THE DESCENT OF SCRIPTURE: A HISTORY OF THE KĀMIKĀGAMA
Michael A. Gollner
School of Religious Studies McGill University, Montreal April 2021
A Thesis Submitted to McGill University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
© Michael A. Gollner 2021
For my parents
Abstract
This dissertation centers on a reception historical study of the Kāmikāgama—or Kāmika for short—which is frequently cited as a primary source for carrying out rituals associated with the worship of Śiva in the major Hindu Śaiva temples of Tamilnadu. In so doing, the dissertation traces the Kāmika’s evolution from its earliest attestations down to the present day with a specific focus on the processes through which the text came to be regarded as authoritative, and in more recent times came to be elevated and stabilized, especially in the context of
Śaivasiddhānta, a dominant Hindu tradition in contemporary Tamilnadu. In particular, it develops an account of scripturalization to argue that the Kāmika’s evolution as scripture involved an open-ended process of composition, which reflected historical developments in theology and practice, and over time supported a range theological viewpoints, ritual practices, and social configurations.
In addition to providing a philologically grounded account of the Kāmika’s textual evolution, this dissertation offers a deeper understanding of the historical contexts through which it came to prominence. It presents the first longue-durée study of the Kāmika (indeed, the first such study of any Śaiva Āgama) and raises key questions about the textualized constitution of religious authority and its reproduction over time. More broadly, it contributes to the study of religious texts and the historical processes through which texts come to be regarded as authoritative.
Résumé
Cette thèse est centrée sur une étude historique de la réception du Kāmikāgama, ou Kāmika, un texte sacré fréquemment cité comme source principale pour la réalisation des rituels associés au culte de Śiva dans les principaux temples hindous śivaïtes du Tamilnadu. Ce faisant, la thèse dépeint l'évolution du Kāmika depuis ses premières apparitions jusqu'à aujourd’hui, en mettant l'accent sur les processus par lesquels le texte a été considéré comme faisant autorité et, plus récemment, s'est élevé et stabilisé, en particulier dans le contexte du Śaivasiddhānta, une tradition hindoue dominante dans le Tamilnadu contemporain. Plus particulièrement, la thèse développe un modèle de « scripturalisation » pour démontrer que l'évolution du Kāmika en tant que texte sacré a impliqué un processus de composition ouvert, lequel a été influencé par les développements historiques de la théologie et de la pratique, et qui a soutenu, au fil du temps, une variété de points de vue théologiques, de pratiques rituelles et de configurations sociales.
En plus de fournir un compte-rendu philologique de l'évolution textuelle du Kāmika, cette thèse offre une compréhension plus approfondie des contextes historiques à travers lesquels le texte a pris de l'importance. Elle présente la première étude de longue durée du Kāmika (en fait, la première étude de ce type de tout Śaiva Āgama) et soulève des questions clés sur la constitution textualisée de l'autorité religieuse et de sa reproduction dans le temps. Plus largement, elle contribue à l'étude des textes religieux et des processus historiques par lesquels les textes en viennent à être considérés comme faisant autorité.
Acknowledgements
The timely completion of this thesis would have been impossible without the help and support of numerous people and organizations who I would like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge.
To begin with, I want to thank my thesis advisors, Leslie Orr and Hamsa Stainton, who have been exceptionally helpful, inspiring, and supportive. I feel tremendously privileged to have benefitted from their guidance and expertise. Leslie Orr, in particular, has been a formative influence on me since the beginning of my time in graduate school. Her many contributions as a scholar are matched only by her care and patience as a teacher and advisor. Hamsa Stainton, who accepted the role of advisor once this project was already underway, brought a fresh wind of enthusiasm and encouragement, and I have been immensely grateful for his help and support. In addition, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Dominic Goodall whose influence on my work and thinking are evident throughout this thesis—to say nothing of the many etexts and countless insights he shared with me. I was fortunate to have several opportunities to read with Dominic during the course of research and development for this thesis, which have enriched this work immeasurably. For whatever strengths this thesis may be said to possess, I owe to Leslie, Hamsa, and Dominic; for whatever weaknesses that remain, I take responsibility.
While carrying out field research in South India, I was fortunate to benefit from an affiliation to the Institut français de Pondichéry and the supervision of T. Ganesan. His insight and feedback on my research in progress were invaluable, and it was both a privilege and a pleasure to work with him. I would also like to thank R. Sathyanarayanan and S.A.S. Sarma for the many insights (and PDFs) they shared with me during my time in Pondicherry—and for the many conversations that enriched my thinking and work. Also in South India, I want to thank Dr. T. N. Ramachandran and Mahesh Ramachandran for warmly welcoming in Tañjāvūr in 2015, and for all their help in connecting me with informants during the course of my fieldwork.
In addition, I would like to thank Śivaśrī Pitchai Gurukkal (Śrī Kaṟpaka Vināyakar
Vētākama Vittiyālam, Pillaiyarpatti), Śivaśrī S. K. Raja Bhattar (Sri Skandaguru Vidyalayam,
Thirupparankundram), Śivaśrī Sundara Murthy Sivam (Sri Sri Gurukul, Bangalore), and Śivaśrī
Bala Sarvesvara Gurukkal (Śrīmat Śrīkaṇṭha Śivācārya Veda Śivāgama Vidyāpīṭha, Karaikal) for graciously welcoming me to their Āgama schools and for the insights they shared with me about the Kāmika and its reception today.
For interpreting interviews with informants and transcribing recorded interviews, I was fortunate to have the help of Neela Bhaskar, who I would like to thank for her excellent work. I also want to thank my Tamil āciriyar, Veera Kannappan, for reading transcribed interviews with me and for his always instructive and enjoyable lessons.
While working on this project, I have enjoyed many enlightening conversations with colleagues and scholars who have shaped my thinking on the Kāmika and related matters. In particular, I would like to thank: S. Arunasundaram, R. Balasubramanian, Lisa Blake, David
Brick, Elizabeth Cecil, Jean-Luc Chevillard, Giovanni Ciotti, Victor D’Avella, Richard Davis,
Darry Dinnell, Mark Dyczkowski, Elaine Fisher, Emmanuel Francis, Valérie Gillet, Juli
Gittinger, Mekhola Gomes, Nirajan Kafle, Mrinal Kaul, Timothy Lorndale, Timothy Lubin,
Kannan M., Erin McCann, Luther Obrock, Charlotte Schmid, Jason Schwartz, S. Sambanda
Sivacharyar, Vincenzo Vergiani, Anna Lee White, Eva Wilden, and Benjamin Williams.
For acting as an external examiner on my thesis committee, and for his many helpful comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Whitney Cox. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Shaman Hatley for fostering my early interest in
Sanskrit and Śaivism and for being an inspiring and supportive Sanskrit teacher during my MA and early PhD studies. I would also like to thank Shaman for a number of helpful comments and suggestions that he sent me on an advanced draft of this thesis.
For kindling my interest in the study of South Asian religions, I would like to thank
Steven Lindquist.
I would also like thank several organizations that supported me in my research. In particular: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for a Joseph-Armand
Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship and a Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement;
Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute for a Doctoral Research Fellowship; McGill University School of
Religious Studies for a Travel Award; and the École française d’Extrême-Orient for a Field
Scholarship.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Linda Leith and Andras Gollner, to whom this thesis is dedicated, not only for the obvious fact that I (and this thesis) would not be here without them, but for the unconditional love, patience, and support they gave me, especially over the past few years as I worked on this. Table of Contents
Chapter One Introduction 10 1.1. Śaivasiddhānta and Scripturalization: Literature Review 12 1.2. Methodology and Scope 34 1.3. Overview of the Kāmikāgama 37 1.4. Plan of the Thesis 46
Chapter Two A Genealogy of Revelation: Early Evidence of the Kāmikāgama 49 2.1. The Earliest Evidence 50 2.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama by Kashmirian Śaiva Authors 61 2.3. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Other Early Works 82 2.4. Conclusions 87
Chapter Three Transformation of a Textual Tradition I: The Development of Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship 90 3.1. What Is Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship? 91 3.2. References to Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship in the 12th Century 103 3.3. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Works of the 13th-14th Centuries 126 3.4. Conclusions 138
Chapter Four Transformation of a Textual Tradition II: Synthesis and Adaptation 141 4.1. Post-12th-Century Synthesis 142 4.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Vīraśaiva Works of the 14th-16th Centuries 158 4.3. Conclusions 172
Chapter Five Divine Authority in Worldly Affairs: The Kāmikāgama in Early Modern South India 175 5.1. Historical Context of the 16th-17th Centuries 176 5.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama by Authors of the 16th-17th Centuries 178 5.3. Conclusions 208
Chapter Six The Print History and Modern Reception of the Kāmikāgama 211 6.1. Print History of the Kāmikāgama 212 6.2. The Kāmikāgama Today 236 6.3. Conclusions 263 Conclusions 265
Appendices 274 Appendix A. Kāmikāgama Textual Parallels with Earlier Sources (7th-9th Centuries) 275 Appendix B. Nondualistic Passages of the Sarvajñānottara 284 Appendix C. Citations of the Kāmika in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā 286 Appendix D. Citations of the Kāmika in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi 294 Appendix E. Kāmikottara Passage in the Kriyāsāra 301 Appendix F. Survey of Kāmika Devanāgarī Paper Transcripts at the IFP 303
Bibliography 311
Chapter One
Introduction
During the monsoon of 2013, a particular Hindu procession wound its way through the streets of
Nallūr in northern Sri Lanka. Pulsating with beating drums, frenzied dancers, and bellowing nādaswarams, the procession rambled through the streets, from the Śiva temple to the Murugan temple and on to the nearby party headquarters of the Hindu Congress.1 A mass of devotees, officials, and a local pontiff thronged around the gilded object. But on this occasion, the object of worship was not a god. Basking in a haze of incense and garlands, shadowed by regalia and royal parasols, commanding the veneration of devotees was a hard disk drive.
Of course, it was not an ordinary hard disk drive. The drive held the contents of a vast archive of manuscripts associated with the branch of Hindu religion known as Śaivasiddhānta, which spread across South and Southeast Asia during the latter half of the first millennium.2 The procession celebrated the archive’s digitization and arrival in Sri Lanka.3 At the same time, the show of reverence may be understood in terms of how scriptures are viewed in Śaivasiddhānta.
According to the tradition, scriptures (Tantras, Āgamas)4 are considered divine instantiations of the primordial revelation of Śiva (śivajñāna), a concept not unlike the Word (logos, vāc) in
1 Rishi Thondunathan, “Saiva Agama Collection Arrives in Jaffna, Sri Lanka” (Kauai, HI: Kauai’s Hindu Monastery, 2013), https://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2013/08/10/saiva-agama-collection- arrives-in-jaffna-sri-lanka/ (accessed May 1, 2020). A nādaswaram is an exceptionally loud, double-reed woodwind instrument used in ritual processions throughout South Asia but primarily in South India. According to V. Raghavan, the “correct” name of the instrument is “nāgasvara,” although the form “nādaswaram” is commonly used (“Nagaswara or Nadaswara?” Sruti, no. 359 [August 2014]: 28). 2 The archive is that of the Institut français de Pondichéry (IFP), which has been recognized by UNESCO since 2005 as part of their “Memory of the World” register. On the spread of Śaivasiddhānta, see below. 3 The digitization was sponsored by Kauai’s Hindu Monastery. See “Digitization Project Saves Saiva Agamas,” Hinduism Today 33, no. 3 (July 2011): 52–54. 4 These terms are used more or less interchangeably by Śaiva authors. This is a usage which I follow in this dissertation. 11
Christology and Vedic religion. This view of scripture is reflected in the tradition’s description of Śiva’s revelation as a “descent of scripture” (tantrāvatāra), which evokes the incarnation of divine forms on earth.
This descent of scripture is clearly something of a mysterious process. Arising originally from Śiva’s supreme form as undifferentiated subtle sonic energy (nādarūpa), this primordial revelation, envisaged as constituting all knowledge, is communicated subsequently by the five- faced Sadāśiva—the highest active aspect of Śiva’s being—who transmits the supreme teaching in the form of 28 celestial Ur-texts, each of unimaginable length.5 These Ur-texts are then progressively distilled and communicated through the intermediacy of gods, semi-divine beings, and sages, eventually reaching the ears of mortals.
In accounts of these 28 texts, the first is invariably the Kāmikāgama—or Kāmika for short. As a historical text, however, the Kāmika’s origins are somewhat murky, no less than its backstory might suggest. Although the earliest attestation of the Kāmika’s title can be traced back to around the 5th century CE, citations attributed to the text in something like its current form do not appear until at least seven centuries later. Many have remarked on the phenomenon of a new wave of Śaiva scriptures circulating under old titles after the 12th century, among which the Kāmika appears to be the earliest, but no studies have adequately explained this phenomenon.
The descent of the Kāmika in history, it seems, was also something of a mysterious process.
In this dissertation, I aim to shed light on this historical process by tracing the Kāmika’s evolution from its earliest attestations down to the present day with a specific focus on the
5 Accounts of this revelation are found in many sources, the earliest of which appears to be the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Uttarasūtra (c. 5th century CE), 1:22–30; eds. Dominic Goodall, Alexis Sanderson, and Harunaga Isaacson, The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra, Volume I (Pondichéry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg, 2015). The account of the Kāmikāgama states that it was originally transmitted in 100,000 billion verses (parārdhagranthasaṃkhyayā), Kāmikāgama, Pūrvabhāga, 1:30b (Ceṉṉai: South Indian Archakar Association, 1975). 12 processes through which the text came to be regarded as authoritative—in various and variable ways—and in more recent times came to be elevated and stabilized. To do this, I employ a reception historical approach and develop an account of scripturalization to argue that the
Kāmika’s evolution as scripture involved an open-ended process of composition, which reflected historical developments in theology and practice, and over time supported a range theological viewpoints, ritual practices, and social configurations.
1.1. Śaivasiddhānta and Scripturalization: Literature Review
1.1.1 Śaivism and Śaivasiddhānta
Although Śaivasiddhānta is today primarily based in South India, where it is a dominant Hindu tradition, between about the 7th and 12th centuries it was a pan-regional religious system with a presence across South and Southeast Asia.6 But it is important that we qualify this presence at the outset. During its formative centuries, Śaivasiddhānta was by no means a distinct sectarian tradition, although it certainly became one later. In its early phase, rather, it was an esoteric and relatively elite current within the broader Śaiva religion, which was constituted in the main by exoteric, lay forms of devotion and worship.7 An understanding of Śaivasiddhānta’s development and relationship with other branches of Śaivism and the broader religio-cultural milieu of early South and Southeast Asia has been advanced considerably in recent years by the
6 See Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I),” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 90–91 (2004): 349–462; “The Śaiva Age” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 41–350; see also Andrea Acri, “Glimpses of Early Śaiva Siddhānta. Echoes of Doctrines Ascribed to Bṛhaspati in the Sanskrit-Old Javanese Vṛhaspatitattva.” Indo-Iranian Journal 54 (2011): 209–29. 7 Cf. Alexis Sanderson, “How Public Was Śaivism?” in Tantric Communities in Context, eds. Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019), 1–48. 13 tireless work of Alexis Sanderson, Dominic Goodall, and a number of their colleagues.8 The details of their substantial contributions need not be rehearsed here except to highlight a broad division in early medieval Śaivism between Śaivasiddhānta, on the one hand, as the central and normative form of Tantric Śaivism—also known as Āgamic Śaivism or the Mantramārga (“Path of Mantras”)—and, on the other hand, non-initiatory, lay forms of Śaivism, detailed in corpora such as the early Skandapurāṇa, Śivadharma, and Tēvāram.9 In its early, pre-12th century phase
Śaivasiddhānta’s following was thus determined and delimited by Śaiva initiation (dīkṣā), which marked a fundamental divide with the broader Śaiva laity.10 The primary sources of
Śaivasiddhānta, while differing on particulars, are unanimous on this: those without Śaiva initiation do not participate in either of the salvific benefits of the system, namely liberation
(mukti) and enjoyments/powers (bhukti, siddhi). While it may be assumed that devotion (bhakti) or the teaching of Śaivasiddhānta doctrines constituted modes of religious activity that transcended this divide, it should be emphasized that devotion played a negligible role in
8 Sanderson, “The Impact of Inscriptions on the Interpretation of Early Śaiva Literature,” Indo-Iranian Journal 56, no. 3/4 (2013): 211–44; “How Public Was Śaivism?” in Tantric Communities in Context, eds. Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019), 1–48; Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson, “Prolegomena,” in Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 19–134; Judit Törzsök, “The Heads of the Godhead: The Number of Heads/Faces of Yoginīs and Bhairava(s) in Early Śaiva Tantras,” Indo-Iranian Journal 56, no. 2 (2013): 133–55; “Whose Dharma? Śaiva and Śākta Community Rules (samayas) and Dharmaśāstric Prescriptions,” in Tantric Communities in Context, 205–32; and Nina Mirnig, “‘Rudras on Earth’ on the eve of the Tantric Age: The Śivadharmaśāstra and the making of Śaiva lay and initiatory communities Introduction: Religious and historical context,” in Tantric Communities in Context, 471–510. 9 On lay Śaivism and its relationship to initiatory Śaivism, see Sanderson, “How Public Was Śaivism?” 1– 48; and Mirnig, “‘Rudras on Earth’ on the eve of the Tantric Age,” 471–510. Also on lay Śaivism, see Hans Bakker, The World of the Skandapurāṇa. Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 9–10; and Peter Bisschop, Universal Śaivism: The Appeasement of All Gods in the Śāntyadhyāya of the Śivadharmaśāstra (Groningen: Brill, 2018), 1–15. The category of initiatory Śaivism, I should note, also includes early non-Tantric, non-lay forms of Śaivism, such as the systems of the Atimārga, including Pāśupata and Lākula Śaivism. 10 This divide between initiatory and non-initiatory forms of Śaivism is a well-attested emic one; scriptural and exegetical Saiddhāntika sources, at least up to the 12th century, presuppose an audience of Tantric initiates. 14
Śaivasiddhānta theology before the 12th century and that teaching initiatory doctrines to the uninitiated was explicitly forbidden.11 In its early or classical phase, Śaivasiddhānta appears rather to have been a relatively exclusive ritual system.12
How then did Śaivasiddhānta develop into a dominant form of Śaivism in South India?
An influential and longstanding view has been that Śaivasiddhānta from early on (c. 7th-8th century) also constituted a form of “temple Hinduism.”13 In this view, the initiatory-lay divide is somewhat passed over, and instead it is posited on the basis of Śaivasiddhānta’s later (post-12th century) focus on temple-based liturgical practices that temples also constituted an institutional basis of the tradition during its earliest phase. Although this view has been popular in academic treatments of Śaivasiddhānta, it has received notable critiques. Sanderson, for instance, has pointed out that there are no Śaivasiddhānta works that detail temple liturgies from before the
12th century.14 Likewise, Goodall and Hélène Brunner, each in several publications, have pointed out that there is no concept even of public temple worship (parārthapūjā) in Śaivasiddhānta
11 This is not to say that devotion did not play an important role in the lives of early Śaivasiddhānta followers or communities, but that as a theological system early Śaivasiddhānta gave little space to devotion, viewing it as having little influence on liberation. On the diminutive role of devotion in early Śaivasiddhānta theology, see Alberta Ferrario, Grace in Degrees: Śaktipāta, Devotion, and Religious Authority in the Śaivism of Abhinavagupta (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania), 24–60. On the proscription against teaching Saiddhāntika doctrines to the uninitiated, see Sanderson, “The Impact of Inscriptions on the Interpretation of Early Śaiva Literature,” 239, drawing on Svacchanda 5:51cd and Kriyākramadyotikāprabhā, 354. 12 As Sanderson has recently put it, early Śaivasiddhānta was “parasitic” on lay Śaivism and its institutions (“How Public Was Śaivism?” 6). 13 This view has been popularized in particular through Richard Davis’ account of Śaivasiddhānta and “Temple Hinduism” (cf. Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Śiva in Medieval India [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991], 6–9). 14 Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age,” 276. He notes that “[t]he extant Kāmika is perhaps the first work of this kind” (ibid., 279n). A distinction between public temple-based liturgical practices (parārthapūjā) and occasional rites of consecration (pratiṣṭhā) should be noted: while there is evidence from relatively early on (c. 7th CE) that Śaivasiddhānta officiants performed consecration rites for Śaiva temples, there is no convincing evidence that these specially hired officiants then remained on-site afterward as a matter of course to conduct public liturgies in these temples. This is discussed more fully in Chapter Three (3.1.). 15 sources before the 12th century.15 And more recent studies have drawn attention to fundamental differences in the vocabularies of demonstrably pre-12th-century Śaivasiddhānta sources—which say nothing of temple-based liturgical practices—and post-12th-century sources, where temple liturgies are commonly found.16
Slowly emerging from these critiques is a more nuanced historiography that sees the
Śaiva temple cult, at least its liturgical domain, to have been generally within the purview of lay
Śaivism before the 12th century.17 In this view, Śaivasiddhānta’s early sphere of influence appears to have been somewhat more limited, particularly to an elite clientele consisting largely of royalty, temple patrons (yajamānas, kartṛs), and individuals with the means to afford an exacting and time-consuming set of Tantric ritual demands.18 But this picture changes over time; for we see evidence of Śaivasiddhānta progressively adapting to a broader constituency over the
15 Hélène Brunner, “Ātmārthapūjā Versus Parārthapūjā in the Śaiva Tradition,” in The Sanskrit Tradition and Tantrism, ed. Teun Goudriaan [Leiden: Brill, 1990], 4–23; “Introduction” in Somaśambhupaddhati, Quatrième partie, Rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā [Pondicherry: IFI, 1998], iv–v. Goodall, “parārthapūjā” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, eds. Goodall and Marion Rastelli [Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013], 399–400. “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya), ed. and trans. R. Sathyanarayanan (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2015), 36–37. 16 Cf. Goodall, “Rudragaṇikās: Courtesans in Śiva’s Temple? Some Hitherto Neglected Sanskrit Sources,” Cracow Indological Studies 20, no. 1 (2018): 91–143; Florinda De Simini, Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016) 325–26. 17 Sanderson, “How Public Was Śaivism?” 5–6. 18 In Sanderson’s view, “the principal motor of the spread of the Saiddhāntika Mantramārga [i.e. Śaivasiddhānta]” was “[t]he initiating of kings” (ibid., 18). On the elite clientele of the Mantramārga more broadly, including its focus on the consecration of royal palaces and the establishment of Śiva’s forms in temples across the subcontinent and beyond, see Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age,” 254–82; On the wealth of temple patrons (yajamānas, kartṛs) as sponsors of the construction of Śaiva temples and the consecration of Śiva’s forms, see Brunner, “Introduction” in Somaśambhupaddhati, Quatrième partie, iii–iv. On consecration rituals more generally, see also István Keul, ed., Consecration Rituals in South Asia (Leiden: Brill, 2017); Anna Ślączka, Temple Consecration Rituals in Ancient India: Text and Archaeology (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima, eds., From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). On the time-consuming and exacting demands of Āgamic ritual, see Sanderson, “Ritual for Oneself and Ritual for Others,” in Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual, Volume II: Body, Performance, Agency, and Experience, eds. Angelos Chaniotis et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010), 10. 16 course of the late first and early second millennium. Thus, as Goodall, Sanderson, and Harunaga
Isaacson have shown, we find an expansion in forms and accessibility of Tantric initiation in the evolving Śaivasiddhānta scriptural corpus.19 Likewise, Goodall and R. Sathyanaranayan have pointed to the increasing roles of women in the tradition through an analysis of the 12th-century
Prāyaścittasamuccaya.20 And Nina Mirnig, along similar lines, has drawn attention to the role of
Śaivasiddhānta priests in officiating over funerary rites for lay followers, notably through her study of the Jñānaratnāvalī (12th century).21
But it was not until the 12th century that Śaivasiddhānta began to develop into the region- specific South Indian tradition that has been its hallmark ever since. This transformation occurred through a dynamic process of cultural change that coincided with the rise of Islam in
North India and Theravāda Buddhism in Southeast Asia—which were complex and far-reaching historical developments themselves.22 As Śaivasiddhānta influence receded in those areas, its roots deepened in the Tamil South, where it forged new relationships with a regional laity.
Instrumental in this transformation were Tamil-speaking Śaivasiddhānta theologians who translated and distilled elements of the Sanskrit system into Tamil and incorporated elements drawn from lay Tamil Śaivism into their works. In the process, new forms of non-ritual initiation proliferated in both Tamil and Sanskrit Saiddhāntika works, reflecting this greater inclusivity.23
19 “Prolegomena,” in Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 49–51. 20 Goodall, Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 30–37. 21 Mirnig, “‘Rudras on Earth’ on the eve of the Tantric Age,” 503n; Liberating the Liberated: Early Śaiva Tantric Death Rites (Wien: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018). 22 Sanderson, “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)”; “The Śaiva Age” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 117; Richard Davis, Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Śiva in Medieval India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 17–18. 23 Cf. Goodall, “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” in Rites hindous, transferts et transformations, eds. Gérard Colas and Gilles Tarabout (Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2006), 93–116. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four. 17
On the Tamil side, a new canon of theological Śaivasiddhānta works emerged between the 12th and 14th centuries—the Meykaṇṭacāttirams—which developed and disseminated this post-12th- century lay-Tantric synthesis. On the Sanskrit side, new versions of early Saiddhāntika scriptures—like the Kāmika—were recast or written anew in a way that projected scriptural innovations of the post-12th-century period back into the mythic past. This new wave of Sanskrit scriptures has been referred to in scholarship variously as “South Indian Temple Āgamas” or simply “Temple Āgamas,” given their focus on public temple practices.24
In scholarship on post-12th-century Śaivasiddhānta, there has been a tendency to view
Tamil and Sanskrit expressions of the tradition as separate schools and separate developments.
This is a tendency I eschew here on the grounds that the rationale for this distinction may be taken as largely anachronistic and superficial.25 On the one hand, there has a been a strong projection of non-Brahmin politics into historical scholarship on Śaivasiddhānta, which has read
20th-century communal divisions into historical data on the basis of linguistic difference.26 While there are certainly important distinctions between Brahmin and non-Brahmin Śaivasiddhānta communities historically and in the present day, between the 12th and 20th centuries, the extent of the overlap between Sanskrit and Tamil expressions of Śaivasiddhānta in terms of discipleship, theology, ritual, and practice is enormous, such that viewing them as separate developments or different traditions misses the forest for the trees. As I point out in Chapters Four and Five, many
24 See, for instance, Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson, “Prolegomena,” in Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 59, 61, 365; Goodall, “Rudragaṇikās: Courtesans in Śiva’s Temple?,” 106ff. 25 On this point, I follow the approach of T. Ganesan (“Śaiva Siddhānta,” in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 3, eds. Knut A. Jacobsen et al. [Leiden: Brill, 2014], 514–31). As Ganesan sees it, Śaivasiddhānta has two phases, a pre-12th century phase and a post-12th-century phase. In his account of the second phase, he discusses a number of exponents of Śaivasiddhānta who wrote in Sanskrit in Tamil while making no distinction between a “Tamil Śaiva Siddhānta” or “Sanskrit Śaiva Siddhānta.” 26 See, for instance, V. Ravi Vaithees’ account of the revival of Śaivasiddhānta in the crucible Dravidian politics (Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India: Maraimalai Adigal, the Neo-Saivite Movement, and Tamil Nationalism, 1876–1950 [New York: Oxford University Press, 2015]). 18
Saiddhāntika theologians after the 12th century read and wrote in both Sanskrit and Tamil, and it has not generally been recognized how commonplace this was.
On the other hand, there has been a division of academic labour between Sanskrit scholars and Tamil scholars, who have often read primary Śaivasiddhānta sources in one language or the other, but rarely both. And to the extent that historical developments have been considered from one linguistic perspective but not the other, a skewed picture has emerged. My characterization of Śaivasiddhānta after the 12th century as a bilingual tradition is intended as a corrective to this.
1.1.2. Scripturalization
To help explain the composition and reception of the Kāmikāgama as a Śaivasiddhānta scripture in this study, I develop an account of scripturalization, and it is important at the outset that I define what I mean by this term, since it has been used in different ways by different authors.
Although a starting point can be traced back to the early work of Wilfred Cantwell Smith and
William A. Graham,27 theorization about the significance and explanatory value of scripturalization is an active area in current scholarship. A useful analogy to help explain the concept has been drawn with Catherine Bell’s theory of ritualization, which constituted an important shift in ritual studies from a focus on particular structures of action (ritual) to a focus on specific processes through which patterns of action come to be privileged and differentiated
(ritualization).28 In the case of scripturalization, we can think of this as a shift from a focus on
27 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2 (1971): 131–40; What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word. Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press, 1988). 28 Cf. Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 90; cf. also Seth Perry, Bible Culture and Authority in the Early United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), 6. 19 particular texts as sacred or authoritative (scriptures) to a focus on the processes through which texts come to be regarded as such (scripturalization). Yet existing accounts of scripturalization do not fully explain the mechanisms of these processes. In what follows, I begin by sketching a background to the discussion before presenting an account of scripturalization that will be useful for understanding the case of the Kāmikāgama.
1.1.2.1. Background
The notion of scriptures as “sacred books” has a well-documented history that need not detain us here, except to remark on the fact that the notion was used largely in uncritical ways before Smith and Graham brought much-needed attention to the issue. In his oft-cited work,
What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach, Smith characterized scripture as “a relation between a people and a text.”29 In a similar vein, Graham characterized scripture as a “relational concept.”30 While these characterizations alone are not sufficient for analytical purposes, they highlight the fundamental point that scripture is only regarded as such in relation to a particular religious community. What Smith’s and Graham’s characterizations leave out, however, is an account of how such a relation develops in the first place. Although Smith speaks of “a human propensity to scripturalize”31 his work focuses little on historical processes involved in the constitution of texts as scripture—which I consider the domain of scripturalization proper—and more on the attitudes of religious communities toward the texts they hold as sacred.
Conspicuous by its absence in the work of Smith and Graham is any discussion of issues of authority, which I take to be central to scripturalization. To be sure, both Smith and Graham
29 What Is Scripture, 18. 30 Beyond the Written Word, 5. 31 Ibid. Cf. Miriam Levering’s use of the term “scripturalizing,” which she uses to refer to “the propensity to produce scripture” (Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989], 5). 20 focus on the sacrality of scriptures, but they do not focus on questions of authority—to say nothing of questions of power.32 Some might see the distinction between sacrality and authority to be merely semantic; that is, to characterize scriptures as sacred texts, as Smith and Graham do, it follows axiomatically that they are talking about texts that are authoritative in some way.
Granted that this is true, it tells us nothing about the nature of this authority, nor how it is constituted or operates; “sacrality” is not a useful term for analyzing historical configurations of power. By contrast, “authority” provides a well-established basis for this, particularly in the sense developed by Max Weber, which is how I understand authority here.33 Smith’s work has been critiqued for its oversight of scripture’s relationship to power.34 Graham, for his part, addressed the issue, going further than Smith in distinguishing “primary sacred text[s] or texts of a religious tradition from others that are also sacred but secondarily so.”35 While Graham’s
32 As discussed below, I understand authority in the sense developed by Max Weber; that is, as the “Chance that a command of a particular kind will be obeyed by given persons” (Max Weber, Economy and Society. A New Translation, ed. and trans. Keith Tribe [Boston: Harvard University Press, 2019], 134). Power, by contrast, I understand in the sense developed by Michel Foucault; that is, as ubiquitous and extending beyond state and legal apparatuses to occupy a “broader field of actual power relations” that “invest the body, sexuality, the family, kinship, knowledge, technology, and so forth” (Foucault, “Truth and Power,” in The Foucault Reader [New York: Vintage Books], 64). The complementarity of Weberian and Foucauldian categories of analysis have been discussed by many, notably John O’Neill, “The Disciplinary Society: from Weber to Foucault,” British Journal of Sociology 37, no. 1 (1986): 42– 60; and Colin Gordon, “Plato in Weimar. Weber revisited via Foucault: two lectures on legitimation and vocation,” Economy and Society 43, no. 3 (2014): 494–522. 33 There is some disagreement about the English translation of Weber’s term, Herrschaft, as “authority.” A translation often used today instead of “authority” is “domination” (Richard Swedberg, Ola Agevall, The Max Weber Dictionary. Key Words and Central Concepts, 2nd edition [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016], 88–90). Keith Tribe, however, has pointed out that the “use of ‘domination’ to translate Weber’s usage of Herrschaft tends to overemphasise the coercive aspect of rule” (Economy and Society, 471). For this reason, I retain the translation of Herrschaft as “authority” popularized by Talcott Parsons. 34 See, for instance, Vincent L. Wimbush, Theorizing Scriptures. New Critical Orientations to a Cultural Phenomenon (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), 11. 35 Beyond the Written Word, 3–4. Examples Graham refers to are the Torah (primary) in relation to the Mishnah (secondary) in Judaism, the Qur’rān (primary) in relation to the Ḥadīth (secondary) in Islam, and the Vedas (primary) in relation to the Purāṇas (secondary) in Hinduism. See also Islamic and Comparative Religious Studies: Selected Writings (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2010), 196 21 distinction gets at the issue of authority, it does not go far enough.36 We can understand the issue better, I suggest, by foregrounding authority as a key analytical concept.
In more recent scholarship, there has been a shift to consider questions of authority and power in relation to scripture. One of the most prolific authors on the subject, writing about scripturalization, is Vincent L. Wimbush.37 Although he is not the first to use the term scripturalization,38 his contribution to the discussion emerges from a longer standing interest in connections between scripture and power.39 A simple yet elegant definition of scripturalization that Wimbush provides is as a “process by which a text becomes ‘scripture’ and the powerful interests that this authorizing of text reflects and secures.”40 While Wimbush has expanded his definition of “scripture/scripturalizing/scripturalization” in more recent works in ways less relevant to my purposes, his focus on how scriptures participate in relations of power is a valuable analytical insight that informs my approach. More specifically, my approach contributes to the conversation by offering a more nuanced understanding of how authority and power come to be constituted and mediated by scriptures.
36 To illustrate, in many branches of Hinduism, the Vedas, while regarded as “primary sacred texts,” are often subordinate in practical importance to “secondary sacred texts,” like Purāṇas (see, for instance, Frederick Smith, “Purāṇaveda” in Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation, ed. Laurie L. Patton [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994], 97–138. This is an issue that Graham’s model of “primary” and “secondary” sacred texts does not adequately account for. 37 Vincent L. Wimbush, White Men’s Magic: Scripturalization as Slavery (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); “It’s Scripturalization, Colleagues!,” Journal of Africana Religions 3, no. 2 (2015): 193–200. Also, Wimbush, ed. Theorizing Scriptures: New Critical Orientations to a Cultural Phenomenon (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2008); Scripturalizing the Sacred: The Written As Political (New York, London: Routledge, 2015). 38 Reference may be made to Judith Newman’s Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Newman’s use of the term scripturalization, Kurt Noll has argued, conflates “scripturalization with scribal re-use” (“Did ‘Scripturalization’ Take Place in Second Temple Judaism?,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25, no. 2 [2011]: 204). 39 See, for instance, Wimbush’s introductory chapter, “Textures, Gestures, Power: Orientation to Radical Excavation,” in Theorizing Scriptures, 1–20. 40 Wimbush, “It’s Scripturalization, Colleagues!,” 193. 22
Other scholars who have also used the concept of scripturalization in recent works to denote a process of a text becoming scripture include James W. Watts and William M.
Schniedewind, both of whom contrast “scripturalization” with “canonization,” which they view as a separate process.41 As I argue below, positing a sharp divide between these processes, variously defined, obscures important elements of overlap between them. In South Asian studies, a notable use of the concept of scripturalization in recent scholarship is that of Orna Almogi, who refers to it as “[t]he processes of formation and production—which take place in various ways and not seldom over a long period of time—and the ultimate recognition of the (final) literary product as a scripture.”42 While Almogi’s definition also informs my understanding, her view that scripture only comes to be regarded as such after a “long period of time,” and then only as a “final” product, does not account for cases like the Kāmika or other Śaivasiddhānta scriptures; for these appear to have been regarded as scriptures more or less from the start, and the matter of their finality is not always fully settled.
1.1.2.2. Why Scripturalization?
There is a vast literature on scripture that considers questions of authority and sacrality through frameworks other than scripturalization, so one might ask why I propose this as a useful way of understanding the case of the Kāmika. I answer this question by reviewing some of the
41 James W. Watts, “Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13 [2013], 1–16; William M. Schniedewind (“Scripturalization in Ancient Judah,” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, ed. Brian B. Schmidt [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 305–21). 42 Orna Almogi, “The Human Behind the Divine: An Investigation into the Evolution of Scriptures with Special Reference to the Ancient Tantras of Tibetan Buddhism” in Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, eds. Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, and Nikolai Solmsdorf (Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019), 2. 23 approaches taken in studies of scripture in Hindu traditions, which point to the need for a more precisely attuned analytical framework.
One well-established approach in South Asian studies looks at issues of scripture and authority from the perspective of canon. A number of such studies take as their conceptual starting point the influential work of Jonathan Z. Smith, such as the essays in the edited volumes of Laurie L. Patton and studies on Dvaita Vedānta by Valerie Stoker.43 These works offer insightful analyses of the various ways that canonical texts, particularly Vedic and Purāṇic texts, have been regarded or interpreted as authoritative. Yet at the same time they do not explain how these texts came to be constituted as canonical or authoritative in the first place. This is something that, I suggest, thinking in terms of scripturalization can help us understand. Another notable approach in South Asian studies has been to focus on issues of authority and scripture through conceptual formulations such as “scriptural authority” or “textual authority,” variously articulated, or on the basis of emic Brahmanic categories (e.g., pramāṇa, śruti, smṛti). Notable examples of this approach include works by Francis X. Clooney, Sucharita Adluri, and David
Buchta.44 These studies also shed valuable light on ways that authority is conceived in relation to
43 Laurie L. Patton, ed., Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994); Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Valerie Stoker, “Conceiving the Canon in Dvaita Vedānta: Tradition and Innovation in Madhva’s Ṛgbhāṣya” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2000); “Conceiving the Canon in Dvaita Vedānta: Madhva’s Doctrine of ‘All Sacred Lore’,” Numen 51, no. 1 (2004): 47–77; Jonathan Z. Smith, “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green, 11–28 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; reprinted in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982], 36–52). 44 For instance, Francis X. Clooney, ed., “The Role of Śruti in Hindu Theology,” Journal of Hindu Studies 7, no. 1 (2014); Sucharita Adluri, “Scriptural Innovation in Medieval South India: The Śrīvaiṣṇava Articulation of Vedānta” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009); Textual Authority in Classical Indian Thought: Rāmānuja and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (New York, London: Routledge, 2014); David Buchta, “The Purāṇas as Śruti,” Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 15 (2006): 87–108. 24
Hindu scripture. But like approaches based on canon, they do not explain the processes through which scriptural authority is constituted.
A recent approach that looks more specifically at the production and reading of scripture is the work of Whitney Cox. In his monograph, Modes of Philology in Medieval South India,
Cox describes a range of compositional techniques particular to processes of scriptural production, highlighting techniques he refers to as “textual integration” and “bibliographic organization.”45 By “textual integration,” Cox designates a “characteristic habit of taking over pieces of prior texts and suturing them into a new argumentative or doctrinal context.”46 This is a technique that shares notable similarities with what has been referred to as “textual reuse”47 and
“rewritten scripture.”48 By the term “bibliographic orientation,” Cox refers to ways that new texts “evince knowledge of prior textual corpora and seek to include themselves within them, by presenting arguments for textual hierarchies, offering explicit filiations with preexisting texts, or placing themselves within the larger, often virtual, setting of a meta-text.”49 One advantage of
Cox’s focus on compositional techniques is that it is sensitive to the issue of how new scriptures are composed on the basis of pre-existing foundations of scriptural authority, a phenomenon we can observe in the case of the Kāmika. Yet insightful as this approach is, it leaves some questions
45 Modes of Philology in Medieval South India (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2016), 40. 46 Ibid., 40–41. 47 See, for instance, Elisa Freschi, ed., The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy, Special Issue of the Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, nos 2–3 and 4–5 (2015); Freschi “The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, no. 2 (2015], 85–108; Freschi and Philipp A. Maas, eds., Adaptive Reuse: Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017). 48 See, for instance, Molly Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011); “Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, eds. Hanne Von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011). 49 Modes of Philology in Medieval South India, 41. 25 unanswered. For instance, why do these techniques sometimes only result in the acceptance of new works as scripture by certain segments of a religious community but not by others? I am thinking here of the distinction often made between “pseudepigraphical” and “legitimate” scripture. Cox addresses this by drawing attention to efforts to “police the canon” in public discourse.50 But in the absence of this sort of discursive policing, do all works adhering to certain patterns of composition then come to be regarded as scripture? I do not think so. Another way of understanding the authorization of scripture, I propose, is by getting at the issue from the perspective of reception, which I view as a constitutive process of scripturalization.
1.1.2.3. Reception and Reception History
The study of reception and reception history can be traced back to Hans-Georg
Gadamer’s articulation of Wirkungsgeschichte (“impact history”), which has served as a major theoretical basis for understanding how various texts—both scriptural and non-scriptural—have influenced various cultures and communities over time.51 To be sure, reception historical approaches have received relatively little attention in scholarship on South Asian religions, despite being well-established in other cultural areas.52 Indeed the comparative dearth of reception history studies in South Asian scholarship represents something of a conceptual blind
50 Ibid., 22–23. 51 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method [Wahrheit und Methode, 1960], Joel Weinsheimer and Donald Marshall, trans. (London: Continuum, 2004), 299–306. See also Mark Knight, “Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010): 137–46. 52 Studies of reception and reception history are well-established in biblical studies, for instance. See Roberts, Emma Mason, and Michael Lieb, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Reception History of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Emma England and William John Lyons, eds., Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice (London: Bloomsbury, 2015); and the projected 30- volume series by Constance Furey, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009–). In South Asian studies, one notable recent contribution is that of Deven Patel, Text to Tradition: The Naiṣadhīyacarita and Literary Community in South Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014). 26 spot, which has been compensated for in various ways, generally with ad hoc frameworks designed to provide analytical space for thinking about audiences or communities of readership.
Yet it has also sometimes been compensated for by simply using the terms “reception” or
“reception history” and assuming these terms to be self-evident. In this thesis, I use the term
“reception” in the sense used by Gadamer—that is, in the sense of “impact” (Wirkung). I do not qualify this impact according to Gadamer’s theory of hermeneutics, however. Instead, I look to instances of citation, textual reuse, commentary, and practice to substantiate and analyze reception.
It has been observed that defining where reception begins and where composition ends is not always a clear-cut matter.53 Although reception is often held to begin once a “finished text leaves the pen of its author” or once it “moves beyond its original context,” this assumes the composition process to be a closed-ended one.54 But it is not always so, especially when we consider composition to include techniques such as rewriting, textual reuse, translation, redaction, and the like.55 These compositional techniques tend to overlap with reception. For
53 This point has been made many, including Gadamer himself (cf. Truth and Method, 303). Recent discussions of this that have informed my thinking include the works of Brennan Breed, Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2014) and Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Breed’s work, in particular, critiques “the concept of the borderline that separates an ‘original text’ or an ‘original context’ from its ‘receptions’” (Nomadic Text, 2). In tracing a genealogy of this critique through the work of Jacques Derrida and Walter Benjamin, who both sought “to complicate the borderline between originals and reception,” Breed notes that the complexity of such borderlines has not been acknowledged by biblical scholars working in the area of reception history (ibid., 4). To the best of my knowledge, the complexity of such borderlines has not been acknowledged by South Asian scholars either, although discussions of what Cox describes as an “incorporative logic of textual composition” (Modes of Philology in Medieval South India, 41) and what Freschi refers to as “textual reuse” (“The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction,” 85–108) touch on aspects of the phenomenon. 54 Breed, Nomadic Text, 3. 55 One might argue that a new translation or edition of a scripture does not constitute scriptural composition per se. In response, I would argue that the extent to which a new translation or edition is received as authoritative by a religious community at the very least participates in the process of scriptural composition. As I discuss below, authorization may be understood as a function of reception. 27 example, in cases of textual reuse, where passages of pre-existing texts are incorporated into new texts—with or without modification, or indeed with or without acknowledgement—the view of textual composition as a closed-ended process and reception as one of simple understanding is somewhat radically overturned. In discussing instances of textual reworking in the Bible,
Brennan Breed illustrates the problematic with an astute question: “Is the Noah story a biblical text or a later reception of the original Mesopotamian flood myth?” Similar questions could be asked of the myths of the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel. The repurposing of these myths in the Bible reflects both their impact on communities of reception and their incorporation in the service of biblical texts. Critical debates about this and related issues have been spurred greatly by the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumram, particularly observations by
Eugene C. Ulrich concerning the pluriformity of biblical texts in Second Temple Judaism.56 I highlight this area of scholarship because in attempting to make sense of the pluriformity of the
Kāmika, I found that some of the explanations generated by this scholarship helped explain some of the evidence of the Kāmika: specifically, that violations of ostensibly inviolable scripture— and the consequences for authority and power that this entails—are not as uncommon as one might think. Yet I also found that questions about scriptural authorization, particularly in contexts of textual pluriformity, were not all satisfactorily answered. These are similar questions as those raised above: Why are some scriptural variations received as authoritative by some communities and not by others? What are the processes through which such authorization takes place? In what follows, I propose that such authorization is determined by a function of reception, which I refer to as a “canonizing function.”
56 Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 28
1.1.2.4. The Canonizing Function of Reception
As noted above, canonization is sometimes viewed as a separate process from scripturalization. Different views are partly due to semantic differences in how these processes are defined. My aim here, however, is not to provide an account of canonization nor to adumbrate the myriad ways that this has been defined, but rather to draw attention to an area of overlap between discussions of canonization and discussions of scripturalization, particularly insofar as the two processes are related to authority. What texts designated “scriptural” and texts designated “canonical” have in common, among other things, is that they are both considered authoritative in some way. In the case of scriptural texts, we may suppose this authority to derive from some quality of sacrality, whereas in the case of canonical texts, we may suppose this authority to derive from some acceptance of a text within a broader yet delimited corpus. In both cases, however, the nature of authority and the process through which it is constituted have received little attention. One account that has attempted to shed light on this is that of Kendall
W. Folkert, subsequently restated by John E. Cort in terms of authority “flowing” into and out of texts.57 While I find this account insightful, it has some conceptual shortcomings which neither
Folkert nor Cort adequately address. How precisely does authority “flow” into or out of a text?
Authority is not a property of an inanimate object, regardless of how much a book or its contents
57 Kendall W. Folkert (“The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’,” in Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering [Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989], 170–79), and John E. Cort (“Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain Scripture in a Performative Context,” in Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia, ed. Jeffrey R. Timm [Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992], 171–94). Folkert thus distinguished two “ideal types” of scripture, designated “Canon I” and “Canon II,” in terms of the “means or mode” (“vector”) through which they carry—or are carried by—forms of religious activity or authority (“The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’,” 156). In Folkert’s view, Canon I texts are most commonly “vectored” by ritual activity, whereas Canon II texts most commonly serve as “vectors” of religious authority (ibid.). In an effort to clarify Folkert’s typology, Cort described the “vectoring” process of Canon I text as one where “authority flows from the accumulated tradition into the texts” and in the case of Canon II texts where “authority is conveyed, or vectored, via the texts” (“Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain Scripture in a Performative Context,” 175). 29 may be revered.58 I suggest that a more apt way of understanding the authorization of scriptural and canonical texts is through an analogy with legislation. In a given legislature, when a new law is passed, authority does not flow into or out of a legal text; in acquiring the force of law, a legal text is regarded as authoritative because it is supported by relations and structures of power, particularly the rule of law and the use or threat of force.59 In this view, scriptural and canonical authorization may be understood as a function of reception, what I call a “canonizing function”: scripture is received as such—as authoritative.60 Accordingly, just as legislation, when passed, authorizes a legal text and its constitutive articles, the canonizing function authorizes a scripture and its content: its theological perspectives, ritual practices, and social configurations. From this follows the possibility (or “Chance,” as Weber puts it), inherent in all relations with authority, that conformity will be granted, that scripture will be obeyed.61
The analogy with legislation also helps to illustrate what I consider to be the nature of agency at play in the authorization of scripture. As in a legislature, where individuals participate
58 Whereas Folkert notes that Canon II texts “often function as vectors [of authority],” he does not explain the mechanism of this (“The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’,” 156). In Cort’s view, authority can be “located in some intrinsic ontological value of the texts themselves” (“Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain Scripture in a Performative Context,” 175). On this point, I would agree with Jonathan Z. Smith’s view on the matter that Cort’s revision “gives way to mystification” (“Canons, Catalogues and Classics,” in Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions [Lisor], Held at Leiden 9–10 January 1997, eds. by Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 303). 59 I should add that Weber acknowledged that authority “can also rely on the most varied motives for conformity: from dull habituation to purely purposively rational considerations” (Economy and Society, 338). Yet Weber’s understanding of power (Macht) does not appear to account for the ways that power can perfuse such “dull habituations.” This is where Foucault’s understanding of power is more nuanced than that of Weber; it is also why I speak of relations of power in addition to structures of power. 60 As Zahn, too, has noted, “[a]uthority, after all, is a matter of reception,” (“Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, eds. Hanne Von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 99. 61 Weber, Economy and Society, 338–41. 30 in a collective form of agency,62 so in the authorization of scripture. The canonizing function thus is not a product of one historical person acting alone but rather a product of joint or distributed agency—what I will refer to as a consensus.63 Accordingly, individual instances of reception (i.e., citations, commentaries, use, etc.) participate in and reflect a consensus on the authority of scripture. Such a consensus may be constituted through charismatic authority— figures like Moses, the Buddha, and Muhammad come to mind—or through deliberation, or through what Foucault would refer to as a “broader field of actual power relations.”64 Thus scripturalization may be understood as a routinizing process that participates in the institutionalization of religious authority. Ultimately, however a consensus is constituted is secondary to the need for there to be one in the first place—that is, for there to be some agreement within a community about what text(s) is (or are) authoritative and sacred. And this is where the comparison with legislation ends, for the constitution of a consensus need not presuppose any institutional or formal framework; a formal framework supported by relations and structures of power can reinforce a consensus, but a consensus can also be ad hoc, local, or transient.
1.1.2.5. Textual Idealization
One further aspect of scripturalization that I want to describe here is a phenomenon that I will refer to as “textual idealization,” by which I mean the way that a text may be believed to exist in some ideal or perfect form and whose imagined qualities may influence the reception and
62 See, for instance, Christian List and Philip Pettit, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Nicholas James Enfield and Paul Kockelman, eds., Distributed Agency. Foundations of Human Interaction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017). 63 I am not using the term “consensus” in a Habermasian sense of agreement arrived at through reasoned deliberation; my use of the term is broader, as I discuss below. 64 Foucault, “Truth and Power,” 64. 31 subsequent transmission of an actual or historical text.65 This is a phenomenon that has been described to some extent in relation to the Veda. The Veda, as is well-known, has a certain
“iconic” status in Brahminical thought, although this status has little to do with any actual iconicity or materiality of the Veda as books and more to do with a view of the Veda as ideal texts: that is, as texts held to be eternally true and valid, as embodying a cosmic and social order, as existing for all time; in other words, as a focus of a set of beliefs and significance over and above any discursive content or materiality of the Veda as such. Wilhelm Halbfass, following
Louis Renou, famously described certain features of this phenomenon, drawing attention to the
“fictions and projections that post-Vedic India has associated with the Veda” where he characterized expressions of reverence for the Veda as a simple “tip of the hat” (un simple coup de chapeau).66 Something similar can be observed at different stages of the Kāmika’s reception and development. Early on, between the 5th and 10th centuries, for instance, we can discern a certain symbolic significance that the Kāmika comes to acquire that is at odds with any practical relevance of the text for Śaivasiddhānta theological speculation, exegesis, or ritual. This discrepancy is partly what led Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson to speculate that “some or even most of [the original 28 Śaiva Tantras were] perhaps mythical”67—which may indeed be the case. Likewise, in the 10th century, we find a comparable discrepancy in that the Kāmika is referred to less as an authoritative source text for Śaivasiddhānta exegesis and more as a
65 I draw on Jorge J. E. Garcia here, who speaks of a category of “ideal text,” which he views as functioning as “a kind of regulative notion that can be used by interpreters to understand, interpret, and evaluate a historical or contemporary text” (A Theory of Textuality: The Logic and Epistemology [Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995], 83–85). 66 Wilhelm Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection: Exploration in Indian Thought (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), 1, 7; Louis Renou, Le destin du Veda dans l’Inde (Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes, 6. Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1960), 2. 67 “Prolegomena,” in Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 31. 32 symbolic authority on which secondary Saiddhāntika scriptures, like the Mṛgendrāgama, staked their legitimacy.68
We also find features of this textual idealization in the present day. Thus, today, the
Kāmika is widely referred to as a primary source of authority for Śaivasiddhānta, although details of its content, textuality, and practical applications remain relatively little known. A certain “tip of the hat” then is discernible here too. But we can also observe another notable element of textual idealization in the modern reception of the Kāmika: namely, the view that current, published versions do not represent the “complete text.”69 Yet what a “complete” version of the Kāmika would look like is by no means a straightforward question—not in the least because the Kāmika itself claims to have been originally transmitted in 100,000 billion verses.70 Compounding this is a commonly held view among followers of Śaivasiddhānta and those acquainted with Śaiva Āgamas that these works typically consist of four thematic sections
(pādas)71—or that they were so structured originally—whereas published editions of the Kāmika consist of but a single large section on ritual (kriyāpāda).72 What I am getting at is that
68 The Mṛgendrāgama (or Mṛgendratantra, or simply Mṛgendra for short) presents itself as a subsidiary part (upabheda) of the Kāmika. This is discussed in Chapter Two. See also Hélène Brunner, Mṛgendrāgama : Section des rites et section du comportement : avec la vṛtti de Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha (Pondicherry: IFI, 1985), xiv. 69 Evidence of this view on the basis of ethnographic fieldwork is presented in Chapter Six. 70 parārdhagranthasaṃkhyayā, Kāmikāgama, pūrvabhāga, 1:30b. 71 See Hélène Brunner, “The Four Pādas of Śaivāgamas,” in Journal of Oriental Research Madras, Dr. S.S. Janaki Felicitation Volume (Madras: Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, 1992). These four pādas consist of sections on ritual (kriyāpāda) doctrine (vidyāpāda/jñānapāda), conduct (caryāpāda), and yoga (yogapāda). As Hélène Brunner has demonstrated, the quadripartition of Āgamas was not an early or original feature of these texts but rather a result of later modifications. As she has noted, the view that Āgamas are all quadripartite, or originally were, represents an “idealist hypothesis” (what I refer to as an element of textual idealization) that proceeds from an unquestioning acceptance of traditional claims (ibid., 264–68). 72 This kriyāpāda, in modern editions of the Kāmika, is divided into two parts (bhāgas); these two parts should not be confused for two thematic sections (pādas). 33 discrepancies between ideals of a “complete” Kāmika and actual published editions of the text can influence how the latter are received; and, in fact, this is precisely what we find today.
But the influence of textual idealization, I want to argue, can be more pervasive than this.
Thus the view that published versions of the Kāmika do not represent the “complete” text is supported by numerous variant manuscripts of the Kāmika, which transmit a vast amount of material not found in published editions. A corollary of this, as we will see in Chapter Six, is that the teaching of the Kāmika today sometimes draws on such “extra-canonical” material. A further corollary of this is that new editions of the Kāmika (or parts of it) are in progress which include selections of such material.73 Although the extent to which these new editions will be received as authoritative—and by whom—remains to be seen, the point I want to make is that textual idealization can also impact the redaction and transmission of scripture.
1.1.2.6. An Account of Scripturalization
In developing this account of scripturalization, I add the necessary caveat that this is not intended as a general theory of scripturalization, nor is it intended as wholly applicable to cases other than the Kāmika,74 although I hope that those working on other texts will find some value in it. Having said that, I would like to recap the present account by restating Smith’s and
Graham’s characterization of scripture in terms of a process. Accordingly, much as they viewed scripture as a relational category, I view scripturalization as a relational process. To this, I add further precisions in light of the considerations discussed in the previous pages. First, the
73 An example of a new edition in progress is the one recently published online by Kauai’s Hindu Monastery (“Kamika Agama, Part 2 [incomplete, translation in progress and will be periodically updated]” https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/kamika-agama-uttara-pada-part-2 [accessed May 1, 2020]). This is discussed in Chapter Six. There is also an edition of a Kāmika Vidyāpāda in progress by T. Ganesan of the Institut français de Pondichéry (personal communication). 74 For instance, I do not consider the issue of bibliolatry, which is a major feature of scriptural authority in some religious traditions, like Sikhism. 34 relational aspect of the scripturalization process may be understood as constituted by the composition of a text on the one hand, and by the reception of a text as scripture on the other hand. As discussed above, composition techniques can be diverse (writing, translation, redaction, etc.), and reception, likewise, can be diverse (citation, commentary, use, etc.). Furthermore, as we have seen, the relationship between composition and reception is not strictly separable, such that overlap between the two may occur and result in textual pluriformity, which is an important feature of the scripturalization of the Kāmika, as we will see.
Second, the reception of a text as scripture by a community is determined largely by what
I have termed a “canonizing function.” This function, as we saw, is grounded in a consensus, which may be formal or informal but in both cases presupposes individual instances of reception
(citations, commentaries, use, etc.) that participate in and reflect this consensus. The canonizing function thus elevates a scripture and its content—its theological viewpoints, ritual practices, and social configurations—and this authorization holds out the possibility that the scripture and its content will elicit conformity. Finally, influencing scripturalization both at the level of reception and composition is an element of textual idealization, which I designate as a set of beliefs about a text as existing in some ideal or perfect form which may then shape the way an actual or historical text is received and transmitted.
In attempting to demonstrate how this model of scripturalization can help us understand the case of the Kāmika, I turn now to a discussion of the methodological considerations and scope of the present study.
1.2. Methodology and Scope
The present study of the Kāmikāgama extends from the 5th century CE down to the present day and draws on a range of primary sources in Sanskrit and Tamil as well as archival research and 35 ethnographic data collected in South India. The primary methodological challenge of the study lies in the attempt to historicize a text that presents itself as ahistorical, eternal, and offers few clues as to what might be termed its “original context.” This challenge is addressed by dividing the overall timeframe into five separate subperiods and focusing on a contextual analysis of the evidence available for composition and reception in each subperiod.
1.2.1. Sources
The Sanskrit sources drawn on are predominantly Śaiva sources, including published editions, manuscripts, and paper transcripts. The sources are largely pre-modern (pre-17th century) and constitute the primary material for my analyses in Chapters Two through Five. In
Chapter Six, I also draw on more recent Sanskrit sources, notably modern Sanskrit ritual manuals. The Tamil sources for the study are considerably fewer by comparison, and all are published. These include editions of the Meykaṇṭacāttirams, accounts of 16th- and 17th-century
Śaivasiddhānta theologians, as well as frontmatter of early Kāmika print editions and modern ritual manuals used at priestly training schools today. Archival research for the print history of the Kāmika, presented in Chapter Six, was conducted in South India at Adyar Library, Institut
Français de Pondichéry, Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, Roja Muthiah Library, and
Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai Ātīṉam, and at the British Library in the UK. Ethnographic data was collected in
South India over a period of four months to help explain the reception, significance, and use of the Kāmika in contemporary practice.
1.2.2. Subperiods
The five subperiods for the timeframe of this thesis are as follows. Subperiod one (5th-
12th century) covers the earliest evidence of the Kāmika and is treated in Chapter Two. 36
Subperiod two (12th-14th century) frames a major redaction of the Kāmika and is the subject of
Chapter Three and the first part of Chapter Four. Subperiod three (14th-16th century) considers the circulation of a Vīraśaiva version of the Kāmika in late medieval South India and is treated in the second part of Chapter Four. Subperiod four (16th-17th century) looks at how the Kāmika was used to support socio-economic and theological arguments in early modern South India; this is the subject of Chapter Five. Subperiod five (18th-21st century) examines the print history of the
Kāmika and its modern reception, and is the focus of Chapter Six.
1.2.3. Methods
The primary research methodology of this thesis is textual and contextual analysis involving methods of historical and digital philology and ethnography. The selection of textual sources and passages for analysis has been informed by electronic searches and extensive perusal of primary sources. Electronic searches, in particular, have been facilitated by the existence of electronic romanized text transcriptions (etexts) of Sanskrit and Tamil works, notably those made publicly available through the databases of Muktabodha Indological Research Institute and the Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL). In addition to these resources, I have also received etexts from colleagues, transcribed my own, and developed customized search scripts to identify textual parallels between works. In selecting informants for ethnographic interviews, I drew on a network of contacts in South India. The primary method of data collection involved interviews and note-taking. Participants consisted of Śaivasiddhānta followers, particularly lay followers, temple priests, non-Brahmin ascetics (tampirāṉs), and
Āgama school (pāṭhaśālā) teachers. The data collected from informants was validated by triangulation with accounts of other informants and with textual sources.
37
1.2.4. Limitations
A limitation of this thesis that should be pointed out at the outset is a lack of Kāmika manuscripts from before the 17th-18th century. This lack is chiefly due to the deleterious effect of the climate of South India on palm-leaf manuscripts. Knowing this at the start of this project, I decided against undertaking any concerted and sustained (and potentially futile) attempt to locate older manuscripts, although it is possible that some exist that predate the 17th century. I have restricted myself rather to the Devanāgarī paper transcripts of the Kāmika that are readily available through the archive of the Institut français de Pondichéry. Although this limitation constrains what can and cannot be said about the Kāmika on the basis of direct historical evidence, the abundance of indirect and contextual evidence of the Kāmika in the form of citations, references, and textual reuse allows us to recover much of the Kāmika’s historical development. Needless to say, this evidence demands judicious interpretation; citations and textual reuse, inasmuch as they can “tell us a great deal about what texts were used in specific periods of the past” are not immune to scribal corruptions.75 And it is good to always bear in mind that citations can be misattributed.
1.3. Overview of the Kāmikāgama
As indicated above, the Kāmika is a somewhat different text today from how it has existed historically. In modern print editions, it is structured in two major parts (bhāgas), consisting of a
Pūrvabhāga (“first part”) and Uttarabhāga (“second part”).76 This structure, however, appears to
75 Shenghai Li, “Candrakīrti’s Āgama: A Study of the Concept and Uses of Scripture in Classical Indian Buddhism” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2012), 60. Cf. also Freschi’s discussion of textual reuse, The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy, 85–108. 76 There are several print editions of the Kāmikāgama that are more or less formally authorized, with relatively minor differences between them. All print editions follow the model of the editio princeps, 38 be a relatively recent one, as no reference to this division is found before the 17th century;77 of the manuscripts and transcripts surveyed in this study, only four out of 28 mention such a structure.78 More commonly, manuscript colophons refer to the Kāmika as a text structured by pādas ( “quarters,” “sections”), which—at least in theory—is how all Śaiva Āgamas are supposed to be structured.79 Yet the four-pāda structure of Āgamas, which divides teachings by ritual (kriyāpāda), doctrine (vidyāpāda), yoga (yogapāda), and conduct (caryāpāda) appears to have been something more of a textual ideal than a reality, as few Āgamas actually possess all four pādas.80
The content of modern editions of the Kāmika corresponds to what one would generally find in a kriyāpāda—namely, teachings on ritual. In manuscripts, we do find a vidyāpāda and parts of a yogapāda and caryāpāda attributed to the Kāmika, but these works are not generally regarded as authoritative today, and no editions of them have yet been published.81 In the printed
Kāmika, there is consequently little that pertains to matters of doctrine or yoga; we find no sustained discussions there of cosmology, ontology, liberation, or any other of the principal tenets of Śaivasiddhānta. Instead, what we find is an encyclopedic account of ritual instructions for a vast array of Śaiva ceremonies and practices. In print editions, the Kāmika consists of approximately 12,000 anuṣṭubh verses spread out over 173 chapters (Pūrvabhāga ~5,000 verses;
Uttarabhāga ~7,000 verses).
published by Civañāṉapōta Press (civañāṉapōta-yantiracālai) in the late 19th and early 20th century. For more details, see Chapter Six. 77 It should be noted that there is evidence of an “uttara” version of the Kāmika before the 17th century, namely the Kāmikottara, which was a Vīraśaiva recension of the Kāmika, discussed in Chapter Five. 78 Transcripts T.298, T.309, T.647, and T.989. See Appendix F for more details. 79 Brunner, “The Four Pādas of Śaivāgamas,” 260–78. See also footnote 71 above. 80 Ibid. 81 See Appendix F and corresponding discussion in Chapter Six. 39
1.3.1. Pūrvabhāga
The Pūrvabhāga consists of 75 chapters (paṭalas) that range in length from seven verses
(Chapter 12, praveśabali) to 537.5 verses (Chapter 4, arcana). The first chapter opens with an account of the descent of scripture (tantrāvatāra). This is followed in Chapter 2 by a treatment of the formation of mantras (mantroddhāra). Chapters 3 to 8 outline the particulars of daily ritual with specific chapters dedicated to bathing (Chapter 3, snāna), worship (Chapter 4, arcana), ancillaries of worship (Chapter 5, arcanāṅga), ritual offerings (Chapter 6, naivedya), characteristics of fire pits (Chapter 7, kuṇḍalakṣaṇa), and fire rituals (Chapter 8, agnikārya).
Chapters 9 to 34 present a general account of the principles and preliminary rites for the construction of temples, houses, buildings, and settlements. More specifically, in Chapter 9, we find an account of particular times (kāla) favourable for specific constructions and ceremonies.
Chapter 10 provides instructions for the interpretation of favourable and unfavourable omens
(nimittaparīkṣā). Chapter 11 outlines criteria for evaluating a construction site (bhūparikṣā). In
Chapters 12 and 13, there are descriptions of offerings to be made at the entrance to the site
(praveśabali) and a procedure for taking possession of the site (bhūparigraha). Chapter 14 provides directions for the ploughing of the earth that is to precede construction (bhūkarṣaṇa). In
Chapter 15, we find instructions for the placement of a gnomon (śaṅkusthāpana). Chapters 16 and 17 describe the instruments to be used for measurements (manopakaraṇa) and the placement of a construction diagram (padavinyāsa). Chapter 18 explains the placement of construction lines
(sūtranirmāṇa). In Chapter 19, offerings are prescribed for divinities of the site (vāstudevabali).
Chapter 20 presents an account of the characteristics of villages and other settlements
(grāmādilakṣaṇa). In Chapter 21, we find rules for measurements of width and length
(vistārāyamalakṣaṇa). Chapters 22 and 23 describe characteristics of astrological phenomena 40
(āyādilakṣaṇa, nakṣatracakra) that are considered favourable and unfavourable for various constructions and ceremonies. In Chapter 24, layouts are presented of different constructions and settlements (daṇḍikādi). Chapter 25 outlines the dimensions of streets and doors
(vīthidvārādimāna). In Chapter 26, the placement of various divinities in villages and other settlements (grāmādidevatāsthāna) is explained. Chapter 27 details a calculation of the number of Brahmins that should be settled in communities of different sizes (dvijasaṅkhyā). In Chapters
28 to 30, we find a vision of town planning (grāmādivinyāsa, brahmadevapadādi, grāmādyaṅgasthānanirṇaya). Chapter 31 offers a treatment of the “consecration deposit”
(garbanyāsa) which is to precede construction and installation. In Chapter 32, the installation of a temporary ritual substrate (balaliṅgasthāpana) is detailed. Chapter 33 describes rites to be undertaken for the foundation of settlements, houses, and other types of buildings
(grāmagṛhavinyāsa). And Chapter 34 provides instructions for pacificatory rites at the site of construction (vāstuśānti).
In Chapters 35 to 48, we also find an account of construction and architectural practices but with a particular focus on housing and civil buildings. Chapter 35 thus outlines general characteristics of houses and buildings (śālālakṣaṇa). Chapters 36 to 44 detail characteristics of various housing types according to how many constituent buildings they comprise
(ekaśālaviśeṣalakṣaṇa, dvitriśālalakṣaṇa, catuśśālāsarvatobhadralakṣaṇa, catuśśāla, pañcaśālādi), according to their architectural design (vardhamānaśālālakṣaṇa, nandyāvartalakṣaṇa, svastika), and according to their intended occupants (elephant stables, etc., hastiśālādi). There are also four chapters that focus specifically on the Mālikā type of house design (Chapter 45, mālikālakṣaṇa; Chapter 46, lāṅgalamālikā; Chapter 47, maulikamālikā;
Chapter 48, padmamālikā). 41
Chapters 49 to 61 focus on temple architecture and construction. Chapter 49 thus describes Nāgara, Drāviḍa, Vesara and other types of temple design (nāgarādivibheda). Chapter
50 explains the proportions of different temples in accordance with the number of storeys they are designed to have (bhūmilamba). Chapter 51 presents a treatment of the ritual of laying the first brick (ādyeṣṭakā). Chapter 52 focuses on the construction and architectural features of the foundation and ground floor (upapīthādhiṣṭhāna). Chapter 53 details the dimensions and design of temple pillars (pādamāna). Chapter 54 describes temple entablatures (prastara). Chapter 55 outlines various types of temple ornamentation (prāsādabhūṣaṇa). Chapters 56 to 58 focus on the characteristics of temple neck, spire, and crowning motifs (kaṇṭhalakṣaṇa, śikharalakṣaṇa, sthūpikālakṣaṇa). Chapter 59 explains the placement of particular features such as the drainage outlet (nālādisthāpana). Chapter 60 outlines the characteristics of multi-storey temples, ranging from one-storey to 16-storey designs (ekabhūmyādilakṣaṇa). Chapter 61 describes the placement of crowning bricks (mūrdheṣṭakāsthāpana).
Chapters 62 to 75 present comprehensive accounts of temple consecration and installation rites. Chapter 62 details the characteristics of different liṅgas (liṅgalakṣaṇa). Chapter
63 explicates the rite of offering germinated seeds (aṅkurārpaṇa) which is to precede all solemn rites. Chapter 64 offers a detailed treatment of the installation of liṅgas (liṅgasthāpana). Chapter
65 describes the general characteristics of various types of divine images
(sāmānyapratimālakṣaṇa). Chapter 66 explains the placement of Śiva’s divine weapons
(triśūlasthāpana). Chapter 67 gives instructions for the placement of divinities in various settlements (devatāsthāpana). Chapter 68 outlines the steps involved in the installation of divine images (pratimāpratiṣṭhā). Chapters 69 and 70 describe consecration rites to be performed for temples and pavillions after they have been built (vimānasthāpana, maṇḍapasthāpana). Chapter 42
71 details the characteristics of temple enclosures (prākāralakṣaṇa). Chapters 72 and 73 focus on the installation and worship of attendant deities (parivārasthāpana, parivārārcana). Chapter 74 explains the installation of Śiva’s bull (vṛṣabhasthāpana). Chapter 75 outlines the consecration of entrance towers (gopurasthāpana).
1.3.2. Uttarabhāga
The Uttarabhāga is comprised of 98 chapters ranging in length from 4.5 verses long
(Chapter 96, gajadāna) to 905 verses long (Chapter 30, prāyaścitta). The first four chapters focus on variations and practices of daily worship. In Chapters 1 and 2, we thus find ritual variations for temples whose main doors face west and south (paścimadvārārcana, dakṣiṇadvārārcana). Chapter 3 provides instructions for the worship of Śiva in anthropomorphic or differentiated form (sakalārcana). And in Chapter 4, the procedure for the ceremonial bathing of divine images (snapana) is outlined.
Chapters 5 to 18 present a thematic focus on festivals and other occasional rites. The section begins in Chapter 5 with a treatment of the daily festival (nityotsava) that is to follow regular daily worship. In Chapter 6, we find general procedures for great festivals (mahotsava).
Chapter 7 explains the rite of ceremonial lamp-waving (nirājana). This is followed in Chapter 8 by a description of Dīpāvalī practices in the month of Kārttika (kṛttikādīpāvalī). Chapters 9 and
10 detail festivals which are to take place during the months of Mārgaśīrṣa and Pūṣya, and the festival of the “ghee blanket” in the month of Māgha (mārgaśīrṣapuṣyamāsa, māghamāsaghṛtakambalapūjā). In Chapter 11, practices are outlined for Śivarātri, also in the month of Māgha (māghaśivarātripūjā). Chapter 12 provides instructions for the festival of fragrances that are to take place in Phālguna (phālgunamāsagandhapūjā). In Chapters 13 and 14, we find descriptions of spring festivals in the month of Caitra (caitramāsadamanapūjā, 43 caitramāsavasantotsava). Chapters 15 and 16 explain the Śītakumba festival in the month of
Vaiśakha (vaiśākhamāsaśītakumbha) and the fruit festival in the month of Jyeṣṭha
(jyeṣṭhamāsaphalapūjā). In Chapters 17 and 18, the festivals of Pūrvaphālgunī in the month of
Āṣāḍha (āṣāḍhamāsapūrvaphalgunīpūjā) and the festival of atonement in the month of Śrāvaṇa
(śrāvaṇamāsapavitrārohaṇa) are detailed. And Chapter 19 illuminates the practice of offering fresh grain (navanaivedya) at different times of the year.
Chapters 20 to 29 focus primarily on initiation and life-cycle rites but with treatments of other practices as well. Chapter 20 thus begins with an account of general and special initiation
(samayaviśeṣadīkṣā). In Chapter 21, instructions are provided for preparing food offerings
(sthālipāka). Chapter 22 presents a method of dream interpretation (svapnādhyāya), typically performed before initiation is to take place. Chapters 23 and 24 describe the rite of liberating initiation (nirvāṇadīkṣā) and the consecration of a master (ācāryābhiṣeka). In Chapter 25, an account is given of the origins and classification of different gotras (gotranirṇaya). In the 1988
SIAA edition of the Uttarabhāga, there is a Chapter 25a that explains the ritual of initiation by knowledge (jñānadīkṣā).82 A life-cycle ceremony for old-age initiates (śatābhiṣeka) is outlined in
Chapter 26. And we find details of Śaiva funerary rites (antyeṣṭi, pitṛyajña, śaivaśrāddhā) in
Chapters 27, 28, and 29.
The content of Chapters 30 to 34 is somewhat more heterogeneous. In Chapter 30, the longest chapter of the Uttarabhāga, we find a detailed treatment of expiation rites (prāyaścitta) for all manner of transgressions. Chapter 31 describes pacificatory rites to avert evil effects of supernatural or extraordinary occurences (adbhutaśānti). In Chapter 32, instructions for the renovation and repair of temples (anukarma) are provided. Chapter 33 elucidates various
82 In the 1889 Civañāṉapōtam edition of the text, there is no such chapter. In the 1999 HR&CE edition of the text, the chapter is included as Chapter 24.1. 44 apotropaic rites and means of gaining worldly benefits (kāmyayogavidhāna). And in Chapter 34 principles are detailed for the reconsecration of divine images (saṃprokṣaṇa) which have been damaged or defiled.
Chapters 35 to 71 are mainly concerned with installation and construction rites. Chapters
35 to 37 thus describe the installation of pedestals (pīṭhapratiṣṭhā), Bāṇa-type liṅgas
(bāṇaliṅgapratiṣṭhā), and liṅgas suitable for rites conferring wordly benefits (kāmyaliṅga- pratiṣṭhā). In Chapters 38 and 39, we find principles of temple construction for liṅgas believed to have been previously installed and worshipped by sages (ārṣaliṅgaprāsāda) and by devotees
(pauruṣaliṅgaprāsāda). Chapters 40 and 41 cover temple construction principles for other types of liṅgas (liṅgavaśāt prāsāda) and the Sārvadeśika type of liṅga (sārvadeśikaprāsāda). In
Chapter 42, the installation of peripheral liṅgas in outer temple enclosures (aṅgaliṅgapratiṣṭhā) is described. Chapters 43 to 46 detail the installation of images of Sadāśiva (sadāśivasthāpana), the Goddess (devīsthāpana), Gaṇeśa (vighneśapratiṣṭhā), and Śiva as dancer (nṛttamūrti- sthāpana). In Chapters 47 to 54, we find accounts of installation for images of Śiva with Umā and Skanda (somāskandasthāpana), images of Candraśekhara (candraśekharasthāpana),
Tripurāntaka (purāristhāpana), Liṅgodbhava (liṅgodbhavapratiṣṭhā), Dakṣiṇāmūrti
(dakṣiṇāmūrtipratiṣṭhā), Bhikṣāṭana (bhikṣāṭanapratiṣṭhā), Balibhartā (balibhartṛpratiṣṭhā), and
Śarabheśa (śarabheśapratiṣṭhā). Chapters 55 and 56 explain the installation of images of boons bestowed on Caṇḍeśa (caṇḍeśādyanugrahapratiṣṭhā) and on devotees (bhaktānugrahadeva- sthāpana). Chapter 57 describes the installation of Kālāri and Kāmāntaka images
(kālārikāmāntakapratiṣṭhā). In Chapters 58 and 59, the installation and ritual worship of a
Kalyāṇasundara image are detailed. Chapters 60 to 66 provide instructions for the installation of images of Śiva as half-Umā, half-Viṣṇu (viṣṇūmārdhapratiṣṭhā), images of Trimūrti 45
(trimūrtisthāpana), Vṛṣārūḍha (vṛṣārūḍhapratiṣṭhā), Gaṅgādhara (gaṅgādharapratiṣṭhā), Skanda
(guhasthāpana), Caṇḍeśa (caṇḍeśasthāpana), and Śivabhaktas (śivabhaktapratiṣṭhā). In
Chapters 67 to 71, we find accounts of the installation of the throne of knowledge (vidyāpīṭha- pratiṣṭhā), the installation of Śiva’s ten divine weapons (daśāyudhapratiṣṭhā), Śiva’s trident
(triśūlasthāpana), the installation of a “lion’s seat” (siṃhāsanapratiṣṭhā), and the installation of a chariot for festival processions (rathādisthāpana).
Chapters 72 to 82 focus on miscellaneous temple practices and royal rituals. In Chapter
72, we find an outline of the characteristics of temple instruments (karaṇalakṣaṇa). Chapter 73 details practices associated with temple-based musical entertainment (saukhyakarma). Chapter
74 presents a hierarchy of ritual specializations and agents (vaiśiṣyavidhāṇa), and in Chapter 75 we find treatments prescribed for various diseases (vyādhināśavidhāna). Chapter 76 outlines a ritual for the protection of the king (rājarakṣā). In Chapter 77, we find an account of practices prescribed for the ceremonial worship of Durgā (durgāpūjā). Chapters 78 details the pacifitory rite of “Vāji” lamp-waving (vājinirājana), and Chapter 79 expounds the practice of lamp-waving for kings (rājanirājana). In Chapter 80, there is a description of a purification ceremony to be performed during the month of Puṣya (puṣyābhiṣeka). Chapter 81 describes ritual sacrifices to pacify the malefic influence of planets (grahayajña). And in Chapter 82, the practice of tying of a ritual protection thread (pratisara) for a king is detailed.
The concluding chapters of the Uttarabhāga, from Chapter 83 to 98, describe sixteen major types of gifting, which are comparable to similar treatments of gifting laid out in
Dharmaśāstra literature.83 The gifts include the following: the gift of the man on the balance
(tulārohaṣoḍaśadāna, Chapter 83); the gift of the golden embryo (hiraṇyagarbhadāna, Chapter
83 See, for instance, David Brick, Brahmanical Theories of the Gift: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of the Dānakāṇḍa of the Krtyakalpataru (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015). 46
84); the gift of the sesame mountain (tilaparvatadāna, Chapter 85); the gift of golden land
(suvarṇabhūmidāna, Chapter 86); the gift of a wish-fulfilling tree (kalpapādapadāna, Chapter
87); the gift of an image of Gaṇeśa (gaṇeśadāna, Chapter 88); the gift of a golden cow
(hemadhenudāna, Chapter 89); the gift of an image of Lakṣmī (lakṣmīdāna, Chapter 90); the gift of a sesame cow (tiladhenudāna, Chapter 91); the gift of a thousand cows (sahasragodāna,
Chapter 92); the gift of a golden horse (hiraṇyāśvadāna, Chapter 93); the gift of a girl in marriage (kanyādāna, Chapter 94); the gift of a golden bull (hiraṇyokṣapradāna, Chapter 95); the gift of an elephant (gajadāna, Chapter 96); the gift of images of the eight guardians of the world (lokapālāṣṭakadāna, Chapter 97); and the “best of all gifts” (sarvadānottama, Chapter 98).
1.4. Plan of the Thesis
In the chapters that follow, I develop the argument that the Kāmika’s evolution as scripture involved an open-ended process of composition, which reflected historical developments in theology and practice, and over time supported a range of theological viewpoints, ritual practices, and social configurations. In each chapter, I highlight evidence of the Kāmika’s scripturalization, providing pieces of the history of the text and aspects of its relationships with people and practices in a range of mileus.
Chapter Two focuses on the earliest phase of the Kāmika’s composition and reception, between the 5th and 12th centuries. The evidence of this chapter demonstrates that while the
Kāmika’s title can be traced back to around the 5th century, the text itself appears to have been originally mythical or obscure, but not a scripture of the Śaivasiddhānta—at least not initially. In addition, the chapter draws attention to theological viewpoints and a narrative structure of an early version of the text that are at odds with the modern Kāmika. More broadly, the chapter argues that the process of the Kāmika’s composition was open-ended and marked by a major 47 redaction in around the 12th century from a text structured as a dialogue between Śiva and a goddess to a text structured as a dialogue between Śiva and a group of male sages.
Chapter Three considers the historical conditions surrounding the transformation of the
Kāmika between the 12th and 14th centuries. Taking the view that a major redaction of the
Kāmika occurred around the 12th century which recast the text as a Śaivasiddhānta scripture with a focus on temple-based ritual, it is the first of two chapters to examine diachronic developments in Śaivasiddhānta that reflect this transformation. More specifically, this chapter focuses on the development of Āgamic Śaiva temple worship and a profusion of labelled citations of the
Kāmika between the 13th and 14th centuries. The chapter advances the argument of the thesis concerning the scripturalization of the Kāmika by showing how aspects of the composition and reception of the text in the 12th to 14th centuries display evidence of the expansion of Āgamic ritual and priestly authority into the liturgical domain of public Śaiva temples. The chapter also shows how the Kāmika’s scripturalization in this period supported innovative ritual practices and new social configurations.
Chapter Four continues the examination of diachronic developments in Śaivasiddhānta ritual and theology that reflect the transformation of the Kāmika between the 12th and 14th centuries, while also looking at broader contexts of reception, notably in Vīraśaivism. The chapter focuses first on the development of a post-12th-century synthesis within Śaivasiddhānta and argues that the Kāmika participated in this synthesis through its support of a theological stance congruent with Vedāntic nondualism. The second part of the chapter looks at the adaptation of the Kāmika in Vīraśaiva milieus of the 14th through 16th centuries and argues that the scripturalization of the Kāmika in these contexts sought to support particular Vīraśaiva ritual practices. 48
Chapter Five looks at the circulation of the Kāmika in works of the 16th and 17th century, notably those of Saiddhāntika authors Śivāgrayogin, Vedajñāna II (= Nigamajñāna II), and
Jñānaprakāśa. The discussion in this chapter shows that the Kāmika was far from a closed text in these centuries and that the version of the Kāmika that constitutes modern editions appears to postdate the citations of this period. The chapter builds on the argument of the preceding chapters by demonstrating that the Kāmika circulated as a pluriform text in the 16th and 17th centuries and that its scripturalization in these centuries supported particular theological viewpoints and social configurations, which in turn lent weight to non-Brahmin claims regarding the administration of land and economic capital.
Chapter Six examines the print history and modern reception of the Kāmika. The chapter is structured in two parts and begins by tracing how the publication of the Kāmikāgama came about through encounters between Hindu religious leaders and the colonial milieu of 19th-century
South India. The first part of the chapter argues that the printing of the Kāmika played a significant role in elevating and stabilizing the recension of modern editions as the generally recognized authoritative version of the text. The second part shows that the authority and prestige of the Kāmika today, while indebted to the publication of the text, draws notably on two other sources: [i] views of the Kāmika as an ideal text, and [ii] the reception and use of the
Kāmika in contemporary practice.
Chapter Two
A Genealogy of Revelation: Early References to the Kāmikāgama
This chapter traces the origins of the Kāmikāgama and sheds light on aspects of its composition and reception between the 5th and 12th centuries. In particular, it focuses on the earliest evidence of the Kāmika (5th–10th centuries) and the earliest citations of the text as they appear in historically datable works (10th–12th centuries).1 The earliest evidence consists of references to the Kāmika in early Śaiva sources, which suggests it originated as a mythical or obscure text, not as a scripture of the Śaivasiddhānta. The earliest evidence also includes notable instances of intertextuality between several early Śaiva works and the Kāmika as witnessed by modern editions, which indicates that the Kāmika, in its current form, evolved through the incorporation and adaptation of substantial passages from earlier works.
The earliest citations of the Kāmika, which appear in the 10th century, provide traces of theological viewpoints and a narrative structure that are at odds with the modern text. These earliest citations point to a theological orientation and dialogical structure of the Kāmika known to 10th–12th-century authors that appears to have been goddess-centric and non-Saiddhāntika. On this basis, I argue that the citations of this early Kāmika functioned largely to support theological viewpoints of the non-Saiddhāntika authors who cited it. More broadly, the chapter argues that the process of the Kāmika’s composition was open-ended and marked by a major redaction in around the 12th century from a text structured as a dialogue between Śiva and a goddess to a text structured as a dialogue between Śiva and a group of male sages.
1 There is one exception to this 10th-century limit that should be noted, namely the Prāyaścittasamuccaya of Hṛdayaśiva, which, as discussed in 2.3.2, may be as early as the late-9th century and transmits verses attributed to a version of the Kāmika. 50
2.1. Earliest Evidence
As noted at the outset, the earliest reference we find to the Kāmika is from around the 5th century
CE where it appears at the top of a list of 28 Śaiva Tantras in the Uttarasūtra of the
Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, a text that transmits the oldest known list of these scriptures.2 It is this same list that, with minor variations, shows up in other sources of Tantric Śaivism and that eventually came to be regarded as canonical in Śaivasiddhānta. The reference to the Kāmika’s title, however, is the only mention we find of the Kāmika in the Niśvāsa. Yet this in itself is significant: for the Niśvāsa appears to predate the emergence of Śaivasiddhānta as a distinct branch of Śaivism, which suggests that neither the Niśvāsa nor the Kāmika were originally
Śaivasiddhānta scriptures.3 In what follows, I consider the earliest references to the Kāmika, which, before the 10th century are only to its title, and I draw attention to a number of parallels between the Kāmika as witnessed by modern editions and several pre-10th century Śaiva works, namely the Śivadharmottara, Svacchandatantra, Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama, and
Brahmaśambhupaddhati. These textual parallels indicate that the composition and redaction of the Kāmika as we find it in modern editions involved a considerable amount of adapting and incorporating material from these earlier Śaiva works.
2 Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Uttarasūtra, 1:26–30; eds. Dominic Goodall, Alexis Sanderson, and Harunaga Isaacson, The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra, Volume. I (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg, 2015). For a discussion of dating, see Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson, “Prolegomena” in The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 19–73. See also Goodall and Isaacson, “Workshop on the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra?” Newsletter of the NGMCP 3 (2007): 4–6; Sanderson, “The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism,” Indian Philosophical Annual 24 (2006): 152–54; and Teun Goudriaan and Sanjukta Gupta, Hindu Tantric and Śākta Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 33–36. 3 Cf., “Prolegomena,” 31. 51
2.1.1. Mythical Origins?
While Śaivasiddhānta has long claimed the Niśvāsa as one of its foundational scriptures, there is no evidence in the earliest layers of the text that Śaivasiddhānta existed as such at that time. This is supported by several notable findings in the Niśvāsa, one of the most salient being that the central godhead of Śaivasiddhānta, Sadāśiva, appears nowhere in the early layers of the
Niśvāsa in his characteristic form as a five-faced deity.4 The closest representation we find there is of a four-faced form of Śiva.5 As Judit Törzsök has noted, four-faced forms of Śiva were once standard, preceding the innovation of the five-faced Sadāśiva in Śaivasidddhānta.6 Also absent in the early Niśvāsa is any association of the five brahmamantras—the central mantras of
Śaivasiddhānta ritual and theology—with the faces of Sadāśiva. Although the Niśvāsa in due course came to be regarded as belonging to the Śaivasiddhānta, at the time its early layers were composed, it does not appear to have been a Saiddhāntika scripture.
The earliest evidence we have for the emergence of Śaivasiddhānta as a distinct branch of
Śaivism characterized by metaphysical dualism and a focus on the cult of Sadāśiva comes from the 7th century, a development that we find first in the writings of the theologian Sadyojyotiḥ (c.
675–725 CE).7 Although Sadyojyotiḥ does not cite the Kāmika in any of his works, he refers to it
4 Ibid., 36–38. 5 This representation of the four-faced form of Śiva appears as part of a visualization (dhyāna), prescribed in the course of worship where the forward-looking face is to be conceived as Ardhanārīśa, Śiva’s form as half-female (Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Nayasūtra, 3:42ff). This is clearly a different figure from the Sadāśiva of Śaivasiddhānta (cf. Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson, The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 457–58). 6 See “The Heads of the Godhead: The Number of Heads/Faces of Yoginīs and Bhairava(s) in Early Śaiva Tantras.” Indo-Iranian Journal 56, no. 2 (2013): 133–55. According to Törzsök, “it seems likely that the Śaiva Siddhānta added the fifth face as part of its hallmark in the formative period,” and she hypothesizes that the “four-faced Śiva, or rather, Īśvara, as the godhead may have had its origin in the sources of the Atimārga” (ibid., 155). 7 For the date of Sadyojyotiḥ, see Sanderson, “The Date of Sadyojyotis and Bṛhaspati,” Cracow Indological Studies 8 (2006): 39–91. On the relationship between Śaivasiddhānta and the Śaiva Mantramārga (i.e., Tantric or Āgamic Śaivism) more broadly, see Introduction. 52 as the first among the 28 Śaiva Tantras and as a prototype of Śaiva revelation held to be superior to the Veda.8 Yet the absence of citations of the Kāmika in Sadyojyotiḥ’s oeuvre is conspicuous given his acknowledgment of its symbolic pride of place. As Dominic Goodall, Alexis
Sanderson, and Harunaga Isaacson have suggested, it could be that the Kāmika was but a mythical text at the time.9 However, it could also be that the Kāmika was simply not relevant to
Sadyojyotiḥ’s theological project, for Sadyojyotiḥ also ignores the Niśvāsa, yet we know it circulated widely in his day.10
In spite of the obscurity of the Kāmika’s early history, references to its title in sources of the 5th to 10th century suggest that it nevertheless loomed large in the early Śaiva imagination.
Indeed, Sadyojyotiḥ’s reference to the Kāmika as a prototype of Śaiva revelation is matched by a recurring appearance of the Kāmika’s title at the top of lists of Śaiva Āgamas in other Śaiva sources from around the 5th century onward.11 These references to the Kāmika’s title, I suggest, can be taken as indicators of a consensus in early Śaivism on the authoritative status and prestige of a text named “Kāmika”—which is not to say that there was necessarily any agreement about its content. The significance of the Kāmika at a rhetorical or symbolic level is at odds with the
8 For instance, in his commentary on Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha, Vidyāpāda, 1:3: ‘parāpareṇa bhedene’ti pareṇa kāmikādinā śivajñānabhedenāpareṇa vedādinā paśujñānabhedeneti keṣāṃcid vyākhyānaṃ tadaprakṛtārthasparśi. “The interpretation of some [exegetes]—namely that ‘by superior and inferior divisions [of revelation]’, ‘superior’ [refers to] the division of Śaiva revelation beginning with the Kāmika, and ‘inferior’ [refers to] the division of mundane revelation beginning with the Vedas—does not [fully] capture the intended sense of it.” 9 “Prolegomena,” 31. 10 On the circulation of the Niśvāsa, see Sanderson, “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras,” in Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time, ed. François Grimal (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2001), 22–23. 11 Lists of the 28 Śaiva Āgamas found in demonstrably early sources are given by Dominic Goodall in an appendix to his critical edition of the Kiraṇavṛtti (“Appendix III. The Twenty-eight Siddhāntas,” in Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, Volume 1 [Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 1998], 402– 17). The sources where the lists are found include the Kiraṇa, Mṛgendra, Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Pauṣkarapārameśvara, Śrīkaṇṭhīyasaṃhitā, Jñānapañcāśikā, and Svāyaṃbhuvasūtrasaṅgraha, all of which are pre-10th century and list the Kāmika first. 53 absence of any evidence of an actual historical text; for we find no commentaries on the Kāmika, no citations of the Kāmika, nor any other evidence of the Kāmika as a historical document until the 10th century. This discrepancy speaks to a view of the Kāmika from early times not only as an obscure or possibly mythical text but as what we might call an ideal text. By this, I mean a text believed to exist in some ideal or perfect form and whose imagined qualities, following Jorge
Gracia, may be “used by interpreters to understand, interpret, and evaluate a historical or contemporary text.”12 As I argue more fully in Chapter Six, features of this textual idealization also inform the reception and scripturalization of the Kāmika today.
