ben.williams.finalpaper
DESCRIPTION
Navigating his reading of the Stavacintāmaṇī and the Śivastotrāvalī with these poeticized cosmologies, modes of praxis, tantric imaginaries, and philosophical strategies of recognition (pratyabhijñā), Kṣemarāja is always moving between the universal and the particular, the otherworldly and the worldly, and this shifting of registers is intensified by Kṣemarāja’s use of literary theory.TRANSCRIPT
1
SuggestingSimilitude:TheŚaivaPoeticsofKṣemarāja
InhiseleventhcenturycommentariesontheŚaivahymns(stotras)of
UtpaladevaandNārāyaṇabhaṭṭa,Kṣemarājamovesseamlesslybetweenthe
exegeticalmethodsofmedievalŚaivaphilosophyandliterarytheory
(alaṁkāraśāstra):twolargelyindependentfieldsofintellectualproductioninthe
earliertextsofhistradition.Ofteninterpretingasinglestotraaccordingtoboththe
conceptualparadigmsofhisownsynthesisofmedievaltantricŚaivismandthe
technicalcategoriesofIndianpoetics,Kṣemarāja’scommentarialpracticesraise
questionsaboutthechangingrelationshipbetweenthesetwodiscoursesinthe
intellectualandreligiouscontextofeleventhcenturyKashmir.Althoughthe
deploymentoftheinterpretivestrategiesofpoeticsandŚaivaphilosophybecome
adjacentinthecommentarialprojectofKṣemarāja,theirrelationshipisnever
explicitlyelaborated.
AccordingtoKṣemarāja’steacher,Abhinavagupta,theaestheticizedemotion
knownasrasacouldonlybegeneratedandrelishedintheotherworldly(alaukika)
environmentofliteraryandtheatricalproduction;inotherwords,rasadoesnotexist
intheworld.1Theidealreceptiveaudience(sahṛdaya),accordingtothisdistinction,
isabletorelishauniversalizedemotioninpartbecauseofthesuperordinarynature
ofthisliterarysphere.Onewaytobegintouncovertherelationshipbetweenpoetics
andŚaivismforKṣemarājaistotracehisinterpretationofkeytermsfromthestotras
1 NS-Abh,p.292: tena nāṭya eva rasā na loka ityarthaḥ |kāvyaṁ ca nāṭyameva‘Therefore,thisisthemeaning:rasasexistintheateralone,notintheworld,andliteratureismerely[aformof]theater’.
2
thatilluminatethewaytheworld,whichisotherwisenotcapableofbeingrelished
(orcontainingrasa),istransmutedintoasourceofdelightthatisaesthetically
relished.ThroughacloseanalysisofKṣemarāja’sreadingofthecompoundbhakti-
rasa(savorofdevotion)inUtpaladeva’sŚivastotrāvalī(GarlandofHymnstoŚiva
[SSA])andhiscommentaryontheopeningverseofBhaṭṭanārāyaṇa’s
Stavacintāmaṇī(Wish-fulfillingGemofPraises[SC]),thispaperwillarguethat–
accordingtoKṣemarāja–onlythesotierologicallyrealizeddeityŚivacan
aestheticallyrelishtheworld.TheŚaivadevoteethatachievesidentitywiththis
realityembodies,ineffect,apoeticizedmodelofreligiousrealizationbasedon
becomingthesupremeconnoisseurwhorelisheshisownpower(śakti)asthetotality
ofcosmicemanation;aworldtransformedintonectar(rasa,amṛta).
TheimplicitlypoeticizedtheologyofKṣemarāja’sreadingoftheseŚaiva
hymnsislargelyindebttoAbhinavaguptaandearliersources,andthiswillbe
demonstratedbyreviewingearlierspeculationonthemetaphoroftheworldprocess
ascosmicdrama(trailokyanāṭya),produced,enacted,andenjoyedbyŚiva.Inthis
context,Kṣemarāja’suniquecontributiontotheKashmiridevelopmentof
increasinglyoverlappingparadigmsofpoetictheoryandŚaivareligiositycanbe
properlyassessed,locatedinhisuniquecontiguoustreatmentofthesetwo
intellectualrepertoiresandhisparticularuseofsuggestionandfiguresofspeechto
transmitanon-dualŚaivacosmology.
Attheoutsetitshouldbeemphasized,inagreementwithEdwinGerow’s
seminalessayonthesubject,thatforAbhinavaguptatheuseofpoeticsinhisŚaiva
3
texts,andviceversa,primarilyservesthefunctionof“illuminatingasides,”andthat
bothparadigmsshouldnotbeunderstoodassharing“conceptualbases.”2Atthelevel
ofcontentcertainterms(pratibhā, viśrānti, śānta, carvaṇā, tanmayībhāva)designate
similarsemanticpropertiesinbothdomains,andcanbegintosuggesttheintended
relationshipbetweenthephenomenologyofliterarysensitivityandliberation.More
interestingly,theformalusesofpoeticlanguageandimageryinthecompositionof
benedictoryversesorarticulationofcosmologicalbackgroundsinAbhinavagupta
andKṣemarāja’sŚaivatextsofferatacitargumentabouttheefficacyofapoetic
receptionofphilosophicalandreligiousteachings.Nevertheless,itshouldbekeptin
mindthattheintellectualprojectswithintheserespectivediscourseswere
intentionallysetapart,andanyattemptatfindingtheunderlyingrelationshipshould
becarefultonotconflatetheconceptualworldsofeach.
