2 HIS WORKS

CHAPTER II.

HIS WORKS.

LIST OF HIS KNOWN WORKS. 1. Bodha Pancadasikā. 2. Mālini Vijaya Vārtika. V 3. Parātrimśikā Vivrti. 4. Tantraloka. 5. Tantrasāra. 6. Tantravagadhānikā. 7. Dhvanyāloka Locana. 8. Abhinava Bhārati.

Bhagavadgitārtha Sangraha. 10. Paramārtha Sāra. 11. Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsini. 12. Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vivrti Vimarsini. - 13. Krama Stotra, tule available combi lobortis 14. Dehastha Devata Cakra Stotra. 15. Bhairava Stotra. V gone of the lies 16. Paramārtha Dvādasikā. 17. Paramārtha Carcā. 18. Mahopadeśa Vimsatik a. 19. Anuttarāṣtikā. 20. Anubhavanivedana. 21. Tant roccaya. 22. Ghatakarparakulaka Vivrti. 23. Karmakeli. 24. śivadrstyālocana. 25. Purva Pañcikā. 26. Padārthapraveśa Nirnaya ṭikā. 27. Prakīrṇaka Vivarana. 28. Prakarana Vivarana. 29. Kāvyakautuka Vivarana.

ont of the two coulbution to to.

HIS WORKS

Kathāmukha Tilaka. 31. Laghví Prakriya. 32. Bhedavādavidāraṇa 33. Devīstotra Vivarana. 34. Tattvādhya Prakāśikā. 35. śivasaktyavinābhāva Stotra 36. Bimbapratibimba Vāda (Dr. Būhler’s Kashmir Cata

logue MS. No. 469.) 37. Paramārtha Sangraha ( Do. 459.) 38. Anuttara Sataka. Introduction to the P. T. V., P. 15. 39. Prakarana Stotra. It does not state any authority to 40. Nātyālocana. substantiate the statement. 41. Anuttaratattvavimarsinī Vrtti (T. C. MS. No. 8219 )

There is enough evidence to show that he wrote many! other works besides the above. From the known references to them we get the idea of their titles and contents as follows:

His commentaries on other Saivāgamas than the

Srīpūrva Sastra on the lines of the Purva Pancikā. That he wrote such commentaries is evident from the following accidental remark in P. T. V., 147 :

“Pūrvaprabhṣtipancikāsu”. 2. His commentaries on other Stotras than those

mentioned above. To them he refers in T. S., 31. 3. His stotras from which he often quotes in the

available works with an introductory remark “mayaiva stotre” or something similar to it. Most of these quotations are not traceable in the above mentioned available stotras. The inference, therefore, is natural that he wrote some more stotras than those we have so far been able to discover.

CHAPTER II.

His commentary on the Yogavāśiṣtha. We have

no other source of information about it than a

tradition current among Kashmirian Pandits. The Catalogus Catalogorum includes in its list of seventeen works of Abhinava the following three :

Paramārthasāra Sangraha. Report XXX. 2. Paramārthasāra Tīkā. Oudh IX 22. 3. Spanda.

Oudh XVI 124. The first, in our opinion, is not a different work from that which has already been published by the Kashmir Research Department under the title of « Paramārthasāra “. It is the same as Paramārthasara Oxf. 238 (C. C., 25). In fact the published text contains both the titles. Abhinava’s colophon refers to it as " Paramārthasāra” only, but his commentator, Yogarāja, adds the word “Sangraha” to the title in the colophon of his commentary. The two colophons run as follows:

“Iti śrímahāmāheśvarācāryābhinavaguptaviracitaḥ

Paramārthasārah.” “Sampūrneyam Paramārthasārasangrahavivstih

kstistatrabhavatparamamāheśvara Sri Rājānaka

Yogarājasya.” The Oudh Catalogue does not give any extracts from the MSS. It is, therefore, not possible for us to pronounce any opinion on the other two works which are included in Dr. Aufrecht’s Catalogue on the authority of the former (Oudh Catalogue), though personally we are inclined to think that the Paramārthasāra Tīkā is the same work as the Paramārthasārasangrahavivṣti.

EXPLANATION OF THE ARRANGEMENT. In the above list the first eleven are the published works. They are arranged in their chronological order on which we shall soon write, From the 12th to the 22nd are

HIS WORKS

the MSS. in possession of the present writer. Out of these, 13th to 20th are given as appendix C to the present thesis. From the 23rd to the 35th are found referred to in the various available works in print or MSS. On the 36th we shall write towards the end of this chapter. The rest are known to us only from different catalogues and reports of searches for Sanskrit MSS.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. There is no difficulty in arranging in a chronological order those works which bear dates of their composition. Such works have already been pointed out in the preceding chapter. The difficulty lies in fixing the chronology of the rest. Our arrangement is based not on the mostly imaginary ground of maturity of style and ideas, but on the solid ground of references to earlier works in the later ones. Only in two cases, where inspite of all patient research such a firm ground has not been found, recourse has been had to other testimonies, which are certainly more reliable than those of style etc., for fixing their order.

One of these two cases refers to the question of the priority or the posteriority of the Mālinī Vijaya Vārtika and the Parātrimśikā Vivarana to each other. Both of them are referred to in the Tantraloka as follows:

“Mayaitat srotasām rūpam anuttarapadād dhruvāt

Arabhya vistarenoktam malinīślokavārtike.”

T. A., Ah. 37, (MS.) “Anuttaraprakriyāyām vaitatyena pradarsitam

Etat tasmāt tatah paśyed vistarārthi vivecakah.”

T. A., VI, 249. On this Jayaratha comments as follows:

“Anuttaraprakriyāyāmiti parātrīśikāvivaranādāvityar thah.”

Thus though they are earlier than the Tantrāloka

CHAPTER II.

yet no reference is found to one in the other so that the question of priority may be decided. Here, however, the M. V. V. has been placed before the Parātrirhśikā Vivarana :

Firstly, because the former was written at a period when of the family of Karna and Mandra, who were cousins, he knew nobody excepting the cousins themselves. In the P. T. V., however, he devotes three verses to describe their ancestry and refers in familiar terms to Vatsalikā, of whom he speaks so much later on in the Tantrāloka. The concluding passages of the Tanträloka further inform us that with the lapse of time his familiarity with Karna Mandra family grew so much that he agreed to put up with that family to write the encyclopaedic work on the

Tantras.

Secondly, because it is mostly controversial in its contents and the controversial Tāntrika literature from the pen of Abhinava, as we shall soon show, belongs to the earlier part of his Tāntrika period.

And thirdly, because it is a detailed explanation of some passages of the Mālini Vijaya Tantra, also called

Purva śāstra.

(“Vākyārthaṁ kathaye kiñcin Mālinyāth yat kvacit kvacit.”

M. V. V., 2.) And we know on the authority of the P.T. V. that he wrote a regular commentary on the Pūrva śāstra, called Pūrva Pañcikā, before the former work :

(“Nirṇītañca etat mayaiva Srīpūrvapañcikāyām.”

P. T. V., 57.) We also know from the following quotations from the Tantrasāra and the Bhāskari, an unpublished commentary on the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, that works on theHIS WORKS

same subject, whether they are further expansions or brief resumes of the same, were written one after another :

“Vitatas Tantrāloko vigāhitum naiva sakyate sarvaih

Rjuvacanaviracitam idam Tantrasāram tataḥ śrnuta.”.

T. S., 2. “Tatra ca sarvajanahitārtham Bphatpratyabhijñākhyā

bahuvistarā tīkā krtā, tadvicāraṇeca janam asaktam jñātvā tenaiva Pratyabhijñākārikāsūtreṣu samhgrahamayi Vimar

sinītiprasiddhā tīkā krtā.” (Bhaskarī). The M. V. V. also, therefore, has to be supposed to have come either immediately before or after his commentary on the Pūrva Sastra, in any case before the Parātrirhśikāvivarana.

The other case of a work of doubtful chronological position is that of the Paramārtha Sāra. It consists of only 105 verses and contains only one literary reference and that also is to the Karikās of śeṣa, of which it is an adaptation. This, however, has been placed between the Bhagavadgītārtha Samgraha and the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, because it is a philosophical work. We know of only four philosophical works of Abhinava. Of these, the chronological position of three is certain on the evidence of Abhinava himself. The Bhagavadgītārthasangraha is the first and the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī is the last. The Pratyabhijñā Vivṣti Vimarsinī or Brhatī Vimarsini immediately preceded, the latter. There is, therefore, no other position which we can assign to the Paramārthasāra than the one,

given above.

THE TEXTUAL AUTHORITY. The two doubtful cases having thus been settled, we now give for each work a textual authority in support of the chronological position that we have assigned to it.

Bodha Pancadaśikā.