2.2.2. Incorporative Composition
Apart from the scant evidence of the 5th to 10th centuries, additional evidence that sheds light on the earliest phase of the Kāmika’s composition and reception comes from a number of textual parallels shared with several other pre-10th century Śaiva works. In a recent monograph,
Florinda De Simini has drawn attention to parallels between the 7th-century Śivadharmottara and the Uttarabhāga of the modern Kāmika, including numerous literal borrowings from the former into the latter.13 The shared verses constitute over a third of the Kāmika’s chapter on the “gift of knowledge” (vidyādāna), amounting to 18.5 verses in total. As the textual parallels show, the
Kāmika’s formulation of an Āgamic version of the ritualized “gift of knowledge” was adapted and incorporated from a lay Śaiva version of the same detailed in the Śivadharmottara.14 As to
12 Gracia, Jorge J. E., A Theory of Textuality: The Logic and Epistemology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 83–85. 13 As noted in the Introduction, the division of the Kāmika into a Pūrvabhāga and an Uttarabhāga appears to be a relatively recent one (i.e., post-17th century). 14 De Simini, Florinda. Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 91, 131, 324, 329, 340–43, 431–33. As De Simini points out, the parallel verses are in the Vidyādāna chapter of the Śivadharmottara and in Chapter 67 (Vidyāpīṭhapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala) of the Uttarabhāga. 54 when this borrowing and rewriting took place, it is difficult to say with certainty. Several of the parallel verses are cited by the 16th-century author Vedajñāna II in his Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati with attribution to the Kāmika, which suggests it was before the 16th century. But this is not conclusive, as some verses may have been incorporated at a later date.
In addition to the parallels identified by De Simini, I draw attention here to 19 further shared verses between the Śivadharmottara and the Kāmika. A table of these shared verses is given in Appendix A (Table 1). The parallels are found in two chapters of the Pūrvabhāga
(Chapter 4, Arcanavidhipaṭala; Chapter 5, Arcanāṅgavidhipaṭala). Of the 19 verses, three consecutive verses are found near the beginning of Chapter 4 (Arcanavidhipaṭala) extolling the virtues of worshipping a Śivaliṅga over practices of Vedic orthodoxy.15 Apart from the fact that the verses are found in the Kāmika, there is nothing distinctly “Āgamic”16 about them, which is unsurprising given their lay Śaiva pedigree; yet they are preceded and followed in the Kāmika by material that is distinctly Āgamic.17 In other words, similar to what De Simini has observed
15 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:11–13 (= Śivadharmottara [T.72], 7:2, 1:18, 3:45cd–46ab): agnihotrāś ca vedāś ca yajñāś ca bahudakṣiṇāḥ | sivaliṅgārcanasyaite koṭyaṃśenāpi no samāḥ || jātenātmadruhā* yena nārcito bhagavāñ cchivaḥ | *conj.; duhā Ed. suciraṃ sañcaraty asmin saṃsāre duḥkhasāgare || varaṃ prāṇaparityāgaś chedanaṃ śiraso 'pi vā | na tv anabhyarcya bhuñjīyād bhagavantaṃ trilocanam || “Oblations, the Vedas, and lavish sacrifices—these are not equal to even a millionth part of worshipping a Śivaliṅga. A self-destructive person who, having taken birth, does not worship Śiva, spends a long time traversing this wretched sea of cyclical existence. Better to give up [one’s own] life, or even cut off [one’s own] head, but one should not eat without [first] worshipping the three-eyed lord.” I thank Shaman Hatley for his help with the interpretation and translation of these verses. 16 By “Āgamic,” I mean having markers of an Āgamic or Tantric Śaiva initiatory framework of ritual or theology where soteriology is twofold, consisting of enjoyment/powers (bhukti) and liberation (mukti). 17 Directly preceding the three verses, we find this verse (4:10): śivadīkṣābhiṣiktasya śivaviprasya dhīmataḥ | śivājñāvaśatas tasya parārthejyā na doṣabhāk || “For a wise Śivabrahmin consecrated by Śaiva initiation, worship [performed] for the sake of others incurs no fault on account of his authority [being granted] by the command of Śiva.” 55 between the Śivadharmottara and Uttarabhāga, here too we see traces of a compositional or redactive technique that involved borrowing verses from the earlier lay Śivadharmottara and deploying them in the service of an Āgamic scriptural formulation.
The remaining 16 shared verses with the Śivadharmottara are found in Chapter 5
(Arcanāṅgavidhipaṭala) of the Pūrvabhāga and display a similar pattern of incorporating lay
Śaiva source material in an Āgamic framework.18 The verses describe a variety of flowers and fragrances to be used for offerings at different times of worship. The parallels are more or less verbatim, yet at the end of Chapter 5 of the Pūrvabhāga there is a concluding verse that connects the offerings with a distinctly non-lay, Āgamic soteriology: release from bondage beginning with mala and māyā, which is a clear marker of Mantramārga Śaivism.19
Besides the parallels with the lay-oriented Śivadharmottara, there are also numerous parallels with pre-10th century initiatory Tantric Śaiva sources. To begin with, I draw attention to
30.5 shared verses with the Svacchandatantra (c. 7th century), a scripture of the transgressive
Bhairava current of revelation. The parallels are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. Of the 30.5 verses, 13.5 verses are found in Chapter 4 (Arcanavidhipaṭala) of the Pūrvabhāga; the other 17 verses are found in Chapter 23 (Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhipaṭala) of the Uttarabhāga. As Table 2 shows, not all of the shared verses are entirely verbatim: a few, for instance, demonstrate what may be considered a reuse of stock Āgamic ritual phraseology, which may or may not derive originally
Directly following the three verses, we find this half-verse (4:14ab): iti jñātvā prayatnena pūjanīyaḥ sadāśivaḥ. “Knowing this, Sadāśiva should be worshipped assiduously.” The material that I characterize as distinctly Āgamic here is the reference to Śaiva initiation in verse 10 and the reference to Sadāśiva in verse 14ab. 18 It is worth noting that editors of modern editions of the Kāmika seem to have been uncertain about whether or not to include five of these 16 verses, which were transmitted in some manuscripts but not in others. See Appendix A for details. 19 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 5:80: dṛḍhataramalamāyādibandhair vinirmuktaḥ. The metre changes from anuṣṭubh to sragdharā in this concluding verse, framing the practices detailed in the chapter as a mode of Āgamic worship. 56 from the Svacchandatantra.20 Most of the parallels, however, are verbatim or at least very close.
In terms of subject matter, the parallels mostly detail visualizations (dhyānas) of Tantric deities, which appear to have been carried over from the Bhairava current into Śaivasiddhānta.
A few of the textual parallels with the Svacchanda demonstrate notable adaptions in their incorporation into the Kāmika. Specifically, I highlight three references to a goddess in the
Svacchanda that were redacted and replaced by more or less generic terms in the Kāmika. In the first instance, in the Kāmika, we read that a form of Prajāpati is to be visualized “as red-coloured
(rakta), holding a water jar (kamaṇḍaludhara), and with a staff in hand (daṇḍahasta).”21 In the parallel verse in the Svacchanda, there is no reference to Prajāpati, and in place of “red- coloured” (rakta), we find instead the feminine vocative noun, “O Goddess” (devi), a reference to the goddess interlocutor of the Svacchanda. In the second case, we read in the Kāmika that
“Rudra, specifically (viśeṣataḥ), is to be visualized as dark-throated, mounted atop of a bull.”22
In the Svacchanda, instead of the adverb “specifically” (viśeṣataḥ), we find another feminine vocative noun, “O Lovely-Faced One” (varānane), which again is a reference to the goddess interlocutor. In the third instance, in the Kāmika, we find the instruction that “one should correctly (samyag) imagine the ŚIKHĀ [mantra] with the appearance of blazing lightning.”23 In the Svacchanda, instead, we read that “one should imagine the ŚIKHĀ [mantra] as the goddess
(devī) with the appearance of blazing lightning.” This characterization of the ŚIKHĀ mantra in the
20 E.g., Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 4:274cd ≈ Svacchanda 6:22cd, Kāmika 4:296cd ≈ Svacchanda 2:63cd, Kāmika 4:300cd ≈ Svacchanda 10:1164cd, Kāmika 4:302ab ≈ Svacchanda 2:176cd, Kāmika 4:304cd ≈ Svacchanda 4:304cd, Kāmika, Uttarabhāga 23:176cd ≈ Svacchanda 4:188ab, Kāmika 23:199ab ≈ Svacchanda 4:534ab. 21 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 4:305cd: kamaṇḍaludharaṃ raktaṃ daṇḍahastaṃ prajāpatim [… dhyātvā] = Svacchanda 2:75ab: kamaṇḍaludharo devi daṇḍahastas tathaiva ca [… dhyātvā]. 22 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 4:310ab: nīlakaṇṭhaṃ vṛṣārūḍhaṃ rudraṃ dhyātvā viśeṣataḥ = Svacchanda 2:80cd: nīlakaṇṭhaṃ vṛṣārūḍhaṃ rudraṃ dhyātvā varānane. 23 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 4:453ab: taṭijjvalanasaṃkāśaṃ śikhāṃ samyag vicintayet = Svacchanda 2:110ab: taḍidvalayasaṃkāśāṃ śikhāṃ devīṃ vicintayet. 57
Svacchanda as a form of the goddess thus appears to have been excised in its incorporation into the Kāmika.
In each of these three cases, the reference to the goddess has been replaced by a more or less generic modifier (“red-coloured,” “specifically,” “correctly”). Why was this done? In two of the cases, where the reference to the goddess is as an interlocutor, the reason seems clear: in modern editions of the Kāmika, there is no goddess interlocutor; the modern Kāmika instead is structured as a dialogue between Śiva (īśvara) and a group of male sages. Retaining the reference to the goddess would have revealed the pedigree of the borrowed verses and presented a conflict with the narrative structure. In the third instance, where the ŚIKHĀ mantra is to be imagined as the goddess, the reason is less clear. But in this case, too, it may have been to conceal the direction of borrowing.
As to the question of when the 30.5 verses from the Svacchanda were incorporated into the Kāmika, it is difficult again to say with certainty. One of the shared verses is cited by
Vedajñāna II in his Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati with attribution to the Kāmika. This suggests that, in this case too, it was before the 16th century, but of course this does not presuppose that all of these verses were incorporated at the same time.
Another pre-10th century Āgamic source that demonstrates notable parallels with the modern Kāmika is the Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (c. 8th century), an early Saiddhāntika scripture transmitted with a commentary by the Kashmirian exegete Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. The parallels were first noticed by N. R. Bhatt, who mentioned them in the apparatus to his critical edition of the text.24 Thus, we find 13 verses from the Caryāpāda of the Mataṅga that were incorporated into Chapter 30 (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala) of the Uttarabhāga. The shared verses are
24 Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda) avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha (Pondicherry: IFI, 1982), 382–83. 58 tabulated in Appendix A (Table 3). The subject matter of the verses pertains to expiation rites, details of which appear to have been drawn from the Mataṅga into the Kāmika.
One final early Āgamic source worth mentioning in this context for its parallels with the modern Kāmika is the Brahmaśambhupaddhati (10th century). Unlike the Mataṅga and
Svacchanda, the Brahmaśambhupaddhati is not a scriptural work but rather a work of historical authorship. The text is only transmitted fragmentarily in one known manuscript, and it has received little scholarly attention.25 Yet parallels between the Brahmaśambhupaddhati and the
Kāmika have been discussed by Sanderson and Goodall.26 Sanderson, in particular, has proposed that a substantial portion of the Brahmaśambhupaddhati was “adopted with some rewriting, re- ordering, and expansion by the redactor of the Kāmika as that text’s account of the daily observances (Pūrvabhāga, Paṭalas 5–6, and 9–10).”27 In the next chapter, I discuss some of the verses attributed to the Brahmaśambhupaddhati in 12th-century works (viz., in the
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati and Mṛgendrapaddhati) but that are also found in modern editions of the Kāmika. As I argue there, the incorporation and adaptation of the passages from the
Brahmaśambhupaddhati into the Kāmika appear to have occurred after the 12th century.
To summarize the evidence from the 5th to 10th centuries, we only have references to the title of the Kāmika but no citations. Given that the earliest reference to the Kāmika’s title is in the
Niśvāsa, which appears to predate the emergence of Śaivasiddhānta, this suggests that neither the
Kāmika nor the Niśvāsa were originally scriptures of the Śaivasiddhānta. Moreover, the absence of references to the Kāmika before the 10th century, apart from its title, suggests that the Kāmika
25 Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25 (2014): 21n. 26 Ibid.; Goodall, “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya), ed. R. Sathyanarayanan (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2015), 45–46. 27 “The Śaiva Literature,” 21n. 59 was either a mythical text or an obscure text ignored by major Saiddhāntika authors like
Sadyojyotiḥ. In spite of this, Sadyojyotiḥ, as we saw, acknowledges the authoritative status or symbolic significance of the Kāmika as a prototype of Tantric Śaiva revelation, as do other works reiterating the Kāmika’s position as the first among the 28 Śaiva Āgamas. I have suggested this points to a consensus on the authority of a text named “Kāmika” (in some shape or form) as well as an element of textual idealization.
From the same period, we also find numerous textual parallels between several pre-10th
Śaiva texts and the Kāmika as witnessed by modern editions, which indicates that the composition and redaction of the Kāmika involved considerable adaptation and rewriting of pre- existing works. Some of these adaptations are notable. For instance, the parallels with the
Śivadharmottara suggest that the Kāmika drew on pre-existing lay Śaiva scriptural formulations, practices, and rituals, and that these were adapted by the Kāmika into a Tantric Śaiva framework.
The parallels with the Svacchanda suggest that the Kāmika borrowed scriptural formulations and visualizations of Tantric deities from the transgressive Bhairava current and drew these into a
Saiddhāntika framework, while in the process suppressing references to the goddess, which would reveal the pedigree of the borrowed verses. From the Mataṅga, the shared verses suggest that the Kāmika adopted pre-existing Saiddhāntika expiation rites and added them to its own repertoire of procedures. Finally, the parallels with the Brahmaśambhupaddhati suggest that the
Kāmika, in adopting and rewriting portions of this ritual manual, took verses composed by the historical author Brahmaśambhu and elevated them to the status of revelation.28
28 The objection may be raised as to how we can be certain that the direction of borrowing was from the Śivadharmottara, Svacchanda, Mataṅga, and Brahmaśambhupaddhati to the Kāmika and not vice-versa. The answer to this is that categorical certainty is impossible, but the scenario presented here, I maintain, is as certain as we can be with the evidence at hand, for the alternative scenario (i.e., that a hypothetically lost Kāmika was the source text for the Śivadharmottara, Svacchanda, Mataṅga, and Brahmaśambhupaddhi) rests on no evidence, merely conjecture. In the case of the Śivadharmottara, we 60
Before looking at the earliest citations of the Kāmika in the works of historical authors, I highlight two limitations associated with the discussion of the textual parallels above. First, the parallels should not be taken to represent an exhaustive account of all the parallels that may exist between the Kāmika and pre-10th century Śaiva works, nor do they provide a basis on which to say how much or how little of the Kāmika was actually incorporated from earlier sources. As more early Śaiva works are transcribed and edited, we can expect to find more textual parallels.
Second, on the question of when pre-existing verses were incorporated into the Kāmika, no definitive answer can be given at the present, although we can assume that much of this occurred after the 12th century and before the 16th century. The 12th century marks a major redaction of the
Kāmika, and the version of the text that predates this, as we will see below, is of a substantially different character. The 16th century is when we find citations of a number of the parallel verses attributed to the Kāmika in works of Vedajñāna II; however, as Chapters Five and Six demonstrate, there continued to be considerable redactional changes to the Kāmika after the 16th century. This last point also raises the question of whether this textual borrowing occurred as part of a single redaction or whether it occurred in different stages. On this point, I am inclined toward the latter view, for this is supported by the substantial evidence of the Kāmika’s pluriformity as attested by its manuscript transmission discussed in Chapter Six.
can be particularly confident of the direction of borrowing on the basis of the lay Śaiva tenor of the borrowed material. In the case of the Svacchanda, the direction of borrowing is clear from the substitution of references to a goddess in the Svacchanda with generic modifiers found in the modern Kāmika. In the case of the Mataṅga, there is nothing in the shared verses indicative of a clear direction of borrowing, but the alternative view (that a hypothetically lost Kāmika was a source text for the Mataṅga) has no evidence to support it. In the case of the Brahmaśambhupaddhati, I defer to Alexis Sanderson and Dominic Goodall (cited in footnotes 26 and 27 above) who argue for the same direction of borrowing. 61
2.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama by Kashmirian Śaiva Authors
The earliest citations we find of the Kāmika are from 10th- and 11th-century Kashmir in the works of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, Abhinavagupta, and Kṣemarāja. Before looking at the citations of the Kāmika in their works, a few general remarks may be noted. To begin with, despite the prestigious place of the Kāmika as the first of the 28 Śaiva Tantras, the relevance of the text for Kashmirian authors, like for Sadyojyotiḥ, appears to have been limited: there are no commentaries on it, and the total number of Kāmika citations identified thus far in known works of the 10th and 11th centuries amounts to 22.5 verses. Of these, only one verse can be found in modern editions.29 Moreover, verses cited by all three exegetes present evidence of a Kāmika seemingly at variance with the classical doctrines of Śaivasiddhānta.30 This suggests the Kāmika known to 10th- and 11th-century Kashmirian authors was a rather different text from the one that constitutes modern editions. Further, we can discern a notable difference in the distribution of
Kāmika citations along Śaiva theological lines, which suggests the Kāmika was received differently by different Śaiva theological schools, but not in a way one would expect. Whereas
Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha was a Śaivasiddhānta theologian, Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja were exponents of the non-Saiddhāntika Trika and Krama traditions. Yet it is predominantly in the works of these two non-Saiddhāntika authors that we find the majority of these earliest Kāmika
29 The verse is cited by Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha in his Mṛgendravṛtti ad Kriyāpāda 7:3: etāś catasro viprasya tisro rājña ubhe viśaḥ | ekā śūdrasya niyamāc chilā* bhūmyaś ca kīrtitāḥ || *corr.; niyatā śilā Ed.; cf. footnote 41 below. It has been assumed that no citations of the Kāmika from before the 13th century were to be found in modern editions of the Kāmika. (See Hélène Brunner, Mṛgendrāgama : Section des rites et section du comportement : avec la vṛtti de Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha [Pondicherry: IFI, 1985], xiv.) In discussing this verse, Brunner does not seem to have noticed that the verse is in fact transmitted in Chapter 37 (Kāmyaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala) of the Uttarabhāga, verse 21 (Mṛgendrāgama : Section des rites et section du comportement, 145, n. 2). 30 As discussed in the Introduction, classical Śaivasiddhānta (i.e., Śaivasiddhānta before the 12th century) is to be distinguished from Śaivasiddhānta as it developed after the 12th century. 62 citations. Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja together cite a total of 20.5 verses of the Kāmika compared with only two verses cited by Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. This suggests that the Kāmika was received more favourably by non-Saiddhāntikas, and that the version of the Kāmika known to 10th- and 11th-century Kashmirians may not have been a scripture with a Saiddhāntika theological orientation.
2.2.1. Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha
Relatively little is known about the Śaivasiddhānta exegete Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha apart from his approximate date (fl. 925–975 CE) and oeuvre.31 He is known to have been the father of
Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, author of numerous commentaries on Śaiva scriptures and other exegetical works, and son of a certain Bhaṭṭa Vidyākaṇṭha.32 Three works are commonly attributed to
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, only one of which has come down to us: his commentary (vṛtti) on the
Mṛgendratantra.33
The opening of Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s commentary draws attention to the Mṛgendra’s self- presentation as a subsidiary Tantra (upabheda) of the Kāmika. On this point, it is worth recalling that Tantras that emerged after the proliferation of the early list of 28, like the Mṛgendra,34 often
31 His approximate date is adduced from the fact that he was the father of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, whose floruit of c. 950–1000 CE is demonstrated by Goodall (Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, Volume 1 [Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 1998], xviii). For more on Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, see Bhatt (Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama [Vidyāpāda] avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha [Pondicherry: IFI, 1977], viii–ix). 32 Works authored by Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha include commentaries on the Kiraṇatantra, Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama, and Sārdhatriśatikālottarāgama, as well as commentaries on three works of Sadyojyotiḥ, viz. Paramokṣanirāsakārikā, Mokṣakārikā, and Nareśvaraparīkṣā. Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s father, Bhaṭṭa Vidyākaṇṭha (I), is to be distinguished from another Bhaṭṭa Vidyākaṇṭha (II) who was Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s grandson and author of a commentary on the Mayasaṅgraha entitled Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi (cf. Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, ix–xi). 33 The two other works attributed to Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha include a commentary (śaranniśā) on the Tattvasaṃgraha of Sadjyojyotiḥ and a sub-commentary (ṭippaṇaka) on the Svāyambhuvavṛtti, also by Sadjyojyotiḥ (ibid.). 34 On the relative date of the Mṛgendra, see Goodall (ibid., lvii). 63 associated themselves with Tantras in the early list in a bid to ground new revelation (and concomitant innovations) in established scriptural precedents.35 The Mṛgendra’s authority thus drew on its association with the Kāmika. Structured as a dialogue between Indra and a group of sages, the Mṛgendra communicates its relationship to the Kāmika thus:
This scripture taught by Śiva was called the Kāmika by the lords of mantra-lords and mantras (mantramantreśvareśvaraiḥ)36 because it grants desires and is most extensive. After [I, Indra,] learned [of this teaching] from them, Śiva, whose brilliant and blazing eye consumed the tree of love, gave it to me in eleven thousand [verses].37
In this passage, Indra actually refers to the Mṛgendra as the Kāmika, although Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha nuances this by clarifying that the Mṛgendra is to be understood as a “part of the Kāmika”
(kāmikabheda).38
Despite the symbolic significance of the Kāmika for the Mṛgendra, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha cites only two verses that he identifies as coming from the Kāmika. There is a noteworthy discrepancy here between the significance of the Kāmika as an ideal text and the actual text known to
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, which he hardly cites at all. This, again, speaks to what I have referred to as a textual idealization.
35 Cf. Brunner, Mṛgendrāgama, xiv. 36 These “lords of mantra-lords and mantras” are identified by Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha as Ananta and his fellow mantra-lords (mantreśvaras, vidyeśvaras). Ananta, it will be recalled, is a demiurge who acts as Śiva’s regent in the impure domain of the universe. See Brunner, “ananta” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa I, eds. Hélène Brunner, Gerhard Oberhammer, and André Padoux (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 113. 37 Mṛgendra, Vidyāpāda, 1:27–28: śivodgīrṇam idaṃ jñānaṃ mantramantreśvareśvaraiḥ | kāmadatvāt kāmiketi pragītaṃ bahuvistaram || tebhyo'vagamya dṛgjyotirjvālālīḍhamadadrumaḥ | dadāv umāpatir mahyaṃ sahasrair bhavasammitaiḥ || 38 Mṛgendravṛtti, Vidyāpāda, upodghāta: ūrdhvasrotaḥprasṛtaṃ śrīmatkāmikabhedam imaṃ mṛgendrottarasaṃjñakaṃ. 64
Both verses are found in the Kriyāpāda section of his commentary on the Mṛgendra. The first citation appears in the context of a description of initiation, during preliminary purification
(adhivāsa), where an area of land for the ritual is to be enclosed and consecrated (bhūparigraha).
The Mṛgendra provides the following details:
[The earth should have] the colour of snow, blood, orpiment, or indigo; [and it should be] characterized by [one of the four] tastes, beginning with sweet.39 [Its] smell [should be of] ghee, blood, cow-dung, or alcohol. [It should] be well- covered with grass.40
A fourfold stratification of initiation by caste-class is a feature of a number of Śaivasiddhānta ritual texts. Commenting on the verse, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha explains that, for Brahmins, any combination of colours, tastes, and smells is acceptable. For the lower three caste-classes, however, options are progressively limited. Drawing on the Kāmika for support, he writes,
In the venerable Kāmika, it is said: “As a rule, for Brahmins, it is declared [that any of] these four [types of] stone and earth [are acceptable]; for Kṣatriyas, [the last] three; for Vaiśyas, [the last] two; for Śūdras, [only the last] one.”41
In the Kāmika, as we find it today, the verse is preceded by a similar set of options for colours of the earth,42 but there is nothing there about tastes or smells. In fact, in the extant Kāmika, the verse has nothing whatsoever to do with enclosing or consecrating land; the verse appears rather
39 On the four tastes and their association with caste-classes, see Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson’s annotated translation of Niśvāsa, Mūlasūtra, 1:18. 40 Mṛgendra, Kriyāpāda, 7:3: himāsṛktālanīlābhāṃ madhurādirasottarām | ghṛtāsṛggośakṛnmadyagandhitāṃ suprarohiṇīm || 41 Mṛgendravṛtti, Kriyāpāda (MṛVKP), 7:3 = Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (UKā1988), 37:21: uktam śrīmat kāmike – etāś catasro viprasya tisro rājña1 ubhe viśaḥ | ekā śūdrasya niyamāc chilā2 bhūmyaś ca kīrtitāḥ || 1 rājña ] MṛVKP; rājñām UKā1988 2 niyamāc chilā] UKā1988; niyatā śilā MṛVKP 42 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 37:20: śvetā raktā ca pītā ca kṛṣṇā ceti caturvidhā | caturṇām api varṇānāṃ śilā dhātrī ca saṃmatā || “White and red and yellow and black: these are the four kinds. For the four caste-classes, stone and earth are considered acceptable.” 65 in a chapter for the installation of liṅgas for optional (kāmya) rites, and the reference there to
“stone and earth” is to the materials (dravyas) used in such installations. The word “earth”
(bhūmi, dhātrī) appears in this context as a synonym for “clay” (mṛt), a material often prescribed for the establishment of temporary liṅgas (kṣaṇikaliṅgas).
The other Kāmika verse cited by Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha also happens to be associated with a optional ritual paradigm. This verse, like the one above, is cited in the context of initiation, specifically in the part of the ritual where a maṇḍala is to be traced as a support for worship during the day of the initiation. According to the Mṛgendra, maṇḍalas of different types may be employed for the achievement of various ends (e.g., gaining riches [bhūtyabhyudaya], obtaining knowledge [jñānāvapti], malefic rites [abhicārakarma], etc.).43 The Kāmika citation is used to support the following verse, which describes a maṇḍala suitable for the achievement of multiple ends:
In the case of [one who wishes to satisfy] manifold desires [simultaneously,44 there should be] three or four concentric circuits (āvṛtis) for the worship of the Lord who grants desires [and this should take place] on a śaktimaṇḍala, which confers desires.45
The concentric circuits here refer to the arrangement of the retinue of minor Śaiva deities—in this case, Vidyeśvaras, Gaṇas, Lokapālas, and their weapons—arranged around the central deity of the maṇḍala.46 The śaktimaṇḍala, for its part, refers to a maṇḍala powered by a group of
43 Mṛgendra, Kriyāpāda 8:40–45. 44 The specification “simultaneously” is provided by Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha in his commentary on this verse: [miśre kāme] yugapad anekakāmike siddhyai. “[By ‘in the case of one who wishes to satisfy manifold desires’ means] ‘for success in satisfying multiple desires simultaneously’.” 45 Mṛgendra, Kriyāpāda, 8:46: miśre tu tryāvṛtiḥ kāme caturāvṛtir eva ca | kāmadasya prabhor yāgaḥ kāmike śaktimaṇḍale || 46 For more about circuits and retinues, see Goodall et al., The Pañcāvaraṇastava of Aghoraśivācārya (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2005), 23–26. 66 female divinities (śaktis), which the Mṛgendra and Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha both characterize as suitable for the attainment of all desired ends. To support this, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha cites the Kāmika.
For in the venerable Kāmika it is said: “In the middle [of the śaktimaṇḍala] is Lord Kāmeśvara; after worshipping the śaktimaṇḍala according to the sequence of the sixty-four [śaktis] (aṣṭāṣṭakakramāt), one shall obtain all [that one] desires.”47
The verse is not found in the extant Kāmika, nor in any other known source. The reference to
Kāmeśvara is noteworthy. Kāmeśvara represents a form of Śiva that is virtually absent in
Śaivasiddhānta and is more commonly associated with non-Saiddhāntika traditions, such as
Śrīvidyā.
Also suggestive of a non-Saiddhāntika context for the verse cited above is the reference to the “sixty-four [śaktis].” The most common group of sixty-four śaktis are the sixty-four
Yoginīs, which appear to be what is intended here.48 Given Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s position as an exponent of Śaivasiddhānta, it is conspicuous that he cites this verse which is so clearly at odds with his doctrinal stance. Perhaps it was this incompatibility that explains why Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha cites the Kāmika so sparingly—and why no other Kashmirian Śaivasiddhānta exegete cites it either. In the Kāmika citations of Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja, we find more evidence that suggests a non-Saiddhāntika orientation to the early Kāmika.
47 Mṛgendravṛtti, Kriyāpāda, 8:46: uktaṃ hi śrīmatkāmike – madhye kāmeśvaro devas tataś cāṣṭāṣṭakakramāt | śaktimaṇḍalam abhyarcya sarvān kāmān avāpnuyāt || 48 Brunner, Mṛgendrāgama, 227: “Il s’agit sans doute des 64 Yoginīs.” 67
2.2.2. Abhinavagupta
The celebrated polymath Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025 CE) has been the subject of numerous studies.49 Considerable attention has focused on his magnum opus, Tantrāloka, which provides an expansive account of Trika soteriology, metaphysics, and practice. The Tantrāloka also includes a number of citations and paraphrases of the Kāmika. Altogether, 18 verses attributed to the Kāmika, including paraphrases, are found in the Tantrāloka. None of these, however, are in the modern Kāmika. Nor do we find any content in the modern Kāmika comparable to that of the Kāmika verses in the Tantrāloka, which are noteworthy for what they reveal about the text known to 10th- and 11th-century Kashmirians. Several of the verses, for instance, present archaisms which support the view that the Kāmika, in an early form, was not a
Śaivasiddhānta scripture, but was rather a scripture of some other branch of the Mantramārga.
The subject matter of the verses pertains to topics such as the nature of Śiva, rival doctrines, the vital breath, soteriology, and supernatural powers.
In the opening chapter of the Tantrāloka, we find two sets of verses attributed to the
Kāmika concerning the nature of Śiva. Following an introductory deliberation on ignorance
49 E.g., Kanti Chandra Pandey, Abhinavagupta: An Historical and Philosophical Study (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1963); Raniero Gnoli, Luce delle sacre scritture (Tantrāloka) di Abhinavagupta (Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1972); V. Raghavan, Abhinavagupta and His Works (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia, 1981); Navjivan Rastogi, Introduction to the Tantrāloka: A Study in Structure (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987); Paul Muller-Ortega, The Triadic Heart of Śiva: Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989); Jürgen Hanneder, Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Revelation: An Edition and Annotated Translation of Mālinīślokavārttika I, 1–399 (Groningen: Forsten, 1998); Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir,” in Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, eds. Dominic Goodall and André Padoux, 231–442. (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2007); Mrinal Kaul, Abhinavagupta’s Theory of Reflection: A Study, Critical Edition and Translation of the Pratibimbavāda (Verses 1–65) in Chapter III of the Tantrāloka with the Commentary of Jayaratha (PhD diss., Concordia University, 2016); Alberta Ferrario, Grace in Degrees: Śaktipāta, Devotion, and Religious Authority in the Śaivism of Abhinavagupta (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2015); Benjamin Williams, Abhinavagupta’s Portrait of a Guru: Revelation and Religious Authority in Kashmir (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2017). 68
(ajñāna) as the cause of bondage—a view of bondage rather different from that of classical
Śaivasiddhānta—Abhinavagupta’s discussion turns to the nature of consciousness and how supreme reality (para tattva) lies beyond any logical means of understanding it. Drawing on the
Kāmika, Abhinavagupta writes,
In the Kāmika, for that very reason, [supreme reality] is said to be without an assigned cause: “The god who surpasses other gods is not dependent on others (parāpekṣā na vidyate); since it is others who are dependent on him, it is established [that he is] independent (svatantraḥ).”50
Further on, as part of the same discussion, he writes,
And it is said in the Kāmika, god is omniform and formless. All that is animate and inanimate is pervaded by him, like [an image in] water or a mirror (jaladarpaṇavat).51
From the perspective of early Śaivasiddhānta cosmology, the second passage presents something of a problem. In early Śaivasiddhānta, Śiva does not pervade all things—certainly not that which is inanimate. Inanimate matter, rather, conceived of as jaḍa (“insentience”), is held to be eternally and ontologically distinct from Śiva; it is the exact opposite of that which characterizes
Śiva, namely cit (“consciousness”). The idea that Śiva “pervades” all things corresponds more closely to the non-dualism we find among non-Siddhānta traditions, like the Trika and Krama.52
50 Tantrāloka, 1:58–59b: kāmike tata evoktaṃ hetuvādavivarjitam | tasya devātidevasya parāpekṣā na vidyate || parasya tadapekṣatvāt svatantro'yam ataḥ sthitaḥ | 51 Tantrāloka, 1:66: uktaṃ ca kāmike devaḥ sarvākṛtir nirākṛtiḥ | jaladarpaṇavat tena sarvaṃ vyāptaṃ carācaram || Both this verse and the preceding present some ambiguity of interpretation, in that it is not fully clear whether Abhinavagupta is citing the Kāmika directly or paraphrasing. Both passages eschew the use of the quotative particle iti. I have taken the first verse (58c–59b) to be a direct quotation, against Rastogi (Introduction to the Tantrāloka, 281), given that the same verse is quoted by Kṣemarāja in his commentary on the Netratantra, where it appears as a direct quotation of the Kāmika (cf. Netroddyota 7:16.). The second (66) I take to be a paraphrase or partial quotation. 52 Sanderson characterizes this nondualism as holding that it is “Śiva alone, as a single autonomous and omnipotent consciousness, who is manifest in the form of individual souls, māyā, and its products” (“The 69
Of course, it could be that Abhinavagupta has ascribed a non-Saiddhāntika position to the
Kāmika in an act of loose paraphrasing. However, if we take Abhinavagupta as faithfully representing the Kāmika, we must admit that this verse is at odds with the dualism of early
Śaivasiddhānta.
In Chapter 4, we find another set of verses ascribed to the Kāmika in a passage that discusses rival doctrines. The chapter opens with a discussion of the purification of conceptual awareness (vikalpa) and the role of reasoning (tarka) and meditation (bhāvanā) in this process.
Here, Abhinavagupta argues that an obstacle to this purification is attachment to worldly experience (rāga), which, among other things, leads people to follow one religious path or another, believing (mistakenly) that they have found liberation. In support of this view, he cites the Kāmika:
And in the venerable Kāmikā, it is clearly taught in the ‘Chapter on Bondage’ (pāśaprakaraṇe), “those who are conversant with the Vedas, Sāṃkhya, Purāṇas, those who take the Pāñcarātra as highest, those various wise sages for whom other scriptures are the highest, the Buddhists and the Jains—all of them are bound by [limited powers of] knowledge and attachment to worldly experience (vidyārāgena). On account of being bound by the fetter of māyā, they do not find Śaiva initiation.”53
Two points in this passage deserve particular attention. The first is the feminine inflection in the reference to the “Kāmikā.” While this inflection might suggest a scribal error, the same feminine
Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” in Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism. Studies in Honor of André Padoux, ed. Teun Goudriaan [Albany: State Univesity of New York Press, 1992], 288). 53 Tantrāloka, 4:25c–27: śrīkāmikāyāṃ proktaṃ ca pāśaprakaraṇe sphuṭam || vedasāṃkhyapurāṇajñāḥ pāñcarātraparāyaṇāḥ | ye kecid ṛṣayo dhīrāḥ śāstrāntaraparāyaṇāḥ || bauddhārhatādyāḥ sarve te vidyārāgeṇa rañjitāḥ | māyāpāśena baddhatvāc chivadīkṣāṃ na vindate || I take verses 26–27 here as direct citations based on Jayaratha’s commentary of the Tantrāloka. Following the reference to the “Chapter on Bondage,” immediately preceding the citation, Jayaratha's commentary reads tad eva paṭhati (“he quotes that very [text]”). 70 inflection occurs elsewhere in the Tantrāloka and in other sources, as Hélène Brunner and
Navjivan Rastogi have also noted.54 While no fully satisfactory explanation has been proferred,
Brunner has suggested “it is likely that several works have carried the title Kāmika, simultaneously or successively.”55 Goodall, for his part, has suggested that the feminine ending may be due to the label being used as an abbreviation for “Kāmikasaṃhitā,” a title that we find in the Jñānaratnāvalī.56 Given that both masculine and feminine inflections are found throughout the Tantrāloka, it is conceivable that Abhinavagupta was drawing on more than one version of the Kāmika.
The second point worth noting is the reference to the “Chapter on Bondage”
(pāśaprakaraṇa). In the modern Kāmika, there is no chapter on bondage; the modern text focuses rather on ritual and consists of but a large Kriyāpāda. A discussion of bondage is a topic we would expect to find in a Jñānapāda or Vidyāpāda. A Vidyāpāda attributed to the Kāmika exists among the manuscripts held at the Institut Français de Pondichéry, although the text is not considered authoritative today.57 In this Vidyāpāda, we find a discussion of bondage;58 however, we do not find the verses cited above. Also, in this Vidyāpāda, as in the modern Kāmika, chapter divisions are not referred to as prakaraṇas; they are referred to as paṭalas.
The sixth chapter of the Tantrāloka includes several verses attributed to the Kāmika that focus on the vital breath (prāṇa) as a support for meditation, including a mapping of the breath and its movements (cāra, vṛtti) onto the subtle body and onto various cycles of time. In this context, Abhinavagupta discusses a set of deities associated with the breaths, conceptualized as
54 Brunner, Mṛgendrāgama, xiv; Rastogi, Introduction to the Tantrāloka, 281. 55 “Il est probable que plusieurs ouvrages aient porté ce nom de Kāmika, simultanément ou succisivement” (Mṛgendrāgama, xiv). 56 Goodall, personal communication; Jñānaratnāvalī (IFP T.231), 623. 57 On the Kāmika Vidyāpāda, see Chapter Five (5.2.2.). 58 Kāmika, Vidyāpāda (IFP T.830), 50–51. 71 existing within and without the body, and referred to variously as kāraṇadevatās or kāraṇeśvaras
(“causal deities,” “causal lords”). Drawing on the Kāmika, Abhinavagupta writes,
And these [deities] are all-pervasive on account of being powers of the Supreme Lord. They also pervade the body and give rise to it, as it is said in the Kāmika: “In childhood, youth, old age, and death [as well as] in rebirth and in liberation, the [deities] beginning with Brahmā preside [respectively] over [these] six (ṣaḍadhiṣṭhānakāriṇaḥ).”59
What is noteworthy in this passage is the reference to six kāraṇadevatās. In later Śaivasiddhānta, and in the modern recension of the Kāmika, the kāraṇadevatās are reckoned as being five in number. In other branches of the Mantramārga, like the Trika, and in earlier sources, we find sets of three, six, and eight kāraṇadevatās.60 The passage thus appears to be a holdover from an early period of the Mantramārga.
In Chapter 8 of the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta cites several verses of the Kāmika on the topic of soteriology. The context of the citations is a discussion of a hierarchy of cosmic worlds
(bhuvanādhvan) through which practitioners may ascend to realize a sense of identification with
Śiva. In other sources, this practice of ascension through cosmic worlds is referred to as tattvajaya (“conquest of the levels of reality”).61 Following an account of worlds above the earth,
Abhinavagupta holds that those who are uninitiated and who are unable to reach the supreme
59 Tantrāloka, 6:189c–191b: ete ca parameśānaśaktitvād viśvavartinaḥ || deham apy aśnuvānās tatkāraṇānīti kāmike | bālyayauvanavṛddhatvanidhaneṣu punarbhave || muktau ca dehe brahmādyāḥ ṣaḍadhiṣṭhānakāriṇaḥ | Following Jayaratha (Tantrālokaviveka, 6:190), I take verses 190c–191b to be direct citations. 60 See Goodall and Törzsök, “kāraṇa” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, eds. Hélène Brunner, Gerhard Oberhammer, and André Padoux (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004), 90–91. 61 See Somadeva Vasudeva, The Yoga of Mālinīvijayottaratantra: Chapters 1–4, 7–11, 11–17 (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2004), 293–95; see also Vasudeva and Isaacson, “tattvajaya” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, eds. Dominic Goodall and Marion Rastelli (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013), 57–58. 72 state yet whose concentration is firm (prauḍhadhāraṇāḥ) may nevertheless in due course achieve identity with Śiva (yānti śivātmatām). Moreover, Abhinavagupta maintains, this gradualist path is similar to that of those who die in holy places.62 In support of this, he writes,
In the venerable Kāmikā, in the description of Kashmir, the Lord (vibhuḥ) has said: “Those who die in that city, in the great abode of Sureśvarī, from Brahmins down to the mixed classes, from beasts down to plants, they [achieve] the rank of Rudras, so Lord Śiva has said. Above the firmament of the ether (ākāśāvaraṇāt ūrdhvam) [yet] below the [level of] ego (ahaṃkārād adhaḥ), O beloved (priye), the cities in this teaching of Śiva [refer to levels] beginning with the five subtle elements and ending with the [level of] mind (tanmātrādimano'ntānāṃ).63
The passage is noteworthy for several reasons. To begin with, we again find the feminine inflection (Kāmikā), which, as discussed above, suggests Abhinavagupta may have been drawing on another version of the Kāmika. Second, in the modern Kāmika there is no description of
Kashmir; the only reference we find to Kashmir there consists of a set of verses stating that
Kashmir is one of eight lands beginning with the syllable ‘ka’ (kakārāṣṭaka) that does not belong
62 Tantrāloka, 8:209b–212b: adīkṣitā ye bhūteṣu śivatattvābhimāninaḥ | jñānahīnā api prauḍhadhāraṇās te'ṇḍato bahiḥ | dharābdhitejo'nilakhapuragā dīkṣitāś ca vā || tāvat saṃskārayogārthaṃ na paraṃ padam īhitum | tathāvidhāvatāreṣu mṛtāś cāyataneṣu ye || tatpadaṃ te samāsādya kramād yānti śivātmatām | “Those who are uninitiated, in [worlds of] the subtle elements, thinking haughtily [they have reached] Śivatattva; those who are firm in concentration, even without [true] knowledge, [are] outside the sphere [of the Earth]. So, too, those who are initiated [yet] inclined toward [the attainment of worlds of] Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and Ether, to the extent that their purpose connected with their latent impressions does not lead them to the supreme plane. And it is the same for those who die in sacred places, among the immanent forms [of deities on earth]. After reaching the plane of this [or that deity], they in due course attain a state of identity with Śiva.” 63 Tantrāloka, 8:213–215: śrīkāmikāyāṃ kaśmīravarṇane coktavān vibhuḥ | sureśvarīmahādhāmni ye miryante ca tatpure || brahmaṇādyāḥ saṅkarāntāḥ paśavaḥ sthāvarāntagāḥ | rudrajātaya evaite ity āha bhagavāñ chivaḥ || ākāśāvaraṇād ūrdhvam ahaṅkārād adhaḥ priye | tanmātrādimano'ntānāṃ purāṇi śivaśāsane || 73 to Āryavarta.64 Further, the passage also tells us something about the structure of the Kāmika known to Abhinavagupta, which appears to have been as a dialogue between a god (vibhuḥ) and goddess (priyā), unlike the modern Kāmika, which consists of a dialogue between a group of sages (ṛṣis) and Śiva (īśvara).
Another other notable citation of the Kāmika in the Tantrāloka occurs in Chapter 32, which focuses on the topic of mudrās and supernatural powers. Early on in the chapter,
Abhinavagupta singles out one particular mudrā, the khecarīmudrā, as having exceptional significance and potency.65 This is followed by a series of instructions about how a yogin using the khecarīmudrā may exit the physical body and travel through the ether. Abhinavagupta cites several sources for support, including this passage attributed to the Kāmika:
“The TATTVA [mantra] that is heard [when it is uttered] with the mouth in the shape of a kiss (cumbākāreṇa vaktreṇa) is supreme (param). It is this universe being devoured (grasamānam idaṃ viśvaṃ) in the hollow space between the sheaths of the sun and moon (candrārkapuṭasaṃpuṭe). By means of that [mantra], one shall [be able to] move through the air (syāt khagāmī).” So says the venerable Kāmika.66
64 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga 24:3c–4: kakārāṣṭakanirmuktaḥ prasaṅgāt so'pi kathyate || karṇāṭaś ca kaliṅgākhyaḥ kacchaḥ kāśmīrasaṃjñakaḥ | koṅkaṇaḥ karahāṭaś ca kukkuṭaḥ kāṅka īritaḥ || 65 Tantrāloka, 32:4–6b: tatra pradhānabhūtā śrīkhecarī devatātmikā | niṣkalatvena vikhyātā sākalyena triśūlinī karaṅkiṇī krodhanā ca bhairavī lelihānikā mahāpretā yogamudrā jvālinī kṣobiṇī dhruvā || ityevam bahubhedeyam śrīkhecary eva gīyate | “In the matter of those [mudrās], the primary one is the venerable Khecarī. With her undivided form (niṣkalatvena), she is known to be of a divine nature. With her divided form (sākalyena), [she is] Triśūlinī, Karaṅkinī, Krodhanā, Bhairavī, Lelihānikā, Mahāpretā, Yogamudrā, Jvālinī, Kṣobiṇī, and Dhruvā. Thus this manifold variety [of mudrās] is [also] called the venerable Khecarī.” 66 Tantrāloka, 32:47c–48 cumbākāreṇa vaktreṇa yat tattvaṃ śrūyate param || grasamānam idaṃ viśvaṃ candrārkapuṭasaṃpuṭe | tenaiva syātkhagāmīti śrīmatkāmika ucyate || 74
The passage is somewhat abstruse. The TATTVA mantra here is a reference to a particular bīja mantra, similar to the root mantras of the Sārdhatriśatikālottara and Mūlasūtra of the Niśvāsa.67
In fact, the first half-verse of the citation appears in both of those texts with minor variations.68
Commenting on this half-verse, Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson suggest the sound of this
TATTVA mantra might be of a “whistling sound produced by breathing HUM through the mouth when the lips are pushed forward into a moue.”69 Regarding the phrase “sheaths of the sun and moon,” I take this to be a reference to the left and right subtle channels of the vital breath (īḍā, piṅgalā), and the “hollow space” between them, which Jayaratha glosses as madhyadhāmnī (“in the central abode”), a reference to the central channel (suṣumnā). The object of the practice,
“moving through the air,” here supports Abhinavagupta’s discussion of the khecarīmudrā and its capacity to bestow powers of flight.
Yet powers of flight and the acquisition of other supernatural powers (siddhis) do not appear to have been a significant focus of Śaivasiddhānta relative to the more siddhi-focused non-Saiddhāntika traditions.70 This view is underscored by Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha in his commentary on the Kiraṇatantra,71 a view that is also reflected in the lesser importance of
67 See Goodall, Vasudeva, and Isaacson, “tattva” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, eds. Dominic Goodall and Marion Rastelli (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013), 55. 68 Niśvāsa, Mūlasūtra, 6:10ab: cumbākāreṇa vaktreṇa yat tattvaṃ śrūyate †bhuvi†. Sārdhatriśatikāllotara 19:6ab: cumbākāreṇa vaktreṇa tat tattvaṃ parikīrtitam. 69 See their annotated translation of Niśvāsa, Mūlasūtra, 6:10abc. 70 It is particularly among Kashmirian Saiddhāntika theologians that supernatural powers (siddhis) were downplayed. Some Saiddhāntika scriptures (e.g., Mataṅgapārameśvara) discuss powers in considerable detail, Goodall has pointed out (personal communication). 71 Kiraṇavṛtti, 1:10: param ity anena strotontarebhyo vāmadakṣiṇagāruḍabhūtatantrebhyo'sya viśeṣas teṣāṃ śivakṛtatve'pi siddhipradhānatvenāparatvāt | “The distinction of this knowledge of Śiva from the other streams of the Vāma, Dakṣiṇa, Gāruḍa and Bhūta tantras [is taught] by the word ‘supreme’ (param), for these, although they were created by Śiva, are lower (aparatvāt), because they are principally concerned with [the attainment of] supernatural powers” (Translation by Goodall 1998). 75
Yogapādas in Śaivasiddhānta.72 The evidence of the Kāmika in the Tantrāloka, therefore, as with the evidence of the Mṛgendravṛtti, may suggest that the Kāmika known to 10th–11th century
Kashmirian authors was not a Saiddhāntika scripture. We find more such evidence in the citations of the Kāmika in the works of Kṣemarāja.
2.2.3. Kṣemarāja
Abhinavagupta’s disciple and successor Kṣemarāja (c. 1000–1050 CE) is often discussed in the same context as his guru.73 Two of his major commentaries (uddyotas)—on the
Svacchandatantra and Netratantra—include brief citations of the Kāmika. Altogether, we find
4.5 verses attributed to the Kāmika in these works, none of which are found in the modern
Kāmika. The same 4.5 verses are also found in the Tantrāloka, which suggests this may have been the proximate source of Kṣemarāja’s knowledge of the Kāmika. However, certain discrepancies in Kṣemarāja and Abhinavagupta’s respective use of citations highlight a thorny aspect of medieval Tantric textual practice—namely, that verses may be found belonging to multiple texts simultaneously, and it is not always possible to identify clear patterns of borrowing or adaptation.
In the Svacchandoddyota, we find one passage attributed to the Kāmika in the context of an elaborate mapping of the vital breath onto various measures of time (days, fortnights, months, etc.). The material corresponds closely to what we find in the sixth chapter of the Tantrāloka,
72 Cf., for instance, Brunner, “The Place of Yoga in the Śaivāgamas,” in Pandit N.R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume, ed. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, Satya Pal Narang, and C. Panduranga Bhatta (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994), 444–45; and Sanderson, “The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism,” The Indian Philosophical Annual 24 (2006): 202. 73 Notable secondary sources on Kṣemarāja include Pandey, Abhinavagupta; William Arraj, The Svacchandatantram: History and Structure of a Śaiva Scripture (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1988); and Sanderson, “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” 76 which Kṣemarāja appears to have drawn on for his discussion. In fact, we find the same verses of the Kāmika cited in this part of the Svacchandoddyota as in the Tantrāloka:
In the venerable Kāmikā, [it is said]: “The immortal nectar (amṛtam) in the form of the moon is two-fold [and] again sixteen-fold. The gods all drink the other fifteen portions. Amā, the new moon, situated within the hidden remainder [i.e., within the sixteenth portion] refreshes the whole (viśvatarpiṇī).”74
The passage is again somewhat abstruse. Before unpacking its meaning, we can observe that
Kṣemarāja, like Abhinavagupta, here also uses the feminine-inflected “Kāmikā,” which suggests that he too may have been aware of more than one version of the text.
In the passage above, the measure of time onto which the vital breath is mapped is that of the lunar month. Thus, the idea of the moon being two-fold and sixteen-fold is a reference to the two lunar fortnights and the sixteen digits (kalās) which represent the phases of the moon. The
“immortal nectar,” in this context, signifies the vital breath; the two lunar fortnights are references to the courses of the in-breath and out-breath, and the “hidden remainder” is an allusion to the moment separating inhalation and exhalation. The mapping of the breath in this
74 Svacchandoddyota 7:66: śrīkāmikāyām – amṛtaṃ candrarūpeṇa dvidhā ṣoḍaśadhā punaḥ || pibanti ca surāḥ sarve daśapañca parāḥ kalāḥ | amā śeṣaguhāntaḥsthāmāvāsyā viśvatarpiṇī || iti Tantrāloka 6:94–96: uktaṃ śrīkāmikāyāṃ ca nordhve'dhaḥ prakṛtiḥ parā | ardhārdhe kramate māyā dvikhaṇḍā śivarūpiṇī || candrasūryātmanā dehaṃ pūrayet pravilāpayet | amṛtaṃ candrarūpeṇa dvidhā ṣoḍaśadhā punaḥ || pibanti ca surāḥ sarve daśapañca parāḥ kalāḥ | amā śeṣaguhāntaḥsthāmāvāsyā viśvatarpiṇī || “And it is said in the venerable Kāmikā: ‘The supreme nature, Māyā, is neither above nor below; it proceeds half-by-half (ardhārdhe kramate) with its two parts having the character of Śiva. One should fill the body with [the channel that has] the nature of the moon [i.e. īḍā] and dissolve it with [the channel that has] the nature of the sun [i.e. piṅgalā]. The immortal nectar in the form of the moon is two-fold [and] again sixteen- fold. The gods all drink the other fifteen portions. Amā, the new moon, situated within the hidden remainder [i.e., within the sixteenth portion] refreshes the whole (viśvatarpiṇī).’” 77 way is further correlated with internal astrological events—solar and lunar eclipses, in particular—that are lauded as favorable to the development of supernatural powers (siddhis). In fact, this appears to be precisely the point of the citation: the Kāmika is adduced in support of acquiring powers.
In Kṣemarāja’s commentary on the Netratantra (Netroddyota), we also find citations of the Kāmika in support of the acquisition of supernatural powers. In the seventh chapter of the text, following a passage that describes the attainment of immortality, powers, and the identification of the ritualist with the “Conqueror of Death” (mṛtyujit),75 Kṣemarāja includes the following quotation of the Kāmika, which we saw cited earlier in Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka:
“The god who surpasses other gods is not dependent on others (parāpekṣā na vidyate); since it is others who are dependent on him, it is established [that he is] independent (svatantraḥ).” This is according to the guidance taught in the Kāmika.76
The verse in itself is not exceptional, but what is noteworthy is that Kṣemarāja is again using the
Kāmika to support practices aimed at acquiring supernatural powers.
In commenting on Chapters 16 and 22 in the Netroddyota, Kṣemarāja refers to the
Kāmika to support the view then current among non-dual Kashmirian Śaiva authors that gnosis
(jñāna) rather than ritual or yogic competency was considered the most important characteristic
75 Netratantra, 7:15–16b: ajarāmaras tato bhūtvā sabāhyābhyantaraṃ priye | evaṃ mṛtyujitā sarvaṃ sūkṣmadhyānena pūritam || tato'sau siddhyati kṣipraṃ satyaṃ devi na cānyathā | “Then, O beloved, after becoming immortal and ever young, outward and inward, by means of this subtle visualization (sūkṣmadhyānena), all comes to be filled thus with the [potency of the] Conqueror of Death (mṛtyujitā). Thereafter, one quickly achieves powers (siddhyati kṣipraṃ). Truly, O goddess, it is the only way.” The “Conqueror of Death” is the principal deity of the Netratantra; he is also referred to as the ‘Lord of Immortality’ (amṛteśa). 76 Netroddyota, 7:16: tasya devātidevasya parāpekṣā na vidyate | parasya tadapekṣatvāt svatantro'yamataḥ sthitaḥ || iti kāmikoktanītyā. 78 of a guru or master.77 Following a half-verse in Chapter 16 which states that the foremost master
(ācāryamukhyaḥ) should always be possessed of spiritual knowledge (jñānavān sarvado bhavet),78 Kṣemarāja writes,
One possessed of spiritual knowledge (jñānavān) [refers to] one who is ever intent upon the knowledge taught to consist of immersion in supreme consciousness. He is the [real] ‘master’ [and he is] ‘foremost’ among [other, lesser] masters whose chief concerns are ritual, yoga, and so forth. [That is how] he [i.e., a master] ‘should always be’. Thus it is said in the venerable Kāmikā:79 “A guru is said to be [one who is] rooted in knowledge [and who] acts according to the Seven Virtues80 (saptasatrīpravartakaḥ).”81
Yet from the dualist perspective of early Śaivasiddhānta it was ritual and its supposed efficacy, not spiritual knowledge, that was considered paramount.82 So here again we have a verse of the
77 This view is summed up by Sanderson: “Ritual [for non-dualists] has been validated; but it has been demoted to admit the authenticity of purely gnostic gurus (jñāninaḥ) who have achieved liberation and deserved authority without being processed by ritual and who are capable of perpetuating their spiritual lineages by liberating others through oral instruction or inspiration alone” (“The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 290–91). 78 Cf. Netratantra, 16:68ab. 79 Note again the feminine inflection (‘Kāmikā’). As discussed above, this may suggest Kṣemarāja was also aware of more than one version of the Kāmika. 80 The “seven virtues” referred to here are defined by Abhinavagupta in Tantrāloka, 23:22c–23b: dīkṣā vyākhyā kṛpā maitrī śāstracintā śivaikatā || annādidānam ity etat pālayet saptasatrakam | “The set of seven virtues (saptasatrakam) that one should keep are initiation, commentary, compassion, friendship, thinking about śāstra, oneness with Śiva, and giving food and such.” 81 Netroddyota 16:68: jñānavān paracitsamāveśātmakapraśastajñānanityayukto yaḥ, sa eva karmayogādipradhānācāryāṇāṃ madhye mukhya ācāryaḥ | sa eva sarvado bhavati | taduktaṃ śrīkāmikāyām “jñānamūlo guruḥ proktaḥ saptasatrīpravartakaḥ |” iti. 82 On this point, Sanderson writes, “Liberation [for dualists] cannot be achieved through mere knowledge of reality without recourse to ritual. This is because the state of bondage, in which the soul fails to realize its innate omniscience and omnipotence, is not caused by mere ignorance. The ignorance that characterizes the unliberated is the effect of an imperceptible Impurity (malam) that acts on the soul from outside; this Impurity, though it is imperceptible, is a material substance (dravyam). Because it is a substance, only action (vyāpāraḥ) can remove it; and the only action capable of removing it is that of the rituals of initation and their sequel taught by Śiva in Tantric scriptures” (“The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 285). 79
Kāmika that is seemingly at odds with early Śaivasiddhānta doctrine. A variation on this verse turns up again in Chapter 22 of the Netroddyota where it is preceded by 1.5 additional verses that provide further detail:
“O Praised by Heroes! (vīravandite) Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, eunuchs, women, Śūdras, and others, too, who supplicate him (ye cānye'pi tadarthinaḥ) need not be examined [for their eligibility] at the time of initiation. One should examine [them rather] when giving knowledge. A guru is rooted in knowledge, which is why he acts according to the Seven Virtues.” This is according to the ordinance taught in the venerable Kāmika.83
The citation begins with an address to the goddess, vīravandite (“O Praised by Heroes”), a name commonly found in non-Saiddhāntika works,84 which indicates that Kṣemarāja, like
Abhinavagupta, understood the Kāmika (or Kāmikā) to be a text structured as a dialogue with a goddess. It is another indication of the difference between the Kāmika known to 10th-11th-century
Kashmirian authors and the recension of the modern text.
The reference to the examination of disciples, particularly that gurus should take particular care in conferring knowledge upon a disciple—more so than in conferring initiation— speaks to the primacy with which spiritual knowledge was regarded by nondualists. The passage thus indicates as well that Kṣemarāja saw the Kāmika as a scripture favourably inclined to this viewpoint.
Finally, it is worth noting that the citation above also appears in the Tantrāloka but with some minor, albeit important, variations—including a variant attribution of the citation not to the
83 Netroddyota 22:72c: “brahmaṇāḥ kṣatriyāś caiva vaiśyā vā vīravandite | napuṃsakāḥ striyāḥ śūdrā ye cānye'pi tadarthinaḥ || dīkṣākāle na mīmāṃsyā jñānadāne vicārayet | jñānamūlo gurur yasmāt saptasatrīpravartakaḥ ||” iti śrīkāmikoktasthityā. 84 E.g., Mālinīvijayottaratantra, Tantrasadbhāva, Picumata, Jayadrathayāmala, Kubjikāmatatantra. The occurence of the name Vīravanditā in these works was noticed by Sanderson. See James Mallinson, The Khecarivīdyā of Ādinātha: A critical edition and annotated translation of an early text of haṭhayoga (London: Routledge, 2007), 166, n. 6. 80
Kāmika but to a certain Jñānottara (presumably an abbreviated reference to the Sarvajñānottara)
—which raises a thorny issue of Tantric textual practice. Putting the citations side by side allows us to see their similarity and difference more clearly:
Tantrāloka, 23:20c–22b Netroddyota, 22:72
uktaṃ jñānottare caitad “brahmaṇāḥ kṣatriyā viśaḥ || “brahmaṇāḥ kṣatriyāś caiva vaiśyā vā vīravandite | napuṃsakāḥ striyaḥ śūdrā napuṃsakāḥ striyāḥ śūdrā ye cānye'pi tadarthinaḥ | ye cānye'pi tadarthinaḥ || te dīkṣāyāṃ na mīmāṃsyā dīkṣākāle na mīmāṃsyā jñānakāle vicārayet || jñānadāne vicārayet | jñānamūlo guruḥ proktaḥ jñānamūlo gurur yasmāt saptasatrīṃ pravartayet” saptasatrīpravartakaḥ ||” iti śrīkāmikoktasthityā
On the left is the citation attributed to the Jñānottara in the Tantrāloka; on the right is the citation attributed to the Kāmika in the Netroddyota. I have underlined the attribution in each case and put the parallel wording in bold, leaving divergent readings unmarked. As we can see, the citations are almost the same, despite the variations that are marked.
What is going on here? Did Kṣemarāja or Abhinavagupta perhaps misattribute the citation? Or was there perhaps a scribal error? Given that the final half-verse (jñānamūlo guruḥ…) is also cited by Kṣemarāja with a minor variation in Chapter 16 of the Netroddyota, where it is also attributed to the Kāmika, this seems to suggest Kṣemarāja was certain of its attribution to the Kāmika. Yet another variation on this passage turns up in the 12th century in a commentary (ṭīkā) on the Mṛgendrapaddhati by Vaktraśambhu (=Naṭeśaguru), who attributes 81 the verses to the Sarvajñānottara, which seems to support Abhinavagupta’s attribution.85 Was
Kṣemarāja wrong then? Or Abhinavagupta? Or could it be that the verses belonged to both texts?
As the textual parallels between the Kāmika, Śivadharmottara, and other pre-10th-century
Śaiva works discussed above have shown, verses and longer textual segments can often be found in more than one text.86 The particular prevalence of this phenomenon in Tantric works may be due to the shared theological thought-world and shared ritual structures of Śaiva and other
Tantric traditions; authors and redactors of one branch evidently had little compunction about borrowing or adapting ritual or theological schemes from other branches.87 In some cases the direction of borrowing is clear, as in the cases discussed in the first part of this chapter. In other case, like the one above, it may be less clear.
To sum up the discussion of the Kāmika in the works of 10th- and 11th-century
Kashmirian authors, we saw that the Kāmika held only limited relevance to their intellectual projects. No commentaries on the text exist, and only 22.5 verses are cited in total by all three authors. Further, as we saw, all three exegetes cite verses of the Kāmika that appear to conflict
85 Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.1021), 188: śrīmatsarvajñānottare'pi – brāhmaṇakṣatriyā vaiśyāḥ strīśūdrāś ca napuṃsakāḥ | dīkṣākāle tv amīmāṃsyā jñānakāle vicārayet || On the date of Vaktraśamhu, see Chapter Three, 3.2.4. 86 See Introduction for a discussion of “textual reuse” (Elisa Freschi, “The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, no. 2–3 [2015]: 85–108), “textual integration” (Whitney Cox, Modes of Philology in Medieval South India [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016]), and “adaptive reuse” (Elisa Freschi and Philipp André Maas, “Introduction: Conceptual Reflections on Adaptive Reuse” in Adaptive Reuse: Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History, Special Issue of the Journal of Indian Philosophy 43 [2–3 and 4–5], eds. Freschi and Maas [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017], 11–24). 87 Cf. Sanderson, “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras”; “The Śaiva Age” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 41–350. On the shared ritual structures of early Tantric traditions, see Goodall and Isaacson, “On the Shared ‘Ritual Syntax’ of the Early Tantric Traditions,” in Tantric Studies: Fruits of a Franco-German Project on Early Tantra, ed. Dominic Goodall and Harunaga Isaacson (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg, 2016), 1–76. 82 with classical Saiddhāntika doctrines. Thus Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s citations include a reference to Kāmeśvara, who is not a god of the Śaivasiddhānta. Similarly, Abhinavagupta and
Kṣemarāja’s citations refer to a non-Saiddhāntika goddess as an interlocutor of the Kāmika, and they refer to the title of the text inflected in the feminine (Kāmikā). These findings support the view that the Kāmika known to 10th- and 11th-century Kashmirian authors was a substantively different text from the one that informs modern editions.
Moreover, judging by the number of verses cited by each author, a notable difference in the way the Kāmika was received by different Śaiva theological schools can be discerned. The author by whom we would expect the Kāmika to be most favourably received—the Saiddhāntika theologian, Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha—turns out to be the author by whom the text was least cited.
Yet as we saw, the matter is somewhat more complicated, for the Kāmika was clearly relevant to
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s commentary on the Mṛgendrāgama—just not the actual, historical Kāmika. As discussed above, an important aspect of how the Mṛgendra proclaimed its authority was as a subsidiary Tantra of the Kāmika, conceived of as an ideal text. This was a claim that
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha evidently accepted, as evidenced by his commentary on the Mṛgendra. It is also a claim that other Saiddhāntikas appear to have accepted, for the Mṛgendra is cited by virtually every other Kashmirian Saiddhāntika author of the 10th and 11th centuries.
Taken together, the evidence above is suggestive that the Kāmika known to 10th- and
11th-century Kashmirian authors was not a Saiddhāntika scripture. In turning to look at the reception of the Kāmika in other early works (pre-12th century), we find further such evidence.
2.3. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Other Early Works
Contemporaneous with the citations of the Kāmika in the works of the Kashmirian authors discussed above, verses attributed to the Kāmika also turn up in several other pre-12th century 83 sources, such as the Bṛhatkālottaratantra (c. 10th century) and the Prāyaścittasamuccaya of
Hṛdayaśiva (c. 9th to mid-12th century). While the Kāmika citations in the Bṛhatkālottara tell us little other than that the Kāmika was a text with a focus on ritual, Hṛdayaśiva’s
Prāyaścittasamuccaya lends weight to the view that an early version of the Kāmika was a non-
Saiddhāntika scripture.
2.3.1. Bṛhatkālottara
The Bṛhatkālottara is one of a number of recensions of the Kālottara that appears in the lists of the 28 Śaiva Tantras, though often under one of its other names, Vāthula or Āgneya.88 As
Sanderson and Goodall have shown, recensions of the Kālottara proliferated from relatively early on (i.e., before the 9th century).89 These various recensions have been categorized by
Goodall as “eclectic” or “non-eclectic.”90 Accordingly, the latter constitute a closely related set of texts that transmit a number of shared verses and represent the earliest Kālottara material;91 the former are more heterogeneous, later chronologically, and include passages that draw on other pre-existing sources. The Bṛhatkālottara, characterized as an eclectic recension, has been attributed to c. 900.92 The text is unedited and unpublished; it is transmitted in a Nepalese manuscript, a transcription of which is available through the digital library of Muktabodha.93
88 Goodall, “A First Edition of the [Śatika-]Kālajñāna, the Shortest of the Non-Eclectic Recensions of the Kālottara” in Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, eds. Dominic Goodall and André Padoux (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2007), 125. 89 Sanderson, “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras,” 117; Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, xlvi; “A First Edition of the [Śatika-]Kālajñāna, the Shortest of the Non-Eclectic Recensions of the Kālottara,” 125–26. 90 Ibid. 91 These include the Dviśatika, Sārdhatriśatika, Saptaśatika, and Trayodaśaśatika (Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, xlv–xlvi, referring to Sanderson). 92 Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” 12 93 NGMPP Reel No. B 29/59 Manuscript No. pra - 89. 84
Here, I focus on two chapters of the Bṛhatkālottara, the Śivabhedapaṭala and
Tantrotpattivyākhyāpaṭala.94
As Goodall has pointed out, the Śivabhedapaṭala and Tantrotpattivyākhyāpaṭala of the
Bṛhatkālottara purport to give the ādisūtras (“first verses”) of the 28 principal Śaiva Tantras.95
While some of these ādisūtras can be found in surviving works (e.g., in the Raurava, Kiraṇa, and Svāyambhuva), others are untraceable. The ādisūtra attributed to the Kāmika is unfortunately of the latter type. In the Bṛhatkālottara, it appears with a snippet of commentary, which is part of the root text of the Bṛhatkālottara:
“Now, in [this] first Tantra of the Lord, the truth about mantras (mantratattvārthaṃ) is taught fully (samāsena) in the form of a compendium on ritual (kriyāsaṅgrahalakṣaṇam).” This is the first verse (ādisūtram) promulgated in the Tantra known as Kāmika. Thirty-two lakh of mantras of unbounded energy, thirty-six tattvas, and ritual characterized by daily and occasional [divisions] (nityanaimittikī) are taught in this Tantra, distinguishing what is essential and what is not (sāretaravibhāgaṃ).96
The verse and commentary here tell us little except that the Kāmika known to the redactor(s) of the Bṛhatkālottara had a focus on mantras and consisted of a compendium on ritual.
94 I thank Dominic Goodall for sharing a corrected transcription of these chapters with me. 95 “Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2004), xxxviii. 96 Bṛhatkālottara (NAK 1-89, NGMPP B 24/59 ‘Kālottara’), Śivabhedapaṭala (f. 48v): athāto mantratattvārthaṃ1 kriyāsaṅgrahalakṣaṇam || īśānasya samāsena āditantre pradarśitam | ādisūtram idaṃ tantre kāmikākhye prakāśitam || dvātriṃśac caiva lakṣāṇi mantrāṇām amitaujasām | ṣaṭtriṃśac caiva tattvāni nityanaimittikī kriyā || sāretaravibhāgaṃ ca tasmins tantre pradarśitam | 1 °tattvārthaṃ ] em. Goodall; °tatvārtha MS 85
2.3.2. Prāyaścittasamuccaya
Hṛdayaśiva’s place and period of activity was in Mālavā, central India, sometime between the late 9th and mid-12th century, as Sanderson has pointed out.97 His
Prāyaścittasamuccaya is to be distinguished from a work of the same title by Trilocanaśiva,98 though both texts are similar in being compendiums (samuccayas) of Śaiva expiation rites.
Goodall has discussed both works in his introduction to Sathyanarayanan’s critical edition of
Trilocana’s text.99 However, unlike Trilocana’s text, Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya has not been critically edited. Two manuscripts of the latter are known to exist, the oldest of which has been transcribed and published as an Appendix to Sathyanarayanan’s edition. The transcription includes emendations and conjectures, although many passages in the text remain difficult to interpret.
Altogether we find 17.5 verses attributed to the Kāmika in Hṛdayaśiva’s text. A colophon included at the end of the Kāmika section identifies the excerpt as belonging to a certain
Praśnāvatāra (“Introductory Questions”) of the Kāmikā, which appears to have been a chapter title in the text known to Hṛdayaśiva.100 In this excerpt, we again find the feminine inflection
(Kāmikā) in the citation label. Although none of the verses from Hṛdayaśiva’s text can be found in the modern Kāmika verbatim, we do find echoes—or partial textual parallels—of the former in the modern Kāmika, specifically in Chapter 30 (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala) of the Uttarabhāga.
These echoes are presented in the following table:
97 Sanderson, “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras,” 3. 98 This is discussed in the next chapter. 99 Goodall, “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 15–63. 100 The colophon reads iti kāmikāpraśnāvatāre kāmikākhye prāyaścittaṃ samāptam iti. 86
Prāyaścittasamuccaya Kāmikāgama of Hṛdayaśiva101 Uttarabhāga, Chapter 30
sveṣṭaliṅge hṛte naṣṭe sveṣṭaliṅge paribhraṣṭe dagdhe caiva pramādataḥ | neṣṭadagdhe hṛte'pi vā || 516 prāyaścittaṃ smṛtaṃ lakṣaṃ naravānarakākādyaiḥ mantrasyārohaṇaṃ punaḥ || 35:11 spṛṣṭe'ghora japāt tataḥ | pramādāt patitaṃ bhūmau liṅgāntaraṃ pratiṣṭhāpya paśuspṛṣṭam athāpi vā | […] bhavec chuddho na saṃśayaḥ || 517 hastāt tu patite liṅge hastādeḥ patite liṅge ayutaiḥ pañcabhiḥ śuciḥ | tv aṅgulāt tu dvivṛddhitaḥ | […] dvihastāt tu yadā liṅgaṃ dvihastād ūrdhvataḥ patitan tu pramādataḥ || 35:13 pāte tv avyaṅge lakṣajāpataḥ | tadā lakṣeṇa śuddhiḥ syāt saṃskāreṇa viśuddhiḥ syāt punaḥ saṃskāramaulikaṃ | pratiṣṭhā vātra saṃmatā || 522
Close parallels between the two passages are marked in bold face. The sections that are not marked, however, despite variant wording, share more-or-less the same sense. For instance, in
Hṛdayaśiva's text, we read the following:
prāyaścittaṃ smṛtaṃ lakṣaṃ mantrasyārohaṇaṃ punaḥ || pramādāt patitaṃ bhūmau paśuspṛṣṭam athāpi vā | “[In the event that a liṅga] accidentally falls on the ground or is touched by a beast (paśuspṛṣṭam), the penance [to restore purity] is traditionally held [to consist of the recitation of] a lakh of mantras and the raising up [of another liṅga].” whereas in the modern Kāmika, we find this variation:
naravānarakākādyaiḥ spṛṣṭe'ghorajapāt tataḥ | liṅgāntaraṃ pratiṣṭhāpya bhavec chuddho na saṃśayaḥ || “When [a liṅga is] touched by a man, monkey, crow, or other [impure being], one shall be purified after reciting the AGHORA [mantra] and establishing another liṅga; there is no doubt.”
In spite of different wording, as we can see, the content is quite similar. It is also worth noting that the text found in the modern Kāmika has resolved some of the ambiguities found in the
101 Printed in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 355–499; the verse numbers here follow those of the printed text. 87 former—for instance, by clarifying what sort of being or beast would render a liṅga impure, and by specifying that it is the AGHORA mantra that is to be recited.
Needless to say, these textual echoes cannot be taken to mean that the Kāmika known to
Hṛdayaśiva was in other ways like the modern text. The excerpt of the Kāmika in Hṛdayaśiva’s text appears rather more like the text known to Kashmirian authors. In addition to the feminine inflection (Kāmikā), there is also evidence that the text known to Hṛdayaśiva featured a goddess interlocutor. For instance, Hṛdayaśiva’s excerpt includes three feminine vocative nouns: mahādevi (“O Great Goddess”), appearing once, and varānane (“O Lovely-Faced One”) appearing twice. Thus it was not only Kashmirian authors, like Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja, who knew the Kāmika to be a text structured as a dialogue with a goddess. Given that this was a feature of the text known to Hṛdayaśiva, who was based in central India, this suggests that a goddess-centric version of the Kāmika may have also once been relatively widespread.
2.4. Conclusions
The discussion of the earliest references to the Kāmika has shown that while the title can be traced back to around the 5th century there is no other evidence that the text existed historically at that time. The title may have been but a reference to a mythical text, although it could also be that the text was obscure. In either case, it does not appear to have been a scripture of the
Śaivasiddhānta originally—although it evidently came to be viewed as belonging to that school early on. The discussion in the first part of the chapter also drew attention to a number of textual parallels between the Kāmika as witnessed by modern editions and several pre-10th century Śaiva works, including the Śivadharmottara, Svacchandatantra, Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama, and
Brahmaśambhupaddhati. These parallels showed that the redaction of the Kāmika into its current 88 form involved a process of adapting and incorporating substantial passages from these pre- existing works.
Regarding the earliest citations of the Kāmika in historically datable works, we saw that the Kāmika appears to have had only limited practical relevance before the 12th century: all of the verses cited before this time, except one, are absent in the modern text. Further, we saw that citations of the Kāmika by Kashmirian authors give evidence of doctrines that conflict with those of classical Śaivasiddhānta; and we saw that the Kāmika known to 10th- and 11th-century
Kashmirian authors appears to have been received more favourably by non-Saiddhāntikas than by Saiddhāntikas. On this basis, I have argued that the citations of an early goddess-centric
Kāmika functioned largely to support the theological viewpoints and ritual practices of the non-
Saiddhāntika authors who cited it.
In terms of scripturalization, we saw that references to the Kāmika from the 5th to 10th centuries point to a consensus on the authoritative status of a text named “Kāmika,” although the content of the text, supposing it was not mythical, may have been a subject of disagreement.
Further, from a broader historical perspective, we can observe that the early references to the
Kāmika not only reflect a consensus on the authoritative status of the text but that they also function as a reinforcement of it; for in the early second millennium, Sadyojyotiḥ’s vision of
Saiddhāntika canon and theology is followed closely by gurus elsewhere in India, such as Bhaṭṭa
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha and Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha in 10th century Kashmir, and by Aghoraśiva in 12th- century South India. In other words, we can discern in Sadjyojyotiḥ’s reception of the Kāmika what I have described at the outset as a canonizing function.
Discussion of the earliest evidence of the Kāmika including the earliest citations also drew attention to aspects of textual idealization in the reception of the Kāmika. We saw this 89 through discrepancies between the significance of the Kāmika at a symbolic level and the near total absence of any engagement with the content of the text by early Saiddhāntika authors.
Taken together with the evidence that an early version of the Kāmika was goddess-centric, it could be that the Saiddhāntika authors of this period, believing (correctly or not) that the Kāmika originally transmitted a Saiddhāntika theological perspective, did not regard this goddess-centric
Kāmika as authoritative and thus ignored it.
More broadly, I have argued in this chapter that the process of the Kāmika’s composition was open-ended and that a major redaction occurred after the period in question—that is, in around the 12th century—resulting in a transformation of the text from one structured as a dialogue between Śiva and the goddess to one structured as a dialogue between Śiva and a group of male sages. I have supported this argument with evidence of citations of the Kāmika from multiple works, authors, and places that attest to an early version of the Kāmika as a goddess- centric scripture. The earliest evidence we have for the Kāmika as a dialogue between Śiva and a group of male sages comes from the 12th century. This is treated in the next chapter. Chapter Three
Transformation of a Textual Tradition I: The Development of Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship
In this chapter and the next, I shift the focus of discussion to consider the circumstances surrounding the transformation of the Kāmikāgama that resulted in its restructuring, rewriting, and reception as a Śaivasiddhānta scripture between the 12th and 14th centuries. In doing so, I take a diachronic approach to examine developments in Śaivasiddhānta practice and theology that reflect this transformation. The chapter is structured in three parts. In the first part, I look at the development of Śaiva temple worship through the lens of Āgamic literature. Given that the
Kāmika today focuses significantly on Āgamic temple-based worship, my purpose in this first part is to trace the development of this practice with a view to understanding how and when it emerged. To this end, I examine the earliest references to public Āgamic temple worship
(parārthapūjā) and the earliest evidence of a specialized Āgamic priesthood (ādiśaivas). Taken together, this evidence points to a codification of public Āgamic temple worship in around the
12th century. In the second part of the chapter, I survey Āgamic works of the 12th century for what they have to say about Śaiva temple worship, focusing specifically on the works of
Aghoraśiva, Jñānaśiva (=Jñānaśambhu), Trilocanaśiva, Vaktraśambhu (=Nateśaguru), and
Īśānaśiva. In particular, I highlight evidence of Aghoraśiva’s familiarity with what appears to have been an early Saiddhāntika version of the Kāmika. In the third part, I focus on a profusion of citations of the Kāmika in the 13th and 14th century, specifically in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of
Hemādri (13th century) and an anonymous commentary on a major Śaiva liturgical hymn
(Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 13th-14th century). The evidence in this part consists of notable 91 continuities and divergences between the Kāmika citations of the 13th-14th century and the modern text. The chapter advances the argument of the thesis concerning the scripturalization of the Kāmikāgama by showing how aspects of the composition and reception of the text in the
12th-14th centuries display evidence of the expansion of Āgamic ritual and priestly authority into the liturgical domain of public Śaiva temples. In particular, it seeks to demonstrate how the
Kāmika’s scripturalization in these centuries supported innovative ritual practices and new social configurations.
3.1. What Is Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship?
To begin with, what do I mean by Āgamic Śaiva temple worship and how is this to be distinguished from non-Āgamic Śaiva temple worship? For present purposes, I take the former to refer to any temple-based worship (pūjā, arcana) that displays substantive evidence of Āgamic influence, in contrast to the latter which I take to be predominantly informed by non-Āgamic precedents. Now one might object that a high degree of overlap exists between Āgamic temple worship and non-Āgamic temple worship such that distinguishing between the two is bound to be problematic. While I concede that considerable overlap does exist, the study of the history of temple-based worship, particularly through early post-Vedic and sectarian Hindu literature, has advanced greatly in recent years, shedding new light on innovations in ritual forms that demonstrably predate developments in Āgamic Śaivism.1 In fact, the chronological evidence for
1 For discussions of the development and formation of early non-Āgamic temple-based pūjā practices, see Shingo Einoo, “The Formation of the Pūjā Ceremony,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20 (Festschrift Paul Tieme) (1996): 73–87; “The Formation of Hindu Ritual” in From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration, eds. Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005) 7–50; Hiromichi Hikita, “Consecration of Divine Images in a Temple” In From Material to Deity, 143–98; “Liṅga Worship as Prescribed by the Śivapurāṇa” in From Material to Deity, 241–82; Michael D. Willis, “The Formation of Temple Ritual in the Gupta Period: pūjā and pañcamahāyajñā” in Prajñādhara Essays on Asian Art History, Epigraphy and Culture in Honour of Gouriswar Bhattacharya, ed. Gerd J.R. Mevissen and Arundhati Banerji (New Delhi: Kaveri Books, 2008), 66–88; The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: 92 the evolution and formation of Hindu temple worship, which has been shown to have emerged in the Gupta period or before, demonstrates that Āgamic Śaivism progressively appropriated earlier structures of ritual and in the process instituted Āgamic surrogates that subsequently came to be accepted as the norm.2 In other words, with our current state of knowledge, we are relatively well-placed to say what innovations are particular to Āgamic temple worship and what are not.
Yet questions about the rise and development of Āgamic temple worship abound, particularly concerning the period and processes through which this occurred. In several influential papers, Alexis Sanderson has carefully documented how Āgamic Śaivism spread throughout South and Southeast Asia in the latter half of the first millennium as an elite current of the broader Śaiva religion.3 Yet the view that Śaivasiddhānta constituted a form of “temple
Hinduism” from early times has had a tenacious hold;4 Sanderson, however, has pointed out that accounts of temple liturgies are not actually found before the 12th century:
Temples and the Establishment of the Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Timothy Lubin, “The Vedic Homa and the Standardization of Hindu Pūjā” in Homa Variations: The Study of Ritual Change across the Longue Durée, eds. Richard Payne and Michael Witzel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 143–66; Marko Geslani, Rites of the God-King: Śānti & Ritual Change in Early Hinduism (New York: Oxford Uiniversity Press, 2018). See also Gudrun Buhnemann, Pūjā: A Study in Smārta Ritual (Vienna: Institut für Indologie, Universität Wien, 1988). 2 On the adaptation of early non-Āgamic ritual structures by Āgamic Śaivism, see Jun Takashima, “Pratiṣṭhā in the Śaiva Ágamas,” in From Material to Deity; Einoo, “Vedic Predecessors of One Type of Tantric Ritual,” Cracow Indological Studies XVI, Tantric Traditions in Theory and Practice, eds. Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz and Ewa Dębicka-Borek (2014), 109–44; and Dominic Goodall, “On Image-Installation Rites (Liṅga-Pratiṣṭhā) in the Early Mantramārga,” in Consecration Rituals in South Asia, ed. István Keul (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 45–84. 3 Cf. “The Śaiva Age” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 41–350; “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I),” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 90–91 (2004): 349–462; “How Public Was Śaivism?” in Tantric Communities in Context, eds. Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019), 1–48. 4 As discussed in the Introduction, this has been a longstanding and influential view. Its tenacity is illustrated by a recent claim by Elaine Fisher (in her otherwise excellent book) that during the Pallava and Cōḻa periods, “Śaiva Siddhānta … provid[ed] the liturgy and protocol for nearly all major Śaiva temples in the region” (Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South India [Oakland: University of California Press, 2017], 73). 93
The involvement of the Śaivas of the Mantramārga in the temple cult covered in early Śaiva scriptural sources and all the early Paddhatis up to at least the twelfth century does not extend beyond the performing of the rituals necessary to initiate the cult by consecrating the images and the temples that house them. The texts are silent on the nature of the worship that would be performed before those images once the Śaiva Guru had completed his task.5
Nevertheless, Sanderson has noted that some Saiddhāntika gurus did act as temple officiants, despite the absence of any textualized liturgical prescriptions:
… the texts lagged behind reality in this regard. For at some point, well before the Śaiva literature was prepared to register this fact, there were Śaivas of the Mantramārga working as the priests that performed the regular rituals in the Śaiva temples. The new practice is first attested in the Far South in the late seventh century. We learn from a grant [i.e., Kūram plates] of the Pallava Parameśvaravarman I (r.c. 655–690) that a certain Anantaśivācārya, whose name makes it very probable that he was an initiated Saiddhāntika officiant, was appointed as the priest with hereditary rights to perform the ritual of worship (devakarma) in the temple of Śiva Vidyāvinītapallavaparameśvara established with his name by the Pallava king Parameśvaravarman I alias Vidyāvinīta.
Sanderson has explained the discrepancy between text and practice thus:
The persistent disjunction during this period between what was prescribed for Śaivas and what was being done by some of them is due, I propose, to the fact that functioning as a priest in a temple, and therefore living off the endowment of the deity in return for one’s work, carried a loss of status with which the older tradition was unwilling to be associated.
While Sanderson’s explanation is no doubt a sound one, another explanation that may be considered for why we do not find Āgamic liturgical prescriptions before the 12th century is that public Śaiva temple rituals before the 12th century were not typically Āgamic. Indeed the inscription Sanderson refers to above (Kūram plates of Parameśvaravarman I) does not include
5 “The Śaiva Age” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 276. Sanderson’s observation corresponds with a similar observation by Phyllis Granoff who notes that “Brahmanic participation in these rituals [of temple- building and image consecration] did not necessarily imply a general acceptance of professional participation in image worship and temple rituals” (“Reading between the Lines: Colliding Attitudes Towards Image Worship in Indian Religious Texts” in Rites hindous : transferts et transformations, eds. Gérard Colas and Gilles Tarabout [Paris: Editions de l’EHESS, 2006], 393). 94 anything beyond the name of the officiant to suggest as much. In an analysis of the same inscription, Leslie Orr discusses the offerings for worship mentioned in the epigraph, which include “veneration, bathing, flowers, perfumes, incense, lamps, food offerings, bali, conches, drums, etc.” (pūjya-snapana-kusuma-gandha-dhūpa-dīpa-havir-upahāra-bali-samkha- paṭahādi).6 Orr notes that these terms are not distinctly Śaiva but are similar to what we find in
Vaiṣṇava and Jain temple inscriptions. Further, we may note, the terms are not distinctly Āgamic either; they are the same terms that we find in many accounts of early non-Āgamic ritual worship from the Gupta period.7
Material evidence also supports the view that Āgamic Śaivism played a diminutive role relative to non-Āgamic practice in day-to-day temple practices before the 12th century. An argument on this basis was made some time ago by Hélène Brunner, who noted a lack of correspondence between āvaraṇapūjā (“worship of the surrounding deities”)—a central component of Āgamic worship—and the deities represented in the iconographic programs of
Śaiva temples.8 Along similar lines, Brunner has also pointed out that there is no concept of public temple worship (parārthapūjā) in early Saiddhāntika sources, a point that has also been made by Dominic Goodall.9 In a more recent publication, Sanderson has clarified and nuanced
6 “Words for Worship: Tamil and Sanskrit in Medieval Temple Inscriptions,” in Bilingual Discourse and Cross-Cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit and Tamil in Medieval India (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2013), 325– 57. 7 Cf. Willis, “The Formation of Temple Ritual in the Gupta Period: pūjā and pañcamahāyajñā,” 66–88; Lubin, “The Vedic Homa and the Standardization of Hindu Pūjā,” 143–66. 8 Brunner, “L’image divine dans le culte āgamique de śiva : rapport entre l’image mentale et le support du culte,” in L’image divine : culte et méditation dans l’hindouisme, eds. André Padoux and Bettina Bäumer (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1990), 9–29. Referring to Brunner’s work, Granoff has also drawn attention to ritual inconsistencies between the material conditions of temple worship and the texts that describe these rituals. In her view, “this implies a growing encroachment of priestly rituals onto the temple cult” (“Reading between the Lines,” 405). 9 Hélène Brunner, “Ātmārthapūjā Versus Parārthapūjā in the Śaiva Tradition,” in The Sanskrit Tradition and Tantrism, ed. Teun Goudriaan [Leiden: Brill, 1990], 4–23; “Introduction” in Somaśambhupaddhati, Quatrième partie, Rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā [Pondicherry: IFI, 1998], iv–v. Goodall, “parārthapūjā” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, eds. Goodall and Marion Rastelli [Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen 95 his view of the relationship between Āgamic Śaivism and lay Śaivism, describing the latter as “a mainstream tradition within the Śaiva community on which the much smaller community of initiates was parasitic,” adding that a “strong indication of the proposed independence of this
[lay] tradition can be seen in the program of deities installed in Śaiva temples. For this is quite distinct from the program of worship in the initiatory systems.”10 This last point, we may note, echoes Brunner’s earlier observation about āvaraṇapūjā.
In the view that emerges, Śaivasiddhānta’s place in the early South Asian religious landscape appears to have been somewhat more limited than what accounts of “temple
Hinduism” have claimed, with Śaiva temple liturgies and priestly activity, in particular, appearing rather to have been within the purview of lay Śaivism before the 12th century. The evidence presented below, which surveys the earliest known references to public Āgamic Śaiva temple worship, supports this view. Before looking at this evidence, however, it will be helpful to begin by reviewing the distinction in Āgamic sources between public Āgamic temple worship
(parārthapūja) and individual Āgamic worship (ātmārthapūjā) and to consider the historical evidence for the Saiddhāntika/Ādiśaiva priesthood that has traditionally carried out the former.
As I will show, the evidence points to a codification of public Āgamic temple worship in the 12th century and a corresponding expansion of Āgamic ritual and priestly authority into the liturgical domain of public Śaiva temples around this time.
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013], 399–400. “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya), ed. and trans. R. Sathyanarayanan (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2015), 36–37. 10 “How Public Was Śaivism?” in Tantric Communities in Context, eds. Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019), 6. 96
3.1.1. On Parārthapūjā and Ātmārthapūjā
The precise distinction between public Āgamic temple worship (parārthapūjā) and individual worship (ātmārthapūjā) is not always made clear in the Āgamas themselves or other ritual texts that detail these practices. As Hélène Brunner and Dominic Goodall have pointed out, the terms appear to have been unknown before the 12th century.11 The earliest references to these terms that I have found come from the 13th century in the Siddhāntaśekhara of Viśvanātha,12 discussed below. In Śaiva literature that is demonstrably earlier, it is not uncommon to find references to temples and other structures that might suggest a public temple context, particularly in accounts of installation and temple construction. However, scrutiny of accounts of regular worship (nityapūjā, nityārcana) in pre-12th-century Āgamic sources has thus far revealed few, if any, details of such practices that would take place in a public temple.
In the Mṛgendrāgama, for instance, the only reference to a physical space in the treatment of daily worship is the prescription that the ritual should be performed in a “house for worship” (arcābhavane). To some, this may suggest a temple structure, but the reference is vague;13 and it is the only reference to a physical structure in the whole account of worship.
References to the substratum of worship are equally vague. Accordingly, once a throne of worship (pīṭha) has been visualized for the sake of invoking Śiva onto a substratum, the ritualist is to invoke Śiva “in a body” (vapuṣi) and thus worship him. The term “body” is glossed in
Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s commentary as a “material form such as a liṅga” (liṅgādimūrtau), but
11 Brunner, “Ātmārthapūjā Versus Parārthapūjā in the Śaiva Tradition,” 4–23; “Introduction” in Somaśambhupaddhati, Quatrième partie, Rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā (Pondicherry: IFI, 1998), iv–v; Goodall, “parārthapūjā” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, eds. Dominic Goodall and Marion Rastelli (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013), 399–400. 12 On the dating of Viśvanātha to the first half of the 13th century, see Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25 (2014): 23. 13 The word bhavana generally refers to a place of dwelling, such as a house, mansion, or palace. However, it can also refer to a field (e.g. śālibhavana, “rice-field”; c.f. “bhavana,” Monier-Williams). 97 the Mṛgendra itself appears to be speaking only of a consecrated area of worship (sthaṇḍila).
Only at the very end of the treatment of daily worship do we find a discussion of liṅgas, and there only to present variations for alternative substratums, none of which correspond to stationary liṅgas of the sort one would find in a temple setting.14
The account of the Somaśambhupaddhati (10th century) provides slightly more detail. In its treatment of daily worship, we find references to a sanctuary (dhāman) with doorjambs
(dakṣiṇāśākhā, vāmaśākhā) and a lintel (ūrdhvodumbara). Deities associated with the different parts of the doorway that are to be worshipped before entering the sanctuary correspond to configurations found in other sources and on actual temple doorways.15 This rudimentary form of the worship of doorways (dvārārcana) and their associated deities (dvārapāla), which is developed in greater detail in later literature, may be suggestive of a temple setting, but we are still a long way from the elaborate descriptions of temple rites in post-12th century sources.
References to the substratum of worship also provide somewhat more detail than the Mṛgendra.
The rite of liṅga purification (liṅgaśuddhi) in Somaśambhu’s treatment, for instance, includes a reference to the liṅga’s pedestal (piṇḍikā), which, though suggestive of a fixed structure, need not imply that it was used for public rites.
