c e o f c o m p o s it io n

The Tantraloka was, thus, written in the suburban residence o f Mandra, where his aunt VatsalikT look-

t i t f u T Wi& S much care and coemn a nd her name eciuaI to her merits

and felt constrained to attribute the success o f hisworic to the all-caring presence o f Vatsalika.* His

a r* ^ (|

felfow'^i'rlirf^ 1 suPra)- Abhinava is siient about"Ms

IsrmflTTft.* TOT ll' T .A 37 704. ^ ^

^ fk u '

5 .

, a^ H f a R a rcm - n

6 - ?f*r fF W : ^ ^ ( I b i d - 3 7 ' 73

gratitude is reflected in every word o f the poetic appreciation he has showered on her.1 Vatsalika was the wife o f Sauri who was kings minister and had later resigned the job when his mind bccamc pure owing to devotion to Siva.

(d) T ime

Out o f the material covcrcd so far, the portion relating to Karna and Sauri etc. is relevant from yet another point o f view. Abhinava, though ever ready to provide sufficient biographical data about himself and his environ, does not throw any direct hint on his time in the Tantraloka itself. Abhinavas time is no doubt fairly certain (he is placed around 950-1020 A.D.).3 It is here that we get some clues on the matter. Sauri appears to be a senior contemporary o f Abhinava because the latter has seen all the three genera I inns o f Sauri e.g., Sauri, Karna and YogeSvari- daila. /Vhhinava in fact was the contemporary o f Kama, his hrolher-in-law, husband o f his sister AjiiIki. Ahliinava also witnessed the death o f Karna, his close relative and an ardent disciple. Karna died at fairly advanced age (Agrage Vayasi T.A. 37.77) when his son, YogeSvaridatta, was already grown up. Cons-

1. mrf gnmN- JTffatfr snbr w^ir^ RrnrT: i4 o'^ tri

truing the present data with those in the P.T. V.1 we come to learn that Sauri was son o f Vallabha who was a Brahmin and a senior minister or the prime minister o f king YaSaskara who definitely ruled in the year 939 A.D. Thus, Abhinava who belonged to the third* generation from king YaSaskara should have undertaken the writing o f the Tantraloka at quite mature age; his accepted date (circa 950-1025 A.D.) continues to remain the same which may be shown in the following tabular form ;

King YaSaskara = Vallabha (939 A .D .) |

Sauri= VatsalikaV .

rCarna=Amba = AbhinavaguptaV (950-1025 A .D .)

YogcSvaridiitta

( e ) A n c e s t o r s & p a r e n t s

Abhinava has provided sufficient insight into his place o f origin, ancestors and teachers. Apart from scattered references throughout the text o f the Tan- trdloka he has devoted sizable space in the first and the thirty seventh Ahnikas. His earliest known ancestor Atrigupta was born in MadhyadeSa which falls

*FfT BpfKt IIctf5wtwtt...........wtf'frsrr^ rt i

P.T.V. 5-7 (concluding verses, p. 279)2. To this extent we revise our opinion in the K .T., p. 159.

in Kumar ika region (earth).1 Construed with the material from the P.T. V. MadhyadeSa is found to be synonymous with Antarvedf (i.e., land between Ganga and Yamuna) which might be identified with modern Kannauj and was the centre o f all learning. His surname was Gupta and his proper as well as Gotra names were Atri,3 if we go by the explanation of Jayaratha. He was brought to Kashmir by king Lalitaditya-Muktaplda o f Karkotaka dynasty (725761 A .D .) out o f great love and respect possibly4 when the latter conquered the king Ya&ovarman of Kan- nauja (730-740 A.D.). Abhinava has paid glowing tributes to Kashmir, the land o f learning, beauty and eternal bliss. Atrigupta was settled in Pravarapura, a decent beautiful town founded by an earlier king Pravarasena5 (c. 5th-6th century) on the banks of

i qr inftmrT i

fr.'JrrmrerfpTiT I w wrwrfircit ii i ) ii nt' f sPt'TTTr f ^ r k > p t i 11 Rivfi^ -mji ^ jil^: 11

T'A. 37.37-38Mu- iiii'iiiniif' o[ Mil lusi J'jiila ulT.A. 37.3H is not dear. Does

11 mciin lliul heeuu.se o f lii.s swallowing I he scriptural water he was mi mud Agastya also?