Thisisparticularlyimportantinthebelowanalysisofthecompound
bhaktirasa(savorofdevotion)inUtpaladeva’sŚivastotrāvalī,whichcouldpossibly
beinterpretedasanassertionthatbhaktiisaprimarydramaticsentiment(rasa),in
additiontoearlierenumerationsoftherasas.Abhinavaguptahimselfarguedagainst
bhaktiasapredominantrasa3andinsteadsubordinatedittośāntarasa,thesentiment
ofquiescence.AlthoughwecanonlyspeculateaboutUtapaladeva’sviewonthe
subject,sinceheneverwroteonliterarytheoryordramaturgy,thefactthatrasahas
itsownsemanticgenealogyinŚaivaritualandcosmology,independentofitsliterary
2 Gerow,p.192. 3 NS-ABh,p.340:ata eveśvarapraṇidhānaviṣaye bhaktiśraddhe… anyathaivāṅgamiti na tayoḥ pṛthagrasatvena gaṇanam‘Therefore,faithanddevotion(bhakti)withreferencetodedicationtotheLord,are,onthecontrary,subordinate[tośāntarasa].Thesetwo[sentiments]arenottobecountedasseparaterasas.
4
connotations,shouldatleastforegoanyhastyconclusions.Moreover,Kṣemarāja’s
treatmentofthecompoundinhiscommentarytotheŚivastotrāvalī,particularlythe
wordbhakti(devotion)asimmersioninthedeity(samāveśa),furthersupportsthe
viewofAbhinavagupta.
EarlyPrecedentsofPoeticizedŚaivaImagery:DramaticUniverseandAesthesis
KṣemarājacontinuesanddevelopsthecovertaestheticizationofŚaivismof
histeacherAbhinavagupta,aprocesslargelyindialoguewiththecomplextantric
imageryoftherevealedtexts(āgamas)theybothconsiderauthoritative.Twoaspects
ofthisimagerywillbeconsidered,themetaphorofadramaticuniverseandthe
liberatingprocessofrelishingsenseexperience,bothofwhichwillassistour
understandingofKṣemarāja’sphilosophicalemploymentofthesetheatricaland
literaryŚaivametaphorsinhiscommentaries.
Thefirstimageofthecosmosasatheatricalproduction,ultimatelydirected,
performed,andviewedbyonesupremeagent,mirroringadramaticmetaphorforthe
worlddualisticallyportrayedcenturiesearlierintheSāṁkhyakārikāofIśvarakṛṣṇa,4
isfoundinanearlytantraknownastheŚivasūtra.Inthethirdbookofthisrevealed
text,whichcontainsadoctrinethatisapparentlydrawnfromnumerousearlier
sourceswithoutexemplifyingadistinctsectarianaffiliation,5LordŚivasays:“The
Selfistheactor,thestageistheinnerSelf,andthespectatorsarethesenses.”6Oneof
theearliercommentariesonthistext,thevārttikaofBhāskara,elucidatesthenotion
4 SeeSāṁkhyakārikā,verses61-66.5 Sectarianaffiliationshererefertothesub-sectsofŚaivism,whichKṣemarāja,followingtheboldprojectofhispredecessorAbhinavagupta,attemptstosynthesizethroughcreativehermeneuticalstrategiesthroughouthisworks.6 SSV,3.9-11:nartaka ātmā|raṅgo ‘ntarātmā|prekṣakānīndriyāṇi.
5
ofauniversalSelf,whosenatureisŚiva,playingalloftherolesofacosmicdramain
thetechnicallanguageofIndiandramaturgy(nāṭyaśāstra):
TheSelfiscalledanactorbecauseheassumeseverystateofbeing(avasthā)[orphaseofactionofthehero].Inthisway,this[Self],swayingintherelish(rasa)ofsupremeblissamidstthis[dramatic]pastime,islikeanexpertactor,totallyconversantwithsuchthingsastheaestheticsentiments(rasa),the[supporting]emotions(bhāva),andthesemblancesof[both]ofthese(tadābhāsa).7
Kṣemarāja,whoalsocommenteduponthistext,furtherunpacksthismetaphorinhis
readingofthesesūtrasbycitingastotrafromtheStavacintāmaṇī:
Whatotherpoetthanyou,O’Śiva,isabletoconcludethedramaofthethreeworlds(trailokyanāṭaka),havingintroducedit,[thatdrama]whichcontains(garbha)the[dramatic]seedforallthe[states]ofbeingthatareemerging[fromthisproduction].8
ThesoleagentofcreatingthedramaofthethreeworldsisLordŚiva.Furthermore,
thisdramaticproductioncontainstheseed(bīja)oftheresultingstatesofbeingof
thismanifestation.Thetermbījadeepensthemetaphorofcosmicdramabyreferring
tothefirstoffivepragmaticfactors(arthaprakṛti)ofthedevelopmentofaplot
(itivṛtta)indramaturgicaltheory.Thesefactorseventuallyleadtotheculminating
action(kārya)ofachievingthegoal(phala)ofaparticularplay.Anotherreadingof
thewordbījaatplayinKṣemarāja’scommentaryonthisstotraemphasizestheseeds
