INFORMATION TO USERS ‘This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master, UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g, maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy, Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell information Company 300 Nortn Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor Mi 48106-1346 USA '313:761-4700 800/521-0600THE CONCEPT OF SAKTI IN LAKSMIDHARA’S COMMENTARY ON THE SAUNDARYALAHARI IN RELATION TO ABHINAVAGUPTA’S TANTRALOKA Rajmani Tigunait A DISSERTATION in Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Submitted to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 1997 A foc Supervisor of Dissertation Graduate Group Chairperson9727303 Copyright 1997 by Tigunait, Rajmani Al rights reserved. UMI Microform 9727303 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. ‘This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48103COPYRIGHT Rajmani Tigunait 1997ABSTRACT THE CONCEPT OF SAKTIIN LAKSMIDHARA’S COMMENTARY ON THE SAUNDARYALAHARI IN RELATION TO ABHINAVAGUPTA'S TANTRALOKA Rajmani Tigunait Withelm Halbfass The concept of saktfis essential to the study of Indian religious thought because it elucidates the general problem of causality and provides insight into two of the most prominent Tantric systems, Saktism and Saivism. In spite of the concepts importance in these systems, as yet there has been no comparative, philological study of saki’s role in Saivism and Saktism. The present study examines the concept of sakti in Srivida—the ‘most important branch of Sakta Tantrism—and offers an explicit interpretation of the usage of the term in wider Sakta literature. It focuses in particular on Laksmidhara's commentary on the Saundarvalahari—an important text of Srivida which draws on both Tantric and Vedic sources. In order to place Laksmidhara’s use of the term Sakti in philological and historical persepctive, the present study surveys how the word has been used in early Sanskrit literature through to contemporary scholarship, traces the origin and historical development of Tantra, the Tantric Sakta school, and the Srivida branch, and provides a philological analysis of sakti and related terms in Laksmidhara and other Srivida texts. In particular, the present work analyzes and compares notion of Sakti with that of Abhinavagupta in the Tantraloka which is the subject of several satisfactory studies. Although the historical origins of his primary text, Saundaryalahari, may be ambiguous, Laksmidhara’s influence on the Srividya tradition is indisputable. His commentary offers for the first time a clear description of the Sakti concept, which he terms samaya, and its metaphysical status in relation to siva. His methodology can serve as a valuable model with which to delineate the philosophy of éaktiin other schools of Sakta Tantrism.TABLE OF CONTENTS Sanskrit Transliteration Problems Abbreviations Sanskrit Texts Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT OF SAKTI. Parameters of this Study The Concept of Sakti in Early Literature The Concept of Sakti in Various Philosophical Schools The Concept of Sakti in Contemporary Works Notes 2. LAKSMIDHARA’S COMMENTARY IN THE WIDER CONTEXT OF SAKTA TANTRISM . The Origin and Historical Development of Tantra The Development of Saktism ‘An Overview of Srividya The Kaula-Samaya Dispute The Saundarvalahari Content of the Text Commentaries and Translations Notes THE GENERAL VIEW OF SAKTIIN PROMINENT SRIVIDYA TEXTS AND THE SPECIFIC VIEW IN THE LAKSMIDHARA™ An Overview of Sakti in Prominent Srividya Texts The View of Sakti in the Saundarvalahari and the Laksmidhara Laksmidhara’s View of Sakti Abhinavagupta’s View of Sakti ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Two Views Notes4. SAMAYA'S TRANSCENDENCE OF AND ONENESS WITH KUNDALINI AND THE CAKRAS, SRICAKRA, THE SRIVIDYA MANTRA, AND HER ANTHROPOMORPHIC FORM . How Laksmidhara Builds His Main Premise Sakti and the Cakras in the Human Body Sakti (Samaya) and Kalasakti ‘Sakti and Sricakra Sakti and the Srividya Mantra ‘Sakti and the Personified Form of the Goddess Discussion and Analysis Notes 5. CONCLUSION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LAKSMIDHARA'S CONCEPT OF SAKTI APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHYSANSKRIT TRANSLITERATION PROBLEMS Spelling/Style Spelling/Style Used in Text of Thesis is ibliographt Proper Transliteration Published Version Anandalahari Tika Anandalahari Tika Bhattojidiksita Bhattojidikshita Brahmasttrasatikarabhasya Brahmasatra-Sankarabhasya Devi Pafcastavi Devi Pafcastavi Dipika Dipika Gautamiya Tantra Gautamiyatantra Kamadhenu Tantra Kamadhenu Tantra Ksemaraja Kshemaraja Malinivijaya Malinivijaya Nirvana Tantra Nirvana Tantra Nityasodasikarnava Nityasodasikarmava Paratrimsika Para-Trimshika Rgveda Samhita Rig-Veda-Samhita ‘Sambapancasika Sambapancasika ‘Sayanacarya ‘Sayancharya Svacchanda Tantra Swacchanda Tantra Saradatilaka Sardatilaka Todala Tantra Todalatantra Tripura Rahasya Trpura Rahasya (Jnana Khanda) (Jaina Khanida) Tripura Rahasya Tripura Rahasya (Mahatmyakhanda) (Mahatmya Khanda) Popular Name Published Version Devibhagavata ‘Srimaddevibhagavata Prapafcasarasarigraha Prapancha Sarasara Sarigraha Subhagodaya Srisubhagodayastuti Tripuropanisad Tripuramahopanisad Yajurveda Mila-Yajurveda-SamhitaSpelling/Style Spelling/Style Used in Text of Thesis Used in Endnotes/Bibliography Variations of Name thor s N; Used in Published Versions Abhinavagupta Abhinavagupta Abhinava Gupta Bhaskararaya Bhéskararaya Bhaskara Raya Bhaskararaya Makhin Gopinath Kaviraj Gopinath Kaviraj Gopinath Kaviraia Gopinatha Kaviraja Gopinatha Kaviraja Kamesvarasiri Kamesvarasuri Kamesvara Suri KameévarasirinABBREVIATIONS Brahmanda Purana Brahmasitra Safikarabhasyam Durga Saptasati Gandharva Tantra Hindu Tantrism Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literature Kamakalavilasa Laksmidhara Laksmi Tantra Mantra Aur Matrkaon ka Rahasya Malinivijaya Vartika Nityasodasikarava Netra Tantra Paratrimsikavivarana Subhagodaya Svacchanda Tantra Tantraloka Tripura Rahasya (Jhdnakhanda) Tripura Rahasya {Mahatmyakhanda) Tantrasafigraha, Part Tantrasaigraha, Part tt Tantrasa“igraha, Part IHL Varivasyarahasya Yogini Hrdaya Yogakundali Upanisad viiiSANSKRIT TEXTS Used in Text of Thesis Malinivijaya 10} tio Nirvana Tantra Nityasodasikamava Anandalahant Tika Para-Trimshika Bhaftojidiksita Rig-Veda-Samhita Brahmasatrasarikarabhasya Sambapancasika Devi Pancastavi Sayanacharya Dipika ‘Swacchanda Tantra Gautamitya Tantra Sardatilaka Kamadhenu Tantra Todalatantra Ksemaraja Trpura Rahasya Malintvijaya (nana Kharida) Nirvana Tantra Tripura Rahasya Nityasodasikarnava (Mahatmya Khanda) Paratrimsika Raveda Samhita Published Version ‘Sambapancasika Sayanacarya Srimaddevibhagavata Svacchanda Tantra Prapaftcha Sarasara Sarigraha Saradatilaka Srisubhagodayastuti Todala Tantra Tripuramahopanisad Tripura Rahasya Malla-Yajurveda-Samhita (nana Khanda) Tripura Rahasya (Mahatmyakhanda) Popular Name Devibhagavata Prapaficasarasarigraha Subhagodaya Tripuropanisad Yajurveda Used in F PBibli Published Version Anandalahant Tika Bhatfojidikshita Brahmastitra-Sankarabhasya Devi Pafcastavi Dipika Gautamiyatantra Kamadhenu Tantra KshemarajaCHAPTER | INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT OF SAKTI Parameters of this Study The school of Srividya is the most important branch of Sakta Tantrism because of its well-defined philosophical position, its literary standards, and its coherent doctrines. Historically, it seems to be the first branch of Saktism to have been systematized. Unlike other branches of Sakta Tantrism, the adherents of the Srividya school madean attempt to create a coherent structure of speculative ideas and give a philosophical explanation for the practices outlined in this system. The concept of sakti in Srividya is essential to the study of Indian religious thought because it elucidates the general problem of causality in Indian philosophy and religion. ight into Saktism, Saivism, and other More specifically, this concept provides deeper ir branches of Tantra. It holds an important place throughout Tantric literature, especially in Saktism and Saivism. Sakti also appears in Paftcaratra Agama, Vyakarana Agama, Mimamsa, Vedanta, and even Kavya Sastra, although the meaning varies. These sources express a variety of views on this concept; they introduce elaborations and often employ idiosyncratic terminology. In spite of the key role of the concept of sakti, as yet there has been no comparative, philological study of sakti’s role in two of the most prominent Tantric systems, Saivism and ISaktism. Neither has there been a focused study of sakti in Kaulacara-dominated Kashmir Saivism, in the Samayacara-dominated Srividya tradition of Saktism, nor in the writings of Laksmidhara or Abhinavagupta, the outstanding exponents of Samayacara and Kaulacara philosophy, respectively. Prominent Tantric texts such as the Netra Tantra (hereafter cited as NT), Svacchanda Tantra (hereafter cited as SVT), Malinivijaya Varttika (hereafter cited as MVV), Saradatilaka (hereafter cited as ST), Nityasodasikarnava (hereafter cited as NS), and Yogini Hrdaya (hereafter cited as YH),? offer elaborate but incoherent discussions on the nature and function of sakti. All these texts present theories of mantra, yantra, devatd, ‘matrka, and cakras in the human body, and connect them to sakti, However, neither these Sanskrit texts nor modern studies of Tantrism and Saktism reveal how the basic concept of Sakti originated; how the pratibha, rasa, dhvani, and camatkara of Sanskrit poetics, or the pratibha, pasyanti, and kalasakti of V yakarana Agama were assimilated into the mainstream of Saktism; how the mystical doctrines of mantra, devata, yantra, and matykd, were integrated into the concept of Sakti; or whether the concept of sakt’itself developed in an effort to synthesize these theories. There are elaborate discussions on the concept of Sakti, but there is no conclusive definition of the term, even in Saktism itself, Sakta scriptures launch directly into explanations of sakti’s multilevel role in the attainment of spiritual/mystical experiences, leaving the definition of the term itself vague. Therefore, a study of the concept of sakti in Srividya and an explicit interpretation of the usage of the term in wider Sakta literature, as well as in the literature of Saivism, Paftcaratra Agama, ‘Vyakarana Agama, and Saq Darsana, would be invaluable in illuminating the character of Saktism in general. To date, the field suffers from the following difficulties: |. The historical and literary boundaries of Saktism are not well defined;32. The relationship among the principal branches of Tantric literature within which one can attempt to locate the sakti-related materials and pinpoint the precise view of saktiin a given tradition or subtradition of Tantra is not well understood; 4 3. There is a scarcity of critically edited texts and, in most cases, a lack of thematic and comparative studies of available texts; 4, There are no clear and indisputably established criteria to define what characteristic(s) make a text Sakta, and especially what characteristics distinguish Sakta texts from the texts of monistic Saiva Agama;5 5. There is insufficient historical data about Sakta texts and the exact tradition or subtradition of Saktism they represent; accurate criteria for distinguishing primary from secondary texts are also lacking;® and 6. There is no easy access to the secret oral interpretation, the province of initiates, of which a given text is a part.7 Because of these difficulties, the field of the present study is confined to the concept of Sakti in the Srividya school. A survey of the literature shows that the most coherent and elaborate discussions of sakti occur in texts belonging to the Srividya, or Tripura, school of Saktism.8 We further confined our study to one specific text-~the Saundarvalahari 9 (hereafter cited as SL), and again, more precisely, to one of its commentaries, the Laksmidhara!© (hereafter cited as LD) by Laksmidhara. We made this selection not only because it enables us to avoid the difficulties enumerated above, but also because LD is a brillant commentary on a well-known Sakta/Srividya text. The commentator is one of those scholars and staunch adherents of Tantrism who clearly proclaims his affiliation with the exact branch of Sakta Tantrism that he practices--the Samayacara school of Srividya. To support his view that SL belongs to this school, Laksmidhara draws on both Tantric and Vedic sources. In the process, he outlines the general principles of Saktism, and highlights what he believes to be the most important factors in the Samayacara school of Saktism.Due to his affiliation with Saikaracarya, which he establishes by writing a commentary on SL, a scripture attributed to Sarikardcarya, and his devotion to the Vedas, which is apparent in his commentary, Laksmidhara’s voice has become influential in the living tradition of Sarikaracarya. Although the historical origins of the primary text, SL, may be ambiguous, Laksmidhar's influence on the Srividya tradition, especially the Samayacaira branch of it, is indisputable. Using LD as a basis for this study permits us to concentrate on the general meaning of the term sakti in Sakta and non-Sakta traditions and its specific meaning (or the terms that replace it, such as samaya, sadakhya, and candrakala), in the Samayacara school of the Stividya tradition. This text-based analysis of the term Sakti, as well as the concept it conveys, can help us understand sakti’s precise role, at least in one sect of Saktism (i, ‘Samayacara), in contrast to the notions of Sakti that we get from a collection of texts whose sectarian affiliation is often unclear. Furthermore, in recent years, a contemporary scholar, Douglas Renfrew Brooks, has undertaken a thorough study of Bhaskararaya's commentary on the Tripura Upanisad. Using this text as a base, he arrives at an understanding of Srividya in general, and the Kaula aspect in particular. This enables us to focus on Laksmidhara, who propounds Samayacara, the counterpart of Kaula. The Concept of Sakti in Early Literature In order to clarify the notion of saktiin Laksmidhara’s writings and to place his approach in philological and historical perspective, it is necessary to examine how the word Sakti has been used in early literature, such as the Vedas, Upanisads, and Puranas, as well as in later Indian philosophical literature. As Gerald J. Larson observes, the term Sakti “is used in a bewildering variety of ways ranging from its use as a way of expressing the ultimate creative power of being itself, all the way to its use as a way of expressing the capacity of words to convey meaning (artha)."!! Tracing its origin from the verb root sak (or Sak| saktau), the word sakti simply means “the power to produce an effect, capability, 4efficiency or potency.” However, the meaning derived from this etymology is too vague and general to describe the use of the word sakti in the wide variety of contexts in which it is employed. According to Sayana’s belief, in the Raveda this word occurs in the sense of “capacity”; !2 as vajra, the thunder-bolt; karma, the power to act;!3 and as the proper name of a type of weapon.!4 In each of these instances, the term means not a goddess but a force. Itis only when the term Sakti becomes identified either directly or by implication with Aditi, Gna, Sarasvati, and vak in the Samhitas and with Uma Haimavati, prakrti, and maya in the Upanisads, that sakti finds a significant place in ancient Indian mythology and philosophy. The earliest clear statement employing the term sakti to describe the nature of her relationship to the Absolute Truth appears in Svetaévatara Upanisad: saktiis said to be vividhd, manifold; jadina, knowledge; bala, power; and kriyd, the capacity to act; these characteristics are intrinsic to her. 15 Due to its varied and incoherent subject matter, Pauranic literature cannot be treated as a ground for delineating a unified notion of sakti, nor can it be entirely disregarded. This is especially true for Puranas such as Markandeya, Brahmanda, Brahmavaivarta, Narada, Devibhagavata, and Kalika, which are extensively Tantric.!6 For example, in the Durga ‘Saptagati (hereafter cited as DS), which is a portion of Markandeva Purana, Sakti is the intrinsic power not only of brahman, the absolute reality, but also of all the gods, Brahma, Visnu, Siva, Indra, Agni, Varuna, Yama, etc. Due to her association with these gods, she appears in a variety of forms and thus is given different names.!7 Almost without exception in Pauranic literature-for example, in DS and “Lalitopakhyéna” of the ‘Brahmanda Purana (hereafter cited as BP-L)--Sakti is accompanied by a god, who is her consort, and in that case, her name, form, weapon, and functions correspond to those of the god.!8 Quasi-etymologically, the basic characteristics ascribed to Sakti are aigvarya, lordship, and parakrama, valor.!9 In the Puranas she is said to be identical to brahman(“brahmamayi ” ot “brahmatmaka rasétmika");29 she is unmanifest, absolute prakyti (‘avyakrta param prakyti’). Sakti, as prakrti, is the cause of the whole universe; in fact, the manifest world is not separate from her.2! As transcendental Reality (“para paranam parama paramesvari,” DS 1:62), she is indescribable (“unuccarya,” DS 1:55) and unthinkable (“rdpam acintyam,” DS 4:5). At the same time, the entire universe, including its hierarchy of deities, emerges from her and ultimately dissolves into her.22 It should be noted that in these Pauranic sources, Sakti is treated both as a goddess and as a philosophical category. For example, in many of the stotras in DS23 and BP-L,24 she is described as a deity who was bom (or at least emerged) in a particular time and place, but at the same time, she is also said to be formless and transcendent. The Concept of Sakti in Various Philosophical School When we tum our attention to the uses of the term sakti in various philosophical schools~-such as Mimamsa, Nyaya, Advaita Vedanta, Vyakarana Agama, and Kavya Sastra~we find that one of her roles~-that of deity--vanishes. Let us take, for example, references to Sakti in Mimamsa. Prabhakara's group of Mimamsakas are also referred to as Saktivadins, those who adhere to the theory of sakti. According to the Saktivadins, everything in the world possesses some sort of ¢akti, which cannot be perceived although it can be inferred. Mimamsakas argue that although fire produces heat, under the influence of certain mantras the same fire fails to produce that effect, although in both cases, the fire as such remains the same. This indicates that there must be something in the presence of which the fire blazes, whereas in its absence it cannot burn: To this imperceptible something, Prabhakara gives the name of ‘Shakti’ or Force. In eternal things, it is etemal, and in transient things it is brought into existence along with them, It differs from ‘samskara’ in that this latter is transient in eternal things also.25 The concept of apurvaas held by Mimamsakas parallels this concept of sakti. In the words of Gariganatha Jha:By Kumarila's view the aparva is “a capability in the principal action, or in the agent, which did not exist prior to the performance of the action, and whose existence is proved by the authority of the scriptures.” Before the Sacrifices laid down as leading to heaven are performed, there is in the Sacrifices themselves, in the first place, an incapability of leading to heaven, and in the second place, in the agent, that of attaining to heaven. Both these incapacities are set aside by the performance of the sacrifice; and this performance creates also a positive force or capacity, by virtue of which heaven is attained; and to this latter force or capability we give the name apdrva.26 The Naiyayikas, on the other hand, refute saktias a special category of power or causal efficiency.27 According to Sarikarasvamin: The causal efficacy (Sakti) which some postulate to explain causation, is nothing more than the collection of causal factors (samagri) sufficient to produce the effect. Likewise, lack of causal efficacy (asakti) is merely the absence of one of the necessary conditions for production. However, once an effect is produced, it can remain in existence even though its samagri-sakti disappears.28 Karl H. Potter summarizes the Naiyayika opinion about the theory of causality, explaining how Naiyayikas dismiss the concept of sakti as proposed by Saktivadins (Mimamsakas). However, in his analysis of Udayana’s Nvavakusumaijali, Potter states: Udayana becomes very permissive at this point; in fact, he goes so far as to say that if ‘one wants to he can admit an additional category of causality (karanatva), and that this new category may be considered to be the old causal efficacy under another name.29 On this issue George Chemparathy writes, “The Naiyayikas, too, admit potency (Saktif), but only in the sense of causality (karanatvam).30 The main issue in a long chain of debates between the Mimamsakas and the Naiyayikas is whether sakti, the unseen latent potency, alone is the main cause behind an effect or whether several conditions jointly produce the effect. Mimmsakas hold the prior view and the Naiyayikas, the latter. However, in order to explain how different conditions combine to aid different causes in producing an effect, Naiyayikas propose the theory of adrsta, which is somewhat similar to the concept of apdrva held by the Mimamsakas.3! Candramati’s Dasapadartha Sastra, an early Vaisesika text dating from A.D. 640, also mentions sakti as one of the ten padarthas.32 Here sakti means the potentiality that allows things to function.Saiikaracarya, a strict Advaita Vedantin, proposes Brahma Advaitavada, the doctrine that there is only one reality (brahman), without a second. However he refers to Sakti as the sole factor behind the creation or manifestation of the universe. For example, in Brahmasutra-Bhasya (hereafter cited as BS-B) Sarikaracarya writ creatorship of the great lord Paramesvara cannot be explained.”33 3: “Without Her, the In this particular passage, Sarikarcarya, commenting on sutra, “tad-adhinatvad arthavat” (1:4. 