Anda di halaman 1dari 125

ŚAVSM AN RAMANSM

A S , T

Alexis Sanderson

 , J

RAMANSM

. e householder ideology
(a) Locus classicus for the ritualistic interpretation of the meaning of the cor-
pus of the brahmanical scriptures Ślokavārttika of Kumārila, esp. Samba-
ndhāksepaparihāra – .
.
(b) Gautamadharmasūtra . and Baudhāyanadharmasūtra . . (Proto-
audhāyana)
(c) T. N. M , Non-Renunciation: emes and Interpretations of Hindu
Culture. elhi OUP, .
. e renunciationist ideology. Locus classicus for the contrary, gnostic view is
Brahmasūtra . . – as interpreted by Śaṅkara in his Brahmasūtrabhāsya. is
.
series of aphorisms propounds the view as the doctrine of ādarāyana ( . . ,
.
. . – , . . – ) and as opposed to that of Jaimini (set out in . . – ,
. . ).
. e middle ground.
(a) Manusmrti . – 
.
āśramād āśramam gatvā hutahomo jitendriyah. |
.
bhiksābalipariśrāntah. pravrajan pretya vardhate ||
.
rnāni trīny apākrtya mano mokse niveśayet |
.. . . .
anapākrtya moksam tu sevamāno vrajaty adhah. ||
. . .
adhītya vidhivad vedān putrāmś cotpādya dharmatah. |
.
istvā
. ca śaktito yajñair mano mokse niveśayet ||
. .
anadhītya dvijo vedān anutpādya tathā sutān |
anistvā caiva yajñaiś ca moksam icchan vrajaty adhah. ||
.. .
f he renounces after proceeding from discipline to discipline, having
performed his sacrifices, having mastered his senses, and weary of giving
alms and food-offerings [to the deities], he will prosper after his death. e
should not apply his mind to liberation if he has not yet paid off the three
debts. f he cultivates liberation without having done so he will descend.
e should apply his mind to liberation when he has studied the Vedas
in the ordained fashion, when he has produced sons in accordance with
his religious obligation, and when he has offered sacrifices to the extent
of his ability. f a twice-born man seeks liberation before he has studied
the Vedas, fathered sons, and offered the sacrifices [thus paying the three
debts], he will descend

(b) See Patrick O , e Āśrama System: e History and Hermeneutics


of a Religious Institution. New York and Oxford OUP, for the devel-
opment from the harmasūtras to the harmaśāstras of this theoretical-
cum-institutional construct according to which the ideal brahmin should
pass successively through the disciplines of the celibate student, married
householder, hermit, and renouncer
(c) ree doctrines of the āśramāh . ( ) progressive accumulation (samuccaya-
paksah), ( ) optionality (vikalpapak sah), and ( ) refusal of the states of the
. . . .
hermit and renouncer (bādhapaksah)
. .
(d) Vijñāneśvara, Mitāksarā ( . . ) on Yājñavalkyasmrti . –  esām ca
. . . .
samuccayavikalpabādhapaksānām sarvesām śrutimūlatvād icchayā *vikalpa-
. . . . .
tā (conj.  vikalpāh. d.).
One is free to choose any one of these views, that of accumulation, that
of optionality, or that of refusal, since each has the support of Śruti texts.
. Gautamadharmasūtra . –  vedo dharmamūlam tadvidām ca smrtiśīle ‘e source
. . .
of [our knowledge of ] beneficial religious activity is the Veda and the tradition
and conduct of those who know it’ → Manusmrti . ab vedo ’khilo dharma-
.
mūlam smrtiśīle ca tadvidām.
. .
. e criterion of the validity of Smrti.
. Medhātithi’s Smrtiviveka, cited in his
.
Manubhāsya on . (vol. , p. , ll. – )
.
pratyaksaśrutinirdista m ye ’nutisthanti kecana |
. .. . ..
ta eva yadi kurvanti tathā syād vedamūlatā||
prāmānyakāranam mukhyam vedavidbhih. parigrahah. |
. . .

f the self same persons that put into practice what has been ordained by the
independently valid testimony of Śruti also put into practice [what is ordained
by a Smrti text], then [the latter may be inferred] to have the Veda as its source.
.
e primary criterion of the validity [of a secondary text] is that its ordinances
are adopted by those who know the Vedas [and put them into practice].
. Śaṅkha-and-Likhita cited in Krtyakalpataru, Pt. , p.  smrtir dharmaśāstrāni.
. . .
. Manu’s pre-eminence. Kumārila, Tantravārttika on Mīmāmsāsūtra . .  purānam
. . .
mānavo dharmah. sāṅgo vedaś cikitsitam ‘[Valid are] the Purānas, the harma[śāstra]
.
of Manu, the Veda with its ancillaries.
. Purānas.
.
(a) Yājñavalkyasmrti . 
.
purānanyāyamīmāmsādharmaśāstrāṅgamiśritāh. |
. .
vedāh. sthānāni vidyānām dharmasya ca caturdaśa ||
.
ere are fourteen sources of knowledge and religious duty the [four]
Vedas together with the Purānas, Nyāya, Mīmāmsā, the harmaśāstras,
. .
and the [six] ancillaries’.

(b) Jayanta, Nyāyamañjarī-Āgamaprāmānya, p. , ll. –  vedamūlatvāt smr-


. .
tīnām smrtivat purānānām api bhavatu prāmānyam. sarvathā tāvad vedāś
. . . .
catvārah. purānam smrtir iti sad. imāni vidyāsthānāni sāksāt purusārthasā-
. . . . . .
dhanopadeśīni.
Since the Smrtis [that is to say, the harmaśāstras] are Veda-derived, let
.
the Purānas be authoritative for the same reason. n all, then, there are six
.
sources of knowledge that teach directly the means of accomplishing the
[religious] purpose of man. ese are the four Vedas, the Purānas . and the
Smrtis.
.
. pic (itihāsah).
.
(a) Viśvarūpa, Bālakrīdā
. on Yājñavalkyasmrti .  purānam iti cetihāsapurā-
. .
nayor grahanam ‘And the term Purāna [in this list] covers the Mahābhārata
. . .
and the Purānas’.
.
(b) Jayanta, Nyāyamañjarī-Āgamaprāmānya, p. , l.  itihāsapurānābhyām
. . .
vedam samupabrmhayet ‘One may supplement the Veda with the pic and
. ..
the Purānas’.
.
(c) Sumantusmrti cited in Krtyakalpataru Pt. , p. ) vedavedāṅgetihāsapurā-
. .
natarkamīmāmsādharmaśāstrāni ‘e Vedas, the [six] ancillaries of the
. . .
Vedas, the pic, the Purānas, Nyāya, Mīmāmsā, and the harmaśāstras’.
. .
. e Rāmāyana, the Visnudharma, the Śivadharma, and the Sauradharma by
. ..
extension of the scope of the term Purāna in the canonical list of the fourteen
.
vidyāsthānāni see Krtyakalpataru, vol. , p. , citing a passage attributed to
.
the Bhavisyapurāna.
. .
. deśācārah. and kulācārah.
.
. e validity of Purāna subject to the test of sadācārah.
. or rejection of certain
.
Purānas
. see, e.g., allālasena (ruled engal [auda]. c. – ), Dānasā-
gara, introductory verses – .
. Ritual typology
(a) Śrauta and Smārta rituals that are tied to specific schools of the Veda,
differentiated according to the particular Veda, recension of that Veda,
and a tradition of its implementation in accordance with a patrilineally
inherited affiliation (sources Śrautasūtra and rhyasūtra).
.
(b) Rituals that are universal, in that they are considered valid for all, regard-
less of Veda lineage (source Purānas) e.g. installation rituals (pratisthā) of
. ..
shrines, homes, reservoirs, wells, and the like, rituals performed to avert
ills of various kinds (śāntih),
. to solemnize the giving of gifts (dānam),
and to terminate periods of ascetic observance (vratodyāpanam) choice
of deities functional rather than affective, multicentric rather than mono-
centric.
(c) evotional worship (pūjā) of the post-Vedic deities (Śiva, evī, Visnu)
..
by the head of the family kuladevatā and istadevatā. Yājñavalkyasmrti
.. .
. cd
snātvā devān pit¯rmś caiva tarpayed arcayet tathā ||
..
After bathing he should pour libations from his hand to the gods and
ancestors and also do an act of devotional worship.

One deity or several deities.


i. Vijñāneśvara, Mitāksarā on Yājñavalkyasmrti . cd tato madhyā-
. .
hne śāstroktena vidhinā nadyādisu snātvā devān svagrhyoktān pit¯rmś ca
. . ..
cakārād rsīmś ca devāditīrthena tarpayet. tadanantaram gandhapuspā-
.. . . .
ksataih. hariharahiranyagarbhaprabhrtīnām anyatamam yathāvāsanam
. . . .
rgyajuhsāmamantrais
. tatprakāśakaih. svanāmabhir vā caturthyantair
.
namaskārayuktair ārādhayet.
After he has bathed following the procedure taught in the Śāstras
in a river or some other [permitted body of water] he should pour
libations of water to the gods prescribed in his rhya[sūtra], his
.
ancestors, and—this is implied by the word ‘and’ itself—the sages,
from the parts of his hand sacred to these [three]. Next he should
propitiate one among such deities as Visnu, Śiva, and rahmā, in
..
accordance with his personal inclination, with offerings of fragrant
powder, flowers, and unhusked rice grains, while reciting Mantras
drawn from the Rgveda,
. Yajurveda, or Sāmaveda that evoke that
[deity], or with their own names in the dative case together with
. [the formula of obeisance . .. , .  
and so forth].
ii. Kūrmapurāna cited in Nīlakantha hat.ta,
. Bhagavantabhāskara, Ācāra-
. ..
mayūkha, pp. – ( th century) rahmā, Śiva, Visnu, Sūrya or
..
any other deities of choice.
iii. Narasimhapurāna ibid. Visnu alone.
. . ..
iv. Skandapurāna ibid. rahmā in the Krta age, Sūrya in the Tretā,
. .
Visnu in the vāpara and Śiva in the Kali, now current.
..
v. Kūrmapurāna ibid. highest Vaidika worship is that of Visnu with
. ..
that of Maheśvara (Śiva) as an option.
vi. e section on this topic (the devapūjāprakaranam) in the Anūpavilāsa
.
of Manirāma
. īksita (Ācāraratna, pp. ff.) composed in enares
.
in . . , begins with a citation from the Padmapurāna requiring
.
daily worship of rahmā, Visnu, Śiva, Sūrya, Agni, aneśa, urgā,
.. .
Sarasvatī, Laksmī, or aurī. e notes that some say that one does
.
one’s duty by worshipping any one of these, while others hold that
one is obliged to offer a daily pañcāyatanapūjā, i.e. worship of the five
gods Sūrya, aneśa, the oddess, Śiva, and Visnu, followed by that
. ..
of the deity of one's lineage (Kuladevatā). is form, but without the
Kuladevatā, is still widely practised in the subcontinent.
. e great faultline in brahmanical metaphysical and soteriological thinking rit-
ualism v. theism karma and od. e conservative reaction. Kumārila, Śloka-
vārttika, Sambandhāksepaparihāra, vv. c– b, esp. vv. – 
. .
stutivākyakrtaś caisa janānām mativibhramah. |
. . .
paurvāparyāparāmrsta h śabdo ’nyām kurute matim ||
. .. . .
upākhyānādirūpena vrttir vedavad eva nah. |
. .
dharmādau bhāratādīnām bhrāntis tebhyo ’py ato bhavet ||
.
ākhyānānupayogitvāt tesu sarvesu vidyate |
. .
stutinindāśrayah. kaścid vedas taccodito ’pi vā ||

is common misconception [that Prajāpati created the Vedas and the universe]
has originated from passages whose real purpose is to advocate [certain actions
enjoined elsewhere in the text]. [Such passages of ] scripture give rise to error
when they are not considered in their full context. We maintain that this is
also to be understood in the case of the Mahābhārata[, the Smrtis] and [the
.
Purānas]. ese are just like the Veda proper in that they too undertake to teach
.
meritorious and [demeritorious] action through myths[, cosmogonies] and the
like (upākhyānādirūpena). us it is that they too have been sources of [the
.
same] misunderstanding. ecause story-telling serves no purpose [in itself ] all
such [narrative] passages concern some [action enjoined or prohibited in the]
Veda proper or in those [secondary texts] themselves, [some action] which they
promote or condemn.

. e rejection of the brahmavādah.


.
. eistic compromises the commentaries on the Brahmasūtra by the Vaisnava
..
Rāmānuja and the Śaiva Śrīkanthald
. offer devotional worship not to one deity,
.
but to five.
. e cult of Śiva in the corpus of Purānic
. literature.
(a) e original Skandapurāna (prob. th or first half of th century), Liṅga-
.
purāna, the tenth-century south-ndian Sūtasamhitā.
. .
(b) Texts such as the Vāyupurāna, Matsyapurāna, and Kūrmapurāna. ese
. . .
were not originally centred on Śiva, but they were subsequently trans-
formed by the addition of Śaiva materials.
(c) Māhātmya texts.

ŚAVSM
. y ‘Śaivism’  mean the entirety of the religious practices and beliefs under-
taken in the subcontinent and Southeast Asia by Śaivas, and by the term Śaiva
 mean in the broadest sense anyone who venerated Śiva as the foremost of
the gods, including therefore those who followed the forms of devotion to
Śiva sanctioned within the brahmanical scriptural corpus by the uncontested
Purānas. ut in a narrower, more specialized sense  mean those whose re-
.
ligious practices and beliefs drew their authority from scriptures outside the
brahmanical corpus, scriptures that claim to have been revealed by the deity
Śiva as religious teachings above and beyond Śruti and Smrti, teachings that
.
claim that they alone reveal the means of attaining definitive liberation from
the beginningless but terminable cycle of births and deaths, denying that Śruti
and Smrti
. can achieve this. or Śaiva in this narrower sense see Aparāditya,
Yājñavalkyasmrtitīkā, vol. , p. , ll. – .
. .
. xclusive devotion.
(a) Samskāravidhi v. 
.
snānam krtvā tato viprah. pitrdevān ksamāpayet |
. . . .
ksamantu pitrdevās te gato ’ham śaranam śive ||
. . . . .
en after bathing the brahmin should ask [his] ancestors and the gods
for pardon, [saying] ‘‘May the ancestors and the gods forgive me. [or] 
have now taken refuge in Śiva [alone]’’.

(b) Pañcārtha . – 
tasmād ubhayathā yastavyah.
. devavat pitrvac ca. ubhaye tu rudre devāh.
.. .
pitaraś ca.

erefore he [alone] should be worshipped in both modes. Like the gods


and like the ancestors. [or] on Rudra both the gods and the ancestors
[depend].

(c) hagavat Kaundinya, Pañcārthabhāsya on . 


.. .
pūrvam asya brāhmanasya devayajane pitryajane cādhikāro ’dhigatah.. tas-
. .
māt tebhyo devapitrbhyo bhaktivyāvartanam krtvobhayathāpi maheśvare bhā-
. . .
vam avasthāpya yajanam kartavyam nānyasya. caśabdah. pratisedhe. yat tat
. . .
pūrvam devapitrsu kārakatvam sambhāvitam tat tesu na vidyate. atas tesām
. .. . . . . . .
yajanam na kartavyam ity arthah..
.
is brahmin’s qualification and obligation to make offerings to the gods
and his ancestors applied [only] before [his initiation]. erefore he should
[now] withdraw devotion from these gods and ancestors and in place of
both fix his heart on Maheśvara and worship him and no other. e word
ca here [in pitrvac ca] expresses prohibition. t implies that the [other]
.
gods and his ancestors lack the agency that he used to attribute to them
and that therefore he should no longer make offerings to them.
e Chronology of Early Śaivism
. No evidence of Śaivism in the Pali canon. See Richard  , How Bud-
dhism Began: e Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings (Jordan Lectures in
omparative Religion XV. London and Atlantic ighlands, N.J. Athlone,
), pp. – , claiming such evidence, and the review of this book by
MudagamuwaM and Alexander R , Indo-Iranian Jour-
nal ( ), pp. – , dismissing the claim.
. Mahāniddesa, Pt. , p. 

santeke samanabrāhmanā vatasuddhikā. te hatthivatikā vā honti assavatikā vā


. .
honti govatikā vā honti kukkuravatikā vā honti kākavatikā vā honti vāsudeva-
vatikā vā honti baladevavatikā vā honti punnabhaddavatikā vā honti manibhadda-
.. .
vatikā vā honti aggivatikā vā honti nāgavatikā vā honti supannavatikā vā honti
..
yakkhavatikā vā honti asuravatikā vā honti gandhabbavatikā vā honti mahārāja-
vatikā vā honti candavatikā vā honti sūriyavatikā vā honti indavatikā vā honti
brahmavatikā vā honti devavatikā vā honti disāvatikā vā honti. ime te samana-
.
brāhmanā vatasuddhikā.
.
ere are some Śramanas and rāhmanas who [seek to] purify themselves
. .
through [imitiative] ascetic observances. ey adopt [imitative] observances [in
which they assume the behaviour] of elephants, horses, cows, dogs, or crows, or
[venerate] Vāsudeva, aladeva, Pūrnabhadra, Manibhadra, Agni, the Nāgas, the
. .
Suparnas, Yaksas, Asuras, andharvas, Mahārājas, the Moon, the Sun, ndra,
. .
rahmā, the ods, or the irections. ese are the Śramanas and rāhmanas
. .
who seek to purify themselves through [imitative] observances.

. e Vinaya of the harmaguptakas, composed in andhāra, probably under


the patronage of the ndo-Scythian dynasty around the beginning of the hris-
tian era, includes Maheśvara in a similar list of deities and supernaturals, those
to whom people pray for such benefits as the birth of a son Pūrnabhadra,
.
Manibhadra, the Sun, the Moon, ndra, rahmā, Prthivī, Agni, Vāyu, Maheś-
. .
vara, ārītī, and spirits of gardens, woods, jungles, cities, and market towns.
See Nobumi  , entry ‘aijizaiten’ in Hōbōgirin, , p. a – ,
citing T. XX a – and ibid. b – .
. arliest certain evidence of the worship of Śiva of which  am aware is from the
second century . .
(a) Patañjali, Mahābhāsya on . .  images of Śiva
.
(b) On . .  importunate religious mendicants called Śivabhāgavatas)
(c) On . .  the pairing of Śiva with the deity Vaiśravana (śivavaiśravanau).
. .
is is an archaic feature seen elsewhere
i. e Jain canonical Aṅgavijjā, ch. (devatāvijayo nāma), p. ll. – 
.

baladevavāsudevā sivavessamanā khamdavisāhā aggimāruyā ya vinneyā


. . ..
bhavamti.
.
One should recognize aladeva-and-Vāsudeva, Śiva-and-Vaiśravana,
.
Skanda-and-Viśākha, and Agni-and-Vāyu.
ii. Kautalya,
. Arthaśāstra . . , referring to this pair in a passage on the
deities that a king should establish in a fortified city
aparājitāpratihatajayantavaijayantakosthān śivavaiśravanāśviśrīmadi-
.. .
rāgrhāni ca puramadhye kārayet.
. .
e should have made in the centre of the city niches for Aparājita,
Apratihata, Jayanta, and Vaiyanta, and temples for Śiva-and-Vaiśra-
vana, the [two] Aśvins, and Śrī-and-Madirā.
.
iii. Mahābhārata see . . –  evident though not fully explicit.
(d) Prevalence of theophoric names in Śiva- in much of the subcontinent
among the many lay donors named in the uddhist and Jain inscription
from the second century . . to the third . . found at such widely sep-
arated sites as īmarān in Afghanistan, Shahdaur in azara, Ahicchatra
and Mathurā in northern ndia, Kanheri and Nāsik in Maharashtra, and
.
Nāgārjunakonda, . hat.tiprolu,
. and Amarāvatī in Andhra. ere we find
.
occurrences, often several, of such names as Śiva, Śivaka, Śivagupta, Śiva-
ghosa, Śivadatta, Śivadāsa, Śivadeva, Śivadhara, Śivanandin, Śivanāgaśrī,
.
Śivapālita, Śivaputra, Śivabodhi, Śivabhūti, Śivamitra/ā, Śivayaśā (fem.),
Śivaraksita, Śivaśarman, Śivaśrī, Śivasena, and Śivaskandagupta.
.
or names in Śiva- among uddhist lay donors see the indices in Keishō
T , Indo-bukkyo-himei no Kenkyu [A Comprehensive Study of the
Indian Buddhist Inscriptions] (Kyoto eirakuji-Shoten, ), vol.  for
the same among Jain lay donors see the editions of the Jain inscriptions of
Mathurā published by eorg ¨ in Epigraphia Indica  – and
 ( and ) and L¨ , Mathurā Inscriptions (Unpublished
Papers Edited by Klaus Janert). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in öttingen, Philologisch-istorische Klasse, ritte olge,
no. . öttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, also the index of
personal names given with L¨ ’ list of nearly rāhmī inscrip-
tions, mostly donative, from the earliest times to about . . with
the exception of those of Aśoka, published as an appendix to Epigraphia
Indica ( – ).
(e) is is also the period during which the Liṅga, Śiva’s phallic emblem
and principal substrate of worship, emerges in the archaeological record
and passes through the greater part of the changes of design that lead
to its classical, less naturalistic form see ritli M ,
volution of the Liṅga, in Discourses on Śiva. Proceedings of a Symposium
on the Nature of Religious Imagery edited by M. M (Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. – .
(f ) t is also the period during which the anthropomorphic iconography of
Śiva begins to take shape see oris Meth S , Significance and
Scope of Pre-Kusāna Śaivite conography, in M (ed.) , pp.
. .
–  and erd K , Die Śiva-Bildwerke der Mathurā-Kunst ein Bei-
trag zur Frühhinduistischen Ikonographie (Monographien zur ndischen
Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie ), Stuttgart ranz Steiner Verlag,
.
Atimārga and Mantramārga
Nothing in this early textual and epigraphic evidence enables us to define the
worshippers it indicates as belonging to or supporting one or other of the
traditions known to us from Śaiva scriptural and commentatorial sources. e
first evidence of that kind appears only in the fourth century . . in seven
copper-plate grants of Mahārāja hulunda of Valkhā, modern agh in the har
..
istrict of Madhya Pradesh, ranging in date from . . to , and in a
stone pillar inscription at Mathurā issued in . . / .
. e agh inscriptions show the existence of adherents of the earliest of the
attested forms of initiatory Śaivism, that known as Pāśupata. ey are part of
a hoard of twenty-seven plates discovered at agh in and publishedin
(K. V. R , and S. P. T , A Copper-plate Hoard of the Gupta
Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh, New elhi AS). ey are dated in years
to of an unstated era. f this era were the Kalacuri, the dates would cor-
respond to . . to . ut on palaeographic grounds it is more probable
that it is the upta, in which case the years covered by these grants are . .
– . ey refer to unnamed Pāśupatas as being among those with rights
to enjoy, cultivate, and inhabit the temple lands granted and one issued in
year ( . . ) records a gift of land made by the Mahārāja to support
the worship of the Mothers in a temple of those deities that, we are told, had
been established by a Pāśupata officiant or teacher (Pāśupatācārya) called haga-
vat Lokodadhi (No. , ll. –  bhagavallokodadhipāśupatācāryapratisthāpitaka-
..
piñcchānakagrāmamātrsthānadevakulasya).
.
. e inscription from Mathurā, since it includes information on the predecessors
of the urus it commemorates, renders it not improbable that this lineage
goes back to the second century t records that a certain Ārya Uditācārya,
disciple of hagavat Upamitavimala and grand-disciple (śisyaśisyah) of hagavat
. . .
Kapilavimala, is fourth the line of descent from hagavat Parāśara and tenth in
that line from hagavat Kuśika. Epigraphia Indica  , ll. – 

bhagavatkuśikād daśamena bhagavatparāśarāc caturthena bhagavatkapilavimala-


śisyaśisyena bhagavadupamitavimalaśisyena āryyoditācāryyena svapunyāpyāyana-
. . . . . . .
nimittam gurūnām ca kīrtyartham upamiteśvarakapileśvarau gurvvāyatane guru
. . .
. . . pratisthāpitau.
..
pratisthāpitau corr. d.  pratisthāpito p.
.. ..
e Ārya Uditācārya, tenth from hagavat Kuśika, fourth from hagavat Parāśara,
grand-disciple of hagavat Kapilavimala and disciple of hagavat Upamitavi-
mala has had an Upamiteśvara and a Kapileśvara . . . uru . . . installed in the
uru shrine in order to augment his own religious merit and for the fame of
the urus [of this lineage.

. Śivaśāsana Atimārga and Mantramārga (+ Kulamārga). Abhinavagupta, Tantrā-


loka . – b

etadviparyayād grāhyam avaśyam śivaśāsanam |


.
dvāv āptau tatra ca śrīmacchrīkanthalakuleśvarau ||
..
dvipravāham idam śāstram samyaṅnihśreyasapradam
. ||
. .
Niśvāsamukha . – b

śrnvantu rsayah. sarve pañcadhā yat prakīrtitam |


.. ..
laukikam vaidikam caiva tathādhyātmikam eva ca ||
. .
atimārgam ca mantrākhyam [ + + + + +]
. .

Kāmikāgama, Pūrvabhāga . c– b

laukikam vaidikam caiva tathādhyātmikam eva ca || atimārgam ca mantrākhyam


. . . .
tantram etad anekadhā |
Niśvāsamukha f. v – ( . – )

atimārgam samākhyātam dvihprakāra


. m varānane|
. . .
pūrvenaiva tu vaktrena sarahasyam prakīrtitam |
. . .
ata ūrdhvam mahādevi kim vaksye parameśvari ||
. .
devy uvāca ||
mantramārgam tvayā deva sūcitam na tu varnitam |
. . .
samsārocchittikaranam tam ācaksva maheśvara ||
. . . .
Svacchanda . c– b and Jayadrathayāmala, Sa
. tka
. , f. r – ( . )

laukikam vaidikādhyātmam atimārgam athānavam |


. .
phalabhedavibhinnam ca śāstram evam tu pañcadhā ||
. .
atimārgam em.  itimārgam od.

. Atimārga ( ) Pāśupatas/Pāñcārthikas, ( ) Mahāpāśupatas, Mahāvratas, Lākulas


or Kālamukhas and ( ) Kāpālikas, Mahāvratins, or Somasiddhāntins.
. Mantramārga ( ) Siddhānta, ( ) Vāma, aksina/ hairava etc.
. .
.  now adopt these terms Atimārga and Mantramārga to refer to the earlier and
later forms of the religion in preference to such current expressions as Pāśupata
Śaivism for the former and Tantric or Āgamic Śaivism for the latter.
. As for the dates of these later developments we have the crucial evidence of
the Niśvāsamūla. or this, which in all probability is the earliest scriptural text
of the Mantramārga, or at least the earliest to have reached us, and which
is unlikely to have been composed later or earlier than c. – , teaches
a cosmic hierarchy that subsumes and extends upwards that which we know
from the Niśvāsamukha and other sources to have been the signature of the
or the use of the term Atimārga to refer collectively to all its varieties in post-scriptural
literature and in late south-ndian scripture see rahmaśambhu, Naimittikakriyānusamdhāna f. r
.
( . cd) nātimārgasthitaih. kuryād bhojanam vasatim tathā ‘e may not eat or reside with those
. .
who are in the Atimārga’ Vijayottara, p.  śaivaih. kvacid bhairavatāntrikaih. | vāmasthaih. *kulamār-
gasthair (corr.  kalamārgasthaih. od.) *bhūtatantrārthavedibhih. (tantrārtha conj.  mantrārtha od.) |
gārudair
. *atimārgajñaih. (em.  itimārgajñaih. od.) kvacid adhyātmavādibhih. | vaidikair laukikair
anyaih. paralokātmavādibhih. . or the parallel use of the term Mantramārga see, e.g., Mohacūrottara
f. r  vitathe mantrinām sthāna<m> mantramārgopadeśinām ‘the area for [the accommodation of ]
. . .
Mantra-masters who teach the Mantramārga is in [the segment of the royal palace dedicated to the
deity] Vitatha’ Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . tka
. , f. r (Varnanāmapatala,
. vv. c– b) mantramārge
.
mahālaksmi sāram etad udāhrtam || asmin tantravare khyātam etat sāram mayā tava Kubjikāmata, after
. . .
Dandaka . , unit  mantramārgānugair mantribhir.
..
Lākula Atimārga. e Lākula system, then, evolved at some time between that
of the Pāñcārthikas, which is likely to go back to the second century . ., and
the earliest Mantramārga, which is likely to have emerged in the fifth. As for
the Kāpālikas,  know of no reference to them before that century. y the
seventh century the Mantramārga was sufficiently well established to attract an
attack on its ritualistic soteriology from the uddhist philosopher harmakīrti
and for kings to have begun to seek initiation from its officiants and it is
towards the end of this century or during the first half of the next that the first
learned exegesis of Mantramārgic doctrine appears, in the works of Sadyojyotis
and rhaspati.
. y this time also find a division within the Mantramārga be-
tween a mainstream tradition that came to call itself the Siddhānta—it was this
that produced Sadyojyotis and rhaspati and officiated over the initiations of
.
kings—and a range of non-Saiddhāntika traditions of a more Śākta orientation.
While the former gradually distanced itself from what we shall see to be the
counter-cultural character of the Atimārga, the latter largely maintained that
character, preserving and elaborating its distinctive practices within the new
ritual and doctrinal system.
ŚAIVISM AND BRAHMANISM

A S, H T 

Alexis Sanderson

H ,  F

A

. Atyāśramavrata and Lokātītavrata


(a) Niśvāsamukha, A f. v: atyāśramavratam. khyātam. lokātītam. ca me śr. nu .
‘I have taught the Atyāśrama observance. Learn from me the Lokātīta
also’; and A f. v: . . . lokātītam. samākhyātam. mahāpāśupatam. vratam
. . . atimārgam. samākhyātam. dvihprakāra
. m. varānane ‘I have taught the Lo-
kātīta, the Mahāpāśupata observance. . . . I have explained the Atimārga,
O fair-faced one, with its two modes’. e Svacchanda too describes
the Atimārga as lokātītah, . but it explains the term to mean ‘beyond
the bound’, taking loka- in the plural to mean people, that is to say,
those who are in and of the mundane world, and adds a further expla-
nation to the same effect according to which the Atimārga is so called
because it reaches beyond the religious dispositions (buddhibhāvāh) . that
motivate all lower religious paths: atītam. buddhibhāvānām atimārgam.
prakīrtitam | lokātītam. tu taj jñānam atimārgam iti smrtam . || lokāś ca
paśavah. proktāh. sr. s.tisa
. . mhāravartmani | tesām
. atītās te jñeyā ye ’timārge
vyavasthitāh. || kapālavratino ye ca tathā pāśupatāś ca ye | sr. s.tir. na vidyate
tesā
. .m īśvare ca dhruve sthitāh. (Svacchanda .–) ‘e Atimārga is
so called because it is beyond the [common] modes of religious orienta-
tion. at doctrine is also so called because it is beyond the lokāh. (pl.),
namely ‘bound souls’[, those souls that are trapped] in the process of birth
and death. ose established in the Atimārga, [namely] the Pāśupatas and
followers of the [Lākula] skull observance, are beyond them. [For] they
are not reborn. [After their death] they reside in Īśvara[tattva], in the
[world of the Rudra] Dhruva’. e point of the claim that the Atimārga
is beyond the religious dispositions is that the text has come to the
Atimārga after first describing the lower paths in terms of them. ey are
merit (dharmah), . gnosis (jñānam), aversion from the world (vairāgyam),
and sovereignty (aiśvaryam). e Laukika, the brahmanical religion of
the ordinary householder, is tied, we learn, only to the accumulation


of merit, the Vaidika (the higher brahmanical religion) and the Vais. nava .
Pañcarātra to both merit and liberating knowledge, the Buddhist and Jain
to aversion from the world, the Ādhyātmika to liberating knowledge,
and aversion from the world in the case of the Sāmkhya . path, and to
liberating knowledge, aversion from the world, and sovereignty in the case
of the path of Pātañjala Yoga, the last no doubt in consideration of the
attainment of supernatural powers promised in the Yogasūtra (Svacchanda
.–).
(b) Kaun. dinya,
. Pañcārthabhāsya. on .: atyāśramaprasiddham. liṅgam āsthāya
pravacanam uktavān ‘[Maheśvara] taught the teaching after taking on
the external signs of religious affiliation established as proper to the
Atyāśrama’ and pūrvāśrama<yama>niyamapratisedhārtham . atyāśramaya-
maniyamaprasiddhyartham. ca ‘in order to overrule the major and minor
restrictions of the previous disciplines (pūrvāśrama-) and to promote
those of the Atyāśrama’; on .: liṅgam *atyāśramaprativibhāgakaram.
(atyāśrama em. : ityāśrama Ed.) bhasmasnānānusnānanirmālyaikavāsādi-
nispanna
. m. svaśarīralīnam. *pāśupata (em. : pāśupatam Ed.) iti laukikādi-
jñānajanakam ‘e external sign of religious affiliation that serve to dis-
tinguish the Atyāśrama, accomplished by such as the major and incidental
ash baths, the wearing of the flowers offered in worship, and the wearing
of a single garment, that give rise to the awareness in the mundane and
others that [this person] is a Pāśupata . . . ’.
(c) Mahābhārata, Śāntiparva, Appendix , No.  (Northern recension),
ll. – (pp. –): vedāt sa . daṅgād
. uddhrtya
. sāmkhyayogāc
. ca
yuktitah. | tapah. sutaptam. vipulam. duścaram. devadānavaih. || apūrvam.
sarvatobhadram. viśvatomukham avyayam | *arthair daśārdhaih. samyu- .
ktam. gūdham
. aprājñaninditam | varnāśramak
. rtair
. dharmair viparītam.
kvacit samam | †gatāntair adhyavasitam† atyāśramam idam. smrtam . | mayā
pāśupatam. daksa . yogam utpāditam. purā ‘In ancient times, O Dak s. a, I
engaged fully in a vast course of asceticism that is difficult to practise
[even] for the gods and demons, and [thereby] created the Pāśupata Yoga,
drawing on the Veda with its six ancillaries, Sāmkhyayoga,
. and reason.
It is unique, all-beneficent, all-embracing, eternal, equipped with [the
doctrine of] the five categories, esoteric, condemned by the foolish. In
part contrary to the duties of the castes and social states, in part congruent
[with them], †. . . † (gatāntair adhyavasitam), this [observance] is known
as the Atyāśrama’.
* I have rejected the meaningless reading abdair daśāhasamyukta
. m. adopted by the
editor D in favour of arthair daśārdhaih. samyukta
. m. ‘equipped with [a doctrine


of] five categories’ because this yields a sense entirely appropriate to the Pāñcārthika
Pāśupata context, and is no doubt the origin of the corruptions in the various witnesses.
e reading arthaih. is seen in some Kashmirian witnesses, in some witnesses of the
Devanāgarī composite version, in a quotation by Aparāditya in Yājñavalkyasmrti . tīkā
.
. (p. ) and in the version of this passage found in the Vāyupurāna . (..–).
e reading daśārdhaih. or daśārdha- is given by all but one of the Kashmirian ,
in the Devanāgarī versions of the commentators Arjunamiśra and Vidyāsāgara, and in
several  of the Devanāgarī composite. It is also seen in the Aparāditya quotation
and the Vāyupurāna . version. e Maithili  and some Bengali  show daśārha-,
which points to daśārdha- as its source, itself a grammatically unsatisfactory reading that
arose, I suggest, through a thoughtless assimilation of the first verse-quarter from the
less common Vipulā form to the Pathyā.

. T    P (A I)


(a) Stage I (vyaktāvasthā): If accepted and initiated, the Pāñcārthika was to
surrender all his possessions. He was then to begin the Pāśupata discipline,
which would lead him to the goal of liberation in death if he could
complete all four of its stages. In the first of these he was to live in the
vicinity of a Śiva temple under the guidance of his preceptor, sleeping on
ashes, bathing at dawn, midday, and sunset by rubbing himself with the
same, and following this bath on each occasion by propitiating Śiva in his
temple with boisterous laughter (at.tahāsa
. . singing, dancing, making the
h),
sound . . ./  ,
.. and repeating the Mantras (the five Yajurvedic
‘Brahma[mantra]s’ or ‘Pavitras’) of this system. He should go about either
completely naked or, if still tainted by mundane notions, wearing nothing
but a strip of cloth to cover his private parts (kaupīnam) and flowers left by
others on the image of Śiva after worship (nirmālyam). He was to sustain
himself and his discipline by begging from householders, not only for his
food but also for his ash (since he was not permitted to kindle fire), with
no possessions other than the strip of cloth for modesty if he still required
it, his alms bowl (bhaiksapātram),
. an ash container (bhasmādhārah) . made
from a gourd, leather or cloth, and fabric to use as a sieve (pavitram,
vivecanam) to ensure that his ash was free of insects that might otherwise
perish when he used it. His hair was to be worn in matted braids (jatā . h),
.
which would be cut off only during his last rites.
. :—
. e sound, which appears in our sources in both these forms, and as
,
. is described by Kaun. dinya
. on Pañcārtha . as produced by contact of the
tip of the tongue with the soft palate and, puzzlingly, as resembling a sound made by
a bull: vr. sanādasad
. rśa . However, Ks. emarāja defines it on Svacchanda .c–b as
. h.
synonymous with mukhavādyam ‘mouth music’, and the latter term (/mukhavāditram)


is often seen in accounts of Pāśupata worship in the same context, that is to say, along
with singing, dancing, and boisterous laughter (at.tahāsa
. . or in descriptions of the
h),
behaviour of Śiva or the Ganas
. that it mimics; see, e.g., Śivadharma W f. r: snānakāle
trisandhyam. ca yah. kuryād geyavādanam | nrtya. m. vā mukhavādyam . vā tasya punyaphala
. m.
śr. nu;
. Skandapurāna . B .–: ete cānye ca ganapā
. guhyā ye ca mahābalāh. | tatrājagmur
mudā yuktāh. sarve citrāstrayodhinah. || gāyantaś ca dravantaś ca nrtyantaś
. ca mahābalāh. |
mukhādambaravādyāni
. vādayantas tathaiva ca; and Vāyupurāna . ..c–b: namo
nartanaśīlāya mukhavāditrakārine . | nā tyopahāralubdhāya
. gītavādyaratāya ca. Perhaps
this ‘mouth music’ was produced by drumming on the cheeks [with open mouth],
creating a sound which hud. duk/hu
. . might well render. is hypothesis is encouraged
d. duṅ
by two remarks in non-Śaiva sources. e first, in Hemacandra’s Svopajñavrtti . on
his Yogaśāstra, describes Pāśupatas as ‘repeatedly making musical sounds with their
mouths/faces ( on .: muhur vadananādenātodyanādavidhāyinām). e second is
a stage-direction in the Mattavilāsaprahasana, which has the Kāpālika couple Satyasoma
and Devasomā drum on their cheeks (p. : ubhau kapolapataha . m. kurutah). . However,
the hypothesis is undermined by the fact that in Niśvāsamukha f. v (.cd) the
making of the sound in question and mukhavādyam are distinguished: hudukkārasya .
nrtyasya
. mukhavādyāt.tahāsayo
. h.
.

F:— e fact that followers of all forms of the Atimārga lack fire is attested by
Jñānaśiva (Tamil, th-century, writing in Banaras) when he states in his Saiddhāntika
Paddhati Jñānaratnāvalī that this lack disqualifies them from performing initiations
and image-installations: ādyam. śaivam. samākhyātam. tatah. pāśupatam. tatah. | trtīya
. m.
*kālarātram. (em. : kā.larātrim. Cod.) ca kālavaktram. caturthakam || caturdhā darśanam.
śambhos tadyuktāś ca tadātmakāh. | pañcārthāh. kālavaktrāś ca somasiddhāntavedinah. ||
bhāvadravyāgnisamnyāsād
. ete samnyāsino
. yatah. | dīksāsthāpanayos
. tasmād ete naivādhi-
. h. (p. ) ‘First the Śaiva, then the Pāśupata, the Kālarātra (=Somasiddhānta)
kārina
third, and fourth the Kālamukha. e doctrine of Śiva is [thus] fourfold, as are those
who possess and devote themselves to it. [Of these] the Pāñcārthika [Pāśupatas], the
Kālamukhas, and the Somasiddhāntins are renouncers, because they have renounced
the dispositions, property, and fire. ey are therefore disqualified from officiating in
an initiation or an installation’.

H:— e Pañcārthabhāsya . makes no mention of what the Pāñcārthika is to do with


his hair. But see Antes.tividhi,
. v. : mrta
. m. snāpyāmbhasā pūrvam. liptam. gandhādibhir
yatah. | kalusam
. . cātra na kartavyam. tāś
ja . cāpi nikrntayet
. || snāpayed bhasmanā paścāt
sthāpayec chayane punah. ‘He should bathe the corpse with water, because it will have
first been smeared with fragrant powders and the like—one must do nothing that might
pollute it—and then cut off its matted braids of hair. en he should bathe it with ashes
and lay it out on a bed’.


(b) Stage : avyaktāvasthā
avyaktaliṅgī vyaktācāro ’vamatah. sarvabhūtesu
. paribhūyamānaś caret. apa-
hatapāpmā paresā m
. . parivādāt. pāpa m. ca tebhyo dadāti sukrta
. m. ca tesām
.
ādatte. tasmāt pretavac caret krātheta vā spandeta vā man. teta
. vā śrṅgāreta
.
vā. api tat kuryād api tad bhāsed
. yena paribhavam. gacchet.paribhūyamāno
hi vidvān krtsnatapā
. bhavati.
Pañcārtha .–
His sectarian affiliation concealed, [only] his behaviour visible, he should
cultivate his practice while despised by all members of society, suffering
physical abuse. By being criticized by others he becomes free of his defects.
Moroever, he passes his sins to them and receives their good deeds. For
this reason he should go about [in public] like a demented destitute. He
should feign sleep, or convulse, or limp, or make eyes at women. [In
short] he should do or say whatever will attract physical abuse. Suffering
such abuse, the wise [ascetic] perfects his austerity.
Kaun. dinya,
. quoting a Śrauta source in Pañcārthabhāsya . on .: ye hi vai dīksita . m.
yajamānam. pr. s.thato
. ’pavadanti te tasya pāpmānam abhivrajanti ‘People who speak
ill of the sponsor of sacrifice while he is consecrated receive his sin’; Āpas-
tambaśrautasūtra ..: nāsya pāpam. kīrtayet ‘He should not mention any
sin of his’; Rudradatta thereon: nāsya santam asantam. vā dosa . m. jalpet ‘He should
not refer to any defect of his, whether it exists or not’; Kāthakasa
. mhitā
. ..-
: tredhā vā etasya pāpmānam. vibhajante yo dīksito . yo ’nnam atti sa trtīya . m. yo
’ślīlam. kīrtayati sa trtīya
. m. yo nāma grh . nāti
. sa trtīyam
. tasmād dīksitasya
. . . . nāślīlam.
kīrtayet ‘ey share the sins of this consecrated person in three ways. He who eats
his food, he who speaks ill of him, and he who uses his name’; Tān. dyabrāhma. na
.
..: yo vai dīksitānā
. m. pāpam. kīrtayati trtīyam
. . m. sa pāpmano harati ‘One
esā
who mentions the sins of consecrated persons takes one third of their sins’.

and:

unmattadaridrapurusasad rśāsnātamaladigdhāṅgena  rūdhaśmaśrunakharo-


. . .
madhārinā. sarvasamskāravarjitena
. bhavitavyam | ato varnāśramavyucchedo
.
vairāgyotsāhaś ca jāyate
Kaun. dinya,
. . on Pañcārtha .: pretavac caret
Pañcārthabhāsya
 unmattadaridrapurusasad
. rśāsnāta
. conj. : unmattasadrśadaridrapuru
. sasnāta
. Ed.
He should be like a madman or pauper, unbathed, with his body smeared
with filth, not cutting his beard, nails, and hair, and not attending to
himself in any way. As a result of this he severs his links with the society
of the castes and disciplines and intensifies his loathing of the world.


(c) Stage  (jayah):
. Pañcārtha .–, –:
śūnyāgāraguhāvāsī devanityo jitendriyah. | . . . omkāram
. abhidhyāyīta | hrdi
.
kurvīta dhāranām
.
Living in an abandoned house or a cave, he should constantly concentrate
on Śiva, with his senses controlled. . . . He should meditate on the syllable
.
. He should focus his awareness in his heart.
(d) Stage  (chedah. [→ Stage : nis.thā]):
.
śmaśānavāsī dharmātmā yathālabdhopajīvakah. |
labhate rudrasāyujyam. sadā rudram anusmaret ||
chittvā dosā
. nā. m. hetujālasya mūlam.
buddhyā svam. cittam. sthāpayitvā ca rudre |
ekah. ksemī
. san vītaśoko ’pramādī
gacched duhkhānām
. antam īśaprasādāt ||
Pañcārtha .–, forming two verses, the first in the Anus. t.ubh metre, the
second in the Vaiśvadevī
b svam. cittam. em. : samcitta
. m. Ed.
Full of merit, [now] dwelling in a cremation ground and living on what-
ever food he can find [there], he attains union with Rudra. [To accomplish
this] he should meditate on Rudra constantly.
Having cut the root of the manifold causes of the defects through [con-
centrated] awareness and having [then] established in Rudra the con-
sciousness [that is now released as] his own, he will through the favour
of the Lord attain the end of [all] sufferings, becoming solitary, secure,
beyond grief, and unwavering in his concentration.