orrootsofbeingtrappedinphenomenalexistence,spawnedfromthewomb(garbha)
oftheillusoryworldprocess(māyā)fromtheperspectiveofalimitedknower.9This
contrastbetweenthestatusoftheworldaseitherasourceofbondageoraworkof
arttobeenjoyedwillbecomemorevividasweproceed;fornowitisnoteworthy
7 SSVā,3.9:sa nartakaḥ smṛto yasmāt sarvāvasthāvalambakaḥ ittaṁ vihṛtau ayaṁ parānandarasena ghūrṇan prauḍhanaṭa iva rasabhāvatadābhāsādyabhijñaḥ.8 SC,verse59:visṛṣṭānekasadbījagarbhaṁ trailokyanāṭakam |prastāvya hara saṁhartuṁ tvattaḥ ko ‘nyaḥ kaviḥ kṣamaḥ.9 SC,verse59,p.69
6
thatŚivaisaloneinhiscapacitytoproduceandenacttheuniverselikeaskilledpoet
/actor,andalso,aswillbeshown,aestheticallyrelishingthatverycreation.One
possibleutilityofthismetaphorofadramaticnon-dualcosmologyisthatitcanoffer
aŚaivaaspirantaperspectiveontheenthrallinganddeludingphenomenaoflifeas
nothingmorethanacosmictheatricalproduction.Hypothetically,thiscouldhelp
suspendthenaturalimpulsetoidentifywithcontentofthescenes,creatingspacefor
thedeepestidentityandagencytoemerge,summedupinthecognition,“allthisis
myplay/power(śakti).”10
IncommentingonthisstotraKṣemarājaalsopresentsthepowerofŚivato
introduce(prastāvya)andconclude(saṁhartum)thedramaofthethreeworldswith
yetanothersetofdramaturgicalcategories(sandhis,i.e.thefivejunctures),along
withacasualequationofdramawithliterature(kāvya)andasubtlesoteriological
flourish:
Onlyaspecificperson,apoetthathasascended(adhirūḍha)tothesummit[ofthecosmos]([anāśrita]dhāra),havingintroducedthatparticularformofliterature(kāvyaviśeṣa)knownasadrama(nāṭaka)bymeansoftheopeningjuncture(mukhasandhi)ofthedramaticprologue(prastāvanā),isabletoconclude(saṁhartum)[thatplay],i.e.bringittoaclosebymeansoftheconcludingjuncture(nirvāhaṇasandhi).11
TheseexegeticallyinlaiddetailsfromBharata’ssystematictreatiseondrama
(Nāṭyaśāstra)offerfurtherinterpretivetoolsforaŚaivadevoteetosystematically
10 Thisisacommonmotifinthephilosophicalsystemofrecognition(pratyabhijñā)thatKṣemarājamaintainsatthecoreofallofhisexegeticalwork,andisarticulatedbyUtpaladevaaccordingly,(IPK,4.1.12):sarvo mamāyaṁ vibhava ityevaṁ parijānataḥ viśvātmano vikalpānāṁ prasare ‘pi maheśatā: Hewhoisidentifiedwiththe[entire]universehasthestatusofthegreatLordevenamidsttheflowofthoughtconstructs,[for]herecognizes,‘allthisismyglory’.11 SC,verse59,p.69:nāṭakākhyaṁ ca kāvyaviśeṣaṁ prastāvanāyāṁ mukhasandhinā prastāvya… saṁhartuṁ nirvahaṇasandhinā nirvāhayituṁ kaścideva dhārādhirūḍhaḥ kaviḥ śakto bhavati na sarvaḥ.
7
analyzetheworldthatismetaphoricallypresentedintheStavacintāmaṇistotrawith
theclassicaldramaturgicalcategoriesofstructuralplotanalysis.Kṣemarāja’s
commentaryalsoaddsafascinatingdetail.Thepoet,addressedintheoriginalstotra
asŚiva(hara),isheredescribedasaparticularizedentity(kaścit)thathas
successfullyascended(abhirūḍha)tothehighestlocusofidentity,andtherebyshares
thestatusofŚivainrelationshiptothecreativeanddestructiveactscosmicallyand
dramaturgicallyrepresentedinthehymn.Thisprocessofascentandachievementof
thehighestplaneofagencyisdescribedinthesametermsinKṣemarāja’stechnical
exegesisonPratyabhijñāphilosophy.Aswewillsee,thisascendantprocessof
recognitionexplicatesafurtherlayerofmeaningtothisdramaticmetaphorinhis
commentaryonthefirststotraoftheStavacintāmaṇī:theliberatedcapacitytorelish
theworld.
Thesethreemetaphors,Śivaartisticallycreatingthedramaoftheuniverse,
playingalloftheparts,andsimultaneouslyembodyingtheidealaudienceforthe
enjoymentofthatcreation,aretheprimarysiteswherethelinguisticregistersof
Śaivismandaestheticsarebroughttogetherintheseearliertexts.Beforelooking
closeratKṣemarāja’sstotracommentariesonthesethemes,wewillconsidersome
evocativeprecursorstothenotionofŚiva–inconcertwithhisbandoffeminized
powers–preeminentlyenjoying,relishing,anddevouringtheuniverse.