3), attempts to prove that although it is Sakti through which paramesvara creates the world, she has no existence independent of paramesvara, brahman. In his philosophy, sakti-variously known as maya, avidya, prakrti, or jadasaktiis an impenetrable mystery--is responsible for the evolution of the universe, but she, herself, cannot be said to be either existent or non-existent. As Sarikardcarya states: Brahman is definitely endowed with all powers, Saktis. .. . Although Brahman is the only Reality, due to its union with unique and numberless powers, multifarious effects (the universe of multiple objects) evolve from Brahman, just as from milk (evolves yogurt, butter, etc.).34 In these two passages, as well as in many others,35 Sarikara uses the term sakti as well as the concept, but leaves its role and metaphysical status ambiguous in relation to brahman. In these references, however, Sarikaracarya is unwilling to accept Sakti as an entirely independent reality, for he will then have to explain sakti’s nature as well as its relationship to brahman. If he is to explain the existence of the empirical world, he cannot completely deny the existence of Sakti, but if he is to maintain the integrity of his, nondualistic model, he cannot accept it as an independent reality either. To overcome this, dilemma, Saikarécarya modifies the basic doctrine of causation--Satkaryavada, the theory according to which an effect must exist in its cause prior to its manifestation. However, he modifies this theory by claiming that the effect is but an illusory appearance, having its cause in that which already exists. Thus, he still adheres to the theory of Satkaryavada, although not in the sense of Parindmavada as held by Sarikhya, according to which theactual effect comes from the preexisting actual cause, but rather in the sense of Vivartavada, the theory of illusory effect appearing from a real cause.36 Furthermore, without giving a concrete definition, Sarikaracarya uses the term Sakti interchangeably with mayasakti, avidya, and occasionally even prakrti. In expounding his main thesis, Brahmadvaitavada, he devotes more space to discussions of the unreal nature of Sakti, mayasakti, and other synonymous terms than he does to discussions about brahman,37 a fact which leads adherents of other schools to refer to him asa Mayavadin rather than a Brahmavadin. Vyakarana Agama, on the other hand, not only acknowledges Sakti, but also assigns it a higher position than do the Vedantins. In Advaita Vedanta, the absolute reality, brahman, is devoid of all qualities and distinctions; somehow through a mysterious union with mayasakti (which is substantially neither real nor unreal and is thus simply indescribable), the world of multiplicity evolves. In Vyakarana Agama, sabdabrahman, the eternal verbum is the Supreme Reality. During the evolution of the objective world, avidya, which is one of the powers of Sabdabrahman, veils the unitary nature of sabdabrahman and projects the plurality of the phenomenal world. However, in order to prevent several projections from occurring simultaneously, Bhartrhari, the foremost philosopher of Vyakarana Agama posits the concept of kalasakti. In regard to kalasakti, Gaurinath Sastri states: The kalasakti of the grammarian is a Power of the Eternal Verbum by virtue of which the latter is described as the Powerful. It should be noted, however, that though the Eternal Verbum and kdlasakti stand in the relation of a substance and an attribute, yet they are essentially identical and not different from each other. In fact the two may be regarded as two moments or aspects of one and the same Reality. The difference between the Eternal Verbum and kalasakti and, for the matter of that, all Kalas, is a mere appearance, an intellectual fiction, without a foundation in reality.38 There are many other powers of sabdabrahman known as kalds, but all are controlled (sarvah paratantrah) by this unrestricted sovereign power known as kalasakti (kalakhyena svatantryena). Due to the control of kalasakti over other saktis (kalas), 9different projections or transformations occur sequentially rather than simultaneously.39 Kalasakti, as we will see later, plays an important role in the doctrine of Srividya. In Indian poetics (Kavya Sastra), the term saktiis used in an entirely different sense. In his work, Kavvaprakisa, Mammata defines saktias “unique potential identical to the seed of the essence of a poet, kavitva bijardpa samskara visesa40 While considering dhvani, suggestion, to be the heart (atman) of Kavya, Anandavardhana relates dhvani to pratibhd, which signifies the supernatural (alokasamadnya) intuitive power that enables the word and meaning of the word to flash in the mind of the poet or the reader.4! In Kavya ‘Sastra, the term pratibha refers to sakti.42 In systems other than Saktism and Saivism, the concept of sakti was developed in an effort to solve the problem of causality. Within their specific philosophical orientations, these other systems assign saktijust enough importance to logically explain causality without compromising the supremacy of their main doctrine (which may be apdrva, adrsta, brahman, or Sabdabrahman). While in other systems sakti remains subservient, in ‘Saktism the situation is reversed: sakti becomes the major theme, the very center or even the only truth, and other concepts are secondary. In literature that is not devoted exclusively to philosophy, such as the Puranas and Tantras, Sakti assumes various names and forms. According to Paurdnic and Tantric sources,43 she appears in personified form primarily in two circumstances: to reward her devotees or to punish demons. Either before or after her appearance, devotees recite hymns of praise (stotras) in her honor, which elucidate both her personified and Philosophical/metaphysical nature.44 Thus, for the sake of study, we can say that there are two facets of Sakti: the goddess and the philosophical category. In the stotras, the two facets are inseparably mixed, forming a single identity. As a goddess, she assumes ‘multiple forms that are beautiful (e.g., Kamesvari or Lalita), terrifying (e.g., Kali), heroic (eg., Durga or Candika), and even inhuman (e.g., Varahi and Narasimhi). This facet 10constitutes the mythological and theological aspect of Saktism whereas the second facet, i.e., Sakti as philosophical category, constitutes the speculative aspect of Saktism. The Concept of Sakti in Contemporary Works When we tum our attention to a focused study of sakti in the writings of contemporary scholars, we find a number of works and articles addressing general problems of Saktism. However, they rarely examine the precise meaning or role of sakti within a given text or tradition, nor do they compare and contrast this concept in other texts ortraditions. Sudhendu Kumar Das, in his work Sakti or Divine Power,45 focuses his discussion on the concept of saktiin Kashmir Saivism and Vira Saivism, although he does attempt to trace the origin of sakti in the Vedas and Upanisads. Although he cites Saivite texts, his study is neither objective nor analytical from an historical or philosophical standpoint. However, he does conduct a thorough survey of the literature and draws his material from a wealth of textual sources. Jadunath Sinha's Shakta Monism4® addresses topics such as siva, kulakundalini, sakti, nada, bindu, creation, the individual self, and so on. Unfortunately, he simply gathers and translates quotations from a number of sources (such as the Upanisads, Puranas, and the texts of Saiva and Sakta Agama) without raising any questions and, thus, without stating any points of distinction. Pushpendra Kumar, on the other hand, focuses mainly on the different forms of sakti in the Puranas in his book Sakti Cult in Ancient India. Evaluating the merit of this work, David Kinsley writes that this book, “though lacking in interpretive depth, provides a wealth of textual sources concerned with goddcss worship and goddess mythology in the medieval period."47 The writings of Gopinath Kaviraj48 are considered to be some of the most authoritative works not only in the area of Saktism but also in all of Tantrism. However, he focuses mainly on philosophy and does not cite his sources. In an attempt to construct the iphilosophy of Saktism, Kaviraj apparently fuses ideas that are unique to subschools of ‘Saktism or Saivism and presents them as general concepts. Without any serious examination of his assumptions, subsequent Indian writers49 such as Kailaéa Pati Misra, Baladeva Upadhyaya, Kamalakar Mishra, and Sangam Lal Pandey used his work as a model and thus produced general works on Saktism that are duplicative and contain very little original material. Hindu Tantrism (hereafter cited as HT) by Gupta, Hoens, and Goudriaan, and Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literature (hereafter cited as HTS) by Gupta and Goudriaan, although general works on Saktism, are of great merit. These studies cover a vast range of Sakta history, philosophy, and religious practices; they also provide literature surveys and scrutinize some important Sakta texts. Myth, Cult and Symbols in Sakta Hinduism by Wendell Charles Beane and The Saktas: An Introductory and Comparative Study by Emest A. Payne are comparative studies that give special attention to the manifestion of Sakti as Kali and Durga.50 Although the historical account of Saktism given by scholars N. N. Bhattacharyya5! and D. C Sircar52 is thorough, their remarks, according to Teun Goucdriaan, “are necessarily speculative, not based upon a direct study of Sanskrit sources...and the same can be said of the publication by the well-known epigraphist and historian D. C. Sircar."53 Other works of great value are those of Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Mark S.G. Dyczkowski, Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega, André Padoux, and Jaideva Singh.54 Except for Brooks, these scholars focus primarily on Saivism, and itis in that context that they study the nature of Sakti. The works by Brooks are the only ones that focus exclusively on the Srividya school of Tantrism. His doctoral dissertation, “The Srividya School of Sakta Tantrism: A Study of the Texts and Contexts of the Living Traditions in South India” (hereafter cited as “Srividya SchooI"), traces the historical development of Srividya from the 12earliest available sources in Sanskrit and Tamil. It also examines the historical and theological materials as they are intrepreted by the followers of Srividya in South India. In another work, The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Sakta ‘Tantrism (hereafter cited as Three Cities), Brooks provides a general introduction to Sakta Tantrism and the tradition of Srividya; he undertakes a detailed analysis of Srividya, using Bhaskararaya's commentary on the Tripura Upanisad as a basis. Because Bhaskararaya, although a Vedic Brahmin, was a strong proponent of Tantrism, especially the Kaula branch of Sakta Srividya Tantrism, Brooks has ample opportunity to highlight the Kaulacara school of Srividya, an opportunity that he uses to full advantage. However, because Bhaskararaya was a prolific writer of independent works as well as a commentator on several Tantric texts that do not belong exclusively to the Kaula aspect of Srividya, his writings cover a vast range of materials on Sakta, especially the Srividya tradition. Thus, while translating and analyzing Bhaskararaya's commentary on Tripura Upanisad, Brooks naturally discusses the characteristics of Hindu Tantrism in general and Sakta Tantrism in particular, pointing out some of the distinctions between the Kaulicdra and Samayacara divisions of the Srividya school. However, like Bhaskararaya, he remains focused on the Kaula school. In his latest book, Auspicious Wisdom: The Texts and Traditions of Srividva Sakta Tantrism in South India (hereafter cited as Auspicious Wisdom), Brooks continues exploring the ideas he presented in Three Cities, elaborating on the Kaula aspect of the Srividya tradition. However, this recent work does not focus solely on Bhaskararaya and his commentary on Tripura Upanisad, but draws on a wider range of sources, thus providing a more comprehensive view of the history, philosophy, and practice of Srividya. Within the confines of the present study, it is neither possible nor relevant to conduct an examination of all these issues; therefore, we have chosen to focus on the concept of saktiin the writings of Laksmidhara, a brilliant commentator on the SL. 13Because Kashmir Saivism is allied to the Srividya school of Saktism to which the SL belongs, we have elected to include the concept of éakti as expounded by Abhinavagupta, the greatest exponent of the Trika school of Kashmir Saivism. Because Abhinavagupta’s writing is more comprehensive than Laksmidhara’s, only his Tantraloka (hereafter cited as TA)SS has been selected for this study. The present work, however, is not intended to be a comparative study of Laksmidhara and Abhinavagupta. The purpose of examining Abhinavagupta’s TA alongside Laksmidhara’s commentary is to provide a more stable context, a context which makes it possible to examine Laksmidhara’s notion of sakti with less historical and philosophical ambiguity. Because several relatively satisfactory studies have already been done on Abhinavagupta, relevant historical facts and, to some extent, philosophical doctrines have already been outlined.56 Thus, the inclusion of TA helps to establish a boundary within the vast body of Saiva Agama, while still permitting the exploration of the historical and philological connections of Laksmidhara’s concept of saktiin the as-yet- unexplored Sakta literature. Before we begin our examination of Laksmidhara's view of sakti, itis important to establish a general understanding of this concept in the wider context of Saktism. Only then can we explore its specific implication in the Samayacara school of Saktism expounded by Laksmidhara.CHAPTER |: NOTES I. *... the worship of Tripurasundari, the most important Tantric form of Sri/Laksmi, naturally occupies a well-defined position and comes in early. This is not due to its being, chronologically [sic] the first. . . but because the system is conspicuous by the literary standard of at least part of its texts, and by the mere coherence and elaboration of its doctrine. Tripurasundari is the foremost benign, beautiful and youthful, yet motherly manifestation of the Supreme Sakti. Her samgpradaya (sometimes called saubhagyasampradaya, ‘tradition of sweet happiness’), although presumably not the oldest, seems to have been systematized at a relatively early date. Its formulations are characterized bya high degree of technicality cultivated in order to serve an intellectualistic desire for subtle symbolism.” Teun Goudriaan and Sanjukta Gupta, Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literamre (hereafter cited as HTS), in A History of Indian Literature, vol. 2: Epics and ‘Sanskrit Religious Literature, ed. Jan Gonda (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), p. 58. 2. Netra Tantram with Commentary by Kshemaraia (hereafter cited as NT), ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 46 (Bombay: Tatva Vivechaka Press, 1926); Swacchanda-Tantra (hereafter cited as SVT), ed. with notes by Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 31 (Bombay: Nimaya-Sagar Press, 1921); Sri Malinivijava Varttikam of Abhinava Gupta (hereafter cited as MVV), ed. with notes by Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 32 (Srinagar: Kasmir Pratap Steam Press, 1921); enero eae The (hereafter cited as ST), ed. with introduction by ‘Mukunda Sha Bakshi, Kashi Sanskrit Granthamala, 107, Tantra Sastra Section, no. | (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1963); Ni va Artharatnavali by Vidvananda Mheteafer ct cited as NS), ed. Vrajavallabha Dviveda, Yoga- ‘Tantra-Granthamala, vol. 1, ed. Baladeva Upadhyaya (Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1968); and Yogini Hrdaya with Commentaries: Dipika of Ammiananda and Setubandha of Bhaskara Raya (hereafter cited as YH), 2d ed., Sarasvati Bhavana Granthamala, vol. 7, ed. Kshetresachandra Chattopadhyaya (Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1963). 3. What Saktism is and whether it stands as an independent system of the philosophy of religion has not been established definitively. For example, Pushpendra Kumar offers a general definition, “Saktism is the worship of sakti or the female principle,” in Sakti Cult in Ancient India: With Special Reference to the Purdnic Literature (Varanasi: Bhartiya Publishing House, 1974), p. 1. Goudriaan offers a contradictory view of Saktism: “Sometimes it is incorrectly identified with ‘the cult of female deities in general’ .. . To this should be added that inseparably connected to her is an inactive male partnet as whose power of action and movement the Sakti functions . . .. It is, therefore, not enough to say that Saktas worship the female as the ultimate principle.” HT, p. 7. The problem is further complicated by the difficulty in determining whether literature in which the concept of sakti appears belongs to Saktism or not. For example, although sakti as both a simple term and a comprehensive philosophical category appears in the Upanisads and Puranas, they cannot be regarded as Sakta texts. Although there is an independent body of literature (Sakta Tantras) wherein Sakti philosophy and sdédhand are exclusively advocated, significant discussions on sakti can also be found in Saivite and 15Vaisnaivite Agamas and Puranas. This makes it difficult to draw a definite boundary around Saktism from the perspective of either history or literature. Gopinath Kaviraj clearly acknowledged this difficulty: “The Sakta literature is extensive, though most of itis of mixed character. Siva and Sakti being intimately related, Saiva and Sakta Tantras have generally a common cultural background, not only in practices but in philosophical conceptions as well.” Gopinath Kaviraj, Aspects of Indian Thought (Burdwan: The University of Burdwan, 1966), p. 177. 4. Discussing this issue in great detail, Goudriaan points out: “The historical position of the term Tantra in the Tantric tradition is therefore not entirely clear and we may assume that it only gradually came to be closely affiliated with Sakta and Sakti-oriented Saiva literature.” HIS, p.7. In the same chapter, he also points out how difficult it is to draw a demarcation line between different traditions of Tantrism or even to find a chronology of original Tantras and secondary Tantras; for details, see HTS, pp. 1-10. According to Brooks’ observation, the kind of attention Tantric Saktism has received from scholars is insufficient and disproportionate; for details see, Douglas Renfrew Brooks, The Secret of the Three Citi is (hereafter cited as Brooks, Three Cities), (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990), Preface ix and nn. 2 and 3 on pp. 209-210. 5. *... itshould be kept in mind that the distinction of Saiva/Sakta cannot always be clearly drawn. Saktism, the belief in and worship of the Supreme Principle as a female force or Sakti... as it were, grew into maturity under the cover of Saivism where Siva holds a similar position. This holds good at least as far as the literary development of Sakta ideology is concerned . it is unavoidable that some attention is also paid to tantrically oriented works which focus on the worship of Siva or other male gods. There is no clear line of demarcation; both denominations can be distinguished but not separated.” Goudriaan in HTS, p. 2. See also Goudriaan in HT, p. 11, and Kaviraj, Aspects of Indian Thought, p. 177. 