“Prabodhapancadasikāmadhye tādsi mayā sphu tamuktam”.

M. V. V., 36.

CHAPTER II.

Mālini Vijaya Vārtika.

Reasons have already been given. 3. Parātrithśikā Vivarana.

Reasons have already been stated. 4. Tantrāloka.

“Anuttaraprakriyāyām vaitatyena pradarśitam Etat tasmāt tataḥ paśyed vistarārthi vivecakah”

T. A., VI, 249. 5. Tantra Sāra.

Vitatastantrāloko vigāhitum naiva sakyate sarvaih Rjuvacanaviracitam idam tu Tantrasāram tatah śrnuta.”

T. S., 2. 6. Tantra Vata Dhānikā.

Because it is a still briefer resume of the Tantra loka than even the Tantra Sāra.

Dhvanyaloka Locana.

“Taduttīrnatve tu sarvam parameśvarādvayam brahmetyasmacchāstrānusāreṇa viditam Tantra lokagrantham vicāraya.

Dh. L., 19. 8. Abhinava Bhāratī.

“Tacca madīyādeva tadvivaranāt Sahrdayāloka Locanād avadhāraṇīyam.

A. Bh., 334. It is a well known fact that Sahrdayaloka Locana is another name of the Dhvanyāloka Locana.

Bhagavadgītārtha Samgraha.

“Vipancitam caitat asmadgurubhih asmābhi ścānyatra vitanyate itīha nātinirbandhah krtah.”

A. Bh., 337. A footnote on the word “anyatra” in the above quotation clears what it stands for by stating “Bhagavadgītāvyakhyāyām”.

HIS WORKS

Paramārtha Sāra.

The question has already been discussed. 11. Pratyabhijña Vimarsinī.

Because it came immediately after the Bṣhatī Vimarsins which is his last known dated work on philosophy, on which he wrote last of all.

M. M. MUKUNDARĀMA SĀSTRI ON THE CHRONOLOGY

OF ABHINAVA’S WORKS. In view of the facts stated above, it is surprising to find that M. M. Mukundarāma Sāstrī in his two introductions to the Tantrasāra, the one in English (P. IX) and the other in Sanskrit (P. 5-6) has placed the Parātrīśikā Vivaraṇa, the Tantrāloka, and the Tantra Sāra chronologically after the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsini saying :

“As, in his great work Tantrāloka, he often quotes from Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, which, he himself says, was written by him in the year 4115 of the kali age corresponding to 1014 A. D., it follows that the former was composed after the year 1014. Now the date of composition of Tantra Sāra, which is an epitome of Tantrāloka must necessarily be some time later than 1014 A. D.”

In his introduction in Sanskrit he makes an additional statement assigning to the Parātrimsikā Vivarana an earlier chronological position than that of even the Tantrāloka :

“Tadanu parātrimsikāgranthavivaranam” It is to be noted here that the learned Sastrī has not given the passages which he considers to have been quoted in the Tantraloka from the I. P. V. We have already quoted the authority of the Bhaskari on the basis of which we have assigned to the Brhati Vimarsini an earlier position in the chronological order than that of the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī. We have also given a quotation in justification of the

CHAPTER II.

P. T. V. ’s chronological position before the Tantraloka. Here is another passage which has been found in I. P. V. actually referring to the Tantrāloka and the Tantra Sāra. This, in our opinion, is the most conclusive proof of the latter’s having been written before the Isvara Pratyabhijñā

Vimarsini :

*Etacca vistaratah tatpradhānesu Tantrāloka sārādiṣu mayā nirnītam itīhānupayogānna vitānitam.”

I. P. V., II, 214.

It seems that our Sāstrī mistook the Isvara Pratyabhijña Kārikā for the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī. The Îśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā is the original text of Utpalācārya and the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsini is the smaller of the two commentaries on the above by Abhinavagupta. Un doubtedly, there are quotations in the Tantrāloka from the former (Vide Appendix B). But in view of the above quoted statement of Abhinava himself about the earlier chronological position of the Tantrāloka it would indeed be very surprising if any quotation from the iśvara Pratya bhijña Vimarsinī could be traced in the Tantraloka.

WORKS KNOWN FROM REFERENCES. 1. Kramakeli.

It was a commentary on the Krama Stotra. It has to be noted here that this Krama Stotra was different from Abhinava’s composition of the same name, given in appendix (C) to this thesis. It was a work on the Krama system of philosophy. It is very often quoted by Maheśvarānanda in his commentary, Parimalā, on the Mahārtha Mañjarī. It is referred to by Abhinava in his Vivaraṇa on the Parātritsikā :

*Vyākhyātam caitat mayā tattīkāyām Kramakelau Vistaratah."

P. T. V., 236.

HIS WORKS

śivadrstyālocana.

śivadựṣti is a well known work on the Trika system, written by Somānanda, the great grand teacher of Abhinava. The Pratyabhijñā system is based on it. From its name and reference the Alocana of Abhinava seems to have been a critical study of the original work :

«Yathoktam mayaiva śivadystyalocane “Preṣopi sa bhaved yasya saktatā nāma vidyate”

P. T. V., 116. 3. Purva Pañcikā.

This was a commentary on the Purva Sāstra, also called Mālinī Vijaya, which, according to the following statement, is the most authoritative book on the Trika system of the Saiva philosophy :

*Daśāstādaśavasvastabhinnam yacchāsanaṁ vibhoh

Tatsāram Trikaśāstram nu tatsāram Malini matam."

T. A., I, 35.

From its name, Pañcikā, which means a detailed exposition, and from the frequent references to it in most of Abhinava’s writings it seems to have been a very big work. An idea of its size can be formed from the available part of the Mālinī Vijaya Vārtika which is an exposition of only the first verse of the Malini Vijaya Tantra, as he himself says in its concluding line : “Pravarapuranāmadheye pure pūrve Kāśmīriko

bhinavaguptah Mālinyādimavākye vārtikam etad racayati sma."

What must have been the size of the detailed exposition of the whole of the above Tantra, it is not difficult to imagine. This work, however, seems to be irrecoverably lost. Its loss to Saiva philosophical literature is irrepairable.

CHAPTER II.

Other Pañcikās.

On the lines of the work, just mentioned, he wrote expositions on other Tantras also, as is clear from his reference to them in :

“Nirnītam caitan mayaiva Sri Pūrva prabhịti

Pañcikāsu.” P.T. V., 147. Here the use of the word “prabhịti” can have no other meaning than the above.

Padārtha Praveśa Nirnaya Tīkā.

Nothing more about this can be said than that, from its name and the nature of the context in which the following reference to it occurs, it appears to have been a work of psycho-philosophical interest :

*Anusandhāyāh smrtibhede tasyāśca anubhavopa jīvitve anubhavābhāvāt; vitatya ca vicāritam mayaitat Padārtha Praveśa Nirnaya Tīkāyām."

P. T. V., 162. 5. Prakīrṇaka Vivarana.

From the context, in which reference to it, as given below, occurs, this seems to have been a grammatico philosophical work :

“Itthar jadena sambandhe na mukhyanyartha

sangatih Astām anyatra vitatam etad vistarato maya.”

T. A., VII, 33. In commenting upon the word “anyatra” Jayaratha says:

“Anyatreti Prakīrṇaka Vivaranādau”. Here the use of the word “ādi” indicates that he wrote

many other works of the same kind. 6. Prakarana Vivarana.

It was a commentary on the Prakarana Stotra and is referred to in the T. S., 31.

HIS WORKS

Kāvyakautuka Vivarana.

It was a commentary on Bhatta Tota’s work on poetics, the Kāvyakautuka. It was perhaps the first work on poetics that Abhinava wrote, for, chronologi cally it comes before the Dhvanyaloka Locana as the following reference shows :

“Sa cāyam asmadupādhyāya Bhatta Tautena

Kāvya Kautuke asmābhiśca tadvivarañe bahutara krtanirnayah pūrvapakṣasiddhāntahityalam bahunā.”

Dh. L., 178. 8. Kathāmukha Tilakam.

It is referred to as his own composition in the Brhatī Vimarsinī. Nothing at present can be said about its contents. Laghvī Prakriyā.

It was a devotional Stotra as the following quota tions therefrom in the Bhagavadgītārtha Sangraha and the nature of the context clearly show :

“Yathā ca mayaiva Laghvyām Prakriyāyām

uktam” : “Na bhogya vyatiriktar hi bhoktus tvatto

vibhāvyate Eṣa eva hi bhogo yattādātmyam bhokt;bhogayoh."

Bh. G. S., ch. IV, S. 28.

and “ūnādhikam avijñātam..

Kṣantavyaṁ krpayā sambho yatastvam karuṇākaraḥ Anena stotrayogena tavātmānam nivedaye.”

