3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

In the last chapter we have divided the literary activity of Abhinava into three periods and have placed the Tantric period first of all. In this chapter we propose to trace the historical background of his Tantric, philosophic and alankārika thoughts. We may state at the very outset that our subject being “A Study of Abhinavagupta”, we do not mean to follow the traditional method of tracing the origin of the three subjects, on which he worked, to some ideas found in the Vedas and their development through the later literature till they got the respective names by which they are now known. We shall strictly confine ourselves to stating what idea of their history we get from the writings of Abhinava himself, and of his immediate predecessors, to whom he often refers, to enable the reader to picture to himself the stages in the development of these ideas at which Abhinava took them up and the modifications which he introduced into them. We may further add that certain statements in the following pages will appear more mythical than historical, particularly in the part, dealing with the history of the Tantric literature. But they have been given a place here, partly to let the reader know the orthodox belief in its high antiquity and partly for a grain of historical truth that we find therein.

I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS TANTRIC IDEAS

The belief among the orthodox Saivas even today is that the Saivāgamas are of eternal existence like the Vedas. To this belief Abhinava has given a philosophical explanation in the Malini Vijaya Vartika which can be briefly put as follows:

“Creation, or, to be more exact, manifestation, is,

CHAPTER III

according to the Trika, of two kinds. One relates to speech and the other to substance (vācyavācakātmaka). Speech also is represented to be of two kinds, divine and human. The Saivāgamas are the divine speech and as such are the grossest manifestation of the supreme vimarsa, as different from the individual vimarśa which is the cause of the ordinary human speech. Speech, as we have already shown in the course of our treatment of the Parātrimśikā Vivarana, has an eternal existence in a state of identity with the Parā. The āgamas are but divine speech, and as such they also have similar eternal existence. According to the Trika, therefore, there can be nothing like an origin of the Saivāgamas. There is only appearance or reappearance of them at the divine will.”

These Agamas originally consisted of nine crores of verses. Bhairava alone knew them all. This āgamic lore, however, considerably lost in bulk as it was handed down by one divine being to the next after him. Literary tradition definitely says that the number of known verses decreased by one crore in the case of each of the remaining eight divine beings according to the order of their succession, shown below :

Bhairava. 2. Bhairavī Devī. 3. Svacchanda. 4. Lākula. 5. Aṇurāt. 6. Gahanesa. 7. Abjaja. 8. Sakra. 9. Guru.

The last mentioned, namely, Guru, taught the known

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

portion of the Agamas in parts to the following eight, according to their individual receptive power :

Dakṣa etc. 2. Sarvarta etc. 3. Vāmana etc. 4. Bhārgava. 5. Bali. 6. Simha. 7. Vinatābhū.
Vāsukināga. Out of the part of the Agamas in heaven (in the possession of Sakra ?) Rāvana took one-half, which was partly handed down from generation to generation in the following order :
Bibhīṣana. 2. Rāma. 3. Laksmana. 4. Siddhas. 5. Dānavas. 6. Guhyakas.
Yogins. This, in brief, is the orthodox history of the Saivāgamas from the time of Satyayuga to our age (Kaliyuga) as given by Abhinava in the 35th Ahnika of the Tantrāloka. It is based on the authority of the Siddhā Tantra and the

tradition that he heard from his teachers.

But when the iron age (Kaliyuga) was sufficiently advanced, the sages, who were in possession of the Saiva tantric traditions, retired to places inaccessible to ordinary mortals. The Saiva tantric tradition, therefore, dis appeared from the ordinary society and spiritual darkness

T. A., Ab. 35. (MS.)
Tiveron is an eine animation of the

shwara Bhattaraka deseanded oli nara.

og faraw in Toubre sara 50027 Aandrar: 2. 72 sangranadilaAAPTER in the xvi descendent

and not av. It was the titleenthurazi, and

prevailed. Once Srikantha, (this is one of the names of śiva) while roaming over the mountain Kailāsa, was touched with pity for the suffering humanity, which was then immersed in spiritual darkness caused by the dis appearance of the Saivāgamas. He, therefore, instructed the sage, Durvāsas, to revive the Saivāgamic teaching, The sage accordingly divided all the Saivāgamas into three classes according as they taught monism, dualism or monism-cum-dualism, imparted their knowledge to his three mind-born sons, Tryambaka, Amardaka and Srīnātha respectively, and charged each one of them separately with the mission of spreading the knowledge of their respective āgamas. Thus there came into existence three Saiva Tantric Schools, each known by the name of the first earthly propagator. It may be noted here that there is one more ägamic school which is known as “half-Tryambaka’ (ardhatryambaka) because it was founded by a descendant of Tryambaka on the side of his daughter.

We have not made any considerable attempt up to this time to search for the preceptorial lines of the Dvaita and the Dvaitādvaita Tantras. Whatever information, however, we have been able to collect from the available sources on the teachers of these two schools and their contributions to the Saiva literature, to which there are repeated references in Abhinava’s works, we shall put in the middle of this very chapter. As regards the successive teachers of the Advaita Tantras, we find a tolerably good account in the closing chapter of the śivadrṣṭi of Somānanda, the great grand teacher of Abhinava. In that he represents himself to be the 19th descendant of Tryambaka, the founder of the Advaita Tantric School. Of the first fourteen ancestors after Tryambaka he did not know much. His account of the (fifteenth is a little definite. According to this, his name I was Samgamāditya; he married a Brāhmana girl, came

not sorrhorn who broke the bradehou of eelila and manned a Brat mie girl. The son vorn!

as then was horizon effaragta, at the close of it.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 73

to Kashmir in the course of his roaming and settled down there. The names of the three descendants between Samgamāditya and Somānanda are given below in the order of their succession :

Varṣāditya. 2. Aruṇāditya.
Ananda? In the foregoing account of the origin of the system in the hoary past, its long propagation, gradual decay, temporary disappearance and reappearance at the time from which the history now is traceable, there is nothing extraordinary. This seems to have been the traditional method of describing the high antiquity of a system. Leaving other books of lesser importance aside, if we take up such an important book as the Bhagavadgītā we find that there too Krsna similarly speaks of the antiquity of the Karmayoga in the following lines in the beginning of the 4th Chapter :

“Imam vivasvate yogam proktavän aham avyayam Vivasvān manave prāha manurikṣvākavebravīt Evam paramparāprāptam idam rājarṣayo viduḥ Sa kālencha mahatā yogo naṣtah Parantapa Sa evāyam mayā tedya yogah proktah purātanah.”

Bh. G., ch. IV, S. 1-2.

All this, however, is not without any historical importance. Here also the shrewd eye of a researcher can find a few grains of historical truth. And what our not very much trained eyes have been able to find in the above

account we state as follows:

Somānanda speaks of himself as the 19th descendant of Tryambaka. He was a great grand teacher of Abhinava

Ś. Dr., Ch. 7. (MS.)

CHAPTER III

whose date of birth we have fixed at about the middle of the 10th century A. D. It is, therefore, very probable that he was a contemporary of Bhatta Kallata, who, as we know from the Rājataranginī, lived in the reign of king Avantivarman of Kashmir (855-883 A. D.) In fact Bhatta Kallaṭa also was a great grand teacher of Abhinava from the side of Bhattendurāja, who was Abhinava’s teacher in the Bhagavadgītā. For, Bhattendurāja was a pupil of Mukula, son of Bhatta Kallata. This statement is based on the combined authority of Bhattendurāja’s commentary on the Kāvyāla nkāra Sāra and Mukula’s Abhidhāvịtti Mātṇkā in which the following lines occur :

“Srutvā saujanyasindhor dvijavara Mukulāt”

and

“Bhatta Kallaṭa putrena Mukulena nirūpitā

Sūri prabodhanāyeyam Abhidhāvṣtti Mātěkā.”

If, therefore, Somānanda belonged to the later half of the 9th century A. D., it would not be wrong to say that the monistic, the dualistic and the dualistic-cum-monistic schools of Saivaism arose in the last quarter of the 4th century A. D. For, if we follow the traditional method of allowing 25 years for each generation we will have to admit that a period of four hundred and fifty years inter vened between Tryambaka, the founder of the monistic school of Saivaism, and Somānanda, the founder of the Pratyabhijna school ; because, the latter was the 19th descendant of the former.

Thus, if different philosophical schools of S’aivaism arose towards the end of the 4th century A. D. it naturally follows that before that time there was no such distinction. This conclusion finds support in Abhinava’s account of early Saivaism, because in that no difference of any kind is stated or indicated to have existed. Perhaps before that time

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

Saivaism was simply a form of worship of the particular deity after which the faith was called and the introduction of the philosophical element came much later as a result of the influence of Buddhism.

It is not possible for us to state the time of composition of the different Tantras, because very few of them are so far available. How can any correct conclusion be possible unless all of them or at least a respectable number of them be carefully read? As regards their division into the three Saiva schools, there seems to have existed a difference of opinion a little before the time of Abhinava ; for, there is the evidence of Kṣemarāja that the Svacchanda Tantra, on which he has commented from the point of view of Saiva monism, was before his time explained in accordance with the principles of dualism.

(“Nāmnaiva bhedadrstir vidhutā yenāsvatantratatattvā Srimat Svatantra Tantram bhedavyākhyām na tat sahate.”)

Abhinavagupta, however, has made a clear cut division of these in his Tantrāloka as follows :

“Dasāṣtādaśavasvaṣtabhinnam yacchāsanaṁ vibhoh.”

T. A., I, 35.

And Jayaratha in his commentary on the above verse has given the list of the Tantras as follows:

DVAITA TANTRAS.

Kāmaja. 2. Yogaja. 3. Cintya. 4. Maukuta. 5. Arhśumat. 6. Dīpta. 7. Kāraṇa.

CHAPTER III

Ajita.
Sūkṣma. 10. Sahasra.

This division, according to his own statement is based on the authority of the Sri Srikanthi.

(Etacca Sri Srikanthyām abhidhānapūrvakaṁ vistarata uktam. T. A., Comm., I, 39.)

This authority was probably a recent one, and, therefore, was perhaps disputed. This supposition alone can justify the existence of a dualistic interpretation of the Svacchanda Tantra.

In the introduction to the Mrgendra Tantra occurs the following quotation, giving the names of the ten śiva Tantras. This authority is different from that quoted by Jayaratha :

*Kāmikam Yogajam vātha tathā Cintyaśca Kāraṇam Ajitam Dīpta Sūkṣmau ca Sahasrasca tathāṁśumān Suprabhedastathā hyete saivāh samparikīrtitah.”

Introd., Mr. T., P. 2.

It may be noted here that the MS. with the help of which the present edition of the Tantrāloka was brought out, was, perhaps, mutilated in that part which states the names of the dualistic Tantras and, therefore, there is left a gap after giving six-names. We have, however, completed the list with the help of Dr. Farquhar’s Outline of Religious Literature in India P. 193, in which he gives all the ten names. It may be pointed out in this connection that this list instead of Maukuta and Kāmaja, gives Suprabha and Kāmika. At present we have not got sufficient material at our disposal to explain this difference.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

DVAITĀDVAITA TANTRAS.

Vijaya. 2. Niśvāsa. 3. Madgīta. 4. Pārameśvara. 5. Mukhabimba. 6. Siddha 7. Santāna 8. Narasimhaka 9. Candrāmśu 10. Virabhadra 11. Agneya 12. Svayambhuva 13. Visara 14. Raurava 15. Vimala 16. Kirana 17. Lalita 18. Saurabheya

It is interesting to note here that Abhinava in his Tan trāloka has given quotations from some of these Tantras also in support of certain views propounded therein. For the list of these and the contexts in which references to them occur consult appendix (B)

ADVAITA TANTRAS.

The advaita Tantras consist of eight groups, each comprising eight Tantras and having a separate name as shown below:

(I) BHAIRAVA TANTRAS.

Svacchanda 2. Bhairava 3. Canda

CHAPTER III

Krodha 5. Unmatta Bhairava 6. Asitānga 7. Mahocchuṣma
Kapālīśa (II) YAMALA TANTRAS
Brahmayāmala 10. Viṣnuyāmala 11. Svacchanda (Yamala) 12. Ruru 13. 14. Atharvaṇa 15. Rudra 16. Vetala

(III) MATA.

Rakta 18. Lampata 19. Lakṣmīmata 20. Mata 21. Calikā 22. Pingala 23. Utphullaka 24. Viśvādya

(IV) MANGALA

Picu Bhairavī 26. Tantra Bhairavi 27. Tata 28. Brāhmi Kala 29. Vijayā 30. Candra 31. Mangala 32. Sarvamangalā

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

(V) CAKRĀSTAKA

Mantracakra 34. Varnacakra 35. Sakticakra 36. Kalācakra 37. Binducakra 38. Nādacakra 39. Guhyacakra 40. Khacakra

(VI) BAHURŪPA.

Andhaka 42. Rurubheda 43. Aja 44. Mala 45. Varnabhantha 46. Vidanga 47. Mātrrodana
Jvālin (VII) VAGISA
Bhairaví 50. Citrikā 51. Hamsā 52. Kadambika 53. Hrllekha 54. Candralekhā 55. Vidyullekhā
Vidyumat (VIII) SIKHĀṣTAKA
Bhairavi Sikhā 58. Vīṇā 59. Vīṇāmaṇi 60. Sammoha

CHAPTER III

Dāmara 62. Atharvaka 63. Kabandha 64. Sirascheda

This list of sixty-four monistic Tantras is based on the authority of the Srikanthi, a Saiva work quoted by Jayaratha in his commentary on the Tantrāloka, I, 42—3. We may add here that the above list of 64 Tantras is different from the one given in the Sabdārtha Cintāmaṇi under «Tantra" on page 1048. The latter is based on the authority of the Siddhi Sarasvata and has certain names of Tantras in common with the former, e. g. Svatantra and Rudra Yāmala etc. and mentions the names of certain others which are quoted by Abhinava in the Tantrāloka, though not included in Jayaratha’s list.