6. Goudriaan in HTS, pp. 2-4. 7. While working with the Srividya school of Sakta Tantrism in South India, Brooks shares his experience: “It is only in the living and oral tradition and through critical historical study that a more complete picture of practice and interpretation emerges.” Douglas Renfrew Brooks, “The Srividya School of Sakta Tantrism: A Study of the Texts and Contexts of the Living Traditions in South India” (hereafter cited as “Srividya School”) (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1987), p. 8. For details, see pp. 6-8. Brooks also cautions: What Tantric texts say, what Tantrics say they do, and what they actually do are not necessarily the same. We must not only leam to read Tantric texts and gain the confidence of Tantrics who will discuss their traditions, we must be able to criticize their interpretation and observe their practices for ourselves . ... To go beyond a literary and speculative understanding of Tantrism and to probe a text’s meanings, one must gain broad access to the secret and initiated lines of oral interpretation of which a given text is a part... How insightful and accurate can a study be if the picture drawn of the whole tradition is necessarily limited by the scholar’s view of an oral 16tradition known only partially? At best, each study is limited by the scholar’s own access to living oral sources of interpretation. Brooks, Three Cities, pp. 7-8. i. Senjukte ‘Gupta, Dirk Jan Hoens, and Teun Goudriaan, Hindu Tantrism (hereafter cited ed. Jan Gonda (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), p. 46; see also Goudriaan i in HTS, p. 58. 9. (Saitkaracarya?] The Saundaryalahari or Flood of Beauty: Traditionally Ascribed to ‘Satikaracarva (hereafter cited as SL), trans., ed., and presented in photographs by W. Norman Brown (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958). 114 (Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1969). 11. Gerald James Larson, “The Sources for Sakti in Abhinavagupta’s Kashmir Saivism: A Linguistic and Aesthetic Category,” Philosophy East /West 24 (January 1974): 41-55. 12. “Etenagne brahmana vavrdhasva Sakti va yatte cakrma vida va. . . .” Rgveda 1.31.18 (hereafter cited as RV). Commenting on this mantra, Sayanacarya writes, “Sakti va vida asmadiya saktya,” thus intrepreting Sakti as “capacity.” Rig-Veda-Samhita: The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, with the Commentary of Savanacharva, 4 vols., ed. F. Max Muller (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1966), 1:31:18. {Note: All references to the Reveda are given by mandala: stkta: mantra.] 13. “Pra te purvani karanani vocam pra nutana maghavan ya cakartha. Saktivo yadvibhard rodasi ubhe jayannapo manave danu citrah.” RV 5:31:6. According to Sayanacarya, “Saktivah saktiman saktir vajram karma va:" Sakti means vajra or karma. 14. “Dirgham hyatikusam yatha saktim vibharsi mantumah.” RV 10:134:6. 15. *Pardsya saktir vividhaiva sriyate svabhaviki jaanabalakriya ca.” Upanisad, in Upanisat-Sanigrahah: Containing 188 Upanisads, ed. with Sanskrit introduction by J. L. Shastri (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970), 6:8. 16. Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition (hereafter cited as The Canon of the Saivagama) (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), p. 8. “Tato'tikopaptirnasya cakrino vadanattatah. Niscakrima mahattejo brahmanah Saitanoya anagahsram dadau asyai dhate yah prchiviminém. Anyairepi surair devi bhutsanairayudhaistatha.” wit Durgapradipa, Guptavati, Caturdhar Santanavi, Na f candri Damsoddhara (hereafter cited as DS) (Delhi: Butala & rood 1984), 2:9-30, 718. When Sakti appears with a particular god, she assumes the same name and form as that god. For instance: Brahmesaguhavisnunam tathendrasya ca Saktayah. Sarirebhyo viniskramya tadripaiscandikam yayuh. Yasya devasya yadrilpam yatha bhisanavahanam. Tadvadeva hi tacchaktir asuran yoddhum ayayau. DS 8:12-13. In some instances, Sakti creates her male partner from her own body and his physical appearance and weapon, etc., resemble that of Sakti’s. For example, see “Lalitopakhyana” of Brahmanda Purana in Brahmanda Purana of Sage Krsna Dvaipavana ‘Vyasa (hereafter cited as BP-L), ed. J. L. Shastri (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973), and “Pradhanika Rahasya” in Durga Saptasati (Gorakh Pur: Gita Press, n.d.), pp. 195-197. 19. *Aisvarya vacanah sasca ktih parakrama eva ca. Tatsvariipa tayor datri sa Saktih parikirtita.” Srimaddevibhagavatam Mahapurana, ed. Ramatej Pandeya (Kashi: Pandit- Pustakalaya, n.d.), 9:2.10. 20. “Sa devi paramé saktih parabrahmasvarupini . . . .” BP-L 10:90; “Jaya brahmamaye devi brahmatmakarasatmake . ..." BP-L 13:3; furthermore: “ Yadadvaitam param brahma sadasadbhavavarjitam . . . tvameva hi prasamsanti patica brahmasvaripinim.” BP-L 15:6-9. 21. “Heth samastajagatdm trigunapi dosair na jtdyase hariharadibhipyapara. Sarvasrayakhilam idam Jagadam abhutam avyakrta hi parama prakytistvamadya.” DS 4:6. Also see BP-L 13:5-28 and Stimaddevibhagavatam Mahapurana, 9:1.5-8. 22. “Ekaivaham jagatyatra dvitiya ka maméparé. Pasyaita dusta mayyeva visantyo mad vibhutayah. Tatah samastasta devyo brahmanipramukha layam. Tasya devyastanau Jjagmurekaivasit tadambika.” DS 10:3-4. 23. “Nityaiva sa jaganmartistaya sarvamidam tatam. Tathapi tatsamutpattir bahudhd Sriyatam mama. ...utpanneti tada loke s4 nityapyabhidhiyate.” DS 1:47-48; also see DS 1:54-69; 2:9-12; 4:1-26; 5:38-43; 1121-34. 24. “Jayadevi jaganmatarjaya devi paratpare. Jaya kalyananilaye jaya kamakalatmike...Prasida vis vesvari visvavandite prasida vidyesvari vedardpini. Prasida mayamayi mantravigrahe prasida sarvesvari sarvardpini.” BP-L 13:1-28. 25, Gafiganatha Jha, The Prabhakara Scho: a Mimamsa (Allahabad: n.p., 1911; reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978), p. 91. 26. Ibid., p. 166. 27. Jayanta Bhatta, Nyaya-Manjari: The Compendium of Indian Speculative Logic, vol. 1, trans. Janaki Vallabha Bhattacharyya (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978), pp. 81-85. 18Metaphysics and Epistemo Th tic 5 si ed. Karl H. Potter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 340. 29. Ibid., p. 65. 30. George Chemparathy, dian Rational Theology: Introduction to Uc s ‘Nyavakusumaijali (Vienna: Gerold & Co., 1972), p. 49. 31. Gopikamohan Bhattacharyya, Studies in Nyava-Vaisesika Theism (Calcutta: Sanskrit College, 1961), pp. 18-28. 32. H. Ui, Vaisesika Philosophy According to the Dasapadartha-Sastra: Chinese Text with Introduction, Translation and Notes, 2d ed., edited by F. W. Thomas, Chowkhamba_ Sanskrit Series, vol. 22 (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1962), pp.10, 123-126. 33. “Nabi tayd vind paremesvarasya srasitvam siddhyati. Sekticahitasya tasya pertyanupapatich. ui 1:43. 34. “Paripumasaktikam tu brahma... . tasmad ekasyapi brahmano vicitrasaktiyogat ksirddivat vicitraparinama utpadyate.” BS-B 2:1.24. 35. “Asya jagato stmardpsbhyin .. . janmasthitibharigam yatah sarvajnat sarvasakteh karanad bhavati.” “Ekasyapi brahmano icitasukiyoga utpadyate vicitro vikaraprapancam ityukam. Tatpunah katham avagamyate vicitrasaktiyuktam param brahmeti. Taducyate. Sarvopeta ca taddarsanat.. Sarvasaktiyukta ca pard devatetyabhyupagantavyam. Kutah Taddarsanat. Tatha hi darsayati srutih sarvasakti yogam parasyah devatayah.” BS-B 2:1.30. 36. Although Sarikaracarya proposes the theory of Vivartavada, occasionally he uses the term parinama, such as “parinamaprakriyayam,” BS-B 2:1.14; and “vicitraparinama utpadyate,” BS-B 2:1.24. 31. *... Nahi taya vina . . . avidyatmika hi bijasaktir avyaktasabda nirdesya Paramesvarasraya mayamayi mahdsusuptih. . . .” BS-B 1:4.3. ee Gaurinath Sastri, The Philosophy of Word and M. Special Ret 1¢ Phil ry er Sanskrit College, 1959), P. 1. 39. Ibid., pp. 12-16, 28-44.40. “Saktimipunata ciatasuakavyadyaveksandt, Kavyajnasiksayabhyasa iti hetustadudbhave.” (Kavyaprakaga 1:3). “Saktih kavitvabijarupah samskaravisesah. Yam vind kavyam na prasaret, prasptam Pe syat.” (Sampradaya Prakasini of Srividyacakravartin). Mamma T of M Translation and Sampraday civic vol. I, 2d rev. ed., trans. R. C. Dwivedi (Dethi: Motilal ao 1977). 41. Anandavardhana, Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, with a foreword by K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, trans. and ed. K. Krishnamoorthy (Dharwar: Karnatak University, 1974), I:1 and 6 and 2:20-23. 42. Kanti Chandra Pandey, Abhinavagupta: An Historical and Philosophical Stud ed., rev. & enl., Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, vol. | (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1963) pp. 692-732; also see Gopinath Kaviraj, Aspects of Indian Thought, pp. 1-44, and Jagadish Chandra, Dhvani 2 mata ka Avadana in Banaras Hindu University Sanskrit Series, vol. XI, ed. Biswanath Bhattacharya (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1977), pp. 41-44. 43. For instance, in DS 1:78-87, 2:4-8, 5:7-82, and 13:12, and BP-L 12:61-68, Sakti is evoked. Then in DS 1:89-91, 2:10-13, 5:84-87, and 13:13-15 and BP-L 12:69-75, she materializes in response. On other occasions (i.e., in DS 8:12-23), she appears instantly in order to destroy demonic forces. 44. For examples of sakti’s intermingled characteristics as a goddess and a philosophical ee see the following sources: DS, 27, 5: 9-82, 11:3-35; BP-L 13:1-28, 30:11- 42; Tripura Rahasva: Mahatmya Khandam, with Hindi Translation (hereafter cited as TR: ‘M), Gurumandal Series, no. XXVII (Calcutta: Gurumandal Granthamala, 1970), 8:2-30, 30:17-28, and 40:11-21. 45. Sudhendu Kumar Das, Sakti or Divine Power: A Historical Study Based on Original Sanskrit Texts (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1934). 46. Jadunath Sinha, Shakta Monism (Calcutta: Sinha Publishing House, 1966). 7. Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., eh s.v. “The Hindu Goddess,” by David Kinsley, pp. 53-54. 48. Gopinath Kaviraj, Bharativa Samskrti Aura Sadhana, vol. |, vol. 2, 2d ed. (Patna: Bihara-Rastrabhasa-Parisad, 1964); Tantrika Varimaya Mem Saktadrsti, 2d ed. (Patna: Bihara-Rastrabhasa-Parisad, 1963); and Aspects of Indian Thought, pp. 175-215 and 216- 228. 49. Kaildsa Pati Misra, Kasmira Saiva Dargana: Mala Siddhnta (Varanasi: Arddhanarisvara Prakasana, 1982): aladeva Upadtyaya, Bhicave Daria: An rent Indian Philosophy-Vedic and Tantric, 2d cd foreword by Gopinatha Kaviraja (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia, 1979), pp. 431-527; Kamalakar Mishra, Significance of the 20‘antric Tradition (Varanasi: Arddhanarisvara Publications, 1981); and Sangam Lal Pandey, Bharatiya Darsana ka Sarveksana (Allahabad: Central Book Depot, 1981). Kaviraj’s voice can be heard even in the writings of notable modern scholars in the field, such as Teun Goudriaan. As Brooks remarks: It is evident, for example, that Goudriaan’s contribution in HTSL depends to a large extent on Dwiveda and Kaviraj and that his remarks on the authorship and content of, texts are frequently based on manuscript catalogues and bibliographical sources such as Kavirajs Tantrika Sahitva, This is not to suggest that all of his study is based on these compilations (he, in fact, does not discuss how he proceeded with his work) but it is certain that certain errors are merely repetitions of other's work he deems reliable. 50. Wendell Charles Beane, Myth, Cult in Sakta Hinduism: Indian Mother Goddess (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977); Emest A. Payne, Introductory and Comparative Study (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., ca 51. Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya, History of the Sakta Religion (New Dehli: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1974); The Indian Mother Goddess, 2d ed., rev. & enl. (New Delhi: Manohar Book Service, 1977). 52. D.C. Sircar, The Sakta Pithas, 2d rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973). 53. Goudriaan in HT, p. 5. 54. Douglas Renfrew Brooks, ‘exts and Traditions of Sakta Tantrism in South India ‘Alban State ‘Gaiety of New York Press, 1992); the Secret of the Three Cities; and “Srividya School”; Mark S. G. Dycekowski, The Canon of the Saivagama (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988); The Doctrine of Vibration (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987); and The Stanzas on ration (Albany: State University, of New York Press, 1992); Paul Eduardo Muller- Ones in the Non-Dual ‘Shaivism of Kashmir (Albany: State University of New York, 1989); Andre Padoux, Vac: ‘Word in Selected Hindu Tantras (Albany: State University of New York, 1990); and Jaideva Singh, Abhinavagupta: A Trident of Wisdom (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989); Spanda Karikas (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980); Pratvabhijnahrdayam (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1963); and Siva Satras (Dell Motilal Banarsidass, 1963). $5. Abhinavagupta, The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta wi mentary of Ja (hereafter cited as TA), 8 vols., enl. ed., edited by R. C. Dwivedi and Navjivan Rastogi (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987). 56. K.C. Pandey, Abhinavagupta; V. Raghavan, Abhinavagupta and His Works (Varanasi: n.p., 1980); Bfalajin] N(ath] Pandit, Sri Kasmira Saiva Darsana (Jammu: Shri Ranbir Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, 1973); Mis iva Darsana; Harvey Paul Alper, “Abhinavagupta's Concept of Cognitive Power: A Translation of the Jnanasaktyahnika of the [svarapratyabhijndvimarsini with Commentary and Introduction” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1976). aiCHAPTER 2 LAKSMIDHARA’S COMMENTARY IN THE WIDER CONTEXT OF SAKTA TANTRISM. The Origin and Historical Development of Tantra The SL, which is generally attributed to Safikaracarya, glorifies and exalts Tripurasundari, a purely Tantric goddess who is virtually unknown in popular Hinduism. This goddess is worshipped or meditated upon in the Srividya tradition, a subbranch of Sakta Tantrism.! In the absence of its commentaries, SL can hardly be treated as a Tantric text, as itis basically a stotra text, consisting of devotional verses dedicated to the goddess Tripurasundari. Many other stotra texts of this kind, such as Subhagodava (hereafter cited as SU), Tripurasundari Mahimna Stotra, Parasambhu Mahimna Stava, Pafcastavi, ‘Saubhagvasudhodaya, Cidvildsastava, and Subhagodayavasand contain more significant Tantric materials than does SL itself. Beginning with Laksmidhara, the commentaries on SL highlight, expound, and stretch the Tantric elements to such a degree that if the text and the commentaries are treated as an integral work, this becomes one of the most prominent texts of Sakta Tantrism. It is the weight of these commentaries, along with the popularity of its purported author, that makes SL the most influential Tantric text among scholars and practicing Srividya adherents alike. 22The history of the Srividya tradition must be studied within the historical context of the origin and development of the main body of Taintrism. Further, in order to do justice to the study of SL and its commentaries, especially Laksmidhara’s, we must locate their historical niches within the broad spectrum of the Srividya school of Sakta Tantrism. However, the vast and variegated nature of Tantric literature, as well as the popular beliefs and practices of present-day adherents, make it extremely difficult to accurately define Tantra, which, in turn, makes it difficult to accurately locate the Srividya tradition within the context of Tantrism. One of the main difficulties in defining Tantra, as Padoux observes, arises from the sensational connotations that the term has acquired.2 In the beginning of the century, Tantra was believed to be a conglomeration of bizarre and unconventional religious disciplines consisting of sorcery, exorcism, and orgiastic practices. According to early scholars, it occupied an obscure niche within the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina religions of India. But as research progressed, a broader range of Tantric material came to light that. supported the view that Tantra, far from being an unconventional religious practice limited toa small group, was actually a common element in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. However, because many Tantric texts are still in manuscript form and thus have yet to be edited and studied, general assertions about Tantrism necessarily remain inconclusive. The problem becomes more complex because not every text labeled “Tantra” is acwally Tantric and not every text containing Tantric materials carries the word “Tantra” in its title. As Padoux writes, “There are so many gaps in this field of research that all definite assertions must be avoided."3 Although in the past fifty years many studies have been conducted in the field of Tantrism, the volume and breadth of Tantric literature is so enormous and its effect on Indian religion and spirituality so great that this field is still in its infancy. The definitions offered by scholars to date do not give a comprehensive understanding of Tantrism but 23rather provide only a general idea of what Tantrism is about. In Goudriaan’s opinion, the word “Tantrism”: . . is mainly used in two meanings. In a wider sense, Tantrism or Tantric stands for a collection of practices and symbols of a ritualistic, sometimes magical character. ... In a more restricted sense, it denotes a system existing in many variations, of rituals full of symbolism, predominately--but by no means exclusively--Sakta, promulgated along “schools” (sampradaya) and lines of succession (parampara) by spiritual adepts or gurus. What they teach is subsumed under the term sadhana, ie., the road to spiritual emancipation or to dominance by means of kundalini yoga and other psychosomatic experiences.4 Even though Tantrism does not hold the Vedas in high regard, and even frequently condemns them, it still embraces a number of Vedic theories and practices. Ritual worship and meditative techniques associated with numerous deities from the Vedas, Brahmanas, and Puranas appear in this literature, although they are presented in a Tantric manner. While emphasizing the practices related to yantras, mandalas, and mantras, Tantric texts also include discussions on such diverse topics as the nature of absolute reality; the process of evolution, maintenance, and dissolution of the universe; the evolution of sound or word in four progressive states--pard, pasyanti, madhyamé, and vaikhari; the different centers of consciousness in the human body known as cakras; methods of awakening the kundalini Sakti, the primordial force that lies dormant in the human body; practices for propitiating different gods or goddesses at different cakras; and partcamakaras and satkarma sadhand (marana, mohana, vasikarana, stambhana, vidvesana, and uccdtana).5 This vast literature even contains instructions on building temples and consecrating images of the deities, as well as information on places of pilgrimage and the exact ritualistic or meditative 24practices to be performed there. Practices concerning the application of herbs, gems, minerals, and astrology are also brought into the fold of Tantric spirituality. In contemporary Indian languages, such as Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, or Bengali, the term “Tantra” connotes black magic, spiritual or religious practices involving sex, and manipulation of psychic powers or evil spirits to seduce women, defeat or injure ‘opponents, or mesmerize others. Even though Tantra usually carries a negative connotation among the masses of India, Brooks observes: The word “Tantra”... is frequently used to conjure notions of effective black magic, illicit sexuality, and immoral behavior. It is also clear, however, that Tantrics are considered “powerful” people. Recently, a popular movement in modern India links the cure of “sexual problems” experienced by married couples to specialists who openly call themselves “Tantrics.” Thus, the terms “Tantra” and “Tantric” gain a more positive set of connotations but retain their popular associations with eroticism, alchemy, and magic. The multiple meanings of the term and its historical uses present a historical set of interpretive problems. There is no way, it seems, we can escape the fact that the term “Tantra” is charged with emotional power and controversy. That Tantra reached the West shrouded with the same or even more elaborate connotations is evidenced in the writings of Omar V. Garrison, Robert K. Moffet, and Marcus Allen.” In fact, these negative implications, as well as those which Brooks calls “positive connotations” are neither new to contemporary communities nor totally baseless. Even the Tantric texts in Sanskrit, whose chronology remains obscure, are replete with all sorts of practices--positive, negative, socially acceptable or unacceptable, philosophically sound or rooted in superstition. 