SubvertingtheasceticidealofsensoryausterityencapsulatedinthePurāṇic
andVedānticnotionoftheparamahaṁsa(idealrenunciate),manyoftheearly
tantrasreconfiguresensoryexperienceintoapotentsourceofpower,otherworldly
8
bliss,andevenliberation.TheVijñānabhairava(Bhairavawhose[form]isSublime
Wisdom[VBh]),oftencitedbyKṣemarājaandAbhinavagupta,isanearly
compendiumofcontemplativepracticesthatdemonstratesanacuteawarenessofthe
sectariananddoctrinaldiscrepanciesthatprecedeit.Thefollowingtwoversesare
exemplaryintheirdescriptionofrelishingtheworldinaestheticnomenclature:
Fromtheexpansionoftheblissofaestheticsavour(rasa),arisingfromeatinganddrinking,oneshouldbringabouttheperfectcondition[ofthisjoy].Thengreatblisswillbeexperienced||Theyogithatisunitedwiththeincomparablehappinessofrelishing(āsvāda)senseobjectssuchassongsbecomesidentifiedwiththat[happiness],becauseofitsexpansionin[his]mindwhichis[completely]absorbed[init].12
Aneighteenthcenturycommentatorontheseverses,Śivopādhyāya,hintsatthe
tantricritualbackgroundofthesepracticesinhisilluminatingdescriptionofthe
connoisseurthatcansuccessfullyextractasteadyconditionofjoyfromsensory
experience:
Thepeoplewhoestablish[themselves]intheperfectcondition[ofjoy]fromanexpansionofblissthroughsuchthingsastasting(carvaṇā)thatpungentbeveragewhichisthesubstancefor[tantric]heroes(vīra)torelish(rasanīya),[they]areconnoisseurs(sahṛdaya)whoarethesoleauthority(pramāṇa)intherealmofunderstandingthenatureoftheirownbliss;thusonlytheyshouldbeconsulted[byaseekeraccordingly]:‘Whatisconsideredtheessenceofthis[blissful]statewhosenatureissuch’.13
Thesemanticbreadthsurroundingthewordrasa(sap,taste,semen,sentiment,
aestheticizedemotion)allowsnumerouscontextstocoincideintheseŚaiva
commentaries.Inthiscomment,thepossibilityofrelishingtheworldalludedtoin
thisverse,metaphoricallyalignedwiththerealmofliteraryexperiencethroughthe
12 VBh,verses72-73:jagdhipānakṛtollāsarasānandavijṛmbhaṇāt bhāvayedbharitāvasthāṁ mahānandastato bhavet | gītādiviṣayāsvādāsamasaukhyaikatātmanaḥ yoginastanmayatvena manorūḍhestadātmanaḥ.13 VBhV,commenttoverse72,p.61:ye tu rasanīyavīradravyapānāvadaṁśacarvaṇādinā ānandavikāsāt bharitāvastāṁ abhidadhati… svānandadaśāvamarśanaviṣaye sahṛdayā eva pramāṇam it te eva praṣṭavyāḥ tādṛgdeśāyāṁ tattvacintā kim asti.
9
technicaltermsfortheenjoyment(carvaṇā)ofanidealliteraryaudience(sahṛdaya),
isseamlesslyconnectedtoritualpraxisofaninitiatedŚaivaelite.
Thishomologyisfurtherfacilitatedbytheritualworldsandmultifarious
cosmologiesofnumerousstreamsofŚaivarevelationthataresynthesized,andoften
hermeneuticallydominatedbythelaterinterpretiveworkofKashmiriexegeteslike
Kṣemarāja.Theallusiontotheesotericritualinvolvingtheconsumptionof
transgressivesubstancesmarkstheinfluenceoftheKaulastreamsoftantric
revelationthatnotonlyprescriberitesthatinvertBrahmanicalnorms,butdescribe
theprocessoftransmutingtheblindingactivityofthesensesintoasourceof
liberatingaestheticrapture.Thelatertextsinthiscorpusinternalizemuchoftheleft-
handedpractices,andprovideespeciallyvividmodelsforaestheticallydelightingin
theworldthroughthesenses;modelsthatKṣemarājaintegratesintohisconceptionof
becomingŚivainordertoexperiencetheworldasambrosia.Abhinavagupta
summarizestheinteriorizedritualofaninitiatefromtheKaulatradition,which
pervadesmanyoftheKashmiritantras,intermswellsuitedforthedeepanalogy
betweenliberationandliteraryaesthesis:
Alltheprocesses[ofhiscognition,fromtheemissionoftheobjecttoitsretraction]suddenlyandviolently(haṭhataḥ)throwofftheiroutwardness.Theyarecastintothevisceralfireofself-awareness,causingittoburnmorebrightlywiththisfueloftheirpower.Whentheothernessofthesephenomenahasbeendissolvedbythisprocessofinstant‘digestion’(haṭhapākaḥ)[hissenses,nowrevealedasthegoddessesofcognition]devourthenectarofthisuniversetransformed,andgratifiedtherebytheyfuseinturnwiththeall-containingradiantBhairavaofthevoidofpureconsciousness(cidvyomabhairavaḥ)wholiesintheheartofawareness.14
14 Sanderson(1995),p.88.
10
Thedichotomy,foundinalloftheabovetexts(SS,SC,VBh),betweenproducing,
enactingandenjoyingtheworldorbeingbereftofthecapacitytodoso,isimplied
hereaseitherunitingwiththeliberatedenergiesthataestheticallyrelishtheworld,
throughrecognizingthesensesas‘goddessesofcognition’,orbeingsubjecttotheir
activity.Kṣemarājaislargelyindebttothesecomplexscripturalprecedentsandhe
continuallyshiftsthroughthesemanticregistersofmultipleearlytantricstreamsin
hisownarticulationandjuxtapositionofŚaivismwithliterarytheory.