śucih. pretālayam. vrajet ||


...
 imāh. kalā imā vidyā ete ca paśavo ’khilāh. |
ayam. ca parameśāno yo viśvasrg . anādimah. ||
 dīksām
. ārabhya yo ’smābhih. samyag ārādhito hy ayam |
tasmād asmin svakam. cittam. susthāpyātyantaniścalam ||
 idam. vapus tyajāmīti tasya buddhir bhavet sadā ||
tatah. śive vidhāyaivam. punyātmā
. niścalam. manah. ||
 śarīram. samtyajed
. yuktyā chedāvastho ’yam īritah. |
Pampāmāhātmya, Uttarabhāga .d, –b
a imāh. kalā em. : imā phalā Ed. d vidhāyaivam. (em. : vidhāyaiva Ed.)


Pure, he should proceed to a cremation ground. . . . He should think at
all times ‘‘e Constituents [of the insentient] (kalāh). are these; these are
modes of sentience (vidyāh). are these; these are all the [kinds of] bound
souls (paśavah);
. and this is the beginningless all-creating Supreme Lord,
whom I have properly propitiated since the moment of my initiation.
erefore by fixing my mind with absolute firmness on him I shall
abandon this body’’. en, full of merit, having fixed his mind on Śiva
in the manner stated [above], he should abandon his body through Yoga
(yuktyā). He is then said to be in the stage of cutting off.
bahisk
. rtya
. jagat sarvam. vratastho gatasamśaya
. h. |
bahisk rtaś
. . ca lokena gatvāra nyam
. atandritah. ||
śmaśānam. vā jitaprāna. h. prānān
. samyamya
. sādhakah. |
tyajed deham. sukhenaiva virakto ’tīva duhsahāt
. ||
samsārārāmagahanād
. anityāt sumahābhayāt |
Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda .–b.
e Sādhaka, holding to his ascetic observance (vratasthah), . having re-
jected the entire world and having been rejected by it, free of doubt and
lassitude, should go into the wilderness or a cremation ground. [ere],
if he has gained complete control over his vital energies and is completely
detached from the insufferable, terrifying, ever-changing jungle that is
transmigration, he will be able by restraining those energies to throw off
his body without difficulty.
 virakto vā tyajed deham. tasyāpy esa . vidhih. smrta
. h. |
kim. tu hrdvivarāt
. sarvam ākr. syāstre
. na . h. ||
. pan. dita
 chittvā chittvā śanaih. sarvam. kramād vai granthisamcayam
. |
pradīptakirana. .m dhyāyed h rdi
. sūryasya ma ndalam
.. ||
 tanmadhye man. dala
. m. cāru śaśāṅkasyāmitadyuteh. |
somaman. dalamadhyastha
. m. dhyāyed vahnes tu man. dalam
. ||
 vahniman. dalamadhyasthā
. śikhā sūryāyutaprabhā |
susūksmā
. padmasūtrābhā rjumārgānusāri
. . ||

 dhyātavyā yogamārge ’smin yasyām. līnasya yoginah. |
kramato nirviśaṅkasya bādho naivopajāyate ||
 tāludeśam. vibhidyāśu jihvāgram. parivartya ca |
paśyams. turyapadād ūrdhvam. tejah. paramadurjayam ||
 yāyāt turyapadadvāravilagnām argalām. śanaih. |
astrenodghā
. . visrabdho yat tat padam anāmayam ||
tya
 avyāpāragunopetam
. anaupamyam atīndriyam |
sarvajñam amalam. śāntam. śivam. yāty uttamam. padam ||
Mataṅgapārameśvara, Yogapāda .– (Ed.); P from .d–; N f. v–
r


 susūksmā
. Ed. : susūkma. N  yāyāt turya P : yāyā turya N (wrongly reported
at pāpāturya in Ed.) : yāvat turya Ed. • dvāravilagnām. P : dvāram | vilagnām
N : dvāri vilagnām. Ed.  amalam. N Ed. : acalam. P
Or when he is free of all attachment he may throw off his body. is
same procedure is taught for him, except that the Sādhaka (pan. dita . h).
should draw everything in through the aperture of the heart, slowly cut
through each of the nodes [of the vital energy] with the Weapon [Mantra]
and then visualize in his heart an orb with brilliant rays. In its centre he
should visualize the beautiful moon disc of infinite radiance, and in the
centre of that a disc of fire. In its centre he should visualize on this path
of Yoga a flame rising up in a straight line, fine as a lotus fibre, with the
brightness of countless suns. If the fearless meditator gradually dissolves
into that flame he will experience no pain. Quickly breaking through
the region of the soft palate, having turned back the tip of his tongue,
and seeing the great invincible radiance above the level of the Fourth he
should gradually ascend (yāyāt) to the barrier that blocks access to that
level. Breaking through it with the Weapon [Mantra] he then confidently
proceeds to the highest level, free of all defects, inactive, incomparable,
beyond the range of the faculties, omniscient, free of impurity, quiescent,
and auspicious.

(e) Disposing of the body:


 jale vāgnau tathā bhūmyām. tridhā tyaksyati
. sādhakah. |
jale proktam. mahānadyām alābhe tatra sarvathā ||
 hutāśe bahubhih. kās.thair
. dagdhavyam. nātra samśaya
. h.
......
 bhūmyām. krtvā
. śubhām. gartām. sādhakasya pramānata . h. |
tadardham. vistaram. proktam.
......
 garte puspārcite
. ramye punah. praksipya
. sādhakam |
pūrana. m. vāpi kartavyam. lakulīśavaco yathā
Antes.tividhi,
. vv.̇–b, abc, 
b tyaksyati
. conj. : vaksyati
. Cod. [A]

. T D   L   M, M,


 K (A II)
(a) atyāśramavratam. khyātam. lokātītam. ca me śr. nu
. ||
 ālabdhah. pañcabhir guhyair dīksitaś
. caiva so bhramet |


khatvāṅgī
. ca kapālī ca sajato
. mun. da-m
. eva vā ||
 vālayajñopavītī ca śiromun. daiś
. ca man. dita
. h. |
kaupīnavāso bhasmāṅgī divyābharanabhū. . h. ||
sita
 jagad rudramayam matvā rudrabhakto dr. dhavrata
. h. |
sarvādas sarvaces.taś
. ca rudradhyānaparāyana . h. ||
 rudram. muktvā na cānyo ’sti trātā me daivatam param |
viditvaikādaśādhvānam. nirviśaṅkah. samācaret ||
Niśvāsamukha AB f. v– (.c–)
c khyātam. B : khyā + A d sajato
. conj. : sajatī
. Cod. d divyābharanabhū
. sita
. h.
rest. : divyābharanabhū
. + + B : divyābhara na
. + + + A b daivatam em. : devatam
AB
I have taught you the Atyāśrama. Listen as I teach you the Lokātīta. When
he has been initiated after being touched with the five Guhya[mantra]s
he should become peripatetic, carrying a skull-topped staff and a skull[-
bowl], with his hair in matted braids or shaved bald, with a sacred
thread made from [twisted strands of human] hair [taken from a corpse],
adorned with [a chaplet of] human heads [carved from bone], wearing
only a loin cloth, his body dusted with ash, and embellished with the
wondrous adornments [of bone]. Devoted to Rudra, he should consider

I have not emended the reading mun. dameva
. of AB to mun. da . eva to bring the text into line with
the learned register of Sanskrit, but have preferred to treat this as mun. da . eva with the -m added not as
a nominal ending but as a hiatus-bridger such as is commonly seen in Buddhist Sanskrit texts (BHSG
.–). For so rather than sa in b cf. BHSG ..

e five Guhyas are the five Brahmamantras taught in the Pañcārtha. For the use of the term in this
sense see, e.g., Niśvāsaguhya f. v (.); cf. Sarvajñānottara P, p.  (.): *ālabhya (corr. : ālabhyah.
P) pañcabhir brahmaih. .

For the requirement that the hair should be human and for the details of how it should be made
see Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , f. r– (.–b) cited in S a, p. , fn. .
. tka
at the hair is to be taken from a corpse is in keeping with the character of the other accoutrements.
Explicit reference to this detail is rare but does occur; see, e.g., Svacchanda .c: jihmajenopavītena ‘with
a sacred thread from a jihmah. (Ks. emarāja thereon: jihmah. śavah, . tajjena tatkeśajena ‘jihmah. mean ‘a
corpse’; with one from that means with one [made] from the hair of that’); Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . ,
. tka
f. v–: śavakeśopavītī ‘wearing a sacred thread of corpse hair’, and f. v–: citibhasmoddhūlitātmā
śavayajñopavītikah. ‘his body dusted with the ash from a funeral pyre, wearing a sacred thread of corpse
[hair]’.

Cf. Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , f. r (.), describing the Kāpālika observance: kādya-
. tka
khan. dā stakenaiva
. .. mu n
..damālā m. sucarcitām | pratikhanda . mūrdhani dhārayet ‘He
. m. karaṅkāṅkam. krtvā
should make a chaplet of heads out of eight pieces of skull-bone, carve the image of a skull into each,
anoint it liberally, and wear it on his head’.

I take these ‘wondrous adornments’ (divyābharana-) . to be earrings, a necklace, and bracelets for
the upper arm (rucakam, keyūrah) . made from human bone, because this is the practice among other


the whole world as Rudra, holding fast to his observance, eating any-
thing, doing anything, intent [only] on meditating on Rudra, [thinking]
‘‘None can save other than Rudra. [He is] my supreme god (me daivatam
param). Having first mastered the hierarchy of the eleven cosmic levels
he should practise [this observance] without inhibition.

practitioners of this form of asceticism (see the passages on the Mudrā adornments cited in S
a, pp. –, fn. ), and because such is said to be the practice of the Kālamukhas in the
*Samayabheda, an extract from an anonymous south-Indian Śaiva work, p. , though it mentions
only the earrings and necklace: *kun. dala . m. (em. : kun. dala. h. Cod.) *kan. thamālā
. (em : karnamālā
.
Cod.) ca *narakāsthiprakalpitā (narakāsthi em. : naravyāsti Cod. • prakalpitā em. : prakalpitah. Cod.)
| *bhūsitordhvaja
. tābhāra
. h. (conj. : bhūsitārtthaja
. tādhāra
. Cod.) *khatvāṅgaś
. (em. : khagāmgaś
. Cod.) ca
karasthitah. || tattacchāstrasya *sambodha
. h. (conj. : sambodhe
. Cod.) samayācāra*pālanam (em. : pālakah.
Cod.) | kriyāyoga*samabhyāso (em. : samābhyāsam. Cod.) vratam. kālamukhasthitam ‘Earrings and a
necklace made of bone from a human skull (naraka-), a high mass of matted braids adorned [with
the likeness of the sickle moon], a skull-staff in his hand, mastery of the various Śāstras, adherence
to the post-intiatory discipline, and practice of ritual and meditation: such is the observance that is
established in the Kālamukha [tradition]’. I have conjectured that the adornment on the piled up
mass of coiled braids (jatā . is the sickle moon, because this is how Śiva is represented and because
. h)
we have the support of a parallels: in the Picumata, f. r– (.): bhasmoddhūlitagātras tu
jatāmaku
. tadhārina
. h. | candrārdhaśekharaś caiva śirakapālaman. dita . h. ‘his limbs dusted with ash, wearing
a jatā-diadem,
. his head adorned with the sickle of the new moon, adorned with [a chaplet of pieces of
human skull bone in the form of] skulls . . . ’; and in the Pampāmāhātmya’s account of the Mahāvrata,
.ab: jatābaddhacandralekhāsamanvita
. h. ‘with a sickle moon attached to his matted locks’. How
this ‘sickle moon’ was to be made is not stated to my knowledge.

e Sanskrit is clumsily ambiguous here. My decision to understand it as ‘‘None can save other
than Rudra. [He is] my supreme god’’ rather than as ‘‘None can save me other than Rudra (na cānyo ’sti
trātā me). He is the supreme god’’ or ‘‘None can save other than Rudra. For me there is no other god’’
is prompted by the consideration that this interpretation is more economical, and by two occurrences
of the formula me daivatam. param and one of the synonymous no daivatam. param in this sense at the
end of lines in the same metre in Mahābhārata ..ab (daivatesv . api sarvesu
. bhartā me daivatam.
param), ..ab (pitā mātā ca bhagavann etau me daivatam. param), and ..ab (pitā no daivatam.
param).

For these levels and their subdivisions see S a, pp. –.

I have rendered nirviśaṅkah. as ‘without inhibition’. It might also be translated ‘without hesitation’,
‘free of apprehension’, ‘free of anxiety’, or ‘free of fear’ e idea is that he should engage in his
practice without fear that he is endangering himself by breaking mundane taboos. He must have full
confidence that these no longer apply to him. He must in other words be free of the state of inhibition
imposed by brahmanical regulations concerning what may be eaten, drunk, touched, seen, said, or
done. For this concept of ‘practice without inhibition’ (nihśaṅkācāra. h,
. nirvikalpācārah,
. advaitācārah),.
in which ‘inhibition’ denotes a fear induced by cultural (Śāstric) conditioning that inhibits the range of
experience and action see S b, pp. –. For the Śākta Śaiva analysis of the various
spheres in which this inhibition operates see S a, pp. –, endnote . e same
language was adopted by the Buddhist Mantranaya when it adapted the Śaiva style of ‘non-dual’
practice for its own purposes. See, for example, Guhyasamāja .c–: simhavad . vicaren mantrī


(b) e brahmanical penance for brahminicide:— Baudhāyanadharmasūtra
..–; Āpastambadharmasūtra ..– and ..–..; and
Gautamadharmasūtra ..–... is prescription is carried forward
unchanged into the Mahābhārata (..c–) and the verse Dharmaśā-
stras Manusmrti. (.) and Yājñavalkyasmrti . (.), the first probably
composed during the first two centuries after Christ (B̈ ,
pp. xlv–cxviii) and the second in the fourth or fifth century (op. cit.,
p. cxviii). In his Manubhāsya . on Manusmrti . . Medhātithi on the
subject of the khatvāṅga
. h. states that the skull atop the pole may be either
his victim’s or another’s and rejects a pallid alternative that allows it to be a
merely a likeness of a head in some material such as wood. Commenting
on Yājñavalkyasmrti . . in his commentary Mitāksarā . Vijñāneśvara
cites Śātātapa for the rule that the skull of the khatvāṅga
. h
. should be that
of the victim, but adds that if and only if that cannot be obtained the skull
of someone else may be used, but only if it is the skull of a brahmin, thus
doubly restricting the apparently open option stated by his predecessor
Medhātithi. e rule that the penitent should wear the skin of an ass is
found in Baudhāyanadharmasūtra ... (gardabhacarmavāsā).
(c) Vijñāneśvara (Mitāksarā. on ., citing the rule of Gautama that the
penitent should beg with an earthenware dish in his hand: etac ca ka-
pāladhārana. m. cihnārtham. na punar bhojanārtham. bhiksārtha . m. vā mrn-
.
mayakapālapānir . bhiksāyai
. grāmam. praviśed iti gautamasmaranāt . ‘And
this carrying of a skull is to identify him [as a brahmin-killer] not for his
food or as a begging bowl, because Gautama has reported ‘‘He should
enter the village for alms holding a clay dish in his hand’’’. e rule is also
given in the Āpastambadharmasūtra (..–): khan. dena . lohitakena
śarāvena
. grāme pratistheta
.. | ko ’bhiśastāya bhiksām
. iti saptāgārā . caret ‘He
ni
should set out for the village with a broken reddish dish. He may go to
[only] seven households [declaring] ‘‘Who [will give] alms to an accursed
nirviśaṅkena cetasā || nākāryam. vidyate hy atra nābhaksya
. m. vidyate tathā | nāvācyam. vidyate kimcin
.
nācintyam. vidyate sadā ‘e Mantrin should roam like a lion, with his mind free of fear. For him there
is now nothing that he cannot do, eat, say, or think’; and Śāntaraks. ita, Tattvasiddhi B f. r–: ata
evoktam aśesayogatantre
. su
. guhyendutilakādisu
. nāsti kimcid
. akartavyam. prajñopāyena cetasā | nirviśaṅkah.
sadā bhūtvā *bhuṅkte ’rtham. (em. : bhuktertham. C : bhuktam. katham. AB) pañcakāmakam ‘For this very
reason the following has been stated in the Guhyendutilaka and all the other Yogatantras: ‘‘ere is
nothing that he cannot do with a mind that unites wisdom and skill in method. Permanently free of
fear/inhibition he enjoys all the objects of the five senses’’’; and C f. v, quoting the lost Yogatantra
Sarvadevasamāgama: sattvena nirviśaṅkena sarvāvastho ’pi sarvadā | sarvācārapravrtto. ’pi na bandham
upayāsyati ‘With his mind free of inhibition he will never be bound, whatever his state and whatever
the conduct in which he engages’.


sinner?’’.
(d) But Mahābhārata ..–, in which Babhruvāhana, having killed
his father Arjuna in battle, laments that there is no penance for him other
than to eat from his father’s skull for twelve years clad in the skin [of an
ass]:
duścarā dvādaśa samā hatvā pitaram adya vai |
mameha sunrśa . msasya
. samvītasyāsya
. carmanā
. |
śirahkapāle
. cāsyaiva bhuñjatah. pitur adya me |
prāyaścittam. hi nāsty anyad dhatvādya pitaram. mama ||
Having slain my father today there is no penance for me other than to take
my food from my father‘s skull for twelve hard years clad in a skin’. e
Sanskrit is awkwardly repetitive (hatvā pitaram adya . . . hatvādya pitaram.
mama): my translation compresses to remove this defect. I assume that the
skin he is to wear is the skin of an ass prescribed for this penance in the
Baudhāyanadharmasūtra (...): kapālī khatvāṅgī
. gardabhacarmavāsā
aranyaniketana
. h. śmaśāne dhvajam. śavaśirah. krtvā
. . m. kārayet ‘With a
kutī
skull and skull-staff, clad in a donkey’s hide, and living in the wild he
should make the skull his banner and build a shelter in the cremation
ground.

(e) Identification with Rudra:— Mahābhārata ..: śmaśānavāsinam. dr- .


ptam. mahāganapati
. m. prabhum | kha tvāṅgadhāri
. nam
. . mu n dam ja
.. . . . tilam
brahmacārinam
. ‘the wild denizen of the cremation ground, the mighty
overlord of the Ganas,. the carrier of the skull-staff, shaven, with mat-
ted locks, celibate’; ..c; kapālamālinam. rudram. ‘Rudra, the skull-
bearer’; ..c–a kapālamāline nityam. suvarnamuku
. tāya
. ca mahāde-
vāya ‘I bow at all times to Mahādeva, wearer of the chaplet of skulls, with
golden crown’; ..cd: bhasmadigdhordhvaliṅgāya tasmai rudrātmane
namah. ‘obeisance to him who is Rudra, smeared with ash and ithyphallic’;
..c: śuklabhasmāvaliptāya ‘[I bow] to him who is smeared with
white ash’.


ŚAIVISM AND BRAHMANISM

A S, H T 

Alexis Sanderson

H ,  F

A, I  (T D   L, A II), (f): Yāmuna and
Rāmānuja on the Kālamukhas’ religious discipline:
evam. kālāmukhā api samastaśāstrapratisiddhakapālapātrabhojanaśavabhasmasnānatat-
.
prāśanalagudadhāra
. nasurākumbhasthāpanatatsthadevatārcanāder
. eva dr. s.tād
. r. s.tābhī
. s.tasid-
.
dhim abhidadhānāh. śrutibahiskrtā
. . eva.
Yāmuna, Āgamaprāmānya
. p. .
us the Kālāmukhas too are most certainly excluded by Śruti, teaching that the
goals [of religion] perceptible and imperceptible are accomplished by practices that are
forbidden by all [valid] scriptures, such as: () eating from a skull-bowl, () bathing
with the ash of corpses, () swallowing the same, () carrying a club, () installing a
pot of fermented liquor, and () worshipping their deity in it.
Cf. Rāmānuja, Śrībhāsya
. on Brahmasūtra ..: tathā kālāmukhā api kapālapātrabho-
janaśavabhasmasnāna tatprāśanalagudadhāra
. nasurākumbhasthāpanatadādhāradevapūjā-
.
dikam aihikāmusmikasakalaphalasādhanam
. abhidadhati
e spelling Kālāmukha seen in the editions of these passages is commonly encountered, usually
written Kā.lāmukha, in the inscriptions of Karnā . t.aka, e.g. EI : (Kurgod, . ..  and
), ll. –: kā.lāmukhadarśana-; EI : (Ron, . .. ), ll. –: kā.lāmukhaparvva-
tāva.li; EI : (Sūdi,. .. ), l. : k[*ā].lāmukhar. It is also seen in south-Indian non-
epigraphical sources other than than the Āgamaprāmānya . and Śrībhāsya,. as in Kāmikāgama,
Uttarabhāga .c–b: śaivam. pāśupatam. kālāmukham. *kapāladhārinam . (corr. : kāpāla-
dhārinam
. Ed.) || yadi hanyāj jagat sarvam. hatam. tena durātmanā; Śrīvidyārnava, . p. : śaive
vaiśanave
. śākte saure sugatadarśane | bauddhe pāśupate sāmkhye
. māntre kālāmukhe tathā; *Samaya-
bheda, p. : śaivam. pūrvamukhotpannam. yāmye kālāmukham. tathā | *paścāt (conj. : paścimāt
Cod.) pāśupatam. caiva uttare tu mahāvratam; Jñānasiddhyāgama (a late south-Indian text teach-
ing a Śākta-Śaiva synthesis), p. : śaivam. *śivādvayam. (conj. : śivādvitam. Cod.) dvaitam. śiva-
sammelana
. m. trayam | caturtham. pāśupatyam. ca pañcaman tu mahāvratam | sa . s.tha
. m. kālāmukham.
caiva saptamam. bhairavan tathā | as.tama. m. vāmabhedottha m
. samayas tv as tamo
.. bhavet. But it is
not attested in the north, where we find only Kālamukha and Kālavaktra. ere can be no doubt
that it is the spelling Kālamukha (‘Black-faced’) that is original since that and synonyms are also
seen in southern sources; see, e.g., EI : (Ablūr, .. ), l. : kālamukharo.l ‘among the
Kālamukhas’; EI : (Gadag, .. ), l. : kā.lamukhācāryasantatiprabhavah, . ll. –:
kā.lamukhācāryasomeśvaradevapraśisyasya;
. SI : (Malkāpuram, .. ), v. cd: upeyusā . m.


śaivatapodhanānām. kālānanānām. śivaśāsanānām; and an inscription at Kodumbā . .lūr, which
records a donation to Asitavaktra ascetics (ARE no.  of ; see also ARE , pp. , –
; and R , p. ). For the form Kālamukha and synonyms in north-Indian sources see,
e.g., Āgamadambara
. (th century, Kashmir), p. : śaivapāśupatakālamukhā mahāvratinaś ca;
Bhat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha II (th century, Kashmir), Mataṅgapārameśvaravrtti
. on Kriyāpāda .c–
b: kālamukhāh. prāhuh. in the Kashmirian manuscripts against kālāmukhāh. prāhuh. in the
south-Indian manuscripts, and in B’s edition following them; Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , A
. tka
f. v (.ab): dāmara
. m. somasiddhāntam. tathā kālamukham. vratam; Agastyasamhitā
. cited
in Paraśurāmakalpasūtravrtti,. p. : pāñcarātre ca kāpāle tathā kālamukhe ’pi ca; Brhatkālottara
.
f. r: pañcārthakālavaktrānā . m. vivādam. naiva kārayet; Vāmanapurāna . .: ādyam. śaivam.
parikhyātam anyat pāśupatam. mune | trtīya. m. kālavadana m
. caturtham. ca kapālinam.

. T S,   M  K (A


III)

. Elements added to Atimārga II:


(a) sanguinary practices for the propitiation of the fierce gods Mahābhairava
(/Bhairava) and Cāmun. dā.
(b) initiation through the consumption of consecrated liquor
(c) erotic ritual with a female companion
(d) the notion that supernatural powers may be attained through the extrac-
tion by Yogic means of the vital essences of living beings
(e) the centrality of states of possession (āveśah).
.
. e essentials of Kāpālika practice and belief are well summarized by Kr. s. namiśra
.
in his allegorical drama Prabodhacandrodaya, composed to celebrate the victory
of the Candella king Kīrtivarman over the Kalacuri king Karna . of Tripurī (r.
c. –). ere Somasiddhānta, a Kāpālika personifying the Somasid-
dhānta and therefore so named, describes himself as adorned with strings of
human bone, dwelling in a cremation ground, and eating from a human skull,
and his female consort as having the first of these attributes: Act III, v. ab:
narāsthimālākrtacārubhū
. sa
. na
. h. śmaśānavāsī nrkapālabhojana
. h. ‘with beautiful
adornments made from strings of human bone, living in the cremation ground,
and eating from a human skull’; and v. b: narāsthimālākrtacārubhū
. sa
. nā.
.
When asked Somasiddhānta defines the Kāpālikas’ religious practice (dharmah) .
as follows:

mastiskāntravasābhipūritamahāmā
. msāhutīr
. juhvatām.
vahnau brahmakapālakalpitasurāpānena nah. pāranā
. |


sadyahk
. rttaka
. thoraka
. n. thavigalatkīlāladhārojjvalair
.
arcyo nah. purusopahārabalibhi
. h. devo mahābhairavah. ||
Act III, v. 
Offering into the sacrificial fire oblations of human flesh augmented by brains,
intestines, and fat we break our fast by drinking fermented liquor [from a
vessel] made from the skull of a brahmin. Our duty is to worship the deity
Mahābhairava with offerings of human victims bright with the flood of gore
that gushes from their thick freshly cut necks.

and:

etatkarālakaravālanikrttaka
. n. tha-
.
nāloccaladbahulaphenilabudbudaughaih. |
sārdham. dama
. d. damaru
. dā
. mk
. rtihūtabhūta-
.
vargena
. bhargag rhinī
. . .m rudhirair dhinomi ||
Act III, v. 
I worship the consort of Śiva together with the horde of spirits summoned by
the sound of my rattling Damaru
. drum with streams of blood full of foaming
bubbles gushing from the necks that I have cut with this fearsome sword.

eir notion of liberation:

dr. s.ta
. m. kvāpi sukham. vinā na visayair
. ānandabodhojjhitā jīvasya sthitir eva muk-
tir upalāvasthā katham. prārthyate | pārvatyāh. pratirūpayā dayitayā sānandam
āliṅgito muktah. krīdati
. candracūdavapur
. ity ūce mr. dānīpati
. h.
Act III, v. 
ere is no evidence of pleasure without the objects of the senses. How could
one seek a liberation devoid of awareness of bliss, a condition of the soul in
which its state is like that of a stone. e consort of the Goddess Mr. dānī .
has taught [in our scriptures] that one rejoices in the state of liberation when
embodying Śiva one is blissfully embraced by one’s beloved as the simulacrum
of Pārvatī.

Two monks, one a Buddhist and the other a Jain, seek initiation into the
Kāpālika faith, described as ‘the teaching of Mahābhairava’,

mam. pi mahābhairavanusāsa
. ne
. dikkhaya
(=Skt. mām api mahābhairavānuśāsane dīksaya)
.
Act III, prose after v.  (the Jain speaking for both)

Initiate me too into the teaching of Mahābhairava.


e procedure of initiation (dīksā):
.
kāpālikah:. upaviśyatām. ubhau tathā kurutah.
. kāpāliko bhājanam. samādāya dhyānam.
nātayati.
.
śraddhā: bhaavam. sulāe pūlitam. bhāana. m. [Skt. bhagavan surayā pūritam. bhā-
janam].
kāpālikah. [pītvā śesa
. m. bhiksuk
. spa
. nakayor
. arpayati]: 

idam. pavitram amrta


. m. pīyatām. bhavabhesajam
. |
paśupāśasamucchedakārana m
. . bhairavoditam ||

Act III, v.  and the prose before it


e Kāpālika: ‘‘Please be seated’’. Both sit. e Kāpālika takes up a vessel and
acts that he is meditating [on it].
Śraddhā: ‘‘Venerable, I have filled the vessel with fermented liquor’’.
e Kāpālika drinks from it and hands what remains to the Buddhist and Jain
monks, saying

‘‘Drink this purifying nectar, the cure of [the sickness of] incarnation,
that cuts through the bonds of the bound soul, ordained by Bhairava’’

. e Kāpālikas’ use of their skull-bowls for drinking wine and eating meat:

yena mama pānabhojanaśayanesu


. nitāntam upakrta
. m. śucinā
Mahendravikramavarman, Mattavilāsaprahasana, p. , v. 
‘[my] pure [skull-bowl] which served me so well for drinking, eating, and as a
pillow’.
devasomā: bhaavam. kena. khu gahīdam. kavālam. [Skt. kena khalu grhīta
. m. kapālam].
kapālī: tarkayāmi śūlyamāmsagarbhatvāc
. chunā vā śākyabhiksu
. .nā veti
Mattavilāsaprahasana, p. 
Devasomā: ‘‘Venerable, who can have stolen [your] skull-bowl?’’ e Kāpālika:
‘‘My guess is that it was either a Buddhist monk or a dog, because it contained
meat roasted on a spit’’.

. e extraction of vital essences:

iyam aham idānīm.


nityam. nyastasa
. daṅgacakranihita
. m. hrtpadmamadhyodita
. m.
paśyantī śivarūpina. m. layavaśād ātmānam abhyāgatā |


nādīnām
. udayakramena
. jagatah. pañcāmrtākar
. sa
. nād
.
aprāptotpatanaśramā vighatayanty
. agre nabhombhomucah. ||
Bhavabhūti, Mālatīmādhava, Act , v. : arriving through the air from Śrīparvata the
Kāpālika Kapālakun. dalā
. describes how she has accomplished this supernatural feat
Behold, I have now arrived, driving apart the clouds before me, feeling no
weariness as I fly because I extract the five nectars from my fellow-creatures
through the process of [my] activation of the channels of the vital energy as
through deep absorption I gaze continuously on my soul, having placed it in
the form of Śiva within the circle of the six ancillary [Mantra-deities] that I
have installed [there].

. e centrality of states of possession (āveśah):— . Narrative literature portrays ex-


orcism and related skills as the Kāpālika’s stock-in-trade. In his Ākhyānakamani- .
kośa (p. , vv. –) the Jain Nemicandra describes a Mahāvratin Ghoraśiva
as an expert in the control of Grahas, Piśācas, and Dākinīs, . in curing fevers
and other illnesses with herbal amulets, in propitiating Yaks. inīs, . in alchemy
(dhātuvādah),. in counteracting poisons, and in all the aggressive magical arts.
e Kāpālika Brahmasoma in the Kathāsaritsāgara cures a madman by placing
his Mantra-empowered hand on his head (.–).is repertoire of pow-
ers also includes the occult art of locating treasures in the ground (nidhivādah, .
khanyavādah). . We see this association, for example, in a narrative in the B r-
.
hatkathāślokasamgraha
. (.–; M, vol. , pp. –), where
Kāpālikas, also called ‘followers of the Somasiddhānta’ (somasiddhāntavādinah.
.), are portrayed as experts in this art and as possessing a scripture
called the Mahākālamata in which it is taught (.–). Furthermore,
the association of the Kāpālikas with exactly this range of occult arts from
exorcism to the unearthing of buried treasure is confirmed by evidence that it
was carried over into the Bhūtatantras, the ‘western stream’ (paścimasrotah) .
of the scriptural corpus of the Mantramārga. Treating that division of the
canon, the Śaiva theologian Abhinavagupta (fl. c. –) associates it with
world-loathing ascetics (Mālinīvijayavārttika .c–b) ‘‘who live in cre-
mation grounds adorned with chaplets of skull-bones’’ (.ab: kapālamālā-
bharanāh. śmaśānapadavāsinah); . and the Śaiva scripture Śrīkan. thī,
. briefly stating
the subjects covered in the twenty primary Bhūtatantras, reveals that they
are precisely the exorcising of dangerous spirits (Karaṅka, Can. da, . Bhūtatrāsa,
Śikhārāva), alchemy (Mun. damālā),
. finding and attracting treasures (Karkota),
.
curing seizure by planets, fevers, and all sicknesses (Khadgarāva
. na,
. Gharghara,
Ghorāt.tahāsa),
. the use of medicinal herbs (Can. dāsidhāra),
. and aggressive rit-
uals (Ucchis.ta);
. see vv. – of the Srotobheda chapter transmitted in the


digest Nityādisamgraha
. compiled by the Kashmirian Rājānaka Taks. akavarta
and transcribed by H (, pp. –).
For sources on the Kāpālikas’ notion that the state of liberation is like a state
of possession see S, e Śaiva Age (a), pp. –, fn. . To
the sources cited there I add Sarvamatopanyāsa p. :

nijāśrayasthitair eva tadānīm aiśvarair gunai


. h. |
svayam āviśyate siddha<h> . tu grahair iva ||
. purusas
ity āveśena kāpālās tatsamām. muktim ūcire.
muktim ūcire em. : muktirūcire Cod.
‘At that time the qualities of the Lord while remaining in their substrate auto-
matically enter the Siddha, in the way that an [ordinary] person is possessed by
spirits. So the Kāpālikas have taught that liberation is analogous to possession.

. at there was a Kāpālika tradition within the Atimārga is now beyond doubt.
In an earlier publication I propagated a contrary view of this matter, which I
now correct. ere I employed the term Kāpālika only for certain traditions
found within the non-Saiddhāntika Mantramārga, presenting the Atimārga
only in the two modes recognized in the Niśvāsamukha. My reasons for my
earlier position:
(a) e Niśvāsamukha reports only two forms of the Atimārga
(b) No self-confessed Atimārgic Kāpālika document has come to light
(c) Non-Śaiva and other Śaiva sources show us the above-mentioned fea-
tures of their practice but offer nothing that unambiguously indicates a
connection with the Atimārga; and
(d) ese same features are conspicuous in the non-Saiddhāntika traditions
of the Mantramārga, from which a considerable literature does survive.
See S , p. , citing a passage from the third Sa . of
. tka

is analysis was published in S , pp. – [–] (p.  []: ‘‘e
traditions of the Bhairava Tantras are Kāpālika, the basic form of their ascetic observance being that of
the skull (kapālavrata/mahāvrata). e difference between this and the Lākula form of this observance is
largely a matter of the basic difference of the Mantramārga stated above. e term Kāpālika is reserved
here for this Mantramārgic segment of the Śaiva culture of the cremation grounds.’’) and repeated in
passing in the text of a series of lectures delivered in Madras in  but not published until 
(a, p. : ‘‘Of these two [the Lākulas and Kāpālikas] the Kāpālikas are the followers of certain
non-Saiddhāntika systems, notably those of the Vidyāpīt.ha, in which the practice of the kapālavratam
is emblematic’’), when it was possible to append a statement (p. ) in which I mentioned briefly
evidence that has caused me to change my view.


the Jayadrathayāmala in which a follower of the tradition of this Tantra
is instructed to identify himself as a Kāpālika when he begs for alms and
pointing out on the authority of the Mahānayaprakāśa of the Kashmirian
Arnasi
. mha
. (fl. c. – [S a, p. ]) that some
Gurus of the closely related Śakta tradition of that text are described in
terms that indicate that they too adhered to the Kāpālika observance.
An edition of verses –, in which these descriptions occur (of
Cakrabhānu, Īśānī, and Jaiyaka), is given in S a, pp. –
, fn. ; and see S a, pp. – for evidence that
Cakrapāni,. author of the Bhāvopahārastotra, was also an ascetic of this
kind. For progress on the dating of this author, now before /, and
the hypothesis that the Anantaśakti of this same tradition who wrote the
commentary on the Vātūlanathasūtra was yet another such ascetic see
S a, pp. –. e passage from the third Sa . of the
. tka
Jayadrathayāmala, which is only one of many passages that could be cited
from the Picumata, the Jayadrathayāmala and other Vidyāpīt.ha rexts, is
as follows:
 kādyakhan. dā . s.takenaiva
. mun. damālā
. m. sucarcitām |
pratikhan. da
. m. karaṅkāṅkam. krtvā . mūrdhani dhārayet ||
 khatvāṅga
. m. chidrasampūr . na
. m. mahācāmaraśobhitam |
cīrakiṅkinisa
. . myukta m. suda n
. . . dr. dham
da m . avranam
. ||
 dhāravyed vāmakaragam. nānāśobhāsamanvitam |
karnābhyā
. m. mudrike kārye narāsthighatite . śubhe ||
 kan. the
. mālām asthimayā m . latāsaptakabhū sitām
. |
pralambantam. mahāhāram. tadvad eva dharen narah. ||
 kādyam. daksi . nahastastha
. m. surāmadyādipūritam |
mekhalāsthimayā kāryā mun. dakha . n. davibhū
. . ||
sitā
 kiṅkinībhi
. h
. samāyuktā narakeśasamanvitā |
madhye naramanis . tasyā m. kartavya h. kuliśodari ||
 nūpurāv asthiracitau sūksmakiṅki . nicitritau
. |
vīrabhasmasamāliptah. sopavītah. samāhitah. ||
 madirānandacaitanyo sugandhakusumānvitah. |
tāmbūlavaktrasampanno . madaghūrnitalocana
. h. ||
 hased dhāhā*ravam. raudram. paryateta . samantata h. |
kāpāliko ’smi kaṅkālī raśmimelāpalolupah. ||
 sarvabhakso . ’pi pañcāśī vīracakreśvaro hy aham |
evamvādī
. bhaven nityam. vicared vīrarāt. sadā ||
 mahāvīryakalārūdho . bhairavācārapālakah. |
māsatrayam idam. kurvan plavate gaganāṅganam ||
 –,  B / (palm-leaf; ‘Pāla-Sena’ Devanāgarı̄; no date, c. th
century), f. r–v (Vratavidhipatala,
. vv. –


a hased dhāhāravam. conj. : hased dhāhāragam. Cod. b paryateta
. em. : pa-
ryatena
. Cod.

. Evidence for Atimārga III:


(a) Siddhāntaprakāśikā of Sarvātmaśambhu:
tāni ca śāstrāni
. pañcavidhāni laukikam. vaidikam ādhyātmikam atimārgam.
māntram. ceti. . . . ātimārgam. tu śāstram. rudrapranītāni
. pāśupatakāpālama-
hāvratāni māntram. tu śivapranīta. . m siddhāntaśāstram.
Siddhāntaprakāśikā p. , ll. -; P, p. , l. –p. , l. 
And these teachings are of five kinds: Laukika, Vaidika, Ādhyātmika,
Atimārga, and Mantramārga. . . . . As for the teachings of the Atimārga,
they are the [three bodies of teaching] promulgated by Rudra, [namely]
the Pāśupata, the Kāpālika, and the Mahāvrata (=Lākula/Kālamukha),
whereas the teaching of the Mantra[mārga] is the Siddhānta, promulgated
by Śiva.

(b) Bhairavamaṅgalā:
icchārūpadharī devī icchāsr. s.tipravartanī
. |
tatah. sā varsate
. vācā śāstrav r stīr
. .. anekathā ||
prathamam. śaivasiddhāntam. bhedatrayasamanvitam |
kevalī lākulam. caiva somasiddhāntam eva ca ||
 -,  B /; palm-leaf; Licchavi script; undated, c. th century
.., f. v–
a icchārūpa corr. : itsārūpa Cod. b icchāsr. s.ti. : itsāsr. s.ti
. Cod. d śāstravr. s.tīr
.
corr. : śāstravr. s.tir
. Cod. • anekathā corr : anekathā
. Cod. a prathamam. corr. : prathama
Cod. c kevalī em. : kaivalī Cod.
e Goddess, who assumes whatever form she wishes, activates creation in
accordance with her desire. en she, [as] Word, pours down showers of
diverse teachings. First [came] the Śaiva doctrine with its three divisions,

is distinction between the three divisions (bhedāh). I take to be that taught by the Picumata,
the Bhairavamaṅgalā’s parent Tantra in .– of that work (ff. rff.) e three divisions are the
Madhyama, Vāma, and Daks. ina. . corresponding to the three Streams (srotāmsi),
. Upper, Left/Northern,
and Right/Southern, in the common fivefold classification of Śiva’s teachings, on which see here
pp. ?? to ??. e Bhairavamaṅgalā tells us that it is the very essence of the Tantra of Ucchus. ma,
that is to say, the [supposed work of , verses of which the actual Picumata/Brahmayāmala
claims to be only a short redaction (f. v [.]): [ucch]u[sm]ī[y]e
. mahātantre laksapādādhike
. vibho
| sarvatantrasya sāro ’yam. siddhāntam paripathyate.
. e Picumata (Brahmayāmala) refers to itself as


the Pāñcārthika, the Lākula, and the Somasiddhānta.
(c) Mantramārgic sources group the Somasiddhāntins/Kāpālikas with the
Pāñcārthikas and Lākulas/Kālamukhas in passages that assign liberations
at lower levels of the Mantramārgic universe:
() Sarvajñānottara f. r–:
kevalārthavidah. kālam. prāpnuvanti jitendriyāh. |
vaidyeśvar†āguru†tattva<m> . somasiddhāntavedinah. |
prāpnuvanti mr. sāmuktā
. h. .....;
.
() Kriyākān. dakramāvalī,
. ed. B, vol. , p. , v.ab:
pāśupatās tu māyāyām. vidyāyām. tu mahāvratāh; .
() Jñānaśivācārya, Jñānaratnāvalī, p. :
pañcārthakālavaktrānā. m. māyāyām adhare pute . |
muktir uktā dvayoh. sthāne *trikalaksemarudrayo
. h. |
ūrdhvaput<e
. dhruv>eśe <ca> muktir uktā kapālinām |
a pañcārtha corr. : pañcārdha Cod. c muktir uktā em. : udvaktā Cod. • dvayoh.
conj. : dvaye Cod. d trikalaksemarudrayo
. h. conj. : vakuleksetrarudrayo
. h. Cod. a
ūrdhvapute. dhruveśe ca conj. : ūrdhvakateśe
. Cod.
tantram ucchusmasa
. mbhavam
. in .d, .d, .d etc. or ucchusmatantram
. (.c) and it, though
only , verses in extent, tells us in its final words that it is a short redaction in , of
the Brahmayāmala of , verses, itself derive from an original text of  million verses:
brahmayāmalatantredam. laksapādādhika
. m. gatam. | śatakotyujjvalā<t>
. tantrāt sārātsāratarottaram |
sthitam. dvādaśasāhasram. pañcasūtrojjvalam. matam | mayā te kathitam bhadre bhadrasiddhipradāyakam. .

at the term kevalī refers to the [Pāñcārthika] Pāśupata teaching is not evident by elimination
alone. e conclusion is supported by occurrences of the term kevalārthah. ‘the Kevala teaching’
in reference to Kaun. dinya’s
. Pañcārthabhāsya,. namely Viśuddhamuni, Yamaprakarana . : sa . dgoca-
.
rasya bhrtyena
. viśuddhamuninālpakam | kevalārthāt samuddhrtya . yamaprakarana. m. krtam;
. cf. v. cd:
bhāsyak
. rtokta
. m. tad vaksye
. yamaprakarana . m. tathā; the Tewar stone inscription of Gayākarna, . (..
), CII i:, v. c: ācāryo ’dbhutakevalārthavacasām. pāñcārthiko yah. sudhīh; . and, in the literature
of the Mantramārga, Sarvajñānottara f. r–: kevalārthavidah. kālam. prāpnuvanti jitendriyāh. . e
emendation kevalī of the manuscript’s kaivalī is prompted by the fact that the lexicographer and
polymath Hemacandra (–) gives kevalī in the meaning ‘a certain text’ in his lexicon of
homonyms Anekārthasamgraha:. kevavlī granthabhidy api (.d). An inscription from Junāgadh . in
Kathiawar of the time of the grandson of the Śaka Ks. atrapa Jayadāman, probably Rudrasimha . I or
Dāmaysada I, therefore from the late second century refers to kevalijñāna- in a lacunose passage at its
end: kevali[jñā]nasam. . . . nām. . . . jarāmavran[a]
. . . . (EI :, l. ). e editors, Rakhaldas B
and Vishnu S. S suggest the restoration kevalijñānasamprāptānā . m. jitajarāvmaranānām
.
and propose on the evidence of the expression kevalijñāna- that the inscription has a Jain context.
at is plausible. In Jain sources we find the terms kevalajñānam and kevalī (for one who has attained
kevalajñānam, i.e. a Jina), though not, as far as I can tell, kevalijñānam. But in the light of the references
assembled here a Pāñcārthika context cannot be excluded, in which case this would be may our earliest
evidence of the Atimārga.


() Niśvāsaguhya, f. v and f. r–, which place both Pāśupatas and
the followers of the Pramānas
. in Īśvaratattva (f. v [.]):
vratam. pāśupatam. divyam. ye caranti jitendriyāh. |
bhasmanis.thajapadhyānās
. te vrajantīśvaram. padam ||
f. r– [.]:
tejīśaś ca dhruvaś caiva pramānādhvāna
. m. kīrtitam |
kapālavratam āsthāya pramānā . sama[ + + + +] ||
() Svacchanda .c–:
mausule kāruke caiva māyātattvam. prakīrtitam ||
ksemeśo
. brahmana
. hsvāmī
. tesa
. m. tat paramam. padam |
tejeśo vaimalānām. ca pramāne. ca dhruvam. padam ||
dīksājñānaviśuddhātmā
. dehāntam. yāva caryayā |
kapālavratam āsthāya svam. svam. gacchati tat padam.
() See also vv. – of the passage of the Manthānabhairava edited
in S a, pp. –, fn. , which places the Mausulas in
Māyātattva, the Vaimalas in Śuddhavidyātattva, and the Lākulas and
[followers of] the Pāśupata observance in Īśvaratattva.