THE FOURTH SAIVA TANTRIC SCHOOL.

The fourth school of Saivaism owed its existence to a descendant of Tryambaka on his daughter’s side and, there fore, was called Ardha-Tryambaka. The evidence which we have been able to collect so far leads us to think that it is the same system as that which is referred to in the Tantrā loka as Kula-Prakriyā. For, acccording to the statement of Jayaratha in the introduction to T. A., Ah. I, S. 7, Abhinava deals with the teachings of both the Tantra and the Kula in his Tantrāloka. Abhinava also pays his homage to his teachers in both the schools, as the following quotation shows :

“Evanca tantraprakriyopāsannagurvabhimukhikaranā nantaram viśrāntisthānatayā kulaprakriyāgurum api utkarṣayati.”

T. A., Comm., I, 31.

If we read the following verse with the introduction to it,

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

given above, it becomes evident that Sambhunātha was his teacher in the Kula system :

“Jayatāt jagaduddhrtikṣamosau Bhagavatyā saha Sambhunātha ekah.

T. A., I, 31.

Now in the concluding portion of the Tantrāloka Ah. 37, the author, while enumerating his teachers in different branches, refers to this very Sambhunātha not only as his teacher in the fourth school

(“Turyākhyasantatimahodadhipurnacandrah Sri Somatah sakalavit kila Sambhunāthah.”

T. A., Ah. 37, S. 61. (MS.)

but also as a pupil of Soma, which is an abbreviated form of Somadeva, who was Sambhunātha’s teacher in Atimārga or Kulamārga, as the following statement of Jayaratha in his commentary on the Tantrāloka, I, 213, coupled with a quotation makes clear :

“Sri Sumatināthasya Somadevah Siṣyah tasya Sri S’ambhunāthah yad vakṣyati “Srī Somatah sakalavit kila Sambhunāthah”

yattu

“Kaścid daksinabhūmipīthavasatiḥ śrīmān vibhur Bhairavah Pancasrotasi sātimärgavibhave sastre vidhātā ca yah Lokebhūt Sumatis tatah samudabhūt tasyaiva siṣyāgranīh Srīmāñchambhuriti prasiddhim agamaj-Jalandharāt pīthatah ityanyatroktam tat paramagurvabhiprāyena yojyam.”

We, therefore, hold that the words “atinaya”, “kulamārga”, “kālīnaya” and “ardhatryambakamathikā” stand for the same school of Saivaism.

śanar star, Baiza- sfarer, arta 27 ezero - 33a 22 siectorat izans the

(930) (3fe230) 82 वर्तकनीक

लाHe was not the founder of the toulli scheral (3refore

THE TRACEABLE HISTORY OF THE FOURTH SCHOOL.

We learn from the following quotation in T. A., Comm. that it had its origin in Kāmarūpa (Assam) and that its founder was the great sage, Mīna alias Macchanda Vibhu:

“Bhairavyā Bhairavāt prāptam yogam vyāpya tatah priye

Tatsakāśāttu siddhena Minākhyena varānane Kāmarūpe mahāpīthe Macchandena mahātmanā.”

T . A., Comm., I., 24. The commentator has cleared the point that Macchanda was the founder of the fourth school by describing him as “Turyanātha” in the introduction to that Sloka of the 1st Ahnika of the Tantraloka in which the author offers his salutation to him (Macchanda Vibhu). Here the word “turya” stands for “Turyākhyasantati” referred to in a quotation given above.

We know nothing at this stage of the names or number of the successive teachers of this school till we come to Sumati, the great grand teacher of Abhinava in this branch. He belonged to Southern Pītha (Dakṣiṇabhūmipīthavasatih). The names of the teachers who came after him are given below in the order of their succession :

Somadeva. 2. Sambhunātha. 3. Abhinavagupta.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS PHILOSOPHIC IDEAS

T’he rise of the monistic Saiva philosophy in Kashmir.

In the preceding few pages we have tried to trace the history of the monistic Tantras, on which the monistic Saiva philosophy is based, from the earliest time down to that of

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

Somānanda (circa 850). It was about this time that the monistic Saiva philosophy arose in Kashmir.

THE CAUSES OF ITS RISE.

The rise of a system presupposes the existence of the material out of which it is to be built, of the capable men who can give it the required shape and of the immediate public necessity which it has to satisfy. A century or so before the time of the actual rise of this system, men, material and need for any such thing as the monistic Saiva philosophy were all lacking in Kashmir. For, we have shown above how monistic Tantras, on which this system is based, had their origin outside the valley of Kashmir ; how the traditional Tantric lore was brought to Kashmir only about the middle of the 8th century by the fourth ancestor of Somānanda and how Atrigupta, the renowned Saiva philoso pher of Kannauj and the earliest known ancestor of Abhinava, the greatest authority on the Pratyabhijñā, was brought to Kashmir by king Lalitāditya sometime after 740 A. D. And we know from the following quotation :

“Sūtram vrttir vivrtir Laghvi Brhatītyubhe Vimarsinyau

Prakaranavivaranapañcakam iti śāstram

Pratyabhijñāyāḥ,” given by Mādhava in his Sarvadarśana Samgraba that the Pratyabhijñā literature is a mere exposition of the principles laid down by Somānanda in his śivadrṣti, which was called by him “Prakarana” and that the authoritative books on this are the following: -

Pratyabhijñā Sūtra. Vrtti.

Utpala. Vivṣti. Vimarsins.

Abhinava Vivrti Vimarsini.

Hii

CHAPTER III

We know also that all these three writers belonged to the two learned immigrant families, namely, of Somānanda and of Abhinava, referred to above.

Thus a century before the rise of the monistic system Kashmir was lacking both in men and material for building up its own school of philosophy. As for the public necessity, there is evidence to show that there was none. In support of this statement we would content ourselves here with simply quoting Dr. Stein’s remark which endorses our view that the general public were quite satisfied with the then existing religious conditions and did not require any philosophical system to satisfy their spiritual needs :

“The contrast, which this (Kalhaṇa’s) partiality for Buddhist cult and traditions presents to avowed Saivaism of Kalhana, is more apparent than real. For centuries before Kalhana’s time Buddhism and the orthodox creeds had existed peacefully side by side in Kashmir. As far as the laity was concerned they had to a great extent amalgamated. His own narrative from the point where it reaches historical ground gives ample proof of this. Of almost all royal and private individuals, who are credited with the foundation of Buddhist Stūpas and Vihāras, it is recorded that they, or at least members of their family, with equal zeal endowed also shrines of śiva or Viṣnu.” / R. T., Introd., P. 9

ANCIENT FAITH OF KASHMIR.

One question will naturally arise here in the reader’s mind, viz., if Tantric Saivaism is a thing of later introduc tion in Kashmir, what was its religion before that ? Before attempting to answer this question we may state here that for our answer we have primarily to depend upon what little historical truth we find in Kalhana’s mostly legendary account of the earlier kings of Kashmir. After this introduc

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

tory remark we may at once say that it was a polytheistic religion, as described in the Nīlamata Purāna and that śiva, as associated with his spouse, was its most popular god. Because, when & religious point arises after the coronation of Yasovatī, the 3rd of Gonanda line of Kashmir, Krṣṇa quotes the authority of the Nīlamata Purāṇa in support of his view (R. T., ch. I, 71-72.) Similarly, when the religion of the land is represented to have suffered at the hands of the Bauddhas with Nāgārjuna as their head, the reference is to nothing else than the ritualistic performances prescribed in the Nīla Purāṇa :

“Kriyām Nīlapurāṇoktām ācchindan agamadviṣah."

R. T., ch. I, 178. Further, when Candra, a descendant of Kaśyapa, propitiated Nīla, the lord of the (Kashmir) Nāgas, who being angry at the suspension of the customary oblation because of Buddhistic influence, had sent down the destructive snow fall, the religion that was revealed to him anew was no other than that of the Nila Purāṇa. (R. T., ch. I, 183.)

Whatever opinion we may hold about Kalhana’s account of the kings and their administration in the earlier part of his chronicle, in view of the fact that Tantric Saivaism was of as late introduction into Kashmir as the 8th century A.D. and that when Buddhism entered Kashmir at the time of Asoka there was already a religion there, the prominent feature of which was the worship of Ardhanārī Nateśvara, it will not be unreasonable to suppose that Kalhaṇa at least in his statement in regard to the ancient faith or religion of the land is generally not wrong.

SOIL FOR THE GROWTH OF TANTRIC SAIVAISM.

It has been pointed out in the preceding two paragraphs that the old religion of the land of Kaśyapa was polytheistic

CHAPTER III

with a special inclination towards ritualistic Saivaism. It was purely a traditional faith and had no literature of its own at the time of the advent of Buddhism in Kashmir in the reign of Asoka (273-232 B. C.). But so wise was then the way in which Buddhism was spread, so non interfering was the religious policy and so judicious was the royal patronage of different religions that Brāhmanas did not very much feel the advent of the new religion. Antagonism of Brahmaṇas, however, was aroused when in consequence of Kaniska’s gift (125-60 A. D.) of Kashmir to Buddhistic Church*, Nāgārjuna came to power and began to use his power of both learning and position to spread Buddhism. The fact that this was the time when the struggle between Buddhism and Saivaism began seems to find support in the tradition recorded by Varadarāja in the following introductory verse to his Vārtika on Vasugupta’s śiva Sūtras :

“Nāgabodhyādibhih siddhair nāstikānām purahsaraih

Akrānte jīvalokesmin ātmeśvaranirāsakaih.”

S. S. V., 1. Here we take “Nāgabodhi” to stand for “Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva,” on the following authority :

“Nāgārjunena sudhiyā bodhisattvena pālitāh.”

R. T., I, 175.

The immediate effect of this was that the teachings of the local religion, which were till then simply a matter of Hoating traditions, were systematised for the first time by a pious Brāhmaṇa ascetic, Candradeva. This in our opinion is the one historical truth in Kalhana’s story of the destruc tive snow-fall sent by Nīla, enraged at the abeyance of religious rights prescribed in the Nīla Purāṇa in consequence

* R. T., Ch. I, 177-8.at brich seems

and one of the hat wall i

Haunte mat mari uml तिस्तान,

for which seems to be he becaur it has a on it to Dadly heat and one of the earlistas lealtadtho

syskin, the question arises what was the actual

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 87 Jadnaar school. The Stitra under reference abould in of Nāgārjuna’s propaganda (R. T., I, 177-184). The story is, otherwise, as pointed out by Dr. Stein, (R. T., Introd. P. 77) “but the réchauffé of an ancient legend told in the Nīlamata Purāna, which relates the deliverance of Kashmir from the plague of the Piśācas through the rites revealed by Nila Nāga.”

What important events took place in the following six hundred years in the history of the local faith of Kashmir we do not know anything about. The only thing that we can say is that the local religion being polytheistic accepted Buddha also as one of its gods. Therefore, whatever conflict of views may have existed among the priests of both Buddhism and Saivaism regarding religious matters, common people, as has already been stated, followed a mixed faith. That both influenced each other was a matter of course. Thus there developed a religion which was neither purely Buddhistic nor purely Saivaite, but was a harmonious mixture of the meditative and philosophical aspect of the one and the ritualistic aspect of the other ; but as such it had no scriptural authority to support it. Thus, there was already the soil congenial for the growth of Tantric Saivaism which gives ritual and philosophy more or less the same place as was probably given them by the then popular faith, so that when it came with all the scriptural support at its back, it was accepted by the common people of Kashmir as their ancestral faith. Even today Tantric Saivaism is the faith of Kashmir Hindus, though now it is considerably mixed with Vedic rituals.

INFLUENCE OF S’AŃKARĀCĀRYA. -

For over nine centuries the local faith had been influenced by Buddhism. For about the same period the people of

gand theines as is shown below. Whether or canets Kashmir or not, it does not matter for much as his

attempling a gontact wook nian flourished two contine before zemed dine’s since gian did not belong to aug. Kast nur school, his knowledge of the great must

Kashmir had professed a mixed faith and had heard enough of the idealistic philosophy and perhaps thought also over it. Their minds, therefore, were sufficiently trained to receive and to retain philosophical ideas. For about a century they had seen the Tantric Saiva rituals practised by the two great Saiva families which had migrated into Kashmir and had heard their philosophical ideas. Perhaps many families, not finding any fundamental difference between this and the religion that they and their predecessors had professed for centuries, had also accepted it. The decline of Buddhism had come. Kumārila Bhatta (about 750 A. D.) had shaken its roots. Such was the opportune time when Sankarācārya visited Kashmir some time in the second decade of the 9th century after giving his final blow to Buddhism in the rest of India (Sankara Digvijaya, ch. XVI, 54-80). Let us state here very clearly that our statement about Sankāracārya’s visit to Kashmir has no other authority than that of the Sankara Digvijaya, quoted above. Let us, however, add that it does not appear to be altogether baseless : firstly, because it is supported by a local tradition which is still current in Kashmir and secondly, because the influence of Sankara’s Tantric philosophy on the Trika is so great that the supposition of a personal touch of its founder-writers with Sankara seems to be necessary to explain it at such an early time. If we compare the philosophical ideas of Sankara, as contained in his Dakṣiṇā Mūrti Stotra and explained by his pupil Sureśvarācārya in his commentary on the above stotra, we find that Sankara’s conception of the ultimate reality is the same as that of the Pratyabhijñā. In fact he uses all the important technical expressions in the same sense in which they are used in the Pratyabhijñā. Compare for

instance :

(I) “Bījasyāntarivāúkuro jagadidam prāúnirvikalpam punar

Māyākalpitadeśakālakalanāvaicitryacitrîkrtam

come from different quanbers to other than ohiante Haar’s and indicals at the tradition was well

handed down to his pupils as well. This is strange That rammm a a aluo reflects the influence. This dit

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 89

Māyāvīva vijrmbhayatyapi mahāyogiva yah svecchayā Tasmai śrīgurumūrtaye nama idam śrī Dakṣiṇāmūrtaye.”