BhaktirasaintheŚivastotrāvalī(vivṛti)
TheŚivastotrāvalī,acompilationofhymnscomposedbyUtpaladeva,
arrangedbyhisimmediatedevotees,andcommenteduponbyKṣemarāja,are
primarilyformulatedinadialogicallycandidtonethatmovesbetweensupplication,15
doubt(saṁdeha[alaṁkāra]),16rhetoricalquestioning(praśna[alaṁkāra]),17
frustration,18benediction,19exaltation,20andcreativecombinationsofallthesemodes
ofaddressandfiguresofspeech.21AlthoughallofUtpaladeva’sotherextanttexts
effectivelysystematizedthetexttraditionknownasPratyabhijñā(recognition)inthe
philosophicallanguageofpan-Indiansystematicanalysis(śāstra),carefully
constructedwithsophisticateddebatesandsyllogisticarguments,hisstotras
15 Supplicationisthemostpervasivemodalityofaddressinthetext.Forafewexamples,seeSSA,verses1.9,4.3,4.9,4.16,5.4-12,5.22,7.7,9.1-20,11.8,11.11,15.18-19,16.25,18.21.16 SSA,verses3.6,5.2,8.1,9.1-20,11.5,13.10,16.21,17.34,18.12,18.17,19.7-8.17 SSA,verses1.4,3.10,3.16,6.9,10.3,10.11,10.19,10.26,11.1.18 SSA,verses3.19,3.21,4.2,4.15,4.17,4.19,8.9,11.5,11.7,13.19,15.14,15.15,20.13.19 SSA,verses2.1-29,14.1-24,17.30.20 SSA,verses1.26,3.11,4.21,13.15,13.20,17.41.21 AgoodexampleofthemixtureofdoubtandbenedictionisfoundinSSA,verse18.18.
11
denigrateintellectuallearning22andknowledgeinfavorofanintrepidecstatic
abandon.Formalrites,austerities,andthemeditativetechniquesofyoga23arenot
sparedUtpaladeva’sdisdain,andanyattempttopindownaconsistenttheological
positionthreadingthestotrasisimmediatelydeterredbythefactthatUtpaladeva
repeatedlycontradictshimself.24Forexample,Utpaladevacreatesparadoxby
questioninganddoubtingthenon-dualcosmologyhecontinuallyasserts,andhis
structuringofthehymnsasanextendedsecondpersonaddress,fullofsupplication,
shouldalsopoliceastrictlynon-dualreadingofthehymns.Theresultingtheological
ambiguity,whichItaketobeanintentionalpoeticstrategyinitself,allowthestotras
tocontinuallychallengeandsurpriseaclosereader.
Allofthesetheologicalnuances,embellishedbytheshiftingliteraryvoiceof
Utpaladeva,arewhitewashedbythecommentaryofKṣemarājathroughaconsistent
non-dualreconfigurationofthedualisticcomponentsofthebasetext.Thatsaid,
Kṣemarāja’sstrategicpoeticreadingsofmanyofthehymns,basedonaskilleduse
ofthetechnicalrepertoireofliterarytheory,shouldsimultaneouslypreventusfrom
readinghiscommentaryasamerephilosophicalmonotonizationofanarid
intellectual.Infact,Kṣemarājaalsodisplayspoeticcapacityatthelevelof
composition,exemplifiedinhisintroductoryandconcludingversestomanyofthe
textsinhiscorpus,andbothofthesepointsshouldbeappreciatedalongsidehis
often-predictabletheologicalbias.
22 SSA,verses1.11,3.12,16.14,16.16.23 SSA,verses1.18and3.12.24 Oneformthistakesisinhisardentrequestforsupernaturalpowers(siddhi)insomeversesandliberationtotheirexclusioninothers.