In the Siddhāntaśekhara (early 13th century) by contrast, we find a detailed treatment of
Āgamic worship that appears to have been intended for public temples. We also find there one of the earliest references to the distinction between parārthapūjā and ātmārthapūjā. This is found
14 There are many varieties of liṅgas. For fixed structures, like temples, it is generally a form of stationary liṅga (sthiraliṅga, sthāvaraliṅga, acalaliṅga) that is used. See “liṅga” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa IV (forthcoming). 15 Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Première partie. Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu (Pondicherry: IFI, 1963), 90–95. 98 in the second chapter (pariccheda) of the Nityakāṇḍa in the procedure for worshipping Śiva
(śivārcanavidhi). The author, Viśvanātha, writes,
I will [now] describe the meritorious worship of Śiva that confers fruits of enjoyment and liberation (bhuktimuktiphalapradam). The worship of Śiva is two- fold, according to a division between “public” (parārtha) and “individual” (svārtha) [types]. The public worship of the Lord should be performed by Brahmins who are initiated; all other initiates, Brahmins, and other [caste- classes], should perform the individual (svārtha) [type of worship]. One who is uninitiated, [even if] schooled in the four Vedas (caturvedī), should neither touch [a liṅga] nor worship [in this manner]. Whether one is desirous of enjoyment (bubhukṣu) or liberation (mumukṣu), whether one is a Samayī, a Putraka, an Ācārya, or a Sādhaka, one should worship god for one’s own success (svārthasiddhaye). The worship [of Śiva] is [also] known to be two-fold according to a division in external and internal [modes of worship] (bāhyābhyantarabhedataḥ). The second [mode of worship], inner worship is for renunciants (yatīnām), those seeking enjoyments (bubhukṣūṇāṃ), or anyone else (sarveṣāṃ vā). The external [mode of] worship (bahiryāgas) will now be described according to its nature (tatsvarūpaṃ nirūpyate). [External] public worship (parārthayajanaṃ) should be performed on a liṅga set up in a village or other [settlement] (grāmādau) or else on [a substratum] created by god or such [i.e., naturally occurring] (devādinirmite) [with a view to] bringing benefits to all living beings (sarvaprāṇihitāvaham). [External] individual worship [should be performed] on a liṅga of one’s own, given by one’s guru after initiation (dīkṣottare kāle), for the sake of one’s own success (svārthasiddhyartham); this is why it is called “[worship] for one’s self” (svārtham).16
16 Siddhāntaśekhara, Nityakāṇḍa, 2:35–41 (Ed., 25–26; T.57, 36–37; T.969, 159–160): vakṣye1 śivārcanaṃ puṇyaṃ bhuktimuktiphalapradam | śivārcanaṃ taddvividhaṃ2 parārthasvārthabhedataḥ || 35 parārthaṃ brāhmaṇāḥ kuryur3 dīkṣitā yajanaṃ prabhoḥ | sarve svārthaṃ prakurvīran dīkṣitā brāhmaṇādayaḥ || 36 adīkṣitaś caturvedī na spṛśen nāpi cārcayet | bubhukṣur vā mumukṣur vā samayī putrako'pi vā || 37 ācāryaḥ sādhako devaṃ pūjayet svārthasiddhaye | yajanaṃ tu dvidhā4 jñeyaṃ bāhyābhyantarabhedataḥ5 || 38 dvitīyaṃ6 tad bubhukṣūṇāṃ yatīnām antararcanam7 | sarveṣāṃ vā bahiryāgas tatsvarūpaṃ nirūpyate || 39 grāmādau sthāpite liṅge yadvā devādinirmite | parārthayajanaṃ9 kuryāt sarvaprāṇihitāvaham || 40 svārthaṃ dīkṣottare kāle gurudatte svaliṅgake | yajanaṃ svārthasiddhyartham evaṃ svārtham udāhṛtam || 41 1 vakṣye ] T.57; T.969; yakṣe Ed. 2 taddvividhaṃ ] T.969; tadvividhaṃ Ed.; tadvi[vi]dhaṃ T.57 3 brāhmaṇāḥ kuryur ] Ed., T.57; brāhmaṇāḥ kuryu T.969 4 tu dvidhā ] T.57; taddvidhā T.969; ca dvidhā Ed. 5 bāhyābhyantarabhedataḥ ] Ed., T.969; bāhyābhyantaraṃbhedataḥ T.57 6 dvitīyaṃ ] T.57, T.969; prathamaṃ Ed. 7 antararcanam ] Ed., T.57; antarārcanam T.969 99
The reference to parārthapūjā and ātmārthapūjā (= svārtha) here is notable for several reasons. At the beginning of the excerpt, we find the view, common in Āgamic Śaivism, that the purpose of worship is to realize the twin rewards of enjoyment (bhukti) and liberation (mukti).
Yet as discussion turns to public worship, the purpose of worship is redefined in terms of its purported benefit for all living beings (sarvaprāṇihitāvaham). This purpose is not found in early
Āgamic Śaivism, although it does become an important element in discourse on parārthapūjā in post-12th-century sources.17
There is also a conspicuous absence in the passage cited above to the priesthood traditionally enjoined to carry out parārthapūjā, the Ādiśaiva priesthood. As discussed below,
Ādiśaivas represent a category of Śaiva priests who in post-12th-century sources are generally spoken of as the only group suitable or eligible to perform parārthapūjā. Indeed, in later sources, particularly after the 16th century, one is hard-pressed to find references to parārthapūjā that do not mention Ādiśaivas. The lack of reference to them here, combined with the stipulation that any initiated Brahmin may perform parārthapūjā, is therefore noteworthy—particularly since we find Ādiśaivas referred to elsewhere in the Siddhāntaśekhara, though not as temple priests.
3.1.2. On Ādiśaivas
Ādiśaivas today are invariably associated with temples, primarily in Southern India, where they comprise various sets of local and sub-regional priestly communities and lineages
(e.g., paṭṭars, kurukkals).18 Generally classified as a semi-endogamous sub-caste of Brahmins,
8 parārthayajanaṃ ] Ed., T.57; parārthaṃ yajanaṃ T.969 17 Cf., for instance, Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 4.5: nṛpater āyurārogyajayasampadvivṛdvaye | grāmādīnāṃ vivṛddhyarthaṃ parārthejyā prayujyatām || Cf. also Kāraṇa, Pūrvabhāga 30.11cd: tatparārthaṃ samākhyātaṃ sarveṣām ātmanaḥ phalam. 18 Cf. C. J. Fuller, Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 12, 21, 171n. 100 although traditionally ranked below non-priestly Brahmins,19 Ādiśaivas are allied by a common focus on Śaiva temple worship and a common set of gotras (“lineages”).20
The reference to Ādiśaivas in the Siddhāntaśekhara also happens to be one of the earliest.21 Viśvanātha does not refer to Ādiśaivas as temple priests or in the context of parārthapūjā, yet he attests to their status as gurus otherwise. In his discussion of Śiṣyalakṣaṇa
(“characteristics of disciples”), he refers to Ādiśaivas as disciples of five mythic sages (ṛṣis)—
Kauśika, Kāśyapa, Bharadvāja, Gautama, and Agastya—purportedly initiated by Śiva at the time of creation (sṛṣṭyādau).22 The reference to these five sages and their associated gotras incidentally overlaps with another category of Śaiva initiate found primarily in South India and referred to in inscriptions as Śivabrāhmaṇas. As Sanderson has pointed out, Śivabrāhmaṇas and
Ādiśaivas are often found with the same gotra names,23 and we find both designations used interchangeably in post-12th-century sources. Yet the term Śivabrāhmaṇa appears to be an earlier one, for it is found in South Indian inscriptions as early as the 9th century, while the term
Ādiśaiva is not found until several centuries later.
The context for the reference to Ādiśaivas in the Siddhāntasekhara is a discussion of disciplic succession. Viśvanātha there identifies the five gotras mentioned above with an earlier
Āgamic classification scheme for initiates known as gocaras (= kulas, “families”). This is
19 Ibid., 21. 20 Fuller, Servants of the Goddess: The Priests of a South Indian Temple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 28. 21 The earliest reference that I am aware of occurs in the biography of Cuntaramūrttināyanār in Cēkkiḻār’s Tiruttoṇṭarpurāṇam (i.e., Periyapurāṇam), composed during the reign of Kulōttuṅga Cōḻa (r. 1133– 1150). I thank Whitney Cox for pointing this reference out to me. 22 Siddhāntaśekhara, Naimittikakāṇḍa 2:108c–109b (Ed., 155; T.57, 234; T.969, 262): pañcānāṃ kauśikādīnāṃ anye śiṣyā maharṣayaḥ || 108 ādiśaivā ime1 jñeyāḥ sṛṣṭyādau2 śivadīkṣitāḥ | 1 ādiśaivā ime ] Ed., T.57; ādiśaivānumair T.969 2 jñeyāḥ sṛṣṭyādau ] Ed., T.57; jñeyā ṛṣayādau T.969 23 “The Śaiva Age,” 280n. 101 noteworthy, for it appears to be a starting point for the constitution of these gotras as distinctly
Āgamic or Saiddhāntika, and it hints at the origins and emergence of the Ādiśaiva sub-caste. The five gocaras in the Siddhāntaśekhara associated with the aforementioned gotras are śiva, śikhā, jyotiḥ, sāvitrī, and vyoma.
gotras gocaras Kauśika śiva Kāśyapa śikhā Bhāradvāja jyotiḥ Gautama sāvitrī Agastya vyoma
In earlier sources (pre-12th century), as Brunner and Goodall have pointed out, the gocaras are conceived of as fourfold and appear to be a classification scheme for Saiddhāntika initiates on the basis of dispositions, aspirations, and moral propensities.24 After the 12th century, however, the basis for this classification scheme changes, such that affiliation to a particular gocara comes to be limited to initiates (or male children) of gurus already belonging to that gocara.25 The five gotras, by contrast, appear to have had no particular or distinct Āgamic associations before the 12th century, apart from the fact that the same gotra names are found in
South Indian inscriptions in reference to Śivabrāhmaṇas. The earliest known association between these gotras and gocaras is found in the Gotrasantati, attributed to Aghoraśiva (mid-12th century);26 however, the number of gotras and gocaras in the Gotrasantati is four, not five, and
24 Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Troisième partie. Rituel occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu II : dīkṣā, abhiṣeka, vratoddhāra, antyeṣṭi, śrāddha (Pondicherry: IFI, 1977), 666–75; Goodall, “gocara” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, eds. Hélène Brunner, Gerhard Oberhammer, and André Padoux (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004), 202–03. 25 See Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Troisième partie, 666–75. 26 The Gotrasantati appears at the end of the Mahotsavavidhi, which in turn is held by some to be an original part of the Kriyākramadyotikā (cf. Richard H. Davis, A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival: Aghoraśiva’s Mahotsavavidhi [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 6–9) As Goodall has pointed out, the account of gocaras in the Gotrasantati appears to have been modelled on an earlier account of 102 there is no use of the term Ādiśaiva there.27 In the Siddhāntaśekhara, by contrast, the gotras and gocaras are presented as fivefold and they are designated as Ādiśaivas. Moreover, in the
Siddhāntaśekhara, the gotras and gocaras are further associated with five Saiddhāntika initiating divinities and five parts (kalās) of Śiva’s mantra-body.28
gotras gocaras initiating divinity parts (kalās) Kauśika śiva Śivamūrti śiva Kāśyapa śikhā Īśvara śakti Bhāradvāja jyotiḥ Īśāna nāda Gautama sāvitrī Brahmāmūrti bindu Agastya vyoma Ūrdhvavaktra rudrakalā (?)29
The association between the five gotras, gocaras, initiating divinities, and parts (kalās) of
Śiva’s mantra-body that is developed in the Siddhāntaśekhara also constitutes the basis for the aetiological myth associated with Ādiśaivas that is found in other, later sources.30 Accordingly, since the sages of the five gotras are purportedly the first to receive Śaiva initiation, they and their lineal descendants are referred to as Ādiśaivas (“First Śaivas”).
In short, the appearance of the term Ādiśaiva in the 12th-13th century—and its absence before this time—suggests that the category was a relatively new one at the time, and it appears
gocaras found in the Naṭarājapaddhati of Rāmanātha (“Saiddhāntika paddhatis I. On Rāmanātha, the Earliest Southern Author of the Śaivasiddhānta of Whom Works Survive, and on Eleventh-century Revisions of the Somaśambhupaddhati,” Cracow Indological Studies XVI, Tantric Traditions in Theory and Practice, eds. Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz and Ewa Dębicka-Borek [2014]: 191n). 27 Cf. Goodall, “gocara.” 28 The section of the text that details the association of these gotras, gocaras, initiating divinities, and parts (kalās) of Śiva’s mantra-body is slightly corrupt. For these associations, I follow Brunner (Somaśambhupaddhati, Troisième partie, 668n) who cross-references them with parallels in the Kāraṇa and Kālottara. 29 See previous footnote. 30 E.g. Kāraṇa, Pūrvabhāga 26:3–8; Raurava, Kriyāpāda 63:8–9; Vīra (Ācāryalakṣaṇam) 7:11–18 (T. 29, 41–42). 103 to have developed through a mapping of once non-Āgamic gotras onto an Āgamic framework for disciplic succession. In the process, it seems, the earlier category of Śivabrāhmaṇas, who belonged to the same gotras, came to be equated with Ādiśaivas. As to why the
Siddhāntaśekhara does not refer to Ādiśaivas as temple priests or in the context of parārthapūjā, we can only speculate, but it may be that Ādiśaivas had yet to command the prerogatives of worship that they came to have later.
The preceding discussion of public worship (parārthapūjā), individual worship
(ātmārthapūjā), and the Ādiśaiva priesthood has focused on the emergence of discourse on parārthapūjā and Ādiśaivas in the 12th-13th century. As discussed above, these terms appear to be relatively new in this period, although the practices and categories they represent appear to be somewhat older. In light of the absence of Āgamic temple liturgies before the 12th century, I suggest this innovation in terminology points to an innovation in practice, specifically a codification of Āgamic temple worship in the 12th century and an expansion of Āgamic ritual and authority into the daily operations of public Śaiva temples around this time. As I will argue in the next section, elements of this expansion can be found somewhat earlier, in the 12th century, before the terms parārthapūjā and Ādiśaivas come to be more commonly used. It is to these earlier references to temple-based worship in Āgamic sources that we now turn.
3.2. References to Āgamic Śaiva Temple Worship in the 12th Century
As discussed above, the earliest references to public Āgamic temple worship appear in the 12th century. While none of these demonstrate an awareness of the dichotomy between ātmārthapūjā and parārthapūjā, nor an awareness of the social group known as Ādiśaivas, several texts from this period include references to temple worship that appear to have been public as well as verses that can be traced in the extant Kāmika. The starting point for this discussion is the 12th-century 104 author Aghoraśiva and his contemporary Jñānaśiva (=Jñānaśambhu), for it is in their writings and those of their disciples, Trilocanaśiva and Vaktraśambhu (=Naṭeśaguru), that we find the earliest of these references. Also discussed in this section is Īśānaśiva for the references to temple worship in his work, Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati (i.e., Siddhāntasāra), and for the early date to which this text is sometimes attributed.
3.2.1. Aghoraśiva
Aghoraśiva’s life, background, and oeuvre have been the subject of several studies.31
Based in Chidambaram, Aghoraśiva was a prolific author, although scholars generally agree that a number of works attributed to him are not by the 12th-century author of that name.32 His most influential work, no doubt, is the Kriyākramadyotikā (i.e., Aghoraśivapaddhati). This was the text most commonly mentioned during my fieldwork by priests and gurus as the basis for the ritual procedures used in Śaiva temples today. Print editions of the Kriyākramadyotikā, however, particularly those of the Civañāṉapōta Press and South Indian Archakar Association, include
31 E.g., Wayne Surdam, “South Indian Śaiva Rites of Initiation: The Dīkṣāvidhi of Aghoraśivācārya’s Kriyākramadyotikā” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984); Davis, “Aghoraśiva’s Background,” Journal of Oriental Research Madras (Dr. S.S. Janaki Felicitation Volume) 56–62 (1986– 92): 367–78; Davis, Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Siva in Medieval India (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991); Davis, A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival; Brunner, “Le Parārthanityapūjāvidhi: Règle Pour Le Culte Quotidien Dans Un Temple,” in Tiruvannamalai: Un lieu saint śivaite du sud de l’Inde, III, rites et fêtes, eds. Françoise L’Hernault and Marie‐Louise Reiniche (Paris: École Française d’Extrême‐Orient, 1999), 263–340; Ginette Ishimatsu, “Aghoraśivācārya: Author of the Parārthanityapūjāvidhi?” Journal of Oriental Research 67–70 (2000): 231–46; Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, volume I (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry / École Française d’Extrême Orient, 1998); “Problems of Name and Lineage: Relationships between South Indian Authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Series 3/10/2 (2000): 205– 16; “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya), ed. R. Sathyanarayanan (Pondichéry: Institut français de Pondichéry; École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 2015). 32 Cf. Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, xiii–xvii; Davis, A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival, 3–14. 105 several sections that are considered pseudepigraphic.33 Brunner and Goodall have pointed out that the works securely attributed to Aghoraśiva neither allude to public worship (parārthapūjā) nor show any awareness of Temple Āgamas like the modern Kāmika.34 However, evidence presented below suggests a more complicated picture.
In another ritual manual composed by Aghoraśiva, the Mṛgendrapaddhati, we find evidence that public temple worship does appear to have been within Aghoraśiva’s purview, although in a limited way, and it suggests Aghoraśiva may have been familiar with an early
Saiddhāntika recension of the Kāmika. The attribution of authorship to Aghoraśiva for the
Mṛgendrapaddhati is secure (mid-12th century), for a commentary (ṭīkā) on the text written by his disciple, Vaktraśambhu, has come down to us, and no evidence of later interpolation is discernable.35 The passages in question are found in the Mṛgendrapaddhati’s section on penance rites (prāyaścitta),36 where 28 verses—approximately a third of the whole section—consist of nearly identical parallels with verses found in Chapter 30 (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala) of the
Uttarabhāga of the modern Kāmika.37 The shared verses are not labelled as citations of the
Kāmika, which presents some ambiguity about the direction of borrowing—that is, whether
Aghoraśiva was borrowing from the Kāmika or vice versa. But the ambiguity can be resolved by
33 Cf. Ibid. 34 Brunner, “Le Parārthanityapūjāvidhi,” 263–68; Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, xiii–xvii; “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 47. Davis heeds Brunner’s and Goodall’s observations, but only to an extent (A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival, 3–14); he maintains an ascription of authorship to Aghoraśiva for the Mahotsvavidhi, in spite of strong evidence that suggests otherwise (cf. Goodall, “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 47). 35 The Mṛgendrapaddhati and its commentary (ṭīkā) are transmitted in an IFP palm-leaf manuscript (R.E. 40086), of which there is a Devanāgari paper transcript (IFP T.1021). The first 20 folios of the palm-leaf manuscript are partly damaged and fragmentary. 36 The Prāyaścittavidhi section is found in IFP R.E. 40086, 10a–15a and IFP T.1021, 25–35. Since Vaktraśambhu’s commentary includes the Prāyaścittavidhi section, this section appears to have been part of Aghoraśiva’s text, not an interpolation. 37 See footnote 43 below. Sathyanarayanan and Goodall have respectively noted and discussed issues of intertextuality between this same chapter of the Kāmika and the Prāyaścittasamuccaya by Trilocanaśiva (see Śaiva Rites of Expiation). 106 a close reading of the parallels, which shows that Aghoraśiva was indeed borrowing from a version of the Kāmika. In one of the verses, Aghoraśiva has included a telling vocative noun: munīśvara[ḥ] (“O Lord among Sages”). The term is found nowhere else in the
Mṛgendrapaddhati, and not surprisingly; the Mṛgendrapaddhati is not addressed to any such interlocutor. In the parallel verse in the Kāmika, the vocative noun is plural: munīśvarāḥ (“O
Lords among Sages”). And in the Kāmika, this expression is common, as the teaching of the
Kāmika is addressed to a group of sages.38 In other words, the conspicuousness of the vocative in the Mṛgendrapaddhati makes it clear that it was part of an unattributed citation to a work structured as a dialogue involving one or more sages. This cited work appears to be an early
Saiddhāntika version of the Kāmika.39 It also suggests that a significant structural element of this
Saiddhāntika Kāmika—its form as a dialogue between Śiva (īśvaraḥ) and one or more sages— was in place by the 12th century.
The references to public temple worship in the Mṛgendrapaddhati are found in the treatment on expiation procedures to be undertaken should some calamity or other befall a temple. The following excerpt—a passage of the Kāmika transmitted in the Mṛgendrapaddhati— provides an example of this.
If a liṅga or other cult image (pratimādikaṃ) is taken by a foe, the king will be harassed by enemies and his country destroyed. By every effort, therefore, it should be brought back in order for it to be re-installed in the same place. If the liṅga, cult image (bera), or other such is [in danger of being] taken, it should be put in a hidden place. For the sake of pacifying the fault engendered by the liṅga being uprooted (liṅgotpāṭajadoṣasya), using the Aghora mantra, [the ritualist]
38 The difference between plural and singular here appears to be signficant. As I discuss later in this chapter, Hemādri’s citations of the Kāmika also point to a recension structured as a dialogue between Śiva and an individual sage. 39 Of course there is the possibility that the cited text was not the Kāmika, but instead some other text that was also structured as a dialogue with a sage and that subsequently came to be incorporated into the Kāmika. But I think this is unlikely given that numerous citations attributed to the Kāmika with a dialogical structure involving a sage can be found in the 13th century. See the discussion of Hemādri’s Caturvargacintāmaṇi further in this chapter for details. 107
should offer a thousand oblations with ghee and sesame, a hundred [oblations] with cooked food offerings (caruṇā), [and/or?] a thousand oblations with dūrvā grass combined with the three sweet substances [sugar, honey, and butter]. […] If the liṅga, image, or other such is not recovered, [the ritualist] should set up another new one. If [it has been missing for] less than a month or for longer, up to a limit of three months, pacificatory oblations (śāntihomaṃ) should be performed daily until it is re-established. [If it is missing] for longer than that, then the establishment of a temporary liṅga and such [associated procedures] (bālaliṅgādyam)40 is enjoined. Therefore every effort [should be made to retrieve the lost liṅga, image, etc.] within three months. The temporary liṅga and so forth should be set up according to the manner for temporary [liṅga] installations. One should then search for the [lost] cult image (pratimā), or mukhaliṅga,41 or bāṇaliṅga42 every day in such a way [until it is found]—if it is certainly [known to be] located elsewhere. Then, [when it is found,] one should win it [back] through war, or else respectfully give money [to buy it back] (vittaṃ dattvā ādarāt). After recovering the liṅga, image (bera), or other such, one should quickly re-install it in its own [appropriate] place. By every effort (bahuyatnataḥ) [it should be] recovered within three years. If it is not recovered after three years, O Lords among Sages (munīśvarāḥ), one should set up a [new] root liṅga or such (mūlaliṅgādyaṃ) as before on the [same] foundation with the same materials and measurements (taddravyais tatpramāṇataḥ) and worship it according to the [mode of] worship taught previously.43
40 A bālaliṅga (lit. “child liṅga”) is typically smaller than a temple’s primary liṅga. It is used during renovations and other procedures where the main liṅga must be removed for some time. See “liṅga” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa IV (forthcoming). 41 A liṅga with one or more faces. See ibid. 42 A liṅga comprised of bāṇa, a type of white stone found in the Narmadā river believed to be a form of Śiva. See ibid. 43 Mṛgendrapaddhati (IFP T.1021, 26–27) ≈ Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (UKā1988), 30:361c–371d: ripuṇā saṃgṛhītaṃ cel1 liṅgaṃ vā pratimādikam2 | tadrāṣṭranāśo nṛpatiḥ śatrubhiḥ paripīḍyate3 | sarvayatnāt tad āhṛtya4 tatraiva sthāpanāya ca | labdhaṃ cel liṅgaberādyaṃ guptadeśe5 nidhāya6 ca | liṅgotpāṭajadoṣasya7 śāntyarthaṃ ghoramantrataḥ | sahasraṃ homayed ājyatilābhyāṃ8 caruṇā śatam | madhuratrayasaṃyuktaṃ9 sahasraṃ dūrvayāhutim10 | | […] alabdhaṃ beraliṅgādyaṃ yadānyat11 sthāpayen navam | māsād arvāk tadūrdhvaṃ ced yāvan māsatrayāvadhi | pratyahaṃ13 śāntihomaṃ ca kartavyaṃ14 sthāpanāntikam15| tadūrdhvaṃ sthāpanaṃ bālaliṅgādeś cātra coditam16 | tasmāt sarvaprayatnena māsatritayamadhyame | saṃsthāpya17 bālaliṅgādyaṃ bālasthāpanavartmanā18 | pratimāmukhaliṅgaṃ vā bāṇaliṅgādikaṃ tu vā | pratyahaṃ caivam anveṣya19 sthitam anyatra20 ced dhruvam | tadā yuddhena jitvā vā vittaṃ dattvāthavādarāt21 | āhṛtya22 liṅgaberādyaṃ svasthāne sthāpayed bhṛśam | saṃvatsaratrayād arvāk saṃlabdhaṃ bahuyatnataḥ | saṃvatsaratrayād ūrdhvaṃ alabdhaṃ cen munīśvara23 | 108
The passage is notable for a few reasons. The first is the connection between the welfare of the king, country, and ritual life of the temple. This is a common feature of parārthapūjā accounts. The stipulation that warfare may be justified to recover a stolen liṅga or cult image suggests a ruler or administrative assembly (sabhā) with a stake in the temple. Also notable is the use of the term bera (“cult image”), for this term is not generally found in pre-12th-century
Śaiva sources.44 In another passage from this section of the Mṛgendrapaddhati, we find details on penance rites to be undertaken in the event of a ritual transgression on behalf of a courtesan in a temple. Here too the evidence suggests a public temple context:
And [in the event that] a courtesan (vārastrī) [should] menstruate inside a temple, or at the time of [ritual] dancing, a cleansing and purificatory washing [should be performed] (mārjanaṃ prokṣaṇaṃ tathā). And [lest] plagues (mahāmāryaḥ) arise, one should expel the woman. In whatever place the girl stood, those very
mūlasthāne yathāpūrvaṃ taddravyais tatpramāṇataḥ | saṃsthāpya mūlaliṅgādyaṃ arcayed arcanoktavat | 1 saṃgṛhītaṃ cel ] UKā1988 ; saṃ [---] T.1021 2 liṅgaṃ vā pratimādikam ] UKā1988 ; liṅge va pratimādike T.1021 3 paripīḍyate ] UKā1988 ; pīḍyate naraḥ T.1021 4 tad āhṛtya ] UKā1988 ; tadā dadyāt T.1021 5 liṅgaberādyaṃ guptadeśe ] UKā1988 ; li [---] pte deśe T.1021 6 nidhāya ] T.1021; vidhāya UKā1988 7 liṅgotpāṭa- jadoṣasya ] UKā1988 ; liṅgopadanadoṣasya T.1021 8 homayed ājyatilābhyāṃ ] UKā1988 ; gomayed ājyaṃ tilābhyāṃ T.1021 9 madhuratrayasaṃyuktaṃ ] UKā1988 ; [---] T.1021 10 dūrvayāhutim ] UKā1988 ; dūrvayā hunet T.1021 11 yadānyat ] UKā1988 ; yadanyat T.1021 12 pratyahaṃ] UKā1988 ; pratyekaṃ T.1021 13 śāntihomaṃ ca kartavyaṃ] T.1021; śāntihomaś ca kartavyaḥ UKā1988 14 sthāpanāntikam ] UKā1988; snapanāntikam T.1021 15 bālaliṅgādeś cātra coditam ] conj. Goodall; bālaliṅgādeś cātra noditam UKā1988 ; bālaṃ liṅgādyair vātrinoditam T.1021 16 saṃsthāpya ] UKā1988; saṃsnāpya T.1021 17 bālasthāpanavartmanā ] UKā1988 ; [---] pūrvavat kuru T.1021 18 pratyahaṃ caivam anveṣya ] UKā1988 ; pratyakcchavatyaivam anviṣya T.1021 19 sthitam anyatra] UKā1988 ; sthitim anyasya T.1021 20 jitvā vā vittaṃ dattvāthavādarāt ] UKā1988 ; vā jitvocitaṃ datvāthavādarā T.1021 21 āhṛtya ] UKā1988 ; dāhṛtya T.1021 23 alabdhaṃ cen munīśvarāḥ ] UKā1988 ; labdhaṃ cet tu munīśvara T.1021 As this apparatus shows, I mainly selected readings from the 1988 edition of the Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, although I included readings from the Mṛgendrapaddhati where this seemed appropriate. 44 See “bera” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa IV (forthcoming). 109
[places] should be cleansed. Then, an image for bali offerings (baliberaṃ) should be set up and nine pacificatory oblations [offered].45
Leaving aside the misogynistic tone of the excerpt, I have found no parallels with the Kāmika for this passage; yet it provides some further insight into the temple context with which Aghoraśiva appears to have been familiar. The reference to the “time of [ritual] dancing” (nṛttakāle) points to a form of worship that included dancing women, which suggests a public or semi-public space.
The reference to an image for bali offerings is also noteworthy. Although bali offerings, which are presented to ghosts and other potentially disruptive forces on the margins of the ritual, are referred to in early accounts of Āgamic worship,46 images used in the context of bali offerings are not. In later accounts of public temple worship, one commonly finds references to balipīṭhas—platforms for bali offerings—but such references are not generally found in early sources.
In the Mṛgendrapaddhati’s section on regular worship, we do not find references to suggest a public temple context, which is conspicuous considering the foregoing. Yet this is also in keeping with what Brunner and Goodall have observed concerning Aghoraśiva’s focus on private worship.47
45 Mṛgendrapaddhati (IFP T.1021, 28): ālayābhyantare caiva vārastrī ca rajasvalā || athavā nṛttakāle tu mārjanaṃ prokṣaṇaṃ tathā | mahāmāryaḥ pravartante samudvāsya ca tāṃ striyam || yatra deśe sthitā kanyā tatra tatraiva mārjayet | baliberaṃ tu saṃsthāpya navakaṃ śāntihomakam || 46 For instance, Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Mūlasūtra, 2:9: vidyeśvaraṃ tataḥ pūjya tataḥ pūjya digīśvaram | astrāṇi ca samabhyarcya karmmānte digbaliṃ kṣipet || 47 Brunner, “Le Parārthanityapūjāvidhi,” 263–68; Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, xiii–xvii; “Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 47. 110
3.2.2. Jñānaśiva
Like Aghoraśiva, Jñānaśiva was connected with Chidambaram, although he also lived in
Vārāṇasī where he composed two works, a ritual manual known as Jñānaratnāvalī and a liturgical hymn entitled Śivapūjāstava.48 Though neither of these works focus on temple worship per se, in the case of the Jñānaratnāvalī, it seems clear that a number of its prescriptions were intended for such a context. This is discernible from the references we find to temples (prāsādas) in the treatment of daily worship and from several other features of daily worship detailed in the text.
One indication of Jñānaśiva’s concern with temple-based worship in the Jñānaratnāvalī is his discussion of the problem of transposing Āgamic ritual to the setting of a temple sanctum, particularly one with a single doorway. Since early Āgamic prescriptions for worship envision a ritual space bounded by a maṇḍala, which may not have had any actual walls, performing
Āgamic worship in a single-door temple sanctum engenders certain constraints. In the modern
Kāmika and other sources that focus on temple worship, the mismatch between different visions of ritual space is evident in discussions of the veneration of door guardians (dvārapālas) and the placement of Śiva’s faces or aspects relative to the doorway. For instance, in early accounts of
Āgamic worship, the door guardians are to be worshipped on a western door;49 however, for temples that have a single eastern door, this obviously poses a problem. As Brunner and Goodall have pointed out, the problem is typically surmounted by treating the eastern door as a western
48 For accounts of Jñānaśiva’s life and oeuvre, see Goodall, “Problems of Name and Lineage,” 209–12; Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry / École Française d’Extrême Orient, 2004), cx–cxi; Nina Mirnig, “Liberating the Liberated : A History of the Development of Cremation and Ancestor Worship in the Early Śaiva Siddhānta” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2009); and Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” 19–23. 49 Early sources are in agreement about this. See Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Première partie, 91. 111 door at the beginning of worship.50 Once inside the sanctum, the ritualist proceeds with the eastern door again as the eastern door.
But the spatial constraints of one-door sanctums evidently gave rise to further problems, to which the Jñānaratnāvalī bears witness. For sanctums with a single western door, for instance, other questions arise: Does Śiva then face west, that is, outward? Or does he remain facing east—that is, facing the back wall of the sanctum? Some authors argued that Śiva should always face outward, regardless of the orientation of the temple, on account of it being for the benefit of the world (lokānugrahākatvāt).51 In a west-facing temple, this would then require one to mentally reverse the orientation of the directions in the course of worship—such that east would become west, south would become north, and so on—in order to ensure the correct placement Śiva’s faces relative to the doorway and worshipper. In the modern Kāmika, the problem is dealt with by including a specific chapter dedicated to practices for west-facing temples,52 where the possibility is introduced that Śiva may face east or west,53 an innovation evidently designed to resolve confusion and sanction existing variations in practice. Jñānaśiva, however, took the approach that Śiva should always face east, and that in the course of worship this should always be aligned with the door, regardless of the actual orientation of the temple. He articulates this view in the following passage, where the ritualist, after entering the sanctum, is
50 Ibid, 90–92; Goodall et al., Pañcāvaraṇastava: A twelfth-century South Indian prescription for the visualisation of Sadāśiva and his retinue (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2005), 102–07. 51 This is the view of Jñānaśiva (see below). Others who follow this view include the anonymous author of the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā: pūjyaśivo dvidhā | calācalaliṅgabhedena | tayos sthiraliṅgaṃ dvārābhimukham | lokānugrāhakatvāt (79) “Śiva is to be worshipped in [one of] two ways: with a movable [liṅga or with an] immovable [liṅga]. Of these, the immovable liṅga faces the door.” This is echoed in the Kriyāsāra (Volume 2, 286): sthiraliṅgaṃ sarvasādhāraṇyena lokānugrāhakatvāc ca catasṛṣu dikṣu sveṣṭamukham iti yasyāṃ diśi dvāraṃ taddigabhimukhaṃ bhavati. The later author Kacchapeśvara (16th-17th century?) in his commentary (vyākhyā) on the Kriyākramadyotikā upholds the same view (T.109, 174): sthiraliṃgasya lokānugrāhakatvāt dvārābhimukhaṃ siddhaṃ. 52 Paścimadvārārcanavidhipaṭalaḥ (Chapter 1 of Kāmika, Uttarabhāga). 53 puruṣaṃ pūrvadeśe vā paścime vātha cintayet (Ibid, 85ab). 112 enjoined to take a seat facing north in front of Śiva’s southern face (Aghora). Jñānaśiva introduces the discussion with the following hypothetical objection:
Objection: In a hall for worship (yāgamaṇḍape) and in an east-facing temple this is possible [i.e., for a ritualist to sit on Śiva’s southern (Aghora) side facing north]. But in a west-facing [temple], surely, where the Lord stands facing west, it would then be the case that his southern face (aghoravacanam) was in the north. Such [an objection] should not be considered. There too the Lord is east- facing. For it is said: “the Lord’s temple may be [oriented] according to whatever direction one wishes, but [the Lord] does not lose [the orientation of his] faces beginning with Tatpuruṣa, arranged according to the directions beginning with east. In whatever direction the liṅga, image (pratimāṃ), or other such [substratum] was built, the worshipper, facing north, should venerate Śiva.”54
According to Jñānaśiva, therefore, the worshipper and Śiva are to face north and east, respectively, regardless of the orientation of the temple. The citation Jñānaśiva draws on for support here is anonymous; I will come back to it below. What is not explained in this passage, however, is what is involved for Śiva to remain facing east in a west-facing sanctum. Jñānaśiva addresses this by again taking the perspective of the perplexed ritualist. He thus asks: “How is it explained that there too [i.e., in a west-facing temple] Tatpuruṣa and Īśāna55 are [the faces] of the
54 Jñānaratnāvalī (based on Madras GOML MS R 14898 [= IFP T.231, 41] and Mysore ORI MS P 3801 [= My], a palm-leaf MS in Nandināgarī; I thank Dominic Goodall for sharing his reading of this Mysore manuscript with me): nanu yāgamaṇḍape pūrvābhimukhe prāsāde cāyaṃ saṃbhavati1 | nanu paścimābhimukhe yat tu2 tatra devaḥ paścimābhimukhas3 tiṣṭhati | tatas tasyāghoravadanam apy uttare syād iti cen naivaṃ vācyam | tatrāpi devaḥ pūrvānana eveti | uktaṃ ca “devasya4 prāsādo bhavatu5 yayā kāṣṭhayā6 kāmaṃ [|] tatpuruṣādimukhāni7 tu na jahati pūrvādidiksaṃsthāḥ [||] liṅgaṃ vā pratimāṃ kriyate 'nyad vā8 yayā9 kakubhā [|] tasyāṃ tasyāṃ yajvā yajeta śivam uttarābhimukhaḥ10 [||]” 1 cāyaṃ saṃbhavati ] My; vā svāsaṃmukhaṃ bhavati T.231 2 yat tu ] My; yatas T.231 3 paścimābhimukhas ] My; paścimābhimukhe T.231 4 devasya ] My; dehasya T.231 5 bhavatu ] My; havat T.231 6 yayā kāṣṭhayā ] conj. Goodall; yayā kāmakāṣṭhayā My; yathā kāṣṭhāyāḥ T.231 7 tatpuruṣādi° ] My; tatpuruṣāṇi T.231 8 kriyate'nyad vā] My; vā kriyate'nyad vā (unmetrical) T.231 9 yayā ] My; yāyā T.231 10 uttarābhimukhaḥ ] conj; uttarābhimukham My, T.231 55 Tatpuruṣa, as mentioned above, is typically visualized facing east. Īśāna, though facing upward, generally inclines along the same axis as Tatpuruṣa. 113
Lord in front of the western door?”56 Jñānaśiva answers, drawing on support from another anonymous source:
And it is said: “In whichever direction the door may be situated, that one may take to be west [i.e., for the sake of worshipping the door guardians]. The door which is in front of the liṅga, that is to be regarded as east. There, the face of Tatpuruṣa and the upper [face, Īśāna,] should be in front. The balipīṭha, bull, and trident should be in front of those faces.”57
What Jñānaśiva intends then is clear: the ritualist is to mentally reverse the directions of the temple sanctum so that the western door is treated as east for the central sequence of worship. In this way, Śiva is visualized with the face of Tatpuruṣa and Īśāna facing outward and east.
The citations Jñānaśiva draws on in these passages are of unknown origin, although they are found in several other sources.58 The second citation (“In whichever direction the door may be situated…”) is found in the modern Kāmika’s chapter on daily worship (Arcanavidhipaṭala,
Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 4). Though it is conceivable that Jñānaśiva was quoting this verse from a version of the Kāmika without acknowledging it, a more likely scenario might be that the verse was interpolated into the Kāmika at a later time; for the same verse is found cited in the
Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, Kriyāsāra, and Śivārcanacandrikā, in all cases without any attribution.
In the 16th century, in the Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati of Vedajñāna II, we find the same verse, but there it is attributed to the Kāmika, which suggests it was incorporated into the Kāmika
56 Jñānaratnāvalī (IFP T.231), 41: kathaṃ yasya devasya paścimadvārābhimuktvaṃ pratipāditaṃ tatrāpi tatpuruṣeśānayor eva. 57 Ibid., 42: uktaṃ ca — yasyāṃ diśi bhaved dvāraṃ pratī tāṃ parikalpayet | liṅgasyābhimukhaṃ yat tad dvāraṃ tat pūrvam iṣyate || tatra tatpuruṣaṃ vaktram ūrdhvaṃ cābhimukhaṃ bhavet | balipīṭhaṃ vṛṣaṃ śūlaṃ tadvaktrabhimukhaṃ bhavet || 58 The first (devasya prāsādo bhavatu…), for instance, is found in Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā (81), Kriyāsāra (Volume 2, 287), Śivārcanacandrikā (86). The second (yasyāṃ diśi bhaved dvāram…) is found in Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.1021, 118), Kriyāsāra (Volume 2, 287), and Śivārcanacandrikā (86). 114 sometime between the 14th and 16th century. This further speaks to the open-ended nature of the
Kāmika’s compositional and redactive process.
Although the discussion of transposing Āgamic worship to a temple setting demonstrates Jñānaśiva’s concern with temple-based worship, it is unclear whether this setting would have been public or private. Some passages in the Jñānaratnāvalī suggest the latter, for there is a clear antipathy in the text to those who would carry out rituals as a professional calling.59 Jñānaśiva, like Aghoraśiva, thus appears to have been but on the periphery of public temple life. We find a similar stance in the work of their disciple, Trilocanaśiva.
3.2.3. Trilocanaśiva
Trilocanaśiva’s background is given in the introduction to his commentary on the
Somaśambhupaddhati, where he identifies himself as “being a member of the lineage of teachers of the Āmardaka monastery.”60 Of the works attributed to Trilocana, it is unclear whether all were composed by the same person.61 Among those that are generally accepted to be by the well-known 12th-century author are the Siddhāntasārāvalī, Prāyaścittasamuccaya,
Dhyānaratnāvalī, and Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā.
59 Jñānaratnāvalī (IFP T.231, 31): vṛttyarthaṃ pūjayed yas tu devatāṃ liṅgam eva ca | devasthānapatiś caiva sa vai devalakaḥ smṛtaḥ || “But whosoever should worship for the sake of financial gain the image of a deity, especially a liṅga, that person in charge of the place of worship is known as a devalaka.” The term “devalaka” is a pejorative term for a temple priest, synonymous in some contexts with one who has lost caste. See Goodall, “devalaka” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, 195. 60 Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.170, 1): āmardāśramadeśikānvayabhavaśrīnetraśambhu[ḥ]. See also Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Quatrième partie, xlix; and R. Sathyanarayanan Sarma and S.A.S. Sarma, Dhyānaratnāvalī of Trilocanaśivācārya (Karaikkal: Srimath Srikanta Sivacharya Research Institute, 2012), xxii–xxiii. As Goodall has pointed out, “Āmardaka … is both Ur-lineage and Śaiva monastery” (“Introduction” in Śaiva Rites of Expiation, 18). 61 Works attributed to Trilocanaśiva include Siddhāntasārāvalī, Prāyaścittasamuccaya, Dhyānaratnāvalī, Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā, Siddhāntasamuccaya, Siddhāntarahasyasāra, Brahmaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā, and Pāṣaṇḍaparājaya. 115
No direct citations of the Kāmika can be found in any of the works attributed to
Trilocana. However, as with Aghoraśiva and Jñānaśiva, verses shared with the Kāmika can be found unlabelled in his oeuvre. The parallels with the Kāmika were first noticed by R.
Sathyanarayanan in his edition of the Prāyaścittasamuccaya and by S.A.S. Sarma in his edition of the Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā (forthcoming) and they have been discussed by Goodall in his introduction to the former. The Prāyaścittasamuccaya was found to transmit 31 verses that are also found in the Kāmika’s chapters on funeral rites (Antyeṣṭividhipaṭala, Uttarabhāga, Chapter
27) and penance rites (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala, Uttarabhāga, Chapter 30). The Kāmika verses shared with the Prāyaścittasamuccaya, Goodall has noted, include purificatory rites for temple personnel, including prescriptions for temple singers and dancers. Similar to the Kāmika material in Aghoraśiva’s Mṛgendrapaddhati, this material pertains to the world of the public
South Indian temple. Yet nothing in Trilocana’s oeuvre—no more than in the works of his gurus—suggests a connection with daily worship in those temples.
The private, individual orientation of daily ritual in Trilocanaśiva’s oeuvre is evident in his major works, particularly the Siddhāntasārāvalī and his commentary on the
Somaśambhupaddhati. For if Trilocana were concerned with parārthapūjā, we might expect to find some indication of this in his commentary on the procedures for daily worship outlined by
Somaśambhu. But there is no more indication in Trilocana’s commentary than in Somaśambhu’s manual that the prescriptions were intended for anything other than private ritual. In Trilocana’s commentary, the ritual space is no more elaborate than in Somaśambhu’s account; Trilocana simply clarifies that the right and left doorjambs are to be conceived in relation to the 116 worshipper,62 and he cites several verses from Aghoraśiva’s Pañcāvaraṇastava for the visualization of door guardians before moving on to other matters.
Like the Prāyaścittasamuccaya, Trilocanaśiva’s Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā also transmits a handful of verses that are shared with the Kāmika, specifically six and a half verses that are found in the Kāmika’s chapters on ritual bathing (Snānavidhipaṭala, Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 3) and daily worship (Arcanavidhipaṭala, Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 4). These verses provide no more evidence of public temple worship. Still, the verses are noteworthy for they are attributed by
Trilocana to the Brahmaśambhupaddhati, which, as discussed in the previous chapter, was an important source text for the (re)writing of the Kāmika.
3.2.4. Vaktraśambhu
Like Trilocana, Vaktraśambhu was a disciple of Aghoraśiva and Jñānaśiva. The only known work of his is a commentary on Aghoraśiva’s Mṛgendrapaddhati. His aim in composing this commentary was apparently to introduce elements that would make the text usable as a basis for Śaivasiddhānta ritual, whereas Aghoraśiva’s work does not appear to have been intended for practical use.63 Thus, Vaktraśambhu’s commentary includes a range of procedures that are left
62 Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.170, 27): atra dakṣiṇavāmabhāgaḥ pūjakāpekṣayā mantavyaṃ | tad uktaṃ bhojadevena — nandigaṅge mahākālayamune cātmano1 dakṣiṇavāmaśākhyor2 iti || 1 cātmano] corr.; cātmanor T.170 2 dakṣiṇavāmaśākhyor] corr.; dakṣiṇavāmaśākhyoḥ T.170 “Now, the [doors on the] right and left sides are supposed to be in relation to the worshipper. Thus Bhojadeva has said — ‘[The two sets of door guardians,] Nandi and Gaṅga and Mahākāla and Yamunā, [should be respectively] on the doorjambs to the right and left of oneself’.” 63 Cf. Sanderson, who notes that all prominent Śaiva ritual manuals that have come down to us (e.g., Somaśambhupaddhati, Kriyākramadyotikā, Jñānaratnāvalī) are eclectic in that they draw on a range of Āgamas to elucidate procedures for rites, whereas the Mṛgendrapaddhati was designed to draw exclusively on the Mṛgendrāgama, adding that the “purpose in this work is evidently not to promote an alternative model for the Saiddhāntika ceremonies” (“The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I).” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 90–91 [2004]: 358n). That the Mṛgendrapaddhati 117 out by Aghoraśiva, such as the worship of the Sun-god (sūryapūjā), considered to be an essential part of the daily worship of Śiva.64 Thus, Vaktraśambhu writes in the opening of the
Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā:
Having bowed down before the greatest of gurus, the promulgator of the venerable Mṛgendrapaddhati, I will set out a commentary upon it. Yet in the matter of what is expected (tv apekṣite) in this [paddhati], but which is not mentioned—rites such as the worship of the Sun-god, which are being performed continuously—[this] too I will teach here.65
The Mṛgendrapaddhati and its commentary do not appear to have been particularly influential; the text is little quoted in later works, and it does not appear to have been transmitted or copied to any great extent.66 Nevertheless, Vaktraśambhu’s commentary, like Aghoraśiva’s manual, provides some interesting (albeit limited) insight into the world of Śaiva temple worship. Thus, Vaktraśambhu, like Jñānaśiva, touches on the problem of transposing individual- focused Āgamic ritual to a temple setting, an issue that is evident in his treatment of the cardinal orientation of the doors.
In the case of a moveable liṅga, the best [option] is worship [in a space] with a west-facing door; but in the case of a stationary liṅga, worship should be performed in accordance with [the direction of] the door (yathādvāram). […] Uttering “OṂ HUṂ PHAṬ” while entering [the sanctum], one should enter with the right foot first, [leaning on] the left doorjamb. [Then,] taking a seat in a posture facing north, one should perform [rites of] self-purification.67 apparently also drew on the Kāmika (i.e., in its section on prāyaścitta) could perhaps be understood in light of the fact that the Mṛgendra is considered a subsidiary part (upabheda) of the Kāmika. 64 Śaivism’s subsumption of the cult of the Sun-god has been discussed by Sanderson (see “The Śaiva Age,” 53–58). That the Mṛgendrāgama does not include rites of solar worship can presumably be explained by the fact that the Mṛgendrāgama is an early scripture that predates this subsumption. 65 Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.1021, 65): śrīmanmṛgendrapaddhatyāḥ praṇetāraṃ gurūttamam | praṇipatya vidhāsyāmi ṭīkām asyās tv apekṣite || asyāṃ tu yāny anuktāni sūryārcādīni santatau | kriyamāṇāni cātraiva karmāṇy api vadāmy aham || 66 Only one known manuscript of the text survives, IFP R.E. 40086 = IFP T.1021. 67 Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.1021, 78, 80): paścimadvārapūjaiva calaliṅgaviṣaye praśa[tā] sthiraliṅgaviṣaye tu yathādvāraṃ pūjā kartavyā || […] oṃ huṃ phaḍ ukta iti praveśasamaye dakṣiṇapādapurassaraṃ vāmaśākhāpārśvena praviśet | upaviśyāsane kuryād ātmaśuddhim udaṅmukham | 118
The prescription for a stationary liṅga suggests a permanent structure with a single doorway—in other words, a sanctum or temple. The injunction that worship should be performed relative to the door (yathādvāram), regardless of its direction, suggests an adaptation of the ritual to a pre-existing spatial arrangement.68 Like similar prescriptions detailed above, there is no evidence here to suggest a public dimension to the ritual. In the section on expiation rites in the Mṛgendrapaddhati, where Aghoraśiva includes 28 verses from the Kāmika,
Vaktraśambhu provides only brief commentary, nothing that would situate the text in a parārthapūjā setting.
Yet Vaktraśambhu also cites verses that can be found in the modern Kāmika. He does not attribute these verses to the Kāmika, however; instead, like Trilocana, he attributes them to the
Brahmaśambhupaddhati (10th century). The following passage in particular is notable for it consists of a single block quotation that Vaktraśambhu attributes to the
Brahmaśambhupaddhati,69 which is also found in the modern Kāmika. Yet in the modern
Kāmika, the parallel verses are not found as part of a single unit of text but are rather found in two separate chapters of the Uttarabhāga (Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhipaṭala, Chapter 20, and
Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhipaṭala, Chapter 23).
68 That is to say, an adaptation to a temple or sanctum setting that was not necessarily built in accordance with Āgamic norms. 69 Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā (IFP T.1021, 105–06). 119
Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā of Kāmikāgama Vaktraśambhu Uttarabhāga, Chapters 20 & 23
śrīmadbrahmaśambhupaddhatyāṃ —
nyasya śayyāsane śambhoḥ nyasya sarvātmanā śambhoḥ pratyakṣaṃ pātayet sthitam | pratyekaṃ prārthayet sthitam | apanīya dṛśālokāc apanīya dṛgālokāc chādanaṃ vasanaṃ kramāt || chādanaṃ vasanaṃ kramāt || sahasālokiteśāna- sahasālokiteśāna- śivavaktrasaroruham | śivavaktrasaroruham | [---] yāt tam aṅgamuñceti brūyāt tad aṅgamuñceti prasūnaṃ śivasaṃmukham || prasūnaṃ śivasaṃmukham || sphuṭabhaktiśivāmbhoja- sphuṭabhaktiparāmbhoja- parāgām iva puñjitam | parāgam iti pūjitam | (20:70–72b) paśūnām agraṇīr yastu †yadadastu viśeṣataḥ† | Not found pravṛttir asya yāgasya tvaṃ nītvā śivasannidhim || saṃbhāvyādhyeṣayed devaṃ śivaṃ vijñāpayed devaṃ prāṇair antarbahisthitaiḥ | prāṇair antarbahiścaraiḥ7 | parīkṣitaḥ samartho'yaṃ parīkṣitaḥ samartho yan nirvāṇārtham upasthitaḥ | nirvāṇārtham upasthita[ḥ] | (23:12c–13a)
In the left-hand column above is the block quotation in the Mṛgendrapaddhati that
Vaktraśambhu attributes to the Brahmaśambhupaddhati; in the right-hand column are the parallel verses found in the two separate chapters of the modern Kāmika. The verses with dotted underlines in the left-hand column represent a verse in the block quotation that could not be found in the modern Kāmika. The parallels are marked in boldface, and we can see that they are very close; one was clearly drawing on the other. The direction of borrowing here, as before, I suggest, was from the Brahmaśambhupaddhati to the Kāmika; as I have argued in Chapter Two, the Kāmika adopted and rewrote portions of the Brahmaśambhupaddhati as part of its compositional process. More parallels between verses attributed to the Brahmaśambhupaddhati and verses in the modern Kāmika can also be found in the work of Īśānaśiva. 120
3.2.5. Īśānaśiva
Īśānaśiva was a Keralan Śaiva guru and author of an eponymously titled ritual manual,
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, also known as the Siddhāntasāra. A study of the text was published in the late 1980s by N. P. Unni.70 Speculation on Īśānaśiva’s period of activity has varied considerably. Following Sanderson, the earliest plausible date appears to be the 12th century, although a later date should not be ruled out.71
The Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati is structured in four parts, consisting of [i] a
Sāmānyapāda (section on general procedures), [ii] a Mantrapāda (section on mantras), [iii] a
Kriyāpāda (section on rituals), and [iv] a Yogapāda (section on yoga). The subject matter covered is considerably broader than that of any other ritual manual discussed above. Thus, in addition to rituals for worshipping Śiva, the text includes procedures for Vaiṣṇava, Śākta, Saura,
Gāṇeśa, and Vedic ceremonies. There are also chapters dedicated to remedial treatments for poison from snakebite (viṣapratikāra), possession by demonic forces (grahaceṣṭā, bhūtabādha), epilepsy (apasmāra), afflictions affecting children (bālacikitsā), and sections to enable mantra practitioners to withstand pain, make themselves invisible, and ensure victory in warfare. The encyclopedic range of topics included suggests the text was compiled not as a prescriptive guide for ritual, but as a description of practices then known in Kerala. As such, the text is revealing for what it has to say about temple practices and worship of the period. As with other authors
70 Tantrapaddhati: A Study (Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi, 1987). This is included as an introduction with Volume I of the the 1990 edition of the Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, ed. T. Ganapati Sāstrī, 4 volumes (Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi, [1920] 1990) 71 Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” 23–24. As Sanderson points out, Īśānaśiva is “of uncertain date,” noting that the latest datable works Īśānaśiva cites are the Somaśambhupaddhati (11th century) and the Prapañcasāra (~12th century). 121 discussed above, there are no direct citations of the Kāmika, no use of the term parārthapūjā, nor any reference to a class of priests uniquely qualified to undertake such procedures.
The first clear allusion to temple-based worship in the manual is found in the
Sāmānyapāda, which includes as its eighth chapter a description of ritual services (upacāras), with variations for Śaiva, Śākta, and Vaiṣṇava worship.72 Īśānaśiva starts out with a note about the benefits of such worship. Thus, he writes:
Now, when performed in the customary fashion, the worship of gods—who themselves consist of mantras—is understood to bring about [spiritual] attainments and to confer benefits, seen and unseen. Deities pleased by this worship grant benefits [consisting] of the [four] human aims (puruṣārthaphalapradāḥ). This worship is to be understood as being of three types: Best, Medium, and Lowest, according to [the] sequence [of services offered]. The Best [type of] worship is with sixteen services; the Medium [type] is [indicated] here with ten services, and the Lowest [type] of worship is with a procedure involving five services.73
It is worth noting that the benefit of granting the “four human aims,” mentioned here, is rather different from the stated benefit of daily worship in ātmārthapūjā-oriented sources, where the reward consists of enjoyments/powers (bhukti) and liberation (mukti). Yet it is comparable to what we find in parārthapūjā-oriented sources, where the benefit is said to be for all
(sarvaprāṇihitāvaham) or for the prosperity of communities (grāmādināṃ vivṛddhyartham);74 this is therefore suggestive of a public context for worship. Īśānaśiva then goes on to detail what
72 Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, Volume I, 71 (8:24ab): tac cāsya trividhaṃ jñeyaṃ śaivaṃ śāktaṃ ca vaiṣṇavam 73 Ibid., 69 (8:1–3c): atha mantrātmabhūtānāṃ devatānāṃ yathocitā | pūjā siddhikarī jñeyā dṛṣṭādṛṣṭaphalapradā || 1 tayā syur devatās tuṣṭāḥ puruṣārthaphalapradāḥ | pūjā sā trividhā jñeyā śreṣṭhamadhyādhamakramāt || 2 pūjottamā bhavati ṣoḍaśadhopacārair yā madhyamā prabhavatīha daśopacārā | pañcopacāravidhinā tv adhamā saparye 74 See discussion of parārthapūjā above. 122 is included in the ritual services for these different types of worship.75 The number of services does not, by itself, indicate either a private or public form of worship; but further in the chapter, where the food offerings for the “best” type of worship are described as consisting of “eight buckets with up to 12 measures”76 of rice (taṇḍula), it is clear that a more elaborate mode of worship is indicated.
Notably, Īśānaśiva does not cite or draw on any Āgamic sources in this section, except for a single verse attributed to the Pauṣkarāgama.77 This is notable, for he draws abundantly on
Āgamic material elsewhere in his manual. Indeed this eighth chapter of the Sāmānyapāda has a distinctly non-Āgamic tone, which is supported by the lack of references to any of Śiva’s faces or to any cardinal directions. In conjunction with the pan-sectarian (Śaiva, Śākta, Vaiṣṇava) nature of the chapter, it is clear that this account of services (upacāras) was not intended to be
Āgamic or strictly Śaiva, a fact which is consistent with the general (sāmānya) tenor of this section of the manual.
75 For the “best” type, the upacāras include [1] offering a seat (āsana), [2] invocation (āvāhana), [3] offering reception water (arghya), [4] offering water to wash the feet (pādya), [5] offering sipping water (ācamanīya), [6] bathing (snāna), [7] clothing (vasana), [8] ornamenting (bharaṇa), [9] perfuming (gandha), [10] offering flowers (puṣpa), [11] incense (dhūpa), [12] lights (dīpa), [13] offering food (porridge) (carunivedana), [14] fire ritual (agnikārya), [15] bowing (namaskāra), [16] offering worship through muttered prayers (japapūjāsamarpaṇa). For the “medium” type, [1] offering reception water (arghya), [2] offering water to wash the feet (pādya), [3] offering sipping water (ācāma), [4] bathing (snāna), [5] perfuming (gandha), [6] offering flowers (puṣpa), [7] incense (dhūpa), [8] lights (dīpa), [9] food (nivedya), [10] bowing (namaskāra). For the “lowest” type, [1] perfuming (gandha), [2] offering flowers (puṣpa), [3] incense (dhūpa), [4] lights (dīpa), [5] offering food (nivedya). 76 Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, volume I, 77 (8:1–3c): nityanaivedyaprakaraṇam | aṣṭadroṇaṃ samārabhya yāvad dvādaśabhārakam. 77 Ibid., 72: madhuparkaṃ tu tad dadyāt sāmānyaṃ tac ca mantrataḥ | na nityayajaneṣv iṣṭaṃ madhuparkanivedanam | naimittikeṣu tac chastaṃ pratiṣṭhāsthāpanādiṣu1 || iti pauṣkare 1 °sthāpanādiṣu ] corr.; °snapanādiṣu Ed. “But generally one should give honey-milk, and it [should be given] using mantras. In the Pauṣkara[, however, it is said] that ‘in daily rituals of worship, the offering should not be honey-milk; it is best [to give this] in occasional rituals, such as [rites of] establishment and construction’.” 123
In the Kriyāpāda, we also find an account of services (upacāras), included as the fifth chapter of that section; but there it has a clear Āgamic Śaiva inflection. The account in the
Kriyāpāda repeats about two thirds of the same verses as the Sāmānyapāda (approximately 90 of
130 verses), and it is evident that the Āgamic variation was composed and redacted on the basis of the non-Āgamic account in the Sāmānyapāda. In the Kriyāpāda, what is distinctly Āgamic is the inclusion of a procedure for visualizing the Śaiva throne of worship, with Śiva’s various faces, accompanied by an abundance of quotations from Āgamic sources, including the Kiraṇa,
Mataṅga, Kālottara, Vātula, and Brahmaśambhupaddhati. Further, and notably, in the
Kriyāpāda, all verses with a pan-sectarian nature have been excised or redacted.78
The ritual spaces mentioned in the Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati for carrying out services
(upacāras) and other procedures are various; they include built structures, such as temples or sanctums (arcanamaṇḍira, yāgagṛha, pūjāgeha) and areas temporarily consecrated for worship
(maṇḍalas, sthaṇḍilas). Both spatial types are mentioned in the Kriyāpāda’s account of daily worship79 in connection with the type of liṅga employed—movable and stationary (calaliṅga, sthiraliṅga). The chapter draws on citations of the Pauṣkara, Brahmaśambhupaddhati, and
Prayogamañjarī. Details of temple types and structures are given in greater detail in the sections of the manual on rites of establishment (pratiṣṭḥā).80
In contrast to Aghoraśiva, Jñānaśiva, and their disciples, Īśānaśiva provides substantial evidence of a public form of daily temple worship, particularly in his chapter on “Procedures for
78 For instance, verses 8:24, 28, and 81 of the Sāmānyapāda are not found in the Kriyāpāda, all of which refer to Vaiṣṇava variations. Also, verse 8:55 has been redacted from gandhaś ca trividho jñeyaḥ śaivaḥ śāktaś ca vaiṣṇavaḥ (“And perfuming should be understood as being of three types: Śaiva, Śākta, and Vaiṣṇava”) to gandhas tu dvividhaḥ śaivaḥ pañcāṅgo'ṣṭāṅga eva ca (“Perfuming, for its part, [which is] Śaiva, is two-fold: five-limbed and eight-limbed”). 79 This is detailed in chapters 12, 13, and 14 of the Kriyāpāda. 80 For instance, Kriyāpāda, chapters 24–29. 124 the Daily Festival” (Nityotsavavidhipaṭala, Kriyāpāda, Chapter 48). Accordingly, during the three junctures of the day, after offerings of food (naivedya) are given, a daily festival is enjoined with bali offerings to the “retinues of Rudra,”81 followed by a procession around the temple precincts with Śiva worshipped on a “moveable seat” (calāsana) accompanied by the sound of musical instruments (drums, flutes, lutes, etc.).82 In front of Śiva, “beautiful, well-adorned women” (nāryaḥ surūpāḥ samalaṅkṛtāḥ) were to be singing and dancing, with the promise that those who praised god (stuvanti ye), danced, and sang (nṛtyanti ye vā gāyanti) would be released from all sins (mucyante sarvakilbiṣaiḥ).83 The chapter contains nothing that is distinctly Āgamic, nor any citations of Āgamas, though it is worth noting that such daily festivities are also found in
Āgamas of the parārthapūjā variety, like the Kāmika.84
As noted above, there are no direct citations of the Kāmika in the text; however, we do find verse parallels, as with other authors of this period. Here, too, the verse parallels are attributed to the Brahmaśambhupaddhati. I have identified a total of six verse parallels with the modern Kāmika in the Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati,85 which correspond to verses found in the
81 Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, Volume IV, 450 (48:2): trisandhyaṃ pūjayitveśaṃ naivedyahavanāntakam | rudrapāriṣadebhyas tu baliṃ dadyād yathāvidhi || 82 Ibid., (6–7): śivaṃ calāsanagataṃ gandhādyaiḥ pūjayet kramāt | bherīpaṇavagovaktraḍhakkājhallarikānakaiḥ || timilāmaḍḍukāmbhojatālakāhalamardalaiḥ | saveṇuvīṇākāṃsyaiśca baliyātrābhiśaṃsibhiḥ || 83 Ibid., 451 (16c–17b): tatra devāgrato nāryaḥ surūpāḥ samalaṅkṛtāḥ || gītanṛttaṃ tathā kuryur anye † [---] | [---] † yena vrajanty agre praṇamantaḥ stuvanti ye || nṛtyanti ye vā gāyanti mucyante sarvakilbiṣaiḥ | 84 Cf., Kāmika (Nityotsavavidhipaṭala, Uttarabhāga, Chapter 5) 85 Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati Volume I, 10:33–34 ≈ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:88; Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati Volume III, 5:57–58 ≈ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:416–17; Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati Volume III, 13:53–54 ≈ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:284a; Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati III, 13:94–95 ≈ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:459; Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati 125
Kāmika’s chapters on daily worship (Arcanavidhipaṭala, Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 4) and initiation
(Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhipaṭala, Uttarabhāga, Chapter 20). Some of these verses overlap with the verses cited by Trilocana that are also attributed to Brahmaśambhu.
The foregoing discussion has covered a number of details about the nature of daily ritual worship prescribed by Śaivasiddhānta gurus up to the 12th century. Before looking at the earliest labelled citations of the Kāmika, which appear in the 13th-14th century, I would like to sum up the material discussed thus far. To begin with, it appears that the Kāmika circulated in some shape or form in the lineage of Aghoraśiva and Jñānaśiva and that verses from it can be found unlabelled in their writings and those of their disciples. That the verses are unlabelled does not appear to be particularly significant: in some contexts, citations are only occasionally attributed to an original source;86 in other contexts, citations may not be attributed at all.87 In other words, it was not standard practice for gurus to label the material they cited.88 Further, it is clear from the foregoing that the narrative structure of the Kāmika as we know it today, as a dialogue between
Śiva and one or more sages was a feature of the text by the 12th century, when it appears to have displaced the earlier narrative structure of the Kāmika as a dialogue with a goddess—which is not found after the 11th-12th centuries. Finally, it is clear that the recension of the Kāmika that circulated in the 12th century had a bearing on public temple worship, a detail that is indicated by the references to temple people, such as dancers and singers, in the citations of the Kāmika found in the Mṛgendrapaddhati and Prāyaścittasamuccaya.
Volume III, 16:29–30 ≈ Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 20:21cd–22ab; Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati Volume III, 16:37–38 ≈ Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 20:35. 86 For instance, only about a third of the citations in the Jñānaratnāvalī are labelled. 87 Trilocanaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya, for instance, is composed entirely of unattributed citations. 88 This tendency continues: practices of borrowing material from disparate sources without attributing it or labeling it as such is also a common practice among Śaivasiddhānta gurus today. See Chapter Six for details of a recent ritual manual used in the instruction of priests at an Āgama school in Tamilnadu that includes considerable borrowing from the Kriyākramadyotikā without the verses being labelled as such. 126
Concerning the nature of ritual worship prescribed by Śaivasiddhānta gurus discussed above, there is little evidence—except in the case of Īśānaśiva—of any substantive connection or concern with daily public temple rites. None of the gurus discussed use the term parārthapūjā; nor do any of them refer to a class of priests who perform such worship. In fact, apart from
Īśānaśiva, the references to practices suited to a fixed space, such as a temple or sanctum, could just as well have been private spaces. It is only Īśānaśiva who details the performance of regular public rites with a range of temple people (dancers, musicians, etc.). For Aghoraśiva, Jñānaśiva, and their disciples, there is no evidence that these gurus shaped how temple priests performed public worship. On the contrary, the public temple contexts referred to in their works suggest rather that these gurus were on the periphery of these institutions.
3.3. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Works of the 13th-14th Centuries
By the 13th century, the picture of the Kāmika becomes clearer. Two of the most important texts that shed light on the Kāmika in this period are the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemādri and
Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā of a great grand-disciple of Trilocanaśiva. Both works transmit substantial passages attributed to the Kāmika that are labelled as such, and they are the earliest known works to do so. Further, both bear witness to one or more significant redactions of the Kāmika as a
Śaivasiddhānta scripture. Although neither the Caturvargacintāmaṇi nor the
Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā can be pinned down with exact dates, the material in the former appears to be older and transmits numerous verses that are not found in the Kāmika today.
127
3.3.1. Caturvargacintāmaṇi
The Caturvargacintāmaṇi is a prodigious, albeit incomplete, compendium on dharma, authored and compiled by the influential late-13th-century savant Hemādri.89 The author is described as a minister and keeper of records (śrīkaraṇādhipa, śrīkaraṇaprabhu) of the Yādava monarchs Mahādeva and Rāmacandra, who ruled at Devagiri (modern-day Maharashtra) from
1260 to 1270 and 1271 to 1311, respectively. By the middle of the 14th century, the
Caturvargacintāmaṇi was received as an established authority on matters of dharma across the
Deccan—so much so that Bukka I, co-founder of the Vijanayagara Empire, in an inscription of
1369 from Andhra Pradesh (EI 14:4), is claimed to have “made a great number of gifts in accordance with the mode in Hemādri’s work.”90 Despite its influence, the Caturvargacintāmaṇi was apparently never completed.91 Intended to be structured in five sections, only the first two sections (Vratakhaṇḍa and Dānakhaṇḍa) and parts of the fifth (Pariśeṣakhaṇḍa) have come down to us.92 Of these, the Dānakhaṇḍa is of particular significance for it transmits an abundance of citations attributed to the Kāmika, many of which can be found in the modern
89 Hemādri’s life and oeuvre have been discussed by Pandurang V. Kane, History of Dharmaśātra, Volume 1 (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1930), 354–59; Robert Lingat, The Classical Law of India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 115; J. Duncan M. Derrett, Dharmaśāstra and Juridical Literature (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973), 19, 53. It is perhaps worth noting that Derrett’s dating of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi to “c. 1340” is incorrect, for in drawing on Kane he has mistaken the date of Hemādri’s Vratakhaṇḍa for that of Madhava’s Kālanirṇaya (cf. Dharmaśāstra and Juridical Literature, 53; History of Dharmaśātra, Volume 1, 359). 90 hemādrikṛtimārgeṇa kurvan dānāny anekaśāḥ (V. S. Sukthankar, “No. 4 – Porumamilla Tank Inscription of Bhaskara Bhavadura: Śāka 1291” in Epigraphia Indica, Volume 14, ed. F. W. Thomas [Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing], 100–02) 91 See Kane, History of Dharmaśātra, Volume 1, 354; and Derrett, Dharmaśāstra and Juridical Literature, 19. Although apparently incomplete, what has come down to us of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi represents approximately 6,000 pages of printed material. 92 According to Kane (ibid.), the five sections (khaṇḍas) were proposed to cover the following topics: observances (vrata), gifting (dāna), pilgrimage sites (tīrtha), liberation (mokṣa), and supplementary matters (pariśeṣa). 128 text.93 These citations suggest that a version of the Kāmika circulated in the 13th-century with some consensus on its authoritative status in matters of gifting.94 Moreover, a close analysis of the citations suggests that the Dānakhaṇḍa was witness to a version of the Kāmika that, although seemingly oriented toward public temple worship, appears to predate the redaction that privileged Ādiśaivas or Śivabrāhmaṇas as a specialized group of public temple priests.
The Dānakhaṇḍa transmits 88.5 verses attributed to the Kāmika. Less than half of the verses (37.5 of 88.5) can be found in printed editions of the Kāmika today.95 The citations include procedures for the construction of fire-pits (agnikuṇḍas) used in gifting ceremonies, fees
(dakṣiṇās) for a range of officiating priests (ṛtviks, hotṛs, purohitas, devārcakas, śivārcakas), and different types of gifting (tulārohadāna, hiraṇyagarbhadāna, hemadhenudāna, sahasragodāna, hiraṇyāśvadāna). The ceremonies described in the citations correspond to standard forms of gifting found in Purāṇic sources. In fact, the citations of the Kāmika in the Dānakhaṇḍa are interwoven with citations from a variety of Brahmanical literary sources, including
Dharmaśāstras (Manusmṛti, Yājñavalkyasmṛti, Viṣṇudharmottara), Epics (Mahābhārata,
Rāmāyaṇa), Purāṇas (e.g., Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, Vāyupurāṇa, Garuḍapurāṇa), as well as other
Āgamic and Tantric sources (e.g. Mohācūḍottara, Kālottara, Piṅgalāmata).
The Kāmika verses in the Dānakhaṇḍa that are not found in the modern Kāmika (51 verses) nevertheless demonstrate notable continuities content-wise with the modern text. On this basis, I suggest that the Dānakhaṇḍa was witness to an early recension of the Kāmika as a dialogue between Śiva and one or more sages. To give a sense of the difference between the
93 The Kāmika citations are only found in the Dānakhaṇḍa, not in any other section of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi. 94 I take this consensus to be indicated by the fact that Hemādri cites the text. Were there no consensus, the text would not likely have circulated and Hemādri would not likely have had access to it. 95 The parallel verses are given in Appendix D. 129 recension known to Hemādri and the modern recension, I present two versions of a passage pertaining to the “gifting of a golden cow” (hemadhenudāna): the first is attributed to the
Kāmika by Hemādri, but not found verbatim in the modern Kāmika; the second is a corresponding passage in the modern Kāmika.
Version 1: Passage attributed to the Kāmika by Hemādri:
pūrvoktavedikāmadhye maṇḍalaṃ ca prakalpayet || tanmadhye surabhiḥ sthāpyā sarvataḥ sarvaratnakā | savatsāṃ surabhiṃ tatra vastrayugmena veṣṭayet || saṃpūjayet tu gāyatryā savatsāṃ surabhiṃ punaḥ | athaikāgnividhānena homaṃ kuryād yathāvidhi ||96
“And [the ritualist] should prepare a maṇḍala in the middle of the altar mentioned previously. In the middle of that [maṇḍala], he should place a completely bejewelled cow, and he should wrap the cow up there, along with its calf, with a couple of shawls. Then he should honour the cow, along with its calf, once again using the Gāyatrī [mantra]. Now, according to the ‘rule for one fire [pit]’, [the ritualist] should make a burnt offering appropriately.”
Version 2: Corresponding passage in the modern Kāmika:
vedikāmaṇḍalopetaṃ tanmadhye vinyaset paśum | savatsāṃ vastrayugmena veṣṭayed deśikottamaḥ || pūjayed gandhapuṣpādyais tad gāyatryā dvijottamāḥ | arcanaṃ pūrvavat kuryāt homaṃ caiva viśeṣataḥ || athaikāgnividhānaṃ vā samidājyahaviṣyayuk |97
“[The maṇḍapa should be] furnished with a maṇḍala over an altar. In the middle of that [maṇḍala], [the ritualist] should place the beast [i.e., cow]. The chief guru should wrap up [the cow] along with its calf with a couple of shawls. He should honour [the cow and its calf] with fragrances, flowers, and so forth. Then, with the Gāyatri [mantra], O best of Brahmins (dvijottamāḥ), he should perform worship as before and make a special burnt offering. Now, [this burnt offering may be] according to the ‘rule for one fire [pit]’ or [it may be] combined with an offering of ghee as fuel.”
96 The Chaturvarga Cintāmani by Hemādri, Volume 1, Dānakhaṇḍa, Part 1, ed. Pandita Sadāshiva Āchārya Dikshita (Benares: Prabhakari & Co., 1902), 271–72. 97 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 89:6-8ab. 130
As we can see, the content is very similar—from the altar, to the placement of the cow, to the burnt offering and Gāyatrī mantra—but certain details and expressions are slightly different between the two versions. In the modern Kāmika, for instance, there is no indication that the cow should be “completely bejewelled” (sarvataḥ sarvaratnakā). This may be a minor difference, but it may also reflect a change in how this gifting ceremony was performed over time. Further, in the modern Kāmika, we find the vocative noun “O Best of Brahmins” (dvijottamāḥ), which is absent in the Dānakhaṇḍa and appears to be an interpolation made as part of a subsequent redaction. We do find comparable vocatives in other Kāmika verses cited in the Dānakhaṇḍa, but they are all in the singular: mahāmate (“O Great-Minded One”), mahātapa (“O Great Ascetic”), and mune (“O Sage).98 As mentioned in the discussion of Aghoraśiva’s Mṛgendrapaddhati, the version of the Kāmika known to him also featured an individual sage as an interlocutor, which is different from the modern Kāmika. This may suggest that both Hemādri and Aghoraśiva knew the Kāmika as a text structured as a dialogue involving an individual sage, and that the rewriting of the Kāmika as a dialogue involving a group of sages was a subsequent development.99
In further support of the view that the Dānakhaṇḍa was witness to an earlier recension of the Kāmika, I draw attention to certain variants between Kāmika verses cited in the Dānakhaṇḍa and parallel verses in the modern Kāmika. While some variants are not particularly significant,
98 Dānakhaṇḍa, Part 1, 196, 272. 99 This suggestion may be regarded as a tenuous, given that it is based on only a few minor inflectional differences in only a few words, a discrepancy that might otherwise be chalked up to scribal error. In defence of the stated suggestion, I note that the plural inflections of some of these singular vocatives would have rendered the verses in which they occur unmetrical. For instance, mahāmate as a plural vocative is mahāmatayaḥ—one syllable too long. Likewise, mune as a plural vocative is munayaḥ—also one syllable too long. So these vocatives could not have been plural initially unless they occurred in differently structured verses. Their repeated occurrence in the singular is thus not likely to have been due to scribal error; it is more likely, I think, that they reflect an earlier Kāmika recension where the interlocutor was singular. 131 others are noteworthy, such as in the following verse from the procedure for “gifting a thousand cows” (sahasragodāna):
Version 1. Verse attributed to the Kāmika by Hemādri.
viprebhyo dāpayed gāvo dakṣiṇāṃ ca pṛthak pṛthak | daśaniṣkaṃ tadardhaṃ vā tadardhārdham athāpi vā ||100
“One should have the cows and the fee for officiating [the ritual] given to the Brahmins each individually. [The fee may be] ten gold coins or five [gold coins], or even [just] two and a half [gold coins].”
Version 2. Corresponding verse in the modern Kāmika.
śivāya śivaviprebhyo dadyād gāṃ dakṣiṇāyutām | daśaniṣkaṃ tadardhaṃ vā tadardhaṃ niṣkam eva vā ||101
“One should give the cow accompanied by a fee for officiating [the ritual] to Śiva, to the Śivabrāhmaṇas. [The fee may be] ten gold coins or five [gold coins], or even just half a gold coin.”
Here, again, in the modern Kāmika relative to the citation in the Dānakhaṇḍa, there is evidence of interpolation. The substitution of “to the Brahmins” (viprebhyaḥ) in the first version for “to the Śivabrāhmaṇas” (śivaviprebhyaḥ) in the second suggests a change in ritual practice over time. In the modern Kāmika, of course, the privileging of Śivabrāhmaṇas is an important feature of the text. The disparity between the citation and the modern Kāmika supports the view that the latter constitutes a reworking of an earlier Kāmika recension known to Hemādri.
Finally, it is worth noting that among the categories of priests mentioned in Hemādri’s citations of the Kāmika, there is one category of priest that is conspicuous by its absence in the modern Kāmika: devārcakas (“those who perform worship for gods [other than Śiva]”). This term appears nowhere in published editions of the Kāmika. In Hemādri’s citations of the Kāmika,
100 Dānakhaṇḍa, Part 1, 258. 101 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 92:5. 132 this group of priests is distinguished from śivārcakas (“those who perform worship for Śiva”).
We find the two categories of priests discussed in a verse about how fees for officiating priests
(dakṣiṇās) are to be disbursed: “Half of the fee (dakṣiṇā) is to be given to the Śaiva priest
(śivārcakāya) with an auspicious offering for the guru [?] (guroḥ śubhā); the [remainder of the] fee [is then] duly [to be given] to all of the other priests attending to the [other] gods
(devārcakānām).”102
What conclusions should be drawn from this? Given the the exclusive prerogative of
Ādiśaivas/Śivabrāhmaṇas in the modern Kāmika and the absence of this in Hemādri’s citations along with the presence in the latter of a non-Ādiśaiva or non-Śivabrāhmaṇa group of priests
(devārcakas), this seems to suggest that the version of the Kāmika known to Hemādri was a version of the text that predated the redaction privileging Ādiśaivas/Śivabrāhmaṇas. But other explanations could also be entertained; conceivably, for instance, the text could have been adapted for use in an area where Ādiśaivas/Śivabrāhmaṇas were not a dominant priestly group.
3.3.2. Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā
As indicated by its title, the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā is a commentary (vyākhyā) on a liturgical hymn in praise of Śiva. The root text, without the commentary, is a relatively brief work in 47 verses composed by Jñānaśiva, discussed above. While the author of the hymn is well-known, the author of the commentary has remained more or less anonymous. At the end of the text, where we might expect the commentator to identify himself, the manuscript has been damaged. A clue to his identity, however, can be found in the text: following a citation of the
102 Dānakhaṇḍa, Part 1, 205: śivārcakāya dātavyā dakṣiṇārdhā guroḥ śubhā | devārcakānāṃ sarveṣāṃ dakṣiṇā ca yathākramam || 133
Siddhāntasārāvalī, he refers to the author of that text, Trilocanaśiva, as his great-grandfather.103
Given that Trilocanaśiva was active in the late 12th century, the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā can be assigned roughly to the late 13th or early 14th century.
As a liturgical hymn, the Śivapūjāstava also presents an abridged account of daily worship, and it is this aspect of the hymn that is the focus of the commentator. As he points out in the opening, the Śivapūjāstava carries “the guise of a liturgical hymn” (pūjāstavavyājena), but conveys Jñānaśiva’s “impression of daily religious practice” (nityānuṣṭhānavāsanā).104 The commentary functions largely to unpack the ritual details mentioned in the hymn, and in so doing the author cites a number of well-established authorities in Śaivasiddhānta, including both scriptural works (e.g., Mṛgendra, Kiraṇa, Sārdhatriśatikālottara) and non-scriptural works (e.g.,
Somaśambhupaddhati, Aghoraśivapaddhati, Siddhāntasarāvaḷī).
The Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā is significant in this context for transmitting 93 verses attributed to the Kāmika that can be found in the modern published text. The majority of these
(87 of 93) are labelled as citations of the Kāmika and are attributed to specific chapters of the
Kāmika, with a total of 13 different chapter titles named in the labels that precede or follow the
103 This was pointed out by Goodall, “Problems of Name and Lineage,” 212. Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, ed. K. M. Subrahmaṇyaśāstri (Devakottai Ed., 1935), 22: evam evāsmatpitāmahapitāmahena siddhāntasārāvalīkṛtā trilocanaśivena dviśatīmantroddhāragranthārthanirūpitaḥ1 | 1 ºdhāragranthārthanirūpitaḥ ] IFP T.962; ºdhāreṇa so’rtho nirūpitaḥ Ed “Accordingly, Trilocanaśiva, who wrote the Siddhāntasārāvalī [and] who is none other than my own great grandfather, explained the meaning of the verses on the ‘formation of mantras’ (mantroddhāra) with reference to the Two Hundred Verse Recension [of the Kālottara].” On the “formation of mantras,” See “mantroddhāra” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa IV (forthcoming). 104 Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 1: nityānuṣṭhānavāsanāṃ1 pūjāstavavyājena samuccinoti saptacatvāriśacchlokaiḥ 1 ºvāsanāṃ ] conj.; ºvāsanāº IFP T.962; ºvā <…> Ed. “[Jñānaśiva] gathers [here] his impression of daily religious practice in the guise of a liturgical hymn through [these] 47 verses.” 134 citations.105 Six verses that are found in the Kāmika and in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā are not labelled as such: one of these is attributed to Jñānaśiva; one is attributed to Brahmaśambhu; and four are without attribution. Only three half-verses that are attributed to the Kāmika are not found in the modern text.
Given the similarity between the Kāmika material cited in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā and what is found in published editions of the Kāmika, the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā appears to be another early witness to a major reworking of the Kāmika. Not only are the parallel verses virtually the same in both sources, but the citations in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā include plural vocatives that address a group of sages—as in the modern Kāmika—a point that is at odds with the singular vocatives found in Aghoraśiva’s Mṛgendrapaddhati and Hemādri’s
Caturvargacintāmaṇi, discussed above, which suggests that the recension known to the author of the Śivapūjāstavavyākhāya may have been later than the recesion known to Aghoraśiva and
Hemādri. A total of three plural vocatives are found in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā: dvijasattamāḥ
(“O Best of Brahmins”), dvijāḥ (“O Brahmins”), and munipuṅgavāḥ (“O Eminent Sages”).106
The same vocatives are found in the parallel verses in published editions of the Kāmika.107
105 The Kāmika chapter titles cited in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā are the following: Tantrāvatārapaṭala (Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 1); Arcanavidhipaṭala [referred to in Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 94, as ‘Arcanāpaṭāla’] (Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 4); Bāṇaliṅgasthāpanavidhipaṭala (Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 36); Liṅgasthāpanavidhipaṭala (Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 64); Paścimadvārārcanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 1); Dakṣiṇadvārārcanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 2); Mahotsavavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 6); Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 20); Ācāryābhiṣekavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 24); Devīsthāpanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 44); Vighneśapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 45); Kālārikāmāntakapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 57); Kalyāṇamūrtipratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 58); Caṇḍeśasthāpanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 65). We also find Kāmika citations in the Śivapūjāstavavyāhyā that correspond to material in other chapters of the Kāmika that are not mentioned by name, including Snānavidhipaṭala (Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 3) and Kāmyaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 37). 106 Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 82, 93, and 98. 107 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 2:40d, 45:98d, and 37:6d. 135
The Kāmika material in Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā is broad and varied in scope, including details pertaining to caste (jāti), initiation (dīkṣā), yogic practices and visualizations for self- purification (bhūtaśuddhi), worship prescribed for ritual spaces with doors facing various directions (paścimadvāra, dakṣiṇadvāra), types of liṅgas (svayambhu, bāṇa, cala, sthīra), various substratums of worship (pratimās, beras, maṇḍalas, sthaṇḍilas, water, etc.), festival processions with chariots and palanquins (rathas, śibikās), and more.
The Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā is also noteworthy for transmitting another of the earliest known references to parārthapūjā. The reference occurs in a citation attributed to the
Kāraṇāgama: “Worship is said to be of two types: for oneself (svārthaṃ) and for others
(parārthaṃ ca). Worship for oneself is enjoined when [using] a liṅga given by [one’s] guru, a sthaṇḍila, one’s own self, a temporary maṇḍala, and water.”108 The focus of the discussion in the text is, in fact, private ritual worship, but it is clear in the commentator’s exegesis that he is also addressing public practices, for he discusses the use of a “moveable liṅga” (calaliṅga) in a public processional context (grāmapradakṣiṇa).
The commentator does not refer to Ādiśaivas, Śivabrāhmaṇas, or any other group in charge of performing public temple rites. Although evidently aware of public temple practices, and expressing a level of authority in how they are to be conducted, the commentator focuses primarily on individual worship, remaining true to the spirit of Jñānaśiva’s hymn. Nevertheless, certain references to caste in the text appear to designate a category of Śaiva initiate with twice- born status conferred through initiation rather than through birth, which evokes the category of
108 Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 94: kāraṇe — ātmārthaṃ ca parārthaṃ ca pūjā dvividham ucyate | datte ca guruṇā liṅge sthaṇḍile svayam ātmani | kṣaṇike maṇḍale toyepy ātmārthayajanaṃ smṛtam iti | 136
Śivabrāhmaṇa. The commentator in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā thus holds that all Śaiva initiates, regardless of their caste of birth, possess twice-born status.
“Twice-born” [refers to any] particular [Śaiva initiate:] Samayins, Putrakas, Sādhakas, or Ācāryas. […] [In the Kāmika,] at the beginning of the Chapter on Special and General Initiation, it is said: “Brahmins and others [among the top three castes] as well as Śūdras, in accordance with their qualities, should have [their caste of birth] extracted. Extracting the caste [of an initiand’s birth] for Śūdras and others [should be done] with the Mūla mantra ending with SVĀHĀ [and by] offering a triple oblation. Afterwards, one should address Śiva in the following way: ‘O Supreme Lord Śiva, from faults [accrued] by the condition of one’s existence (āhārabhāvadoṣābhyāṃ), from a body [born] of female and male essences (yonibījaśarīrataḥ), may the soul be [made] pure, twice- born’.”109
The “extraction of caste” (jātyuddhāra) referred to here is an old rite whose socio-historical significance has yet to be adequately explained. One of its earliest attestations is in the
Svacchandatantra, which, as discussed in the previous chapter, was partly incorporated by the
Kāmika in the process of its rewriting. The rite appears to have been a basis for the elevation of
Śūdras and other non-Brahmin castes to a level of Brahminhood; and, for this reason, it does not appear to have been acceptable to all Śaiva authors. Somaśambhu and Aghorśiva, for instance, do not refer to jātyuddhāra in their accounts of initiation, although they certainly knew of it.110
The commentator brings up the idea that all Śaiva initiates should be considered twice-born, or to have Brahmin status, in support of the injunction that all Śaiva initiates, not just Brahmins, should perform the worship of the junctures of the day (sandhyāvandana)—an ancient rite
109 Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 5–6: dvijāḥ viśiṣṭasamayaputrasādhakācāryāḥ […] tatra viśe[ṣa]samayadīkṣāpaṭalādau — viprādayo'pi śūdrās syur guṇaṃ tasmāt samuddharet | śūdrādijātim uddhṛtya svāhāntenaiva mūlataḥ || hutvāhutitrayaṃ paścāc chivaṃ prati vaded iti | āhārabījadoṣābhyāṃ yonibījaśarīrataḥ | śuddho dvijo bhavatv ātmā bhagavan parameśvara || 110 The rite is discussed by Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Troisième partie, 131–35; and more recently by Goodall, “jātyuddhāra” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, 271. 137 traditionally enjoined for twice-born Hindus upon investiture with the sacred thread
(upanayana).
The commentator’s emphasis on Śaiva initiates’ twice-born status comes up again toward the end of the text, where he glosses Jñānaśiva’s self-designation as a “lofty Brahmin”
(viprottuṅga).111 The commentary reads:
“Lofty Brahmin”: lofty Brahmin [means] among Brahmins—[who carry such status] by virtue of [performing] Śrauta rites, such as the Soma sacrifice, Smārta rites such as the conception rite (garbhādhāna), and studying the Vedas and Vedāṅgas ceaselessly, yet with [this] twice-born status (dvijatvena) arising through [re-]birth in the womb of the Goddess of Speech (vāgīśī) in Śaiva initiation—lofty [that is] pre-eminent (utkṛṣṭa)—he who is a “lofty Brahmin.”112
Here again, then, the commentator points out that twice-born status may be conferred not just by birth, but also by Śaiva initiation. The reference to “re-birth in the womb of the Goddess of
Speech” designates a particular operation in the rite of Śaiva initiation, whereby the initiating guru psychically enters the body of the disciple, extracts the disciple’s soul, and carries it out into a consecrated fire, where the presence of the Goddess of Speech (vāgīśī) has been invoked. The initiand’s soul is then “re-born” in this womb of fire, as it were, following which the guru returns the disciple’s soul to their body.113
111 This reference is in the final verse of Jñānaśiva’s hymn. Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 109–10: viprottuṅgaś coḷadeśī ca sūriś śambhoḥ pūjāstotram etat pavitram | siddhāntajño jñānaśambhuś śivoktyā cakre bhaktyā bhuktaye muktaye ca || “Jñānaśambhu, a lofty Brahmin and learned man from Cōḻa country, knowledgeable about [Śaiva] Siddhānta, at Śiva’s behest composed this sacred liturgical hymn to Śiva with devotion to [enable devotees to attain the twin goals of] enjoyment [in this and other worlds] and liberation.” 112 Ibid., 110: viprottuṅga iti || viprottuṅgaḥ vipreṣu vedavedāṅgādhyayanagarbhādhānādismārta- karmasomayāgādiśrautakarmabhir1 avicchinnaiḥ śivadīkṣāyāṃ vāgīśīgarbhajātadvijatvenāpy uttuṅgaḥ utkṛṣṭaḥ yaḥ sa viprottuṅgaḥ | 1 ºgarbhādhānāº ] corr.; ºgārbhadhānāº Ed. 113 Cf. Brunner’s discussion of this procedure in Somaśambhupaddhati, Troisième partie, xxxv. 138
These references to Śaiva initiates with twice-born status evoke the social category of
Śivabrāhmaṇas found in inscriptions and mentioned in parārthapūjā-oriented texts like the
Kāmika. However, the references to these initiates in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā make no mention of any particular prerogative to carry out public temple rites. Such a prerogative, as it has been pointed out, is generally insisted upon in discussions that mention Ādiśaivas and parārthapūjā.
Granted, it may be that the commentator has simply not commented on the issue, for his text focuses more on private worship than public worship. But it could also be that the term
Śivabrāhmaṇa had not yet become a shorthand for a member of the Ādiśaiva community with the practical considerations of hereditary rights and endogamy that this entailed.
3.4. Conclusions
In this chapter, I have argued that the rewriting and reception of the Kāmika as a Śaivasiddhānta scripture between the 12th and 14th centuries displays evidence of an expansion of Āgamic ritual and priestly authority into the liturgical domain of public Śaiva temples, and I have demonstrated how the Kāmika’s scripturalization in this period supported innovative ritual practices and new social configurations.
More specifically, in the first part of the chapter, I surveyed the development of Āgamic
Śaiva temple worship and presented evidence in support of the view that Āgamic literature before the 12th century was not generally concerned with public temple-based liturgical practices.
I argued that the reason for this was that Śaiva temple worship before the 12th century was not typically Āgamic, and I showed that references to public Āgamic Śaiva temple worship and references to a specialized Āgamic priesthood, Ādiśaivas, first appear in the 12th century, which points to a codification of Āgamic Śaiva temple worship around this time. 139
In the second part of the chapter, I looked at Āgamic works of the 12th century for evidence of Śaiva temple worship, focusing specifically on works of Aghoraśiva, Jñānaśiva,
Trilocanaśiva, Vaktraśambhu, and Īśānaśiva. In demonstrating that Aghoraśiva appears to have been familiar with a version of the Kāmika related to that of modern editions, I also pointed out that neither he nor other members of his lineage appear to have been closely involved with public liturgical practice. Īśānaśiva, by contrast, I noted, appears to have been more familiar with this milieu.