Bh. G. S., ch. XII, S. 11. 10. Bhedavāda Vidāraṇa.

It is referred to in both the Bhagavadgītārtha Sangraha and the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsins. It was a

CHAPTER II

controversial work chiefly meant to demolish the dualistic theory, as is apparent from the following quotation : “Krtapratānaścāyam prakrtyarthaṇyarthaviveko

mayaiva Bhedavāda Vidārane iti tata evānveṣyah.”

I. P. V., II, 158.

Devi Stotra Vivarana.

This was a commentary from the monistic view point on Anandavardhana’s Devi Stotra. The Stotra has been published in the Kāvyamālā series. Our statement is based upon the following lines in the Bh. G. S.: “Sarvabhūteṇu ātmānamh grāhakatayā anupravisantam

bhāvayet, ātmani ca grāhyatājñānadvāreṇa sarvāṇi bhūtāni ekikuryāt; atasca samadarśan atvam samhjāyate yogasceti sarhkṣepārthaḥ; vistarastu Bhedavāda Vidāraṇādi prakarane Devīstotra Vivarane ca mayaiva nirnītah."

Bh. G. S., ch. VI, S. 30. Here from the use of the word “ādi” after “Bhedavāda Vidāraṇa,” it appears that he wrote very many books

to controvert the dualistic theory. 12. Tattvādhya Prakāśikā.

In this the author discussed the nature and the number of Tattvas accepted by the Trika. It is referred to by Jayaratha in his commentary on the Tantrāloka as follows: “Granthakṣtā ca Tattvādhvaprakāśanādau tatra tatra

tanmatāvalambanam eva krtam."

T. A., Ah. XI, P. 19. 13. śivasaktyavinābhāva Stotra.

In this Stotra, as the title indicates, Abhinava praises śiva and Sakti as inseparable from each other. He quotes

HIS WORKS

two verses from this in his commentary on the 19th verse of the 15th chapter of the Bhagavadgītā.

DIVISION OF HIS WORKS INTO THREE PERIODS.

There are three clearly marked periods of his literary activity. His works, therefore, have to be classified accordingly.

TANTRIKA PERIOD. From the dates of his two dated stotras, Krama and Bhairava, and from the chronological order of his works based on references and other indications it is clear that first of all he tried the power of his pen mainly in commenting on the then existing Tantras from the point of view of monistic Saivaism. That the Krama was the first of the Tantric systems on which he worked, the earliest date of the Kramastotra clearly proves. His known contributions to it are his above stotra and the Kramakeli. The next Tantric system that drew his attention was the Trika. To this his chief contributions are his Pūrva and other Pañcikās. That it was the transitional period between his experimenting in and writing on the Krama, and his ultimately taking to Kaulism, is conclusively proved by the following statement of Jayaratha :

«Tantropāsannagurvabhimukhīkaraṇānantaram vis rāntisthānatayā kulaprakriyāgurumapi utkarṣayati."

CEST. A., Comm., 1, 31. His known contributions to the Kaulika literature are the Bhairavastava and the Parātrimśikā Vivarana. To the last part of this very first period of literary activity belong also his encyclopaedic work, the Tantrāloka, which deals with all the allied schools of Kashmir Saivaism, and its three summaries, the Tantra Sāra, the Tantroccaya and the

Tantravata Dhānikā, each briefer than the preceding.

CHAPTER II

II. ALANKĀRIKA PERIOD.

In the concluding portion of the last chapter of the Tantrāloka we find that his taste is changing. We see him inclining more towards the angle of vision of an admiring poet than towards that of a dry spiritualist. His vivid description of colour, taste and pleasant after-effects of wine, the record of his observation of charming complexion, beautiful facial cut and sportive movements of the city ladies, his interest in the beauty of the fauna and the flaura of Kashmir, his description of the river Vitastā and repeated reference to the power of Cupid, are all unmistakable signs of a changed taste. The Alankārika period, therefore, followed. That this was the middle period we know on the unmistakable authority of the Dh. L. which contains a clear reference to T. A. (vide Dh. L., 19). There are four known works of this period, of which the K. K. V. was the first (vide Dh. L., 178) and the A. Bh. the last to come from his pen.

III. PHILOSOPHICAL PERIOD.

Again, at the time of writing the A. Bh., philosophical ideas are seen getting supremacy, so much so that his exposition of Rasa, which has held its ground to this day, is purely philosophical. Not only this, while commenting! on Bharata’s Nātya Sūtra he had already begun writing side by side a purely philosophical work, namely, his commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, as we know from a reference in A. Bh. (vide A. Bh., 337). Thus last of all did come the philosophi cal period. To this belong his monumental works, the Isvara Pratyabhijña Vimarsins and the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vivrti Vimarsini. The latter is also known as Bṭhati Vimarsinī or Aṣtādaśa Sahasri. Because of these two works it is that he is acknowledged to be the chief exponent of the Pratyabhijñā philosophy, as the concluding portion ofHIS WORKS

Mādhavācārya’s summary of the Pratyabhijñā Darśana in the Sarvadarśana Sangraha shows :

“Abhinavaguptādibhirācāryaiḥ vihitapratānopyayamar thah.”

The Pratyabhijñā Vivrti Vimarsinī is the penultimate of his known works. There is only one work, namely, the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, which, on the authority of the Bhāskarī, we know for certain as posterior to it. How many more works he wrote thereafter, or whether he wrote any at all, we have at present no authority to say.

A GENERAL IDEA OF HIS AVAILABLE WORKS. 1. Bodha Pañcadaśikā.

It is a propagandistic pamphlet consisting of 16 verses. It is called Bodha Pancadaśikā because in fifteen (Pancadaśa) verses the basic principles of the monistic Saivaism are summarized in it. The sixteenth verse simply explains the object of such a composition. It speaks of the Saiva conception of śiva and Sakti, their relation and consequent emanation of the universe; of the cause and the nature of the bondage and the way to freedom from it, and of their (bondage and freedom) being in reality non-different from the highest Lord. It was written, as the following quotation shows, with the expressed object of enabling the less intelligent pupils of his, easily to grasp the fundamental principles of the system propounded by him :

“Sukumāramatin śiṣyān prabodhayitum añjasā Imebhinavaguptena ślokāh pañcadaśoditāh.”

B. P., S. 16. The eighth verse of this pamphlet is quoted in the M. V. V., with the introductory remark :

“Prabodhapancadasikā madhye tādỊo mayā sphutam.”

M. V. V., 36.

CHAPTER II

Mālini Vijaya Vārtika.

It was an exposition of some of the very difficult verses of the Mālinī Vijaya Tantra which is also called Srī purva Sāstra. It was written at the earnest entreaty of his loving pupils Karna and Mandra’. On the former we have already spoken a little and shall speak more when dealing with the Tantrāloka. It is unfortunate that so far we have been able to get the Vārtika on the first verse only which was composed in the eastern part of Pravarapura?. That he wrote his Vārtika on more than one verse and that the published edition, consisting of only two chapters, is only a part of a very big work that he wrote, is clear from his repeated reference to the 18th chapter wherein he promises to deal exhaustively with the various points under discussion. Though it is only the second in the chronological list of his published works yet it was not the second of his compositions. Before taking up this work he had written many others as references to them to be frequently met with in this work clearly prove*. The available portion contains a very scathing criticism of various important theories of Nyāya.

Parātrirhśikā Vivarana.

The Text. Amongst the eight numerically equal groups of the sixty-four non-dualistic Tantras, Rudra Yāmala Tantra is the seventh in the second i. e. Yāmala group. The verses constituting the text of the Parātrimśikā form the concluding part of the same. They give a summary of the whole Tantra. This statement finds its support in the last verse of the text itself :

M. V. V., 2. M. V. V., 58, 104. T. A., I, 42

M. V. V., 135. 4. M. V. V., 33. 6. T. A., I, 42

HIS WORKS

“Evam mantraphalāvāptirityetad Rudrayāmalam.”

P.T. V., 277. The Vivarana is Abhinava’s commentary on it.

OTHER COMMENTATORS. Parātrimśikā seems to have been quite popular during the century that intervened between Somānanda and Abhinava. This supposition alone can explain the existence of so many commentaries on it. Abhinava refers with reverence to only three of these, written by Somānanda, Bhavabhūti and Kalyāṇa separately. About the rest he had so bad an opinion that he considered it disgraceful even to criticise them? In Kashmir the present writer found another commentary, which is both simpler and briefer. It was written by Rājānaka Lakṣmīrāma. The MS. was copied by Räjānaka Nīlakantha in the Saptarsi year 4962. It is in the possession of his son Mahisar of Srinagar.