(d) A recently published seventh-century inscription from Daks. ina . Kosala,


the Malhar or Junwani copper plates of Mahāśivagupta Bālārjuna, year
 (c. .. ), recording a grant of two villages to a Śaiva ascetic named
Bhīmasoma for the maintenance of a hermitage attached to the temple of
Bāleśvarabhat.t.āraka built by this king in his capital Śrīpura.
asyām. māghapaurnamāsyām
. atraivātmakāritaśrībāleśvarabhat.tārakatapo-
.
vanaparipālanārtham āropitebhyah. śivasya mūrtīnām as.tau . vigraheśvarānā . m.
gahaneśasya mūrtayo rudrā sa tsa
. .. . sty anugrāhakā yuge yuge parivartamānā
adhunā kalikālam āsādya śrīmallakulīśanātho ’vatīrya somaśarmākhyabrāhmana- .
kule jātah. mahāvrate tena dīksito
. jagadindus tenāpi musalīśas tatah. somādi-
pāramparyakramena . sthānaguruśrīrudrasomapraśisyaśrītejasomaśi
. syebhya
. h. śrīmad-
bhīmasomapādebhyah. śisyapraśi
. syā nā
. . . m yāgadīk sāvyākhyānavasatipravarta-
.
nāya bhagnavidīrnadevakulasa
. msk
. rtaye
. ca mātāpitror ātmanaś ca punyā- .
bhivrddhaye
. samakālopabhogārtham ācandratārakārkam udakapūrvakam.
tāmraśāsanena pratipādita ity avagatya samucitabhogabhāgādikam upanayanto
bhavantah. sukham. prativasantu
Malhar/Junwani copper plates of Mahāśivagupta Bālārjuna, year , ll. –
asyām. māghapaurnamāsyām
. conj. B : asyām. māpupaurn. namāśyam
. Ep. (as
reported by M) : asyām apaurnamāsyā
. m. conj. M • musalīśas
conj. : mugalīśas B, M • sthānaguru conj. M [cf.


sthānagurubhyah. in Sirpur Copper Plate No.  as reported in M
, p. ] : sthāne guru B.
Let it be known to you that in order to augment the religious merit of
my parents and myself I have granted with a copper-plate charter and
the [due pouring of] water this village [Pāśipadraka] together with Kuru-
padraka . . . on this full-moon day of the month of Māgha after requesting
them from the community of the Vājasaneya Yajurvedins in exchange
for Bhān. dāgāratulapadraka
. in the [same] Onī
. Division, to the Venerable
Bhīmasoma, disciple of Tejasoma and grand-disciple of the Sthānaguru
Rudrasoma, whom I have appointed to protect the hermitage attached to
the [temple of] Bāleśvarabhat.t.āraka that I myself have established [with
my name] in this same [village], [the purpose of this benefice being]
to provide the means of maintaining the ceremonies of worship, initia-
tions, expositions of the scriptures, and accommodation of Bhīmasoma’s
disciples and their spiritual descendants, and for repairs to the temple
when it is damaged or delapidated, that they may enjoy [this benefice] in
perpetuity, for so long as the moon and stars endure. Gahaneśa, among
the eight Vigraheśvaras that are Śiva’s embodiments, has sixty-six Rudra
embodiments. ese favour souls [by granting them initiation], operating
[one after the other] in each [successive] Age. Reaching the current age
of Kali [the last of these,] the Lord Lakulīśa became incarnate, taking
birth in the family of the brahmin Somaśarman. Somaśarman initiated
[this] moon [whose cooling rays have calmed the fever] of the world,
into the Mahāvrata, and he in turn initiated Musalīśa; and from Musaliśa
in an unbroken line of spiritual descent [the tradition has come down
through Rudrasoma and Tejasoma to this Bhīmasoma]. Having learned
of this [endowment], dwell in contentment, each of you delivering his
customary portion of [the revenue of his land-holding and all other dues.

at the beneficiaries were Somasiddhāntins appears from the combi-


nation of two facts: () their spiritual forefather Lakulīśa is described
here as having been initiated by Somaśarman/Soma into the Mahāvrata;
and () they have initiation names in -soma. For other Śaiva ascetics
appear in inscription and literary works with such names and they too are
Kāpālikas/Mahāvratins.

We have the Mahāvratins Devasoma, Mahendrasoma, and Jñānasoma mentioned in inscriptions
of ..  , , , and  from Huligere (modern Lakshmeshwar in the Gadag
district of North Karnataka), the capital of the Huligere , as successive patrilineal Sthānācāryas
of the temple of Mahāsvayambhū-Somanātha (EI : [ l. ;  ll. –, –, ;  ll. –]), a
Dinakarasomabhat.t.āraka described as chief of the Mahāvratins (mahāvratapradhāna) in an inscription
of ..  from Baragūr in the Sira Taluk of Tumkur District, Karnataka (EC  Si ), and a


at they were Atimārgic is strongly implied by the role assigned in
the account of the lineage to Lakulīśa, as the founder of the Pāśupata
tradition came to be known at some point in the first half of the first
millenium, probably after Kaun. dinya,
. since he does not report this name,
and before the Niśvāsaguhya and the original Skandapurāna, . which do.
And it is confirmed beyond doubt by a passage in the first Sa . of the
. tka
Jayadrathayāmala (.–):
 adhunā gūdhanirgū
. dhān
. paṅktiyugmagatāñ śr. nu . |
śvetādivasatkārāntān
. bhavān sa . t.sa
. s.timāna*gān
. ||
 śvetaś caiva sutāraś ca suvāmo gautamas tathā |
. ca suhotā ca tathā vaiśirasah. parah. ||
laukāksaś
 ekapādo jigīsuś . ca vr. sabho
. daśavāhanah. |
gokarnaś
. ca guhāvāsī śikha n. . timālinau
dī ja . ||
 bhrguś
. caivva śivkhī śūlī vāliś caivāt.tahāvsaka . h. |
dāruko lāṅgaliś caiva tridan. dir a sa
. . . . dhi h para h
. ||
 someśo lakulīśaś ca hy as.tāvi . mśaty. amī śivāh. |
vyākhyānānugrahakarāh. pramānajñānabhedata . h. ||
 prāsaṅgikī tv asau tesā . m. sadyo’nugrahakāritā |
*dvitīyā gurupaṅktir yā vareśādyas.tatri . mśikā
. ||
 sadyonugrahakartrtve . tasyā devy adhikāritā |
vareśvaraś ca devaś ca *bhūtir dīrghabhujo ravih. ||
 sadyojātas tathā *sthānur . jhan. tīśa . h. sa
. nmukha
. h. parah. |
caturānanah. parah. krūro bhujaṅga dama eva ca ||
 cakrapāny . ardhanārīśo meghasamvartaka . h. priyah. |
bhasmīśah. kāmanāśaś ca kapālī bhūrbhuvas tathā ||
 viśālāmbudanīlornavīraśāntogramā
. tharā
. h. |
ketukāntakumārāryāh. kakubhīśānalaksa . nā. h. ||
 vausa . tkāro
. vasa
. tkāra
. h. kathitās tu gurūttamāh. |
bhairavāptapravaktārah. vādhahsthānagatā . nuśa
. h† . ||
 caturvaktrāś caturdam. s.trā . ye dviparvaprakāśinah. |
Mahāvratin Cāmun. dasoma,
. who engraved an inscription of ..  from Indragadh. near Bhānupurā
in the Mandsaur District of Madhya Pradesh (EI :). We also have a Somibhat.t.āraka/Sovadeva
(=Somabhat.t.āraka/Somadeva), who is described in a Kannada . inscription of ..  from
Kollipākapura (modern Kolanupaka in the Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh) (SEAP ) as a
Mahāvratin and as an expert expositor of the Somasiddhānta. In literature we have a male and
a female Kāpālika called Satyasoma and Devasomā in the farce Mattavilāsaprahasana of Pallava
Mahendravikramavarman (r. c. –), (p. : satyasoma kimartham ākrandasi; p. : priye devasome),
and a Mahāvratadhara Brahmasoma in the Kathāsaritsāgara (.) of Somadeva (written between
 and ). e ascetics Nandisoma and Bhairavasoma in the satirical Samayamātrkā . (., .)
of Ks. emendra (written between  and ), though not identified as Kāpālikas, were also probably
intended to be so understood. e first is described as the guardian of a temple of Gaurī (prāsādapālah)
.


rudrās te dvibhujaik*āsyāh. ksetrajñā
. h. śisyako
. tigā
. h..
Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , A f. r–v [.–]; B f. r-v
. tka
b gatāñ conj. : vatām. AB c gokarnaś
. em. : śokarnaś
. AB
at the expression bhairava- in c is to be taken to refer to a body of
texts is strongly suggested by a parallel expression pramānāptavicārakā
. h.
‘the authoritative teachers of the Pramānas’ . in v. c of the same chapter
for the Rudras who revealed the Pramānas, . the Lākulas’ sacred texts
(Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . .tka , A f. v–; B f. v–: remus tatraiva
te vīrāh. *pramānāptavicārakā
. h. (em. : pramānāpū. AB) |  pañcārthā-
ṅkuśahrdguhya-ūhalak
. sa
. nakādaya
. h. | ādarśākarsasa
. myuktā
. h. sarvavidveda-
pāragāh. | vidyādhipativīreśatārodayavirāmagāh. ||  caturdaśa mahādevāh.
prabuddhā nirahaṅkrta. h. | ūhajñānapravrttisthā
. . ye prakīrtitāh. ||
hy ādyas.tau
 mahāviśāravdāh. sa . t. ca nānāgama*kriyāvnvitāh. (conj. : kriyācitah. AB).
For the names of the Pramāna . texts see S, a, pp. –.
For use of bhairavam as here to refer to a canon of texts cf. Niśisamcāra .
f. r: siddhim āyānti bhairave; Tantrāloka .c: sarve te paśavo jñeyā
bhairave; Niśācāra quoted in Parātrimśikāvivara
. . p. , l. : samskāryo
na .
bhairave.


ŚAIVISM AND BRAHMANISM

A S, H T 

Alexis Sanderson

H ,  F

A, I  (S) :

(e) e evidence of the Mātrsadbhāva


.
. P. :

arcayet paramām. śaktim. somasiddhāntapāragah.


e master of the Somasiddhānta should worship the supreme Śakti.

. P. :

tasmin dhyāyej jagannātham. mahāvratadharam . haram |


uttaptakanakaprakhyam. trinetram. candraśekharam ||
vyāghracarmāmbaradharam. nāgābharanabhū . sitam
. |
bhasmoddhūlitasarvāṅgam. pañcamudrādharam . prabhum ||
kapālakhatvāṅgadhara
. . sāksasūtra
m . m. triśūlinam |
mandasmitāmśukāntyā
. tu hlādayantam. jagattrayam ||
kaṅkālamālinam . devam. suprasannamukhāmbujam |
dhyātvaivam. devadevveśam ātmābhedena sādhakah. ||
kādipādāntikam. paścān mūlamantram. tu vinyaset |
ereon he should visualize Hara, Lord of the Universe, as observer of the
Mahāvrata, with the colour of molten gold, three-eyed, moon-crested, wearing
a tiger skin, decked out with ornaments in the form of snakes, all his limbs
dusted with ash, wearing the five Mudrās, omnipotent, holding a skull-bowl, a
skull-staff, a rosary, and a trident, delighting the three world with the beautiful
radiance of his gentle smile, wearing a chaplet of skulls, his lotus-like face
entirely propitious. e Sādhaka should visualize the God of Gods in this form
as one with himself and then install the Root-Mantra [on his body] from his
head down to his feet.


. P. : yajamānaś ca tatraiva pranamya
. parameśvarīm |
labdhaprasādo matimān guru<m> . bhaktyā namet tadā ||
saśisya
. m . lakulīśānam . gandhādyair abhipūjya ca ||
daksi nābhir
. . vicitrābhir dhanadhānyāmśukādibhi
. h. |
samto
. sya
. śisyais
. sahitam. vittaśāthyavivarjita
. h. || . . .
e wise patron should prostrate in that same place before Parameśvarī and
when he has obtained her favour [in this manner] he should prostrate himself
with devotion before the officiant. He should then make offerings to Lakulīśa
and his disciples with fragrant powder and the rest, and having satisfied [the
officiant] and his disciples unstintingly with diverse honoraria, such as money,
grain, and fabrics . . . .
(f) Yāmunācārya, Āgamaprāmānya, . p. , quoting a passage of three verses on the
discipline of the Kāpālikas. According to this one attains liberation in the Kāpālika
system by understanding the reality of the six major seals (mudrā) and the two minor
seals (*upamudrā em. : paramudrā Ed.), and by meditating on oneself in the vulva-
seat (bhagāsanam), probably referring to some form of meditation in congress; and
the second and third verses explain the accoutrements. We are told here that the
six seals are a necklace (kan. thikā),
. earrings (kun. dalam),
. bracelets (rucakam), a ‘hair-
jewel’ (śikhāmani . ashes, and the sacred thread, and that the two secondary seals
. h),
(upamudrā) are the skull (kapālam) and the skull-staff (khatvāṅga . . If one’s body
h).
has been ‘sealed’ by these, the text declares, one will not be reborn. Sources of the
Mantramārga that require these Mudrās to be worn and non-Śaiva texts reporting the
behaviour of the Kāpālikas make it plain that the ornaments are to be made from
pieces of human bone and the sacred thread from human hair. On the Kāpālika
accoutrements see S , pp. –, fn. .
(g) Yoginīsamcāraprakara
. . of Jayadrathayāmala, Sa
na . .
. tka
. Initiation: see S a, pp. – for an edition of Yoginīsamcāra-
.
prakarana. .–b, c–

Known images of Lakulīśa surrounded by his disciples go back to the fifth century with an
image from Svāmighāt. in Mathura, in which he is flanked by two disciples (K , fig. 
[Government Museum Mathura ]). Images with four disciples are seen from the sixth century
at Yogeśvarī (Mumbai) (M , fig. ) and cave  at Bādāmi (ibid., fig. ), and there
are numerous examples of this kind from the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, for example, in
Gwalior (ibid., fig.  [now only two]), at the Siddheśvara temple at Palārī, near Sirpur (EITA II i
p. , plates -), in the Paraśurāmeśvara, Yameśvara, Pañcapān. dava,
. Tāleśvara, and Vaitāl Deul
temples in Bhubaneshwar in Orissa (ibid., figs. , , , , and ), the Madhukeśvara temple
at Mukhaliṅgam (EITA II ii p. , plate ) the Rampol Gate in Chittorgarh (ibid. , fig. ), Payar
in Kashmir (ibid., fig. ), Jāgeśvara in Almora (ibid., fig. ; II ii p. , plate ).


. Post-initiatory observance: Yoginīsamcāraprakara
. . f. r–v (.–):
na,

 labdhānujño ’bhisiktaś
. ca kāśyapījanasammata. h. |
tataś cared vratavaram. trisa. s.tikulasa
. mbhavam
. ||
 bhairavam. vā mahābhāge cāmun. dāvratam . eva ca |
kr. s.nāmbaradharo
. nityam. kr. s.nagandhānulepana
. h. ||
 kr. s.namālāvalambī
. ca kar nālaṅkārabhū
. sita
. .| h
valayābharanopeto
. nūpuradhvanibhūsita . h. ||
 raktāmbaro raktapādo divyastrīrūpadhārina . h. |
pracchanne nirjane deśe maunī vidyāvratam. caret ||
 māsam ekam. caren mantrī dvādaśān vā mahāvratam |
māsena tu mahāyogī yoginyāh. paśyatīcchayā ||
 tair vrtas
. tu carum. krtvā
. trailokye vicaret ksa . nāt. |
sarvajñah. sarvakartā ca sr. s.tisa
. . mhārakāraka h. ||
 yoginīnām. pade devi hartā kartā ca jāyate |
dvitīyam. tu vratam. vaksye
. ghoram. kāpālarūpinam . ||
 śire kapālamukuta . m. śiramālāvibhūsitam . |
kare karnau. tathā pādau asthikha ndair
.. vibhū sitam
. ||
 vāme kapālam. khatvāṅga
. m. tathā vai dak si
. .ne kare |
śmaśāne vicaren maunī trisa s
. ..ti divasāni tu ||

(h) Earliest reference to the Kāpālikas is in the th-century Prakrit commentary


of Agastyasimha
. on the Jain Dasaveyāliyasutta, Gāthā , p.  (on followers of
bad religious practices [kupāsam. di
. no]):
. abambhacāri
. no
. kāvāliyādayo rattavadādayo
. ya
samcaïyā
. | evamādayo davvabhikkhavo bhavamti.
. For the date of this commentary I
rely on Paul D, according to whom it ‘‘can realistically be dated to around the
fifth century CE’’ (, p. ).
According to L (, pp. –) we have much earlier evidence of the
Kāpālikas, in the Lalitavistara, p. , ll. –: tridan. damu
. n. dikaku
. n. dikakapālakha
. tvā-
.
ṅgadhāranaiś
. ca śuddhi m. pratyavagacchanti sammū
. dhā
. . h. He concludes this from the
fact that the Lalitavistara was first translated into Chinese by Dharmaraks. a in ..
 according to the Kaiyuan lu catalogue of . But a passage in the Chinese
corresponding to the passage seen in the Sanskrit text—and in the ninth-century
Tibetan translation—appears only in the second Chinese translation, completed by
Divākara in ..  or  (T. III  a–). at matches the text of
the Nepalese manuscripts and Tibetan translation to the extent that it speaks of
persons who seek liberation by carrying three sticks (tridan. da-) . in their hands or by
piercing skulls, this reference to piercing being evidently the result of an error in

bKa’ ’gyur (sde dge par phud), le’u , vol. , p. , l. : khar ba gsum dang mgo ’dreg pa dang ril
ba dang mi’i thod pa dang khri’i zur shing ’chang pas blun po rnams dag par khong du chud do.


the Sanskrit manuscript used for the translation, which can only have referred to
carrying here. I conjecture that the manuscript of the Sanskrit text that was the basis
of Divākara’s translation gave kapāladārana-. ‘splitting, bursting, tearing a skull/skulls’
where it should have given kapāladhārana- . ‘carrying a skull’. e error of confusing
aspirated and unaspirated voiced stops proposed here is rare, except in manuscripts
from Kashmir, since there the copyists’ vernacular, and hence their pronunciation
of Sanskrit, lacks this distinction, as Īśvar Kaul (–) reports in the opening
words of his Kaśmīraśabdāmrta, . p. : kāśmīrabhāsāyā. m. vargacaturthāksara. ni. kvacin
noccāryante ‘In the language of Kashmir the consonants of the fourth type [i.e. the
aspirated voiced stops] are nowhere pronounced’. Divākara himself was from central
India. Born in ..  he reached China in  and worked there until his death in
.
e section of the much earlier translation roughly corresponding to that within
which this reference occurs is T. III  c–, corresponding approximately to
T. III  c–a.

A  M

. e Atimārga deserves its name as a path to salvation outside and beyond the
social world. e Mantramārga is tacitly defined by contrast as Śaivism without
this transcendence. For it ruled that its initiates must remain in the social state
(āśramah). that they are in at the time of their initiation, and this may be either
that of the celibate ascetic or that of the married householder (grhastha
. . who
h),
must therefore maintain his discipline as a Śaiva initiate in the midst of his
worldly, brahmanical obligations (laukiko dharmah). .
. e Mantramārga opened initiation to all four caste-classes (varna . whereas
. h),
the Atimārga, as both its prescriptive literature and inscriptions emphasize, was
a path closed to all but brahmins.
On the issue of caste in the Mantramārga see S a, pp. – and, online,
S b, which contains relevant passages from primary sources, most unpublished.
e restriction to brahmin males, in fact to brahmins who have gone through the Vedic
Upanayana ceremony that gives access to the Veda, is stated in Pañcārthabhāsya, . p. , l. 
(brāhmana h śisya
. . . . h), p. , l.  (parīksita
. . m brāhma nam),
. etc., and in Yamaprakara . v. , which
na
venerates Lakulīśa for taking on human form for the benefit of the brahmins. It is also stressed in
chapter  of the original Skandapurāna . (vv. , , , , , ) and in Pāñcārthika
inscriptions (the Pāldī
. Praśasti of Śūdragapan. dita
. [Epigraphia Indica : ] of .. , vv.
 and , in which the four brahmin disciples of Lakulīśa are said to have bestowed salvation
on their caste by propagating this tradition. As to whether this restriction was maintained in


Atimārga II and III, the evidence is less abundant. However, the Pampāmāhātmya asserts it
for the Kālāmukha system (Atimārga II) in .–b: dīksitaś. śisya
. m. mocayet pāśabandhanāt |
dīksitas
. tu śucir dhīmān dvijanmā vedamārgavit || kālāmukhena varteta sadā kālāmukhe sthitah; .
and it may have the same in mind when it states that to qualify for initiation in the Mahāvrata a
person should be of elevated birth (.cd: dīksayet
. punyakarmā
. na
. m. sujanmānam. vidhānatah).
.
In the case of Atimārga III we have only the testimony of the Malhar/Junwani plates that the
Rudrasoma, Tejasoma, and Bhīmasoma were the heirs of a lineage initiated by the brahmin
Somaśarman. e fact that his caste is mentioned in this narrative suggests that here too
recruitment may have been restricted. However, chapter  of Ānandagiri’s Śaṅkaravijaya, his
hagiographical fictional account of the life of ‘Ādi-Śaṅkarācārya’ introduces us to a Śūdra
Kāpālika Unmattabhairava (L , p. –, showing that at least in his time,
probably the fifteenth century, there was nothing incongruous in the notion of a non-brahmin
Kāpālika.

. Mantras are indispensable in both Mārgas, but they are more central, more
diverse in function and much more numerous in the non-Atimārgic complex.
While in both Mārgas Mantras empower ritual action and meditation, in the
Mantramārga they are venerated as the embodiment of the deities themselves:
the Mantramārga’s pantheon is one of Mantra-deities (mantradevatāh). . We
might say, then, that it is the Path of Mantras (mantramārgah),
. because it is
that in which the deities are worshipped in the form of Mantras.
. e Mantramārga provides methods of propitiating these Mantra-deities as
the means of access to supernatural ends of all kinds. In the Atimārga the
purposes of Mantras are purification and salvation, no goal but liberation
being recognized. But the Mantramārga is also concerned with the mastering
or propitiating of Mantra-deities (mantrasādhanam, mantrārādhanam) as the
means of bringing about the protective, apotropaic, therapeutic, destructive,
empowering, and other supernatural effects known as Siddhis (‘accomplish-
ments’, ‘feats’) for the benefit of initiates or their clients. Abhinavagupta in
Tantrāloka .c–:

ajñatvānupades.t.rtvasa
. mda
. s.te
. ’dharaśāsane ||
etadviparyayād grāhyam avaśyam. śivaśāsanam |
dvāv āptau tatra ca śrīmacchrīkan. thalakulīśvarau
. ||
dvipravāham idam. śāstram. samyaṅnihśreyasapradam
. |
prācyasya tu yathābhīs.tabhogadatvam
. api sthitam
lakulīśvarau corr. : lakuleśvarau Ed.

e lower religion [of the Vedas] being tainted by teaching what is incorrect out of
ignorance one is bound to adopt the religion of Śiva, because it is the antithesis of this.


It has two authoritative [promulgators], Śrīkan. t.ha and Lakulīśvara; and this teaching in
both its streams bestows true liberation, but the former is also able to bestow whatever
[other] benefits one desires.

. is distinction not entirely confirmed by the textual evidence:


Yāmunācārya describes the Kālamukhas as considering that their practices bestow dr. s.tād . r. s.tā-
.
bhīs.tasiddhi
. h. ‘the accomplishing of all goals, whether visible or invisible’, which can only mean,
if accurate, that they like the followers of the Mantramārga were not strictly liberationist. e
same applies, as we have seen, to the Kāpālikas.

M: S  N-S

. We must distinguish within the Mantramārga between a tradition that came to


be known as the Siddhānta and non-Saiddhāntika traditions of a more Śākta
orientation. ese preserve and employ to a greater or lesser extent the Kāpālika
accoutrements and observances that characterize Atimārga III, and show what
we may call a strongly Kāpālika iconography in the visualization and repre-
sentation of their predominantly ferocious deities, providing them with bone-
ornaments, skull-bowls, skull-staffs, and garlands of skulls or severed heads,
notably () Svacchandabhairava and his consort Aghoreśvarī, () Aghorī/Can. dā.
Kāpālinī, () Parā/Mātr. sadbhāva, Parāparā, and Aparā (though in this case only
the second and third have Kāpālika icons), and () Kālī/Kālasamkar . s. anī,
. the
last subsuming a large number of ectypes.
. In the Siddhānta worship is centred on Śiva himself, generally visualized as the
tranquil, smiling and consort-less, five-faced, ten-armed Sadāśiva, without the
Kāpālika iconography and the aggressive standing posture typical of the deities
of the non-Saiddhāntika forms of worship. Nonetheless, the skull-staff is among
the attributes of his ten hands, suggesting the hypothesis that we should see the
mature Siddhānta as the result of a reformation in which the Kāpālika character
of the antecedent Atimārga was diminished rather than eradicated as this form
of Śaivism sought to establish itself within rather than beyond the brahmanical
social order. e Saiddhāntika icon of Sadāśiva:

baddhapadmāsanam. sitacchāyam. sodaśavar


. sadeśīya
. m. pañcavaktram abhayaprasā-
daśaktiśūlakhatvāṅgayuktadak
. sinapā
. . ni m
. . bhujaṅgāk sasūtra
. damarukanīlotpalabī-
.
japūrasahitavāmahastam evam. daśabhujam. suprasannam. smitāsyam. piṅgalajatā-
.
. icchājñānakriyāśaktitrayanetram. jñānacandrakalāñcitam. . . .
jūtam
Siddhāntasārapaddhati of Bhojadeva (r. .. –), ff. v-r


kalāñcitam. em. : kalārccitam. Cod.

He is seated in the lotus-posture, white, about sixteen years of age and five-faced.
He has ten arms: his right hands show the gestures of protection and generosity,
a lance, a trident and a skull-staff; his left hands show a snake, a rosary, a rattle-
drum, a blue lotus and a citron fruit. He is completely benevolent, with a
smiling face. He has the ascetic’s mass of tawny braids and three eyes [in each
face] embodying his will, knowledge and action. He is adorned with wisdom
in the form of the sliver of the new moon [upon his head].
is prescription is adopted, and adapted into verse, by Somaśambhu in his Paddhati
Kriyākān. dakramāvalī—read
. śaktyabhī ‘a lance and the gesture of protection’ of Z’s
edition (p. , vv. –) (cf. C, f. v [v. c]: śaktyabha) rather than śaktyasī, the
reading given by the Devakot.t.ai edition and accepted by B (, p. ). e
same visualization is prescribed by Jñānaśiva in his Jñānaratnāvalī, p. , ll. –: śa-
ktitriśūlakhatvāṅgavaradābhayabāhumān
. *pūrāksa. di. n. dimīvyālotpalinīdh
. . (pūrāksa
rk . em.
[meaning bījapūrāksamālā-]
. : purāk sa
. Cod. • dh rk
. em. : prāk Cod.) sadāśiva h;
. and by
Vaktraśambhu in his commentary (-vyākhyā) on the Mrgendrapaddhati
. of Aghoraśiva, as
an alternative to the variant of this visualization that is taught in the Mrgendratantra
. it-
self: yad vā: nāgāksa*sūtra
. damarūtpalabījapūrai
. h. (em. : sūtram. damara
. utpalabījapūraih.
Cod.) khatvāṅgaśūlavaraśaktyabhayaiś
. ca yuktam. vandāmahe varatanum. sakalasvarūpam
(p. ). Several east-Indian eleventh- and twelfth-century images conforming to this
prescription survive; see H , figs. , , ); P , p. ; the
catalogue of Sotheby’s, New York, Indian and Southeast Asian Art Sale, November ,
, item no. ; a small bronze in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (.). See
also online Huntington Archive Nos. , , , , ,
, and . We may note also that one of the earliest Saiddhāntika
scriptures, the Rauravasūtrasamgraha,
. describes Sadāśiva in a more strongly Kāpā-
lika idiom as wearing a chaplet of skulls (.c: kapālamālinam. devam. pranato . ’smi
sadāśivam). As further support for this hypothesis I draw attention to the fact that
the earliest form of the Siddhānta, which, predating the use of that title, appears in
the Niśvāsa corpus of texts, shows numerous Atimārgic features, including elements of
Kāpālika practice, that would later be eradicated as the tradition differentiated itself ever
more clearly both from the antecedent post- Pāñcārthika Atimārga and from the non-
Saiddhāntika Mantramārgic systems that preserved and further developed its practices.
See S b, p. ; , pp. –, fn. ; and , pp. –.

. T F S (pañca srotāmsi):—. e non-Saiddhāntika traditions, or


rather their scriptures, are variously classified in the literature of the Mantra-
mārga; but the classification that appears to be the most ancient divides the
canon into five streams (srotāmsi),
. a metaphor expressing the doctrine that
each has flowed forth from one of Sadāśiva’s five mouths. From that of the
upper, upward-gazing face have come forth the scriptures of the Siddhānta,


and from those of the four lateral faces oriented to the four directions have
come forth four non-Saiddhāntika canons, () the Vāma: that of the Left
Stream (vāmasrotah) . from the north-facing Vāmadeva face on the left, teaching
the worship of the four sisters Jayā, Vijayā, Jayantī/Ajitā, and Aparājitā and
their brother Tumburu[bhairava], () the Daks. ina:
. that of the Right Stream
(daksi nasrota
. . h)
. from the fierce south-facing Aghora/Bhairava face on the right,
teaching the cults of various Bhairavas and goddesses, and (–) the Pūrva and
the Paścima: the Eastern and Western Streams (pūrvasrotah. and paścimasrotah) .
from the mouths of the Tatpurus. a and Sadyojāta faces at the front and back,
comprising the Gārudatantras
. and the Bhūtatantras, distinguished as their
names suggest by their humble concern with propitiations for the curing of
poisonous bites and the exorcizing of afflicting spirits.
From the Saiddhāntika point of view these four lateral canons are genuine but
simply less elevated in their purpose, being more concerned than the scriptures
of the Upper Stream (ūrdhvasrotah) . with rites for the accomplishment of Sid-
dhis; and indeed this hierarchical view is implicit in the very structure of this
classification, which is therefore evidently Saiddhāntika or proto-Saiddhāntika
in origin. How practioners of the Left Stream perceived the relationship of their
tradition to that of the Siddhānta is unknown. Its tradition, which we know
from various sources to have been vigorous and influential up to at least the
early ninth century, was largely superseded by later non-Saiddhāntika cults;
and as a consequence we have too little surviving of its literature to judge the
matter.
As for the canons of the Gārudatantras
. and Bhūtatantras, these too have
suffered from marginalization, but being so clearly directed to therapeutic
purposes rather than liberation, they can hardly have been seen in any other
light.
But the traditions of the Right Stream, which appears to have flourished at the
Left’s expense, show that its adherents considered themselves to be offering a
higher, more esoteric Śaivism for persons who had already been initiated into
the Siddhānta, and the more Śākta of the cults saw themselves as offering yet
higher initiations to those who had already transcended limitation to the main-
stream Mantramārga of the Siddhānta by receiving initiation into a Bhairava
cult, this ladder of ascent being marked by ever more radical abandonment of
brahmanical boundaries in the matter of the offerings to be presented to the

Evidence of the early vigour of the Left Stream is set out in S , p. , fn. ; and
a, pp. –, –, fn. .


deities and the conduct required of initiates.
. M .  V:—
. Another classification of the non-Saiddhā-
ntika scriptures, which articulates this Śākta perspective, removes the Gāru-
datantras
. and Bhūtatantras from consideration and presents the remainder,
corresponding to the Left and Right Streams as a single Bhairava division com-
prising fifteen primary scriptures subdivided into two groups, the Mantrapīt.ha
and the Vidyāpīt.ha, in accordance with whether the focus of the system of
worship that they deploy is Bhairava or the Goddess (or some configuration of
goddesses).
Four primary scriptures are assigned to the Bhairava-centred Mantrapīt.ha and
fifteen to the goddess-centred Vidyāpīt.ha, with the latter subdivided into three
groups, namely three Vāmatantras, that is to say the principal Tantras of the
Left Stream, so classified because the primary focus of their cult is not the male
Bhairava Tumburu but his four sisters Jayā, Vijayā, Jayantī and Aparājitā, five
Yāmalatantras, and seven Śaktitantras.
Not all the primary scriptures listed survive: indeed some, I suspect, may have
existed only in name. But nonetheless we have influential scriptures from each
of the four categories, forming a substantial body of tens of thousands of verses.
From the Mantrapīt.ha we have the Svacchandabhairava and from the Vidyā-
pīt.ha we have the Vāmatantra Vīnāśikha,
. the Yāmalatantra Picumata, also called
Brahmayāmala, teaching the propitiation of Bhairava (Kapālīśa) and his consort
Aghorī with her retinue of goddesses, and the Śaktitantras Siddhayogeśvarīmata
(with the closely related Tantrasabhāva and Mālinīvijayottara) devoted to the
propitiation of the three goddesses Parā/Mātr. sadbhāva, Parāparā, and Aparā,
and the encyclopaedic Jayadrathayāmala or Tantrarājabhat.tāraka. devoted to the
propitiation of Kālī or Kālasamkar
. sanī
. . in a great array of related forms. is new
classification subordinates that of the Streams, the scriptures of the Left being
subsumed within the Vidyāpīt.ha, and all the others, both in the Mantrapīt.ha
and in the Vidyāpīt.ha being assigned to the Right, with the exception of the
Jayadrathayāmala, which according its own account combines the teachings of
both Streams.
. T S:— From the Siddhānta, which from the non-Saiddhāntika

On progressive initiation from the lower to the higher see Tantrāloka .c– quoting the
scriptures Bhairavakula and Sarvācārahrdaya,
. and Jayaratha’s commentary on these verses. On the
concept of transcendence from within see S , pp. –; b, pp. –; ,
pp. –; , pp. –.

For further information on these texts see S , pp. – and a, pp. –.


point of view, and indeed in historical reality, constitutes the more exoteric,
less Veda-discordant mainstream of the Mantramārga, with strong extensions
into the public domain of the temple cult and civic religion, we have a good
number of surviving scriptures or clusters of scriptures teaching various closely
related ritual systems for the propitiation of Śiva, in which Śākta elements, even
the worship of the Goddess as Śiva’s consort, though not completely absent,
are marginal and no part of the core obligatory form of regular worship.
According to scriptural accounts of the Śaiva canon the primary scriptures of
the Siddhānta, that is to say, of the Upper Stream (ūrdhvasrotah), . are twenty-
eight in number, comprising ten Śiva texts (śivabhedāh) . and eighteen Rudra
texts (rudrabhedāh). . However, the scriptures that have reached us, and indeed
those that appear to have been known to learned Śaivas in the tenth to twelfth
centuries in various parts of the subcontinent and preserved in manuscripts
going back to the ninth in the Kathmandu valley are only a few of these.
No manuscript of a Śiva text survives, unless we count the Mrgendra, . which
is claimed as a secondary scripture within the orbit of the primary Śiva text
Kāmika; and through citations in early learned commentaries we can attest the
existence in this division only of the Kāmika and the Sāhasra. e implication
that almost the entire Śiva text canon had disappeared before the age of the
commentators and the earliest surviving manuscripts is not easy to accept. I
incline to the suspicion that the majority of the titles listed as those of the ten
Śiva texts were never attached to real works—at least not until taken up in a
later phase of scripture-production in the Tamil-speaking region—and that the
list pre-existed our Saiddhāntika canon and was adopted from another context
but not fully utilized by the creation of texts under these names. All the Said-
dhāntika scriptures that have reached us intact or incomplete in manuscripts
are, with the exception of the Mrgendra,
. Rudra texts or texts assigned to the
cycle of a primary Rudra texts, namely the Niśvāsa corpus, the Kālottara in
various early non-eclectic recensions, the later eclectic recension known as the
Brhatkālottara,
. the Rauravasūtrasamgraha,
. the Svāyambhuvasūtrasamgraha,
. the
Pārameśvara, later called Pauskarapārameśvara,
. the Mataṅgapārameśvara, the
Kirana,
. the Sarvajñānottara, and the Parākhya. And the same applies to the few
Saidddhāntika scriptures that we know in addition to these from citations in
early Śaiva exegesis, such as the Yaksi . nīpārameśvara,
. the Hamsapārameśvara,
. the
Mukuta, . and the Sūksmasvāyambhuva.
.
In addition to these we have some specialized Saiddhāntika Tantras known as
Pratis. t.hātantras or Installation Tantras, so called because they are concerned
only with matters pertaining to the installation of idols and the consecration
of temples, namely the Mayasamgraha,. the Devyāmata, and the Mohacūdottara.
.


Covering the same territory is the Piṅgalāmata, also called Jayadrathādhikāra;
but that also covers non-Saiddhāntika consecrations of private substrates of
worship and is classified itself as a text of the cycle of the Yāmalatantra Picumata.
ese early Saiddhāntika scriptures differ from each other in such particulars
as the array of Mantras employed and the arrangement of the subsidiary deities
that are worshipped around the central deity. It appears, then, that as the
Mantramārga developed it generated a number of variant ritual systems and
that these were nonetheless recognized as equally valid: the only binding rule in
this regard was that initiates should adhere strictly to one of these variants to the
exclusion of the others. In matters of doctrine such latitude was not admitted.
It was maintained that all the Saiddhāntikas Tantras are unanimous in their
view of Śiva, souls, and the nature and hierarchical structure of the universe.
ere is in fact no such unanimity, especially in the matter of the number of the
reality-levels (tattvāni) between the gross elements at the bottom of the cosmic
hierarchy and Śiva at the top. As one might expect, the Mantramārga moved
towards its final total of thirty-six through a series of competitive extensions.
e learned exegetes of the tradition therefore had to exercise a degree of
selective blindness and aggressive interpretative distortion to maintain this
fiction.
T S P:— However, while the tradition tolerated di-
versity in ritual there was nonetheless pressure to bring about uniformity in
this domain too. is was achieved with some success through the production
of Paddhatis, non-scriptural guides that set out the procedures ordained for the
performance of rituals in the order of their practice with a straightforwardness
and thoroughness not to be found in the scriptures themselves. Paddhatis
must in accordance with the principle just enunciated be based on a single
scripture. ey may draw in materials from other, closely related scriptures,
where the chosen scripture is silent or lacunose, and sometime they have in
fact infringed the rule of proximity by drawing on influential texts such the
Svacchanda that lay beyond the boundaries of the Saiddhāntika canon; but
they are expected to adhere strictly throughout to the Mantra-system and deity-

array (yāgah)
. of one. A degree of uniformity was achieved along these lines by
favouring one system over all others and, moreover, by selecting as the base-
text one or other of two Saiddhāntika scriptures with unusually condensed
and simple Mantra-systems and deity-arrays, namely the -verse (Dviśati-
) Kālottara or the -verse (Sārdhatriśati-) Kālottara. e first was followed
in the tenth century by Brahmaśambhu for his Nityakriyānusamdhāna . and

See S , pp. –.


Naimittikakriyānusamdhāna
. and by Somaśambhu for his Kriyākān. dakramāvalī
.
(/Somaśambhupaddhati). e second was followed by Bhojadeva for his Sid-
dhāntasārapaddhati; and this model was also followed by subsequent Paddhati
writers such as Rāmanātha in the late eleventh century, and Jñānaśiva and
Aghoraśiva in the twelfth. e older, more elaborate systems, such as those
based on the eighty-one-phrase Vyomavyāpin Mantra seen in the Niśvāsaguhya,
the Svāyambhuvasūtrasamgraha,
. the [Pauskara-]Pārameśvara,
. and the Mataṅga-
pārameśvara fell out of use except among the Khmers, who, it seems, never
received the simplified system.
e propagation of this Kālottara-based system in the Paddhatis of the tenth
and later centuries was motivated, I propose, by a desire to achieve a single,
uniform system of rites that could be imposed throughout the by then extensive
network of affiliated Saiddhāntika monasteries (matha . A simpler system was
. h).
evidently more suited to that purpose. e non-Saiddhāntika systems, however,
being largely free of efforts at centralized control, saw no such development. We
find an astonishing wealth and variety of Mantra systems here, especially on the
Śākta front. Simplified rituals existed, but their simplicity was aimed at esoteric
essentialization and intensification rather than institutional uniformity.

REFERENCES
Y
. .
. = J, S . 
.  (NAK –, NGMPP B
/; palm-leaf; ‘Pāla-Sena’ Devanāgarı̄; no date, c. th century), ff. v–v.
M.
. Oriental Manuscript Library, University of Kerala, T : paper;
Devanāgarī;  granthas; incomplete; no date. It comprises the M.
from its beginning but breaking off incomplete in the th Pat.ala (pp. –) and
the B (pp. –), a prose Paddhati, incomplete at the end, setting out
the procedure and Mantras for making a bali-offering to Can. dikā. . It appears to be
a modern library transcript of two palm-leaf manuscripts in the Malayā.lam script,
 and  of S Ś’s catalogue ().
D, Paul. . Haribhadra on Giving. Journal of Indian Philosophy , pp. –.
K, Īśvar. –. e Kaçmīraçabdāmrta: . a Kāçmīrī grammar written in the
Sanskrit language, by Īçvara-Kaula, edited with notes and additions by G.A. Grierson.
Calcutta: e Asiatic Society.
K, Gerd. . Die Śiva-Bildwerke der Mathurā-Kunst ein Beitrag zur Früh-
hinduistischen Ikonographie. Monographien zur Indischen Archäologie, Kunst und
Philologie . Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

See S , pp. –, fn. .

Cf. S , pp. –; , p. .


L, David N. . e Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Two Lost Śaivite Sects, New
Delhi: omson. nd revised edition.
EITA = M, Michael W. et al. (ed.). –. Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple
Architecture. Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies/OUP.
M, Michael. ed. . Discourses on Śiva. Proceedings of a Symposium on the
Nature of Religious Imagery. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
S, Alexis. b. Review of B . Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies , pp. –.
––––. . Man. dala
. and Āgamic Identity in the Trika of Kashmir. In Mantras et
diagrammes rituelles dans l'hindouisme, edited by André Padoux (Paris: Éditions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), pp. –.
––––. . Meaning in Tantric Ritual. In Essais sur le Rituel III: Colloque du Centenaire
de la Section des Sciences religieuses de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, edited by A.-
M. Blondeau and K. Schipper (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences
Religieuses, Volume CII. Louvain-Paris: Peeters), pp. –.
––––. . History rough Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarā-
tra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras. In Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time. A
Colloquium, Pondicherry, – January , edited by François Grimal, pp. –.
Publications du département d’Indologie . Pondicherry: IFP / EFEO.
––––. . e Śaiva Religion Among the Khmers, Part I. Bulletin de l’Ecole française
d’Extrˆeme-Orient  (–), pp. –.
––––. . e Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate Between Pāñcārthika
Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism. Indian Philosophical Annual  (–), pp. -
–.
––––. . e Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In G and P , pp. –
 and (bibliography) pp. –.
––––. a e Śaiva Age: An Explanation of the Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
during the Early Medieval Period. In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by
Shingo E (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo), pp. –
.
––––. b. Handout of ‘Tantric Śaivism and Caste’, lecture, Institut für Südasien-,
Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde, University of Vienna,  June . Available online.
T = Taishō edition of the Chinese Buddhist Tripit.aka: T, Junjiro and Kaigyoku
W. – (Taishō -Shōwa ). Taishō shinshū Daizōkyō.  volumes.
Tōkyō: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai.


ŚAIVISM AND BRAHMANISM

A S, H T 

Alexis Sanderson

H ,  F

M: A S R S


In spite of this great diversity of Mantras, deity-arrays, and other particulars in the
Mantramārga a single ritual system pervades the whole, both Saiddhāntika and non-
Saiddhāntika, both in the ordering of ceremonies and in the construction of each.
. dīksā:
. samayadīksā
. → nirvānadīk
. . or sādhakadīksā
sā .
. abhiseka
. h: . ācāryābhiseka
. h, . sādhakābhiseka
. h.
. vidyāvratam
. pratis.thā
.
. nityakarma: [snānam →] pūjā (bahiryāgah. and antaryāgah)
. → japah. → homah,
.
agnikāryam
. naimittikarma: prāyaścittam, pavitrāropanam
. [+ damanāropanam
. in some sources]
. kāmyakarma: inflections of nityakarma
. Differences in the choice of deity propitiated, the specific character of the
visualizations, (dhyānam) Mantras, Man. dalas,
. Mudrās, substrates of worship,
and offerings that these choices entailed, were surface features that did not
affect significantly this deeper structural unity.
. Belief that Śaiva initiation and by implication all other Śaiva ritual works
directly on the soul. is is encoded in the ritual process by it is also stated ex-
plicitly, most notably in the Saiddhāntika scripture Kirana,
. which in Prakarana .
, vv. – (G , p. ) defines initiation as a rite that transforms
the soul (samskāra
. . h. [b], i.e. ātmasamskāra
h. prānina . . differentiating it from
h),
brahmanical ritual, which, it is claimed, works only on the body or one’s social
identity (na jāter na śarīrasya [a]). is belief is most clearly displayed in the
‘fusion with Śiva’ (śivayojanikā) at the climax of initiation, when the officiant,
seen not as an agent in his own right but as a vessel through which Śiva himself


is acting, enters the initiand’s body through the flow of the breath, takes hold
of his soul, visualizing it as a point of brilliant light, draws it out and into his
person with the return of the breath, fuses it with his own, and then as he
exhales raises them up as one to exit through the cranial aperture to unite with
the deity.