In the third part of the chapter, I examined Kāmika citations of the 13th and 14th centuries in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi and Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, which revealed notable continuities and discontinuities with the modern Kāmika. The findings in this section highlighted two important points. First, the reception of the Kāmika as attested by both works speaks to its authoritative status in supporting innovative ritual practices (gifting practices outlined in the Kāmika, cited in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi) and novel social configurations (caste-class “extraction” in the
Kāmika, cited in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā). Second, the disparity between the citations of
Hemādri and the modern Kāmika—where the former makes no mention of Śivabrāhmaṇas and refers to different ritual agents than the latter—suggests that the transformation of the Kāmika into a Saiddhāntika temple-based scripture may have occurred in stages, with the incorporation of material on Śivabrāhmaṇas occurring at a later stage in the process. However, as discussed, other scenarios could also be entertained to explain this.
In terms of scripturalization, we find evidence of this in the third part of the chapter.
Thus, in discussing Hemādri’s citations of the Kāmika, I argued that a version of the text circulated in the 13th century with some consensus on its authoritative status in matters of gifting.
But, like Sadyojyotih’s reference to the Kāmika discussed in Chapter Two, Hemādri’s citations 140 are not simply reflections of this consensus—his citations elevate the Kāmika by bringing it to a broader audience and placing it on par with other authoritative Brahminical scriptures, including the Manusmṛti, Mahābhārata, and Rāmāyaṇa. And this speaks to the canonizing function of reception that I described at the outset. Similarly, in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, we saw the
Kāmika cited as an authority for a wide range of ritual practices, which points to a consensus on the authority of the Kāmika in these matters, at least in a particular circle. In this case, too, the citations are not simply reflections of an authoritative consensus; for they participate in the constitution of the Kāmika’s authority through their juxtaposition alongside other well- established authoritative Saiddhāntika works, including the Mṛgendra, Kiraṇa,
Somaśambhupaddhati, and Aghoraśivapaddhati.
In the next chapter, we will continue the examination of historical developments in theology and practice that informed the transformation of the Kāmika in the 12th to 14th centuries but will extend this to consider Vīraśaiva contexts of reception as well.
141
Chapter Four
Transformation of a Textual Tradition II: Synthesis and Adaptation
While the evidence of the previous chapter suggests that a form of the Kāmikāgama corresponding to the modern text was in circulation by the beginning of the 14th century, evidence from other late medieval and early modern sources complicates this picture. Instead, what we find are traces of a proliferation of different versions of the Kāmika exhibiting varying degrees of similarity or difference with the modern text. This chapter continues the examination of diachronic developments in Śaivasiddhānta ritual and theology that reflect the transformation of the Kāmika between the 12th and 14th centuries, while also looking at broader contexts of reception, notably in Vīraśaivism. The chapter is structured in two parts. The first part focuses on the development of a post-12th-century synthesis within Śaivasiddhānta that was marked by a general shift toward nondualism, a syncretization with lay Śaivism—particularly devotional
Tamil Śaivism—and a rapprochement with Vedānta. In this part, I argue that the Kāmika participated in this synthesis notably through its support of a theological stance congruent with
Vedāntic nondualism. The second part of the chapter focuses on the adaptation of the Kāmika in
Vīraśaiva milieus between the 14th and 16th centuries. The evidence in this part consists of
Kāmika citations in the Śrīkarabhāṣya of Śrīpati Paṇḍita (c. 1400) and the Kriyāsāra, attributed to Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya (c. 14th-16th centuries). This part argues that the Vīraśaiva scripturalization of the Kāmika sought to support particular Vīraśaiva ritual practices.
142
4.1. Post-12th-Century Synthesis
The transformation of Śaivasiddhānta into a region-specific South Indian tradition which has been its hallmark since about the 12th century was, I will argue here, largely the result of a post-
12th-century synthesis involving Tantric Śaivism, lay Śaivism, and Vedānta. This important and far-reaching historical development has received relatively little attention in secondary literature, however.1 Yet it is a development that not only marks a bilingualization of the tradition and a transformation of its ontological stance from one of dualism to nondualism—albeit with some divergent views among theologians about particulars2—it also represents an attenuation of the early esoteric and exclusivist character of Śaivasiddhānta and a significant reorientation of the tradition toward a broader lay Śaiva base. The processes through which this synthesis occurred, and how it contributed to Śaivasiddhānta developing into a dominant religious tradition in Tamil
South India, we will see, reflected and reinforced important features of the broader religious and cultural landscape of South India during the late medieval and early modern periods. In what
1 Two notable studies that discuss this synthesis and which inform my discussion here are those of Dominic Goodall (“Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” in Rites hindous, transferts et transformations, eds. Gérard Colas et Gilles Tarabout [Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2006], 93–116) and T. Ganesan (“Śaiva Siddhānta,” in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 3, eds. Knut A. Jacobsen et al. [Leiden: Brill, 2014], 514–31). Goodall speaks of “three powerful influences” that “fundamentally changed the character of Śaivasiddhānta in South India” between the 12th and 14th centuries (“nous pouvons identifier trois influences puissantes qui ont changé fondamentalement le caractère du Śaiva Siddhānta en Inde du Sud”): “the devotional religiosity of the ancient Śaiva Tamil poets, the intellectual universe of nondual Vedāntic orthodoxy, and the association of Śaivasiddhānta priests with the offices of Śiva’s worship in the great Śaiva temples” (“la religiosité dévotionnelle des anciens poètes śivaïtes tamouls […], l’univers intellectuel du monisme orthodoxe du Vedānta, et l’association des prêtres saiddhāntika avec les offices de vénération de Śiva dans les grands temples śaiva”) (“Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” 98). Having discussed the influence of Śaivasiddhānta temple priests and worship in Chapter Three, in this chapter I treat the two other influences mentioned by Goodall, but by considering nondualism and Vedānta somewhat separately. Ganesan, for his part, speaks of an “earlier phase” and a “later phase” of Śaivasiddhānta, separated by the watershed of the 12th to 14th centuries. The “early phase,” he points out, was marked by dualism, whereas the later phase was marked by a form of nondualism as well as the contributions of Saiddhāntika theologians writing in both Tamil and Sanskrit (“Śaiva Siddhānta,” 522–23). 2 Cf. Ganesan, “Śaiva Siddhānta,” 526. 143 follows, I present a brief overview of this synthesis, my intention being primarily to sketch its principal contours and to show how the Kāmika’s transformation in the 12th-14th centuries participated in this. One notable aspect of this synthesis, discussed in the preceding chapter, is the development of Āgamic Śaiva temple worship. In what follows, I focus on three other aspects, specifically [1] a shift toward nondualism, [2] a syncretization with lay Śaivism— particularly Tamil devotionalism—and [3] a rapprochement with Vedānta.
4.1.1. Nondualism
Although early Śaivasiddhānta is commonly and accurately characterized as a dualist tradition, there are notable exceptions to the early emphasis on dualism. Some of the earliest surviving scriptures associated with Śaivasiddhānta, like the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, are not strictly dualist in their ontologies;3 and others, like the Sarvajñānottara, present unambiguously nondualistic elements.4 To be sure, the emphasis on dualism in early Śaivasiddhānta is closely
3 As Dominic Goodall, Alexis Sanderson, and Harunaga Isaacson have pointed out, the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā presents a number of theological archaisms (“Prolegomena,” in The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra, Vol. I [Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg], 39–47). An example of a nondualistic stance—or at least not a strictly dualist one—is provided in the following excerpt of Niśvāsa, Nayasūtra (4:49c–51), which refers to Śiva as all-pervasive: sthāvarajaṅgamaṃ caiva aṇḍajaṃ svedajan tathā || 49 sthūlaṃ sūkṣmañ ca yaccānya dreśyādreśyañ ca yatsthitam | ābrahmastambaparyantaṃ yacca kiṃci vyavasthitam || 50 tatsarvam parameśo hi viśvarūpeṇa saṃsthitam | vyāpayitvā jagatsarvaṃ sthito vyomeṣu vyomavat || 51 “Stable and moving [creatures], those born of eggs and those born of sweat, gross and subtle ones, and whatever is visible or invisible, from Brahmā down to blades of grass— the supreme Lord is present in his universal form as all of that. Pervading the entire universe he remains like space filling [all] spaces (vyomeṣu vyomavat); thus the Lord Śiva, the supreme cause, is all pervasive” (Translation by Goodall, Sanderson, and Isaacson). 4 The early and unambiguously nondualistic passages in the Sarvajñānottara are discussed by Alexis Sanderson, “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” in Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism: Studies in Honor of André Padoux, ed. Teun Goudriaan (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1992), 291–92. As Sanderson points out, the “temptation to assume that [the Sarvajñānottara] too is a late South Indian addition is prevented by the existence of an early Nepalese manuscript of the text”; he adds, the “unambiguously nondualistic passages of the Sarvajñānottara known to the southern Śaivas (such as 144 tied to an emphasis on ritual initiation, as we will see. But beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, we find a proliferation of non-ritual forms of initiation in Śaivasiddhānta, both in
Sanskrit and Tamil, which reflect a broader shift in the tradition toward nondualism. Before we look at the evidence of this more closely, it will be useful to first consider the basis for the early connection between ontology and initiation.
The link between ritual initiation and dualism in early Śaivasiddhānta is grounded in the viewpoint that bondage was held to be a largely ontological predicament—not an epistemological one. In other words, release from bondage in the early system was held to be possible only through ritual action—not through knowledge.5 In the early Saiddhāntika worldview, one of the principal factors binding a soul to transmigratory existence was believed to be a material substance (dravya), a subtle, beginingless impurity (mala), which darkened or occluded a soul’s innate omniscience and omnipotence.6 A recurrent motif used to explain this impurity in classical Śaivasiddhānta is an analogy with cataracts: just as cataracts occlude the seeing power of the eye and require a specialist to remove them, so does this impurity occlude the knowing power (jñānaśakti) and acting power (kriyāśakti) of the soul, requiring a specialist—namely, a guru—to remove it.7 In early accounts of initiation, it is held to be the agency of Śiva, working through the guru, who performs this operation.8
the verses quoted in ŚaivParibh, pp. 159–160) occur in the Nepalese manuscript.” See also Goodall, “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” 97. An excerpt of these early and unambiguously nondualistic passages is given in Appendix B. 5 See Sanderson, “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 285. As he points out, “this Impurity (malam), though it is imperceptible, is a material substance (dravyam). Because it is a substance, only action (vyāpāraḥ) can remove it; and the only action capable of removing it is that of the rituals of initiation and their sequel taught by Śiva in his Tantric scriptures.” 6 Ibid. To be sure, this impurity is not the only form of bondage; there is also the matter of karma. I focus on impurity here, because it is this component of bondage that is viewed as a material substance (dravya). 7 See, for instance, Rāmakaṇṭha’s Kiraṇavṛtti 1:19, 1:20cd–22ab, and 2:12ab. 8 Cf. Goodall, “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” 92. 145
The emphasis on ontological dualism and ritual initiation finds its most resolute articulation in the work of the Saiddhāntika Śaiva exegetes of Kashmir (c. 10th-11th centuries).9
As Sanderson has pointed out, their doctrinal and ritual emphasis set them apart from the nondualists of the local Trika, Krama, and Pratyabhijñā schools.10 For nondualists, ritual was also important, but for them freedom from bondage did not fundamentally depend on ritual intervention—it required rather a gnostic awakening spurred by devotion. Accordingly, for nondualists, liberation could be achieved by realizing a sense of oneness with Śiva, and they argued that this liberation could be experienced in this life (jīvanmukti), a view that distinguished them implacably from the Saiddhāntikas who maintained that liberation, though instigated by ritual initiation, occurred only at death.11 In fact, the Saiddhāntika ritual of initiation was so designed to preserve a degree of the soul’s bondage such that the initiate would not be liberated
(and therefore die) prematurely.12
As Śaivasiddhānta adapted to a broader constituency in the late first millennium and early second, its accessibility through different forms of initiation progressively expanded. As
Dominic Goodall, Alexis Sanderson, and Harunaga Isaacson have shown, this progression came to include a fourfold hierarchy of initiates (samayin, putraka, sādhaka, ācārya) and the development of a “seedless” (nirbījā) form of initiation, which absolved certain initiates— particularly “women, kings, and simpletons,” who were held to be “too busy or too
9 Cf. Ibid., 94. It should be noted that a staunch dualist viewpoint was not unique to Kashmirian exegetes; we also find it in the work of Sadyojyotiḥ, and the South Indian Aghoraśiva and his disciples follow in the footsteps of both Sadyojyotiḥ and the Kashmirians. 10 Cf. Sanderson “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 285; The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir,” in Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, ed. Dominic Goodall and André Padoux (Pondicherry: IFP/École Française d’Extreme-Orient, 2007), 247. 11 Sanderson, “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 286. 12 Ibid., 286–87. 146 incompetent”—from time-consuming post-initiatory observances.13 By about the 12th century, however, tensions between the classical dualist ontology and the trend toward greater inclusivity begin to show. This becomes apparent in the attempt to reconcile aspects of lay Tamil Śaivism with early Śaivasiddhānta ontology and cosmology. It also becomes apparent through the proliferation of non-ritual forms of initiation, attested in Tamil and Sanskrit Saiddhāntika sources of the 13th century, which were in some ways incompatible with the early doctrines on ontology and initiation.14 These factors, among others, I propose, contributed to the adoption of a form of
Vedānta-inspired nondualism, which we find articulated in the 13th- and 14th-century works of the Tamil Meykaṇṭār school and in Sanskrit sources of the same period.15
4.1.2. Lay Tamil Śaivism and Vedānta
The use of Tamil as a discursive medium for Śaivasiddhānta theology can be traced back to the 12th century. Before the 12th century, we find a rich Tamil literature expressive of lay
Śaivism in the Tēvāram and other books of the Tirumuṟai; however, little evidence of any substantive engagement with the theological concepts or ritual practices of Śaivasiddhānta can be found in pre-12th-century Tamil sources.16 Instead, what we find before the 12th century are a smattering of references to Śaivasiddhānta concepts or terms (e.g., tattuvam, ākamam, pācam,
13 “Prolegomena,” in Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, 49–51. 14 These points are discussed in more detail below. 15 Other factors that also likely played a role include the growing popluarity and influence of other forms of nondualism, particularly those associated with the schools of Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. 16 While some Tamil Śaiva poets (e.g., Appar, Māṇikkavācakar) make reference to aspects of Śaivasiddhānta theology, their poems are not eo ipso works of Saiddhāntika theology. According to Kamil Zvelebil, the “first fullfledged philos[ophical] treatise of Śaiva Siddhānta” in Tamil is the Tiruvuntiyār (1148 CE) (Lexicon of Tamil Literature [Leiden: Brill, 1995], 702). As T. Ganesan has pointed out, however, the Ñāṉāmirtam by Vākīca Muṉivar (mid-12th century) predates this (“Śaiva Siddhānta,” 523; “Ñāṉāmirtam: The first available Tamil systematisation of Śaivāgama doctrines,” presentation given at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies in November 2010, a recording of which is available online at https://www.ochs.org.uk/lectures/previous [accessed June 30, 2020]). 147 tantiram, mantiram, etc.), which while important in Śaivasiddhānta, are not evidence of any deep engagement with Saiddhāntika theology.17 The earliest substantive evidence of Tamil engagement with Śaivasiddhānta comes from the 12th century, particularly in the canon of texts known as the Meykaṇṭacāttirams, which is the locus classicus for the syncretization of lay Tamil
Śaivism and Śaivasiddhānta.18
The Meykaṇṭacāttirams are named after the theologian Meykaṇṭatēvar (alias Meykaṇṭār; c. early 13th century) whose work, Civañāṉapōtam, is widely regarded as the most important of the canon.19 Meykaṇṭār’s work, however, is predated by two earlier 12th-century works in the canon—the Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār and Tiruvuntiyār—which laid a foundation for Meykaṇṭār and his followers.20 The importance of the Civañānapōtam for the development of Śaivasiddhānta, particularly its expressions of Vedānta-inspired nondualism, is underscored by the extent to which it has been commented upon over the centuries. As T. Ganesan has pointed out, “[f]or nearly eight centuries, the entire development of Śaiva Siddhānta was based on this text through commentaries and sub-commentaries.”21
17 This information is derived from a lecture given by Dominic Goodall (“Tantric Śaivism & Bhakti: how are they related?”) at the International Workshop-cum-Conference Archeology of Bhakti at the EFEO centre in Pondichéry in August 2013, a detailed handout of which is available online at https://efeo.academia.edu/Dominic Goodall (accessed June 30, 2020). Goodall’s presentation was based on a study of the Tēvāram (Digital Tēvāram, eds. Subramanya Aiyar, Jean-Luc Chevillard, and S.A.S. Sarma [Pondicherry: IFP / EFEO, 2007]). 18 The secondary literature on the Meykaṇṭa-cāttiraṅkaḷ has some notable limitations (cf. Goodall, The Parākhyatantra, A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta [Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry; École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004], xiii–xxxiv). Bearing in mind the caveats identified by Goodall, a useful overview nonetheless is provided by V. A. Devasenapathi, Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñānasiddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries (Madras: Univesity of Madras, 1966). 19 According to Zvelebil, Meykaṇṭār’s floruit in the early 13th century is based on epigraphic data which mentions a date of 1232 CE (Lexicon of Tamil Literature, 435). Zvelebil also notes that “there are other epigr. data which place M. in the begin. of 12th c., or latter part of 11th c.” (ibid.) For a discussion of dating, Zvelebil refers to M. Govindasamy, A Survey of the Sources for the History of Tamil Literature (Chidambaram: Annamalai University, 1977), 163–68. 20 Cf. Ganesan, “Śaiva Siddhānta,” 523. 21 Ganesan, Two Śaiva Teachers of the Sixteenth Century: Nigamajñāna I and His Disciple Nigamajñāna II. (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2009), 523. 148
In the works of the Meykaṇṭār school, and in contemporaneous Sanskrit Saiddhāntika works—such as the Siddhāntaśekhara (13th century), discussed below—we find a clear departure from the classical insistence on dualism and an increase in expressions of nondualism and references to Vedānta. On the Tamil side, we see this first in the 12th-century
Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār, one of the earliest works of the Meykaṇṭār school, attributed to
Tirukkaṭavūr Uyyavantatēvanāyaṉār (alias Uyyavantār).22 In the Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār, this nondualism is expressed as a predominantly devotional discourse on union with Śiva, and the influence of lay Tamil Śaivism is keenly discernible throughout. In this work, as Uyyavantār answers a hypothetical question about the relationship between Śiva and the soul in this state of union, he writes:
[It is] neither one nor two; neither being nor non-being; neither good nor bad; neither ego nor the ego-state; neither you nor your knowledge; neither the beginning nor the end.23
In this somewhat paradoxical and perplexing response, Uyyavantār gestures toward the incipient view developing among some Saiddhāntika thinkers in 12th-century Tamil country that Śiva and the created world were perhaps not as distinct as earlier Saiddhāntika theologians had argued.
This departure from the strict dualism of the early tradition is expressed more clearly in the following verse:
Śivaṉ becomes the world and all other beings; he stands as the Self of all selves; he becomes male, female, and neuter,
22 The work is dated 1178 CE. See Zvelebil, Lexicon of Tamil Literature, 668. 23 Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār, 58: oṉṟaṉṟu iraṇṭaṉṟu uḷataṉṟu ilataṉṟu naṉṟaṉṟu tītaṉṟu nāṉeṉṟu -- niṉṟa nilaiyaṉṟu nīyaṉṟu niṉṉaṟivum aṉṟu talaiyaṉṟu aṭiyaṉṟu tāṉ Translation by Mariasusai Dhavamony, Love of God According to Śaiva Siddhānta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Śaivism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 198. 149
not considering their impurities he stands [in them], behold!24
The expression of nondualism that we find in this passage is rather less ambiguous than the preceding one. Lay Tamil Śaiva bhaktas, like the Nāyaṉmār, of course had their own ideas about union with Śiva, and they do not appear to have been much concerned with theological matters related to ontological dualism or nondualism.25 Throughout the Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār,
Uyyavantār weaves in numerous references to the Nāyaṉmār and their devotional exploits alongside elements drawn from Āgamic Śaivism, resulting in a treatise that reads rather more like a discourse for lay Śaivites than systematic theology.
Unlike the Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār, the 13th-century Civañāṉapōtam is every bit a work of systematic theology. The text is structured as a commentary on twelve foundational verses that are held to be excerpts from the Sanskrit Rauravāgama.26 Although Meykaṇṭār does not himself
24 Ibid., 88: avaṉē avaṉi mutalāki niṉṟāṉum avaṉē aṟivāy niṉṟāṉum -- avaṉēkāṇ āṇākip peṇṇāy aliyāki niṉṟāṉum kāṇāmai niṉṟāṉum kaṇṭu Translation by Dhavamony, Love of God According to Śaiva Siddhānta, 186. 25 See, for instance, Indira Viswanathan Peterson, Poems to Śiva: The Hymns of the Tamil Saints. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). 26 Cf. Ganesan, “Schools of Śaivasiddhānta” in Śivajñānabodha with the Laghuṭīkā of Śivāgrayogī (Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003), xix. In spite of the traditional attribution of the twelve verses to the Rauravāgama, some have argued that the verses were not originally in Sanskrit but in Tamil. This view appears to have gained increasing currency in the 1960s and 70s following the publication of the Rauravāgama by the Institut Français de l’Indologie, which noted that the twelve Sanskrit verses had not been found in any Rauravāgama manuscripts (Jean Filliozat, “Les Āgama Çivaïtes” in Rauravāgama, Vol. 1, ed. N. R. Bhatt [Pondichéry: Publications de l’Institut Français de l'Indologie, 1961], xiv; N. R. Bhatt “Preface” and “upodghātaḥ” in Rauravāgama, Vol. 2, ed. N. R. Bhatt [Pondichéry: Publications de l’Institut Français de l'Indologie, 1972], ii–iii, xx–xxi). But arguments in support of the Tamil origins of the foundational verses are unconvincing. That the title of the work is in Sanskrit (Civañāṉapōtam = Śivajñānabodhaḥ = “[An] understanding of the [supreme] knowledge of Śiva”), that most commentators (in Sanskrit and Tamil) hold the verses to have originally been in Sanskrit, and that the Civañāṉapōtam’s pāyiram (“preface”) states that the foundational verses were initially taught by Nandin (= Nandīśa, Nandikeśvara, Nandika) to a group of sages (Civañāṉapōtam, pāyiram: nanti muṉikaṇattu aḷitta uyar civañāṉapōtam), one of the transmitters of the Rauravāgama (see, e.g., Rauravāgama, Vidyāpāda, [i.e., Rauravasūtrasaṅgraha] 2.5, 3.8), is, I think strongly suggestive of a Sanskrit Āgamic pedigree. Although Bhatt has argued that the verses are likely to have been originally composed as an independent work, for which he bases his view on the final half-verse in the Sanskrit version (evaṃ vidyāc chivajñānabodhe 150 acknowledge the derivation of the verses from the Rauravāgama, the preface (pāyiram) to his work identifies the verses as scriptural or divine in origin. The corresponding verses, however, have not been located in any known manuscript of the Rauravāgama. Nonetheless, the view that the verses were originally in Sanskrit is supported by the existence of a separate Sanskrit version of the text, which includes only the verses, not Meykaṇṭār’s commentary.27 Furthermore, several of the authors of sub-commentaries on the Tamil Civañāṉapōtam—namely Śivāgrayogin,
Vedajñāna II, and Jñānaprakāśa—also wrote commentaries on the Sanskrit version and hold that the verses were originally part of the Rauravāgama.28 Indeed, the profusion of commentaries and sub-commentaries on these twelve verses in Tamil and Sanskrit highlights their importance for both linguistic expressions of Śaivasiddhānta, which also points to an overarching unity in the tradition above linguistic difference.
What made these twelve verses so important? I argue that they provided a basis for a synthesis between early Śaivasiddhānta dualism and an emergent nondualism, which accommodated new forms of non-ritual initiation, made greater space in Saiddhāntika soteriology for devotion, and promoted a rapprochement with Vedānta.
In the Civañāṉapōtam’s eighth and tenth verses and Meykaṇṭār’s commentaries thereon,
śaivārthanirṇayam) that is not found in the Tamil version (Bhatt, “Preface,” iii), he stops short of suggesting that the verses were originally in Tamil. 27 The earliest known commentary on the Sanskrit version is by Sadāśiva Śivācārya (14th?), according to Ganesan (“Śaiva Siddhānta,” 523). Sadāśiva Śivācārya was a guru based in Vārāṇasī, one of whose disciples was the famous Śivāgrayogin (see Bhatt, “Preface,” iii; “Śivajñānabodha, with vṛtti of Sadāśiva Śivācārya,” ed. A.A. Ramanathan and T.H. Viswanathan, Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras 26, no. 1 [1963]: 1–56). 28 For instance, the author Jñānaprakāśa of Tirunelveli, discussed later in this chapter, in commenting on the Sanskrit version of the text in the 16th–17th century writes, śivajñānabodhākhyāni rauravaprādeśikāni dvādaśasūtrāṇīti drāviḍadeśīyalokavādatvena tatratyaiḥ śaivācāryaiḥ sa graṃthakarttā rauravakarttṛtvāc chiva[ḥ]: “On account of being the author of the Raurava, Śiva is [actually] the author of the [present] book [i.e., the Śivajñānabodha]; by being [translated] in a local Dravidian dialect by Śaiva Ācāryas of the area, the twelve sūtras, having precedents in the Raurava, are known as the Śivajñānabodha.” (Śivajñānabodhavṛttiḥ [Kalāniti Yantiracālai, 1928], 1). The “Śaiva Ācāryas of the area” referred to are presumably Meykaṇṭār and his school. 151 we find a characterization of the relationship between Śiva and bound souls that demonstrates an influence from Vedānta and that represents a departure from the strict dualism of classical
Śaivasiddhānta. The eighth verse reads as follows:
Because of the meritorious austerities (tavam), Śiva appears as the teacher (kuru) and instructs the soul that by associating itself with the savages (vēṭar [literally: “hunters”]), the five senses, it had lost knowledge of its true self. Understanding its real nature, the soul leaves them, and being not different (aṉṉiyam iṉmai) from Śiva, the soul seeks Śiva’s feet.29
The notion of the soul “being not different” (aṉṉiyam iṉmai) from Śiva here is noteworthy. The corresponding Sanskrit term, ananyatvam (“not otherness”, “being none other than”) is a concept found in the Brahmasūtras, and the use of a hybrid Sanskrit-Tamil term for it here suggests an influence from Vedānta.30 Significantly, this conception of “being none other than” is not entirely at odds with classical Saiddhāntika doctrine, given that both Śiva and souls are said to partake of the same fundamental nature of consciousness (cit, caitanya).31 Indeed, this is how
Meykaṇṭār himself interprets the verse in his commentary, specifying that “being none other than” means that “he [i.e., Śiva] abides with the form of consciousness (caitaṉṉiya corūpiyāy).”32 Yet in the tenth verse, the notion of “being none other than” is developed further
29 Civañāṉapōtam, 8: aimpula vēṭariṉ ayarntaṉai vaḷarntu eṉat tammutal kuruvumāyt tavattiṉil uṇarttaviṭṭu aṉṉiyam iṉmaiyiṉ araṉkaḻal celumē Translation by Ranganathan Balasubramanian, Śaiva Siddhānta Polemics: A Translation and Analysis of the Civañāṉa Cittiyār – Parapakkam (PhD diss., McGill University, 2013), 349. 30 Brahmasūtras, 2.1.15: tadananyatvam ārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ. The hybrid Tamil-Sanskrit term is comprised of the Tamilized Sanskrit pronoun anya [aṉṉiyam; “other,” “different”] to which the Tamil negative abstract noun iṉmai [“not being”] is added. The term may or may not be a direct reference to the Brahmasūtras, but it does appear to have been influenced by the Vedāntic concept of ananyatvam. This is also supported by the deployment of the same hybrid term (aṉṉiyam iṉmai) is several sections of the Civañāṉacittiyār, discussed below. Cf., also, Dhavamony, Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta, 229–31; Sivaraman, Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective, 143. 31 In early Śaivasiddhānta, Śiva and souls remain eternally distinct, despite both being of the nature of consciousness; in the Civañāṉapōtam, by contrast, Śiva and souls do not appear to be so distinct. 32 Civañāṉapōtam, 8.2: avaṉ aṉṉiyam iṉṟic caitaṉṉiya corūpiyāy niṟṟalāṉ. 152 into a conception of unity:
As Śiva becomes one with the soul in its human condition, let the soul become one (ēkaṉ āki) with Śiva and realize that all actions are due to Śiva. Then the soul will lose its impurities of malam, māyai, and karumam (malamāyai valviṉai).33
The notion of “becoming one” (ēkaṉ āki)34 here marks a clear departure from the dualism of classical Śaivasiddhānta. In succeeding centuries, this concept of union comes to influence theological speculation in Śaivasiddhānta profoundly, particularly through interpretations of the aforementioned notion of “being none other than” (aṉṉiyam iṉmai; ananyatvam). Indeed, an early and enduring theological compromise between the emergent nondualism of the early
Meykaṇṭacāttirams and the dualism of the classical tradition is developed more fully by
Meykaṇṭār’s disciple, Aruṇanti Civācāriyār in the Civañāṉacittiyār (13th century).
An exposition of Aruṇanti’s doctrine deserves more space than is permitted here; but the broad strokes may be given. Briefly, the Civañāṉacittiyār, which is structured in two parts, opens with a refutation of rival schools (Parapakkam) followed by an exposition of Aruṇanti’s own position (Cuppakam), structured itself as a commentary on the Civañāṉapōtam. The rival schools refuted by Aruṇanti include three schools with different shades of nondualism: māyāvāda, brahmaśabdavāda, and bhedābhedavāda. The first, māyāvāda, is a reference to Śaṅkara’s formulation of Advaita Vedānta. In addressing this position, Aruṇanti argues that māyāvādins
33 Ibid., 10: avaṉē tāṉē ākiya anneṟi ēkaṉ āki iṟaipaṇi niṟka malamāyai taṉṉoṭu valviṉai iṉṟē Translation by Balasubramanian, Śaiva Siddhānta Polemics, 349. 34 As above, the notion of oneness here is expressed using a hybrid Tamil-Sanskrit expression, ēkaṉ āki (“becoming one”), where ēkaṉ is a pronominalization of the Sanskrit numeral eka (“one”) and āki is an absolutive of the Tamil verbal root āku (“to become”). In the Sanskrit version, we find the corresponding term, aikyam (“oneness”). 153 have misunderstood the great Vedāntic sayings (māvākkiyaṅkaḷ), and he suggests that
Śaivasiddhānta, unlike māyāvāda, is consonant with Vedānta:35
You do not know the meaning (pataṅkaḷiṉ poruḷ aṟintiṭāy) of the great Vedic saying “tat tvam asi” (āraṇaṅkaḷ tattuvam aci). Understand the duality (irumai kaṇṭu) between you and the First Cause and do not consider anything different (vēṟatu iṉmai karutiṭāy). Even Nārāyaṇaṉ (Viṣṇu) and Piramaṉ (Brahmā) seek to understand [the Vedic saying] (nāṭariya). If you reach out and worship the anklets [feet] of Śiva (nāyakaṉ kaḻalkaḷ naṇṇi nī), and if you develop and practice the prescriptions (ēr aṇaintu poli cāta ṉaṅkaḷ koṭu) of the yoga and knowledge (paths) (yōka ñāṉamum iyaṟṟiṭē) [you will attain salvation].
While Aruṇanti here refers to the classic Vedāntic saying tat tvam asi—a well-established expression of Vedāntic nondualism—he also insists on a duality (irumai) between the self and
Śiva. Indeed, the refutation of māyāvāda prefigures the articulation of Aruṇanti’s own position, which he, like Meykaṇṭār, characterizes as “being none other than” (aṉṉiyam iṉmai). The reconciliation between dualism and nondualism in the Civañāṉacittiyār also enables Aruṇanti to accommodate several forms of non-ritual initiation in his treatment of soteriology. Thus, in his commentary on the eighth verse of the Civañāṉapōtam, Aruṇanti presents an innovative typology of initiation that includes several forms of non-ritual initiation: “[initiation by means of] a look” (nayaṉam), “[initiation by means of] a touch” (paricam), “[initiation that is] verbal”
(vācakam), “[initiation that is] mental” (māṉatam), “[initiation that is based on] textual learning”
(cāttiram), “[initiation by means of] yoga” (yōkam), and “initiation by oblations (auttiri).36 Some
35 Civañāṉacittiyār, Parapakkam, 252: āra ṇaṅkaḷtaru tattuvam acipa taṅka ḷiṉporuḷ aṟintiṭāy kāraṇam atuvum nīyum eṉṟu irumai kaṇṭu vēṟatuiṉmai karutiṭāy nāra ṇaṉpirama ṉālum nāṭariya nāya kaṉkaḻalkaḷ naṇṇinī ēr aṇaintupoli cāta ṉaṅkaḷkoṭu yōka ñāṉamum iyaṟṟiṭē Translation by Balasubramanian, Śaiva Siddhānta Polemics, 308. 36 Civañāṉacittiyār, Cupakkam, 8:3. As discussed below, this typology of seven forms of initiation is the same as what we find in Sanskrit in the 13th-century Siddhāntaśekhara (nayaṉam = cākṣuṣī [dīkṣā]; paricam = sparśadīkṣā; vācakam = vācakī [dīkṣā]; māṉatam = [mānasa =] mantradīkṣā; cāttiram = śāstrī [dīkṣā]; yōkam = yogadīkṣā; auttiri = hautrī [dīkṣā]). It should be noted, however, that while this typology appears to be new in the 13th century, some forms of non-ritual initiation appear to predate this (cf. 154 of these forms of non-ritual initiation are found in some earlier nondual, non-Saiddhāntika sources, which suggests that the influence of nondualism did not only come from Vedānta.37 In this context, Aruṇanti also integrates living liberation (cīvaṉmutti) as a soteriological possibility,38 marking a distinct break with the classical tradition.39
The increasing importance of nondualism and Vedānta in Śaivasiddhānta during the 12th–
14th centuries was not restricted to Tamil expressions of the tradition, but is also represented in
Sanskrit Saiddhāntika works of the period. One of the earliest examples of this is the
Siddhāntaśekhara of Viśvanātha, composed in Vārāṇasī in or around the early 13th century.40
Somewhat tellingly, Viśvanātha refers to himself in the colophons of his work as “the son of
Bhāskara, a follower of Ubhaya-Vedānta” (ubhayavedāntibhāskarasūnu), an expression that alludes to the author’s Vedāntic—and hybrid—heritage. The term “Ubhaya-Vedānta,” of course, is a common designation for South Indian Śrīvaiṣṇavas, and in Viśvanātha’s account of his parentage, he tells us that his forebears were in fact followers of Viṣṇu.41
The Siddhāntaśekhara focuses predominantly on ritual matters and is structured in three parts following the traditional classification of ritual by obligatory (nitya), occasional
(naimittika), and optional (kāmya) types. As such, there are no dedicated discussions of ontology
Goodall, “jñānadīkṣā” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, eds. Hélène Brunner, Gerhard Oberhammer, and André Padoux [Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004], 280–81). Nonetheless, in practice, non-ritual initiation was unacceptable to early Saiddhāntikas, as Goodall has pointed out (ibid.), following Kṣemarāja’s commentary on the Svacchandatantra (ad. 5:61cd). 37 Cf. Christopher Wallis’ discussion of “subitist initiation” in To Enter, to be entered, to merge: The Role of Religious Experience in the Traditions of Tantric Shaivism (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2014), 371. 38 Civañāṉacittiyār, Cupakkam, 11:4: cīvaṉmuttaṉ ākum. 39 On the incongruency between living liberation and the dualism of classical Śaivasiddhānta, see Sanderson, “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 286. 40 This text and author were also discussed in Chapter Three. 41 Viśvanātha thus tells us that his great-great-grandfather, a certain Narasiṃha, composed a 6,000-verse digest on the worship of Narasiṃha (appropriately enough) under the patronage of the Kalyani Cālukya king, Jagadhekamalla II (r. 1138-51 CE). Cf. “Foreword” in Siddhāntaśekhara (Ed., iv). 155 or metaphysics. Nonetheless, in Viśvanātha’s treatment of initiation, we can discern something of his theological stance relative to classical Saiddhāntika doctrine and the increasing importance that issues related to nondualism and Vedānta were assuming in some Saiddhāntika circles. Like
Aruṇanti, Viśvanātha presents a typology of non-ritual initiation, which he characterizes as
“initiation by knowledge” (jñānavatī = jñānadīksā):
Thus four varieties of initiation “with support” (sādhāradīkṣā) are defined.42 This again includes a sub-division of types (bhedopabhedasaṃyuktā) that may be [understood] as two-fold. The first [sub-type] is ritual initiation (kriyāvatī); in this case, this involves fire pits and maṇḍalas (kuṇḍamaṇḍalapūrvakā). [The second sub-type,] held to stem entirely from the functions of the mind (manovyāpāramātrotthā), is initiation by knowledge (jñānavatī). General initiation, for its part, may also be [understood] as manifold (bhavet punaḥ [...] anekadhā) on account of [its] various [sub-]types (nānābhedāt), including (ityādiḥ) [initiation by] a look (cākṣuṣī), initiation by touch (sparśadīkṣā), initiation by mantras (mantradīkṣā), initiation that is verbal (vācakī), [initiation by] textual learning (śāstrī), initiation by yoga (yogadīkṣā), and initiation by oblations (hautrī).43
The types of non-ritual initiation listed here, as we can see, are the same as what we find in the
Civañāṉacittiyār. On this point, I want to emphasize that references to non-ritual initiation like these are not found in earlier Saiddhāntika works. On the category of “initiation by knowledge,”
Goodall has pointed out, “[i]n the classical Siddhānta this appears to exist, but perhaps only as a
42 According to Somaśambhu, initiation “with support” (sādhāradīkṣā) involves the intervention of an initiating ācārya, whereas initiation “without support” (nirādhāradīkṣā) is effected by Śiva directly through an intense descent of grace (śaktinipāta). See Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Vol. 3, 5–7. 43 Siddhāntaśekhara, Naimittikakāṇḍa (Ed., 146; T.57, 221; T.969, 256): itthaṃ sādhāradīkṣāyāḥ caturbhedā nirūpitāḥ1 | bhedopabhedasaṃyuktā sā punar dvividhā bhavet || ādyā kriyāvatī2 tatra kuṇḍamaṇḍalapūrvikā | manovyāpāramātrotthā yā sā jñānavatī matā3 || sādhāraṇā tu sā dīkṣā nānābhedād bhavet punaḥ || cākṣuṣī sparśadīkṣā4 ca mantradīkṣā ca vācakī5 | śāstrī ca yogadīkṣā ca hautrītyādir6 anekadhā || 1 nirūpitāḥ ] Ed., T.969; nirū <...> T.57 2 kriyāvatī ] Ed., T.57; kṛyāvatī T.969 3 matā ] T.57, T. 969; parā Ed. 4 sparśadīkṣā ] Ed., T.969; sparśinī tvā T.57 5 vācakī ] Ed., T.57; pāvikā T.969 6 hautrītyādir ] Ed.; hautrikrayādir T.57; bhautītyādir T. 969 156 theoretical possibility.”44 Indeed, among the few known references to “initiation by knowledge” in classical works, we find no typologies such as those presented by Aruṇanti or Viśvanātha.45 In the Kāmika as we find it today, notably, there is a whole chapter on “initiation by knowledge”; however, it is unclear when this material was redacted or integrated into the text.46 Nonetheless, what we can deduce from the similarity between Aruṇanti and Viśvanātha’s presentations of non-ritual initiation is that both authors, despite different languages and localities, were engaged with the same development of ideas in Śaivasiddhānta at approximately the same time.
Indeed by the 14th century, nondualism and Vedānta appear to have so influenced
Śaivasiddhānta in its Tamil and Sanskrit expressions that the 14th-century Saiddhāntika luminary,
Umāpati Civācāriyār, author of the Civappirakācam (and of at least seven other major Tamil works47), refers to his tradition as the “essence of Vedānta” (vētāntat teḷivām).48 In Sanskrit sources, we find a characterization that echoes this in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā (13th-14th) in a citation attributed to the Kāmika, which states that “[Śaiva]siddhānta is the essence of the
Veda.”49 Along similar lines, Goodall has pointed out, in Sadāśiva Śivācārya’s (c. 14th-century) commentary on the Sanskrit version of the Civañāṉapōtam, we read, “there is no difference
44 Goodall, “jñānadīkṣā” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, 280. 45 Cf. Ibid. 46 A Jñānadīkṣāvidhipaṭala is found in a few modern editions of the Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, but not in all of them. In the first edition (1899), published by the Civañāṉapōta Press, it is not found. In the edition published by the South Indian Archakar Association (1988), it is included as Chapter 25.1. In the edition published by the Tamilnadu Government (HR&CE, 1999), it is included as chapter 24.1. In both editions where it is included, it is presented as an addendum, which suggests it was a late addition that was not universally accepted. 47 Note that there appear to be at least two other authors with the name Umāpati, apart from the 14th- century author of the Civappirakācam and seven other Meykaṇṭa-cāttiraṅkaḷ (Tiruvaruṭpayaṉ, Viṉāveṇpā, Caṅkaṟpanirākaraṇam, Pōṟṟippaḵṟoṭai, Neñcuviṭutūtu, Koṭikkavi, and Uṇmaineṟiviḷakkam). As Goodall has pointed out, it is “extremely unlikely” that this Umāpati is the same as the Umāpati to whom authorship of the Pauṣkarabhāṣya and Śataratnasaṅgraha are attributed (“Introduction,” The Parākhyatantra, cxv–cxvi). 48 Civappirakācam, pāyiram, 7: “vētāntat teḷivām caiva cittānta[m].” 49 Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, 65: “siddhāntaṃ vedasāraṃ hi” iti kāmike. 157 between [Śaiva]siddhānta and Vedānta,” a verse that is also attributed the Kāmika.50 These last two points are particularly noteworthy, for they not only demonstrate that the Kāmika was adapted by this time to reflect the emergent Vedāntic congruency of Śaivasiddhānta, but that the
Kāmika was also cited as an authority for the tradition’s Vedāntic stance.51
But what are we to make of these claims that Śaivasiddhānta was an “essential” Vedāntic tradition—particularly when we know very well that Śaivasiddhānta was not a school of
Vedānta, no less in the 14th century than it is now? For one, it suggests that Vedānta was a more influential current in the 14th century than has hitherto been assumed. And this was evidently something with which Śaivasiddhānta had to contend. Second, it suggests that, even if
Śaivasiddhānta was not the “essential” Vedāntic tradition it claimed to be, Vedānta nevertheless significantly influenced Śaivasiddhānta by the 14th century, if only by eliciting references to
Vedānta in the ostensibly timeless scriptures of the tradition, like the Kāmika, and in historical works of 13th-14th-century Tamil and Sanskrit Saiddhāntika authors.
In the preceding pages, I have shown how the emphasis on dualism in classical
Śaivasiddhānta was constructed on the basis of a relatively heterogeneous scriptural corpus that in its earliest phase was not strictly dualist, and that ontology and initiation in early
Śaivasiddhānta were both closely connected. I then pointed out that a nondualist outlook came to be expressed by the emergent Tamil school of Śaivasiddhānta in the 12th century, and that this outlook was inspired by the lay Tamil devotional theme of union with Śiva. Next, I showed that a systematic theology emerged in two Tamil works of the 13th century—in the Civañāṉapōtam
50 Śivajñānabodhavṛtti, 43: kāmike – […] “siddhānte naiva vedānte viśeṣaḥ ko 'pi vidyate.” For a discussion of this passage, see Goodall, “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” 99, 109–110. Sadāśiva Śivācārya was the grand guru of Śivāgrayogin, discussed in Chapter Five (footnote 18). On Sadāśivā Śivācārya’s c. 14th-century date, see Ganesan, “Śaiva Siddhānta,” 523. 51 On this point, see also Hélène Brunner, “Le Śaiva Siddhānta, ‘essence’ du Veda (l’Étude d’un fragment du Kāmikāgama),” Indologica Taurinensia 8–9 (1980–81): 51–66. 158 and Civañāṉacittiyār—that sought to reconcile Śaivasiddhānta’s classical dualism with the lay devotion-inspired notion of union with Śiva, and that this drew significantly on Vedānta, particularly Vedāntic mahāvākyas (māvākkiyaṅkaḷ) and the concept of “being none other than”
(aṉṉiyam iṉmai) which had its origins in the Brahmasūtras. Further, I demonstrated that the
Vedānticization manifest in the Meykaṇṭacāttirams was part of a broader development occurring at around the same time in South and North India, in Sanskrit and Tamil, and that by the 14th century Śaivasiddhānta had come to be characterized in Sanskrit and Tamil as representing “the essence of Vedānta.” Finally, I showed that the Kāmika participated in this Vedānticization in two notable ways: first, by being adapted to reflect this transformation; and second, by being cited as an authority on this Vedāntic stance.
In the next part of this chapter, we will look at the proliferation of Kāmika citations in
Vīraśaiva sources of the 14th to 16th centuries. As we will see, the Kāmika was also being adapted in notable ways by redactors in Vīraśaiva milieus.
4.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama in Vīraśaiva Works of the 14th-16th Centuries
A few words about Vīraśaivism are in order at the outset. To begin with, although the tradition traces its origins to the 12th century and emerges from a crucible similar to that of the
Meykaṇṭār school of Śaivasiddhānta, recent scholarship has drawn attention to the complex origins and contours of Vīraśaivism.52 With its early base slightly further to the north, along the southern fringes of the Deccan, Vīraśaivism, like the Meykaṇṭār school, integrated elements of lay Śaiva devotionalism (bhakti) and classical Saiddhāntika theology, but with different results.53
52 See, for instance, Elaine M. Fisher, “The Tangled Roots of Vīraśaivism: On the Vīramāheśvara Textual Culture of Srisailam,” History of Religions 59, no. 1 (August 2019): 1–37. 53 For a general overview of Vīraśaivism, the following sources are worth noting: S. C. Nandimath, A Handbook of Vīraśaivism (Dharwar: L. E. Association, 1942); A. K. Ramanujan, Speaking of Siva (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973); Jan Gonda, Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit (Wiesbaden: 159
Retaining Śaivasiddhānta’s emphasis on Āgamas as a principal source authority—while recasting or rewriting Āgamas in a Vīraśaiva mold, using the same titles as early Śaiva
Āgamas54—Vīraśaivism also retained the five-faced form of Śiva characteristic of
Śaivasiddhānta, evidently influencing the conception of the “venerable five” (pañcārādhya), which effectively mapped the authority of Vīraśaiva guru lineages onto Śaivasiddhānta’s godhead.
In this context of adaptation and innovation, we find notable citations of the Kāmika in prominent Sanskrit Vīraśaiva works, like the Śrīkarabhāṣya of Śrīpati Paṇḍita (c. 1400)55 and the
Kriyāsāra, attributed to Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya (14th–16th).56 These citations suggest that one or more Vīraśaiva recensions of the Kāmika circulated in the 14th–16th century and that the title
“Kāmika,” as an authoritative locus of attribution, was subject to adaptation by Vīraśaiva redactors.
Otto Harrassowitz, 1977); R. Blake Michael, “Foundation Myths of the Two Denominations of Virasaivism: Viraktas and Gurusthalins,” Journal of Asian Studies 42, no. 2 (1983): 309–322; R. Blake Michael, The Origins of Vīraśaiva Sects: A Typological Analysis of Ritual and Associated Patterns in the Śūnyasaṃpādane (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992); J. P. Schouten, Revolution of the Mystics: On the Social Aspects of Vīraśaivism (Kampen, Netherlands: KOK Pharos, 1991); Julia Leslie, “Understanding Basava: history, hagiography and a modern Kannada drama,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61, no. 2 (1998): 228–261; Gil Ben-Herut, “Things Standing Shall Move: Temple Worship in Early Kannada Śivabhakti Hagiographies,” International Journal of Hindu Studies 20, no. 2 (2016): 129–158. Accounts of the origins and early doctrines of Vīraśaivism are complicated by its branching off into different sub-traditions at an early stage of development, with texts proliferating in medieval Kannaḍa, Telugu, Tamil, Marāṭhī, and Sanskrit, the majority of which have yet to be edited or translated. 54 This strategy was evidently modelled on the strategy of Saiddhāntika Temple Āgamas. Several Vīraśaiva Āgamas have been edited and published, including the Kāraṇa (Vīraśaiva), Candrajñāna (Vīraśaiva), Pārameśvara (Vīraśaiva), Makuṭa (Vīraśaiva), and Vātulaśuddha (Vīraśaiva). 55 For this date, see C. Hayavadana Rao, “Introduction” in The Śrīkara Bhāṣya, being the Vīraśaiva commentary on the Vedānta-Sūtras, Vol. 1 (Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1936), 30–31. This date is followed by Gonda, Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit, 229, and Sanderson, “The Śaiva Literature,” Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25 (2014): 85. 56 For a discussion of this date, see below. 160
4.2.1. Śrīkarabhāṣya
The Śrīkarabhāṣya is an early Sanskrit Vīraśaiva commentary on the Brahmasūtras attributed to Śrīpati Paṇḍita which transmits a number of citations of the Kāmika. The author refers to his philosophical stance variously as “dualism and nondualism”
(dvaitādvaitābhidhāna), “special nondualism” (viśeṣādvaita), and “difference and non- difference” (bhedābhedātmaka).57 Evidently, the attempt to reconcile dualism with nondualism was a concern shared by a number of Śaiva theologians in this period. Śrīpati quotes from a range of sources in the Śrīkarabhāṣya, including Purāṇas (Liṅgapurāṇa
Skandapurāṇa, Kūrmapurāṇa), Epics (Mahābhārata) and various Smṛtis (Manusmṛti,
Gautamasmṛti), but also Vedic and Āgamic sources. The references to Āgamas are conspicuously limited given how indebted Śrīpati’s theological system is to Āgamic Śaivism.58
Indeed Śrīpati’s purpose in the Śrīkarabhāṣya appears to have been to set Vīraśaiva theology upon a decidedly Vedāntic Smārta foundation, deliberately avoiding references to any early dualist Saiddhāntika Āgamas. The quotations of Āgamas that are found in the Śrīkarabhāṣya are from the Kāmika, Vīra, and Vātula—all of which display elements of post-12th-century redaction. The Kāmika quotations, in particular, are significant for not only are most of them not found in the modern Kāmika, but they appear to have been part of a Vīraśaiva recension of the
Kāmika.
The Śrīkarabhāṣya transmits nine verses attributed to the Kāmika, of which only one is found in the modern text. Most of these verses comprise a quotation on the subject of nirmālya,
57 Hayavadana Rao, “Introduction”, 90. 58 References abound in the Śrīkarabhāṣya to the five-faced Sadāśiva, the five cosmic functions (pañcakṛtya) of Śiva, the three-fold categorization of lord, souls, and bonds (patipāśapaśupadārthatraya), and the cosmology of thirty-six tattvas, all of which developed in the context of Āgamic Śaivism. 161 sacrificial remnants of what has been offered to Śiva, referred to in Śrīpati’s commentary as prasāda. The quotation is the following:
All that Śiva has tasted or enjoyed (śivānubhūtam)[, on account of it having been offered to or intended for him,] is said to be nirmālya. Food and clothing are two types, though six types are taught [altogether]: [i] “divine property” (devasvam); [ii] “god’s material possessions” (devatādravyam); [iii] “what is to be offered [to Śiva]” (naivedyam); [iv] “what has been offered [to Śiva]” (niveditam); [v] “Caṇḍa’s material possessions” (caṇḍadravyam); and [vi] “what is thrown outside” (bahiḥkṣiptam). [These are] traditionally held to be the six types of nirmālya. “Divine property” refers to the fourfold [grouping] of villages, lands and the like, as well as female and male [temple] slaves (grāmabhūmyādidāsī- dāsacatuṣṭayam). “God’s material possessions” refers to [things] made of gold and silver as well as jewels and such. “What is to be offered [to Śiva]” refers to things (dravyam) that have been willingly intended for Śiva (manasā yacchivoddiṣṭaṃ); so this includes wreaths, fragrances, food, drink—[whatever is to be] enjoyed by Śiva. “What has been offered [to Śiva]” refers to [offerings] by sages, ascetics, and men. “Caṇḍa’s material possessions” refers to what has been offered in a previous period of worship. “What is thrown outdoors” refers to leaves [and] flowers. These are taught to be the six forms [of nirmālya]. When performing worship on a Bāṇaliṅga, a naturally-occuring [liṅga], a moonstone [liṅga], or on [a liṅga] established in [one’s] heart (hṛdi sthite), the merit of a hundred sacrifices is said [to accrue] from partaking of Śiva’s nirmālya. 59
The passage is notable for a few reasons. To begin with, modern editions of the Kāmika include only a condensed, redacted version of the passage, found in the chapter on expiation rites
(Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala).60 The above definition of “divine property,” which extends to female
59 Śrīkarabhāṣya (1977 Ed.), 227: śivānubhūtam ākhilaṃ nirmālyaṃ paribhāṣyate | bhojyaṃ dhāryam iti dvedhā ṣaḍvidhaṃ ca tad iṣyate || devasvaṃ devatādravyaṃ naivedyaṃ ca niveditam | (= UKā 30:551ab) caṇḍadravyaṃ bahiḥkṣiptaṃ nirmālyaṃ ṣaḍvidhaṃ smṛtam || (= UKā 30:551cd) devasvaṃ grāmabhūmyādidāsīdāsacatuṣṭayam | hemaraupyakaratnādidevadravyam iti smṛtam || manasā yacchivoddiṣṭaṃ dravyaṃ naivedyam ucyate | śivopabhuktaṃ sraggandhamannapānādikaṃ tathā || niveditam iti proktaṃ surair vā munibhir naraiḥ | pratiṣṭhitasya liṅgasya naivedyaṃ yatsamarpitam || taccaṇḍadravyam ityuktaṃ pūrvasandhyāsamarpitam | patraṃ puṣpaṃ bahiḥkṣiptam iti ṣaḍvidham ucyate || bāṇaliṅge svayaṃbhūte candrakānte hṛdi sthite | puṇyaṃ kratuśatasyoktaṃ śambhor nirmālyabhakṣaṇāt || 60 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 30:551cd–553: 162 and male temple slaves/servants,61 is not found. In the modern Kāmika, what we find instead is more succinct: “divine property [refers] to the Lord’s villages and such” (grāmādīśasya devasvaṃ).62 In quoting the above passage, Śrīpati focuses on the merit said to accrue from partaking (bhakṣaṇa) of nirmālya, and he proceeds to quote several other sources that support the view that injunctions prohibiting nirmālya consumption pertain only to stationary liṅgas in temples, not other types of liṅgas.
Vīraśaivas are well known for their characteristic use of liṅgas, which are worn on the body, and their distinct food offering (prasāda) practices, whereby food may be consecrated by offering it to a guru, rather than to Śiva, before it is returned to the devotee to be consumed.
Although some time ago S. C. Nandimath observed that the “word Prasāda is not met with in the
Vīraśaiva literature in the sense of Bhuktaśeṣa, the remainder of what is eaten [by god],”63 in
Śrīpati’s quotation from the Kāmika we can see that the Vīraśaiva concept of prasāda is indeed informed by the earlier concept of nirmālya.
devasvaṃ devatādravyaṃ naivedyaṃ ca niveditam || caṇḍadravyaṃ ca nirmālyaṃ nirmālyaṃ ṣaḍvidhaṃ smṛtam | grāmādīśasya devasvaṃ devadravyaṃ paṭādikam || naivedyaṃ kalpitaṃ tasmai devocchiṣṭaṃ niveditam | caṇḍadravyaṃ tu taddattaṃ nirmālyaṃ preritaṃ bahiḥ || “[i] ‘Divine property’ (devasvam); [ii] ‘god’s material possessions’ (devatādravyam); [iii] ‘what is to be offered [to Śiva]’ (naivedyam); [iv] ‘what has been offered [to Śiva]’ (niveditam); [v] ‘Caṇḍa’s material possessions' (caṇḍadravyam); and [vi] ‘nirmālya [proper]’ (nirmālyaṃ). [These are] traditionally held to be the six types of nirmālya. ‘Divine property’ [refers to] the Lord’s villages and such. ‘God’s material possessions’ [refers to] cloths and such. ‘What is to be offered [to Śiva]’ [means] prepared for Him (kalpitaṃ tasmai). ‘What has been offered [to Śiva]’ refers to God’s leftovers (devocchiṣṭaṃ). ‘Caṇḍa’s material possessions’ [refers] to what has been [already] given to Him. ‘Nirmālya [proper]’ [refers to] what is cast outside (preritaṃ bahiḥ).” 61 The Sanskrit term dāsī- (“female slave/servant”) in the quoted passage, it should be noted, does not necessarily presuppose a temple dancer or courtesan, as shown by Goodall, “Rudragaṇikās: Courtesans in Śiva's Temple? Some Hitherto Neglected Sanskrit Sources,” Cracow Indological Studies 20, No. 1 (2018): 91–143. The term could designate any woman (dāsī-) or man (dāsa-) attached to a temple in the capacity of slave or servant. 62 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga, 30:552c. 63 Nandimath, A Handbook of Vīraśaivism, 59. 163
On the distinctly Vīraśaiva practice of carrying a liṅga on one’s person (liṅgadhāraṇa), one verse in the Śrīkarabhāṣya attributed to the Kāmika, not found in the modern text, is notable for its reference to the practice.
Thus in the Kāmika [it is said,] “The holding of a liṅga in [one’s] hand (pāṇiliṅgadhṛtiḥ) is [to be] practiced (samīritā) at all times with the mantra of the Veda personified, ‘This hand of mine is the Lord’.”64
The reference is terse, yet we find no references to holding a liṅga in one’s hand in the modern
Kāmika. In the Śrīkarabhāṣya, the verse is preceded by a citation from the Vātula, which also refers to the practice of holding a liṅga in one’s hand.65 Notably, in the verse quoted above, there is also the injunction to recite a mantra from the Ṛgveda (ayaṃ me hasto bhagavān), which is not found in the modern Kāmika either. Assuming Śrīpati was faithfully citing the Kāmika as he knew it (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) we may surmise that this was a Vīraśaiva recension of the Kāmika.
4.2.2. Kriyāsāra
Another major work of early Sanskrit Vīraśaiva theology and practice that transmits quotations of the Kāmika is the Kriyāsāra, attributed to a certain Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya. Little is known of the author’s precise dates or place of activity. In his introduction, two verses of benediction addressed to his parents, Mallayadeva and Cannamāmbā, have been taken as
64 Śrīkarabhāṣya (1977 Ed.), 17. tathā kāmike – ayaṃ me hasto bhagavān iti mantreṇa sarvadā | pāṇiliṅgadhṛtir vedapuruṣasya samīritā || 65 Ibid. etad eva vātūle [sic] śrūyate – dhārayed yas tu hastena liṅgākāraṃ śivaṃ sadā | tasya hastasthitaṃ viddhi matpadaṃ sampadāṃ padam || “This is stated in the Vātula – ‘But whoever should hold the eternally auspicious (śivaṃ sadā) form of the liṅga with their hand, know that established in that person’s hand is my abode (matpadaṃ), an abode of riches’.” 164 evidence that he was from Karnataka or Andhra.66 According to the editors of the ORI (Mysore) edition of the text, its earliest terminus ante quem is 1530, although it may be as early as the mid-
14th century.67
The structure and content of the Kriyāsāra is somewhat eclectic, although the introduction characterizes it as a unified work of 32 Upadeśas.68 The first part (Upadeśas 1–4) consists of a commentary on Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmasūtras and presents itself as elucidating the purport of Śrīkaṇṭha’s bhāṣya, but with a Vīraśaiva twist. The remaining sections (Upadeśas 5–
32) unfold practicalities of Vīraśaiva ritual, although several sections are mostly excerpts of earlier works—Upaniṣads, Purāṇas, and Āgamas—with directions for Vīraśaiva ritual adaptations. A major portion of the text, Upadeśa 14, presents itself as a stand-alone ritual manual (paddhati), referred to as the Śivārcanapaddhati, which appears to have originally been an independent work.69
66 H. Deveerappa, “Preface,” in The Kriyāsāra of Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya, Vol. 3, ed. S. Narayanaswamy Sastri (Mysore: University of Mysore, 1958), iii. 67 Ibid.: “The author mentions Vidyāraṇya (1340 A.D.), the author of vedabhāṣya and is quoted by Mallaṇārya (1530 A.D.) in ‘Vīraśaiva Mahāpurāṇa’. Hence it may be presumed that he might have lived during the latter half of the fourteenth century or in the beginning of the fifteenth.” Hélène Brunner, however, has cast doubt on this believing the text to be a later work: “il se peut que la date du Kriyāsāra doive être descendue; la seule indication très sûre que l’on nous donne à son sujet [est qu’]il est cité en 1611 par le Nirṇayasindu” (“De la consommation du nirmālya de Śiva” in Journal Asiatique 256 [1969]: 251). Nevertheless, Sanderson (“The Śaiva Literature,” 84) follows the editors’ dating, and other authors have proposed various dates within the same time frame. See, e.g., Duquette, “Is Śivādvaita a Saiddhāntika School?,” 36. This dating is followed by Florinda De Simini, Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), 924. 68 Kriyāsāra, Vol. 1, 4–6 (vv. 34–57). 69 An introductory label in the Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14 attests to the section being an excerpt of another school’s text (1946 Ed. [Vol. 2], 201): atha pakṣāntaram āśrityocyate – “Now drawing on another view [i.e., of another school], it is said –.” Note also how Upadeśa 14 begins by referring to itself not as the Kriyāsāra or a part thereof but as the “venerable Śivārcanapaddhati” (202, v. 10): tasmād divyāgamebhyo'sāv akhilebhyaḥ samuddhṛtaiḥ | apekṣitāṃśaiḥ kriyate śrīśivārcanapaddhatiḥ. “Therefore this venerable Śivārcanapaddhati was composed with the requisite parts extracted from all divine Āgamas.” 165
The independent character of the Kriyāsāra’s 14th Upadeśa is borne out by the fact that it is transmitted almost word-for-word in its entirety as the Śivārcanacandrikā (16th century) attributed to Appayya Dīkṣita.70 The differences between the two texts are minor, and there is nothing essentially Vīraśaiva or Vedāntic about either. For the text is fundamentally a
Saiddhāntika ritual manual (paddhati) through and through. Its content, procedures, mantras, and ritual sequences are all modelled on the ritual manuals of Aghoraśiva and Somaśambhu.71 The variants that distinguish Upadeśa 14 from the Śivārcanacandrikā consist of scattered references to Vīraśaivas in the former, whereas in the latter these are absent or references to Brahmins appear instead.
The Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14 transmits 27 verses attributed to the Kāmika. Of these, 25 verses can be found in modern editions and two cannot. The text also includes a 1.5-verse quotation that is not attributed to the Kāmika, but that is nevertheless found in modern editions.72
Apart from these verses, another section of the Kriyāsāra, Upadeśa 16, which has no parallels with the Śivārcanacandrikā, transmits an additional 14 verses that are attributed to a certain
“Kāmikottara.”73 However, in the Kriyāsāra, these 14 Kāmikottara verses are of a distinctly
70 Compare the opening of the “venerable Śivārcanapaddhati” in the previous footnote with the corresponding opening in the Śivārcanacandrikā (1922 Ed., 1): tasmād divyāgamebhyo'sāv akhilebhyas samuddhṛtaiḥ | apekṣitāṃśaiḥ kriyate śrīśivārcanacandrikā. “Therefore this venerable Śivārcanacandrikā was composed with the requisite parts extracted from all divine Āgamas.” 71 In fact, the pronounced similarities between the text and earlier Śaiva Siddhānta ritual manuals are what prompted Hélène Brunner to rely heavily on the Śivārcanacandrikā for her translation and study of the first volume of the Somaśambhupaddhati: “Parmi les autres ouvrages fréquemment utilisés, citons en premier lieu la Śivārcanacandrikā don’t l’auteur est Appaya Dīkṣita. […] Il a l’avantage d’être clair et très détaillé dans sa description du rituel” (“Introduction,” in Somaśambhupaddhati, Vol. 1, ed. and trans. Hélène Brunner [Pondicherry: Institut Français d’Indologie, 1963], xlii–xliii). Brunner was not aware at the time that the Śivārcanacandrikā was essentially the same text as Upadeśa 14 of the Kriyāsāra (cf. Brunner, “De la consommation du nirmālya de Śiva,” 251). 72 This is the unlabelled passage that is also quoted by Jñānaśiva, discussed on page 168 and in footnote 76. The Śivārcanacandrikā only transmits a half verse, not the 1.5 verses as the Kriyāsāra does. 73 Although the label “Kāmikottara” is occasionally used as a designation for the Uttarabhāga of the Kāmika (e.g., Kāmikā, Pūrvabhāga [1975 Ed.], 2: ityuktāḥ ṣaṇṇavatyaśca paṭalāḥ kāmikottare; cf., IFP 166
Vīraśaiva character; none are found in the modern Kāmika, and they present evidence of a
Vīraśaiva version of the Kāmika.
The Kāmika quotations in the Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14 focus on prescriptions related to nirmālya and, to some extent, overlap with similar discussions in the Jñānaratnāvalī and
Śrīkarabhāṣya. The section on food offerings begins with a discussion of what face of Sadāśiva the ritualist should offer food to and how this should correlate with the cardinal directions. An excerpt is provided here as illustration:
Now with what face does Sadāśiva eat? He eats with his upper face [i.e., Īśāna] — “Food of all kinds, such as can be eaten, drunk, licked, [or] sipped, variously, should be given to [Sadāśiva’s] upper face — [this is] taught here for whatever [one offers to Sadāśiva].” This is according to the teaching of the Sarvajñānottara. […] Conversely, [Sadāśiva] also eats with [all] five faces. [Thus it is said:] “Food-offerings [shall be given] to [Sadāśiva’s] five faces; or, otherwise, [just] to the upper face.” And this is according to the view [expressed] in the injunction for offering eatables, one by one, to [Sadāśiva’s] five faces. Additionally, the offering of eatables to the upper face should be done at the time of worship [with the worshipper] visualizing (vibhāvya) Sadāśiva’s upper face as facing south. This is because [at that time] the worshipper will be situated on the south side of God, facing north. [Thus it is said:] “On a consecrated area of worship (sthaṇḍile) and on a moveable liṅga, Śiva faces the worshipper; but on a [substratum] such as a water-pot, [He] faces West, [and] on a stationary [liṅga, such as one finds in a sanctum], He looks towards the door.” This is according to what is revealed [in the Āgamas] about God facing the worshipper when performing worship on a movable liṅga.74
T. 298A, 4), the verses attributed to the Kāmikottara in Upadeśa 16 are not like anything we find in the Uttarabhāga of the modern Kāmika. 74 Kriyāsāra (1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 285; siglum K) = Śivārcanacandrikā (1922 Ed., 84–85; siglum S): atha sadāśivaḥ kena vaktreṇa bhuṅkte? ūrdhvavaktreṇa bhuṅkte1 — “bhakṣyabhojyānnapānādi lehyaṃ coṣyam anekadhā | ūrdhvavaktre pradātavyaṃ yatkiṃcid iha coditam ||” iti sarvajñānottaravacanāt | […] athavā pañcabhir api vaktrair bhuṅkte — “pañcavaktreṣu naivedyam ūrdhvavaktre'thavā punaḥ |” iti pañcasu vaktreṣu pratyekanaivedyadānavidhānasyāpi darśanāt | ūrdhvavaktre naivedyadānaṃ2 ca tadūrdhvavaktraṃ pūjākāle dakṣiṇābhimukhībhūtaṃ3 vibhāvya kartavyam | devasya dakṣiṇasyāṃ4 diśy uttarābhimukhatayā pūjakasya sthitatvāt | “sthaṇḍile caraliṅge ca sādhakābhimukhaḥ śivaḥ | pratyagvaktras tu kumbhādau5 sthire dvārābhisammukhaḥ ||” iti caraliṅgārcane devasya pūjakābhimukhatvaśravaṇāt | 1 bhuṅkte ] K; om. S 2 naivedyadānaṃ ] S; naivedyādānaṃ K 3 dakṣiṇābhimukhībhūtaṃ ] K; dakṣiṇāmukhībhūtaṃ S 4 dakṣiṇasyāṃ ] K; om. 5 pratyagvaktras tu kumbhādau ] K; pratyavagktras sakuṃbhādau S 167
In this passage, we are introduced to the contours of the discussion concerning food offerings.
Although nothing in the passage above is attributed to the Kāmika nor found in the modern text, the passage contextualizes the citation of unlabelled Kāmika verses that follows. After highlighting the importance of the ritualist’s position relative to Sadāśiva, the circumstances of offering eatables (naivedya) to Śiva on a stationary or temple-based liṅga are taken up with the emphasis that in such cases Śiva should always face the door, and this on account of it being for the benefit of the world (lokānugrahakatvāt). Following this, we find the same unlabelled passage quoted by Jñānaśiva75 (in bold-face) below that is also found in the Kāmika, but which in neither case is attributed to the Kāmika:
“In whichever direction the door may be [situated], that one should take as east.” And [so] according to this statement, starting from that [eastern door,] while circumambulating, one should form in one’s mind the faces of Tatpuruṣa, Aghora, Sadyojāta, and Vāmadeva. “And the door which is in front of the liṅga is held to be east; there Tatpuruṣa and the upper face [Īśāna] should be in front.” This is according to [an anonymous] saying.76
The citation reiterates the view that the ritualist will need to mentally rearrange the directions of the door, sanctum, and/or liṅga in the course of worship, depending of the direction they actually face. Several more verses from the Kāmika (translated below) follow this quotation and are attributed to the Kāmika’s procedures for worship in west-facing (paścimadvārārcane) and south-facing temples (dakṣiṇadvārārcane). The verses are presented in support of the view
75 See discussion of Jñānaśiva in Chapter Three. 76 Kriyāsāra (1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 286) = Śivārcanacandrikā (1922 Ed., 85): yasyāṃ diśi bhaved dvāraṃ tāṃ prācīṃ parikalpayet (=PKā 4.20ab) iti vacanāc ca tatprabhṛty eva prādakṣiṇyena tatpuruṣāghorasadyojātavāmadevamukhāni kalpanīyāni | liṅgasyābhimukhaṃ yac ca dvāraṃ tat pūrvam iṣyate | (=PKā 4.20cd) tatra tatpuruṣaṃ vaktram ūrdhvaṃ cābhimukhaṃ bhavet || (=PKā 4.21ab) iti vacanāt. The section that is underlined is not found in the Śivārcanacandrikā. 168 that no matter what direction the temple faces, Sadāśiva (with Tatpuruṣa and Īśāna faces in front) should always face the door, conceived of as being in the east.
[This is] approved by the Kāmika. That is why in the [section on procedures for] worship in a west-facing [temple it is said:] “One should envision god with His with upper face turned towards the door.” Beginning thus, [the Kāmika then] states: “Tatpuruṣa may be conceived on the east side [of the liṅga] or on the west. Aghora may be conceived on either the south or north. And on the north or south, the guru should call to mind Vāmadeva. On the west or east side, visualizing the face of Sadyojāta, he should install [their mantras].” Also, in the [section on procedures for] worship in a south-facing [temple], it is said: “One may rightly worship Aghora or Tatpuruṣa on the south [side of the liṅga]. On the west, one may worship either Aghora or Sadjojāta. On north side, one may worship the face of Sadyojāta or Vāmadeva. Then, on the east side, one may worship either Tatpuruṣa or Vāmadeva.”77
The option in the passage above of worshipping different faces of Sadāśiva in different directions in west- and south-facing temples I take to stem from the difference between the true direction of the temple and the mental act of taking the door as east, regardless of its true direction.78 An illustration of the arrangement of different faces relative to the door in east-, west-, and south- facing temples is given here:
77 Kriyāsāra (1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 286–287) = Śivārcanacandrikā (1928 Ed., 85–86): kāmikasaṃmataṃ | ata eva tatra paścimadvārārcane – “dvārasyābhimukhaṃ cordhvavaktraṃ dehaṃ prakalpayet” ity upakramya, “puruṣaṃ pūrvadeśe vā paścime vātha cintayet | dakṣiṇe cottare vāpi bahurūpaṃ vicintayet || uttare dakṣiṇe vāpi vāmadevaṃ smared guruḥ | paścime pūrvadeśe vā sadyovaktraṃ smaran nyaset ||” ity uktam | tatraiva dakṣiṇadvārārcane'py uktam | “aghoraṃ puruṣaṃ vāpi dakṣiṇe samyag arcayet | aghoraṃ vātha sadyaṃ vā paścime tu samarcayet || sadyavaktraṃ tu vāmaṃ vā saumyadeśe samarcayet | puruṣaṃ vātha vāmaṃ vā pūrvadeśe samarcayet ||” iti. 78 Conceivably, the option of facing east in a west-facing temple could be taken to mean that Tatpuruṣa and Iśāna may also face the back wall of the sanctum, but I think this is unlikely given the emphasis on them facing the door. 169
Figure 1. Arrangement of different faces relative to the door in east-, west-, and south-facing temples
With the matter of cardinal directions settled, the discussion of nirmālya turns to injunctions for and against consuming what has been offered to or intended for Śiva.79 Notably, the definition of nirmālya given below in the Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14 differs from that of Śrīpati’s
Śrīkarabhāṣya, which suggests the two works drew on different recensions of the Kāmika. What we find in the former is almost identical to what we find in modern editions of the Kāmika.80
Thus in the Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14 we find the following:
Nirmālya should be [understood] as six-fold, [consisting of] [i] ‘divine property’ (devasvam), [ii] ‘God’s material possessions’ (devatādravyam); [iii] ‘what is to be offered [to Śiva]’ (naivedyam); [4] ‘what has been offered [to Śiva]’ (niveditam); [v] ‘Caṇḍa’s material possessions’ (caṇḍadravyam); and [vi] ‘nirmālya’ [in a narrow sense]’. ‘Divine property’ [refers to] the Lord’s villages and such; ‘God’s material possessions’ [refers to] what is made of cloth and such; ‘what is to be offered [to Śiva]’ [refers to] what is intended for him; ‘what has been offered [to Śiva]’ [refers to] God’s leftovers; ‘Caṇḍa’s material possessions’ [refers to] what
79 A translation and study of this portion of the Kriyāsāra is found in Brunner, “De la consommation du nirmālya de Śiva.” 80 For the the variant definition of nirmālya in the Śrīkarabhāṣya, see footnote 59 above. 170
is given to him. ‘Nirmālya’ [in a narrow sense refers to] what is thrown outside (preritaṃ bahiḥ).81
It is worth noting that we find no reference here to temple slaves/servants (dāsī, dāsaḥ), as we do in the Śrīkarabhāṣya. The difference in the citations suggests the authors were drawing on different recensions of the Kāmika. Notably, there appears to have been yet another version of the Kāmika that circulated in Sanskritic Vīraśaiva circles, and a distinctly Vīraśaiva version at that. In the Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 16, we find 14 verses attributed to a certain “Kāmikottara” that provide an illustration of this. I cite here only an except; the full citation is provided in Appendix
E:
In the Kāmikottara – Whosoever wears the liṅga of Śrīśaila, O Beautiful One (sundari), I, Sadāśiva shall dwell near to that devotee with a host of attendants. From bearing my liṅga, my favour (prītiḥ) is born again—a favour which does not merely [arise] from understanding [or] from offering worship to me; nor from sacrifices, nor by penances, nor by harsh [observances] like the cāndrāyaṇa fast, nor from gifting tracts of land (bhūmaṇḍaladānāt), nor from reading the Vedas, but from bearing my liṅga in a sajjikā82 according to the rule. From bearing my liṅga [thus] in the world, nothing at all is difficult to attain. In achieving this and that, O Pārvatī, whatever world one strives to obtain, [there] one dwells.83
81 Kriyāsāra (1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 316; siglum K) = Śivārcanacandrikā (1928 Ed., 112; siglum S) = Kāmika (Uttarabhāga [Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala], 30.551cd–553; siglum KĀ1988): devasvaṃ devatādravyaṃ naivedyaṃ ca niveditam | caṇḍadravyaṃ ca nirmālyaṃ nirmālyaṃ1 ṣaḍvidhaṃ bhavet2 | grāmādīśasya devasvaṃ devadravyaṃ paṭādikam | naivedyaṃ kalpitaṃ tasmai devocchiṣṭaṃ niveditam | caṇḍadravyaṃ tu taddattaṃ nirmālyaṃ preritaṃ bahiḥ. 1 nimālyaṃ ] K, S; om. KĀ1988 (unmetrical) 2 bhavet ] K, S; smṛtam KĀ1988 82 A sajjikā refers to a box or casket for carrying a liṅga (see Kriyāsāra, 1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 220: sajjikābhidhapeṭakaṃ kalpayet “one should prepare the box known as ‘sajjikā’.” 83 Kriyāsāra (1958 Ed., Vol. 3), 49–50: kāmikottare – śrīśailaliṅgābharaṇo bhaktaḥ sundari yaḥ pumān | vasāmi nikaṭe tasya sagaṇo ‘haṃ sadāśivaḥ || malliṅgadhāraṇāt prītir yā punarjāyate mama | sā prītir naiva vijñānāt kevalān mama pūjanāt || na yajñān naiva tapasā kṛcchracāndrāyaṇādibhiḥ | na bhūmaṇḍaladānād vā vedapaṭhanād api || malliṅgadhāraṇād eva sajjikāyāṃ yathāvidhi | 171
These verses present some interesting details. To begin with, unlike other material attributed to the Kāmika discussed thus far, here we have a dialogue between Sadāśiva, who speaks in the first person, and Pārvatī, addressed as “O Beautiful One” (sundari). Apart from some early references to the Kāmika, the interlocutors in the material surveyed thus far—in the Mṛgendrapaddhati,
Caturvargacintāmaṇī, Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, as in the modern text—are not Sadāśiva and
Pārvatī, but rather the Lord (īśvara) and one or more sages (ṛṣis, munis). As for the Vīraśaiva orientation of the passage, this is expressed in the emphasis on bearing a liṅga on one’s person in a sajjikā. This is a clear reference to the Vīraśaiva practice, codified as one of the Eight Veils
(aṣṭāvaraṇas) mentioned in the text along with the Five Precepts (pañcācāras).
The reference to the text as the Kāmikottara is noteworthy. This title is today sometimes used for the Uttarabhāga of the Kāmika.84 However, I am not aware of any references before the
16th century to an Uttara division of the Kāmika such as we find here; moreover, this
Kāmikottara is nothing like the modern Uttarabhāga. To explain the discrepancy, some insight from a recent paper by Elaine Fisher may help. She notes that “[m]embers of the present-day
Pañcācārya Vīraśaiva community believe that each of the Śaivāgamas originally contained an uttarabhāga, or ‘latter portion,’ dedicated to propounding the teachings of Vīraśaivism.”85
Perhaps, then, this is what this Kāmikottara was: a Vīraśaiva Uttarabhāga appended to the
Kāmika. This explanation would make sense in light of other well-known cases of Vīraśaiva redaction of Śaiva Āgamas.86 As for the argument that such an Uttarabhāga would have been
“original” to the Kāmika, this suggests the contested nature of the Kāmika as a locus of
malliṅgadhāraṇāl loke na kiṃcid api durlabham || yallokaṃ* vasati kāṅkṣe tattat sidhyati pārvati | *yallokaṃ ] conj.; yalloka Ed.| 84 See footnote 73 above. 85 Fisher, “The Tangled Roots of Vīraśaivism,” 32. 86 See footnote 54 above. 172 attribution. Śaivasiddhānta followers would certainly disagree that a major section of one of their primary scriptures was originally Vīraśaiva.
To sum up the discussion of Kāmika citations in Vīraśaiva sources, we have seen that several citations attributed to the Kāmika (or Kāmikottara) in the Śrīkarabhāṣya and Kriyāsāra include references to characteristic Vīraśaiva practices that are not found in modern editions of the Kāmika. The evidence suggests that more than one version of the Kāmika circulated in
Vīraśaiva milieus between the 14th and 16th centuries, and we saw that the version of the Kāmika known to Śrīpati was apparently different from the Kāmika known to the author of the
Kriyāsāra’s Upadeśa 14, given that somewhat divergent definitions of divine property
(devasvam) are found in these two sources, and in both cases are based on different citations ascribed to the Kāmika. Further, the evidence of the Kāmikottara suggests that a distinctly
Vīraśaiva version of the Kāmika also existed between the 14th and 16th centuries that styled itself as an Uttarabhāga of the Kāmika and that was structured as a dialogue between Sadāśiva and
Pārvatī. This last supports the argument advanced in this chapter concerning the adaptation of the
Kāmika as an authoritative locus of attribution.
4.3. Conclusions
This chapter began with a continuation of our look at diachronic developments in Śaivasiddhānta theology and ritual between the 12th and 14th century and the Kāmika’s participation in these developments. In the first part of the chapter, I sought to demonstrate commonalities and shared trends in Tamil and Sanskrit Śaivasiddhānta works of the post-12th-century period against a scholarly view of a split between them. In doing so, I described a post-12th-century synthesis in
Śaivasiddhānta that was characterized by a general shift in the tradition from dualism to nondualism, alongside a syncretization with lay Tamil Śaivism and a rapprochement with 173
Vedānta. This shift from dualism to nondualism, I argued, came about through an attempt to harmonize early Śaivasiddhānta metaphysics with aspects of lay Tamil Śaivism and an attempt to bring emerging non-ritual forms of initiation in line with the tradition’s classical ontology. The rapprochement with Vedānta, I argued, was motivated by what appears to have been a growing influence of Vedānta in 13th-14th-century South India.
In turning to the reception of the Kāmika in Vīraśaiva works of the 14th to 16th centuries, I surveyed a number of Kāmika citations in the Śrīkarabhāṣya and Kriyāsāra. The evidence in this second part of the chapter advanced the argument of the thesis by providing further evidence of the Kāmika’s open-ended composition and its reflection of historical developments in theology and practice. In particular, we saw evidence of the textual pluriformity of the Kāmika in
Vīraśaiva milieus, which suggested that more than one version of the text circulated there: a
Kāmika cited by Śrīpati, which had a particular view of nirmālya and supported the Vīraśaiva practice of wearing a liṅga on one’s person; and a Kāmikottara cited by Nīlakaṇṭha, which was structured as a dialogue between Sadāśiva and Pārvatī and also supported this practice.
Throughout the chapter, we also saw aspects of scripturalization. In the first part, we saw this through citations of the Kāmika as an authority on Śaivasiddhānta’s congruency with
Vedānta in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā and in Sadāśiva Śivācārya’s commentary on the Sanskrit version of the Civañāṉapōtam. Taken together, these citations point to a consensus in 13th and
14th century Śaivasiddhānta circles regarding the Kāmika as a text with an authoritative (if but symbolic) stance relative to Vedānta. Yet these citations, like the citations we saw in previous chapters, did not simply reflect this consensus, I argue; they participated in it. That discourse on the congruency between Śaivasiddhānta and Vedānta constitutes a major thematic in subsequent centuries, as we will see in the next chapter, speaks to this. In the second part of the chapter, we 174 saw in Śrīpati and Nīlakaṇṭha’s citations of the Kāmika evidence of a consensus in Vīraśaiva circles concerning the Kāmika as an authoritative scripture in Vīraśaivism. In this case too, I argue, these references participated in the authorization of the Kāmika—in some shape or form— as a scripture for Vīraśaivas. That the Śrīkarabhāṣya and Kriyāsāra stand as major works of early Sanskritic Vīraśaivism and are both commentaries (at least in part) on the Brahmasūtras— the foundational texts of Vedānta—which drew on the Kāmika for their exegeses alongside well- established Brahminical sources of authority, including the Manusmṛti and Mahābhārata, supports this and attests to the canonizing function of reception I described in previous chapters.
175
Chapter Five
Divine Authority in Worldly Affairs: The Kāmikāgama in Early Modern South India
The evidence of the Kāmikāgama from Vīraśaiva sources that we saw in Chapter Four overlaps with a period of increasing patronage to sectarian Hindu traditions across South India in the 16th and 17th centuries. In this period, we find the Kāmika quoted at length in the works of several major Śaivasiddhānta authors, including Śivāgrayogin, Vedajñāna II (= Nigamajñāna II), and
Jñānaprakāśa. The quotations of the Kāmika in their works suggest an elevation in the authoritative status of the Kāmika in this period, notably as a support for claims pertaining to caste rights and their socio-economic concomitants.1 In the works of each of these authors, the
Kāmika is cited as a basis for Śaivasiddhānta congruence with Vedānta, and in some cases as a basis for egalitarianism between Brahmin and non-Brahmin initiates. Yet the citations also show that the Kāmika was far from being a closed text in this period; once again, many citations are not found in modern editions, which points to a proliferation of variant Kāmika versions in these centuries. This chapter builds on the argument of the preceding chapters by demonstrating that the Kāmika circulated as a pluriform text in the 16th and 17th centuries and that its scripturalization in these centuries supported particular theological viewpoints and social
1 This is not to suggest that quoting Āgamas as authorities on socio-economic matters was new in this period. The practice is attested to in 12th-century epigraphical sources, as J. Duncan M. Derrett has pointed out (“Appendix,” in The Classical Law of India. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973], 273–74). He discusses two stone inscriptions of the 12th century (ARE No. 558 of 1904 at Tiruvārūr and ARE No. 479 of 1908 at Uyyakoṇḍān Tirumalai) that are concerned with the caste rights of certain Kammāḷars, “correspond[ing] to the Sanskrit designation Rathakāras [‘cart maker’].” In ARE No. 558 of 1904, in particular, the inscription includes quotations of the Kāraṇa, Yogaja, and Suprabheda Āgamas alongside quotations of various Smṛtis (Gautama, Nārada, and Yājñavalkya) and Vaiṣṇava sources. 176 configurations, which in turn lent weight to non-Brahmin claims regarding the administration of land and economic capital.
5.1. Historical Context of the 16th-17th Centuries
Given the importance of patronage to the sectarian traditions of the 16th and 17th centuries,2 it is worth pausing briefly to review some of the broader political, economic, and social currents of the time and their implications. The political landscape of 16th-century South
India was shaped by the emergent Nāyaka kingdoms of Tañjāvūr, Madurai, and Gingee.
Following the defeat of the centre at Taḷikota in 1565, all three erstwhile vassals of Vijayanagara began to assert increasing autonomy from their once-mighty overlords. According to Velcheru
Narayana Rao, David Shulman, and Sanjay Subramanyam, the Nāyaka’s adventurism in state formation was matched only by their adventurism in spending on cultural production.3 Yet the role of Nāyaka patronage should not be overstated in light of the significant role we now know was played by non-royal patronage, particularly by vassals of the Nāyakas, like the Cetupatis and
Toṇṭaimāṉs, and other rulers of the deep south.4 Although many donations of land, villages, and
2 Cf., e.g., Elaine Fisher, Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South India [Oakland: University of California Press, 2017], 155–56; Velcheru Narayana Rao, David Shulman, and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Symbols of Substance: Court and State in Nāyaka Period Tamilnadu (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 79–81; Valerie Stoker, Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyāsatīrtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court (Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2016). 3 Symbols of Substance, 79–81. 4 Cf. Kathleen Iva Koppedrayer, “The Varṇāśramacandrika and the Śūdra’s Right to Preceptorhood: The social background of a philosophical debate in late medieval South India,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19, no. 3 (1991): 308–12; S. Krishnamoorthy, Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (History of Thiruvavaduthurai Mutt) (Chennai: Unnamalai Pathippagam, 2003), 158–59. On the importance of sectarian and monastic institutions of the far south, see also Leslie C. Orr, “Renunciation and Celebration: Ascetics in the Temple Life of Medieval Tamil Nadu,” in Classical and Contemporary Issues in Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Trichur S. Rukmani, ed. P. Pratap Kumar and Jonathan Duquette (Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2012), 319–20, and “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India: Temple, guru, god and patron in the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries” in Beyond the Monastery: The Entangled Institutional History of the South Asian Maṭha, eds. Caleb Simmons and Sarah Pierce Taylor (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 177 paddy surplus in the south went to local temples and maṭhas (Ta. maṭam), some more lavish donations went to central nodes in the Kāveri basin, particularly Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai, Tarumapuram, and Sūriyaṉarkōyil ātīṉams—which came to support networks of maṭhas and associated temples in the deep south.5 In this way, tremendous economic and cultural capital came to be channeled into these monastic institutions.6
Maṭhas have been characterized in toto as polyvalent institutions.7 While some maṭhas functioned as important sites of literary production,8 others focused more on devotional, administrative, or economic activities.9 So, too, a considerable number of maṭhas were part of broader networks, such as the pan-Indian Goḷakī maṭha10 and, in South India from about the 16th
5 An illustration is provided by Krishnamoorthy’s account of the expansion of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai Ātīṉam’s branch maṭhas under the fourth pontiff, Uruttirakōṭi Tēcikar (fl. 1610–21). Drawing on a copperplate grant issued by the Madurai Nāyaka ruler, Muttu Virappa Nāyaka (r. 1609–23), Krishnamoorthy describes the donation of several villages and temples in the deep south to Uruttirakōṭi Tēcikar as head of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai and the establishment of branch maṭhas to administer the properties (Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, 32–34). 6 Considerable evidence for this exists in the form of forty copperplate grants of the 14th to 17th centuries held by Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai Ātīṉam and published by S. Krishnamoorty (Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai ātīṉac cepēṭukaḷ [Chennai: Unnamalai Pathippagam, 2000]). Most of these copperplate grants record lavish donations by various rulers and chieftains directly to heads of the ātīṉam or to branch maṭhas that were—or subsequently came to be—a part of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai’s network. See also Koppedrayer, “The Varṇāśramacandrika and the Śūdra’s Right to Preceptorhood,” 308–12, who discusses a similar pattern for Tarumapuram. See also Orr, “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India” (forthcoming). 7 See, for instance, Kathleen Iva Koppedrayer, The Sacred Presence of the Guru: The ‘Velala’ lineages of Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, and Tiruppanantal [PhD diss., McMaster University,1990], 1–4; Michelle Folk, Ascetics, Devotees, Disciples, and Lords of the Maṭam: Monasteries in Medieval Tamilnadu (PhD diss., Concordia University, 2013) 2–5. 8 This particular aspect of maṭhas is not well-represented in inscriptions (see Orr, “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India” [forthcoming]); however, Śaiva literary production in association with maṭhas is well-represented in Śaiva literature. Most of the medieval Śaiva authors surveyed in this thesis, particularly from the 12th century onward, are described in their works as residents of maṭhas or heads of maṭhas. We may tentatively surmise that the maṭha function commonly found in inscriptions—namely that of housing and feeding devotees—also constituted a form of literary patronage, if only by providing Śaiva authors with room and board while they wrote. 9 See, Orr, “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India” (forthcoming); Stoker, Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory, 36–37. 10 See, e.g., Cynthia Talbot, “Golaki Matha Inscriptions from Andhra: A Study of a Saiva Monastic Lineage,” in Vajapeya: Essays on the Evolution of Indian Art and Culture, ed. A.M. Shastri and R.K. Sharma (Delhi: Agam, 1987) 130–46. For statistics on the number of maṭhas affiliated to the Goḷakī and related networks in the 12th–13th centuries, see Noburu Karashima, Y. Subbarayalu, and P. Shanmugam, 178 century, the non-Brahmin-led ātīṉams mentioned above, whose branches and temples spread far and wide.11 Although the processes through which the “franchising” of these maṭha networks came about have yet to be fully delineated, it is clear from the copperplate inscriptions of
Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai that the fortunes of maṭhas and ātīṉams waxed and waned—with administrations routinely changing hands and whole networks occasionally being swallowed up by other networks.12 Indeed, this is precisely what happened to Sūriyaṉarkōyil Ātīṉam, which was taken over by Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai in the 20th century.13 In the 16th century, however, Sūriyaṉarkōyil was still a fledgling institution, though it attracted patronage from the Tañjāvūr Nāyakas early on thanks to the efforts of its second pontiff, Śivāgrayogin. But, as I will argue below, it was not only patronage that impacted the changing fortunes of maṭhas and ātīṉams, it was also a matter of the legitimacy of those who administered these institutions. As we will see, in some cases, the
Kāmika was used to support arguments intended to bolster the legitimacy of non-Brahmin maṭhas and ādīṉams.