12
GiventhatKṣemarājaisAbhinavagupta’smostprolificdisciple,andan
independentŚaivatheologianinhisownright,thecurrentstateofscholarshiponhis
oeuvreisrathersparse.AcoupledissertationstreatinghiscommentariesontheNetra
andSvacchandatantras,translationsofhiscommentariesontheŚivasūtras,
Spandkārikās,andhisindependenttreatise,thePratyabhijñāhṛdayaare
supplementedbylittlemorethanthepassing,yetdeeplyinsightful,analysesof
AlexisSandersoninafewofhisarticles25andscatteredremarksinMark
Dyczkowski’sstudies.Aroughsketchofthepicturethatemergesfromthis
scholarship,whichwillbefurthersupplementedbythispaper,isthatKṣemarāja
commenteduponaselectsetofrevealedtextsconsideredauthoritativeforabroad
rangeofcontemporaneousŚaivasects.InKṣemarāja’sstrategicinterpretive
“colonization”ofthesetexts,heaimedtoreveal[=construct]their“higher”non-
dualisticcoreindialoguewiththephilosophicaldoctrineofrecognition
(pratyabhijñā)andhisunreserveddeploymentoftheŚāktacult,crypticallyencoded
inAbhinavagupta’srecastingoftheTrikatexttradition,knownastheKrama.Asan
attentiveandsyntheticcommentatorhealsoliberallydrawsuponotherearlierŚaiva-
Śāktastreams,includingtheKaula,Kubjikā,andwithlessfrequencytheTrika.With
theexceptionofoneunpublishedpaper,26Ihavenotcomeacrossanyscholarshipon
hiscommentariesontheŚivastotrāvalī ortheStavacintāmaṇi.
25 SeeSanderson(2007),p.398-401and(1995),p.55-70.26 ThispaperbyHamsaStainton,At the Intersection of Religion and Literature in Medieval Kashmir: The Stavacintāmaṇi of Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa and the Commentary of Kṣemarāja,whileprovidinganexceptionalstudyofthe Stavacintāmaṇi itself,onlybrieflydwellsuponKṣemarāja’suseofinterpretivestrategies,withoutgoingintomuchdetailregardingKṣemarāja’sspecifictheologicalprecedentsorliteraryexegesis.
13
Acloselookathiscommentsonthecompoundbhaktirasainthe
Śivastotrāvalī,whichappearseleventimesinUtpaladeva’sstotras,willprovidea
windowintohiscommentarialpracticesinthedomainofstotraliterature.Theterms
rasaandbhaktiindependentlypervadethestotras,andthelatterisoftenpairedwith
variouswordsdenotingnectar(sudhā,amṛta,pīyūṣa)byUtpaladeva,whichisagloss
thatKṣemerājaoftenchoosesforthetermrasa.Beyondofferingacentralthematic
locusforthetext,thebhaktirasaversesalsoprovideauniquespacetoappreciate
Kṣemarāja’snon-dualovercodingofanapparentlydualisticnotionofdevotiontoa
deitythatispronominallyaddressedinthesecondpersonthroughoutthetext.
Kṣemarāja’stakesthisapparentrelationalnotionandusesittoarticulatean
immersioninasupremedeitywhoisimmanentlyconstitutedasencompassingand
savoringtheworldprocess.Thecommentariestotheseversesalsohighlightsomeof
Kṣemarāja’sapplicationsoftechnicalfeaturesfromIndianpoetics,whoseKashmiri
theorists,includingKṣemarāja’sownguru,hadrecentlytransformed.
AlthoughitisnotclearexactlywhatUtpaladevameansbybhakti,his
pervasiveusageoftheterm,oftenincontrasttothepathofknowledge(jñāna)or
yoga,seemstoevokeaformofdevotedattentionordedicationtothelord,andits
compoundingwithwordslikerasa(savour),ānanda(bliss),andsudhā(nectar)
furtherevinceasenseofblissfulparticipationinapowerfulrelationshipwiththe
deity,whichoftenleadstounion.
Kṣemarājaglossessuggestedmeaningsthroughouthiscommentaryonthe
Śivastotrāvalī.Inthemostoftheseglosseshesimplyusesaverbalderivationofthe
14
root‘dhvan’27[=tosuggest],withoutclarifyingthesubtypeorverbaloperationthat
facilitatestheprocess.InhiscommentonUtapaladeva’sfirstversethatemploysthe
compoundbhaktirasa,Kṣemarājaismoredetailedinhisliteraryanalysis.Hereadsa
suggestedsimile(upamādhvani)thatisfacilitatedbythetypeofsuggestionthatis
cognizedafterapause,likethereverberationofabell(anuraṇana).Thisisoneofthe