D. M. S., S’. 2.

and “Cidātmaiva hi devontahsthitam icchāvasād bahih Yogīva nirupādānam arthajātam prakāśayet.”

I. P. V., I, 182. (II) “Jñanakriye jagatklptau drsyete cetanāśraye.”

D. M. S., Comm. (2), S’. 13.

and “Thānam kriyā ca bhūtānām jīvatām jīvanam matam.

I. P. V., I, 39. (III) “Tasmāt sattā sphurattā ca sarvatrāpyanuvartate.”

D. M. S., Comm. (2), S. 13.

and “Sā sphurattā mahāsattā deśakālāviseṣiṇī.”

I. P. V., I, 207. (IV) “Jñātrtvam api kartrtvam svātantryam tasya kevalam.”

D. M. S., Comm. (2), S. 50.

and “Kartari jñātari svātmanyādisiddhe maheśvare.”

I. P. V., I, 29. We, therefore, feel that, whatever be the amount of fiction with which Mādhava may have coloured Sankara’s visit to Kashmir, it is not without a grain of truth inas much as the said visit was a fact. Further, we are of opinion that Sankara believed in the monistic Tantras, as the epithet “sarvatantrasvatantra” in his virudāvalī indi cates; that the Tantras, the authority of which he accepted, were sixty-four in number, as his reference to them in his own Saundarya Laharī in the following line :

“Catuhṣaṣtyā tantraih sakalam abhisandhāya bhuvanam” clearly shows; that he had a special inclination towards

scenes lenalle to hold that a zimni and 22 allkouph spatially xmole had access to one source.

CHAPTER III

the Tantric practices of Kashmir, as his establishing Srīcakra in some of his Mathas testifies; and that in his exposition of the Vedānta he was greatly influenced by the philosophical parts of the aforesaid Tantras, as we shall point out at different places in the philosophical portion of this thesis.

The visit of such a great person, particularly after uprooting Buddhism in the course of his Digvijaya, (if this be taken to be an historical fact) was of no little importance to the philosophical system that was soon to come into existence. This visit purged the local faith of its Buddhistic element, strengthened the position of the new Tantric creed, which was brought by the two immigrant families and had already begun to be accepted by the populace, and aroused their curiosity to know more about the new creed.

THE RISE OF KASHMIR SAIVAISM.

Thus men and material being already there in the two immigrant families and those that followed them, as for instance, that to which Vasugupta, the author of the S’iva Sūtra, belonged, and the need for a systematic presentation of the new faith in both its philosophical and ritualistic aspects having been created by the visit of Sarkarācārya, the Kashmir Saivaism made its appearance without much delay.

Our object in these pages, we may state here, is not to trace the history of the divine S’aiva literature so much as to give an idea of the human literature that had been written before Abhinava on the subject of Kashmir S’aivaism so as to clearly show what our great writer contributed to it. In this chapter, therefore, we shall deal with the writings of his predecessors only. We shall speak on his successors in the next chapter and shall show how far he influenced their

ideas.

practical ideas ao lanight mi tika Tantras

U did not lebt aucline rezeu of Philosoply.acc-w eat Pandat

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 91

THE SPANDA BRANCH. (1). Vasugupta and his S’iva Sūtra. On the authority of the Rājatarangini (ch. V, 66) we know that Bhatta Kallaṭa, the pupil of Vasugupta was a con temporary of Avantivarman, King of Kashmir (855-883 A.D.). There he is referred to as “siddha”. It is, therefore, evident that at that time he was an old man of established reputation. Vasugupta, the teacher of Kallaṭa, therefore, it is natural to suppose, belongedt o the preceding scholastic generation extending from about 825 to 850 A. D. We shall, therefore, not be wrong if we say that Vasugupta gave a systematic form to the philosophical ideas of the monistic Tantras in his S’iva Sūtras in the next decade after S’ankarācārya’s visit to Kashmir towards the end of the second decade of the 9th century A. D.

Kṣemarāja, in his introduction to the S’iva Sūtra Vimar śinī, records a tradition which says that Vasugupta was not the writer but simply the publisher of the Sūtras which he had found inscribed on a boulder to which he had gone, as instructed by S’iva in a dream, and which turned bottom upward at the mere touch of his hand. Whatever we may think of this tradition, it was believed in by his immediate successors, who refer to the S’iva Sūtras as of divine author ship. They are divided into three chapters dealing in succession with the three ways to final emancipation pointed out by the monistic Tantras.

OTHER WORKS OF VASUGUPTA.

Spanda Kārikā. There is a difference of opinion about the authorship of the Spanda Kārikā. Utpala Vaiṣnava on the strength of the 53rd Verse:

“Vasuguptād avāpyedam guros tattvārthadarsinah

Rahasyam ślokayāmāsa samyak śrī Bhatta Kallatah.”

Also ef. sp. Sandoka, opening line.

CHAPTER III

attributes its authorship to Kallata. But it has to be noted in this connection that this verse is not found in the recension of Kṣemarāja, who attributes the Kārikā to Vasugupta himself probably on the authority of the following verse, found in his recension :

“Labdhvāpyalabhyam etaj jñānadhanam hrdguhāntah

krtanihiteh Vasuguptavacchivāya hi bhavati sadā sarvalokasya.”

S. N., 16.

About this quotation also it has to be pointed out that as the former is not found in the recension of Kṣemarāja so the latter is not traceable in that of Utpala Vaiṣnava. We, however, follow Ksemarāja because he is supported by Maheśvarānanda who quotes this verse, as found in Kṣema rāja’s recension, in his commentary on the very first verse of his own Mahārtha Manjari.

The Spanda Karikā is simply an amplification of the fundamental principles of S’aivaism, as aphoristically given in the S’iva Sūtras. It was also called Spanda Sūtra. Kṣemarāja in one of his introductory verses to the Spanda Nirnaya refers to it as such

“Samyak sūtrasamanyayam parigatim tattve parasmin

parām.. S’rī Spanda śāstrasya.”

S. N., I. This work has to be distinguished from “Spanda Sūtra” nos. 518-19 of Dr. Būhler’s report; for, there the name stands for “S’iva Sūtra” (consult his extracts from MSS.).

SPANDĀMỘTA.

It is mentioned as a separate work of Vasugupta by Mr. J. C. Chatterji in his Kashmir Saivaism P. 37. He does not state any authority on this point. But our opinion is

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

that it is the same as the Spanda Kārikā. In fact the word “Spandāmrta” does not stand for the title of a work. It is simply a metaphorical expression used for the fundamental principles of the Spanda system, as is clear from the use of this very word by Kṣemarāja in one of the introductory verses to his Spanda Nirnaya :

“Spandāmrte carvite tu Spandasandohato manāk” We know that the Spanda Sandoha is Ksemarāja’s com mentary on the first verse of the Spanda Kārikā. Another place where this word has been found is the concluding verse of Kallata’s Spanda Sarvasva :

“Drbdham mahādevagirau maheśasvapnopadiṣtācchiva

Sūtrasindhoh Spandāmrtam yad Vasuguptapādaih Srī Kallaṭas tat

prakaṭīcakāra.” Here also the word, if at all it stands for the title of a work, cannot refer to any other than the Spanda Kārikā itself on which the Spanda Sarvasva is a commentary.

This verse seems to solve the riddle of the authorship of the Spanda Kārikā. Here Kallaṭa himself represents Vasugupta to be the writer of the Spanda Kārikā; mark the words “Spandāmrtam drbdham” (“Drbhí granthe” Pāṇini’s Dhātupātha) and clearly states his work in connection with the Kārikās to be simply that of a publisher :

“Sri Kallaṭas tat prakaṭīcakāra”. Perhaps this is a posthumous work of Vasugupta. If this explanation be taken to be correct there will remain no difficulty in harmoniously interpreting the two verses given above in this connection. For, “Rahasyam slokayāmāsa samyak”, occurring in the Spanda Pradīpikā, can, without stretching the language, be interpreted as “well published the sacred doctrine.”

CHAPTER III

VĀSAVI TIKĀ ON THE BHAGAVADGITĀ No complete MS. of this work has so far been dis covered.
SIDDHĀNTA CANDRIKĀ. Noticed in Būhler’s catalogue as MS. No. 501.

(II) KALLAṭA (855 A. D.) What little we know about his person we have already stated while discussing the date of Vasugupta. Here, therefore, we confine ourselves to giving an account of his works only.

SPANDA SARVASVA. It is a commentary on the Spanda Kārikā.
TATTVĀRTHA CINTAMAṇI. This was a commentary on the last quarter of Vasugupta’s S’iva Sūtra, as we learn from the 5th introductory verse of Bhaskarācārya to his Vārtika on the same S’iva Sūtra :

“Vyākarot trikam ete (ke) bhyah Spandasūtraih

U svakaistatha Tattavārthacintā manyakhyatīkayā khandam antimam”.

SPANDA SUTRA. From the portion italicized in the above quotation it appears that he wrote his own Spanda Sūtras also.
MADHUVĀHINI. We have not been able to trace any reference to it ourselves; we are mentioning it here on the authority of Mr. J. C. Chatterji’s Kashmir Saivaism P. 37.

(III) RĀMA KANTHA. In the colophon to his commentary on the Spanda Karika he speaks of himself as Utpaladeva’s pupil :

“Krtih śrīmad-Utpaladevapādapadmopajīvinah Srimad Rājānaka Rāmakanthasya."

Trans: E n 212721997 RTTA

o ntaza: 1 IT - 5:34.

THAT SUR himself to be the brother of taRUT i

des Jeuna

les of Bhag. Grita.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 95

We know that Utpala was Abhinava’s grand teacher and, therefore, belonged to the first half of the 10th century A. D. We shall, therefore, not be very wrong if we say that he (Rāma Kantha) lived in the second and the third quarters of the 10th century A. D. ‘706 9 25-975AD)

His Works. 1. SPANDA VIVARANA SĀRAMĀTRA. This is the name of his above-mentioned commentary as is apparent from the colophon :

“Iti Spanda Vivarana Sāramātram samāptam.” Two more works of this author are noted in K. S. with an interrogation mark against each.

Commentary on the Matanga Tantra ? 3. Commentary on the Bhagavadgītā from the

Saiva point of view ?

(IV) BHĀSKARĀCĀRYA. Four generations intervened between Kallata and Bhāskarācārya. The latter belonged to the fifth generation from the former. The following are the names of his pre decessors in the order of their succession? :

Pradyumna Bhatta. 2. Prajñārjuna. 3. Mahadeva Bhatta.
Srikantha Bhatta. Abhinavagupta quotes in his Pratyabhijñā Vimarsins from the Vivekānjana of Divākaravatsa with the following remark:

«Yadāha Bhatta Divākaravatso Vivekāñjane"

I. P. V., I, 10. If we take the word “Divākaravatsa" to mean ison of Divākara" as we have reason to do in view of his referring

S. S. V., Introd.

It seems to prof Pandet that .P v.v. shintost i work for the following reasons (1) tee groter gives the

Leave a waling - Taft (4096 . T g

ODD

aRa: 7 () tagNH8. $ 2222 N

. (Ayngame that he LYCA mo 96 cihad CHAPTER III can thene (11 inlaturity and more whendit

to himself as “Daivākarih” in S. S.V. referred to above, there does not remain much difficulty in fixing his date. Abhinavagupta’s Pratyabhijña Vimarsini is the last of his available works and came after his Brhati Vimarsinī which was completed in 1015, as we have already shown in the chro nological order of his works. And Bhatta Kallata, we know, was king Avanti Varman’s contemporary (855). Allowing, therefore, a period of about a century for the intervening four generations it will not be wrong, in our opinion, to say that he was an older contemporary of Abhinava, if not & predecessor.

HIS WORKS. 1. śiva SOTRA VĀRTIKA (published) 2. VIVEKANJANA (known from reference)

KAKṣYA STOTRA. The last mentioned work is attributed to Bhattadivāka ravatsa by Yogarāja in his commentary on Abhinava’s Paramārtha Sāra P. 103, as the following quotation shows:

“Yathāha Bhatta Divākaravatsah Jāte dehapratyayadvípabhange Prāptaikadhye nirmale bodhasindhau Avyāvartya tvindriyagrāmam antar Viśvātmā tvath nitya ekovabhāsi’

iti Kakṣya Stotre."

THE PRATYABHIJKĀ BRANCH. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the Pratyabhijñā” also, like the Spanda, is based on the monistic Saiva Tantras and that in point of the philosophical conception of the universe and its cause, and of the nature of the individual self and that of the highest reality there is no difference between the two. The only point where the two differ is the means of realising the Highest Reality. The1912 ya K … T

A N ) S 10 M Saiso at 21

HOUC

TUT cle. not that is in different from the tree saver

..P… I, p.101 chet Pat tomat

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF, HIS THOUGHT. 97ery FW-320 na avaS

W VISM Art : 13. Spanda showed the three well known paths to the said izrazie

Vleka realisation, namely, Sambhava, śākta and Anava, as is clear when from the three chapters of the śiva Sūtra called after the 34 above three means. But the Pratyabhijñā, according to the

tyenne

scher statement of the author of the Pratyabhijñā Sūtra or Kārikā, ka piel showed an easier path to it which was not known before and Y p which was, for the first time, pointed out by Somānanda in his śivadỊṣti.

(I) SOMĀNANDA.