5.2. Reception of the Kāmikāgama by Authors of the 16th-17th Centuries
5.2.1. Śivāgrayogin
Accounts of the life of Śivāgrayogin can be drawn from the various works attributed to him and from traditional accounts of maṭhas with which he was associated: Sūriyaṉarkōyil,
“Maṭhas and Medieval Religious Movements in Tamil Nadu: An Epigraphical Study,” Indian Historical Review 37, no. 2 (2010): 217–34. 11 Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai for instance still maintains a branch maṭha and two small temples in Vārāṇasī (see Krishnamoorthy, Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, 219–23). 12 Ibid. For a related account of the shifting fortunes of particular maṭhas, see Rajeshwari Ghose, The Lord of Ārūr: Tyāgarāja Cult in Tamilnāḍu. A Study in Conflict and Accommodation (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996), 258–64. 13 Koppedrayer, The Sacred Presence of the Guru, 37. 179 primarily, but also Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai, which is a short distance away.14 That he was the second pontiff of Sūriyaṉarkōyil is well known; that he received patronage from the Tañjāvūr Nāyakas is also well established, particularly through a dedication to Sevappa Nāyaka (r. 1532–60) in the opening of his ritual manual on Śaiva renunciation, Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati.15 Composing works in Sanskrit and Tamil,16 Śivāgrayogin articulated a distinct interpretation of Śaivasiddhānta, notable for its emphasis on a form of Vedāntic nondualism that leaned closer to monism than to the qualified nondualism of the Meykaṇṭār school.17 This interpretation of Śaivasiddhānta evidently owed something to his background which he traced to Vārāṇasī, where his paramaguru
Sadāśiva Śivācārya had been based.18
14 Krishnamoorthy refers to an account of an interaction between Śivāgrayogin and Namacivāyamūrtti, founder of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai (Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, 21). Krishnamoorthy also notes that there had been some confusion about whether this incident referred to Śivāgrayogin, the second pontiff of Sūriyaṉarkōyil, or to an earlier Śivāgrayogin, who founded Sūriyaṉarkōyil and was the former’s guru. The latter is also referred to by his Tamil name Śivakkoḻuntu Śivācārya (cf. R. Balasubramanian, “Preface,” in The Śaivaparibhāṣā of Śivāgrayogin, ed. R. Balasubramanian and V.K.S.N. Raghavan [Madras: The Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras, 1982], iii.; Koppedrayer, The Sacred Presence of the Guru, 35–36). Confusion between these Śivāgrayogins is found in some secondary scholarship (e.g., Devasenapathi, Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñāna-Siddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries, 9). 15 Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati (1932 Ed.), 1–2. 16 In addition to Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati, Śivāgrayogin’s Sanskrit works include Kriyādīpikā, Śaivaparibhāṣā, as well as short and long commentaries on the Sanskrit version of the Civañāṉapōtam. His Tamil works include the Civaneṟippirakācam and commentaries on the Civañāṉacittiyār, Sarvajñānottarāgama, Devikālottarāgama, and Śrutisūktimālikā. 17 Cf. Śaivaparibhāṣā (1950 Ed., 161–62; 1982 Ed., 354–55). Śivāgrayogin describes the liberated state as a “oneness with Śiva” (śivaikyam), though involving “a slight difference like [between] a thing and its quality and like [between] light and its source”: guṇaguṇinor iva prakāśatadāśrayor iva ca īṣadbheda* evaikyam (*īṣadbheda, 1982 Ed.; īṣadbhede satyabheda 1950 Ed.). 18 This was the same Sadāśiva Śivācārya who authored the Siddhāntasūtravṛtti, the earliest available commentary of the Sanskrit version of the Civañāṉapōtam, mentioned in Chapter Four. Śivāgrayogin’s background is described by T. Ganesan (“Introduction” in Civaneṟippirakācam [Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003], xvi–xx; “Schools of Śaivasiddhānta” in Śivajñānabodha with the Laghuṭīkā of Śivāgrayogī [Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003], xxiii–xxiii), Koppedrayer (The Sacred Presence of the Guru, 220–21), and the 16th-century commentator on the Civaneṟippirakācam. As they note, Śivāgrayogin belonged to the Kandaparamparai (“Skanda Lineage”)—a different tradition from that of Meykaṇṭār, who belonged to the Nandiparamparai (“Nandi Lineage”). The commentator on the Civaneṟippirakācam states that the Kandaparamparai lineage’s succession passed from Vāmadeva to a certain Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya, and from him to a certain Viśveśvara Śivācārya, who lived “as a celibate renunciant in a big maṭha on Maṇikarṇikā Ghat in Vārāṇasī” (kāciyilē maṇikarṇikātīrattilē periyamaṭattil 180
But Śivāgrayogin’s connection with Vedānta was also clearly allied to an ongoing interest in Śaiva renunciation.19 And this was no mere theoretical concern, for important economic interests were at stake. It would seem that in certain jurisdictions at certain times, maṭha estates could only be presided over by renunciants.20 Since the emergent and increasingly well-endowed maṭhas and ātīṉams of Tañjāvūr district were predominantly run by non-Brahmins who did not qualify for the Vedic rite of renunciation, the question of their legitimate or legal eligibility to administer monastic estates occasionally fell into dispute.21 For Śivāgrayogin, who identified as “one beyond [distinctions of] caste and station” (ativarṇāśramī),22 the matter was no
nayiṭṭikavariyarāṉa vicuvēcura civācāriyarukku upatēcikka). From Viśveśvara Śivācārya, the teaching passed to Sadāśiva Śivācārya, who “lived as a Śaiva renunciant and was born in a family of North Indian Brahmins” (āriyappirāmaṇa vaṅkicattilē avatarittuc caivacaṉṉiyāciyāṉa catāciva civācāriyarukku upatēcikka). Sadāśiva Śivācārya, in turn, passed the teaching on to Śivakkoḻuntu Śivācārya, “also known as Śivāgrayogin [the founder of Sūriyaṉarkōyil], who was born in Marutānta Cōḻapuram [?] in Chola Country” (cōḻatēcattil marutānta cōḻapurattilē yavatarittaruḷiṉa civākkirayōkikaḷ eṉṉum civakkoḻuntu civācāriyarukku upatēcikka). From Śivakkoḻuntu Śivācārya, the teaching passed to his successor, Śivāgrayogin (i.e. Śivāgrayogīndra Jñānaśivācārya), who was “born in Toṇṭaimaṇḍalam […] became an eminent teacher beyond distinctions of varṇa and āśrama and a defender of Śaivism” (toṇṭaimaṇṭalattil avataritta […] attiyayaṉam paṇṇiṉa ativarṇāciram ācāriyavariya caivaparipālaka civākkirayōkikku aṉukkirakikka). This Śivāgrayogin then transmitted the teaching “as a text known as Civaneṟippirakācam, expounding in Tamil [the doctrine of] non-dual Vedic Śaivasiddhānta as the essence of Śaiva Āgamas” (civākamaṅkaḷiṟ cāramāyirakkiṟa vaitikacaivacittāntāttuvayap piratipātakamāyt tirāviṭa rūpamāyc civaneṟippirakācameṉaṉum cāttirattai yupatēcittār). The Tamil text here is excerpted from the commentary on Civaneṟippirakācam (1936 Ed., 1–3). 19 Renunciation is also an important theme in Kriyādīpikā, where it is treated as a major Śaiva life-cycle rite (śaivasaṃskāra), discussed below. 20 According to J. Duncan M. Derrett, “śāstra, as understood in Anglo-Hindu law, conceives only of a celibate and a renunciate as a sannyāsī, and only a sannyāsī as the head of a maṭha” (“Modes of Sannyāsīs and the Reform of a South Indian Maṭha Carried out in 1584,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94, no. 1 [1974]: 65). The history and legal basis of this is unclear, though it evidently had major implications for the operations of non-Brahmin-run maṭhas. 21 This is discussed by Derrett (“Modes of Sannyāsīs and the Reform of a South Indian Maṭha Carried out in 1584”). Moreover, this issue appears to have motivated Tarumapuram Ātīṉam’s commissioning of the Varṇāśramacandrikā in the 17th century, a work that addressed the question of Śūdra estate administration rights directly. The Varṇāśramacandrikā is discussed by Koppedrayer (“The Varṇāśramacandrika and the Śūdra’s Right to Preceptorhood: The social background of a philosophical debate in late medieval South India”). A legal case related to this, from 1898, detailed in I.L.R. Madras Series (Vol. 22, 302–04) demonstrates the tenacity of the view that Śūdras were not considered “real” sannyāsīs, which seems to have influenced a ruling against an estate claim by Tarumapuram Ātīṉam. 22 The term is found in the colophons of the Śaivaparibhāṣā, Kriyādīpikā, and Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati. The commentator on the Civaneṟippirakācam also uses it to describe Śivāgrayogin. The term appears to 181 doubt a significant one. A major thread in his synthesis of Vedānta and Śaivasiddhānta is that
Śaiva life-cycle rites are on par with Vedic life-cycle rites, and that Āgamas possess the same level of epistemological validity (pramāṇa) as Vedic revelation. Both lines of argument, of course, had important real-world implications. To support his reasoning, particularly in his
Kriyādīpikā and Śaivaparibhāṣā, Śivāgrayogin drew on the Kāmika.
The Kriyādīpikā quotes 25.5 verses attributed to the Kāmika, of which 13 verses are found in modern editions. As suggested by its title, the Kriyādīpikā has a specific focus on Śaiva ritual, particularly rituals performed in non-temple-based settings. Thus, beginning with an account of procedures of daily obligatory practice (nityānuṣṭhāna), the Kriyādīpikā includes instructions for the worship of Śiva (śivapūjā), initiation (dīkṣā), Śaiva renunciation
(śaivasaṃnyāsa), consecration of an Ācārya (ācāryābhiṣeka), and funerary rites (antyeṣṭi). In detailing practices to be undertaken in the morning, Śivāgrayogin entertains the objection that such practices are only enjoined for the three upper classes, not for Śūdras. To dispel the idea of a distinction between the caste-classes of initiates, Śivāgrayogin quotes the Kāmika:23
It may be objected that the practice of waking up [before dawn] at the hour of Brahman (brahmamuhūrta) and so forth is enjoined only for the [upper] three caste-classes (traivarṇikānām). So, [one might ask,] if this is true, how is it that the practice is told for Śūdras (caturthānām)?
connote the sense mentioned in the Sūtasaṃhitā and described by Patrick Olivelle as a “fifth āśrama” (The Aśrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution [New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993] 227–29). 23 Kriyādīpikā (1920 Ed., 2): nanu, brāhmamuhūrtotthānādyācāras traivarṇikānām eva vihitaḥ | atah kathaṃ caturthānām ācāraḥ kathyata iti cet satyam, “śūdrādijātim uddhṛtya svāhāntenaiva mūlataḥ | hutvā’hutitrayaṃ paścācchivaṃ prati vaded iti || āhārabhāvadoṣābhyāṃ yonibījaśarīrataḥ | śuddho dvijo bhavatvātmā bhagavan parameśvara ||” iti kāmikādyāgamavacanāt sacchūdrāṇāṃ jātyuddharaṇaśivasaṃskāravaśāt śivāgamoktānuṣṭhānaṃ vihitam eva | idam uttaratra vistareṇa darśayiṣyāmaḥ || 182
[Quoting the Kāmika:] “Having extracted the caste of Śūdras and others using the Root [mantra] with the termination SVĀHĀ, offering a triple oblation, one should address Śiva thus: ‘O Venerable Supreme Lord, from faults [committed as a consequence] of one’s livelihood or nature (āhārabhāvadoṣābhyām), from a body [born] of womb and seed, may the soul become pure, twice-born!’”
According to this statement from the Kāmika and other [Āgamas,] owing to the power of the Śaiva ceremony of “Caste Extraction,” the [daily obligatory] practice taught in Śaiva Āgamas is enjoined for Pure Śūdras (sacchūdrāṇām). We will explain this in detail further on.
A few points above call out for explanation. The rite of “Caste Extraction” (jātyuddhāraṇa) was touched on in the discussion of the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā in the previous chapter. In fact, the same verses from the Kāmika are quoted there as here, and they are found in modern editions of the Kāmika.24 Nevertheless, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the ritual of jātyuddhāraṇa was not universally accepted. The challenge to Brahminic hierarchy implied by a rite held to elevate
Śūdras to the rank of Brahmin was no doubt one reason.25 This may also be why instructions for the practice are not found in certain sources, like the Somaśambhupaddhati and
Aghoraśivapaddhati.26 Given Śivāgrayogin’s tendency to emphasize the comparability of Vedic and Śaiva life-cycle rites, as he does in his discussions of Śaiva renunciation, it is telling that he refers to jātyuddhāraṇa here not simply as an operation within the larger scheme of initiation, but as a Śaiva ceremony (śaivasaṃskāra) in its own right.
The reference to “Pure Śūdras” (sacchūdras, alias “sat-śūdras”) is also notable. In the
19th century, discourse on “Pure Śūdras” was an important influence on Āṟumuka Nāvalar’s
24 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (1988 Ed.), 20:80c–82b. In modern editions, the verses are preceded by a half- verse stating that Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, and Vaiśyas should themselves be understood as Śūdras, and that the initiating ritualist should deliver them from this quality (viprādayo'pi śūdrās syur guṇatas tān samuddharet). 25 Cf., e.g., Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, Vol. 3, 147. 26 Cf. Brunner, Somaśambhupaddhati, Vol. 3, 131–35. 183
Śaiva reform projects in colonial Jaffna and Tamilnadu.27 But the term shows up in much pre- modern discourse on caste as well, though it has received comparatively little scholarly attention.
Invariably connected with issues of Śūdra caste rights, the term is discussed by Theodore Benke in his work on the Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi (aka Sacchūdrācāraśiromaṇi, 16th century)28 and by
Kathleen Koppedrayer in her study of the Varṇāśramacandrikā (17th century). Unlike
Śivāgrayogin, whose abjuration of caste and station are clear indications that he wrote from outside the Brahminical mainstream, the Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi appears to have been written from within. In Benke’s view, the text represents an accommodation and Brahminization of expanding
Śūdra rights.29 By contrast, the Varṇāśramacandrikā is allied with the same project as
Śivāgrayogin’s: the attempt to demonstrate that Śūdras were legitimate saṃnyāsīs and thus were entitled, like Brahminic saṃnyāsīs, to administer monastic estates. Notably, the
Varṇāśramacandrikā cites some of the same Kāmika verses as Śivāgrayogin on this point.30
As for the quotations in the Kriyādīpikā that are attributed to the Kāmika but that are not found in modern editions, here again we find testimonia of the circulation of variant Kāmika versions. But the Kriyādīpikā speaks to a further complication in the transmission of certain
Āgamas, specifically that the source of a quoted verse was not always known to the person quoting it; occasionally, it seems, verses were misattributed. The passage below, where only the first half-verse is found in the Kāmika, presents an example of this.31
27 This is discussed in Chapter Four. 28 The Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi of Kṛṣṇa Śeṣa: A 16th Century Manual of Dharma for Śūdras (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2010). 29 Ibid., 3. 30 Varṇāśramacandrikā (IFP T.533, 27): kāmike – viprādayo’pi śūdrās syuḥ guṇatas tān* samuddharet | (*corr.; guṇaṃ tasmāt) śūdrādijātim uddhṛtya svāhāntenaiva mūlata | iti. 31 Kriyādīpikā (1920 Ed., 13): tathā coktaṃ kāmike – 184
And so it is said in the Kāmika: “One should draw the tripuṇḍra (“three stripes of sacred ash”) with the middle, index, and ring fingers according to the rule. Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Rudra are the presiding deities of the tripuṇḍra. On the head, the forehead, the area around the heart, the two arms, the middle of the neck, the hips, the two ears, the two ribs, the navel, the two elbows, and the two wrists: [these are] the sixteen places taught for the tripundra, O Viṣṇu (janārdana).”
That the passage is conspicuously addressed to Viṣṇu immediately signals that something is amiss, for the Kāmika is structured as a dialogue between the Lord and one or more sages (at least after the 12th century) and in modern editions carries no teachings addressed to Viṣṇu. Yet there is one Āgama that is addressed to Viṣṇu—the Ajitāgama, which is also much quoted in
Śivāgrayogin’s oeuvre.32 Indeed, it appears that the stray Kāmika verses above are actually misattributed verses belonging to the Ajitāgama.33 Whether this misattribution was a result of scribal or editorial error, or rather some confusion on the part of Śivāgrayogin himself, is not entirely clear.
In contrast to the Kriyādīpikā, Śivāgrayogin’s Śaivaparibhāṣā has little to say about ritual. It quotes only three verses attributed to the Kāmika, none of which are found in modern editions or in any other known sources. The Śaivaparibhāṣā presents itself as a work of theology with a particular focus on epistemology, ontology, and soteriology. Informed by a Nyāya discursive framework, though refuting that school’s definition of what counts as a valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa),34 Śivāgrayogin presents an argument in the text for the equal validity of
maddhyatarjanyanāmābhis tripuṇḍraṃ vidhivan nayet | brahmā viṣṇuś ca rudraś ca tripuṇḍrasyādhidevatāḥ || ke lalāṭe ca hṛddeśe dordvaye kaṇṭhamaddhyame | kaṭyāṃ karṇadvaye caiva pārśvayor nābhideśake || kūrparadvitaye caiva maṇibaṃdhadvaye tataḥ | ṣoḍaśasthānam uddiṣṭan tripuṇḍrāṇān janārdana || 32 In the Ajitāgama, Viṣṇu is also referred to by his well-known sobriquets Acyuta and Janārdana. 33 The same verses are quoted in the Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati by Śivāgrayogin with attribution to the Ajita. 34 Śaivaparibhāṣā (1950 Ed., 4). 185 the Vedas and Āgamas. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the view that the Vedas and Āgamas both represent sources of authority for South Indian Śaivism goes back several centuries; however, the systematic articulation in pan-Indian philosophical terms of the view that Āgamas hold equivalent epistemological status as the Vedas appears to have been a new development in the 16th century. In discussing the question of scripture’s epistemological status, Śivāgrayogin argues that the Vedas and Āgamas both constitute verbal testimony (śabdapramāṇa) of the
“supremely authoritative” Sadāśiva.35 Considering the objection that some Āgamas include passages that are opposed to the Vedas, Śivāgrayogin counters:
It is said in the Kāmika: “Śaiva Āgamas also are taught to be of two types, “Veda-congruent” (śrautaḥ) and “Veda-incongruent” (aśrautaḥ). “Veda congruent” [Āgamas] consist of the essence of revelation;36 the others [i.e., “Veda-incongruent” Āgamas,] are held to be independent. Furthermore, [these] other Śāstras only exist to delude [certain] people in this world. Though I have told of them, they are incompatable with the doctrines of the Vedas. [Therefore,] Vāma, Pāśupata, Lākula, and Bhairava [Āgamas/Śāstras] should not be followed, as they are considered contrary to the Vedas.”37
The three Kāmika verses that make up this passage, as noted above, are not found in modern editions, nor do we find any verses there comparable to these. The dichotomy of “Veda congruent” and “Veda incongruent” Āgamas is foreign to the modern Kāmika, as is the notion
35 Śaivaparibhāṣā (1950 Ed., 21): vaidikaṃ tu paramāptaśrīmatsadāśivavākyam | tac ca dvividham | vedaḥ śaivāgamaś ceti. “‘Vedic’ [verbal testimony], however, refers to the words of the supremely authoritative and venerable Sadāśiva. And this is of two kinds: Veda and Śaivāgama.” 36 The Sanskrit expression here, śrūtisāra° (“essence of revelation [=Veda]”), appears to be an echo of the expression vedasāra (“essence of the Veda”), which is found in the Kāmika and mirrored in Umāpati’s Civappirakācam. 37 Ibid. (22): taduktaṃ kāmike – śaivāgamo'pi dvividhaḥ śrauto'śrautaś ca sa smṛtaḥ | śrutisāramayaḥ śrautaḥ svatantra itaro mataḥ || anyāni caiva śāstrāṇi loke'smin* mohanāya vai | (*corr.; lokesmin Ed.) vedavādaviruddhāni mayaiva kathitāni tu || vāmaṃ pāśupataṃ caiva lākulaṃ* caiva bhairavam | (*corr.; vātulaṃ Ed.) na sevyam etat kathitaṃ vedabāhyaṃ tathetarat || iti 186 that non-Saiddhāntika Āgamas were taught for the sake of deluding certain people. One of the editors of the Śaivaparibhāṣā seems to suggest that Śivāgrayogin misattributed these verses and that they belong rather to the Vāyusaṃhitā.38 But Jñānaprakāśa cites one of the same verses in his Śaivāgamādimāhātmya, also with attribution to the Kāmika,39 which suggests both
Śivāgrayogin and Jñānaprakāśa knew the Kāmika in a form somewhat different from that of modern editions.
The citations of the Kāmika in Śivāgrayogin’s oeuvre thus present further evidence of the pluriformity of the Kāmika over time. Śivāgrayogin’s citations of the Kāmika are notable for supporting arguments concerning the equal status of Śūdra Śaiva initiates vis-à-vis initiates of the upper three castes, and the equal epistemological status of Śaiva Āgamas vis-à-vis the Vedas.
Both lines of argument, I have suggested, are informed by concern about the rights of Śaiva renunciant-led monastic establishments and the economic factors at stake in this. In the works of other authors of this period, Vedajñāna II and Jñānaprakāśa, similar themes can be found.
5.2.2. Vedajñāna II
Like Śivāgrayogin, Vedajñāna II (late 16th century) was also a bilingual author who wrote in Sanskrit and Tamil.40 As resident of a certain “Guhā maṭha” in Chidambaram,41 he came from a different background than that of Śivāgrayogin and of the other members of ātīṉam-based
Śaivasiddhānta lineages of the Kaveri basin. Linking his background to a narrative about Śaiva
38 A footnote qualifying “kāmike” in the citation reads “vāyusaṃhitāyāṃ – de” (ibid., 22). 39 Śaivāgamādimāhātmya (T.372, 1208) taduktam kāmike – vāmaṃ pāśupataṃ caiva lākulaṃ caiva bhairavam | na sevyam etat kathitaṃ vedabāhyaṃ tathetaram iti | 40 For Vedajñāna II’s date, see T. Ganesan, Two Śaiva Teachers of the Sixteenth Century: Nigamajñāna I and his disciple Nigamajñāna II (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2009), xi. 41 This detail is found in the introduction to his Śivajñānasiddhisvapakṣadṛṣṭāntasaṃgrahaḥ (T.317, 969): śrīmattillavane puṇye guhāmaṭham upāsayan | nigamajñānanāmnā tu prakhyāto [']bhūn mahītale. 187
Ācāryas from North India who settled in the South, Vedajñāna II refers to his predecessors as
Ādiśaivas and disciples of the Āmardaka and Goḷakī group of maṭhas. The narrative is related in
Dīkṣādarśa and begins with a story of Āgamic revelation to the “First Śaivas,” the sages
Agastya, Kāśyapa, Bharadvāja, Gautama, and Kauśika, held to be the progenitors of the Ādiśaiva clans.42 In the story, which associates the Ādiśaiva caste with the early pan-Indic Śaivasiddhānta monastic base, disciples of the sages are said to have founded the Āmardaka, Goḷakī, Puṣpagiri, and Raṇabhadra maṭhas around Mount Kailash in the Himalayas; in time, according to the account, their disciples settled in the South on the banks of the Godāvarī River.43 Myth fades into legend as the account segues to a story of Rajendra Chola’s expedition north to the Ganges.44
After bathing in the Ganges, we are told, Rajendra Chola met a group of these eminent Śaiva
42 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1668; T.153, 604): kailāsaśīkhare ramye vaṭamūlanivāsinam | dakṣiṇāmūrtirūpa[ṃ] tu munayaḥ samupāsire1 || agastyaḥ kāśyapaś caiva bharadvājo [']tha gautamaḥ | kauśikaḥ2 parameśānād āgamārthañ ca tat[t]vataḥ || jñātvā saṃprītamanasās te sarve munayas tathā | teṣāṃ śiṣyās sanantādyā munayas tān upāsire || kecil labdhāgamārtha[ṃ] tu māṭhāpatyena saṃsthitāḥ | śrīmatkailāsapārśveṣu caturtheṣu3 vyavasthitā[ḥ] || āmardakaḥ puṣpagirir golakīraṇabhadrakaḥ | 1 munayaḥ samupāsire ] conj.; munayas samupasthire T.153; munis samupasthire T.372 2 kauśikaḥ ] em.; kauśiko T.372; kāśikā T.153 3 °pārśveṣu caturtheṣu ] conj.; °pārśve tu caturthāyāṃ T.153; °pārśve tu caturthā sa T.372 43 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1669; T.153, 605): godāvarīnadītīre tasya1 santānikāś śubhāḥ | purā maṇḍarakālādi2 tasyāṃ vasati śaṃkaraḥ || utpattiṃ tasya śaivānāṃ ācāryāṇāṃ viśeṣataḥ | tatra maṇḍarakālādi3 ca mahīdāś ca caturmaṭhāḥ | āmardakapuṣpagirigolakīraṇabhadrakāḥ4 || 1 tasya ] T.372; tasyāt T.153 2 maṇḍarakālādi ] T.372; mandharakālādi T.153 3 maṇḍarakālādi ] conj.; maṇḍarābī T.372; mandhārāḷī T.153 4 āmardakapuṣpagirigolakīraṇabhadrakāḥ ] em.; āmardakīpuṣpagirigolakīraṇabhadrakā T.372; āmaddakaṃ puṣpabhirigolakīraṇabhadrakāḥ T.153 44 This is discussed by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Cōḷas, Vol. 1 (Madras: University of Madras, 1935), 247–55. 188
Ācāryas and settled them in his kingdom in an area around Kāñcī.45 Vedajñāna II then tells us that his direct predecessors were also from an area around Kāñcī (toṇḍīramaṇḍale), and he singles out a certain Saundarācārya who was head of the local Puṣpagiri maṭha and had composed a ritual manual known as “Kramaratnakamālā.” He also mentions his own guru, namesake, and uncle, Vedajñāna I, who he claims settled in Chidambaram with a multitude of disciples during the reign of the Vijayanagara emperor Sadāśiva.46 The closing verses of the story extol Vedajñāna I for his compositions in Tamil and for teaching Āgamas in a multitude of
45 The verses in this part of the story appear to be a quotation from an unknown source. The same passage is found in a commentary (-vyākhā) on Trilocanaśiva’s Śiddhāntasārāvalī by a certain Anantaśambhu (14th century?) where they also appear as a quotation. The story of Śaiva Ācāryas from the Godāvarī basin being settled in an area around Kāñcī by Rajendra Chola was apparently known to a few medieval Śaiva authors. Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1669; T.153, 605–06) = Śiddhāntasārāvalīvyākhyā (“Trilocanaśivācāryakṛtā Siddhāntasārāvaliḥ, Anantaśambhukṛtavyākhyāsahitā,” ed. R. K. Parthasarathi and T. H. Viswanathan, Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library 19, no. 1 [1969]: 65; siglum = SSV): rājendracola ityākhyaś colabhūmau1 mahīpatiḥ2 | gaṅgāsnānārtham3 āgatya dṛṣṭvā śaivaparāṃs4 tadā || snātvā pratinivṛttas san tān samādāya5 śaivakān | svarājye sthāpayāmāsa śaivācāryavarāṃs tataḥ || kāñcīmadhye colabhūmau sarvatraiva pravistarān || iti 1 ityākhyaś colabhūmau ] T.153; ityākhyacolabhūpo SSV ; ityākhyacolabhūmau T.372 2 mahīpatiḥ ] T.372, T.153; mahībhavan SSV 3 gaṅgāsnānārtham ] SSV; gaṃgāsnātvāgamanārtham T.372; gaṃgāsnātvāndraṣpā° T.153 4 śaivaparāṃs ] T.372, T.153 ; śaivavarāṃs SSV 5 samādāya ] SSV; tasyām ādāya T.372; tāsām ādāya T.153 46 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1669–70; T.153, 606–07): śrīpuṣpagirisantānamaṭhādhipamahadguruḥ | tatsaṃpradāyasiddhānāṃ1 bahavo [']tra mumukṣavaḥ || kramaratnakamālākhyapaddhatīñ cākarot tataḥ | vidyāpāde2 ṣaṭpadārthaṃ saundarācārya nāmataḥ || toṇḍīramaṇḍale tasmin rudrakoṭimahatsthale | ādiśaiva iti khyātaḥ pañcagocaravartitaḥ3 || śrīvyāghrapuranivasivāmadevo mahattataḥ | tasyānujo mahāyogī vedajñānamunīśvaraḥ || bṛhatsabheśam uddiśya4 anekaiś śiṣyakais saha | śrīmattillavanaṃ5 prāpya ciraṃ kālam avardhata || sadāśivamahārāje pṛthivīpālanakṣame | 1 tatsaṃpradāyasiddhānāṃ ] T.372; tān saṃpravāyasiddhānāṃ T.153 2 vidyāpāde ] T.153; vidyā vāde T.372 3 pañcagocaravartitaḥ ] conj. Ganesan (2009, 189); pañcāgocaravartitaḥ T.153; pañcāṅgācaravartitaḥ T.372 4 bṛhatsabheśam uddiśya ] T.372; bṛhatsabheśamukhānām T.153 5 śrīmattillavanaṃ ] T.153; śrīmattillivanaṃ T.372 189 places, and the account concludes with the statement that the author’s Dīkṣādarśa was composed in accordance with the teachings of his lineage.47
Both of Vedajñāna II’s major works, Dīkṣādarśa and Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati, are vast, digest-like compilations that contain hundreds of Kāmika citations. Both works, however, are poorly transmitted and as yet unedited, such that Dominic Goodall has characterized the transmission of Dīkṣādarśa as “atrocious” and Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati as “not unproblematic.”48
Another limitation of these texts is that there is relatively little original material in either to provide meaningful context for the quotations. The texts simply cull from Āgamic tradition— including demonstrably early and late sources—without much from the author about how the quotations fit into a larger vision of ritual or theology in Śaivasiddhānta.
In both works, the ontological incongruity between early dualist Āgamas and later nondualist Āgamas is passed over by Vedajñāna II, who does not address this. I suggest this is because, most likely, it represented no incongruity for him, but was understood rather in the context of the post-12th-century synthesis discussed previously, which sought to harmonize
Saiddhāntika dualism and nondualism.49 In his theological works (e.g., Śivajñānabodhopanyāsa,
Śivajñānasiddhisvapakṣadṛṣṭāntasaṃgraha), Vedajñāna II expatiates on theological and ontological matters with reference to the Meykaṇṭār theological school, particularly the
Civañāṉapōtam and Civañāṉacittiyār.50 In his Śivajñānabodhopanyāsa, in particular, Vedajñāna
47 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1670; T.153, 607): dīkṣādarśaṃ mahat grathapaddhatīñ ca mahattarām || dakṣiṇāmūrtikṛpayā hy akarot sāmpradāyikām | 48 Goodall, The Parākhyatantra, A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry; École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004) cix, cxiii. In an effort to compensate for some of these challenges, I drew on several transcripts of Dīkṣādarśa (T.76, T.153, T.235, T.279, and T.372,) and Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati (T.55, T.282, T.321, T.1056), which are all based on different manuscript exemplars. 49 This is discussed in the previous chapter. 50 See Ganesan, Two Śaiva Teachers of the Sixteenth Century, 242. 190
II refutes several articulations of dualism and nondualism and presents a somewhat novel interpretation of the phrase “oneness with Śiva” in Civañāṉapōtam as an inseparable or inherent connection between bound souls (paśu) and the lord (pati) that is without beginning or end
(ādyantarahitasamavāya).51 Notably, Vedajñāna II supports this interpretation with a passage attributed to a Kāmika Vidyāpāda—a work claiming attribution to the Kāmika that exists in manuscript form, but which is not regarded as authoritative today.52
Turning to the Dīkṣādarśa, we find 279.5 verses in the text attributed to the Kāmika, of which 235.5 verses are traceable in modern editions and 44 that are not. The verses that are traceable in the modern Kāmika are found in chapters of the printed Pūrvabhāga and
Uttarabhāga, though references to these divisions of the Kāmika are not found. Nor do the quotations generally indicate what chapter of the Kāmika they are drawn from. Where section headings are given for quotations, the term used is prakaraṇa (“topic”) rather than paṭala
(“chapter”)—the term used in modern editions of the Kāmika.53 Of the verses that are found in the modern Kāmika, approximately half appear in the same verse order as we find in the modern text. For the other half, it is unclear whether the difference in verse order is due to Vedajñāna II’s
51 Ibid. 52 The text of a Kāmika Vidyāpāda is preserved in IFP MS No. RE 39767 and a Devanāgari paper transcript (IFP T.830) based on the same. That this Kāmika Vidyāpāda is not generally regarded as authoritative today is supported by my interviews with informants. None of those I interviewed during my fieldwork were aware of the text, with the notable exception of Pandit S. Sambandan Śivācārya of the IFP. When I asked him about it, he dismissed it saying it was not of interest to him. Nevertheless, a critical edition of the text is currently being prepared by T. Ganesan (personal communication). 53 E.g., tathā kāmike – śatābhiṣekaprakaraṇe (T.372, 1535), kāmike nirājanaprakaraṇe (ibid., 1551), kāmike – dīkṣāprakaraṇe – (ibid., 1343). The quoted verses can be found in the following chapters of the modern Kāmika: Snānavidhipaṭala (Ch. 3 of PKā), Agnikāryavidhipaṭala (Ch. 8 of PKā), Praveśabalividhipaṭala (Ch. 14 of PKā), Mahotsavavidhipaṭala (Ch. 6 of UKā), Nīrājanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 7 of UKā), Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 20 of UKā), Sthālīpākavidhipaṭala (Ch. 21 of UKā), Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 23 of UKā), Ācāryābhiṣekavidhipaṭala (Ch. 24 of UKā), Gotranirṇayavidhipaṭala (Ch. 25 of UKā), Śatābhiṣekavidhipaṭala (Ch. 26 of UKā), Antyeṣṭividhipaṭala (Ch. 27 of UKā), Pitṛyajñavidhipaṭala (Ch. 28 of UKā), Śaivaśrāddhavidhipaṭala (Ch. 29 of UKā), Śivabhaktapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 66 of UKā), Karaṇalakṣaṇavidhipaṭala (Ch. 72 of UKā), Vyādhināśavidhānapaṭala (Ch. 75 of UKā), Puṣyābhiṣekavidhipaṭala (Ch. 80 of UKā). 191 citation style, or if this was a feature of the recension of the Kāmika that he knew.54 The subject matter of the quotations touches on the origins of the Ādiśaiva caste, the duties of Ācāryas, the eligibility of various devotees for various types of initiation, the characteristics of suitable
Ācāryas, the characteristics of gurus to be avoided, as well as procedures to be undertaken in various types of initiations and other life-cycle rites. The verses that are not found in the modern
Kāmika differ from the modern text in content and terminology in varying degrees, with most quotations also displaying certain ambiguities and corruptions. An example of a quotation attributed to the Kāmika but not found in the modern text is the following from the Dīkṣādarśa’s section on characteristics of suitable Ācāryas:
The son of a guru who is pure in character from a traditional lineage (saṃpradāya-) is exalted [as the best type of Ācārya]. Knowing the marks of liṅgas and other [substrates] (liṅgādilakṣaṇavettā [?]) and equipped with a knowledge of [their] variations (vibhaktijñānasaṃyutaḥ), he [should] be furnished with skills [drawn] from Śaiva scriptures such as the Kāmika.55
The first sentence presents no interpretative difficulties. Many Āgamas, including modern editions of the Kāmika, insist that Ācāryas should be from a traditional lineage. In the modern
Kāmika, the most common term for this is “sāntānika” (“belonging to a santāna [i.e., traditional lineage]”).56 The term used in the quotation above (saṃpradāya), however, is not found in the
54 Examples of this different ordering of verses is given below. 55 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1279; T.153, 30–31; T.235, 22–23; T.279, 16): kāmike – saṃpradāyaviśuddhātmā guruputraḥ1 praśaṃsitaḥ2 | liṅgādilakṣavettā ca3 vibhaktajñānasaṃyutaḥ4 || kāmikādiśivajñānasiddhiyukto viśāradaḥ | 1 guruputraḥ ] T.372; guruputraṃ T.153; guruputrā T.235, T.279 2 praśaṃsitaḥ ] T.372; praśasitaḥ T.153; praśaṃsitāḥ T.235; pracoditāḥ T.279 3 liṅgādilakṣaṇavettā ] conj.; liṃgādilakṣamavettā T.372; liṅgādilakṣavettā ca T.235; liṅgādilakṣyavettā ca T.279; liṅgādīkṣamevoktā ca T.153 4 vibhaktijñānasaṃyutaḥ ] T.235, T.279; vibhakta <…> T.372; vibhaktā <…> T.153. 56 E.g., sarvānugrāhakaḥ proktaḥ sāntānikaguruḥ sadā (Ācāryābhiṣekavidhipaṭala, 24:60cd). 192 modern text. Nor do we find the idea there that an Ācārya should be the son of a guru
(guruputra).57 The second half-verse presents two ambiguous terms (liṅgādilakṣavettā, vibhaktajñānasaṃyuta), for which I am unable to find parallels in other sources; the terms are more or less garbled in the transcripts.
Of the verses that are not found in the modern Kāmika, some are nevertheless part of longer quotations which include verses that are found in the modern text. The following quotation, for instance, which is attributed in its entirety to the Kāmika, includes verses found in the modern Kāmika—though in a different order from how they appear there—as well as verses not found in it.
In the Kāmika, the Lord [says] – And [though] Śaiva scripture, beginning with [this] Kāmika, is scripture with the purport of the Veda, one should strenuously avoid a [guru] who out of delusion supposes them to be the same. Likewise, one should avoid [a guru who is] a fortune teller, a barber, deficient in the capacity to comprehend or reason, has married within his own gotra (samānagotrasaṃbandhaṃ) or is [afflicted with] kusumākṣa.58 Likewise, [one should avoid a guru] who has married before his older brother or who is unmarried while his younger brother is married. [One should also avoid a guru] who earns a livelihood as an attendant upon images (devalam), who has remarried (punarbhavam),59 who eats what should not be eaten, who is an adulterine of a fallen Śaiva ascetic and a prostitute (kuṇḍabhasmāṅkuram), who bears a skull-staff and has black teeth, who has risen and then fallen [from caste] (ārūḍhapaṭitam), who is lazy, contemptible, or vagrant, who is married to a Vaiśya wife,60 who has disseminated heretical
57 The implication here, that Ācārya-ship requires one’s father to be a guru, might suggest a hereditary entitlement for the role, but this could have been interpreted variously. For instance, Vedajñāna II, at the end of Dīkṣādarśa, refers to himself as the “best son” (śreṣṭhasuta) of Vedajñāna I, although the latter does not appear to have been his father but instead his uncle (cf. Ganesan, Two Śaiva Teachers of the Sixteenth Century, x–xi; cf., also, T.153, 607). Thus the injunction that an Ācārya should be the “son of a guru” (guruputra) could simply mean that an Ācārya should have a guru. 58 This appears to be a disease of the eyes (c.f. “kusuma,” Monier-Williams). 59 The term punarbhū typically refers to a woman who has remarried (cf., Ludo Rocher, Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra, [London; New York: Anthem Press, 2012], 490). Here, however, it clearly designates a man. The term is used in a similar way in the Hayaśīrśa Pañcarātra (see Elisabeth Raddock, “Choosing an ācārya for Temple Construction and Image Installation,” In Consecration Rituals in South Asia, ed. István Keul [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017] 215). Raddock suggests that the term could also “possibly refer to the son of a remarried widow” (Ibid.). 60 The prejudice against husbands of Vaiśya wives is puzzling; it is perhaps more likely that vaiśyā should be read veśyā (“courtesan”), which is a variant found in one of the Dīkṣādarśa transcripts. 193
doctrines, who is impotent, sick, or has ugly nails. One should [also] steer clear of [gurus who are] addicts, adulterers, husbands of low women, as well as [gurus who are] painters, singers, or dancers. One should also avoid those who, like robbers, take Śiva’s wealth illegally, who have little knowledge, who are without patience and who are deformed. A person investigating a guru for faults should likewise avoid one who transgresses the commands of their [own] gurus, who is blind, one-eyed, lame, with crooked teeth, one-eyed [sic], squint-eyed or red- eyed, with red eyebrows, beard or hair, [or] who is fat, pot-bellied [or] who has bad breath.61
61 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1296–1297; T.153, 59–60; T.76, 38–39) ≈ Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (KĀ1988) 24:11cd– 14, 23, 26–27: īśvaraḥ kāmike – kāmikādiśivajñānaṃ vedārthajñānam eva ca | samaṃ yo manyate mohāt taṃ prayatnena varjayet | daivajñaṃ1 ca tathāmbaṣṭam2 ūhāpohavivarjitam | samānagotrasaṃbandhaṃ kusumākṣaṃ ca varjayet | parivettā parivittā ca3 devalaṃ ca punarbhavam4 | abhakṣyabhakṣakaṃ5 caiva kuṇḍabhasmāṅkuraṃ tathā | khaṭvāṅgiśyāmadantau6 cāpy ārūḍhaṃ patitaṃ tu vā7 | alasaṃ vṛṣalaṃ8 caivaṃ vrātyaṃ9 vaiśyāpatiṃ10 tathā | asacchāstrakṛtaṃ11 klībaṃ vyādhitaṃ12 kunakhaṃ13 tathā | atha vyasaninaṃ14 pāradārikaṃ vṛṣalīpatim | citrakaṃ gāyakaṃ caiva nartakaṃ ca vivarjayet | anyāyena śivadravyahāriṇaṃ hantṛsannibham15 | alpavidyāmarṣakau16 ca virūpaṃ ca vivarjayet | gurvājñālaṃghanaṃ17 cāpi gurudoṣavicārakaḥ18 | andhaṃ kāṇaṃ ca paṃguṃ19 ca tathā danturam eva ca | kāṇaṃ kekarapiṅgākṣaṃ20 piṅgabhrūśmaśrumūrdhajam22 | mahodaraṃ bṛhatkukṣiṃ pūtivaktraṃ vivarjayet | 1 daivajñaṃ ] KĀ1988; devayajñas T.372; devayajñaṃ T.76, T.153 2 °āmbaṣṭham ] em.; °āmbaṣṭam KĀ1988; °āṃṣaṣṭham T.372; °āmbaṣṭhak° T.76; °āmbuṣṭhak° T.153 3 parivettā parivittā ca ] T.372, T.76, T.153; tathaiva pāravettāraṃ KĀ1988 4 punarbhavam ] KĀ1988; punarbhavat T.372, T.76, T.153 5 °bhakṣakaṃ ] KĀ1988 ; °bhakṣaṇaṃ T.372, T.76, T.153 6 khaṭvāṅgiśyāmadantau ] KĀ1988; <…> vāṃgamadattañ T.372; khatvāṅgamadadantaṃ T.76; khātavagaṃgamardañ T.153 7 ārūḍhaṃ patitaṃ tu vā ] KĀ1988; ārūḍhapatanaṃ tathā T.372; ārūḍhapatanaṃ tu vā T.76, T.153 8 vṛṣalaṃ ] KĀ1988; prakṣālanaṃ T.372, T.76, T.153 9 vrātyaṃ ] KĀ1988; prāśyaṃ T.372, T.76, T.153 10 vaiśyāpatiṃ ] KĀ1988, T.76; veśyāpatiṃ T.372; peśyāpatiṃ, T.153 11 asacchastrakṛtaṃ ] KĀ1988; asat śāstraparaṃ T.372; asacchāstrataraṃ T.76; asat śāstrataraṃ T.153 12 vyādhitaṃ ] KĀ1988 ; śaktiṃ T.372; yā pittaṃ T.76, T.153 13 kunakhaṃ ] KĀ1988; sutakaṃ T.372; sunakaṃ T.76, T.153 14 atha vyasaninaṃ ] KĀ1988; asavyasaninaṃ T.372; asavyasaninaṃ T.76; asavyavaniraṃ T.153 15 hantṛsannibham ] KĀ1988; haradūṣitam T.372, T.76; haribhūṣitam T.153 16 °marṣakau ] KĀ1988; °māhiṣakaṃ T.372, T.76, T.153 17 gurvājñālaṃghanaṃ ] T.76, T.153; gurvājñālaṃdhanaṃ T.372 18 gurudoṣavicārakaḥ ] T.76, T.153; paridoṣavicārakaḥ T.372 19 paṃguṃ ] T.76; paṃkuñ T.372, T.153 194
The dotted underlines represent verses not found in the modern Kāmika. Yet, as the accompanying apparatus shows, Vedajñāna II appears to have taken these to be part of the
Kāmika, for in all transcripts the underlined verses appear as part of the same quotation. As in the first quotation above, we find ambiguities and corruptions in the stray verses here, such as the repetition of “one-eyed” (kāṇam) and the slightly garbled penultimate half-verse. The tenor of the stray verses, however, does not depart substantially from that of the rest of the quotation; the proscription against gurus with crooked teeth, red hair, bad breath, or who are blind, lame, or pot-bellied fits with the prejudicial character of the rest of the quotation, but these last characteristics are not found in the modern Kāmika.
The Kāmika verses from the quotation above that are found in modern editions belong to the chapter on the consecration of an Ācārya (Ācāryābhiṣekapaṭalaḥ, Ch. 24, Uttarabhāga), a ritual generally held to be the highest form of initiation in Śaivasiddhānta. In treatments of this ritual in other sources, the characteristics of Ācāryas or gurus considered suitable or to be avoided are also commonly found. Indeed, lists of the virtues or flaws of an Ācārya—reflecting qualities deemed desirable or undesirable by Brahminical prejudice—were relatively common, such that the same hackneyed characteristics are occasionally found in the works of other sectarian traditions.62
20 kekarapiṅgākṣaṃ] conj.; kekaraviṃkañca T.372; kekarapikañca T.153; kekarapiṃgaṃ ca T.76 22 piṅgabhrūśmaśrumūrdhajam ] conj.; bhrūśmaśruñ ca mūrdhajam T.372; bhrūśmaśrāñ ca imūdhvajam T.153; bhrūśmaśrūṃ ca umūrdhajam T.76 62 For a set of similar verses in the Vaiṣṇava Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra, see Raddock, “Choosing an ācārya for Temple Construction and Image Installation.” The injunction against those who “earn their livelihood as attendants upon images” (devalaṃ) in the quotation above is presumably to be interpreted as a hackneyed expression of this sort, for “attending upon images” is precisely how Ādiśaivas have traditionally earned their livelihoods. It is worth adding that the term devala (i.e., devalaka) has been used in different ways by different sectarian groups, often as a way of denigrating the practices of ritual communities different one’s own (cf., e.g., the discussion of devalakas in the Vaikhānasa tradition by Ute 195
Another citation in the Dīkṣādarśa attributed to the Kāmika, including verses found in the modern text and verses not found, is the following:
Now in worship for one’s own sake on a moveable liṅga63 [and] in installation rites, the three [upper castes are permitted]. A Śūdra, however, is [only permitted] in the initiation of [another] Śūdra [and] in personal worship on a moveable liṅga, Bāṇaliṅga, or temporary liṅga. If [he is] celibate, he may perform installations. In that particular case, [he is] fit to use all mantras aloud (sanāda) [taught] in Śaiva scripture. In the case of a householder Śūdra, although [he is] fit to perform daily worship, it is said that the mantras [should be recited] silently (nādarahita).64
The section underlined above again represents verses that are not found in the modern Kāmika.
The distinction between reciting a mantra aloud (sanāda) and silently (nādarahita) is not found in the modern Kāmika. Yet this should not be chalked up to corruption, for the same verse
Hüsken, Viṣṇu’s Children: Prenatal life-cycle rituals in South India, trans. Will Sweetman [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009], 57–64); cf., also, Dominic Goodall and Marion Rastelli, Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III, 195–96; and Phyllis Granoff, “Reading between the Lines: Colliding Attitudes towards Image Worship in Indian Religious Texts,” in Rites hindous : transferts et transformations, ed. Gérard Colas et Gilles Tarabout. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS, 2006), 389–421. To take the term literally would signify that temple priests would not have been considered suitable Ācāryas, but in the Kāmika, as in many post-12th-century Saiddhāntika works, Ādiśaivas are considered the most suitable Ācāryas. In another verse from the same chapter of the Kāmika, also quoted in Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1277; T.76, 17), we find the stipulation that a suitable Ācārya should be from āryāvarta (“the land of the Aryans”)—an unambiguous designation for North India if ever there was one. Given that Ādiśaivas came to designate a South Indian social group, this passage too might appear to prohibit Ādiśaiva temple priests from being Ācāryas. To put this in a broader context, it may be worth recalling that the role of the Ācārya evolved over time, a role that did not originally involve public temple practices (cf. Hélène Brunner, “L’ācārya śivaïte: du guru au gurukkal,” Bulletin d’Etudes Indiennes 6 [1988]: 145–76). It is conceivable then that these passages in the Kāmika date from a time prior to the elevation of the Ādiśaiva caste when the ritual of ācāryābhiṣeka was still oriented toward that of a private ritual cult. 63 It should perhaps be pointed out that the worship of a moveable liṅga is not an influence from Vīraśaivism, although Vīraśaivas do worship small liṅgas that they carry on their person. A moveable liṅga in Śaivasiddhānta is not typically carried on one’s person; the term is used in Śaivasiddhānta typically to distinguish it from an immoveable liṅga, which is installed in temples. 64 Dīkṣādarśa (T.372, 1289; T.153, 47; T.76, 30) ≈ Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (KĀ1988) 24:9cd–10: kāmike – svārtheṣṭau calaliṃgasya pratiṣṭhāyāṃ trayas tv ime1 | śūdro 'pi śūdradīkṣāyāṃ svārthe ca calaliṅgake | bāṇaliṅge kṣaṇe vāpi sthāpako yadi naiṣṭhikaḥ | sanādākhilamantreṣu śivajñāne viśeṣataḥ | śūdrasyāpi gṛhasthasya nityeṣṭāv eva yogyatāḥ | tatrāpi nādarahitair mantrair eva prakīrtitāḥ | 1 pratiṣṭhāyāṃ trayas tv ime ] KĀ1988, T.372, T.76; pratiṣṭhāyātrayasv ime T.153 196 transmitting the same procedure is also found attributed to the Kāmika in the
Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati and in Jñānaprakāśa’s Śaivāgamādimāhātmya, discussed below. These verses thus appear to have been part of a version of the Kāmika known to some prominent Śaiva teachers in the 16th century.
Coming to the Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati, we find 227.5 verses in the text attributed to the
Kāmika, of which 199.5 verses can be found in the modern text and 28 verses that cannot. The verses that are found in the modern text are from chapters of the printed Pūrvabhāga and
Uttarabhāga, although, again, no references to these divisions are found.65 Nor are section headings or chapter titles of the Kāmika given for the verses from which the quotations are drawn; however, significantly, Vedajñāna II attributes two quotations (eight verses total), which are traceable in the modern Kāmika, to a certain Kāmikatantrasāra.66 Overall, the subject matter of the quotations in the Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati is broad, though typically related to the sequence of daily personal worship (ātmārthapūjā). This includes injunctions for ritual bathing, purifications, libations (tarpaṇa), yogic breathing (prāṇāyāma), invocations (āvāhana), visualizations (dhyāna), mantra recitatation (japa), ritual offerings (naivedya), and much more.
65 The quoted verses can be found in the following chapters of the modern Kāmika: Tantrāvatārapaṭala (Ch. 1 of PKā), Mantroddhārapaṭala (Ch. 2 of PKā), Snānavidhipaṭala (Ch. 3 of PKā), Arcanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 4 of PKā), Arcanāṅgavidhipaṭala (Ch. 5 of PKā), Naivedyavidhipaṭala (Ch. 6 of PKā), Agnikāryavidhipaṭala (Ch. 8 of PKā), Prākāralakṣaṇavidhipaṭala (Ch. 71 of PKā), Paścimadvārārcanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 1 of UKā), Dakṣiṇadvārārcanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 2 of UKā), Sakalārcanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 3 of UKā), Kṛttikādīpāvalividhipaṭala (Ch. 8 of UKā), Ācāryābhiṣekavidhipaṭala (Ch. 24 of UKā), Antyeṣṭividhipaṭala (Ch. 27 of UKā), Śaivaśrāddhavidhipaṭala (Ch. 29 of UKā), Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala (Ch. 30 of UKā), Kāmyayogavidhānavidhipaṭala (Ch. 33 of UKā), Bāṇaliṅapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 36 of UKā), Devīsthāpanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 44 of UKā), Caṇḍeśasthāpanavidhipaṭala (Ch. 65 of UKā), Śivabhaktapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 66 of UKā), Vidyāpīṭhavidhipaṭala (Ch. 67 of UKā), Daśāyudhapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala (Ch. 68 of UKā). 66 This is discussed below. 197
Of the verses that are not found in the modern Kāmika, some nevertheless overlap in content with what we find there, such as the following:
[Libations (tarpaṇa) should be performed using a mantra] ending with SVĀHĀ for mantras and deities, but for sages, [it should be a mantra] ending with NAMAḤ. In the case of [libations for] men, [the mantra should end with] VAṢAṬ, and for spirits [it should] end with VAUṢAṬ. For ancestors and others, [the mantra should] end with SVADHĀ. [Tarpaṇa] should be [performed by] one wearing the sacred thread in accordance with propriety.67
Compare the above with the following excerpt from the modern Kāmika:
[Libations (tarpaṇa) should be performed using a mantra] with SVĀHĀ for mantras and deities, and in the same way for Sarasvatī. For the guardians of the quarters and sages, however, [the mantra should] end with NAMAḤ; in the case of men, [the mantra should end with] VAṢAṬ. For perfected beings (siddhas) and the group of planetary influences, one should prepare [a mantra] ending with NAMAḤ. For spirits, [the mantra] should end with VAUṢAṬ; for ancestors and others, it should end with SVADHĀ.68
The content is evidently similar, but the passage in the modern Kāmika is somewhat more developed. It has expanded the scope of injunctions for mantra use in libations to include
Sarasvatī, guardians of the quarters, perfected beings, and planetary influences, none of whom are mentioned in the quotation cited by Vedajñāna II. It would seem then that here, too,
Vedajñāna II was drawing on a different version of the Kāmika than the one we find in modern print editions.
67 Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati (T.55, 128; T.1056, 80; T.282, 64, T.321, 70): kāmike – svāhāntaṃ mantradevānāṃ munīnāṃ tu namo'ntakam | manuje1 ca vaṣaṭ caiva bhūtānāṃ vauṣaḍantakam | pitrādīnāṃ svadhāntaṃ syād yathāyogyopavītayuk2 | 1 manuje ] T.55, T.321, T.1056; manubhye T.282 2 °yuk ] T.55, T.282, T.1056; °dhṛk T.321 68 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga (1975 Ed.), 3:140cd–142cd: svāhayā mantradevānāṃ sarasvatyās tathaiva ca || dikpatīnāṃ munīnāṃ tu namo'ntaṃ manuje vaṣaṭ | siddhānāṃ grahasaṃghānāṃ namontaṃ parikalpayet || bhūtānāṃ vauṣaḍantaṃ syāt pitrādīnāṃ svadhāntakam | 198
Complicating the matter of the Kāmika’s reception in Vedajñāna II’s works further, we find two quotations in the Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati attributed to a certain Kāmikatantrasāra, which suggests he was familiar with more than one version of the Kāmika, or at least some variation on it.69 The verses comprising the quotations of what Vedajñāna II calls the Kāmikatantrasāra are found in the modern Kāmika, though in a different order from how they appear there. One of these quotations is the following:
I shall [now] briefly explain the particularities of breath-control (prāṇāyāmam). The lowest [type is] with 12 time measures (tālas, mātrās) for each individual exhalation[, inhalation, and holding of the breath] (recakādiṣu). The medium [type] is held to be twice as long. The best [type] is with three times [as many measures]. Now, the letters A, U, and M are said to be the sounds. [The ritualist] should exhale the impure air from the body [and] with a slow inhalation draw in pure air from the sky. He should remain holding a full breath [and] after that [slowly] exhale again. He then installs the mantras on his hands (karanyāsam), visualizes a hollow space in the center of his body blazing with the syllable HUṂ, and holds his vital breaths still. Then, with an exhalation combined with the [syllable HUṂ] ending with PHAṬ, he pierces the five knots (granthis) [by sending the phonic power of the mantra with his vital breaths shooting up through the subtle body], and from that [place above the knots of the subtle body] leads [the vital breaths] back.70
69 Recall that Vedajñāna II also refers to the Kāmika Vidyāpāda. 70 Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati (T.55, 259–260; T.282, 130; T.321, 140–141; T.1056, 159–160) ≈ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga (KĀ1975), 4:77ab, 78ab, 79cd–81, and Uttarabhāga [KĀ1988] 1:10–11: kāmikatantrasāre – prāṇāyāmaṃ samāsena kathayāmi viśeṣataḥ | tālair dvādaśabhir1 hīno2 dviguṇo madhyamo mataḥ3 || triguṇair uttamaḥ kālaḥ pratyekaṃ recakādiṣu | akārokāramakārās tv4 akṣarāḥ parikīrtitāḥ || recayed dehagaṃ5 vāyum aśuddhaṃ vyomasaṃsthitam | śuddhaṃ vāyuṃ pūrakeṇa samāhṛtya śanaiśśanaiḥ || sampūrṇakumbhavat tiṣṭhed recayet tadanantaram | karanyāsaṃ tataḥ kṛtvā suṣiraṃ dehamadhyame || dhyātvā jvalantaṃ huṃkāraṃ6 prāṇān saṃyamya niścalaḥ | phaṭkārāntena7 tenaiva recakeṇa samanvitam || pañcagranthīṃs8 tataś chitvā9 tasmāt pratinivartya10 ca | 1 tālair dvādaśabhir ] T.55, T.321, T.1056; tālai dvādaśabhir T.282; mātrādvādaśabhir KĀ1975 2 hīno ] KĀ1975; jñāno T.321; jāno T.55, T.282; jānor T.1056 3 mataḥ ] T.282, T.321, T.1056, KĀ1975; matāḥ T.55 4 °kārās tv ] T.321, T.1056, KĀ1975; °kāras tv T.282; °kārāsv T.55 5 dehagaṃ ] T.55, T.282, T.321, KĀ1975; dehakaṃ T.1056 199
The Kāmikatantrasāra appears to have been a separate text from the other Kāmika known to Vedajñāna, for a work with the same title is also quoted several times by the author
Nirmalamaṇi in his commentary on the Kriyākramadyotikā.71 In fact, Nirmalamaṇi cites a few of the same verses as those quoted above.72 Although no manuscripts of a Kāmikatantrasāra are known to survive, a fragment of the text detailing part of a Dīpāvalī rite is found in an IFP
Devanāgari paper transcript,73 where the verses are again distinguished from verses of a Kāmika proper. It would seem then that the Kāmikatantrasāra had notable parallels with the modern
Kāmika yet was also different enough to warrant a separate title.
The reception of the Kāmika in Vedajñāna II’s works, as in Śivāgrayogin’s works, demonstrates that the Kāmika known to authors of the 16th century was notably different from the text as it is known today. Of the many verses in the Dīkṣādarśa and Ātmārthpūjāpaddhati attributed to the Kāmika that are not found in the modern text, none present any overt evidence of being spurious or pseudepigraphical; they appear, rather, to be fragments of different or older recensions of the Kāmika. The lack of reference to divisions of a Pūrva- or Uttarabhāga need
6 huṃkāraṃ ] T.55, T.282, KĀ1988; huṅkāraṃ T.321; haṃkāraṃ T.1056 7 °kārāntena ] T.321; °kārāntaṃ tu KĀ1988; kāraṃtena T.282, T.1056; °kārānte'ne° T.55 8 °granthīṃs ] KĀ1988; °granthis T.55; °granthiṃs T.282; °granthīṃ T.321; °granthiṃ T.1056 9 tataś chitvā ] T.55, T.282, T.321, T.1056; bhitvā KĀ1988 10 pratinivartya ] T.282; pratinivṛtya KĀ1988, T.1056; pratinivṛttya T.55, T.321 71 Nirmalamaṇi refers to the text as “Śrīmat Kāmikatantrasāra” in three of these quotations. Kriyākramadyotikā (1927 Ed., 273, 291, 292): tathā ca śrīmatkāmikatantrasāre aṅgāṅginor abhinnatvapratipattir vibhinnayoḥ iti (= KĀ1975 4:367ab); tathā śrīmatkāmikatantrasāre astitvaṃ hṛdayaṃ tasya iti (= KĀ1975 4:363c); tathā śrīmatkāmikatantrasāre śikhā svatantratā tasya iti (= KĀ1975 4:363a). As noted, all three quotations are found in the modern Pūrvabhāga of the Kāmika. 72 Kriyākramadyotikā (1927 Ed., 156): tathā śrīmat tantrasāre recayed dehagaṃ vāyum aśuddhaṃ vyomasaṃsthitam | śuddhaṃ vāyuṃ pūrakeṇa samāhṛtya śanaiśśaniḥ || iti. Although Nirmalamaṇi refers to the text here as “Śrīmat Tantrasāra,” I think it is clear that what he intends is “Śrīmat Kāmikatantrasāra.” 73 The transcript number is T.367 and the reference is found on page 78. In this case, too, the verses are found in the modern Kāmika. 200 not mean that a recension with such divisions did not exist in the 16th century, but if it did we have no evidence of it.
5.2.3. Jñānaprakāśa
Another important Śaivasiddhānta author of the early modern period was Jñānaprakāśa of
Tirunelvēli (Śālivātipuram), Jaffna, Sri Lanka. As with Śivāgrayogin and Vedajñāna II, he wrote in Sanskrit and Tamil.74 Although his exact dates are not known, a floruit of the late 16th to early
17th century is generally accepted.75 What we know of Jñānaprakāśa’s life derives largely from traditional accounts, several of which are recounted in biographies of Āṟumuka Nāvalar, discussed in the next chapter. These biographies, notably those of Kaṉakarattiṉa (1882 [1968]) and Kailācapiḷḷai (1919 [1941]), present Jñānaprakāśa as a forebear of Nāvalar and characterize the former as an inspiration on the latter. Both men were from the same Kārkātta Veḷḷāḷar caste community of Jaffna, and like the Veḷḷāḷars of Tamil country, the Jaffna Kārkātta Veḷḷāḷars were classified as Śūdras, although Jñānaprakāśa and Nāvalar made the case that they should be viewed as Sat-Śūdras (“Pure Śūdras”)—in other words, not low caste, but on par with twice-born
74 Studies of Jñānaprakāśa are lacking and information must be gleaned from various sources. The sources drawn on here include the following: Upāttiyāyar Kaṉakarattiṉa, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram (Yāḻppāṇam: Caivappirakācayantiracālai, 1882 [1968]), Ta. Kailācapiḷḷai, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram (Chennai: Vittiyānupālaṉa-yantiracālai, 1919 [1941]); V. Muttucumaraswamy, Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, The Champion Reformer of the Hindus (1822–1879): A Biographical Study (Colombo, 1965); Devasenapathi, Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñāna-Siddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries; and Tara Michaël, Le joyau du Śiva-yoga = Śivayogaratna de Jñānaprakāśa (Pondichéry: Publication de l’Institut Français d’Indologie, 1975). 75 Jñānaprakāśa’s Sanskrit works include Ajñānavivecana, Pauṣkaravṛtti, Pramāṇadīpikā, Prāsādadīpikā, Śivajñānabodhavyākhyānam, Śivayogaratna, Śivayogasāra, Śivāgamādimāhātmya, and Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇi (not to be confused with the Vīraśaiva work with the same title). The only Tamil work he composed was a commentary on the Civañāṉacittiyār. This last is notable for attempting to resuscitate the early Śaivasiddhānta doctrine of śivasamavāda, where the liberated soul is held to be equal to Śiva. Jñānaprakāśa was harshly criticized for this by Civañāṉamuṉivār (18th cent.) in his Śivasamavāda urai maṟuppu (see Devasenapathi, Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñāna-Siddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries, 13). 201
Hindus. Both men also made names for themselves in India, particularly in Chidambaram, albeit for different reasons.
According to traditional accounts, Jñānaprakāśa left Śri Laṅka for India following the establishment of Portuguese rule in Jaffna.76 Under the Portuguese, a decree was issued ordering each house in Jaffna to hand over a cow to feed Portuguese officials. Fearing the moral and karmic consequences of submitting to such a law, according to various tellings, Jñānaprakāśa chose instead to flee and made his way to Chidambaram.77 After staying there for some time, he traveled north to Bengal, where he learned Sanskrit at a Brahminical school and was subject to some caste-based prejudice owing to his Śūdra background. When he turned out to be the only student capable of reciting all of the guru’s teachings, he won the guru’s favour78 and subsequently returned to the South, to Tiruvannamalai, where he stayed at an ātīṉam and later undertook renunciation. Toward the end of his life, he returned to Chidambaram where he established a maṭha and a temple tank. The latter was named in his honour and is still there, a short distance southeast of the Naṭarāja temple.
Although several of Jñānaprakāśā’s works quote passages from the Kāmika, the text that quotes from it most extensively is the Śivāgamādimāhātmya. The text is unedited, and though some portions are corrupt, others are in reasonably good condition.79 Through its title as a
76 Cf. Kaṉakarattiṉa, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram, 1–5; Kailācapiḷḷai, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram, 2–3; and Muttucumaraswamy, Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, 3). The other biographical details presented in this section are based on the same. 77 According to Devasenapathi, who drew on Vol. 3 of the Siddhiyār Aṟuvarurai, a journal edited by Ṣaṇmukasundara Mudaliyār of Civañāṉapōta Press, Jñānaprakāśa first went to Tiruppukalūr before going to Chidambaram, and in Tiruppukalūr he was initiated by a certain “Periya Aṇṇasāmi Gurukkaḷ who was an Ādiśaiva” (Devasenapathi, Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñāna-Siddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries, 11). 78 As Kaṉakarattiṉa tells it, Jñānaprakāśa’s guru purportedly exclaimed, nīyē pirāmaṇaṉ (“You indeed are a Brahmin!”) (Kaṉakarattiṉa, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram, 3). 79 The text is found in IFP devanāgari transcripts T.281, T.372, and T.1059. 202
“glorification” (māhātmya) of Śaiva scripture, the Śivāgamādimāhātmya speaks to a consensus on the authority of the Śaiva scriptures it cites. And as a work consisting mostly of verses compiled from other sources, the Śivāgamādimāhātmya draws on a range of Śaiva Āgamas and other Śaivasiddhānta works. Like Vedajñāna II, Jñānaprakāśa evidently saw no need to explain any discrepancy between early Āgamas espousing a dualistic ontology and later Āgamas showing the influence of Vedāntic nondualism. In his Sanskrit commentary on the
Civañāṉapōtam and in his Tamil commentary on the Civañāṉacittiyār, Jñānaprakāśa emerges as a proponent of the Śaivasiddhānta synthesis articulated by the Meykaṇṭār school, like virtually all other Śaivasiddhānta exegetes since the 13th-14th century.
The Śivāgamādimāhātmya transmits 112 verses attributed to the Kāmika, of which 95.5 are found in printed editions and 17.5 are not. The quoted verses can be found in the extant
Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga of the Kāmika. The designation “Uttarakāmika” is used as a label in one case for a single verse; the verse is not found in the printed Uttarabhāga (nor in the
Pūrvabhāga). The citations do not generally indicate what chapter of the Kāmika they are drawn from, with the exception of three. In one of these cases, a verse is cited as belonging to a
“Naimittikapūjāpaṭala” (“Chapter on Worship for Particular Occasions”), which is not a chapter in the modern Kāmika. The cited verse is in fact found in the Snapanavidhipaṭala (“Chapter on the Procedure for Bathing [of divine images]”) of the printed Uttarabhāga.80
The content of the cited verses includes passages that emphasize the compatibility between Śaivasiddhānta and Vedānta, passages that speak of equal caste status for initiates, passages outlining different practices for initiates of different castes and stations, and passages
80 Other chapter titles referred to are the Śatābhiṣekapaṭala and Gaurīkalyāṇapaṭala; the cited verses attributed to these chapters are found in the Śatābhiṣekapaṭala (Ch. 26) and Kalyāṇakarmapaṭala (Ch. 59) of the modern Uttarabhāga. 203 emphasizing the preeminence of Ādiśaivas to officiate in a range of ritual situations. Several of the cited verses that are not found in the modern Kāmika nevertheless display notable similarities in phrasing and content with passages that are found there. It is also worth noting that several of the stray verses attributed to the Kāmika by Jñānaprakāśa, but not found in the modern text, are also cited by Vedajñāna II and Śivāgrayogin, also with attribution to the Kāmika. This adds weight to the view that these stray verses are not simply scribal abnormalities or errors in transmission but rather testimony of an earlier or variant version of the Kāmika.
Turning to the verses attributed to the Kāmika in the Śivāgamādimāhātmya, but which are not found in the Kāmika today, the following passage is notable for expressing the idea that no distinction is to be made between the caste background of different initiates:
Firewood, from contact with fire, loses its [quality of being a] type of tree. [Likewise] a Śūdra’s quality of being a Śūdra and a Brahmin’s quality of being twice-born pass away. From investiture with the sacraments of Śiva, (śivasaṃskārasaṃbandhāt), there are no distinctions of caste (jāti).81
The passage is from a section of the Śivāgamādimāhātmya extolling different categories of Śaiva initiates and devotees. In the modern Kāmika, we do not find any analogy comparing Śaiva initiates of different caste backgrounds to firewood, nor the idea that there are no distinctions of caste. The closest we get to the idea that Śaiva sacraments erase distinctions of caste post- initiation is the ritual of “caste extraction” (jātyuddhāraṇa), where an initiate’s caste of birth is ritually incinerated and their soul reborn in a womb of fire, rendering them twice-born (dvija).
While this may be what is alluded to here, the notion that caste distinctions are then erased
81 Śivāgamādimāhātmya (T.281, 145; T.372, 1227; T.1059, 35): kāmike – indhanaṃ1 vahnisaṃyogād vṛkṣanāma na vidyate | gataṃ śūdrasya śūdratvaṃ dvijatvaṃ brāhmaṇasya ca2 || śivasaṃskārasaṃbandhāj jātibhedo na vidyate3 || iti | 1 indhanam ] T.372, T.1059; indhane T.281 2 ca ] T.281; tu T.372, T.1059 3 vidyate ] T.281; vidyata T.372, T.1059 204 altogether could have been seen as a stretch—and perhaps this is why we do not find this idea in the modern Kāmika. In Śaivasiddhānta today, caste distinctions for initiates are significant. They are what set the Ādiśaiva priestly community apart from the Veḷḷāḷar-led ātīṉam lineages, and from the general Śaiva laity. These distinctions, and the economic prerogatives associated with them, are strictly maintained today through endogamy and ritual. Yet it could be that at some time in the past—perhaps before the contours of the Ādiśaiva and Veḷḷāḷar caste communities hardened—these distinctions were somewhat less stringently maintained, and it is to this that these verses speak.82
The verses above are particularly relevant to Śaivas of a Śūdra background, such as those of the Veḷḷāḷar caste, who undertook renunciation and officiated as heads of maṭhas, like
Jñānaprakāśa. As discussed previously, Dharmaśāstric regulations prohibited Śūdras from undertaking renunciation, a Vedic sacrament only open to the three upper castes, yet the same regulations also stipulated that renunciation was necessary for a person to officiate as head of a maṭha.83 This meant that Veḷḷāḷar Śaiva renunciants were occasionally at pains to demonstrate their legitimacy in administering maṭhas, which they did by pointing to their practice of lifelong
82 On this point, it is worth citing Susan Bayly’s observation about the constitution of Veḷḷāḷars as a social group or category (Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 1700– 1900. [Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 411–12): The Vellalas were never a tightly knit community with strong institutions of leadership and a well-defined caste lifestyle. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Vellala affiliation was as vague and uncertain as that of most other south Indian caste groups. Vellala identity was certainly thought of as a source of prestige, but for that very reason there were any number of groups who sought to claim Vellala status for themselves, or who had at least adopted the most common Vellala caste title, Pillai. This meant that even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there were traders and petty cultivators who called themselves Vellalas, as well as large-scale landholders and literate scribal groups … [T]he Vellalas were an open-ended status category rather than a community. 83 This does not appear to have always been the case (cf. Orr, “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India” [forthcoming]), but it does appear to have been the case in the 16th and 17th centuries (see discussion of Śivāgrayogin above) 205 celibacy as enshrined through the Śaiva sacrament of renunciation.84 This was predicated on downplaying distinctions of caste and emphasizing the comparability of Vedic and Śaiva sacraments.
While this rhetoric of equality may have been important legally and economically, intending to ensure the legitimate or uncontested administration of non-Brahmin-run Śaiva maṭhas, in practice, Jñānaprakāśa does not seem to have held too closely to the idea that distinctions of caste were to be forgotten post-initiation, for he cites several verses attributed to the Kāmika that maintain such distinctions. Two examples attributed to the Kāmika are given, neither of which are found in the modern text:
A Śūdra [may use the mantra terminations] NAMAḤ and VAUṢAṬ [but] without sacred syllables such as OṂ. One who has received liberating initiation (nirvāṇadīkṣitaḥ), however, may use the sacred syllable OṂ.85
The three [types of] rites, viz. daily, [occasional, and desiderative] (nityāditritayaṃ) may, without a doubt, be performed by the four [castes]. So too [the rites] pertaining to all the gods (vaiśvadevam). Śūdras[, however,] may disregard the [performance of the rites of the] three saṃdhyās.86
The first example is found in the same section of the Śivāgamādimāhātmya as the preceding one. It communicates a similar idea concerning post-initiatory caste distinctions, though with a qualification—namely that initiates who have received liberating initiation, though
84 Śivāgrayogin’s Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati and the Varṇāśramacandrikā (both discussed above) by an anonymous author associated with Tarumapuram Ātīṉam are two notable examples of the justification that Śūdra Śaiva renunciants put forth in support of their right to act as heads of maṭhas. 85 Śivāgamādimāhātmya (T.281, 146; T.372, 1228; T.1059, 36): kāmike – namo vauṣaṭ ca śūdrasya praṇavādivivarjitam | nirvāṇadīkṣito yas tu praṇavena tu yojayed || iti | 86 Śivāgamādimāhātmya (T.281, 164; T.372, 1250; T.1059, 62): punaḥ kāmike ca – nityāditritayaṃ kāryaṃ caturbhir avicārataḥ1 | vaiśvadevaṃ tathā sandhyāṃ2 śūdras3 tyaktvā trayīmayīm4 || iti | 1 avicārataḥ ] T.281; athacārataḥ T.372; atha(vi?)cārataḥ T.1059 2 sandhyāṃ ] T.372, T.1059; sandhyaṃ T.281 3 śūdras ] T.372, T.1059; śūdraṃ T.281 4 °tvā trayīmayīm ] T.281; °tvātmamayīm T.372, T.1059 206 born Śūdra, may perform the same mantra practices as other (i.e., twice-born) initiates. For those who have only received lower levels of initiation (e.g., samayadīkṣā, viśeṣadīkṣā), however, caste distinctions in practice still apply. The second excerpt is from a section of the text extolling
Śaiva Ācāryas of different caste backgrounds. The citation is intended to emphasize that Ācāryas of a Śūdra background are eligible to perform any general type of rite that other initiates are eligible to perform, but it also introduces a distinction in the case of saṃdhyā rites for Śūdras.
This particular distinction is not found in the Kāmika today. Nonetheless, the modern Kāmika is full of distinct or variant practices for initiates of different caste backgrounds.87 Jñānaprakāśa evidently then understood that caste distinctions still applied post-initiation in certain circumstances.
As for passages that are not found in the modern Kāmika but that display notable similarities in phrasing and content with passages that are found there, the following example is notable:
Passage 1: Attributed to the Kāmika by Jñānaprakāśa:
dīkṣāvihīnā viprādyās trivarṇāḥ śūdrajātayaḥ | paṭhanti śivaśāstraṃ ced rājarāṣṭraṃ vinaśyati ||88
If the uninitiated—[including] Brahmins and others, [those of] the three upper castes, the Śūdra castes—should read Śaiva scripture, both king and country will be ruined.
Passage 2: Corresponding passage in the modern Kāmika:
dīkṣāvihīnaviprādyās trivarṇāś śūdrajātayaḥ |
87 The most prominent example of this in the Kāmika today might be the injunction that parārthapūjā is only to be performed by those of the Ādiśaiva caste. Variant, caste-specific practices are also found for the application of tripuṇḍra (ṣaḍaṅgulapramāṇena viprāṇā[ṃ] tu tripuṇḍrakam | nṛpāṇāṃ caturaṅgulyaṃ vaiśyānāṃ dvyaṅgulaṃ bhavet || śūdrāṇām api sarveṣāṃ ekāṅgulyaṃ tripuṇḍrakam | [Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 3:78–79ab]) and wearing the sacred thread (sūtram eka[ṃ] tu śūdrāṇāṃ vaiśyānāṃ dvisaraṃ bhavet || trisaraṃ kṣatriyāṇā[ṃ] tu viprāṇāṃ saptasaṃkhyakam | yadvā pañcasaraṃ teṣāṃ navasūtram athāpi vā || [Ibid., 88cd–89]), to name a few. 88 Śivāgamādimāhātmya (T.281, 144; T.372, 1225; T.1059, 33). 207
savarṇādyanulomāś ca śilpinaḥ kārukādayaḥ || paṭhanti śivaśāstrañ cet tatpāpān nṛparāṣṭrayoḥ | acireṇa vināśaḥ syāt tasmād rājā nivārayet ||89
If uninitiated Brahmins and others—those of the three [upper] caste-classes, Śūdra caste-classes, [those born of marriages] such as savarṇa or or anuloma (savarṇādyanulomāḥ), artisans, craftsmen, and the like—should read Śaiva scripture, then from that sin, the ruin of both king and country will quickly come about. So the king should forbid it.
As we saw earlier in this chapter, certain verses in the modern recension of the Kāmika that correspond to variant verses cited in the 16th-17th century demonstrate evidence of reworking in the modern version. Thus the injunction that none without Śaiva initiation should read Śaiva scripture—a point mimicking Dharmaśāstric rules restricting Vedic study to initiated twice-born men—is further developed in the modern Kāmika by extending the prohibition to include progeny of various savarṇa marriages, anuloma marriages,90 artisans, craftsmen, and others.
Why it was deemed necessary to single out these groups among others, however, is not entirely clear. We also see that the passage in the modern Kāmika is more developed in terms of its grammatical construction. This is evident in the use of the dual genitive construction “of king and country” (nṛparāṣṭrayoḥ)—as opposed to the singular accusative (rājarāṣṭram), which is a more restrictive application of the co-ordinative compound (dvandva)91—with “ruin” (vi√naś) used as a nominal item instead of as a verbal item. This enables a more developed rhetorical construction as well, marked by the use of the two adverbial modifiers “from that sin” (tatpāpāt) and “quickly” (acireṇa), which together lend a certain pathos to the passage.
89 Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 1:111–112. 90 On savarṇa and anuloma marriages, see, for instance, M. Srimannarayana Murti, “Position and Status of Women in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti” in Pandit N. R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume, eds. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, S. P. Narang, and C. Pandurang Bhatta (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994), 154–55. 91 Cf. Michael Coulson, Complete Sanskrit, rev. Richard Gombrich and James Benson [Chicago: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 44. 208
Taken in isolation, the Kāmika citation in the Śivāgamādimāhātmya presented above, considered in relation to the corresponding verses in the modern Kāmika, is insufficient evidence to support the view put forth here that the modern recension of the Kāmika is only 200–300 years old. However, considering the substantial evidence of the many variant Kāmika passages presented throughout this chapter, I argue that the Kāmika (or Kāmikas) known to premodern authors was (or were) different from the modern recension of the text. Furthermore, given that no major Śaiva authors of the 16th–17th century appear to have drawn on a recension with a division into Pūrva and Uttara divisions (bhāgas), like modern editions, the evidence suggests that the modern recension was redacted at some point after the 16th–17th century.
5.3. Conclusions
This chapter began with an overview of the political and economic climate of 16th- and 17th- century South India, particularly with a focus on patronage and maṭhas. As we saw, administering a maṭha in certain jurisdictions at certain times required the head of a maṭha to be a renunciant. Yet since renunciation was a life-cycle rite open only to the upper three Brahminic
(dvija) caste-classes, this posed a problem for the non-Brahmin Veḷḷāḷar-led maṭhas of the Kaveri basin. That this was a real concern for these institutions is attested to by Śivāgrayogin’s
Śaivasaṃnyāsapaddhati and Tarumapuram’s Varṇāśramacandrikā, which both sought to demonstrate the legitimacy of Veḷḷāḷar Śaivites as renunciants and maṭha heads. More specifically, we saw that Śivāgrayogin stressed the equivalency of Śaiva and Brahminical life- cycle rites and argued that Āgamas possess the same level of epistemological validity as the
Vedas. In so doing, we saw, he drew on the Kāmika.
Along similar lines, in Jñānaprakāśa’s œuvre, we saw evidence of a comparable egalitarian outlook between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. In this case, too, this appeared to be 209 related to a real-world concern about the control of maṭhas and their estates. As for Vedajñāna II, the issue did not emerge as a significant concern—he does not dwell at length on caste-class matters in any of his works—presumably because he did not himself head a maṭha or was viewed as being of Brahminic (dvija) stock.
More broadly, in this chapter I sought to show how the citations of the Kāmika in the works of the three authors discussed above differ from modern editions of the text. In so doing, I presented evidence of the pluriformity of the Kāmika in the 16th and 17th centuries. Specifically, in Śivāgrayogin’s citations, we saw that there are notable disparities with the modern Kāmika, particularly in his presentation of a dichotomy of “Veda congruent” and “Veda incongruent”
Āgamas. In some cases, however, it was noted, these disparities are actually misattributed citations. As for Vedajñāna II, we saw that he was familiar with more than one version of the
Kāmika, as witnessed by his references to the Kāmika Vidyāpāda and Kāmikatantrasāra, the latter with which some other 16th-century authors were also acquainted. In Jñānaprakāśa’s citations, we saw evidence of what appears to have been an earlier or lesser developed account of eligibity to read Śaiva scripture. Taken together, this evidence supports the view that the modern recension of the Kāmika was in all likelihood redacted at some point after the 16th-17th century.
Throughout the chapter, we also saw evidence of scripturalization. In Śivāgrayogin’s citations of the Kāmika as a scripture that upheld a degree of equivalence between twice-born
(dvija) and Śūdra-Śaiva initiates, we saw evidence of a consensus on the Kāmika’s authority in this. This was clear in the fact that Śivāgrayogin cited the same Kāmika verses on this subject as the author of the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā in the 13th-14th century. But, as I have argued throughout this thesis, citations of the Kāmika are not simply reflections of some real-world authority which the reception of the text had no part in; on the contrary, citations and reception of the Kāmika are 210 part and parcel of its authorization. As the head of Sūriyaṉarkōyil Ātīnam, Śivāgrayogin was an authoritative figure with no small amount of influence. That he recognized the Kāmika as a scripture which supported post-initiatory Śūdra-Brahminical parity, and argued for the status of the Kāmika and other Āgamas to be recognized as on par with the Veda speaks to his participation in the constitution of the Kāmika’s authority, and to the canonizing function of reception that I have described in previous chapters.
In the case of Vedajñāna II’s citations of the Kāmika as an authoritative source for individual ritual practice (in his Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati) and initiation (in his Dīkṣādarśa), we saw evidence of a consensus on the Kāmika’s authority in these matters. This was supported by
Vedajñāna II’s claim that his works were composed in accordance with the teachings of his lineage. Like Śivāgrayogin, Vedajñāna II’s citations of the Kāmika also participated in the constitution of its authority, particularly through his juxtaposition of Kāmika citations alongside other established scriptural authorities of Śaivasiddhānta, such as the Mṛgendra, Mataṅga, and
Kiraṇa, to name a few.
Finally, in the case of Jñanaprakāśa, I argued that a consensus on the authority of the
Kāmika is discernible in the title of Jñanaprakāśa’s work as a “glorification” (māhātmya) of
Śaiva scripture (Śivāgamādimāhātmya). Like Śivāgrayogin, Jñānaprakāśa’s participation in the authorization of the Kāmika, I argue, drew on the authority of his person. Not only was
Jñānaprakāśa the head of a maṭha, but he was an important influence on and forbear of Āṟumuka
Nāvalar, who played a formative role in the Śaiva renaissance of the late 19th century. In the next chapter, we will look more closely at this Śaiva renaissance as well as the relationship between
Kāmika manuscripts and print editions. 211
Chapter Six
The Print History and Modern Reception of the Kāmikāgama
The preceding chapters have focused on contexts in which the Kāmika was cited as an authority for Śaiva theological, ritual, and social matters. As we have seen, a considerable amount of this material is not found in modern editions of the Kāmika, which attests to the pluriformity of the text over time. We have also seen how this pluriformity reflects the influence of theological, ritual, and social developments occurring in South Indian Śaivism since the 12th century. In this chapter, we turn to the historicity of the Kāmika in its modern contexts with a focus on its print history and modern reception.
The argument of the chapter is developed in two parts. In the first part, I argue that the publication of the editio princeps of the Kāmika was motivated by encounters between Hindu religious leaders and the colonial milieu of 19th-century South India. In particular, I draw attention to the influence of Protestant Christianity, notably through the intermediacy of
Āṟumuka Nāvalar and his followers in colonial Madras. The first part also examines the relationship between Kāmika manuscripts and print editions, which shows that substantial variations in manuscripts exist compared to print editions, and that the basis for most Kāmika print editions appears to have been a relatively recent or relatively exclusive recension. On this basis, I argue that printing played an important role in elevating and stabilizing this recension as the generally acknowledged authoritative version of the Kāmika. My argument builds on recent work by Ulrike Stark and Richard Weiss about the role of print in shaping processes of 212 canonization in 19th-century South Asia.1 In the second part of the chapter, I argue that the authority and prestige of the Kāmika today, while indebted to the printing of the text, draws notably on two other sources: [i] views of the Kāmika as an ideal text, and [ii] the reception and use of the Kāmika in contemporary practice.
6.1. Print History of the Kāmikāgama
A number of studies have appeared in recent years that shed light on the history of print culture in South India and its connection with the spread of Protestant Christianity.2 Before discussing how this impacted the printing of the Kāmika, some general background on the history of print and Protestantism in South India will be helpful.
6.1.1. Print Culture in South India
The development of print culture in South Asia can be traced back to the earliest Catholic and Protestant missions to India. In 1556, Jesuits in the Portuguese enclave of Goa established
1 See Ulrike Stark, An Empire of Books: The Naval Kishore Press and the Diffusion of the Printed Word in Colonial India (Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2007), 11; Richard Weiss, The Emergence of Modern Hinduism: Religion on the Margins of Colonialism (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), 56. 2 For instance, Stuart Blackburn, Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003); A. R. Venkatachalapathy, “‘Written on Leaves in the Malabarian Manner’: Print and the Cultural Encounter in Eighteenth Century Tranquebar,” Review of Development and Change XIV (1&2) (2009), 131–46; The Province of the Book: Scholars, Scribes, and Scribblers in Colonial Tamilnadu (Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2012); Savithri Preetha Nair, “…of Real Use to the People. The Tanjore Printing Press and the Spread of Useful Knowledge,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 48, no. 4 (2011): 497–529; Richard Weiss, “Print, Religion, and Canon in Colonial India: The Publication of Ramalinga Adigal’s Tiruvaruṭpā.” Modern Asian Studies 49, no. 3 (2015): 650–77; “Religion and the emergence of print in colonial India: Arumuga Navalar's publishing project,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 53, no. 4 (2016): 473–500; The Emergence of Modern Hinduism. Studies on print culture in South Asia that have a pan-Indian or North Indian focus could also be mentioned, such as Robert Darnton, “Book Production in India, 1850–1900,” Book History 5 (2002): 239–62; Anindita Ghosh, “‘An Uncertain ‘Coming of the Book’: Early Print Cultures in Colonial India,” Book History 6 (2003): 23–55; Power in Print: Popular Publishing and the Politics of Language and Culture in a Colonial Society (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006); Abhijit Gupta and Swapan Chakravorty, eds., Print Areas: Book History in India (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004); Graham Shaw, “South Asia,” in A Companion to the History of the Book, ed. Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007); Ulrike Stark, An Empire of Books. 213 the first moveable-type printing press on the subcontinent.3 However, a lull in printing followed in the 17th century due to technical difficulties and the withdrawal of Portuguese support for the dissemination of printed material in Indian languages, and it was not until the beginning of the
18th century that printing again resumed with the establishment of the first Protestant mission in the Danish port town of Tranquebar on the southeast coast of India.4
The history of the Tranquebar mission has been the subject of a number of recent studies.5 Established in 1706 by Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg with orders from Frederick IV of
Denmark to spread Protestant Christianity in India, the mission drew on international support.6
3 See Graham Shaw, The South Asia and Burma Retrospective Bibliography (SABREB), Stage 1: 1556– 1800 (London: The British Library, 1987), 5. Kamil Zvelebil points out that although 1556 marks the beginning of print of South Asia, the first booklet printed in a South Asian language appeared in 1554, in Lisbon, with the printing of Cartilha ē lingoa Tamul e Portugues (Companion Studies to the History of Tamil Literature [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992], 151). 4 Cf. Blackburn, Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India, 40; Subbiah Muthiah, “Giving India the Printed Word,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. III, Communication between India and Europe, ed. Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006), 1242. For other accounts of early Indian printing, see also B. S. Kesavan, History of Printing and Publishing in India: A Story of Cultural Re-Awakening, Vol. I, South Indian Origins of Printing and Its Efflorescence in Bengal (India: National Book Trust, 1985); and Shaw, The South Asia and Burma Retrospective Bibliography, Stage 1. 5 For instance, papers published in the following volumes: Robert Eric Frykenberg, ed., Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003); Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau, eds., Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India (3 Vols.), Vol. I: The Danish-Halle and the English-Halle Mission; Vol. II, Christian Mission in the Indian Context; Vol. III, Communication between India and Europe (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006); Esther Fihl and A. R. Venkatachalapathy, eds., Review of Development and Change, Vol. XIV (1&2) (Chennai: Madras Institute of Development Studies, 2009). Also, Daniel Jeyaraj, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, the Father of Modern Protestant Mission: An Indian Assessment (New Delhi: The Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2006); “Embodying Memories: Early Bible Translations in Tranquebar and Serampore,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 40, no. 1 (2016), 42–59; and Will Sweetman, Bibliotheca Malabarica: Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg’s Tamil Library (Pondicherry/Paris: Ecole Français d’Extrême Orient and Institut Français Pondichéry, 2012). 6 The international support appears to have been critical to the success of the mission. Whereas the Danish church, informed by Orthodox Lutheranism, at the time strongly opposed missionary work, Frederick IV considered it his duty to spread Christianity to his overseas possessions (cf. Anders Nørgaard, “The Mission’s Relationship to the Danes,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. I, 164; Hanco Jürgens, “On the Crossroads: Pietist, Orthodox and Enlightened Views on Mission in the Eighteenth Century,” in ibid., 15–16). Faced with an intransigent Danish church, Frederick IV’s court chaplain contacted Pietists in Saxony, notably August Hermann Francke in Halle. As an offshoot of 214
Although a Danish initiative, most of its missionaries, including Ziegenbalg, were Germans from the university town of Halle in Saxony. The work of the mission also attracted attention from
Protestant groups in England, leading to the involvement of the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge (SPCK), a London-based Anglican missionary society. The SPCK came to support the Tranquebar mission through donations of cash, goods, and eventually a printing press, which the missionaries had requested.7 The SPCK also published accounts of the mission in English, beginning in 1714, in their series Propagation of the Gospel in the East.8
The printing press arrived in Tranquebar in 1712. It was the first movable-type printing press to be established in South Asia since the Jesuits abandoned their print efforts a century earlier. Within a few months, the mission produced its first imprint, a catechism in Portuguese, a lingua franca in South India at the time. The printing of works in Tamil had to wait another year until Tamil fonts cut in Europe could reach Tranquebar. The first Tamil imprint produced by the
Tranquebar mission press was a tract condemning Hindu beliefs and practices and presenting salvation in Christianity as the answer.9 Whether Hindus actually read this booklet and, if so,
Lutheranism, Pietists saw missionary work as a part of their calling, and with Francke’s collaboration Pietists from Halle came to provide a supply of candidates for the mission (cf. Thomas Müller-Bahlke, “The Mission in India and the Worldwide Communication Network of the Halle Orphan-House,” in ibid., 60; Andreas Gross, “Introduction,” in ibid., 3–4). 7 Ibid., 4; Blackburn, Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India, 50. 8 Venkatachalapathy, “Print and the Cultural Encounter in Eighteenth Century Tranquebar,” 144. 9 The title of the work, Akkiyāṉam ettiṉai aruvarukkappaṭattakka kāriyam eṉṟum atile nikkiṟa perkaḷ yeppaṭi reṣcikkappaṭṭu karaiy eṟalām eṉṟum veḷippaṭuttukiṟa vētappiramāṇam—or simply Akkiyāṉam, for short—was translated into English by the SPCK as The Abomination of Paganism, and the Way for the Pagans to be sav’d. Will Sweetman points out that the “title appears in English for the first time in 1718, in the expanded edition of the third part of the Propagation of the Gospel in the East” (“Heathenism, Idolatry and Rational Monotheism among the Hindus: Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg’s Akkiyāṉam [1713] and Other Works Addressed to Tamil Hindus,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. III, 1249). In Ziegenbalg’s own words, he described it as “a booklet dedicated to the heathen, consisting of eight chapters, wherein is shown how loathsome heathenism is, and how those who live in it may be rescued and saved” (ibid., 1250). 215 what its impact was remains an open question.10 This was followed in 1713 by the publication of
Ziegenbalg’s translation of the New Testament into Tamil, news of which was greeted with jubilation in Protestant Europe.