mainsubcategoriesofsuggestion,mappedoutbyĀnandavardhanainthe
Dhvanyāloka andunpackedbyAbhinavaguptainhiscommentary(locana)tothat
text,inwhichtheliteralsenseofagivenverseissubordinated
(vivakṣitānyaparavācya)andtheprocessofapprehendingthesuggestedmeaninghas
anoticeablesequence(lakṣyakrama).Independentofthetheologicalcommitmentsof
thecommentary,Utpaladeva’sversecanbetranslatedaccordingly:
O’lord,onlythewiselongfortheabundancethatfosterstheconfidencetodelightinthesavor(rasa)ofdevotion(bhakti)toyou.28
Kṣemarāja,takingeveryopportunitytoforcetheaboveverseintothelogicofanon-
dualframework,addstohisglossesthesuggestedsimileoflongingforsexual
intimacy:
Thewise,giventobhakti,onlytheylongfortheabundancethatconstitutesanunequaledimmersioninyou(Śiva),butnot[thosewhoseeksupernatural]powers.Whattype[ofabundance]?[Thatwhich]fostersconfidence–thecapacitytoassimilate[thedeity]–intheenjoymenti.e.wondrousrelish(camatkāra)ofthatrasawhichistheelixir(amṛta)ofdevotiontoyou,[namely]totalimmersioninyou.Andhere[inthefollowingstatement]thereisthesuggestionofasimilemademanifest(vyaṅgya)[afterapauselikea]reverberation(anuraṇana):“everyonelongsforthatabundance:justthenourishingsexualunionwithabeloved.”29
27 i.e.,dhvanana,dhvanita,dhvanati,dhvanyate.28 SSA,verse1.23:tā eva paramarthyante sampadaḥ sadbhir īśa yāḥ tvad bhaktirasasambhogavisrambhaparipoṣikāḥ29 SSA,commenttoverse1.23,p.322:sadbhiḥ bhaktiśālibhiḥ tā eveti asamatvatsamāveśamayyaḥ saṁpadaḥ paraṁ kevalam arthyante na tu aṇimādyāḥ kīdṛśyaḥ yāḥ tvadbhaktirasasaṁbhoge
15
Beyondcoorespondinganevocativeimagethroughasuggestedsimile,Kṣemarāja’s
employmentofthetechnicalapparatusofKashmiriliterarytheorytoexplicitlygloss
anupamādhvani(suggestedsimile)inaŚaivacontextis,tomyknowledge,
unprecedentedbytheeleventhcentury;particularlyinhissyntheticuseofboth
ŚaivismandtheKashmiripoetictraditionthatcanonizedtheroleofliterary
suggestion(dhvani).AlthoughBhāskara’scommentontheŚivasūtrasclearlyuses
thelanguageofdramaturgytodescribeŚivaasacosmicactor,Iwouldarguethat
suchconceptualborrowingstodescribeŚaivacosmology,alsoprevalentin
Abhinavagupta’sbenedictoryverses30inhiscommentariesonBharata’sNāṭyaśāstra
andĀnandavardhana’sDhavanyāloka,aredistinctfrommakingaŚaivatextthe
explicitobjectoftechnicalliteraryanalysis.
Theuseofsuggestion,accordingtotheKashmiriliterarytheoristspreceding
Kṣemarāja,producesanotherorderofbeautythanthedirectexpressionofafigureof
speech,suchasasimile,hyperbole,orpun.Kṣemarāja’sanalysisexhibitsabuilt-in
argumentthatUtpaladeva’sstotrasshouldbereadassitesofpoeticsuggestion.His
readingopensupthepossiblyofrelishinggreaterpoeticexcellenceandenjoyment
fromŚaivastotras,ifoneissensitivetoarealmofmeaningthatisbeyonddirector
secondarysignification.Thiskindofpoeticreceptionofanexplicitlytheological
workisentirelydependentuponaliterarycultivationthatwouldinturnenableoneto bhavatsamāveśāmṛtacamatkāre visrambhaṁ svairaṁ svīkāraṁ puṣṇanti atra ca priyāsaṁbhogapoṣikā eva sarvasya saṁpado ‘rthanīyāḥ ityanuraṇanavyaṅgyopamādhvaniḥ.30 SeeNSAbh,p.209:saṁsāranāṭyanirmāṇe yāvakāśavidhānataḥ pūrvaraṅgāyate vyomamūrtīṁ tāṁ śāṅkarīṁ numaḥ‘ObeisancetothewifeofŚiva(Śaṅkarī)whocommencesthedramaticprologueinthecreationofthecosmicdrama(saṁsāranāṭya),byprovidingthespace[forthatdrama/creationtounfold],sincesheembodiesthevoid’.Thistranslationtakesvyomamūrtīmasanadjectivecontainingareason(hetugarbhaviśeṣaṇa).
16
betterappreciateandrelishaŚaivatransmissionofwisdom.Inlightofthis,belowI
willconsiderbrieflytheroleofspecificliteraryforms,basedonKṣemarāja’schoice
ofpoeticglosses,thatbegintotellushowliterarytheorywasimaginedto
efficaciouslyserveaspecificallyŚaivaend.