2. g^WrfsT i___ ^ ^P .T.V. 11 (concluding verses, p. 280)

- ~ . . T .A .V ., XII, p. 4124. tPPT prfVl'dlRii^ ft TMT J W W

STPTTWRT ^ fr r w w w r ; I t .a . 37.395. srfa?TT srw rnr ^ m ^rftnrir fsrcftw: i

I^ ojf| d ^ f r + ' 5 T OTTCF; II Ibid. 37.47

j f t H -

Vitasta, modern Jhelum. We do not know if he is the same as the illustrious composer o f the Setu- bandha, because Abhinava is silent on this aspect. A house was built on the bank o f Jhelum by king Lalita- ditya for his residence facing the temple o f Siva creating an environ of sanctity around the whole place. The temple, too, was located on the river bank and had a Siddhalihga enshrined in it.1 The king also granted enough property and wealth for Atriguptas maintenance.2 After a sufficient gap o f about 150 years in the lineage of the immigrant family o f Atri- gupta, Abhinava3 s grandfather Varahagupta was bom. He was an eminent scholar. It appears all through the intervening generations, about which nothing is known, traditions o f learning and devotion to Siva continued unabated. Varahaguptas son Nara- simhagupta, also popularly known as Cukhalaka, was Abhinavas father. His intellect was sharp, mind pure as a result o f his deep access into all the branches o f learning and heart full o f devout devotion to Siva.*

On the authority of Jayaratha wc know that the name o f Abhinavas mother was Vimala.6 In fact

2. Pandey (A bhi,,p . 19) readsbhumisampat for bhurisampat in the printed text which is equally a good reading. We have, however, interpreted it as property and wealth instead o f jagir follow ing the printed text.

Tc w y # f t n T.A. 37.54

5. s m f? ft Frarir f fa i

Abhinava himself suggests it in the very first word (Vimalakala) o f the Tantraloka\ His mother died when Ahhinava was a child" and was brought up by his father-. 11 is fa I her ihmi^h young was in the least (lisliMi-lLJil by ddvhliuns natural to the young age and liiul dovrl(i[H!(l auii.il iluvnlion to Siva as a result of

.ivusion Id tho worldly attractions3. MuIIuji's prom;iIn 10 death brought a sea change in Abluriavas spiritual life and with the removal of the staunchest cause o f attachment, he instantly attained salvation in his lifetime itself.1 His father reared Abhinava not only physically, but intellectually also. We shall have occasion to dilate upon it later.

Now a brief pause. In this context Abhinava makes no mention o f his brother and sister though we have already noted that Manoratha and Amba were his brother and sister respectively. It is difficult to say among the three who was younger and who was elder. From Abhinavas account we know that his mother died in his childhood and he was tended by his young father; it is quite possible that Abhinava might be the youngest. The reason for our holding so lies in the fact that he was a Yoginibhu in whose birth

By a strange coincidence, this verse forms the first introductory verse o f the P.T.V. and M.V.V. also.

2. TTT3T trsr If * f| wfeHnw.nT"! II ^ Ibid. 37.56

sfr ^rf

parental union did not take place for the satisfaction of carnal instinct but as a matter o f spiritual necessity. Abhinavas parents must have taken some time before they were able to develop such a frame of mind. Thus his brother and sister should have been born in the evolutionary phase. In any case the mutual gap between their birth must be small as the father was quite young when he turned away from worldly allurements and mother passed away quite early. Regarding Abhinavas own family, the Tantraloka is not o f much help. It is from the I.P.V.V. we learn that he was a celibate throughout his life and as such the question of having wife or son etc. did never arise.1

From the foregoing account the following picture o f Abhinava and his family emerges :

Atrigupta j severalI intervening [ generations

Varahagupta Vallabha

Vamanagupta Chukhalaka Sauri = Vatsalika Mandraor V (Sauris

Narasimhagupta = Vimla i brother)__________ V I

Abhinavagupta Manoratha Amba = KarnaV '

_________________________________Yogejvaridatta

Ksenia Utpala Abhinava Cakraka PadJiagupta

( f ) T e a c h e r s

Coming to his teachers we find Abhinava very in-

I.P .V .V ., III, concluding verse 2.

formative. He received his first lessons from his father, Narasimhagupta alias Cukhalaka. Grammar, logic and literature were the three fields which he mastered under the guidance o f his father,1 but the lessons with his father were just the beginning of his extraordinary intellectual pursuit. It appears while lie was enjoying his lessons in literature, he was overtaken by irresistible devotion to Siva which made him serve numerous teachers at their own seats.4 In pursuing his ever-increasing lust he did not even bother for the normal decorum and accepted serfdom of his teachers to acquire knowledge.