25Here, for the sake of remaining focused and gaining a better understanding of the relationship among the principal branches of Tantra, we need only to identify “a standard Tantric sadhana,” (if possible). In this context, the term “standard Tantric sadhana” means the practices that are described in acclaimed Tantric texts, such as Saradatilaka, Kulamava Tantra, Nitvasodasikamava, Yoginihrdaya, Tantraraia Tantra, Netra Tantra, and Tantraloka, and which have their basis in philosophy and are upheld by a recognized tradition. “Standard Tantric sadhana,”8 as Sanjukta Gupta says, “consists of two parts: ritual worship (puja) and meditation (yoga)."9 But these two constituents are also found in almost all existing religions in India today, and the practices of idol worship; occultism; visiting holy shrines; and propitiating god(s) through the means of mantra, yantra, pictures and icons, are found in almost all denominations. Due to these shared characteristics, it is difficult to distinguish Tantrism from existing popular faiths. In fact, Tantric elements are found in Jainism, Buddhism, and almost all the offshoots of Hinduism, such as Vaisnavism, Saivism, Saktism, and so on.!0 Furthermore, adherents of Tantrism neither claim to follow Tantrism as an independent religion, nor renounce the religion in which they were bon and raised. Due to the intermingled nature of Tantric and non-Tantric traditions, Agehananda Bharati goes so far as to say: Itis not advisable to try to list here the differences between tantric and non- tantric forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, simply because they are not of a philosophical order. In other words, there is nothing in Buddhist and Hindu tantric philosophy which is not wholly contained in some non-tantric school of either. . .. Itis on the rimalistic or contemplatively methodical side that differences arise, and these are indeed fundamental. In a similar fashion the non-tantric monists or Saivites (Samkaracarya and his school, or the Southern Siva-Agama teachers), pronounce and emphasize the oneness of Siva and 26Sakti, and so do the Hindu tantric Sakta schools--they do not add any speculative innovation to their non-tantric antecedents--but they do different things and practice different sadhana (contemplative exercises). There is thus no difference between tantric and non-tantric philosophy, a speculative eclecticism is pervasive: there is all the difference in the practical, the sadhana part of tantrism.”! Bharati's claims that “there is nothing in Buddhist and Hindu tantric philosophy which is not wholly contained in some non-tantric school of either” and “there is all the difference in the practical, the sadhané part of tantrism” seem to be overgeneralized and may be only partially true. If we take into account such texts as Saradatilaka, Kulamava Tantra, Nityasodasikarnava, Yoginihrdaya, Tantraraja Tantra, Netra Tantra, and Tantraloka which are clearly identified as Tantric, we cannot agree that the philosophical contents of these texts are contained in non-Tantric schools and the texts belonging to them. And even the sadhana-whether the contemplative exercises or the rituals--described in these texts have their exact parallels in some non-Tantric texts. Furthermore, at present, we have no standard criteria for defining exactly which texts can be called purely Tantric and which non-Tantric within a given division or subdivision of Hinduism. Tantric ideas are scattered throughout non-Tantric sources. For example, traces of the philosophical ideas and ritual practices found in Saiva Tantric texts can be seen in the Vedas, the Brahmanas, and the Upanisads. In the Puranas, we find many of those ideas further elaborated, but whether the Puranas should be treated as texts belonging to the Tantric or non-Tantric part of Hinduism is still controversial. On the other hand, at least for the past millennia, there have been authors and practitioners who claimed that their works or practices are Tantric, although in most cases, without making a sharp distinction between themselves and their non-Tantric counterparts. Furthermore, a number of praiseworthy studies have been conducted in the field of 27Tantrism in the twentieth century although, again, without defining the exact boundary of Tantrism. Thus, in spite of all these ambiguities, there still seems to be a general, though unspoken, consensus regarding what constitutes Tantra. It is on the basis of this unspoken consensus that scholars commonly use the terms Buddhism or Bauddha Tantrism (or the more frequently used terms Tantric Buddhism or Buddhist Tantrism), Jainism or Jaina Tantrism, and Hinduism or Hindu Tantrism. The question of which philosophical theories and religious or spiritual practices distinguish Tantrism from other philosophical or religious schools of India remains unanswered. Goudriaan states that “the decision at what point a text or sect begins to be called “Tantric,” is very difficult. The traditions of the relevant groups sometimes contradict each other.”!2 At the very beginning of HTS, he defines Tantraas “a systematic quest for salvation or for spiritual excellence by realizing and fostering the bipolar, bisexual divinity within one’s own body.” According to him, this quest for salvation can be accomplished by such specific means as practicing kundalini yoga, reciting mantras, worshipping the deity in a yantra, and related practices. He also states that such practices constitute the nature and characteristics of Tantrism. Attempting to clarify some of these issues by turning to the origin and history of Tantra only serves to highlight the nature of the problem. N. N. Bhattacharyya! 3 and B. Bhattacharya !'4 claim an extreme antiquity for Tantrism on the basis of archaeological findings in the Indus valley that resemble linga, yoni, and a human in a yogic (sitting) pose, all common elements of Tantrism. Based on this oversimplification and gross generalization of what constitutes Tantrism, Saktism, and Saivism, they attempt to prove the antiquity and prevalence of Tantrism not only in India, but also in Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and several other countries bordering on the Mediterranean.!5 Goudriaan undercuts these hypotheses! 6 and proposes that “the safest way to assess the terminus ante quem of the crystallization of Tantrism into a system is to ascertain the date of the oldest Tantric 28texts."!7 However, dating the Tantric texts is not an easy task; the history of Tantrism proposed by early scholars is constantly under dispute. For example, Farquhar and Eliade believe that Tantra existed in a well-developed form by the sixth century A.D., but this position is now challenged by Goudriaan.!8 At this stage, we can only agree with Padoux that because of the number and magnitude of the gaps in this field: «+ -all definite assertions must be avoided. . .. Tantric Hinduism would have emerged progressively through a process of ongoing evolution over an extended period of time, granted, however, that we know nothing as to the nature and modalities of the process, and that we do not know how and when it started. 19 The history of Tantrism can safely be established only after determining which portion of the literature (e.g., Paficaratra Agama, Saiva Agama, The Atharvaveda,20 Brahmanda Purana and Markandeya Purana, and texts from Jaina and Buddhist Tantra) to include within the fold of Tantrism. If Tantra includes Paitcaratra Agama and Saiva Agama, then the existence of Tantric literature can be traced to the fifth century A.D., which is also the time when Buddhist Tantric texts began to appear.2! Unfortunately, neither of these sources establish a chronology for the origin and development of Tantrism. However, the relative antiquity of Tantrism can be postulated from the fact that Hindu, Jaina, end Buddhist Tantrism could not have developed separately. All of these divisions of Tantrism must have had some common source from which they derived their Tantric elements, modifying them in accordance with their specific religious orientations. Tantric elements, therefore, must have predated the period in which the Tantric scriptures were written, and certainly predated the time when Tantrism, as such, gained independent literary status.22 29In Three Cities, Brooks comments that Tantric texts gained this independent status around the ninth century, although the concepts and practices set forth therein had their antecedents in ancient wisdom traditions, shamanism, yoga, alchemy, and other folk practices, whose adherents may have involved themselves in religious rituals containing elements of asceticism, eroticism, and goddess worship. Whether these diverse traditions and their “Tantric” elements were rooted in the Aryan subculture that was flourishing on the Indian subcontinent or had their origins elsewhere, they were eventually assimilated and elaborated by brahmans with close ties to the Vedic tradition and absorbed into the rich Indian culture. In this work, which is both recent and authoritative, Brooks states that by the eleventh century, the influence of Tantric concepts and practices on mainstream Hinduism was unmistakable. The evidence for this lies in the frequency with which the concepts and practices of Tantric Yoga are set forth in the works of non-Tantric writers, as well as in the involvement of people from all strata of society in a broad spectrum of Tantric practices for the purposes of achieving goals ranging from the acquisition of supernatural powers, sexual prowess, material goods, and physical immortality to the attainment of liberation while still in the physical body and an experiential realization of God. Brooks also cites Goudriaan’s observation that it would be a mistake to define as Tantric only those texts that proclaim themselves as such. Tantric literature is not a homogenous body, rather it assumes a Tantric identity by setting out a diffuse complex of ideas, tenets, and rituals whose universal and denominational “Tantric elements” are recognizable in the different religions and schools that embody various forms of Tantric practices. This is not to say, as Brooks points out, that Tantric practices are limited to religious tenets and practices--Tantrism can be understood only if it is placed in cultural and historical contexts that locate these teachings within a larger belief system. One such 30“larger belief system” within which Tantra can be located is the Vedic tradition, which is rooted in Sanskrit sources. Brooks calls the Tantrics who have close ties with this tradition “Vaidika Tantrics” because they: . identify themselves as part of the coherent and continuous legacy of Vedic tradition, They stand in contrast to those Hindu Tantrics who openly disdain Vedic traditions and especially the predominant position of brahmins in the interpretative process. While it is true that influential streams within Hindu Tantrism are not represented in this typology, the catholic definition presented here does provide a working paradigm for the majority of sects that develop a Sanskrit-based form of Tantric Saktism.23 As stated earlier, Tantra is not confined to Hinduism, but can be found in Buddhism and Jainism, the other principal indigenous faiths of India. Regardless of the different and often contradictory ideologies and doctrinal systems, we can with confidence identify the Tantric streams in these religions by identifying shared patterns of behavior and belief. One such shared pattern is the concept of Sakti. elopment o} Sakti holds a significant place in Tantric Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and subschools of Hinduism, such as Vaisnavism, Saivism, and Ganapatya.24 Some scholars consider the inclusion of Sakti to be the factor that designates a denomination as Tantric; as a result, Tantrism and Saktism are sometimes considered to be identical. However, Goudriaan, who agrees with Payne, points out that Saktism and Tantrism are “two intersecting but not coinciding circles."25 It is true that branches of Tantrism such as Vaisnavism, Saivism, and Buddhism have incorporated Sakti, but she is always accompanied by a male partner, who is thought to be incapable of initiating any action or 31movement, but nevertheless occupies a higher position than Sakti in all Tantric sects, with the exception of Saktism. In Saktism, Sakti is dominant and the male partner is simply an inactive figurehead. Therefore, goddess worship in branches of Tantrism, such as ‘Vaisnavism and Saivism, can be called “dependent Saktism,” according to N. N. Bhattacharyya, whereas the latter form can be called “independent Saktism.” This independent Saktism, according to Bhattacharyya, “had already made its appearance in Gupta age” and is an entirely female-dominated religion in which the male partners remain subordinate to the goddesses. 26 Referring to N. N. Bhattacharyya, Goudriaan remarks: It makes sense to distinguish an “independent” from a “dependent” variety (Bhattacharyya, Sakta Religion, p. 73). In the latter case, the sakti(s) is (are) worshipped within the fold of another denomination (like Vaisnavism and Jainism) without constituting the essence of its creed or practice, while in the Sakta sect proper, Sakti is the chief divinity.27 The origin and early development of Saktism is still a matter of dispute. Studies to date focus mostly on Sakti as a goddess, and on the myths, symbols, and rituals associated with her, Based on recent archaeological findings at Baghor in Central India, J. Desmond Clark postulates the existence of Sakti worship at numerous sites belonging to the Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, and early Mesolithic periods. Clark reports: These groups use this same style of colorful natural stone with concentric geometric laminations, often in the form of triangles, as a symbol for the female principle or the Mother Goddess. . .. We believe that there is a very strong possibility that this structure and the stone represent a shrine to the Goddess of female principle, Sakti, which was built by the group of Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers .. . lies between 329000 and 8000 B.C. If this interpretation and dating prove correct and our identification of the shrine is substantiated, then this antedates by several thousand years the next oldest religious structure of this kind in South Asia, and is evidence of the remarkable continuity of religious beliefs and motifs in the Indian sub-continent.28 From the beginning of social evolution, according to N. N. Bhattacharyya, primitive ‘man in agricultural societies worshipped the divine force in female form. Bhattacharyya argues that itis natural to associate creativity, fertility, productivity, and receptivity with women and, therefore, to conceive the invisible, supernatural force(s) as female. Bhattacharyya believes the association of the human generative organs with fertility and productivity is the basis for the tendency to conceptualize the earth, rivers, and many other aspects of nature or natural forces, as feminine and therefore to worship them in the female form. Bhattacharyya classifies the carly concepts of the goddess in the following categories: tribal divinities; goddesses of mountains, lakes, and rivers; the destroyers of evil; goddesses of healing; goddesses related to the animal world; community goddesses; protectors of children; earth mothers; and com mothers.29 In early Vedic literature, the worship of the divine in female form holds a less significant place than the worship of male gods. There are references to female divinities such as Aditi, Usas, and Sarasvati, but by no means can the Goddess’s status be compared with male deities such as Indra, Varuna, Agni, Mitra, and others. In the Raveda, a female deity, Aditi, is not only called the mother of all gods, she is also said to be heaven, space, mother, father, and son, as well as all which has existed and all that will exist. Such a statement, however, docs not necessarily mean that her position was higher or even equal to the position of male gods, such as Indra, Agni, or Vigqu.30 Scattered references to the Goddess throughout Vedic literature imply the existence of Sakti worship, but such references are not strong enough to prove the existence of an independent Sakta cult. In his work, Sakti or Divine Power, Das gathers references to Sakti 33from the Samhitas, Puranas, and Upanisads and tries to show a gradual development of the Sakti concept in Vedic literature. According to him,31 all principal gods of the Vedic pantheon have a Sakti basis; saci, for example, is a Vedic word denoting the divine power of the gods. Glas, wives of the gods, or fertility goddesses, represent the earliest concept of sakti. According to Das, these grids finally merge into vak. In the Brahmanas, this vaksakti in union with prajapati is said to be the creator of the universe and the Gods. In later Vedic literature, vak is identified with Sarasvati, the goddess of learning. The concept of vak and Sarasvati continues to expand in the Upanisadic period and can be observed in the Kena Upanisad and the Svetdsvatara Upanisad. In the Kena Upanisad, she appears as Uma Haimavati and is described as the highest power, superseding all the gods.32 In the ‘Svetasvatara Upanisad, she is para (transcendent), and the powers of jana (knowledge), bala (might), and Kriya (action) are intrinsic to her.33 Another scholar, Kaviraj, divides Saktism into three major periods: (1) ancient or pre-Buddhistic, going back to prehistoric age; (2) medieval or post-Buddhistic extending to about A.D. 1200, and (3) modern, from A.D. 1300 to the present.34 Unfortunately, Kavirajss threefold division of Sakta history does not provide any clue to origin or early development, nor does it designate when the pre-Buddhistic pericd ends, or the medieval or post-Buddhistic period begins. In regard to the second period, Goudriaan points out, “pethaps we have to consider this period to be closed with the disappearance of Buddhism as a major religion from India.”35 The second period, the medieval or post-Buddhistic, which according to Kaviraj is the most creative period in the history of Tantrism, would then cover a period of approximately 600 to 1000 years, ending around A.D. 1200. Although, it is extremely difficult to establish a precise history, this may be the period that Bhattacharyya considers to be “independent” Saktism. For example, itis in this period that the Brahmanda Purdina and Markandeya Purana were produced.36 Most of the Sakta and Saiva Agama texts, and 34the commentaries on them, belong to this period.37 As Kaviraj points out, the modern period that covers from A.D. 1300 until the present “too has been productive, but with a few brilliant exceptions most of the works produced in this period are of secondary character and include compilations, practical handbooks and minor tracts dealing with miscellaneous subjects."38 The texts composed during the second period not only give a general idea of Saktism, but also present the subdivisions and the unique characteristics distinguishing them from each other. Tantric texts such as Kubjika Tantra, Rudrayamala, Catuspitha Tanwa, Jnanamava Tantra, Devibhagavata, and Kalika Purana (and even Buddhist Tantric texts: Hevaira Tantra and Sadhanamala) mention several pithas, shrines or centers of Sakti worship; usually fifty, fifty-one, or one hundred and eight upapithas (secondary shrines) and four mahapithas (great shrines) are named.39 The concept of upapithas and mahapithas is most often connected with the story of the death of Sati, Siva's wife. According to the legend, Siva was so stricken with grief at his wife's death that he roamed aimlessly with the corpse on his shoulders. To free him from his attachment to the corpse, Visnu followed him, gradually severing the limbs. The sites where the pieces of Sati’s body fell subsequently became upapithas or mahapithas. There is no agreement in respect to either the number of these pithas or the exact distinction between the upapithas and mahapithas.40 ‘According to scholars, with the passage of time, some of the local goddesses, which were the presiding deities of these shrines, gained prominence and became major deities in Saktism known as mahavidyas.4! They are: Kali, Tara, Sodasi (or Tripurasundari), Bhuvanesvari, Bhairavi, Chinnamasté, Dhamavati, Vagalamukhi (Bagalamukhi or Valgamukhi), Matarigi, and Kamala.42. Describing the characteristics of these mahavidyas, S. Shankaranarayan writes: 35Each Vidya is distinct and distinguishable from the other. Each is a particular Cosmic function and each leads to a special realization of the One Reality. The might of Kali, the sound-force of Tara, the beauty and bliss of Sundari, the vast vision of Bhuvaneshwari, the effulgent charm of Bhairavi, the striking force of Chinnamasta, the silent inertness of Dhumavati, the