After the establishment of the Tranquebar press, the next major sites of printing in South
Asia were Colombo and Madras.11 In the 1730s, with help from the Tranquebar mission, a printing press was set up in Colombo to aid missionary work there and to serve the administration of the Dutch East India Company.12 The output of the Colombo Press soon eclipsed that of Tranquebar.13 In 1761, after the British siege of the French outpost of
Pondicherry, British forces pillaged their printing press and carried it off to Madras along with their printer.14 The press was given over to missionaries in Madras and installed in the suburb of
Vepery.15 There, too, the press served the interests of missionaries and colonial officials, and, in
10 The extent to which printed works circulated or were read before the 19th century is an issue that has received little scholarly attention. Venkatachalapathy discusses an account by the missionary Johannes Ferdinand Fenger of “a poor outcaste ‘pariah’ who lived in Thanjavur” and who “personifies the impact that print could have on people” (“Print and the Cultural Encounter in Eighteenth Century Tranquebar,” 142). However, Shaw has pointed out that, even in the 19th century when the culture of printing, publishing, and book reading had become more well-established, missionaries “often misread the eagerness with which these books were received by local communities” (“South Asia,” 133). Instead, Shaw suggests, “[i]t was not the Word of God that was the attraction but the free source of paper, a valuable commodity widely used, for instance, for wrapping up spices and medicines in the bazaar” (ibid.). Nevertheless, as Sascha Ebeling (Colonizing the Realm of Words: The Transformation of Tamil Literature in Nineteenth-Century South India [Albany: State University of New York, 2010]) and Weiss (“Print, Religion, and Canon in Colonial India”; “Religion and the emergence of print in colonial India”) have both shown, the 19th century does mark a watershed in the dissemination and reception of printed works in South India. 11 Gross points out that Ziegenbalg’s successor at the Tranquebar mission, Benjamin Schultze, set up a parallel mission station in Madras in 1728 with the help of the SPCK (“Madras and the English-Halle Missionaries,” 312–20). In the 1740s, Johann Philip Fabricius took over its operations, publishing a revised Tamil translation of the Bible and the first Tamil-English dictionary (ibid.). 12 See Shaw, The South Asia and Burma Retrospective Bibliography, Stage 1, 8. 13 As Shaw points out, Colombo published a total of 427 imprints between 1731 and 1800, compared to 338 imprints by Tranquebar between 1711 and 1800 (ibid., 14). 14 Ibid., 8. 15 See Gross, “Madras and the English-Halle Missionaries.” 216 both Colombo and Madras, Bible translations, catechisms, educational materials, and works for official administrative purposes were the main focus of printing efforts.16
As printing spread across South Asia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, presses remained largely in the hands of missionaries and colonial officials. Though Indians were not prohibited, strictly speaking, from owning or operating presses, access was restricted by government licensing.17 There were, however, notable exceptions to the early missionary and colonial monopoly on printing. With the spread of printing to Calcutta, the first commercial newspaper in India was founded, Hicky’s Bengal Gazette, established by James Augustus Hicky in 1777.18 The Gazette was noteworthy for its antipathy to Company rule, which led to Hicky’s imprisonment for libel on several occasions and, eventually, a government crackdown on printing.19 Another exception to the early missionary and government control of printing was
Raja Serfoji II’s printing press in Thañjāvūr. Established in 1802, it was the first Devanāgarī and
Marāṭhī press in South Asia.20 With the repeal of the Press Act in 1835 and the loosening of government printing regulations, a profusion of new presses were established across India, many of them owned and run by locals, and it was in this context that Āṟumuka Nāvalar emerged as a public figure largely through his print-based initiatives to reform Śaivism.
16 This is discussed by Kesavan (History of Printing and Publishing in India, Vol. I), Gross (“Madras and the English-Halle Missionaries”), Muthiah (“Giving India the Printed Word,”), and Rekha Rajan (“Johann Philipp Fabricius and the History of the Tamil Bible,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. III, 1299–307). 17 Blackburn, Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India, 80. 18 See Shaw, The South Asia and Burma Retrospective Bibliography (SABREB), Stage 1, 10. 19 Ibid. See also Blackburn, Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India, 80. 20 Nair, “The Tanjore Printing Press and the Spread of Useful Knowledge,” 497–501. The history and output of Serfoji II’s press are also discussed by Shaw, “The Tanjore ‘Aesop’ in the Context of Early Marathi Printing,” The Library, 5th Series, 33 (1978): 207–14; Indira Peterson, “Tanjore, Tranquebar, and Halle: European Science and German Missionary Education in the Lives of Two Indian Intellectuals,” in Christians and Missionaries in India, 93–126; “The Schools of Serfoji II of Tanjore: Education and Princely Modernity in Early Nineteenth-Century India,” in Trans-Colonial Modernities in South Asia, eds. Michael Dodson and Brian Hatcher (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 15–44. 217
6.1.2. Āṟumuka Nāvalar and Temple Reform
Āṟumuka Nāvalar (1822–79) has been the subject of numerous biographies and studies.21
As a major figure of Hindu reform, he played a pioneering role in temple reform initiatives in Sri
Lanka and mainland Tamilnadu; and, as I argue here, his influence extended to the first wave of
Śaiva Āgama printing—including the printing of the Kāmika—in the late 19th century.
The rise of South Indian temple reform and its socio-political repercussions in the 20th century have been discussed by several authors who locate the origins of temple reform in early
20th-century legal and political efforts designed to stem corruption.22 However, one of the most
21 The earliest known biography is Upāttiyāyar Kaṉakarattiṉa’s Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram (Yāḻppāṇam: Caivappirakācayantiracālai, 1882). Other biographical accounts are related in Ta. Kailācapiḷḷai, Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram (Chennai: Vittiyānupālaṉayantiracālai, 1941); V. Muttucumaraswamy, Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, the Champion Reformer of the Hindus (1822–1879): A Biographical Study (New Revised Edition, Colombo 1965); Dagmar Hellmann-Rajanayagam, “Arumuka Navalar: Religious Reformer or National Leader of Eelam,” Indian Economic Social History Review 26 (1989): 235–57; Dennis Hudson, “Arumuga Navalar and the Hindu Renaissance among the Tamils,” in Religious Controversy in British India, ed. Kenneth Jones (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 28– 51; “Winning Souls for Śiva: Arumuga Navalar’s Transmission of the Śaiva Religion,” in A Sacred Thread: Modern Hindu Transmission of Hindu Traditions in India and Abroad, ed. Raymond Brady Williams (Chambersburg, PA: Anima Publications, 1992), 23–51; “How to Worship at Śiva’s Temple,” in Religions of India in Practice, ed. Donald Lopez (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995), 304–20; “Tamil Hindu Responses to Protestants: Nineteenth-Century Literati in Jaffna and Tinnevelly,” in Indigenous Responses to Western Christianity, ed. Steven Kaplan (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 95–123; Richard Young and S. Jebanesan, The Bible Trembled: The Hindu-Christian Controversies of Nineteenth Century Ceylon (Vienna: Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 1995); Bernard Bate, “Arumuga Navalar, Saivite Sermons, and the Delimitation of Religion, c. 1850,” Indian Economic Social History Review 42, no. 4 (2005): 469–84; Darshan Ambalavanar, “Arumuga Navalar and the Construction of a Caiva Public in Colonial Jaffna” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007); Richard Weiss, “Religion and the Emergence of Print in Colonial India: Arumuga Navalar's Publishing Project,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 53, no. 4 (2016): 473–500. 22 David Washbrook, for instance, describes cases of embezzlement, theft, and murder by temple trustees and characterizes changes to the Civil Procedure Code in 1908—which made it “feasible to take temple committees and trustees to court for malpractices”—to be a response to this (The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency, 1870–1920 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 183–90). His work also draws attention to the activities of the Dharmarakshana Sabha, an organization founded by Sir Subramania Aiyer (1842–1924) that was designed to take advantage of the new legislation and push for reform. The work of C. J. Fuller (Servants of the Goddess: The Priests of a South Indian Temple [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984]; Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003]) and Franklin Presler (Religion under Bureaucracy: Policy and Administration for Hindu Temples in South India [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987]) echoes Washbrook’s account of the 218 enduring factors sustaining reform initiatives over the past several decades, C. J. Fuller has shown, has been a public perception of “priestly incompetence” matched by calls for temple priests to follow Śaiva Āgamas more closely.23 While Fuller does not see this factor as operative until later in the 20th century,24 it was precisely this issue that spurred Nāvalar’s reformist activities in the mid 19th century, before legal and political efforts subsequently came to be deployed. In this regard, Nāvalar’s early initiatives demonstrate a notable influence from
Protestantism, particularly in the primacy he accorded to scripture over priestly authority and in the emphasis he placed on lay access to Śaiva religious texts. Indeed, Nāvalar’s view of Āgamas as first order religious authorities—a Śaiva sola scriptura, if you will—I argue, contributed significantly to the impetus of his followers and others in late 19th-century Madras to undertake their printing.
Nāvalar (né Piḷḷai) was born in 1822 to a well-to-do family of the Veḷḷāḷar caste in Nallūr,
Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka. The name Nāvalar, meaning “eloquent” or “learned,” was given to him later in life by the head of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai Ātīṉam. Initially educated by his father in the traditional system of village schools and tutors in Nallūr, Nāvalar was later sent to study at the
Wesleyan Mission School in Jaffna town in order to have an English education. At the Wesleyan school, Nāvalar’s academic performance led to a job with Reverend Peter Percival, a British missionary who had recently taken over as school principal. Percival engaged Nāvalar as a tutor for junior students in Tamil and English. Nāvalar also acted as Percival’s own Tamil pandit
origins of temple reform. Fuller, however, locates the roots of temple reform in the “wider Hindu reform movement,” noting a dearth of “scholarly work on Hindu reformism in south India” (Servants of the Goddess, 149–50). Since the time of his writing, however, a considerable amount of scholarly work has appeared on “reformism” and “revivalism” in South India (e.g., by Hellmann-Rajanayagam, Hudson, Young and Jebanesan, Ambalavanar, Vaithees, and Weiss), which informs my own work. 23 Fuller, Renewal of the Priesthood, 83. 24 Cf., ibid., 82–83. 219 during this time, assisting in various writing and editing projects, the most well-known of which was a project to produce a new Tamil translation of the Bible. Nāvalar worked on the Bible translation with Percival for eight years and in the process became well-acquainted with the text, later deploying this knowledge in his critiques of Christianity.25
As an emerging public figure, Nāvalar gained renown for defending Śaivism from missionary attacks, though he also proved to be unsparing in his criticism of certain co- religionists with whom he found disagreement. An early target of his censure was the
Kandaswami Temple in his home town of Nallūr. In 1847–48, during a lecture series, he leveled a number of criticisms at the priests and trustees of the temple, claiming that their “rites violated
Āgama,” that the “temple was irregularly constructed,” and that “the officiating Brahmins had not received the required Agama initiations.”26 An important aspect of Nāvalar’s reform project was his emphasis on lay Śaivites having a clear understanding of Āgamic practices.27 Nāvalar’s criticism antagonized temple authorities and led to a lifelong conflict between the parties.28
Dennis Hudson notes astutely that at “the heart of the dispute was the authority of local custom, which the Kandaswami Temple followed, versus the authority of the Āgamas.”29 Criticism of temple priests and trustees for not correctly adhering to Āgamas, of course, has been a common refrain in Tamil temple politics throughout the 20th century, as Fuller’s work has shown.30
It was a similar spirit of reform that brought Nāvalar into conflict with the Dīkṣitār priests in Chidambaram in the 1860s. Nāvalar had been traveling between Jaffna and mainland
Tamilnadu since 1848, having established a printing press in Madras in 1858 and a school in
25 See Hudson, “Arumuga Navalar and the Hindu Renaissance among the Tamils,” 33–35. 26 “Winning Souls for Śiva: Arumuga Navalar’s Transmission of the Śaiva Religion,” 25. 27 Ambalavanar, Arumuga Navalar and the Construction of a Caiva Public in Colonial Jaffna, 201–02. 28 Cf. Young and Jebanesan, The Bible Trembled, 186–91. 29 “Arumuga Navalar and the Hindu Renaissance among the Tamils,” 39. 30 Fuller, Servants of the Goddess, 147–61; Renewal of the Priesthood, 80–86. 220
Chidambaram in 1864–65, known as the Caivappirakāca Vittiyācālai, which still exists today.31
In the late 1860s, while in Chidambaram, Nāvalar entered into a dispute with the Dīkṣitārs over what he considered their flouting of Āgamic norms.32 In a print bulletin issued by the
Caivappirakāca Vittiyācālai, Nāvalar claimed that “those who functioned as Priests at
Chidambaram had not received the initiation of priesthood;”33 and he chastised the Dīkṣitārs for including devotional hymns of the poet Rāmaliṅga Swamigal in their liturgy rather than the canonical hymns of the Tēvāram. The Dīkṣitārs were incensed and the clash escalated, eventually resulting in a court case in Cuddalore, details of which have been discussed in a few publications.34 The main source of tension—in Chidambaram as at the Kandaswami Temple— centred on a dispute over scriptural authority versus priestly authority. Whereas Nāvalar insisted
31 Ambalavanar, Arumuga Navalar and the Construction of a Caiva Public in Colonial Jaffna, 10–11. 32 The Dīkṣitārs are a different priestly community from the Ādiśaivas, discussed earlier in this thesis. The distinction between these communities is maintained strongly by the Dīkṣitārs, who claim not to follow Āgamic liturgy but rather Vedic liturgy. During my fieldwork in South India, I spoke with an elderly informant closely connected with the Dīkṣitārs and Naṭarāja temple in Chidambaram who did not want to give his name but insisted on the Vedic character of worship as detailed in the Patañjalipūjāsūtra. According to him, some of the temple’s festivals, however, draw on other literature, which I presume meant that portions of Āgamas were operative in certain festival contexts. This is consistent with the study of Chidambaram festival praxis by Alexandra Wenta (“The Great Ārdrā Darśanam Festival: Performing Śaiva Ritual Texts in Contemporary Chidambaram,” International Journal of Hindu Studies 17, no. 3 [2013]: 371–98). For the regular daily rituals in the temple, however, my informant was adamant that worship followed the Patañjalipūjāsūtra. When I mentioned that some authors (e.g., John Loud, Rituals of Chidambaram [Chennai: Institute of Asian Studies, 2004], 4) have named the Makuṭāgama as the Āgamic textual basis for the rituals in Chidambaram, he expressed an awareness of this notion, but insisted that those who held it were mistaken. When I enquired about priestly training at Chidambaram and whether Dīkṣitārs attend Āgama Pāṭhaśālās (“Āgama Schools”), he said that Dīkṣitārs do not attend such institutions, but rather attend Veda Pāṭhaśālās. In discussing the relationship between Śaivasiddhānta and the cultic stream of Śaivism at Chidambaram, he indicated that he saw Śaivasiddhānta as a different tradition from what was represented at Chidambaram. To support this, he pointed out that heads of major Śaiva maṭhas, such as those of Tiruvāvaṭuturai and Tarumapuram, are not allowed into the sanctum sanctorum in Chidambaram. Only Dīkṣitārs and the Śaṅkarācārya of Kāñcīpuram are permitted to enter. Again, this fits with the account of Wenta, who characterized the stream of Śaivism found at Chidambaram as “Vedic Śaivism” (“The Great Ārdrā Darśanam Festival,” 378). 33 Muttucumaraswamy, Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, the Champion Reformer of the Hindus, 37. 34 For instance, Young and Jebanesan, The Bible Trembled, 175–76; Srilata Raman, “‘Unlearnt Knowing’ (Ōtātu Uṇartal): The Genealogy of Wisdom in Ramalinga Swamigal (1823–1874) and the Tamil Śaiva Siddhānta,” The Journal of Hindu Studies 10, no. 2 (2017): 145–58. 221 on the primacy of scripture, priests in Chidambaram and Nallūr insisted on the primacy of their own authority.
Although Nāvalar represents an early expression of the push for temple reform, he was not the only representative of this impetus prior to the legal and political reform initiatives of the early 20th century. The Protestant attitude exemplified by Nāvalar can also be detected among various exponents of the Śaiva renaissance of late 19th-century Madras.35 Indeed, in spite of notable differences between Jaffna and mainland Śaiva reformism, there were also salient parallels, as Ravi Vaithees has shown. In particular, Vaithees draws attention to Cōmacuntara
Nāyakar, whom he suggests “can be rightly regarded as Arumuga Navalar’s principal counterpart in Tamil Nadu.”36 Though Nāyakar played an important role articulating
Śaivasiddhānta as a distinctly Tamil religion, which profoundly inspired the incipient non-
Brahmin movement, he was ecumenical in his outlook and reached out to Brahmin Śaiva temple priests, particularly Ādiśaivas, whose uplift and education he considered vital for reform.37 A similar spirit of reform and caste inclusivity within Śaivasiddhānta can also be detected in the motivations of Nāvalar’s followers in Madras and others who worked on the first print editions of Śaiva Āgamas published by the Civañāṉapōta Press.38
35 By the term “Śaiva renaissance,” I include various expressions of what has been referred to as “Neo- Śaivism” (cf. Sumathi Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891– 1970 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997], 25; Michael Bergunder, “Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu Nationalism Reconstructions of Indian Prehistory,” Historiographia Linguistica 31, no. 1 [2004], 76; Ravi Vaithees, Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India: Maraimalai Adigal, the Neo-Saivite Movement, and Tamil Nationalism, 1876–1950. [New York;Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015], 24). 36 Vaithees, Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India, 38. 37 See Vaithees, Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India, 47. See also Nāyakar’s discussion of Ādiśaivas in Ācāryappirapāvam, discussed by Eric Steinschneider (“Beyond the Warring Sects: Universalism, Dissent, and Canon in Tamil Śaivism, ca. 1675–1994,” [PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2016], 68–87). The stance of Cōmacuntara Nāyakar may be contrasted with that of Maṟaimalai Aṭikaḷ, who, though deeply inspired by the former, was more exclusive in his articulation of non-Brahmin ideology, rejecting the notion of Sanskritic pan-Indian roots of Śaivasiddhānta in favor of a historiography that saw Śaivasiddhānta as the indigenous tradition of Tamil Veḷḷāḷars. 38 Referred to as “Civañāṉapōtayantracālai” in Tamil publications. 222
6.1.3. The Civañāṉapōta Press and Kāmika Print Editions
Relatively little has been written about the Civañāṉapōta Press, despite its pioneering role in publishing Śaiva scriptures in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Āgamas, ritual manuals (paddhatis), and various devotional works.39 In addition to producing the first print editions of Āgamas like the Kāmika, the Press also appears to have operated as a nexus of
Brahmin and non-Brahmin collaboration during a time of historic polarization between the two communities. As is well-known, the Śaiva Renaissance of late 19th- and early 20th-century
Madras was also a crucible of non-Brahmin politics and dissent.40 Yet, notably, the tensions that characterize this polarization do not show up in the activities of the Press, as evidenced by the inclusivity of collaborators from different caste backgrounds and the combined focus on Sanskrit and Tamil texts.41 In what follows, I show how this collaborative endeavour was influenced by
39 References to the Civañāṉapōta Press turn up in a few secondary sources. However, factually incorrect assertions abound, some of which have been reproduced in otherwise sound scholarly publications. In the preface to the Institut Français d’Indologie’s Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts, N. R. Bhatt claims “As early as 1901 one Śaiva devotee Alagappa Mudaliyar started a press Civañāṉapōtayantracālai in Chintadripet (Madras) and published in grantha script Kāmika (Pūrva with Tamil translation, 1909 and Uttara, text only 1901)” (“Preface,” 1986, viii). As pointed out below, the Press was not established by Aḻagappa Mutaliyār, but rather by his uncle Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār over a decade earlier. We find the same assertion reproduced by Richard Davis (A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival: Aghoraśiva’s Mahotsavavidhi [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 3). Regarding the claim that an edition of the Kāmika was published in 1901, I have found no edition with that date in my archival research at Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai (Ātīṉam library), Pondicherry (Institut Francais de Pondichery), Chennai (Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, Ādyar Library, Roja Muthiah Library), or London (British Library). 40 See, for instance, Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue; V. Geetha and S. V. Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar (Calcutta: Samya, 1998); M. S. S. Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007); Vaithees, Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India. 41 A list of Sanskrit and Tamil titles published by Civañāṉapōta Press is given here. The list is based on a promotional insert in the frontmatter of the edition of the Vātuḷaśuddhākhya (1911). Unfortunately, no publication dates are given. The Sanskrit works listed are the following: Kāmikāgama Pūrvabhāga [with Tamil gloss] and Uttarabhāga [root text only]; Kāraṇāgama (Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga); Suprabhedāgama [root text only]; Vātuḷaśuddhākhya [with commentary]; Mṛgendrāgama [with Tamil gloss]; Kumāratantra [root text only]; 223
Āṟumuka Nāvalar’s vision of reform and mediated by his followers, and I show how the editio princeps of the Kāmika came to be broadly accepted as the authoritative version of the text during the 20th century.
From several rare imprints held at the British Library, we can learn a few things about the
Press and the first printing of the Kāmika. In publishing Sanskrit texts in Grantha characters, the
Press evidently had a South Indian audience in mind. The accompaniment of a word-for-word
Tamil gloss and explanation (urai) for certain texts, like for the Kāmikāgama (Pūrvabhāga), suggests a lay audience was intended. The title page of the first edition of the Pūrvabhāga indicates that production was begun in November-December of 1888 (Sarvadhāri, Kārttikai) and completed in December-January of 1898-99 (Vilambi, Mārkaḻi). An inside title page gives another date, December-January of 1889-90 (Virodhi, Mārkaḻi); however, it is not fully clear what the date of this second title page signifies. The first edition of the Uttarabhāga is dated
July-August of 1899 (Vikāri, Āṭi). It too was published in Grantha script but without a Tamil gloss or explanation. In a foreword to the latter, we are told that the production of the Tamil gloss and explanation were costly and time consuming, and it is this reason that is given for why
Pauṣkarāgama Jñānapāda [with Tamil gloss]; Śivajñānabodha [with commentary]; Siddhāntasārāvali [with Tamil gloss]; Sakalāgamasārasaṅgraha [root text only]; Aghoraśivācāryār Kriyākramajyōti (including Pūrvam, Aparam, Śaivaśodasam, Tamil glosses, Śivaliṅgapratiṣṭhā, Devipratiṣṭhā, Navamīpūjāvidhi, Vināyakapratiṣṭhā, Subrahmaṇyapratiṣṭhā, Utsavavidhi Dvajārohaṇa Cūrṇikā, Pavitrotsavavidhi, Prāyaścitta); Jīrṇoddhāra Daśakam [with commentary]; Māsapaurṇam Pūjāvidhi [root text only]; Prāsāda Ṣaṭślokādi [with commentary]. The Tamil works are the following: Tiruvuntiyār - Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār - Civañāṉapōtam [with explanation]; Civañāṉacittiyār Cūpakṣam, Irupāvirupatu, Uṇmaiviḷakkam [with explanation]; Civaprakāśāti Aṣṭaka [with explanation]; Ippatiṉāṉkumottamāy Vāṅkuvōrkku; Śivañāṉasittiyār Parapakkam iraṇṭāmpatippu; Kurunamaśivāyar Carittiram. 224 no Tamil gloss was produced for the Uttarabhāga.42 While the motivation to produce Tamil glosses of the Kāmika reflects an undercurrent of reform inspired by Protestantism, a more direct influence is discernible through the involvement of followers of Āṟumuka Nāvalar.
In the foreword to the editio princeps of the Uttarabhāga, we find Veḷḷāḷars, Ādiśaivas, and Smārta Brahmins listed together as collaborators.43 Among Veḷḷāḷar collaborators, in particular, we find two followers of Āṟumuka Nāvalar from Jaffna: Vaṭakōvai Capāpati Nāvalar and Nallūr Catācivam Piḷḷai. The former, Capāpati Nāvalar, as Kamil Zvelebil has pointed out, was a major figure in the recovery and promotion of Tamil classics in Madras and was a close friend of Tāmōtaram Piḷḷai.44 Today, Capāpati Nāvalar is best known for his influential treatise on Tamil literature, Tirāviṭappirakācikai.45 The latter, Catācivam Piḷḷai, is less well known, though he was the head of the printing press that Āṟumuka Nāvalar established in Madras.46 The nature of their respective contributions to the printing endeavour is not mentioned unfortunately.
Two additional collaborators are listed separately: Prammaśrī Tiruvoṟṟiyūr Viśvēśvara Cāstriyar, who composed the Tamil gloss and explanation; and Prammaśrī Arumpuliyūr (Pāli) Aiyaṅkar, who is held to have helped with research. Their surnames tell us they were Smārta Brahmins.
The foreword also tells us something of the difficulties faced by the editors in attempting to constitute the text. The publisher, Ṣaṇmukacundara Mutaliyār, thus tells us,
42 Cf. M. Arunachalam, The Śaivāgamas (Tiruchitrambalam: Gandhi Vidyālayam, 1983), 70–71. 43 Seven collaborators are listed in total: Kāṭṭāvūr Mārkkacakāya Kurukkaḷ, Vaṭalūr Capāpati Civācāriyār, Mayilai Viśvanāta Kurukkaḷ, Peṅkaḷūr Cōmacuntara Tīkṣitar, Kaṇūr Kumāracāmi Kurukkaḷ, Yāḻppāṇam Nallūr Catācivam Piḷḷai, Yāḻppāṇam Vaṭakōvai Capāpati Nāvalar. The surnames “Kurukkaḷ” and “Civācāriyār” of course designate Ādiśaivas. 44 Companion Studies to the History of Tamil Literature, 165. Zvelebil also describes Capāpati Nāvalar as “[o]ne of the greatest Tamil scholars of the 19th century” (ibid.). On Capāpati Nāvalar, see also Young and Jebanesan, The Bible Trembled, 40, 145, 156. 45 See Venkatachalapathy, The Province of the Book, 165–67; Vaithees, Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India, 24; and Raman, “‘Unlearnt Knowing’ (Ōtātu Uṇartal),” 18–19. 46 Muttucumaraswamy, Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, the Champion Reformer of the Hindus, 32. 225
Among those who follow the Kāmikāgama, some, according to their own needs have written and kept chapters that are out of order in their respective [palm-leaf] manuscripts. They have even left some chapters out. We can be sure about this, having looked at what was written and separated in the oldest copies in the manner mentioned previously (muṉkūṟiyavāṟu) [in the manner based on the division of the text into Pūrva- and Uttarabhāgas (?)47]. In all copies, things are left out in the same way. […] In many chapters of this Kāmika, numerous verses, quarter [verses], and half [verses] have been left out. It has been printed in this way.48
While Ṣaṇmukacundara Mutaliyār does not provide any information about the manuscripts used for the edition, his reference to the “oldest copies” (plural) suggests some process of collation was involved, inasmuch as he also claims the text was printed as is (avvāṟē acciṭappaṭṭatu). As to how old these copies were, we cannot say for certain, but we can assume they were not likely more than 200-300 years old, since palm-leaf manuscripts in South India do not typically predate the 17th century. No details about the criteria or policies that governed the inclusion or exclusion of particular verses or sections are provided.
It is perhaps worth reflecting on what the motivation of Ādiśaivas in the undertaking might have been. Given that the dissemination of Āgamas in the public sphere could have undermined their authority as primary custodians of the texts, their collaboration in the process suggests an openness or transparency and perhaps also a motivation to combat some of the criticism that they were increasingly subject to in the context of mounting temple reform initiatives. Yet it may have also been hoped that the publication of the Kāmika and other temple
Āgamas would disseminate the view expressed in them that Ādiśaivas are uniquely qualified to work as public Śaiva temple priests and that their traditional prerogative as such should be
47 This is unclear in the text. 48 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (1899 Ed.), frontmatter, no page number: ikkāmikāgamattai vaḻaṅki varuvōriṟ cilar tattamakku vēṇṭiyavāṟu paṭalaṅkaḷai muṉpiṉṉaikat taṅkaḷ taṅkaḷ ēṭṭileḻutivaittirukkiṟurkaḷ. cilapaṭalaṅkaḷai viṭṭumirukkiṟarkaḷ. ataṉai paḻaimaiyāṉa pratikaḷil muṉkūṟiyavāṟu pirittu eḻutappaṭṭiruppatāl kaṇṭu teḷiyalām. eḷḷā pratikaḷilum orētaṉmaiyāy viṭappaṭṭirukkiṟatu […] ikkāmikattuḷ anēka paṭalaṅkaḷil ślokaṅkaḷ kāl arai pala viṭipaṭṭirukkiṉṟaṉavaṟṟaiy avvāṟē acciṭappaṭṭatu. 226 upheld and respected.49 Ultimately, I suggest, their involvement reflects an alignment with a reform-oriented project whose purpose was to promote a broader understanding of Āgamas and to make them more accessible, particularly to lay Tamil-speaking Śaivites.
At the end of the Uttarabhāga’s foreword, the publisher, K. Ṣaṇmukacundara Mutaliyār, thanks the collaborators and provides some insight into his personal reasons for printing the
Kāmika.
Fifteen years ago, in 1884—more precisely, during the lunar month of Kanyā in the year of Pārthiva—while carrying out an observance for Navarātri, I went to the temple of Paṭampakka Nātar and his consort Vaṭivuṭai [Ammaṉ] in Tiruvoṟṟiyūr. There, the goddess commanded me to publish the Sanskrit [text of the] Civañāṉapōtam. The following year, during the month of Māci in the year of Sarvajit, as part of a propitiatory festival that took place during Śivarātri, I went to the shrine of Tyāgarāja [in the same temple in] Tiruvoṟṟiyūr as mentioned before. There, the goddess, conferred [the task of printing] the Kāmikāgama [upon me] and commanded: “You and the people of the world shall read and understand this. Composing [its] ritual path [as a book] without omission (kriyā mārkkattai lopam iṉṟiy iyaṟṟi), you shall attain an auspicious station.” In accordance with the grace of that goddess, my knowledge, will, and actions were unified and guided. [Work] began during the waxing moon of Kārttikai in the year of Sarvadhāri. It was printed and altogether finished on an auspicious day: Sunday, 30th of Āṭi, year of Vikāri, 7th lunar day of the waxing moon, lunar asterism of Arcturus (svāti nakṣatram), Libra ascending (tulālakṉa).50
49 This view was notably promulgated by Cōmacuntara Nāyakar in his writings about Ādiśaivas. Vaithees points out that Nayakar urged his readers to “patronize those priests who were trained by the Saiva Siddhanta mutts [i.e., Ādiśaivas] as opposed to those associated with the more pan-Indian Vedic tradition” (Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India, 47). In Nayakar’s view, Vaithees notes, it was due to the neglect of such obligations “that the last forty years had experienced irregular rains, resulting in all kinds of cruel famines that have scorched the land causing immense damage” (ibid.). Nāyakar’s view clearly echoes the position expressed in the Kāmika and other Parārthapūjā-based Āgamas that usurping the prerogative of Ādiśaivas would spell disaster for the country (cf., Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga, 4:8). 50 Kāmika, Uttarabhāga (1899 Ed.), frontmatter, no page number: iṟṟaikkup patiṉāntu varuṣattiṟku muṉ kali 4916 – ic cariyāṉa pārttipa varuṣattil kaṉyāmācattil navarāttiri viratam aṉuṣṭippāṉ tiruvoṟṟiyūr vaṭivuṭaicamēta- paṭampakkanātar ālayattiṟkuc cella, āṅku camskruta civañāṉapōtan tantu veḷiyiṭak kaṭṭaḷāyiṭṭa tēviyār, aṭutta carvajittu varuṣam mācimāta civarāttiriyil vanta pramōtcavacāntikkāka [...] tiruvoṟṟiyūr tiyākarājar cannitikkuc cella, āṅku kāmikākamattait tantu itaṉai vācittuṇarntu nīyum ulakōrum kriyā mārkkattai lopam iṉṟiy iyaṟṟi naṟkatiyaṭaivīrkaḷ eṉa āññāpikka, atteyvat tiruvaruḷiṉ vaṇṇam ematu aṟivu iccai ceyalkaḷ oruppaṭṭu vaḻikāṭṭa, carvatārivaruṣam kārttikaimāca cuklapakṣam ārampittu vikārivaruṣam āṭimāca 30-māca ñāyiṟṟukkiḻamai cuklapakṣam captami titi svāti nakṣatram tulālakṉaṅ kūṭiya cupatiṉattil itaṉai acciṭṭu niṟaivēṟṟappaṭṭatu. 227
About a decade after the publication of the first edition of the Kāmika, a revised edition of the Pūrvabhāga, again with a Tamil commentary, appeared in 1909 produced by
Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār’s nephew Mayilai Aḻagappa Mutaliyār. The reason for the production of the revised edition is not known; however, it was this 1909 edition that later formed the basis of the 1975 Devanāgarī edition and 1977 Grantha edition, both published by the South Indian
Archakar Association (SIAA) under the supervision of C. Svāminātha Gurukkaḷ. These editions, which are the most widely accessible today, are characterized by N. R. Bhatt and Murugesa
Mudaliar in their respective introductions as “reprints” of the 1909 edition.51 The SIAA also published a Devanāgarī edition of the Uttarabhāga, which appeared in 1988, two years after the death of Svāminātha Gurukkaḷ. The basis for the 1988 Uttarabhāga—whether this was a reprint or a new edition—is not mentioned in Bhatt’s introduction to the text; however, it has been noted by Dominic Goodall that the 1899 edition transmits some notable variants concerning practices related to Rudragaṇikās compared to the 1988 edition.52 A list of known print editions of the
Kāmika is given here.
1898-99 KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Grantha & Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by K. Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār / Civañāṉapōta Press.
1899 KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Grantha script. Published by K. Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār / Civañāṉapōta Press.
1909 KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Grantha & Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by M. Aḻagappa Mutaliyār / Civañāṉapōta Press.
51 Bhatt, “Introduction” in Kāmikāgama, Pūrvabhāga (1975), ii; Mudaliar, “Foreword,” in Kāmikāgama, Pūrvabhāga (1977), iv. 52 See Goodall, “Rudragaṇikās: Courtesans in Śiva’s Temple? Some Hitherto Neglected Sanskrit Sources,” Cracow Indological Series XX, no. 1 (2018): 91–143. 228
1916–19 KĀMIKĀGAMA, PRATIṢṬHĀDI UTSAVĀNTAM. Grantha & Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Satyōjāta Civācāriyar / Śrī Kōpāla Vilācam Mūtrākṣaracālai.
1975 KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Devanāgarī script. Published by Svāminātha Śivācārya / SIAA.
1977 KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Grantha & Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Svāminātha Śivācārya / SIAA.
1988 KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Devanāgarī script. Published by Svāminātha Śivācārya / SIAA.
1999 KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Grantha & Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Vicuvanāta Civācāriyār / Tamilnadu government (HR&CE).
Two editions in the list that have thus far not been mentioned are the serialized edition of
1916–19 published by Satyojāta Civācāriar and the 1999 edition published by Vicuvanāta
Civācāriyār under the aegis of the Tamilnadu State Government (Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments [HR&CE] Department). The former is radically different from other print editions—indeed to such an extent that it is regarded by a number of Ādiśaiva priests today as an
“unauthorized” version of the text, although portions of it are in use in some temples.53 This edition was also characterized by Hélène Brunner some time ago as a forgery (“un faux
Āgama”).54 I will take up the circumstances behind its publication in a future study. The 1999
HR&CE edition of the Uttarabhāga, for its part, which follows the Civañāṉapōta Press and
SIAA editions closely, was published with a view to reprinting the text in Grantha script (the
1988 SIAA reprint was only in Devanāgarī) and making a Tamil gloss of it available; previously,
53 This point was related to me by a number of informants during my fieldwork. A few suggested that this “unauthorized” version of the Kāmika is in fact followed in areas of northwestern Tamilnadu, particular around Coimbatore. 54 Brunner, “Review of Nityasumaṅgalī, Devadasi Tradition in South India, by Saskia Kersenboom- Story,” Indo-Iranian Journal 33 (1990): 130. 229 only a Tamil gloss of the Pūrvabhāga had been available. As these findings show, the reprints of the Civañānapōta Press editions by the SIAA and HR&CE reflect a tacit acceptance and approbation of them as authoritative versions of the Kāmika.
6.1.4. Relationship of Kāmika Manuscripts to Print Editions
It will be clear from the foregoing that all print editions of the Kāmika, except the 1916–
19 serialized edition, follow the Civañāṉapōta Press editions. Yet little is known about the relationship between these editions and the manuscripts on which they were based. In what follows, we look beneath the surface of the editio princeps and consider the manuscript tradition of the Kāmika in relation to print editions.55 The analysis demonstrates that a vast amount of material attributed to the Kāmika exists in manuscripts that is not found in print editions, which suggests that the printing of the Kāmika—and its reprinting by the SIAA and HR&CE—played an important role in elevating and stabilizing the recension of the editio princeps.
The basis for this study of Kāmika manuscripts is the archive of the Institut Français de
Pondichéry (IFP). The IFP archive carries over 8,500 palm-leaf manuscripts and 1,144 paper transcripts of predominantly Śaiva texts; as such, it is the largest collection of such texts in the world. A survey of the archive’s holdings reveals over 110 palm-leaf manuscripts and 28 paper transcripts transmitting portions of the Kāmika or ancillary works claiming affiliation to the
Kāmika.56 Given the large number of Kāmika manuscripts and transcripts, and the fact that many manuscripts are transmitted in different scripts (e.g., Tigalari, varieties of Grantha), I have focused on the paper transcripts, which are predominantly in Devanāgarī, and I consider the
55 Here, I am excluding the 1916–19 serialized edition, given its considerable difference from other print editions. 56 Given that IFP cataloguing efforts are ongoing, the number of palm-leaf manuscripts could be higher. For details of the 28 paper transcripts, see Appendix F. 230
Devanāgarī paper transcripts to be generally representative of what the Kāmika manuscript tradition looked like in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Among the 28 IFP paper transcripts, only one (T.298) carries what could be characterized as a more or less complete transcript of the recension published by the Civañāṉapōta Press,
SIAA, and HR&CE. In this transcript, at the beginning, we find a versified anukramaṇikā (“table of contents”) in śloka form and a correspondence (albeit inexact) between the versified anukramaṇikā and transcript contents; it is the only transcript in which we find such an anukramaṇikā. The versified anukramaṇikā in T.298 is essentially the same as the one found at the beginning of print editions. In each case, we find 15.5 verses (ślokas) listing 74 chapters
(paṭalas) of the Pūrvabhāga and 18.5 verses listing 96 chapters (paṭalas) of the Uttarabhāga.
Yet, it is worth pointing out, neither in T.298 nor in print editions do the anukramaṇikās exactly tally up with the contents. An example of this discrepancy is given in Table 6.1., drawing on the first 2.5 verses of the anukramaṇikā, which list the first 15 chapters of the Kāmika.
231
Table 6.1.: Example of Discrepancy between Versified Anukramaṇikā and Actual Contents of Pūrvabhāgas in T.298, 1898-99 Edition, and 1975 Edition.
Versified Anukramaṇikā tantrāvatāro mantrāṇām uddhāraḥ snānam1 arcanam | arcanāṅgaṃ ca naivedyavidhiḥ kuṇḍasya lakṣaṇam || 1 agnikāryaṃ kālavidhiṃ nimittasya2 parīkṣaṇam | bhūparīkṣā praveśārthabaligrāmādilakṣaṇam3 || 2 śaṅkos tu sthāpanaṃ caiva mānopakaraṇakramam |
1 uddhāraḥ snānam ] 1975 Ed.; uddhārasnānam T.298, 1898 Ed. 2 °vidhiṃ nimittasya ] T.298, 1898 Ed.; °vidhinimittasya 1975 Ed. 3 praveśārthabaligrāmādi ] 1975 Ed.; praveśārthaṃ baligrāmādi T.298, 1898 Ed.
Anukramaṇikā T.298 Pūrvabhāga 1898 Pūrvabhāga 1975 Pūrvabhāga
1. Tantrāvatāra 1. Tantrāvatāra 1. Tantrāvatāra 1. Tantrāvatāra 2. Mantroddhāra 2. Mantroddhāra 2. Mantrāvatāra 2. Mantrāvatāra 3. Snāna 3. Snāna 3. Snāna 3. Snāna 4. Arcana 4. Arcana 4. Arcana 4. Arcana 5. Arcanāṅga 5. Arcanāṅga 5. Arcanāṅga 5. Arcanāṅga 6. Naivedyavidhi 6. Naivedyavidhi 6. Naivedyavidhi 6. Naivedyavidhi 7. Kuṇḍalakṣaṇa 7. Kuṇḍalakṣaṇa 7. Kuṇḍalakṣaṇa 7. Kuṇḍalakṣaṇa 8. Agnikārya 8. Agnikārya 8. Agnikārya 8. Agnikārya 9. Kālavidhi 9. Bhūparikṣā 9. Kālavidhi 9. Kālavidhi 10. Nimittaparikṣā 10. Praveśabali 10. Nimittaparīkṣā 10. Nimittaparīkṣā 11. Bhūparikṣā 11. Bhūparigraha 11. Bhūparīkṣā 11. Bhūparīkṣā 12. Praveśabali 12. Bhūkarśaṇa 12. Praveśabali 12. Praveśabali 13. Grāmādilakṣaṇa 13. Śaṅkusthāpana 13. Bhūparigraha 13. Bhūparigraha 14. Śaṅkusthāpana 14. Mānopakaraṇakrama 14. Bhūkarśaṇa 14. Bhūkarśaṇa 15. Mānopakaraṇakrama 15. Padavinyāsa 15. Śaṅkusthāpana 15. Śaṅkusthāpana
At the top of Table 6.1., the first 2.5 verses of the anukramaṇikā are given. We can see that the verses are more or less the same between T.298 and the Pūrvabhāga editions of 1898 and 1975. In the lower left-hand column, the contents of the anukramaṇikā are parsed and listed.
In the second column from the left, the actual contents of T.298 are listed. In the second column from the right, the actual contents of the 1898 Pūrvabhāga are listed. In the right-hand column, the actual contents of the 1975 Pūrvabhāga are listed. We can see that a direct correspondence between the anukramaṇikā and the actual contents of T.298 and printed Pūrvabhāgas exists only 232 for the first nine chapters; after that, T.298 and the editions follow a slightly different order.
Also, in the anukramaṇikā, we do not find the Bhūkarśana or Bhūparigraha chapters. This suggests these chapters were added sometime after the composition of the anukramaṇikā.57
Moreover, it tells us that the structure of the Kāmika continued to shift following attempts to delimit its contents.
Although we only find one transcript that carries the anukramaṇikā in verse form, we find four partial transcripts (T.402, T.475, T.989, T.1050) with sequences of chapters that correspond roughly to a comparable structure. One of these transcripts (T.402) is particularly notable. Without distinguishing between Pūrva or Uttara divisions, it transmits an unbroken sequence of numbered chapters, with the first part of the sequence corresponding to numbered chapters in printed Pūrvabhāga editions and the second part corresponding to an unbroken sequence in Uttarabhāga editions.58 This suggests the transcript may represent a somewhat earlier recension of the Kāmika, predating a division into a Pūrva and Uttara divisions.
References to these divisions are generally not well represented in transcripts; we find only four transcripts (T.298, T.309, T.647, T.989) with colophons that mention these divisions.
Apart from the one “complete” transcript and the four partial transcripts, we are left with
23 transcripts of Kāmika material. A number of these transcripts carry Kāmika chapters (paṭalas) in more or less haphazard order, including a considerable number of chapters that cannot be found in print editions. Some transcripts identify themselves as ancillary works attributed to the
57 A similar phenomenon can be noticed in the Uttarabhāga, where we find chapters that are not listed in the versified anukramaṇikā. A notable example is the Jñānadīkṣā chapter. In T.298, Jñānadīkṣā is included as the Uttarabhāga’s 25th chapter. By contrast, in the 1899 edition of the Uttarabhāga, the Jñānadīkṣā chapter is left out, in conformity with the anukramaṇikā. In the 1899 edition, Gotranirṇaya is the 25th chapter. However, in the 1988 and 1999 editions of the Uttarabhāga, the publishers included the Jñānadīkṣā chapter, keeping Gotranirṇaya as Chapter 25. The Jñānadīkṣā chapter was included in the 1988 as Chapter 25a and 1999 editions as Chapter 24.2. 58 See Appendix F for more details. 233
Kāmika (e.g., Kāmika Vidyāpāda [T.830], Kāmika Paddhati [T.1109], etc.). A list of all chapters and ancillary works attributed to the Kāmika that could not be found in print editions is provided in Table 4.2 below.
As Table 6.2 shows, we find 109 chapters (paṭalas) and 13 ancillary works attributed to the Kāmika not found in print editions. Most of these chapters detail specific ritual procedures
(vidhis, vidhānas) or establishment rites (pratiṣṭhā, sthāpana). Some chapters, however, focus more on theological or cosmological matters (e.g., paṭalas transmitted as parts of a Vidyāpāda
[T.830] and Jñānapāda [T. 1084]); and a few chapters focus on conduct-related practices (e.g., those of a Caryāpāda [T.1084]) and praise (e.g., those of a Śivarātrimahiman [T.1084]).
Two of the chapters in Table 6.2 marked with single asterisks (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala
[T.5] and Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala [T.494]) carry titles that are found in print editions, but are markedly different content-wise from those corresponding chapters.59 Fifteen chapters marked with double asterisks carry content that can be found in print editions but have different titles and structures from corresponding chapters in print editions. For instance, Vighneśvarasthāpana- vidhipaṭala (T.475, T. 647) and Vighneśvarārcanavidhipaṭala (T.475, T. 647) are both found in the Vigneśvaravidhipaṭala of the Uttarabhāga (Ch. 45), but there they are subsections of a single chapter.
59 Despite having the same title, the chapters are different from each other. See Appendix F. 234
Table 6.2.: Chapters (paṭalas) and Ancillary Works Attributed to the Kāmika Not Found in Print Editions (based on IFP Devanāgarī Paper Transcripts)
Title T. # Title T. # Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala* T.5 Sadāśivaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala T.733 Śilālakṣaṇavidhipaṭala T.223 Kāmika Vidyāpāda (19 paṭalas) T.830 Ālayanirṇayavidhipaṭala T.223 Grāmavistārāyāmapaṭala** T.989 Bhadrakālīpratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala T.269 Aśvaśālāvidhipaṭala** T.989 Agnitrayalakṣaṇapaṭala T.309 Gośālāvidhipaṭala** T.989 Astrasaṃdhyāvandanapaṭala T.309 Maulimālikāpaṭala** T.989 Vāstupūjāvidhipaṭala T.309 Mālikālakṣaṇapaṭala** T.989 Aṣṭabandhanavidhipaṭala T.309 Gaurīsthāpanavidhipaṭala** T.1031 Mūrtihomavidhipaṭala** T.348 Devīnityārcanavidhipaṭala** T.1031 Śāntihomavidhipaṭala** T.348 Maheśārcanavidhipaṭala** T.1031 Diśāhomavidhipaṭala** T.348 Prāṇatyāgaprāyaścittavidhipaṭala T.1039 Dhvajapratiṣṭhā Paddhati T.406 Pataṅgabhuvaṅgavidhipaṭala T.1039 Aṣṭabandhanavidhi Prayoga T.410 Dhanurmāsapūjāvidhipaṭala T.1039 Vighneśvarapratiṣṭḥāvidhipaṭala T.451 Prāsādalakṣaṇavidhipaṭala* T.1050 Ardhanārīśvarasthāpanavidhipaṭala T.451 Nṛttamūrtyabhiṣecanavidhipaṭala T.1050 Dhvajadaṇḍapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala T.451 Prākāralakṣaṇavidhipaṭala* T.1050 Pāśupatāstrasthāpanapaṭala T.475 Aṣṭabandhana Paddhati T.1051 Śarabhapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala T.475 Kāmika Kriyāpāda (14 paṭalas) T.1084 Devīlakṣaṇasthāpanārcana Kāmika Jñānapāda utsavasarvadevasāmānya T.475 T.1084 (3 paṭalas) pratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala Vighneśvarasthāpanavidhipaṭala** T.475 Kriyākāṇḍa (11 paṭalas) T.1084 Vighneśvarārcanavidhipaṭala** T.475 Kāmika Caryāpāda (5 paṭalas) T.1084 Subrahmaṇyapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala T.475 Śivarātrimahiman (5 paṭalas) T.1084 Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala* T.494 Sṛṣṭikāṇḍa (4 paṭalas) T.1084 Vimānasthāpanapaṭala T.535 Sthitikāṇḍa (4 paṭalas) T.1084 Grāmaśāntividhipaṭala T.535 Nādakāṇḍa (1 paṭalas) T.1084 Vighneśvarasthāpanavidhipaṭala** T.647 Mānuṣyādyutpattikramapaṭala T.1084 Vighneśvarārcanavidhipaṭala** T.647 Śrāddhavidhānapaṭala T.1084 Draupadīpratiṣṭhāpaṭala T.673 Kāmika Paddhati T.1109
* Refers to a chapter title or ancillary work whose title is the same or similar to what is found in print editions, but on close inspection appears markedly different. For details, see Appendix F.
** Refers to a chapter title not found in print editions, but whose content is found transmitted as a subsection of another chapter in print editions. For details, see Appendix F. 235
Among ancillary works attributed to the Kāmika, we find a Vidyāpāda, a Jñānapāda, a
Caryāpāda, a Kriyāpāda, three Paddhatis, and four Kāṇḍas. Summaries of the contents of these ancillary works are included in Appendix F.
Given how much material is attributed to the Kāmika, and given how little attested the recension that is comparable to modern print editions is among the surveyed transcripts, it would appear that the basis for modern print editions was not particularly widespread in its transmission, which suggests that this recension was either relatively recent or exclusive.
Further, the reprinting of the recension of the editio princeps by the SIAA and HR&CE can be understood to have played a notable role in elevating and stabilizing this recension as a broadly accepted authoritative version of the Kāmika.
To sum up the preceding, I have shown that the editio princeps of the Kāmika was produced as a collaborative endeavour spearheaded by the lay Śaivite-run Civañāṉapōta Press and influenced by Āṟumuka Nāvalar’s Protestant-inspired reformism. The influence of Nāvalar, we saw, is evident in the participation of his followers and counterparts in Madras. In drawing attention to the role of Ādiśaivas in the printing of the Kāmika, I have argued that this reflects an alignment with an emergent reform-oriented project whose purpose was to promote a broader understanding of Āgamas and to make them more accessible, particularly to lay Tamil-speaking
Śaivites. As to the relationship between Kāmika manuscripts and print editions, I have shown that there are substantial variations between the two. Given this discrepancy, the Civañāṉapōta
Press editions appear to have been based on a relatively recent or relatively exclusive recension.
On this basis, I have argued that print contributed in an important way to the elevation and stabilizion of this recension of the Kāmika. In the next part of this chapter, we turn to look at 236 how the Kāmika’s authority and prestige have been further shaped by idealized notions of the text’s status as scripture and by instances of its reception and use in contemporary practice.
6.2. The Kāmikāgama Today
Although it is often stated that Śaiva Āgamas are the foundational scriptures of Śaivism, they are seldom read by most Śaivites. Nonetheless, as the following section shows, the Kāmika and other
Āgamas do play an important role in the lives of many Śaivites—both as ideals of divine authority and more concretely in individual ritual practice and priestly training, where portions of
Āgamas are often included.
In order to present an understanding of the role of the Kāmika and of attitudes expressed about its status and significance in Śaivasiddhānta today, this section draws on ethnographic research conducted with a range of Śaivasiddhānta followers, including temple priests, gurus, ascetics, and lay Śaivites.60 The interviews and accompanying discussion show that the primary custodians of Śaiva Āgamas today are members of the Ādiśaiva community, and that many
Ādiśaiva temple priests learn, read, or memorize portions of the Kāmika. These portions may be fragmentary or substantial, depending on the training or inclination of the priest. Research also shows that it is primarily through Prayoga (“practical”) manuals—compendiums of verses and mantras drawn from various Āgamas—that most Śaivites read or learn portions of the Kāmika.
The presentation of research is accompanied by analyses of Prayoga manuals used for public
(parārthapūjā) and private (ātmārthapūjā) ritual worship. Beginning with an overview of the range of followers within Śaivasiddhānta, this section argues that the authority and status of the
60 The data collected consisted of semi-structured interviews and note-taking carried out over a period of four months, from January to April, 2015, in South India at locations in Pondicherry, Chidambaram, Chennai, Thanjavur, Thiruvavaduturai, Pillaiyarpatti, Karaikkal, Madurai, Thirupparankundram, Kanchipuram, and Bangalore. 237
Kāmika today, although indebted to historical processes described in the first part of the chapter, draws significantly on idealizations of the text and instances of its reception and use in contemporary practice.
6.2.1. Followers of Śaivasiddhānta
To understand the range of followers within Śaivasiddhānta, a distinction is provided here between three fundamental social groups within the tradition: [1] Ādiśaiva temple priests;
[2] non-Brahmin ascetics (i.e., tambirāṉs); and [3] lay Śaivites. This categorization reflects historical caste and community distinctions within Śaivasiddhānta. These distinctions developed historically through practices of exclusion—on the part of Ādiśaiva priests and non-Brahmin ascetics—constituted by strict observances of endogamy and restrictions on initiation. Ādiśaiva priests thus have historically restricted the conferral of ācāryābhiṣeka (“consecration of a master”)—a high level of initiation establishing one’s capability to perform public worship in
Śaiva temples—to members of their own community.61 Non-brahmin ascetics, likewise, have restricted initiation into the spiritual lines of their institutions to members of specific non-
Brahmin castes.62 The third category, lay followers, represents an eclectic group, which includes
Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike, but not Ādiśaiva priests or non-Brahmin ascetics.
[1] Ādiśaiva Priests. As discussed in previous chapters, Ādiśaivas represent a pan- regional, semi-endogamous caste group historically classified as Brahmin, though traditionally
61 See Wayne Surdam, “South Indian Śaiva Rites of Initiation: The Dīkṣāvidhi of Aghoraśivācārya’s Kriyākramadyotikā” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984), lxvii–lxviii. As Koppedrayer has pointed out, non-Brahmin ascetics have their own variation of ācāryābhiṣeka, although their version does not confer eligibility to perform public temple worship (“Miraculous Abhiseka: Miracles and Authority in a South Indian Non-Brahmin Lineage,” in Images, Miracles and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions, ed. Richard H. Davis [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998], 114). 62 Cf. Koppedrayer, “The Sacred Presence of the Guru: The ‘Velala’ Lineages of Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, and Tiruppanantal” (PhD diss., McMaster University, 1990), 99–102. 238 ranked below non-priestly Brahmins.63 Priests from the Ādiśaiva community today are the primary practitioners of public temple worship in major Śaiva temples across South India.
Several ethnographic studies of the Ādiśaiva community, particularly those associated with the
Mīṉākṣī temple in Madurai, have been published.64 Although Ādiśaivas are the most populous
Śaiva priestly community in South India, they are not the only such community in the region.
The Dīkṣitar priests of Chidambaram, for instance, represent a distinct caste community.
However, as Alexandra Wenta has pointed out, Dīkṣitars may be more accurately characterized as “Vedic Śaivites” rather than as followers of Śaivasiddhānta.65
[2] Non-Brahmin Ascetics. Non-Brahmin ascetics, also known as tambirāṉs, represent a small but exclusive group of Śaivasiddhānta followers associated with the monastic institutions of Tañjāvūr district in Tamilnadu. These institutions have been the focus of several studies.66 As
Kathleen Koppedrayer has shown, the order of the ātīṉams is centred around the concept of spiritual lineage, or what she refers to as “fictive kin” ties.67 Each ātīṉam is headed by a presiding guru (kurumakācaṉṉitāṉam) drawn from the ātīṉam’s community of tambirāṉs. The tambirāṉs, for their part, are selected from among lay Śaivites aspiring to join the lineage.
Aspiring tambirāṉs must fulfill a number of criteria before they can be considered eligible. First
63 See Fuller, Renewal of the Priesthood, 21. 64 Particularly worth noting are Fuller’s Servants of the Goddess and Renewal of the Priesthood. 65 Wenta, “The Great Ārdrā Darśanam Festival,” 378. 66 E.g., Nambi Arooran, “The Changing Role of Three Śaiva Maths in Tanjore District from the Beginning of the 20th Century,” in Changing South Asia: Religion and Society, eds. Kenneth Ballhatchet and David Taylor (London: Asian Research Service for the Centre of South Asian Studies at SOAS, 1984), 51–58; Glenn Yocum, “A Non-Brāhman Tamil Śaiva Mutt: A Field Study of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam,” in Monastic Life in the Christian and Hindu Traditions: A Comparative Study, eds. Austin Creel and Vasudha Narayanan (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 245–79; Koppedrayer, Sacred Presence of the Guru; “The Varṇāśramacandrika and the Śūdra’s Right to Preceptorhood: The Social Background of a Philosophical Debate in Late Medieval South India,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19, no. 3 (1991): 279–314; “Miraculous Abhiseka”; “Putting the Picture Together: Āṭi Amāvācai at Dharmapuram,” East and West 49, no. 1/4 (1999): 195–216; Geoffrey Oddie, Hindu and Christian in South-East India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), 98–118. 67 Sacred Presence of the Guru, iii. 239 and foremost, they must be from an appropriate non-Brahmin, Veḷḷāḷar family.68 Ultimately, however, aspirants must make a formal application through which they declare their intention to renounce family, materials possessions, and sexual activity. When an aspirant is successful, they undergo a probationary period of indeterminate length before being judged ready to receive initiation.69
[3] Lay Śaivites. Whereas Ādiśaiva priests and non-Brahmin ascetics comprise the religious elite of Śaivasiddhānta today, lay Śaivites comprise the remainder. They are represented among diverse social groups and castes, both Brahmin and non-Brahmin, but particularly in Tamil parts of South India and Sri Lanka. Lay Śaivites are an eclectic category with considerable variation in the degree to which they express adherence to Śaivasiddhānta.70
6.2.2. The Role and Significance of the Kāmika in Śaivasiddhānta Today
6.2.2.1. The view of the Kāmika as an ideal text
One of the notable themes that emerged through interviews with participants concerning the role and significance of the Kāmika in Śaivasiddhānta today touches on an aspect of reception discussed in Chapter Two—specifically, the view of the Kāmika as an ideal text.
Similar to the evidence we saw of this in the 5th to 12th centuries—specifically, discrepancies between the symbolic significance of the Kāmika and the near-total absence of any discursive engagement with its content—we also find idealizations of the Kāmika today in counterpoint to the actual text. This is demonstrated in particular through the significance accorded to the
68 Ibid., 100. 69 Ibid., 98–108. 70 For instance, some lay Śaivites, particularly Brahmins, may also express adherence to other streams of Śaivism, such as Smārta-Śaivism, as in the case of Dr. T. N. Ramachandran, discussed below. 240
Kāmika at a rhetorical level by several informants in contrast to a relatively diminutive significance accorded to the text in practice.71
One of the first informants I spoke with during my fieldwork was Dr. T. N.
Ramachandran, erstwhile Director of the “International Institute of Śaiva Siddhānta Research” based at Tarumapuram Ātīṉam. An initial objective of my fieldwork research was to speak with
Śaivasiddhānta followers associated with Śaiva ātīṉams to learn about the role of the Kāmika and other Āgamas at these centres. Being major institutions of Śaivasiddhānta piety, I assumed they would figure prominently; however, I soon learned that Āgamas are not particularly important at these centres—at least not in a practical sense. For them, the Tamil Meykaṇṭar works and its related literature are more important sources of authority.
A lay Śaivite himself, Ramachandran has maintained close contact with Tarumapuram over the years. Unlike the ascetics of Tarumapuram, Ramachandran is not of the Veḷḷāḷar caste, but rather a Smārta Brahmin. When he and I began discussing Śaiva Āgamas, one of the first points he wanted to stress was that Śaivasiddhānta recognizes the authority of both the Vedas and the Āgamas. In his words, “Śaivasiddhāntam […] believes in the Vedas; but it insists that the
Vedas should be interpreted in light of Śaiva Āgamas.” And he quoted a passage from the
Civañāṉacittiyār to support this.72 At first, I did not recognize the significance of this, since few
Hindus read the Vedas—and fewer still who interpret them in light of other highly specialized texts—and I had yet to understand that Śaiva Āgamas are not so different from the Vedas in this
71 This should not be construed as some sort of “incongruency” in the tradition that I am attempting to bring to light. The attitude of veneration toward the Kāmika and other Āgamas is also expressed in practice, as in the account of bibliolatry sketched in the opening of this thesis. 72 The passage he quoted was verse 267 of Civañāṉacittiyār Cupakkam: vetanūl caivanūl eṉṟu iraṇṭē nūlkaḷ | veṟu uraikkum nūl ivaṟṟiṉ virinta nūlkaḷ (“The Vedas and Śaiva [Āgamas]: these are the [only] two books. [All] other books are derived from these.”) 241 matter. In retrospect, I take Ramachandran’s statement as an expression of reverence for these texts, which I also take as an idealization of the text.
Another point that Ramachandran stressed was the view that Śaiva Āgamas, in some sense, “are” or “constitute” Śaivasiddhānta, a point for which he again drew on the
Civañāṉacittiyār.73 When I asked him if he thought this view of the Civañāṉacittiyār was reflective of the beliefs of most Śaivasiddhānta followers today, he replied:
For practitioners of [Śaiva]siddhāntam, the only source is śivajñānam. [But] because there are as many as 28 main Āgamas, and then there are over 220 upāgamas, subsidiary Āgamas, so far as the Tamil language is concerned, we get the quintessence of the main Āgamas in the fourteen [Meykaṇṭa] Cāttirams.
His reply did not directly answer my question, but what I understood him to mean was that he sees (and believes his co-religionists see) the Civañāṉacittiyār as an abridgement or distillation of Śaiva Āgamas, which are themselves seen as expressions of a primordial Śaiva revelation
(śivajñānam). This is notable, too, for the 14 Meykaṇṭacāttirams—with the exception of the 12 foundational verses of the Civañāṉapōtam—are not in fact revealed scripture, but are rather works of historical authorship. Of course the lumping together of works considered to be timeless revelation and works considered to be historical in a single scripture regarded uniformly as authoritative is not an unprecedented phenomenon; but a clue to how the theology, beliefs, and practices of Śaiva Āgamas have been disseminated in the absence of Āgamas themselves is glimpsed through the tacit equation between the Tamil Cāttirams and Sanskrit Āgamas. It is a view that we find in a verse commonly attributed to Umāpati Civācāryār (14th century):
vētam pacu ataṉpāl meyyākamam nālvar ōtum tamiḻ ataṉi ṉuḷḷuṟuney-pōtamiku neyyiṉuṟu cuvaiyā nīḷ veṇṇey Meykaṇṭāṉ
73 The passage he quoted in this instance was from the same verse: civākamaṅkaḷ cittāntam ākum (“Śaiva Āgamas are [Śaiva]siddhānta”). 242
ceyta tamiḻ nūliṉ tiṟam74
The Veda is the cow; the Āgama is its milk; the Tamil of the four Saints (Thevaram and Thiruvacakam) is the ghee churned from it; the excellence of the well instructive Tamil (Sivagnana Botham) of Meikanda Deva of Thiruvennainallur is like the sweetness of such ghee.75
For Tamil Śaivites, the significance of this of course is that the Meykaṇṭacāttirams are held to express the “quintessence” of Śaiva Āgamas. Indeed, for Ramachandran, it was clear that the
Meykaṇṭacāttirams constituted a major wellspring of his knowledge of Śaivasiddhānta, although he had clearly read portions of Śaiva Āgamas in Sanskrit. He emphasized the importance of reading Śaiva Āgamas in their original Sanskrit, although he acknowledged that this could be impossible for some. According to him, “If you want to prove yourself a Śaivite, you should read
Āgamas.” He added, “If you are unable to read Āgamas, you must listen to the explication of others; and if that is impossible, you should study the works in Tamil.”
A similar view of the symbolic significance of the Kāmika emerged through a conversation with a non-Brahmin ascetic named Svayambhunāthar Tambirāṉ at Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai
Ātīṉam. I met Svayambhunāthar through the Ātīṉam’s librarian. When I mentioned to the librarian that I was hoping to discuss Śaiva Āgamas with one of their resident tambirāṉs, he laughed and said they would not know anything about that. I found this surprising. Since
Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai Ātīṉam is one of the two biggest theological centres of Śaivasiddhānta in India, I assumed one of their senior-most clerics would know something about Śaiva Āgamas. In
74 J. M. Nallaswami Pillai, Śivajñāna Siddhiyār of Arulnandi Śivāchārya (Madras: Madras Meykandan Press, 1913), li. 75 Translation by Nallaswami Pillai. 243 retrospect, I take the librarian’s reply as an indication of the diminutive practical significance that Āgamas are accorded in this centre.76
In my conversation with Svayambhunāthar, I asked if he drew on Āgamas like the
Kāmika in his own ritual practice. In response, he claimed that his personal worship practice incorporated Sanskrit mantras drawn from Āgamas as well as portions in Tamil, which he said were translated from Sanskrit Āgamas. Again, this points to the notion that Tamil renderings of
Śaiva Āgamas are not mere translations from Sanskrit but are regarded rather as distillations or analogues of the same authoritative revelation. He said that he had originally learned the practice from a book and had been performing worship in this manner for over thirty years. He could not remember the name of the book, but said that there were many such books that provide instructions in personal worship. The term he used for this type of book was “Prayoga.”
In addition to reading portions of Śaiva Āgamas through a Prayoga book,
Svayambhunāthar also claimed to have read portions of Śaiva Āgamas in Sanskrit, particularly sections of the Kāmika and Vāṭulāgama. His knowledge of these texts, however, was limited.
Thus he was unable to say what specific sections he had read. His knowledge of other Śaiva
Āgamas was also limited. Apart from the Kāmika and Vāṭulāgama, he did not know the names of any other Āgamas. It seemed as though Śaiva Āgamas—at least in their Sanskrit form—did indeed rank low in practical importance for this tambirāṉ.
A similar impression of the somewhat diminutive practical significance that Āgamas are accorded by non-Brahmin ascetics was conveyed through an interview with a tambirāṉ of
Tarumapuram. In a conversation with Śri Kumaraswamy Tambirāṉ Swamigal in Chennai at a
76 I might add, I was in the library hoping to find early print editions and manuscripts of the Kāmika. The librarian told me their edition of the Pūrvabhāga had been lost. The did have a copy of the Uttarabhāga (1899), although it was missing several dozen pages. 244
Tarumapuram branch mutt, he emphasized that Āgamas used primarily by Śivācāryas (i.e.,
Ādiśaivas): “Śivācāryas use the Śaiva Āgamas as the foundation for their Pūjās … [Those rituals] are present in the Āgamas; it is in the temple that they [Śivācāryas] perform [those
Pūjās].”
When I asked Kumaraswamy about any particular Śaiva Āgamas he might have studied, he mentioned the Aghoraśiva Paddhati (aka Kriyākramadyotikā), which is not a Śaiva Āgama but rather a ritual manual. To be fair, in print versions today, the Aghoraśiva Paddhati is transmitted with commentaries that include citations of Āgamas. When I asked somewhat more directly if he had read or studied any foundational Āgamas (using the expression “mūlāgamas”) like the Kāmika, he stated that the focus of his monastic education, insofar as learning about daily pūjā rituals was concerned, was the Aghoraśiva Paddhati. He said that he had learned sections of the Aghoraśiva Paddhati through the instruction of a senior tambirāṉ. He made no claim of having read any Śaiva Āgama directly.
A similar view emerged through an interview with K. Pitchai Gurukkal, head of a well- established Āgama school in Pillaiyarpatti in Sivaganga District near Karaikudi, named Śrī
Kaṟpaka Vināyakar Vētāgama Vittiyālayam (“Holy Kaṟpaka Vināyakar School of Vedas and
Āgamas”).77 Founded in 1978, it is the oldest Āgama school in Tamilnadu. According to Pitchai
Gurukkal, over 2,700 graduates have passed through its doors since it opened. In our conversation, he noted that the Kāmika as it exists in print today is not the complete text. I asked if he could elaborate.
77 Śrī Kaṟpaka Vinākayar refers to a popular local form of the elephant-headed god, Gaṇeśa (known also as Vināyakar and Piḷḷaiyar, among other names), enshrined as the primary deity of the Śrī Kaṟpaka Vinākayar temple at Pillaiyarpatti. The school is also home to the “Association of the Path of Śiva” (civaneṟik kaḻakam), a designation for the broader activities of the institution, which include publishing pedagogical and devotional materials that are used at the school. 245
We have it in parts. We do not have the complete text. At the French Institute they copied what they had in manuscripts onto hard drives. We have all of these [manuscripts]. Many are damaged or partial. So, like the Tēvāram, which is only partly available, we only have parts [of the Kāmika]. For instance, one might say that a Tēvāram song was sung in such and such a place, but you do not actually find it in the Tēvāram. As far as it was possible, they have managed to compile them.
In expressing this view about the Kāmika as it exists today in print, Pitchai Gurukkal echoed the notion expressed by T. N. Ramachandran that Śaiva Āgamas, as we have them in print, are but temporal or contingent expressions of a divine or transcendental source of authority. Further, Pitchai Gurukkal’s reference to the idea of the “complete text” highlights another aspect of its idealization, namely that the Kāmika is held to have been “complete” in the past, but now longer is. Of course, as we have seen, the Kāmika developed historically through an incorporative mode of composition—with passages being adapted and incorporated over centuries from texts like the Mataṅgapārameśvara, Śivadharmottara, and Svacchanda—such that the notion of “completeness” may best be understood as an imagined quality of the ideal text. In this view, “completeness” is a regulative notion on basis of which modern editions of the
Kāmika are evaluated and may, to some extent, be found lacking.
This also raises questions as to how “closed” or “open” the Kāmika today actually is. An
English translation of parts of the Kāmika began to appear online a few years ago, published by
Kauai’s Hindu Monastery and translated by S. P. Sabharathanam Sivacharya.78 The edition on which the translation is based is not any generally authorized print edition, such as those of the
Civañāṉapōta Press, SIAA, or Tamilnadu state government; it appears to be something of a new
78 The translations are not dated and appear to be only available online. The Pūrvabhāga translation is available here: https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/kamika-agama-purva-pada-part-1 (accessed July 14, 2020). The Uttarabhāga translation is described as a “translation in progress and will be periodically updated”; it is available here: https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/kamika-agama- uttara-pada-part-2 (accessed July 14, 2020). 246
edition. In the Kauai text of the Uttarabhāga, thus, we find some notable differences from earlier
print editions, which can be illustrated with the help of a table:
Table 6.3.: Differences between the 1899 Edition, 1988 Edition, 1999 Edition, and Kauai Edition of the Uttarabhāga.
1899 Edition 1988 Edition 1999 Edition Kauai Edition Ch. 23 Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhi Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhi Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhi Nirvāṇadīkṣāvidhi Ch. 24 Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi Jñānadīkṣāvidhi Ch. 24.2 - - Jñānadīkṣāvidhi - Ch. 25 Gotranirṇayavidhi Gotranirṇayavidhi Gotranirṇayavidhi Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi Ch. 25a - Jñānadīkṣāvidhi - - Ch. 26 Śatābhiṣekavidhi Śatābhiṣekavidhi Śatābhiṣekavidhi Śatābhiṣekavidhi Ch. 27 Antyeṣṭividhi Antyeṣṭividhi Antyeṣṭividhi Sāmānyaprāyaścittavidhi Ch. 28 Pitṛyajñavidhi Pitṛyajñavidhi Pitṛyajñavidhi Kṛcchrādiprāyaścittavidhi Ch. 29 Śaivaśrāddhavidhi Śaivaśrāddhavidhi Śaivaśrāddhavidhi Śāntihomavidhi Ch. 30 Prāyaścittavidhi Prāyaścittavidhi Prāyaścittavidhi Diśāhomavidhi Ch. 31 Adbhutaśāntividhi Adbhutaśāntividhi Adbhutaśāntividhi Saṃhitāhomamūrtihomavidhi Ch. 32 Anukarmavidhi Anukarmavidhi Anukarmavidhi Adbhutaśāntividhi Ch. 33 Kāmyayogavidhānavidhi Kāmyayogavidhānavidhi Kāmyayogavidhānavidhi Anukarmavidhi Ch. 34 Saṃprokṣaṇavidhi Saṃprokṣaṇavidhi Saṃprokṣaṇavidhi Saṃprokṣaṇavidhi
The table above represents differences in the chapters numbers and titles of the Uttarabhāga as
we find them in different editions of the text. The peculiarity of Chapters 24.2 and 25a have been
noted in our “Overview fo the Kāmikāgama” (1.4.); to reiterate here, there is an additional
chapter sandwiched between chapters 24 and 26 in the 1988 and 1999 editions of the text. In the
1988 edition, the additional chapter is 25a ( jñānadīkṣāvidhi); in the 1999 edition, the chapter
number is 24.2 (also jñānadīkṣāvidhi). That this chapter is not found (neither the number nor the
title) in the 1899 edition of the Uttarabhāga and that it carries a supplementary chapter number
in the 1988 and 1999 editions suggests something of a fraught consensus regarding its
authoritative status. 247
In the Kauai edition, we see some notable differences with earlier print editions. The chapters on Śaiva funerary rites (antyeṣṭividhi, pitṛyajñavidhi, śaivaśrāddhavidhi) and apotropaic rites (kāmyayogavidhānavidhi) in earlier print editions are not found; instead, in the Kauai edition, we find chapters on various types of homas (śāntihomavidhi, diśāhomavidhi, saṃhitāhomamūrtihomavidhi). Also, in the Kauai edition, there is no chapter on the origins and classification of different gotras (gotranirṇaya); however, we do find the chapter on initiation by knowledge (jñānadīkṣā). Last, in the Kauai edition, the chapter on expiation rites
(prāyaścittavidhi) appears to have been divided into two chapters (sāmānyaprāyaścittavidhi, kṛcchrādiprāyaścittavidhi). These differences, we may assume, are due to the text and translation being based on one or more manuscripts rather than on an earlier print edition. The differences I highlight here, I should add, are not intended as criticism of Kauai’s Hindu Monastery or
Sabharathanam Sivacharya’s commendable undertaking in translating the Kāmika, but rather to underscore the point that the Kāmika today is not an entirely “closed” text.
6.2.2.2. Role of Āgamas in individual ritual practice and in priestly training
While views of the Kāmika as an ideal text figure prominently in the way that followers of Śaivasiddhānta view the text today, the role and significance of the Kāmika today is by no means limited to a symbolic one. Alongside other Śaiva Āgamas, the Kāmika plays an important role in individual ritual practice and priestly training. An example of this was noted above in my conversation with Svayambhunāthar Tambirāṉ. As we will see below, many other Śaivites draw on portions of the Kāmika and other Āgamas, particularly through Prayoga publications.
In my interview with Kumaraswamy Tambirāṉ, I had asked about his personal worship practice (ātmārthapūjā) hoping this would reveal something about Śaiva Āgamas in this context.
It turned out that his practice, like Svayambhunāthar Tambirāṉ’s, incorporated mantras drawn 248 from Śaiva Āgamas. Moreover, like Svayambhunāthar, Kumaraswamy had also learned his practice from a Prayoga manual. When I asked for more information about the manual, I was told that it was not a printed text, but rather a manuscript. When I asked if it would be possible to obtain a copy, he laughed loudly. Nor would he reveal its title, citing the importance of secrecy.
According to him, the process of learning and memorizing the text and the pūjā liturgy in the
Prayoga involved copying the manuscript. He pointed out that various printed Prayoga manuals are available for lay Śaivites.
For everyone else, all of the details pertaining to the performance of Śivapūjā (i.e., for private worship) are given in printed books. For Tambiraṉs, details of Śivapūjā that pertain specifically to us are taken [from manuscripts] and given to us [to study].
In discussing monastic education further, Kumaraswamy pointed out that the curriculum for tambirāṉs at Tarumapuram is not systematic, such that they do not all learn or read the same texts. Moreover, he pointed out that Tarumapuram Ātīṉam library has copies of many Śaiva
Āgamas and that tambirāṉs interested in reading (or teaching) them can freely do so. Thus, although the study of Śaiva Āgamas was not a part of Kumaraswamy’s own monastic education, reading or learning portions of these texts may be a part of other tambirāṉs’ experience.
During my conversation with Kumaraswamy, I posed questions about the education of priests, particularly since Tarumapuram had long been home to a well-established Āgama school.79 I learned that many graduates of the school worked as priests in temples administered by the centre. However, the school had ceased operations a few years earlier when the head of the school left to start an Āgama school of his own elsewhere. I was told that efforts were being made to re-establish the Āgama school at Tarumapuram, since there was a need for well-trained
79 This Āgama School was founded by Śri Svāminātha Śivācārya (1908-??) during the tenure of the 24th Guru Mahāsannidhānam, Shanmuga Desikar Paramcharya (1933–45). 249
Ādiśaiva priests in the temples administered by the Ātīṉam. I had an opportunity to speak with a graduate of the school, an Ādiśaiva priest named Ganesh Sharma Śivācārya, who had attended the school in its heyday and now worked in a small temple on the outskirts of Tañjāvūr.
Ganesh Sharma was introduced to me as a disciple of Śri Svāminātha Śivācārya, the founder of the erstwhile Tarumapuram Āgama school. I was told that, in addition to working as a priest,
Ganesh Sharma had also been employed for over thirty years as a professor of Sanskrit at
Tiruvaiyāṟu College. In discussing the curriculum of the Āgama School at Tarumapuram, he recalled that the Kāmika had played a notable role. When I asked if he recalled any particular portions of the Kāmika that were taught, he replied:
The fundamental portions. Whatever the guru knows, he selects. And then the guru says the remaining portions must be consulted by yourself … They leave it to the students. They gave them to learn it. So, what the guru judges is important, he teaches them. But he also adds, this is what I have taught you, the remaining portions must be learned by you.
When I asked if there were any specific portions of the Kāmika that he remembered learning, he mentioned the Kriyāpāda, the section detailing rituals. Of course, the printed
Kāmika is basically just a large Kriyāpāda,80 so this did not narrow it down. Based on his reply, however, I gathered that he had not learned the entire Kāmika as part of his training, so I decided to press further about specific chapters (paṭalas) he might have read. He named the following chapter titles:
Vāstunyāsapaṭala, Aṅkurārpaṇapaṭala, Mṛtsaṅgrahapaṭala, Pratiṣṭhāvidhi-paṭala, Liṅgasthāpanapaṭala, Yāgaśālānirmāṇapaṭala, Gopuravinyāsa-paṭala, Ālayanirmāṇapaṭala, Ācāryalakṣaṇapaṭala, Dīkṣāvidhipaṭala, Rathanirmānapaṭala, Ācāryābhiṣekapaṭala, Tantrāvatārapaṭala, and Mantrāvatārapaṭala.
80As discussed in the Introduction, Āgamas are all theoretically composed of four “quarters” or “parts” (pādas): [1] Kriyāpāda, dealing with rituals; [2] Caryāpāda, dealing with moral conduct; [3] Yogapāda, dealing with yoga and related practices; and [4] Vidyāpāda or Jñānapāda, dealing with theology and metaphysical matters. In the case of the Kāmika, the only part that has been printed and that is generally accepted as authoritative is the Kriyāpāda. 250
A comparison between these chapter titles and those found in the printed Kāmika editions shows that not all of them correspond. Of course, Ganesh Sharma was recalling the titles from memory, so this could explain the discrepancy. Yet it could also be that some of the chapters he read are not in printed editions. As we have seen, many chapters attributed to the Kāmika circulate in manuscript form yet have not been published.
Ganesh Sharma related that his studies began by learning the first two chapters of the
Kāmika (i.e., Tantrāvatārapaṭala and Mantrāvatārapaṭala). When I asked about how he had learned these portions of the text, whether it was through printed books or through manuscripts, he said he had learned everything from manuscripts kept by his teacher. According to him, his guru would write out portions for the students to learn based on the manuscripts he possessed.
The students would learn these sections by copying and reciting them. When a student had produced a satisfactory written copy of the text, the guru would go through it and, if it were correct, sign it. This, he said, was done as part of an examination process. I asked if this was still the way that students were taught; Ganesh Sharma said that today they use printed books instead.
Another Āgama school I visited was in Karaikal, a port town in the Kaveri delta not far from Tañjāvūr. I was introduced to the head of the school, Dr. Bala Sarvesvara Gurukkal, through scholars of the École Française d’Extrême Orient (EFEO) in Pondicherry. In addition to heading the Āgama school in Karaikal, Sarvesvara Gurukkal has collaborated on critical editions of Sanskrit works published by EFEO scholars. The school in Karaikal is officially known as
Śrīmat Śrīkaṇṭha Śivācārya Veda Śivāgama Vidyāpīṭha (Venerable Śrīkaṇṭha Śivācārya School of Vedas and Śivāgamas). It opened in 1996 with four students. By 2007, enrollment had risen to
75. When I visited in 2013 as part of my preliminary fieldwork, only a dozen or so students were 251 then enrolled. According to Sarvesvara Gurukkal, economic pressures in recent years had negatively impacted enrollment.
The school offers two programs, a three-year program and a six-year program. The plan of study for the three- and six-year programs is detailed in one of the school’s promotional publications (Śrīkaṇṭha Vijayaḥ, April 2013). The three-year curriculum begins with studies in
Sanskrit through Devanāgarī and Grantha scripts. Students are taken through a Sanskrit primer in their first year, with the rest of the first-year program focusing on hymns of praise (stotras), litanies of the names of god (nāmāvalis), various rituals (yajñas, pūjās), ceremonies, and mantras. The second and third years focus on common temple rituals as well as hymns and mantras commonly recited in the course of worship. The six-year course is structured somewhat differently. Organized around seven distinct modules ([1] Veda, [2] Āgama, [3] Jyotiṣa
[“astrology”], [4] Śilpa [“sculpture,” “architecture”], [5] Sanskrit, [6] Tirumuṟai (Tamil Śaiva works), and [7] Śaivasiddhānta [i.e., theological Śaivasiddhānta works in Sanskrit and Tamil]), the content of each module is developed in parallel over the six-year period. Although there is some overlap in the teaching content of the two programs, the six-year program is broader in scope with a greater focus on Sanskrit learning and areas complementary to the performance of temple rituals proper.
The School’s promotional publication identifies a number of texts that are taught as part of the teaching curriculum,81 but no information about particular Āgamas is given. I asked
Sarvesvara Gurukkal how he would teach a particular ritual at his school—if he would draw on
Āgamas, like the Kāmika, or if he would use other texts, such as Paddhatis or Prayogas.
81 These include Civañāṉapōtam, Siddhāntasārāvali, Aṣṭaprakaraṇa, Śivapūjāstava, Śataratnasaṅgraha, Ganapati Atharvaśirṣa. 252
My way of teaching [for instance] Vighneśvara Pūjā is one style. At other schools, they may teach in another style. My style uses passages from root Āgamas (mūlāgama vacana) and Paddhatis. ... In this School, there is one Paddhati that is used, Aghoraśiva Paddhati.
Sarvesvara Gurukkal added to this that the source of the teaching depended on the particular ritual being taught. Some rituals, he pointed out, incorporate the use of Prayogas, while others rely more on Āgamas or Paddhatis. As noted above, he emphasized that, by and large, the teaching in his school drew principally upon the Aghoraśiva Paddhati. When I asked if there were any parts of the curriculum that drew principally on the Kāmika, he said that he teaches his students the first two chapters of the Kāmika (i.e., Tantrāvatārapaṭala and Mantrāvatārapaṭala).
He also referred to the teaching of Bhūkarṣaṇa (“preparing the ground”), which, he pointed out, relies substantially on the Kāmika. As for the practice of daily worship (nityapūjā), he claimed that this draws more or less evenly on portions of the Kāmika, Kāraṇa, and Ajita.
The impression Sarvesvara Gurukkal conveyed was that the Kāmika had no unique significance or status at his school. When I asked why some consider the Kāmika to be more important or prestigious than other Āgamas—a point suggested by a priest I spoke with in
Tiruvannamalai—he challenged this.
No, no. All twenty-eight Āgamas are equal. Because Kāmika and Kāraṇa are available in print, and they were the first Āgamas to be printed, people may consider them as more important. No, I disagree [that the Kāmika is any more important].
His response is notable for concurring with the findings of the first part of this chapter, that the printing of the Kāmika played an important role in elevating the text; but it is also notable for revealing that there are different—indeed, contradictory—views about the significance of the
Kāmika today. 253
When I asked Sarvesvara Gurukkal if the teaching at his school is similar to other schools or similar to the teaching he received himself, he noted several differences. He referred to the emphasis at his school on Sanskrit learning and the provision of general education for students.
Likewise, the school’s promotional publication (Śrīkaṇṭha Vijayaḥ, April 2013) identifies several standardized exams that graduating students are prepared to take.82 Compared to his own education at an Āgama school in Tiruvaiyāru years earlier, he pointed out that he was taught only through a Prayoga manual. Later, after graduating, he studied with a guru who taught him directly from Āgamas. He suggested that nowadays more priests are studying Āgamas after completing their studies.
In my interview with Pitchai Gurukkal, head of the Āgama school at Pillaiyarpatti, I asked if he could say a few words about the program of study and what Āgamas are taught in that context.
It is a four-year course. We teach daily rites, optional rites (nittiyam, kāmiyam) and the like. Whatever is needed for the proper performance [of Pūjā] in the temple is what we teach. Kāraṇa and Kāmika. Suprabheda. Parts that pertain to temple working. It is impossible to take everything and teach it. Whatever is required for rituals in the temple, that is what we study.
When I asked how Āgamas are used in teaching contexts, his reply echoed some of the points made by Sarvesvara Gurukkal.
We teach from Āgamas in the form of Paddhatis, specifically the Aghoraśiva Paddhati. We teach only parts of all of the Āgamas. We select verses from wherever we can find them, and we use what we need. If something is not available [in one Āgama], we take it from another. There are many Āgamas that are similar to the Kāraṇa, Kāmika, Dīpta, Sūkṣma, and Suprabheda. What is unique among each of these has been compiled and presented [in the Paddhatis]. The lineage of our school is based on the Aghoraśiva Paddhati. In some places, they use the Sadyojātā Paddhati. Altogether, there are 18 different Paddhatis. In Tamilnadu, it is mainly the Aghoraśiva Paddhati [that is used].
82 The exams are the following: samskruta pāṣā pracāriṉī capā parīkṣaikaḷ; rāṣṭriya samskruta samstāṉ parīkṣaikaḷ; pāratīya vityāpavaṉ parīkṣaikaḷ; tamiḻnāḍu aracu samskruta nūḻaivu tērvukku; tiruppati vityāpīṭattiṉ parīkṣaikaḷ. 254
Like Sarvesvara Gurukkal, Pitchai Gurukkal stressed the importance of the Aghoraśiva
Paddhati. I asked if they taught from printed editions or from manuscripts. He replied:
We write on the blackboard. That is, there are different methods of Pūjā. The Veda is the same from one end of India to the other. From Vārāṇasi to Kanyākumāri in the South, [a mantra like] Oṃ namo bhagavate rudhrāya is the same. Āgamas are not like that. From one guru to another, the teaching is different. The Pūjā methods are different from area to area, like Tirunelvēli district, Kāñcīpuram district, Trichy district etc. We teach according to the procedures as prescribed in the scriptures taught by our gurus.
When I asked about any particular sections or chapters of the Kāmika that are taught at the school, he named the following:
Mahotsavavidhi, Rūpadhyānam, Pañcāsanapūjā, Nityapūjā, Maṇḍapa-pūjā, Yāgapūjā, Agnikārya, Mahotsavacūrnika, Dhvajārohana, Sandhyā-vāhana, Vāstuśanti, Mṛtsaṅgraham, Aṅkurārpaṇam, Aṣṭabandhanam.
Some of these correspond to chapter titles in printed editions of the Kāmika,83 but others do not. In retrospect, I realized that he was enumerating a list of ritual operations, not chapter titles. Rūpadhyānam (“visualizing the form [of god]”) and Pañcāsanapūjā (“worship of the five thrones”), for instance, are common ritual operations performed by priests in the course of more elaborate ceremonies; there are no specific chapters in the Kāmika dedicated to these operations.84 What I understood Pitchai Gurukkal to mean here is that, in the teaching of these operations, portions of the Kāmika are used. When I rephrased my questions, using the Sanskrit term ‘paṭala’ (“chapter”), to enquire more specifically about particular chapters, he responded thus:
Tantrāvatārapaṭalam, Mantrāvatārapaṭalam ... all those have been published for people to understand [in an academic sense]. For practical applications, it is only
83 E.g. Mahotsavavidhi corresponds to Chapter 6 of the Kāmika Uttarabhāga.; Vāstuśānti corresponds to Chapter 34 of the Kāmika Pūrvabhāga; Aṅkurārpaṇa corresponds to Chapter 64 of the Kāmika Pūrvabhāga. 84 Rupadhyānam and Pañcāsanapūjā, however, are briefly described in the context of the “Rules for Daily Worship” (Arcanavidhiḥ) of the Kāmika Pūrvabhāga (Ch. 4). 255
Prayoga textbooks [that are used]. We who teach these Paddhatis, we have taken and put these [verses from Āgamas] into a form that can be used for practical purposes. In this way, we have published small booklets.
The small booklets Pitchai Gurukkal was referring to are Prayoga manuals. He asked one of his students bring out a copy.
Prayoga manuals. It was pointed out above that Prayoga manuals are compendiums of
Āgamic material used for teaching or learning purposes. As a genre, they share similarities with
Paddhatis. However, Paddhatis differ in that they often display a level of literary skill and sophistication in their composition—Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka and Nīlakaṇṭha’s
Saubhāgyacandrātapa come to mind. Prayogas, by contrast, evince no literary aspirations. As their name suggests (“usage,” “application”), their purpose is to convey the how-tos necessary for practical applications. Of the Prayoga manuals I received from Pitchai Gurukkal—and at other Āgama schools—all were composed in a basic prose style with most of the content consisting of mantras and verses compiled from various Āgamas.
Two Prayoga manuals used in the teaching curriculum at Pillaiyarpatti are entitled
Civākama Prayōka Mālā (“Garland of the Practical Applications of Śaiva Āgamas”) and
Civapūcai (“Worship of Śiva”).85 The former is used primarily for public rituals (parārthapūjā) whereas the latter is used for personal ritual (ātmārthapūjā, svārthapūjā). Both are in Sanskrit, printed in Grantha script, and are prefaced with frontmatter in Tamil. An excerpt from a publisher’s note (pattipurai) to Civākama Prayōka Mālā written by Pitchai Gurukkal’s son, P.
Nāgarāja Gurukkal, gives some details about the printing.
With help of the divine grace of the omnipotent Śrī Kaṟpaka Vināyakar, since 1985, many copies of parts 1, 2, and 3 of Civākama Prayōka Mālā have come out in textbook form for students learning Śaiva Āgamas through the Association of the Path of Śiva (Civaneṟik Kaḻakam). In Pillaiyarpatti, the most
85 Although the contents of both texts are in Sanskrit in Grantha script, the title of the books are written in Tamil script. 256
prominent Sivacharyars of Tamilnadu were invited together, and all wholeheartedly praised this book, which is a fit guide [for young priests]. At the present time, copies [of parts 1, 2, and 3] are not available. The former students of Pillaiyarpatti (piḷḷaiyārpaṭṭiyil payiṉṟa māṇavarkaḷ) [thus] brought out this new edition on the occasion of the 60-year celebration of my parents’, Piccai Gurukkal and Tirumati Carojā, on 6.9.2008. Let us pray to the all-powerful Śrī Kaṟpaka Vināyakar to bring out more publications like these for the uplift of the Śaiva world.86
A second preface, shorter than the publisher’s note, follows this, written by the former students of the school. In it they state that for the occasion of Pitchai Gurukkal’s 60th anniversary they took it upon themselves to publish a new edition of the text, combining the three sections that were out of print.87 In the frontmatter to Civapūcai, a preface by Pitchai
Gurukkal himself sheds light on the process through which these manuals came to be compiled:
Manuscripts with all of the methods for performing Pūjā from the Āgamas had been with my father, but credit goes to Kōvilūr Śivaśrī Kālīśvara Gurukkal, who took copies of [these]. He was a well-learned scholar of the Northern language (i.e. Sanskrit). Credit also goes to him for guiding me and properly teaching me Śivapūjā on the day of Śivarātri. We are immensely pleased to be publishing this edition in commemoration of our 60th anniversary, which will make his manuscript copies available and pave the way for many more to enjoy the benefits of Śivapūjā.88
86 ellām valla śrīkaṟpakavināyakar tiruvaruḷ tuṇaiyuṭaṉ civaneṟikkaḻakam vāyilāka civākamam payilum māṇavarkaḷukku 1985 mutal pāṭapputtaka vaṭivil “civākamap pirayōkamālā” eṉṟa talaippil 1, 2, 3 eṉa palapiratikaḷ veḷivantaṉa. piḷḷaiyārpaṭṭiyil tamiḻakattiṉ talai ciṟanta civāccāryārkaḷai aḻaittu vantu takka vaḻikāṭṭiyāṉa innūl veḷiyiṭṭatai aṉaivarum pārāṭṭi makiḻntaṉar. taṟccamayam ataṉ piratikaḷ kiṭaikkavillai. piḷḷaiyārpaṭṭiyil payiṉṟa māṇavarkaḷ 6.9.2008 naṭaiperum eṉatu peṟṟ civaśrī mu. piccaikkurukkaḷ tirumati. carōjā maṇiviḻāvil itaṉ maṟupatippai veḷiyiṭukiṟārkaḷ. caiva ulakam mēlum vaḷara itu pōṉṟa muṟaiyāṉa pala veḷiyīṭukaḷ toṭarntu vara ellām valla śrī kaṟpakavināyakarai pirārttippōm. 87 nāṅkaḷ payiṉṟu mēṉmaiyuṟṟa “civākamaprayōkamālā” mūṉṟu pākaṅkaḷaiyum iṇaittu orē puttakamāka veḷiyiṭuvatai mutal kaṭamaiyāka eṇṇi ellāmvalla aruḷmiku kaṟpakavināyaka perumāṉai pirārttaṉai ceykiṟōm. 88 eṉatu tantaiyāriṭam irunta aṉaittu ākama pūjai muṟaikaḷiṉ kaiyeḻuttup piratikaḷai paṭi eṭutta perumai eṉatu aṉpiṟkuriya Kōvilūr Civaśrī Kālīsvarakkurukkaḷ avarkaḷaiccārum. eṉakkum civarāttiri tiṉattil civapūjai muṟaippaṭi eṭuttuttantu vaḻikāṭṭiya perumai uṭaiyavar. civapūjaiyiṉ payaṉai naṉku aṉupavittu makiḻvakaṟku vaḻivakutta avaruṭaiya kaiyeḻuttuppiratiyai palarukkum kiṭaikka ivveḷiyīṭṭai eṅkaḷ maṇiviḻāvil acciṭṭuvaḻaṅkuvatil aḷavaṟṟa makiḻvaṭaikiṟōm. piratiyai vaḻaṅkiya avaruṭaiya kumārarkaḷukkum naṉṟiyait terivittukkoḷkiṟōm. 257
The structure of Civākama Prayōka Mālā consists of twenty-one chapters, with each chapter corresponding to a particular ritual operation.89 The operations are detailed with concise instructions, invocations, litanies of mantras, directions specifying which mantras should be used where, and instructions for the visualization (dhyāna) of particular deities. The operations pertain to public temple worship (parārthapūjā), although the text does not present an exhaustive treatment of the subject. As Pitchai Gurukkal pointed out, the teaching curriculum draws primarily on the Aghoraśiva Paddhati, with Civākama Prayōka Mālā used as a supplement.
