The following pages present a short but comprehensive study of Abhinavagupta pāda, the Kashmir Saiva Philo sopher and Literary Critic. His name is familiar and his fame is still alive. His writings are voluminous and his philosophical and poetical theories hold their ground even to-day. To most Sanskrit Scholars, however, he is known only from references in the generally studied books on poetics, such as the Sahitya Darpana and the Kavya Prakāśa. Very few know that he was more a philosopher than a literary critic, and that his contribution to Saiva philosophy is much greater both in volume and importance than that which he made to poetics.
For about two hundred years so little has he been studied that the oral tradition about the interpretation of his works may be considered to be practically dead. The modern scholars, both in the east and the west, have not so far made any attempt to revive the study of Abhinava. His most important philosophical work, the Brhati Vimarsins, has not yet been published. The Tantraloka and the Abhinava Bhāratī have appeared only in parts. The difficulties, therefore, that a person, attempting such a work as the one in hand, has to face, are considerable.
When I started the work, I could not even dream of the difficulties which arose in the course of its progress. I had hopes that the Kashmir Government would help me in my undertaking by allowing me access to their two libraries, one in Raghunatha Temple of Jammu and the other in the Research Department in Srinagar, where the extant MSS. of Abhinava’s works are kept. But I am sorry to say that only severe disappointment was in store for me at the hands of the authorities concerned. Inspite
of my repeated earnest entreaties, they could not see their way to allowing me even a glance at the MSS. For some time I thought that the completion of the work was impossible. But soon a suggestion came from my brother that I might look for the required MSS. in private houses. I began my search immediately and with the kind help of my sympathisers at that time of utter disappointment and great dejection I was fortunate enough, in the end, in securing all the MSS., excepting one, which I required for my immediate purposes. What difficulties I experienced in persuading the owners to part with them or at least to allow me to copy them and what heavy prices I had to pay for some of them, this is not the place to state.
My original plan was to include in the present work a chapter on Abhinava’s theory of Rasa. But after a careful study of the published portion of his contribution to the alankāra literature, I discovered that, without the help of the unpublished portion of the Abhinava Bhāratī, to which there are good many forward references in the part dealing with Rasa, my exposition of the theory would hardly add anything to what has already been written by some of the most eminent scholars. But when I got the necessary material and studied it, I found that the subject required more space than could be given in the present volume. I have, therefore decided to deal exhaustively with Abhinava’s æsthetic theory in a separate volume.
I have used the following MSS, in the preparation of the present work :
- Anuttarāṣtikā. 2. Anuttara Tattva Vimarsini Vrtti. 3. Anubhava Nivedana. 4. Brhati Vimarsini or Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vivrti
Vimarsinī.
( iii ) 5. Bhagavadgītārtha Sangraha. 6. Bhāskarī (a commentary on Iśvara Pratyabhijñā
Vimarsinī). 7. Bhairava Stotra. 8. Bhairava Stotra sīkā.
- Bimbapratibimba Vāda. 10. Dehastha Devatācakra Stotra. 11. Ghata Karpara Kulaka Vivrti. 12. Krama Stotra. 13. Mahopadeśa Vimśatika. 14. Paramārtha Carcā. 15. Paramārtha Dvādaśikā. 16. śivadrsti of Somānanda. (now published) 17. Tantrāloka (It has partly been published) 18. Tantroccaya. 19. A Commentary on Parātrimśikā by Rājānaka
Lakṣmīrāma. The book is divided into two parts, historical and philosophical. The former includes a chapter on the life of Abhinava. Its essential purpose is to show what light a careful study of Abhinava’s works throws on two important branches of Sanskrit literature, namely, Saiva Philosophy and Poetics. Abhinava’s works are full of quotations from and references to the earlier writings, very often coupled with the names of the authors. They also record traditions concerning the preceptorial lines and the origin and development of these two branches of Sanskrit learning. A careful sifting of these quotations and traditions throws a considerable light on the history of the Saiva and the Alankārika literature. Abhinava’s works have not yet been used fully to elucidate the history of the above two branches. In the present volume they are being utilised for that purpose for the first time. This is the connecting thread of the material, brought together in the first
(
iv
)
part, which at first sight might appear rather heterogeneous. The second part deals with the monistic Saiva philosophy which is technically called “Trika" and which, in modern philosophic terminology, I have called Realistic Idealism.