M: T P D

. Saiddhāntika offerings were lacto-vegetarian: those of the non-Saiddhāntika


systems required the inclusion of alcoholic and non-vegetarian offerings.
. While all the Śaivas of the Mantramārga insisted on the equality of initiates
regardless of their caste-class the Saiddhāntikas kept this on a theoretical level,
prohibiting, for example, initiates of different caste-classes from eating in a
single line, while the non-Saiddhāntika systems tended to insist that while the
brahmanical social order should not be transgressed in such mundane matters as
the contracting of marriages, caste distinctions must be forgotten in all contexts
in which initiates come together as Śaivas.
. e rituals of installation taught in the Siddhānta extended beyond the conse-
cration of private substrates of worship to the consecration of temples where
worship was to be performed on a regular schedule for the public good, typically
those established by royal patrons, and the installation in such temples of a fixed
Liṅga which would serve as the principal embodiment of the deity.
Private installations were temporary, Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka .–:

ā tanmayatvasamsiddher
. ā cābhīs.taphalodayāt
. |
putrakah. sādhako vyaktam avyaktam. vā samāśrayet ||
putrakair gurur abhyarthyah. sādhakas tu svayam. vidan |
yadi tat sthāpayen no cet tenāpy arthyo gurur bhavet ||
guruś cātra nirodhākhye kāla ittham. vibhau vadet |
. jīvāvadhīti vā ||
jīvaty asmin phalāntam. tvam. tis.ther
[Liberation-seeking] initiates and [Siddhi-seeking] Sādhakas should take up a
Liṅga or an icon [for their daily worship] until they attain fusion with the deity
[in the case of the former] or the goal they have chosen [in the case of the
latter]. e former must ask the Guru [to install it]; but a Sādhaka, if he knows
how, may install it for himself. If not, he too must ask the Guru to do it. e
Guru should then address the deity with the following words at the moment of
his being confined: ‘‘May you remain [in this substrate] until [this person N]
achieves his goal while he lives, or until he dies [if he does not].


and .–:

siddhe tu tanmayībhāve phale putrakasādhakaih. |


anyasmai taddvayād anyatarasmai tat samarpyate ||
tasyāpy esa
. vidhih. sarvas tadalābhe tu sarvathā |
agādhe ’mbhasi tat ksepya
. m. ksamayitvā
. visrjya
. ca ||
But when a liberation-seeking initiate or Sādhaka has achieved the fusion or
goal [he seeks, the substrate] is passed on to another [initiate], who may be
of either of these two kinds. is procedure [of installation] must be done for
him too. If no [such] person can be found, the [substrate] should be cast into
deep water, after seeking the deity’s pardon and performing the procedure of
dismissal.

In the case of immoveable images established for public benefit in temples the
deity is invoked to remain permanently. See, e.g., Vairocana, Laksa
. nasamuccaya
.
.c–b:

sarvamantrādisamyukto
. lokānugrahakāmyayā ||
atra liṅge mahādeva bhava samnidhimān
. sadā |
sūryācandramasau yāvad yāvat tis.thati
. medinī ||
tāvat tvayātra deveśa sthātavyam. svecchayā prabho
O Mahādeva, through your desire to favour the world be forever present in this
Liṅga with all your Mantras and other [powers]. Lord God of Gods, remain
here, if you are willing to do so, for as long as the sun, the moon, and the earth
endure.

e deity was then named in order to endow him with juristic personality by
prefixing to -īśvara the name of the donor or of a person chosen by the donor to
receive the merit of the installation, thus allowing the god to be treated in law as
the owner of the benefactions in the form of land-revenue and other valuables
that would sustain the cult. In creating their procedures for the installation
of fixed, named Śivas, the Saiddhāntikas were, of course, merely colonizing
an area of religious practice that was long-established and probably not the
invention of any initiatory group known to us. For the practice of installing

e idea is that the deity will remain permanently present, provided that the requisite conditions
of purity and continuity of worship are maintained. Only in Liṅgas thought to be self-created or
established by superhumans is Śiva’s presence unconditional; see S , pp. –, fn.
.


and naming temple Liṅgas in this way certainly predates the emergence of the
Mantramārga, being attested as early as the fourth century ..

In S a, pp. – and fn.  I cited as an early example of this practice a temple
for a Śiva Prakāśeśvara, which, according to the Rīsthal inscription (ed. S , p. –, ll.
, –) was established in Daśapura (modern Mandsaur in western Malwa) in ..  by the
Viceroy Bhagavaddos. a at the command of the Aulikara king Prakāśadharman. But this is not the first
instance of the practice of which a record survives. e earliest, though they are not royal foundations,
are the Kapileśvara and Upamiteśvara established in Mathurā in .. / with the names of
the Atimārgic Śaiva Guru Kapilavimala and his successor Upamitavimala by the latters’s successor
Uditācārya (EI :); and there are several from the fifth century. e Pān. dhur . nā . plates of year 
of the Vākāt.aka Pravarasena II (r. / to c. ), cousin of the Gupta Skandagupta, declare that
they were issued from the temple of Pravareśvara (CII :, l. ); and baked clay sealings with the
legend śrīpravareśvarasya (IAR –, pp. –; J and S , pp. , ; K
, p. ) discovered in the ruins of an impressive temple complex (site MNS III) on the Hidimbā .
Tekdī. in the vicinity of Mansar in the Nagpur District of Maharashtra, near that king’s residence
Pravarapura, confirm that, as B had conjectured (, p. ), these are the ruins of that temple.
e deity of the temple of Pravareśvara was probably the creation of paramamāheśvarah. Pravarasena II
himself, incorporating his name. ere is a counter-proposal (J and S , p. ) that it
was founded by Rudrasena I around .. , incorporating the name of his grandfather Pravarasena
I (c. –). But this assertion rests on the flimsiest of grounds, namely () that Rudrasena I is
reported in his Deot.ek inscription (CII :) to have created his own (sva-) dharmasthānam, () that he
is described in Vākāt.aka inscriptions as a devotee of Mahābhairava (see here p. ??), and () that most of
the sculptures found at the site are proper to ‘‘the Mahābhairava form of Śaivite cult’’. e conclusion
would be tempting if there were evidence to support the last of these claims. But there is none; and
the authors themselves offer none.
ere are yet other cases before or contemporary with the Prakāśeśvara founded for Prakāśadharman
of Śivas (Liṅgas) incorporating the founder’s name (svākhyaliṅgam [SI :, v. ]) or another’s. In ..
 Pr. thivīs. ena, a minister of the Gupta Kumāragupta, made a donation to a Pr. thivīśvara, apparently
incorporating his own name, which would make him the founder, at Karamdān. dā . near Faizabad
in northeast Uttar Pradesh (EI :, ll. -); and in the Kathmandu valley during the Licchavi
period a merchant (sārthavāhah) . Ratnasaṅgha established a Ratneśvara in ..  (LKA ) and a
Prabhukeśvara, incorporating the name of Prabhusaṅgha, probably his father, in ..  (LKA ),
Jayalambha established a Jayeśvara in ..  ‘for the benefit of the population and the ruling monarch
[Mānadeva]’ (LKA ), Vijayavatī, daughter of king Mānadeva, established a Vijayeśvara in .. 
(LKA ), and Bhogadevī, sister of king Amśuvarman,
. established a Śūrabhogeśvara for the increase of
the merit (punyopacayāya)
. of her husband prince Śūrasena, thus incorporating both of their names, in
.. / (LKA ).
Two much older foundations of this kind are claimed by the historian Kalhana . for his native
Kashmir, namely two Aśokeśvaras established in the enclosure of the temple of Vijayeśvara, the
principal Śiva of the valley. ese he attributes to Aśoka (Rājataraṅginī . .), by whom he no doubt
means the famous Maurya king of that name, who ruled c. – ... But his data are highly
confused for events before the Karkot.a dynasty (c. .. –) and it is in any case very improbable that
Śaivism was receiving royal patronage in Kashmir in the third century ... For the Buddhist character
of early Kashmir and the absence of material or textual evidence of brahmanical, Vais. nava, . or Śaiva


M  K
However, there is an important respect in which this model of a shared ritual system
pervading non-Atimārgic initiatory Śaivism both Saiddhāntika and non-Saiddhāntika
must be qualified. For we also have evidence of a Śākta Śaiva tradition that departs
markedly from this system and is found both in its own independent texts (the Kula-
śāstras), such as the Kulasāra, the Kulapañcāśikā, Kulānanda, the Kulakrīdāvatāra,
. the
Timirodghātana,
. the Kaulajñānanir naya,
. and the Ūrmikaulār nava,
. and within texts of
Śākta orientation that are assigned to the Right Stream, such as the Mālinīvijayottara,
or are said to combine the Streams of both the Right and the Left, such as the
Jayadrathayāmala. Distinguishing features:
. Initiation through the induction of possession (āveśah)
. by the Goddess and the
consumption of ‘impure’ sacramental substances (caruprāśanam, vīrapānam).
. Sexual intercourse with a consecrated consort (dūtī) as a central element of

private worship (ādyayāgah).
.
. Sanguinary sacrifices.
. Collective orgiastic rites celebrated by assemblies of initiates and women of low

caste (anuyāgah,
. cakrayāgah, . mūrtiyāgah,. cakramelakah,. vīramelāpah).
.
Śaiva authors recognize the resulting duality of methods by referring to the com-
mon system and this Śākta alternative as the Mantramārga and the Kulamārga; and
traditions there before the fourth or fifth century .. see S c, pp. a–b.

On initiation through possession see Tantrāloka .c– and S a, pp. –
, fn. . On initiation through the consumption of sacramental ‘impurities’ see Tantrāloka
.c–b, S a, p. –, fn. , and S b, pp. – on this
and the identity of these ‘impurities’.

See Tantrāloka .–.

See S a, pp. –, drawing on the fourth Sa . of the Jayadrathayāmala, the
. tka
Kālīkulakramārcana of Vimalaprabodha, the Kālīkulakramasadbhāva, and Tantrāloka .c–b,
c–. On the varieties of Kaula worship according to the goddess propitiated see S
, pp. – [–].

See, e.g., Kubjikāmata (K) .–b (←Tantrasadbhāva [T]): sūcitā mantramārge tu ye mantrā
*laksa
. nānvitā
. h. (K : laksa
. notthitā
. h. T) | te *jñātās (T : jñeyās K) tvatprasādena dhyānadhāranayogata
. h. ||
kulamārgagatā deva yathā bhavati tat katham. e use of the term kulamārgah. by Kaula texts to refer
to their own system without explicitly differentiating it from the Mantramārga is very common, and
I take it that in such cases the distinction is taken for granted. See, e.g., Kālīkulapañcaśataka f. v
(.c–b): nānāvidhāni dravyāni . kulamārgasthitāni ca || nānākārāni . māmsāni
. khajalasthalajāni ca;
Yonigahvara f. v (v. ): *etad vai (em. : ete ve Cod.) *kulamārgasya (em. : kulamārgesya Cod.)
rahasyam. śiva*nirmitam (corr. : nīrmitam. Cod.) | yan na kasyacid ākhyātam. tvad rte . parameśvara;
Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , f. v (.ab): kulamārgaprasaktā ye kaulācārasya pāragāh.
. tka .


where, as a result of assimilation, both systems are present within a single non-
Saiddhāntika tradition, as is the case with the tradition termed the Trika expounded by
Abhinavagupta in his Tantrāloka on the basis of the Mālinīvijayottara, we find the two
distinguished as the tantraprakriyā and kulaprakriyā or kaulikī prakriyā, the [common]
system of the Tantras and the system of the Kula[śāstra]s, with the understanding that
the latter is a higher path reserved for an élite, one that can be accessed only through

a higher initiation (kuladīksā).
. ose who follow this Kula system (kulamārgah, .

See, e.g., Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka .cd: atha sarvāpy upāseyam. kulaprakriyayocyate ‘Now I
shall teach in addition this entire course of worship [as it is done] in accordance with the Kula
system’; Ks. emarāja, Netratantroddyota introducing .: evam. śāktānandamārgāvas.tambh*ātmaka . m.
(conj. : ātmaka Ed.) kaulikaprakriyoktādhārādibhedena sūksmadhyānam . uktvā sthūlayuktikrame na
. ta-
ntraprakriyoktādhārādibhedena pūrnasitām . rtakallolacintanātma
. sūksmadhyāna
. m. vaktum upakramate
‘Having taught a subtle meditation consisting of firmly centring oneself in the course of the bliss
of Śakti, in terms of the various Ādhāras and other [energy centres in the body] taught in the
Kaulika system (kaulikaprakriyā), he now, resorting to a grosser method, begins to explain subtle
meditation that consists of the visualization of a swelling wave of white nectar, [doing so] in terms of
the various Ādhāras and other [energy centres in the body] taught in the Tantra system (tantraprakriyā);
Jayaratha, Tantrālokaviveka, vol. , p. : ataś ca vaksyamā . naśāstrasya
. kulatantraprakriyātmakatvena
dvaividhye ’pi . . . kulaprakriyāyāh. prakriyāntarebhyah. prādhānyāt . . . tadavatārakam. turyanātham eva
tāvat prathamam. kīrtayati ‘Naturally it is [Macchanda,] the Nātha of the Fourth [Age], the propagator
of the Kula system (kulaprakriyā), that he mentions first, because although the [Trika] teaching that
is about to be expounded has two types in as much as it comprises both a Kula system (kulaprakriyā)
and a Tantra system (tantraprakriyā) the former carries more weight than all others’.

See, e.g., Tantrāloka .c–: atha sarvāpy upāseyam. kulaprakriyayocyate || tathā dhārādhirūdhe . su.
guruśisye
. . su yocitā | uktam . ca parameśena sāratvam. kramapūjane || siddhakramaniyuktasya māsenaikena
yad bhavet | na tad varsasahasrai
. h. syān mantraughair vividhair iti ‘Now I shall teach in addition this
entire course of worship [as it is done] in accordance with the Kula system, which is appropriate [only]
for those Gurus and disciples who have reached the highest level’. e Lord himself has stated that
the worship of [this] tradition contains the very essence, saying ‘‘at which can be [achieved] in a
single month by one initiated into the tradition of the Siddhas can not be [achieved] in thousands of
years with all the diverse Mantras [of the lesser systems]’; Jayaratha on this: siddhakrameti siddhānām.
krtayugādikrame
. nāvatīr
. nānā
. m. śrīkhagendranāthādīnām. krame tatparamparāgatāyām. kulaprakriyāyām
ity arthah. ‘‘‘In the tradition of the Siddhas’’, that is to say, in the Kula system that was reached
us through the lineage of the Siddhas, namely Khagendranātha[, Kūrmanātha, Mes. anātha,] and
[Macchandanātha], who have descended into the world in the Kr. ta[, Dvāpara, Tretā] and [Kali] Ages
[respectively]’; .c–b: ittham. yāgam. vidhāyādau tādrśaucityabhāginam
. || laksaikīya
. m. svaśisya
. m.
tam. dīksayet
. tād rśe
. krame ‘After first performing worship in this manner he may initiate into this system
as it is [described here only] that extraordinary person among his disciples who is one in a hundred
thousand’. e idea that the Tantra system is the basic or default tradition to which the Kula is added
as a higher level for virtuosi is also conveyed by the fact that Jayaratha refers to it as the viśesaprakriyā.
in his -viveka on Tantrāloka .ab (śaivasya pañcapañcātmakasya ‘Of the teaching of Śiva, which
comprises five and five’ [as understood by Jayaratha]): pañcapañcātmakasyeti tantraprakriyayā vaktratayā
viśesaprakriyayā
. vāmeśyāditayā ca . . . ‘which comprises five and five, being embodied as the Tantra


kulaśāstram, kulaprakriyā) are distinguished from other Śaivas by being called Kaulas.
To refer to whatever pertains to the system the adjectives kaulah. and kaulikah. was
used. us, if we follow the terminology of the texts, we should speak of Kaula or
Kaulika (as opposed to Tāntrika) worship, Mantras, and so forth.
e scriptural sources that authorize this Śākta system were integrated into the
model of the five streams (srotāmsi)
. of revelation in two ways. e Kula was attributed
to a hidden a sixth stream emerging from Śiva’s nether ‘mouth’ (pātālavaktram,
picuvaktram), and a higher, essentializing form within the Kula, that differentiated
itself by calling itself the Kaula in the meaning ‘Essence of the Kula’, was said to
system in the [five] faces [of the five Streams] and as the special system in the [five goddesses of the
Krama, namely] Vāmeśvarī, [Khecarī, Gocarī, Dikcarī,] and [Bhūcarī]’.

See Tantrāloka .ab: pātālavaktram adharam aprakāśatayā sthiteh. ‘e pātālavaktram ‘the
mouth of the subterrranean paradise’ is ‘below’ [the other five] because it is hidden’; Tantrālokaviveka
thereon: picuvaktram. prakāśasamsparśāyogyatvād
. adharā ‘e Picu mouth is the nadir becasue it cannot
be reached by the light’; Tantrālokaviveka on .cd: picuvaktrāparaparyāyam. yoginīvaktram eva
mukhyacakram | tatraivaisa . ukto vaksyamā . no
. vā sampradāyo
. ’nus.theyo
. yatas tasmāj jñānam. samprāpyate
.
| parasamvitsamāveśo
. ’sya jāyata ity artha h
. ‘e principal centre is the ‘mouth of the Yoginī,’ otherwise
called the ‘Picu mouth’. It is in this [aperture] that the tradition that he has taught above and will
teach below should be put into practice, because this is the source from which enlightenment is
attained. In other words [it is here that] there arises for him the state of immersion in fully expanded
awareness’; and Tantrālokaviveka on . (śaivasya . . . sa . tsrotasa
. h. ‘the teaching of Śiva . . . which
comprises six streams’): sa . .tsrotasa iti picuvaktre na
. saha ‘comprising six streams, through the addition of
[that of] the Picu mouth’; the Kashmirian poet and lexicographer Maṅkha, Maṅkhakośa d: picuh.
syāt pāyutūlayoh. ‘e word picuh. in [the meaning] anus or cotton’; and the auto-commentary thereon:
pāyau | vijñānam etat picuvaktranirgatam | upahāsavisayam . etat; ‘[e word picuh] . means ‘anus’. [For
example, in the expression] ‘is knowledge came forth from the Picu mouth’, meaning that it is
ludicrous’. Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , A f. v–r: śr. nu
. tka . sa. s.tha
. m. yathā sthitam || *yadādhārāntare
(conj. : yad cārāmtale
. Cod.) *līna h
. (conj. : līna m
. Cod.) kālānalapadāntare | †prasaram. śāmbhavam† .
samyag dārayitvā tu *so daśa
. . (corr. : so dasa
. . . h Cod.) | ha thād
. devas tadā jñeyo hathakeśo
. mahābalah. |
prabhuh. sarvasya devo ’sau kulakaulaviśāradah. | rahasyagrāmam akhilam. tasmāt sarvam ihoditam |
mantrādimārgabhedena yad kimcit . samudāhrtam . | tad asmāt prabhaved devi vaktrāt pātālanāyakāt ‘Know
that he is the god Hat.hakeśa (= Hāt.akeśvara, the Lord of the Pātālas), the mighty lord of all, when
he is dissolved within the [Mūl]ādhāra, within the locus of Kālāgni [in the perineum] †the flow of
Śiva†, after he has violently (hathāt). rent the sixteen [centres along the central axis]. is god is expert
in the Kula and Kaula [Śāstras]. e entire multitude of the esoteric[, Kaula] teachings has emerged
from him. Whatever has been taught in the Mantramārga[, the Atimārga] and [the Kulamārga] has
come forth, O Devī, from this mouth that is [that of] the Lord of the Pātālas’. For Hāt.akeśvara’s role
as the Rudra of the Pātālas see, e.g., Tantrāloka .ab. e variant Hat.hakeśvara given here exists only
through th semantic analysis from hathāt. .

For this distinction see S b, pp. –; and for the meaning ‘essence of the Kula’
proposed here see Abhinavagupta, Parātrimśikāvivarana . pp. , l. –, l.  (=Tantrālokaviveka vol. ,
Āhnika , p. , ll. –): kule bhavam akulātma kaulam ‘the Kaula is that which resides within the Kula,
being of the nature of that beyond the Kula (deriving the kaulam following As.tādhyāyī . ..: tatrah.


have come forth from the upper face, either in place of the Siddhānta, the product
of that face in the model of the five streams, or in addition to it, by distinguishing
between an upper Saiddhāntika stream and an upper-upper Kaula stream.
A III   K
It will have been noticed that the practices of the Kulamārga that set it apart from the
Mantramārga are almost identical with those that I have outlined as distinguishing
the Kāpālika Atimārga III from Atimārga II. It is evident, then, that the Kulamārga
bhavah);. and Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , f. v-r: kule līnam akulam. rāvinīkulam
. tka . | tat kaulam.
kuladhāmastham. virāvayati garvinī . ‘[e Kālī] Rāvinī . is so called because full of pride she causes to
resound [in one’s consciousness] the Rāvinīkula,
. that is to say, the Kaula, which is the Akula dissolved
within the Kula, residing in the domain of the Kula’. Texts exemplying this Kaula essence of the Kula,
also called Mata, are the Bhairavakula, the Vīrāvalīkula, and the Niśātana, . which have reached us to
my knowledge only in the form of passages cited or paraphrased in the works of Kashmirian exegetes;
see Tantrāloka . and .c–, Tantrālokaviveka on the former, Parātrimśikāvivara . . p. ,
na,
ll. –.

e first Sa . of the Jayadrathayāmala gives an account of six Śaiva streams (srotāmsi)
. tka . of practice
that removes the Siddhānta, leaving the stream of the upper face (ūrdhvasrotah) . to Śiva as Akula and
the nether face (the pātālavaktram) to the Kula. Akula is defined here as transcendental Śiva untouched
by the specifics of the various Śaiva disciplines; and the Gurus who teach this tradition are described as
Bhairavas who have mastered the Krama gnosis’, suggesting that the text has in mind the higher Kaula
teaching of the Kālīkula that will be expounded in the subsequent Sa . t.kas of the work (A f. r–):
ūrdhvavaktrah. (conj. : ūvaktrah. Cod.) śāntagotrah. sr. s.tigocaravarjita
. h. | nirācārah. parah. śāntah. nirapekso
.
nirākulah. || vastuvijñānaviditavijñānācāragocarah. | samayācāranirmuktah. paramārthāvabodhakah. ||
jātivarnapadair
. hīnah. akulah. śiva uttamah. | svabhāvasthah. parah. śuddhah. paramānandabhairavah. |
tatrācārakramāyātā guravo ye maheśvarāh. || bhairavās te samākhyātāh. kramavijñānapāragāh. .

Abhinavagupta, Mālinīvijayavārttika .c–, interpreting a now lost Kaula source, the
Bhargaśikhā: devīvisr. s.tāś
. citrasamvida
. h. | yāvat tāvat tad ūrdhvordhvam. sroto yad bhedavarjitam ||
saurabhargaśikhādīni tatah. śāstrāni . tenire | uktam. bhargaśikhāyām. ca devena parames.thinā . || ūrdhva-
srotodbhavam. jñānam idam. tat paramam. priye | paramadhvaninordhvordhvasamvidrūpābhidhāyinā. ||
īśānavaktraniryātāt siddhāntād bhedam ādiśat ‘As long these diverse cognitions emitted by the goddesses
[of the Left Stream] [are manifest] the non-dual Upper-upper stream [is also present as their inner
ground]. From this the Saurabhargaśikhā and other [Kaula] scriptures emerged. And this has been
declared by Lord Śiva himself in that very text in the words ‘‘is, my beloved, is the highest gnosis
that arose in the upper stream’’. [For] by using the word ‘highest’ (paramam) he points to the reality
of an awareness that is even higher than [that of] the Upper [Stream] and in doing so conveys the
distinction between this and the [dualistic] Siddhānta that has emerged from the Īśāna face’. However,
in the Kālīkulapañcaśataka we find the nether face being said to be the source of both the Kula and the
Kaula, that is to say, both the Kulaśāstras and the Kaulaśāstras (M f. v, N f. r, P ff. v–r [.c–
]): śrutvā rasātalam. yātā yatra hātaka
. īśvarah. || tatra cakre pravis.tāha
. m. kaulajñānam anuttamam |
tadvaktrād devadevasya *kulakaulam. (NP : kulakaulād M) vinirgatam (M f. v, N f. r, P ff. v–r
[.c–]) ‘Having heard [that] I proceeded to the subterranean paradise, in which Hāt.akeśvara
presides. In that domain/centre I penetrated the supreme Kaula gnosis. It is from that face of Śiva that
the Kula-and-Kaula emerged’.


inherited and perpetuated the Atimārgic Śākta tradition, though no doubt if we
had access to properly Atimārgic Kāpālika materials we would see many points of
innovation and reform in the Kulamārga. One major difference at least has been
recorded, namely that the Kaulas rejected the external accoutrements of Atimārga
III. But even this reform was not universally adopted. For we know that followers
of the Krama form of Kaula worship, like followers of Śākta trends within the
Mantramārga, continued to take on the Kāpālika observance. We might also cite as an
innovation the introduction of collective, caste-promiscuous orgiastic rites, since to
my knowledge such rites are not clearly mentioned in accounts of Kāpālika practice.
But our sources for Atimārga III are too exiguous for much reliance to be placed on
such silences and a passing remark in the narrative literature may be alluding to just
this practice.
e proposition that the Kulamārga was indeed a later form, more or less re-
formed, of Atimārga III, is further supported by an otherwise unexplained detail
whose significance has been missed. is is the fact that there are several places in the
surviving literature in which the Kulamārga as the sixth stream of the Śaiva revelation
is actually referred to as the Atimārga.

See Tantrāloka .c–b, Jayaratha thereon, and passages in the Kulasāra and Kulapañcāśikā.
ese sources have all been cited and translated in S b, fn. . Add the Ānandaśāstra
quoted or paraphrased in Tantrāloka .c–c: tis.thed . avyaktaliṅgaś ca na liṅgam. dhārayet kvacit
|| na liṅgibhih. samam. kaiścit kuryād ācāramelanam | kevalam. liṅginah. pālyāh. ‘He should always be one
whose sect affiliation is invisible. He should wear no external symbol of his affiliation in any context.
He should never join in his observances with those who wear such symbols. His only duty is to protect
their interests’.

I refer to Brhatkathāślokasa
. mgraha
. .– (M , vol. , pp. –), in which
Budhasvāmin depicts a group of drunken Kāpālikas drinking together in a circle and inviting the
heroine Kundamālikā to join the group as the partner of whichever one of them she chooses.
Concerning Budhasvāmin’s date we have only the evidence of that of the earliest manuscript, which
the editor L̂ judged (, p. ) to have been penned in the twelfth or thirteenth century.
M (, vol. , p. ) reports that of the four known manuscripts two were written in Nepal
in the twelfth century and expresses the view that the great variation between the manuscripts allows
us to be confident that th author lived before .. .

See Jayadrathayāmala, Sa . , f. v (.ab), referring to the teachings of the nether,
. tka
sixth face: atimārga*gatam. (conj. : manam. Cod.) tattvam. hātake. samvyavasthitam
. ‘e reality of the
Atimārga is that [of the sixth stream,] located in Hāt.aka’; Abhinavagupta quoted at Tantrālokaviveka
vol. , Āhnika , p. , ll. –, describing the Guru Sumati as a master of the teaching of the
five streams together with [the sixth,] that of the Atimārga: kaś cid daksi . nabhūmipī
. thavasati
. h. śrīmān
vibhur bhairavah. pañcasrotasi sātimārgavibhave śāstre vidhātā ca yah. | loke ’bhūt sumatis . . . ; and
Tantrāloka ., on qualifications of candidates for the office of Ācārya: catuspātsa . mhitābhijñas
.
tantrās.tādaśatatpara
. h. | daśatantrātimārgajña ācārya sa vidhīyate ‘He is made an Ācārya who is fully
versed in the root-scripture in all four of its topics, and is [also] well-versed [both] in the eighteen
and ten Tantras [that are the canon of the Siddhānta] and in the Atimārga’. We may note that the


T Ś   L:  Ś C
Initiatory Śaivism depended for the creation and maintenance of its institutions on
the support of a laity of uninitiated devotees (upāsakah, . rudrabhaktah,. śivabhaktah, .

rudrāmśa
. .h, śivāmśa
. .h), who were probably always much more numerous than the
initiated even when initiation became accessible to householders; and for their guid-
ance a substantial literature arose headed by the Śivadharma and the Śivadharmottara.
e popularity of this literature is evident from the survival in such widely separated
regions as Nepal, Kashmir, Bengal, Tamilnadu, Maharashtra, and the Khmer king-
dom of Southeast Asia of numerous manuscripts, commonly of the whole corpus and
sometimes beautifully executed, and/or of references to these texts that indicate that
they were being followed.
e texts of this corpus, of which some or all are found together in single codices,
are, in addition to the Śivadharma and the Śivadharmottara, the Śivadharmasamgraha,.
the Umāmaheśvarasamvāda,
. the Uttarottaramahāsamvāda,
. the Śivopanisad,
. the Vr. sa-
.
sārasamgraha,
. the Dharmaputrikā, and the Lalitavistara.
As for the practice of the Śaiva laity, those following these texts were enjoined in
the Śivadharma to devote two fifths of their wealth to the religion, installing new
Liṅgas and images, founding and endowing new temples and monasteries (matha . h, .
tapovanam, śivāśramah), . funding the renovation or adornment of existing temples
and monasteries, providing wells, step-wells, tanks, shelters for pilgrims, and the
like, making smaller donations to fund various activities in a temple, sponsoring
chariot-processions, dancing, and other spectacles during temple festivals, donating
male and female servants to serve the deity, or such objects as bells, mirrors, chowries,
fabric, lamp-trees, banners, canopies, musical instruments, elephants, cows, or horses,
synonymous term Atinaya has been used to refer to the Krama Kaula system; see the commentary on
the Old Kashmiri Mahānayaprakāśa p. , ll. –: asmimś . cātinayasārasarvasve kramārthe ‘In this
Krama teaching that is the precious essence of the Atinaya’; and a verse from an unidentified source
on the Krama lineages quoted by Jayaratha in Tantrālokaviveka, vol.  (Āhnika ), p. , ll. –:
samtatayo
. ’tinayasya prathitā iha so
. daśaivettham
. ‘us there are sixteen lineages of the Atinaya that have
flourished here’.

For the Śaiva use of the term upāsakah. for a lay follower, as in Buddhist and Jaina usage,
see Bhat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha II, Mataṅgapārameśvaravrtti. on Vidyāpāda .c– cited below, p. ??; and
Kiranav . ad .d–: aprāptadīksā
. rtti . nām
. ivopāsakānām. bhagavadvisayastutinamaskārasaparyādy
. eva
nityam anus.theya
. m. yuktam ‘It is fitting that as in the case of lay devotees, who have not received
initiation, [such initiates] are obliged regularly to practise the recitation of hymns, prostrations, worship
and the rest directed to the Lord’. For the use of the terms rudrāmśa . h. and śivāmśa
. h. as synonyms of
rudrabhaktah. and śivabhaktah, . where these are distinguished from initiated Śaivas on the one hand
and from ordinary followers of Brahmanism on the other, see S , p. –, fn. .

Śivadharma ., = S f. v; W f. r-; P p.  [.]: tasmāt tribhāgam. vittasya jīvanāya praka-
lpayet | bhāgadvayam. ca dharmārtham anityam. jīvitam. yatah. ‘erefore one should assign three parts
of one’s wealth for one’s living costs and two for religious purposes. For life does not last for ever’.


feeding and making donations of equipment, medicaments and the like to Śaiva
ascetics, having a copy of a scripture prepared and donated to a monastery, sponsoring
recitations of sacred texts, and so on. ey were also expected to perform their own
personal Liṅga worship, to observe fasts, vigils, and other restrictions on all holy days
(parva), and to die within sites sanctified by Śiva’s presence (śivaksetram,
. śivāyatanam),
meditating on their deity to the end. e last chapter of the Śivadharma gives a list of
forty especially sacred sites, saying that those who die in any one of them will rise to
the paradise of Śiva (śivalokah, . as will any who make donations here to
. rudralokah),
worthy recipients or fund the construction of housing, wells, gardens, or shrines.
e Śivadharma and the Śivadharmottara were produced when initiatory Śaivism
was restricted to ascetics or at least in the context of that form of Śaivism, that is
to say, against an Atimārgic background. at the Śivadharmottara was written in
this context is evident from its instruction that there should be a shrine next to a
monastery’s hall for public instruction in which one should install an image of Śiva as
Lakulīśa, the first teacher of the Atimārga, described as the omniscient author of all
knowledge, seated in the lotus-posture, white [with ash], surrounded by his disciples
and their disciples, with his hand raised in the gesture of teaching (vyākhyānam); but

An edition of the portion of the text that lists these sacred sites and speaks of the benefits to be had
by dying or making donations there (.c–b) can be found in S , pp. –
(fn. ). See fn.  of the same and B , pp. – for the versions of this same list
found in numerous Tantric Śaiva texts. e list probably goes back to the Pāśupatas, since there is
evidence for most of not all of these sites that they were associated with that order; see B ,
p. , and cf. S , pp. – and G , p. .

Śivadharmottara C f. r–, W f. []v–[]r (.–, = Ed. – [āditah]): . trtī-
.
yāc ca purād ūrdhvam. vidyāvyākhyānaman. dapam
. | gavāksanirgamopeta
. m
. vicitram parikalpayet || *purā-
rdham. (CW : parārddham. Ed.) pañcamam. kāryam. śivasya vadabhīg . rham
. | sa
. d. dhastam
. *as.tadīrgha
. m.
(CW : as.tapa tta
. .. . m Ed.) vā dārupa ttanirmitam
.. || tatra m rddāruśailam
. vā sthāpayed vidhivac chivam
| sarvavidyāvidhātāram. sarvajñam. lakulīśvaram || vrta . m. śisyapraśi
. syaiś
. ca vyākhyānodyatapānikam . |
padmāsanastham. *suśvetam. (Ed. W : deveśam. C) prasannavadanam. gurum ‘Having made [this garden
of the Śivāśrama] he should have a high enclosing wall built beyond it equipped with a double door
and ceremonial gateway, with a ditch and canes [beyond it]. Beyond [this] third enclosure he should
construct an elegant pavilion for the exposition of scripture, equipped with windows and doors.
[Beyond that] occupying part of a fifth [and outermost] area he should built a barrel-vaulted Śiva
temple of wooden panels, six or eight cubits long. In it he should have installed with due ceremony
a terracotta, wooden, or stone [image of] the omniscient author of all the scriptures, the Guru Śiva
Lakulīśa, surrounded by his disciples and their disciples, perfectly white, seated on a lotus throne, with
benevolent face, his hand raised in [the gesture of] exposition’; and the Śivadharma, which evidently
preceded it, contains some archaic features, such as a reference to Śiva as having four faces (.–b:
śaśāṅkārdhadharas tryakso
. nāgayajñopavītakah. | caturmukhaś caturbāhuh. sitabhasmāvagun. thita . h. || varo
. varado devadevo maheśvarah. ), as in the Mahābhārata, (.., ..–, ..) rather
varenyo
than the classical five corresponding to the five Brahmamantras (personified as Tatpurus. a, Vāmadeva,
Aghora, Sadyojāta, and Īśāna) seen in the Sadāśiva, Bhairavas, and Devīs of Tantric Śaivism.


later texts of this corpus, such as the Śivadharmasamgraha
. and the Vr. sasārasa
. mgraha,
.
show awareness of the Mantramārga, in which Śaivism had diversified through its
expansion among householders; and the initiated Śaivas of this later form continued
to recognize the validity of the corpus, seeing no need to produce their own literature
for the laity, so that we find epigraphical evidence of institutions of both the earlier
and the later forms of the religion sponsoring the teaching of these texts. We may
H (, p. ) dates the Śivadharma to between ..  and , simply because it shows
no trace of Tantric influence. But that argument is ineffective, since it assumes without justification
that if Tantric Śaivism had existed at the time of composition it could not have failed to reveal itself in
any non-Tantric Śaiva text. B has shown (, p. ) that the Śivadharma knows Vināyaka
(Ganeśa)
. as the son of Pārvatī and that this has implications for the text’s date, since, as T̈̈
(, p. ) has pointed out when considering the addition of material on Ganeśa’s . parentage in the
. and Ambikākhan. da
Revākhan. da . recensions of the Skandapurāna, . the cult and image of Ganeśa
. are not
attested before about the fourth century, and the myth of his birth as a son of Śiva and Pārvatī is not
found in such demonstrably early Purānas . as the Vāyu.

us the Śivadharmasamgraha. shows evidence of dependence on the Niśvāsamukha (K
) and the Niśvāsaguhya (A ); and the Vr. sasārasa . mgraha
. distinguishes the Pāśupata
and the Śaiva, that is to say, the pre-Tantric and Tantric, as the two divisions of the Śaiva sacred
literature that may be studied by the pious devotee: pañcasvādhyayanam. kāryam ihāmutrasukhārthinā
| śaivam. sāmkhya
. m. purāna. m. ca smārtam. bhāratasamhitā
. || śaivatattvam. vicinteta *śaivapāśupatadvaye
(em. : śaivāh. pāśupatadvaye Ed. : śaivah. pāśupataye C [f. v] : śaivā pāśupate dvaye W [f. r]) ‘He
who desires happiness in this world and the next should study five [groups of texts]: the scriptures of
Śiva, the Sāmkhya,
. the Purānas,
. the Dharmaśāstra, and the Mahābhārata. He should contemplate the
reality taught by Śiva in both the Śaiva and the Pāśupata texts’.

A Kannada . inscription of ..  from the Bellary District of Karnataka records a Sinda
donation through Kālamukha Bālaśiva to fund class-readings of the Śivadharma (EI :, l. );
and EC  Sh , an inscription of .. , records that the donor, a Jain, made a grant to [the temple
of] Siddheśvara at Ededore
. after hearing the Śivadharma. Evidence of provision being made for the
recitation of the Śivadharma to the laity in institutions of the later form of Śaivism is found in eleventh-
century inscriptions recording donations to Saiddhāntika Śaiva temples in the Tamil South. Notable
are ARE  of  (SII :), which records that interest on an endowment is to be used to pay
for the exposition of the Śivadharma at the Tirunāgeśvaram temple in the anjavur District, and
ARE  and  of  (SII :), which record a grant of land to the temple of Tiruvā.līśvaram
in the Tirunelveli District to cover the expenses of conducting festivals, the feeding of brahmins, and
the reading of the Śivadharma. See also ARE  of , and  of . e aspiration of the
propagators of this literature was to reach as wide an audience as possible. us the Śivadharmottara
declares (.–; Ed., p. ): adhyāpayañ śanaih. śisyāñ. śivabhaktān prabodhayet | śivavidyānusārena .
vidyādānam. tad ucyate || samsk . rtai
. h. prākrtair
. vākyaih. yah. śisyān
. anurūpatah. | deśabhāsādyupāyaiś
. ca
. h. ‘As [the Guru] teaches [the text] he should, moving at a leisurely pace, ensure
bodhayet sa guruh. smrta
that the devotees of Śiva that are his pupils understand its meaning in harmony with Śiva’s scriptures.
is is what is meant by ‘the gift of knowledge’ (vidyādānam). at person is truly a Guru who instructs
his pupils in the manner suited to them, using Sanskrit, Prakrit, and such expedients as [exposition in]
the regional languages’.


compare in this regard the fact that when officiants of the Mantramārga became
involved like those of the Atimārga in the control of Śiva temples the iconographical
programme of such sites, with its many ancillary forms of Śiva and other deities,
remained largely unchanged, since it articulated not the theology and rituals of the
initiated but the devotional tradition of the more numerous laity.
Followers of the practices enjoined in this corpus of texts certainly come under
the term Śaiva in its broadest sense, but since they did not receive the initiation that
alone could lead to their liberation, and so could aspire only to find themselves after a
pious life translated to the paradise of Śiva for a long but finite period of time before
returning to the world, they cannot be considered Śaivas in the narrow sense even
though they too are followers of sacred texts believed to be authored by Śiva. In
Sanskrit usage such devotees are commonly called Māheśvaras rather than Śaivas,

For the evidence of this continuity in the Śaiva temple cult in inscriptions and in scriptures of the
Mantramārga that were concerned with the installation of images and the consecration of the temples
that housed them see S , pp. –.

Typically the devotee is said to be rewarded after his stay in Śiva’s paradise by being reborn as a
righteous monarch (dhārmiko rājā) or learned brahmin; see, e.g., Śivadharmottara C f. r– (.c–
): krīdate
. paramam. kālam. rudraloke vyavasthitah. | tatah. kālāt ksiti
. m. prāpya rājā bhavati dhārmikah.
| surūpah. sudvijo vāpi sarvavidyārthapāragah. ‘Residing in the world of Rudra he delights there for a vast
span of time. When that time is at its end he returns to earth and becomes a righteous monarch or an
excellent and handsome brahmin who has mastered the reachings of all the sciences’. But the texts also
offer the possibility that a person may achieve gnosis in that paradise after enjoying his reward there
and so be released without having to return into the world of men; see, e.g. Śivadharma C f. r–,
speaking of a person who has established a Liṅga: kulaikavimśad. uttārya rudraloke mahīyate || bhuktvā
vā vipulān bhogān pralaye samupasthite | jñānayogam. samāsādya sa tatraiva vimuñcati || atha vā rājyam
ākāṅksej . adhipatir vaśī ‘Having rescued [through the
. jāyate sa bhavāntare | saptadvīpasamudrāyāh. ksiter
merit he has earned] twenty-one generations [of his patriline] he is honoured [after death] in the world
of Rudra. Or after he has enjoyed vast rewards [there] he attains the Yoga of Gnosis when the [periodic]
dissolution occurs and [so] is released in that very [world]. Or, if he seeks sovereignty he becomes in
his next life the mighty monarch of the [whole] earth with its seven continents and oceans’.

us in inscriptions royal devotees of Śiva are generally termed paramamāheśvarah. ‘supremely
Māheśvara’, where -māheśvarah. means ‘devoted to Śiva’ (maheśvarabhaktah) . rather than ‘a follower
of the teachings of Śiva’, as parallel analytic expressions such as paramādityabhaktah. (/paramasaurah), .
paramabhagavadbhaktah. (/paramabhāgavatah) . and atyantasvāmimahābhairavabhaktah. make clear. See
S , p. , fn. . For māheśvarah. in this sense without the prefixed parama- see,
e.g., Kalhana,. Rājataraṅginī. ., ., . (mahāmāheśvarah), . and .; and Somadeva,
Kathāsaritsāgara .. I render the element parama- adverbially (‘supremely’ or ‘entirely’). In a
recent publication Michael Willis has assumed that it should be taken adjectivally, saying that the
epithet paramabhāgavatah. attached in Gupta inscriptions to the names of Candragupta and other
kings of that dynasty means ‘the supreme devotee of Vis. nu’ . (*paramo bhāgavatah), . and proceeds
from that to the assertion that the title is ‘‘an announcement of the king’s unique status within the
community of Vais. nava
. believers’’ (W , p. ). at he is wrong to read the epithet in this
way—I say nothing of the rest of his theory—is evident from the fact that we find the alternants


But that term is also used on occasion for initiated Śaiva. If we wish to have a term
that refers unambiguously to the uninitiated then we may follow our sources by using
the term Upāsaka, a usage shared with the Buddhists and Jains.

Ś  S/P


. W  R/Ś

. Mataṅgapārameśvaravrtti
. on Vidyāpāda .c–:
tataś cānanugrhītair
. api parinatamalatvād
. upāsakair anugrahasādhanaprāptini-
mittam. mataṅgamunineva pūrvam. śrutyādivihitena śivadharmoditena vā vidhinā
īśvaropāsanā kāryā.
. South-Indian : B’s  
Edition (B); Kashmirian :  and B’s  . .


tataś cānanugrhītair
. South-Indian , B : tataś cānugrhītair
. Kashmirian  •
munineva    , B : munireva  . : muneriva  • śrutyādi Kashmirian  : śrutau
South-Indian  B

Lay devotees (upāsakaih), . even though they have not yet been favoured [by
receiving initiation], are souls for whom the impurity [that prevents liberation]
is now approaching readiness to cease its effect. ey, like the sage Mataṅga,
should therefore worship the Lord in order to achieve [the initiation that is] the
instrument of [his] favour, doing so either with procedures ordained by Śruti or
by some other category [of the brahmanical scriptures] or with those ordained
in [the corpus headed by] the Śivadharma.

atyantabhāgavata- (S , pp. –, –) and atyantabhagavadbhakta- (CII :), in
which atyanta- can only have an adverbial sense, and the use of the unambiguously adverbial param
without compounding in the epithet param. bhagavatībhaktah. (EI :). Consider also the parallel
atyantadevabrāhmanabhaktena
. ‘supremely devoted to the gods and brahmins’. (EI :, l. ). Nor is
it the case that the expression is used only of reigning monarchs, as it ought to be if this reading were
correct. Bhat.t.a Vidyākan. t.ha has used paramamāheśvarah. to gloss the expression śivaikāhitacetaskah.
‘whose mind was fixed on Śiva alone’ describing the sage Maya, in his commentary on the
Mayasamgraha
. (Bhāvacūdāma
. . f. v–: śivaikāhitacetaskam. paramamāheśvaram). is adverbial use
ni
of parama- before an adjective is standard Sanskrit; cf., e.g., paramadhūrtah, . paramadhārmikah, .
paramasāttvikah. .

See, e.g., Vācaspatimiśra, Bhāmatī on Brahmasūtrabhāsya . ad .. cited above, p. ??.