THE TITLE. The title is very misleading. On seeing it, the reader naturally thinks that the word “Trimśikā” is indicative of the number of verses constituting the original text, but it is not so, 3 because the text actually consists of more verses than thirty. The real title of the book is Parātrisikā. It means “Parā, the mistress of the three i. e. the three powers of will, knowledge and action.” In fact Parā is an abbreviation of Parāsaṁvid, which is higher than these powers and is still identical with them. The book is so called because it deals with such a “Parā.” No doubt, it was also called Parā Trimśikā, but for no other reason than that of similarity of sound. The word “trimśikā” does not imply number thirty. Another name of this book is Trika Sūtra, because it gives in brief outline the basic

T. A., VIII, 96. 2. P. T. V., 93. 3. P. T. V., 17.
P.T, V., 16-7.

CHAPTER II

principles (Prameyas) of the Trika system. The text with Abhinava’s Vivarana is also called Anuttara Prakriyā. 2

There are frequent references in this book to a Tantra Sāra. But it has to be noted here that this Tantra Sāra is an Agama and not the summary of Abhinava’s great work, the Tantrāloka. We made a very thorough search for the quotations from the Tantrasāra, found in the Parātrimśikā Vivarana, in Abhinava’s Tantrasāra, but could not trace any. We have, therefore, come to the natural conclusion that the Tantrasāra, quoted in the Parātrimśikā Vivarana, is different from the work of the same name which is merely one of Abhinava’s own summaries of his great work, the Tantrāloka. The chronological position, therefore, that we have assigned to the Parā Trimśikā Vivarana, needs no change.

Saiva conception of Parā, Paśyantī,

Madhyamā and Vaikhari. According to the Abhāsavādin the whole universe is a mere manifestation of the universal self or Parama śiva, as the images of an imagination, the scenes of a dream or the creations of a person who has attained certain yogic powers (yoginirmāṇa) are those of the limited selves. Our experience tells us that the things of imagination, dream and yogic creation have no existence independent of or separate from the self which is responsible for their manifestation. Believing, therefore, the macrocosm to be the same in its nature and constitution as the microcosm, the Ābhāsavādin holds that the whole universe rises from, has its being within, is maintained by and again merges in the same universal consciousness or self. He also holds that it is in its essence the same as that from which it rises, just as the waves of the ocean are essentially the same as the ocean itself.

T. A., Ah. XII, P. 101. 2. T. A., VI, 249.

HIS WORKS

This Self, the ultimate reality, he conceives as “prakāśa vimarśamaya”. The universe also he broadly divides into substance and speech (vācya and vācaka); speech not as a mere physical phenomenon but as that of which the words are mere symbols. In fact the word “vāk” (speech) is used for the immaterial part of the universe, because the grossest form of vimarśa is distinguished from its other forms by its association with the physical sound which is its symbol and has a different physical substratum as opposed to that of the purely intellectual substratum of the idea. The substance is the grossest manifestation of the prakāśa aspect of the universal consciousness and the speech is that of the vimarśa. Thus Parā is a distinctive name of the ultimate reality by which it is referred to when its vimarśa aspect is intended to be emphasized. The Parā is called speech (śabdana) not in its gross form in which we hear it, but in the most subtle one, like self-consciousness within. In this form it is independent of all conventions, rather, it is their very life in the condition of Māyal. It is the background of the individual self-consciousness, which has no other reality than the identification of self with a body, an identification which finds expression in gross speech as “I am John”. Thus substance and speech are one in their most subtle original form, though in the stage of Māyā both seem to have separate existence. This state of perfect unity of consciousness and its entitative contents (prakāśa vimarśaikya) is called the Parā state.

“Citih pratyavamarśātmā parā vāk svarasoditā.”

I. P. V., I. 203.

All that we hear and can possibly hear exists in the Parā state of speech exactly in the manner in which all that we determinately perceive exists in the state of

I. P. V., I, 205.

CHAPTER II

indeterminate knowledge. But before it can find manifestation in gross speech, technically called Vaikharī, it passes through two intermediate stages, known as Paśyanti and Madhyamā. To give a clear idea of what these technical terms stand for, it is necessary to deal with them separately, avoiding, as far as possible, the use of philosophical jargon.

I PARĀ. The Parā is pure consciousness. It is free from all limitations of time and place, and name and form. It can be called self-consciousness (Aham), not as associated with body, mind, or vital airs, but as identical with the universal self. It has to be noted here that the use of the word “self-consciousness” for the Parā state of speech is from the point of view of the limited perceiver, who in the Vaikharī stage recognizes the latter’s origin from the former. The reason is that the Parā state is the state of absolute unity without even so much as the faintest rise of diversity. For, the first rise of diversity takes place only in the first stage in the manifestation of gross speech from Parā, called Paśyantī. It is the ultimate source of all power that is found in words, used in ordinary life. It is a state of perfect unity of all kinds of powers. It is ever present in all the limited perceivers as identical with their self-consciousness, not as associated with body etc., but as something above them all. It is present even in the state of deep sleep when there is no consciousness of the

earthly existence.

II PASYANTI. Taking Parā as the primordial state of speech, we can speak of Paśyanti as the first stage in the manifestation of gross speech. In it there is but an extremely faint rise of gross speech as distinct from pure consciousness, so much so that the distinction cannot at all be said to have

HIS WORKS

arisen. This rise of distinction is regulated by the desire which is its cause; just as in the case of remembrance, though its object is associated with a variety of ideas yet in the memory there arises only that idea for the revival of which there has been an immediate cause. As for instance, though a gold jar is associated with innumerable ideas yet there is no rise of all of them or any of them promiscuously at the time of remembrance. We know it from our own experience that when it is remembered at the time of prosperity the only ideas, which rise about it, are those which are associated with it as an article of decoration and luxury. But do not absolutely different ideas arise when the same is remembered at the time of adverse circumstances ? Is not then the idea of its salability prominently associated with it? And what is it that controls the rise of these ideas? Is it not the desire of the remembering individual ? The same, therefore, is the determining factor in the rise to distinction of certain forms of speech to the exclusion of the rest in the stage of Pasyántī, though there is no denying the fact that all of them are equally present within para exactly as all the ideas, which can rise in remembrance, are within ourselves.

III MADHYAMĀ. It is that stage which immediately precedes the articulate speech. In this although the distinction between idea and speech, preceding the utterance, is clear, yet, there is no difference in the substratum of the two exactly as in the case of a black jar in which, although we have the idea of jar as separate from that of its blackness, yet, the substratum of jar is non-different from that of the quality of blackness. This we can all feel when we are delivering a very thoughtful speech in which every idea and the words expressive of it are very carefully chosen before utterance. Although in such a case there is a very clear consciousness of the distinction

CHAPTER II.

between the two, yet, experience tells us, there is no difference of substratum.

IV VAIKHARI. It is that form of speech which we use in our daily transactions. In it the idea and the articulate symbol, which represents it, have separate substrata.

The distinction of each one of the four forms of speech from the rest of them will become clear if we were to compare them with the four conditions of a seed before it sends out its sprout. The Parā is like that condition of a seed, in which all the future forms of the sprout, according to the Sankhya conception, exist in the state of absolute unity. The Paśyanti is just like that condition in which there is just the rise of that state which is responsible for the first perceptible development. It is just like self preparation on the part of a person before he makes any perceptible movement to stir or jump. The third i. e. Madhyamā is like the enlargement of seed in which though there is a perceptible change from the original condition yet the two (seed and sprout) cannot be pointed out as distinct from each other in point of substratum. The last i. e. Vaikharī is comparable to that condition in which the sprout has appeared as distinct from the seed and both are directly perceptible as distinct from each other in all respects not excluding that of the substratum.

The reader will, now, understand that Parā with the explanation of which the Parā Trīsikā is concerned is nothing but the Parā Samvid or Anuttara ; and that the adjunct “Trīśikā”, which forms a component part of the compound which stands as the title of the book, is meant to distinguish this Parā from the first of the four forms of speech involved

P. T. V., 4-5.

HIS WORKS

This

in the individual utterance in the condition of Māyā. explains why the work was called Anuttara Sūtra also.

THE SUBSTANCE. The text is in the form of a dialogue between Bhairava and Bhairavi; the latter questions what is that thing, called Anuttara, from the mere knowledge of which equilibrium of Khecarī i. e. liberation from all kinds of pains and sorrows (mokṣa) can be got. The idea is similar to that of the Vedānta which also says “One who knows Brahman himself becomes Brahman.” (Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati). What Bhairava says in reply on the essential nature of the Samvid and the way to know it we shall have occasion to speak of in the philosophical part of this work.