I may state here very clearly that I am writing the second part as a pure Sanskritist. My work, therefore, is only to interpret the so far unhandled texts and to present the highly abstruse system, with the greatest possible amount of fidelity to the original. I may say in the words of the great commentator Mallinātha “I write nothing which is not based upon the authority of the original texts” (nāmulam likhyate kiñcit). It is to convince my learned critics of this fact and to make their task of fair criticism easy that I have burdened, as the reader will often feel, my work with extensive quotations; and have given not only further references in the foot-notes but also full textual authority in Appendix A. The reader will not, therefore, find in these pages what typifies those of a close student of the western philosophy.
In presenting this part I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid the use of technical terms and to state the views of Abhinava in such language as would be intelligible to the average reader. It is, however, not an easy task for a writer on philosophy, particularly when he attempts to present the views of an unknown system for the first time, as in my case, to escape the charge of obscurity, not because of any leaning towards the unintelligible, but because of the inherent difficulty of the subject matter. When a person is reading a book on a familiar system he is helped by his memory in understanding the particular sense in which a certain expression is used by the writer. But such is not the case when one is reading a work on a new or unfamiliar system, particularly if it is presented in a language different from that in which it was originally
written. In such a case, the ideas being foreign to the language in which the presentation is attempted, the writer has to depend upon approximations. In the reader’s mind, however, these approximations are associated with a number of different meanings in which they are ordinarily used. But he finds that none of the accepted meanings quite fits in the context and, therefore, naturally blames the writer for lack of clearness in exposition.
In order, however, to help my readers in easily understand ing the system, I have put the original Sanskrit word within brackets when a certain English word is used in a technical sense for the first time and have explained it immediately in a sentence or phrase. I know that in spite of all this at places the idea will not be very clear. Such lack of clarity is due partly to the abstruseness of the subject and partly to the fact that many of the important works of Abhinava, such as Purva Pañcikā and śivadrstyālocana, which would probably elucidate these obscure points, have not yet been discovered.
For the information of the reader I must add here the following few important notes :
I. The Roman Figures, coming after the abbreviations,
I. P. V. and T. A., unless otherwise indicated, stand for the number of volume. The number, coming immediately after the Roman figures, as in the above two cases, or after an abbreviation, as in most cases,
indicates the number of the page. II. In appendix A, I have given, in some cases, a few
necessary textual authorities in addition to those indicated by the foot-notes and have not hesitated to
repeat the same authority when necessary. III. The lack of the right types has compelled me, at
places, to violate the established practice of using S with
(vi)
a vertical stroke at the top to represent the palatal sibilant of Devanāgarī and to use the stroke imme diately after S as S.
Here I feel in duty bound to acknowledge my indebtedness to the editors of the Kashmir Series, to Mr. J. C. Chatterji, the author of “Kashmir Saivaism”, and to Dr. Bahler, the discoverer of the Pratyabhijñā literature in Kashmir, but for whose labours probably I would not have taken up Abhinava for a special study.
Among the Professors of this University, I have to specially thank Dr. N. N. Sen Gupta, under whose able guidance I am writing “Indian Æsthetic Theory”, for his carefully going through the philosophical portion of this work and for giving many valuable suggestions.
The chief difficulty in preparing this work lay in under standing the original texts, often without even so much as a commentary as in the cases of the Parātrimsikā Vivarana and the Mālinī Vijaya Vārtika. It was made exceptionally difficult by the incorrect texts both in MSS. and print. A great deal of time had to be spent in determining in some cases the beginning and the end of a sentence. It is not for me to say how far I have correctly understood the original texts; it is for my learned readers to decide. But let me state here that if I have achieved any success in my undertaking it is to a considerable extent due to the help that I was fortunate to get from the eminent Sanskritists in Kashmir and Benares. I must therefore, acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Pandit Harabhatta śāstri, to Pandit śivabhatta Sastri and to Pandit Maheśvara Rājdān of Kashmir and to Mahāmahopadhyāya Pandit Gopinātha Kavirāja to Pandit Dāmodara Lāla Gosvāmī and to his learned pupil Mahāmahopādhyāya Pandit Devīprasāda Sukla of Benares for taking special pains in removing( vii )
the textual difficulties. My deepest thanks, however, are due to Professor K. A. Subramania Iyer, under whom I had the honour to work in this university, for his unwearied help, kind sympathy and steady encouragement. But for
the assistance of his profound scholarship and exceptional - capacity in interpreting the difficult Sanskrit texts the
completion of this work would have been well nigh impossible for me.
I cannot close the introduction without apologising to the reader for a few obvious but unwelcome printing mistakes, particularly of the diacritical mark to represent the Deva nāgarī palatal sibilant, which may have remained in spite of the utmost care that I took to remove them in the course of reading the proofs.
Lucknow University.
July, 1935.