4 HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

In the preceding chapter we have tried to trace the historical background of Abhinava’s tantric, poetic and philosophic thoughts to give a clear idea of the material on which he worked and of the advance that his thoughts present on those of his predecessors. In this chapter we propose to deal with some of the important writers, who succeeded him, to show his importance in the eyes of the later generations and to indicate how far he influenced the ideas of the future writers and how his work was carried on by his immediate successors. We, therefore, for the sake of convenience, divide the writers on whom we have to speak here into two classes :

His commentators. 2. Other writers who were directly influenced by him.

(I) KṣEMARĀJA.

Among his commentators first of all comes Kṣemarāja in the chronological order, which, as before, we propose to follow in this chapter also. In the colophons of all his works he represents himself to be a pupil of Abhinavagupta pādācārya. There is, therefore, no difficulty in fixing his time. Abhinava’s last available dated work was completed in 1014-15 A. D. We can, therefore, easily assign Kṣemarāja’s literary activities to the close of the first and practically the whole of the second quarter of the eleventh century A. D. We have not so far been able to find any passage in Ksemarāja’s works which could give us an idea of his parentage. But Abhinava in the 37th chapter of his Tantrāloka, includes “kṣema” in the list of the names of

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

145

his pupils. In another list, which gives the names of his cousins, this very name is mentioned as that of the first of them. They also were his pupils. The indications of a very close contact of himself with Abhinava that Kṣemarāja gives by using some such expression as “Padapadmopajīvin” in every work of his, and the important place that he occupies among Abhinava’s pupil-writers seem to support the probability that Kṣema of the Tantrāloka stands for Ksemarāja, the author of the Pratyabhijñā Hrdaya and other philosophical works. In fact, in the Pratyabhijña Hrdaya he refers to himself as Kṣema :

“Kṣemenoddhriyate sārah samsāra viṣa śāntaye.”

P. H., 1. If this probability be accepted we would suggest the name of Kṣemarāja’s father also. In the last chapter we have spoken about one Vāmanagupta, whom Abhinava represents as his uncle. As he is the only uncle of Abhinava, of whom we know, will it be wrong to say that he was Ksemarāja’s father ?

HIS WORKS. Kṣemarāja also, like his great teacher, Abhinavagupta, has written on all the three subjects i. e. Tantra, poetics and Saiva philosophy. His work on poetics, viz. the com mentary, called Udyota, on Abhinava’s Locana has not so far been accessible to us. It is, therefore, not possible at this stage to assign any chronological position to it. How ever, on the strength of what we have read we can say that he also worked on the lines of his great teacher. He also, like Abhinava, first of all, used the power of his pen in commenting upon the monistic Saiva Tantras, then perhaps upon his teacher’s work on poetics, the Locana,

T. A., Ah. 37 (MS.) 2. A. Bh., 297.

146

CHAPTER IV

and last of all on the philosophical works, like the Spanda Kārikā. Thus he carried on the work of his teacher. The students of the Trika philosophy owe a special debt of gratitude to Kṣemarāja for a systematic presentation of the views of Abhinava on the Spanda branch, on which the latter, not liking to be classed with the common herd of commentators, did not write.

SVACCHANDODYOTA. It is his commentary on the Svacchanda Tantra. This seems to be the first in the chronology of his available works. It is referred to in his commentaries on Bhatta Nārāyana’s Stava Cintāmaṇi, P. 226, on the śiva Sūtra, P. 12, and on the Netra Tantra, P. 226.
NETRODYOTA. Netrodyota is a commentary on the Netra Tantra.
VIJĀNA BHAIRAVODYOTA. 4. DHVANYĀLOKA LOCANODYOTA.
SPANDA SANDOHA. Spanda Sandoha is, as has already been pointed out, Kṣemarāja’s commentary on the first verse of the Spanda Kārikā in which he deals with practically the whole of the Spanda system. In the chronological order of his works this comes before his Spanda Nirnaya? in which he refers to it at more than one place. 3
SPANDA NIRṇAYA. It is a commentary on the whole of the Spanda Kārikā. It may be pointed out here that Dr. Buhler in his Kashmir Catalogue has thrown some doubt on the point of the authorship of the last two works by showing them as the works of Kṣemendra (consult P. XXXIII, MSS. 511 and

though he says on page 79:

S. N., 77.

S. N., 1.

S. N., 7.HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

147

“Kṣemendra, the author of Spanda Nirnaya, No. 511, and of Spanda Sandoha 517 appears to be identical with Kṣemarāja, the pupil of Abhinava”.