BIOGRAPHICAL IMPORTANCE This book, next to the Tantrāloka, is of very great biographical importance. In the concluding portion of this work he describes, for the first time, his as well as his favourite pupil Mandra’s descent and gives some account of both the families and their atmosphere. All these points have already been dealt with at some length in the preceding chapter. 4. TANTRĀLOKA.

This is the most voluminous of all the works of Abhinava discovered so far. It deals exhaustively with all the matters connected with the non-dualistic sixty-four Agamas. It touches upon both the ritualistic and the philosophical matters alike. Although it is primarily concerned with the systematic presentation of the teachings of the Kula” and the Tantra systems only yet occasionally

P. T. V., 3. 2. T. A., I, 24.

CHAPTER II.

it gives authoritative information on others also such as the Krama etc. It is the most authoritative book on the said subjects, because the statements made in it are not simply matters of opinion, but are based on the authority of the Saivāgama, as traditionally interpreted, and, what is more, on the personal experience of the author himself. It consists of thirty-seven chapters, but only fourteen have so far been published. They, together with the valuable commentary of Jayaratha, cover eight volumes. Of these the first five, the ninth and the thirteenth chapters are of very great philosophical importance. The first gives in brief all that is to be dealt with later in detail. The following four deal successively, with the four ways to the final emancipation, namely, (I) Anupāya, (II) Sambhava, (III) śākta, (IV) and Anava. The ninth is interesting because it deals with the thirty six Tattvas of the Saiva philosophy and the interest of the thirteenth lies in its giving us an idea of the Saiva theory of Karma.

THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS DISCUSSED

IN THE TANTRĀLOKA.

The cause of bondage. 2. The way to freedom. 3. What is knowledge as distinct from ignorance. 4. What is Mokṣa according to the Trika. 5. Conceptions of Mokṣa of other schools. 6. What is the ultimate reality of the objective world. 7. The process of manifestation of the universe. 8. The ways to realisation of the ultimate reality. 9. The points of difference between one way and another. 10. Bimbapratibimba Vāda.
T. A., Comm., I, 29. 2. T. A., I, 149. 3. T. A., I, 288.HIS WORKS

Comparison of the Tattvas from Puruṣa to Prthvī with

those of the Sankhya. 12. The worlds in the universe as conceived by the Saivas. 13. Saiva rituals. 14. Autobiographical touches.

On most of these points we shall be speaking in the second part.

THE TITLE It is called Tantrāloka because it enlightens its reader on the path pointed out by the Tantras.

“Alokam āsādya yadiyam eṣa Lokah sukham sañcarita kriyāsu.” T. A., Ah. 37, (MS.)

THE PLACE OF AND THE OCCASION FOR ITS COMPOSITION.

It was written at the house of Mandra?. And it was at the combined request of his younger brother, Manoratha, his dear pupil, Mandra, his loving cousins, and some other devotees of śiva, such as Rāmagupta, that he undertook to write this work. As a matter of fact the idea of writing such a work was already in his mind. This combined request simply gave an additional impetus and so the work was taken up immediately.

SEITS AUTHORITY. Although it is full of quotations in support of the various points, discussed therein, from ever so many Tantras, yet, according to Abhinava’s own statement, it is primarily based upon the authority of the Mālinī4 Vijaya Tantra. This Tantra is the most important of all the three, Siddhā, Nāmaka and Mālini, which primarily contain the principles and teachings of the system called the Trika, and represents the essence of all the ninety-two Agamas

T. A., Ah. 37 (MS.) 2. T.A., Ab. 37 (MS.) 3. T. A., Ah. 37 (MS.) 4. T. A., I, 35.

CHAPTER II.

belonging to the three schools of Saivaism, namely, Advaita, Dvaitādvaita and Dvaita.

TANTRASĀRA.
TANTRA VAṭA DHĀNIKĀ.

These two, as their names imply, are the summaries of the Tantrāloka. The last is a briefer summary than the first. It is like a seed of the huge tree of the Tantrāloka.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE TANTRA VAṭA DHĀNIKĀ.

Jayaratha quotes two verses from the Tantra Vata Dhānikā in his commentary on the Tantrāloka Ah. II, s. 2, without mentioning the name of the author. This was thought by M. M. Mukundarāma Sāstrī to be sufficient reason to attribute this work to another Abhinava of the same name. He says in a foot note to his edition of the work under discussion :

“Upāyairna sivo bhāti’ ityādi padyadvayam (Tantrā. loka 2 Ah. 2 padyatīkāyām) yaduktam itīyatā granthakrn nāmānuddisya yat pramānarūpeṇopanyastam atonumīyate etadgranthakrd Abhinavaguptah prasiddha Abhinavagupta cāryad vibhinno Rājānaka Jayarathācāryāt paurvakalikasca sambhavatīti.”

T. V. Dh., P., 5.

Even if there had been no other reason to the contrary, we would have considered the reason stated by the learned editor to be too insufficient for such a conclusion. But there is the sound evidence of Jayaratha himself, who, in his commentary on the Tantrāloka itself, clearly attributes the Tantra Vaṭa Dhānikā to our Abhinavagupta, saying “Yaduk tam anenaivānyatra” and quotes verses thirty-six and thirty-seven giving the name also of this work in T. A., Comm., Ah. 13, P. 81. The supposition of difference in point of authorship of this work is, therefore, baseless.

HIS WORKS

DHVANYĀLOKA LOCANA.

It is the well known commentary of our author on Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka. On the commonness of the authorship of the Kārikā and the Vrtti; on the history of the theory of Dhvani, on its opponents and on other commentators of the Dhvanyāloka than our author, we shall speak at proper places in the following chapters. Here, therefore, we need not go into any detailed treatment of the work. 8. ABHINAVA BHARATI.

This is a commentary of Abhinavagupta on the Nātya Sastra of Bharata. In this he mostly follows the interpretation of the text, as orally given by his teacher in this branch, Bhatta Tota. On many important points, however, he differs from him (Bhatta Tota) as he does from Somānanda, whose commentary he follows and expands in the Parā Trimśikā Vivarana. These differences he clearly I states, as for instance, in regard to there being a possibility of the enjoyment of Rasa from the perusal of a poem (A. Bh., 292-3). His object in this commentary was not simply to prove that his predecessors’ interpretations of Bharata’s text were wrong but rather to modify them.2

THE PLAN. According to his own statement, his plan in this work was to comment in detail, giving a full and clear explanation of all the intricacies to be met with in the important passages, to give the meaning of the difficult words in the case of the unimportant ones, to reconcile all the apparent contradictions in the text, to explain repetitions, to discuss at length the disputed points, to clear up doubts and to put together the opinions of the authoritative persons on the most salients points. These are some of the distinctive

A. Bh., I. 2. A. Bh., 2. 3. A. Bh., 1-2.

CHAPTER II

features of the commentary. Space here does not permit us to illustrate all the points stated above. Two places in the commentary may, however, be pointed out as illustrative of most of them. One is that in which he deals with Bharata’s definition of Rasa in the 6th chapter, and the other is the third chapter in which he contents himself with mostly giving the meanings of a few words here and there.

THE QUESTION OF THE JOINT AUTHORSHIP OF THE TEXT.

The question of the joint authorship of the Natya Sastra of Bharata is very old. On this scholars have differed right from the pre-Abhinava time. According to some, those portions in which sage Bharata is addressed in the second person, as for instance in Bh. Su., ch. I, S. 2-6, were from the pen of some of his pupils and the rest from that of Bharata himself. But Abhinava considers the use of the second person alone to be too insufficient for such a conclusion and thinks that Bharata himself wrote those portions also, representing himself to be an interrogator. He substantiates his statement by giving the instances of the use of dialogic forms in the works of accepted single authorship. We reserve our opinion on this matter till the next chapter.

THE INTERPRETATION OF BHARATA’S MYTH ABOUT

THE ORIGIN OF THE STAGE, Abhinava puts a very intelligent interpretation on the mythical account, given by Bharata, of the origin of the stage in the first chapter. According to him, when Bharata speaks of his having been instructed by Brahmā to direct the dramatic performance because of his being a sage with hundred sons, of his having been given umbrella, crown and throne etc. by different gods, of the appointment of certain

A. Bh., 8.

HIS WORKS

divine beings to guard over certain parts of the theatre or certain actors and of the creation of fairies, he simply means to tell us the requirements of the stage and the way to manage it.

To state it briefly, the stage director should be a self sacrificing, hardy, 1 industrious and influential person of great intellectual power ; he should be capable of understanding the idea of the poet at a glance; he should have a large number of men of receptive minds and retentive memory, of quick judgments and easy delivery; these men should be capable of identifying? themselves with the characters that they represent, so that not only their tone and facial expression may change with the changing scenes, but the colours also, which is ordinarily not possible unless there be corresponding feeling in the heart. Their height, complexion, facial cut, colour of the hair and eyes and general constitution of the body should be fit for the varying needs of the stage, as the hundred names of Bharata’s sons enumerated in the text, implyle; and above all they should be free from all shyness? 1 before the audience.