Only a few direct citations from Śaiva Āgamas are found in Civākama Prayōka Mālā.
These are from the Kāraṇāgama and Vātulāgama.90 There are no citations of the Kāmika. Nor indeed does the Kāmika appear to have been an important source for the composition of the text.
Comparing operations detailed in the Civākama Prayōka Mālā to parallel operations described in the Kāmika, one finds only superficial similarities. Of course, one could entertain the possibility that Civākama Prayōka Mālā drew on some Kāmika manuscript or section that is not in print— of which, as we have seen, there are many—but this would be speculation.
The focus of Civapūcai, for its part, is on the performance of personal ritual
(ātmārthapūjā), the obligatory daily rites to be performed by initiated Śaivites. Thus Civapūcai begins with instructions for the performance of ritual ablutions (ācamana), followed by visualizations (dhyāna), purifications, and libations. Details for the installation of mantras on the hands (sakalīkaraṇa) and parts of the body (aṅganyāsa) are then presented, with a brief appendix
89 These are the following: [1] anujñā; [2] pātra-pūjā; [3] viprānujñā; [4] vighneśvara-pūjā; [5] pūṇyāhavana-pūjā; [6] pañcagavya-pūjā; [7] maṇḍūkapada-vāstuśānti-pūjā; [8] mṛtsaṅgrahaṇa-pūjā; [9] aṅkurārpaṇa-pūjā; [10] rakṣābandhana-pūjā; [11] śrī vināyaka-pañcāsana-pañcāvaraṇa-pūjā; [12] śrī subrahmaṇya pañcāsana-pañcāvaraṇa-pūjā; [13] śrī śiva-pañcāsana-pañcāvaraṇa-pūjā; [14] śrī devī- pañcāsana-pañcāvaraṇa-pūjā; [15] bhūtaśuddhiḥ; [16] sūrya-pūjā; [17] viśeṣa-sandhiḥ; [18] śrī vināyaka-maṇḍapa-pūjā; [19] śrī subrahmaṇya-maṇḍapa-pūjā; [20] śrī śiva-maṇḍapa-pūjā; [21] śrī devī- maṇḍapa-pūjā. 90 They are found in the chapter on pañcagavyapūjā (“Worship with the Five Products of the Cow”). 258 in Tamil specifying which mantras are to be used where. The sequence of daily personal rites concludes with the worship of Caṇḍeśa. The text contains no direct citations of any Āgamas apart from the litanies of mantras that one finds in many Āgamas and Paddhatis.
I also obtained Prayoga manuals from two other Āgamic schools. The first, known as Sri
Skandaguru Vidyalayam, located on the outskirts of Madurai in Tirupparankundram, has been in operation since 1993. In addition to the school’s primary focus on Āgamic education, the curriculum includes studies in Veda, Śāstra, Purāna, as well as computer and English classes. In my conversation with the head of the school, Raja Bhattar, I asked about the Āgamas he teaches and whether print editions, manuscripts, or other texts, such as Prayogas, are used. He informed me that the curriculum draws primarily on the Kāmika and Kāraṇa, but that print editions are not used. He claimed that a textbook entitled Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā (“Elucidation of the
Practical Applications of Śaiva Āgamas”) is used. He kindly gave me a copy.
Publication details on the inside cover of Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā indicate that it was published in Allūr for use at an Āgamic school there. The publication details are accompanied by a photo of A.V. Viswanatha Sivacharyar, former head of the school in Allūr, now deceased. Raja Bhattar told me that the school closed a few years ago, after Viswanatha
Sivacharyar passed away. He also told me that as a young priest he attended the school in Allūr and that in developing the curriculum at Tirupparankunram he chose to use the same textbook.
An excerpt from a foreword by Viswanatha Sivacharyar included in the frontmatter of Śivāgama
Prayoga Candrikā sheds light on its publication:
Since 1981, the essence of Śaiva Āgamas has been published in a small booklet compiling rituals and processes. It was very useful in institutions of Āgamic learning for the children of Śivācāryas, who received initiation and who conduct these procedures. Thus, after realizing the great need for this [book], although my knowledge is small (alpakñaṉāṉa eṉṉāl), I undertook to print [a new edition] including everything from the Vighneśvara Pūjā to festival rituals (vikṉēcvara 259
pūjai toṭaṅki utsavam mutaliyaṉa [sic]). A committee comprised of Śaiva Āgama research scholars, who conduct rituals themselves, from preparing the ground to the establishment of divine images (karṣaṇāti pratiṣṭaimuṭiya) … evaluated and praised the first edition of this book, suggesting it is necessary for all (aṉaivarukkum avaciyam tēvai). This second edition was published to meet the request of many people.91
Like Civākama Prayōka Mālā, Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā is oriented toward public temple worship (parārthapūjā). Many of the ritual operations detailed in the former are found in the latter.92 Thus both present accounts of a shared repertoire of ritual operations and are interspersed by similar litanies of mantras, invocations, and visualizations. Although there is a difference in script—Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā is in Devanāgarī script, whereas Civākama
Prayōka Mālā is in Grantha script—a more substantive difference lies in the fact that Śivāgama
Prayoga Candrikā transmits numerous direct citations of Āgamas and Paddhatis traceable in extant sources. Unfortunately, however, most of these are unlabelled. For instance, in the account of Bhūtaśuddhi (“Purification of the Elements”), most of the prose text has been lifted word-for- word from the Aghoraśiva Paddhati without referencing the latter. Also, notably, interspersed with the extracts of the Aghoraśiva Paddhati are a half-dozen verses from the Kāmika, which are
91 civākamaṅkaḷiṉ sāramāṉa kriyaikaḷiṉ muṟaikaḷai tokuttu immikacciṟiya nūl 1981m āṇṭu acciṭṭu veḷiyiṭappaṭṭatu … civatīkṣai peṟṟa civākāma civāccārya pālakarkaḷukku civākāma vityā stāṉaṅkaḷil mikavum payaṉpaṭum. atōṭumikavum tēvai eṉpatai aṟintu alpakñaṉāṉa eṉṉāl vikṉēcvara pūjai toṭaṅki utsavam mutaliyaṉa cērttu acciṭappaṭṭatu. mutal patippu civakāma ārāycci vallūnarkaḷ karṣaṇāti pratiṣṭaimuṭiya naṭattiyavarkaḷ mantiram, kriyai, pāvaṉai eṉṟa mūṉṟu kāryaṅkaḷilūm maṉam, mey, moḻi mutaliyavaikaḷil pūrṇamāka īṭupaṭṭu ceyalpaṭṭavarkaḷumāṉa tiruvāvaṭutuṟai caivat tirucuvāmināta civāccāryiār, tarumai, ātīṉam caivat tiru s. cuvāminātacivāccāryār, tiru āṭāṉai caivattiru. m. jayāmaṇi civāccāryār, māṉāmaturai caivattiru d. takṣiṇāmūrtti paṭṭar, kaṭalūr caivat tiru campanta civāccāriyār mutaliyavarkaḷ cērnta kuḻu innūlai paricīlittu inta nūl aṉaivarukkum avaciyam tēvai eṉṟu karuttu terivittu pārāṭṭi uḷḷaṉar. … palapēr vēṇṭukōḷukku iṇaṅka inta iraṇṭāvatu patippum acciṭṭu veḷiyīṭu ceyyappaṭukiṉṟatu. 92 For instance, both manuals present instructions for bhūtaśuddhi, pañcagavya, mṛtsaṅgrahaṇa, rakṣābandhana, vāstuśānti, vighneśvarapūjā, viśeṣasandhi, and operations for the worship of Śiva, Devī, Vighneśvara, and Subrahmaṇya. 260 not labelled either.93 Thus, although the Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā presents itself as a novel composition, much of it is a patchwork of pre-existing sources and verses.
In addition to Prayoga manuals, other textbooks are also sometimes used in Āgamic teaching contexts. One such textbook I obtained during my fieldwork was from the Āgamic school in Bengaluru. Known as Sri Sri Gurukkul, the school is located in the Art of Living
Foundation (AOLF) International Headquarters and has been enjoying the sponsorship of the
AOLF since 2002. Today it is one of the biggest Āgamic schools in South India. According to statistics on their website, in 2017, enrollment stood at 331.94 Unfortunately it was impossible to interview the school principal, A. S. Sundara Murthy Sivam, during my scheduled visit as he was called away on business. A campus coordinator, however, was available to answer my questions.
According to him, students at Sri Sri Gurukkul study the Śivāgama Prayoga Candrikā, like at the
Āgamic school in Tiruppankundram.95 However, Āgama teachers in Bengaluru also teach from another textbook, entitled Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṃgraham (“Compendium of the Characteristics of Daily Ritual Worship”).
Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṃgraha is not a Prayoga manual, but rather a Saṃgraha
(“compendium”), a collection of excerpts from various Āgamas. Printed in both Devanāgari and
Grantha scripts, its purpose is not to teach the practicalities of ritual per se, but to present selections from what particular Āgamas have to say about daily ritual worship. The text thus begins with an account of the necessity for daily worship, the list of 28 Āgamas, a description of
93 In perusing the text for other borrowings, I identified passages from the Ṣaṭsahasrakālottarāgama, Śaivaparibhāṣāmañjarī, and Varuṇapaddhati. No doubt there are other borrowings that I have not identified. The labelled citations found in the text are from the Kāraṇāgama, Vātulāgama, and Sahasrāgama. 94 Students are enrolled in one of two programs offered: an Āgama program, which last six years; and a Veda program, which can last either six or eleven years. 95 Similarly, the curriculum at Sri Sri Gurukkul is broad and includes English and computer classes. 261 the four sections (pādas) of Śaiva Āgamas (i.e. kriyā, yoga, vidyā/jñāna, caryā), an explanation of worship for oneself and worship for others, and the varieties of these (i.e., nitya, naimittika, kāmya). The text consists mostly of descriptions of details necessary for the performance of various forms of worship, as specified by Āgamas. True to its genre, Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa
Saṅgraha is made up mostly of citations.
The author and compiler of the Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṅgraha is identified on the inside cover of the volume as S. Swāminātha Sivacharya, former head (talaima-y-āciriyar) of the erstwhile Āgamic school at Tarumapuram Ātīṉam. Published in 1951 by Tarumapuram Ātīṉam,
Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṅgraha was presumably used in the Āgamic school there, as it is used now in the Āgamic school in Bengaluru. Unfortunately, there is no foreword to the text with information about its compilation or publication, only a colophon at the end of the text where
Swāminātha Sivacharya identifies himself as the author and pays homage to his guru,
Subrahmaṇya Sivacharya.
Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṅgraha transmits approximately two dozen verses attributed to the
Kāmika. Interestingly, most of these verses are not traceable in print editions of the Kāmika. It would seem that Swāminātha Sivacharya was drawing on a Kāmika manuscript or recension from the one that circulates in print. Given the abundance of Kāmika material that is not in printed editions, and the findings presented above about the reliance on manuscripts rather than print editions at Āgamic schools, it is not surprising that one should find discrepancies between the printed text of the Kāmikāgama and the way it is used or cited in practice.
To sum up the foregoing, I have shown that the role and significance of the Kāmika in
Śaivasiddhānta today is multifaceted but shaped significantly by views of the Kāmika as an ideal text and by instances of its reception and use in contemporary practice. In terms of the Kāmika as 262 an ideal text, we saw that there is a notion that Śaiva Āgamas represent a distillation of primordial Śaiva revelation (śivajñāna), which is held to be the ultimate source of Āgamic authority. And we saw how this is connected with a belief that the Meykaṇṭacāttirams represent a further distillation of this revelation, such that the Tamil works are not viewed as simple translations or transcreations from Sanskrit but as analogues of the same authority. The significance of this is that followers of Śaivasiddhānta may claim to have read or studied Śaiva
Āgamas when in fact they have but read Tamil Meykaṇṭacāttirams. Finally, we saw that there is a notion that the Kāmika, as it exists today, is not the complete text, but that this view is illustrative of an idealization of the Kāmika as having once been complete.
As for reception and use, we saw that the Kāmika and other Āgamas are seldom read by most Śaivites, but that Ādiśaiva priests represent important custodians of the texts. As my data has shown, several Āgama schools include the study of chapters of the Kāmika—particularly the
Tantrāvatārapaṭala and Mantrāvatārapaṭala—as part of their curriculum; however, print editions of the Kāmika and other Āgamas are generally not used. This is noteworthy, for it suggests that what Ādiśaiva priests learn at Āgama schools may not fully accord with what one finds in a printed Āgama, as the case of Nityapūjā Lakṣaṇa Saṃgraha suggests. We have also seen that the Kāmika does not appear to hold any special or unique practical significance vis-à- vis other Śaiva Āgamas at these schools. As for non-Brahmin ascetics and lay Śaivites, my research has shown that it is primarily through the medium of Prayogas and Paddhatis that portions of the Kāmika and other Āgamas are read or learned. Taken together, I argue that the view of the Kāmika as an ideal text, combined with the reception and use of the Kāmika in contemporary practice, have contributed significantly to the authority and prestige of the Kāmika today. 263
6.3. Conclusions
This chapter has focused on the print history and modern reception of the Kāmika. In the first part of the chapter, I argued that the publication of the editio princeps of the Kāmika was motivated by a Protestant-inspired vision of religious reform that was galvanized by encounters between Āṟumuka Nāvalar, his followers, and the colonial milieu of 19th century South India.
Further, I have argued that this editio princeps came to be received and accepted as the authoritative version of the text over the course of the 20th century and that this is discernible through instances of its reprinting. In examining the relationship between Kāmika print editions and manuscripts, I have shown that there are substantial variations between the two, and that the basis for the editio princeps appears to have been a relatively recent or relatively exclusive recension. On this basis, I have argued that the elevation and stabilization of this recension as the generally recognized authoritative version of the Kāmika was significantly enabled by its initial publication and successive reprinting.
In the second part of the chapter, I argued that another source of the Kāmika’s authority and status today draws from idealizations of the text’s status as revelation as well as its reception and use in contemporary practice. Regarding idealizations of the text, I have suggested that these represent expressions of reverence for the Āgamas as sources of divine authority. Particular idealizations I have singled out include the belief that Śaiva Āgamas are temporal or contingent instantiations of a primordial Śaiva revelation (śivajñāna). Connected with this is the belief that this Śaiva revelation was further distilled into Tamil in the Meykaṇṭacāttirams resulting in Tamil analogues that ostensibly encapsulate the essence of the Āgamas. Also connected with this is the idea that the actual Kāmika, as it exists in print, is not the complete text. Regarding the reception and use of the Kāmika in contemporary practice, I have shown that Ādiśaiva priests today 264 represent the primary custodians of the Kāmika and that priests-in-training often study the
Kāmika’s Tantrāvatārapaṭala and Mantrāvatārapaṭala as part of their curriculums. For other
Śaivites, we saw, it is primarily through Prayogas and Paddhatis that followers of Śaivasiddhānta encounter the Kāmika. This reception and use in contemporary practice, along with the view that the Kāmika is an ideal text, I have argued, contribute in an important way to the Kāmika’s authority and prestige today.
265
Conclusions
To begin recapping the central arguments and themes of this study, I would like to return to the vignette with which we began: the hard disk drive and its procession through the streets of
Nallūr. From our current vantage point, we can see now that the Kāmika and its descent through history was, not unlike the hard disk drive itself, also something of a receptacle—a “black box,” if you will—of shifting content that evolved over time, reflecting historical vicissitudes in ritual, theology, and social organization. To extend the metaphor somewhat, we might say that the
Kāmika in its earliest phase was something like what Claude Lévi-Strauss would have called a
“floating signifier”: a signifier with a non-specific or non-existent referent.1 Was this early
Kāmika a mythical text? Or was it simply obscure and thus it eluded discursive engagement?
Future research may offer more precise answers, but it is clear at any rate that the Kāmika’s prestigious place in a vision of Tantric revelation lent itself to the imagination.
Across a range of times and places, we saw that the pluriformity of the Kāmika reflected and supported a diversity of developments in theology and practice. In the hands of Kashmirian nondualists, the Kāmika was viewed as a dialogue between Śiva and a goddess and taught doctrines that were at odds with those of Śaivasiddhānta dualism. In the hands of Saiddhāntikas, the Kāmika was rewritten as a dialogue between Śiva and a group of sages and expressed congruency with Saiddhāntika and Vedāntic orthodoxies. And in the hands of early Vīraśaivas, a version of the Kāmika circulated as a dialogue between Sadāśiva and Pārvatī and detailed distinctly Vīraśaiva practices.
1 Claude Lévi-Strauss, Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987 [1950]), 63–66. 266
But it was above all in Śaivasiddhānta that the authority of the text that bears the name
“Kāmika” in modern editions was constituted. While it may not have been a Saiddhāntika scripture originally, we saw that it came to be regarded so early on (in some shape or form) and that it was on the basis of the Kāmika’s symbolic significance that the Mṛgendra—a subsidiary
Śaiva scripture (upabheda), yet with greater practical relevance for Saiddhāntika exegetes— staked its claim to authority. We also saw that the Kāmika was rewritten to reflect and support innovations in Saiddhāntika theology, ritual, and social organization in the 12th–14th centuries, and that it was drawn upon in subsequent centuries for arguments in support of the administration of non-Brahmin Saiddhāntika maṭhas. Furthermore, we saw that the Kāmika circulated among Saiddhāntika authors as a pluriform text until its printing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which elevated a certain recension of the text—structured in two parts (bhāgas) with a more or less set number of chapters (paṭalas)—bringing a degree of stability and apparent closure to the textual tradition.
In addition to providing a philologically grounded account of the Kāmika’s textual evolution, one of the contributions this thesis has made has been to offer a deeper understanding of the historical contexts through which the Kāmika came to prominence. Specifically, I have provided substantive support of a more nuanced historiography of Śaivasiddhānta’s involvement in Śaiva temple-based liturgical practices before the 12th century. As we saw in Chapter Three, it is not until the 12th century that any significant evidence of Āgamic Śaivism or Śaivasiddhānta involvement in public temple-based liturgical practice appears in the historical textual record. I have argued that, before this time, temple-based liturgical practices were broadly within the purview of lay Śaivism, and that Śaivasiddhānta represented more of an elite current within the broader Śaiva religion. In providing evidentiary support for this historiography, I have argued 267 against a static view of “temple Hinduism,” whose features in the post-12th-century period are assumed to have existed in some unchanging way from as early as the Gupta period. And I have shown how the historical and discursive processes through which temple Āgamas, like the
Kāmika, came to be scripturalized were at odds with this static construct.
We also saw that the dynamics of ritual, theological, and sociological change that were reflected in the scripturalization of the Kāmika in the 12th–14th centuries held important implications for the historiography of Śaivasiddhānta after the 12th century. Thus, in Chapter
Four, I set out to describe a post-12th-century synthesis in Śaivasiddhānta against a scholarly view of a split between Sanskrit and Tamil dimensions of the tradition. In so doing, I have argued that differences in the languages used by Saiddhāntika authors after the 12th century are not reflective of any deep or substantive division in Śaivasiddhānta along linguistic lines, and that a general shift toward nondualism (variously articulated), a focus on the Civañāṉapōtam (in
Tamil and Sanskrit) as a major theological source text, and a rapprochement with Vedānta are commonplace features of Sanskrit and Tamil Saiddhāntika works in the post-12th-century period.
I have also argued that Vedānta represented a greater influence on South Indian religions in the
12th-14th centuries than has hitherto been recognized.
Yet this rapprochement with Vedānta, as we saw in Chapter Five, was also shown to be allied with important economic interests, particularly in the 16th-17th centuries. It was in this period, we saw, that the Kāmika was cited by Saiddhāntika luminaries, Śivāgrayogin and
Jñānaprakāśa, as a basis for caste-class egalitarianism, which reflected the concerns of non-
Brahmin renunciants—particularly those who held administrative sway over monastic estates and the economic power they wielded. Associated with this, we saw, was the argument advanced by Śivāgrayogin, drawing on the Kāmika, that Āgamas held the same epistemological validity 268
(pramāṇa) as the Veda, in support of the view that those who were born as Śūdras, with Śaiva initiation, could be viewed as part of the upper Brahminical social echelon (dvija). More broadly, in Chapter Five I argued that the modern recension of the Kāmika appears, in all likelihood, to have been redacted at some point after the 16th-17th centuries.
The printing of the Kāmika at the end of the 19th century marked another pivotal moment in the history of the Kāmika. As I argued in Chapter Six, the context for the printing of the editio princeps of the Kāmika was the Śaiva renaissance of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, specifically Āṟumuka Nāvalar’s vision of Śaiva temple reform and its Protestant assumptions regarding Āgamas as akin to a sola scriptura. In Śaivasiddhānta today, I showed that Āgamas are not so different from the Vedas, in that both textual corpora hold a high degree of symbolic significance, but a low degree of practical importance. This observation, however, should not detract from the potential prominence with which Āgamas may feature in an individual’s religious practice. As we saw, it is not generally in the form a printed edition of the Kāmika that a devotee will learn or use its teachings; it is typically through secondary works, like Prayogas and Paddhatis.
Scripturalization Revisited
Throughout this thesis, I have sought to shed light on the Kāmika’s evolution by focusing on the processes through which the text came to be regarded as authoritative and, in more recent times, came to be elevated and stabilized. In so doing, I developed a model of scripturalization, which, in its most basic sense—as I have defined it—refers to a process through which a text is composed and received as scripture.
More precisely, however, we can understand scripturalization as a relational process that consists of the composition of a text, on the one hand, and the reception of a text as scripture, on 269 the other. As I noted at the outset, composition techniques may vary. These can include writing, redaction, rewriting, translation—any technique that is productive of a new work or a new version of a work. Reception, by contrast, I defined in terms of impact, which may also vary.
This can include commentary, citation, textual reuse, and practice; however, reception can also overlap with composition (e.g., redaction, rewriting, translation), and this overlap may result in textual pluriformity, which, I have suggested, helps explain some of the discrepancies between premodern citations of the Kāmika and modern editions.
In developing this account of scripturalization, I have attempted to outline and provide evidence of what I consider two constitutive mechanisms of the process: first, that reception may be seen to have a canonizing function; and, second, that shaping the reception of a scripture and its subsequent transmission is a phenomenon of textual idealization.
The canonizing function of reception, as I have presented it, is a process through which a text is authorized as scripture. To help explain how this works, I proposed an analogy with legislation. Thus, as in a legislature where a consensus is required for a law to be passed, so it is in the authorization of scripture. In this view, authorization in not the product of one historical person acting alone but is the result of a form of joint or group agency. Furthermore, I pointed out, for a consensus to be obtained on the authorization of scripture, no institutional or formal framework is required. In other words, individuals through their reception of a text as scripture participate in a consensus—to some extent tacitly—reaffirming that text as scripture. More concretely, through my analysis, I have shown that citations of the Kāmika both reflect a consensus on its authoritative status and participate in the constitution of this status.
We saw this in Chapter Two in the case of Sadyojyotiḥ, whose reference to the Kāmika pointed to a consensus on the Kāmika as a prototype of Tantric Śaiva revelation, although, as we 270 saw, the content of the text at that time may have been a subject of disagreement. It was shown that Sadyojyotiḥ’s vision of Saiddhāntika canon and theology was followed closely by gurus in
10th-century Kashmir and 12th-century South India, which attests to his participation in the constitution of this consensus.
In looking at the Kāmika citations in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemādri (13th century) and the anonymous commentary (vyākhyā) on the Śivapūjāstava in Chapter 3, we saw evidence of a consensus on the Kāmika as an authoritative source for a wide range of ritual practices. In the case of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi, we saw that Hemādri’s citations participated in a consensus on the Kāmika’s authoritative status through the broad dissemination of the
Caturvargacintāmaṇi—that is, the Kāmika was enabled to reach audiences it would not have reached otherwise—and through the juxtaposition of Kāmika citations alongside other sources of
Brahminical authority, including the Manusmṛti, Mahābhārata, and Rāmāyaṇa. In the case of the
Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā, I argued that it was primarily on the basis of the juxtaposition of Kāmika citations alongside other established sources of authority within Śaivasiddhānta, such as the
Mṛgendra, Kiraṇa, and others, that the Kāmika’s authority was reaffirmed.
In Chapter Four, we saw evidence of a consensus in 13th- and 14th-century Śaivasiddhānta circles on the Kāmika as a scripture with an authoritative (if somewhat symbolic) stance vis-à-vis
Vedānta. I argued that this consensus was not only reflected in the citations of the Kāmika in this period, but that authors citing the Kāmika—Sadāśiva Śivācārya and the anonymous author of the
Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā—participated in the constitution of this consensus, for which evidence may be discerned in the proliferation of discourse on the relationship between Śaivasiddhānta and Vedānta in subsequent centuries. In the second part of the chapter, I showed that citations of the Kāmika by Śrīpati Paṇḍita and Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya pointed to a consensus on the authority 271 of one or more versions of the Kāmika in Vīraśaiva circles. In this case, too, I argued that it was in the juxtaposition of Kāmika citations alongside other well-established Brahminical sources of authority, including the Brahmasūtras, Manusmṛti, and Mahābhārata, that we see evidence of this canonizing function.
In turning to Śivāgrayogin in Chapter Five, we saw that a consensus on the Kāmika as a scripture supporting a degree of post-initiatory caste-class egalitarianism was discernible in that
Śivāgrayogin cited the same verses in the matter as the author of the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā. In this case, I argued that Śivāgrayogin’s reception of the Kāmika displayed evidence of a canonizing function on account of the status of Śivāgrayogin’s person as the head of a major monastic institution with a degree of power to shape public opinion. I also argued that the same could be said for Jñānaprakāśa, who, we saw, was also the head of a maṭha in Chidambaram. As for Vedajñāna II, through his citations in the Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati and Dīkṣādarśa, I pointed out that a consensus on the authority of the Kāmika in individual ritual practice and initiation was discernible. That he cited the Kāmika alongside other well-established sources of authority in
Śaivasiddhānta, including the Mṛgendra, Mataṅga, and Kiraṇa, I took as evidence of a canonizing function of this reception.
In Chapter Six, the focus was less on the canonizing function of reception and more on the phenomenon of textual idealization, yet here too we saw evidence of the former. In particular, the contribution of print to the elevation and stabilization of the modern recension of the Kāmika attested to this canonizing function. In the frontmatter to the editio princeps of the
Kāmika, we saw evidence of an authoritative consensus on this recension in the description of the collaborative endeavour that resulted in its printing. In the elevation and stabilization of the print recension, we saw evidence of the reaffirmation of this consensus. 272
I have described textual idealization in terms of a set of beliefs held about a text as existing in some ideal or perfect form, but also in terms of a reverential stance or attitude taken toward a text (e.g., a “tip of the hat”). Moreover, I have argued that textual idealization has the power to shape the reception and subsequent transmission of a text.
Evidence of this was presented in Chapter Two, where we saw that Sadjyojyotiḥ acknowledged the Kāmika as a prototype of Śaiva Tantric revelation—a view followed by Bhaṭṭa
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha in the 10th century. Yet Sadjyojyotiḥ, as we saw, did not engage with the content of the Kāmika in any of his works, and Nārayaṇakaṇṭha, for his part, cited only two verses of the
Kāmika while focusing instead on the Mṛgendra, whose authority drew on the Kāmika. For both of these authors, it is clear, the Kāmika loomed large in the imagination, yet neither paid much attention to any historical text with that name. In light of the evidence that an early version of the
Kāmika was goddess-centric, I have argued that Sadjyojyotiḥ and Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha may have viewed this early goddess-centric Kāmika as unauthoritative for its discrepancy with a
Saiddhāntika theological outlook and thus may have ignored it.
We also saw evidence of textual idealization in Chapter Six. There, I argued that textual idealizations contribute to the Kāmika’s authority and status today. In particular, I hightlighted the belief that Śaiva Āgamas represent divine instantiations of a primordial revelation of Śiva
(śivajñāna), a belief which has deep roots in the tradition. We also saw that this idea is found expressed in Tamil, such that the Meykaṇṭacāttirams are viewed as further instantiations or distillations of this primordial revelation. Finally, we saw that among some Śaivasiddhānta followers there is the view that the Kāmika, as it circulates in print today, is not the “complete” text, and that this view can impact how the actual text is received and subsequently transmitted. 273
I conclude this thesis with some reflection on the possibility of a critical edition of the
Kāmikāgama and under what circumstances this would be feasible. As suggested in Chapter Six, modern editions of the Kāmika are not critical editions in that they do not indicate what manuscripts they drew upon nor what editorial decisions or policies guided their readings.
Dominic Goodall’s definition of a critical edition as the “reconstruction of a text as [an editor] supposes it to have been at a particular time in its transmission […] on the basis of all evidence for the wording of the text that the editor can consult”2 is an excellent starting point, but it may have some limitations when it comes to the case of the Kāmika; for, as we have seen, the Kāmika was a pluriform text over many centuries. How are we (or, indeed, who are we) to decide what readings, recensions, or versions were most meaningful? Can we arrive at a single text of the
Kāmika without obfuscating its pluriformity, which as we have seen is a defining feature of its history? Can particular readings or manuscripts held to be authoritative to particular communities of reception be integrated as part of a critical edition? To be certain, an edition based on a judicious selection of manuscripts—including the earliest manuscripts available—would be a major contribution to scholarship, but it would also be an enormous undertaking that few, if any, individual scholars would attempt. Modern technology, however, has led to advances in the digital humanities. Electronic platforms for collaborative editing, participation, and discussion might present uniquely suitable ways to edit the Kāmika corpus. By opening up participation in the editorial process in such a way that would allow scholars with textual expertise and those with lived experience in the tradition to participate in the process might be one way of arriving at a reconstruction of the Kāmika grounded in its pluriformity over time.
2 Goodall, “Problems of Name and Lineage: Relationships between South Indian Authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Series 3/10/2 (2000): 214–15. 274
Appendices
275
Appendix A Kāmikāgama Textual Parallels with Earlier Sources (7th-9th Centuries)
Table 1. Kāmikāgama parallels with Śivadharmottara
Kāmikāgama Śivadharmottara Pūrvabhāga, Chapters 4 & 5 Chapters 1, 3, 5 & 7
4:11 7:2 agnihotrāś ca vedāś ca agnihotrāś ca vedāś ca yajñāś ca bahudakṣiṇāḥ | yajñāś ca bahudakṣiṇāḥ | sivaliṇgārcanasyaite śivaliṅgārcanasyaite koṭyaṃśenāpi no samāḥ || 11 koṭyaṃśenāpi no samāḥ || 2
4:12 1:18 jātenātmaduhā yena jātenātmadruhā yena nārcito bhagavāñ cchivaḥ | na nā * * to bhagavān * * * | suciraṃ sañcaraty asmin suciraṃ sañcaraty asmin saṃsāre duḥkhasāgare || 12 saṃsāre duḥkhasāgare || 18
4:13 3:45cd–46ab varaṃ prāṇaparityāgaś varaṃ prāṇaparityāgaḥ chedanaṃ śiraso 'pi vā | chedanaṃ śiraso 'pi vā || 45 na tv anabhyarcya bhuñjīyād na tv anabhyarcya bhuñjīyāt bhagavantaṃ trilocanam || 13 bhagavantaṃ trilocanam |
5:53 ff1 5:53cd–58 arkapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ arkapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ karavīraṃ viśiṣyate | karavīraṃ viśiṣyate || 53 karavīrasahasrebhyaḥ karavīrasahasrebhyo padmapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate || jātipuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate |
padmapuṣpasahasrebhyo padmapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ bilvapatraṃ viśiṣyate | bakapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate | bilvapatrasahasrebhyo bakapuṣpasahasrebhya ekaṃ bakapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate || dhurdhūrakaṃ varam || 55
1 In the 1977 edition, these verses are included in a footnote without verse numbers under this heading: mātṛkāntare pāṭhāntaram (“another reading in different characters [mātṛkāntare]”). Similarly, in the 1898–99 edition, the verses are included in a footnote without verse numbers and are also said to be from another reading (pāṭhāntaram). Yet in IFP transcript T.298, the most complete Devanāgari transcript of the Kāmika, which was based on a manuscript belong to G. Swaminatha Śivācārya of Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai, the verses are included as part of the regular text (T.298A, 104–05) 276 dhuttūrakasahasrebhyo dhurdhūrakasahasrebhyaḥ bṛhatī ca viśiṣyate || bṛhat puṣpaṃ viśiṣyate | sahasrād bṛhatīpuṣpād bṛhatpuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ droṇapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate | droṇapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate || 56 droṇapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ droṇapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ apāmārgaṃ apāmārgaṃ viśiṣyate || viśiṣyate | apāmārgasahasrebhyaḥ apāmārgasahasrebhyaḥ kuśapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate | kuśapuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate || 57 kuśapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ kuśapuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ śamīpuṣpaṃ śamīpuṣpaṃ viśiṣyate || viśiṣyate | śamīpuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ śamīpuṣpasahasrebhyaḥ śrīmannīlotpalaṃ varam | śrīmannīlotpalaṃ varam || 58
5:53cd–58ab 5:67–71 karavīrasamā jñeyā karavīrasamājñeyā jātī vijayapāṭalī || 53 jātī kuṭajapāṭalāḥ |
śvetamandārakusumaṃ śvetamandārakusumaṃ śatapatraṃca tatsamam | sitapadmasamaṃ bhavet || 67 nāgacampakapunnāgā nāgacaṃpakapunnāga dhuttūrakasamāḥ smṛtāḥ || 54 ghurghurakasamā smṛtāḥ | ketakī cātimuktaṃ ca ketakī cātimuktāś ca yūthī ca navamallikā | kundayūthimadantikā || 68 śirīṣasarjabandhūka- śirīṣasajjabandhūka- kusumāni visarjayet || 55 kusumāni vivarjayet | aṇkolapatrakusumaṃ vāgucīkusumaṃ patraṃ tyajen nṛpatarūdbhavam | karañjendratarūdbhavam || 69 vaibhītakāni patrāṇi vaibhītakāni patrāṇi kusumāni vivarjayet || 56 tatpuṣpāṇi vivarjjayet | nirgandhāny ugragandhāni nirgandhāny ugragandhāni kusumāni vivarjayet | yāni kāni vivarjayet || 70 gandhavantyapavitrāṇi gandhavanti pavitrāṇi kusumāni vivarjayet || 57 kusumāni na varjayet | gandhahīnam api grāhyaṃ gandhahīnam api grāhyaṃ pavitraṃ yatkuśādikam | pavitraṃ yatkuśādivat || 71
5:58cd–60 5:73–77ab kanakāni kadambāni kānanāni kadambāni rātrau deyāni śaṇkare || 58 rātrau deyāni śaṅkare |
277 divāśeṣāṇi puṣpāṇi divāśeṣāṇi puṣpāṇi divārātrau ca mallikā | divārātrau ca mallikā || 73 praharārdhe smṛtā jātī praharantiṣṭhate jātiḥ karavīramaharniśam || 59 karavīramaharniśam | keśakīṭāpaviddhāni keśakīṭāpaviddhāni śīrṇaparyuṣitāni ca | jīrṇaparyuṣitāni ca || 76 svayaṃ patitapuṣpāṇi svayañ ca patitaiḥ cūrṇaiḥ tyajed upahatāni ca || 60 kaṣāyaiḥ gandhayojitaiḥ |
5:61–62ab 5:103–104 mukulair nārcayed devam mukulair nārcayed devaṃ apakvaṃ na nivedayet | apakvānnaṃ na nivedayet | alāme 'pīha puṣpāṇāṃ alābhena tu puṣpāṇāṃ patrāṇy api nivedayet || 61 patrāṇy api nivedayet | patrāṇām apy alābhe tu patrāṇām apy abhāvena phalāny api nivedayet | dūrvādroṇatilākṣatān || 104
5:62cd–63 5:105cd–106 phalānām apy alābhe tu phalānām apy abhāvena tṛṇagulmauṣadhīr api || 62 tṛṇagulmauṣadhīr api || 105 oṣadhīnām alābhe tu oṣadhīnām abhāvena bhaktyā bhavati pūjitaḥ | bhaktyā bhavati pūjitaḥ | pratyekamuktapuṣpāṇāṃ pratyekammuktapuṣpeṣu daśasauvarṇakaṃ phalam || 63 daśasauvarṇakaṃ phalam || 106
5:64cd 5:107ab sraggranthiteṣu teṣv eva sragvidhāneṣu teṣv eva dviguṇaṃ phalam aśnute || 64 dviguṇaṃ phalam iṣyate |
Table 2. Kāmikāgama parallels with Svacchandatantra
Kāmikāgama Svacchandatantra Pūrvabhāga, Chapter 4 Chapters 2, 4, 6, 10 & 12
274cd 6:22cd bindunādasamāyuktam bindunādasamāyuktaḥ ādo praṇavapūrvakam || praṇavaḥ paripaṭhyate ||
278
296cd 2:63cd adharmājñānāvairāgyān- adharmājñānāvairāgyam aiśvaryākhyāni tāni tu | anaiśvaryaṃ ca prāgdiśaḥ ||
300cd 10:1164cd vāmā jyeṣṭhā ca raudrī ca vāmā jyeṣṭhā ca raudrī ca kālī caiva tataḥ param || śaktayaḥ samudāhṛtāḥ ||
302ab 2:176cd pūrvādīśānaparyantaṃ pūrvādīśānaparyantaṃ kesareṣu daleṣu ca | kalpayeta vidhānataḥ ||
304cd 4:304cd brahmā viṣṇuś ca rudraś ca brahmā viṣṇuś ca rudraś ca maṇḍalatrayadevatāḥ || īśvaraḥ śiva eva ca || 305cd-310ab 2:75-80 kamaṇḍaludharaṃ raktaṃ kamaṇḍaludharo devi daṇḍahastaṃ prajāpatim || daṇḍahastas tathaiva ca | akṣamālādharaṃ divyaṃ akṣamālādharo devaḥ padmahastaṃ sulocanam | padmahastaḥ sulocanaḥ || 75 dhyātvā patreṣu vinyasya dhyātvā patreṣu taṃ nyasyet sarvakilviṣanāśanam || 306 sarvakilviṣanāśanam | atasīpuṣpasaṃkāśaṃ atasīpuṣpasaṃkāśaṃ śaṇkhacakragadādharam | śaṅkhacakragadādharam || 76 pītāmbaradharaṃ divyaṃ pītāmbaradharaṃ devaṃ vanamālāvibhūṣitam || 307 vanamālāvibhūṣitam | sphuranmakuṭamāṇikya- sphuranmukuṭamāṇikyaṃ kiṃkiṇījālamaṇḍitam | kiṅkiṇījālamaṇḍitam || 77 dhyātvā viṣṇuṃ mahātmānaṃ dhyātvā viṣṇuṃ mahātmānaṃ kesareṣu niveśayet || 308 kesareṣu niveśayet || 78 śaṇkhakundendudhavalaṃ śaṅkhakundendudhavalaṃ śūlahastaṃ trilocanam | śūlahastaṃ trilocanam | siṃhacarmaparīdhānaṃ siṃhacarmaparīdhānaṃ śaśāṇkakṛtaśekharam || 309 śaśāṅkakṛtabhūṣaṇam | nīlakaṇṭhaṃ vṛṣārūḍhaṃ nīlakaṇṭhaṃ vṛṣārūḍhaṃ rudraṃ dhyātvā viśeṣataḥ | rudraṃ dhyātvā varānane || 80
314cd 12:41cd dharmo jñānaṃ ca vairāgyaṃ dharmo jñānaṃ ca vairāgyam tv aiśvaryaṃ ca catuṣṭayam || aisvaryaṃ ca catuṣṭayam || 279
450-455ab 2:107-112ab vinyaset pañcapatrāṇi vinyaset pañcavaktrāṇi pañcavaktrayutāni ca | pañcavaktrayutāni ca | bāhubhir daśabhiś caiva bāhubhir daśabhiś caiva śaśāṇkamakuṭaiḥ saha || 450 śaśāṅkamukuṭaiḥ saha || 107 dhyātavyāni svarūpāṇi dhyātavyāni svarūpāṇi varāyudhadharāṇi ca | varābhayakarāṇi tu | agnīśarakṣovāyavya- agnīśarakṣovāyavya- caturdikṣu gataṃ yajet || 451 caturdikṣu ca taṃ nyaset || 108 vṛcchiraś cūlikāvarma netram hṛcchiraś ca śikhā varma astraṃ yathākramam | astraṃ ca pravibhāgaśaḥ | hṛdayaṃ candravarṇābhaṃ hṛdayaṃ raktavarṇābhaṃ śiro gorocanaprabham || 452 śiro gorocanaprabham || 109 taṭijjvalanasaṃkāśāṃ taḍidvalayasaṃkāśāṃ śikhāṃ samyag vicintayet | śikhāṃ devīṃ vicintayet | ādhūmraṃ kavacaṃ nyasyed ādhūmraṃ kavacaṃ vidyāt astraṃ kapilavarṇakam || 453 kapiśaṃ cāstram eva ca || 110 jyotīrūpaprakāśaṃ ca netraṃ jyotīrūpapratīkāśaṃ netraṃ madhyagataṃ smaret | madhye ca saṃsthitam | pañcavaktrayutāḥ sarve pañcavaktrāḥ smṛtāḥ sarve daśabāhvindubhūṣitāḥ || 454 daśabāhvindubhūṣitāḥ || 111 nānābharaṇasaṃyuktāḥ nānābharaṇasaṃyuktā nānāsraggandhabhūṣitāḥ | nānāsraggandhalepanāḥ |
Kāmikāgama Svacchandatantra Uttarabhāga, Chapter 23 Chapters 4 & 10
70cd–80ab 10:624cd–643ab vibhūtir avyayaḥ śāstā vibhūtir avyayaḥ śāstā pinākī tridaśādhipaḥ || 70 pinākī tridaśādhipaḥ || 624 agnirudro hutāśaś ca agnirudro hutāśī ca piṅgalaḥ khādako haraḥ | piṅgalaḥ khādako haraḥ | jvalano dahano babhruḥ jvalano dahano babhrur bhasmāntakaḥ kṣayāntakaḥ || 71 bhasmāntakakṣayāntakau || 626
280 yāmyo mṛtyur haro dhātā yāmyo mṛtyur haro dhātā vidhātā kartṛsaṃjñakaḥ | vidhātā kartṛsaṃjñakaḥ | saṃyoktā ca viyoktā ca saṃyoktā ca viyoktā ca dharmo dharmapatis tathā || 72 dharmo dharmapatis tathā || 628 niṛtirmāraṇo hantā nairṛtomaruto hantā krūradṛṣṭir bhayānakaḥ | krūradṛṣṭir bhayānakaḥ | ūrdhvakeśo virūpākṣo ūrdhvakeśo virūpākṣo dhūmralohitadaṃṣṭriṇaḥ || 73 dhūmalohitadaṃṣṭrakau || 630 balo hy atibalaś caiva balo hy atibalaś caiva pāśahasto mahābalaḥ | pāśahasto mahābalaḥ | śveto 'tha jayabhadraś ca śveto 'tha jayabhadraś ca dīrghabāhur jalāntakaḥ || 74 dīrghabāhur jalāntakaḥ || 632 meghanādaḥ sunādaś ca meghanādī sunādī ca daśamaḥ parikīrtitaḥ | samāsāt parikīrtitāḥ |
śīghro laghur vāyuvegas śīghro laghur vāyuvegaḥ tīkṣṇaḥ sūkṣma kṣyāntakaḥ || 75 sūkṣmastīkṣṇo bhayānakaḥ || 634 pañcāntakaḥ pañcaśikhaḥ pañcāntakaḥ pañcaśikhaḥ kapardī meghavāhanaḥ | kapardī meghavāhanaḥ | nidhīśo rūpavān dhanyaḥ nidhīśo rūpavān dhanyaḥ saumyadeho jaṭādharaḥ || 76 saumyadeho jaṭādharaḥ || 636 lakṣmīdhṛgratnadhṛkchrīdhṛk lakṣmīratnadharaḥ kāmī prasādaś ca pakāmadaḥ | prasādaś ca prabhāsakaḥ | vidyādhipeśau sarvajño vidyādhipo'tha sarvajño jñānabhugvedapāragaḥ || 77 jñānadṛgvedapāragaḥ || 638 sureśaḥ śarvo jyeṣṭhaś ca śarvaḥ sureśo jyeṣṭhaś ca bhūtapālo balipriyaḥ | bhūtapālo baliḥ priyaḥ | vṛṣo vṛṣadharo 'nantaḥ vṛṣovṛṣadharo 'nantaḥ krodhano mārutāśanaḥ || 78 krodhano mārutāhvayaḥ || 640 grasanoḍhumbareśau ca grasanoḍambareśau ca phaṇīndro vajradaṃṣṭriṇau | phaṇīndro vajradaṃṣṭrakaḥ |
śaṃbhur vibhur gaṇādhyakṣas śaṃbhur vibhur gaṇādhyakṣas triyakṣas tridaśeśvaraḥ || 79 tryakṣaś ca tridaśeśvaraḥ || 642 saṃvāhaś ca vivāhaś ca saṃvāhaś ca vivāhaś ca nabho lipsus trilocanaḥ | nalo lipsus trilocanaḥ | 281
155cd 10:1039cd vāmo bhīmas tathograś ca vāmo bhīmas tatheśaś ca bhaveśānaikavīrakāḥ || 155 || śivaḥ śarvas tathaiva ca || 1039
156cd–155ab 10:1067 krodheśaś ca vai saṃvarto krodheśvaraś ca saṃvarto jyotiḥ piṅgaścādimo bhavet || 156 jyotiḥ piṅgalakrūradṛk | pañcāntakaikavīrau ca pañcāntakaikavīrau ca śikhedaś ca mahādyutiḥ | śikhedasahiteśvarāḥ || 1067
170–171ab 10:1145–1146ab vāmā jyeṣṭhā ca raudrī ca vāmā jyeṣṭhā tathā raudrī kālī kalavikaraṇī | kālī vikaraṇī tathā | balavikaraṇī caiva balavikaraṇī caiva balapramathanīty api || 170 balapramathanī tāthā || 1145 sarvabhūtadamany eva damanī sarvabhūtānāṃ manonmany aparā bhavet | tathā caiva manonmanī |
172cd 10:1162cd śrīkaṇṭhaś ca śikhaṇḍī cety śrīkaṇṭhaś ca śikhaṇḍī ca evam īśe purāṣṭakam || 172 jñeyā vidyeśvarāḥ kramāt || 1162
176cd 4:188ab niṣkṛtau śatahomaṃ tu niṣkṛtau śatahomaṃ tu kavacena samācaret || 176 kavacena tu kārayet |
179cd 10:1217ab nivṛttiś ca pratiṣṭhā ca nivṛttiś ca pratiṣṭhā ca vidyā śāntiś ca nābhasī || 179 vidyā śāntis tathaiva ca |
180cd 10:1226ab indhikā dīpikā caiva indhikā dīpikā caiva rocikā mocikā tathā || 180 rocikā mocikā tathā |
181cd 10:1252cd vyāpinī vyomarūpā cāpy vyāpinī vyomarūpā cā- anantā ca tataḥparam || 181 nantānāthātvanāśritā || 1252
185ab 4:188ab niṣkṛtau śatahomaṃ tu niṣkṛtau śatahomaṃ tu śivamantreṇa kārayet | kavacena tu kārayet | 199ab 4:534ab ācamya sakalīkṛtya ācamya sakalīkṛtya gurur gomayaveṣṭitām | liṅginas tarpayet tataḥ | 282
205cd 4:405ab vidyātattvās padācāryo vidyātattvās padaṃ baddhvā bindukḷptāsanasthitaḥ || 205 bindutattvāsane sthitaḥ |
Table 3. Kāmikāgama parallels with Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama
Kāmikāgama Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama Uttarabhāga, Chapter 30 Caryāpāda, Chapter 6
684cd–687ab 2–4 satyan manasaś śuddhir satyena manasaḥ śuddhir indriyāṇāṃ yamādibhiḥ || 684 indriyāṇāṃ yamādibhiḥ |
garvasya śamatā dṛṣṭā garvasya śamatā dṛṣṭā śuddhyartham avicārataḥ | śuddhyartham avicārataḥ || 2
buddher api munivyāghrās buddher api munivyāghra saṅgatyāgāt prakīrtitāḥ || 685 saṅgatyāgāt prakīrtitā|
prāṇāś śuddhyanti vidhivat prāṇāḥ śuddhyanti vidhivat prāṇāyāmabalāt sadā | prāṇāyāmabalāt sadā || 3 dhyānāc chuddhis samuddiṣṭā dhyānāc chuddhiḥ samuddiṣṭā pradhānasya guṇātmanaḥ || 686 pradhānasya guṇātmanaḥ |
vivekāc chudhyate hy ātmā vivekāc chuddhyate hy ātmā nātra kāryā vicāraṇā | yathoktaṃ parameṣṭhinā || 4
687cd–689 14–16ab śvamārjāraravarādīnāṃ śvamārjārakharādīnāṃ vilehe snānam ācaret || 687 vilehe snānam ācaret|
nābher ūrdhvamadhas tādvā nābher ūrdhvamadhas tādvā mṛdbhiś śuddhyati saptabhiḥ | mṛdbhiḥ śudhyati saptabhiḥ|| 14 uttamāṅga vidhānena uttamāṅgopaghāte ca snātvā vidyāṅgapañcakam || 688 snātvā vidyāṅgapañcakam |
japtavyaṃ śatam ekaṃ syād japtavyaṃ śatam ekaṃ syād [d]viguṇaṃ mantravādinā | dviguṇaṃ mantravedinā || 15
adīkṣitena saṃspṛṣṭe adīkṣitena saṃspṛṣṭaḥ snānam āgneyam ācaret || 689 snānam āgneyam ācaret |
283
689ab–691ab 17cd–18 nirmālyasaṃkare kāmāt nirmālyasaṃkarātkāmāt saṃpūjyaś caṇḍanāyakaḥ | sampūjyaś caṇḍanāyakaḥ || 17 tasyaiva devadevasya japastaduttaraṃ kāryo japas sāṅgasya vai śatam || 690 japaḥ sāṅgasya vai śatam | akāmatovā saṃparkāt akāmato vā samparkāt kevalasya śataṃ bhavet | kevalasya śataṃ japet || 18
691cd–692 21cd–23 vāriṇā tv aśmajātīnāṃ vāriṇā raupyahemāder mathitenāś ca mastunā || 691 dhātuvargasya kīrtitā || 21 tathā vai vāśmajātānāṃ mathitenātha bhasmanā | jalajānāṃ ca sarveṣāṃ jalajānāṃ ca sarveṣāṃ vaiṇavānāṃ tathāmbhasā | vaiṇavānāṃ tathāmbhasā || 22 snigdhānāṃ rūkṣaṇāc chuddhiḥ snigdhānāṃ rūkṣaṇāc chudhiḥ pātrāṇāṃ parikīrtitā || 692 pātrāṇāṃ parikīrtitā || 23
693–696ab 33cd–37 śuddhiḥ syād apy aśuddhānāṃ guḍasyāpi viśiṣṭānāṃ prokṣaṇād eva kevalāt | prokṣaṇād eva kevalāt || 33 madhunaḥ pākataś śuddhis madhunaḥ pākataḥ śuddhis tathaive kṣurasasya ca || 693 tathaive kṣurasasya ca | phalānāṃ kṣālanāc chuddhir phalānāṃ kṣālanāc chuddhir daghnaś caiva nirīkṣaṇāt | dadhnaś caiva nirīkṣaṇāt || 34 kvathitaṃ śuddhyate kṣīraṃ kvathitaṃ śudhyate kṣīraṃ pakvānāṃ prokṣaṇād api || 694 śiṣṭaṃ syāt pānakaṃ hi tat | 35ab pakvānnaṃ prokṣaṇāt sarvaṃ paryagnikaraṇāt tathā | 36ab atha śaiva guror asya apavādād guror vācaḥ śuddhir vācā vidhīyate | śuddhir abdair niyamya tu || 36 parebhyo duḥkham āpādya parebhyo duḥkham utpādya vāṇmanaḥkāyakarmabhiḥ || 695 vāṅmanaḥkāyakarmabhiḥ | pramādataḥ parijñāya pramādataḥ parijñāya śuddhiś śaktijapātsadā | śuddhiḥ śaktijapātsadā || 37
284
Appendix B Nondualistic Passages of the Sarvajñānottara
From the Sarvajñānottara1
[Thinking] “I am that god who pervades all, who is the universal soul, who faces all directions, who is beyond thought, who constitutes all truth, who stands above all, who surpasses all levels of reality, who is beyond the scope of speech and mind (vāṅmanonāmavarjitaḥ)” — thus with an unwavering mind, one should worship him. [Thinking] “I am that [Supreme] Knowledge of Śiva (śivajñāna) which is undivided, which is eternal, constant, [and] unchanging, which is proclaimable without hesitation, which is without any type of cause (hetudṛṣṭāntavarjitam), which is ungendered (aliṅgam), undecaying, [and] tranquil, which is beyond the scope of the senses, which is imperceptible, which is free from uncertainty and without doubt.” [Thinking] “I am the Supreme Being, the Lord Śiva, the embodiment of all mantras and [simultaneously] beyond all mantras, without beginning or ending, that I pervade all that is visible and invisible, animate and inanimate, that I am the Lord of the Universe (jagannāthaḥ), [and that] from me issues forth all, the whole universe with its myriad forms and multitude of worlds, from [the World of] Śiva down to the lowest hell (śivādyavīciparyantaṃ). [Thinking] that all of it abides in me, that whatever is seen or heard in this world, inner, outer, and part by part (bahirantarvibhāgena), that I pervade all of it, for I myself am Śiva” (aham ātmā śivo hi). One who thinks that the Supreme Soul is Other, who would think this way out of delusion, does not achieve the State of Śiva (na śivatvam avāpnuyāt). One should avoid thinking in terms of difference (pṛthagbhāvaṃ vivarjayet), [as in] “Śiva is Other” and “I am Other.” One should [rather] always think nondualistically (advaitaṃ bhāvayet sadā), [as in] “I am the very one who is Śiva.” One who is engaged in [such] nondualistic contemplation (advaitabhāvanāyuktaḥ), established in themselves at all times, sees the universal soul within everybody; of this, there is no doubt. Indeed, a yogi who stands firm with the view that there is [but] one soul (ekātmavādena), and who has no doubt [about this] (vikalparahitasya), should attain omniscience.
1 Sarvajñānottara, 29:4–15. The numeration of verses follows Dominic Goodall’s edition in progress, and I thank him for sending me the excerpt reproduced here. The translation (my own) is based on a collation from the early Sarvajñānottara Nepalese manuscript (National Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1-1692 [NGMPP A 43/12]; siglum = N), attributed to the ninth or tenth century (Goodall, “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta,” 97; Sanderson, “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra,” 291–292; and Teun Goudriaan and Sanjukta Gupta, Hindu Tantric and Śākta Literature. History of Indian Literature Vol. II [Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz], 38), and a citation of the Sarvajñānottara by Śivāgrayogin in his Śaivaparibhāṣā (ed. H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar and R. Ramasastri [Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 1950], 159–160; siglum = ŚP). I have collated Śivāgrayogin’s citation along with the passage from the early Nepalese manuscript to show that the nondualism in Śivāgrayogin’s Śaivaparibhāṣā derives from the early nondualism of the Sarvajñānottara and not from late medieval or early modern influences.
285 yo 'sau sarvagato devaḥ1 sarvātmā sarvatomukhaḥ | sarvatattvamayo 'cintyaḥ sarvasyopari saṃsthitaḥ || sarvatattvavyatītaś ca vāṅmanonāmavarjitaḥ | so 'ham enam2 upāsīta nirvikalpena cetasā || yad eva3 niṣkalaṃ4 jñānaṃ śāśvataṃ dhruvam avyayam | nirvikalpamanirdeśyaṃ hetudṛṣṭāntavarjitam || aliṅgamakṣaraṃ śāntaṃ viṣayātītagocaram | avibhāvyam asandehaṃ tad ahaṃ na tu5 saṃśayaḥ || aham eva paro devaḥ6 sarvamantramayaḥ śivaḥ | sarvamantravyatītaś ca sṛṣṭisaṃhāravarjitaḥ || mayā7 vyāptam idaṃ sarvaṃ dreśyādreśyaṃ8 carācaram | aham eva jagannātho mattaḥ sarvaṃ9 pravartate || śivādyavīciparyantaṃ8 tatsarvaṃ mayi11 saṃsthitam || yac ca kiñcij12 jagaty asmin dṛśyate śrūyate'pi vā | bahirantarvibhāgena tatsarvaṃ vyāpitaṃ mayā || aham ātmā śivo hy anyaḥ paramātmeti yaḥ smṛtaḥ | evaṃ yo bhāvayen mohān na śivatvam avāpnuyāt11 || śivo 'nyas tv aham evānyaḥ14 pṛthagbhāvaṃ vivarjayet15 | yaḥ śivaḥ16 so 'ham eveti advaitaṃ bhāvayet sadā || advaitabhāvanāyuktaḥ sarvatrātmani saṃsthitaḥ17 | sarvagaṃ18 sarvadehasthaṃ paśyate nātra saṃśayaḥ || evam ekātmavādena19 saṃsthitasya tu yoginaḥ | sarvajñatvaṃ pravarteta vikalparahitasya20 tu ||
1 devaḥ ] ŚP; deva N 2 enam ] N; evam ŚP 3 eva ] N; evaṃ ŚP 4 niṣkalaṃ ] N; niṣphalaṃ ŚP 5 na tu ] N; nātra ŚP 6 devaḥ ] ŚP; deva N 7 mayā ] ŚP; yayā N 8 dreśyādreśyaṃ ] N; dṛśyādṛśyaṃ ŚP 9 sarvaṃ ] ŚP; sarva N 10 śivādyavīci° ] N; śivādyavani° ŚP 11 °sarvaṃ mayi ] ŚP; sarvam api N 12 kiñcij ] ŚP; kiñci N 13 This whole verse is omitted in N; however, it is found in Aghoraśiva’s commentary (edition in progress by Goodall). 14 evānyaḥ ] ŚP; evānyo N 15 °bhāvaṃ vivarjayet ] ŚP; °bhāvavivarjitaḥ N 16 śivaḥ ] ŚP; śiva N 17 sarvatrātmani saṃsthitaḥ ] ŚP; sarvatrātmānamāsthitaḥ N 18 sarvagaṃ ] ŚP; sarvagaḥ N 19 ekātmavādena ] N; ekātmabhāvena ŚP 20 vikalparahitasya ] ŚP; vikalparahitena N
286
Appendix C Citations of the Kāmika in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā
Chapters of modern Kāmika where citations are found1
Tantrāvatārapaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 1 of PKā) Snānavidhipaṭala (corresponding to Ch. 3 of PKā) Arcanavidhipaṭala (corresponding to Ch. 4 of PKā) Bāṇaliṅgasthāpanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 36 of PKā) Liṅgasthāpanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 64 of PKā) Paścimadvārārcanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 1 of UKā) Dakṣiṇadvārārcanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 2 of UKā) Mahotsavavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 6 of UKā) Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 20 of UKā) Ācāryābhiṣekavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 24 of UKā) Kāmyaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 37 of UKā) Devīsthāpanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 44 of UKā) Vighneśapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 45 of UKā) Kālārikāmāntakapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 57 of UKā) Kalyāṇamūrtipratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 58 of UKā) Caṇḍeśasthāpanavidhipaṭala* (corresponding to Ch. 65 of UKā)
Table of Kāmika citations
Citations attributed to the Kāmika in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā are given in the left hand column with a page number corresponding to the place where the citation occurs. In the right hand column, the corresponding material in the South Indian Archakar Association (SIAA) editions of the Pūrvabhāga (1975) and Uttarabhāga (1988) is given. Variations between citations and corresponding material are noted with reference to Civañāṉapōta Press (CÑP) Editions (Pūrvabhāga, 1889-90; Uttarabhāga, 1899), HR&CE Edition (Uttarabhāga, 1999), and IFP Paper Transcript T.298.2
tato nirvāṇadīkṣāyām adhikārī bhaved dvijaḥ | Ch. 20 of Uttarabhāga, śūdraṃ hi dīkṣayitvā tu vidhānenāgrajanmanaḥ3 || Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhi, 91-92ab so ‘pi śūdratvam āpnoti dīkṣed ātmānam ātmanā4 | (p. 4)
5 viprādayo ‘pi śūdrās syur guṇaṃ tasmāt samuddharet | Ibid., 80-82ab śūdrādijātim uddhṛtya svāhāntenaiva mūlataḥ || hutvāhutitrayaṃ paścāc chivaṃ prati vaded iti | āhārabījadoṣābhyāṃ6 yonibījaśarīrataḥ |
1 An asterisk (*) next to a chapter title indicates its reference by name in the Śivapūjāstavavyākhyā. 2 Variants due to particularities of orthography or sandhi were not noted. 3 vidhānevā° 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; vidhānenā° 1899 CÑP Ed.; IFP T.298B (f. 149) 4 dīkṣādānān na saṃśayaḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; dīkṣed ātmānam ātmanā 1899 CÑP Ed.; dikṣā dadyānna saṃśayaḥ (dadyā is underlined in folio and dānā written above it) IFP T.298B (f. 149) 5 guṇatas tān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; guṇaṃ tasmāt T.298B (f. 148) 6 āhārabhāva° 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., T.298B (f. 148); āhārābhāva° 1899 CÑP Ed. 287
śuddho dvijo bhavatv ātmā bhagavan parameśvara || (p. 5) sāmānyasamayī yas tu sa tu māheśvaraḥ smṛtaḥ | Ch. 24 of Uttarabhāga, jātyuddhāravihīno yas sāmānyasamayī bhavet | (p. 6) Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi, 53cd-54ab dīkṣitaḥ putrakaḥ prokta[ḥ] (p. 6) Ibid., 53a tataś śuddhikramāt kṣmādīny adhastatvāni kalpayet | Ch. 3 of Pūrvabhāga, vidyātatvāntagaṃ7 gehaṃ siddhimuktiphalapradam | (p. 18) Snānavidhi, 15920 cākṣuṣyādyās tu yās smṛtāḥ | Ch. 24 of Uttarabhāga, dīkṣās tābhis samāyuktāḥ paricārakasāhayāḥ8 | Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi, 54d-55 na tu liṅgarcane yogyāḥ kimu dīkṣādikarmaṇi | (p. 19) evaṃ samayasaṃskārayukto yaś śivapūjane | Ch. 20 of Uttarabhāga, home cādhyayane śaivatantrāṇāṃ9 śravaṇe ‘pi ca | Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhi, 89cd-90 yogyas syād aiśvaraṃ10 raudraṃ padam āpnoti11 mānavaḥ | (p. 19) mātrādvādaśabhir hīnaṃ12 dviguṇair madhyamo mataḥ | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, triguṇer13 uttamaḥ kālaḥ pratyekaṃ recakādiṣu | Arcanavidhi, 79cd-81 recayed dehagaṃ vāyuṃ aśśuddhaṃ vyomasaṃsthitam | śuddhaṃ vāyuṃ pūrakeṇa samāhṛtya śanaiś śanaiḥ | sampūrṇakumbhavat tiṣṭhed recayet tadanantaram | (p. 20) candrārkanāśane pūjā sādhayedīpsitaṃ phalam | Ibid.,195 suṣumnāmadhyage prāṇe pūjayet sarvadevatāḥ | (p. 29) hṛtkaṇṭhatālubhrūmadhyarodhinyo14 brahmarandhrakam | Ibid., 52cd-53 kuṭilā vyāpinī devī15 samanā conmanā16 tathā | tāsām upari yā śaktis tasyāṃ vā yojayen naram17 | (p. 31) koṭikoṭiguṇaṃ bāṇaṃ mahākoṭiguṇaṃ rasam | (p. 31) Not found hṛtsampuṭas tv ajāto18 vai mūrtimantra udāhṛtaḥ19 | (p. 40) Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 325cd
7 vidyātatvātmakaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 50) 8 paricārakanāmakāḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; parivārakanāmataḥ IFP T.298B (f. 193) 9 caiva mantrāṇāṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 149) 10 yogyas syān munayo 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; yogyasyān munayo IFP T.298B (f. 149) 11 raudraṃ padaṃ prāpnoti 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; rudrapadaṃ prāpnoti IFP T.298B (f. 149) 12 hīno 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 58) 13 triguṇair 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 58) 14 °bhrūśaṃkha° 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 55) 15 tanvī 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; devī IFP T.298A (f. 55) 16 unmanā 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 55) 17 naraḥ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 55) 18 °sampuṭam ajātaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; °sampuṭas tv ajāto IFP T.298A (f. 80) 19 mūrtimantram udāhṛtam 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; mūrtimantra udāhṛtam IFP T.298A (f. 80) 20 Verse number of 1889-90 CÑP Ed. since verses not numbered in this chapter of 1975 SIAA Ed. 288
sadyamantrād viniṣkrānto brahmanāmākhilārthadṛk21 | Ch. 24 of Uttarabhāga, tenedaṃ22 laukikaṃ śāstraṃ sarvaloke23 ‘vatāritam || Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi, 84-85cd śabdaśāstram alaṅkāraṃ24 niruktaṃ chanda eva ca | (p. 53)
vāmamantrādhipo25 viṣṇuḥ kāraṇeśo dvitīyakaḥ | Ibid., 87cd-91ab tena vaidikam uddiṣṭam aṣṭādaśapurāṇakam || dharmaśāstraṃ ca vedāntaṃ pāñcarātraṃ ca baudhakam | rudro ‘ghorād viniṣkrāntas tv adhyātmaṃ ca pragītavān26 || nyāyaṃ vaiśeṣikaṃ sāṃkhyaṃ seśvaraṃ yat pragītavān27 | īśvaraḥ puruṣāj jātas tv atimārgaṃ pragītavān28 || pañcārdhaṃ29 lākuḷaṃ cānyat30 tathā pāśupataṃ matam | sadāśivo ‘pi bhagavān mantratantram apālayat || (p. 53)
sadyavāmamahāghorapuruṣeśānamūrtayaḥ31 | Ch. 1 of Pūrvabhāga, pratyekaṃ pañcavaktrās sus tair32 uktaṃ laukikādikam || Tantrāvatāra, 18cd-19ab, 21 siddhānto gāruḍo vāmo33 bhūtatantraṃ ca bhairavam | ūrdhvapūrvakuberāpyayāmyavaktrād34 yathākramam || (p. 53)
chandovatsūtrāṇi siddhāntaṃ vedasāraṃ hi35 (p. 65) Ch. 24 of Uttarabhāga, Ācāryābhiṣekavidhi, 94cd
āmūlāgrasthitasyāgner abhivyaktir yathā taroḥ36 | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 355 tadvad ekatra cidvyaktivyāpakaṃ nāsya bāddhyate37 || (p. 78) Citation attributed to Jñānaśiva39
tatreśānas sitottānamūrdhasthas38 tv atibhīṣaṇaḥ (p. 78) Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 347
21 brahmanāmākhilārthadṛk 1988 SIAA Ed.; braṃhanāmākhilārtthadṛk 1899 CÑP Ed.; brahmanāmakhilārtha dṛk 1999 HR&CE Ed.; brahmānāmakhilātmadhṛk IFP T.298B (f. 196) 22 tena vai 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 23 martyaloke 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 24 alaṅkāro 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 25 vāmamantrodbhavo 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; vāmamantro bhaved 1899 CÑP Ed.; vāmamantrādhipo IFP T.298B (f. 196) 26 praṇītavān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 27 praṇītavān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 28 praṇītavān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 196) 29 pañcārthaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; pañcārddhaṃ 1899 CÑP Ed. ; pañcārdhaṃ IFP T.298B (f. 196) 30 tānyat 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed.; cānyat 1899 CÑP Ed.; cānyas IFP T.298B (f. 196) 31 sadyo° 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 6) 32 syus tair 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 6) 33 siddhāntaṃ gāruḍaṃ vāmaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 6) 34 °kuberāsya° 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; °kuberāsya IFP T.298A (f. 6) 35 siddhānto vedasāraḥ syād anyad vedabahiṣkṛtam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 197) 36 tarau 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; IFP T.298A (f. 83) 37 cidvykatir vyāpakasya na bādhyate 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; cidvyaktivyāpakasya na hanyate IFP T.298A (f. 83) 38 tatraiśānaḥ sthitottāno mūrdha° 1975 SIAA Ed.; tatraiśānasthitottāno mūrddha° 1889-90 CÑP Ed.; tatraiśānasthitoktānāṃ mūrdhva° IFP T.298A (f. 82) 39 This verse is found in the Jñānaratnāvalī, where it appears as a citation but without attribution. 289
śreṣṭhaṃ paścānmukhaṃ liṅgam abhāvāt prāṅmukhaṃ bhavet | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 17 yāmya kaubera vaktraṃ tu na siddhāviṣyate budhaiḥ || (p. 80) Not labelled as a citation of the Kāmika yasyāṃ diśi bhaved dvāraṃ tāṃ prācīṃ parikalpayet | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 20-21 liṅgasyābhimukhaṃ tat tat40 dvāraṃ tat pūrvam iṣyate || Not labelled as a citation of the Kāmika tatra tatpuruṣaṃ vaktram ūrdhvaṃ cābhimukhaṃ bhavet | balipīṭhaṃ vṛṣaṃ śūlaṃ tadvaktrābhimukhaṃ bhavet | (p. 80) dvārasyābhimukhaṃ cordhvavaktraṃ devaṃ prakalpayet | Ch. 1 of Uttarabhāga, vāme vā dakṣiṇe vāpi sthāpanīyā manonmanī || Paścimadvārārcanavidhi, 83-89cd devavanmukhasaṃyuktā dvihastaikamukhānvitā | īśānam īśadeśe vā nirṛtau vā samarcayet || puruṣaṃ pūrvadeśe vā paścime vātha cintayet | dakṣiṇe cottare vāpi bahurūpaṃ vicintayet || uttare dakṣiṇe vāpi vāmadevaṃ smared guruḥ | pūrvasyāṃ paścimasyāṃ ca caturdikṣv astram arcayet ||41 paścime pūrvadeśe vā sadyavaktraṃ smaran yajet | hṛdayaṃ cāgnidigbhāge42 vāyavyāṃ vā prakalpayet || śiraś caiśe ca nairṛtyāṃ śikhāṃ pitari vaiśike | kavacaṃ vāyudigbhāge āgneyyāṃ vā prakalpayet ||43 pūrvasmāt paścimād vāpi vidyeśāvaraṇaṃ yajet | gaṇeśāvaraṇaṃ somād dakṣād vārabhya cārcayet44 || (pp. 81-82) pūjayet pūrvavaktraṃ45 tu śivaṃ ṣaḍguṇasaṃyutam | Ch. 2 of Uttarabhāga, liṅgārcanaṃ cet prāgvat syād īśānaṃ tu svagocare || Dakṣiṇadvārārcanavidhi, 8cd-13ab, āghoraṃ puruṣaṃ vāpi dakṣiṇe samyag arcayet | 38cd-39ab, 40-41ab aghoraṃ vātha sadyaṃ vā paścime samyag arcayet46 || sadyavaktraṃ tu vāmaṃ vā saumyadeśe samarcayet| puruṣaṃ vātha vāmaṃ vā pūrvasyāṃ diśi cārcayet47 || īśānam agnideśe tu nyaset pūrve manonmanīm | pitṛvāyvagniīśeṣu hṛdayādi vyavasthitam || athavā prāgvad eva syād vidyeśā dakṣiṇāditaḥ | gaṇeśāḥ pūrvadeśe vā prāgvad vā samprakīrtitāḥ ||48 anenaiva prakāreṇa nyāyenānvīkṣya deśikaḥ | saumyavaktreśapūjādyaṃ kārayed deśikottamaḥ ||49 kim atra bahunoktena yasya devasya yanmukham | tasya devasya sā prācī niścitā dvijasattamāḥ || tadvaśād aparāḥ kalpyā diśo digvedibhis sadā | (pp. 81-82)
40 yat tu 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 52) 41 Half-verse omitted in 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., and IFP T.298B, though it is in 1899 CÑP Ed. 42 vahnidigbhāge 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 9); vanhidikbhāge 1899 CÑP Ed. 43 Following this half-verse in 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., and IFP T.298B is a variant of the half-verse omitted above: pūrvasmin paścime vāpi caturdikṣv astram arcayet; not in 1899 CÑP Ed. 44 dakṣād ārabhya vārcayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 9) 45 °pūrvavaktras 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 11) 46 tu samarcayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 11) 47 pūrvasmin saṃprapūjayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 11) ; pūrvasmin saṃprayojayet 1899 CÑP Ed. 48 In 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., and IFP T.298B, there are 26 verses between this line and the next. 49 Between this line and the next, in 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., and 1899 CÑP Ed. we find: antarālaṃ tu pūrvasyāṃ diśi vyakte viśiṣyate (39cd); in IFP T.298B, we find the same line, except the first quarter, which reads: kintu nālaṃ tu pūrvasyāṃ (f. 14). 290
sahasālokiteśānaśivavaktrasaroruham | Ch. 20 of Uttarabhāga, [brū]yāt tvam aṅga muñceti50 prasūnaṃ śivasammukhaṃ | (p. 83) Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhi, 71 Citation attributed to Brahmaśambhu59 naivedyaṃ dakṣiṇe haste dadyāt pānīyam uttamam | (p. 84) Not found saṃhṛtau vikirāstrāṇām āsanaṃ tu calācalam | Ch. 20 of Uttarabhāga, saṅkalpya mūrtimantreṇa mūrtibhūtaṃ ghaṭaṃ nyaset || (p. 89) Samayaviśeṣadīkṣāvidhi, 26
śivājñāṃ śrāvayan51 kumbhaṃ bhrāmayed agrato ‘strakam | Ibid., 32cd-33 vinyaset kumbhavardhanyau pūrvavat tadanantaram || sthirāsanaṃ ca sampūjya devam astraṃ ca pūjayet | (p. 89) kṛtvaiva daśasaṃskārānupacāraiś śivaṃ yajet52 (p. 90) Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, Arcanavidhi, 372ab gandhaṃ puṣpaṃ ca dhūpaṃ ca dīpaṃ naivedyam eva ca | Ibid., 374 pañcopacārā ete syur dīpāntaṃ vāpi sammatam || (p. 90) snānayogyās snāpanīyāś citrād yās tad vivarjitāḥ | Ibid., 375 kṛpāṇadarpanādau vā maṇau vā pratibimbite || (p. 91) ratnaje lohaje pakvamṛṇmaye beraśodhanam | Ch. 2 of Uttarabhāga, abhīṣṭadivase kuryād yāvad beraṃ sadhūsaram || Dakṣiṇadvārārcanavidhi, 17-19ab vastrasammārjanaṃ puṇyadivase snapanaṃ matam | karmārcāyām athānyeṣāṃ maṇiliṅge ‘tha pīṭhake || athavā bāṇaliṅge vā darpaṇādau samarcayet | (p. 91) beraṃ cel lohajaṃ kuryāt snānaṃ parvaṇi parvaṇi | Ch. 44 of Uttarabhāga, sudhācitrādikaṃ cet tu karmārcāśuddhir iṣyate || Devīsthāpanavidhi, 120-121cd, 122cd athavāstrāṇunā labdhatālavṛntajavāyunā | athavopalamūrtiś cet kṣāḷanaṃ tatra kīrtyate || (p. 91) liṅgaśuddhiḥ kramāt53 prāptā yathāvad abhidhīyate | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, liṅgaṃ trividham ākhyātaṃ vyaktāvyaktobhayātmakam || Arcanavidhi, 268cd-272cd svayambhubāṇadevārṣamānavādyam54 anekadhā | sthiraliṅgaṃ calaṃ vātha55 maṇḍalaṃ sthaṇḍilaṃ56 tathā | paṭaṃ vā bhitticitraṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā mantrasaṃskṛtam | āvāhya gurupīṭhādyaṃ57 vidyāpīṭham athāpi vā ||
50 yāt tam aṅga muñceti (unmetrical) 1988 SIAA Ed. (first akṣara missing), 1999 HR&CE Ed.; brūyāt tam aṃga muñceti 1899 CÑP Ed.,; brūyāt tam aṅgaṃ muñcaitat IFP T.298B (f. 147) 51 śrāvayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; śrāvayan IFP T.298B (f. 143) 52 ca pūjayet 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; tu pūjayet IFP T.298A (f. 85) 53 liṅgaśuddhikramāt 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 75) 54 svayambhudevabāṇārṣapauruṣādyam 1975 SIAA Ed. ; svayaṃbhūr devabāṇārṣapaurṣādyam 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; svayambhubāṇadaivārṣapauruṣādyam IFP T.298A (f. 75) 55 vāpi 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 75) 56 tridvidhaṃ maṇḍalaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 75) 57 vahnyambuguruvṛkṣādyaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 75) 59 This verse is also found in the Mṛgendrapaddhati-tīkā, where it is again attributed to Brahmaśambhu. 291 viśeṣatas svayaṃ siddhaṃ sūryamaṇḍalam58 eva vā | anyadvā liṅgakalpoktaṃ saikatādyaṃ viśeṣataḥ || etat sarvaṃ śivejyārthaṃ yathāyogaṃ prakalpayet | (p. 92) kaśilāṃ pūrvamantreṇa ratnauṣadhyādigarbhitām60 | Ch. 44 of Uttarabhāga, prāgvad dhāmnīśvarīṃ nītvā mūlam uccārya vinyaset || Devīsthāpanavidhi, 89-93ab sumuhūrte sulagne tu mantranyāsaṃ ca kārayet | calaṃ cet snānavedyāṃ tu mantranyāsaṃ samācaret || devyagre tu ghaṭaṃ nyasya kumbhād bījaṃ hṛdi nyaset61 | vinyased anyakūmbhebhyaḥ62 pīṭhasya parito manūn || tatvamūrtyādivinyāsaṃ pūrvavat kārayet tataḥ | tat tat kumbhodakaiś caiva tat tad deśe ‘bhiṣecayet || snapanaṃ kārayed ante naivedyaṃ cotsavaṃ guruḥ | (pp. 92-93) snapanaṃ bhūri naivedyam utsavaṃ tu calaṃ nayet63 | (p. 93) Ch. 65 of Uttarabhāga, Caṇḍeśasthāpanavidhi, 64ab kaśilāṃ pūrvamantreṇa ratnauṣadhyādigarbhitām | Ch. 45 of Uttarabhāga, atha brahmaśilopetaṃ sthāpayed vā64 gaṇādhipam || Vighneśasthāpanavidhi, 96cd-98 prāg vinyasya gaṇeśānaṃ mūlamantraṃ samuccaran | sumuhūrte sulagne tu mantrasnyāsaṃ samācaret || calaṃ cet snānavedyāṃ tu65 mantranyāso bhaved dvijāḥ | (p. 93) sampūjya snapanaṃ kuryād arcanoktavad arcayet | Ch. 58 of Uttarabhāga, datvā naivedyam ante tu pratiṣṭhotsavam ācaret || (p. 93) Kalyāṇamūrtipratiṣṭhāvidhi, 63cd-64ab anuktam atra sāmānyasthāpanoktavad ācaret | (p. 93) Ch. 57 of Uttarabhāga, Kālārikāmāntakapratiṣṭhāvidhi, 45cd liṅgapratiṣṭhā cākhyātā66 jñeyā67 sāmānyarūpiṇī | (p. 93) Ch. 64 of Pūrvabhāga, Liṅgasthāpanavidhi, 195ab calaṃ ca dvividhaṃ proktam aṅgaprādhānikaṃ68 tv iti | Ch. 36 of Uttarabhāga, citrādipratimādīnāṃ pūjārthaṃ tat tad agrake | Bāṇaliṅgasthāpanavidhi, 56-57ab pūjitaṃ cāṅgam69 ity uktam anyat prādhānikaṃ mataṃ | (p. 94)
āvāhanāsanaṃ padmam anantaṃ snānakarmaṇi | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, vimalaṃ cārcane vidyān naivedye yogam āsanam | Arcanavidhi, 284cd-285
58 pāṣāṇaṃ ratnam 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 75) 60 ratnahomādi° 1988 SIAA Ed. ; ralahemādi 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; ratnahemādi° 1899 CÑP Ed. ; ratnauṣadhyādi IFP T.298B (f. 502) 61 tu taddhṛdi 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 502) 62 anukumbhebhyaḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., anukumbhevyo IFP T.298B (f. 502) 63 ca calaṃ yadi 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 597) 64 sthāpayec ca 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; sthāpayed vā IFP T.298B (f. 474) 65 snapanavedyāṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; snānavedyān tu 1899 CÑP Ed. ; snānavedyāṃ tu IFP T.298B (f. 475) 66 śivaliṅgapratiṣṭhaiṣā 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 421) 67 proktā 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 421) 68 aṅgaṃ prādhānikaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; omitted in IFP T.298B 69 tv aṅgam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; omitted in IFP T.298B 292 vastrāṇi cānyakarmāṇi70 siṃhapīṭhe tathā bhavet71 | (p. 95)
anantādhāraśaktibhyāṃ bhedānāntam72 āsanam | Ch. 1 of Uttarabhāga, dharmādharmādibhir vargaiḥ chadanābhyāṃ samanvitaiḥ | Paścimadvārārcanavidhi, 50-51 siṃhāsanam idaṃ proktaṃ yogaṃ māyābjam ucyate | padmaṃ vaidyeśvaraṃ padmamaṇḍalaṃ vimalāsanam | (p. 95) pañcāsanātmakaṃ hy etad ekāsanam udīritam | Ibid., 49cd, 52cd snānāvāhanakālādau pṛthag etān prakalpayet | (p. 95) rathādau śibikādau vā paricārakamūrdhasu | Ch. 6 of Uttarabhāga, yānakāle tu tāmbūlaṃ deyaṃ nānāphalāni ca | Mahotsavavidhi, 262cd-263, bhakṣyāpūpādikaṃ deyaṃ datvā kāṇḍapaṭādikam | 265ab-267c śaṅkhadhvanisamāyuktaṃ pādyācamanasaṃyutam | pracchannapaṭam āvarjya nirmālyāpanaye kṛte | datvopahārān sarvebhyo madbhaktebhyaḥ krameṇa tu | āgantukebhyas tv anyebhyas tat tad bhaktyanusārataḥ | praveśya dhāma kūṭādyam73 (p. 96) gaṇeśaṃ pīṭhavāyavyāṃ gandhapuṣpādibhir yajet | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, aiśānyāṃ gurupaṅktīś ca pūjayedd hṛdayena tu | (p. 96) Arcanavidhi, 287 kāmyādisiddhayo74 jñeyās siddhayo bahudhā smṛtāḥ | Ch. 37 of Uttarabhāga, kanyasaṃ madhyamaṃ jyeṣṭhaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ ceti caturvidham || Kāmyaliṅgasthāpanavidhi, 1ab-9 pratyekaṃ trividhaṃ proktam uttamādivibhedataḥ | phalaṃ dṛṣṭam adṛṣṭaṃ ca dvividhaṃ tatparāparam || kanyasaṃ bhūpatīśatvaṃ madhyamaṃ balasiddhayaḥ | uttamaṃ khecaratvaṃ ca śreṣṭhaṃ devasamānatā || bhidyate bahudhaikaikaṃ vidyeśatvādibhedataḥ | vidyeśatvaṃ ca rudratvaṃ brahmatvaṃ vaiṣṇavaṃ padam || ity evam ādi devatvaṃ75 śreṣṭham ity ucyate budhaiḥ | siddhayaś cāṇimādyāś ca cakravartitvam eva ca || ity evam ādikaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ siddhīnāṃ munipuṅgavāḥ | guḷikāñcanapātāḷakhaḍgaghaṇṭādi madhyamam || apamṛtyujayoccāṭavaśyād yam adhamaṃ matam | dṛṣṭam etad anenaiva yad dehenopabhujyate || dehāntareṇa vā dṛṣṭaṃ māyākārye paratra ca | māyākārye ‘mareśādirudrasthāne ca76 yat sukham || aparaṃ tatparaṃ vidyād anantādipadasthitiḥ | (pp. 97-98)
70 vastrādīnya anykakarmāṇi 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; vastrādīnyanyakarmāṇi IFP T.298A (f. 76) 71 siṃhāsane prakalpayet 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 76) 72 bhaved ānantam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 6) 73 praveśyāsthānakūṭādyam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 75) ; praveśyasthānakūṭādyam 1999 HR&CE Ed. 74 kāmyāni siddhayo 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 420) 75 ādidaivatvaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; ādibhedatvaṃ IFP T.298B (f. 421) 76 tu 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 421) 293
prayahaṃ vāṅmanaḥ kāyavyāpārajanitādalam | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, patanāt trāyate yasmāt tasmād deyaṃ77 pavitrakam || (pp. 102-103) Arcanavidhi, 502
savyaṃ bhogapradaṃ vidyād apasavyaṃ tu mokṣadam | (p. 103) Not found
saṃhāramudrayāstreṇa devān āvaraṇasthitān | Ch. 4 of Pūrvabhāga, utthāpya mūrtimantreṇa yojayen mūrtisaṅgatam78 ||79 Arcanavidhi, 518cd-519ab, 521cd-522, parigṛhītaliṅgeṣu80 sāpekṣaḥ prāk pradarśitaḥ | 530cd-532 calaliṅge tu81 sāpekṣo ‘napekṣas sthaṇḍile sadā || sarvatra vānapekṣas tu pratyahaṃ vihito yataḥ |82 nirapekṣaṃ visṛjyeśaṃ83 liṅgaṃ saṃśoddhya84 pūrvavat || praṇave yogapīṭhe tu mūrtiṃ tasya85 tadātmikām | pavitrais sakaḷīkṛtya gāyatryā paryuvāsayet86 || alaṅkṛtya tataś śaktyā bhogārthaṃ kusumādibhiḥ | vedikāsahitaṃ liṅgaṃ kṣamasveti ca vai vadet || (p. 109)
77 tasmād eva 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; tasmād deyaṃ IFP T.298A (f. 97) 78 °saṃgatān 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 98) 79 In 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., and IFP T.298A (f. 98) there are 2 verses, omitted in the citation, between this line and the next. 80 °liṅge tu 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 98) 81 °liṅge ‘pi 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; liṅge ca IFP T.298A (f. 98) 82 In 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., and IFP T.298A (f. 98) there are 7 and a half verses, omitted in the citation, between this line and the next. 83 visṛjyaiśam 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; visṛjyeśaṃ IFP T.298A (f. 99) 84 saṃśodhya 1975 SIAA Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 99) ; saṃśoddhya 1889-90 CÑP Ed. 85 nyasya 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 99) 86 paryupāsayet 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 99) 294
Appendix D Citations of the Kāmika in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi
Chapters of the modern Kāmika where citations are found
Kuṇḍalakṣaṇavidhipaṭala, Ch. 7 of PKā Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, Ch. 83 of UKā Hiraṇyagarbhadānavidhi, Ch. 84 of UKā Sahasragodānavidhi, Ch. 92 of UKā Hiraṇyāśvadānavidhi, Ch. 93 of UKā
Table of Kāmika Citations
Citations attributed to the Kāmika in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi (Dānakhaṇḍa) are given in the left hand column with page numbers in superscript corresponding to where the citations may be found in the 1902 edition of Hemādri’s text. In the right hand column, the corresponding material in the South Indian Archakar Association (SIAA) Editions of the Pūrvabhāga (1975) and Uttarabhāga (1988) is given. Variations between citations and corresponding material are noted with reference to Civañāṉapōta Press (CÑP) Editions (Pūrvabhāga, 1889-90; Uttarabhāga, 1899), HR&CE Edition (Uttarabhāga, 1999), and IFP Paper Transcript T.298.
aindryāṃ stambhe catuṣkoṇe agnau bhoge1 bhagākṛtiḥ | Ch. 7 of Pūrvabhāga, candrārdhaṃ māraṇe yāmye nairṛte dvitrikoṇakam2 || Kuṇḍalakṣaṇavidhi, 9cd-11ab vāruṇyāṃ śāntike vṛttaṃ ṣaṭsu uccāṭane3 ‘nile | udīcyāṃ pauṣṭike padmaṃ raudryām aṣṭāsramuktidam || (p. 136) pañcam āṃśaṃ puro nyasya madhye vedāṃśamānataḥ4| Ibid., 14cd-16ab bhramād aśvatthapatrābhaṃ kuṇḍam āgneyam ucyate || caturasre grahair5 bhakte tyaktvādyantau tad aṃśakau6 | madhyasaptāṃśamāne tu7 kuṇḍaṃ khaṇḍenduvat kramāt8 || (p. 137) tribhāgavṛddhito matsyais tribhir naiśācaraṃ bhavet | Ibid., 17-18ab karmārdhāṣṭāṃśasaṃnyāsād9 vṛttaṃ kuṇḍam10 ihoditam | ṣaḍbhāgavṛddhito matsyaiś caturbhiḥ syāt ṣaḍasrakam | (p. 138)
1 catuṣkoṇam agnau tāpe 1975 SIAA Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 116) ; catuṣkoṇam agnitāpe 1889-90 CÑP Ed. 2 nirṛtau dvyaṣṭakoṇakam 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; niṛṛtau dvyeṣṭakoṇakam IFP T.298A (f. 116) 3 ṣaḍaśroccāṭane 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; ṣaḍaśrūccāṭane IFP T.298A (f. 116) 4 koṇavedāṃśa° 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; IFP T.298A (f. 117) 5 gṛhe 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 6 °ante tad aṃśake 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 7 ānena 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 8 °vad bhramāt 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 9 kaṇṭhārdhāṣṭāṃśasantyāgāt 1975 SIAA Ed. ; kaṇṭhārddhāṣṭāṃśasantyāga° 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; arṇāṣṭāśāṣṭasantyāga° IFP T.298A (f. 117) 10 vṛttakuṇḍam 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 295
caturasrāṣṭabhāgena11 karṇikā syād vibhāgaśaḥ12 | Ibid., 18cd-21ab tadbahis tv ekabhāgena kesarāṇi prakalpayet || tṛtīye dalamadhyāni turīye dalakoṭayaḥ | bhramaṇāt padmadalaṃ13 syād dalāgraṃ darśayed bahiḥ || vṛttakuṇḍaṃ samaṃ14 cānyad atha vānyaprakārataḥ | vṛttakuṇḍaṃ purā kṛtvā caturdhā mekhalāṃ bhajet || utsedhaṃ ca tathā kṛtvā karṇikā sārdhakā15 bhavet | avaśiṣṭaṃ dalaṃ vedadalam aṣṭadalaṃ tu vā || (p. 139) kṣetrād dvādaśamaṃ16 bhāgaṃ caturdikṣu tadantare17 | Ch. 7 of Pūrvabhāga, vinyasya tatprāmāṇena18 turyāsram aparaṃ nayet || Kuṇḍalakṣaṇavidhi, 22cd-24ab tasya karṇapramāṇena tadbhujeṣv api19 lāñchayet | tatrāṣṭasūtrasaṃyogād aṣṭāsraṃ kuṇḍam ucyate || (p. 140) kṣetrārkāṃśena tasyoṣṭhaḥ syāt tad vedarttu bhāgataḥ Not found26 mekhalāpṛthutocchrāyaḥ kuṇḍākārā tu mekhalā || sarveṣāṃ tu prakarttavyā mekhalaikātra lāghavāt | (p. 143) vidhāya20 maṇḍapaṃ tatra21 tanmadhye vedikāṃ nayet | Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, navāṣṭasaptahastena22 dvihastād hy ardhahastataḥ Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 3-4ab vistāreṇocchrayeṇāpi dvādaśastambhasaṃyutām | (p. 196) saptaṣaṭpañcahastais tu pārśvastambhocchrayo mataḥ | Ibid., 8cd aṣṭahastāditaś cātha dvipañcadvayasāṅgulaḥ || Not found tulāstambhasya viṣkambho nāhastatriguṇo mune | dvayāṅgulavihīnaṃ tu suvṛttaṃ nirbraṇaṃ tathā | (p. 196) aṣṭāṅgulena vistāras tv agre bhūtayavānvitaḥ23 | Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, ṣaṭtriṃśanmātranāhas tu madhyame tu vidhīyate || Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 13-14 agre mūle ca madhye ca hemapaṭṭena bandhayet24 | paṭṭamadhye25 prakarttavyam avalambanakatrayam || (p. 197)
11 caturaśre‘ṣṭabhāge tu 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; caturaśreṣṭhabhāgo‘nta° IFP T.298A (f. 117) 12 vibhāgataḥ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 13 padmakuṇḍaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 14 vṛttakuṇḍasamaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 15 sārdhato 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 16 kṣetrārdhadaśamaṃ 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed., IFP T.298A (f. 117) 17 taduttare 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; tadantare IFP T.298A (f. 117) 18 vinyaset tatpramāṇena 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; vinyasya tatpramāṇena IFP T.298A (f. 118) 19 tadbhujāṃś cāpi 1975 SIAA Ed., 1889-90 CÑP Ed. ; tadbhujāś cāpi IFP T.298A (f. 118) 20 kūṭaṃ vā 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 700) 21 vātha 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; vāpi IFP T.298B (f. 700) 22 navaṣaṭsaptahastena 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; navāṣṭaṃ saptahastena IFP T.298B (f. 700) 23 atha pañcayavānvitaḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; atha pañcayavānvitam IFP T.298B (f. 701) 24 vā hemapaṭṭair vibhūṣayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 701) 25 tulādaṇḍe 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; tuladaṇḍe IFP T.298B (f. 701) 26 These same verses, however, are attributed to the Kāmika in Raghava Bhaṭṭa’s commentary on Śāradātilaka. 296 tāmreṇa vāpi rūpyeṇa27 āyasenaiva kārayet28 | Fragments of Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, madhye cordhvamukhaṃ29 kāryam avalambaṃ30 suśobhanam || Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 15, 16 raśmibhis toraṇāgre vā bandhayec ca vidhānataḥ | jihvām ekāṃ tulāmadhye toraṇaṃ ca vidhīyate31|| uttarasya tu madhe ‘tha śaṅkudvayam anuttamam32 | vitānenoparicchādya dṛḍhaṃ samyak prayojayet || Not found sudṛḍhaṃ ca tulāmadhye mānam aṅgulamānataḥ | paṭṭasyaiva tu vistāraḥ pañcamātrapramāṇataḥ || badhnīyāc cakrapāśaṃ ca avalambena susthitam | śulvajau ca dṛḍhau vidvān bandhanena tu kārayet || śikyo ‘dhastāt prakarttvyau pañcaprādeśavistarau | sahasreṇa tu karttavyau pañcapradeśavistarau || sahasreṇa tu karttavyau palenādhārakāv ubhau | śatāṣṭakena vā kuryāt palānāṃ ṣaṭśatena vā || catustālapravistāraṃ madhyamaṃ parikīrttitam | sārdhatritālavistāro niyamaś ca vidhīyate || pañcamātraṃ caturmātraṃ trimātraṃ phalam ucyate | caturdvārasamopetaṃ dvāram aṅgulinātha vā || kuṇḍalaiś ca samopetaṃ ślakṣṇasvacchasamanvitaiḥ | kuṇḍale kuṇḍale kāryaṃ śṛṅkhaloparimaṇḍalam || śṛṅkhalādhāravalayam avalambena yojayet | prādeśaṃ vā caturmātraṃ bhūmiṃ tyaktvāvalambayet || dhaṭau puruṣamātrau tu karttavyau śobhanāv ubhau | dvihastabālukāpūrṇe śile tatra vinikṣipet || dvihastamātram avaṭau sthāpanīyau prayatnataḥ | śeṣaṃ sampūrayet vidvān bālukābhiḥ samantataḥ || yena niścalatāṃ gacchet tena mārgeṇa kārayet | (p. 197-98)
śaṅkuḥ suṣirasampanno33 valayena samanvitaḥ34 | (p. 218) Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 17ab brahmāṇaṃ dakṣiṇe vāme viṣṇuṃ viśvaguruṃ śivam | Fragments of Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, madhye vedyā mahādevam indrādigaṇasaṃvṛtam || Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 27cd, 29ab ādityaṃ bhāskaraṃ bhānuṃ raviṃ devaṃ divākaram | ūṣāṃ prabhāṃ tathā prajñāṃ sandhyāṃ sāvitrikām api35 || chāyāṃ puṣṭiṃ dhṛtiṃ tuṣṭiṃ śākhoktāya mahātmane | vistarāṃ śubhagāṃ caiva bodhanīṃ ca pradakṣiṇām || āpyāyinīṃ ca saṃpūjya devaṃ padmāsane ravim | prabhūtaṃ prāk prakarttavyaṃ vimalaṃ dakṣiṇe tathā || (p. 202)
27 tāmreṇātha prakartavyam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; omitted in IFP T.298B 28 āyasenāthavā bhavet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; omitted in IFP T.298B 29 cordhve mukhaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; cordhve mukhaḥ 1899 CÑP Ed. ; cordhve mukhe IFP T.298B (f. 702) 30 tv avalambas su° 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; stv avalaṃbas su° 1899 CÑP Ed. ; satvalambana° IFP T.298B (f. 702) 31 toraṇasya prakalpayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; toraṇasya ca kalpayet IFP T.298B (f. 702) 32 tu ayaśśaṅku dṛḍhaṃ nayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; tu ayaśśaṃkur dṛḍhan nayet 1899 CÑP Ed. ; tu athaśśaṅkudṛḍhaṃ nayet IFP T.298B (f. 702) 33 śaṅkuṃ suṣirasampannaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; śaṅkuṃ suṣirasampanna° IFP T.298B (f. 702) 34 samanvitam 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 702) 35 sāvitrim arcayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 703) 297
sāraṃ paścimabhāge ca ārādhyaṃ cottare yajet | Fragments of Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, madhye sukhaṃ vijānīyāt kesareṣu yathākramam || Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 41ab, dīptāṃ sukṣmāṃ jayāṃ bhadrāṃ vibhūtiṃ vimalāṃ kramāt | 45ab, 46ab, 47ab amoghāṃ vidyutāṃ caiva madhyataḥ sarvatomukhīm || somam aṅgārakaṃ caiva budhaṃ jīvam anukramāt | bhārgavaṃ ca tathā mandaṃ rāhuṃ ketuṃ samantataḥ || pūjayed dhomayed arghaṃ dāpayec ca viśeṣataḥ | brāhmaṇān bhojayet tatra36 vedavedāṅgapāragān37 || vidyād hy ayanasampannān kṛtvaivaṃ vidhivistaram | home pravarttamāne ca pūrvadiksthānamadhyame || ārohayed vidhānena rudrād hy āyena vai nṛpam | dhārayet tatra yajvānaṃ ghaṭikaikāvidhānataḥ || yajamāno japen mantraṃ rudragāyatrisaṃjñakaṃ | ghaṭikārdhaṃ tadardhaṃ vā tatraivāsanam ārabhet38 || ālokya vasanaṃ dhīmān39 kūrcahastaḥ samāhitaḥ40 | nṛpaśca bhūṣaṇayutaḥ khaḍgakheṭakadhārakaḥ || svastiṛddhyādibhiś cādāvante caiva viśeṣataḥ | puṇyāhaṃ brāhmaṇaiḥ kāryaṃ vedavedāṅgapāragaiḥ || jayamaṅgalaśabdādibrahmaghoṣaiḥ suśobhanaiḥ41 | nṛtyavādyādibhir gītaiḥ sarvaśobhāsamanvitaiḥ || svayameyaṃ caindradigbhāge suvarṇaṃ tatra nikṣipet | tulādhārau samau vṛttau tulābhāras tadā bhavet || (pp. 202-03)
śataniṣkādhikaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ42 tadardhaṃ madhyamaṃ smṛtam43 | Fragments of Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, tasyāpy ardhaṃ kaniṣṭhaṃ syāt trividhaṃ tatra kalpitam || Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 50ab, vastrayugmaṃ tathoṣṇīṣaṃ kuṇḍalaṃ kaṇṭhabhūṣaṇam | 50cd, 51ab, 54ab aṅgulībhūṣaṇaṃ caiva maṇibandhasya bhūṣaṇam || etāni caiva sarvāṇi prārambhe dharmakarmaṇi | purohitāya dattvā ‘tha ṛtvigbhyaḥ saṃpradāpayet || pūrvoktabhūṣaṇaṃ sarvaṃ soṣṇīṣaṃ vastrasaṃyutam | dadyād etat prayoktṛbhyaḥ kuṇḍalāc chādanaṃ budhaḥ || dakṣiṇāṃ ca śataṃ cārdhaṃ viprāya pratipādayet | ṛtvijāṃ caiva sarveṣāṃ44 daśaniṣkān pradāpayet45 || yāgopakaraṇaṃ dravyam46 ācāryāya47 pradāpayet | (p. 204)
36 paścāt 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 704) 37 tulārohaṇam ācaret 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 704) 38 ācaret 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 704) 39 kāñcanaṃ tatsthaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; kāñcanat sthaṃ 1899 CÑP Ed. (unmetrical) ; kāñcanātastha IFP T.298B (f. 705) 40 °hasto haraṃ smaran 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; °hastaṃ smaraṃsmaran IFP T.298B (f. 705) 41 °saṃyuktaṃ tatsuvarṇasamaṃ yadi 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 705) 42 śataniṣkaṃ tadardhaṃ vā 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 705) 43 kāñcanasya tu 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; IFP T.298B (f. 705) 44 ṛtvigbhyaś caiva sarvebhyo 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; ṛtvigbhyaś caiva sarvebhyaḥ IFP T.298B (f. 705) 45 °niṣkāḥ prakīrtitāḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 705) 46 yāgopayuktaṃ yaddravyaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; yāgopakaraṇayadravyaṃ IFP T.298B (f. 705) 47 deśikāya 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 705) 298
itareṣāṃ dvijānāṃ tu pṛthag iṣṭaṃ pradāpayet || Fragment of Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, purohitadvijobhyaś ca dakṣiṇāṃ dāpayet svayam | Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 54ab ācāryāya pradātavyaṃ śrotriyebyo viśeṣataḥ || vandīkṛtāṃś ca visṛjet48 kārāgṛhaniveśitān | sahasrakalasenaiva snāpayet parameśvaram || dhṛtena kevalenāpi devadevam umāpatim | payasā vātha dadhnā vā sarvadravyair athāpi vā || brahmakūrceṇa vā deyaṃ pañcagavyena vā punaḥ | (p. 204) gāyatryā caiva gomūtraṃ gomayaṃ ca praṇavena || Not found āpyāyasveti vai kṣīraṃ dadhikrāvṇeti vai dadhi | tejosīty ājyam īśānaṃ mantreṇaivādhiṣiñcayet || devasyatveti deveśaṃ kuśāmbukalasairnavaiḥ | rudrādhyāyena sarveśaṃ snāpayet parameśvaram || sahasrakalasaiḥ śambhor nāmnāṃ caiva sahasrakaiḥ | viṣṇunā kathitair vātha nandinā kathitais tu vā || dakṣeṇa munimukhyena kīrttitenāpi vā budhaḥ | mahāpūjā ca karttavyā mahādevasya bhaktitaḥ || śivārcakāya dātavyā dakṣiṇārdhā guroḥ śubhā | devārcakānāṃ sarveṣāṃ dakṣiṇā ca yathākramam || dīnāndhakṛpaṇānāthabālavṛddhakṛśāturān | bhojayec ca vidhānena dakṣiṇām api dāpayet || (p. 205) yatra karmakarās tebhyaḥ49 pṛthak niṣkaṃ pradāpayet | (p. 205) Ch. 83 of Uttarabhāga, Tulārohaṣoḍaśadānavidhi, 54cd tulādhirohitaṃ vittaṃ brāhmaṇebhyaḥ pradāpayet | Ibid., 52cd-53 madbhaktebhyo viśeṣeṇa madarthaṃ vāpi kalpayet50 || deśikebhyo viśeṣeṇa dadyāt śraddhāsamanvitaḥ51 | (pp. 205–06) pūrṇāhutyādi caivaināṃ52 kriyām atra samāpayet53 | Ibid., 39-41ab sahasrakalaśādyaiś ca saṃsnāpya parameśvaram || mahāpūjā ca karttavyā prabhūtahariṣānvitā54 | pañcāmṛtaiḥ pañcagavyaiḥ kṣīrādyaiḥ snapanaṃ tu vā | brāhmāṇān55 bhojayet paścāt tulārohaṇam ācaret || (p. 206)
48 tatkāle visṛjed baddhān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; tatkāle visṛte baddhān IFP T.298B (f. 705) 49 teṣāṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 705) 50 tadardhaṃ vā prakalpayet 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 705) 51 dadyāc chraddhā° 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 705) 52 pūrṇāṃ kṛtvā pureśānāṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; pūrṇā kṛtvā pureśānāṃ 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; pūrṇāhutvā pureśānāṃ IFP T.298B (f. 704) 53 samācaret 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 704) 54 °haviṣānvitā 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; haviṣānvitām IFP T.298B (f. 704) 55 brāhmaṇān 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 704) 299 kuryāt sahasrakarṣeṇa adhaḥpātraṃ56 hiraṇyataḥ | Ch. 84 of Uttarabhāga, tadardhenordhvapātraṃ tu sahasreṇa dvayaṃ tu vā || Hiraṇyagarbhadānavidhi, 1cd-3 dvipādaṃ vā tripādaṃ57 vā sapādaṃ sārdham eva vā | dviguṇaṃ vā prakarttavyaṃ yathā lābhaṃ tu vā bhavet || sadvṛkṣajaṃ vā taṃ kṛtvā58 svarṇapaṭṭais tu59 veṣṭayet | (p. 231) karttāraṃ bhāryayā yuktaṃ sarvālaṅkāraśobhitam | Ibid., 17-19ab ānīya kuryāt tatsthasya60 garbhādhānādikāḥ kriyāḥ || bhāryādakṣapuṭe dūrvārasasecanam ācaret | (p. 234) ekaviṃśati saṃkhyātānudumbaraphalānvitān | kuśānānīya śaktyātha kuryāt sīmantakarma ca || (p. 234) vastraṃ badhvā male gāśca viprebhyo dāpayet kramāt | Fragments of Ch. 92 of Uttarabhāga, niṣkaṃ svarṇamayaṃ kṛtvā paṭṭaṃ kaṇṭhe ca bandhayet61 || Sahasragodānavidhi, 3ab, 5-6 viprebhyo dāpayed gāvo dakṣiṇāṃ ca pṛthak pṛthak62 | daśaniṣkaṃ tadardhaṃ vā tadardhārdham athāpi63 vā || yathāvibhavavistāraṃ niṣkamānam athāpi vā | vastrayugmaṃ ca dātavyaṃ pṛthag vipreṣu śobhanam || gāvaścārādhya yatnena dātavyāḥ sumanoramāḥ | evaṃ dattvā vidhānena śivam abhyarcya śaṅkaram || japedagre yathānyāyaṃ gavāṃ stavam anuttamam | gāvo mamāgrato nityaṃ gāvo me santu pṛṣṭhataḥ64 || hṛdaye naḥ sadā gāvo65 gavāṃ madhye vasāmyaham | evaṃ stutvā dvijāgrebhyo dattvā gāstāḥ sadakṣiṇāḥ || tadromasaṃkhyāvarṣāṇi svargaloke mahīyate | (pp. 258–59) pūrvoktavedikāmadhye maṇḍalaṃ ca prakalpayet || Not found tanmadhye surabhiḥ sthāpyā sarvataḥ sarvaratnakā | savatsāṃ surabhiṃ tatra vastrayugmena veṣṭayet || saṃpūjayet tu gāyatryā savatsāṃ surabhiṃ punaḥ | athaikāgnividhānena homaṃ kuryād yathāvidhi || samidhaṃ tvājyabhāgena pūrvavac cheṣam ācaret | śivapūjā prakarttavyā liṅgaṃ snāpyaṃ dhṛtādibhiḥ || gāmālabhya ca gāyatryā viprebhyo dāpayec ca tām | dakṣiṇā ca pradātavyā triṃśan niṣkaṃ mahāmate || (pp. 271–72)
56 °niṣkeṇa tvadhaḥpātraṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 706), 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; °niṣkeṇa adhapātraṃ 1899 CÑP Ed. 57 tripādaṃ vārdhamānaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; tripādasyārdhamānaṃ IFP T.298B (f. 706) 58 vṛkṣajaṃ vātha tatkṛtvā 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; vṛkṣasthaṃ vātha tatkṛtvā IFP T.298B (f. 706) 59 °paṭṭaiś ca 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 706) 60 tasyaiva 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 707) 61 kaṇṭhe niṣkeṇa paṭṭaṃ ca badhvā dadyāt tṛṇaṃ tataḥ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed. ; kaṇṭhaṃ niṣkeṇa paṭṭaṃ ca badhvā dadyāt tṛṇaṃ tataḥ 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; kaṇṭhe niṣkeṇa paṭṭaṃ ca badhvā dadyātrayaṃ tataḥ IFP T.298B (f. 717) 62 śivāya śivaviprebhyo dadyād gāṃ dakṣiṇāyutām 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; śivāya śivaviprebhyo dadyād gāṃ dakṣiṇānvitām IFP T.298B (f. 717) 63 tadardhaṃ niṣkam eva 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 717) 64 gāvaḥ pṛṣṭhata eva me 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 717) 65 gāvo me hṛdayaṃ nityaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 717) 300 dhṛtādyaiḥ pūjayed devaṃ sahasrakalaśādibhiḥ | Not found gāmārādhya tu gātryayā viprebhyo dāpayec ca tām || ācāryaṃ pūjayet pūrvaṃ keyūrakaṭakādibhiḥ | vastrayugmaṃ ca dattvā tu vijñāpya vidhipūrvakam || dakṣiṇā tu pradātavyā triṃśan niṣkā mahātapa | (p. 272) gandhādibhis tam abhyarcya66 viprebhyo vinivedayet | Fragments of Ch. 93 of Uttarabhāga, surendrabuddhyā sampūjya pañca niṣkān67 pradāya ca || Hiraṇyāśvadānavidhi, 5, 6cd maṇḍalābhyarcanaṃ homaṃ kalaśasthāpanaṃ68 tathā | dakṣiṇāṃ deśikādīnāṃ tulābhāravad ācaret || (pp. 276–77)
66 samabhyarcya 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 718) 67 niṣkaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed. ; °niṣka° IFP T.298B (f. 718) 68 °snapanaṃ 1988 SIAA Ed., 1899 CÑP Ed., 1999 HR&CE Ed., IFP T.298B (f. 718) 301
Appendix E Kāmikottara Passage in the Kriyāsāra
From the Kriyāsāra1
In the Kāmikottara – Whosoever wears the liṅga of Śrīśaila, O Beautiful One, I, Sadāśiva shall dwell near to that devotee with a host of attendants. From bearing my liṅga, my favour (prītiḥ) is born again — a favour which does not merely [arise] from understanding [or] from offering worship to me; nor from sacrifices, nor by penances, nor by harsh [observances] like the cāndrāyaṇa fast, nor from gifting tracts of land (bhūmaṇḍaladānāt), nor from reading the Vedas, but from bearing my liṅga in a sajjikā2 according to the rule. From bearing my liṅga [thus] in the world, nothing at all is difficult to attain. In achieving this and that, O Pārvatī, whatever world one strives to obtain, [there] one dwells. [Thus] attaining the World of Brahmā, the World of Viṣṇu, or the World of Rudra, [that] yogi is [then] destined for the World of Soma, my abode, and [the four grades of liberation:] inhabiting [my] world (sālokyam), possessing [my] form (sārūpya), holding [my] rank (sārṣṭi), and communion [with me] (sāyujyam). One who bears [my] liṅga goes the way that leads to the state of ultimate unity, [and] for them there is no limitation [on] anything desired (kaścit kāmikaḥ). O Beautiful One, listen: one who is intent upon the Five Precepts (pañcācāraparaḥ) and grounded in the [practice of the] Eight Veils (aṣṭāvaraṇeṣu) [reaps the rewards of] practising all penances (tena taptaṃ tapaḥ sarvam); that one accomplishes all. Morning and evening, [one should] lower me onto the pedestal of the hand (hastapīṭhe) from a sajjikā (sajjikātaḥ) [obtained] according to one’s capacity, at an appropriate time, without ill-gotten means. Becoming wholly devoted to my liṅga, the mind absorbed in my liṅga, closing both eyes, [one should] contemplate the juncture of heaven and earth (rodasoḥ). One who recites my mantra as though intoxicated, taking me as highest, [should] sing my praises loudly at every opportunity, every day, with these names: Hara! Śambhu! Mahādeva! Nīlakaṇṭha! Nirāmaya! Kālakāla! Kalānātha! Kāmitārthapradāyaka! Karoṭimālābharaṇa! Kaṭakīkṛtasarparāṭ! Karuṇākara! Karuṇākara! Kaṅkāladhara! Kāntārdhavigraha! Kabhravigraha! Kāmāre! Kalayāmi! Karāmbuje! Calling [these names] to mind thus [one should] then arrange them [in a ritual diagram?] carefully, as though they were one’s own vital powers (prāṇān svīyān iva).3
1 Kriyāsāra (1958 Ed., Vol. 3), 49–50. 2 A sajjikā evidently refers to a box or casket for carrying a liṅga (see Kriyāsāra, 1946 Ed., Vol. 2, 220: sajjikābhidhapeṭakaṃ kalpayet “one should prepare the box known as ‘sajjikā’.”
302
kāmikottare – śrīśailaliṅgābharaṇo bhaktaḥ sundari yaḥ pumān | vasāmi nikaṭe tasya sagaṇo ‘haṃ sadāśivaḥ || malliṅgadhāraṇāt prītir yā punarjāyate mama | sā prītir naiva vijñānāt kevalān mama pūjanāt || na yajñān naiva tapasā kṛcchracāndrāyaṇādibhiḥ | na bhūmaṇḍaladānād vā vedapaṭhanād api || malliṅgadhāraṇād eva sajjikāyāṃ yathāvidhi | malliṅgadhāraṇāl loke na kiṃcid api durlabham || yallokaṃ* vasati kāṅkṣe tattat sidhyati pārvati | *yallokaṃ ] conj.; yalloka Ed. brahmalokaṃ viṣṇulokaṃ rudralokam athāpi vā || saṃprāpya yogin vihitaṃ somalokaṃ madālayam | sālokyaṃ caiva sārūpyaṃ sārṣṭiṃ sāyujyam apy atha || prayāti dhṛtaliṅgo yaḥ sāmarasyapurassaram | na tasya niyamaḥ kaścit kāmikaḥ śṛṇu sundari || pañcācāraparo yastu niṣṭho’ṣṭāvaraṇeṣu ca | tena taptaṃ tapaḥ sarvaṃ tena sarvamanuṣṭhitam || prātaḥ sāyaṃ hastapīṭhe sajjikāto‘varopya mām | yathāśakti yathākālaṃ vittaśāṭhyavivarjitaḥ || malliṅgaparamo bhūtvā malliṅge līnamānasaḥ | nimīlya nayanadvandvaṃ rodaso sandhivīkṣaṇaḥ || japanmantraṃ madīyaṃ yaḥ pramatta iva matparaḥ | kṣaṇaṃ gāyati mām uccair ebhir nāmabhir anvaham || hara śambho mahādeva nīlakaṇṭha nirāmaya | kāḷakāla kalānātha kāmitārthapradāyaka || karoṭimālābharaṇa kaṭakīkṛtasarparāṭ | karuṇākara kaṅkāladhara kāntārdhavigraha || kabhravigraha kāmāre kalayāmi karāmbuje | evaṃ dhyātvātha vinyasya prāṇān svīyānivādarāt ||
303
Appendix F Survey of Kāmika Devanāgarī Paper Transcripts at the IFP
1. Transcript No.: T.5 Title: “A Collection of Paṭalas from Āgamas & Prayogas” Exemplar: Copied from a palm-leaf manuscript belonging to Sri C. Viśvanātha Gurukkal, Melamagalam (Madura Dt.) Description. Transmits portions of the Aṃśumadāgama, a prose account of daily obligatory worship (nityapūjāvidhi), and a Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala (129–60) attributed to the Kāmika. This last paṭala contains only 152 verses, whereas the Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala of Kāmika print editions4 (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 30) contains 904.5 verses. The Kāmika colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre prāyaścittavidhipaṭalaḥ.
2. Transcript No.: T.50 Title: Śaivāgamaprakīrṇaviṣayāḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to M.K.S. Bhattar of Madurai Description. Transmits portions of the Suprabhedāgama, Dīptāgama, Aṃśumatyāgama, Sakalāgamasaṅgraha, and 11 chapters attributed to a certain ‘Mahātantra’, of which three (Gopurasthāpanapaṭala, 109–29; Vṛṣabhasthāpana, 129–33; and Caṇḍeśasthāpanampūjāvidhi, 133–49) correspond closely with similarly titled chapters in Kāmika print editions. A sample colophon reads: iti mahātantre gopurasthāpanaḥ paṭalaḥ.
3. Transcript No.: T.223 Title: Śāstṛpratiṣṭhā, Tapasotpatti, Kulālotpatti Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to S. P. Gaṇapati Gurukkal, Pirānmalai, Pudukkottai. Description. Most of the contents are associated with Āgamas other than the Kāmika. But there are two relatively short chapters (Śilālakṣaṇavidhipaṭala, 558– 60; Ālayanirṇayavidhipaṭala, 560–64) attributed to the Kāmika. Corresponding material could not be found in Kāmika print editions. A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre ālayanirmāṇavidhipaṭalaḥ.
4. Transcript No.: T.269 Title: Kaumāryādyutsavapratiṣṭhāvidhiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to GOML, Madras, No. R 6615. Description. Like T.494 and T.673, it transmits portions of various texts with a focus on goddess worship, including one paṭala (Bhadrakālipratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 31–34) attributed to the Kāmika. Corresponding material could not be found in Kāmika print editions. The Kāmika colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre bhadrakālipratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭalaḥ.
4 By “print editions,” I refer specifically to editions of the Civañāṉapōta Press and SIAA. 304
5. Transcript No.: T.298 Title: Kāmikāgama Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to G. Swaminatha Sivacharya, Tiruvaduturai. Description. Transmits a more or less ‘complete’ recension of the Kāmika (both Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga), which appears to correspond roughly to print editions. It also transmits a table of contents (anukramaṇikā) in verse form, which is similar to what we find in print editions. However, the versified table of contents does not entirely match the actual contents of the transcript; some chapters are in a different order. The colophons are numbered. A sample colophon reads: iti pūrvakāmikākhye mahātantre gopurasthāpanavidhiś catussaptatitamaḥ paṭalaḥ.
6 Transcript No.: T.309 Title: Kāmikāgamaḥ – uttarabhāgaḥ (jīrṇoddhāram) Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to GOML, Madras, No. D 5432. Description. Transmits seven paṭalas attributed to the ‘Uttarakāmika’. Four of these paṭalas transmit contents that could not be found in Kāmika print editions: Agnitrayalakṣaṇavidhipaṭala, 31–32; Astrasaṃdhyāvidhipaṭala, 32–37; Vāstuhomapaṭala, 37–44; Aṣṭabandhanavidhipaṭala, 44–47. A sample colophon reads: iti śrī uttarakāmikākhye mahātantre kriyāpāde prokṣaṇavidhipaṭalaḥ.
7. Transcript No.: T.348 Title: Untitled Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Ayyamani Sivacharya, Tiruvadanai. Description. Transmits portions of various Āgamas (e.g., Vātula, Aṃśumat, Kāraṇa, Raurava, Sakalāgamapurāṇa, Bhīmasaṃhita, and several others). There are conflicts in the transcript between chapter headings and colophons. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify four chapters attributed to the Kāmika. Of these, three (Mūrtihomavidhipaṭala, 198–99; Śāntihomavidhipaṭala, 200–04; Diśāhomavidhipaṭala, 205–10) carry titles not found in print editions, but transmit contents found in the Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala of Kāmika print editions (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 30). A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre kriyāpāde mūrtihomavidhipaṭalaḥ.
8. Transcript No.: T.402 Title: Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Adyar Library, Madras, No. 67702. Description. Transmits 32 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika. The transcript does not distinguish between a Pūrvabhāga or Uttarabhāga, yet it carries paṭalas that in printed editions are found in both. The paṭalas are numbered in the transcript colophons in an unbroken sequence from 48 to 79. There is some correspondence between this sequence and the chapter numbers in Pūrvabhāga print editions. Thus paṭalas 48 to 64 in the transcript correspond to paṭalas 48 to 64 in print 305
editions of the Pūrvabhāga. However, paṭalas 65 to 72 in the transcript correspond to paṭalas 35 to 42 in Uttarabhāga print editions. Paṭalas 72 to 79 in the transcript correspond to paṭalas 69 to 75 in Pūrvabhāga print editions. The numbering of chapters without regard for Uttarabhāga and Pūrvabhāga divisions suggests the transmitted text may predate a division into two separate bhāgas. A sample colophon reads: iti śrī kāmikākhye mahātantre kriyāpāde pīṭhapratiṣṭhā vidhir nāma pañcaṣaṣṭiḥ paṭalaḥ.
9. Transcript No.: T.406 Title. Dhvajapratiṣṭhā Paddhatiḥ Exemplar: Copied from manuscripts (Nos. 4 and 16) belonging to Sundara Diksitar, Tirunelveli. Description. Transmits a paddhati claiming affiliation to the Kāmika. The text is comprised of 50–60 chapters divided into two sections (sampuṭas). A cursory glance suggests some overlap with Kāmika print editions (e.g., we find sections in the transcript detailing injunctions for aṅkurārpaṇa, vāstubali, and agnikārya) but a closer look reveals no substantial correspondence. There does not appear to be any similarity between this paddhati and the other paddhatis claiming affiliation to the Kāmika among IFP Devanagari transcripts (i.e., T.1051, T.1109). The colophons make no reference to the title of the text nor to the Kāmika. A sample colophon reads: iti dravyasaṃgrahaṇavidhiḥ.
10. Transcript No.: T.410 Title. Aṣṭabandhanavidhiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript (No. 10) belonging to Sundara Diksitar, Tirunelveli. Description. Like T.406, this transcript claims affiliation to the Kāmika, but it appears rather to be an independent prayoga manual. A table of contents lists about 30 chapters. The structure of the text is a mess. Some portions are in Tamil. The colophons make no reference to the title of the text nor to the Kāmika. A sample colophon reads: iti caṇḍapūjā.
11. Transcript No.: T.449 Title. Śivagīta, Pratiṣṭhāvidhiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Aruppukkottai. Description. Transmits a number of paṭalas attributed to various Āgamic sources (e.g. Kāraṇa, Suprabheda, Śivadharma, etc.). It contains 11 chapters attributed to the Kāmika, but only one of these (Sakalārcanavidhi) is ‘complete’. The rest are only about a verse or two long. The transcript appears to be a prayoga manual for the most part. The one Kāmika colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre sakalārcanavidhipaṭalaḥ.
12. Transcript No.: T.451 Title. Pratiṣṭhāvidhiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Aruppukkottai. 306
Description. Like T.449, this transcript carries a number of paṭalas that are attributed to various Āgamic sources (e.g. Kāraṇa, Suprabheda, Vijaya, etc.). There are also a number of prayoga sections. It transmits four chapters attributed to the Kāmika, of which three carry contents that could not be found in print editions: Vighneśvarapratiṣṭḥāvidhipaṭala, 6–12; Ardhanārīśvarapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 262–65; and Dhvajadaṇḍapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 294–304. One colophon reads: iti kāmike vighneśvarapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭalaḥ. Another colophon refers to the Kāmika as a ‘Pratiṣṭhātantra’: iti kāmike pratiṣṭḥātantre arddhanārīśvarasthāpanavidhipaṭalaḥ.
13. Transcript No.: T.475 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Adyar Library, Madras, No. 68979 (22.F.55) Description. Transmits 19 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika. Of these, two paṭalas (Vighneśvarapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 24–34; Vighneśvarārcanavidhipaṭala, 35–37) carry titles not found in print editions, but transmit contents found in the printed Vigneśvaravidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 45). This is similar to what we find in T.647. Three paṭalas (Pāśupatāstrapratiṣṭhāpaṭala, 1–3; Śarabhapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 3–7; Devīlakṣaṇasthāpanārcanautsavasarvadeva- sāmānyapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 7–24) carry contents that could not be found in printed editions. The colophons are numbered, but there is no correspondence between these and chapter numbers in print editions. The colophons also refer to the text as an ‘Uparibhāga’ of the Kāmika: iti śrī kāmikākhye mahātantre kriyāpāde uparibhāge caṇḍeśapratiṣṭhāvidhināmā śatādhike saptamaḥ paṭalaḥ.
14. Transcript No.: T.494 Title. Bhadrakālīpratiṣṭhā Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Aruppukkottai. Description. Like T.269 and T.673, this transcript carries portions of various texts with a focus on goddess worship. One paṭala in the transcript (Prāyaścittavidhipaṭala, 84–94) is attributed to the Kāmika. This paṭala is different from the one in print editions and from the one in T.5. The colophon reads: iti kāmikāgame prāyścittavidhipaṭalaḥ.
15. Transcript No.: T.535 Title. Vimānasthāpanādi Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Chandrasekhara Gurukkal of Tirukkalukkunram. Description. Transmits paṭalas attributed to various Āgamas (e.g., Sukṣma, Kāraṇa, Svayambhuvasūtra, Suprabheda, Ajita). Two paṭalas in the transcript attributed to the Kāmika (Vimānasthāpanavidhi, 30–38; Grāmaśāntividhi, 96–98) carry contents that cannot be found in print editions. A sample colophon reads: iti kāmike vimānasthāpanapaṭala.
307
16. Transcript No.: T.553 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ, Śivaparvatavardhanīsahasranāma, Agnikāryādi, Śivālayanirmāṇadīpikā. Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 25191 Description. Transmits several paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika in addition to sections of other Āgamic and Purāṇic works. Four chapters attributed to the Kāmika (Caṇḍeśvarapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 1–10; Daśāyudhapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 10–12; Śivabhaktapratiṣṭhāvidhipaṭala, 16–26; Rathādisthāpanavidhipaṭala, 26– 40) correspond closely with similarly titled chapters in Kāmika print editions. The colophons are numbered, but they do not correspond to the printed chapterization. A sample colophon reads: iti śrī kāmikākhye mahātantre caṇḍeśvarapratiṣṭḥāpaṭalas tricatvārīṃśad adhikaśatatamaḥ.
17. Transcript No.: T.647 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Adyar Library, Madras, No. 68977 (22.F.53) Description. Transmits 12 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika. Two of these paṭalas (Vighneśasthāpanavidhipaṭala, 50–57; Vighneśvarārcanavidhipaṭala, 57–61) carry titles not found in print editions, although they transmit contents found in the printed Vigneśvaravidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 45). This is similar to what we find in T.475. A sample colophon reads: iti śrī uttarakāmikākhye mahātantre pauruṣaliṅgaprāsādapaṭalaḥ.
18. Transcript No.: T.673 Title. Bhadrakālīpratiṣṭhāvidhiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to Perumper kaṇḍikai. Description. Like T.269 and T.494, this transcript carries portions of various texts with a focus on goddess worship. There are four sections in the transcript, each dealing with the establishment (pratiṣṭḥā, sthāpana) of a different goddess (Bhadrakāli, Draupadī, Reṇukā, Cāmuṇḍa). The section on Draupadī (Draupadīpratiṣṭhāpaṭala, 39–54) is attributed to the Kāmika. Corresponding material could not be found in Kāmika print editions. The Kāmika colophon reads: iti kāmike draupadīpratiṣṭhāpaṭala.
19. Transcript No.: T.733 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ (Śivapratiṣṭhāprayogaḥ) Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to GOML, Madras, No. D 15970. Description. Transmits what appears to be some sort of prayoga manual with a focus on the installation (pratiṣṭhā) of a liṅga for Sadāśiva. There are four sections to the text (Sadāśivaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhi, 2–69; Nyāsavidhi, 69–102; Prāyaścittavidhi, 102–09; Rathadhyāna, 109–10). The first section is attributed to the Kāmika, presented in the colophon as the Kāmika’s 18th chapter. Corresponding material could not be found in Kāmika print editions. The Kāmika 308
colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre sadāśivaliṅgapratiṣṭhāvidhiḥ aṣṭādaśapaṭalaḥ.
20. Transcript No.: T.745 Title. Aṃśumadāgama Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 20270 Description. Transmits mostly portions of the Aṃśumadāgama, but also paṭalas attributed to the Kāraṇāgama, Bhīmasaṃhitā, Saṅkīrṇaviṣaya, and one paṭala attributed to the Kāmikāgama (Sakalārcanavidhipaṭala, 279–82). On a close look, the text corresponds to the printed text, although the first several verses starting on page 279 are not found in print editions. From the fourth line on page 280 (vakṣye'ham...), however, the text matches print editions. The Kāmika colophon reads: iti kāmikākhyamahātantre sakalārcanavidhipaṭalaḥ.
21. Transcript No.: T.830 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ (Vidyāpādaḥ) Exemplar: Copied from manuscripts belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, Nos. RE 39767 and RE 40042 Description. Transmits two copies of a “Vidyāpāda” attributed to the Kāmika. The two copies, based on the two exemplars, are roughly the same, although there are variants. A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre vidyāpāde prathamapaṭalaḥ.
22. Transcript No.: T.989 Title. Kāmikāgamādyāgamapaṭalāḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 37052 Description. Transmits 75 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika as well as some paṭalas attributed to the Ajitāgama. The Kāmika paṭalas mostly correspond to what we find in printed Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga editions, although there are some exceptions. For instance, we find five paṭalas (Grāmavistārāyāmapaṭala, 319–21; Aśvaśālāvidhipaṭala, 417–18; Gośālāvidhipaṭala, 418; Maulimālikāpaṭala, 426; Mālikālakṣaṇapaṭala, 426–36) with titles not found in print editions, but that transmit contents found there as part of other paṭalas. The order of paṭalas intersperses sections found in the Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga. Some of the colophons for paṭalas found in the Pūrvabhāga are numbered and correspond to the chapter numbers in print editions, but most are not numbered. The terms “Pūrvabhāga” and “Pūrvakāmika” are not found in the colophons, although the term “Uttarakāmika” is. Two sample colophons read: iti śrīmad uttarakāmikākhye mahātantre sakalārādhanapaṭalaḥ; iti kāmikākhye mahātantre svāstikapaṭalaḥ.
309
23. Transcript No.: T.1031 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: No record of where this transcript was copied from Description. Transmits 37 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika, most of which correspond to paṭalas found in printed Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga editions. Three paṭalas carry titles that are not found in print editions: Gaurīsthāpanavidhipaṭala, 196–209; Devīnityārcanavidhipaṭala, 209–14; Maheśārcanavidhipaṭala, 214–16. The first two carry contents that are fragmentarily transmitted in the printed Devīsthāpanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 44). The third is transmitted fragmentarily in the printed Sakalārcanavidhipaṭala (Uttarabhāga, Chapter 3). A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye tantre kriyāpāde tantrāvatārapaṭalalaḥ.
24. Transcript No.: T.1039 Title. Mūlāgamapaṭalāḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 30334 Description. Transmits paṭalas attributed to various Āgamas (e.g., Kāraṇa, Raurava, Suprabheda, Ajita, Vātula, Yogaja, and others). It also transmits several sections described as prayogas. Four paṭalas are attributed to the Kāmika, of which three carry contents that could not be found in print editions: Prāṇatyāgaprāyaścittavidhipaṭala, 171–72; Pataṅgabhuvaṅgavidhipaṭala, 322; Dhanurmāsapūjāvidhipaṭala, 578–79. A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikākhye mahātantre prāṇatyāgaprāyaścittavidhipaṭalaḥ.
25. Transcript No.: T.1050 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 40026 Description. Transmits 59 paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika, although some paṭalas are repeated, presumably as a result of scribal error (e.g., we find three Tantrāvatārapaṭalas, two Nimittaparīkṣāpaṭalas, two Bhūparīkṣāpaṭalas, two Vastudevabalipaṭalas). The colophons are numbered and some correspond to chapter numbers in print editions. In most of the colophons, the text is referred to as a “Karṣaṇatantra” (e.g., iti kāmikākhye karṣaṇatantre mantroddhāravidhir nāma dvitīya paṭalaḥ). In some colophons, it is referred to as a “Pratiṣṭhātantra” (e.g., iti kāmike pratiṣṭhātantre kriyāpāde tantrāvatāravidhir nāma prathamaḥ paṭalaḥ). Some of the colophons appear jumbled (e.g., iti śrīmat kāmikākhye karṣaṇatantre tantrāvatāravidhir nāma nimittaparīkṣā tṛtīyodhyāyaḥ). Three paṭalas transmit contents that could not be found in Kāmika print editions: Prāsādalakṣaṇavidhipaṭala, 233–244; Nṛttamūrtyabhiṣecanavidhipaṭala, 244– 246; Prākāralakṣaṇavidhipaṭala, 246–256.
310
26. Transcript No.: T.1051 Title. Aṣṭabandhanapaddhatiḥ Exemplar: No record of where this transcript was copied from Description. Transmits a paddhati claiming affiliation to the Kāmika. The authorship is attributed to a certain Vāmadevaśivācārya. A table of contents on pages 13–18 provides an alternate title: kāmikāgamoktajīrṇoddhārāṣṭabandhana- kriyākramam. There does not appear to be any similarity between this paddhati and the other paddhatis claiming affiliation to the Kāmika among IFP Devanagari transcripts (i.e., T.406, T.1109). The colophons throughout the text maintain the attribution to the Kāmika. A sample colophon reads: iti kāmikāgamoktagaṇapatipūjā.
27. Transcript No.: T.1084 Title. Kāmikāgamaḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 10870 Description. Transmits a number of paṭalas attributed to the Kāmika and other Āgamas. Many of the colophons for the Kāmika portions are numbered, but they do not correspond to chapters in printed editions. The colophons provide names of larger structural units to which they ostensibly belong. Thus we find 14 paṭalas attributed to a Kriyāpāda (different from print editions) (42–61, 73–77, 225–33, 314–30, 382–410), 11 paṭalas attributed to a Kriyākāṇḍa (151–225, 244–49, 268– 314), three paṭalas attributed to a Jñānapāda (121–42, 330–39, 346–51), five paṭalas attributed to a Caryāpāda (63–73, 77–81, 91–92, 142–45, 351–82), five paṭalas attributed to a Śivarātrimahiman (250–68), four paṭalas attributed to a Sṛṣṭikāṇḍa (4–23, 96-99), four paṭalas attributed to a Sthitikāṇḍa (100–16, 148– 51, 344–46), one paṭala attributed to a Nādakāṇḍa (117–21), and two paṭalas with no other attribution (Mānuṣyādyutpattikramapaṭala, 23–23; Śrāddhavidhānapaṭala, 411–21). A sample colophon reads: iti śrīmatkāmikamahātantre sadāśivamanonmanīsallāpe caryāpāde praṇavasya sadāśivopadiṣṭatvāt sarvotkṛṣṭapuṣpavidhiḥ samāptaḥ.
28. Transcript No.: T.1109 Title. Kāmikapaddhatiḥ Exemplar: Copied from a manuscript belonging to the French Institute of Pondicherry, No. RE 20259 Description. Transmits a paddhati claiming affiliation to the Kāmika. The work has a thematic focus on snapana and is divided into several subsections characterized as prayogas. Some of the sections are but litanies of mantras. Some portions are in Tamil. There does not appear to be any similarity between this paddhati and the other paddhatis claiming affiliation to the Kāmika among IFP Devanagari transcripts (i.e., T.406, T.1051). The colophons make no reference to the title of the text nor to the Kāmika. A sample colophon reads: iti ācāryavaraṇam.
311
Bibliography
Abbreviations
EFEO École française d’Extrême-Orient HR&CE Tamilnadu Government Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments / Tamiḻnāṭu Aracu Camaya Aṟanilaiya Āṭcittuṟai IFI Institut Français d’Indologie (name used in old publications) IFP Institut Français de Pondichéry / French Institute of Pondicherry KSTS Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies MS Manuscript NAK National Archives of Kathmandu ORI Oriental Research Institute SBL Society of Biblical Literature SIAA South Indian Archakar Association / Dakṣiṇabhāratārcakasaṃghaḥ T Transcript TSS Trivandrum Sanskrit Series
Manuscripts and Transcripts
ĀTMĀRTHAPŪJĀPADDHATI of Vedajñāna II. IFP MS T.55, T.282, T.321, and T.1056. Paper transcripts in Devanāgarī.
KĀMIKA, VIDYĀPĀDA. IFP MS T.830. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
KRIYĀKRAMADYOTIKĀ of Aghoraśiva with the commentary (-VYĀKHYĀ) of Kacchapeśvara. IFP MS T.109. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
JÑĀNARATNĀVALĪ of Jñānaśiva. IFP MS T.231, paper transcript in Devanāgarī, and Mysore ORI MS P 3801, palm-leaf MS in Nandināgarī.
DĪKṢĀDARŚA of Vedajñāna II. IFP MS T.76, T.153, T.235, T.279, and T.372. Paper transcripts in Devanāgarī.
BṚHATKĀLOTTARA. NAK MS 1-89 (NGMPP B 24/59). Nepalese manuscript.
MṚGENDRAPADDHATI of Aghoraśiva with commentary (-TĪKĀ) of Vaktraśambhu. IFP MS T.1021. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
VARṆĀŚRAMACANDRIKĀ. IFP MS T.533. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
ŚIVAJÑĀNASIDDHISVAPAKṢADṚṢṬĀNTASAṂGRAHA of Vedajñāna II. IFP MS T.317. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
ŚIVADHARMOTTARA. IFP MS T.72. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī. 312
ŚIVAPŪJĀVIDHIVYĀKHYĀDI. IFP MS T.962. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
ŚIVĀGAMĀDIMĀHĀTMYA of Jñānaprakāśa. IFP MS T.281, T.372, and T.1059. Paper transcripts in Devanāgarī.
SARVAJÑĀNOTTARA. NAK MS 1-1692 (NGMPP A 43/12). Nepalese manuscript.
SIDDHĀNTAŚEKHARA of Viśvanātha. IFP MS T.57 and T.969. Paper transcripts in Devanāgarī.
SOMAŚAMBHUPADDHATI (= KARMAKĀṆḌAKRAMĀVALĪ) of Somaśambhu with commentary (-ṬĪKĀ) of Trilocanaśiva. IFP MS T.170. Paper transcript in Devanāgarī.
Editions and Primary Sources
AJITĀGAMA. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. 3 Vols. Publications de l’IFI No. 24. Pondicherry: IFI, 1964, 1967, and 1991.
ĪŚĀNAŚIVAGURUDEVAPADDHATI of Īśānaśiva. Edited by T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī. 4 Vols. TSS 60, 72, 77, and 83. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1990
KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Śrīmat kāmikākamam pūrvapākam kōpurastāpaṉamavarai tamiḻuraiyuṭaṉ. Grantha and Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Ko. Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār. Ceṉṉai, Cintātirippēṭṭai: Civanāṉapōtayantracālai, 1898-99 (Vilampi, Mārkaḻi); also dated 1889-90 (Virōti, Mārkāḻi).
KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Śrīmat kāmikākamam pūrvapākam kōpurastāpaṉamavarai tamiḻuraiyuṭaṉ. Grantha and Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Mayilai Aḻakappa Mutaliyār. Ceṉṉai, Cintātirippēṭṭai Civañāṉapōtayantracālai, 1909 (Kali 5011; Caumiya, Āṭi).
KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Kāmikāgamaḥ pūrvabhāgaḥ. Devanagari script. Published by Ce. Svāmināthaśivācārya (= C. Svāminātha Gurukkal). Ceṉṉai: SIAA, 1975.
KĀMIKĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Kāmikākamam: Kāmikākamaḥ kriyā pātap pūrvapākam tamiḻ cantirikaiyuṭaṉ. Grantha and Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Published by Ce. Svāmināthaśivācārya (= C. Svāminātha Gurukkal). Ceṉṉai: SIAA, 1977.
KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Śrīmat kāmikākamam uttarapākam mūlam. Grantha script. Published by Ko. Ṣaṇmukacuntara Mutaliyār. Ceṉṉai, Cintātirippēṭṭai: Civanāṉapōtayantracālai, 1899 (Kali 5001; Vikāri, Āṭi).
KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Kāmikāgamaḥ uttarabhāgaḥ. Devanagari script. Published by Ce. Svāmināthaśivācārya (= C. Svāminātha Gurukkal). Ceṉṉai: SIAA, 1988.
313
KĀMIKĀGAMA, UTTARABHĀGA. Kāmikāgamaḥ uttarabhāgaḥ. Grantha and Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Edited by Allūr Vicuvanāta Civācāriyār. Ceṉṉai: HR&CE, 1999.
KĀMIKĀGAMA, PRATIṢṬHĀDI UTSAVĀNTAM. Kāmikākamam. Piratiṣṭāti utsavānta paṭalaṅkaḷ. samskirutamūlamum tamiḻ uraiyum. Grantha and Tamil scripts with Tamil gloss. Edited by Satyōjāta Civācāriyar. Kumbhakonam: Śrī Kōpāla Vilācam Mūtrākṣaracālai, 1916–18.
KĀRAṆĀGAMA, PŪRVABHĀGA. Śrīmat pūrvakāraṇākamam. Published by Mayilai Aḻakappa Mutaliyār. Second impression (iraṇṭām patippu). Ceṉṉai, Cintātirippēṭṭai Civañāṉapōtayantracālai, 1921 (Kali 5023).
KIRAṆATANTRA, with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Bhaṭṭarāmakaṇṭhaviracitā kiraṇavṛttiḥ / Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, volume I: chapters 1–6. Edited and translated by Dominic Goodall. Publications du Département d’Indologie 86.1. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 1998.
KRIYĀKRAMADYOTIKĀ, of Aghoraśivācārya with the commentary (-PRABHĀVYĀKHYĀ) of Nirmalamaṇi. Edited by Rāmaśāstrin and Ambalavānajñānasambandhaparāśaktisvāmin. Chidambaram, 1927.
KRIYĀDĪPIKĀ of Śivāgrayogin. Devakoṭṭai: Śivāgamasiddhāntaparipālanasaṅghaṃ, 1920.
KRIYĀSĀRA of Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya. Edited by R. Ramasastri and N. S. Venkatanathacharya (Vol 1), and S. Narayanaswamy Sastri (Vols 2-3). 3 Vols. ORI Publications, Sanskrit Series 95, 99, 100. Mysore: University of Mysore, 1954, 1957, 1958.
CATURVARGACINTĀMAṆI of Hemādri. The Chaturvarga Cintāmani by Hemādri, Volume 1, Dānakhaṇḍa, edited by Pandita Sadāshiva Āchārya Dikshita. Benares: Prabhakari & Co., 1902.
TANTRĀLOKA of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (-VIVEKA) of Rājānaka Jayaratha. Edited by Mukund Rām Śāstrī. KSTS 23, 28, 30, 35, 29, 41, 47, 59, 52, 57, 58. Bombay and Srinagar, 1918–38.
TIRUKKAḶĪṞṞŪPPAṬĪYĀR of Uyyavanta Tēvanāyanār. In Tiruvuntiyār, Tirukkaḷiṟṟuppaṭiyār: meykaṇṭa cāttiram teḷivurai (uraiyaciriyar). Published by Kā. Cuppiramaṇiya Piḷḷai. Ceṉṉai: Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, 1988.
TĒVĀRAM. Digital Tēvāram. Edited by Subramanya Aiyar, Jean-Luc Chevillard, and S.A.S. Sarma. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2007.
DHYĀNARATNĀVALĪ of Trilocanaśiva. Edited by R. Sathyanarayanan Sarma and S.A.S. Sarma. Karaikkal: Srimath Srikanta Sivacharya Research Institute, 2012.
NIŚVĀSATATTVASAṂHITĀ. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra, Volume 1, A Critical Edition & Annotated Translation of the Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra & 314
Nayasūtra. Edited and translated by Dominic Goodall, in collaboration with Alexis Sanderson and Harunaga Isaacson. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg, 2015.
NETRATANTRA with the commentary (-UDDYOTA) of Kṣemarājā. Edited by Madhusudan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 46, 61. Bombay: Tatva Vivechaka Press, 1926 and 1939.
PAÑCĀVARAṆASTAVA of Aghoraśiva. A twelfth-century South Indian prescription for the visualisation of Sadāśiva and his retinue. Edited by Dominic Goodall, Nibedita Rout, R. Sathyanarayanan, S.A.S. Sarma, T. Ganesan, S. Sambandhaśivācārya. Collection Indologie 102. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2005.
PARĀKHYATANTRA. Edited and translated by Dominic Goodall. Collection Indologie 98. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2004.
PRĀYAŚCITTASAMUCCAYA of Trilocanaśiva. Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya). Edited and translated by R. Sathyanarayanan, with an introduction by Dominic Goodall. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2015.
MATAṄGAMAPĀRAMEŚVARA, VIDYĀPĀDA, with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 56. Pondicherry: IFI, 1977.
MATAṄGAMAPĀRAMEŚVARA, KRIYĀPĀDA, CARYĀPĀDA, and YOGAPĀDA, with the commentary (- VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 65. Pondicherry: IFI, 1982.
MṚGENDRĀGAMA, KRIYĀPĀDA and CARYĀPĀDA with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 23. Pondicherry: IFI, 1962.
MṚGENDRĀGAMA, VIDYĀPĀDA and YOGAPĀDA with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Edited by Madhusūdan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 50. Srinagar, 1930.
MEYKAṆṬACĀTTIRAM. Meykaṇṭacāttiram mūlamum uraiyum. Published by Kāñci Nākaliṅka Mutaliyār. Ceṉṉai, 1897.
BRAHMASŪTRABHĀṢYA of Śaṅkara. Complete works of Sri Sankara in the original Sanskrit, Vol. VII. Madras: Samata Books, 1910 (Rev. 1983).
RAURAVĀGAMA. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. 3 Vols. Publications de l’IFI No.18. Pondichéry: IFI, 1961, 1972, 1988.
VĀTUḶAŚUDDHĀKHYA. Published by Mayilai Aḻakappa Mutaliyār. Ceṉṉai, Cintātirippēṭṭai Civañāṉapōtayantracālai, 1911.
CIVAÑĀṈACITTIYĀR of Aruṇanti Civācāriyār in MEYKAṆṬACĀTTIRAM, 1897. 315
CIVAÑĀṈAPŌTAM of Meykaṇṭatēvar in MEYKAṆṬACĀTTIRAM, 1897.
CIVANEṞIPPIRAKĀCAM of Śivāgrayogin. Srī Śivāgra-Yogin's Śiva-Neṟi-Prakāśam with the Commentary of Śrī Nandi-Śivāgra-Yogin. Edited by S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai. Madras: University of Madras, 1936.
CIVANEṞIPPIRAKĀCAM of Śivāgrayogin. Civaneṟippirakācam mūlamum uraiyum. Edited by S. P. Capārattiṉam. Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003.
CIVAPPIRAKĀCAM of Umāpati Civācāriyār in MEYKAṆṬACĀTTIRAM, 1897.
ŚIVAJÑĀNABODHA with the commentary (-LAGHUṬĪKĀ) of Śivāgrayogin. Śivajñānabodha with the Laghuṭīkā of Śivāgrayogī. Edited and translated by T. Ganesan. Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003.
ŚIVAJÑĀNABODHA with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Sadāśiva Śivācārya. Edited by A.A. Ramanathan and T.H. Viswanathan, Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras 26, no. 1 (1963): 1–56.
ŚIVAJÑĀNABODHAVṚTTIḤ of Jñānaprakāśa. Ma. Muttukkumāracuvāmi Civācāriyaik koṇṭu paricotippittu, Nallūr Ta. Kailācapiḷḷaiyāl. Paruttittuṟai: Kalāniti Yantiracālai, 1928 (Kali 5029).
ŚIVAPŪJĀSTAVA of Jñānaśiva with the commentary (-VYĀKHYĀ) of an anonymous author. Śivapūjāstavaḥ savyākhyaḥ jñānaśambhuśivaviracitaḥ. Edited by K. M. Subrahmaṇyaśāstrin. Devakoṭṭai, 1935.
ŚIVAYOGARATNA of Jñānaprakāśa. Le joyau du śiva-yoga. Edited by Tara Michaël. Publications de l’IFI No. 53. Pondicherry: IFI, 1975.
ŚIVĀRCANACANDRIKĀ of Appayya Dīkṣita. Edited by Kāḷīśvaraśivācārya et al. Devakoṭṭai: Śivāgamasiddhāntaparipālanasaṅgha, 1922.
ŚAIVAPARIBHĀṢĀ of Śivāgrayogin. Śriśivāgrayogīndrajñānaśivācāryaviracitā śaivaparibhāṣā. The Śaiva Paribhāṣā of Śrī Śivāgayogīndrajñānaśivācārya. Edited by Sri Rangaswamy Iyengar and Sri Vidvan R. Ramasastri. Research Institute Publications Sanskrit Series 90. Mysore: University of Mysore, 1950.
ŚAIVAPARIBHĀṢĀ of Śivāgrayogin. The Śaivaparibhāṣā of Śivāgrayogin. Edited by R. Balasubramanian and V. K. S. N. Raghavan. Translated by S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri. Madras: The Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras, 1982.
316
ŚAIVASAṂNYĀSAPADDHATI of Śivāgrayogin. Civākkirayōkīntirajñāṉacivācāriyacuvāmikaḷ aruḷicceyta caivasanniyācapattati. Edited by Pirmaśrī Cu. Śrīrāmaśāstiri and Pirmaśrī Nārāyaṇaśāstrin. Kumbakonam, 1932.
ŚRĪKARABHĀṢYA of Śrīpati Paṇḍita. The Śrīkara Bhāṣya, being the Vīraśaiva commentary on the Vedānta-Sūtras. 2 Vols. Edited by C. Hayavadana Rao. Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1936.
ŚRĪKARABHĀṢYA of Śrīpati Paṇḍita. Śrikarabhāṣyam. Edited by G. Marulasiddhaiah and M. G. Nanjundaradhya. Oriental Research Institute Series 123. Mysore: University of Mysore, 1977.
SĀRDHATRIŚATIKĀLLOTARA with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Edited by N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI, No. 61. Pondicherry: IFI, 1979.
SIDDHĀNTAŚEKHARA of Viśvanātha. Ubhayavedānti viśvanāthakṛtaḥ siddhāntaśekharaḥ. Edited by Ke. Sītārāma Somayājin. Śrīmanonmanīgranthamālā 20. Mysore, 1971.
SIDDHĀNTASĀRĀVALĪ of Trilocanaśiva with the commentary (-VYĀKHYA) of Anantaśambhu. Edited by T. H. Viswanathan, A. A. Ramanatha, R. K. Parthasarathi, P. G. Seetharaman, and R. Ganesan. Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras: vol. 17.1, 29–68; vol. 17.2, 1–48, vol. 18.1, 1–64; vol. 19.1, 53–84; vol. 19.2, 1–48; vol. 20.2, 49–71. Madras, 1965–68.
SOMAŚAMBHUPADDHATI (KARMAKĀṆḌAKRAMĀVALĪ) of Somaśambhu. 4 Vols. Première partie. Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu ; Deuxième partie. Rituel occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu I ; Troisième partie. Rituel occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu II : dīkṣā, abhiṣeka, vratoddhāra, antyeṣṭi, śrāddha ; Quatrième partie. Rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā. Edited and translated by Hélène Brunner. Publications de l’IFI. No. 25. Pondicherry: IFI, 1963, 1968, 1977 and 1998.
SVACCHANDATANTRA with the commentary (-UDDYOTA) of Kṣemarāja. Edited by Madhusudan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 31, 38, 44, 48, 51. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1921–35.
SVĀYAMBHUVASŪTRASAṄGRAHA. Le Tantra de Svāyaṃbhu, Vidyāpāda, avec le commentaire de Sadyojyotiḥ. Edited and translated by Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat. Geneva: Librairie Droz S.A., 1991.
Secondary Sources
Acri, Andrea. “Glimpses of Early Śaiva Siddhānta. Echoes of Doctrines Ascribed to Bṛhaspati in the Sanskrit-Old Javanese Vṛhaspatitattva.” Indo-Iranian Journal 54 (2011): 209–29.
Adluri, Sucharita. “Scriptural Innovation in Medieval South India: The Śrīvaiṣṇava Articulation of Vedānta.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009. 317
———. Textual Authority in Classical Indian Thought: Rāmānuja and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Almogi, Orna. “The Human Behind the Divine: An Investigation into the Evolution of Scriptures with Special Reference to the Ancient Tantras of Tibetan Buddhism.” In Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, and Nikolai Solmsdorf, 1–26. Indica et Tibetica. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019.
Ambalavanar, Darshan. Arumuga Navalar and the Construction of a Caiva Public in Colonial Jaffna. PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007.
Arooran, Nambi K. “The Changing Role of Three Śaiva Maths in Tanjore District from the Beginning of the 20th Century.” In Changing South Asia: Religion and Society, edited by Kenneth Ballhatchet and David Taylor. London: Asian Research Service for the Centre of South Asian Studies at SOAS, 1984.
Arraj, William. “The Svacchandatantram: History and Structure of a Śaiva Scripture.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1988.
Arunachalam, M. The Śaivāgamas. Tiruchitrambalam: Gandhi Vidyālayam, 1983.
Bakker, Hans. The World of the Skandapurāṇa. Northern India in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Balasubramanian, Ranganathan. “Śaiva Siddhānta Polemics: A Translation and Analysis of the Civañāṉa Cittiyār – Parapakkam.” PhD diss., McGill University, 2013.
Bate, Bernard. “Arumuga Navalar, Saivite Sermons, and the Delimitation of Religion, c. 1850,” Indian Economic Social History Review 42, no. 4 (2005): 469–84.
Bayly, Susan. Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 1700–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Ben-Herut, Gil. “Things Standing Shall Move: Temple Worship in Early Kannada Śivabhakti Hagiographies,” International Journal of Hindu Studies 20, no. 2 (2016): 129–58.
Benke, Theodore. “The Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi of Kṛṣṇa Śeṣa: A 16th Century Manual of Dharma for Śūdras.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2010.
Bergunder, Michael. “Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu Nationalism Reconstructions of Indian Prehistory,” Historiographia Linguistica 31, no. 1 (2004): 59–104.
318
Bisschop, Peter. Universal Śaivism: The Appeasement of All Gods in the Śāntyadhyāya of the Śivadharmaśāstra. Groningen: Brill, 2018.
Blackburn, Stuart. Print, Folklore, and Nationalism in Colonial South India. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003.
Breed, Brennan. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2014.
Brick, David. Brahmanical Theories of the Gift: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of the Dānakāṇḍa of the Krtyakalpataru. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.
Brunner, Hélène. “De la consommation du nirmālya de Śiva,” Journal Asiatique 256 (1969): 251.
———. “Le Śaiva Siddhānta, ‘essence’ du Veda (l’Étude d’un fragment du Kāmikāgama),” Indologica Taurinensia 8–9 (1980–81): 51–66.
———. Mṛgendrāgama : Section des rites et section du comportement : avec la vṛtti de Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Publications de l’IFI No. 69. Pondicherry: IFI, 1985.
———. “L’ācārya śivaïte: du guru au gurukkal,” Bulletin d’Etudes Indiennes 6 (1988): 145–76.
———. “Review of Nityasumaṅgalī, Devadasi Tradition in South India, by Saskia Kersenboom- Story,” Indo-Iranian Journal 33 (1990): 121–42.
———. “Ātmārthapūjā Versus Parārthapūjā in the Śaiva Tradition.” In The Sanskrit Tradition and Tantrism, edited by Teun Goudriaan, 4–23. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
———. “L’image Divine Dans Le Culte Āgamique De Śiva. Rapport Entre L’image Mentale Et Le Support Du Culte.” In L’image Divine. Culte Et Méditation Dans L'hindouisme, edited by André Padoux and Bettina Bäumer. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1990.
———. “The Four Pādas of Śaivāgamas.” In Journal of Oriental Research Madras. Dr. S.S. Janaki Felicitation Volume, 260–78. Madras: Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, 1992.
———. “The Place of Yoga in the Śaivāgamas.” In Pandit N.R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume, edited by Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, S. P. Narang, and C. Pandurang Bhatta, 425–61. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1994.
———. “Le Parārthanityapūjāvidhi: Règle Pour Le Culte Quotidien Dans Un Temple.” In Tiruvannamalai: Un Lieu Saint Śivaite Du Sud De L'inde. Iii: Rites Et Fêtes, edited by Françoise L'Hernault and Marie‐Louise Reiniche. Publications de L’EFEO 156, No. 3, 263–340. Paris: EFEO, 1999.
319
Brunner, Hélène, Gerard Oberhammer, and André Padoux. Tāntrikābhidhānakośa I: A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature, Beiträge Zur Kultur- Und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, No. 35. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.
———. Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II: A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature, Beiträge Zur Kultur- Und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, No. 44. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004.
Buchta, David. “The Purāṇas as Śruti,” Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 15 (2006): 87–108.
Buhnemann, Gudrun. Pūjā: A Study in Smārta Ritual. Vienna: Institut für Indologie, Universität Wien, 1988.
Clooney, Francis X., ed., “The Role of Śruti in Hindu Theology,” Journal of Hindu Studies 7, no. 1 (2014).
Cort, John E. “Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain Scripture in a Performative Context.” In Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia, edited by Jeffrey R. Timm, 171–94. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Coulson, Michael. Complete Sanskrit, rev. Richard Gombrich and James Benson. Chicago: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Cox, Whitney. Modes of Philology in Medieval South India. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Darnton, Robert. “Book Production in India, 1850–1900,” Book History 5 (2002): 239–62.
Davis, Richard H. “Aghoraśiva’s Background,” Journal of Oriental Research Madras (Dr. S.S. Janaki Felicitation Volume) 56–62 (1986–92): 367–78.
———. Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Śiva in Medieval India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
———. A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival: Aghoraśiva’s Mahotsavavidhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. Dharmaśāstra and Juridical Literature. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973.
———. “Modes of Sannyāsīs and the Reform of a South Indian Maṭha Carried out in 1584,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94, no. 1 (1974): 65–72.
De Simini, Florinda. Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016.
320
Devasenapathi, V. A. Śaiva Siddhānta as Expounded in the Śivajñānasiddhiyār and Its Six Commentaries. Madras: Univesity of Madras, 1966.
Dhavamony, Mariasusai. Love of God According to Śaiva Siddhānta: A Study in the Mysticism and Theology of Śaivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Ebeling, Sascha. Colonizing the Realm of Words: The Transformation of Tamil Literature in Nineteenth-Century South India. Albany: State University of New York, 2010.
Einoo, Shingo. “The Formation of the Pūjā Ceremony,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20 (Festschrift Paul Tieme) (1996): 73–87.
———. “The Formation of Hindu Ritual.” In From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration, edited by Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima, 7–50. Japanese Studies on South Asia 4. New Delhi: Manohar, 2005.
———. “Vedic Predecessors of One Type of Tantric Ritual,” Cracow Indological Studies XVI, Tantric Traditions in Theory and Practice, edited by Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz and Ewa Dębicka-Borek (2014), 109–44.
Enfield, Nicholas James and Paul Kockelman, eds. Distributed Agency. Foundations of Human Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
England, Emma and William John Lyons, eds., Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
Ferrario, Alberta. “Grace in Degrees: Śaktipāta, Devotion, and Religious Authority in the Śaivism of Abhinavagupta.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2015.
Fihl, Esther and A. R. Venkatachalapathy, eds. Review of Development and Change, Vol. XIV (1&2) Chennai: Madras Institute of Development Studies, 2009.
Filliozat, Jean. “Les Āgama Çivaïtes” in Rauravāgama, Vol. 1, edited by N. R. Bhatt. Pondichéry: Publications de l’Institut Français de l'Indologie, 1961.
Fisher, Elaine M. Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South India. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017.
———. “The Tangled Roots of Vīraśaivism: On the Vīramāheśvara Textual Culture of Srisailam,” History of Religions 59, no. 1 (August 2019): 1–37.
Folk, Michelle. “Ascetics, Devotees, Disciples, and Lords of the Maṭam: Monasteries in Medieval Tamilnadu.” PhD diss., Concordia University, 2013.
321
Folkert, Kendall W. “The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’.” In Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, edited Miriam Levering, 170–79. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Foucault, Michel, and Paul Rabinow. The Foucault Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986.
Freschi, Elisa, ed., The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy, Special Issue of the Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, nos 2–3 and 4–5 (2015).
Freschi, Elisa. “The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, no. 2 (2015), 85–108.
Freschi, Elisa and Philipp A. Maas, eds., Adaptive Reuse: Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017.
Frykenberg, Robert Eric, ed. Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.
Fuller, C. J. Servants of the Goddess: The Priests of a South Indian Temple. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
———. “Brahman Temple Priests and Hindu Revivalism in Contemporary Tamilnadu,” South Indian Studies 1 (1996): 1–34.
———. “Religious Texts, Priestly Education and Ritual Action in South Indian Temple Hinduism,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 31 (1997): 3–25.
———. “Orality, Literacy and Memorization: Priestly Education in Contemporary Tamilnadu,” Modern Asian Studies 35 (2001): 1–31.
———. Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Furey, Constance et al., eds., Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009–.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method (Wahrheit und Methode, 1960), translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald Marshall. London: Continuum, 2004.
Ganesan, T. Śivajñānabodha with the Laghuṭīkā of Śivāgrayogī. Chennai: Śrī Aghoraśivācārya Trust, 2003.
———. Two Śaiva Teachers of the Sixteenth Century: Nigamajñāna I and His Disciple Nigamajñāna II. Pondicherry: IFP, 2009.
322
———. “Śaiva Siddhānta.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 3, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen et al., 514–31. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Geetha, V. and S. V. Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar. Calcutta: Samya, 1998.
Geslani, Marko. Rites of the God-King: Śānti & Ritual Change in Early Hinduism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Ghose, Rajeshwari. The Lord of Ārūr: Tyāgarāja Cult in Tamilnāḍu. A Study in Conflict and Accommodation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996.
Ghosh, Anindita. “‘An Uncertain ‘Coming of the Book’: Early Print Cultures in Colonial India,” Book History 6 (2003): 23–55.
———. Power in Print: Popular Publishing and the Politics of Language and Culture in a Colonial Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Gnoli, Raniero. Luce delle sacre scritture (Tantrāloka) di Abhinavagupta. Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1972.
Gonda, Jan. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.
Goodall, Dominic. “Problems of Name and Lineage: Relationships between South Indian Authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Series 3/10/2 (2000): 205–16.
———. “Initiation et délivrance selon le Śaiva Siddhānta.” In Rites hindous, transferts et transformations, edited by Gérard Colas and Gilles Tarabout, 93–116. Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2006.
———. “A First Edition of the [Śatika-]Kālajñāna, the Shortest of the Non-Eclectic Recensions of the Kālottara.” In Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, edited by Dominic Goodall and André Padoux. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2007.
———.“Tantric Śaivism & Bhakti: how are they related?” at the International Workshop-cum- Conference Archeology of Bhakti at the EFEO centre in Pondicherry in August 2013; handout available at https://efeo.academia.edu/Dominic Goodall (accessed June 30, 2020).
———. “Saiddhāntika paddhatis I. On Rāmanātha, the Earliest Southern Author of the Śaivasiddhānta of Whom Works Survive, and on Eleventh-century Revisions of the Somaśambhupaddhati,” Cracow Indological Studies XVI, Tantric Traditions in Theory and Practice, edited by Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz and Ewa Dębicka-Borek, 2014.
———. “Introduction.” In Śaiva Rites of Expiation: A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of 323
Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya), edited and translated by R. Sathyanarayanan. Collection Indologie, 127. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2015.
———. “On Image-Installation Rites (Liṅga-Pratiṣṭhā) in the Early Mantramārga.” In Consecration Rituals in South Asia, edited by István Keul, 45–84. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
———. “Rudragaṇikās: Courtesans in Śiva’s Temple? Some Hitherto Neglected Sanskrit Sources,” Cracow Indological Studies 20, no. 1 (2018): 91–143.
Goodall, Dominic and Harunaga Isaacson. “Workshop on the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra?” Newsletter of the NGMCP 3 (2007): 4–6.
———. “On the Shared ‘Ritual Syntax’ of the Early Tantric Traditions.” In Tantric Studies: Fruits of a Franco-German Project on Early Tantra, edited by Dominic Goodall and Harunaga Isaacson (Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Universität Hamburg, 2016), 1–76.
Goodall, Dominic, and Marion Rastelli. Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III: A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013.
Goodall, Dominic et al. The Pañcāvaraṇastava of Aghoraśivācārya. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2005.
Gordon, Colin. “Plato in Weimar. Weber revisited via Foucault: two lectures on legitimation and vocation,” Economy and Society 43, no. 3 (2014): 494–522.
Goudriaan, Teun and Sanjukta Gupta, Hindu Tantric and Śākta Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.
Govindasamy, M. A Survey of the Sources for the History of Tamil Literature. Chidambaram: Annamalai University, 1977.
Gracia, Jorge J. E. A Theory of Textuality: The Logic and Epistemology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word. Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1988.
———. Islamic and Comparative Religious Studies: Selected Writings. London: Ashgate Publishing, 2010.
Granoff, Phyllis. “Reading between the Lines: Colliding Attitudes Towards Image Worship in Indian Religious Texts” in Rites hindous, transferts et transformations, edited by Gérard Colas and Gilles Tarabout, 389–421. Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2006.
324
Gross, Andreas, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau, eds., Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India (3 Vols.), Vol. I: The Danish-Halle and the English-Halle Mission; Vol. II, Christian Mission in the Indian Context; Vol. III, Communication between India and Europe. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Gupta, Abhijit and Swapan Chakravorty, eds., Print Areas: Book History in India. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004.
Halbfass, Wilhelm. Tradition and Reflection: Exploration in Indian Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991.
Hanneder, Jürgen. Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Revelation: An Edition and Annotated Translation of Mālinīśloklavārttika I, 1–399. Groningen: Forsten, 1998.
Hellmann-Rajanayagam, Dagmar. “Arumuka Navalar: Religious Reformer or National Leader of Eelam,” Indian Economic Social History Review 26 (1989): 235–57.
Hikita, Hiromichi. “Consecration of Divine Images in a Temple.” In From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration, edited by Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima, 143–98. Japanese Studies on South Asia 4. New Delhi: Manohar, 2005.
———. “Liṅga Worship as Prescribed by the Śivapurāṇa.” In From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration, edited by Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima, 241–82. Japanese Studies on South Asia 4. New Delhi: Manohar, 2005.
Hudson, D. Dennis. “Arumuga Navalar and the Hindu Renaissance among the Tamils.” In Religious Controversy in British India, edited by Kenneth W. Jones, 28–51. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
———. “Winning Souls for Śiva: Arumuga Navalar’s Transmission of the Śaiva Religion.” In A Sacred Thread: Modern Hindu Transmission of Hindu Traditions in India and Abroad, edited by Raymond Brady Williams, 23–51. Chambersburg, PA: Anima Publications, 1992.
———. “How to Worship at Śiva’s Temple.” In Religions of India in Practice, edited by Donald Lopez, 304–20. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.
———. “Tamil Hindu Responses to Protestants: Nineteenth-Century Literati in Jaffna and Tinnevelly.” In Indigenous Responses to Western Christianity, edited by Steven Kaplan, 95–123. New York: New York University Press, 1995.
Hüsken, Ute. Viṣṇu’s Children: Prenatal life-cycle rituals in South India, trans. Will Sweetman. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009.
Ishimatsu, Ginette. “Aghoraśivācārya: Author of the Parārthanityapūjāvidhi?” Journal of Oriental Research 67–70 (2000): 231–46. 325
Jeyaraj, Daniel. Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, the Father of Modern Protestant Mission: An Indian Assessment. New Delhi: The Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2006.
———. “Embodying Memories: Early Bible Translations in Tranquebar and Serampore,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 40, no. 1 (2016), 42–59.
Jürgens, Hanco. “On the Crossroads: Pietist, Orthodox and Enlightened Views on Mission in the Eighteenth Century,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. I: The Danish-Halle and the English-Halle Mission. Edited by Andreas Gross Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Kailācapiḷḷai, Ta. Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram. Chennai: Vittiyānupālaṉa-yantiracālai, 1919 [1941].
Kaṉakarattiṉa, Upāttiyāyar. Āṟumukanāvalar Carittiram. Yāḻppāṇam: Caivappirakāca- yantiracālai, 1882 [1968].
Kane, Pandurang V. History of Dharmaśāstra, Volume 1. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1930.
Kaul, Mrinal. “Abhinavagupta’s Theory of Reflection: A Study, Critical Edition and Translation of the Pratibimbavāda (Verses 1–65) in Chapter III of the Tantrāloka with the Commentary of Jayaratha.” PhD diss., Concordia University, 2016.
Kesavan, B. S. History of Printing and Publishing in India: A Story of Cultural Re-Awakening, Vol. I, South Indian Origins of Printing and Its Efflorescence in Bengal. India: National Book Trust, 1985.
Keul, Istvan ed., Consecration Rituals in South Asia. Numen Book Series: Studies in the History of Religions, Vol 155. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Knight, Mark. “Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010): 137–46.
Koppedrayer, Kathleen Iva. “The Sacred Presence of the Guru: The ‘Velala’ Lineages of Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, and Tiruppanantal.” PhD diss., McMaster University, 1990.
———. “The Varṇāśramacandrika and the Śūdra’s Right to Preceptorhood: The Social Background of a Philosophical Debate in Late Medieval South India.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19, no. 3 (1991): 279–314.
———. “Miraculous Abhiseka: Miracles and Authority in a South Indian Non-Brahmin Lineage.” In Images, Miracles and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions, edited by Richard H. Davis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998. 326
———. “Putting the Picture Together: Āṭi Amāvācai at Dharmapuram.” East and West 49, no. 1/4 (1999): 195–216.
Krishnamoorty, S. Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai ātīṉac cepēṭukaḷ. Chennai: Unnamalai Pathippagam, 2000.
———. Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (History of Thiruvavaduthurai Mutt). Chennai: Unnamalai Pathippagam, 2003.
Leslie, Julia. “Understanding Basava: history, hagiography and a modern Kannada drama,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61, no. 2 (1998): 228–61.
Levering, Miriam. Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss (Introduction à l'oeuvre de Marcel Mauss, 1950), translated by Felicity Baker. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.
Li, Shenghai. “Candrakīrti’s Āgama: A Study of the Concept and Uses of Scripture in Classical Indian Buddhism.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2012.
Lingat, Robert. The Classical Law of India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
List, Christian and Philip Pettit, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Loud, John. Rituals of Chidambaram. Chennai: Institute of Asian Studies, 2004.
Lubin, Timothy. “The Vedic Homa and the Standardization of Hindu Pūjā.” In Homa Variations: The Study of Ritual Change across the Longue Durée, edited by Richard Payne and Michael Witzel, 143–66. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Mallinson, James. The Khecarivīdyā of Ādinātha: A critical edition and annotated translation of an early text of haṭhayoga. London: Routledge, 2007.
Michael, R. Blake. “Foundation Myths of the Two Denominations of Virasaivism: Viraktas and Gurusthalins,” Journal of Asian Studies 42, no. 2 (1983): 309–322.
———. The Origins of Vīraśaiva Sects: A Typological Analysis of Ritual and Associated Patterns in the Śūnyasaṃpādane. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992.
Mirnig, Nina. Liberating the Liberated: Early Śaiva Tantric Death Rites. Wien: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018.
327
———. “‘Rudras on Earth’ on the eve of the Tantric Age: The Śivadharmaśāstra and the making of Śaiva lay and initiatory communities Introduction: Religious and historical context.” In Tantric Communities in Context, edited by Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger, 471–510. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019.
Muller-Ortega, Paul. The Triadic Heart of Śiva: Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non- Dual Shaivism of Kashmir. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Müller-Bahlke, Thomas. “The Mission in India and the Worldwide Communication Network of the Halle Orphan-House.” In Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India. Vol. I: The Danish-Halle and the English-Halle Mission, edited by Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau, 57–79. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Murti, M. Srimannarayana. “Position and Status of Women in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti” in Pandit N. R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume, edited by Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, S. P. Narang, and C. Pandurang Bhatta. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.
Muthiah, Subbiah. “Giving India the Printed Word,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. III, Communication between India and Europe, eds. Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Muttucumaraswamy, V. Sri La Sri Arumuga Navalar, the Champion Reformer of the Hindus (1822–1879): A Biographical Study. New Revised Edition, Colombo, 1965.
Nair, Savithri Preetha. “…of Real Use to the People. The Tanjore Printing Press and the Spread of Useful Knowledge,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 48, no. 4 (2011): 497–529.
Nallaswami Pillai, J. M. Śivajñāna Siddhiyār of Arulnandi Śivāchārya. Translated with Introduction, Notes, Glossary Etc. Madras: Madras Meykandan Press, 1913.
Nandimath, S. C. A Handbook of Vīraśaivism. Dharwar: L. E. Association, 1942.
Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. The Cōḷas, 2 Vols. Madras: University of Madras, 1935.
Noburu Karashima, Y. Subbarayalu, and P. Shanmugam, “Maṭhas and Medieval Religious Movements in Tamil Nadu: An Epigraphical Study,” Indian Historical Review 37, no. 2 (2010): 217–34.
Noll, Kurt. “Did ‘Scripturalization’ Take Place in Second Temple Judaism?,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25, no. 2 (2011). 328
Nørgaard, Anders. “The Mission’s Relationship to the Danes,” in Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India, Vol. I: The Danish-Halle and the English-Halle Mission. Edited by Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Oddie, Geoffrey. Hindu and Christian in South-East India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Olivelle, Patrick. The Aśrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
O’Neill, John. “The Disciplinary Society: from Weber to Foucault,” British Journal of Sociology 37, no. 1 (1986): 42–60
Orr, Leslie C. “Renunciation and Celebration: Ascetics in the Temple Life of Medieval Tamil Nadu,” in Classical and Contemporary Issues in Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Trichur S. Rukmani, ed. P. Pratap Kumar and Jonathan Duquette, 319–20. Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2012.
———. “Words for Worship: Tamil and Sanskrit in Medieval Temple Inscriptions,” in Bilingual Discourse and Cross-Cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit and Tamil in Medieval India. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2013.
———. “Maṭhas in the history of southernmost India: Temple, guru, god and patron in the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries” in Beyond the Monastery: The Entangled Institutional History of the South Asian Maṭha, eds. Caleb Simmons and Sarah Pierce Taylor. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
Pandey, Kanti Chandra. Abhinavagupta: An Historical and Philosophical Study. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1963.
Pandian, M. S. S. Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007.
Patel, Deven. Text to Tradition: The Naiṣadhīyacarita and Literary Community in South Asia New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
Patton, Laurie L., ed. Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
———. Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Perry, Seth. Bible Culture and Authority in the Early United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018. 329
Peterson, Indira Viswanathan. Poems to Śiva: The Hymns of the Tamil Saints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
———. “Tanjore, Tranquebar, and Halle: European Science and German Missionary Education in the Lives of Two Indian Intellectuals.” In Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross- Cultural Communication since 1500, edited by Robert Eric Frykenberg, 93–126. Grand Rapids/Richmond: Eerdmans/Curzon, 2003.
———. “The Schools of Serfoji Ii of Tanjore: Education and Princely Modernity in Early Nineteenth-Century India.” In Trans-Colonial Modernities in South Asia, edited by Michael S. Dodson and Brian A. Hatcher, 15–44. London: Routledge, 2012.
Presler, Franklin. Religion under Bureaucracy: Policy and Administration for Hindu Temples in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Raddock, Elisabeth. “Choosing an ācārya for Temple Construction and Image Installation.” In Consecration Rituals in South Asia, ed. István Keul. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Raghavan, V. Abhinavagupta and His Works. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia, 1981.
———. “Nagaswara or Nadaswara?” Sruti, no. 359 (August 2014).
Rajan, Rekha Kamath. “Johann Philipp Fabricius and the History of the Tamil Bible.” In Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India. Vol. III: Communication between India and Europe, edited by Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau, 1299–307. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
Raman, Srilata “‘Unlearnt Knowing’ (Ōtātu Uṇartal): The Genealogy of Wisdom in Ramalinga Swamigal (1823–1874) and the Tamil Śaiva Siddhānta,” The Journal of Hindu Studies 10, no. 2 (2017): 145–58.
Ramaswamy, Sumathi. Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891–1970. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Rao, Velcheru Narayana, David Shulman, and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Symbols of Substance: Court and State in Nāyaka Period Tamilnadu. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Ramanujan, A. K. Speaking of Siva. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973.
Rastogi, Navjivan. Introduction to the Tantrāloka: A Study in Structure. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.
Renou, Louis. Le destin du Veda dans l’Inde. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes, 6. Paris : Éditions de Boccard, 1960.
330
Roberts, Jonathan, Emma Mason, and Michael Lieb, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Reception History of the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Rocher, Ludo. Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra. London: Anthem Press, 2012.
Sanderson, Alexis. “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras.” In Les Sources Et Le Temps. Sources and Time, edited by François Grimal, 1–47. Publications du Départment d’Indologie 91. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2001.
———. “The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra.” In Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism. Studies in Honor of André Padoux, edited by Teun Goudriaan, 281–312. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
———. “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I).” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 90–91 (2004): 349–462.
———. “The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism.” The Indian Philosophical Annual 24 (2006): 143–217.
———. “The Date of Sadyojyotis and Bṛhaspati." Cracow Indological Studies 8 (2006): 39–91.
———. “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” In Mélanges Tantriques À La Mémoire D’hélène Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, edited by Dominic Goodall and André Padoux, 231–442. Collection Indologie 106. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO 2007.
———. “The Śaiva Age.” In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo, 41–350. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, 23. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009.
———. “Ritual for Oneself and Ritual for Others.” In Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual (Vol. II): Body, Performance, Agency, and Experience, edited by Angelos Chaniotis et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010.
———. “The Impact of Inscriptions on the Interpretation of Early Śaiva Literature.” Indo- Iranian Journal 56, no. 3/4 (2013): 211–44.
———. “The Śaiva Literature.” Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25 (2014): 1–113.
———. “How Public Was Śaivism?” in Tantric Communities in Context, edited by Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger, 1–48. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019.
Schniedewind, William M. “Scripturalization in Ancient Judah,” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, edited by Brian B. Schmidt, 305–21. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. 331
Schouten, J. P. Revolution of the Mystics: On the Social Aspects of Vīraśaivism. Kampen, Netherlands: KOK Pharos, 1991.
Sivaraman, K. Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective: A Study of the Formative Concepts, Problems and Methods of Śaiva Siddhānta. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973.
Shaw, Graham. “The Tanjore ‘Aesop’ in the Context of Early Marathi Printing.” The Library. 5th Series, 33 (1978): 207–14.
———. The South Asia and Burma Retrospective Bibliography (SABREB), Stage 1: 1556– 1800. London: The British Library, 1987.
———. “South Asia.” In A Companion to the History of the Book, edited by Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
Stark, Ulrike. An Empire of Books: The Naval Kishore Press and the Diffusion of the Printed Word in Colonial India. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2007.
Ślączka, Anna. Temple Consecration Rituals in Ancient India: Text and Archaeology. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Smith, Frederick “Purāṇaveda” in Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation, edited by Laurie L. Patton, 97–138. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
Smith, Jonathan Z. “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, edited by William Scott Green, 11–28. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; reprinted in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, 36–52. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
———. “Canons, Catalogues and Classics.” In Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions [Lisor], Held at Leiden 9–10 January 1997, edited by Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2 (1971): 131–40
———. What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Steinschneider, Eric. “Beyond the Warring Sects: Universalism, Dissent, and Canon in Tamil Śaivism, ca. 1675–1994.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2016.
Stoker, Valerie. “Conceiving the Canon in Dvaita Vedānta: Tradition and Innovation in Madhva’s Ṛgbhāṣya.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2000.
332
Stoker, Valerie. “Conceiving the Canon in Dvaita Vedānta: Madhva’s Doctrine of ‘All Sacred Lore’,” Numen 51, no. 1 (2004): 47–77.
———. Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyāsatīrtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court. Oakland: University of California Press, 2016.
Sukthankar, V. S. “No. 4 – Porumamilla Tank Inscription of Bhaskara Bhavadura: Śāka 1291” in Epigraphia Indica, Volume 14. Edited by F. W. Thomas. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1917.
Surdam, Wayne. “South Indian Śaiva Rites of Initiation: The Dīkṣāvidhi of Aghoraśivācārya’s Kriyākramadyotikā.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
Swedberg, Richard and Ola Agevall, The Max Weber Dictionary. Key Words and Central Concepts, 2nd edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016.
Sweetman, Will. “Heathenism, Idolatry and Rational Monotheism among the Hindus: Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg’s Akkiyāṉam (1713) and Other Works Addressed to Tamil Hindus.” In Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India. Vol. III: Communication between India and Europe, edited by Andreas Gross, Y. Vincent Kumaradoss, and Heike Liebau, 1249-75. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2006.
———. Bibliotheca Malabarica: Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg’s Tamil Library. Pondicherry; Paris: EFEO/IFP, 2012.
Takashima, Jun. “Pratiṣṭhā in the Śaiva Ágamas.” In From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals of Consecration, edited by Shingo Einoo and Jun Takashima, 115–42. Japanese Studies on South Asia 4. New Delhi: Manohar, 2005.
Talbot, Cynthia. “Golaki Matha Inscriptions from Andhra: A Study of a Saiva Monastic Lineage.” In Vajapeya: Essays on the Evolution of Indian Art and Culture, edited by A.M. Shastri and R.K. Sharma, 130–46. Delhi: Agam, 1987.
Thondunathan, Rishi. “Saiva Agama Collection Arrives in Jaffna, Sri Lanka” (Kauai, HI: Kauai’s Hindu Monastery, 2013), https://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2013/08/10/ saiva-agama-collection- arrives-in-jaffna-sri-lanka/ (accessed May 1, 2020).
Törzsök, Judit. “The Heads of the Godhead: The Number of Heads/Faces of Yoginīs and Bhairava(s) in Early Śaiva Tantras,” Indo-Iranian Journal 56, no. 2 (2013): 133–55.
———. “Whose Dharma? Śaiva and Śākta Community Rules (samayas) and Dharmaśāstric Prescriptions.” In Tantric Communities in Context, edited by Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger, 205–32. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019. 333
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Unni, N. P. Tantrapaddhati: A Study. Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi, 1987.
Vaithees, V. Ravi. Religion, Caste, and Nation in South India: Maraimalai Adigal, the Neo- Saivite Movement, and Tamil Nationalism, 1876–1950. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Vasudeva, Somadeva. The Yoga of Mālinīvijayottaratantra: Chapters 1–4, 7–11, 11–17. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2004.
Venkatachalapathy, A. R. “‘Written on Leaves in the Malabarian Manner’: Print and the Cultural Encounter in Eighteenth Century Tranquebar,” Review of Development and Change XIV (1&2) (2009), 131–46.
———. The Province of the Book: Scholars, Scribes, and Scribblers in Colonial Tamilnadu. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2012.
Wallis, Christopher. “To Enter, to be entered, to merge: The Role of Religious Experience in the Traditions of Tantric Shaivism.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2014.
Washbrook, David. The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency, 1870–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Watts, James W. “Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13 (2013), 1–16.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. A New Translation, ed. and trans. Keith Tribe. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2019.
Weiss, Richard. “Print, Religion, and Canon in Colonial India: The Publication of Ramalinga Adigal’s Tiruvaruṭpā.” Modern Asian Studies 49, no. 3 (2015): 650–77.
———. “Religion and the Emergence of Print in Colonial India: Arumuga Navalar's Publishing Project,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 53, no. 4 (2016): 473–500.
———. The Emergence of Modern Hinduism: Religion on the Margins of Colonialism. Oakland: University of California Press, 2019.
334
Wenta, Aleksandra. “The Great Ārdrā Darśanam Festival: Performing Śaiva Ritual Texts in Contemporary Chidambaram,” International Journal of Hindu Studies 17, no. 3 (2013): 371–98.
Williams, Benjamin. “Abhinavagupta’s Portrait of a Guru: Revelation and Religious Authority in Kashmir.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 2017.
Willis, Michael D. “The Formation of Temple Ritual in the Gupta Period: pūjā and pañcamahāyajñā” in Prajñādhara Essays on Asian Art History, Epigraphy and Culture in Honour of Gouriswar Bhattacharya, ed. Gerd J.R. Mevissen and Arundhati Banerji, 66– 88. New Delhi: Kaveri Books, 2008.
———. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Wimbush, Vincent L. Theorizing Scriptures. New Critical Orientations to a Cultural Phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
———. White Men’s Magic: Scripturalization as Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
———. “It’s Scripturalization, Colleagues!,” Journal of Africana Religions 3, no. 2 (2015): 193–200.
———. Scripturalizing the Sacred: The Written As Political. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Yocum, Glenn. “A Non-Brāhman Tamil Śaiva Mutt: A Field Study of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam,” in Monastic Life in the Christian and Hindu Traditions: A Comparative Study, eds. Austin Creel and Vasudha Narayanan, 245–79. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.
Young, Richard and S. Jebanesan, The Bible Trembled: The Hindu-Christian Controversies of Nineteenth Century Ceylon. Vienna: Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 1995.
Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
———. “Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, eds. Hanne Von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Zvelebil, Kamil. Lexicon of Tamil Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
———. Companion Studies to the History of Tamil Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1992.