See here p. ??.

e reading śrutyādivihitena accepted here (‘ordained by Śruti or by some other category [of the
brahmanical scriptures]’) is that of all available Kashmirian manuscripts, both the three used by B
and P (numeration A, f. r–). It is clearly preferable to the reading śrutau adopted by the editor
on the strength of South-Indian manuscripts alone.


. Kirana,
. Vidyāpāda .d-:
jñatvād doso . mahān bhavet ||
tena tesā
. m. vimuktih. syād dīksayā
. bhaktiyogatah. |
ye ’tra śaktā na tesām
. . tu śodhyās tesā
. m. prakāśayet ||
[But] if they have understanding there is a great penalty [for avoidance of their
duties]. So [only] those [who are without understanding] can obtain liberation
through the practice of devotion [alone]. [e post-initiatory obligations] may
not be eliminated for those who are capable of adopting them. To such persons
[the officiant] must disclose them.

. Rāmakan. t.ha explains:

jñatvam atra śaktatvam eva yathāha ye ’tra śaktā na tesā . m. dīksayā


. śodhyāh.
. kim.
tu nityānus.theyatvena
. prakāśayed iti. tataś ca śaktatve sati ye nityādyanus.thāna
. m.
na kurvanti tesā . m. mahān doso . prāyaścittalaksa
. no
. bhavet. nāśaktānām iti. tarhi
kim. tair nityam anus.theyam.
. laukikena vā rūpena. śivadharmoditena vā yathāśakti
devagurutadbhaktaparicaranādikam
. eva svata h
. putrabhrtyādipre
. sa
. nena
. vā. tad
eva ca tesā
. m. prāguktajñānādikakrtya
. m. sādhayati yathāha bhaktiyogata iti
Here[, in d,] ‘understanding’ means ‘capability’; for he has said [in cd]
that [the post-initiatory rules] may not be removed in the case of those who are
capable of them, but must be revealed [by the officiant] as [the initiate’s] lifelong
obligations. It follows that those who are capable but nonetheless neglect their
regular and other duties incur the great disadvantage of having to expiate this
offence. is is not the case for those who are incapable [of these duties]. So
what are the obligations of such persons during the rest of their lives? ey have
only to attend on Śiva, the Guru, and those devoted to them to the extent of
their ability, either in the mundane form or in that laid down in the Śivadharma
[corpus], either in person) or by sending their sons, servants and the like [to
do so in their name]. And this will be sufficient to achieve for them what the
aforesaid knowledge[, ritual, meditation] and [ascetic observance] achieve [for
other initiates]. is is why he has said [that they obtain liberation] through
the practice of devotion [alone].

. at ‘mundane’ here means ‘brahmanical’ in the broad sense that encompasses
both Śruti and Smr. ti is clear from a passage in the Mataṅgapārameśvara, which
distinguishes between ‘mundane’ and Śaiva observance in a context in which
the former can only have this meaning, and from Rāmakan. t.ha’s commentary
on that passage, which explains that it is referred to in that passage as well-
known (prasiddhah). because it is based on the injunctions of Śruti and Smr. ti:


ācāro dvividha (.a) ityādi. tatra prathamah. ka ity āha: laukikah. sa prasiddha
(.a) ityādi. yo ’yam. brāhmanādivar
. nabhedenācāra
. h. so ’yam utpattiśis.taśrutism
. r-
.
tiśāstramūlatvena prasiddha eva dīksitair
. api pālyah.
.
. on Caryāpāda .–, P f. v– in numbered folio se-
Mataṅgapārameśvaravrtti
quence D

[Next] the passage that begins with the words ‘‘observance is of two kinds’’. He
explains the first of these two in the passage that begins ‘‘the mundane is that
which, being known to all, . . . ’’. He means that this form of observance, which
is different according to the category to which the caste of the observer belongs,
depending upon whether he is a brahmin[, a Ks. atriya,] or [a Vaiśya], [and]
which is universally known because it is based on the authoritative (utpattiśi-
. teachings of Śruti and Smr. ti, should be maintained by initiates too.
s.ta-)

In this way the Śaivas constructed a model whereby their religion though tran-
scending Brahmanism could be seen as possessing propaedeutic forms within that
religion through which those with the appropriate inspiration could ascend from
within it to transcend its limitations.

T A   R   M


e epigraphic record reveals that the Atimārga continued to prosper after the rise
of the Mantramārga. But it was through the latter, with its greater social reach

ere is evidence in inscriptions that Pāñcārthika Pāśupatas were in control of major Śaiva centres
in Gujarat and Rajasthan during the period of the expansion of the Mantramārga up to at least the end
of the thirteenth century; see O̂ , pp. –, of .. ; EI : of ; EI : of ;
IA , pp. –, v. ; CPSI  (Somnath-Pattan in Kathiawar); EI : of  (Hars. anātha near
Jaipur); EI : of  (Pāldī
. near Udaipur); D́ , inscriptions  of  (Chittorgadh)
. and 
of  (Achalgadh . on Mt. Abu) with reference to Eklingji near Udaipur; EI : of  (Chīravā,
near Udaipur) with reference to the same; IA , pp. –, of / (Mt. Abu); PRASI, WC,
–, pp. –, of  (Godvā . d. in the old Jodhpur State). ereafter we find little evidence
of these ascetics. But an undated inscription of about  on a pilaster near the temple of Pañceśvara
at Kārvān. (Kārohana,. Kāyāvarohana),
. the site venerated as the place where Śiva incarnated himself
as Lakulīśvara, records that a certain Vīrabhadrarāśi observed a vow of silence here for twelve years
(PRASI, WC, –, p. ). e evidence of the name in -rāśi combined with that of the site leaves
no doubt that this person was a Pāśupata ascetic.
Kālamukha inscriptions are numerous in Karnataka, Andhra, and Tamilnadu, particularly in the
first (L , pp. –), spanning the period from the ninth century to the middle of the
thirteenth.
As for the Somasiddhāntins, we have already seen evidence of their authority in Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh in the eleventh and the twelfth centuries. We may add an inscription of
 from Kollapur in the Kollapur Taluk (IAPMD :) recording the founding of a jalaliṅgam
by the Mahāsthānādhipati of Pūn. divāli
. (ll. –), a Dravidācārya
. of the lineage of Kapālīśvara


and breadth of function, above all in its Saiddhāntika form, opening up initiation
to the married and Śūdras without requiring that they become ascetics, performing
ceremonies of initiation for kings, taking on the role of the royal preceptor (Rājaguru),
developing a pan-Indian monastic network, colonizing the Śaiva temple cult in many
regions, and accommodating brahmanical traditions, that Śaivism achieved its greatest
impact in the Indic world. It is probably for such reasons also that a vast amount
of Mantramārgic literature in the form of scriptures, commentaries, independent
treatises, and ritual manuals has come down to us but comparatively little from
the Atimārgic systems. Moreover, it appears that during the centuries of their co-
existence with the Mantramārga, the Atimārga’s officiants broadened the range of
their services along the lines introduced by the Saiddhāntika Mantramārga, offering
initiation to kings, functioning as their Rājagurus, and consecrating temples and
images, a development that may well have been vital to their survival.

. Initating kings entered the repertoire of the Pāñcārthika Pāśupatas is evident


from the Somnāthpattan Praśasti of .. . ere we learn that the
Pāśupata ascetic Bhāvabr. haspati, who eventually came to preside over the great
Śaiva temple-city of Somanātha (Someśvara) on the coast of Kathiawar, set out
from his home in Benares not only to go on pilgrimage but also to initiate kings
and to promote the welfare of Pāśupata establishments (v. ):

tīrthayātrāvidhānāya bhūbhujām . dīksa


. nāya
. ca |
sthānānām. raksa
. nārthāya
. niryayau sa taponidhih. ||

(kapālīśvarakulatilakam. dravi.lācāryya [ll. –]) who is described as a master of the Somasiddhānta


(somasiddhāntapārāvāra- [ll. –]); an inscription of  from Ranakunda in the Raichur District,
which records a gift of land to the god Karneśvaradeva
. and grants made to the mahābrati (Mahāvratin)
Davanaśivabhat.āra by Mahāman. daleśvara
. Ammanadeva, who was administering the Nittarave , and
Mahāsāmanta Kannarasa of the Sinda family (IAR –, p. , no. ); inscriptions from the tenth
to the twelfth centuries that attest the authority of Somasiddhāntin Mahāvratins during that period
at Tiruvorriyur in Co.lanādu,. near Chennai (EI :); and A record of Vīrapān. dya . dated in ..
 from Pa.l.limadam
. states that Mahāvratins were in charge of the sepulchral temple (pa.l.lipadai)
.
of Sundarapān. dya
. (Sundarapā ndyeśvara)
.. at Tirucculiyal (Tiruchuli), south of Madurai in Pān. dinā
. du .
(SII : and ). A record from the sepulchral temple Ādityeśvara built by the Co.la Parāntaka over
the remains of his father Āditya Co.la (r. –) shows that it was maintained by the Mahāvratins
(SII :). An inscription from Rāmanāthankōvil (near Kumbhakonam), . dated in year  of Rājendra
Cō.la (r. –) reports that Pañcavanmādevī-īśvaram, the site of the record, the sepulchral temple
of Pañcacanmādevī, queen of Rājarāja I, was maintained by a Mahāvratin Mat.ha whose pontiff was
Lakulīśapan. dita
. (ARE –, pp. –); and a record of Rājendracō.la from Mēlpādi, . dated in
year  of his reign, states that Lakulīśapan. dita,
. presumably the same, was looking after the affairs of
the sepulchral temple of Ariñjigai-īśvaram (SII :).

On these aspects of Saiddhāntika activity see S a, pp. –.

O̂ .


After reaching Dhārā, the capital of Mālava, where he came to be venerated by
the Pāśupata ascetics there as though he were Lakulīśa reincarnate, he made the
Paramāra princes his disciples and promoted the interests of the local Pāśupata
monasteries ( v. b):

nītāh. śisyapada
. m. pramārapatayah. samyaṅ mathā
. h. pālitāh.
.

In the light of the earlier statement that his purpose was to initiate kings it is
clear that he made the Paramāras his disciples by granting them initiation.
. Several inscriptions from Karnataka show us Kālamukha Ācāryas occupying
the office of Rājaguru. See, e.g., IA , pp. – (Vāmaśaktideva, Rājaguru
of Kalacuri Samkamadeva
. and pontif of the Daks. inakedāreśvara
. temple in
Ba.l.ligāve, .. ), ARE  of –, = KI , pp.  ff. (Sarveśvaradeva,
Rāyarājaguru of the Yādava Khad. dararāya
. of Devagiri, .. ), SII :
(Indraśivadeva, Rājaguru and pontif of Śobhaneśvara at Mulugunda and other
Śiva temples in the Seven-and-a-half-lakh country, .. , during the reign
of Vikramāditya VI of the Western Cālukya dynasty of Kalyāna),
. and EC  Sb 
(Rājaguru Sarveśvaraśaktideva).
. Consecration of temples and images (pratis.thā).
. Indirect evidence:
() Kashmirian Brhatkālottara
. and the south-Indian Kāmikāgama insist that
the adherents of the Atimārga are not qualified to officiate in such rituals and
that only those of the Mantramārga may do so; see citations in S
a, p. , fn. –.
() Saiddhāntika Jñānaśiva, Jñānaratnāvalī, p.  (twelfth century):

 śaivaih. samsthāpita
. m. pūjyam. bhautikair nais.thikair
. api |
sadā pāśupatair varjyam. somasiddhāntasamsthitai
. h
. ||
 tathā kālamukhair varjyam. caturthāśramasamsthitai. h. |
ity etair sthāpitam. liṅgam. nārcayen nābhivādayet ||
 uddhrtyānyat
. tu samsthāpya
. m. yad vā tad gunavad
. yadi |
mantrais tad eva samsk. . rtya puna h sa
. . msthāpayed guru h. ||
b nais.thikair
. em. : naindrijair Cod. c pāśupatair em. : pāśupatam. Cod. d samsthitai
. h.
em. : samsthite
. Cod. a kālamukhair varjyam. em. : kā.lāmupaijyañca Cod. b caturthā-
śramasamsthitai
. h. (corr. : caturthamśramasa
. msthita
. h. Cod. a uddhrtyānyat
. corr. : uddhr-
.
tyānyam. Cod. • samsthāpya
. m
. corr. : samsthāpya
. Cod.

[Only] a Liṅga that has been installed by Śaivas, either householders or un-
married, may be worshipped. One should avoid any that has been installed by


Pāśupatas, adherents of the Somasiddhānta, Kālamukhas, or Sannyāsins. One
should not present worship to it or [even] offer respectful salutation. It should
be removed and another installed [in its place]. If it is of fine quality the Guru
[need not remove it but] may simply purify it with [the appropriate] Mantras
and then re-install it.

() e east-Indian Saiddhāntika Vairocana, Laksa


. nasamuccaya
. .:

dvijair bauddhair magair nagnaih. kaulair lākulakārukaih. |


liṅgam. vā śilpibhir nyastam. punahsa
. mskāram
. arhati ||
b lākulakārukaih. em. : lākulakārakaih. Ed.
Any Liṅga that has been installed by a [Vaidika] brahmin, a Śākadvīpīya brah-
min, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Kaula, a Lākula, a Kāruka, or the artisan [who has
fashioned it] must be reconsecrated [by a qualified officiant of the Mantramārga
in one or other of its five streams].

A  O   A


Ācāryas’ non-conformity to the requirements of the ascetic disciplines of the Atimārga:
. e inscriptions that mention Kālamukha Ācāryas make no reference to any of
the practices attributed to them by Yāmuna and Rāmānuja.
. ere is material evidence that suggests that the pontifs of Atimārga II did
not display the outré accoutrements expected from the textual evidence. See
the images of Śaiva ascetics, almost certainly of this tradition, reproduced in
D , figures , , , , , and .
. In Mahārāja Bhulun. da’s
. grants (.. –) we are told that Pāśupatas are
living on and cultivating temple lands. 

G (, p. ) accounts for the discrepancy by proposing that by the twelfth century,
the period of the great majority of our Kālamukha records, the Kālamukha order had purged itself of
its more objectionable practices or at leasr suppressed them. L reports this view but counters
it (, p. ) by pointing out that there is no trace of these practices even in the earliest of the known
Kālamukha records, that of .. .

CPHGPB , ll. –: devakīyakarsakā
. h. kr. santo
. vapantah. pāśupatā āryacoksā. h. devaprasādakāś ca; ,
ll. –: devāgrāhārabhuktyā pāśupatadevaprasādakādyānām. devatārtham. upabhuñjatām. kr. satā . m. ca; ,
ll. –: pāśupatadevaprasādakādyānām. ucitayā devāgrāhārabhuktyā bhuñjatām. kr. satā . m. ca; , ll. –:
devāgrāhārabhuktyā bhuñjatām. devaprasādakapāśupatādyānām; , ll. –: ucitayā devāgrāhārabhuktyā
taddevakulāśritāh. pāśupatācāryabhagavacchis.tādayo
. devakarminaś
. ca bhuñjānāh. samāvāsayānāś ca;
and , ll. –: ācāryabhagavacchis.tapāśupatadevakarmāntikadevaprasādakā<nā>m
. evam idānīm esā . m.
bhuñjatām. kr. satā
. m. pradiśatāmś
. ca.


. In the same we learn that the Pāśupatācārya Bhagavat Lokodadhi had estab-
lished a temple for the Mothers,
. In the Mathura inscription (.. /) we learn that the Ārya Uditācārya has
established two Śivas with the names of his Guru and his Guru’s Guru.
None of this is consistent with the rule, much stressed by Kaun. dinya
. in
the Pañcārthabhāsya,
. that the Pāśupata ascetic must be without possessions
(nisparigraha
. . other than the items required for his observance, and that
h)
his only permitted source of sustenance is food given to him on his begging
round.
. Atimārgic Gurus held office as Rājagurus in spite of Pañcārthabhāsya,
. p. :
samvyavahāraś
. ca dvividhah.
. tad yathā krayavikrayasamvyavahāro
. rājakulasam-
.
vyavahāraś ceti
e interaction [that must be avoided] is of two kinds: buying and selling, and
dealings with the royal family.

. Ganakārikāratna
. . p. , ll. –:
tīkā

kim. nu bhagavan pañcārthasamastaniyogānupālanād eva duhkhānta . h. prāpyata


iti. ucyate. na kevalam. tatah. kim. tu samastaniyogānus.thānaśaktivikalenāpi
. brā-
hmanaviśe
. sānām
. . . .śisyatvenopagatānā m
. samyaganugrahakara nād
. api du hkhānta
. h.
prāpyate. kasmāt. sampradāyarak
. sa
. .nāt. sampradāya
. m. pālayatā hi tatsa mpradā-
.
yasāmarthyena duhkhānta
. m. gamisyatā
. m. bahūnām api duhkhānta
. h. sampādito
.
bhavati. tato ’nantaphalapunyopacaya
. h.
. tato yogaprāptau prasādād duhkhānta
. iti.

CPHGPB , ll. –: asya bhagavallokodadhipāśupatācāryapratis.thāpitakapiñcchikānakagrāma-
.
mātrsthānadevakulasya
. ....

EI :, ll. –: bhagavatkuśikād daśamena bhagavatparāśarāc caturthena bhagavatkapilavimala-
śisyaśi
. sye . na
. bhagavadupamitavimalaśisye . na
. āryoditācāryena
. svapunyāpyāyananimitta
. m. gurūnā
. m. ca kīrty-
artham upamiteśvarakapileśvarau gurvāyatane guru [. . . ] pratis.thāpitau
. ‘In order to augment his own
merit and for the sake of the fame of the Gurus [of this line] Ārya Uditācārya, tenth in descent from
Bhagavat Kuśika, fourth in descent friom Bhagavat Parāśara, grand-disciple of Bhagavat Kapilavimala,
and disciple of Bhagavat Upamitavimala, has had an Upamiteśvara and a Kapileśvara installed in the
Guru temple’. e editor, D. R. Bhandarkar, suggests that the lacunose part of this text might be
restored as gurupratimāyutau. I see no evidence in favour of this conjecture, and the editor himself
offers none.

See, e.g., Pañcārthabhāsya
. on ., ., ., and .; Samskāravidhi
. : hiranyavastradārādī
. ms
.
tyajasveti yadrcchayā
. | iti brūyād gurus tam. vai ‘e [initiating] Guru should tell him voluntarily to
abandon his gold, clothing, wife, and all other [possessions]’; ab: dravyabhāvāgnisamnyāsa. m. krtvā
.
‘Having renounced possessions, mundane sentiments, and fire . . . ’.


O Lord, is the observance of all the injunctions of the Pañcārtha the only means
of attaining the end of suffering?
No, that is not the only means. It is also possible for a person to attain it even
though he does not have the capacity to put all those injunctions into practice,
if [as a holder of the office of Ācārya] he properly favours [through initiation
and the rest] such outstanding brahmins as approach him as candidates.
Why?
Because he is [thereby] safeguarding the tradition. For by doing so he enables
many who seek to attain the end of suffering through the power of that tradition
to achieve their goal. By this means he accumulates merit that will bestow
infinite reward. It is through this [merit] that he will attain union [with Rudra]
and thence, through [Rudra's] favour, the end of suffering.

. Ganakārikāratna
. . p. , ll. –:
tīkā

gurur ācāryah. śraddhāvatām āśraminā


. m. darśanasambhā
. sa
. nādibhir
. api pāpaghnah.
punyātiśayakārī
. ca.
e Guru, the Ācārya, also destroys his sins and generates exceptional merit
by such [actions] as giving audience to committed lay believers and conversing
with them.

. Śivadharmottara vv. c–b (=.–b):

 mahatā janasaṅghena purataś ca mahīpatih. |


dharmavrddhyai
. svayam. gacchet sarvaśobhāsamanvitah. ||
 athavā hastiyānastham. krtvā
. pustakam ānayet ||
rājamārgena. mahatā nagarāntah. pradaksi. nam
. ||
. h. ||
sarvāyatanapūjām. ca svadhanaih. kārayen nrpa
 mahīpatih. corr. : mahīpateh. Ed.  nagarāntah. conj. : nagarāntam. Ed.

and – (.–):

 sthāne susamsk. rte


. ramye śivasya puratah. śanaih. |
sthāpayitvā gurum. bhaktyā tam. pranamya. nivedayet ||
 śāntyartham ekam adhyāyam. gobrāhmanamahībh . rtām
. |
rās.triyanagarā
. . m. ca vācayed vācakottamah. ||

 chandolaksa . natattvajña
. h. satkavir madhurasvarah. |
gāndharvavid vidagdhaś ca śres.tha . h. pustakavācakah. ||
 śāntitoyena rājānam. samutthāya gurus tatah. |
śirasy abhyuksayed
. īśam. tatrastham. ca janam. tatah. ||


 avadhārya jagacchāntim. punar ante nrpasya . ca |
ācāryabhojanam. cātra nrpa
. .h kuryāt sadak si
. .nam ||
 svayam atraiva bhuñjīta sāntahpuraparicchada
. h. |
kāryā ca bahudhā preksā. bhuktavatsu janesu . ca ||
 evam. krte. mahāśāntir nrpasya
. nagarasya ca |
deśasya ca samastasya jāyate nātra samśaya
. h. ||
 ītayaś ca praśāmyanti na ca mārī pravartate |
śāmyanti sarvaghorāni. praśamanti bhayāni ca ||
 unmūlyante grahāh. sarve pranaśyanti
. ca śatravah. |
upasargāh. pralīyante na durbhiksabhaya
. m. bhavet ||
 rājyavrddhiś
. ca vipulā nityam . ca vijayī nrpa
. h. |
vardhate putrapautraiś ca matir dharme pravartate ||
 īśam. corr. : īsa
. t. Ed.  janam. corr. : jalam. Ed.  bahudhā preksā
. conj. : vivi-
dhā proktā Ed.

ABBREVIATIONS

ARE = Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy


CII = Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum.
CPHGPB = A Copper-plate Hoard of the Gupta Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh.
→R and T 
CPSI = A Collection of Prakrit and Sanskrit Inscriptions. → P n.d.
EC = Epigraphia Carnatica
EFEO = École française d’Extrême-Orient
EI = Epigraphia Indica
GOS = Gaekwad’s Oriental Series
IA = Indian Antiquary
IAPMD = Inscriptions of Andhra Pradesh, Mahabūbnagar District. → M and
N 
IAR = Indian Archaeology: A Review
IFI = Institut français d’Indologie
IFP = Institut français de Pondichéry
IFP T = Paper Devanāgarī transcript in the collection of of the IFP
KI = Karnatak Inscriptions. → P –
KSTS = Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies
LKA = Licchavikālakā Abhilekha. → V 
NAK = National Archives, Kathmandu


NGMPP = Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel Number
PRASI-WC = Progress Report of the ASI, Western Circle
SI  and  = Select Inscriptions. → S  and 
SII = South Indian Inscriptions
REFERENCES

Titles of Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Pali Works

K of Somadeva, ed. Pan. dit


. Jagadīś Lāl Śāstrī. Delhi: Motilal Banar-
sidass, .
K. M = Kathmandu, Kaiser Library,  (‘Kālikākushe’), NGMPP
C /: palm-leaf; proto-Bengali script; [Laks. manasa
. mvat]
.  (=a year between
..  and ); N = NAK - (‘Kālīkulapañcaśataka’), NGMPP B /:
palm-leaf; Newari script; undated, probably fourteenth century; P = NAK –
(‘Kālikākulakramārcana’), NGMPP A /: paper; Newari script; undated, probably
seventeenth century.
K
. with the commentary (-vrtti)
. of Bhat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha II. → G .
G
. with the commentary (-ratnatīkā),
. ed. C. D. Dalal. GOS . Baroda:
Central Library, .
J, S . 
. . A = NAK -: palm-leaf; ‘Pāla-Sena’ Devanāgarī; no
date; B = NAK -, NGMPP B /: paper; Nepalese Devanāgarī; S . 
. .
NAK -, NGMPP A /: paper; Devanāgarī; no date; S 
. . . NAK –,
NGMPP B /; palm-leaf; ‘Pāla-Sena’ Devanāgarı̄; no date, c. th century; S
. 
.
. NAK –, NGMPP B /: paper; Newari script; penned in .. /.
J of Jñānaśivācārya. IFP T .
T of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (-) of Rājānaka Jayaratha,
ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. KSTS , , , , , ,, , , , . Bombay
and Srinagar, –.
N with the commentary (Netroddyota) of Rājānaka Ks. emarāja, ed. Mad-
husūdan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS , . Bombay,  and .

P
. 
. of Abhinavagupta. Editions: → G ; ed. Mukunda
Rāma Śāstrī. KSTS . Bombay, .
P with the commentary (P. ) of Bhagavat Kaun. dinya,.
ed. R. Anantakrishna Sastri. TSS . Trivandrum: University of Travancore, .


B.  of Śaṅkara with the commentary B of Vācaspatimiśra,
the subcommentary K of Amalānanda, and the sub-subcommentary P-
 of Appayadīks. ita, ed. Anantakrishna Sastri. Second edition, ed. Bhārgav Sāstrī,
Bombay: Nirnaya
. Sāgara Press, .
B of Vācaspatimiśra. → B. .
B. 
. of Bhat.t.a Vidyākan. t.ha. Raghunath Temple Manuscripts Library,
Jammu, : paper; Kashmirian Devanāgarī.
M:
 Der Maṅkhakośa herausgegeben mit Auszügen aus dem Commentare
und drei Indices, ed. eodor Zachariae. Vienna: Hölder and Bombay: Education
Society’s Press, Byculla, .
M (Vidyāpāda) with the commentary of Bhat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha
II, ed. N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI . Pondicherry: IFI, ; M-
 (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda) with the commentary of
Bhat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha II, ed. N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI . Pondicherry: IFI,
. Manuscript: P = BORI  of –: paper; Śāradā script.
M of Śitikan. t.ha (Old Kashmiri) with a Sanskrit commentary, ed.
Mukunda Rām Śāstrī. KSTS . Bombay, .
M. For the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar, with the
cooperation of S. K. Belvalkar, A. B. Gajendragadkar, V. Kane, R. D. Karmarkar,
P. L. Vaidya, S. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman, and other scholars and illustrated by
Shrimant Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi. (Since  ed. S. Belvalkar).  volumes. Pune:
BORI, –.
M of Abhinavagupta. Editions: Madhusudan Kaul Sjastri. KSTS
, Srinagar, ; [M] → H .
Y. ASB G : palm-leaf; Newari script; no date.
R. of Kalhana, . ed. M.A. Stein. Reprint. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar
Lal, . First published in .
L. 
. of Vairocana: Pratis.thālak
. sa
. nasārasamuccaya,
.  parts, ed. Dāmo-
daraśarman and Bābukr. s. naśarman.
. Kathmandu: Rās. t.riyābhilekhālaya, Vikrama 
and  [..  and ].
Ś ed. → N . Manuscripts: C = ULC Add. ; palm-
leaf, Nepalese script, penned in .. /; contains Śivadharma, Śivadharmottara,
Śivadharmasamgraha,
. Śivopanisad,
. Umāmaheśvarasamvāda, . Uttarottara, Vr. sasārasa
. m-
.

e manuscripts used for the IFI edition have the commentary only up to Kriyāpāda .. e
commentary in this manuscript extends further, preserving that on the rest of the Kriyāpāda (.–
.), the whole of the Yogapāda (.–.), and the Caryāpāda up to ., lacking only that from
Caryāpāda . to the end (.).


graha, and Dharmaputrikā; S = ORLS  (‘Śivadharmacarita’, called Nandike-
śvarasamhitā
. Śivadharmaśāśtra in the chapter colophons): paper; Śāradā script; no
date; P = IFP T ; W = WIHM, shelved at δ ; paper; modern Devanāgarī
transcript of a Newari palm-leaf manuscript; contains Śivadharma, Śivadharmottara,
Śivadharmasamgraha,
. Umāmaheśvarasamvāda,
. Uttarottaramahāsamvāda,
. Śivopanisad,
.
Vr. sasārasa
. mgraha,
. and Dharmaputrikā.
Ś ed. → N . Manuscripts: C → Ś C;
W → Ś W; P = IFP T .
S.
. → A .

Authors

A, Diwakar. Ed. transl. . e Samskāravidhi:


. A Manual on the Transfor-
matory Rite of the Lakulīśa-Pāśupatas. In G and P , pp. –.
B, Hans T. . e Vākātakas.. An Essay in Hindu Iconology. Groningen: Egbert
Forsten.
B, Peter C. . Early Śaivism and the Skandapurāna: . Sects and Centres.
Groningen Oriental Series . Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
D, Bruno. . Entre Alampur et Śrīśailam: recherches arch´ eologiques en Andhra
Pradesh. Publications de l’IFI . Pondicherry: IFI.
D́, Kavi Ráj Shyámal. . e Antiquity and Genuineness of the Epic called e
Prthí Ráj Rásá, and commonly ascribed to Chand Bardáí. Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal , pp. –. Pp.  and -: Chauhān inscriptions.
G, G. S. with the collaboration of L. N. Chapekar. . Indian Sādhus. nd
ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. First edition Bombay: Popular Book Depot, .
G Dominic. . Bhat.ta . Rāmakan. tha
. II’s Commentary on the Kiranatantra.
.
Volume I: chapters –. Critical edition and annotated translation. Publications du
département d’Indologie .. Pondicherry: IFP / EFEO.
––––––. . e Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta. A Critical Edition
and Annotated Translation. Collection Indologie . Pondicherry: IFP / EFEO.
G, Dominic and André P. Eds. . M´ elanges tantriques a` la m´
emoire
d’H´ el`
ene Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of H´ ene Brunner. Collection Indologie
el`
. Pondicherry: IFI / EFEO.
H, Rajendra Chandra. . e Śiva-dharma. Purāna . , pp. – [= Journal
of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute  (–), pp. –].
J, Jagat Pati and A. K. S. . Mansar Excavations -: e
Discovery of Pravarapur. Purāmanthan : Current Advances in Indian Archaeology 
(Pravarapur Issue).


K, Nirajan. . ‘On the rewriting of the Niśvāsamukha to create part of the
Śivadharmasaṅgraha’. Handout, Second International Workshop on Early Tantra,
École française d’Extrême-Orient, Pondicherry, June .
L̂, Félix. . Essai sur Gunā . dhya
. et la Brhatkathā:
. suivi du texte inédit des
chapitres XXVII à XXX du Nepāla-māhātmya. Paris: Leroux.
L, David N. . e Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Two Lost Śaivite Sects, New
Delhi: omson. nd revised ed.
M, Sir James. . e Emperor of the Sorcerers by Budha·svamin.  volumes.
Clay Sanskrit Library. New York University Press and the JJC Foundation. An edition
and translation of the Brhatkathāślokasa
. mgraha
. of Budhasvāmin.
O̂, Vajeshaṅkar G. . e Somanāthpattan Praśasti of Bhāva Br. haspati. With an
introduction by G. Bühler. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Morgenlandes , pp. –.
S, Richard. . New Inscriptional Evidence for the History of the Aulikaras
of Mandasor. IIJ , pp. –.
S, Alexis. . Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions. In e World’s Religions,
edited by S. Sutherland et al. (London: Routledge), pp. –. Reprinted in e
World’s Religions. e Religions of Asia, edited by F. Hardy (London: Routledge, ),
pp. -.
––––. . e Śaiva Religion Among the Khmers, Part I. Bulletin de l’Ecole française
eme-Orient  (–), pp. –.
d’Extrˆ
––––. b. A Commentary on the Opening Verses of the Tantrasāra of Abhinav-
agupta. In Sāmarasya. Studies in Indian Arts, Philosophy, and Interreligious Dialogue,
edited by Sadananda Das and Ernst Fürlinger (New Delhi: D.K. Printworld), pp. –
.
––––. a. e Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In G and P , pp. –
 and (bibliography) pp. –.
––––. a. e Śaiva Age: An Explanation of the Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
during the Early Medieval Period. In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by
Shingo E (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo), pp. –
.
––––. c. Kashmir. Brill Encyclopaedia of Hinduism. Volume One: Regions, Pil-
grimage, Deities, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Zweite
Abteilung, Indien, vol. . Leiden and Boston: Brill), pp. –.
S, Krishna Mohan. . Agrarian Structure in Central India and the Northern
Deccan, c. AD -: A Study of Vākātaka . Inscriptions. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal.


T̈̈, Judit. . ree Chapters of Śaiva Material Added to the Earliest Known
Recension of the Skandapurāna.. In Origin and Growth of the Purānic
. Text Corpus With
. edited by Hans T. Bakker (Papers of the th
Special Reference to the Skandapurāna,
World Sanskrit Conference, vol. .. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass), pp. –.
W, Michael. . e Archaeology of Ritual. Temples and the Establishment of the
Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


ŚAVSM AN RAMANSM

A S , T

Alexis Sanderson

 , 

T O  V Ś n. s.
. Medhātithi, Manusmr. tibhās.ya, vol. , p. , ll. – 

evam . sarva eva bāhyā bhojakapāñcarātrikanirgranthānātmavādipāśupataprabhr. -


tayah. svasiddhāntānām . pran. et ]n purus.ātiśayān devatāviśes.ām
. ś ca pratyaks.atad-
.
arthadarśino ’bhyupayanti na vedamūlam api dharmam abhimanyante pratyaks.e-
n. a ca vedena viruddhās tatrārthā upadiśyante.
nirgranthānātmavādi conj.  nirgranthānārthavāda d.

So all those outside [the Veda], such as the worshippers of the Sun (bhojakah. ),
the followers of the [Vais.n. ava] Pañcarātra, the Jains, the uddhists, the Pāśu-
patas, and the rest, hold that their doctrines have been authored by exceptional
On the meaning of bhojakah. see Śaṅkarakavi on Hars.acarita, explaining the latter’s reference to
a hojaka astrologer (gan. akah. ) (pp. – ) bhojako *raver arcayitā (conj.  ravim arcayitvā d.) |
pūjakā hi bhūyasā gan. akā bhavanti ye magā iti prasiddhāh. ‘A hojaka is a [priest] who performs the
worship of the Sun. e priests of the Sun are usually [also] astrologers, those known as Magas’.
or the hojakas as priests of the Sun see, for example, the account of the installation of a Sun
image (sūryapratis.t.hā cited at length from the Bhavis.yapurān. a in the Kr. tyakalpataru, Pt. , pp. – ,
especially noting p. , ll. – , and p. , ll. – . e ‘Maga brahmins’ (magabrāhman. ah. ) are
descendants of the ranian Pahlavas who established kingdoms in northwestern ndia in the first
century . . and the term bhojakah. comes from Middle ranian *bōźak ‘saviour’ (S ,
, p. ).
e edition’s reading anārthavāda- in nirgranthānārthavāda- yields no meaning, and the light
emendation that would give anarthavāda- would yield no meaning appropriate to this context, namely
a list of the followers of un-Vedic traditions. As it stands the list contains no reference to the
uddhists, which would be extraordinary, especially since the Jains are mentioned. or this reason
and because the Jains and uddhists naturally go together in such a context  have emended to yield
nirgranthānātmavādi-, taking anātmavādi- ‘those who hold that there is no self ’ to refer to the otherwise
absent uddhists, denial of the self being their distinctive doctrine. To read anātmavāda- would be to
emend one syllable rather than two and it could be made to taken to mean ‘those whose doctrine is that
of no self ’ without violating the rules of grammar but the usage is without parallel to my knowledge,
vādin- rather than vāda- always been found at the end of compounds meaning one who adheres to
a certain doctrine (vādah. ) (e.g. ātmavādī, śūnyavādī, bāhyārthavādī, vijñānavādī) and  have therefore
ventured this double emendation.
persons and deities who have had direct experience of the truth they teach. ey
do not claim that their religious practices [like ours] derive from the [eternal and
unauthored (apaurus.eyah. )] Veda and indeed their teachings contain doctrines
that directly contradict it.

. Kumārila, Tantrāvārttika, vol. , pp. , l. – , l. , on . . – 

yāny etāni trayīvidbhir na parigr. hītāni kim


. cittanmiśrakañcukacchāyāpatitāni loko-
pasam. grahalābhapūjākhyātiprayojanaparān . i trayīviparītāsam . baddhadr..st.alobhā-
di pratyaks.ānumānārthāpattiprāyayuktimūlopanibaddhāni sām . khyayogapāñcarā-
trapāśupataśākyanirgranthaparigr. hītadharmādharmanibandhanāni vis.acikitsāva-
śīkaran. occāt.anonmādanādisamarthakatipayamantraus.adhikādācitkasiddhinidar-
śanabalenāhim . sāsatyavacanadamadānadayādiśrutismr. tisam . vādistokārthagandha-
vāsitajīvikāprāyārthāntaropadeśīni yāni ca bāhyatarān. i mlecchācāramiśrakabho-
jananagnacaran. ādinibandhanāni tes.ām evaitacchrutivirodhahetudarśanābhyām
anapeks.an. īyatvam . pratipādyate.
T  citation in Paraśurāmakalpasūtravr. tti, p. ( T ) parallel in Medhātithi,
Manubhās.ya on .  syāt tādr. śī vedaśākhā yasyām ayam . narāsthipātrabhojananagnacaryādir
upadis.t.o bhavet (T ).

lobhādi em. [T ]  śobhādi d. bhojananagnacaran. ādi conj. [cf. T ]  bhojanācaran. a


d. [T ] • nibandhanāni em. [T]  nibaddhāni d.

t is taught that the texts that may not be drawn on, because they contradict
the Veda and because we can detect their motives, are [the following. irstly
they are] these well-known works of religion-cum-irreligion rejected by Vaidikas
and accepted [as scriptures] by the Sām . khyas, the followers of the Yoga school,
the Pāñcarātrika Vais.n. avas, the Pāśupatas, the uddhists, and the Jains. ese
hide in the shadow cast by a curtain of pious observance containing some ele-
ments of the Veda’s teaching but their real purpose is to win social approval,
wealth, veneration and fame. ey are contrary to the Veda and incoherent.
e greed and other [vices of their authors] are manifest. ey have been com-
posed on the basis of arguments framed within the limits of [the means of
non-transcendental knowledge, namely] sense-perception, inference, analogy,
and presumption. ey are perfumed with the fragrance of a handful of teach-
ings congruent with Śruti and Smr.ti, [advocating such virtues as] non-violence,
truthfulness, self-control, generosity and compassion but [at the same time]
they propagate teachings of a quite different nature, teachings that are little
more than means of making a living, by demonstrating the occasional suc-
cesses of a handful of spells and herbs able to counteract the effects of poison,
to subject people, to drive them out, to drive them mad, and so forth. And
[secondly they are] the works even more remote [from the Veda] (bāhyatarān. i)
[which prescribe] eating (-bhojana-) from a skull-bowl (ka-), wandering naked
(nagnacaran. a-, and the like, [practices] that are contaminated by elements of
non-Āryan culture (mlecchācāramiśra-).
J ( ) finds no reference to the skull-bowl users here, translating the words mlecchācāra-
miśrakabhojanācaran. a (that  have emended to mlecchācāramiśrakabhojananagnacaran. ādi-) as follows
‘absolutely repugnant practices fit for Mlecchas, such as the eating together of many persons, and the
like’. Similarly K , vol. , p.  ‘barbarian customs, i.e. the practice of eating together’.
vidently this ‘eating together’ renders Kumārila’s miśrakabhojana-. is proposes a use of miśraka-
for which  can find no parallel, has the author cite a feature of religious observance that is hardly
what one would expect him to single out in this context and that is not cited, to my knowledge, in
other discussions of vedabāhyatā, let alone vedabāhyataratā, and, finally, supposes an odd word order
we would expect, rather, something like miśrakabhojan[ādi]mlecchācāra-  have preferred to analyze
the compound of which this is part into mlecchācāramiśra- ‘mingled with un-Āryan practices’ and
kabhojana- ‘eating from a skull’.  opt for this interpretation, which removes all these difficulties, after
considering Medhātithi’s commentary on Manusmr. ti . . n that passage (Manubhās.ya vol. , p. ,
ll. – ) he repeats Kumārila’s arguments for the exclusion of these traditions as outside the Veda.
e states (ll. – ) the hypothetical objection that since contradictions are seen within the Veda,
one cannot exclude the possibility that there is some other redaction (śākhā) of the Veda, surviving
or lost, that enjoins these supposedly un-Vedic practices. or there have been countless redactions of
the Veda. t is impossible for anyone to have seen them all and the one in question may have been
lost. “So,” he says, “there may be a such a redaction of the Veda itself in which this eating from a
human skull bowl, naked ascetic observance, and the like, have been taught” (syāt tādr. śī vedaśākhā
yasyām ayam . *narāsthipātrabhojananagnacaryādir (caryādir em. [cf. Śaṅkara, Brahmasūtrabhās.ya on
. .  nagnacaryādiyogād anapeks.itāśramakarman. ām]  carmādir d.]) upadis.t.o bhavet). e word
“this” (ayam) will have no point unless Medhātithi saw “eating from a human skull bowl” as part of the
argument in the locus classicus. rom this  infer that he understood mlecchācāramiśra-kabhojana- rather
than mlecchācāra-miśrakabhojana-. at he was right to do so is confirmed by the beneficial effect that
this interpretation has on the logic of the whole passage. f the compound is analyzed and translated in
this way the antithesis between the two classes of texts is more clearly stated. or texts of the first class
will convey non-Vedic teachings mingled with Vedic elements (kim . cittanmiśradharmakañcukacchāyā-
patitāni ‘disguised by being cloaked in a religiosity mingled with some elements of the [true] religion [of
the Veda]’), while the texts of the second class will be mingled with elements of the opposite extreme,
i.e. un-Āryan practices (mlecchācāramiśra-). e centrality of the example of eating from a human
skull in brahmanical discussions of what is and is not valid religious practice is also attested in the
Nyāyamañjarī of Jayanta. or when discussing the ultraliberal view that holds that all religious traditions
are equally valid he cites this practice to represent the form of religion at the outer margin, that which
Kumārila categorizes as ‘utterly alien to the Vedas’ ([veda]bāhyatara-), saying that the only reason why
people recoil from such practices is that they have been thoroughly conditioned by repeated exposure to
the mentality of another religious tradition (Nyāyamañjarī-Āgamaprāmān. ya, p. , l. – , l. ) na
ca hr. dayakrośanahetukarmopadeśād āgamāntarān. ām aprāmān. yam tasyāprāmān. yatāyām . aprayojakatvāt.
vicikitsā hi nr. śirah. kapālādyaśanes.u yā | sā ’py anyadarśanābhyāsabhāvanopanibandhanā ‘Nor are other
scriptures invalid because they teach actions that arouse strong feelings of revulsion. or that is not
sufficient to invalidate them. or if a person is revolted by the thought of eating from a human
skull and the like it is only because he has been mentally conditioned by constant exposure to
. Manusmr. ti . 

pās.an. d. ino vikarmasthān baid. ālavratikāñ chat.hān |


haitukān bakavr. ttīm . ś ca vāṅmātren. āpi nārcayet ||
[e householder] should not honour even with speech those who follow for-
bidden religious practices (pās.an. d. inah. ), those who practice professions forbid-
den to their caste, those who practice religion for profit, deceivers, those who
reason [against the teachings of the Vedas], and pious hypocrites.

. Manubhās.ya on . 

vāṅmātren. āpi | tis.t.hatu tāvad āsanādidānam


. pūjāpūrvakam . svāgatam āsyatām
atra ityevamādy apy na vaktavyāh. | annadānam . tu śvapacādivad is.yate | tathā ca
bhagavān kr..sn. advaipāyano ’nnadānam evādhikr. tya smarati sma na pr. cchej janma
na śrutam iti
Even with speech] ere is certainly no question of respectfully giving them
a seat and so forth. Nor may one even speak to them, saying, for example,
‘‘Welcome. Please be seated here’’. One is allowed to give them food [but only]
as one would to untouchables and the like. oncerning this giving of food the

scriptures of another kind’). As for ka- (neuter) in the sense of skull, we have the consensus of
the indigenous lexicographers who record ‘head’ as one of its meanings see, e.g., Maṅkhakośa ,
emacandra, Abhidhānacintāman. i , and alāyudha, Abhidhānaratnamālā .  and we find it in
the compound narakam in the meaning ‘skull of a man’ (nara-), ‘human skull’ as a [Kāpālika] drinking
vessel in Niśisam . cāra f. v narakam pūrayitvā tu mantrajaptam . tu mantrin. ā | dhārāmr. tasamāyuktam .
pibet pañcāmr. tam param Kālīkulakramasadbhāva f. r – [ . c– b] majjārudhirapūrn. am . tu
asthiyuktam . tu bhīs.an. am | narakam. tu kare gr. hya pānagos.t.hīparāyan. āh.  and . (Yonigahvara f. v
[v. ] [Y]) lepayet tu tathā rudra vasayā rudhiren. a ca | siddhajam . (conj.  siddhijam . od.  sabīja Y)
narakam . bhīma mahārudhirapūritam and Hevajratantra . . d narakasthaih . pañcavarn . akaih. . See also
nr. kam with the same meaning in, e.g., Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, Sāmānyapāda . ab Vairocana.
Laks.an. asamuccaya . d and . a. t is possible, of course, that the corruption of Kumārila’s
wording in this passage extends to kabhojana- and that he wrote nr. kabhojana-, narakabhojana-, or even
narakapālabhojana-. ut whatever the precise wording of the original it is clear that it was referring to
eating from human skulls
e term pās.an. d. in-, often misleadingly translated ‘heretic’ is defined as  have translated it here by
Medhātithi’s gloss on pās.an. d. am, from which pās.an. d. in- is formed by the addition of the possessive suffix,
in his commentary on Manusmr. ti .  pās.an. d. am . pratis.iddhavratacaryā. ‘pās.an. d. am is to practice
a forbidden religious observance’. e etymology of the term is uncertain. M ( , ,
p. – ) connects it with pārs.ada-, pārs.adya- meaning ‘a member of a [sectarian] association
(pars.at)’, which is not implausible, though the term pās.an. d. am denotes not the members but their
association or practice. Members are said to be ‘in a pās.an. d. am’ (pās.an. dasthah. ) or to ‘have a pās.an. d. am’
(pās.an. dī).
venerable Kr.s.n. advaipāyana has taught the following Smr.ti ‘‘One should not
enquire concerning his birth or learning’’.