We do not know the learned Doctor’s reasons for assign ing these works to Kṣemendra, perhaps he found this name in the colophons of the works in question. But our careful study shows that they are the works of Kṣemarāja and that if in the colophons of some MSS. the name of Kṣemendra is found, it must have been simply due to the mistake of the scribes. In the Pratyabhijñā Hrdaya and in the śiva Sutra Vimarsinī, which are accepted by all to be of Kṣemarāja’s authorship, these two works are referred to by him as his own, as the following quotations therefrom show : “Tathā mayā vitatya Spanda Sandohe nirnītam.” P.H.,P.24. “Yathā caitat tathā asmadīyāt Spanda Nirnayad avaboddha vyam.”

S. S. Vi., P. 14. “Etat Spanda Nirnaye nirākāňkṣam mayaiva nirnītam.”

S. S. Vi., P. 129. 7. PRATYABHIJÑA HRDAYA. 8. COMMENTARY ON THE ABOVE. 9. śiva SUTRA VIMARṣINI. 10. VIVRTI ON THE STAVA CINTAMAṇI. 11. UTPALA STOTRĀVALI TIKĀ. 12. PARĀ PRAVEśIKĀ. 13. TIKĀ ON SAMBA PANCASIKĀ

A COMMENTARY ON THE KRAMA SŪTRA. Of this we know only from the following reference in Maheśvarānanda’s commentary on his own Mahārtha Mañjarī, P. 166:

“Yaduktam Srī Kramasūtreṣu….. Yathā ca vyākhyātam Srimat Kṣemarājena.”

STOTRA.

148

CHAPTER IV

This is known only from the following reference in his own commentary on the Stava Cintāmani, P. 64:

“Taduktam mayāpi svastotre.”

BHAIRAVĀNUKARANA STOTRA.

It is mentioned as one of his works in the introduction to the Samba Pancāśikā Tīkā.

PARAMĀRTHA SANGRAHA VIVRTI. It is noticed in Dr. Būhler’s Kashmir Catalogue (MS. No. 459.) The text is attributed to Abhinavagupta.
VRTTI ON PARAMEŚA STOTRĀVALI OF UTPALA.

(Būhler’s Kashmir Catalogue MS. 458.)

(II.) YOGARĀJA. The commentator who came next after Kṣemarāja was Yogarāja. According to his own statement in the concluding lines of his commentary, Vivrti, on the Paramārtha Sāra of Abhinavagupta, he was a pupil of Kṣemarāja? who was in possession of the tradition. We shall, therefore, not be wrong if we say that he belonged to the second half of the eleventh century A. D. At the time when he wrote the said commentary he had already renounced the world and was living as an ascetic at Vitastāpuri in Kashmir. This commentary, according to its author, is from the point of view of pure monism.

(III.) SUBHAṭA DATTA. He is the first known commentator of Abhinava’s Tantraloka. The only source of information about him is Jayaratha’s Viveka?. According to this, he was the pre ceptor of Rājarāja, whom we cannot definitely identify with

P. S., Comm., 199. 2. T. A., Comm., Ah. 37 (MS.)

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

149

any King of Kashmir. There is, however, no difficulty in approximately fixing his time. Jayaratha says that his initiation into Saivaism ?) was performed by Subhaṭa. The former’s time of literary activity, as we shall just show, was the close of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century A. D. We can, therefore, safely say that Subhaṭa lived in the later half of the 12th century. His father’s name was Tribhuvana? Datta and that of his grand-father, Viśvadatta. It is probably to this commentary that Jayaratha refers in his commentary on the Tantrāloka, Ah. I, PP. 15-16, where he says that he refrains from criticising different interpretations put upon the first verse by others, because his object is only to take out whatever substance is to be found in their writings and not to criticise them”. This commentary was called

VIVRTI. No trace of it has so far been found.

(IV.) JAYARATHA. He was the author of the Viveka, the famous commentary on the Tantraloka. He was a younger contemporary of a certain Kashmirian King, Rājarāja, who was probably the same as Jaya Simha (Circa 1200 A. D.) It was because of the encouragement received from this King that he studied the Tantrāloka. His initiation was performed, as stated above, by Subhata Datta. His teacher in Saivaism was Kalyāna" and so was Sankhadhara in other branches of learning. 6 He had a younger brother named Jayadratha.? Srögāraratha was the name of his father who was a minister to King Rājarāja.

T. A., Comm., Ah. 37 (MS.) 2. T. A., Comm., Ah. I, 15-16. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, T. A., Comm., Ah, 37 (MS.)

150

CHAPTER IV

HIS DATE.

He has given the genealogy of his family since the time of Purnamanoratha who was a minister to King Yasaskara 1 of Kashmir (930 A. D.) Eight generations are shown to intervene between the first ancestor of this list, Purṇa manoratha, and our commentator, Jayaratha. Of these the fifth ancestor also, viz. Utpalaratha,? who was a minister to King Ananta of Kashmir (1028-1063 A. D.), is of known date. Thus if we allow, according to the ordinary practice of scholars, about a quarter of a century for each generation Jayaratha’s time comes to be about the close of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century A. D. The names of his direct ancestors are given below in the order of their succession :

Pūrṇamanoratha (930 A. D.) 2. Utpalaratha I. 3. Prakāśaratha. 4. Sūryaratha. 5. Utpalaratha II. (circa 1028-63) 6. Samaratha. 7. Gunaratha. 8. Gungaratha. 9. Srngāraratha. 10. Jayaratha.

Like Abhinavagupta and others, he also wrote both on Saivaism and poetics. At present we know of only the following three works of his :

TANTRĀLOKA VIVEKA.
ALANKĀRA VIMARSINI. It is a commentary on Ruyyaka’s Alarkāra Sarvasva.
ALANKĀRODĀHARANA

1,2. T. A., Comm., Ah. 37 (MS.)

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

151

(V.) SOBHĀKARAGUPTA. He commented upon Abhinava’s famous Bhairava Stotra, giving it a Vaisnavaite interpretation. The manner in which he splits the words and the uncommon meaning that he attributes to them make it clear that the interpreta tion is forced and was not intended by the writer of the original. A copy of the MS. of this commentary is in the possession of the present writer. The commentator interprets the last verse in such a way as to make it indicate the date of his commentary. According to this interpretation, it was written on the day of śivarātri i. e. the 13th day of the brighter half of the lunar month of Phālguna, in the fifty-third year of Kalit. He has not stated the century: it is, therefore, not possible to fix his time. He does not appear to be a very old writer,

(VI.) BHASKARA KANTHA. He is the little known writer of the only available commentary on Abhinava’s Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, called Bhāskari. It is a very learned commentary and gives the traditional interpretation of Abhinava’s text. Although it presupposes sufficient previous study of the Saiva literature of Kashmir on the part of the reader in order that he may be able to understand it and needs elaboration, yet, in view of the fact that the tradition about the pratyabhijñā literature is well-nigh dead, a proper under standing of Abhinava’s Vimarsini is extremely difficult without its help. This difficulty the writer of these pages himself felt for a very long time when he had to struggle with the text before the discovery of the commentary. Many points would have remained doubtful and many more would have been misunderstood but for the help that could

Bh. S., Comm., (MS.)

152

CHAPTER IV

be got from this at the last stage. A copy of it is in the possession of the present writer. It has been edited and will soon be published along with translation, in English, of Abhinava’s Vimarsinī, which is practically ready. The author of the Bhaskarī tried, in his own way, to make it as simple as possible so much so that he felt the necessity of explaining the particular method of exposition that he had adopted, by stating in his introduction “Svasutādi bodhanārtham.”

He was of the Dhaumyāyana Gotra. The names of his grand-father and father were Vaidurya Kantha and Avatāra Kantha respectively. He married and had a son, Jagannātha Kantha. His teacher’s name was Kaula? Narottama.

HIS DATE.

He does not say anything about the time of his life or that of the composition of his works. On enquiry, however, from his living descendants, it has been found that he was six generations removed from the present. We can, therefore, safely say that he belonged to the later half of the 18th century A. D.

HIS WORKS.

Besides his commentary on the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī which he called “Bhāskarī” after his own name, he wrote the following works :

Sanskrit Translation of LALLA VĀK.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the Lallā Vak was a Saivaite work in the old Kashmiri written by a woman in about the 14th century A. D.

1., 2., Bh. (MS.)

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

153

Commentary on YOGA VĀŚIṣTHA.

It consisted of one lac and ten thousand verses, according to his own statement in his introduction to the Bhāskarī. But only a few fragments of it are now left with his present descendants. This presents a Saivaite interpretation of the text.

HARṣEŚVARA STAVA.

It was written by him, as the tradition says, on the occasion of his visit to the temple of Harṣeśvara in Kashmir.

The names of his successors are given below in the order of their succession :

(Bhāskara Kantha). 2. Jagannatha. 3. Maṇi Kantha. 4. Somānanda. 5. Gana Kantha 6. Mahānanda.
Viśveśvara. The writers directly influenced by Abhinava.

(I.) KṣEMENDRA.

Is he identical with Kṣemarāja ? The only reason for identifying the one with the other is probably a scribal mistake which gives the name of Ksemendra instead of that of Kṣemarāja in the colophons of the Spanda Sandoha and the Spanda Nirnaya. These works have now been published and their colophons have the name of the latter (Kṣemarāja) and not that of the former. The colophon of the Spanda Nirnaya, for instance, reads as follows:

“Krtiḥ śrī Pratyabhijñākāra praśisya Mahāmāheśvarā

cārya Srimad Abhinavaguptanāthadattopadeśasya Śrī Kṣemarājasyeti śivam.”

154

CHAPTER IV

A careful study of the works of Abhinava and those of Kṣemarāja gives a sufficiently clear idea of the personality of Kṣemarāja as separate from that of his younger contemporary Kṣemendra. We have represented the Tantrāloka to be a production of the first period of Abhinava’s literary activity to which the Krama Stotra belongs. It must have, therefore, been written in about 990 A. D. At that time Ksemarāja, the first-mentioned cousin of Abhinava, was sufficiently educated to understand the intri cacies of the monistic Tantras so as to be prompted to join others in requesting Abhinava to write the Tantrāloka :

“Anye pitryyatanayāḥ śivasaktiśubhrāh

Kṣemotpalābhinaya-Cakraka-Padmaguptāh.

Anyopi kaścana janah śivasaktipāta Sampreraṇāparavasah svakaśaktisārthah Abhyarthanāvimukhabhāvamaśikṣitena Tenāpyanugrahapadam krta eṣa vargah

Ācāryam abhyarthayate sma gādham Sampūrṇa tantrādhigamāya samyak

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

And the circumstantial evidence is clear enough to show that he began his literary activity either during the last years of his teacher’s social life or immediately after the latter’s entering into the cave sometime after the year 1015. The period of his literary activity, therefore, falls between 1015 and 1040. But if we identify the two we shall have to allow a period of half a century for the literary activity of one person, because the last dated work of Kṣemendra, Daśāvatāra Carita, was finished, as he states,” in 1066 A. D.

1 D. C., Conclusion.

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

155

Kṣemendra, not only bears a different name but has another name also “Vyāsadāsa” which he almost invariably gives along with the former, but which is never to be found coupled with Kṣemarāja’s name. His connection also with Abhinava cannot at all be said to have been so close as that of Kṣemarāja, for, he refers to Abhinava, so far as we know, only once i. e. in the Mahābhārata Mañjarī, wherein he speaks of having heard Abhinava’s lectures on poetics :

“Acāryasekharamaner vidyāvivstikāriṇah

Srutvābhinavaguptākhyāt sahityam bodhavāridheh.”

We know that even today there is a marked difference between S’iṣya and Srotā. The difference may be said to be similar to that which exists in the present-day colleges between a registered and a casual student. Further, Kṣemarāja probably used to live in Bijbihāra (Vijayeśvara) which he mentions as the place of composition of his commentary on the Stava Cintāmaṇi :

“Tenārthipranayad dinaistricaturair yāṁ Kṣemarājo

vyadhāt Ksetre Sri Vijayeśvarasya vimale saiṣā śivārādhanī.” But Kṣemendra states Tripureśasaila as his place of residence in one of the concluding lines in his Mahābhārata Manjarī :

“Prakhyātātiśayasya tasya tanayah Kṣemendra-nāmā

bhavat Tena Sri Tripureśa-sailaśikhare viśrāntisantoṣiṇā.”

In the opinion of Dr. Būhler, referred to by Dr. De in H. S. P., P. 141, the only thing that can finally settle the question, under discussion, is the discovery of the name of Ksemarāja’s father. We may, therefore, add here what little information we have been able to collect on this point. We have already shown how Kṣemarāja is identical with

156

CHAPTER IV

Kṣema, mentioned in the Tantrāloka, as one of the cousins (pitrvyatanaya) of Abhinava, for, he refers to himself by the abbreviated form, found in the Tantraloka, in his own Pratyabhijñā Hrdaya. We know the name of one uncle (pitrvya) of Abhinava referred to in A. Bh., P. 297. We cannot, however, definitely say that he was the father of Kṣemarāja. For, there can be pointed out a possibility of Abhinava’s having had more than one uncle, and therefore, of the name of Kṣemarāja’s father having been different from that of Abhinava’s uncle who is referred to in A. Bh. But there cannot be any such possibility about Kṣemaraja’s grand-father, who also had a different name from that of Kṣemendra’s grand-father. We have stated in the 1st chapter that the name of Abhinava’s grand-father was Varāhagupta. Therefore, if Kṣemarāja was Abhinava’s cousin, as we have shown before that he was, it naturally follows that Varahagupta was the grand father of Kṣemarāja also. But Kṣemendra’s grand-father, according to the Maha bhārata Mañjarī, was Nimnāśaya : “Kaśmireṣu babhūva sindhuradhikah sindhośca nimnāśayah Prāptastasya guṇaprakarsayaśasaḥ putrah Prakāśendratām

Prakhyātātisayasya tasya tanayah Kṣemendra-nāmābhavat.”

M. B. M. After stating the above arguments we leave it now to the reader to pronounce the final verdict.

HIS DATE. There cannot be two opinions about the time of his literary activity, because two of his works are dated. The year of completion of Samaya Mātrkā is stated to be 1050 A. D. in the reign of King Ananta of Kashmir and that of the Daśāvatāra Carita 1066 A. D. when King Kalasa was occupying the throne of Kashmir.HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

157

HIS WORKS. 1. NRPĀVALI. (R. T., I, 13) 2. MAHĀBHĀRATA MAÑJARI. 3. RĀMĀYAṇA KATHA SARA. 4. CARUCARYA. (Kashmir Cat. MS. No. 347) 5. Nīti KALPA TARU. Do. 351. 6. DAŚĀVATĀRA CARITA. 7. SAMAYA MĀTRKĀ. 8. SUVRTTA TILAKA. 9. BRHATKATHĀ MANJARI (J. Cat. MS. No. 81) 10. AUCITYA VICĀRA CARCĀ.

(For complete list consult H. S. P., P. 142).

ABHINAVA’S INFLUENCE IN POETICS.

We are not writing a history of Sanskrit poetics. Our object is only to explain the importance of the author who is studied in these pages. It is, therefore, unnecessary to deal with the later writers on poetics separately. Suffice it to say that with perhaps the only exception of Mahima Bhatta, who was probably Abhinava’s younger contemporary and who, in his Vyakti Viveka, has tried to explode the theory of Dhvani, all the writers on poetics, who came after Abhinava, for instance, Mammaṭa in his Kāvyaprakāśa, Hema Chandra in his Kāvyānuśāsana, Visvanātha in his Sāhitya Darpana, Sāradā Tanaya in his Bhāva Prakāśa. Appayya Dīkṣita in his Kuvalayānanda etc., Pandit Jagannātha in his Rasagangādhara, and Mahāmaho pādhyāya Govinda in his Kāvya Pradīpa, follow Abhinava’s theory of Rasa and Dhvani and most of them extensively quote him, and that the Sarigīta Ratnakara and the Srigara Ratnākara are more or less simply versifications of parts of Abhinaya’s commentary on Bharata’s Nātya Sastra.

158

CHAPTER IV HIS INFLUENCE IN PRATYABHIJNA PHILOSOPHY AND

TANTRIC RITUALISM. Pratyabhijña philosophy may be said to be practically dead, for, even in Kashmir there are to be found only three or four Pandits who, to some extent, are still in possession of the old tradition ; but they too, for want of both, encourage ment and enthusiastic and hard-working students, can, with difficulty, remember what was handed down to them. When the writer of these pages approached them for information on some of Abhinava’s texts, one of them very frankly said that he was approached for the first time in his life for such information. The case with Saiva rituals, however, is different. Such of them as are connected with the house. holder’s life are still performed in many Brāhmaṇa families: and in regard to them Abhinava’s Tantrāloka is supposed to be (shall we say ?) the final court of appeal. In earlier times, however, Pratyabhijñā philosophy had its powerful exponents and staunch followers not only in Kashmir but also in as far distant places as Cola country; and all of them acknow ledged Abhinavagupta to be the chief authority on it. Mādhava, for instance, who was so closely connected with his contemporary King of Vijayanagar, in his Sarva Darsana Sangraha, acknowledges Abhinava to be the chief exponent of and authority on the Pratyabhijñā.

We cannot close the chapter without substantiating our statement in the preceding paragraph, by speaking a little on two writers on the Trika philosophy to show Abhinava’s influence in places far distant from Kashmir and on the continuity of the literary productions on his lines for several centuries.

(I) MAHESVARĀNANDA. Maheśvarānanda, son of Mādhava, belonged to Cola. (1) M. M., 202.

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

159

He was a pupil of Mahāprakāśa’ and was an avowed follower of Abhinava, whom he so frequently quotes, and whose method of writing he follows. He attributes his proficiency in poetics to his careful study of the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana and his knowledge of the Self to his following the path of Pratyabhijñā.’ His teacher and grand teacher also belonged to the same country and wrote on philosophical subjects on which Abhinava himself had written. Abhinava was interested in and made important contributions to the Krama system, such as the Kramakeli, as we pointed out in the second chapter. Maheśvarānanda’s Parama Guru was also similarly interested in and contributed to the aforesaid system at least two known works, the Krama Vāsanā and the Rjuvimarsinī, of which we know from references to them in the Mahārtha Mañjarī, pages 115 and 178 respectively. His teacher also, like Abhinava, was interested in the Pratyabhijñā and wrote the Ananda Tandava Vilāsa Stotra in which the Pratyabhjñā conception of the universe is embodied, as is clear both from the quotation and the context:

“Yadabhipretya Srī Pratyabhijñāyām uktam :

Visvarūpoham idam ityakhandānanda brmhitah’ iti’. «Yaccoktam asmadgurubhih Ananda Tandava Vilāsa

Stotre : Vayar tvimām viśvatayāvabhānam Bahirmukhasyāsya tavonmukhasya Svasamhitam viśvavilāpanodyat Svatantratānandamayīm manāmah.”

M. M., 166.

(1) M. M., 1. (2) M. M., 202. (3) M. M., 202

160

CHAPTER IV

According to him, Mahārtha, Mahānaya or Krama Darśana is not very much different from the Trika Darśana :

“Anena Sri Mahārtha Trika-darśanayoh anyonyarh nātyantam bhedapratheti vyākhyātam.”

M.M., 96.

Mahārtha Mañjarī with his own commentary, Parimala, is the only work of his that is available so far. About other works, we know only from references in the above-mentioned commentary. The following is the list of his known works :

MAHĀRTHA MAÑJARI. 2. PARIMALA. 3. SAMVIDULLĀSA (Referred to in M. M., P. 78). 4. PADUKODAYA.

Do.

1. MAHĀRTHODAYA. Do.
1. SŪKTA. 7. PARĀ STOTRA.

Do.

1. KUNDALĀBHARAṇA. 9. MUKUNDA KELI.
1. KOMALA VALLI. 11. NAKHA PRATĀPA.

Do.

It may be pointed out here that like Abhinava he also gives the gist of the subject-matter in the introduction to his available commentary.

(II) VARADA RĀJA alias KrṣṇADĀSA.

He is perhaps the latest known writer on the Kashmir Saiva philosophy. We have not so far been able to find any internal or external evidence to fix his date and place. But from his style and method of treatment of the subject he does not appear to have come very soon after the eminent Saiva writers, of whom we have given an account in the

HIS IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE

161

preceding pages. The only work of this writer that we have known is

SIYA SūTRA VĀRTIKA. It is a Vārtika on the famous śiva Sūtra of Vasugupta. There is nothing original in it. It is a mere versification of Kṣemarāja’s commentary, the Vimarsinī. The author also very frankly says that he follows Ksemarāja’s commentary on the śiva Sūtral and incorporates much of what was found in an earlier Vārtika. The little, that he says about himself, is that he was the youngest son of Madhurāja and that his family followed Saivaism.

S. S. V., 1-2. 2. S. S. V., 48.