We have already pointed out that two teachers of Abhinava, namely, Lakṣmaṇagupta and Bhattendurāja, belong to two different preceptorial lines. The distance of both, Somānanda and Kallaṭa, from Abhinava is only two intervening generations as the following table shows :

Somānanda? 1. Kallaṭa 2. Utpaladeva
Mukula 3. Lakṣmaṇagupta3 . Bhattendurāja
Abhinavagupta 4. Abhinavagupta We can, therefore, safely say that Somānanda was Kallata’s contemporary, perhaps older, and belonged to the close of the first and the beginning of the second half of the 9th century A. D.

HIS WORKS

In the next generation after the so called discovery of the śiva Sūtras by Vasugupta and a sort of running commentary thereon in the form of the Spanda Kārikās by the same, but perhaps before a commentary on the latter by Kallaṭa, Somānanda wrote his śivadrṣti.

I. P. V., II, 271. 2. T. A., Ah. 37. (MS.)

CHAPTER III

S’IVADRSTI.

While the works on the Spanda branch just mentioned are mere dogmatic statements of the Saiva doctrines, the śivadrsti is an attempt to present the Saiva idealistic monism or monistic idealism in a systematic philosophical form coupled with the necessary reasoning. It consists of about 700 verses in seven chapters. Somānanda also, like Vasugupta, claims to have been inspired by śiva in a dream, but not simply to go to a boulder to find inscribed what was to be propagated, but to systematise the philosophical contents of the monistic Tantras. He clearly states that what he has given in the śivadrsti, is not simply a creation of his own mind, but is based on the Sāstra «S’ivo dātā sivo bhokta.“2 We have not so far been able to trace this quotation in any one of the Agamas to which we have had access. But the verse given below, of which the above quotation constitutes a part, is very well known and is daily recited in the Pandit families of Kashmir :

“Sivo dātā sivo bhoktā śivah sarvam idam jagat S’ivo yajati yajñaśca yah śivah soham eva hi.”

We may, however, state that Abhinavagupta, while dealing with the Anupāyamārga, in the second Ahnika of his Tantrāloka, declares that he follows the authority of the Urmimahāśāstra. He further adds that this subject has been dwelt upon by earlier teachers beginning with Somānanda. The above-mentioned Tantra, therefore, was perhaps the authority which Somānanda followed.

The quotation also may be from the same.

S. Dr., (MS.) ch. 7. 2. ś. Dr., (MS.) ch. 7. 3. T. A., Ah. II. P. 39.
isi-Felt (Anor Arrat, za taart.ta: gt fra:

a L.

utan att at got aceh Petlandit. Pall.

Can 72TY K73.F The duty

Ad 221d

SUM HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 99

. S OUS ALLA Ilat

z va a dece 6 . y. 3 12. VIVRTI, de ezaa nae

320Lawas a C 2 .9.0.xv, 11. Paleoly

ynarza

Son This is supposed to have been Somānanda’s commentary s. v. on his own śivadrsti. Dr. Stein, however, is of opinion that and no such work was written by him (Introd. XLII Jammu Cat.) ***

PARĀTRIMŚIKĀ VIVRTI. SCR do

. The - Sont le a Totorola This, as the name implies, was his commentary on the One Parātrinsikā. Abhinava, according to his own statement 1 heliko follows it in his own commentary on the same (Parātrimśikā). Lad op

ies

In fact his object was to discuss the points which were left facer doubtful by Somānanda.

(II) UTPALADEVA. He was both son and pupil of Somānanda.

(“Somānandātmajotpalaja-Lakṣmaṇaguptanāthah.” i.

T. A., Ah. 37. (MS.) ) He, therefore, seems to have lived towards the end of the 9th and the first half of the 10th century A. D.

HIS WORKS. 1. IśVARA PRATYABHIJÑĀ KĀRIKĀ. This was the first work on the Pratyabhijñā system as such. In fact the system owes the name Pratyabhijñā to this book. Its importance, however, is due to two com mentaries of Abhinava, the Vimarsins and the Viyrti

Vimarsinī.

IśVARA PRATYABHIJNA VRTTI. It is a brief commentary mostly concerned with clarifying the ideas given in the Iśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārika.
IśVARA PRATYABHIJNĀ TĪKĀ. Unfortunately it seems to be irrecoverably lost. It was a detailed commentary on his Isvara Pratyabhijñā
P. T. V., 282.

100

CHAPTER III

Kārikā. According to the old way of counting thirty-two syllables of a prose book as one verse, it consisted of six thousand verses. It is to this that Abhinava refers as sīkā in one of his introductory verses to the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī. It is one of the five books of accepted authority on the Pratyabhijñā philosophy, referred to by Mādhava in his summary of the Pratyabhijñā system in his Sarva Darśana Sangraha. It was on this that Abhinava wrote his famous commentary, Brhati Vimarsinī.

STOTRĀVALI.

It has a commentary of Kṣemarāja.

AJADA PRAMĀTR SIDDHI 6. IśVARA SIDDHI, 7. , > VRTTI. 8. SAMBANDHA SIDDHI.

» VķTTI. 10. VRTTI ON SOMĀNANDA’S śivaDRṣTI.

It was written at the request of his own son Vibhramā kara and a Brahmacārī Padmānanda by name. That it was Utpaladeva’s work is made clear both by an introductory verse and colophon given as an extract from the MS. No. 4178 in Jammu Cats. On this point there is the additional evidence of the Bhaskari, which not only attributes a commentary on the śivadrṣti to Utpala but also places it before the Isvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā in the chrono logical order, as the following extract shows :

S’rimān Utpaladevah svagurunirmitam śivadrstyākhyam mahāśāstram vyākhyāya

I. P. V., I, 3. 2. S. D. S., P. 191. 3. Jammu Cat., MS. 4178.
1. anne Laud 1222

Dans le cont La

L iLila niliathon a zertaget to his pripel ATA.. ama tema questions sontrantingen en dit

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 101

tatpratibimbakalpam kārikāmayam īśvara

Pratyabhijñākhyam mahāśāstram praṇīya." All these works are very frequently quoted by Abhinava in his works (for illustration vide Appendix (B).

PARAMEŚA STOTRĀVALI. It is noticed by Dr. Buhler in his Kashmir Report

MS. No. 458.

(III) LAKṣMAṇAGUPTA. On the authority of Abhinava, quoted above, he was both son and pupil of Utpaladeva. We have already shown that he was our great writer’s teacher in both the Darśanas, the Pratyabhijñā and the Krama. His period of literary activity must have extended over the close of the second and practically the whole of the third quarter of the 10th century A. D. It is indeed very strange that no work of his has so far been discovered ; nor any quotation from or reference to his works even in the writtings of Abhinava has so far been found. The only passage where there seems to be a reference to his writing is to be met with in one of the concluding verses of Abhinava’s Brhati Vimarsinīl. In this he is spoken of as “Srisastrakrt”. .We have got no information about the nature of the contents of this book.

DUALIST SAIVA WRITERS. Here it will not be out of place to speak a little on the literary activity of the Saiva dualists, particularly because Abhinava himself frequently refers to them. These writers we divide into two periods, viz., pre-Abhinavagupta and post-Abhinavagupta. And because we are mentioning them only by the way to show the relation of other Saiva schools with the one under discussion, we shall, therefore, finish

B.V. (conclusion)

102

CHAPTER III

with the writers of both the periods right here, without postponing the treatment of the post-Abhinava dualists till we come to the next chapter as in the case of the monists.

AMALGAMATION OF THE DVAITA AND THE

DVAITĀDVAITA SCHOOLS. It appears that while the monistic Saiva School was doing its work, as described above, the dualistic school was not idle. The probability is that the latter began its work earlier. For, Kṣemarāja, as has already been pointed out, speaks of even the admittedly monistic Tantras, as for instance, the Svacchanda, having been interpreted in the dualistic light: and Abhinavagupta also quotes some dualist writers giving their names.

Our work at present is confined to the monistic school. We have not made enough search for the material to build up the history of the dualistic school. It is, therefore, not possible for us to say when and how this school came to Kashmir, who were its earliest writers and what were the circumstances responsible for its rise. We can, however, definitely state that long before Abhinava’s time the two Saiva Schools, namely, the Dvaita and the Dvaitādvaita, had amalgamated and as such had one common name «Siddhānta". Pauṣkara Samhitā, for instance, calls the group of twenty-eight Agamas, consisting of ten Dvaita and eighteen Dvaitādvaita āgamas, as stated before, by the name of “Siddhanta”. Abhinava also uses this very word to refer to the teachings of these twenty-eight Agamas as a whole”, and his commentators refer to the writers of this school as the followers of the SiddhāntaSaiddhāntikas).

Mr. T., Introd. 2. 2. T. A., Ah. 37 (MS.) 3. T A., Comm., VI, 221.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

103

THE POSITION OF THIS SCHOOL IN

ABHINAVA’S TIME.

In the time of Abhinava the position of this school was already well established. It had produced great writers like Sadyojyoti, Brhaspati and Sankaranandana. The leaders of this school had written learned commentaries on the Tantras, not only of the admittedly dualistic school but also on those which were known to belong to the monistic school such as the Svacchanda. They had also written such popular works as the Bhoga Kārikā and the śiva Tanu Sastra, which presented the fundamental principles of the school in a very simple and appealing language. In the eyes of Abhinava, however, this school was to be shunned ; because it was dominated by ritualism, the observance of which meant much trouble but little religious merit in return; because it could not show the right way to final emancipation and because its principles were not at all in harmony with common experience. It was to demolish the theories of this school that he wrote such works as the Bhedavāda Vidārana. In the Tantrāloka, in which he has dealt with almost all the points connected with his monistic school, he has drawn attention to the points of difference between the Siddhānta school and the Trika and has tried his best to refute the theories of the former. This is not the place to illustrate these differences. We, therefore, content ourselves with quoting the following verse of. Jayaratha in support of our view :

“Sankaranandana-Sadyojyoti-Devabala-Kaṇabhugādimatam Pratyākhyāsyan navamam vyācakhyāvāhnikaṁ Jayarathah.”

T. A., Comm., VI, 250.

T. A., Ah. 37. (MS.)

104

CHAPTER III

LAKULIĆA PĀŚUPATA.

The Siddhānta school, referred to in the preceding paragraph, is not to be confused with another Tantrika Saiva school, known as Lakulīśa Pasupata. The latter follows only the eighteen Tantras of the Dvaitādvaita school, and not the twenty-eight Tantras, as interpreted in the light of the dualistic teaching. According to Abhinava, while the Siddhānta school is simply to be shunned, the Pasupata school occupies a position next only to his own monistic school as a sure guide on the way to final emancipation. The superiority of the latter lies only in the fact that it is a sure means of realisation of the worldly desires also.1

ITS WRITERS AND THEIR WORKS.

(I) SADYOJYOTI śiva. He was a dualist Saiva and was spoken of as Siddhaguru. He was also called Khetapāla. As regards his time, we can authoritatively say only this much that he was Abhinava’s predecessor. About the place of his birth we have no evidence at present to say any thing at all. His teacher was Ugrajyoti8.

HIS WORKS. 1. BHOGA KARIKA. It deals with Bhoga in accordance with the teaching of the Raurava Tantra. There is a quotation from this in T. A., Comm., VI, 132.

MOKṣA KARIKĀ. 3. PARAMOKṣA NIRĀSA KĀRIKĀ.
T. A., Ah. 37. (MS.) 2. T. A., Comm., VI, 211. 3. M. K., 63.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

105

TATTVA TRAYA NIRṇAYA.
RAURAVA TANTRA VÆTTI. He considered this Vrtti to be so important a work of his that he refers to himself as “Vrttikrt" (the writer of the Vrtti.) To us it is known only from references to it by his commentator, Aghora Sivācārya.
TATTVA SANGRAHA.

(II) BRHASPATI. He appears to have been accepted to be as great an authority as Sadyojyoti himself, not only from the frequent references to him in the writings of Abhinava (consult Ap pendix B) but also from the fact that he is quoted as an authority by the post-Abhinava dualist Saiva writers such as Aghora Sivācārya and Bhatta Rāma Kantha. The latter in the introduction to his commentary on Sadyojyoti’s Moksa Kārikā, couples the name of Brhaspati with that of Sadyojyoti as follows:

“Yabhyām prakāśitam vartma siddhānte siddhabhāvatah

Gurūṇām api tau vandyau Sadyojyoti-Brhaspati."

śiva TANU SĀSTRA.

This is the only known work of this writer. The only source of our information about it, is Abhinava’s reference to it in the following quotation :

“Iti nirvacanaih śivatanuśāstre gurubhih smrto devah.”

T. A., I, 146.

Jayaratha, commenting on this, says:

“Gurubhih iti Brhaspatipādaih.”

T. T. N., Comm., 2. 2. T. San., Comm., 52

106

CHAPTER III

(III) SANKARANANDANA.

He also was one of the dualist Saiva writers whose views Jayaratha controverts, as he himself says in the concluding line of his commentary on the Tantrāloka Āhnika IX. Abhinava also refers to him in his Pratyabhijñā Vimarsini, I, 181.

PRAJNĀLANKĀRA.

This is the only known work of Sankaranandana. Our source of information about it, is Abhinava’s reference to it in I. P. V., I, 181. From the nature of the context in which the reference occurs, it seems to have been written with the object of exploding the atomic theory of the Naiyāyikas.

(IV) VIDYĀPATI.

Two works of his

ANUBHAVA STOTRA T. S., 31. 2. MāNA STOTRA T. A., Ah. XIV, 9.

are known from Abhinava’s references to them, as shown above. He is quoted in Bhatta Rāma Kantha’s commentary on the Moksa Kārikā, P. 21. The evidence in hand is not conclusive to show whether he was a dualist or not. But it is very probable that he was. We have, therefore, given him a place here.

(V) DEVABALA,

Him we know as a dualist writer only from a reference to him made by Jayaratha in T. A., Comm., VI, 250.