. S. at.trim
. śanmata quoted by Aparāditya, Yājñavalkyasmr. tit.īkā, p. 

bauddhān pāśupatām . ś caiva laukāyatikanāstikān |


vikarmasthān dvijān spr..st.vā sacailo jalam āviśet ||
f he comes into physical contact with uddhists, Pāśupatas, materialists, deniers
of the validity of the Vedas [of life after death, the validity of the Veda, and
the like], or brahmins engaged in improper employment he should bathe fully
clothed.

. Unnamed Smr. ti text (smr. tyantaram) quoted by Aparāditya, Yājñavalkyasmr. tit.īkā,


p. 

nagnān pāśupatān bauddhān kālān kaulān diśaścarān |


etān dr..st.vā ravim
. paśyet spr..st.vā snānam
. samācaret ||
f he sees Jains, Pāśupatas, uddhists, Kāla[mukha]s, Kaulas, or peripatetic
[mendicants], he should look at the sun. f he has come into contact with any
of them he should bathe fully clothed.

AM L V S  S Q
. Kūrmapurān. a . . 

pās.an. d. ino vikarmasthān vāmācārām


. s tathaiva ca |
pāñcarātrān pāśupatān vāṅmātren. āpi nārcayet ||
pāñcarātrān conj.  pañcarātrān d.

e should not honour even with speech those who follow forbidden religious
practices (pās.an. d. inah. ), those who practise professions forbidden to their caste,
those who reason [against the teachings of the Vedas], those whose religious
practice runs counter [to the rules of purity] (vāmācārān), Pāñcarātrikas, and
Pāśupatas.
 see no alternative to taking kālān as standing for kālamukhān or kālavaktrān, that is to say, as an
example of the variety of abbreviated compound by means of which one can say bhīmah. for bhīmasenah. ,
to use the standard example (‘bhīmavat’) or kāmikā for kāmikasam . hitā, the gender of the elided word
being tranferred to the word that remains (for further examples see S a, p. , n. ),
though  know of no other instance of this particular abbreviation.
 have translated the term vāmācārān as ‘those whose religious practice runs counter [to the rules of
purity]’ in accordance with its literal sense, vāmah. meaning ‘contrary’ (pratikūlah. , viparītah. ) here see,
e.g., Abhidhānaratnamālā . c vāmah. pratikūle ’pi and Maṅkhakośa b syāt savyapratikūlayoh. .
. Kūrmapurān. a . . – 

evam. sam. bodhito rudro mādhavena murārin. ā |


cakāra mohaśāstrān. i keśavo ’pi śiveritah. ||
kāpālam . lākulam . vāmam . bhairavam . pūrvapaścime |
pañcarātram. pāśupatam . tathānyāni sahastraśah
. ||
lākulam
. em.  nākulam
. d. pūrvapaścime variant reported in d.  pūrvapa-
ścimam d.

us informed by Vis.n. u Śiva created the [Śaiva] scriptures of delusion and
Vis.n. u, at the instigation of Śiva, likewise [the Vais.n. ava] ( ) the Kāpālika, ( )
the Lākula, ( ) the Vāma, ( ) the hairava ( aks.in. a), ( ) the Pūrva, ( ) the
Paścima, ( ) the Pañcarātra, and ( ) the Pāśupata.

T  V O Q
Aparārka, Yājñavalkyasmr. tit.īkā, p. 
kāpālikāh. pāśupatāh. śaivāś ca saha kārukaih. |
dr..st.āś ced ravim īks.eta spr..st.āś cet snānam ācaret ||

f he sees Kāpālikas, Pāśupatas, Śaivas [of the Mantramārga], or Kārukas, he should


gaze at the sun [in order to purify himself ]. f he has come into physical contact with
them he should bathe.
e proposed emendation has the support of variant readings reported by the editor. t is
quite possible, though, that the reading nākulam . is authorial, alternation between n and l being
commonly seen here and in the name Lakulīśvara. is,  propose, is the effect of this alternation
in Kannad. a and Telugu, as in oysal.a/oysan. a and Nol.ambavād. i/Non. ambavād. i, and ijjana for
ijjala (EC k ) see also for Kannad. a K , p. a, reporting several substitutions
of initial n for l and for Kannad. a and Telugu  and  , entries , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , and . owever,
though the alternation may derive from a south-ndian peculiarity. it was very widely disseminated.
or example, we see it twice in the works of the Kashmirian Abhinavagupta, at Abhinavabhāratī on
. –  nākuladarśanapratipannānām and Tantrāloka .  nakuleśādyair and of these the edition
of the second is based solely on Kashmirian manuscripts.
According to the Vis.n. udharma . , . cd, and . cd (quoted by Aparāditya, Yājñavalkya-
smr. tit.īkā, p. , ll. and ) purification in both cases and in that of speaking with such a person
requires the power of the Śucis.ad Mantra sam . bhās.yaitāñ śucis.adam. cintayed acyutam . budhah. | . . . namah.
śucis.ade coktvā sūryam . paśyec ca vīks.itaih. | . . . sam. sparśe ca budhah. snātvā śuddhyec śucis.adam . smaran ‘f
the learned has spoken with [any of ] these persons [following a forbidden religious practice] he should
meditate on Vis.n. u Śucis.ad. . . . f he has seen one he should utter [the Mantra] . .  .
and then glance at the sun. . . . f he has come into physical contact with one the learned will be purified
if he bathes while mentally reciting the Śucis.ad’.
e comments
iti smr. tyantaradarśanād antyāvasāyivad darśanasparśanayor dus.t.āh. śaivādiśāstrapratipa-
nnāh. śaivādayas traividyavr. ddhair manyante
On the evidence of this further Smr.ti [it is established that] the Śaivas and other
[sectarians mentioned in it, that is to say] those who adhere to bodies of [non-Vedic]
scripture such as those proclaimed by Śiva (śaivādi), are considered by those fully versed
in the injunctions of the three Vedas to be as pollutant as untouchables if seen or
touched.

T Ś V 

. Sadyojyotis, Nareśvaraparīks.ā, . – 

svamatasyaiva mānatve yatnam . sarvah. karoti hi |


vedasyāpi pramān. atve kim. mudhaiva kr. tah. śramah. ||
vedam. vinā na karmāsti kalādi ca na tad vinā |
chettavyam. dīks.ayā sarvam. karmādīti prabhās.itam ||
anujñātāś ca vedoktāh. śaive varn. āśramādayah. |
vedasyāpi pramān. atve yatno ’smābhir atah. kr. tah. ||
b yatnam. sarvah. em. (inferred from hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha ’s paraphrase in his com-
mentary sarven. a . . . yatno vidheyah. )  yatnam
. sarvam
. d.
[Question] Surely no-one attempts to prove the validity of any doctrine but his
own. Why have you striven without purpose to show that the Veda too is valid.
[Answer] Without the Veda there would be no [knowledge of the] actions
[that lead to reward and punishment through reincarnation]. And without those
there could not exist [the stratified order of impure reality] from [the principle]
Kalā [down to that of arth, comprising the various worlds in which souls are
incarnated to experience the consequences of their Veda-determined actions.
e Śaiva scriptures would then be invalid. or] they have ruled that the func-
tion of initiation is to cut out [the potential of these] actions [past, current, and
future] and all the other [factors that would otherwise keep the soul in states
of incarnation within this order]. Moreover, the caste-classes, disciplines, and
other [elements of brahmanical observance] enjoined by the Veda have been
authorized in the Śaiva scriptures [as binding for initiates]. So [for both these
reasons]  have undertaken the task of proving the validity [not only of those
scriptures but] also of the Veda.

. Saiddhāntika scripture Bhārgavottara cited by hat.t.a Nārāyan. akan. t.ha in his


commentary on Mr. gendratantra, Vidyāpada p. , ll. – (with attribution
to the Bhārgavottara), and p. , ll. –  by hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha, in his com-
mentary on the Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . c, P f. r – (in the
fourth folio enumeration), in his Moks.akārikāvr. tti on ab, in his Nareśvara-
parīks.āprakāśa on . , in his Sārdhatriśatikālottaravr. tti, p. , ll. – , and Ma-
taṅgapārameśvaravr. tti on Kriyāpāda, p. , ll. –  by Aghoraśivācārya, Mr. -
gendravr. ttidīpikā on Vidyāpāda .  by Vaktraśambhu, Mr. gendrapaddhativyā-
khyā, p. (citing the first line)

iti varn. āśramācārān manasāpi na laṅghayet ||


yo yasminn āśrame tis.t.han dīks.itah. śivaśāsane |
sa tasminn eva sam . tis.t.hec chivadharmam . ca pālayet ||
So he should not transgress the practices of his caste-class and brahmanical
discipline even in thought. e should remain in the discipline in which he was
when he was initiated into the Śaiva religion and [at the same time] maintain
the ordinances of Śiva.

. Saiddhāntika scripture quoted without attribution in Mr. gendrapaddhativyā-


khyā, p. 

yady api syāt trikālajñas trailokyākars.an. aks.amah. |


tathāpi laukikācāram . manāg api na laṅghayet ||
ven if one knows past, present and future and can to draw the three worlds
within one’s power one should not transgress the mundane discipline even to
the slightest extent.

Ś ’  V P V
ere is another respect in which the rahmanical view of Śaivism and the Śaiva
view of rahmanism were asymmetrical. or while the brahmanical tradition made no
attempt to justify its validity in Śaiva terms, the Śaivas, in their eagerness to establish
themselves in what was a fundamentally brahmanical society, attempted to persuade
the orthoprax that the Śaiva corpus was valid not only because it recognized the Vedic
ordinances as binding on all including the Śaivas themselves but also by attempting
to undermine brahmanical attacks on the legitimacy of their religious practices by
pointing to the abundant evidence of the promotion of the worship of Rudra or Śiva,
by then considered one and the same, that is found both in Śruti texts (as Rudra) and
in the secondary brahmanical scriptures (as Rudra or Śiva).
us in his commentary on the Mr. gendratantra the tenth-century Kashmirian
Saiddhāntika hat.t.a Nārāyan. akan. t.ha cites the presence of such practices in the tra-
ditions of all four Vedas. e passage on which he is commenting is the narrative
introduction to the Tantra. n the hermitage of adarī haradvāja and other sages
install an image of Śiva and undertake asceticism before it. e god ndra comes to
the hermitage and asks them why they are not following the religion of the Veda
(codanādharmah. ). ey reply that the method of propitiating Śiva with asceticism that
they are following is indeed Vedic and point out (v. ) that the Veda contains Mantras
whose deity is Rudra and procedures for causing him to come into one’s presence. n
his commentary on this verse Nārāyan. akan. t.ha elaborates, citing a six-month long
ascetic procedure for the summoning of Rudra into the propitiator’s presence taught
in the now lost Rudrakalpa that was a supplement (Pariśis.t.a) of the Śrautasūtra of
the Kāt.haka Yajurvedins, the use of the long Yajurvedic litany known as the leven
Rudras (rudraikādaśinī sam. hitā), sacrificial procedures using Mantras and chants of
the R. gveda and Sāmaveda found in the R. gvidhāna and Sāmavidhāna, and procedures
for the propitiation of Rudra found in the Atharvavedic corpus.
Similarly, in his commentary on Sadyojyotis’ Moks.akārikā his son hat.t.a Rāma-
kan. t.ha turns to the corpus of secondary brahmanical scriptures, arguing that these
contain abundant historical evidence that Śaivism was accepted by venerable figures
of remote antiquity whose standing as men learned in the Veda is beyond question.
e cites the rule that Śaivas must remain in their castes and life-disciplines, not
transgressing the ordinances of those institutions even in thought, and then addresses
the Vaidikas as follows
Vidyāpāda . – .
ts recitation while one inundates the Liṅga (rudrābhis.ekah. ) is a practice still current among the
Taittirīya Yajurvedins in the Śiva temples of South ndia. ut this is by no means the only manner in
which this Vedic litany was employed. Private repeated recitation with or without an accompanying
fire-sacrifice was also practised, as can be seen in the case of Kashmir by the survival there of the
Ekādaśarudravidhi, a text that sets out the procedure for its regular recitation and teaches special rites
in which the recitation of this or that among its constituent Anuvākas is held to bring about specific
benefits. us, for example, f. r – evam . mahārudrasya dvāvim . śānuvākāvartanam . pāt.hakramen. a
parameśvarasāyujyadam . bhavati. yadi tu kaścit pratyaham . rudrapāt
. hānuvartanam ekādaśakr. tvah. kuryāt
tadāyam . kramah. ‘us the repetition of the twenty-two Anuvākas of the Mahārudra[mantra] bestows
through recitation union with Śiva. ut if a person repeats the Rudra litany eleven times a day
the procedure is as follows’ f. r –  tatra gr. hyavidhānena sthāpayitvā hutāśanam | pāyasam .
śrapayitvājyayuktam . taj juhuyād dhavih. || daśām. śasam
. khyayā *paścāt (corr.  tpaścāt od) sāks.ād devam .
sa paśyati ‘aving installed a [sacrificial] fire there following the procedure [taught] in his r.hya[sūtra]
he should cook Pāyasa with ghee and make oblations of it into the fire as avis, making one oblation for
every ten repetitions [of the Anuvāka]. [y this means] he beholds the god face to face’ f. r – 
rājā rās.t.rasamutpannadurbhiks.asyopaśāntaye | kārayed vipravaryen. a homam . laks en
. . a sam
. khyayā ‘n order
to end a famine that has arisen in the kingdom the king should have an excellent brahmin perform a
fire-sacrifice with , oblations (a Laks.ahoma)’.
ata eva yus.maddr..st.yāpy asya na pās.an. d. atvam
. vedāvirodhād vedavitparigrahaś ca śrūyate
yatah. . purān. etihāsādau śvetopamanyuprabhr. tīnām . mahars.īn. ām atrānus.t.hānam . bhārate
ca naranārāyan. ayor aśvatthāmnaś ca ‘‘ābhyām . liṅge ’rcito devas tvayārcāyām . yuge yuga’’
iti suvarn. āks.e ca bhagavato vāsudevasya parameśvarārādhanāt siddhir ‘‘api cāsmatpri-
yatamo loke kr..sn. a bhavis.yasi | tvanmukham . ca jagat sarvam . bhavis.yati na sam. śayah. ’’
iti †rāmāyan. e ’pi kārtavīryādeh. † smr. tis.u ca pratis.t.hādih. pūrto dharmah. ‘‘pakves.t.aka-
citam . samyag yah. karoti śivālayam’’ iti ‘‘pūrte moks.am . vinirdiśed’’ iti ca. dr. śyante ca
pr. thukeśvararāmeśvarādayah. pratis.t.hāpitāh. . vede ’py upanis.atsu śvetāśvatarādis.v atharva-
śirah. prabhr. tis.u ca mantres.u śaivasam. pratyayah. . tato na vigānam . nāpi cchinnamūlatā
na ca kaiścid eva parigraho yena yus.maddr..st.yāprāmān. yam . syāt. .
hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha , Moks.akārikāvr. tti on v. ab
ditions A, vol. , Moks.akārikā, pp. –  B, p. . Manuscript T, pp. –
Testimonia SiSa  Trilocanaśiva, Siddhāntasamuccaya A pp. –  SiSb  id.,  pp. – ,
an unattributed citation, beginning with purān. etihāsādau lacking the citation and deviating
at the end after na ca kaiścid eva parigrahah.  MBh  Mahābhārata . . cd (the citation
ābhyām . to yuge yuge NĪPPra  hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha , Nareśvaraparīks.āprakāśa, p.  vedānte
. . . īśvaropāsanayaiva moks.ah. śrūyate smr. tyādav apy agnihotrādīs.t.avat pūrto dharma īśvarasaparyā-
tmakah. pakves.t.akacitam . samyag yah. karoti śivālayam iti ca śrūyate pūrte moks.am . vinirdiśet iti
KKK  Kr. tyakalpataru Pt. , p. , l.  pratis.t.hādyam . tayoh . pūrtam ist am
.. . yajñādilaks .an. am MBh
 Mahābhārata . . (the citation api cāsmatpriyatamo to bhavis.yati na sam . śayah. ) VaPu
 Varāhapurān. a . d (the citation pūrte moks.am . vinirdiśet) and ŚV-CoSū  Kumārila,
Ślokavārttika-Codanāsūtra  na cāpi smr. tyavicchedāt sarvajñah. parikalpyate | vigānāc chinna-
mūlatvāt kaiścid eva parigrahāttato na to parigrahah. .
tvayārcāyām . A SiSb (Mh)  tvayārcayām . T SiSa suvarn. āks.e A T  svarn. āks.e SiSa SiSb
bhagavato vāsudevasya T SiSa SiSb  bhagavato A ārādhanāt siddhir A T SiSa  ārādhana-
siddhir SiSb api cāsmat T (Mh)  api cānyat A bhavis.yasi T(Mh)  bhavis.yati A
tvanmukham . corr. (Mh)  tvanmukhe A T kārtavīryādeh. smr. tis.u ca A  (kārtavīryāde) T
SiSa  kārtavīryādistutis.u ca SiSb pakves.t.aka SiSa SiSb NĪPPra  paks.es.t.aka T  pakves.t.akā A
pratis.t.hādih. pūrto dharmah. conj. (cf. NĪPPra, KKK)  pratis.t.hādipūrvo dharmah. A T  pratis.t.hā-
dipūrvako dharmah. SiSa SiSb iti pūrte moks.am . vinirdiśed em. (as quoted in NĪPPra 
VaPu)  iti sūtram . T  iti. sūtre tatra A  ityādisūtre SiS b  ityādi sūtro SiSa iti ca SiSb  iti A T
SiSa NĪPPra upanis.atsu śvetāśvatarādis.v atharvaśirah. prabhr. tis.u ca mantres.u conj.  śvetāśva-
tarādiśākhāsv atharvaśirah. prabhr. tis.u ca mantres.u A  upanis.atsu śvetāśvatarādis.u atharvaśirah. -
prabhr. tis.u ca ma SiSa  upanis.atsu śvetāśvatarādis.u atharvaśirah. prabhr. tis.u ca SiSb nāpi cchin-
namūlatā SiSb (ŚV-oSū)  nāpi vicchinnamūlatā A  nāvicchinnamūlatā SiSa  navicchinna-
mūlatā T yena yus.maddr..st.yāprāmān. yam . syāt conj.  yena yus.maddr..st.yāpy aprāmān. yam . syāt
  yus.maddr..st.yāpy aprāmān. yam . syāt A  yena yus
. maddr s
..tyāpyāmānyam asya syāt T
So this [teaching of Śiva (śivaśāsanam)] is not a forbidden form of religion (pās.an. d. am) even
from your point of view. is is because it does not conflict with the Vedas, and because there
is [brahmanical] scriptural evidence that it was accepted by men learned in the Vedas. n the
Purān. as, the Mahābhārata, and the like we learn that Śveta, Upamanyu, and other great sages
undertook religious practice within this [teaching of Śiva]. n the [Mahā]bhārata we learn that
Nara, Nārāyan. a [Arjuna and Vāsudeva], and Aśvatthāman did the same, in the words ‘‘e
god that you [Aśvatthāman] have worshipped in an anthropomorphic image in every age those
two have worshipped in the Liṅga’’, and also that it was by propitiating Śiva that the Lord
Vāsudeva achieved his goal in Suvarn. āks.a, as is related in the verse ‘‘O Kr.s.n. a, you will be the
man most dear to me in the world and rhe whole world will turn to face you [in adoration].
Of this there is no doubt’’, *and Paraśurāma received the axe with which he slew Kārtavīrya
(). Moreover in the Smr.tis we have references to such pious acts for the benefit of the public
(pūrto dharmah. ) as that of establishing a temple [of Śiva, as in] ‘‘e who makes a temple of
Śiva, built with baked bricks’’ and ‘‘in pious acts for the benefit of the public one should
know [that the reward is] liberation’’. en there is the evidence of our own eyes in the form
of the Pr.thukeśvara [of Pr.thu], the Rāmeśvara [of Rāma], and [many] other [Śivas installed and

or Śveta’s extreme devotion to Śiva see Skandapurān. a A . –  Liṅgapurān. a, Pūrvab-


hāga . –  Haracaritacintāman. i, chapter . or Upamanyu’s see Skandapurān. a A . – 
Liṅgapurān. a, Pūrvabhāga, chapters –  Haracaritacintāman. i, chapter  and for the same in
the Mahābhārata see here ??.
Mahābhārata . . cd.
Mahābhārata . . . e passage before this verse ( . . – b) clarifies the context tato gacchet
suvarn. āks.am. tris.u lokes.u viśrutam | yatra vis.n. uh. prasādārtham . rudram ārādhayat purā || varām . ś ca
subahūm . l lebhe daivates.u sudurlabhān ‘en [the pilgrim] should proceed to Suvarn. āks.a, the [sacred
site] famed throughout the three worlds where of old Vis.n. u propitiated Rudra to win his favour and
received from him many boons hard to win even for the gods’. Suvarn. āks.a, probably in the vicinity of
modern ardwar (Y , p. f.), is listed in early Śaiva sources in one of the five ogdoads of
sites made sacred by Śiva’s presence see S , pp. – , fns – , , – 
 , p. .
e Sanskrit of this passage is no doubt corrupt. n the context it would mean rāmāyan. e ’pi
kārtavīryādeh. [parameśvarārādhanāt siddhih. śrūyate] ‘n the Rāmāyan. a too [we learn that] Kārtavīrya
and others [achieved their goals by propitiating Śiva]’. ut  find no reference in the Rāmāyan. a or
any other text to Kārtavīrya’s having propitiated this deity. e gained his boons by propitiating
atta, son of Atri (attātreya) (Vāyupurān. a . – ), who was venerated as a partial incarnation
of rahmā, Vis.n. u, and Śiva, but predominantly of Vis.n. u.  suspect that what is concealed here is a
reference to Paraśurāma’s having killed Kārtavīrya. or Paraśurāma, the sixth incarnation of Vis.n. u, was
indeed a fervent devotee of Śiva. e obtained from him as a boon the axe (paraśuh. ), after which he is
named (Mahābhārata . . ), and with which he cut off Kārtavīrya’s thousand arms (Mahābhārata
. . ).
Source not located.
Varāhapurān. a . [c]d [is.t.ena labhate svargam . ] pūrte moks.am. vinirdiśet ‘y sacrifices he
obtains heaven in pious acts for the benefit of the public one should know [that the reward is]
liberation’ cf. Kālikāpurān. a cited in Kr. tyakalpataru, Part , p.  bhuktimuktipradam . pūrtam is.t.am
.
bhogārthasādhanam ‘Pious acts for the benefit of the public bestow reward and liberation. Acts of
sacrifice and formal donation (is.t.am) bestow [only[ the former’. e category of pious action termed
pūrtam or pūrto dharmah. comprises such actions as establishing fountains, wells, step-wells, reservoirs,
dams, gardens, planting fruit-trees, and the like, the provision of food, and the installing of deities,
and the building and renovation of temples and monasteries. See Varāhapurān. a .  . – 
Agnipurān. a .  Mahābhārata quoted in Kr. tyakalpataru, Part , p. . f. Ks.emarāja’s definition of
worshipped in ancient times]. urthermore, the Veda confirms the validity of the teaching of
Śiva in such Upanis.ads as the Śvetāśvatara and in Mantra-texts such as the Atharvaśiras.
So none of the faults that would entail the invalidity [of the Śaiva scripture] from your point
of view applies there is no disagreement [concerning the omniscience of Śiva, the creator of
our scriptures], there is no lack of proof [of their validity], and they have not been adopted by
a small minority.

pūrtam in his commentary on Svacchanda .  pūrtam . kūpatad. ākamat.hādi ‘pūrtam comprises wells,
reservoirs, monasteries, and other [facilities]’.
 take it that Rāmakan. t.ha’s intention here is to cite Śivas whose installation or worship is attributed
to ancient brahmanical culture heroes as evidence that Śaivism was accepted by the orthoprax from the
beginning. e Pr.thu of Pr.thukeśvara is probably to be understood as the king of that name venerated
as the first and most virtuous ruler of the earth. or the extending of the stem to Pr.thuka- in this
compound we have an analogy in the Prabhukeśvara established by Ratnasaṅgha, son of Prabhusaṅgha
see here p. ??. Pr.thukeśvara is among the eighty-four Śivaliṅgas whose traditions are recounted in the
Āvantyakhan. d. a of Skandapurān. a . According to Adhyāya of that work, this Liṅga, which is located
in Ujjayinī (mahākālavanam), owes its name to the fact that it was worshipped by Pr.thu on Nārada’s
advice so that he might free himself from sin. As for Rāmeśvara, there are many Rāmeśvara temples
throughout the ndic world. e most famous is perhaps that on the island of Rameswaram just off
the east coast in the far south of the subcontinent. is Liṅga, which came to be one of the twelve
Jyotirliṅgas (K , p. ), is said to have been established by Rāma[candra], the king of Ayodhyā
and seventh incarnation of Vis.n. u, who is believed to have appeared in the world at the end of the Tretā
age, so that he could expiate the sin of brahminicide (brahmahatyā) incurred when he returned here
after slaying the brahmin demon Rāvan. a see Liṅgapurān. a . . , a Śaiva addition not found in the
early accounts of this conflict in the Mahābhārata or Rāmāyan. a. ut it is possible that Rāmakan. t.ha has
in mind some other Liṅga, such as the Rāmeśvara of Ujjayinī venerated as established at the beginning
of the Tretā age by [Paraśu]rāma, the sixth incarnation of Vis.n. u, when he was expiating the sin of
having exterminated the Ks.atriyas see Skandapurān. a , Āvantyakhan. d. a, Adhyāya .
Rāmakan. t.ha cites as evidence the existence of Rudra/Śiva-centred gnostic texts within the corpus
of Śruti. e Śaiva background of these texts lies in the Atimārga. us the Śvetāśvatara contains
the concept of ‘the end of suffering’ (duh. khāntah. ) as the ultimate goal ( .  duh. khasyānto), the
notion that this comes about through the removal of the soul’s ‘fetters’ (pāśāh. ) ( .  jñātvā devam .
mucyate sarvapāśaih.  .  jñātvā devam . sarvapāśāpahānih. ), the belief that attaining it is dependent
on divine favour (īśaprasādah. ) ( .  devaprasādāt), and the terminology that categorizes the manifest
world as comprising kāryān. i and karan. āni ( .  na tasya kāryam . karan. am. ca vidyate .  sa kāran. am
.
karan. ādhipādhipo), all features otherwise distinctive of Pāñcārthika doctrine. or ‘the end of suffering’
and ‘divine favour’ see Pañcārtha .  apramādī gacched duh. khānām antam īśaprasādāt. or the
‘fetters’ see Pañcārthabhās.ya, p. , ll. –  tatra pāśā nāma kāryakaran. ākhyāh. kalāh. . On kāryam and
karan. am see this last and the discussion of their meaning in Śvetāśvatara . , namely ‘body’ and
‘faculties’ in S b, pp. – , fn. , which provides further parallels. n the case
of the Atharvaśira-upanis.ad compare, e.g., cd (tr..sn. ām . chittvā hetujālasya mūlam . buddhyā sam. cintya
sthāpayitvā tu rudre) with Pañcārtha . –  chittvā dos.ān. ām . hetujālasya mūlam . buddhyā svam
. cittam.
sthāpayitvā ca rudre (for the emendation svam . in the latter see here p. ??).
ese three defects are specified by Kumārila in Ślokavārttika-Codanāsūtra , quoted above in
the register of testimonia, as reasons for rejecting the uddhists’ argument that their claim that the
 Ś S P T  

. Sarvajñānottara, Liṅgoddhārādiprakaran. a
dvāv evāśramin. au śaive gr. hasthabrahmacārin. au |
lokānugrahakartārau parivrāt.tāpasau na hi ||
gr. hasthabrahmacāritvam . sam. jñāmātram . tu kevalam |
pāramārthikam etes.ām nāśramo nāśramakriyā ||
yadartham . kr. takarmān. o niyuktāh. parame pade |
tadartham āśramo noktah. śivaśāstrasamāśritām ||
pūrvasandhyājape homam . yac ca karma kramāgatam |
sthityartham ācaret kim . cit satatam . na tu tatparah. ||
yasmin varn. e sthito dīks.ām . prāpto dehī śivātmikām |
tatraiva sam . sthito nityam . śivadharmam . tu pālayet ||
uddha, the author of their scriptures, was omniscient is proved by the existence of an unbroken
tradition to that effect from his time to the present. or a detailed discussion of this verse and the
three that follow and their interpretation by Kumārila’s commentators see K , vol. ,
pp. – .
At the end of the passage edition  and the manuscript T have yena yus.maddr. st.yāpy aprāmān. yam .
syāt, which, taken with what precedes, would mean ‘[. . . and it is not one that has been adopted
by only a few,] so that [the Śaiva scriptures] would be invalid from your point of view also (api)
[or ‘even (api) from your point of view’]’. dition A too reads this api.  have rejected the reading
because the particle api makes the clause nonsensical it certainly is not be the case that, as that
reading requires, the corpus is also invalid from the Śaiva point of view. An alternative route to
sense is to emend yena to tena and aprāmān. yam to prāmān. yam ‘erefore from your point of
view also [the Śaiva scriptures] must be valid’. is would match the opening statement of this
passage ata eva yus.maddr..st.yāpy asya na pās.an. d. atvam
. ‘So this [teaching of Śiva] is not a forbidden
form of religion from your point of view too’ and the closing sentence of the end of the parallel
passage in Trilocanaśiva’s Siddhāntasamuccaya upanis.atsu śvetāśvatarādis.u atharvaśirah. prabhr. tis.u *ca
mantres.u (conj.  ca ma SiSb  ca SiSa) *śivasya SiSb  rivasya SiSa) *ārādhyatvam . (SiSb  ārāradhyatvam
SiSa) *śrūyate (SiSb  ucyate SiSa). sūks.mātisūks.mam . kalilasya madhye viśvasya sras
.t.āram
. anekarūpam |
viśvasya *ekam . (corr.  caikam
.  [A is lacunose here]) parives.t.itāram
. jñātvā śivam. *śāntim (corr.  śāntam
A) atyantam etītyādi śiva eko dhyeyah. śivaṅkarah. sarvam anyat parityajyetyādi ca. tato ’sya na vigānatā
nāpi chinnamūlatā (SiSb  tato sya nnam api tānā nāvicchinnamūlatā SiSa) na kaiścid eva parigrahah. .
tasmād vedavidbhir anyaiś ca tat pramān. atayā grāhyam ‘n such Upanis.ads as the Śvetāśvatara and in
such Mantra-texts as the Atharvaśiras we are taught that we should propitiate Śiva, in such passages
as ‘‘When a person has known Śiva, the subtlest of the subtle in the midst of the gross, the creator
of the universe, multiform, the being that envelops everything, he proceeds completely to the end of
all ills’’ (Śvetāśvatara . ) and ‘‘Meditate on Śiva alone, the source of beatitude, casting aside all else
. . . ’’ (Atharvan. aśikhopanis.ad . ). erefore this [teaching of Śiva] is not disputed it is not a tradition
whose root has been cut off [and] it is not one that has been adopted by only a few. So it should be
adopted as valid by Vaidikas and [all] others [besides]’. e fact that Trilocanaśiva has cited a passage
that we know from the Atharvan. aśikhopanis.ad rather than the Atharvaśiras suggests that for him the
former was part of the latter.
yad uktam . śivaśāstre ’smin muktikarma .sad. ānana |
tad avaśyam . tu kartavyam . tad vilaṅghya vilaṅghanam ||
ājñeyam . kāran . ātmīyā na vikalpyā kadācana |
siddhidvayasādhanam . nāsti dūs.an. am . ca na vidyate ||
na pūrus.air ārs.am . vākyam . daivikam . r..sibhis tathā |
na devair brahman. o vākyam . vais..navam . padmajanmanā ||
na śaivam vis
. .. n unā vākyam . bādhyate tu kadā cana |
yo hi bādhati pāpātmā sa nas.t.o mūd. hacetasah. ||
uttarottaravaiśis.t.yam . sarves.ām . parikīrtitam |
vākyānām . vākyavit prājñas tathā grāhyo hitais.ibhih. ||
ye ca varn. āśramācārāh. prāyaścittāś ca laukikāh. |
sambandhā deśadharmāś ca prasiddhān na vicārayet ||
garbhādhānāditah. kr. tvā yāvad udvāham eva tu |
tāvat tu vaidikam . karma paścāc chaive ca nānyabhāk ||
na mukhyavr. ttaye skanda lokadharmān samācaret |
nānyaśāstrasamuddis.t.am . na cānyām . devatām . smaret ||
viśuddhabhāvanāyuktah. śivaikagatamānasah. |
viśuddham āpnuyāt sthānam acintyam . sarvagam . dhruvam ||
śabalam . karma sam . dehād yat kr tam
. . pāvakodbhava |
nehāmutra phalam . tasya ekāntasukhadam . bhavet ||

Manuscripts N, f. [ ]r –v  P  P T , pp. –

Testimonia M  Vaktraśambhu, Mr. gendrapaddhativyākhyā, P T , p. (vv. – ),


(v. ), p. (v. , vv. – ), and p. (v. ab) V  Sarvajñānottaravr. tti quoted
in M, pp. – (on vv. – ) and p. (on v. ) A  Tantrāloka . c– ,
paraphrasing vv. – b, and  J  Tantrālokaviveka thereon, quoting vv. – b, c– b,
vv. – b, and vv. c– b.

d parivrāt.tāpasau PM  parivrātāpaso N • After P has an extra verse evam . *kāryo ’dhikāro


(em.  kāryādhikāro P) yāvat *sam . krāmito (em.  sam
. krāmato P) ’nyatah. | sam
. krāmitādhikāras tu
karma*sam . nyāsam (em.  śanyā sam P) ācaret a yadartham
. PM  yadartha N b niyuktāh.
M  nimuktah. N  niyuktau P c tadartham āśramo noktah. corr.  tadartham āśramo nokta N  ta-
dartham . nāśramah. proktah. P  yadartham. nāśramāh. proktāh. M d samāśritām (Aiśa gen. pl. for
samāśritānām ) N  samāśritāh. PMV a sam . dhyājape N  sam
. dhyājapam . P  sam
. dhyām. japam.
e extra verse ‘e should exercise office in this way until it has been passed on to another. Once
he has passed on his office he should give up [its] rituals’.  have rejected this passage because it is
lacking in N and M and because it is out of place. t is found in its proper context in the next chapter
( . ), which is concerned with the consecration of urus.
e metrically convenient option of substituting -ām for -ānām in the gen. pl. of a-stems is seen
elsewhere in Śaiva scriptural texts that have not undergone revision to remove such anomalies. See, e.g.,
Svacchandalalitabhairavatantra f. v  nirdayā<m . > hīnajātīnām
.  f. v  goghnāñ caiva kr. ta*ghnām

M d na tu tatparah. N  mantratatparah. P  mantratatparam M d tu pālayet N  ca pālayet
M  prakalpayet P b muktikarma em.  muktakarmma N  nyuktam . karma P d vilam . ghya
N  vilām . khya P a ājñeyam. P  ajñeyam. N • kāran . ātmīyā N  kāran. ā jñeyā P b na N  no P
c siddhidvayasādhanam . nāsti conj.  siddhadvayam . sādhane nāsti N  siddheyam . sādhanam .
nāsti P a na pūrus.air ārs.am . vākyam . (conj. [incorrect caesura])  na purus.air ārs.am vākyam .
N  na pum . hir ārs
.akam . vākyam . P  na pum . bhir ārs
. avākyam . ca J b daivikam . NP  vaidikam J
. •
r..sibhis N (to be read ris.ibhis for the metre)  ris.ibhis P  cars.ibhis J c brahman. o NJ  brāhman. o P
d padmajanmanā NP  padmajanmajaih. J c bādhati pāpātmā N  bādhati mūd. hātmā P  bā-
dhayate pāpah. J d sa nas.t.o mūd. hacetasah. N (Aiśa stem-extension)  sam . nas.t.o mūd. hacetanah.
P  sa mūd. ho nas.t.acetanah. J b prājñas N  prājñais P d grāhyo conj.  grāhya N  guhyam . P
• hitais.ibhih. P  hitars.ibhih. N a ye ca varn. n. āśramācārāh. NM  ye tu varn. āśramācārāh. J  + +
varn. āśramācārā P c sambandhā deśadharmāś ca NP  sam . bandhyā deśadharmāś ca M  sam . ban-
dhān deśadharmām . ś ca J d prasiddhān na vicārayet J  prasiddhām . na vicārayet N  prasiddhām .
nā vicārayet P  prasiddhāny api cācaret M  b eva tu N  eva vā P  eva ca MJ c tāvat tu
J  tāvam . tu P  kāmam . tu M  evan tu N c ca nānyabhāk conj.  cananyathāk N  tu nānyab-
hāk M  hy ananyabhāk J  tyananyabhāk P a mukhyavr. ttaye conj. (Aiśa for instr. sg.)  na

(em.  kr. taghnāś od.) ca mitraviśrambhaghātakām .  f. v  dayādāks.in. yarahitām . paiśunyānr. tacetasām


f. r  anyes.ām api jantūnām . timiropahateksan ām
. . . . ese marks of the Aiśa register of Sanskrit have
been removed through rewriting in the Kashmirian redaction as follows Svacchandatantra . a
nirdayādhamajātīnām .  . cd goghnānām . ca kr. taghnānām . mitraviśrambhaghātinām .  . cd dayā-
dāks.in. yahīnānām. paiśunyānr. tacetasām . a timirākrāntacaks.us.ām . . Similarly Siddhayogeśvarīmata
f. r ( ed. T¨ ¨ , . a) aśes.ām eva mantrān. ām (revised sarves.ām eva mantrān. ām as quoted in
Tantrālokaviveka on . c– b) Devīpurān. a .  dvijānām antyajām api. t occurs frequently in the
metrical portions of the early medieval uddhist Tantric Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, e.g., at . , . ,
. , . , . , . – , . – .
e reading conjectured is hypermetrical, a deviation that is far less common in such texts
than Aiśa deviations from the grammarians’ Sanskrit. ut the meaning that it yields, ‘ere is no
accomplishing of two successes (siddhidvaya-)’, which  take to mean that doing both brahmanical
and Śaiva rites does not double the effect, is in harmony with other statements in this literature,
such as that in Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . – b, to be cited below, according to which one
should continue do the brahmanical rites even though they add nothing to the efficacity of one’s
Śaiva rites. Moreover, the metrical error disappears if the -aya- of siddhidvaya- is read as -e-. is
licence, which derives from the development of Old ndo-Aryan -aya- into -e- in Middle ndo-
Aryan, is seen elsewhere in Śaiva scriptural texts. n all the cases noted by me a hypermetrical, nine-
syllable quarter-verse becomes a metrical eight-syllable quarter if we accept that -aya- is window-
dressing for -e- Picumata f. v ( . b) vijayabhairavako ’parah.  f. v ( . d) samayalam . ghapra-
bhāvatah.  f. r ( . a) samayalam . ghanabhūyis.t.ham .  f. v ( . c) samayavidyā samākhyātā
f. v ( . b) samayalaṅghanatatparah.  f. v ( . d) hr. dayam aṅgus.t.hake tathā f. r
( . d) ubhayamārggānuvarttinā f. r ( . b) ubhayamārggopasevinām .  f. r ( . b)
hr. dayabhairava kalpayet Kubjikāmata . c paroks.amr. takānayanam .  . d samayaghnah. śudhyate
yathā Yonigahvara f. v ( a) samaya*vidyām . mahābalām . (corr.  vidyā mahābalā od.). t is also
seen as in the sub-Pān. inian uddhist register of Sanskrit, in which it is not always window-dressed
(BHSG . ).
mukhyavr. ttaya N  na mukhyavr. ttyā vai J  na mukhyapra + vatyā ca P  na mukhyayā vr. ttyā M
b lokadharmān MJ  lokam . + dharmān P  lokadharmmā N c nānyaśāstrasamuddis.t.am . J  nā-
nyathāstūsamuddis.t.ām. N  na cānyaśāstreddis t am
.. . P a yuktah
. NJ  yukta P b mānasah
.  mā-
PJ
nasa N c āpnuyāt sthānam corr.  āpnuyā sthānam N  ānuyāt stānam P d dhruvam N  r. va
P a sam . dehād corr.  sam
. dehā N  sandehad P b pāvakodbhava corr.  pāvakodbhavah. N  kr. -
takodbhavam (← kr. ttikodbhava) P c nehāmutra em.  nehamūtra N  nehamantra P d ekā-
ntasukhadam . bhavet corr.  ekāntasukhadam . bhave N  naikānte sukhadam . bhavet P

n the teaching of Śiva only persons in two of the [four brahmanical] disciplines, that of
the celibate student or that of the married householder, are qualified to favour mankind
[by holding office as urus], not the hermit or the renouncer. ut their being
householders or celibate students is nominal (sam . jñāmātram) for them. ey should
consider neither their brahmanical discipline (āśramah. ) nor the rites they perform
therein (āśramakriyā) to be fully real. ose who have taken up the teachings of Śiva
(śivaśāstra-) are required to maintain the brahmanical discipline [in which they were at
the time of their initiation, but] not because this promotes the attainment of the goal
for which they were united [with Śiva] (niyuktāh. ) on the highest level after the ritual [of
the destruction of their bonds] had been performed [for them]. [e initiate] should
continue regularly to do the [brahmanical rites such as] the dawn [devotions], the

is Aiśa use of the dative vr. ttaye in the sense of the instrumental is facilitated by the facts that
in Middle ndo-Aryan there is no dative and that all feminines of -i-stems share a single ending in the
singular oblique cases. e readings of P and the testimonia have removed this anomaly by rewriting
to provide the instrumental vr. ttyā.
e favouring of mankind (anugrahah. ) referred to here is primarily that of conducting the
ceremonies of initiation. f., e.g., Siddhāntasārapaddhati A f. v – ,  f. v , referring to initiation
śiśor *anugrahātma (  anugrahāya A) karma kuryāt. Secondarily it refers to the officiant’s duty and
obligation to teach the scriptures and to consecrate images and temples.
e celibate student (brahmacārī) envisaged here is the nais.t.hikah. , the lifelong celibate who never
marries, as opposed to the bhautikah. , who observes the discipline of the celibate student only until he
marries and becomes a householder (gr. hasthah. ).
As the parentheses in my translation indicate  take this to refer to the two aspects and phases
of the ritual of initiation the destruction of the candidate’s bonds through the purification of the
reality-levels (tattvaśuddhih. ) followed by the uru’s raising his soul with his own through the subtle
central channel (sus.umn. ā) to fuse him with Śiva (śivayojanā, śivayojanikā) at its summit above his head.
f. Abhinavagupta, Tantrasāra, p. ll. –  tattvaśuddhiśivayojanārūpāyā dīks.āyā iti. is interpretation
agrees with that of the Sarvajñānottaravr. tti quoted in M, p. , ll. –  ete kr. tadīks.ākarmān. o śis.yāh.
parasmin pade yojitāh. .
 have translated pūrvasam . dhyā in its usual meaning of ‘[the observances performed at] the first
juncture [of the day]’, i.e. sunrise, as in, e.g., Mahābhārata . . a. ut the Sarvajñānottaravr. tti
quoted in M, p. , ll. – interprets it as a collective singular meaning ‘[the observances performed
at] the junctures pertaining to the previous’, that is to say as a genitive Tatpurus.a, where ‘the previous’
denotes the brahmanical discipline of the initiate before his initiation and refers by extension to the
other brahmanical rites mentioned here pūrvāśrama*sam . bandhi (em.  sam
. bandha od.) śrutyādivihi-
repetition [of the āyatrī], and the offering to the [domestic] fire, and whatever other
rituals have come down through tradition, not extensively (kim . cit), [and only] for the
sake of [the mundane] order (sthityartham) rather than with true commitment (na tu
tatparah. ). A person must regularly (nityam) observe the Śaiva religion (śivadharmam .)
while remaining in the caste in which he was when he received his Śaiva initiation
(dīks.ām
. śivātmikām). [ut] it is the rites taught in these scriptures of Śiva for liberation
(muktikarma) that are [to be seen by him as] his true duty, O Skanda. t is if he
breaks that rule that he sins. is is the command of Śiva himself. and it must never
be doubted. e effect of his practice is not doubled [by maintaining his brahmanical