paralysing power of Bagalamukhi, the expressive play of Matangi and the concord and harmony of Kamalatmika are the various characteristics, the distinct manifestations of the Supreme Consciousness that has made this creation possible.43 There is a rich literature related to each of these mahavidyas, especially Kali, Tara, and Tripurasundari. The Tantric worship of all of the mahavidyas follows a standard format; differences are observed only in the structure of the yantras in which they are worshipped, and in the names and the sequence of the deities subordinate to each ‘mahavidya (varana devatas). From a philosophical perspective, these mahavidyas lack distinguishing features and, with the exception of the terms employed to indicate philosophical categories, all present the same doctrines. Scattered references to them can be found in Pauranic literature, but the usage of the term mahavidya itself, as well as the goddesses belonging to that category, first appear in the Tantric texts, such as the Mundamala Tantra, Todala Tantra,44 Saktigarigama,45 and Sakta Pramoda.46 Most of these texts, according to the criteria set by Kaviraj, probably belong to the third period of Saktism. Thus, the rise of mahavidyas cannot be accurately traced, but probably occurred after A.D. 1300. However, none of these Tantric texts are exclusively devoted to one particular mahavidya to date there has been no serious study delineating the boundaries between the mahavidyas in terms of pinpointing either their distinguishing features in ritual worship or the philosophical principles that permit a particular vidya to stand as an independent school of Saktism. There is a standard format for worshipping these mahavidyas: all have their 36corresponding yantras. The central bindu, the dot of the yantra, represents the mahavidya, and the surrounding triangles, petals, circles, and squares are occupied by secondary deities of that particular mahavidya. Among the schools associated with the ten mahavidyas, it is Srividya and to some extent the Kali mahavidya that have developed an elaborate and sophisticated ideology compatible with other systems of thought, such as Vyakarana Agama and Kashmir Saivism.47 An Overview of Srividva In order to draw a literary boundary for Srividya, it is important to note the other terms that also refer to the same mahavidya. Mundamala Tantra uses the term Sodaéi rather than Srividya to describe the Goddess of this sect, whereas the most popularly used word for this mahavidya is Tripurasundari or Mahatripurasundari. The words Kmesvari, Rajarajesvari, Tripura (Tripurasundari or Mahatripurasundari), Subhaga, Lalita, Sodasi, and Kamakala are interchangeably used to denote this mahavidya, but no one has ever paused to examine whether they refer to identical aspects. Goudriaan considers Sodasi to be “an aspect of tripurasundari,“48 and Tripurasundari herself, according to him, is “the most important Tantric form of Sri/Laksmi."49 These two statements indicate that Sodasi simply refers to an aspect of Tripurasundari which means Sodasi is a subdivision of Tripurasundari, not representing the entire mahavidya as such. Tripurasundari, on the other hand, is a form of Sti, or Laksmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity, who most often appears as the consort of the god Visnu.50 The association of Tripurasundari with Sri or Lakgmi compromises her status as an independent mahavidya. Also, the tenth mahavidya, Kamala, or Kamalatmika, who is also the same as Sri or Laksmi, then becomes indistinguishable from Tripurasundari. Goudriaan probably identifies Tripurasundari with Sri/Lakgmi because the usage of the term Sti in front of vidya may have lead him to assume the association of this 37mahavidya with Sri, meaning Laksmi. In addition, the followers of Visistadvaita Vedanta, worship Sri or Laksmi in the center of sricakra. The Mahatmvakhanda of Tripura Rahasya (hereafter cited as TR-M) gives a mythological explanation of how Laksmi and the term sri became associated with Tripurasundari. When Tripurasundari appeared in front of Sri (another name for Laksmi) and granted her a boon as a result of her prolonged meditation, Lakgmi asked for sayujyamukti a state of liberation that would allow her to become one with Tripurasundari. Because without Laksmi, Visqu will fail to protect and maintain law and order, Tripurasundari substituted another boon, “From now on, I will be addressed by your name, Srividya: The city of Sri, Sripura, will be my city; the cakra of Sri, Sricakra, will be my cakra; and the pajakrama of Sri will be my pujakrama. From now on, the sdktas of Sti will be Sri Sodasividya and because of the oneness between us, I will be known as Maha Laksmi.”5! According to Laksmidhara, the tripurasundari mantra, having the bija srim as its sixteenth letter, is known as srividya.52 These references may indicate the association of Sri/Laksmi with Tripura. However, they do not substantiate the claim that Tripurasundari is an aspect of Laksmi or vice versa. Rather, the references may indicate the historical inclusion of Laksmi in the Srividya tradition with Tripurasundari. In the Tripura Rahasva, Tripurasundari is also known as Rajarajesvari, Kamesvari, and Sodasi or Srimaha Sodasaksari.53 Among the Puranas, Brahmdnda Purdna, especially the second half, known as “Lalitopakhyana,” is exclusively devoted to the glorification of Tripurasundari. Interestingly, the second half of this Purana, which focuses on the manifestation of Tripurasundari and her warfare with Bhandasura, is known as “Lalitopakhyana” (the tale of Lalita), rather than “Tripuropakhyana.” But, throughout the “Lalitopakhyana,” the word tripura is used more frequently than lalita. For example, in one of the most famous prayers to Tripurasundari, traditionally known as “Lalita-Sahasranama’ (the one thousand names of alita), the words «ripura, tripuresi, tripuramba, and other similar variations, are 38used frequently, while the word /alitd occurs only once. Other famous Tantric texts also prefer tripurd over other terms. For instance, NS54 and YH5S use the term tripura and do ‘not mention the terms srividya, rajarajesvari, subhaga, or samaya at all. YH uses the term kamakala once.5® Similarly, Kamakala-vilasa refers to Kamakala and Tripurasundari.57 Gandharva Tantra (hereafter cited as GT) in Tantrasafigraha, Part ITT (hereafter cited as TS-I) , which most often refers to this mahavidya as Tripurasundari, mentions Lalita only once but identifies Tripura with Durga. According to GT, due to her unsurpassed beauty, Durga is known as Tripura.58 Laksmidhara in his commentary on the SL also identifies Durga with Tripuramahavidya.59 Adherents of Tripurasundari, such as Laksmidhara, Bhaskarardya, Sivananda, Amrtananda, and recent propagators of the tradition, such as Kaviraj and Swami Hariharananda Saraswati (more popularly known in North India as Swami Karpatri), presume that all these terms refer to the same mahavidya and therefore they consider any text that propagates the worship of the goddess under any of these terms to be a Srividya text. In fact, in its sricakra schema, Srividya covers a large number of goddesses that are associated with other mahavidyas as well. This leads to an unresolved hypothesis: did such a schema develop in an attempt to bring all the deities to one fold, or did this system with its intricate theory of sakti’s multiple manifestations develop independently, with later adoptions of some of the subordinate saktis by the followers of other mahavidyas? If the latter, did some of the subordinate deities of sricakra rise to the status of independent mahavidyas? For example, Tripurabhairavi, who is simply a cakra nayika and the leader of the eighth circuit of sricakra, is also classified as the fifth independent mahavidya. Bhuvanesvari, the fourth mahavidya, on the other hand, is sometimes recognized as, Rajarajesvari, another name for Tripurasundari.60 According to Sanjukta Gupta's observation, “the famous ten goddesses (dasa mahavidyas) are direct ot indirect manifestations of one or the other of these three."61 By 39“these three,” Gupta means Kali, Tara, and Tripura/Sri. On the basis of the attributes described in the Tantric texts, Chinnamasta, Bagalamukhi, and Dhdmavati are closer to Kali and Tara, whereas Bhuvanesvari, Bhairavi, Matarigi, and Kamala are closer to Tripurasundari. In this matter, Shankaranarayan also observes: - + they are distinct and unique, they have among themselves many characteristics in common. Kali, Chinnamasta, Dhumavati and Bagalamukhi have the common characteristics of Power and Force, active or dormant. Sundari, Bhuvaneshwari, Bhairavi, Matangi and Kamalatmika share the qualities of Light, Delight and Beauty. Tara has certain characteristics of Kali and certain others of Sundari and is correlated to Bhairavi, Bagalamukhi and Matangi in the aspect of Sound-Force expressed or impeded. Thus the ten Maha Vidyas fall into three broad divisions of discipline. . . .62 Furthermore, in the Tantric texts Pranafcasiira Saigraha (hereafter cited as PSS)63 and Srividvarnava Tantra,& the bija mantra of Bhuvanesvari, Bhairavi, Matafigi, and Kamala are added to the main Srividya mantra, creating variations in the Srividya mantra and subsuming these mahavidyas under the greater fold of Srividya.65 This tendency indicates Srividya's overpowering influence on other mahavidyas. In this sense it can be stated that of the ten mahavidyas, Kali, T , and Tripurasundari are the most prominent. The Srividya school built around Tripurasundari holds a more important place than those schools built around Kali and Tara for three reasons: its literary standard, its well- defined and coherent doctrines, and the inclusion of Bhuvaneévari, Bhairavi, and Kamala within its fold.66 Furthermore, this is the only school in Tantrism that emphatically claims its association with the Vedas; the adherents of this mahavidya were and still are Hindus well versed both in the Sanskrit language and in a wide range of philosophical literature. In 40fact, the latter factor helped the Srividya branch of Sakta Tantrism develop a sophisticated philosophy and metaphysics.67 Tracing the mythological origin of Srividya still leaves us with considerable historical ambiguity. However, we can also find references to the Srividya mantra, Srividya rituals, and Srividya theology in the literature that is not particularly related to the Srividya sect of Saktism. Traditional adherents of Srividya—both ancient and modem--in an attempt to demonstrate the Vedic origin of Srividya repeatedly quote passages from the Raveda and the Upanisads. The main function of such references is to demonstrate how the Srividya mantra is derived from the various mantras of the Raveda, or more specifically, how the worship of sricakra and the concepts related to fifteen or sixteen nityakalas and the name of the vidyesvara of the Srividya mantra occur in the Vedic literature.68 To a nonbeliever, however, this evidence is not convincing because this tendency--i.e., to lend authenticity and antiquity to a doctrine or sect of one’s preference by quoting passages from the Vedas and by interpreting them on the basis of one’s own etymology or even pseudo-etymology--is ‘common among almost all sectarian commentators and adherents of any given doctrine in India, not only Srividya. Such references and interpretations do not help to determine the origin of Stividya-related practices. So far, the best account of the historical evidence for the Srividya tradition is given by Brooks.69 Brooks points out that ritualistic elements of Srividya, such as the use of mantras, mudras, and nyasa, which are common to all forms of Saktism were in vogue long before they appeared in written sources of Srividya texts. Ritualistic and meditative practices that arc unique to the Srividya branch of Saktism, such as the correlation between Lalita or Tripurasundari and sricakra and Sodasi or the patcadasaksari mantra are first. mentioned in Devi Bhagavatam, Kalika Purana, Linga Purana, and Brahmanda Purana These Puranas are constantly cited by traditional followers of Srividya to demonstrate its antiquity, which, considering the nature of the Pauranic materials, may not be a valid means 41of establishing historicity. Even if we accept this traditional viewpoint, it still does not take us beyond the eighth or ninth century. As Brooks observes, “Evidence that Srividya is plainly visible in literature from before the eighth century is at best suggestive and certainly not conclusive.”70 In Tamil sources, Srividya worship, and that only in its prototypical form, can be found in approximately the sixth or seventh century A.D. Tamil siddha master Tirumolar, in his Tirumantiram makes “explicit reference to the srividya mantra in its fifteen syllables according to the kadimata interpretation."7! He also describes the goddess Tripura and tripura cakra but does not establish any connection between Tripura and Srividya or between tripurd cakra and sricakra.72 In other sections of Tirumantiram, Tirumalar mentions the cakra or a portion of it which is associated with the worship of Nafardja at Cidambaram. He goes on to describe the variety of siva cakras, including sammelanacakra, which is associated with the secret form of Nafardja. According to Brooks, this sammelanacakra can be linked to sricakra and Nataraja’s consort and Sivakamasundari to Tripurasundari or Srividya. If this link is correct, then there is strong evidence of the existence of the presence of Srividya elements in Saiva temple worship from at least the sixth century.73 However, the existence of the Srividya element within the Saiva temple cult does not give any indication of whether or not the Kaula aspect of Srividya had been incorporated in the South Indian Srividya cult, So far, all this above-mentioned evidence refers to the period of composition for the Srikula aspect of Srividya, whcrcas the devclopment of Srividya elements in the Kashmiri tradition and its association with Kaulism may have already taken place in Kashmir and other parts of North India. Although Brooks does not provide any solid evidence, he believes that: 42Ithad moved south by the time of Tirumalar and perhaps earlier if the evidence at the Cidambaram temple is conclusive. This would lead us to believe that mantra and yantra development within Srividya comes from a period before the sixth century. If Kalikula sources are, as Goudriaan says, well before the Srikula then these elements in prototypical or unsystematic forms too must be pushed back to a period before the sixth century. This hypothesis is hardly novel but it is perhaps the first time it has been presented with at least some historical and literary references. 74 Soon after the sixth or seventh century, Srividya begins to emerge in written form. Based on Padoux’s observations in Recherches sur la symbolique et énergie de al parole dans certains textes tantriques, Brooks asserts “Srividya, like other Sakta sects, incorporates practically the entire speculative foundation of Kashmiri Saivism into its theology."75 The connection between Vamakesvara Tantra (VT) (of which NS and YH are the two parts), which is a Srividya text, and its commentators-Jayaratha (Igvarasiva, whom Jayaratha mentions as an early commentator of VT), Sivananda, and Punyananda--clearly shows “that Srividya had taken a fully mature written form by the twelfth century.”76 Furthermore, all these commentators belong to Kashmir Saivism and therefore their association with VT reinforces the historical ties, or at least a close interaction between. Kashmir Saivism and the Srividya branch of Sakta Tantrism. Exactly when and how Kashmir Saivism arrived from the North and became popular in South India remains an ‘open question, but according to Brooks’ belief, “the process is certainly complete before Bhaskararaya."77 Also according to Brooks, evidence of the existence of Srividya elements can be traced from Tirumalar’s writings, Nataraja’s temple at Cidambaram, the commentaries of Jayaratha and other Saivite scholars on the Srividya text, VT, all the way to Bhaskararaya. Even if he is correct and all this evidence is conclusive, it still does not help fill the gap of approximately seven hundred years between Tirumular and Bhaskararaya in the truest sense. 43However, the assimilation of Srividya practices in the Sarikardcarya order could provide a more precise historical perspective. Throughout India, contemporary Srividya adherents, whether or not they officially belong to the Safikaracarya order, frequently mention Sarikardcarya and his grandteacher (paramaguru) Gaudapada as practitioners of Srividya. Despite the fact that most historians dismiss Safkaracarya’s authorship of SL, the Prapafcasdra (PS) and the Lalitatrisatibhasya (LISB), the majority of Srividya practitioners and swamis of the Sankaracarya order consider these texts to be authentic works of Adi Sarikara. Srividya adherents hold these texts and Gaudapada’s Srividya Ratna Sutras and Subhagodava in high regard. Evaluating the pros and cons of the arguments regarding Sarikaracarya’s authorship, Brooks concludes that these texts could have been written by heads of Sarikaracarya's ‘mathas and that PS “can be dated no later than the eleventh century, and possibly much earlier."78 Similarly, Brooks asserts that “LTSB was composed in one of the Sarikara mathas sometime between the eighth and eleventh centuries."79 When and how Srividya practices entered the nondualistic, Vedanta-based Sarikardcarya order remains unknown, but that they occupied an important place in the spiritual lives of the followers of Sarikardcarya after the eleventh century is an established fact.80 [In all Safkaracarya monasteries, from the ‘twelfth century on, Srividya practice, in the form of either worshipping an image of Srividya (under the names Tripura, Lalita, or Rajarajesvari) or worshipping sricakra, had become part of the daily service. In this particular respect, adherents of the Sarikaracarya order somehow manage to reconcile their nondualistic Vedanta with nondualistic Srividya despite the significant differences between the two. Doctrinally, they are Advaita Vedantins and thus they do not hold devotion (bhakti) and worship (upasana) in high regard. But practically, they take devotion to Tripurasundari and ritual worship of sricakra seriously. This tendency seems to have existed in Sarikaracarya’s monasteries at least from the time of Vidyaranya.8! 