SAIVA DUALISTS OF THE POST-ABHINAVA PERIOD.

For reasons already stated we briefly deal with the Saiva dualists of even the post-Abhinava period right here.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

107

(I) KING BHOJADEVA. Mr. Smith in his Early History of India speaks of two Bhojas (1) Mihira, son of Rāmabhadra, usually known by his title Bhoja (840—90 A. D.) and (II) Bhojadeva of Dhārā (1018-60 A. D.) Of these only the latter is known to have been a patron of learning and a great writer. He is quoted by Mādhava in the Sarva Darśana Sangraha, in his summary of the Saiva Darsana, and by Vidyāranya Yatīndra (Mādhava himself so called when he became a Sanyāsin ?) in his commentary on the Suta Samhita. He is referred to by Aghora Sivācārya (1158 A. D.) in his Paddhati and is represented to have been a pupil of Uttunga Sivācārya or his brother. He is, therefore, probably identical with Bhojadeva of Dhārā. His known Saivaite work is 1. Tattva Prakāśikā.

(II) RĀMA KANṭHA.

HIS IDENTITY. The author, with whom we are dealing here, was different from his namesake, the son of Bhatta Nārāyana Kantha and the author of the Nada Kārikā. The former was the grand teacher of Nārāyaṇa Kantha, the father of the latter. This is evident from an introductory verse in the Mrgendra Vrtti of Bhatta Nārāyana Kantha which gives the names of the successive teachers as follows:

Rāma Kantha. 1 2. Vidyā Kantha. 3. Nārāyaṇa Kantha.2

HIS DATE. Aghora Sivācārya, the author of the Dīpikā on the Mrgendra Vrtti of Nārāyana Kantha, according to his own

T. P., Introd., 4. 2. Mr. T., 456.

108

CHAPTER III

statement in his Paddhati, quoted by Srīkrsna Sastri in his introduction to Aṣta Prakarana, finished his Paddhati in the Sāka year 1080 i. e. 1158 A. D. For, according to the orthodox view the sāka era began 78 years after the commencement of the Christian era. He speaks of Rama kantha as one of his teachers. We have already shown that Rāma Kantha, the author of the Nāda Kārikā on which Aghora śiva commented, was a different person from the grand teacher of Nārāyana Kantha of the same name and that the author of the Nada Kārikā was the son of Nārāyaṇa Kantha. In the list below the names of the teachers are given in their order of succession with the probable time of their literary activities :

Rāma Kantha I

1025-1050. 2. Vidyā Kantha.

1050-75. 3. Nārāyana Kantha. 1075-1100. 4. Rāma Kantha II 1100-30. 5. Aghora śiva.

1130-58. HIS WORK. 1. SADVRTTI.

This is the only work of Rāmakantha I that we know and this also is known only from a reference to it in the concluding line of the Ratna Traya by his pupil, Srikantha”.

(III) SRIKANTHA He speaks of himself as a pupil of Rāma Kantha I in one of the concluding verses of his Ratna Trayas. His literary activity, therefore, probably fell between 1050 and 1075 A. D. The only work of this author that we know of is

Ratna Traya.
N. K., 24. 2. R. Tr., 107. 3. R. Tr., 107.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

109

(IV) NĀRĀYAṇA KANTHA.

HIS IDENTITY.

Bhatta Nārāyana Kantha is a different person from Bhatta Nārāyaṇa, the author of the Staya Cintāmani, whom Abhinava quotes in the Parātrimśikā Vivarana, page 69. The former, according to his own statement in the concluding line of his commentary on the Mrgendra Tantra, was the grandson of Sankara and the son of Vidyākantha, but the latter, according to the statement of Kṣemarāja in his commentary on Bhatta Nārāyaṇa’s Stava Cintāmaṇi, was the grandson of Parameśvara and the son of Aparajital. He was the grand teacher of Aghora śiva. His works, therefore, must have been written in the last quarter of the 11th century A. D.

His WORKS.

MRGENDRA VRTTI.

It is a commentary on the Mrgendra Tantra.

SARANNIŚĀ

BRHATTĪKĀ

This we know only from a reference to it by Aghora śiva in the introduction to his commentary on the Tattva Sangraha of Sadyojyoti.

(V) RĀMA KAṇTHA (II) He was the teacher of Aghora śiva and the son of Nārāyaṇa Kantha. We can, therefore, safely say that he wrote in the first quarter of the 12th century A. D.

S. C., Comm., 10. 2. T. San., 1.

110

CHAPTER III

HIS WORKS.

In the colophons of all his works he speaks of himself as the son of Bhatta Nārāyana Kantha. There is, therefore, no room for any difference of opinion on his authorship of the following works, because the question as to whether a particular work was written by one Rāma Kantha or the other, cannot arise :

NĀDA KĀRIKĀ. 2. VRTTI ON PARAMOKṣA NIRĀSA KĀRIKĀ. 3. VRTTI ON MOKṣA KARIKĀ.

Works known from reference only :

MANTRA VĀRTIKA TIKĀ.

M. K., P. 4. 5. AGAMA VIVEKA.

P. M. N. K., P. 49.

In the concluding verse of the Nāda Kārikā there is a statement that Rāma Kantha II belonged to Kashmir. It is, therefore, probable that all the other writers also of the post-Abhinava period of whom we have spoken above, excepting, of course, Bhojadeva, belonged to the same place. The fact that ‘Kantha" is a common family name in Kashmir even to day lends additional support to this probability.

AGHORA śiva (1130-58 A. D.)

We have discussed his date above. He was an inhabitant of Kundina Kula in Cola?. His teacher was Sarvātma śiva. In the colophon to his commentary on the Tattva Prakāśikā he represents himself to be a teacher of two lacs of pupils.

T. T. N., 22.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

111

HIS WORKS.

He commented on the following works :

TATTVA PRAKĀśIKĀ. 2. TATTVA SANGRAHA. 3. TATTVA TRAYA NIRṇAYA. 4. RATNA TRAYA. 5. BHOGA KÄRIKĀ. 6. NĀDA KĀRIKĀ. 7. MRGENDRA VRTTI.

He wrote the following independent works, but we know them only from his own reference to them in the concluding lines of his commentary on the Ratna Traya in which he calls himself a Kavīśvara 1 :

ĀŚCARYA SÄRA. 9. PĀKHANDĀPAJAPA. 10. BHAKTA PRAKĀśA. 11. ABHYUDAYA NĀṭAKA.

IDENTITY OF THE SIDDHĀNTA SCHOOL

with THE SAIVA DARśANA OF MĀDHAVA.

Leaving aside the similarity of the philosophical con ceptions with which we shall, space permitting, deal in the second part, if we were to compare the authorities of the Siddhānta School, about whom we have spoken in the last few pages, with those quoted by Mādhava in the summary of the Saiva Darśana in his Sarva Darśana Sangraha, we shall have very little doubt left in our minds about the identity of the Sidhānta School with the Saiva School of Mādhava’s S. D. S. The former follows

R. Tr. 108.

112

CHAPTER III

the mixed authority of twenty-eight Tantras, ten of the Saiva group and eighteen of the Rudra group. The latter also does the same. It quotes as authorities the Mrgendra Tantra of the first and the Saurabheya and the Kiraṇa Tantras of the second group. We may point out here that the Mrgendra is a part of the Kāmika Tantra. As regards human authorities, with the exception of only two (I) Bahudaivatya and (II) Soma Sambhu, which have not so far been accessible to us, all are out of those which have been given above. The following are the names of the authors and books quoted as authorities by Mādhava, which are common to the Siddhānta School, described above:

TATTYA SANGRAHA. 2. TATTVA PRAKĀśA. 3. BHOJARĀJA. 4. SIDDHA GURU. 5. BRHASPATI. 6. RĀMA KAṇṭHA.

To show the identity of the two was one of the reasons for our dealing here with the writers of the Siddhānta School of the post-Abhinava period. It is interesting to note that Mādhava himself uses the word “Siddhānta” when he speaks of the followers of this school as distinguished from those of the other Saivāgamic Schools?.

III. Historical background of his poetic ideas.

THE WRITERS ON DRAMATURGY KNOWN TO ABHINAVA AND THEIR HISTORICAL POSITION.

Bharata is admitted by all to be the first known writer on Sanskrit Dramaturgy whose work is available. On his

S. D. S.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

113

Sutras Abhinava has commented. We can, therefore, give a clear idea of Abhinava’s contribution to Sanskrit dramaturgy only if we trace its history from the time of the writer of the original to that of the commentator. But the limited space at our disposal in the present thesis does not permit us to undertake it. We shall, therefore, content ourselves with showing what light a careful study of Abhinava’s works throws on some of the important problems.

INTERPOLATION IN BHARATA’S NÄTYA SĀSTRA.

The question of Bharata’s Nātya Sāstra being a work of many hands is very old. In fact, as we have already pointed out, even before the time of Abhinava, there were some who considered at least those portions, in which Bharata is spoken of as a third person, to have been from the pen of some of his pupils. How in Abhinava’s opinion such a view was wrong we have already shown. In recent times two places in the published text of the Natya Sāstra have been pointed out as indicative of its later rehandling and recasting, One is the colophon at the end in the Kāvyamālā edition :

“Samāptaścāyam (granthah) Nandi-Bharatasangītapusta kam”

and the other is a sort of prediction, contained in the last chapter, that the rest of the topics will be treated in detail by Kohala. In addition to this a work on music called “Nandi Bharata” noticed by Rice in his Mysore and Coorg Catalogue and a chapter referred to as “Nandi Bharatokta sankara hastādhyāya" from a “work on the art of dancing accompanied by the different kinds of movements of the hand etc.” noticed in the Madras Catalogue are mentioned ; and it is stated “these works, probably late compilations, refer to Nandi or Nandikeśvara, whom tradition acknowledges as an ancient authority on music and histrionic art.” It is

114

CHAPTER III

further added “This designation of the later part of Bharata’s text, a part of which deals, among other things, with music, probably implies that it was compiled and recast at some later period in accordance with the views of Nandikeśvara.” Similarly the prediction about the continuation of Bharata’s work referred to above has been supposed to indicate that the rewriting of the portion in question was done some time after Kohala as well as Nandikeśvara had spoken on the subject." (H. S. P., P. 24-5)

tamen

It is apparent from what has been stated above that the theory of the later interpolation is based upon the supposition of the later chronological position of Nandi and Kohala due to the ignorance of the relation of these two accepted authorities to Bharata, so that unless we are able to fix the exact chronological position of these two persons we cannot either accept or reject the theory. Let us, therefore, see what light the text of the Natya Sastra itself and the commentary of Abhinava thereon throw on this point.

Bharata is very frank in stating that all the information that he gives on gesticulation was got from Tandu :

*Tato ye Tandunā proktās tvangahārā mahātmanā. Nānākaranasamyuktān vyākhyāsyāmi sarecakān."

Bh. Sū., Ch. IV, 18-9. On this there is a very important comment of Abhi. navagupta, which explains the identity of Tandu. According to this, Tandu is another name of Nandi as Muni

is that of Bharata :

“Tandu-Munisabdau Nandi-Bharatayoh aparanāmanī.”

A. Bh., 90. Thus it is clear that Nandi was Bharata’s contemporary, perhaps older, or a predecessor, but not his distant successor. If we accept the identity of Nandi with Bharata’s teacher

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

115

or collaborator, Tandu, there remains no difficulty in explaining the colophon at the end of the last chapter of the Bharata Sūtra in the Kāvyamālā edition, “Nandibharata". It may mean Bharata instructed by Nandi.

(Nandyupadiṣto Bharataḥ-Nandi Bharatah;

“Sākapārthivādinām siddhaye uttarapadalopasyopa sankhyānam.’) Similarly the colophon of the MS. No. 13009 noticed in the Madras Catalogue, referred to above, can also be easily explained.

KOHALA. That he is an ancient authority on dramaturgy, nobody doubts. That he wrote some works on that subject is made abundantly clear by Abhinava (consult A. Bh., PP. 25, 48, 173, 182, 266, 272) Many other later writers also frequently refer to him and quote from his works. That he had established his reputation as an authority on dramaturgy so as to be referred to by Bharata himself is also made clear by Abhinava in A. Bh. For, according to his statement on page 266, the 10th verse of the 6th chapter of the Natya Sāstra contains the opinion of Kohala and not that of Bharata on the question of the number of the essential constituents of Nātya, because the Nātya Sāstra states the views of Kohala also on some important points. Further, at some places, according to Abhinava’s interpreta tion, Bharata rejects the view of Kohala, as for instance, in regard to the nature of Suṣira, as the following comment on Bharata’s verse “Suṣiro varsa eva ca” clearly shows :

«Evakārah Kohalādivyudāsāya" . How can the acceptance of some views of Kohala and rejection of others by Bharata be possible but for their contemporaneity ?

116

CHAPTER III

The question is only about his exact position in relation to Bharata, and on this also Abhinava, though indirectly and incidentally, has spoken in terms not easily to be mistaken. Bharata, while speaking on Nāndi in Ch. I., S. 56, uses the word “vicitrā” and Abhinava, commenting on this word, says :

“Ata eva vicitretyuktam..

Ityeṣāpi bhāratīyatvena prasiddhā Kohalapradarsite nāndyupapannā bhavati.”

A. Bh., 25. Here the word “Bhāratīya” is of very great importance in giving us a clue to the relation, we are trying to find out. This word means “propounded by the son of Bharata”. It cannot mean “of Bharata” because according to Pāṇini’s rule “Vrddhācchah" (Pa. 4-2-14.) the affix “Cha” which changes into “iya”, cannot be added to a word with a short initial syllable.