Women are indispensable for the stage. For, whatever be the nature of training, the characteristic differences in point of delicacy of body and sweetness of tongue, which are the gifts of nature alone, and the sudden or gradual change of colour and look which are caused by certain feelings natural to women alone under certain circumstances, cannot possibly be displayed by men; and the absence of these seriously interferes with the enjoyment of Rasa. Like men, women also,

A. Bh., 17.
A. Bh., 17. 3. A. Bh., 16.
A. Bh., 21. 5-6, A. Bh., 16.
A. Bh., 27. 8. A. Bh., 28.
A. Bh., 22. 10. A. Bh., 19.
A. Bh., 16.

CHAPTER II.

as the names of the created fairies imply, should be of different kinds to suit the occasion.

There is also required a sympathetic, appreciative and liberal public to supply, like gods in the myth, the various scenic necessities to give the look of naturalness to all the scenes of the drama.

As regards the management, the general manager should be a person who in disposition, talk and look is exceptionally sweet like the moon. But strong and strict should be the stage-manager. The other executives also should be of such nature and power as characterises the gods mentioned in the myth.

In this brief statement of a general idea of his works, we need not state what he has said in regard to those portions of Bharata’s Natya Sastra which concern themselves with the details of construction of the stage and the arrangement of seating accommodation for the audience according to the class, rank and importance of each individual", with the narration of the orthodox religious rites to be performed before using a new stage, with the description of one hundred and eight postures (karana) and thirty-two gestures (angahāra) of dance and finally with the instructions as to how to stage the prologue. We, there fore, pass them over. 9. BHAGAVADGITĀRTHA SANGRAHA.

The Bhagavadgitārtha Sangraha, as its name implies, is not a commentary in the strict sense of the word. It is simply a summary of the subject matter of the Bhagavadgitā. At some places, however, it has the look of a commentary inasmuch as it gives the meanings of certain words. In it

A. Bh., 31.
A. Bh., 31. 3. A. Bh., 31.
A. Bh., 32.

HIS WORKS

Abhinava gives the traditional interpretation from the Saiva point of view, as learnt from his teacher Bhattendurāja, but not without using his judgment. It was written at the repeated request of a certain pious Brāhmaṇa, Lotaka,’ who, it appears, was Abhinava’s relative. It fills a gap left by other commen tators, inasmuch as it gives the hidden true import of the Bhagavadgītā. Its proper understanding presupposes a tolerably good knowledge of the undisputed parts of the text as well as that of the basic principles of the Trika philosophy. A person, who is qualified in both these respects, will certainly find it very informing, particularly on those passages about which doubt is not removed by the commentaries of his predecessors. The following verses illustrate the point :

II, 12, 69; III, 11 ; IV, 18, 24; V, 14; VI, 5-7.

The text on which Abhinava comments, differs at many places from the one published by the Nirnaya Sagar Press, which, along with other commentaries, includes Abhinava’s Bhagavadgitārtha Sangraha also. In the printed text, for instance, we find that the well known verse

“yada yadā hi dharmasya” etc. reads in the concluding portion as

tadātmānam srjāmyaham". But Abhinava’s text reads as

“tadātmāmsam sṣjāmyaham”.

The variation, though apparently slight, implies a greatly different meaning as the following extract from the commentary shows : “Sri Bhagavān kila pūrṇaṣādgunyatvāt sarīrasamparkamātra rahitopisthitikāritvāt kāruṇikatayā ātmāmsaí srjati ;

Bh. G. S. Introd. §. 6. 2. Bh. G. S. concl. §. 2. 3. Bh. G. S. concl. $. 3. 4. Bh. G. S. Introd. $. 5.

CHAPTER II

Ātmā pūrṇaṣādgunyah, amsah upakārakatvena apradhāna bhūto yatra tat atmāṁsam, sarīram grhṇāti ityarthah.”

Bh. G. S., Ch. IV, 7.

Numbers of a few more verses with this kind of difference are given below :

1st Chapter : 1, 6, 18, 28, 33. 2nd Chapter: 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 30, 32, 43, 47,

48, 58, 60, 63. 3rd Chapter 23, 26, 35.

Further, it has very many verses in addition to those found in the published text. Take for instance verses forty to forty-five in the third chapter.

“Eṣa sūkṣmah parah satrur dehinām indriyaih saba Sukhatantra ivāsīno mohayan partha tiṣthati Kāmakrodhamayo ghorah stambhaharṣasamudbhavah Ahankārobhimānātmā dustarah pāpakarmabhiḥ Harṣam asya nivartyaiṣa sokam asya dadāti ca Bhayancāsya karotyeṣa mohayaistu muhur muhuh Sa eṣa kaluṣah kṣudrachidraprekṣi Dhananjaya

Rajahpravstto mohātmā mānuṣāṇām upadravah.” On this Abhinava comments as follows:

“Eṣa tāvat sūkṣma utpattisamaye alakṣya indriyeṣu" etc.

IMPORTANCE OF THE BHAGAVADGITĀ IN THE EYES OF

THE SAIVAS.

Several teachers of Saivaism from the time of Vasugupta down to that of Abhinava commented upon the Bhagavad gītā. In the writings of our author there are very many quotations from it and often they are coupled with reference to Krsna as Guru’. It is, therefore, necessary to state here how Krsna is connected with the Trika Saivaism, and

T.A., I, 162.

HIS WORKS

consequently what position the Gītā does occupy in the Saiva literature.

Here we may state by the way that in this and similar other cases our object in these pages is simply to explain why orthodox Saivas had a certain view about this or similar other matters. Whether they were right or wrong in these respects is altogether a different matter with which we are not concerned immediately.

Although the Saivāgama had its origin between the third and the fourth centuries A. D., as we shall show in the next chapter, yet the orthodox Saivas regarded it as of very high antiquity, indeed of eternal existence like the Vedas. This view we find recorded by Abhinava in the 35th Āhnika of the Tantrāloka in which he traces the origin of the Saivāgama from Bhairava and represents Rāmacandra also to have studied it partly. In the Harivainsa Purana we are told that Krṣna was taught the sixty-four monistic Saivāgamas by sage Durvāsas, the revealer of all of them in Kali age. Similarly, in the Mahābhārata, Moksa Parva, it is stated that he got instruction in the Dvaita and the Dvaitādvaita Saivāgamas, twenty-eight in number, from Upamanyu. It seems that it was because of the above statements that Krsna was thought by the Saivas to have been himself a follower of the Trika. Perhaps for this very reason the Bhagavadgītā is classed with the Agamas. 10. PARAMĀRTHA SARA.

THE TITLE This work is called Paramārtha Sara, because it briefly states the most essential principles of the Trika philosophy.

« Aryāśatena tad idam samkṣiptam

śāstrasāram atigudham."

P. S., 198.

Acc-to. taf landit Tika stands for only a

prachcal school of ks and not for les der

general. It is therefore, evroneous to work that Trika sland for Balzabligna philosophy as a wh-56 button and CHAPTER II i 3. Adhara Kankausa vaisravite lest and

mta Saillya THE SOURCELOka alleged heyey . Verses 36,33 57, 58, 70,54,67 CB.N.Pada )

According to Abhinava’s own statement, it is an adaptation of the Adhāra Kārikās of śeṣa Muni who is also referred to as Adhāra Bhagavān or Ananta Nātha. These Kārikās also were known as “Paramārtha Sāra". They gave in brief the most essential principles of the Sānkhya philosophy and taught that the final emancipation could be attained by discriminating between Prakrti and Puruṣa. The original with a few omissions, additions and alterations was adapted to serve as a medium of teaching the most essential principles of the Trika: The adaptation consists of one hundred and five verses, though Abhinava’s own statement as regards the number of its verses is : “In hundred Aryā verses I have summarised the essential principles of the Trika system which are so difficult to understand.”