44Presently there are a good number of Srividya practitioners who belong neither to the Saivite nor Sarikardcarya orders in the strict sense, but rather to the broad range of Hinduism. Most are householders and, with few exceptions, highly educated smarta brahmins. As Brooks observes: In Srividya, the majority of historical writers are smarta brahmins; that is, they identify with traditions that follow the exoteric rituals of the so-called smrtis (ie., grhya-, Srauta-, and dharmasitras) and worship the paricayatana devatas, that is, the five divinities (Surya the Sun god, Siva, Vignu, Ganega, and Durga or Devi). All deities, however, are treated in sectarian terms as manifestations or aspects of the Supreme Deity, whoever that may be.82 Occasionally, one may encounter Srividya practitioners, at least in North India, the northeastem part of the Himalayas, Gujarat, and Maharastra, who officially belong to the order of Ramanujacarya or to Avadhata Pantha, which mythically begins with Dattatreya. Baba Ramamagaladasa, a vaisnava swami in Ayodhya, was a famous Srividya teacher. A number of Srividya practitioners, mostly householders, who studied with Baba Ramamagaladasa, worship Sri or Gopalasundari (instead of Tripurasundari) while using Sricakra as the basis of their practice. In none of these cases do the Srividya practitioners publicly claim their exclusive identification with the Srividya cult. Ordained swamis publicly identify themselves with their order, whereas in private they practice and teach Srividya. Srividya practitioners who are not swamis are usually householders and practice Srividya Srividya’s interaction with two significant traditions, Saivism and Advaita Vedanta, helped it develop intricate philosophical theories and gain social acceptance, which were and still are missing in other branches of Saktism. It is on the ground of Saiva philosophy and metaphysics that Srividya writers pulled together Srividya elements, which were scattered 45throughout Vedic, Upanisadic, and Pauranic sources. Using Kashmir Saivism as a model, Srividya adherents gave a philosophical interpretation of different facets of Srividya, such as yantra, mantra, guru, matrka (letters of the Sanskrit alphabet), the main goddess, Srividya or Tripura and subordinate deities (avarana devatas) and tried to demonstrate the oneness among these facets. Srividya’s association with Sarikaracarya’s followers, who were staunch supporters of the Vedas, helped it become accepted by those who disdained Tantra and Saktism as “non-Vedic.” However, assimilation of Saivism, which is purely Agamic and dominated by Kaula rituals in practice, and the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara, which is purely Vedic/Upanisadic and puritan (i.e., completely opposed to Kaula rituals), gradually prepared the ground in which the two branches of Srividya grew. One group of Srividya practitioners upheld Saiva-based Kaulism or simply embraced it as a part of normal Srividya practice. The other group totally rejected Kaulism, replacing it with what they called Samayacara. Thus, the two schools--Kaulacara Srividya and Samayacara Srividya came into existence. Generally, the word “Kaula” or “Kaulism” refers to the mainstream of Tantrism that consists of the most frequently disputed ritual elements, that is pancamakara--madya (wine), mamsa (meat), matsya (fish), mudra (gesture), and maithuna (physical union); ‘kamakaladhyana, the meditation on, or worship of, the female organ; and the inclusion in rituals of aspirants of both sexes from all castes. From its literary inception until it became associated with the Sarikardcarya order, Kaula practices did not seem to be an issue in Srividya, although we do not exactly know whether or not the Kaula clements existed in Saiva temples and the early phase of the Srividya cult before the introduction of Kashmir Saivism in the south. Furthermore, paricamakara and kémakala worship are merely part of the external rituals. Other rituals, such as offering water, flowers, incense; lighting the 46lamp; and the bilva patra, the invocation and the prayers to the main as well as the subordinate deities, are also intrinsic characteristics of Kaulism. In the early phases of Srividya, Kaula practices, excluding partcamakara and kamakala, may have been adopted by Srividya practitioners. The inclusion of paricamakara might have been the result of the gradually increasing influence of Kashmir Saivism. As this process continued, people from all walks of life may have been attracted to it, some embracing the worship of the goddess Srividya along with every other aspect of Kaulism and some embracing only those elements of Kaulism which did not include pancamakara. If Subhagodaya and the Srividva Ratna Sutras are actually the works of Gaudapada, and SL is the work of Adi Sankaracarya, then we can safely postulate that in the eighth or ninth century there existed a mild form of Kaula-influenced Srividya. In his works, Gaudapada describes the anthropomorphic form of Srividya, sricakra, and her worship, which is of course ritualistic, but at the same time, gives a yogic interpretation of all these concepts and proposes a process of internalizing the rituals. It is he who first uses the term samaya for srividya, the term samaya for the path that leads to her realization, and the term samayin for one who follows that path. Obviously, he does not attempt to highlight distinctive features of Samayécara to distinguish it from the Kaula-dominated Srividya, which was probably more prevalent at that time. Satikaracarya takes this issue a step further in SL, clearly stating that the sixty-four tantras (Catuhsasti Tantra), which expound Kaulism, are subordinate to the group of five Tantric texts (Subhagamapaficakam), which he considers to be the only valid Tantra. He calls that Subhaigamapancakom Tantra, Te Tantram, “your Tantre,” implying that those sixty- four Tantric texts do not expound her essence. He also introduces the concept of srividyat under the term samaya in a more elaborate manner than do the texts attributed to Gaudapada. Sarikaracarya places great emphasis on the realization of srividya through yogic means, but he also dedicates the majority of the verses in praise of the external form of the goddess. 47Such a long, detailed description of the anthropomorphic form of the goddess is a clear indication that her worship was widespread, at least in South India. It is plausible that Kaulism, along with paftcamakara and other similar elements, may not have entered Sarikarécarya monasteries due to their Vedic/puritan orientation, but this could not prevent the inclusion of Kaula elements in Srividya outside the monasteries. Inclusion or exclusion of Kaula elements in Srividya did not seem to be an issue of particular importance until the sixteenth century. Before Laksmidhara,83 even Stividya adherents of the Sarikaracarya order, such as Padmapada (if he is actually the author of Vivarana Commentary on Prapancasara), Vidyaranya Yati, and the authors of Kalyanavrsti ‘Stotra and Kanakadhara Stotra, all of whom bore the name “Saiikardcarya,” express no interest in this matter. It is Laksmidhara who first introduces Samayacéra as a totally independent branch of Srividya and draws a sharp distinction between Kaula and Samaya schools of Srividya. According to Laksmidhara, Kaulacara or Kaulism means taking delight in external puja, ritual worship.84 Considering it to be an opponent's view (purvapaksa), Laksmidhara neither accords Kaulacara any respect nor feels any compulsion to review the literature that expounds Kaulism before condemning it.85 As will be seen, Laksmidhara’s description of Kaulism cannot be taken as an accurate account of Kaulism as a whole; obviously he denigrates it to lend more credence to the Samayacara he propounds. The Kaula-Samaya Dispute Before we undertake any further analysis of Laksmidhara’s opinion regarding Kaula and the sharp distinction he draws between it and his self-proclaimed Samaya views, we need to have a general understanding of Kaula-oriented Srividya discipline. Kaula sadhakas draw the sricakra on a piece of bark or cloth, or inscribe it on a gold, silver, or copper plate, oron a wooden board. During the ritual, they use articles such as water, flowers, incense, 48rice, yoghurt, honey, fruit, and cooked food. This group believes in the oneness of Srividya and kundalini, but does not emphasize experiencing it. Prior to the external sricakra worship, this group performs manasa puja (mental worship); this is especially true of the ‘Vamacarins, left-hand Kaulas, prevalent mostly in Eastern India, i.e., in Assam and Bengal. Manasa puja consists mainly of pranapratistha (meditating on the presence of the goddess in ones heart),86 bhutasuddhi (purification of the bodily elements), nyasas (visualizing matrkas, or letters, and different parts of the yantra, mantra, and the limbs of the deity in the different parts of one’s own body),87 and the performance of antaryaga (inner offering).88 Through this kind of manasa puja, Kaula sddhakas aim to establish a state of oneness between the different parts of their bodies and those of the goddess or sriyantra, in which the goddess resides. The prayers recited during this worship remind the sadhakas of the oneness of Tripurasundari and Kundalini. But in actual practice they simply worship Sricakra and the deities residing therein, without attempting to work with kundalini Sakti, which requires yogic disciplines. These elements of sricakra worship are common to all Kaulas--those who incorporate the five makaras and those who do not.89 Kaula sadhakas who incorporate the partcamakaras (popularly known as vamacarins, left-handed tantrics), in addition to performing the above-mentioned sricakra worship, also worship the deity in the form of kundalin’ in their own bodies. After performing rituals, along with mantra recitations for tattva suddhi and purification of both the elements in their own bodies and the external elements--wine, meat, fish, and cooked food~they offer these extemal elements into the fire of kundalini, which, according to them, resides at the base of the spine in the maladhara cakra. Of course they consume these articles, just as any ordinary person would. Its their contemplative awareness that makes them feel or believe these items are being offered into the fire of Kundalini at the muladhara (cidagnikunda).90 The Samaya group, on the other hand, of which Laksmidhara is the sole representative, considers the human body to be a sricakra and, thus, does not need to draw 49it externally. The Samaya method of Srividya practice is purely yogic. Their main focus is awakening kundalini and uniting her with siva in sahasrdra, the highest cakra, which is found in or above the head. According to Laksmidhara, Srividya practitioners of the Samaya group experience the oneness of cakra, mantra, deity, guru, and their own atma while leading kuadalini from the lower to the higher cakras.9! Before attempting to analyze how accurate Laksmidhara's observations are regarding Samayacdra and Kaulacéra and how correctly he places the two within the broader spectrum of Tantrism, we need to examine his opinions as set forth in his commentary on SL. According to Laksmidhara: 1. Kaulacara is avaidika, antinomian to Vedic dharma, whereas Samayacara is purely Vedic.92 2. Kaulacara involves external rituals. These practices require knowledge of the seer, meter, and so on of the mantras employed. The Samayacara style of worship, on the other hand, is totally internal. It involves the experience of oneness with the goddess and, as such, does not require an aspirant to have the knowledge of either the seer or the meter.93 3. In the Kaulacara branch of Srividya, the practitioners worship the goddess in the muladbara, and the kundalini residing therein is called Kualini, whereas the followers of ‘Samayacara worship Sakti and siva in the sahasrdra and therein they are called Samaya and Samaya, respectively.94 4, The adepts of the Kaula path worship Kaulini, who is identical with the kundalini Sakti in the maladhara while she is still asleep. Such a worship is tamisra, full of darkness. The moment kupdalini is awakened, Kaula sadhakas attain liberation. Following the path of vamacara, their worship is accompanied with meat, honey, fish, and many such articles. Some others--uttara-kaulas, ksapanakas, and digambaras--literally worship the triangular-shaped female organ, According to Samayacarins, the worship of the goddess in the six lower cakras is not required. Rather, the sahasrara is the only 50cakra in which she can be worshipped. Worshipping her in the sahasrara consists of experiencing the four-fold oneness known as catur-vidhaikyanusandhana.95 5, Kaula followers draw sricakra according to samharakrama, the method of withdrawal. In their system, there are five triangles with the apexes pointing upward and four with their apexes pointing downward. Samayins draw a Sricakra according to srstikrama, the method of creation; in their system, there are four triangles with their apexes pointing upward and five with their apexes pointing downward.96 6. Kaulas regard the group of sixty-four Tantric texts as authoritative, whereas, according to samayins, the five Tantric texts known as subhagamaparicaka are the only authentic texts.97 1. According to Kaulas, sixteen nityakalas are of primary importance in Srividya practice, whereas in Samayamérga, they are of secondary importance.98 8. Kaulas propose a nine-fold oneness between bhairava and bhairavi whereas samayins propose four-fold or sometimes five-fold oneness between Samaya and Samaya.99 Laksmidhara's claim that Kaulacara is Avaidika and Samayacara is purely Vedic seems to be only partially true. To substantiate this claim, he deliberately chooses passages trom the Vedas and gives his own commentary on them to support his samayamata, ignoring other Vedic passages that support Kaula-oriented ideas.!00 fn Upanisadic literature, one finds references to meat and sex as part of Vedic rituals.!01 Claiming a particular set of spiritual disciplines to be Vedic or non-Vedic only on the basis of these elements is superficial. Furthermore, Kaulas do not consider themselves to be avaidika; rather they adopt many Vedic mantras in their cakra puja.!92 “Kaula tantrics,” as Brooks correctly observes, “who are also ‘conservative’ Vaidikas admit the Upanisads and other Kaula-oriented sources into their canon by interpreting potentially scandalous prescriptions in two ways. They treat them either (1) as nominally acceptable symbolic acts to be SIperformed with ‘harmless’ substitutes (pratinidhi)--such as milk for wine, or a fish-shaped ritual spoon for the offering of fish--or (2) they perform them entirely as internal, purely mental forms of discipline or sacrifice (antaryaga).103 The distinction that Laksmidhara draws between Kauldcara and Samayacara on the basis of their external and internal modes of worship is not correct either. It is true that Kaulas hold external worship in high regard, but they do not condemn intemal worship. On the contrary, in many cases, they acknowledge the value of internal worship. Thus, this particular issue cannot be treated as a distinguishing characteristic.!04 As Brooks clearly states: “In contemporary Srividya, however, this internal/external distinction along Samaya and Kaula lines is blurred. Self-proclaimed Samayins continue to perform external rituals despite Laksmidhara's protestations, though they continue to reject any of the potentially controversial Kaula elements, such as the partcamakaras.”105 In order to highlight the importance of the sahasrara cakra, Laksmidhara equates Sricakra with the sahasrara cakra and recommends that samayins confine their worship to the goddess who resides there. At the same time, he denigrates the muladhara cakra and by assigning the maladhara cakra as the center of worship for the Kaulas, he also denigrates them, But the fact is, Kaulas worship sakti, not only in the muladhara, but also in other cakras as well. In fact, quoting Svacchanda Tantra, a Saivite text, !06 Bhaskarardya, a Srividya adept of Kaulamarga, describes the sahasrara as the residence of the goddess. According to the majority of Saiva and Sakta Tantric texts, “Kaula” means Sakti and “Akula” ‘means Siva and the union of both is called “Kaula.” Bhaskararaya, possibly relying on ‘Tantraloka, indicates that the essence common to both Sakti and Siva is called kaulini.107 The issue of which Tantric texts belong to Kaula and which to Samaya is not pertinent. The five Tantric texts which Laksmidhara claims are Samaya-oriented are now extinct and other texts, such as Vamakesvara Tantra and the Yamala Tantras, which he quotes frequently in his commentary, are replete with Kaula-oriented ideas and practices. 52The idea of attaining the experience of oneness with the goddess or identifying oneself with the goddess and even the “four-fold oneness” is not unique to samayins. Before and after Laksmidhara, all Tantric adepts--whether following the Samaya or Kaula paths--aspired to union with the ista devata, 108 Considering all these facts, it appears that the Samaya-Kaula opposition is primarily concerned with two acaras, systems of conduct and cultural values. One is puritan, the other liberal. One insists on vegetarianism, the other does not. Furthermore, this Samaya- Kaula debate seems to be one-sided: it is Samayacarins, including Laksmidhara, who constantly oppose Kaula without considering what Kaulacarins themselves have to say. Furthermore, it is Laksmidhara and the Samayacarins who follow him who insist on demonstrating the Vedic origin of Samayacara and making a sharp distinction between the two schools, whereas the more convincing fact is~-as Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, 109 Goudriaan,!10 and Brooks observe--that Kauldcara is an older tradition than Samaya, and that in the early stages of Sakta Tantrism, there does not seem to be any outstanding or distinguishing characteristics separating Samayacara from Kaulacara.! 11 Apparently Laksmidhara considers Kaulacara to be synonymous with Vamacdra, and Samayacara synonymous with Daksindcara. But Samayacara and Daksinacara, according to his strict definition, cannot be synonymous, since Daksindcara simply refers to a system of conduct which upholds the view of using only Daksina, “conventionally right” articles, such as flowers, bilva leaves, and so on, as opposed to the wine, meat, sex, etc., of Vamécdra. The mere exclusion of the articles of Vamacara worship, however, does not make the Kaulacara style of sricakra worship identical to that of he Samayacarins. Nevertheless, after Laksmidhara, the terms Samayacara and Daksinacara became synonymous. As a result, devotees performing ritual worship of sricakra in the monasteries of the Sarikardcaraya order consider themselves to be Samayacarins/Daksinacarins, not Kaulacarins. Thus, Laksmidhara's discussion has nothing 53to do with Samaya and Kaula, but with the difference between the Vamacara and Daksindcara aspects of Kaula itself. Goudriaan clarifies this issue beautifully in the following manner: The antithesis Vama-Daksina is covered also, and still more specifically, by the terms Samaya and Kaula. Samaya ‘Convention’ has several meanings, but in the present context Samayacara, as we say, means the practice of internal worship as advocated by Laksmidhara and his followers while the Kaulas (according to the Samayins) conduct external worship including revolting acts, while contenting themselves with worshiping the internal Kundalini only in the Maladhara, the lowest cakra (Kaviraj, ‘Tantrika Sahitva, 42, 45f.). Not all Samayins lived up to this distinction (Chakravarti, ‘Tantras, p. 56). This opposition mainly obtains in Tripura worship; in practice, every Samayin seems to be a Tripura worshipper, but this can by no means be said of every Kaula. Indeed, the term Kaula largely transcends the opposition to Samaya. Within the Kaula school, samaya may have quite another meaning, as for instance when the KT (LI, 99f.) asserts that one becomes a Kaulika only when being aware of the ‘Samayas, i.e., the secret meanings of mantras and details of conduct. ! 12 In summary, we can safely conclude that Laksmidhara's understanding of the distinctive features of Kaula and Samaya appears unclear and is often misleading. He may be simply stating the doctrines he learned from the oral tradition, expressing a regional belief regarding Srividya! !3 or even assigning his own opinion to the kind of Srividya that was in vogue in the monastic order of Sarikaracarya. None of these factors, however, diminish his accomplishment of systematizing the philosophy of Srividya and providing a philosophical foundation for the practices he advocates. Most of the philosophical doctrines, theories, and practices that center around yantra, mantra, cakra, deity, and saktipata are found, in rudimentary form, in Vedic and Pauranic 54literature. We also find elaborations of these concepts in Saiva, Sakta, and Paiicardtra texts, but until Laksmidhara, no sakta adherent had organized these elements into a structurally coherent philosophy. It is the way in which he puts them together, building a philosophy parallel to other schools, that is revolutionary. Later Srividya adherents, including, Bhaskararaya, whether they identify themselves as Samayins or Kaulacarins, agree unanimously with the philosophy of Srividya, as outlined by Laksmidhara. As has been said before, all the elements that Laksmidhara discusses are found in earlier literature. Laksmidhara must have studied and made use of such sources, but he cites only those which he considers to be of his tradition, He completely ignores the Saivite sources, especially those which are classified as Kashmir Saivism and which bear an enormous similarity to his material. If Laksmidhara comes from South India, where Kashmir Saivism flourished long before his time, and if he was also the author of Saiva Kalpadruma, a work in which the author states that he is a worshipper of Siva at Ekamra (Bhuvanesvara, Orissa), then his affinity with Saivism is established. This affinity becomes even more evident when, in his own commentary on SL, he clearly identifies mahavedha, the highest kind of Srividya initiation, as Saiva. | 14 In the closing remarks of this commentary, Laksmidhara makes a statement which also demonstrates his association with Saivism: “Sarikaracarya is gone. Viramahesvara is gone. Who can understand my exertions in the piercing of six cakras!"115 Viramahesvara is not an epithet of Safikaracarya, because this epithet is never applied to Safikardcarya anywhere else. Furthermore, in the introduction to the first verse of SL, Laksmidhara gives Safikaracarya the epithet, Sankarabhagavatpujyapadah, as was customary among all Advaita Vedanta writers. Therefore, Laksmidhara must be referring to a Saiva adept, perhaps to Vasava, as this epithet is frequently applied to him. Because Kaulism and Saivism are closely associated with each other, Laksmidhara seems to deliberately conceal his connection with Saivism. But he cannot ignore Saivite 55philosophical ideas, because by his time such ideas had become an integral part of Srividya.!16 Thus, he retains the Saivite doctrines that had seeped into Srividya, synthesizing them with the Vedic acara of the Saiikaracarya tradition, calling this synthesis “Samayacara.” Of course, this synthesis is more complex than the above statement suggests. There are several points of difference between Laksmidhara's Samayacara Srividya and the Trika philosophy and sadhana of Kashmir Saivism. A study of Laksmidhara's commentary on the SL is the key to identifying the features distinctive to the concept of sakti in the Samayacara-dominated Srividya tradition. The Saundaryalahari The SL, usually attributed to the strict Advaita-Vedantin, Sarikaracarya is one of the most famous stotra texts and a standard literary work. On the basis of its philosophical and religious content, the text belongs to the Srividya tradition of Sakta Tantric lore. The religious popularity of this text and the respected place it holds in the Indian community is described accurately by W. Norman Brown: This work is one of the most widely used devotional texts of modem Hinduism. Many people employ it daily throughout the year; large numbers know some or all of its stanzas by heart. Manuscripts of it abound in every part of the country--north, south, east, west, central--and it is one of the relatively few works which have been embellished with manuscript paintings. There are numerous lists of magic diagrams (yantra) and mystic seed syllables (bijaksara) for use with the separate stanzas and prescriptions of accessory paraphernalia and methods of reciting the stanzas. ... 