tam . sam. dhyāvandanahomādikam . ‘[rites] such as the devotions at the junctures, the fire-sacrifices and the
rest, which have been prescribed by Śruti and [Smr.ti] and were associated with his previous brahmanical
discipline’. e expression -sambandhi here indicates that the element pūrva- should be understood in
the sense of the genitive, i.e. as pūrvasya.
 take the word kim . cit (‘some’) here adverbially (‘somewhat’), as in kim . cit sam. mīlayen netre
(Mataṅgapārameśvara, Yogapāda . ) and kim . cidākuñcitā ṅgus t
.. hau (ibid., . ).
or sthitih. in this meaning see Parātrīśikāvivaran. a p. , l. in the passage on the nature of
mundane religion translated in S b, pp. –  sā cāprabuddhān prati sthitir bhaved
iti prabuddhaih. kalpitā ‘And this [inhibition] has been constructed by the enlightened for [the benefit
of ] the unenlightened in order to provide them with a stable [social] order’.  take sthitih. to be equivalent
to lokasthitih. , for which see Skandapurān. a . cd lokasthitikarā dharmā vedasmr. tipurogamāh. ‘e
duties that bring about the mundane order are Śruti, the Smr.tis, [the Purān. as] and [the pics]’ the
passage of the ar.āhā stone inscription of the Maukhari Īśānavarman of . . , EI  , ll. – [v.
] lokasthitīnām . sthitaye sthitasya manor ivācāravivekamārge ‘[arivarman,] who like Manu [himself ]
adhered to the path of judging correct conduct, in order that the rules of the mundane order might be
maintained and Tantrāloka . c– a lokasthitim . *raks.ayitum (conj.  racayitum . d.) madyādeh.
paśuśāsane | proktā hy aśuddhih. ‘ermented liquor and the like have been said to be impure in the
scriptures of the uninitiated in order to guard the mundane order’. is emendation of racayitum . to
raks.ayitum . is prompted by the frequency with which this verb is used in this context, as in Tantrāloka
. ab lokasam . raks.an. ārtham . tu tat tattvam . taih. pragopitam ‘at reality was concealed by those
[sages] in order to protect the mundane order’ Tantrālokaviveka on . ab lokasam . raks.an. ārtham.
lokadharmān ācarato na kaś cid dos.ah. ‘ere is no fault if one observes the mundane religious
duties in order to protect the mundane order’ Pārameśvara b  lokasam . vr. tiraks.ārtham prāyaścittam
prakīrttitam ‘e expiations have been taught to preserve intact the mundane conventions’. Another
instance of sthitih. in this sense is seen in the Reyūru plates of the Pallava Narasim . havarman  (IP no.
, l. ). ere his father Parameśvaravarman  is described as vidhivihitasarvamaryādasya sthitisthitasya
‘who enacted in accordance with [scriptural] injunction all the boundaries [of the varn. āśramadharmah. ],
who was devoted to the [brahmanical] order (sthitisthitasya)’.
 have emended to muktikarma here, rejecting N’s muktakarmma (P nyuktam . karma) because
that, though it can be made to yield an appropriate meaning (‘the rites performed by the liberated’), is
not parallelled, whereas muktikarma ‘ritual for liberation’ occurs elsewhere, both in the Sarvajñānottara
itself (N bhavis.yanmuktikarman. a<h. >) and in the Svāyambhuvasūtrasam . graha (N f. r [ d. . ]
paurn. amāsy as.t.amī śuklā tathā caiva caturdaśī | bhūtidīks.āsu tithayah. sakr..sn. ā muktikarmasu). ere the
expression is synonymous with muktidīks.ā. ere we may take it to mean all that is done for liberation,
including the initiate’s post-initiatory practice.
duties] but nor is it diminished. ose who seek to benefit [themselves and others]
(hitais.ibhih. ) should follow a learned [uru] (prājñah. ) who understands the teachings
[of the various bodies of religious injunction in the following order of precedence]
(vākyavit). [Mere] human beings cannot overrule the teachings of the sages, nor the
sages those of the [lesser] gods, nor the [lesser] gods those of rahmā, nor rahmā
those of Vis.n. u, nor Vis.n. u those of Śiva. e who allows a lower ruling to overrule
a higher is a deluded sinner and lost. [or] among these teachings the higher is the
more specific [and so blocks the application of any more general injunction that it
may happen to contradict, just as a general rule in grammar is superseded by specific
rules covering exceptions]. [e initiated Śaiva] should not call into question the
established practices of his caste and brahmanical discipline, the mundane penances
[imposed for their neglect], [the rules restricting his] connections (sam . bandhāh. ), or
any duties specific to his region (deśadharmāh. ). [Moreover,] O Skanda, it is only af-
ter he has gone through all the brahmanical rites from that of conception to that
of marriage that he may [take initiation and then] devote himself exclusively to the
teachings of Śiva. [And even after his initiation] he should [continue to] observe his
mundane religious duties (lokadharmāh. ), though not[, as we have seen, as duties] in
the full sense (na mukhyavr. ttaye). [ough he should conform as far as possible to

e essentials of this hierarchy, as explained by Abhinavagupta in Tantrāloka . c– b


explained by Jayaratha thereon, are that Vais.n. ava prescriptions outweigh the Veda/Śruti (the teachings
of rahmā [Jayaratha brahmasam . bhūtair vedavākyair ity arthah. ]) and the Śaiva in turn outweigh the
Vais.n. ava. e teaching of the sages (ārs.am) and the [lesser] deities (daivikam) are evidently Smr.ti,
comprising the Smr.tis proper (the harmaśāstras), the Purān. as, and the pics, since these have less
weight that Śruti. As the parenthetical explanation in my translation indicates, the hermeneutical model
adopted here is that of the relation between general rule (utsargah. ) and exception (apavādah. ) in gram-
mar and Vedic hermeneutics (Mīmām . sā). e general Vedic rule (sāmānyacodanā) is valid except when
a specifically Śaiva rule (viśes.acodanā) comes into play. See Tantrālokaviveka on . c– b śaivyā
viśes.acodanayā sāmānyātmikā vaidikī codanā bādhitā ‘the application of a generally valid prescription
taught in the Veda is barred by any contrary specific prescription taught by Śiva’ and on . c– b,
citing the use of the terms utsargavidhih. ‘general rule’ and apavādah. ‘exceptional rule’ made by the
Mīmām . sakas (vākyavidah. ) to explain similar cases within the Vedic corpus, such as the suspension of
the general Smārta prohibition against brahminicide in the case of the Śrauta Purus.amedha.
is, of course, treats the case of the married initiate as the norm. n the case of the unmarried
student (brahmacārī) the brahmanical rites of passage would end with his Upanayana, his initiation as
a celibate student of the Veda.
On the form vr. ttaye here for vr. ttyā see p. . e idea is that one is not to see these brahmanical
activities as ‘duties’ in the primary or literal meaning of that term, that is to say, as activities that
generate merit (pun. yam, dharmah. ) for the performer, since the Śaiva must see that his initiation, by
eliminating his past and future karma, has put him beyond the range of such benefit. One is to see these
‘duties’ non-literally in the sense that one is to undertake them only to preserve the mundane socio-
religious order designed to guide the uninitiated. Jayaratha on the paraphrase of this line in Tantrāloka
. ab nis.t.hāśūnyatayā tu gaun. yā vr. ttyā lokadharmān sam . raks.ato na kaścid dos.ah. ‘ut he is not at fault
if he continues to observe his mundane duties without commitment, non-literally, in order [only] to
the injunctions of the lower revelations] he should not dwell deeply (na smaret) on
the teachings of any religion other [than Śaivism] or any deity other [than Śiva]. With
unmingled meditation, with his awareness on Śiva alone, he will attain the pure abode
beyond conception, all-pervading, and eternal. O Skanda, if out of lack of conviction
(sam
. dehāt) he performs hybrid rites (śabalam . karma), he will receive no reward that
bestows complete bliss either here or hereafter.

. Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . – b
ācāro dvividhah. śāstre narān. ām . bhāvitātmanām |
dr..st.ādr..st.aphalaprāptir amoghā sampravartate ||
laukikah. suprasiddho ’yam avirodhanidarśanāt |
pālyo nih. śreyase caiva sam . vr. tāv apy aninditaih. ||
śaivo ’nyo sam . praboddhavyo prayatnāt sādhakātmabhih.
muktaye siddhaye caiva kāran. ājñānuvartibhih. ||
yasmin yasmin yathopātto deśe svāmnāyadarśanāt |
tasmim . s tasmin prakartavya ācārah. prayatātmabhih. ||
na ca vaiśes.ikācāre laukiko ’ṅgatvam āpnuyāt |
tathāpi pālanīyo ’sau yasmād dos.o na pālite ||
tyakte vātha gun. ah. kaścit sāmānyas tena cocyate |

Manuscripts (Codd.) N  the Nepalese mss. (Ne [ ’s a], the palm-leaf exemplar Na
[Na , Na ], paper apographs) cett.  the south-ndian manuscripts as reported in  ’s
edition ˙ .

Testimonia M  Vaktraśambhu, Mr. gendrapaddhativyākhyā, p. , ll. – (quoting – b with


omission of c– ) M  ibid., p. , ll. – (quoting ) R  hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha , -vr. tti
thereon, P, ff.  v – r (collated with its lacunose quotation in M, pp. , l. – ,
l. , beginning from laukikah. sam . prasiddho *ityādi [em.  ityāda P] yo ’yam. ) atheti samayebhyo
’nantaram ācāravidhānam. tatas sarves.ām ācāryādīnām . sādhāran . am atah
. prathamam . vaks.yāmī-
ti. *samayāh. kathitāh. (conj.  māyācārāx kathitaf P). ācāra (conj.  prakāra P) itah. prabhr. ty ucyate
| ācāro dvividha ityādi. tatra prathamah. ka ity āha. laukikas *sa prasiddha (P  sam . prasiddho
M) *ityādi. yo (P  ityādayo M) ’yam . *brāhman. ādivarn. abhedenācāras (brāhman. ādi em.  bra-
hman. ādi od. • varn. a P  dharma M) so ’yam utpattiśis.t.aśrutismr. tiśāstramūlatvena (em.  utpat-
tiviśis.t.a M  upapattiśis.t.a P) prasiddha eva dīks.itair *api (P  hi M) pālyo nih. śreyase caivetīhā-
pi pālyatvenābhyanujñātatvād apālane tasyety ācārasyaiva pratyavāyādiyoga ity arthah. . sam . vr. ttih.
sam . vyavahārah. . dīks.itair hi *dvijātibhir avaśyam. (corr.  dvijātibhir avaśyam. dvijātibhir avaśyam .
protect the mundane order’.
Aiśa frozen nom. sing. masc. in -o, as in, e.g., Niśvāsaguhya f. v [ . ab] nih. śauco maladigdhā-
ṅgo piśācām. śo ’dhadr..st.ikah.  f. v [ . b] strī naro siddhim āpnuyāt f. r ( . d) daśaikādaśamo
śaśī and f. v [ . abc] sugandhagandhaliptāṅgo pus.pasragdāmabhūs.itah. | sudhūpito sutāmbūlah. . f.
BHSG . .
P  lacking in M) dvijātibhir eva saha vyavahāro vivāhādih. kartavyas tannimittam api pālya iti.
sa cāvirodhadarśanena pālyah. . yadā tu vaks.yamān. o ’yam ihatyenācāren. a saha virudhyate tadāsya
bādha eva yad uktam . śrīmatsvāyambhuve sandhyām adhikr. tya ‘‘kuryād brāhmīm . na vā kuryāc
chaivīm eva niyogata’’ iti. dvitīyas tu śaivo ’nya ityādi. asminn eva śāstre vaks.yamān. ah. . sa ca
na sam . hitāntaraśrutah. . sam . hitāntare tu yasmin yasmi<nn i>tyādi. diśyate ’nenopadiśyate purus.a
iti deśaś śāstrātmakah. sam . hitābhedah. . tad idam uktam: ‘‘kriyādibhedabhedena tantrabhedo yatah.
smr. tah. ’’. tasmāt ‘‘tatra *yathaivoktam. (em.  yathaivokta P  lacking in M) kartavyam . nānyatantra-
ta’’ iti. atha kim ayam . laukiko ’trācārah. kratvarthatayā pālyah. . nety ucyate. na cetyādi. *yady
apy (M  yady P) asmin *viśes.avihite (M  viśes.o vihito P) nityādikratvātmany *ācāre (M  ācāro P)
laukiko ’sau nāṅgam . tathāpi purus.ārthatayā pālanīya eva. yasmād dos.a iti. *nakāro (P  nakāro
’tra M) nis.edhe. tasminn apālite samayātmako (em.  samayātmake PM) dos.ah. . tyakte tv ācārāt-
mako gun. ah. kaścin na sambadhyate kim . tu dos.a eva tasyeha *pālyatvenābhyanujñātatveneha-
tyanis.edhavyatikramasamānatvāt (pālyatvenābhyanujñātatvenehatya em.  pālyatvenābhyanujñā-
tatvenehatve M  pālyatvābhyanujñānenehatya P • nis.edhavyatikrama em.  nis.edhavivr. tikrama
P  nis.edhah. sidhyati. karma M). ata evāyam ācāro vaidikah. sāmānya ucyate ’trāpi pālyatvenābhy-
anu*jñātatvād (M  jñānād P) iti.

a śāstre odd.   mārge M b narān. ām . bhāvitātmanām em. ( Vidyāpāda . b, d) 


kāran. am
. bhāvitātmanām N  caratām . bhāvitātmanām cett.   carato bhāvitātmanā M c
phala odd.   phale M a laukikah. suprasiddho odd.   laukikah. sa prasiddho
R  laukikah. sam . prasiddho M  laukikaprasiddho M • ’yam NRMM   yah.
b avirodhanidarśanāt N  so ’virodhanidarśanāt ˙  so ’pirodhanidarśanāt  so ’parād-
hanidarśanāt Ja  sauvirodhadarśanāt M c nih. śreyase NRMM  naih. śreyase cett. (naiśreyase ˙ )
 • caiva NRMM   nes.ām.  nes.t.am
. d sam . vr. tāv apy Ne ˙ (  + vatāv
āpy )  sam vr
. . ttāv apy N a supported by R thereon (sam vr
. . ttis sam . vyavahārah . )  sam. pratiś cāpy
M  sam . pratīś cāpy M a śaivo ’nyo N e cett., supported by R (śaivo ’nya ityādi),   saivānyā
Na • sam . praboddhavyo Ne  sam . praboddhavyā Na  py atra boddhavyo ˙  pa + boddhavyam .
 puruboddhavyam . ab caiva kāran. ājñānuvartibhih.   caiva ākāran. ājñānu-
varttibhih. Ne  caivākāran. ājñānuvarttibhih. Na  kārayej jñānavartmani ˙ a yathopātto cett.
  yathotpattau N b deśe   deśa N ˙ cd prakartavya ācārah. N  prakartavyo
hy ācārah. cha ja ṅa   prakartavyo py ācārah. a vaiśes.ikācāre conj.  , confirmed by
R (yady apy asmin viśes.avihite nityādikravtātmany ācāre laukiko ’sau nāṅgam)  vaiśes.ikācāram .
N  vaiśes.ikācārā ˙  veśikārā Ja  deśikārā + b ṅgatvam N, supported by R (yady apy
asmin [. . . ] laukiko ’sau nāṅgam),   sātvam ˙  sattvam d yasmād dos.o na pālite
N, supported by R (yasmād dos.a iti. nakāro nis.edhe. tasminn apālite),   yasmād dos.o na pā
+ +  yasmād dos.o na pālyate ˙  yasyā dos.ānupālyate  sānudos.ānupālyate

Religious observance of two kinds is [prescribed] for the devout in the [Śaiva] scrip-
tures. [rom it] comes the certain attainment of both visible and invisible rewards.
[e first is] the mundane (laukikah. ), known to all. nitiates [who wish to be] blameless
should [continue to] observe it, wherever they see that it does not conflict [with the pre-
scripts of Śaivism], both for their own spiritual benefit (naih. śreyase) and for the sake
of [mundane] convention (sam . vr. tāv api). e other [form of observance] is the Śaiva.
Practitioners who follow od’s command must diligently master [this observance] here
as the means of achieving liberation (muktaye) and supernatural effects (siddhaye caiva).
[At the same time] they must conscientiously follow the brahmanical observances that
have been adopted in whatever is their region, in accordance with the teaching of their
[branch of the] Veda (svāmnāya-). [is] mundane [observance] cannot contribute

Literally ‘[it should continue to be observed] as the result of seeing that there is no conflict’
(avirodhanidarśanāt). Taken literally this might be thought to indicate that there are no conflicts at
all between brahmanical and Śaiva prescriptions. ut it is unlikely that this is what the text meant,
since there are indeed points of conflict and in such cases the Śaiva must prevail see, e.g., Tantrāloka
. – , citing and explaining Sarvajñānottara. hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha  thereon (cited above in the
register of testimonia [from sa cāvirodhadarśanena to niyogata iti]) ‘and it must be maintained when
there is conjunction with absence of evidence of conflict. ut whenever this [Śaiva] observance, which
will be taught below, is opposed by a mundane observance, it is the latter that must give way, as has been
taught in Svāyambhuva[sūtrasam . graha] ‘‘e may or may not do the brahmanical [Sandhyā ritual] but
it is compulsory that he should do the Śaiva’’’.
oth N (as reported negatively by  ) and Rāmakan. t.ha  in R (lacking in M) have sam . vr. ttau
rather than sam . vr. tau here. hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha  thereon (from sam . vr. ttih. sam
. vyavahārah. to tannimit-
tam api) interprets this as follows ‘e [word] sam . vr. ttih. [means] ‘social intercourse’ (sam . vyavahārah. ).
or initiated persons of a twice-born caste must conduct such social interactions as marriage only with
persons of the same caste. [So Śiva says here that mundane observance] should be maintained [not
only for one’s ultimate good but] also for the sake of social intercourse’. So, in brief, he takes the basic
semantic analysis to be sam . vr. ttih. in the meaning ‘to be (-vr. ttih. ) together (sam-)’ and thence ‘to interact
[socially]’.  have preferred the reading sam . vr. tāv api because of parallels Svāyambhuvasūtrasam . graha
f. r ( d. . cd), where metre excludes sam . vr. tti- ācāram . dīks.itās tasmāt kurvīran lokasam . vr. teh.
‘nitiates should therefore undertake [this] practice because of mundane convention’ Pārameśvara
b  lokasam . vr. tiraks.ārtham prāyaścittam prakīrtitam (translated above, p.  with the same spelling
in the citation of this passage in r.dayaśiva, Prāyaścittasamuccaya, f. r – ) Mataṅga, Caryāpāda
. c lokasam . vr. tiraks.ārtham (following cett. against N’s -sam . vr. tti-) and lokasam . vr. tisatyam ‘the reality of
mundane convention’ (/sam . vr. tisatyam) as opposed to ultimate reality (paramārthasatyam) in uddhist
texts. e term sam . vr. tih. in this usage does not derive its primary meaning from sam . -√vr. ‘to conceal’,
but from sam-√man ‘to agree’, being a Sanskrit reflex of Middle-ndic, as in Pali sammuti ‘agreement’,
and lokasammutti ‘mundane convention’. owever, the reading and understanding of the word seen in
Rāmakan. t.ha ’s commentary was, or became, part of Śaiva usage. us the Jñānaratnāvalī, written in
the twelfth-century by Jñānaśiva, a long-term Tamil resident of enares, tells us that the brahmanical
post-cremation rituals must be done for Śaivas ‘for the sake of mundane social intercourse’ (p. ,
ll. – ) sapin. d. īkaran. am . yāvad vaidikī ca kriyā matā. lokasam . vyavahārārtham . . learly, his expression
lokasam . vyavahārah. is based on *lokasam . vr. ttih. in accordance with Rāmakan. t.ha ’s gloss.
hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha  thereon (yasmin yasmin to nānyatantrata iti) takes this last sentence to refer
not to mundane observance but to the Śaiva, that is to say, as an injunction to adhere consistently to
the teaching of a single Śaiva scripture.  have not followed him, because his reading requires a strained
interpretation of deśah. (‘region’) as ‘teaching’ ( upadeśah. ). n this way,  propose, he forces the text to
make a point of special concern to him as a Saiddhāntika purist, namely that Śaivas should avoid the
to the efficacity (nāṅgatvam āpnuyāt) of the special observance (vaiśes.ikācāre) [that
one undertakes as a Śaiva initiate]. Still, it should be maintained because there is no
fault in doing so (dos.o na pālite) or any benefit in abandoning it (tyakte vātha gun. ah.
kaścit). And for this reason it is termed the common (sāmānyah. ) [being binding for the
uninitiated and initiated alike].

ABBREVIATIONS

AS  Asiatic Society of engal, alcutta


BHSG  Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar. → 
OR  handarkar Oriental Research nstitute, Pune
EC  Epigraphia Carnatica. – . Mysore Archaeological epartment, Madras,
angalore, Mysore
OS  aekwad’s Oriental Series
  nstitut français d’ndologie
P  nstitut français de Pondichéry
P T  Paper evanāgarī transcript in the collection of the P
IP  Inscriptions of the Pallavas. → M
KSTS  Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies
NAK  National Archives, Kathmandu
NMPP  Nepal-erman Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel Number
ORLS  Oriental Research Library, Srinagar, Kashmir
TSS  Trivandrum Sanskrit Series
UL  University Library, ambridge, U.K.
WM  South Asian Manuscript ollection, Wellcome nstitute for the istory of
Medicine, London

eclectic mingling of Saiddhāntika and non-Saiddhāntika Śaiva ritual systems that he attacks elsewhere
in this commentary see on Kriyāpāda . ab, p. , ll. – .
Literally ‘‘[is] mundane [observance] cannot become an aṅgam of the special [i.e. Śaiva]
observance’’. ere the text employs the terminology developed in the analysis of Śrauta ritual by the
Mīmām . sakas. us Śabarasvāmin on Mīmām . sāsūtra . .  tad dhy aṅgam
. yat pradhānasyopakaroti ‘An
aṅgam is that which aids the principal’ on . .  aṅgam . nāma tad yat pradhānam. phalavat karoti
‘Something is an aṅgam if it makes the principal fruitful’.
REFERENCES

Titles of Sanskrit Works

A  . , ed. aladeva Upādhyāya. Kashi Sanskrit Series . Varanasi e how-


khamba Sanskrit Series Office, .
A .  . . Śaivopanis.adah. , pp. – .
A  - . . Śaivopanis.adah. , pp. – .
A    of alāyudha, ed. eodor Aufrecht. London, dinburgh,
onn, and Paris Williams & Norgate, .
A   N .  of harata with the commentary (A  )
of Abhinavagupta, ed. K. Krishnamoorthy. th rev. ed. OS , , . aroda
Oriental nstitute, – .
A. . . . ditions A  ed. Nā. Kr. s.n. aśāstrī. vols. evakōt.t.ai Śivāgamasiddhā-
ntaparipālanasaṅgha, (T  of hojadeva, T . and T -
. of Sadyojyotis with the commentaries of Aghoraśiva) and
(R  .  of Śrīkan. t.ha,    of Sadyojyotis and N   of
hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha with the commentaries of Aghoraśiva, and the M .   and
P .    of Sadyojyotis with the commentaries of hat.t.a Rāmaka-
n. t.ha )   ed. Vrajavallabha vivedi. Yogatantra-ranthamala . Varanasi Sam-
purnanand Sanskrit University, (the same but with the addition of Śrīkumāra’s
commentary T   on the T  of hojadeva).
Ī  (S   ) of Īśānaśiva, ed. T. an. apati Śāstrī.
parts. TSS , , , and .
   . ORLS (Karmakān. d. a, q.v.), ff. v– v.
K  . . . ORLS . A composite manuscript of which the folios are num-
bered from to in a modern pencilled numeration in Arabic numerals in
the upper right corner of each recto and – in Śāradā numerals in the lower
part of the left margin of each verso paper Śāradā script. olios r– v cover
non-Śaiva ceremonies, such as the various apotropaic or propitiatory rituals (śāntih. ),
the installation rituals for homes and public utilities (pratis.t.hā), and the rituals of
donation (dānavidhih. ) the rest of the manuscript covers the Śaiva post-mortuary
rituals, namely the last rites and cremation (śivanirvān. avidhih. ), the rites for the de-
ceased during the ten days after cremation (śivakriyāvidhih. ), and the various Śrāddhas
Śivaikoddis.t.aśrāddha, Śivasapin. d. īkaran. a, Annapūrn. āpūjā, Śivās.t.akā, Śivānvas.t.akā, Śi-
vadīpaśrāddha, and Śivasām . vatsarikaśrāddha.
K   . NAK - , NMPP A /  paper Newari script up
to . (incomplete) no date.
K  . , ed. Anand Swarup upta. Varanasi All-ndia Kashiraj Trust, .
K. of Laks.mīdhara, Pt. (   . . ), ed. K. V. Rangaswami
Aiyangar. OS . aroda Oriental nstitute,  Pt. (P . .   . . ), ed.
K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. OS . aroda Oriental nstitute, .
J   of Jñānaśivācārya. P T .
T  of Kumārila, commentary on Śabarasvāmin’s commentary (-bhās.ya)
on Mīmām . sāsūtra . . et sqq., ed. Mahāmahopādhyåya Pt. aṅgādhara Śāstrī. e-
nares Sanskrit Series Nos. , , , , , , , , , , , and . enares,
.
T  of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (- ) of Rājānaka Jayaratha,
ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. KSTS , , , , , , , , , , . ombay
and Srinagar, – .
N   .  of Sadyojyotis with the commentary (-prakāśa) of hat.t.a Rāmaka-
n. t.ha, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri. KSTS . Srinagar, .
N  .  . NAK - , NMPP  /  palm-leaf Newari Kut.ila script prob-
ably before .
N  .  A  NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Licchavi script
undated c. . . – . omprises the following works N   , N  -
 (M  ), N   (U  ), N   (N  ),
and N   (  )   WM, shelved at δ  evanāgarī paper
transcript of . . .
N  .N  . , ff. v– v .
N   -Ā   .  the Āgamaprāmān. ya section the N    of
Jayanta. → K .
P   ,P    . . → P  .
P    with the commentary (- . ) of Rāmeśvara [Aparājitānan-
danātha], ed. A. Mahadeva Sastri, revised and enlarged by Sakarlal Yajneswar Sastri
ave. OS . aroda Oriental nstitute, .
P  (Paus.karapārameśvara). UL MS Add. (‘Pārameśvaratantra’) palm-
leaf Licchavi script penned in . . .
P  with the commentary (P    . ) of hagavat Kaun. d. inya, ed.
R. Anantakrishna Sastri. TSS . Trivandrum University of Travancore, .
P ( Brahmayāmala). NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Newari script
penned in . . .
P   of r. dayaśiva. UL Add.  palm-leaf Newari script pen-
ned in . . / .
   . of Śaṅkara with the commentary    of Vācaspatimiśra,
the subcommentary K of Amalānanda, and the sub-subcommentary P -
of Appayadīks.ita, ed. Anantakrishna Sastri. Second edition, ed. hārgav Sāstrī,
ombay Nirn. aya Sāgara Press, .
M ˙   Der Maṅkhakośa herausgegeben mit Auszügen aus dem ommentare
und drei ndices, ed. eodor Zachariae. Vienna ölder and ombay ducation
Society’s Press, yculla, .
M ˙    (Vidyāpāda) with the commentary of hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha
, ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’ . Pondicherry ,  M ˙ -
   (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda) with the commentary of ha-
t.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha , ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’ . Pondicherry , .
Manuscript P  OR of –  paper Śāradā script.
M . with the commentary (M  . ) of Medhātithi, ed. angānātha Jhā.
 . Vols. Allahabad AS, – .
M   . or the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar, with the coop-
eration of S. K. elvalkar, A. . ajendragadkar, V. Kane, R. . Karmarkar, P. L.
Vaidya, S. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman, and other scholars and illustrated by Shrimant
alasaheb Pant Pratinidhi. (Since ed. S. elvalkar). volumes. Pune OR,
– .
M  .   with the commentary (-bhās.ya) of Śabarasvāmin, ed. Yudhis.t.hira Mī-
mām . saka. vols. ahālgar. h Rāmalāl Kapūr Trust Press, .
M. , Vidyāpāda and Yogapāda, with the commentary (- . ) by hat.t.a Nārā-
yan. akan. t.ha, ed. Madhusudan Kaul. KSTS . Srinagar, .
M. , Kriyāpāda and Caryāpāda), with the commentary (- . ) by hat.t.a Nā-
rāyan. akan. t.ha, ed. N.R. hatt. Publications de l’ . Pondicherry , .
M.   of Vaktraśambhu. P T .
M. .   of Aghorasivācarya on hat.t.a Nārāyan. akan. t.ha’s M . -
. , ed. Nā. Kr s n
.. . aśāstrin and K. M. Subrahman . yaśāstrin. Śivāgamasiddhā-
ntaparipālanasaṅgha Publications . evakot.t.ai Śivāgamasiddhāntaparipālanasaṅ-
gha, .
M .   of Sadyojyotis with the commentary (- . ) of Rāmakan. t.ha . di-
tions → A . . .  Manuscript T  P T .
Y  . with the commentary (- .  ) of Aparāditya, ed. ari Nārāyan. a
Āpt.e. Ānandaśramasam . skr. tagranthāvali . Pune Ānandāśrama, .
e manuscripts used for the  edition have the commentary only up to Kriyāpāda . .
e commentary in this manuscript extends further, preserving that on the rest of the Kriyāpāda
( . – . ), the whole of the Yogapāda ( . – . ), and the Caryāpāda up to . , lacking only
that from Caryāpāda . to the end ( . ).
Y . AS   palm-leaf Newari script no date.
L . . of Vairocana Pratis.t.hālaks.an. asārasamuccaya, parts, ed. āmo-
daraśarman and ābukr. s.n. aśarman. Kathmandu Rās.t.riyābhilekhālaya, Vikrama
and [ . . and ].
L ˙  . with the commentary (- . . ) of an. eśa Nātu, ed. aṅgāvis.n. u
(son of Kr. s.n. adāsa). ombay Venkatesvara Press, V.S. [ . . ].
V   . . ed. Anand Swarup upta, Varanasi All-ndia Kashiraj Trust, .
V  . , ed. Khemarāj. elhi Nag Publishers, . Reprint of Venkatesvara edi-
tion of .
Ś . .  e Śaiva Upanis.ad-s with the Commentary of Sri Upanis.ad-brahma-
yogin. ed. A. Mahadeva Sastri. e Adyar Library Series . Madras Adyar Library and
Research entre, .
Ś  -    the Ślokavārttika of Kumārila on the Codanāsūtra. →
K .
Ś  . . n e Śaiva Upanis.ads with the Commentary of Sri Upanis.ad-
brahma-yogin, ed. A. Mahadeva Sastri, Madras e Adyar Library and Research en-
tre, (second reprint), pp. – .
S  N  NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Licchavi script
incomplete no date c. th century P  P T . .
S  . of Aghoraśiva. Unpublished draft edition prepared by o-
minic oodall.
S   with the commentary (- . ) of hat.t.a Rāmakan. t.ha ,
ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’Publications de l’ . Pondicherry P, .
S  of Trilocanaśiva. P T , pp. – (A) and P T ,
pp. – ().
S  . A Skandapurān. asya Ambikākhan. d. ah. , ed. Kr. s.n. aprasāda hat.t.arāī. Ma-
hendraratnagranthamālā . Kathmandu,   (Adhyāyas – ).  A ,
 , and    (Adhyāya ).  Bisschop .
S  .  Śrī-Skandamahāpurān. am, ed, Ks.emarāja Kr. s.n. adāsa. ombay Venkates-
vara Press, V.S. b[ . . ]. vols. Reprinted by Nag Publishers, elhi, .
S S with the commentary (S ) of Rā-
jānaka Ks.emarāja, ed. Madhusūdan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS , , , , , , .
ombay, - .
S   .  śrīśaivāgame svāyam . bhuvasūtrasaṅgrahah. (svayambhuvā
mahars.ibhya uddis.t.ah. ), ed. Veṅkat.asubrahman. yaśāstrī, Mysore, . Manuscript N
 NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Newari ‘Kut.ila’ script no date.
S   . [ . - . ] with the commentary (S   ) of
Sadyojyotis. →  .
  . of Rājānaka Jayadratha, ed. Pan. d. ita Śivadatta and Kāśīnāth
Pān. d. urang Parab. Kāvyamālā . ombay, .
 . of ān. a with the commentary (-saṅketa) of Śaṅkarakavi, ed. A. A. ührer.
ombay Sanskrit Series . ombay overnment entral Press, .
 .→S .

Authors

 , Peter . . Early Śaivism and the Skandapurān. a: Sects and Centres. ronin-
gen Oriental Series . roningen gbert orsten.
 , T. and M. .  . . A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. nd ed.
Oxford larendon Press.
 , ranklin. . Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Volume
I: Grammar. New aven Yale University Press.
 , Arlo and Annette S . ed. . e Atharvaveda and its Paip-
palāda Śākhā: Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition. eisteskultur
ndiens Texte und Studien . ndologica alensis. Aachen Shaker Verlag.
J , aṅgānāth. tr. . Tantravārttika: A Commentary on Śabara’s Bhās.ya on the
Pūrvamīmām . sā Sūtras of Jaimini. v.  . alcutta AS.
K , P. V. . History of Dharmaśāstra. Vol. . nd edition. Poona OR.
K Kei. . ritical dition of the Āgamaprāmān. ya Section of hat.t.a Jayanta's
Nyāyamañjarī. Tōyōbunka kenkyūjyo kiyō , pp. – .
––––. . Kumārila on Truth, Omniscience and Killing. Pt. : A Critical Edition of
Mīmām . sā-Ślokavārttika ad .. (odanāsūtra) Pt. : An Annotated Translation of
Mīmām . sā-Ślokavārttika ad .. (odanāsūtra). Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-
historische Klasse . eiträge zur Kultur- und eistesgeschichte Asiens . Vienna
Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
K , Rev. . A Kannada-English Dictionary. Mangalore asel Mission ook & Tract
epository, .
M , T.V. . Inscriptions of the Pallavas. New elhi/elhi ndian ouncil
of istorical Research/Agam Prakashan.
M , Manfred. – . Etymologisches W¨ orterbuch des Altindoarisches.
pts. eidelberg arl Winter.
S , Alexis. . e Śaiva Religion Among the Khmers, Part . Bulletin de
l’Ecole française d’Extrˆ eme-Orient ( – ), pp. – .
––––. a. Religion and the State Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the rahmani-
cal Royal haplain with an Appendix on the Provenance and ate of the Netratantra.
IIJ ( ), pp. – .
––––. b. Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory e Āṅgirasakalpa Texts of the Oriya
Paippalādins and their onnection with the Trika and the Kālīkula, With critical
editions of the Parājapavidhi, the Parāmantravidhi, and the *Bhadrakālīmantravidhi-
prakaran. a. n  and S , pp. – .
S , avid L. . e Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. London Oriental
Series . London OUP.
Y , Yuko. . Mahis.āsuramardinī Myth and con. Studies in the Skandapurān. a
. n Studies in the History of Indian ought , pp. – .
ŚAVSM AN RAMANSM

A S , T

Alexis Sanderson

 , M

 Ś S P T   continued

. hat.ta
. Rāmakan. tha,
. Vrtti on Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . abc
.
yo ’yam brāhmanādivarnabhedenācārah. so ’yam utpattiśistaśrutism rtiśāstramūlatvena pra-
. . . .. .
siddha eva dīksitair api pālyah.
. ni hśreyase
. caiva iti. ihāpi pālyatvenābhyanujñātatvād
.
apālane tasyety ācārasyaiva pratyavāyādiyoga ity arthah. .
is observance [that is differentiated] in accordance with the divisions between the
caste-categories of the brahmins and others, which is known to all (prasiddha eva)
because its basis is authoritative Śruti and Smrti, must be maintained by the initiated
.
also. When the text says [that the initiated should do this not only for the sake of
mundane convention but] ‘‘also for their own spiritual welfare’’ the sense is as follows.
e Śaiva scriptures too (ihāpi) have authorized this [brahmanical] observance, saying
that it must be maintained. So if one were to neglect it one would be subject to such
[undesirable consequences] as that of being in a state of sin caused by transgression
(pratyavāyādiyogah).
.

. hat.ta
. Rāmakan. tha,
. Vrtti on Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . –
.
atha kim ayam laukiko ’trācārah. kratvarthatayā pālyah.
. nety ucyate. na cetyādi. yady apy
.
asmin viśesavihite nityādikratvātmany ācāre laukiko ’sau nāṅgam tathāpi purusārthatayā
. . .
pālanīya eva. yasmād dosa iti. nakāro nisedhe. tasminn apālite samayātmako dosah. tyakte
. . . .
tv ācārātmako gunah. kaścin na sambadhyate kim tu dosa eva tasyeha pālyatvenābhyanu-
. . .
jñātatvenehatyanisedhavyatikramasamānatvāt. ata evāyam ācāro vaidikah. sāmānya ucya-
.
te ’trāpi pālyatvenābhyanujñātatvād iti.

Now is this mundane observance to be maintained here for the benefit of [one’s Śaiva]
rites (kratvarthatayā) e text says that it is not, in the sentence that begins na ca (v. ).
[t is to be understood as follows.] Although that mundane observance is not an auxil-
iary of this [observance] that is ordained in the special [i.e. Śaiva scriptures], comprising
[the initiate’s] obligatory (nitya-) [, incidental (naimittika-),] and [optional (kāmya-)]
rites, it is nonetheless to be maintained for one’s spiritual benefit (purusārthatayā). [e
.
text explains why] in the words that begin ‘because there will be a fault’ (yasmād dosah)
. .
(v. b). e negative na here serves to prohibit [non-observance] (nisedhe). [e mean-
.
ing intended is as follows]. f the [mundane] is not maintained (tasminn apālite there
will be a defect in one’s post-initiatory [Śaiva] observance (samayātmako dosah). ut
. .
[also] if it is abandoned (tyakte tu) no benefit will accrue to one’s [mundane] observance
(ācārātmako gunah. kaścin na sambadhyate) but rather a fault (kim tu dosa eva). or it
. . . .
has been accepted (abhyanujñātatvāt) here (iha)[, in the Śaiva scriptures] that it must
be maintained (pālyatvena). erefore [abandoning it] is equal to (-samānatvāt) the
transgression of a prohibition taught in these (ihatyanisedhavyatikrama-). is is why
.
this observance taught in the Veda (ata evāyam ācāro vaidikah) . is termed ‘the com-
mon’ (sāmānya ity ucyate), namely because it has been authorized (abhyanujñātatvāt)
as obligatory (pālyatvena) [not only in the Veda but] also here [in the Śaiva scriptures]
(atrāpi).

T  
. Vaktraśambhu, Mrgendrapaddhativyākhyā, pp. – 
.
tad uktam ‘‘iti varnāśramācārān manasāpi na laṅghayed’’ iti. evamādibhir vacanaih. śrau-
.
tasmārtātmakam karma dīksitair brāhmanādibhir api dīksottarakālam anustheyam eva.
. . . . ..
nanu karanīyatvenoktayoh. śrautasmārtayoh. karmanoh. paśubījavadhasādhanatvena ksa-
. . .
yasātiśayatvena cāśuddhir uktā sāmkhyādibhir ‘‘drstavad ānuśravikah. . sa hy aviśuddhi-
. ..
ksayātiśayayukta’’ iti. atah. katham mumuksūnām etat karmadvayam anustheyatvenocyate.
. . . ..
anayor ananustheyatve
. trayo hetava uktāh. paśubījavadhapūrvakatvād aśuddhih. ksayasāti-
. .
śayatve ca. paśubījavadhasādhanatayāśuddhatvenoktasyāgnihotrādeh. śrautasya karmanah.
.
pratyuta parameśvarena śuddhir uktā. tad uktam śrīmanmataṅgapārameśvare ‘‘agniho-
. .
trādibhir pūrtais tathā cāndrāyanādibhir’’ iti. ksayasātiśayatve tu phalānusamdhānenā-
. . .
nusthāt¯
. rnām adīksitānām siddhe. ata eva phalānanusamdhānena kevalam vihitatvenā-
. .. . . . .
nusthāt¯ rnām te na bhavata iti. yad uktam ‘‘nityanaimittike kuryāt pratyavāyajihāsayā |
.. . . . .
moksārthī na pravarteta tatra kāmyanisiddhayor’’ iti. atah. phalānanusamdhānena pra-
. . .
tyavāyaparihārāyāvaśyam karanīye eva. nanu nityācāravac chrutismrtyukte api karma-
. . .
nī anustheye ity uktam. tatra smārtasya karmana ājyacarvādisādhanatvenājahimsāpū-
. .. . .
rvādharmatvāsambhavāt kartavyatvam yuktam. śrautasya tv agnistomāder agnīsomīyapa-
. .. .
śvālambhanasomapānādyucchistasa mparkādyadharmatvaśaṅkayākaranīyatvam prāptam.
.. . . .
na. adharmādharmayoh. sādhanasvarūpalaksanam āmnyāyasmrtibhyām eva jñāyate. ity
. . .
e distinction employed here by Rāmakan. tha . between what is for the benefit of the ritual
(kratvartha-), that is to say, an aṅgam, and what is for the benefit of the person who performs
it (purusārtha-) is applied from the field of the analysis of brahmanical ritual developed by the
.
Mīmāmsakas.
. See Mīmāmsāsūtra . . and its exegesis.
.
e complete verse (Mataṅgapārameśvara, Vidyāpāda . ) of which this is the syntactically
incomplete first line is as follows agnihotrādibhir pūrtais tathā cāndrāyanādibhih. | lokatraye ’pi modante
.
vimānasthā yaśasvinah..
uktam śrīmatsvāyambhuve ‘‘dharmasādhanasamvittir āmnāyād eva jāyate | tanmūlatvā-
. .
t smrteś cāpi tābhyām eva parasya ca’’ iti. śrutismrtivihitayoh. karmanoh. dharmatvasya
. . .
pratīter nisiddhayoh. karmanor adharmatvapratīteś ca śrutyā ca jyotistomā ṅgabhūtapaśvā-
. . ..
lambhanasya dharmasādhanatvenoktatvād dīksitair api brāhmanādibhir agnistomādaya h.
. . ..
kartavyā eva. ucchistasa mparkaśa ṅkāyā api na somenocchi stā bhavantīti paśvālambhana-
.. . ..
sūtravacanād eva nirāso veditavyah. . kim. cāśvamedhamahāyajñe bahavah. pāpakarmino .
darśanād eva mucyante. tadvan māheśvarākrtāv iti śrīmadrauravaśruteh. śivamandalada-
. ..
rśanavad aśvamedhayajñadarśanasyāpi pāpamocakatvaśruter aśvamedhādau tasya karma-
nah. punyatvam adandavāritam eva. tasmāt pratyavāyaparihārārtham agnistomādaya h.
. . .. ..
karanīyāh. na tu dīk sottaram śivaliṅgārcanavat paramoksaprāptisādhanatayā. tad ukta m
. . . . . .
śrīmatsarvajñānottare ‘‘na mukhyayā vrttyā skanda lokadharmān samācared’’ iti.
.
śrautasmārtātmakam em.  śrautasmārtātmikam od. ksayasātiśayatvena em.  ksayātiśaya-
. . . .
tvena od. • sa hy aviśuddhi em.  sabhyaviśuddha od. anayor ananustheyatve em.  anayor
..
anustheyatve od. – aśuddhih. ksayasātiśayatve ca em.  aśuddhiksayasātiśayatvena ca od.
.. . .
pūrtais em.  hotrais od. adīksitānām siddhe em.  adīksitānām siddheh. od. pratyavā-
. . . .
yajighāmsayā od. (thus also in the citation of the same on p. , l. ) pratyavāyajihāsayā
.
(the reading in the source text and in the citations of this verse in other works [see the note
on the translation below]) – pratyavāyaparihāratayāvaśyam em.  pratyavāyaparihāratayā-
.
vaśyam od. • karanīye eva em.  karanīyāv eva od. – karmanī anustheye em.  karmani
. . . . .. .
anustheye od. • tatra smārtasya em.  tatrasthāt tasya od. – pūrvādharmatvāsambha-
..
vāt conj.  pūrvadharmatvāt sambhavāt od. • kartavyatvam yuktam em.  kartavyatvayuktam
. .
od. – agnīsomīya em. (Taittirīyasamhitā . .  agnīsomīyam paśum ālabhate)  agnisto-
. . . . ..
mīya od. • ucchistasa mparkādyadharmatvaśa ṅkayākara nīyatva m conj.  ucchi stasa mparkādyā h.
.. . . . .. .
dharmatvaśamkaya karanīyam. karanīyatvam od. na. adharmādharmayoh. sādhanasvarū-
. . . .
palaksanam conj.  nādharmadharmayoh. sādhanalaksanam svarūpalaksana od. • jñāyate. ity
. . . . . . .
conj.  jāyata ity od. parasya ceti corr.  parasya veti od. bhavantīti em. (source text,
Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra . . )  bhavatīti od. – śivamandaladarśanavad conj.  śivandala-
.. ..
darśanād od. punyatvam na dandavāritam. em.  punyatvam adandavāritam . od.
. . . . .
erefore [Śiva] has said ‘‘So he should not transgress the practices of his caste-class
and brahmanical discipline even in thought’’. rom these and other text-passages [in
the Śaiva scriptures] it follows that brahmins and other initiates must continue to do
the [brahmanical] rituals [after their initiation and that these must be] both the Śrauta
and the Smārta.
t may be objected that the Śrauta and Smārta rites prescribed as duties [here] have
been declared impure by the Sāmkhyas and others on the grounds that they require
.
the destruction of animal victims and seeds, are subject to the [eventual] disappearance
[of the benefits to which they give rise], and are transcended [by a superior method of
escape from suffering]

Like the perceptible [means of countering suffering, namely the pleasures of


this world,] so likewise the [means of doing so through the rituals] taught in
the Veda. or they are impure, transient [in effect], and surpassed [by a higher
method]’ (Sāmkhyakārikā ).
.
So why is it that these two classes of ritual have been prescribed [by Śiva] for those who
seek liberation ree reasons why they should not be performed have been proposed
( ) that they are impure because they entail the destruction of livestock and seeds, ( )
that they are transient [in their results], and ( ) that they are surpassed [in efficac-
ity by gnosis]. owever, the claim that the Śrauta rituals beginning with the [daily]
Agnihotra are impure because they require the destruction of livestock and seeds has
been contradicted by the Supreme eity, who has declared them pure [in his higher,
Śaiva scriptures]. e has stated this [by implication] in the Mataṅgapārameśvara in the
passage

rough the [Śrauta] rituals beginning with the Agnihotra, through charitable
works (pūrtaih),
. and through such [penances] as the āndrāyana fast [they
.
delight (after death) in celestial palaces, rich in renown, throughout the three
worlds] (Vidyāpāda . ).

e transience [of the effect of these rituals] and their inferiority [as means] do hold[,
but only] for the uninitiated, who undertake them with the desire to reap the benefits
[such as heaven and sovereignty that they bestow when performed for those ends].
ese [defects] do not apply in the case of the initiated, since they undertake them
without thought of reward, simply because [the rituals] have been prescribed. As [the
Mīmāmsaka Kumārila] has said [of the Vaidika]
.
f he desires [only] liberation he must maintain the performance of [all oblig-
atory rituals] both the regular and the incidental (nityanaimittike) in order to
avoid the sin [of omission]. [And] he should not engage in those that are under-
taken to attain a lesser benefit (kāmya-), or in any forbidden act (nisiddhayoh)
.
.
(Ślokavārttika, Sambandhāksepaparihāra ).
.
Others who disapproved of Śrauta ritual were, of course, the uddhists, and Jains. ut we
also find this position among the Śaivas themselves. t appears in the literature of the Atimārga,
in Pañcārthabhāsya on Pañcārtha .  samgrahapratigrahahimsādiyuktena *kramenābhinirvrttidarśanāt
. . . . .
(em.  śravenābhinirvrttidarśanāt †pattrīrātrijadevatādi†sādhāranaphalatvād anityasātiśayasamkīrnapha-
. . . . .
latvāc ca kuyajanāny agnistomādīni ‘e Agnistoma and other [Śrauta rituals] are inferior sacrifices ( )
.. ..
because we see that they are accomplished by a procedure with such [defects] as [that they require
one] (a) to possess [property], (b) to acquire [property], and (c) to harm [living creatures], ( ) because
their results are common to †. . . †, and ( ) because their results are (a) transient, (b) surpassed [by that
accessible through a superior form of religious practice], and (c) mixed.’ Arguments c, a, and b
echo Sāmkhyakārikā .
.
n the manuscripts consulted in the published Ślokavārttika and in the citations of this verse by
Jayanta (Nyāyamañjarī, vol. , p. ), Medhātithi (on Manusmrti . , vol. , p. ), and hat.ta
.
.
So [initiated Śaivas too] are absolutely required to do [both] the [Śrauta and the Smārta
rituals, but] without desire for reward, [simply] in order to avoid the sin [of neglecting
to do them].
e following may be urged against this position ‘‘[Śiva] has declared that just as
[initiates] must maintain their obligatory [Śaiva] discipline (nityācāra-) so they must
perform both the rituals taught in Śruti and those taught in Smrti. [Now,] of these two
.
it is right that the Smārta rituals should be compulsory, because in their case there is
no question of their being sinful because of the violence to a goat, since they require
for their accomplishment [only the offering of substances] such as butter and cooked
rice.ut in the case of Śrauta rituals such as the Agnistoma [Soma sacrifice] there are
..
grounds for fearing that they are indeed sinful because of such [elements] as the killing
of the animal victim offered to Agni-and-Soma and contact with those who are impure
through such [actions] as the drinking of the Soma (somapānādyucchistasa mparka-).
.. .
rom this it follows that one should not do them’’.
is is not a valid objection. or our knowledge of the nature and means of producing
merit and sin derives entirely from Śruti and Smrti. [Śiva himself ] has taught this in
.
the [Śaiva scripture] Svāyambhuva[sūtrasamgraha] in the words
.
Knowledge of the means of accomplishing merit arises from Śruti alone, and
also from Smrti [but only] because that is rooted in Śruti. Likewise from these
.
two alone [comes our knowledge] of the opposite (Vidyāpāda . ).