P. S., 198.

This, however, does not mean that Abhinava wrote only hundred verses and that the rest were subsequently added to them by some other hands. The fact is that the number refers to the verses concerned with the statement of the principles and not to all which constitute the existing text. Therefore, if we leave aside the first three verses, in the first of which he offers prayer and in the following two states the source and nature of his composition, and also the concluding two, we find the verses dealing with the subject matter to be only one hundred. This seems to have been his way of giving the number of verses in a particular work, as is testified by his Bodhapañcadasikā. Although this work actually consists of sixteen verses yet it is called Pancadasikā (consisting of 15 verses) bceause only in the first fifteen verses the Bodha is dealt with. The last is simply a concluding verse similar to the last two in the work under discussion,HIS WORKS

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SOURCE AND

THE ADAPTATION. There is a difference of opinion among scholars as regards the text which was the source of Abhinava’s adaptation. Dr. Barnett, who was perhaps the first scholar to study the philosophical works of Abhinavagupta, remarks in J. R. A. S. (1910) P. 708 :

“Our Paramārtha Sāra must be distinguished from another little work of the same name, of which an edition was published in 1907 at Madras, with a Telugu paraphrase by Pattisapu Venkateshvaradu. The latter consists of seventy-nine Aryā verses ; a considerable number of these are borrowed directly from our Paramārtha Sāra and with them have been incorporated others, the whole work being painted over with Vaiṣṇava colours. Needless to say, it is valueless for the criticism of our book.”

Supposing the text of the Paramārtha Sāra, referred to by the learned Doctor, to be the same as that of the one pub lished in the Sabda Kalpadruma, Mr. J. C. Chatterji holds, on the contrary, that the very work, referred to by Dr. Barnett in the above paragraph, was adapted by Abhinava to suit his needs. He further adds in the same connection: “A comparison of the two texts would prove, to my mind, interesting and I propose to make it on another occasion,”

K S., P. 12. After a careful study of the available material on the subject, we are inclined to support the latter view. We also, like Mr. Chatterji, have not had access to the Madras edition of the Paramārtha Sāra, with a Telugu paraphrase. Our information about the supposed adapted Paramārtha Sāra is based on two editions. One of these forms a part of the Sabda Kalpadruma and the other has been published in the Trivendrum Sanskrit Series, Like Mr. Chatterji,

CHAPTER II

we also feel little doubt that the text presented by these two editions is the same as that of the edition referred to by Dr. Barnett, because it fully answers the description of the Madras publication. This also consists of seventy nine Āryā verses. It may be noted here that the concluding line of the text appearing in the Sabda Kalpadruma states the number of verses to be 85. The Triven drum publication does have 85 verses. But the additional six verses have got nothing to do with the subject matter. They constitute a sort of introduction and were, therefore, perhaps, dropped by the scribes of the MSS. on which the two editions, the one included in the Sabda Kalpadruma and the other published at Madras, referred to by Dr. Barnett, are based. A considerable number of verses in the common text of the two publications is the same as that found in Abhinava’s Paramārtha Sāra, and the whole of the original work is painted over with Vaiṣnava colours. Consult, for instance, the verses 25 and 59 of the Sabda Kalpadruma.

This work was held to be very sacred, so much so that Abhinava in his Bh. G. S. quotes from it as from a Sruti the following verse :

“Tīrthe śvapacagrhe vā naṣtasmrtirapi parityajan deham

Jñānasamakalamuktah kaivalyam yāti hataśokah.”

DEBh. G. S., Ch. VIII, 7. It may be pointed out here that this verse is found without the least difference in Abhinava’s Paramārtha Sāra also. But it cannot be supposed to be a quotation from that; firstly, because, as we have already said, Bh. G. S. comes before the Paramārtha Sara in the chronological order of his works; secondly, because it is given as a quotation from Sruti, as the context given below shows :

Evar hi sati jñāninopi yāvaccharīrabhāvidhātudoṣa vikalitacittavrtter jadatāprāptasya tāmasasyeva gatih

HIS WORKS

syāt na cābhyupagamotra yuktah pramāṇabhūtaśruti virodhat asti hi “tīrthe syapaca” etc;

Bh. G. S., Ch. VIII, 7. thirdly, because, had the quotation been from his own work he would have stated so, as it is his clearly marked practice in this and other works; and fourthly and lastly, because of Mr. Chatterji’s reason in support of the earlier date of the adapted text than that of our author, namely, that a verse from it is quoted in the Spanda Pradīpikā by Utpala Vaisnava, who was an older contemporary of Abhinava, if not his predecessor, as we shall show in the next chapter (K. S., P. 13). Thus the supposition of the earlier existence of the work accessible to us does not seem to be unreasonable. We, therefore, are of opinion that the Paramārtha Sāra of Abhinava is an adaptation of the work published in the Sabdakalpadruma and in the Trivendrum series.

We attempt below to compare briefly the language of the two to further strengthen our opinion :

“Nānāvidhavarnānām varnan dhatte yathāmalah sphatikah,

Tadvadupādher gunabhāvitasya bhävam vibhur dhatte.”

A. K., S. 7.

and “Nanavidhavarnānām rūpān dhatte yathāmalah sphatikah Suramānuṣapaśupādaparāpatvam tadvadīśopi.”

P.S., S. 6. Here the difference of principle will be apparent to any one familiar with the ideas of the two systems. According to the Sāūkhya, limitation is the result of the nearness of its cause with what is limited and the two have separate independent existence. But, according to the Trika, it is simply a result of the free will of the one who is all powerful and independent of whom nothing has or can have an existence. However, because of the commonness

CHAPTER II

of the idea that this limitation is only apparent and that the pure being is in reality as little affected by these varying conditions as a crystal is by the various things which cast their reflections on it, Abhinava has retained in his adaptation so much of the language of the original that any one having the two verses before him can confidently say that one is an adaptation of the other.

But when there is no such difference of principles, we find the very language of the original without the alteration of even a letter, as in the following instance : -

“Punyāya tirthasevā nirayāya śvapacasadananidhanagatih

Punyāpunyakalaukasparsābhāve tu kim tena.” These lines constitute the 74th verse of the original and the 84th of the adaptation.

Further, we find certain portions of the original altogether omitted, because they deal with matters in which the two systems fundamentally differ, as for instance, that part in which the original deals with the effect of the mere presence of Puruṣa in bringing about all activity in the insentient senses : “Yadvadacetanam api sannikaṭasthe bhrāmake bhramati loham

Tadvat karanasamūhas ceṣtati cidadhisthite dehe."

A. K., S. 3. We also find in the adaptation certain verses which cannot at all be traced in the original. These are mainly those which deal with the ideas peculiar to Trika Saivaism, as for instance, those which describe the eleven Tattvas in which this system believes in addition to those which it has in common, at least in point of names, with the Sankhya system :

“śivasaktisadāśivatām īśvaravidyāmayim ca tattvadaśam

Saktīnām pancānām vibhaktabhāvena bhāsayati.”

P. S., S. 14.

HIS WORKS

For a detailed comparative study we give below the numbers of the verses in the adaptation showing against them those of the verses in the Adhāra Karikās, as found in the Sabda Kalpadruma, of which the former are adaptations.

P.S. A. K.

P.S. A. K. 8 9

83 84

100 101

102 53

54 11. IŚVARA PRATYABHIJNĀ VIMARSINI.

This is Abhinava’s commentary, called Vimarsini, on Utpalācārya’s Iśvara Pratyabhijñā Sūtras. This is called Laghvi Vimarsini also, because of its being a comparatively less detailed commentary than the Isvara Pratyabhijña Vivrti Vimarsins. According to the old method of calcula tion, in which a group of thirty-two syllables was counted as one Sloka, the former work consists of four thousand and the latter of eighteen thousand Slokas and, therefore, they are also known as Catussahasrī and Aṣṭādaśasahasri respectively. The contents of this work will be dealt with in the second part.

IśVARA PRATYABHIJMA VIVRTI VIMARSINI.

It is an unpublished commentary of Abhinava on Utpala cārya’s commentary called “Vivrti" on his own Pratyabhijña

CHAPTER II

Sūtras, as Abhinava himself states in one of the introductory verses to this book :

“Srimal Lakṣmanagupta darsitapathaḥ

śrīpratyabhijñāvidhau ṭikārthapravimarsinīm racayate vrttim praśiṣyo guroh.” This is the penultimate work of Abhinava. It clears up most of the points which are not very clear in the Laghvi Vimarsinī. But the readers will be pained to know that Utpalācārya’s ṭikā, on which it is a commentary, has not so far been found inspite of vigorous searches made by so many enthusiasts. Perhaps, unfortunately, it is irrecoverably lost.

The eight smaller works of Abhinava, which we are giving in Appendix (B) to this thesis, can be divided into two classes : (I) propagandistic booklets or leaflets on the Trika Saivaism and (II) Stotras. To the former belong :

Anuttarastikā, 14. Paramārtha Dvādasikā, 15. Paramārtha Carcā and 16. Mahopadeśa Vimsatika. And to the latter class belong 17. Krama Stotra, 18. Bhairava Stava, 19. Dehastha Devatā Cakra Stotra and 20. Anubhava Nivedana.

All the four pamphlets are concerned with the explana tion of the phenomenon of the universe as non-different from the highest reality, which is spoken of as “Anuttara” in the first, “Paramārtha" in the second and the third and “Prapancottirna" and “Viśvamūrti” in the last of the first group. They state that the realisation of the highest reality, as they represent it, is the only way to salvation.

HIS WORKS

The first line of the second verse of the Anuttarāṣtikā : “Samsārosti na tattvatas tanubhrtām bandhasya

vārtaiva kā” is quoted by Jayaratha in his commentary on the Tantrāloka III, 99. Although in this work we find some of the similes very commonly used by the Vedāntins to explain the unreality of the universe, for instance :

“Mithyāmohaksdeṣa rajjubhujagacchāyāpiśācabhramah,” yet it would be a mistake to think that the Trika conception of the universe is the same as that of the Vedānta. For, the former is Abhāsavāda and the latter is Vivartavāda. For fuller information on this refer to the 2nd chapter in the 2nd part.

Paramārtha Dvādaśikā was known as Advaya Dvādasi kā also, because the second verse :

“Yadyatattvaparihārapurvakaṁ tattvam eṣi

tadatattvam eva hi Yadyatattvam atha tattvam eva vā tat tvam eva

nanu tattvam idrśam.”

P. D., S. 2. is quoted by Ramyadevācārya in his commentary on Cakrapāninātha’s Bhāvopahāra, S. 45, with the introductory remark “Advayadvādaśikāyāmapi.”

As regards Stotras, about the first two, viz., the Krama and the Bhairava, we have already spoken in discussing the date of Abhinavagupta. Here it may be added in connection with the latter that in old Pandit families of Kashmir there is still current a tradition which says that Abhinava, while entering the Bhairava cave for his last Samadhi, was reciting this Stotra.

In the Dehastha Devata Cakra Stotra Abhinava shows that the attendant deities of śiva, mentioned in the Purānas,

CHAPTER II

are found associated with him even when he is in the body as a limited self (śiva eva grhītapaśubhāvah). Though in the latter case their names and forms are different yet their functions are the same. For instance, in the Purānas he is said to have got two door-keepers, Ganeśa and Batuka. They accompany him even when he assumes limitations as an individual (Pasupramātā) to guard two of the nine doors of the body. Of course, in this case, they are called Prāṇa and Apāna. Jayaratha echoes this very idea when in his commentary on the Tantrāloka I, 6, he says the following with regard to Gaṇeśa and Batuka :

“Asya hi prāṇavyāptirasti ityevam nirdiśanti guravah”

and «Vastuto hi apānavyāptirasyāsti ityevam nirdeśaḥ", respectively.

Regarding the Anubhava Nivedana it may be stated here that we attribute it to Abhinava on the authority of a tradition only. We have so far not been able to find any internal or external literary evidence to support it. The colophon says nothing about its authorship and no quotation from it have we, so far, discovered anywhere. We are, therefore, not quite sure that the tradition is well founded. We have, however, included it in the list of Abhinava’s works, because we found it in an old collection of Abhinava’s Stotras in the possession of Harabhatt Shastri of Kashmir. 21. TANTROCCAYA.

This is another summary of the great work, Tantrāloka, smaller than the Tantrasāra but bigger than the Tantra vaṭadhānikā. Although both the introductory and the concluding verses speak of its being a work of Abhinava, yet the language, the style and the method of treatment of the subject matter, give rise to grave doubt about its being from the pen of Abhinava.

HIS WORKS

GHAṭAKARPARAKULAKA VIVRTI.

Ghatakarpara is an interesting poem of twenty one verses. It is of the type of the famous Meghaduta. There is just one point of difference : while Meghaduta is from the lips of the lover, here it is the separated beloved that mostly speaks, only a few lines being from others such as her friend and messenger etc. It is interesting to note in this connection that according to the published commentary of Pandit Ramcharit Sharma, a modern scholar, the whole of the poem is from the beloved. Its author, according to the tradition inherited and recorded by Abhinava, was Kalidasa.? Its title was probably suggested by the word “Ghatakarpara” occurring in the last line of the poem in which the author, being extremely confident of his all-surpassing skill in writing Yamakas, humorously vows to carry water in a potsherd for him who can defeat him in writing Yamakas. 3

The Vivrti is Abhinava’s learned and interesting commentary on the work under discussion. According to him the 20th verse is not from the pen of Kālidāsa ; it is a later interpolation. The belief, therefore, in some quarters that this poem is a composition of the poet, Ghatakarpara, who, according to a literary tradition was one of the nine gems in the court of King Vikramāditya, is evidently ill-founded.

In addition to the twenty-one verses commented upon by Abhinava, there is a benedictory verse in the beginning. The MS. gives number one to this verse and two to the following. The question, therefore, naturally arises “Is it a part of the poem?” For the following reasons our opinion on this point is that it is a benedictory verse of Abhinava

Gh. V. (MS.) 2. Gh. V. (MS.) 3. Gh., p. 26. 4. Gh. V. (MS.) 5. Gh. V. (MS.) 6. T. V.

CHAPTER II

at the commencement of the commentary and not the first verse of the poem. Its wrong place and the wrong number of the first introductory verse of the poem are due to scribal mistakes :

(I) Had it been a part of the poem Abhinava would not have left it uncommented.

(II) While Kālidāsa often, particularly in minor poems, does not offer benediction, Meghadūta and Srutabodha for instance, we have not so far discovered any work of Abhinava without a benedictory verse in the beginning,

(III) This verse is not found in the Nirnaya Sagar edition.

It may be pointed out here that the published text differs from that of the MS., on which our study is based, on the following points. For convenient reference we call the former “A” and the latter “B”.

(1) The first five verses of “A” occur as verses from the 15th to the 19th in “B”.

(II) The verses 15th and 21st of “A” are not found in “B”.

(III) Similarly the 10th verse of “B” is not found in “A”: 23. BIMBAPRATIBIMBA VÄDA

This work is noticed in two catalogues (1) Dr. Būhler’s Kashmir catalogue and (2) Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report of the collection of Sanskrit MSS. in 1875-76. A careful study of a copy of the MS. of the work in question, kindly supplied by the curator of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, tells us that this work, though noticed as a separate work of Abhinava, is in reality only a part of the 3rd Ahnika of the Tantraloka in which he refutes the Bimbapratibimba theory of the Naiyāyikas and establishes that of the Saivas,HIS WORKS

A comparison of the verses 1 to 23 of the third Āhnika and the commentary thereon with the MS. No. 469 of 1875-76 in the B. O. R. I. will convince anybody. In fact the colophon very clearly states that the Bimbapratibimba Vada is only an extract from the Tantraloka, 1

ANUTTARA TATTVA VIMARSINI VRTTI

Prof. P. P. S. Shastri’s descriptive catalogue of the MSS. in the Tanjore Palace Library informs us that there are two MSS. of this work in the said Library ; but un fortunately both of them are incomplete. The extracts given by the learned Professor leave no doubt about Abhinava’s authorship of the work. It may be pointed out here that there is no foundation for Prof. P. P. S. Shastri’s guess :

“The work under notice is perhaps his (Abhinava’s) commentary on Utpalācārya’s Isvarapratyabhijñā, a metrical summary of Saivaism.”

A careful comparison of the extracts from the MS. on pages 6360-1 with the Parātrimśikā Vivarana of Abhinavagupta, published by the Research Department of Kashmir, leaves no doubt about its being another and smaller commentary of Abhinava on the Parātrimśikā, an extract from the Rudrayāmala Tantra. Compare, for instance, the following :

“Iha khalu svātmadevataiva pramathyamānāvasthāyām atmānam parāmarsenānavaratam prcchatītyata ucyate :

“S’rīdevyuvāca” Kim prcchatītyata āha : “Anuttaram” iti “Anuttaram syātmadeva

Sadyah kā……ra siddhidam 1. B. P. V. (MS.) 2. T. C., P. 6361.

CHAPTER II

Yena vijñānamätrena Khecarisamatām vrajet”

T.C., 6360—1

and “Srīdevyuvāca” *Anuttaram katham deva Sadyah kaulika siddhidam Yena vijñātamätrena Khecarīsamatām vrajet.”

P. T. V., 3. The few small differences between the two texts can be explained as due to either scribal mistakes or local variations in reading

A set of his works dealing with the Anuttara, Abhinava used to refer to as “Anuttaraprakriyā”. This fact we learn from Jayaratha’s following comment on the above word :

“Anuttaraprakriyāyāmiti parātrimsikā-vivaraṇādavityar thah.”

T. A., Comm., VI, 249. The two works under discussion are apparently of the said set. It was a common practice among the Kashmir writers of the 10th and the 11th centuries to write more than one commentary on the same work. Utpalācārya, the grand teacher of Abhinava, for instance, has written two commentaries on his own Isvarapratyabhijñākarikā, namely, the Vrtti and the Vivrti, the first being the smaller of the two.