“Vrddhiryasyācāmādis tad vrddham." Therefore, the initial has to be prolonged before this affix can rightly be added. But how can it be done unless at first the affix “An” expressive of the sense of “offspring” (apatya) (“Tasyāpatyam”. Pā. 4-1-92.) be affixed to the word “Bharata”? “Bhāratīya" therfore, literally means of the son of Bharata." The meaning of the word having been settled the next quesion that naturally arises is “who was this son of Bharata”. To this also Abhinava gives a reply in the same line by saying “Kohalapradarsitā”. Thus it is evident that Kohala was Bharata’s son, at least this is Abhinava’s view. It may be interesting to note in this connection that Kohala is included in the list of the hundred sons of Bharata enumerated in Bh. Sū., Ch. I, s. 26-39.

It may be pointed out here that the word “Bharatiya”, on the interpretation of which our conclusion on the exactHISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

117

relation of Kohala to Bharata is based, occurs also in the colophon of each chapter of the Natya Sāstra :

“Iti Bhāratīye Nātya Sastre” But there the word has a quite different meaning from that in which it is used in the passage under discussion. For, if we take it to mean the same there as here, against all traditions and authorities we will have to accept Kohala to be the author of the Nātya Sāstra. The question, therefore, naturally arises : in what sense is the word used in the colophons ?

The following three interpretations suggest themselves to us, but, we confess, none satisfactorily explains the long “a” in the initial syllable :

(I) “Handed down by Bharata.” This meaning we get by affixing “cha” to the word “Bharata” (“Tena proktam” 4-3-101) after affixing “an” in svārtha (“Prajñā dibhyasca” 5-4-38).

(II) “Concerning the pupils of Bharata, that is the actors in general.” The word yields this sense if we take it to have been formed from the word “Bharata” according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra “Adhikrtya křte granthe” (4-3-87) after affixing “an” in the sense of pupil by “Kanvādibhyo gotre”. (4-2-111).

(III) “Beneficial to the actors.” To get this meaning we have to form “Bhārata” as in the preceding case, and then affix “cha” in the sense of “beneficial” by “Tasmai hitam” (5-1-5). This interpretation seems to have the support of Abhinava as the following quotation shows :

“Natajanasvakapravrttiviśeṣopadeśaparam, ata eva tadgatasiddhasadupāyopadeśanaparam idam śāstram

118

CHAPTER III

iti natasya tāvannānena kiñcidupadiśyate tam pratyu pakārād rte”

A. Bh., 4. The extracts discussed above can very easily be interpreted by the exponents of the later interpolation theory as supporting their own position. But this is possible only on the presumption of the later date of Kohala, which has yet to be proved to be based upon sound literary evidence. We have, at least, the support of such a great authority as Abhinavagupta for the view maintained here.

Now, taking Abhinava’s testimony in this matter to be correct, let us see how this explains the prediction referred to above. It is evident that Bharata wrote his Natya Sastra when he was very old, because he is spoken of as a Muni. Therefore, it will not be wrong to suppose that at the time when the sage was writing the above work, his son, or younger contemporary, Kohala, was already of sufficiently advanced age and held certain views on some dramaturgic points, which, though different from those of Bharata, were not to be ignored. The latter, therefore, at some places purposely uses expressions, as Abhinava interprets, to indicate the acceptability of Kohala’s views, as in the instance discussed above. Taking all these facts into consideration it seems very probable that by the time the present Bharata Sutra reached its completion the sage had grown too old and feeble to continue writing on the remaining points of dramaturgy which were of equal importance with those already treated. By this time Kohala also had established his reputation as an authority on dramaturgy and had become quite able to continue the work. Bharata, therefore, entrusted the future work on the subject to his worthy son or contemporary and closed his work with the so-called prediction, on which the present controversy is partly based. Thus the two grounds on which the conclusion

Bh. Su. ch. 37, s. 18.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

119

of later interpolation and recasting is based do not appear to be sound. The third is simply a tradition that the original work of Bharata was in the Sūtra form. It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss it here.

BHARATA’S DATE. Both his style and the method of dealing with the subject are apparently Purāṇic, and we know that Purānas assumed their final form, roughly speaking, in the fourth century A. D. But, as in the case of Purāṇas so in that of Bharata, whose date we can at present find out only with the help of the style and the language, the upper limit cannot be precisely fixed. The lower limit, however, is not so uncertain. For, we have positive proof of the existence of his Nātya Sāstra in the present form in the 6th century A. D., because there is a Vārtika on it of King Harṣa of Kannauj (606-47 A. D.) which is quoted by Abhinava in his commentary on Bharata’s Nātya Sāstra with the remark “iti Harṣa Vārtikam” (consult PP. 67, 172, 174, 207, 211, 212). Bharata’s Nātya Sastra must have, therefore, existed and become of accepted authority long before King Harṣa’s time to prompt him to write a Vārtika on it. It may be noted that in the case of Bharata’s text, on which Harsa wrote his Vārtika, Abhinava does not point out any difference in reading as he does in the case of that (text of Bharata) on which others have commented, as for instance, on page 226 of A. Bh. The intervening period between Bharata and Harṣa, therefore, does not seem to have been very long. Nor was it very short, because the necessity for a sort of com mentary, Vārtika, had arisen. It will, therefore, not be wrong to suppose that Bharata lived sometime between the 4th and the 5th century A. D. There is, however, no denying the fact that oral traditions about dramaturgy, which are embodied by Bharata, were current from much earlier time than the 4th century.

120

CHAPTER III

BHARATA’S COMMENTATORS AND WRITERS ON SUBJECTS ALLIED TO DRAMATURGY REFERRED TO BY

ABHINAVA.

(I) DATTILĀCĀRYA. From the nature of the context in which he is referred to as well as from a quotation in A. Bh., P. 205, he appears to have been an old authority on Tāla, because he is spoken of as “Ācārya’ by Abhinava as also because his name is mentioned in the list of hundred sons of Bharata. (We do not attach more than due importance to the latter argument.)

(II) RĀHULA. There are two quotations attributed to him in A. Bh., PP. 115, 172. They show that he wrote on dramaturgy in general. For, the former concerns dancing and the latter the way in which a female character should address her loving husband or friend. He acknowledges the authority of Bharata even in one of these quotations.

(III) BHATTA YANTRA. He seems to have written a commentary on the Bharata Sūtra, because a quotation is given apparently from his commentary to state his opinion on the meaning of the word “evam” which constitutes a part of Bharata’s verse 331, ch. IV, as Abhinava clearly states :

“Etacca svamatānusārena “evam” sabdārthamāhuh."

A. Bh., 208, (IV) KIRTIDHARĀCĀRYA. He is spoken of as vyākhyātā along with the known commentators of Bharata and his opinon also is quoted on the meaning of the same word “evam” as pointed out above. He also, therefore, seems to have commented upon the Bharata Sūtra.

A. Bh., 172.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

121

It may be pointed out here that Dr. De, in his History of Sanskrit Poetics, represents this Kīrtidharācārya to have been Abhinava’s successor, probably because in the quotation that he gives in the foot note on page 27, H.S.P., Kirtidhara is mentioned after Abhinava. But, in view of the fact that he is quoted by Abhinava himself, as shown above, Dr. De’s opinion, we think, requires revision".

(V) NĀNYADEVA.

He was the writer of a commentary on the Bharata Sutra, called Bharata Bhāṣya. He is quoted by Abhinava in A. Bh., P. 255.

HIS TIME Nānyadeva is a familiar name to indologists. Four eminent scholars have written on him. Professor Sylvain Lévi was the first to deal with the question of Nānya’s date in Le Népāl, Vol. II. According to him, Nānyadeva’s accession fell in 1097 A.D. This date, according to Dr. R. C. Majumdar, because it is “confirmed by a memorial verse preserved in Vidyāpati’s Puruṣaparīkṇā and corroborated by a MS. written in 1097 in the reign of king Nānyadeva” (I. H.Q., Vol. VII, P. 680) may be regarded as finally settled. According to Mr. Jayaswal, however, the year of accession was 1093 A. D. and that of death 1133 A. D.

All these scholars, for some reason or other, allow Nānyadeva a reign of about fifty years. This Nānyadeva, who is supposed to have lived from sometime in the later half of the 11th century to 1133 or 1147 A. D., we would have altogether ignored, but for the article of Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi in the Quarterly Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, October, 1926, P. 55-63, in which he

H. S.P., Vol. I, 27.

122

CHAPTER III

gives an account of Nānya’s commentary on Bharata’s Nāṭya Sāstra (Chs. XXVII to XXXIV, dealing with music).

The available portion of the commentary gives the following details about the identity of the author :

Mahāsāmantādhipati-dharmāvaloka-Śrīmān Nānya

pati. 2. Mithileśvara. 3. Karṇā takulabhūṣana. 4. Dharmādhārabhupati 5. Rājanārāyana 6. Nrpamalla. 7. Mohanamurāri. 8. Pratyagravānīpati. 9. Extinguisher of the fame of the king of Mālava. 10. Conqueror of the heroes of Sauvīra. 11. Breaker of the powers of Vanga and Gauda.

Dr. Majumdar has tried to explain some of the above attributes as referring to Nānyadeva of the 11th and the 12th centuries A. D. According to him naturally, therefore, the commentator of the Natya Sāstra is identical with the king of Mithilā who reigned from 1097 to 1147.

Our careful study of Abhinava presents the following difficulty in accepting the said identification :

Abhinavagupta, in his commentary on Bharata’s Nātya Sastra, refers to Nanyadeva and quotes from his Bharatabhāṣya, a commentary on the Natya Sastra, as follows:

“Uktam Nānyadevena sva-Bharatabhāṣye : -

*Atra varnaśabdena gitirabhidhiyate nākṣaraviśeṣah, nāpi sadjā disaptasvarāh padagrāme tvaniyamādeva

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

123

svecchayā prayujyante, sadjadisvarāntānām apya viśeṣeṇa vāvarohādidharmāṇam pratyeva samupa lambhate. Ato varṇa eva gītirityavasthitam, sopi caturdhā māgadhyādih”

A. Bh., 255. But, on the evidence of the dates of composition of three of his important works, (vide ch. I) given by himself, Abhinava is known to have lived from about the middle of the 10th century A. D. to about the close of the first quarter of the 11th century. Further, on the solid ground of the references to the earlier works in the later, his writings are separately assigned to the following three periods :

Tantrika 2. Alankārika
Philosophical The date of completion of the biggest philosophical work of Abhinava, so far known, namely, the Pratyabhijñā Vivrti Vimarsinī, is definitely known to be 1014-15 A. D. The time of writing of the Abhinava Bhāratī, therefore, can safely be stated to be the beginning of the 11th century A. D. Nānyadeva, therefore, in order to explain his being quoted by Abhinava in the beginning of the 11th century A. D., has to be supposed to be an older contemporary, if not a predecessor, of Abhinava. In any case, it has got to be admitted that Nanyadeva finished his commentary on Bharata’s Nātya Sastra before the close of the 10th century A. D. He has, therefore, to be supposed to have been thirty to forty years of age at that time. For, it would not be reasonable to suppose that he finished such a work in his teens or early twenties. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, it would not be wrong to say that he was born early in the later half of the 10th century A. D.

Now, Nānyadeva, king of Mithila, is represented to have ascended the throne in 109 A. D. and to have ruled for

124

CHAPTER III

fifty years. If we accept the conclusions of the scholars, who have specialized in the history of Nanya’s time, the following questions will naturally arise :

Did Nānyadeva come to the throne when he was about one hundred and thirty years of age ?
Did he live for about two hundred years and continue ruling till the very end of his life? For, such a supposition alone can explain his reign from 1097 to 1147 A.D.
If not, how then can the identity of the commentator Nānyadeva, quoted by Abhinava in the beginning of the 11th century, with a king of Mithilā of the same name but belonging to the 12th century A. D. be accepted ?

The other alternative, namely, that Nānyadeva, quoted by Abhinava, is a different person from his namesake, the 12th century king of Mithilā, is no better. For, we have ascertained from Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi that the passage, quoted by Abhinava from Nānya’s commentary, given above, is actually found in the seventh chapter, called Rāgādhyāya, of the MS. of Nānya’s commentary. The stray remarks, therefore, made by Nānya about himself in the course of his commentary, stated above, make the aforesaid view wholly untenable.

Two questions arise here.

Is king Nānyadeva, who, according to Dr. Majum dar, played an important part in north Indian politics in the first half of the 12th century A. D., a different person from his namesake king of Mithilā and commentator on Bharata’s Nātya Sastra, who is quoted by Abhinava and, therefore, must belong to the 10th and early 11th century A. D. ?
Or, is it that scholars, who have written on Nānya, in attempting to explain the political references to him with

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

125

the available political data of that period, have assigned to him a much later than the real date ?

It may be suggested here that if Gangādeva, the successor of Nanyadeva, be identical with Gāngeyadeva, as Dr. Majumdar suggests, then the colophon of a book, noticed by Mr. Bendall, which refers to Tirhut being ruled over by “Mahārājādhirāja Punyāvaloka Somavamsodbhava Gauda dhvaja Srimad Gangeyadeva” and is dated Samvat 1076, puts Nānyadeva at a time which satisfactorily explains the fact of his having been quoted by Abhinava early in the 11th century A. D. Of course, in this case we would follow Mr. Bendall, according to whom Sarhvat refers to the Vikrama era, and not Dr. Majumdar who holds it to refer to the Saka era. For, in that case, Nānya shall have to be supposed to have died before 1020 A. D. when, according to the above colophon, his son was on the throne.

In our opinion the question of Nānya’s time requires further study in the light of the facts, stated here, and cannot be regarded as finally settled.

THE COMMENTATORS WHOSE DATE CAN BE FIXED.

(VI) HARṣA. Abhinava quotes & commentary, called “Vārtika,” written by Harṣa, apparently on the Bharata Sūtra, as we have already said. In the history of Sanskrit literature, we know only of two Harṣas. One, the famous King of Kannauj (606-47 A. D.) and the other, poet Harṣa, the author of the Naiṣadhīya Carita, who is invariably called Srīharṣa. As the latter belonged to the later half of the 12th century A. D., it would not be wrong to identify the author of the Vārtika with the former. It is probable that the work was written by his famous court poet Bāna and attributed to his patron like so many others.

126

CHAPTER III

(VII) UDBHAṭA. The followers of Udbhata (Audbhatas) are represen ted to hold that the 11th verse of the sixth chapter of the Bharata Sutra states that, according to Kohala, Nātya Sangraha consists of eleven parts. Does this mean that he also wrote a commentary on the Bharata Sūtra ? In any case, it is apparent that he interpreted Bharata’s text in a way which considerably differed from other interpretations of the same and that these differences, though they may have been simply matters of oral tradition, were so many and had been accepted by so many that those who followed his interpre tation were called Audbhatas.

HIS DATE.

There is no controversy about his date. He is taken to be identical with Bhatta Udbhata, whom Kalhana in his Rājatarangini, Ch. IV, 495, represents as the Sabhāpati of King Jayāpīda of Kashmir (779-813 A. D.). He is very well known for his works on Alankāra e. g. Kāvyālankārasāra sangraha.

(VIII) BHATTA LOLLAṭA.

That he commented upon the Bharata Sūtra is clear not so much from his opinion on Rasa, quoted by Abhinava, as from the quotation which points out the difference of his interpretation of the word “evam” in Bh. Sū. ch. IV, S. 331, from those of Bhatta Yantra and Kirtidharācārya.

HIS DATE.

From the manner in which reference has been made to his theory of Rasa by Abhinava in his A. Bh., p. 274, there remains little doubt about the fact that he was Srīśankuka’s older contemporary. Not only is his exposition of Rasa givenHISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

127

first of all but his view also is represented to be in common with that of the ancients (Cirantanas), such as Dandin. Further, Srīśankuka is represented to be his first opponent; and the word (etanna), with which the statement of the opponent’s view begins, shows that the latter was Lollata’s contemporary. We know that the word “etat” in Sanskrit stands for what is present before ; in fact this is the only difference in idea conveyed by this word as distinguished from “tat”. The time of Sankuka is accepted to be the middle of the 9th century A. D., because he is taken to be identical with the poet Sankuka, who, according to Kalhana’s statement, (R. T., ch. IV, 705) was King Ajitāpīda’s con temporary (circa 850) and had written a poem, called Bhuvanābhyudaya. The view that Lollaṭa was a contem porary of Srīśankuka is supported by the following fact :

Kṣemarāja, who was a pupil of Abhinava, refers in his Spanda Nirnaya to Lollata’s commentary, called Vivrti, on Bhatta Kallata’s Spanda Kārikā in the following words:

“Bhatta Lollatenāpi ’tadādyanta’ iti evameva vyākhyāyi sva Vivrtau”

S. N., 34. Bhatta Kallaṭa, as already stated before, is referred to as & Siddha and, therefore, must have been a very old man in the time of King Avanti Varman (856 A. D.) He, therefore, must have written his Spanda Kārikā or rather given publicity to Vasugupta’s posthumous work so called, as we have explained before, some time in the middle of the second quarter of the 9th century; and Lollaṭa, his younger contemporary, commented upon the same towards the end of the same quarter of that century. It is probable that Lollata also like Kallata was Vasugupta’s pupil. The fact that Lollaṭa wrote some philosophical works also is further supported by Abhinaya’s referring to him as a

128

CHAPTER III

writer of a philosophical work in the Mālini Vijaya Vārtika ch. I, S. 777.

Thus it is evident that Bhatta Kallaṭa, Bhatta Lollata and Srisankuka were contemporaries and that the first was the oldest and the last the youngest of them. It will, there fore, not be wrong to say that Bhatta Lollata lived in the second and the third quarters of the 9th century A. D.

(IX) SRIśANKUKA. From frequent references to and criticism of Srisankuka’s interpretation of the Bharata Sūtra by Abhinava in his commentary (pp. 67, 75, 104) as also from the fact that he points out differences between his original of the Bharata Sūtra and that of Srisankuka, (A. Bh. 216, 217) it is apparent that the latter also commented upon the Bharata Sūtra. That he belonged to Kashmir and was a contem porary of King Ajitāpīda (850) we have already stated in the foregoing pages.

(X) BHAṭṭA NĀYAKA. Did he comment on Bharata’s Nātya Sastra ? Dr. De answers this question in the following words in his History of Sanskrit Poetics :

“No doubt, Abhinava in his own commentary on Bharata, as well as numerous other later writers taking their cue from Abhinava, criticise at some length Bhatta Nāyaka’s theory of Rasa, along with those of Lollata and Sankuka, and with special reference to Bharata’s particular Sūtra on the subject : yet Bhatta Nayaka is nowhere mentioned directly as a commentator on the same text."

The following few lines contain our opinion on the subject with the available data on which it is based :

Abhinava in his commentary on the very first verse of Bharata, while discussing the meaning of the last part of

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

129

the same “Brahmaṇā yadudāhrtam” quotes the following passage from the Sahradaya Darpana -

“(Bhatta Nāyakastu) Brahmaṇā paramātmanā yadu dāhrtam avidyāviracitam nissārabhedagrahe yadu dāharanīkrtam tannātyam tad vakṣyāmi: yathā hi kalpanāmātrasāram tata evānavasthitaikarūpam kṣaṇena kalpanāśata….. …………. lokottaraparama puruṣārthasūcanena śāntarasopakṣepoyam bhavisyati : “svam svam nimittam ādāya śāntādyutpadyate rasah” iti tadanena pāramārthikam prayojanam uktam (iti vyākhyām sahrdayadarpane paryagrahīt)”.

The portions within brackets, at the beginning and in the end are Abhinava’s own remarks. This makes the following three points clear :

(1) Bhatta Nāyaka wrote a work called Sahrdaya

Darpana. (2) That work dealt with the text of Bharata’s Nātya

śāstra. (3) At many places it interpreted the Bharata Sūtra in

a way which differed from that of the other commentators.

EXPLANATION OF THE REMARK OF MAHIMA BHATTA’S

COMMENTATOR.

Here one question may very pertinently be asked. If Sahrdaya Darpana is Bhatta Nāyaka’s commentary on the Bharata Sūtra what about the remark of “Mahima Bhatta’s commentator”, who in the words of Dr. De “tells us that this Hrdaya Darpana, like the Vyakti Viveka, was composed with the special object of demolishing the Dhvani theory, formulated by Ananda Vardhana”. The answer is simple and we propose to give it by putting

130

CHAPTER III

another question “Is there any difference between “Hrdaya” and “Sahrdaya"? If the reply be “Yes” we would request the reader to see if there is not the same difference between the titles of the works referred to by Abhinava and Mahima Bhatta’s commentator in their respective commentaries. One is Hrdaya Darpaṇa and the other is Sahrdaya Darpaṇa. The former is concerned with the demolition of the Dhvani theory of Ananda Vardhana and the latter with the interpretation of Bharata’s text. This conclusion is based upon the wording of the text, quoted above in full, and the quotation :

“Darpanah………….. .Hrdayadarpaṇākhyo dhvani

dhvamsa granthah." given by Dr. De in his H. S.P., in a foot note on page 40.

HIS DATE.

From what has been stated above it is clear that he lived some time after Ananda Vardhana, a contemporary of King Avanti Varman, 856-883, (R. T., ch. V, 34,) and a little before Abhinava (second half of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century A. D.). Therefore, probably it will not be wrong to identify him with Nayaka whom Kalhaṇa represents as King Sankara Varman’s contemporary, 883-902 A. D., (R. T., ch. V, S. 159).

EXPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE THEORY

OF DHVANI.

The men of letters, of whom we have to speak here, can, according to Ananda Vardhana, the first known exponent of the theory of Dhvani, be divided into three classes : (I) the supporters of the theory; (II) its opponents; and (III) those who considered it to be identical with

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

131

Lakṣaṇā. Among those of the first class are included also those, who believed that there was something like Dhvani, though they could not properly define it. Before the writer of the Dhvani Kārikā, there was no book presenting the views of either the exponents or the opponents. This, however, does not mean that the earlier thinkers of Sanskrit poetics had no idea of Dhvani. The fact, on the contrary, is that the theory was well formulated and had its opponents too, long before the time of the Kārikā, but all that was simply a matter of oral tradition handed down from generation to generation. The thinkers of the third school, in marked contrast with the above two, more or less, recorded their views in the books, which we still possess. To this class belong such early writers on poetics as Bhatta Udbhata, and Vāmana.* The view of the school of opponents also had begun to be systematised before Ananda Vardhana wrote his work, as is apparent from a quotation attributed to a poet, Manoratha, who, according to Abhinava, was Ananda Vardhana’s contemporary.5 But it appears from Abhinava’s wording that only stray verses were written by one writer here and another there, and that there was no book presenting the opponents’ views systematically, for, he seems to have purposely used the word “Sloka”. It was only after Ananda Vardhana’s learned exposition of Dhvani in his Dhvanyāloka, that there appeared two books of the opponents’ school, one from the pen of Bhatta Nāyaka, whom Abhinava so much criticises, and the other from that of Mahima Bhatta, who was probably Abhinava’s successor or younger contemporary.

Dh. L., 3. 2. Dh. L., 3. 3. Dh. L., 3. 4. Dh. L., 10. 5. Dh. L., 8.

132

CHAPTER III

WHO WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE DHVANI KĀRIKĀ ?

But before we begin speaking on these writers in their chronological order, let us take up the much disputed question of the authorship of the Dhvani Kārikā, and see what light a careful study of Abhinava’s Locana throws on it. There is no doubt, as was first pointed out by Dr. Būhler, that Abhinava uses the two words “Kārikākāra” and “Vrttikāra.” with a distinction. There is also no doubt that Abhinava means two different works by “Vrttigrantha” and “Karikā”. But let us state here that he does not oppose them, if by the word “oppose” the idea meant to be conveyed is that one contradicts the view of the other. But we have complete agreement if it is meant to denote that the contents of the works, referred to by the words “Kārikā" and “Vrtti” which form component parts of “Karikākāra” and “Vrttikāra,” differ in certain respects, i. e. certain points are dealt with in greater detail in the latter than in the former and certain others are given exhaustive treatment in the latter, which, though very closely connected with the subject matter of the former, have not very clearly been touched upon in it. That there is nothing like contradiction between the two is made clear by those very three instances which are stated in the History of Sanskrit Poetics (P. 107-8) and on two of which the learned author himself speaks a little later in the following words :

“In one place, for instance (P. 123) Abhinavagupta clearly points out that the classification of Dhvani according to Vastu, Alankāra, and Rasādi is not expressedly taught in any Kārikā; while at another place in ch. IV Abhina vagupta states that the question as to the source of the endless variety of Artha in poetry is mentioned by the Vrttikāra but not touched upon by the Kārikākāra."

But we do not agree with Dr. Jacobi and Dr. De who, “relying on Abhinavagupta’s testimony put forward the

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

133

suggestion that Dhvanikāra, the supposed author of the Kārikā, was a different and older writer, who should be distinguished from Ananda Vardhana, the author of the Vrtti.” The arguments of the scholars who hold that the Kārika and the Vrtti are of different authorship may be briefly stated as follows :

There is difference in respect of the points dealt

with in the Kārikā and the Vrtti. 2. The ideas of the Kārikā are expanded, revised and

modified in the Vrtti. 3. A sufficiently long time must elapse before the

need for a commentary is felt. 4. Abhinavagupta uses the two words “Kārikākāra”

and “Vrttikāra” and means two distinct authors thereby.

We have already stated in the preceding paragraph that whatever be the number of the points dealt with in the Vrtti, in addition to those expressedly stated in the Kārikā, none of the former contradicts any one of the latter ; and here we might add that though there is considerable expansion, revision and modification of the views of the Kārikā in the Vrtti, yet all that is of the nature of an addition to clear the ideas of the former, for, that is the one purpose that the commentary is intended to serve.

Having thus disposed of the first two points stated above, we take up the third. It is not always that

commentary is written only after the lapse of a sufficiently long time. It may have been so, long before or after the time of Ananda Vardhana, but was not certainly so in or about his time, as the history of Sanskrit Literature, particularly of that part of India to which Ananda Vardhana himself belonged, shows. We know on the accepted

134

CHAPTER III

authority of Kalhana on this particular point that Ananda Vardhana was King Avanti Varman’s contemporary (856-883 A. D.) and that Kallaṭa also lived at the same time. We also know that Vasugupta, the author of the śiva Sūtra, was a teacher of Kallata and that the latter wrote a commentary on the Spanda Kārikā called “Spanda Sarvasva”. Although there is difference of opinion as regards the authorship of the Spanda Kārikā which, in itself is a sort of running commentary on the śiva Sūtra, yet, whether the authorship of the Spanda Kārikā be attributed to Vasugupta or to Kallaṭa, our position is not affected. What we intend to show here is that in or about the 9th century A. D. in Kashmir there are instances of the same person, writing both the text and the commentary. So that if we take Vasugupta to be the author of the Spanda Kārikā, then, it is his own commentary on his own śiva Sūtra ; but if Kallaṭa be accepted to be the author, then, he also has written a commentary on it, called Spanda Sarvasva, as pointed out above. This is not a solitary instance; about the same time Somānanda also is said to have written a commentary upon his own śivadrṣti, though we have not so far been able to discover it; and, in the next generation Utpalācārya wrote the Vrtti and the Vivrti on his own Iśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā to which Abhinava makes a reference in one of the introductory verses in his Pratyabhijñā. Vimarsinī. Thus the third argument also does not appear to be very sound.

As regards the fourth argument that Abhinava uses two words, Kārikākāra and Vrttikāra, and means to imply distinction, we may point out that this also does not necessarily mean difference in point of the authorship of the works so referred to. Our study of Abhinava’s works tells

I. P. V., 1, 3.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

135

us that it is his practice to refer to the same person as the writer of one work or another, if he has written more than one work, according as he refers to him in one capacity or another. Leaving aside other instances, if we take up that of Utpalācārya himself, we find that he is referred to both as Vrttikāra and Tīkākāra in one passage. On reading it, a person, not knowing the truth, is likely to fall into the error of thinking that there are two different writers referred to by these two words. The passage in question occurs in Abhinava’s commentary, called Vimarsins, on the first verse of Utpalācārya’s Iśvara Pratyabhijña Kārikā or Satra. It runs as follows:

“Iyati vyākhyāne vrttikrtā bharo na krtah tātparya

vyākhyānāt yaduktam :

Samvrtasautranirdeśavivrtimātravyāpārāyām’ iti: ṭīkākāremāpi vrttimātram vyākhyātumudyatena nedam sprstam.”

I. P. V., I, 22-3. We have stated above that Utpalācārya himself was the writer of both the Vrtti and the ṭīkā and have also given a quotation in support of our statement.

Here it may be asked “Is there any justification to suppose that the use of the two words “Kārikākāra” and “Vrttikāra” by Abhinava in his Locana is of the same kind as that of Vrttikāra and Tīkākāra in the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsins ?” To answer this question we state the following few facts, gathered from the three works, the Kārikā, the Vrtti and the Locana :

I. As a rule, Sanskrit writers do not begin their work without first writing at least one verse in praise of the deity to which they are devoted or using some such expression in the beginning as is interpreted to be what is technically called Margalācaraṇa. If, therefore, the Dhvani Kārikā and the Vrtti had been written by two different writers there would

136

CHAPTER III

have been two separate benedictory verses, at least one at the beginning of each. But there is only one such verse in the present case and this seems to form the beginning of the Dhvani Kārikā. What are we to infer from this ?

II. When we read the Vrtti we find at the conclusion of the introductions to some Kārikās here and there the word “ucyate" and we feel that if we could know the subject of the passive form we shall have some light thrown on the question of authorship. Abhinava, as if knowing the mind of the future generations, has cleared this point. Comment ing on “iyat punarucyate eva” which comes as a sort of introduction to the 28th verse of the Second Chapter of the Dhvani Kārikā, he says “asmābhiriti vākya śeṣah”. Does not this mean that Abhinava considered the writer of the introductory words, given above, to be the same as that of the verse that comes after ?

III. There is another statement in the Locana at the beginning of the second chapter wherein also Abhinava similarly states the understood subject of a passive form of verb.

(Vrtti) “Dhvanir dviprakārah prakāsitah.”

(Locana) “Prakāśita iti, mayā vrttikāreṇa sateti bhāvah.” Does not the use of the word “satā” imply that the writer of the Vitti is the writer of the Kārikā also ?

IV. At another place he seems to be clearly represent ing Vrttikāra as the author of the Karikā. Commenting upon the word ’tatbā ca’ Abhinava says : –

“Prakrāntaprakāradvayopasarhārath tặtīyaprakāra sūcanam ca ekenaiva yatnena karomītyāsayena sādhāraṇam avataranapadam praksipati vrttikrt”.

Dh. L., 104.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

137

Here the words “ekenaiva yatnena” apparently refer to the following verse. They constitute a part of the sentence the finite verb of which is “karomi”. This sentence is attri buted to the Vrttikrt, He has, therefore, to be naturally supposed to be the subject of “karomi’. Does not this show that Abhinava considered the same person to be the author of both the Vrtti and the Kārikā? The limited space does not permit us similarly to dwell upon some more instances of this kind. We, therefore, simply give below the numbers of the pages where similar passages are to be found :

82-83, 85, 105, 223,246.

V. And last of all let us add the evidence of Abhinava’s colophon to support our opinion on the identity of the author ship of the Karikā and the Vrtti. There can be no difference of opinion in respect of Ananda Vardhana’s authorship of the Dhvanyāloka, because the colophons to different chapters make it clear beyond doubt. Abhinava’s professed object in his Locana is to comment upon the Dhvanyāloka. Let us, therefore, try to find out what he means when he uses the above title in the colophon of each chapter of his commentary. Does he thereby refer to the Vrtti alone or to the Karikā also ? For, if the case be the latter it would mean that the title “Dhvanyāloka” stands for both. And if so, how can then there arise the question of difference in the authorship of the Kārikā and the Vrtti? It is an indis putable fact that Abhinava means the Kārikā and the Vrtti both when he uses the above title in his colophons, because he comments on both. Take, for instance, the third and the sixth verses of the first chapter. The Locana on them runs as follows:

“Tatreti dvyamsatve satyapītyarthah, prasiddha iti vanitāvadanodyānendūdayādivallaukika evetyarthah,

138

CHAPTER III

upamādibhiḥ prakāraih sa vyākrto bahudheti sargatih.”

Dh. L., 14.

and “Sarasvatīti vāgrupā bhagavatītyarthah.” Dh. L., 29. Taking, therefore, all the above stated facts into considera tion, we feel that the theory of different authorship of the Kārikā and the Vrtti is untenable.

PRECURSORS OF DHVANI. From what has been stated before it is clear that there was no book systematically presenting the ideas of either the exponents or the opponents of the theory of Dhvani before Ananda Vardhana.

(I) UDBHAṭA. Among those, who included Dhvani in Lakṣaṇā, according to Abhinava’s own statement, Bhaṭṭa Udbhata was the first just indirectly to touch upon Dhvani without even using this word in his exposition of Bhāmaha’s verse,

“Sabdaś chandobhidhānārthah.”

in his commentary on the latter’s Kāvyālankāra. About him we have already spoken before.

(II) VĀMANA. In connection with Dhvani, Vāmana is placed in the same category as Udbhata. From the manner in which Abhinava refers to him it appears that Vāmana was Udbhata’s successor, for he mentions the former after the latter in giving the names of the writers who include Dhvani in Laksanā. This alone cannot be taken to be conclusive evidence. We can, therefore, reasonably take him, as Dr. De points out, and as the tradition also says, to be identical with King Jayāpīda’s minister of the same name (779-813 A. D.)

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

139

OTHER VĀMANAS. It may be pointed out here that Abhinava refers to two other Vāmanas, one is Vāmanagupta and the other is Vāma nadattācārya. In fixing the date of the former there is no difficulty, for Abhinava, in his Abhinava Bhāratī, page 297, where the reference occurs, calls him his own uncle, (asmat pitrvya). He, therefore, without much fear of contradic tion, may be said to belong to the second and the third quarters of the 10th century A. D. There is only one verse attributed to him there. It is, therefore, not clear as to whether he did or did not write any work.

About the other we cannot, at this stage, say anything definitely, excepting that he wrote a philosophical work, the Samvit Prakāśa, to which Abhinava refers in the Tantrāloka, Ah. V, S. 155, as his commentator explains :

“Gurubhirbhāṣitam tasmād upāyeṣu vicitrata”

T. A., Ah. V, S. 155. “Gurubhih” Vāmanadattācār; eṇa, “bhāṣitam” iti Sanvitprakāśe."

T. A., Comm. This work is quoted by Maheśvarāna da in his commentary, Parimalā, on the Mahārtha Maf arī, PP. 21, 23, 26. From the nature of the quotation, found in the Spanda Nirnaya of Kṣemarāja, p. 48, att ibuted to Bhatta Srī Vāmana, it appears that he is the se ne person as Vāmana dattācārya of Abhinava’s quotatio because the quotation is about the Samvid. He may be lentical with Vāmana, the minister of King Jayāpīda of Kashmir.

The founder of the Theory of Dhvani.

ĀNANDA VARDHANA. He was the first person to give a systematic exposition to the theory of Dhvani in his Dhvanyāloka, which is also called Kavyāloka or Sahsdayāloka, and finally to

140

CHAPTER III

establish it. About his date we have already spoken before. His own contribution as compared to that of his predecessors in connection with Dhvani was that he established it as the principal meaning (angi) in marked contrast with its conception as a subordinate figure or mere ornament (alankāra).

HIS OTHER WORKS.

Like Lollata and other writers in or about his time, he also wrote both on poetics and philosophy.

TATTVĀLOKA. He, the author of the Kavyaloka or Dhvanyaloka, is spoken of as the writer of another work, called Tattvāloka, by Maheśvarānanda in his commentary, Parimalā, on his own Mahārtha Mañjarī, P. 149.

“yaduktamh Tattvālokakrtā Kāvyāloke.’ From its title it appears to have been a philosophical work.

VIVRTI ON THE VINISCAYA TIKA DHARMOTTAMĀ

In this work, as e himself says in his Vrtti on the Dhvanyaloka Kārikā, h criticised various Bauddha theories :

“Yattu anirdesyat’ am sarvasvalakṣaṇaviṣayam Bauddhānām pras Idham cat tanmataparīkṣāyām granthāntare nirūp yiṣyāmah.”

Dh. L., 233.

Abhinava, commenting u on the word “granthāntare”, says:

«Viniscayaṭīkāyām Dharmottamāyāṁ yā vivrti ramunā granthakrtā krtā tatraiva tadvyākhyātam."

DEVI SATAKA. It is a philosophical Stotra in praise of Devi. There is a commentary on it by Kayyaṭa. This Kayyata was a different person from his nar iesake, the author of a commen tary on Patanjali’s Mahābhā ya and the son of Jayyaṭa. He,

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT

141

according to his own statement at the conclusion of his commentary, was the son of Candrāditya and finished the work in question in 978 A. D. I

VIṣAMAVĀṇA LILĀ. From a quotation in the Vrtti on the Dhvani Kārikā, P. 62, it appears to have been a poetical work of his in Prākrta.
ARJUNA CARITA. From the nature of the context in which reference to this work occurs in the Dhvanyāloka, p. 176, it appears to have been a drama.

COMMENTATORS ON THE DHVANYĀLOKA BEFORE

ABHINAVA. There was a regular commentary on the Dhvanyāloka written by one of Abhinava’s ancestors whose name we have not been able to trace. It was called Candrikā. It was probably written towards the close of the 9th or the beginning of the 10th century A. D., for, the writer does not seem to have been seen by Abhinava, who refers to him as living in the distant past. (“Purvavamśyaiḥ.”)

Abhinava refers to other opinions also on the inter pretation of Ananda Vardhana’s text on PP. 22, 36, 44, 50, 123, 131, 206, 208, 213, 215. But it is not clear as to whether thereby he means some regular commentaries or simply the opinions of the traditional oral exponents.

OPPONENT OF DHVANI.

BHATTA NÄYAKA. We have already spoken about him ; but his mention again here is necessary, because he is the chief opponent of

D. S., Comm.
Dh. L., 185. 3. Dh. L., 233.

142

CHAPTER III

Dhvani, whom Abhinava so frequently criticises in his Locana. He wrote

Hrdaya Darpana with the avowed object of demolishing Ananda Vardhana’s theory of Dhvani.

ABHINAVA’S TEACHER IN DHVANI.

BHATTA INDURĀJA. Abhinava refers to him as his teacher in the introduction to his Locana. The high opinion, that he had about his teacher’s great literary attainments, finds expression in Dh. L., P. 100, wherein he says:

“Vidvatkavisahrdayacakravartino Bhattendurājasya.” Although there are so many quotations attributed to him, yet, unfortunately, they are not coupled with the names of the works wherefrom they were taken. There is, therefore, a difference of opinion among the scholars about his being identical with Sri Indurāja, the commentator of Udbhata’s Kāvyālankāra Sāra Sangraha. Taking into consideration the fact that Bhatta and Srī are generally found indiscriminately prefixed to the ordinary name and also that the chronological position of the supposed two Indurājas is the same, we are inclined to think them to be identical. The opinion that in the present case Bhatta or Śrī, as found in different places prefixed to Indurāja’s name, is simply an honorific prefix is supported by Abhinava’s referring to him without either of these prefixes in his commentary on the Ghaṭakarparakulaka as follows:

Kavīndorindurājasya te saccittavikāśakāḥ Bodhārhśavo vigāhantām bhūrbhuvahsvastrayīmapi.

Gh. V. (MS.)

In the concluding line of the aforesaid commentary Sri Indurāja refers to Mukula as his teacher. And Mukula

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HIS THOUGHT 143 represents Kallaṭa to be his father in his Abhidhā Vrtti Mātrkā. We have already shown above that Somānanda was Kallata’s contemporary. There is, therefore, only one generation between Abhinava’s teacher in Dhvani, Indurāja, and Kallata on the one hand and his teacher in philosophy, Lakṣmaṇagupta, and Somānanda on the other. Thus the chronological position of Srī Indurāja coupled with the fact that we do not know of any other person of so great literary attainments belonging to that period and that Abhinava was not a person either not to have approached such a person for education in that particular branch of learning or to have extolled an insignificant person in the manner in which he has praised Indurāja, very strongly support the supposition that Abhinava’s teacher was the same as the commentator on the Kāvyālankāra Sāra Sangraha.

BHŪTI RĀJA TANAYA.

Abhinava refers to Bhattendurāja in the Tantraloka, Ah. 37, S. 60, as Bhūti Rāja Tanaya :

“Sri Bhūtirājatanayaḥ svapitrprasādah.” And Helārāja also in the colophon of his commentary on the Vākyapadiya represents himself as the son of Bhūti Rāja. The two have, therefore, to be distinguished from each other. We cannot say if they were brothers. The genealogy of Indurāja is given in the concluding lines of Abhinava’s commentary on the Bhagavadgitā as follows? :

Kātyāyana (distant ancestor ?) 2. Sausuka. 3. Bhūti Rāja. 4. Bhattendu Rāja.
Bh. G. S.