117 Many different versions of the SL are found throughout India, and disagreement on ‘both the number of verses and their sequence is apparent in the numerous printed editions. 56The most comprehensive critical edition of the original text is by Brown. This edition outlines some of the basic teachings, such as the concept of the material world, the soul, human self-fulfillment, and the means for attaining the soteriological goal. He does not take the commentaries into consideration, nor is the scope of his study limited to one particular field of scholarship, either literary, philosophical, spiritual, or religious. The text has been edited and translated into the various provincial languages of India (Hindi, Bengali, and Tamil, etc.), and English as well. But as Brown points out, “All have been made primarily for religious use, only secondarily or not at all for scientific study. "118 Thus, without exception, the translators stretch and distort the contents with a panegyric style, saying that they are explicating that which is esoteric and implied. The SL consists of one hundred (sometimes one hundred and three) verses in the Sikharini meter. The text is generally divided into two parts. The first part, consisting of the first forty-one verses, is known as “Anandalahari,” “The Wave of Bliss.” However, R. Anantakrsna Sastri and Karra Ramamdrthi Garu point out that some commentators consider that Anandalahari consists of only thirty or thirty-five verses; others put the ‘number at thirty-five; and still others believe that the Anandalahari portion consists only of verses 1, 2, 8-11, 14-21, 26, 27, and 31-41.119 The title “Saundaryalahari,” however, is widely and popularly used for both the second part and the text as a whole. As far as the authorship of the SL is concerned, Indian tradition almost unanimously ascribes it to Adi Safikaracarya, the first Safikara.!20 However, after surveying the pros and cons of the various positions held by different scholars, Brown draws the following conclusion: «+. The author cannot be identified. Its ascription to Sarikara was to win it prestige . . .a speculative theory can here be suggested . .. if the Saundaryalahari happened to be composed in one of the mutts by one of the heads of the mutt, all of 57whom assume the name Sarikara, it would have been relatively easy at some later time for it to gain ascription to the great Sarikaracarya Bhasyakara. From one mutt it would have spread to all others and to the Saiva-Sakti cults generally. This theory, being only a theory, may have small merit, but it is perhaps better than no theory at all. 121 In spite of the questions raised by contemporary scholars, the traditional view ascribing the text to Adi Saikara prevails (at least in India), and faithful followers consider it to be his work.!22 While the question of authorship remains open, as far as the SL's status goes, Brown correctly says, “the Saundaryalahari, whoever wrote it, is a great work of religious literature, "123 Content of the Text The SL is essentially a work of devotional poetry and does not concentrate on developing a new system of thought. The philosophical or metaphysical elements it conveys are incidental, for the author's main intent is to express the depth of his devotion to the goddess Tripurasundari. It is the commentators who stress the metaphysical subtleties and elaborate on them. In attempting to explicate the underlying philosophical ideas, they connect them with the specific discipline and world view of Saktism. The majority of verses are dedicated to describing Tripurasundar'’s physical beauty. This description is visual, but the reader often is reminded, especially by the commentators, to be aware that the individual soul, mantra, yantra, and kundalini are identical to her. In most of the philosophical verses, the goddess is presented as formless and absolute. Thus Advaitavada (nondualism) seems to be the main philosophical thrust, and the special focus of this text is to explicitly demonstrate the unity of the above-mentioned concepts. The author may have had some distinct philosophical ideas in mind during the composition of the SL, but their actual presentation in the text is disjointed. Themes arefragmented, forcing commentators to discontinue the thematic flow of the commentary in order to follow the numerical order of the verses. Commentaries and Translations ‘Tantrika Sahitya, the most recent catalog specializing in Tantric texts and manuscripts, lists forty-one commentaries on the SL. However, this catalog does not specify where these commentaries are to be found; it simply collects information from older catalogs, some of which were prepared almost a hundred years ago. Many of the manuscripts mentioned in those catalogs may no longer exist. It was possible to obtain only thirteen commentaries. Among them, ten are edited and published; three are still in unedited manuscript form. 124 So far, no study has been done with the intention of explicating the commentaries themselves. Swami Visnutirtha’s Saundarva-Lahari Ka Hindi Anuvada and S, Subrahmanya Shastri and T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar’s Saundarya-Lahari of Sri Samkara- Bhagavatpaida are general works that derive their materials from LD, as well as from other commentaries such as Kaivalyasrama’s Saubhagyavardhani and Kamesvarasuri's The most outstanding of the available commentaries are Laksmidhara's LD, Arunamodi Kaivalyasram’s Saubhagvavardhani, and Kamesvarastri’s Arundmodini, Ramakavi's Dindima and Anandagiri's Anandagiriva also deserve mention because they occasionally present unique interpretations oriented towards Sarikhya and mantra sadhana, respectively. Laksmidhara, Kaivalyasrama, and Kamesvarasifri attempt to extract and elaborate upon the meaning of the original text within the limits of Sakta philosophy, while Ramakavi compromises between Tantra and Sa”ikhya doctrines, identifying sakti with prakrti and siva with purusa. Anandagiri, on the other hand, attempts to demonstrate how a number of srividya mantras or mantras of secondary Srividya deities are derived from or represented by the verses of the SL. 59Because of the depth of knowlege it displays in regard to Samaya philosophy and practice, Laksmidhara's commentary on the SL holds a place similar to that of Sarikara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras or Vyasa's on the Yoga Sutras. Laksmidhara gives a detailed treatment of the Samaya method of Srividya sadhana and philosophy. He rejects the views of the Kaula and Misra groups, considering them to be un-Vedic and unworthy. He draws heavily on the Subhagodaya of Gaudapada, for which he claims to have written a ‘commentary. The version of SU published in the appendix of NS cites Sivananda as its author and mainly focuses on describing an external method for ritualistic worship of Sricakra. This version, consisting of a mixture of anusfup meter and prose, contains almost nothing related to Samayacara. Another version of the SU, consisting of fifty-two Sikharini chandas, is published in the appendix of Shiva Shankar Awasthi Shastri's Mantra Aur Matrkgon ka Rahasya (hereafter cited as MMR), !25 and gives Gaudapada as its author. There is a great similarity between the Gaudapada SU and some of the verses of the SL; this is particularly evident in LD, not only in the usage of terms but even in the duplication of complete phrases. However, Laksmidhara, in his commentary on the SL, quotes the SU which is in anusfup meter, not in sikharani.|26 Further, the material that he quotes is not found in ‘Sivananda’s anustup chanda nor in the prose version of SU. These contradictions lead us to believe that there must have been another version of SU by Gaudapada, most probably in anusfup meter, which was commented upon by Laksmidhara and quoted in his commentary on the SL verses I, 32, and 41. Whatever the case may be, the present version of SU ascribed to Gaudapada, published in the appendix of MMR, is one of the most significant ‘Samayacara texts, and it either utilizes Laksmidhara’s exposition (if it is later than Laksmidhara’s text) or vice versa. In addition to SU, Laksmidhara draws heavily on the Vamakesvara Tantra (Catuhsati), Sanatakumérasamhité, Arunopanisad, Vasistha Samhita, and the texts of Vedic 60lore, such as Taittrivasamhita, Taittriyabrahmana, Taitwivaranvaka, Taittriyopanisad, and Yogakundali Upanisad.'27 As stated earlier, SL simply consists of devotional verses dedicated to the goddess Tripurasundari and contains so little Tantric material that it hardly qualifies as a Tantric text.!28 It is Laksmidhara who brings in Tantric ideas and magnifies them in his commentary on SL, especially verses 1, 8-11, 14, 31-32, 34-36, 40-41, 92, and 99. Most of the other verses describe the anthropomorphic form of the goddess and carry little philosophical weight. By selecting only those verses which serve his purpose, Laksmidhara clearly demonstrates that he is a sectarian commentator. His interest lies in expounding the theories related to sricakra, the srividya mantra, the cakras in the human body, matrika, the awakening of kundalini, and attaining the direct experience of the union of siva and Sakti in the sahasrara. He attempts to pull together all these components and unite them under one main concept, sakti. Unlike other Tantric scriptures, commentators, and writers of independent texts, Laksmidhara insists on using the specific terms samaya, sadhakhya, and candrakala with precisely defined meanings. By conducting a philological analysis of these terms, and thus understanding the process through which their general meanings resolved into the specific meanings we encounter in LD, we may gain a better insight into the historical and philosophical development of Sakta Tantrism as a whole. 61CHAPTER 2: NOTES 1, Tripura, or Tripurasundari, is one of the ten mahavidyas in Sakta Tantrism, although the term srividya is currently more popular. The term srividya might have become widely used as a consequence of the text, Srividva Ratna Satrani by Gaudapada, (if this text is really by Gaudapada, the teacher of Adi ‘Sarikara). But oddly enough, Sarikara does not use this term even once in SL. According to Laksmidhara, the term sri is connected with the bijaksara Srim found in the most sacred mantra of Tripurasundari: “.... sribijatmika vidya Stividyeti rahasyam ....” (LD 32). This mantra has sixteen syllables, the sixteenth, srim, being the most secret. Because the mantra has sixteen letters, another term for this mabavidya is Sodasi, the vidya consisting of ‘sixteen letters. For the mythological origin of this term, see LD 32; also see TR-M $3:42-47. 2. Andre Padoux, Vac: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras, trans. by Jacques Gontier (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), pp. 31-32. 3. Ibid., p. 31. 4, Goudriaan in HT, p. 6. 5. John Woodroffe, Principles of Tantra: The Tantra-Tattva of Sriyukta Siva Candra Vidyamnava Bhattacarya Mz part |, Sth ed. (Madras: Ganesh & Co., 1978), 71; also see Goudriaan in HT, pp. 7-9; and Brooks, Three Cities, pp. 3-5. 6. Brooks, Three Cities, p. 5. 7. Omar V. Garrison, Tantra: The Yoga of Sex (New York: Causeway Books, 1964); Robert K. Moffet, Tantric Sex (New York: Berkeley Publishing Corp., 1974); and Marcus Allen, Tantra for the West, (Mill Valley, CA: Whatever Publications, 1981). 8. “Standard Tantric sadhana” here means the practices that are described in acclaimed Tantric texts (such as the Saradatilaka, Kulamava Tantra, NS, YH, TA, or Tantraraja Tantra), upheld by a recognized tradition, and accompanied by a sound philosophy. 9. Gupta in HT, p. 121. 10. The Aryasamaja alone seems to be free from Tantric influence. Although Sikhism did not originally believe in idol worship, temple construction, or pilgrimages to holy shrines, it has replaced these Hindu Tantric elements with the worship of the Grantha Sahib (their holy scripture), gurudvaras, and pilgrimages to their own holy places, such as Harmandir Sahib, (Golden Temple) in Amritsar and Hemkunt Sahib in the Garhwal Himalayas. Moreover, recitation of Grantha Sahib, Japii, and Sukhamani; japa or simaran of nama, the holy name or a mantra; and practice of nada yoga can be considered to be Tantric elements. 11, Agehananda Bharati, The Tantric Tradition (New York: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1970), pp. 16-17. 6212. Goudriaan in HT, p. 9. 13. Bhattacharyya, History of the Sakta Religion, p. 6. 14. B. Bhattacharya, Saivism and the Phallic World, 2 vols. (New Delhi: Oxford & [BH Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 709-711. 15. Bhattacharyya, History of the Sakta Religion, p. 6. 16. In Goudriaan's words, “But while dealing with such hypothetical matters, it is very easy to overshoot the mark by undue generalization.” HT, p. 17. U7. Ibid, p. 20. 18, “Returning to the question of the antiquity of Tantric literature, we have to admit that the answer still quite escapes us. Assumptions made up till now were based upon hypothetical reasoning, outright guesswork, or faulty datings of manuscripts, but we can as yet hardly produce something better. Farquhar held that Sakta ritual and theology was already developed in about 600 A.D., but he based himself mainly on a faulty dating of a manuscript of the Kubjikamatatantra. Eliade says that Tantrism is present everywhere in India from the sixth century onwards; this is presumably based on unproven early dates for the Paftcaratra text Jayakhyasamhita and the Buddhist Guhyasamajatantra” HTS, p. 20. 19. Padoux, Vac, p. 31. 20. The Atharvaveda, introduction by M. C. Joshi, trans. Devi Chand (Delhi: Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1982). 21, “There is a possibility that Hindu Tantric literature existed already in the fifth cent. A.D. or even earlier. . . . Of the early Buddhist Tantras, the Guhyasamaja has been dated-- ‘on scanty evidence--as early as the third cent. A.D. (B. Bhattacharya). Tantric elements like Dharanis (spells in a certain kind of structured prose) were included in Buddhist texts which have been translated into Chinese in the fifth century.” Goudriaan in HT, p. 20. 22. “Without doubt both Hindu and Buddhist Tantrism were based upon older traditions handed down and developed by people who perhaps in some cases did not care much about their denominational position. Moreover, it seems certain that the Buddhist doctrinal tradition can never have developed an offshoot so completely foreign to itself like Tantrism on its own accord. The Tantric deities and practices in Buddhism must have been derived from other sources, viz. Brahmanic ritual and doctrinal speculation, yoga culture of the siddhas, or popular beliefs often introduced in Hinduism and Buddhism alike.” Ibid., p. 21. 23, Brooks, Three Cities, pp. 4-5. 24. Demonstrating the popularity of the goddess worship, Bhattacharyya writes: “It was so deep-rooted in the Indian mind that even in sectarian religions such as Vaignavism and Saivism, etc., the female principle had to be given a prominent position. Even the basically atheistic systems like Buddhism and Jainism could not avoid this popular influence. Later 63Buddhism is, in fact, nothing but a disguised Tantric cult of the female principle.” Bhattacharyya, The Indian Mother Goddess, pp. 222-223. 25. Goudriaan in HT, p. 6. 26. Bhattacharyya, History of the Sakta Religion, p. 73; also see idem, The Indian Mother Goddess, p. 223. 27. Goudriaan in HT, p. 7. 28. J. Desmond Clark, Johnathan Mark Kenoyer, J. N. Pal, and G. R. Sharma, “Baghor I: A Possible Upper Paleolithic Shrine in Central India,” Anthro Quest 24 (Winter, 1982): 13. 29. Bhattacharyya, The Indian Mother Goddess, pp.1-9, pp. 35-76. 30. Aditirdyauraditirantariksamaditinmata sa pita sa putrah. Visve deva aditih pancajana aditirjatamaditirjanitvam. RV 1.89.10. 31. Das, Sakti or Divine Power, pp. 7-58. 32. Kena Upanisad, in Upanisat-Sanigrahah, chaps. 3 and 4, 33. Svetasvatara Upanisad, in Upanisat-Sanigrahah, 6:8. 34. Kaviraj, Aspects of Indian Thought, p. 177. 35. Goudriaan in HT, p. 18. 36. Bhattacharyya, History of the Sakta Religion, p. 77. Kaviraj, Aspects of Indian Thought, p. 177. 38. Ibid. 39. Sircar, The Sakta Pithas, pp. 17-42. 40. Ibid. 3 41. Goudriaan in HT, pp. 36-38. 42. “Kali tard mahdvidya sodasi bhuvanesvari. Bhairavi chinnamasté ca vidya dhimavati tatha. Bagalamukhi siddhavidya matarigi kamalatmika, Eta dasa mahavidyah siddhavidyah prakirtitah.” Mungomalé Tanta, 4 in Tantrasaigraha Part III, (hereafter cited as TS-III), ed. by Dr. Ramaprasada Tripathi in Yogatantra-Granthamala, vol. 6 (Varanasi: ‘Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vicheavidyloya 1979), 178. 64{Note: In TS-II, there are two versions of Mundamala Tantra entitled Prathamundamala Tantra and Dvitivamundamala Tantra. This reference is from Dvitivamundamala Tantra); also see Goudriaan in HT, p. 65.] 43. S. Shankaranarayan, The Ten Great Cosmic Powers: Dasa Mahavidyas, 2d ed. (Pondicherry: Dipti Publications, 1975), pp. 6-7. 44, “Sru carvarigi subhage kalikayasca bhairavam. .... kamalayah daksinamse visqurtipam sadésivam. Pijayet paramesani sa siddho nétra samésayah.” Todalatantra, in ‘Tantrasarigraha, Part II (hereafter cited as TS-II), ed. by Gopinaha Kaviraja in Yogatantra- Granthamala, vol. [V, (Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1970), 1:1-16. 45, “Kali tira chinnamasta sundari bagalamukhi. Mataigi bhuvand laksmi dhimra tripurabhairavi. Eta eva mahavidya siddhavidya yugantarat..,” Saktisafigama Tantra, ed. by Rama Datta Shukla (Prayag: Kalyan Mandir Press, n.d.), 1:101-102. 46. Rajdeva Nandana Simha, Sakta Pramoda (Bombay: Khemaraja Srikrsnadasa, Sri Veiikatesvara Steam Press, 1973); see also Goudriaan in HTS, pp. 70, 81, 97, and 145, and in HT, p. 65. 47. Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Auspicious Wisdom: The Texts and Traditions of Srividva Sakta Tantrism in South India (hereafter cited as Auspicious Wisdom), (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), p. xv. 48. Goudriaan in HTS, p. 86. 49. Ibid., p. 58. 50. In the Yajurveda, Sri and Lakshmi have separate identities, though both are closely associated as consorts of Purusha (Narayana), but in the Khila of RV (Sri-sakta) one single deity is addressed as both, the two names being used interchangeably. The word “Laksmi” occurs in RV only once (10:71.2); “Sri” occurs 82 times. The concept of Sri came into prominence much earlier than the concept of Lakshmi. Sri in Vedic literature was more an inner quality and deeper power. Lakshmi was associated with physical signs (lakshanas) of auspicious presence, especially on the face and in speech. Sl. “Aradhita vatsaranamarbudanyake vinsatih. Prasanna chandayamésa varena tripura para. Taya vrtatica sayujyam tatah praha parambika. Vatse tvaya vind visnuraprabhuh paripalane. ‘Sri vidyetyahamakhyata sripuram me puram bhavet. Sri cakram me bhaveccakram srikramah syanmama kramah. Sri suktam etad bhuyanme vidya srisodasi bhavet. Mahalaksmityaham khyata tvattadatmyena samsthita.” TR-M, 53:42-47. 52. “... etasyaiva bijasya ndma srividyeti. Sribijatmika vidya srividyeti rahasyam. . ..” LD 32, p. 83. 6553, “Kamesvari vam devasca bhavet kamesvarastatha, Rajarajatmanam nastvamisanaccapisampratam. Rajardjesvari tvam vai rajardjesvarastvayam. Tvam vai tripurasundari caisa tripurasundarah.” IRM 55:74-75. 54, “..caturdjakosabhatim naumi sritripuramaham.” NS 1:12; ...yabhirviracitabhistu sammukham tripurd bhavet.” NS 3:2; *...Tripura parama saktiradya jataditah priye.” NS 4:4; “... Tripurd trividha devi brahmavisnvisa ripini.” NS 4:11; “Ramate svayam a tripurd vyaktim agat..."NS 4:16; *...Evam devi tryaksard tu mahatripurasundar.” NS 4:18. athitastripuradevyah 55.