So because we know that the rituals enjoined in Śruti and Smrti are meritorious and
.
that those that are forbidden in them are sinful, and because Śruti tells us that the ani-
mal sacrifice that is an essential element of the Jyotistoma is a means of accomplishing
..
Rāmakantha  (Nareśvaraparīksāprakāśa on . cd) we see the reading jihāsayā ‘in order to avoid’. ut
.. .
the reading here is jighāmsayā. f this were taken in its literal sense (‘in order to destroy’) the purpose of
.
maintaining all obligatory rites would be to eliminate the accumulation of sins already committed in the
past rather than simply to avoid the negative consequence of omission. owever, Vaktraśambhu, even if
the reading jighāmsayā is his, must have understood it figuratively as synonymous with jihāsayā, because
.
he goes to comment on the citation as follows atah. phalānanusamdhānena pratyavāyaparihāratayā
.
karanīyāv eva, ‘ese two [kinds of obligatory rites] must be done, without expectation of any reward,
.
as the means of avoiding the sin [of omission]’ (p. , ll. – ).
e goat is specified because this is the animal that is offered in the Śrauta animal sacrifice
(Paśubandha).
e animal victim for Agni-and-Soma (agnīsomīyapaśuh), . which must be killed by smothering
.
(samjñapanam) and then cut up (viśasanam), is vital to the success of the Soma sacrifice in as much
.
as it is necessary for the preparation of the meat-cake offering (purodāśayāga . h),
. one of its necessary
constituents. See K , , pp. – .
merit, it follows that brahmins and other [qualified members of the regenerable caste-
classes] must perform the Agnistoma and the other [Śrauta sacrificies] even after they
..
have received [Śaiva] initiation.
As for the fear of [contamination through] contact with those who are impure through
having consumed [the Soma] that is simply refuted by the [following] statement in the
[Śrauta]sūtras that concern the animal sacrifice

ey do not become impure through drinking the Soma (Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra


. . ).

Moreover, in the grand [Śrauta] sacrifice that is the Aśvamedha many sinners are
freed [from their sins] just by witnessing it. We learn [from the Veda] that seeing the
Aśvamedha sacrifice frees from sin, just as we learn in the case of the sight of the

e term Jyotistoma denotes the kāha or ‘one-day ceremony’, which is the basic building block
..
of all Soma sacrifices, those lasting from two to twelve days, termed Ahīnas, those lasting from twelve
days to a year, termed Sattras, and those of theory at least, lasting for longer periods up to twelve
years, termed Mahāsattras. ere are seven types of kāha. Of these the Agnistoma is treated as the
..
archetype or default case (prakrtih) . by the liturgical literature, so that whatever is taught for this applies
.
without saying to the other six (Ukthya, So . daśin,
. Atirātra, Āptoryāma, Atyagnistoma, and Vājapeya),
..
for which it was therefore necessary to specify in addition only certain rules of modification. n kāhas
and Ahīnas there is in addition to the sixteen or seventeen officiants (rtvijah) . required for a Soma
.
sacrifice the Yajamāna, the person who commissions the sacrifice, receives the merit it generates, and
in return rewards the officiants for their services. n Sattras and Mahāsattras there is not, the officiants
being at once officiants and Yajamānas. See, e.g.,  and  , pp. v–x.
e Aśvamedha (‘orse-sacrifice’) is a three-day sacrifice performed by a royal Yajamāna entailing
a three-day Soma sacrifice of three successive kāhas (Agnistoma, Ukthya, and Atirātra), with the
..
preparation of an Agnicayana altar and preliminary and concluding sequences of rites that begin a
year before the Soma sacrifice and end a year after it. A royal horse is released at the beginning of the
preliminary year to roam at will throughout that year accompanied by an armed band whose task it
is to fight any who attempt to capture it or impede its progress. e horse is immolated with many
other animals in the course of the second day of the three-day Soma sacrifice. See  ,
pp. – .
 do not know of a passage declaring that the mere sight of the Aśvamedha removes sins but
there are frequent claims that the Aśvamedha itself or its final ablution (avabhrthah) has this effect (e.g.
. .
Śatapathabrāhma
. . na . . .  sarvā m ha vai pāpakrtyā m sarvām brahmahatyām apahanti yo ’śvamedhena
. . . .
yajate Āpastambadharmasūtra . . .  āśvamedhikam vāvabhrtham avetya mucyate Baudhāyanad-
. .
harmasūtra . . .  and Manusmrti . cd yathāśvamedhah. kraturāt. sarvapāpāpanodanah). . e
.
Mahābhārata asserts that this benefit extends to the whole earth (vājimedhah. pāvayet prthivīm api
.
[ . . ab ]) or, less rhetorically, to all who are present when the sacrificer and his wife take the
purificatory bath (avabhrthah) at the end of the sacrifice (yesām rājāśvamedhena yajate daksināvatā
. . . . . .
| upetya tasyāvabhrtham pūtāh. sarve bhavanti te [ . . ] and kratunā cāśvamedhena pūyate nātra
. .
samśayah. | ye cāsyāvabhrthe snānti ke cid evamvidhā narāh. te sarve pūtapāpmāno bhavantīti parā śrutih.
. . .
[ . . – b]). e belief that the Aśvamedha’s final bath purifies others is seen in the Polamūru plates
Mandala of Śiva from the [Śaiva scripture] Raurava in the words ‘‘likewise in the case
..
of [this] that has the form of Śiva’’. So there is certainly no evidence that compels the
surrender of [the position] that the [Śrauta] ritual in such sacrifices as the Aśvamedha is
meritorious. us, in order to avoid the sin of omission the Agnistoma and the other
..
[Śrauta sacrifices] must be done. ut when they are done after initiation, it is not, as
is the case with their [obligatory regular] worship of the Liṅga of Śiva, as the means
of attaining the highest liberation. is is why [Śiva] has said in the Sarvajñānottara
(Liṅgoddhārādiprakarana ab)
.
e should [continue to] observe his mundane religious duties (lokadharmāh)
.
but not [as duties] in the full sense.

. Viśvanātha, Siddhāntaśekhara . . abc


sūnuh. śrībhāskarasyāsti viśvanātho dvijottamah. |
krtayajñah. śivācāryah.
.
e venerable hāskara has a son Viśvanātha, best among the twice-born, a Śaiva
officiant who has accomplished the [Śrauta] sacrifices.
. Siddhāntaśekhara p. 
(set ) of the Visnuku n. di
. Mahārāja Mādhavavarman V (r. c. – ), IV no. , ll. – , describing
..
this king, who, it says, offered a thousand Śrauta sacrifices (ll. – ), as ekādaśāśvamedhāvabhrtha-
.
viga[mi]tajagadenaskah. ‘who removed the sins of the people through [taking] the concluding bath in
eleven Aśvamedhas’ similarly in the Īpūr plates of the Visnuku n. di
. Mādhavavarman , EI  , l. 
..
ekādaśāśvamedhāvabhrthavidhūtajagatkalmasah.
. . .
Neither the text as cited here nor anything close to it is found either in the surviving portion
of the Rauravasūtrasamgraha or in the later, South-ndian work edited by N.R.  and translated
.
by .  that declares itself to be the Kriyāpāda of the Rauravatantra. My translation, which is
not beyond suspicion of error, assumes from the context of the citation alone that māheśvarākrtau
.
is a ahuvrīhi referring to the Mandala of Śiva and that it means literally ‘one whose form is that
..
of Maheśvara’. or the idea that the sight of the Man. dala . conveys a spiritual benefit even on the
uninitiated see Tantrāloka . c– b drstvaitan ma n dala m devyah. sarvā nrtyanti sarvadā | anarcite
. .. .. . .
’py adīksena drste dīk syeta māt rbhih ‘Whenever they see this Ma n. dala
. all the goddesses dance. f it is
. . . .. . . .
seen by an uninitiated person, even before it has been worshipped, he is indeed [considered] initiated
by the Mothers themselves’.
or the idiom adandavārita h,
. na dan. davārita h,
. literally ‘not forbidden with [threat of ] pu-
.. .
nishment’ in the meaning ‘not excluded/blocked by irresistible counter-evidence(s)’, see, e.g.,
Patañjali, Mahābhāsya on Vārttika under . .  na tasya dandavārito bahuvrīhih . Uddyotakara,
. ..
Nyāyabhāsyavārttika, p. , ll. –  anyatrāpi bubhutsābhedo na dandavārita h Ma n danamiśra,
.. Brah-
. .. .
masiddhi, p. , l.  atrāpi vibhramatvam na dandavāritam p. , l. –  sā citirūpātmavādino ’pi na
. ..
dandavāritā Yāmunācārya, Āgamaprāmā nya, p.  ittha m pāśupatādīnā m nyāya h ki m da ndavārita h.
.. . . . . . .. .
śrīkrsnaśaivāgamacakravartinām
.. . .
śisyena śaivāgamatattvavedinā |
. .
śrīviśvanāthena krtādhvarena
. .
śaivāgamokto dahane vidhih. krtah.
.
ere ends the rite of cremation taught in the Śaiva scriptures, the work of Viśvanātha,
who is the pupil of Krsna, that venerable master of the Śaiva scriptures, and who has
.. .
understood the truth of the Śaiva scriptures and accomplished the [Śrauta] sacrifices.

. Siddhāntaśekhara, pp. , , , , , , , , and  śrīviś-


vanāthena suyajñakarmanā ‘Viśvanātha, who has accomplished the best of [Śrauta]
.
sacrifices’ pp. and  viśveśo vihitamakho ‘Viśvanātha, who has performed the
[Śrauta] sacrifices’ pp. and  śrīviśvanāthena sadāhitāgninā ‘by Viśvanātha,
who was permanently an Āhitāgni [‘one who has installed the (three Śrauta) fires’]’.
e alludes to his entitlement to the Śrautin titles Suyājin, Āhitāgni, and, perhaps,
Makhin (vihitamakhah). .
. Siddhāntaśekhara, pp. , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , 
iti śrīśuddhaśaivāgamācāryakrsnayogīndraśisyenobhayavedāntibhāskarasūnunā krtāgnisto-
.. . . . . ..
mena viśvanāthena viracite siddhāntaśekhare [. . . ]

[. . . ] in the Siddhāntaśekhara composed by Viśvanātha, who was the pupil of the great
Yogin Krsna, officiant of the Pure [i.e. Saiddhāntika] Śaiva scriptures, who was the son
.. .
of hāskara, the master of both Vedāntas, and who had performed the Agnistoma.
..
. Siddhāntaśekhara . . – 
abhūd ādau maharsīnām samtatau hārito munih. |
. . . .
aṅgirāś cāmbarīsah. śrīyauvanāśvo munīśvarah. ||
.
tadvamśe ’jani viśruto dvijavaro nārāyano nāmatah.
. .
sāṅgāyāh. śrutisamtater drdhatarajñānaś caturvedavit |
. ..
sarvātithyaparah. krtāgnicayano miśro ’pi sarvakratur
.
vikhyātas tatapaundarīkamakhak rd yo yogavit tattvavit ||
.. .
tatputro devadatto ’bhūt sarvakratur athāgnicit |
paundarīkakrato h. kartā miśrah. sarvātithipriyah. ||
..
tatsūnur nārasimhah. krtasakalamakhah. paundarīkakrator yah.
. . ..
kartā sarvātithīnām api yajanavidher agnicid vaisnavākhyah. |
..
yaś cakre kalpasāram naraharivisayam satsahasra m mahārtham
. . . . . . .
cālukyānām adhīśe krtaharikaruno yah. pratāpākhyabhūpe ||
. .
viditasakalavedo viśvaśāstrārthavettā
vihitanikhilayāgo viśvanāthopakanthe |
..
surasaridabhisikto ’thāgnicit sarvavedā
.
vyapagatabhavabandho bhāskaras tasya sūnuh. ||
tatputro viśvanātho ’bhūd viśvanāthārcane ratah. |
vedaśāstrārthatattvajñah. sadācāraparāyanah. ||
.
mīmāmsodadhipāragah. śrutitater arthasya vettā kavis
.
tarkodarkamatih. śamī samabhavat kāvyaprabandhādikrt ||
.
vedāntadvayaniścitārthanipunah. śabdaughaśāstrārthavic
.
chrīkanthā ṅghrisarojayāgacaturas tasyātmajo bhāskarah. ||
..
sūnuh. śrībhāskarasyāsti viśvanātho dvijottamah. |
krtayajñah. śivācāryah. kathyate ’tha gurukramah. ||
.
kāśīksetratate . nivāsanirato gaṅgābhisekāv rto
. . .
viśveśasya padāmbujārcanarato vedārthavic chāstravit |
śrīkrsnah. pravaro guruh. paratapāh. śaivāgamajñah. sudhīr
.. .
yogābhyāsagrhītamānasamarud *vijñātacidrūpadrk||
. .
tacchisyo ’sti mahākavir dvijavarah. śrīkrsnanāmā guruh.
. .. .
śabdajñānamahodadhih. śrutinidhis tarkādikāvyākarah. |
vedāntārthanidhir janārdanaguroś cūdāma . ner ātmajah.
.
śaivācāryavarah. samrddhividitaś cānandasamdohabhrt ||
. . .
tatprasādāt samālocya śivaśāstrāni yatnatah. |
.
siddhāntaśekharam vaksye śiśubuddhivivrddhaye
. . .
d śrīyauvanāśvo d.  ttrīyauvanāśvo A  śrīmadyauvanāśvo d. A d vikhyātas tata A d.’s  
vikhyātah. sa tu d. a tatsūnur A  satsūnur d. ab paundarīkakrator yah. kartā A  pau-
..
ndarīkasya kartā kartā d. b yajanavidher d.  yajananayed A  cajanavidher  • vaisnavā-
.. ..
khyah. d. A  vaisnavāgryah.   vaisnavo ’sau d.’s N c naraharivisayam d. A  haraharivisayam
.. .. . . . .
 d krtaharikaruno d.’s A   dhrtaharikaruno d.  dhrtaharikarinām A a viditasakalavedo
. . . . . . .
is can only be the ālukya of Kalyānī . who ruled from to , as stated by Sitarama
Somayaji, with as the year of accession, in the Sanskrit introduction to his edition of the
Siddhāntaśekhara, pp. xxiii, xxiv, that is to say, Jagadekamalla  (V. Raghavan in his foreword to
Sitarama Somayaji’s edition of the Siddhāntaśekhara, pp. iv–v), since that king is distinguished from
Jagadekamalla  (Jayasimha
. ) by the addition of the epithet Pratāpacakravartin see M ,
p.  and EC g and  satyāśrayaku.lati.lakam cālukyābharanam | śrīmatpratāpacakravartti
. . .
jagadekamalladevara vijayarājyam ollēpalli inscription of Jagadekamalla , JESI , p. , ll. – 
.
śrīmaccā.lukyapratāpacakravarttijagadekamalla- SII  – , – , ( . . – ).
Viśvanātha, then, will have been active in or close to the first half of the thirteenth century.
conj.  viditasakalavvādo d.’s A  vihitasakalavādo d. A  viditanikhilavedo   vihitasakalavedī
d.’s  c sarvavedā A  sarvavedo d. a śrutitater arthasya d.’s    śrutigato ’rthasya d.  śru-
tigatasyārthasya A b ādikrt A  ādhikrt d. c vedāntadvaya d. A  vedāntādvaya  d.’s N
. .
c krtayajñah. d. A  krtayajña  d ’tha gurukramah. em. [d.’s  and A]  tha gurūttamah.
. .
d.  ya gurūttamah. A c paratapāh. (conj.  paratapah. A  paratarah.   sa bhagavān d. • śaivā-
gamajñah. sudhīr d. A  śaivāgamajño ’granīh.  d vijñātacidrūpadrk conj.  vijñātacidrūpadhrk
. . .
A  vijñānacidrūpadrk d. a śrīkrsnanāmā d.   śrīkanthanāmā. A d śaivācāryavarah.  
. .. . .
śaucācāraparah. d. A • samrddhividitaś cānanda conj.  samarthaviditaś cānanda  samrddhivi-
. .
titasyānanda A  samrddhivitataś cānanda em. by copyist of A d.’s N  samrddhivitatasyānanda
. .
d.

n the beginning, in the lineage of the great sages, was the ascetic ārita, [with as
the Pravaras of his otra] Aṅgiras, Ambarīsa, and the grear ascetic Yauvanāśvah. .
.
n the lineage of that [sage ārita] was born an excellent and renowned orthoprax
brahmin, Nārāyana by name. e had the firmest of knowledge of the whole of Śruti
.
and its ancillaries, had mastered the four Vedas, was intent on the performance of
his duties to all uninvited guests, accomplished the Agnicayana, bore the title Sar-
vakratu (‘one who has completed all the Śrauta rituals’), performed the long Paun. darīka
.
[Soma-]sacrifice [of eleven days], mastered meditation, and grasped [ultimate] reality.
After him came his son evadatta, [likewise] a Sarvakratu, who accomplished the
Agnicayana and the Paundarīka, an orthoprax [brahmin] intent on the performance
..
of his duties to all uninvited guests. is son was Nārasimha, who [in the same way]
.
accomplished all the Śrauta sacrifices [and thereby earned the title Sarvakratu], the
Agnicayana, the Paundarīka, and the rites due to all invited guests, and, known as
..
the Vaisnava, composed the exalted *Narasimhakalpasāra in six-thousand verses and
.. .
enacted the compassion of Visnu in king Pratāpa, the Lord of the ālukyas. is son
..
was hāskara. e mastered all the Vedas, understood the doctrines of all the Śāstras,
performed all the Śrauta sacrifices, was purified by affusion with the waters of the river
of the gods in the vicinity of [the temple of ] Viśvanātha, and was an Agnicit who gave
away all he owned to the officiants, free of the bonds of incarnate existence. is
son was Viśvanātha. e was devoted to the worshi[p of Viśvanātha, understood the
teachings of the Vedas and the Śāstras, and was devoutly orthoprax. is son hāskara
mastered the Mīmāmsā, understood the meaning of the entire extent of Śruti, was a
.
poet, a master of Nyāya, a recluse, a composer of Kāvya and other [literary works],
a master of the two Vedāntas, a grammarian, and ever engaged in the worship of the
lotus-feet of Śiva. e venerable hāskara has [in me] a son, the finest of brahmins,
Viśvanātha, a Śivācārya who has performed the [Śrauta] sacrifices. Next  shall explain
my teaching lineage. ere is an ascetic Krsna, who delights in dwelling on the
.. .
river bank in the holy city of enares, surrounded by the sanctifying waters of the
anges, devoted to the worship of the lotus-feet of Viśvanātha, an outstanding uru
who knows the teachings of the Vedas and [all] the Śāstras, a learned expert in the
Śaiva scriptures, who through the practice of meditation has restrained his mind and
breath and has realized that cognition whose nature is [pure] consciousness. e has
as his disciple a uru who is [also] called Krsna, a great poet, an excellent brahmin, an
.. .
ocean of the science of grammar, a storehouse of Śruti, a mine of Nyāya and the other
Śāstras, of Kāvya, and of the doctrines of the Upanisads, a son of the outstanding
.
uru Janārdana, an outstanding Śaivācārya, full of the bliss [of self-realization].
aving zealously studied the Śaiva scriptures with his help,  shall now teach the
Siddhāntaśekhara, in order to increase the understanding of [my] pupils.

T Ś - O

. Sadyojyotis, Moksakārikā c– b
.
na ca svagocare tāsām bādhate tat pramānatām ||
. .
tāsu varnāśramācārān abhyanujñātavac ca tat |
.
na cānyena pramānena samruddhas tasya gocarah. ||
. .
śrotriyair apy ato grāhyam tat phalādhikasādhanam |
.
is [teaching of Śiva (śaivam)] does not challenge the validity of the [non-Śaiva
teachings] in their domains it has ruled that the observances of the caste-classes
and disciplines [taught] in [the brahmanical among] those [teachings] apply
[equally to Śaiva initiates] and no other means of valid knowledge[, either
perception or inference,] contradicts the teaching of Śiva in the domain [of
knowledge] proper to it. erefore it should be accepted as valid by [all,] in-
cluding those who are learned in the Veda (śrotriyaih)[,
. which is to say, by those
whose brahmanical observances include the Śrauta], as the means of achieving
a greater benefit [than can be achieved through the Veda alone]

. Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda . c– b

na caivātyantaniyamo nihsa
. ṅgānām. tapasvinām ||
śivajñānānalajvālāpradhvastājñānacetasām |
a jvālā cett.   jvāla N

ut this rule [requiring conformity to mundane observance] is not strictly bind-
ing for detached ascetics, for their minds have been freed of ignorance by the
flames of the fire of the knowledge of Śiva.

. hat.ta
. Rāmakan. tha
.  thereon
e patriline Nārāyana
. () → evadatta () → Nārasimha
. () → hāskara
() → Viśvanātha () → hāskara () → Viśvanātha, the author.
adhunā kvacid adhikāriviśese ’syāpavādah.
. na caivetyādi. dīksitānām lokānām lo-
. . . .
kadharminām evāyam niyamo na tu parivrājakānām śivaikadharminām. tesām
. . . . .
atra laukikācārānusthāne kāmacāra iti.
..
Vrtti on Mataṅgapārameśvara Caryāpāda . c– b, f.  r –
.
viśese em.  viśeso od.
. .
Now, in the passage that begins na caiva ( . c) [Śiva states] an exception in the
case a special [category of ] qualified [persons]. is rule[, he says,] applies only
to [married] initiates involved [as they are] in the mundane religious order.
t does not apply to ascetics, whose only observance is Śaiva. ey have the
freedom to do as they wish in this matter of acting in conformity with mundane
observance.

. Vaktraśambhu, before citing this passage of the Mataṅgapārameśvara

samnyastānām tapasvinām samalostakāñcanānā m vaidikācārasya pāksikatvam.


. . . .. . .
Mrgendrapaddhativyākhyā p. , ll. – .
.
samnyastānām tapasvinām conj.  nyastānāmsatapasvinām od. • samalostakāñcanānām
. . . . . .. .
conj. (cf., e.g., Mahābhārata . . , . . , . . , Raghuvamśa . d samalo-
.
stakāñcana h)
.  + malos.takānā mcānānām od.
.. . . .
n the case of ascetics, who have renounced [mundane affairs], for whom clods
of earth and gold are of equal value, brahmanical observance may be maintained
or not, as they prefer.

. e harmaliṅgeśvara copper-plate inscription, IO  , ll. – 

vedavedāṅgetihāsapurānanyāyavidyāsvasiddhāntādhigatāya bhagavatpataṅgaśivā-
.
cāryyāya gurave.

. Trilocanaśiva, Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā, p. 

śrīpañcānanasambhavāgamanidhih. mantraugharatnoccayah.
.
sattarkasm rtivedasindhuvasatis satsandhi śailāvrtah. |
. . . .
astapratyayavīcikābhir aniśam jantūn punāti <ca yah> .
.. .
śaivācāryaparo ’vatād anudinam śrījñānaśambhuh. sa mām ||
.
a pañcānana conj.  pañcāgama od. • ratnoccayah. conj.  ratnāñcayat od. b pratya-
yavīcikābhir em.  pratyayāvicikābhir od. d paro ’vatād em.  paropatād od.

May Jñānaśambhu, protect me every day, this the foremost of Śaiva urus, a
[veritable] ocean of the [Śaiva] scriptures that have come forth from the five faces
[of Sadāśiva], full of pearls in the form of the multitude of the [Śaiva] Mantras,
home to the rivers of the six philosophical systems, the Smrtis, and the Vedas,
.
girt by the mountains of association with the virtuous, who constantly purifies
mankind with the eight signs [of his mastery of the science of Mantras].

. e Malkāpuram stone pillar inscription, Side , ll. – (SI , p. )

rgyajuhsāmavedānā
. m samyagadhyāpakās trayah. |
. .
padavākyapramānānām sāhityasyāgamasya ca |
. .
pañca vyākhyākrto vaidyakāyasthau dvau vicaksanau |
. . .
daśānām api caitesām pratyekam put.tikādvayam
. ||
. . .
ree to teach correctly the Rgveda,
. Sāmaveda, and Yajurveda five expositors of
grammar, Mīmāmsā, Nyāya, belles-lettres, and the Śaiva scriptures a physician
.
and an accountant, both skilled for each of these ten two Put.tikās
. of land’

. EC Sh , pp. – 

daksinakedārasthānamum . . . naisthikabrahmacaryyaśivamunijanānu sthānani sthi-


. . . .. .. ..
tasthānamum sāṅga-rgyajussāmātharvvacaturvvedasvādhyāyasthānamum . . . lāku.la-
. . .
siddhāntapātañjalayogaśāstrabyā khyānasthānamum astālaśapurā nadharmmaśā-
. .. .
strasaka.lakābyanātakanā
. tikādivividhavidyāsthānamu
. m [. . . ] āgi kodiyama
. tha
.
.
ere is the holy site of aksinakedāra ‘the Kedāra of the eccan’, . . . a place
. .
filled with the rites of Śaiva ascetics observing lifelong chastity, . . . a place of the
private study of the four Vedas, the Rgveda,
. Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, and Athar-
vaveda, together with their ancilliary sciences, . . . a place of the exposition of the
Lākula system and the Yogaśāstra of Patañjali, . . . a place of many branches of
learning, such as those of the eighteen Purānas, the harmaśāstras, and [belles-
.
lettres, comprising] all the Kāvyas, Nātakas,
. and Nātikas,
. . . . the Kodiyama
. tha.
.
. EC Sh , pp. – 

vedo mūlam atho vrtir drdhataranyāyādiśāstra m khalu


. .. .
smrtyādir vvitapas
. satām kisalayo dharmmānurāgah. kriyāh. |
. .
puspam yat śivaśāsanoktividitam saṅkalpitārttham pha.lam
. . . . .
dharmmah. kalpataruh. karotu bhavatah. śrīvāmaśakter muneh. ||
dharmmānurāgah. conj.  dharmmo ’nurāgah. p.

e root of the wish-fulfilling tree that is the piety of the venerable ascetic
Vāmaśakti is the Veda. t is fenced around by the most firm [of protections in the

or these eight signs, pyrogenesis (anagnijvālanam) and the rest, see Sārdhatriśati-Kālottara . – .
form of the brahmanical] disciplines of logic [, grammar,] and [hermeneutics].
e harmaśāstras [, Purānas,] and [pics] are its branches. ts buds are the love
.
of piety of the virtuous, and its flowers are [their] observances. May it bestow
on you its fruit the goal that is known from the teachings of the Śaiva religion.

. EC Sh , p. 

ondu-devasam dharmmaprasaṅgadim śrīkedāradevarasthalamumam tadīyasthānā-


. . .
cāryyar appa śrīmadrājaguruvāmaśaktidevara tapahprabhāvamuma m nīdu m no-
. . . .
diy
. [. . . ] vedāntasiddhāntāgama sattarkasakalavyākarananirmmaladharmmaśastrā-
. . .
dyaśesaśāstrārtthanirnnayanirnniktarum
. .. .. .
One day during a discourse on harma after considering for a long time the
holy site of Kedāra and its incumbent officiant, the venerable Royal Preceptor
Vāmaśaktideva, [. . . ] who has been cleansed by establishing the meaning of all
the Śāstras, namely the Upanisads, the Lākula scriptures (siddhāntāgama), the
.
six philosophies, grammar, the faultless harmaśāstras, and others . . . .

. An inscription of . . , recording a grant of land by the ālukya of Kalyānī


.
Jayasimha  for the support of the temple of Pañcaliṅgeśvara in the same city,
.
made to Lakulīśvara, evidently in his capacity as the Kālamukha incumbent of
this site, concludes with a verse that threatens with the king’s justice any who
finds fault either with Śiva or with the brahmanical order of the caste-classes
and disciplines taught in the Veda. EC Sh , p. 

mahādevo devas saka.lajagadārādhyacaranas


.
trayīprokto dharmmah. kramaghatitavar
. nnāśramavidhih. |
..
tayor yo vyākuryyād vrjinam anayos tasya nidadhe
.
śirasy aṅghrim vādipra.layadahano ’ham nrpasabhe ||
. . .
, a fire of destruction to disputants [of other faiths], shall place my foot in
the presence of the king’s council on the head of any who criticizes either of
these the od Śiva, whose feet merit the worship of all men, and the religion
proclaimed in the three [Vedas], in which the system of the caste-classes and
disciplines has been etablished in its proper hierarchy.

. Mohacūrottara, ff. v – r ( . – )

. prajāpālah. smrto rājā tasmān nyāyyam tu raksanam |


. . . .
varnānām anupūrvena dharmam deśāpayen nrpah. ||
. . . .
śrutismrtipurānāni āgamā dharmadeśakāh. |
. .
etair yo vartate rājā sa rājyam bhuñjate ciram ||
.
purānam bādhyate vedair āgamaiś ca taduktayah. |
. .
sāmānyam ca viśesam ca śaivam vaiśesikam vacah. ||
. . . . . .
bādhyabādhakabhāvena no vikalpyam vicaksanaih. |
. . .
yad yathāvasthitam vastu sarvajñas tat tad āvadet ||
.
āgamānām bahutve ’pi yatra vākyadvayam bhavet |
. .
kim pramānam tadā grāhyam pramānam śāmkaram vacah. ||
. . . . . . . .
†granthād granthāntaram tīkā. †sāpeksanirapeksayoh. |
. . .
samādhānam tayoh. kāryam arthāpattyādisādhanaih. ||
.
evam jñātvā surādhyaksa nirvrtim paramām vraja |
. . . . .
evam dharmānvite rājñi svarāstre sarvadā śivam ||
. ..
d arthāpattyādi corr.  arthāpatyādi od.

Tradition declares that the king is the protector of his subjects. erefore it
is right that he should protect the caste communities and ensure that they are
instructed in their duties, each according to its station. e sources that convey
these duties are Śruti, Smrti,
. Purāna,
. and the [Śaiva] scriptures (āgamāh).
. f
the king abides by these he enjoys a long reign. [e correct order of authority
in which they should be applied is as follows.] e Vedas [comprising both
Śruti and Smrti] take precedence over the Purānas, and the [Śaiva] scriptures
. .
take precedence over the teachings of the Vedas. ere is the common [brah-
manical authority of Śruti, Smrti, and Purāna] (sāmānyam), and then there is
. .
the special (viśesam). e Śaiva [scriptures] (śaivam) are the latter (vaiśesikam
. . .
vacah).
. [So] the learned should not doubt their authority when they find that
they conflict with [a brahmanical injunction]. e all-knowing [master] should
Manusmrti .  Yājñavalkyasmrti . ab Kātyāyanasmrti  Nāradasmrti .  Visnusmrti
. . . . .. .
. .
f. Mahābhārata . . cd bhīmo nāma ksitipatiś cāturvarnyasya raksitā . .  cāturvarnyasya
. . . .
dharmāś ca raksitavyā mahīksitā | dharmasamkararaksā hi rājñām dharmah. sanātanah. .
. . . . .
Since Purāna. is distinguished from Smrti
. in this passage, it follows that Smrti
. is being used in its
narrow meaning to denote the harmaśāstras of Manu and others.
e Vedas here must be understood to include Smrti, . that is to say, the harmaśāstras, if this
statement is not to contradict the preceding assertion that the [non-Śaiva] sources of the knowledge of
duty are not only Śruti [the Vedas in the narrow sense] and Purāna . but also Smrti.
.
e word viśesam here should be understood as an abbreviation of the compound viśesaśāstram
. .
(bhīmavat see here p. ??).
Vaktraśambhu, Mrgendrapaddhativyākhyā, pp. –  tatra sāmānyaviśesaśāstralaksanam śrīma-
. . . . .
nmohaśūrottare proktam yathā śrutismrtipurānam sāmānyaśāstram śrīmatkāmikādayo viśesaśāstram. vedā-
. . . . . .
dīnām sāmānyatvam brāhmanādijātimātrenaivādhikārāt. kāmikādīnām viśesatvam tesām brāhmanādī-
. . . . . . . . . .
nām malaparipākaśaktipātapūrvam dīksottarakālam evādhikārāt ‘With regard to that the common and
. . .
special teachings have been defined in the Mohaśūrottara Śruti, Smrti, . and Purāna . are the former and
the [Śaiva scriptures] beginning with the Kāmika are the latter. e Vedas and [Purānas] . are ‘common’
because brahmins and others are qualified and obliged [to follow them] simply by their birth in their
castes. e Kāmika and the rest are ‘special’ because brahmins and others are qualified and obliged [to
follow their injunctions] only after they have received initiation in consequence of the maturation of
adjudicate each case objectively [by this criterion]. iven the plurality of scrip-
tural authorities, whenever there is a question as to which of two [conflicting]
statements takes precedence, he should adopt that which has been taught by
Śiva. e should reconcile the two, whether self-sufficient or depending for its
the understanding of its meaning on [examination in the light of ] other sources
of the same kind, related sources, and [, where they fail,] learned exegesis, by
applying such modes of reasoning as presumption (arthāpattih). . Understand
this, O ndra, and thereby attain the ultimate bliss. When the king understands
the duties of religion in this way his realm will always prosper.

ABBREVIATIONS

EC  pigraphia arnatica
EI  pigraphia ndica
IO  Inscriptions of Orissa. → R
IV  Inscriptions of the Visnukundis. →S
.. ..
JESI  Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India
SI and  Select Inscriptions. → S and
SII  South Indian Inscriptions

their impurity and the descent [into them] of the power [of Śiva himself ].’ On the variant spellings of
the title Mohacūrottara see S , pp. – , fn. .
e means of knowledge called arthāpattih. is defined by the Mīmāmsaka . Śabarasvāmin as
follows (Mīmāmsāsūtrabhāsya p. , ll. – ) arthāpattir api drsta h
. śruto vā ’rtho ’nyathā nopapadyata
. . . ..
ity arthakalpanā. ‘Arthāpattti is the deducing of a fact on the grounds that [another] fact perceived or
[proposition] taught is otherwise inexplicable’. t is typically the deducing of a third fact required to
resolve an otherwise inexplicable contradiction between two others. An example is the deducing of the
existence of an enduring causal force (apūrvam) from the statement ‘One who seeks heaven should have
the Jyotistoma sacrifice performed’ (svargakāmo jyotistomena yajeta)’. e contradiction that prompts
.. ..
this deduction is that between the scriptural (therefore true) promise of a reward after death and the
perceived transience of the action of sacrificing. n the present context the idea is perhaps that one is
to resolve the apparent contradiction between a brahmanical and a Śaiva injunction by deducing that
they have must occupy different levels in a system of tiered injunctions.
REFERENCES

Titles of Sanskrit Works

Ā   . of Yāmunācārya, ed. M. Narasimhachary. OS . aroda Orien-


tal nstitute .
Ā  , with the commentary Ujjvala of aradatta, ed. A. inna-
svāmiśāstrī and A. Rāmanāthásāstrī. enares howkhamba Sanskrit Series Office,
.
Ā  .  with the commentary of ārgyanārāyana, . ed. Rāmanārāyana .
Vidyāratna and Ānandacandra Vedāntavāgīśa.  NS , , , . alcutta
Asiatic Society, .
K  . , text reconstructed and trans. with notes and introd. by P. V. Kane.
ombay P. V. Kane, .
T  of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (- ) of Rājānaka Jayaratha,
ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. KSTS , , , , , , , , , , . ombay
and Srinagar, – .
N   .  of Sadyojyotis with the commentary (-prakāśa) of hat.ta . Rāmaka-
ntha, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri. KSTS . Srinagar, .
..
N . .→L .
N  . .  of hāradvāja Uddyotakara, ed. Anantlal akur. Nyāyacatur-
granthikā . New elhi ndian ouncil of Philosophical Research, .
N    of Jayanta, vols. ed. K.S. Varadacharya. Oriental Research nstitute
Series and . Mysore University of Mysore, and .
P   ,P    . . → P  .
P  with the commentary (P    . ) of hagavat Kaundinya, ed.
..
R. Anantakrishna Sastri. TSS . Trivandrum University of Travancore, .
   , ed. . ultzsch. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Mor-
genlandes , . Leipzig rockhaus, .
 of Man. danamiśra
. with the commentary of Sankhapani, ed. S. Kup-
puswami Sastri. Madras overnment Oriental Manuscripts . Madras [s.n.], .
M     (Vidyāpāda) with the commentary of hat.ta . Rāmakan. tha
.
, ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’ . Pondicherry ,  M  -
   (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda) with the commentary of ha-
t.ta
. Rāmakan. tha. , ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’ . Pondicherry , .
Manuscript P  OR of –  paper Śāradā script.
e manuscripts used for the  edition have the commentary only up to Kriyāpāda . .
M . with the commentary (M  . ) of Medhātithi, ed. angānātha Jhā.
 . Vols. Allahabad AS, – .
M   . or the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar, with the coop-
eration of S. K. elvalkar, A. . ajendragadkar, V. Kane, R. . Karmarkar, P. L.
Vaidya, S. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman, and other scholars and illustrated by Shrimant
alasaheb Pant Pratinidhi. (Since ed. S. elvalkar). volumes. Pune OR,
– .
M   . [V  .   . ] of Patañjali, ed. . Keilhorn. ombay Sanskrit
Series – , , – . nd ed., rev. ombay overnment entral ook epôt,
– .
M  .   with the commentary (-bhāsya) of Śabarasvāmin, ed. Yudhisthira Mī-
. ..
māmsaka. vols. ahālgarh Rāmalāl Kapūr Trust Press, .
. .
M.   of Vaktraśambhu. P T .
M .   of Sadyojyotis with the commentary (- . ) of Rāmakantha . di-
..
tions → A . . .  Manuscript T  P T .
M  . NAK - , NMPP A /  paper Nepalese evanāgarī.
Y  . with the commentary (- .  ) of Aparāditya, ed. ari Nārāyana .
Āpte.
. Ānandaśramasa mskrtagranthāvali . Pune Ānandāśrama, .
. .
V.. . , ed. Julius Jolly.  . alcutta Asiatic Society, .
Ś  . in the Mādhyandinaśākhā with extracts from the commentaries
of Sāyana, arisvāmin and vivedagaṅga, ed. A. Weber. Reprint. howkhamba San-
.
skrit Series . Varanasi howkhamba, . irst published erlin-London, .
Ś  of Kumārila with the commentary (-   ) of Pārthasāra-
thimiśra, ed. Svamī vārikādāsa Śāstrī. Varanasi Tara Publications, .
S  N  NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Licchavi script
incomplete no date c. th century P  P T . .
S .   of Īśvarakrsna with the commentary (Sāmkhyatattvakaumudī of Vā-
.. . .
caspatimiśra, ed. Rāmaśaṅkara hat.tācārya, . nd edition, elhi Motilal anarsidass,
.
S   with the commentary (- . ) of hat.ta . Rāmakan. tha
. ,
ed. N. R. hatt. Publications de l’Publications de l’ . Pondicherry P, .
S   of Viśvanātha, ed. K. Sītārāma Somayājin and Śiva Śrī Talakādu .
Āgamika Krsnadīksita. Manonmanīgranthamālā . Mysore K. Sītārāma Somayājin,
.. . .
. Manuscripts A  P T  B  P T .
e commentary in this manuscript extends further, preserving that on the rest of the Kriyāpāda
( . – . ), the whole of the Yogapāda ( . – . ), and the Caryāpāda up to . , lacking only
that from Caryāpāda . to the end ( . ).
S    of Trilocanaśiva. P T .
S   .  śrīśaivāgame svāyambhuvasūtrasaṅgrahah. (svayambhuvā
.
maharsibhya uddistah),
. ed. Ve ṅka tasubrahma nyaśāstrī, Mysore, . Manuscript N
. .. . .
 NAK - , NMPP A /  palm-leaf Newari ‘Kutila’ . script no date.

Authors

 , W. and V.  . . L’Agnistoma. Description compl`ete de la forme normale


..
du sacrifice de Soma dans le culte v´ edique. Paris Leroux.
 , Paul-́mile. . e orse-Sacrifice in the Taittirīya-rāhmana e ighth
.
and Ninth Prapāthakas . of the ird Kān. da . of the Taittirīya-rāhmana . with Transla-
tion. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , pp. – .
K Kei. . Kumārila on Truth, Omniscience and Killing. Pt. : A Critical Edi-
tion of Mīmāmsā-Ślokavārttika ad .. (odanāsūtra) Pt. : An Annotated Transla-
.
tion of Mīmāmsā-Ślokavārttika ad .. (odanāsūtra). Sitzungsberichte der philoso-
.
phisch-historische Klasse . eiträge zur Kultur- und eistesgeschichte Asiens .
Vienna Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
L , Richard W. . e Nāradasmrti critically edited with an introduction, an-
.
notated translation, and appendices. University of Pennsylvania Studies on South Asia
– . Philadelphia ept. of South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania.
M , Krishna. . e Cālukyas of Kalyānī (from circa  A.D. to  A.D.).
.
elhi oncept Publishing ompany.
R , Satyanarayanan. . Inscriptions of Orissa (c.  – A.D.) Volume .
hubaneswar Research and Museum, overnment of Orissa.
S , Alexis. . e Śaiva Religion Among the Khmers, Part . Bulletin de
l’Ecole française d’Extrˆ eme-Orient ( – ), pp. – .
S , S. . e Vishnukundis and their Times (An Epigraphical Study).
. ..
elhi Agam Prakashan.
S , ines handra. . Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civi-
lization. Volume : From the sixth century . . to the sixth century . . nd ed., revised
and enlarged. alcutta University of alcutta.
––––. . Select Inscriptions bearing on Indian History and Civilization from the Sixth
to the Eighteenth Century, A.D., vol. . elhi Motilal anarsidass.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai