The Modification of Mantras in Vedic Rituals according to the ninth Adhy¯aya of the D¯ıpa´sikh¯aofS¯´alikan¯atha Mi´sra Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorw¨urde der Philosophischen Fakult¨at der Universit¨at Heidelberg Vorgelegt von Oliver Lamers Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Axel Michaels Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Birgit Kellner Datum: 04. Mai 2012 Contents Preface iii Acknowledgements vii List of Figures viii Abbreviations of Sanskrit Works ix I Introduction 1 1 Mantras – Meaning – Modification: An Overview 2 1.1 Categorisations and Analyses of mantras . ................. 4 1.2 Magical and Pragmatic Meaning ........................ 7 1.3 Hermeneutics, Transfer and Modification ................... 9 2 The modification of mantras according to the D¯ıpa´sikh¯a18 2.1 The complexity of meaning – a selection of adhikaran. as........... 18 2.2 Mantras – Meaning – Modification: A Re-Evaluation . ......... 30 II Text and Translation 38 3 S¯´alikan¯atha Mi´sra and the D¯ıpa´sikh¯a39 3.1 Ś¯alikan¯atha Miśra, his life and works ...................... 39 3.2 The D¯ıpaśikh¯a ................................... 43 3.3 Notes on the Edition and Translation . .................... 49 4Text 54 4.1 Ninth adhy¯aya, first p¯ada............................. 54 4.2 Ninth adhy¯aya, third p¯ada............................ 68 4.3 Ninth adhy¯aya, fourth p¯ada........................... 87 i CONTENTS ii 5 Translation 95 5.1 Ninth adhy¯aya, first p¯ada............................. 95 5.2 Ninth adhy¯aya, third p¯ada............................ 121 5.3 Ninth adhy¯aya, fourth p¯ada........................... 155 Bibliography 168 Primary sources ...................................... 168 Secondary sources .................................... 170 Preface The present study is based on a second-level-commentary called D¯ıpaśikh¯a, "The peak of light", by Ś¯alikan¯atha Miśra who is assumed to have written his treatises in the lat- ter eighth and early ninth century CE.1 Ś¯alikan¯atha belonged to the Pr¯abh¯akara-school of P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a, named after its founder Prabh¯akara Miśra. Together with his rival Kum¯arila Bhat.t.a, founder of the Bh¯at.t.a-school of P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a, he stands for the 2 "golden age" of P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a , when adherents of these sub-schools seem to have had vivid philosophical, exegetical debates amongst each other and with adherents of Bud- dhist and other schools. Both, Prabh¯akara and Kum¯arlia based their commentaries on the ŚBh, which is – to our knowledge – the first and only complete commentary on the JS predating them. We know Prabh¯akara’s works only through the commentaries of Ś¯alikan¯atha. While he wrote the R. juvimal¯apañcik¯a as a gloss on Prabh¯akara’s Br.hat¯ı, he comments on Prabh¯akara’s Laghv¯ı in the DŚ.Ś¯alikan¯atha is the primary and most reliable source for an understanding of the Pr¯abh¯akara-school3, but his works have re- ceived little attention within research on P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a. My presentation of the DŚ commenting on a selection of adhikaran. as, "topics", from the ninth adhy¯aya, "book", dealing with the modification of mantras is a first attempt at making this commentary of Ś¯alikan¯atha known. While it has to remain with others to work on further passages and/or the complete text, I hope to present the reader with a clear edition and translation of the selected passages. To this end I edited the text, taken from the only known existing manuscript of the DŚ. Most emphasis was put on differentiating the layers of textual material included in the DŚ. For clarity, the three most important levels are visually distinguishable: a) The "authentic" text of the DŚ in regular font; b) Quotations from Prabh¯akara’s Laghv¯ı which the former comments 1 See Part II, section 3.1 (p. 40f) for more. 2 See Verpoorten 1984: 22, Chapter III, "The golden age of M¯ım¯am. s¯a". 3 In his detailed analysis of the concept of niyoga in Prabh¯akara’s Br.hat¯ı Yoshimizu states: "Weil Prabh¯akara im wortkargen, knappen Stil ohne systematische Entfaltung seine Gedanken äußert, ist es ohne Kommentar Ś¯alikan¯athas sehr schwierig, der Br.hat¯ı die Auffassung Prabh¯akaras zu entnehmen. Es kommt nicht selten vor, dass man ohne Ś¯alikan¯atha zu Rate zu ziehen nicht feststellen kann, wo der Gegner einsetzt und wo Prabh¯akaras Erwiderung beginnt." (Yoshimizu 1997: 34.) iii Preface iv upon in bold font; c) Quotations from the ŚBh,theJS or other third sources such a P¯an. ini’s As..t¯adhy¯ay¯ı or different Śrautas¯utras in bold, underlined font. In the last cat- egory are also included citations of a certain mantra or parts of an injunction included in some sam. hit¯a, the reference to which is given in the footnotes. A further visual level distinguishes between statements belonging to the prima facie view of the opponent (p¯urvapaks.a) represented by [P], and the correct, established view of the P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a (siddh¯anta, rarely r¯addh¯anta in the DŚ) represented by [S] at the beginning of a para- graph. For the same reasons of clarity and coherence the translation follows the visual presenta- tion of the edition. It is not aimed at being "pleasant reading" – such is most certainly impossible with any scholastic text of P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a. The abundance of long compound phrases involving abstract nouns in the ablative or instrumental and other peculiarities of Sanskrit commentarial literature are mostly rendered by subordinate clauses. At the same time, the translation of technical terms and some other phrases is guided more by a one-to-one correspondence with the Sanskrit expression than by its fluidity, thereby grasping the full scope of it. Where possible I use only one translation coherently for one term. An example: k¯arya literally means "something that is to be done", consequently an "act" and also the "duty to act". Wicher, after initially using "Zutuendes" (what is to be done), later translates it as "Pflicht".4 She justifies this by arguing that the understanding of k¯arya out of the Vedic injunction automatically creates a reference to oneself – according to Ś¯alikan¯atha.5 This translation may be suitable in view of the theory of language developed by Ś¯alikan¯atha in the V¯aky¯artham¯atr.k¯a. But in the con- text of ritual activity, around which most of the discussion in the passages of the DŚ revolves, Ś¯alikan¯atha does not refer to the individual in his usage of k¯arya. Furthermore, the translation with "Pflicht", duty, carries a moral connotation, which is completely 6 out of place in P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a. In my opinion the term denotes "what is to be done" 4 Wicher 1986: 8f. 5 "Die wörtliche Übersetzung "Zutuendes" erweist sich dann, wenn von seinem Erkennen als jeweils eigenes die Rede ist, als unbrauchbar." (Wicher 1986: 33) 6 See Clooney 1990, expecially Chapter IV and Chapter VII.4 for the role of the individual in the JS, and how Prabh¯akara remains in line with his predecessor’s view. Preface v in its most basic sense. However, such a translation often collides with the remaining syntax in English, for which reason I use k¯arya throughout. By remaining as literal as possible in the translation, I try to preserve the technical, argumentative, often allusive character of the text also in English. The edition and translation of the selected adhikaran. as is preceded by an introduc- tory section, in which the issues raised by Ś¯alikan¯atha and P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a in regard to mantras and their modification are located in the scholarly discourse revolving around mantras. I consider my analysis as contributing a genuine "emic" view to the ongoing debate about the meaning and function of mantras and the characterisations of their language and role in Vedic ritual. It is usually silently assumed that mantras are subject to the least change in their religious applications. According to Patton "their power as speech acts derives from this fixity".7 Most works on Vedic mantras have thus focused on diachronic changes, not so much in their form but in their application and interpre- 8 tation. Although P¯urvam¯ım¯am. s¯a supports the view that mantras are fixed by even claiming that a change made to one produces a "non-mantra"9, the discussions in the ninth adhy¯aya, which deal with the modification of ritual details (uha¯ ) after they have 10 been transferred (atideśa) from an archetypal (prakr.ti) to an ectypal ritual (vikr.ti) , will present a different picture: • Mantras, as well as s¯amansandsam. ks¯aras ("embellishments" of ritual details), may be subject to change after they have been transferred into a new ritual set- ting.11 • Only single phrases within mantras can be subject to change, the general propo- sition of the text remains the same.12 7 Patton 2005: 60. 8 See for example Patton’s diachronic analysis of the application (viniyoga)ofmantras according to the R. gveda-Sam. hit¯a, the Śrautas¯utras, the Gr.hya-S¯utras and the vidh¯anas(Patton 2005); also the contribution by Wheelock in Alper’s Understanding Mantras (Alper 1989: 96-122). 9 See DŚ, p. 316. References to the DŚ refer to the page number in the manuscript. 10 I translate the terms prakr.ti and vikr.ti as has been most common – see Jha 1942, and Clooney 1990. A similar translation would be "model" and "derivative ritual". 11 See ŚBh at JS 9.1.1: trividhaścohah.