“ ~Tevidhasipurddevya satiketah paramesvari” YH 1:6; *.. Jivanmuktipravartakah.” 86. 56. *..cakram kémakalaripam prasaraparamarthatah.” YH 1:24. 51. “Iti kamakalavidya devicakrakramatmika seyam. Via yena sa mukto Bhavat! mahswripurasundariripat, Punyanandanatha, Vi of Ni (hereafter cited as KKV), ed. Sadashiva Mishra, trans. Arthur Avalon, Tantrik Texts, vol. 10, ed. Arthur Avalon (Calcutta: Agamanusandhana Samiti Sanskrit Press Depository, 1922), 8; “Vadyapi tadrgatma suksma sé tripurasundari devi..." KKV 19; “Asina vindumaye cakre sé tripurasundari devi...” KKV 37; also see KKV 25 and 54. 58. “Vajresvari trtiya ca turya tripurasundari.” Gandharva Tantra (hereafter cited as GT), in Tantrasarigraha, Part III, herafter cited as TS-II). References to Tripura found in GT 2:9, also see 2:32; 7:45-68; Lalita in GT 7:72. Identifying Tripura with goddess Durga GT 2:10-11 says: “Tripureti samakhyata . . . durga s4 paramesvari. Tripureti samakhyata saundaryatisayat tatha.” 59. Altering Sarikara's opinion about the goddess appearing at manipdra in her usual personified form (i.e., holding dhanus, bana, pasa, and arikusa in her four hands), Laksmidhara describes her as Dasabhuja, the goddess with ten hands holding ten different weapons in LD 41, p. 121. This description of Dasabhuja seems to be referring to Durga. 60. Motilal Sharma, “Dasa Mahavidya,” in Kalvana: Sakti Arika (Gorakh Pur: Gita Press, ‘Samvat, 1991), p. 112. 61. Gupta in HT, p. 122. 62. Shankaranarayan, The Ten Great Cosmic Powers, p. 9. 63. Girvanendra Saraswathi, Prapaitcha Sarasara Sarigraha of Girvanendra Saraswathi, pt. 1 (hereafter cited as PSS), ed. K. S. Subramania Sastry, Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal Series, no, 98 (Tanjore: Shri S. Gopalan, 1962), chaps. 8, 9, and 12. 6664. Vidyaranya, Srividyammava Tantra, ed. Bhadrashil Sharma, (Prayag: Kalyana Mandir Press, 2023 Vikrama Samvat), chap. 7. 65. Two bijas most commonly serving as part of the srividya mantra, sri and hri, without their bhuta-lipi nasalizations, occur together as early as the Taittiriya Upanisad (1:11.3) and as late as DS (1:79). Sri is also contrasted with Lakshmi in DS 4:5. The Devvatharva ‘Sirsa identifies Durga as part of Srividya. 66. Goudriaan in HTS, p. 58 and Gupta in HT, p. 122. 67. Brooks, Auspicious Wisdom, p. xiv. 68. For example, see Laksmidhara quoting RV, Taittiriva Samhita, Taittiriya Brahmana, and Taittiriya Aranyaka in LD 5, 18, 32, 40, and 99. 69. Brooks, “Srividya School,” pp. 83-181. 70. Ibid., p. 84. 11, Ibid., pp. 89-90. 72. Ibid., p. 92. 73. Ibid., pp. 93-95. 14, Ibid., pp. 96-97. 75. Ibid., p. 105. 76. Ibid., p.106. Alexis Sanderson gives a succinct history of Saivism in Kashmir. According to him, there were two “radically opposed” schools of Saivism during the tenth century A.D.: nondualistic Trika-Krama and dualistic Saiva Siddhanta. The nondualistic Trika-Krama school was influenced by the “Kapalika culture of the cremation grounds and the crotico-mystical soteriology of the Kaulas.” In order to stay “pure,” the Saiva Siddhanta rejected the acara (conduct) of the Kapalikas and Kaulas. However, between the two extremes of nondualistic Trika-Krama and dualistic Saiva-Siddhanta, another Saiva school existed which, according to Sanderson, was the principal one in Kashmir. It worshipped svacchandabhairava and his consort, aghoresvari. Subsequently, the Trika- Krama school and the cult devoted to svacchandabhairava consolidated, which resulted in what is now popularly known as Kashmir Saivism. Meanwhile, as Sanderson writes: The new nondualism also entered the Kaula cult of the goddess Tripurasundari, or Srividya, which rose to eminence in Kashmir during the eleventh century. This Kashmirian tradition of the Srividya, which, by the twelfth century, had spread to the Tamil country, came to be adopted in the Trika circles with the result that the Trika became less a system of Tantric worship than a matrix of metaphysics and soteriological theory. (Encyclopedia of Religion, s.v. “Saivism in Kashmir,” by Alexis Sanderson.) 6771. Brooks, Srividya School, p. 116. 78. Ibid., p. 131. 79. Ibid, p. 134. 80. Ibid., p. 147. 81. Brooks, Auspicious Wisdom, p. 73-74. 82. Brooks, Three. p. 67 83. According to Goudriaan (HTS 147-148 and HT 26 and 44) Laksmidhara is probably also the author of Saiva Kalpadhruma, who, in the colophones, says he is a worshipper of siva at Ekamra (Bhuvanesvara, Orissa). In the colophones of his commentary on the SL, Laksmidhara mentions Gajapati Virarudra (Prataparudra Gajapati) of Orissa as his patron. This association would place him in the early sixteenth century A.D. The compiler of the Bibliography of Indian Philosophies, Karl H. Potter, mentions that an Advaita text, Advaita Makaranda, is also catalogued under Laksmidhara but so far no one has suggested the possibility that the author of this text was also the author of LD . 84. “Kulacaro nama bahyapujaratih.” LD. 8, p. 16. 85. Brooks, Three Cities, p. 28. 86. Gupta translates the word pranapratistha as “meditating on the replacement of the worshipper's mundane self by his divine self.” Gupta in HT, p. 140. 87. Ibid., pp. 143-144. 88. Ibid., pp. 145-146. 89. Vaidiki sandhya; Siva puja, the worship of siva; the ritual worship of sticakra preceded by antarmatrkanyasa, bahirmatrkanyasa, vasinyadinyasa, pithanyasa, rsyadinyasa, and the worship of each cakra of sricakra while offering water, sandalwood paste, flowers, incense, candles, fruits, sweets, betel leaf, etc., are common in sricakra worship whether the practitioner belongs to the left or right hand Kaula group. This part of Sticakra worship is common even among so-called samayacarins today. The main difference between these two groups is that the vamacarins worship sricakra from left to right (ie., clockwise) whereas the daksinacarins do the opposite. Further differences are based on the specific line of gurus (parampara). What really distinguished vamacarins from daksinacarins and samayins is the cakra puja, which is usually performed at night under the direct supervision of the teacher. This cakra puja involves purification of bindu, the ritual wine (often done by cakresvara, the Tantric master); an invocation of, and offering to, anandabhairava and anandabhairavi; marjana, cleansing the body, subtle elements, senses, and mind with purified wine; and bindu-svikara, accepting the bindu 68(offering the wine to the soul, which is identical to brahman). Then the actual worship with the pancamakaras begins. New initiates are allowed to worship sakti only up to the fifth chalice. A master, who is parnabhiskta, can go to the seventh chalice. Only the adept of the highest calibre (sémrajyabhiskta) can go all the way to the eleventh, and final, chalice if he wishes. [Note: I gathered this information from a Tantric adept, Pramathananda Natha (known locally as Dolai Baba), and his students at Kamakhya, Assam.] 90. While sitting in a meditative pose, the aspirant balances the chalice on trikhanda mudré, which is formed by extending the thumb, index finger and little finger, and folding the remaining two fingers against the palm. He recites the following prayer before offering the wine to the fire of Kundalini: Ahanta patra bharitam idanta para-mamytam. Parahantémaye vahnau juhomi siva ripadhrk. .. . Srikundalinipacidagni-kunde vacam sudhantcaiva samarpayami. Samayacaro ndma antarapijarati id “Atra samayimatam nirdpyate...ata eva samayimate bahyaradhanam ddrata eva nirastam...,” LD 41, pp. 117- 119. 92. “Tantrastake traivarqikénam sudradindiica adhikarosti...catpratipadakam tantram kaulamérgah...,” Ibid. 31, pp. 78-79; and “...tattu avaidikamargatvat smarnarham api na bhavati...” Yid. 41, p. 117. 93. “Bahyapajayam eva rsichandahprabhytijnanapurvakatvam...kartavyam iti niyamyate...,” Ibid. 32, pp. 96-97. 94. “Kaulah adharacakrapajarat and “Atah tesam adharacakram eva pijyam. Tatra sthita kundali int ityucyate...samayinam sahasrakamale samayayah samayasya ca sambhoh puja.” Ibid. 41, pp. 116-117. 95. “Tesam sajcakrapaja na niyatd apitu sahasrakamala eva puja...samayinam caturvidhaikyanusandhanam eva bhagavatyah samaradhanam....” Ibid. 41, p. 119. 96. “Samharakramena lekhanam kaulamarga eva...sfstikramastu samayamargah, Ibid. 11, pp. 32-33. 97. “Catussasthya catusasthi sarikhyakayaih mahamayasambarddibhih . pancasamhitah subhagamaparicakam..,” Ibid. 31, p. 73. 98. “Tatra subhagamapartcake sodasanitya nam pratipadanam milavidyanam antarbhavam atigikrtya arigataya....candrajndnavidyayam sodasanityah pradhanatvena pratipadita iti....,” Ibid. 31, pp. 78-79. 99. “Ato navavidhaikyam bhairavibhairavayoh jndtavyam iti kaula mata rahasyam. Ibid. 34, pp. 100-105; and “Samayanama sambhuna samyam pancavidham yatiti samaya...panicavidham sayam...,” Ibid. 41, pp. 117-119. 69100. “It is hardly surprising that the samayin Laksmidhara does not mention the Kaula- oriented Tripura Upanisad in his work. As a result, we have no way of assessing his opinion on the use of the term ‘Upanisad’ for Kaula-oriented texts. This too is hardly surprising since he mentions Kaula sources only in general terms so that he can distance the ‘Samaya school from their teachings and assert the supremacy of Samaya ideology and disciplines.” Brooks, Three Cities, p. 28. 101. “Esam vai bhutanam prthivi rasab...tasmast striyam adha upasita...tasya vedirupastho lomani barhiscarmadhisavane samiddho madhyatah...mamsaudanam pacayitva sarpismantam asniyatam isvarau janyitavai auksena varsabhena va.” Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, in Upanisat-Sanigrahah 6:4:1-18. 102. For example, vamacarins recite the following Vedic mantras at various stages of cakra piija: “Om ardrami jvalati jyotir ahamasmi jyotir jvalati. ...” Mahanidvana Upanisad in Upanisat-Sanigrahah 5:10; “Om yaschandasam rsabho visvarupa, .. ..” Ibid. 7:5; also see Taittiriva Upanisad, in Upanisat-Sanigrahah, 1:4.1. 103. Brooks, Three Cities, p. 29. 104. “Kaulas who favor external forms of ritual and sanction the use of the convention defying behaviors also accept the superiority of ritual internalization (antaryaga). Bhaskararaya, for example, in his Upanisad commentaries discusses at length the transformative qualities of external worship and the necessity of gradual internalization. ‘Contemporary practitioners explain this position by saying that external rites should continue in order to maintain discipline and as an example for those who may never reach the higher state of internalization.” Brooks, Auspicious Wisdom, p. 24. 105. Brooks, Three Cities, p. 29. 106. Saiva texts, such as SVT 4:360-402 with Ksemaraja’s Uddyota commentary, and NT chaps. 7 and 8 with Kshemaraja’s Uddyota commentary, as well as the writings of Abhinavagupta, which are major sources of Kaula sadhana, give a thorough treatment of ‘kundalini Sakti and the cakras and describe the methods of awakening kundalini and leading her to the highest cakra while piercing the six lower cakras. Furthermore, the followers of Kaula sadhana seem to have a great respect for Vedic exhortations as evinced in the cakra paja, during which Vedic mantras are recited during the offering of wine, meat, fish, and roasted grains. 107. Brooks, Auspicious Wisdom, p. 23. 108. The idea of a Srividya practitioner aspiring to achive a state of oneness is clearly found in Srividya texts that are not necessarily Samayacara oriented. Referring to Amrtananda's Yoginihrdavadipika, Brooks writes, “Kaulas are those who identify five ‘elements in their spiritual lives, the so-called sripanackam frequently referred to by contemporary practitioners: (1) the Self (atman) identified with the universal Brahman; (2) the guru; (3) the srividya, that is, the fifteen- or sixteen-syllable mantra; (4) Srimata or the Auspicious Mother, that is, Devi in her beneficent aspects; and (5) the sricakra. .. .In the Setubandha Bhaskararaya continues this line of thought when he says that a Kaula i isone 10who has made the identification of knower, knowing, and the object of knowledge with the conscious self, the same definition he gives for a Srividya adept. ” Ibid., p. 22. 109. Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of the Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp. 9-14. 110. “The Samaya-Kaula opposition is, however, primarily one of Acara ‘systems of conduct,’ not of the literary tradition.” HTS, p. 18; for further details see also pp. 49-52 and Goudriaan in HT, pp. 45-46. 111. Gopinath Kaviraj, Tantrika Sahitva: Vivaranatmaka Granthasici, Hindi Samiti Granthamala, 200 (Lucknow: Rajarsi Purusottama Dasa Tandana Hindi Bahavana, 1972), p.49. 112, Goudriaan in HT, p. 45. 113. “We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements with no corresponding practical formulations. In fact, contemporary Samayins--who are our only clue to the historical practice--do not follow Laksmidhara’s interpretation to the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather special situation arising with the sricakra’s repositioning.” Brooks, Three Cities, p. 220. 114. “Mahavedhah saivah sadakhyayah prakasa rupo .. ..” LD 41, p. 120. 115. *Gato'yam Sarjkaracaryo viramahesvaro gatah. Sat cakrabhedane ko va janite mat parisramam.” LD 100, p. 204. 116. Atsome point in the history of interaction between Srividya and Saivism, these two systems came so close to each other that many of the Srividya texts look like Saivite texts, and vice versa. For example, Stividya texts, such as commentaries on YH and NS by Saiva adepts, KKV and Cidvalli, and TR (Jiinakhanda) are heavily Saivite in tone. On the other hand, Saivite texts such as Paratrimsika and Malinivijava Varttika, are heavily Sakta in tone. Consequently, the commentators from both groups use these texts as their common source, 117. SL p.v. 118. Ibid., p. vi. 119. (Safikaracarya?], Saun .-Lahari of Sri Samkaracarya with Com bhi i of Kaival Laksmidhara of Laksmidhara: Arunamodini Kamesvarasitin, foreword by G. P. Ramaswami Aiyar, trans. and notes by R. Anantakryna Sastri and Karra Ramamarthy Garu (Madras: Ganesh & Co., 1957), p. 1. 120, [Sarikaracarya?] Saundarya-Lahari (The Ocean of Beauty) of Sri Samkara- Bhagavatpada. 3rd. ed., trans., and commentary by S. Subrahmanya Sastri and T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar (Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1965), pp. 9-13: 1(Safikaracdrya?] Saundarva-Lahari ka Hindi Anuvada, 3rd. ed., trans., and commentary by Visnutirtha (Rishikesh: Yogasri Pitha, 1970), p. 18. Commentators such as Laksmidhara, Kaivalyasrama, Kamesavasdri, Acyutananda, and modem Indian adherents such as S. Subrahmanya Sastri, T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar, and Swami Visqutirtha, consider Adi Sarikara to be the author of SL. Brown mentions another view: “The dissident human ascription is found in the commentary called Sudhavidyotini, whose author’s name is variously given as Arijt or Aricchit. He says that the Saundarvalahari was composed by his father Pravara or Pravarsena, a king in the Dramida country, son of a king named Dramida by his learned (vedavati) wife; this king had a minister named Suka. Even this tradition has its miraculous elements. King Pravara is otherwise unknown to me and Arijit’s claim cannot be strengthened by supplementary evidence.” SL, p. 25. 121. SLi p. 30. 122. “These disputes have never reached a satisfactory historical conclusion. From at least the fifteenth century, Sarikara is clearly identified with Srividya tradition and the contemporary Sarikara mathas in both North and South India support the belief that he was a Stividya adept (but not solely a Srividya worshipper). Bhaskararaya and other Srividya adepts do not distinguish Sarikara who authored the Brahmasiltrabhasya and other strictly advaitic works, from the Sakta-oriented Sarikara who penned Saundaryalahari, though they are also not particularly interested in the former.” Brooks, Three Cities, p. 273. 123. SL, p. 30. 124. Laksmidhara’s Laksmidhara, Kaivalyasrama’s Saubhagyavardhini, Kamesvarasiri’s Arundmodini, Anandagir’s Anandagiriva, Madhava Vaidya's Tatparyadipini, Padarthacandrika (author unknown), Ramakavi's Dindima Bhasya, Narasimhasvamin’s eonalamundac, a and cs ‘Anoncdlshar Tiss 2 are re published in Saundarvalahari of Sti ted as Saundarvalahari, ed. A. Kuppuswami), CTinihirapalit: “The Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India, 1976). The following three commentaries were obtained from the India Office Library, London: Acyutananda Sarman, Anandalahari Tika (Vyakhya), (Calcutta, 1885) Microfilm, VT 396(c); Mahadeva Vidyavagisa Bhatiacarya (Anandalahari) hini (Sanstsi MS 2624, ff.61, Eggling 2524: LO. 2196, n.d). Jagadisa Tarkaiarlcira, i (Sanskrit MS 2623 ff.58, Eggling 2623: 1.0. 659, n.d.). 125. Gaudapada, So Subhagodavastu inapp. I of Shastri, Shiva Shankara Awasthi, Tantism (hereafter cited as MMR), Vidyabhawan Rastrabhasha Granthamala, 95 (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, 1966), 241-249. 126. “Paropi Saktirahitah saktah kartum na kincana...Saktah syat paramesani saktya yukto bhavedyadi.” LD 11, p. 29. (Note: With a slightly different 2rendering, the same verse is found in NS 26 of Chapter 3.) For complete citation see Footnote 127. For a complete list of the texts quoted by Laksmidhara, see Appendix A. 128. Itis to be noted, however, that the traditional adherents of Srividya, especially those who are initiates in the order of Sarikardcarya, claim that SL is one of the most profound Tantric texts and contains all important tenets of Samayacara. The text of an interview with Swami Veda Bharati, an acclaimed Srividya practitioner, demonstrates this traditional view: On the basis of internal evidence in SL, it would be inaccurate to say that SL is not a Tantra text proper. Although it is a very short text, the Ananda-Lahari (AL) portion alone effectively states in summary form all the central tenets of Samayacara. One might go so far as to say that larger texts of Samaya as well as the oral tradition elaborate on what has already been stated in SL. One may safely assume then, that SL is a fall statement of Samayacara in a versified “sutra” form, which the other texts as well as the commentators like Laksmidhara only expand and expound in further detail. To cite some examples: 1, Where the theory of the philosophy of sricakra is given in verse 8, the description fits not the muladhara but the sahasrara. Even though verse 9 starts with the maladhara, its goal is to conquer, subdue, and subordinate (jitava) the Kula path and to dwell in the sahasrara. It could be interpreted, hy dhvani theory, to suggest that followers of Samaya should defeat the adherents of Kaula. Given the dialectic tradition of the philosophers of India, such an interpretation is on a firm historical basis. 2. In verse 10, what grace is sprinkled on the lower cakras comes from her feet at the highest pedestal. Verse 1 provides the biggest proof where sricakra is drawn according to the Samaya tradition with five sakti triangles and four Siva triangles. 3. In verse 14, the location of the devi's feet is again at the highest pedestal. 4. In verse 21, even though the force in the agni, sirya, and candra mandalas are her form, she herself dwells beyond these. And in verse 25, all the deities stand honoring her there. 5. Verse 26 conforms to the yoga sutra tradition of samadhi. As all the deities and elements are dissolved in the process of prati-sarga, the supreme force dwells in fullest joy. Here, by dhvani, the author again challenges the adherents of the Kaula system as following temporary forces. 6. Verse 27 is of course the fullest possible definition of antaryaga, and the total Tefutation of external ritual. 737. In verse 31, any power that comes to the Kula seat in the muladhdra (ksiti-tala) is by the grace of her who is far above the dependencies (para-tantra) that are produced by practices on the kaula path. 8. In verse 33, again, the yagais in sivagni, in sahasrara. 9. [tis significant that even though a number of descriptions of the Kundalini path begin with the muladhara in AL (e.g., verse 9), where actual meditation process is taught in verses 35-41, the description begins at the sixth cakra, completely opposite to the Kaula system of meditation. 10. It is clearly reiterated in verse 36, as was said in verse 21, that the devi is beyond the three sections into which the cakras are di mandala, and the candra mandala (ravise 11. While describing the techniques for meditating on the cakras, SL mentions the word “samaya” twice and this term is used in the cases of the two cakras—the muladhara and the svadhisthdna--which the kaulas consider their domain. My remarks, which are certainly not exhaustive, clearly demonstrate that SL is a Tantric text and offers a complete knowledge of theory as well as practice, which a practitioner of Samayacara requires. 74