Torrella - paramAdvaita

Source: TW

A Vaiṣṇava Paramādvaita in 10th-Century Kashmir? The Work of Vāmanadatta RAFFAELE TORELLA

Bhāgavatotpala, more widely known in Kashmir under the name Utpalavaiṣṇava,¹ scattered his commentary on the Spandakārikā (Spandapradīpikā, henceforth SpPr) with often striking quotations from a work entitled Saṃvitprakāśa (henceforth SP), sometimes paired with another work entitled Ātmasaptati, their tone and content looking closely related to each other.

If we know the name of author, which neither Bhāgavatotpala nor later authors ever mentioned, we owe it to Jayaratha, the diligent commentator of Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka (henceforth TĀ). TĀ 5.154cd-155ab reads:

nīle pīte sukhe duḥkhe
citsvarūpam akhaṇḍitam |
gurubhir bhāṣitaṃ tasmād
upāyeṣu vicitratā ||

In blue, yellow, pleasure and pain the very nature of consciousness remains undivided: this has been said by the master.

Therefore, there is diversity as regards the means [only]. “By the master,” Jayaratha says in his commentary (vol. III, p. 467), “namely by Vāmanadattācārya in the SP.”(5)

This passage is not found in the mss. of the SP (see below), but we can still give credit to Jayaratha’s attribution, since the śloka, this time in full, is quoted in SpPr p. 18 (Dyczkowski ed.) as belonging to the SP,
and moreover it recurs unchanged in the Lakṣmītantra (henceforth LT),
which incorporates many verses from the SP (see below).
The colophons of the Ātmasaptati and the other four Prakaraṇas which follow the SP in the extant mss. also mention his name as the author.
Vāmanadatta most probably lived around the middle of 10th century.
The earliest authors to quote from him are the aforementioned Bhāgavatotpala, and Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha in the Mṛgendravṛtti (see below).
Bhāgavatotpala, who quotes Utpaladeva (the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā, henceforth ĪPK)² but not Abhinavagupta,
probably belongs to the second half of the 10th century.
Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha belongs approximately to the same period,
given that he also quotes Utpaladeva (the Īśvarasiddhi) ³ and that his son Rāmakaṇṭha is quoted by Abhinavagupta⁴ (and Kṣemarāja – he is the kairaṇavyākhyātṛ referred to in the Svacchandoddyota, vol. I, p. 322).
The colophons of the SP and the other Prakaraṇas indicate that Vāmanadatta is from Kashmir and a brahmin,
and they introduce us to his particular doctrinal position:

ekāyane prasūtasya
kaśmīreṣu dvijātmanaḥ |
kṛtir vāmanadattasya… ||

The mention of the Ekāyana testifies to Vāmanadatta’s affiliation to the Pāñcarātra. The followers of the Pāñcarātra refer to one Ekāyanaveda which they consider the essence and primordial source of the four Vedas and also call “secret tradition” (Īśvarasaṃhitā 21.531: ādyam ekāyanaṃ vedaṃ rahasyāmnāyasaṃjñitam).

The lost Kāśmirāgamaprāmāṇya of Yāmuna, according to what the author himself says in his main work, the Āgamaprāmāṇya (p. 79), dealt with the non-human nature of the Ekāyana-branch.
In another passage of the Āgamaprāmāṇya (p. 40) Yāmuna points out that the Ekāyanaśākhins upheld – against the śaivas – the birth, i.e. the limited nature, of Rudra.(4)

By crossing the references given in the Haravijaya and the Nareśvaraparīkṣā (SANDERSON 2009, pp. 107- 108), we have in Kashmir two subdivisions of Pāñcarātra: Ekāyanas and followers of Saṁkarṣaṇaśāstra, corresponding to Saṁhitā Pāñcarātra and Saṁkarṣaṇa Pāñcarātra, respectively.

[[427]]

However, a later Saṁhitā, the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, links the Ekāyanaveda with Saṁkarṣaṇa (CZERNIAK-DROĵDĵOWICZ forthcoming),
the Ekāyanas receiving the appellation of Āgamasiddhāntins,
against the Vaidika termed Mantrasiddhāntins.⁵
According to the Pādmasaṃhitā, the Ekāyanas are a very special kind of Bhāgavatas:
they do not need initiation into Pāñcarātra, being so to speak born Pāñcarātrins (CZERNIAK-DROĵDĵOWICZ forthcoming).(5)
The presence of Vaiṣṇavism in Kashmir from early times is extensively documented by archeological and literary evidence,⁶
just as it seems probable that some of the Pāñcarātra Saṁhitās (cited apparently for the first time in the SpPr) were elaborated in Kashmir.
Indeed, the SP is a stuti dedicated to Viṣṇu,
and in it and the other Prakaraṇas several doctrinal references that are peculiar to the Pāñcarātra can be found,
such as, for instance, the doctrine of the vyūhas in Prakaraṇa ⁴.

However, as we shall see,
this is a Pāñcarātra interpreted in a strictly non-dualistic sense,
which makes it fully consonant with the contemporary schools of non-dual śaivism.
Many śaiva masters do not hesitate to quote Vāmanadatta’s work as an authority
alongside other authoritative purely śaiva texts and to support śaiva doctrines.(5)
This gives the impression that the adhesion to a certain spiritual climate in the Kashmir of the time
represented such a strong element of affinity, at the most elevated levels,
that it succeeded in overcoming sectarian and doctrinal differences.

One may also quote another example, that of Bhaṭṭa Divākaravatsa,
belonging approximately to the same period (SANDERSON 2007, p. 255), and author of two works, the Kakṣyāstotra and the Vivekāñjana, which are quoted as authorities by śaiva authors, like Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja, despite their Pāñcarātra contents.
This may appear all the more surprising
when one thinks that the relations between śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas had often been –
and were to become even more so in the future –
such as to cast a shadow over the alleged tolerance of Hinduism (cf. DASGUPTA 1932, p. 18; GONDA 1970, pp. 93-94).(4)

Even when coexistence is, after all, peaceful, as in the Kashmir of the time,
śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas do not go beyond a generic acknowledgement of the limited and provisional truth of the other,
which is only admitted if subordinated to the absolute truth represented by one’s own creed.
This is particularly evident in the Vaiṣṇavas, who are much more oriented than the śaivas towards the ekāntavāda (cf. GONDA 1970, p. 93).
Anyhow, we see that in India even when one religious community accepts the partial truth of another,
the delimitation between the respective authoritative texts tends to remain rigid.(5)
śaivas and Pāñcarātrins are no exception to this.
In criticizing the validity of the scriptures belonging to the Pāśupatas, Kālamukhas, Kāpālikas and śaivas (Āgamaprāmāṇya p. 44), Yāmuna says:

As the authoritativeness of these Tantras is already vitiated by their mutual contradictions,
it is not really necessary for them to be rejected with the stick of the Veda. […]
Let it not be said, how could Rudra, who is very trustworthy,
promulgate such a vast collection of texts which are not authoritative ? […]
Or else one may reason that since Rudra may have composed such a system
for the purpose of deceiving the world because he is known as a promulgator of deceitful doctrines,
it is not even necessary to assume error on his part.
(Transl. BUITENEN 1971, p. 71.)

It is known, on the other hand, that Kṣemarāja in the Pratyabhijñāhṛdaya relegates the Pāñcarātra
to a very humble position on the scale of principles.⁷

The figure of Vāmanadatta does not have any place in the later Vaiṣṇava tradition,
in which sectarian elements tend to prevail.
He survives only indirectly since several stanzas of the SP are found to be incorporated or paraphrased in the LT (particularly in Chapter 14),
a relatively late and eclectic text,(5)
which only begins to be considered an authority from the time of Vedāntadeśika onwards (GUPTA 1972, p. xx).⁸

[[429]]

Bhāgavatotpala, an author whose doctrinal and religious affiliation is very close to Vāmanadatta’s (and Pāñcarātra’s),⁹ and who quotes him so frequently,
aims to illuminate and support the doctrine of the Spanda with an equal share of Vaiṣṇava and śaiva authorities.
He cites (p. 12) two passages, from a śaiva and a Pāñcarātrin work, now both lost,
that indicate the existence of a tolerant and all-comprehensive stratum of the two opposing schools
that recognised each other as being united in non-duality.

The Pāñcarātra text, the Māyāvāmanasaṃhitā, reads:

viṣṇu-śiva-sūrya-buddhādi-rūpatayā
tat-tac-chakti-cakra-parivāra-yutas
tat-kāraṇaṃ bhagavān eka eva
dhyāna-bhedenopāsyatvenābhihitaḥ.(5)

In the form of Viṣṇu, śiva, Sūrya, Buddha etc. and accompanied by the retinue of the various powers of which he is the sole cause, one is the Blessed One,
variously named depending on the different kinds of meditation and the diverse rites.

And the śaiva text, the Kulayukti:

vedānte vaiṣṇave śaive
saure bauddhe ’nyato ’pi ca |
eka eva paraḥ svātmā
jñātā jñeyaṃ maheśvari ||

In Vedānta, in Viṣṇuism, in śaivism, in the Saura sect, in Buddhism and so on, one is the supreme, the own self, the knower and the knowable, O Maheśvarī.¹⁰

No mention of Vāmanadatta and his works (or of Bhāgavatotpala) is to be found in the extant works of Yāmuna,
the first great systemizer and defender of the Pāñcarātra tradition,
who must have lived a little later than Vāmanadatta (we must however take into account that his Kāśmīrāgamaprāmāṇya has not come down to us);
nor is it in Vedāntadeśika or in Rāmānuja.
The later Pāñcarātra tradition, once it firmly turned towards the viśiṣṭādvaita,
erased the memory not only of Vāmanadatta, but also of a whole series of Vaiṣṇava texts apparently grounded on non-duality,
whose existence is testified by Bhāgavatotpala’s quotations,
for instance the Jñānasaṃbodha, the Jābalīsūtra, the ṣāḍguṇyaviveka and others.

Vāmanadatta’s teaching, on the contrary, was held in great respect by the śaiva authors.
Primarily by those who belonged to the great and variegated non-dual tradition, but not by them alone; in fact,
the first śaiva to quote him is the siddhāntin Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha,
who in the above-mentioned passage (Mṛgendravṛtti, vidyāpāda, p.153) quotes with approval,
without citing the author or the title,
two verses belonging to Prakaraṇa 2 (6, 56).
The first of these two verses is also quoted in the chapter of the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha on the śaivadarśana,
but in order to forestall drawing the mistaken conclusion that the Ātmasaptati was known to Mādhava,
it must be said, as I have shown elsewhere (TORELLA 1979),
that the chapter on the śaivadarśana is not much more than a clever collage of passages that Mādhava has taken from Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s Mṛgendravṛtti and Aghoraśiva’s Tattvaprakāśavṛtti.

The author who most extensively quotes from Vāmanadatta’s works is Bhāgavatotpala.
The total number of verses quoted is 42,¹¹ and they are all to be found in Prakaraṇa 1 (the SP), with the exception of six (five belonging to Prakaraṇa 2 and one to Prakaraṇa 5).
Another literal quotation, this time from Prakaraṇa 2 (v. 30), can be found in Abhinavagupta’s Parātrīśikāvivaraṇa (p. 214); a passage of his Tantrasāra (henceforth TS) may contain a reminiscence of a verse of SP.¹²

Other quotations from Vāmanadatta’s Prakaraṇas are found in Maheśvarānanda’s MMP,¹³ śivopādhyāya’s Vijñānabhairavoddyota, ¹⁴ Kṣemarāja’s Stavacintāmaṇivivṛti¹⁵ and Bhāskarakaṇṭha’s commentary on the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī.¹⁶

[[431]]

The passage from the TĀ cited above permits us to touch on another question to which, however, it is not possible to obtain a definite answer, namely whether Abhinavagupta had been a disciple of Vāmanadatta.
The fact that Abhinavagupta calls him gurubhiḥ is not cogent in itself, since the term may have been used in a generic sense.

Of the SP and the other Prakaraṇas only three mss. have come down to us,¹⁷ all of them incomplete. Two printed editions are available (only based on mss. A and B), one by M. Dyczkowski and one by Bh. P. Tripathi, both of them quite problematic with respect to the reading of the mss. and the emendations proposed.¹⁸

As we have seen, the work is divided into Prakaraṇas.
SP is the title of the first one¹⁹ and was later extended by some, including the two editors referred to above, to the whole work.
The SpPr, probably the oldest source for this collection of texts, uses the title Saṃvitprakāśa only for verses belonging to the first Prakaraṇa,²⁰ and Ātmasaptati²¹ for closely related verses, quite similar both in content and style to the SP. All the latter verses come indeed from Prakaraṇa 2, entitled Ātmasaptati²² in mss. B and C, and Ātmasaṃstuti in ms. A.²³

It is clear that Bhāgavatotpala considers the SP and Ātmasaptati as two distinct works.[^24] Instead, Maheśvarānanda ascribes to SP one verse belonging to Prakaraṇa 2 (MMP, p. 21) and two verses belonging to Prakaraṇa 3 (ibid., p. 25).[^25] Even admitting that it was Vāmanadatta himself that collected different treatises composed by him into a single work, he does not appear to have given this collection a particular title.

Prakaraṇa 1 has the peculiar character of a philosophical stuti to Hari, also showing here and there subtle emotional nuances.
The second mostly lacks these features, even though Vāmanadatta still calls it saṃstuti. ²⁴
These features are altogether absent in the other Prakaraṇas, which makes rather unlikely the hypothesis that the Prakaraṇas as a whole might have had the collective title of Viṣṇustuti. ²⁵ Of the 160 ślokas that Vāmanadatta himself mentions in one of the closing verses of Prakaraṇa 128 only 140 have survived. The title and the number of the extant verses of the other Prakaraṇas are as follows: ātmasaptati (vv. 60), vikalpaviplava (vv. 60), vidyāviveka (vv. 98), varṇavicāra (vv. 52), paramārthaprakāśa (vv. 27).29 The Srinagar ms. A has seven and half more verses, belonging to a seventh Prakaraṇa, after which the ms. ends abruptly. B and C end with the colophon of verses (79) that composed it. The confusion might have been caused by the previous part of the colophon of Prakaraṇa 2:

imaṃ vāmanadattena
vihitām ātmasaṃstutim |
adhigamya vimucyate
jantavo bhavaviplavāt ||. [^24]

See SpPr pp. 37-38:

uktaṃ hi svātmasaptatau [read: hy ātmasaptatau] yadvad
vastu svabhāvena jñānena viṣayīkṛtam |
tadvat tādātmyam āyāti
jīvaḥ sarvamayo hy ataḥ ||

iti |
anyat saṃvitprakaraṇe –

yathāgninā samāviṣṭaṃ
sarvaṃ tadrūpam īkṣyate |
tathā jñānasamāviṣṭaṃ
sarvaṃ tadrūpam īkṣyatām ||

iti. [^25]

The fact that Maheśvarānanda uses a single title, i.e. the title of Prakaraṇa 1, also for verses coming from other Prakaraṇas,
has only one precedent, but an important one,
that of the SpPr referred to above, n. 20.
One may surmise that, even though Saṃvitprakāśa is definitely the specific title only of Prakaraṇa 1,
the intrinsic importance and renown of the latter and its occuring first in the collection of Prakaraṇas (and also being by far the longest) may have sporadically given the occasion of an extended appellation.

[[433]]

Prakaraṇa 6, both having a lacuna between 4.90 and 6.22. The devanāgarī MS in the BORI Library bearing the title of SP has nothing to do with Vāmanadatta’s work.

We are left with a preliminary question:
what happened in the Vaiṣṇava circles immediately before the time of Abhinavagupta
to make at least three significant Pāñcarātra authors – Vāmanadatta, Bhaṭṭa Divākaravatsa and Bhāgavatotpala –
enter into the philosophical and spiritual orbit of their śaiva adversaries?
It has also been suggested the possibility of the inverted path (SANDERSON 2009a, p. 108),
that is, the birth of the non-dual śaiva philosophy from the influence of these eccentric Vaiṣṇava developments (in primis, Vāmanadatta’s Prakaraṇas), a possibility that seems to me rather unlikely.
It is not single points, but a whole constellation of typically śaiva themes that can be found there,
particularly linked to the complex philosophical world of Utpaladeva.

If, in this presentation of some aspects of Vāmanadatta’s work,
I mainly focus on Prakaraṇas 1 and 2 it is because,
apart from their probably being in themselves his most significant texts,
they are by far the most quoted by the śaiva authors.

First of all, in the complex mosaic of a philosophical stuti,
written in a refined kāvya style, the SP proper, we find,
within an undoubtedly Pāñcaratra doctrinal framework,
a fascinating blend of rigourous speculation and devotional poetry,
which at first sight reminds us of the then rising star of Utpaladeva,
the actual founder of Pratyabhijñā, more or less contemporary to Vāmanadatta (and also often referrred to by Bhāgavatotpala),
with his collection of śaiva stotras.
The other Prakaraṇas share the same philosophical and spiritual attitude as the SP without, however, the bhakti nuances of the latter
and the sense of intimate dialogue with Hari, emphasized by the frequent vocatives (nātha, prabhu, bhagavan, etc.) and above all by the constant addressing him as tvam. ²⁶

Some of the fundamental themes of Utpaladeva – unobjectifibility of consciousness, subject/object relationship and problematicity of the very notion of viṣaya – recur in several stanzas of the SP and Ātmasaptati: ²⁷

2.5. The self cannot be object of cognition for anybody,
what is other than it is not logically admissible.
From the differentiation of the knowable derives the differentiation of the means of knowledge.
If there is no such differentiation, then what might produce the differentiation [of knowledge]?

2.6. If the self were knowable, its knower would be “other”; but then the self would be[come] “other.” “Other,” in fact, is what is the object of knowledge.
2.56. Consciousness alone shines; that which is other from it is illuminated. What is illuminated is the object, and how can the object subsist without a subject?
1.10. Just as whatever is penetrated by fire is seen as being of the same essence as fire, in the same manner whatever is penetrated by consciousness is to be seen as being of the same essence as consciousness.
1.11. An intrinsic and definite status is inconceivable for things,
dependent as they are on a subject that knows them, and consequently they can only manifest themselves, by their very nature, as having the knower as their essence.
1.12. The fact that things have You as their essence, no one disputes.
Their capacity of being known demonstrates this: indeed, only that which in itself is light may be made to shine.²⁸
1.24. If knowledge (vedanam) knows something after bringing the knowable object to having knowledge as its own form, then how to speak of knowable object and knowing subject (vedakatā) as two distinct realities?²⁹

2.8. “Making [something] an object of knowledge” – the wise ones say in this connection – is the same as “making [it] one’s own.” What is universally accepted for any other reality, why should it not be so for consciousness?
2.9. What has not been made its own by consciousness (saṃvidāsvīkṛtaṃ) cannot be termed “object of knowledge” (viṣaya).³⁰

[[435]]

[But] what has been made its own by a certain entity becomes identical with such entity. [Then,] how can the very designation of “object of knowledge” stand?³¹-

2.35. While knowledge can shine autonomously being separated from the senses and without being muddied by the objects of knowledge, the same cannot be said of the object of knowledge.
2.36. It is said in this connection that in order to make known the objects of knowledge the three means of knowledge work separately being concerned with distinct classes of objects of knowledge. [But] the same does not hold for knowledge.

Another favourite topic of Utpaladeva’s discourse is the alleged externality of the object of knowledge (ĪPK 1.8.5, 1.8.7; cf. TORELLA 2002, pp. 148-150). In the same vein, Vāmanadatta says:

2.32. Even establishing the other as other is not possible until the other is assimilated by the self, since only when it is known does the other become the other. 2.44. If it were possible to define an object as being external even when it has entered one’s consciousness, then it would be external to consciousness itself, so how could it be said to be “its” [of consciousness]? 2.45. If, on the other hand, it has not entered one’s consciousness, how can its existence be known, since only consciousness has the task of hunting down being and non-being?

The examination of the nature of relation is closely connected with Utpaladeva’s treatment of the same topic in ĪPK 1.2.10-11 (TORELLA 2002, pp. 95-98), 2.4.14 (TORELLA 2002, p. 183) and the Sambandhasiddhi.

2.17. There can be no relationship between two things complete and realised in themselves (siddha), because all expectation is lacking between them; and not even between two that are not realised and established, because as such they would not exist. So any relationship in reality does not exist. 2.54. What is real/existing (satāṃ) is without any such “requiring” because it is already complete and realised in itself, nor conversely is “non-requiring” possible in what is non-existent owing to its non-realisation. Things lacking “dependency” have neither the nature of the knower nor of the knowable.

The status of cause presupposes sentiency. Only the conscious agent subject can be a causal agent (ĪPK 2.4.1-21; cf. TORELLA 2002, pp. 175-188).

1.63. It is well known that everything has You as cause, since Your presence is apparent in everything. Given that everything shows the presence of consciousness, the cause [of everything] cannot be something without consciousness. 2.22. Whatever is denied the quality of active subject cannot assume the role of instrument, etc. […] Vāmanadatta appears also reminiscent of how Utpaladeva deals with the theme of memory in ĪPK 1.2.3, 1.3.1ff. (cf. TORELLA 2007b). 1.20. You, always omniscient, are present in the heart of everyone: if this were not so, how otherwise could one account for memory, whose object is something that no longer exists?

The presence of Bhartr̥hari’s teaching is evident at several places of Vāmanadatta’s works,
and, as is well known, it was through Utpaladeva that Bhartr̥hari became one of the main pillars of nondual śaiva philosophy (TORELLA 2009).(5)

1.7. It is merely a question of the power of the word: that is, the fact that it brings about a fragmentation of the real, which itself would be unitary, by virtue of a multiplicity of functions. 5.26. The word is the cause of all human activities: this is what reason shows, it is not only scripture that says so. In fact, there is no operation whatsoever without the work of discursive thought, nor is there discursive thought without the word.

The concept of pratibhā as the ultimate ground for the means of knowledge
appears to be nourished with Utpaladeva’s ideas as expressed particularly in the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti (in turn, being a development of Bhartr̥hari’s doctrine):³²

2.37. Sensorial knowledge derives directly from the object, inferential knowledge comes from the relation [between objects]; it has been said

[[437]]

that they [sensorial knowledge and inferential knowledge] are the root of āgama. No other means of knowledge exists. 2.38. It is required that, in turn, these three means of knowledge have intuition as their own soul, otherwise it would impossible to account for ascertainment of truth and error. 2.39ab. Intuition is only known by introspective self-awareness; it is present in a form exempt from succession (akramātmikā) within the various activities.37 Just like Utpaladeva, Vāmanadatta makes frequent use of the simile of the mirror or crystal and the reflection on them to account for the relationship between consciousness and the images of the allegedly external objects. 1.51. Just as the child has no separate cognition of the mirror without his face [reflected in it], just so he who is not wise does not grasp the consciousness from which the knowable has been extracted. 1.54-56. Just as the true nature of a crystal continuously coloured by other things is not perceived owing to its excessive transparency, in the same way, O Blessed One, Your own body, which is united with the various beings, owing to its absolute limpidity is not perceived without them. Neither for this [reason] can we affirm that such a crystal does not exist separately from whatever colours it, or that the pure body of consciousness does not exist once liberated from the form of things. 1.57-59. Just as it is impossible to indicate separately the intrinsic existence of a universal from which all particulars have been removed – but this does not imply that it does not exist –, and just as it is impossible to indicate the intrinsic existence of gold once it has been freed from its various forms, such as earring, etc. – but this does not imply that it does not exist –, so be it said of Your permanent, intimate, pure nature, once pleasure and pain have been eliminated. It consists of consciousness, only knowable through introspective intimate awareness. 1.40. Pleasure and pain do not appear, discrimination has no firm ground: everything appears the same once You, the sun of consciousness, rise.

1.41. For the blind You are the one in whom there is no darkness, for the deaf You are the one in whom the Voice never disappears. Starting from Brahmā to the animals, You are the same in the knowledge of everybody. Hari is present at all levels of ordinary reality. In fact, since everything is equally penetrated by Him, there is no real difference between mokṣa and saṃsāra. If the various ordinary reality can occur in its multifariousness it is precisely because of His constituting its permanent and undifferentiated basis (cf. ĪPK 2.3.15b samabhittitalopame; ĪPK 1.3.6-7, 2.4.19; cf. TORELLA 2002, pp.103-104, 186).

1.95. No ordinary activity – whether corporeal or verbal or mental – can take place if Thou, O Lord, art not already present in it and established beforehand.³³

1.89. Two persons who meet and speak of ordinary things thereby express something that however has You as its final subject, [even] without speaking of You [directly]. […] 1.36. Albeit directly perceptible, in that You transcend all conceptual processes, You are “forgotten” – like something in front of someone whose mind is elsewhere. 1.39. Lights do not shine if Your light does not rise. You are the only one that can truly be called light; all the others are like the darkness. 2.58. In actual fact, there is no bondage, and there being no bondage, there is no liberation either. These two entities are both fabricated by discursive thought and in themselves are nothing. 1.60. I bow to Brahman which is without specification, partless, outside space and time, light to itself, exclusively consisting of consciousness, perennially risen. 1.61. Were You not exempt from particularization among particulars, the comprehension of the particular would be impossible as everything resides in itself. 1.62. In You, Lord, who are the cause, there is no differentiation, then how could differentiation be in the effects forming this world? Therefore, o Padmanābha, the world is without differentiation.

[[439]]

1.64. You are the substratum of everything, made of everything and transcending everything. How is it possible that there be space and time in You, who are infinite and without action (niṣkriyātmani)?39 1.66. The wise ones know you to be what never declines from its own nature, what is not modified by other realities, what is not delimited by other realities, this permanent being You are. 1.67. Time, etc. arise from You with the aim of delimiting what can be delimited. But what can time etc. do to You, whose own form is immeasurable? In the motif of the presence of Hari, or consciousness, in the empty space that separates two physical realities, or two thoughts or sensorial experiences, or two phonemes in a word, we can detect Vāmanadatta’s acquaintance with the texts of the Spanda school and with śaiva scriptures such as the Vijñānabhairava. 40 1.4. The mind that, having expelled conceptual constructs, remains in the middle state, experiences there the immaculate flow of consciousness. 1.42. Always pure does this perception remain, albeit variegated according to the various forms. At the moment in which the passing from one form to another occurs, at that moment too perception is [fully] immaculate. 1.43. Just as a garment originally white and then dyed cannot take any other colour unless it first returns to its original white […] 1.44. [Just as] he who pronounces a phrase, how could he pass from one phoneme to another, if in the interval, he did not repose in You, who are pure consciousness? 1.45. In the same way, consciousness, which is pure by nature and assumes one form or another, stays pure in the interval between abandoning one form and passing on to another.

---

The season in which a few brilliant personalities of Pāñcarātra surrendered to the fascination by the philosophers and spiritual masters of the śaiva paramādvaita was short,
in any case lasting no more than three to four decades.
All the same, the mainstream of Pāñcarātra never forgave them, and committed them to disdainful oblivion.
Their memory however has survived for centuries in the śaiva circles,
proud perhaps of having attracted such brilliant outsiders.(5)

APPENDIX

VĀMANADATTA’S VERSES QUOTED IN THE PAPER (ACCORDING TO R. TORELLA’S FORTHCOMING EDITION)

A = Kāśmīri Devanāgari Ms (śrinagar); B =śāradā Ms (Benares); C = śāradā Ms (Göttingen); E = M.S.G. Dyczkowski edition; V = Bh.P. Tripathi (Vāgīśa śāstrī) edition 1.4. dūrāpāstavikalpena cetasā yo41 ’nubhūyate | madhyamāṃ vṛttim āsthāya sa saṃvitprasaro ’malaḥ || 1.7. kevalaṃ vākprabhāvo42 ’yaṃ yad abhinnam api svayam | vibhedayati sā vastu svetikartavyatāvaśāt 43 || 1.10. yathāgninā samāviṣṭaṃ sarvaṃ tadrūpam īkṣyate44 | tathā jñānasamāviṣṭaṃ sarvaṃ tadrūpam īkṣyatām 45 ||46

1.11. pramātrapekṣabhāveṣu 47 na hy avasthāvakalpate |

41 °na cetasā yo ABC, na cen māyā EV. (LT 14.12b cetasā yatra bhūyate; the more correct yena is the reading of mss. ADEFG). 42 vākprabhāvo AC, vākprabho then corrected to vākprabhāvo B, vākyabhāvo EV. 43 sā vastu svetikartavyatā° ABC, tad vastuṣv iti kartavyatā° EV. 44 īkṣyate CEV, īkṣyatām corrected to īkṣyate B, īkṣyatām A (īkṣyate cit. in SpPr, p. 38). 45 īkṣyatām EV, īkṣatām C; īkṣyatām cit. in SpPr, p. 38 (cf. LT 14.14 tathā saṃvitsamāviṣṭaṃ cetyaṃ saṃvittayekṣyate). 46 The ardhaśloka, omitted in AB, has been added in both mss. in the margin, where however it is only partly legible (sarvaṃ ta…kṣyate na sa… A, tathā jñā…rve? tadrūpaṃ ī… B). It is quoted in full in SpPr, p. 38. 47 °apekṣa° em, °apekṣā° ABC (in AB the original pramātṛ° has been then cor

[[441]]

yatas tataḥ prakāśantāṃ48 svayam eva tadātmanā || 1.12. tvadātmakatvaṃ bhāvānāṃ vivadante49 na kecana | yat prakāśyadaśāṃ yātā nāprakāśaḥ 50 prakāśyate51 || 1.20. sarvajñaḥ sarvadaiva tvaṃ sarvasya hṛdaye na cet | kenānyathāsya52 saṃbhāvyā naṣṭārthaviṣayā smṛtiḥ || 1.24. vedyaṃ svarūpatāṃ nītvā yadā jānāti vedanam53 | tadānīṃ vedyatā kā syāt kā vā vedakatāparā 54 || 1.36. vikalpātītarūpatvāt pratyakṣo ’py asi vismṛtaḥ | puraḥsthito yathā bhāvaś cetaso ’nyābhilāṣiṇaḥ || 1.39. na prakāśāḥ prakāśante55 tvatprakāśodayaṃ vinā | prakāśākhyas tvam eko ’taḥ sarve ’nye tamasā samāḥ || 1.40. sukhaduḥkhe na bhāsete56 viveko nāvatiṣṭhate | sarvaṃ 57 samaṃ samābhāti58 cidbhānāv udite tvayi || 1.41. andhānām apy anandhas tvaṃ 59 mūkānām anapāyivāk | āviriñcāt tiryagantaṃ samaḥ 60 sarvasya vedane || 1.42. sadaiva śuddho ’nubhavo ’yaṃ pratyākārakarburaḥ |

rected to pramātra°), pramātṛpakṣabhāveṣu EV. 48 prakāśantāṃ ABC (prakāśāntāṃ corrected to prakāśantāṃ A), prakāśase EV. 49 vivadante EV (indeed, P 1.3.47 prescribes ātmanepada), vivadanti ABC; vivadante cit. SpPr, p. 37 (reading confirmed by the Srinagar mss. listed above). 50 prakāśyadaśāṃ yātā nā° A, prakāśyadaśāya tanau (tā in the margin seems to correct ta-) B, prakāśyadaśāyāto nā° C, prakāśyadaśāṃ yāto nā° EV. SpPr p. 37 has prakāśyadaśāṃ yāto (prakāśyadaśāṃ yātā ms. No. 829, 2233, prakāśadaśāṃ yātā ms. No. 861, prakāśadaśāṃ yātaṃ ms. No. 994). 51 prakāśyate C, prakāśate ABEV (this is also the reading in SpPr, p. 37, but mss. No.s 829 and 861 have prakāśyate). 52 kenā° ACEV, kānā° corrected to kenā° B. 53 vedanam AEV, vedanām C, vedanām corrected to vedanam B. 54 vedakatā° ABC, vedanatā° em. (EV); vedanatā° cit. in SpPr, p. 9, and all mss. (also possible). 55 prakāśante ABEV, prakāśyante C. 56 sukhaduḥkhe na bhāsete ABC, akhandās te na bhāsante EV. 57 sarvaṃ ABC, sarve EV. 58 samābhāti ABC, samābhānti EV. 59 anandhas tvaṃ ABC, anandhatvaṃ EV. 60 āviriñcāt tiryagantaṃ samaḥ ABC, avacinvanti mārgaṃ taṃ samaṃ EV.

ākārāntarasaṃcārakāle tadāpi61 nirmalaḥ || 1.43. yathā jātyā sitaṃ vastraṃ raktaṃ rāgeṇa kenacit | na tad aprāpya62 śuklatvaṃ punā 63 rāgāntaram śrayet || 1.44. ayam uccārayan vākyaṃ varṇād varṇaṃ kathaṃ vrajet | yāvan madhye na viśrāntas tvayi śuddhacidātmani || 1.45. evaṃ śuddhā citir jātyā 64 yadākāroparāgiṇī | tattyāgāparasaṃcāramadhye śuddhaiva tiṣṭhati || 1.51. mukhaṃ vinā yathādarśaṃ pṛthag bālo65 na manyate | tathā samuddhṛtajñeyaṃ 66 jñānaṃ nāvaity apaṇḍitaḥ 67 || 1.54. atyantācchasvabhāvatvāt sphaṭikasya yathā svakam | rūpaṃ paroparaktasya nityaṃ naivopalabhyate68 || 1.55. tathā bhāvasamāyuktaṃ bhagavaṃs tāvakaṃ vapuḥ | atyantanirmalatayā pṛthak tair nopalabhyate || 1.56. naitāvatāsau69 sphaṭikaḥ pṛthaṅ nāsty eva70 rañjanāt | bhāvarūpaparityaktā tava vā nirmalā tanuḥ || 1.57. yathoddhṛtaviśeṣasya sāmānyasya nijasthitiḥ 71 |

61 tadāpi conj., tasyāpi ABCEV. The text remains doubtful (cf. LT 14.24 sadaivāpratibaddhāyā bhāntyā eva vapur mama | pratyakṣaṃ cetyasaṃcārakāle ‘pi vimalātmanām (viditātmanām mss. ABCDG) ||. 62 na tad aprāpya ABC, tatpadaprāpta° EV (probably referring to the quotation in SpPr, p. 18 tatpadaṃ prāpta°, found in all mss.). Cf. LT 14.25c punaḥ svavarṇam aprāpya. 63 punā BEV, puna AC. 64 citir jātyā BCEV, cinnirvṛttyā A. 65 bālo ABC, bimbo EV. 66 samuddhṛta° BC, samuddhṛtaṃ AEV. 67 jñānaṃ nāvaity (nāvety C) apaṇḍitaḥ ABC, jñātaṃ na dvaitapaṇḍitaiḥ EV. 68 naivo° em. (cf. LT 4.36 atyantācchasvabhāvatvāt sphaṭikādir yathā maṇiḥ | uparakto japādyais tu tena rūpeṇa nekṣyate ||), evo° ABC (B has in the left margin: nopalabhyate iti dvayor anuṣaṅgaḥ, then cancelled) EV (evo° also in Sp.Pr, p. 17, and all mss.). 69 naitāvatā° CEV (cit. in SpPr, p. 18), etāvatā corrected to naitāvatā° B, etāvatā° A. 70 nāsty eva em. (cf. EV; cit. in SpPr, p. 18, and all mss.), nāste na ABC. Cf. LT 14.37cd pṛthag janair na lakṣyāsmi naivāhaṃ nāsmi tāvatā. 71 nija° ABC, nijā EV (nijā cit. in SpPr p. 19 and all mss.)

[[443]]

pṛthaṅ na śakyā nirdeṣṭuṃ na ca tan nāsti72 tāvatā || 1.58. yathoddhṛtakuṇḍalādeḥ 73 kanakasya svayaṃ sthitiḥ | <pṛthaṅ na śakyā nirdeṣṭuṃ na ca tan nāsti tāvatā> ||74

1.59. evaṃ nityā nijā śuddhā sukha75-duḥkhaniṣedhanāt 76 | svasaṃvedanasaṃvedyā tava saṃvinmayī sthitiḥ || 1.60. aviśeṣaṃ nirvibhāgam adeśaṃ kālavarjitam77 | svajyotiś cidghanaikāntaṃ naumi brahma sadoditam || 1.61. nirviśeṣo viśeṣeṣu nābhaviṣyad bhavān yadi | viśeṣāvagatir na syāt sarvasya svātmani sthitheḥ || 1.62. tvayi nātha na bhedo ’sti kāraṇe tat78 kuto bhidā | kārye ’smin syāt padmanābha nirviśeṣaṃ tato jagat || 1.63. tvatkāraṇatvaṃ 79 sarvasminn api jñātaṃ 80 tvadanvayāt 81 | saṃvitsamanvite viśve nāsaṃvit kāraṇaṃ bhavet ||82

1.64. sarvādhāre sarvamaye sarvataś cātirekiṇi | tvayy anante ko nu deśaḥ 83 kālo vā niṣkriyātmani ||

72 tan nāsti ABC, tatrāsti EV (cit. in SpPr, p. 19, but all mss. have tan nāsti). 73 yathoddhṛtakuṇḍalādeḥ em. (cf. EV), yathoddhṛtā kuṇḍalādeḥ BC, yathoddhṛtā kuṇḍalādiḥ A (yathoddhṛtā kuṇḍalādeḥ is also in SpPr, p. 19; of the four mss. only ms. No. 861 has the śloka, in the latter form). 74 An ardhaśloka is omitted in the mss, probably due to homoteleuton; the ardhaśloka that I have tentatively added comes from the quotation of the śloka in SpPr, p. 19 (it occurs only in ms. No. 861); in fact, its being totally identical to 57cd makes its wording (not its meaning) somewhat suspicious. Cf. also LT 14.38: kuṇḍalāder yathā bhinnā na lakṣyā kanakasthitiḥ | na ca śakyā vinirdeṣṭuṃ tatrāpy asty eva sā dhruvam ||. 75 sukha° ABEV, sukhaṃ C. 76 °niṣedhanāt ABC, °aviśeṣitā EV (°aviśeṣitā cit. in SpPr, p. 19, and all mss. Cf. LT 14.39 evaṃ nityā viśuddhā ca sukhaduḥkhādyabheditā | svasaṃvedanasaṃvedyā mama saṃvinmayī sthitiḥ ||. 77 nirvibhāgam adeśaṃ kālavarjitam BC, nirvibhāgapade ṣaṭkālavarjitam A, nirvibhāgapadaṃ saṅkaṭavarjitam EV. 78 tat ABC, yat EV. 79 tvatkāraṇatvaṃ ABC, tvatkāraṇe tvaṃ EV. 80 jñātaṃ em. (cf. V), jātaṃ ABC, jñāto E. 81 tvad° C, tad° corrected to tvad° ABC, yad° EV. 82 The ardhaśloka, omitted in BC, in B has been later added in the margin. 83 tvayy anante ko nu deśaḥ ABC, tvayy ante ko ’nudeśaḥ syāt EV.

1.66. yat svarūpān na cyavate yat84 parair nopādhīyate | yad anyair aparicchedyaṃ tan nityaṃ tvāṃ vidur budhāḥ || 1.67. paricchedyaparicchittyai85 tvattaḥ kālādisaṃbhavaḥ | aprameyasvarūpasya tava kālādayo nu ke86 || 1.73. ity avajñātadeśāder akriyāj 87 jagadudbhavaḥ | tvatto vivṛttyā 88 mantavyo na svarūpānyathāsthiteḥ || 1.89. tvānuktvā 89 tvatparaṃ 90 brūtaḥ 91 saṃgatau92 vyāvahārikam | ……………………………………………………… ||93

1.95. śarīrajo vā śābdo vā manaso94 vā samudgataḥ | vyavahāro ’py asau nāsti yatra tvaṃ nātha nāgrataḥ || * 2.5. ātmā na meyaḥ kasyāpi tadanyan nopapadyate | meyabhedān mānabhedas95 tasyābhāve sa kiṃkṛtaḥ || 2.6. ātmā yadi bhaven meyas tasya mātā bhavet paraḥ | para ātmā 96 tadānīṃ syāt sa paro yas tu mīyate || 2.8. svīkāro viṣayīkāraḥ sa tatrodghoṣyate budhaiḥ | yad anyatra prasiddhaṃ tat saṃvidaḥ kim apohyate97 || 2.9. saṃvidāsvīkṛtaṃ 98 yac ca na tad viṣayasaṃjñitam |

84 yat ABC, sat EV. 85 °paricchittyai ABC, °paricchinnais EV. 86 nu ke BC, na ke A , na vai EV. 87 ity avajñātadeśāder akriyāj ABC, ity eva jñātadeśāder akriyā° EV. 88 vivṛttyā ABC, vivṛtyā EV. 89 tvānuktvā conj., tvām uktvā ABCEV. 90 tvat° conj., tat° ABCEV. 91 brūtaḥ ABC, brūmaḥ EV. 92 saṃgatau BC, saṃghatau A, sadgatau EV. 93 An ardhaśloka likely to have been omitted here. 94 manaso AC, manaso corrected to mānaso B, mānaso EV (cit. SpPr, p.10 mānaso, and all mss.). 95 meyabhedān mānabhedas ABC, meyabhedātmāno bhedas EV. 96 para ātmā ABC, parānyātmā EV. 97 apohyate AEV, apodyate C, apodyate corrected to apohyate B.

[[445]]

yatsvīkṛtaṃ 99 tadātmaiva viṣayoktiḥ kva100 tiṣṭhatām || 2.17. saṃbandhaḥ siddhayor nāsti nairākāṅkṣyeṇa vṛttitaḥ | nāsiddhayor asattvena tenāsau syān na vastutaḥ || 2.22ab. nirastakartṛbhāveṣu 101 karaṇatvādyasaṃbhavaḥ 102 | …………………………………………………… || 2.32. paravyavasthāpi pare yāvan nātmīkṛtaḥ paraḥ | tāvan na śakyate kartuṃ yato buddhaḥ paraḥ paraḥ || 2.35. yathendriyair vinābhūtaṃ 103 viṣayair apy anāvilam | svataḥ prakāśate jñānaṃ viṣayo naivam iṣyate || 2.36. tatrāhur104 viṣayajñaptyai yat pramāṇatrayaṃ pṛthak | pṛthagviṣayasaṃyogān na tad abhyeti vedanam || 2.37. sākṣāt samakṣadhīr arthāt saṃbandhād anumānadhīḥ | te mūlam āgamasyāhur iti nānyapramodbavaḥ || 2.38. trayāṇām api mānānāṃ pratibhāprāṇateṣyate | samyaṅmithyātvanirṇīter anyathānupapattitaḥ || 2. 39. svavittir eva pratibhā kartavyeṣv akramātmikā 105 | nirmalā kathitā tajjñair yayā jīvanti jantavaḥ || 2.44. jñāne ’py antaḥpraviṣṭasya bhāvasya yadi bāhyatā 106 | jñānād eva tadā bāhyaṃ svam idānīṃ kim ucyatām || 2.45. athāpraviṣṭo 107 vijñānaṃ sattāsya jñāyate kutaḥ | jñānasyaivādhikāro ’sti108 sadasanmārgaṇe yataḥ || 2.54. anapekṣā satāṃ siddher asiddher api nāsatām |

98 EV read saṃvidā svīkṛtaṃ (also possible). 99 yat° em., tat° ABC, tat EV. 100 kva BCEV, ku A. 101 °bhāveṣu ABC, °bhāve tu EV. 102 karaṇatva° BC, kāraṇatva° AEV. 103 EV read vinā bhūtam. 104 tatrāhur ABC, tatrāṅga° EV. 105 °ṣv akrama° em., °ṣu krama° ABCEV. 106 bāhyataḥ corrected to bāhyatā B, bāhyataḥ ACEV. 107 athāpraviṣṭo AC, athāpravaṣṭo B, arthāpraviṣṭaṃ EV. 108 ’sti ABEV, ’pi C.

nirapekṣeṣu bhāveṣu na mātṛtvaṃ na meyatā || 2.56. prakāśate saṃvid ekā tadanyat tu prakāśyate | prakāśyaṃ 109 ca bhavet karma tac ca kartrā 110 vinā katham || 2.58. vastusthityā na bando ’sti tadabhāvān 111 na muktatā | vikalpaghaṭitāv etāv ubhāv api na kiṃcana || * 4.78cd. tathā hy ukto madduhitrā 112 vāmadevyā haristutau || * 5.26. vāg evāsyāḥ kāraṇaṃ viśvavṛtter nyāyyaṃ 113 caitan nāgamaḥ kevalo ’yam | nāsaṃkalpaṃ kiṃcid astīha kāryaṃ vācaṃ vinā na vikalpo ’sti kaścit || REFERENCES Āgamaprāmāṇya See VAN BUITENEN 1971 Bhāskarī Bhāskarī. A Commentary on the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī of Abhinavagupta, vols. I-II, ed. K.A.S. Iyer and K.C. Pandey, Allahabad: The Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts 70 and 83, 1938-1950 VAN BUITENEN 1971 J.A.B. van Buitenen, Yāmuna’s Āgamaprāmāṇyam or Treatise on the Validity of Pañcarātra, ed. and transl., Madras: Rāmānuja Research Society, 1971 CZERNIAK-DROĵDĵOWICZ forthcoming M. Czerniak-DroĶdĶowicz, “Ekāyanaveda – in Search of the Roots,” in M.S.G. Dyczkowski, N. Rastogi and R. Torella (eds.), Proceedings of the XIV World Sanskrit Conference, Delhi Jan. 2012, Tantra-Āgama Section, New Delhi: D.K. Printworld

109 prakāśyaṃ A, prakāśye BCEV. 110 kartrā AEV, kartā BC. 111 tadabhāvān ACEV, tadā bhāvan B. 112 tathā hy ukto madduhitrā AB, tathādyuktaṃ madduhitryā EV. 113 nyāyyaṃ em. (cf. EV), nyāyaṃ A (nyāyyaṃ cit. SpPr, p. 9; the mss. oscillate between nyāyaṃ and nyāyyaṃ).

[[447]]

DASGUPTA 1932 S. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. III, [Cambridge: 1932] Delhi: 1975 DYCZKOWSKI 1992 M.S.G. Dyczkowski, The Stanzas on Vibration: the Spandakārikā with four commentaries […], transl. with an introduction and exposition, Albany: SUNY Press, 1992 GNOLI 1985 R. Gnoli, Il Commento di Abhinavagupta alla Parātriṃśikā (Parātriṃśikātattvavivaraṇam), traduzione e testo, Roma: IsMEO, Serie Orientale Roma 58, 1985 GONDA 1970 J. Gonda, Viṣṇuism and śaivism: A Comparison, London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1970 GOODALL 1998 D. Goodall, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Vol. I: chapters 1-6, ed. and transl., Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, Publications du Départment d’Indologie 86.1, 1998 GUPTA 1972 S. Gupta, Lakṣmītantra. A Pāñcarātra text, transl. and notes, Leiden: Orientalia Rheno-Traiecticina 15, 1972 ĪPK [Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā] See TORELLA 2002 Īśvarasiddhi See Sambandhasiddhi LT Lakṣmī-tantra: A Pāñcarātra Āgama, ed. (with Sanskrit gloss) Pandit V. Krishnamacharya, Adyar: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, The Adyar Library Series 87, 1959 MMP [Mahārthamañjarīparimala] Mahārthamañjarī with the Autocommentary Parimala, ed. Pt. V.V. Dvivedi, Varanasi: Yogatantra-Ratnamālā 5, 1972 Mṛgendravṛtti Mṛgendratantra (vidyāpāda and yogapāda) with commentary of Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, ed. M.K. Shastri, Bombay: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 50, 1930 Parātrīśikāvivaraṇa See GNOLI 1985

Pratyabhijñāhṛdaya Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, ed. M.R. Shastri, Srinagar: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 3, 1918 RAI 1955 S.C. Rai, “Studies on the history of religion in ancient Kāśmīra,” The Journal of the Bihar research Society 41.2, 1955 RASTELLI 2003 M. Rastelli, “The Ekāyanaveda in the Pāñcarātra tradition,” paper read at the 12th World Sanskrit Conference in Helsinki, July 2003 (unpublished) Sambandhasiddhi In The Siddhitrayī and the Pratyabhijñā-kārikā-vṛtti, ed. M.K. Shastri, Srinagar: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 34, 1921 SANDERSON 2007 A. Sanderson, “The śaiva exegesis of Kashmir,” in D. Goodall and A. Padoux (eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2007, pp. 231-442 SANDERSON 2009a A. Sanderson, “Kashmir,” in K.A. Jacobsen (ed.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume One: Regions, Pilgrimage, Deities, Leiden/Boston: Brill, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Zweite Abteilung, Indien, vol. XXII, 2009, pp. 99-126 SANDERSON 2009b A. Sanderson, “The śaiva Age,” in Sh. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009, pp. 41- 349 SP (Dyczkowski ed.) The Saṃvitprakāśa by Vāmanadatta, ed. M.S.G. Dyczkowski, with English introduction, Varanasi: Ratna Printing Works, 1990 SP (Tripathi’s ed.) Saṃvitprakāśa of Vāmanadatta, ed. B.P. Tripāṭhī ‘Vāgīśa śāstrī,’ Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Laghu-Granthamālā 51, 1993 SpPr (Dyczkowski ed.) The Spandapradīpikā: a Commentary on the Spandakārikā, ed. M.S.G. Dyczkowski, Varanasi: Ratna Printing Works, 1990 SpPr (Kaviraja ed.) Spandapradīpikā utpalācāryaviracitā, ed. M.M.G. Kaviraja, in Tantrasaṅgraha, part I, Yogatantragranthamālā 3, Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1970, pp. 83-128

[[449]]

Stavacintāmaṇi Stavacintāmaṇi with vivṛti by Kṣemarāja, ed. M.R. Shastri, Srinagar: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 10, 1918 Svacchandoddyota Svacchandatantra with commentary “Ud[d]yota” by Kṣemarāja, ed. V.V. Dwivedi, 2 vols., Delhi: Parimal Sanskrit Series 16, 1985 TORELLA 1979 R. Torella, “Due capitoli del Sarvadarśanasaṁgraha: śaivadarśana e Pratyabhijñādarśana,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 53(3-4), 1979, pp. 361-410 TORELLA 1994 R. Torella, “On Vāmanadatta”, in P.-S. Filliozat, C.P. Bhatta and S.P. Narang (eds.), Pandit N.R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994, pp. 481-498 TORELLA 2007a R. Torella, “Studies in Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti. Part I. Apoha and anupalabdhi in a śaiva garb,” in K. Preisendanz (ed.), Expanding and Merging Horizons. Contributions to South Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, Vienna: 2007, pp. 473-490 TORELLA 2007b R. Torella, “Studies in Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti. Part II. What is memory?”, in K. Klaus und J.-U. Hartmann (eds.), Indica et Tibetica. Festschrift für Michael Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht, Wien: Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 66, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007, pp. 539-563 TORELLA 2009 R. Torella, “From an adversary to the main ally: The place of Bhartr̥hari in the Kashmirian śaivādvaita,” in M. Chaturvedi (ed.), Bhartṛhari: Language, Thought and Reality. Delhi: 2009, pp. 343-354 TORELLA 2013 R. Torella, “Inherited cognitions: prasiddhi, āgama, pratibhā, śabdana (Bhartr̥hari, Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta, Kumārila and Dharmakīrti in dialogue),” in V. Eltschinger and H. Krasser (eds.), Scriptural Authority, Reason and Action, Proceedings of a Panel at the XIV World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, September 1st

5 th 2009, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013, pp. 455-480 TĀ Tantrāloka Twith Commentary by Rājānaka Jayaratha, ed. M.K. Shastri, 12 vols., Allahabad/Srinagar/Bombay: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 23, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 47, 52, 57, 58, 59, 1918-1938

TS Tantrasāra, ed. M.R. Shastri, Srinagar: Kashmir Series of Text and Studies 17, 1918 Vijñānabhairava Vijñānabhairava with the commentary partly by Kṣemarāja and partly by śivopādhyāya, ed. M.R. Shastri, Bombay: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 8, 1918; with commentary Kaumudī by Ānanda Bhaṭṭa, Bombay: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 9, 1918