It appears Abhinava had to face tremendous criticism for going from one teacher to the other.3 A lthough he is an ardent follower o f the Sripurvasdstra, he quotes from the Matasastra twice4 in the Tantraloka to emphasize that as a black bee (Bhriiga) moves from flower to flower to collect scent, in the same way a student, desirous o f knowledge, should visit from teacher to teacher. It is why he flocked at the gates of logicians, Mil ml insists, Buddhists, Arhats and Vaisnavas.1 He also suggests the order in which he

____ ^ __________ T.A . 37.582. d'*) 41 ART *T

approached the teachers o f respective disciplines. He first approached Vaisn.avas, then Buddhists, then Siddhanta Saivists, and finally Trika scholars.1 It is a very terse proposition to identify all his teachers by name in different disciplines, yet we get a reasonably adequate account in this respect.

( i) M a t h i k a g u r u s & ( i t) j n a n a g u r u s

Abhinavas teachers may be divided in two broad groups(1) Mathikagurus (teachers representing a preceptorial school and thereby a definite spiritual approach) and (2) Jnanagurus (teachers imparting knowledge in general in some specific area). In the opening verses o f the first Ahnika he deals with the Mathikagurus2 (except Amardaka Mathika) and towards close o f the Tantraloka (37th Ali.) he first discusses Mathikagurus and then other teachers. Under Mathikagurus he first refers to Bhutiraja." Bhutiraja and his son, whose name Abhinava does not disclose, represent the Natha Mathika, representing dualist- cum-monist school.4 Traiyamba Mathika, which is related to Tantra-prakriya, is represented by Laks- managupta who steps into the shoes o f Utpala and Somananda, Abhinavas grand and great-grand teachers respectively.5 Lak$managupta is followed by

im i fwi i fa tTI'M rsi'lcyf'hd W : il T.A . 13.3482. For Mathikas see K.T. pp. 32-34.

3. I T.A. 1.9

ibid. 37.60

TTfFT'T^T^tTT IIbid. 1,10.11

Sambhunatlia, who represents the Fourth School1, which also goes by the name o f Ardha-traiyambaka and is supposed to be identical with Kula Prakriya.2 Samblmnatha appears to be the main inspiration behind the Tantraloka. Although Abhinava has left out teachers o f the Amardaka school in the beginning, possibly because they fell outside the purview of Tan- traprakriya, he utilizes the first apportunity in the concluding verses to refer to Vamanatha who was the son or pupil o f Eraka and represented the dualist school founded by Amardaka or Ananda.3

After discussing Mathikagurus, he switches over to give out a long list of his main teachers4 who perhaps taught him secular subjects. The list reads as under:

(i) Sricandra Sarma, (ii) Bhava,s (iii) Bhaktivilasa,(iv) Yogananda, (v) Abhinanda, (vi) SivaSakti,6

also see

5. The name o f Candravara, mentioned at No. 11 by Pandey (Abhi., p. 12) is not found in the text cited above. Instead, we have some Bliava in his placs. The text as it is may also mean Bhaktivilasa, the son o f Candra Sarma . Pandey adopts a different text, possibly from the MS in his possession

6. Pandey reads Sivabhakti. Ibid.

T .A . 37.61

Ib id . 37 .61

sTJrar^ r?? fjfasnrtaft es wrr-T i4 \ C > 1TT^ frsfq W T O II

(T .A , 1.13) T.A .V., I, p. 31

3.

4. : Isr^sFr gr4P ^ wi w ii

' " * Ib id . 3 7 .6 2

(vii) Vicitranatha, (viii) DharmaSiva,1 (ix) Viimanaka, (x) Udbhata, (xi) Sribhute^a* and (xii) Bhaskara.

All these teachers, whose favour was earned by Abhinava due to their service and attendance, conveyed whatever they knew in their branches to Abhinava helping him become self-contented and truly dedicated to exploring reality.3 Since these are his principal teachers, there might have been some not- so-important teachers, about whom we hardly know anything. Abhinava, however, refers to his several teachers in the body o f the text quite often, but use of the term Guru or Guravah is so loose that it is difficult to take a definite stand. Sometimes it refers to a mythical figure,4 sometimes to a preceptorial ancestor much anterior to him," sometimes to the legendary Krsna8 and sometimes to the earlier commentators including even his opponents. Moreover, it does not have an exact chronological connotation. However, on the basis o f available evidence, a conjecture can be made. Abhinava studied the Matanga Agama. with some Aniruddha8 who also commented

1. Pandey takes Dharma and Siva separately (Abhi., p. 12), but they are one as subsequent discussion will bring out.

2. Pandey reads Bhutisa. Ibid.

PtiHlf+l I^ Ji 11 ivt SfrTT^WRll T.A , 37.63

4. Vide ibid. 8.95. Ibid. l.lOO; 9. 2786. Ibid. 1.1247. Ibid. 8.101; 9.173

f^ft: lljtrtw

upon the Matanga Sastra an Agama o f Siddhanta Saivism. Jayaratha seems to have quoted a long extract from this commentary in his Viveka on the Tantraloka 8.433-34.1 In addition, Abhinava also furnishes some useful information about some of his teachers. DhammSiva, mentioned at serial No. (viii) above, seems to have imparted lessons on some of the matters connected with Paroksa DIksa (indirect initiation). His views are quoted in the context o f judging the comparative strength o f the rites (Samskaras)2 which were slightly different from those enunciated by Sambhunatha. His method is then discussed from the T.A. 21.50 to 21.55. Abhinava has referred to two Vamanas above with slight variation in nameone is Vamanatha, his teacher in Saiva dualism and other Vamanaka about whom we perhaps know nothing. According to Pandey one o f the Vamanas (which one?) is identical with Abhinavas uncle Vamana- gupta3 and has been mentioned in the list o f his teachers. Possibly it is Vamanaka which goes more in

nTTt i t .A . 9 .261

Jayaratha remarks^ TTcfgir

1TR'1 ffh" t ^ 4 : tT .A .V .,1 V I, p. 211

For other details see Dwivedis Upodghata, pp. 16-17.

l ........... i sr? ^ wrar-

( WWTFfir) tlqiRr) ^r=)'fd

line with Vamanagupta. But Abhinava nowhere refers to Vamanaka as his uncle in the Tantraloka nor does he give the slightest idea about the discipline taught. He, however, refers to one Vamanadatta, who on the testimony o f Jayaratha, was the author of one Sam vitprakdsa.1 This Vamanadatta has definitely been referred to as Gurubhih and not by name. From the content and context it appears that this Vamanadatta talked of variety in the instrumental knowledge without affecting the overall unity of divine consciousness. In all probability Vamanaka is Vamanadatta who was a teacher of Abhinava, but not his uncle.2 Amongst the remaining Jnanagurus our informations about Bhaskara are in much better shape, though his name does not figure in the Tan-

1. =fY?r 11^ ^ T iw i T .A . 5.154-55

Jayaratha adds vrfW fHfa TrfW FTW IT .A .V ., III, p. 467

2. Dwivedi in his Upodghata (pp. 15-16, 65-66, 72-73, 78, 83) has dwelt in detail on the issue except student-teacher relationship between Abhinava and Vamana. He has identified Hrasvanatha, the author o f the Advaya-sampattE vartika with Vamanadatta, the author o f the Sarirvitprakasa. The view needs further examination. His other informations are important. According to him the Samvitprakasa was a text with Vai^iiava leanings. Its MS is available in B.H.U. Library (Nos. C4003 and C5J86), Vamanadatta seems to have written two more books Suhodhamanjari (C4235 at B.H.U.) and Svabodhamanjarimatrka (C l 00 at B.H.U.). I f Hrasvanatha, the son o f Harsadatta, is none other than the author o f the Samvitprakasaif Dwivedi s hypothesis prevailshe should be credited with the authorship o f the Bodhayilasa also (K .T ., pp. 182-83, fn. 3). Dwivedi has disputed duality o f Hrasvanathas (Upodghata, p. 66) suggested by us (K.T., pp. 176-183), but without assigning any reason whatsoever for disagreement.

traloka elsewhere.1 From other sources we know that he was the renowned author o f the Vartika on the Sivasutras, in addition, to the Vivekanjana and Kak- sycistotra. His father was one Divakara and he was a disciple of Snkai.Hlui m Span da branch and of the Stotnikfiru SiddhiufUha in Krama.2 Some liberty may be taken for certain conjectures with regard to Bhava mentioned at Serial No. (ii) above. Abhinava has referred to a series o f teachers coming in preceptorial succession who commented on the Paratrisikd Sastra running as underSomananda, Kalyana and Bha- vabhuti.3 If Abhinavas description depicts the chronological succession o f teacher-conunentators Bha- vabhuti occupies exactly the same point o f time (calculating from Somananda) which is occupied by Bhava as teacher of Abhinavagupta. In that case Bhava would be an abbreviated form of Bhavabhtiti or should we be justified in reading in the text Bhava- blUUivilfisayogananda in place o f Bhavabhakti- vihlsayogananda'? We leave it for future investigation.

In this group figures Udbhata also, about whom Abhinavas commentator Jayaratha gives us some information. This Udbhata is different from his earlier namesake, who was a poetician and a prominent figure in king Jayapidas court (779-813 A.D.). The latter Udbhata followed Ujjata in succession and happened to be the grand disciple o f Bhanuka (850

1. Bhaskara is included in the list in T .A . 37.62. The reference to Bhaskara in T .A . 1.21 is o f dubious value (Abhi, p. 917) and is more figurative than informative.

2. See K.T., pp. 144-146.

40 i n t r o d u c t io n t o t h e t a n t r a l o k a

900 A.D.), an early Krama teacher.1 This tradition descended down to Jayaratha Intact through intervening generations o f teachers. However if both the accountsAbhinavas as well as Jayarathasare construed together, it would appear that Abhinava was in possession o f both the Krama traditionsone descending through Govindaraj a-* Somananda^ Laksmanagupta and the other through Bhanuka^ Ujjata-^Udbhata. Since Abhinava subscribed to the tradition headed by Somananda, he is avowedly indebted to Laksmanagupta for his lessons in the whole o f Tantra-prakriya comprising Krama, Trika and Pratyabhijna systems. Udbhata comes in for a lone reference, because Abhinava, though, learnt Krama dicta from Udbhata, his lessons were limited to the sphere of Udbhatas branch o f Krama alone and his heart did not lie there.

Coming to the Mathikagurus our first encounter takes place with one Vamanatha who taught tantras o f the duahstic schools to Abhinava.2 He has nowhere been remembered except once. From Abhinavas statement* we simply know that he was either son or pupil o f Eraka/ who happened to be an excellent teacher. This Eraka, the teacher in dualism, is not to be confused with his earlier namesake who

1. (laiCT: pTETFTPTI f^qrspr W sfrfT

trfwitwRr:

2. See fn. 3 on page 35 supra.T.A.V., III, p. 192-3; cf. K.T., pp. 137-138

3. T .A . 37.60

4, Atmaja in T .A . 37,60 may not necessarily mean soil, it may mean disciple also. See K .T pp. 135-137. To this extent the views regarding Eraka in K,.T, p. 122 stand modified.

was a Stotrakara and a Krama propagator (850-900 A .D .).1 We are in dark about any further details.

Next come Bhutiraja (900-950 A .D .) and his son as representative teachers o f dualism-cum-nondualism2 initiated by Srmiilha. It appears that Abhinava took his lessons from father and son both. As we have seen, Bluitiraja is remembered in the beginning and his son towards the end of the Tantraloka. The Tantraloka is silent about his son. From other sources he may be identified with Helaraja, the illustrious commentator o f the Vakyapadiya and brother o f Induraja, the latter being Abhinavas teacher in literary criticism.* Bhutiraja has claimed highest veneration from Abhinava who views him as another form of the Godhead.4 Bhutiraja seems to have excelled in many branches of learning in addition to the dualis- tic-momstic discipline. Perhaps his full name was Bhutirajami&ra. He seems to have initiated Abhinava in the science o f the size o f all the regions (Bhuvanas)6 and purifiability o f all o f Lliem and propounded the theory of hundred Rudras (Satarudras)8 in the context o f the treatment of Bhuvanadhvan and Pratistha Kala. Another major item which Abhinava learnt

1. See K .T ., p. 122

2. The view that the system taught was dualism in the K.T., p. 155 needs be rectified,

3. K .T pp. 154-155; /Vbhi.3 p. 214

4. STW K faW fH sdcU H sH1 | T.A.19. Cp. I

?nfi t c k : i M .V.V. 1.5-65. m faTfor II

wfrraTff i t . a .. 8.40G-7

6. 3 ytTWFff vr^ TFTPT 1. -sSITg: ]p^3f3TcnT ll Ibid. 8 .4]0

from Bhutiraja was Brahmavidya which consisted of such Mantras which if read at the time of death would lead to instant self-realization.1 He also imparted three esoteric disciplines pertaining to Pranava, Maya and Bindn to Abhinava2 in the course o f discuss