Inhiscommentaryonanotherbhaktirasaverse,Kṣemarāja,agreeingin
principlewithAbhinavaguptathattheworldinitself(asformedfromtheperspective
ofthelimitedmind)cannotbeasourceofenjoyment,revealshowtheambrosial
non-dualimmersionofbhaktirasatransformsthatpossibility,creatingan
otherworldly(alaukika)context.Utpaladevadescribesthesourceofthislimiting
worldasthemindwhich,rituallysprinkledwithbhaktirasa,bearsahigherfruit:
O’lord,thismind,whichistheseedofsuffering,naturallyvariegated,afterbeingsprinkledwiththesavour(rasa)ofdevotion(bhakti)toyou,hasasitseminentfruitthemostexcellent[state].31
Kṣemarājadeepensthedichotomybetweentheimpossibilityofenjoyingtheworld
withanunenlightenedmindandanentirelydifferentrelationshiptotheworld
followingthemetaphoricalritualactofbeingsprinkledwithnectar,anactthat
suggestsamethodofrealizationthatheinterpretsastheesotericcoreofallŚaiva
tantra:
O’Lord,i.e.Master,thismindisvariegated,thatistosay,thecauseofsufferingwhicheveryonedesirestoavoid;thatvery[mind]issprinkledwithelixirofyourbhaktiwhichisthegreatfruitofliberationconsistingofsupremebliss.For,itisneverthecasethatthetasteofpoisonissweetinthecontextoftheworld.Therefore,whatissuggested(dhvanita)isanextraordinaryunfolding(krama)thatbelongsonlytoimmersion(bhakti)inyou,whichisotherworldly(alaukika).32
31 SSA,verse1.26:citraṃ nisargato nātha duḥkhabījam idaṃ manaḥ tvadbhaktirasasaṃsiktam niḥśreyasamahāphalam32 SSA,commenttoverse1.26,p.323:he nātha svāmin idaṁ citram duḥkhakāraṇamidaṁ manaḥ sarvasya heyaṁ yadabhimataṁ tadeva tvadbhaktirasāyanena siktaṁ
17
Herebhaktiissuggested(dhvanita)tobeanotherworldlymethodofrealization
becauseofthecontrastbetweenthemundaneconditionofthemindandthis
extraordinaryunfolding(krama)thateffectivelyinstrumentalizes,internalizes,and
transmutesthemind’slimitingactivityintoliberatingenjoyment.Theimageof
poisonnotbeingrelishedintheworldisametaphoricaldepictionoftheconditionof
themindasasourceofsufferinginrelationshiptotheworld.Theotheroption,
termedkrama,isthereforedescribedasotherworldly(alaukika),andissuggestedas
asolutiontotheproblem,somethingthatallowsonetorelish(āsvāda)whatappeared
aspoisonintheworld,asnectarinanewcontext.
Thisextraordinarymethod(krama)isfurtherexplicatedinKṣemarāja’sother
commentaries,andcanbebrieflysummarizedinfivestagesthatareinconsonance
withtheaboveKaulaimageryofthetransmutationofthesensesintogoddessesof
cognitionthatrelishtheworldanddissolvethepractitionersidentityintothe
spaciousBhairava(cidvyomabhairava)attheircore.33Thephasesofthisprocess
(krama),followingfivetransitionsofacognitionandparallelingfivecosmiccycles,
arecontemplatedasradiantlyemerging(ābhāsana),beingimmersedinthe
awarenessofanobject(āmarśana),internalizingallthoseobjectivemanifestationsin
a[subjective]relish(saṃcarvaṇam),andthendevouringthelimitedsubjective
identityintopureconsciousness.Allthesephasesarepervadedandsupportedbya
paramānandamayamokṣamahāphalam na hi kadācit lokaṁ prati viṣādeḥ madhura āsvādaḥ atastvadbhakterevāyam alaukikaḥ krama iti dhvanita. 33 AnimportantdistinctionisthattheKramatraditionpositsthegoddesses,heretwelveKaliswiththeirultimatesource,Kālasaṁkarṣiṇī,asthebasisandbackgroundofBhairavaandhispower.See(Sanderson[1986],p.198-201).
18
finalrevelatoryphaseofpureradianceknownasthewheeloflight(bhāsācakra).34
Thecognitivevariegationthatpoisonouslydeludedalimitedagentistransmuted
throughaliberatedcapacitytorelishandassimilatethediversityofalimitedworld
bymeansofanotherworldlytechnology(krama)connectedtothenotionofbhakti.
Kṣemarājaalsoreferstothefinalphaseofthismethod,thewheelofradiance
(bhāsācakra),whenpoeticallyrenderingthetransformationoftheworldinto
ambrosia,inoneofhisownversestranslatedbelow.
BeforelookingtotheStavacintāmaṇiasanexemplarysiteforthecreative
dialoguebetweenliterarytheoryandŚaivisminKṣemarāja’scommentarialproject,a
briefmentionofacentralelementofthephilosophicaldoctrineofrecognition
(pratyabhijñā)heutilizeswillbeconsidered.TheentirethrustofthePratyabhijñā
systemistofacilitatetherecognitiveapprehensionthatown’soneself(svātman)is
theSupremeLord(parameśvara).Abhinavaguptaarguesthatthiscanbefacilitated
througha“transference”ofathirdpersondescriptiontoafirstpersonrealization.
Oneofthemostlucidscholarsonthetopicexplains:
InhisĪśvarapratyabhijñāVimarśinīandVivṛtivimarśinī,[Abhinavagupta]discussestheproperaudience‘reception’ofthefirstverseofthePratyabhijñāśāstra.InthatverseUtpaladevaproclaimsthathehasattainedidentitywithŚiva,andthatforthebenefitofhumanityheisestablishingtherecognitionofsuchidentity,whichbestowsallprosperity.Abhinavaexplainsthatwhenaqualifiedperson(adhikārin)hearsthis,heorsheconceivesatransference(saṃkrānti)ofitintoafirst-personperspective,intherealizationthatheorshehasalreadyattainedthatrecognitionoftheperfectandtimelessSupremeLord.35
34 ThissummaryfollowscloselySanderson’stranslationofoneofKṣemarāja’spassagesfromhiscommentary(uddyota)ontheNetratantra.See(Sanderon[1995],p.55,withtableonp.56).35 Lawrence(2008),p.18-19.
19
InthefinalanalysisofKṣemarāja’sstotracommentaries,whichtakesthefirstverse
oftheStavacintāmaṇi asitsfocalpoint,wewillconsiderthisnotionofafirst-person
‘transference’,andreflectuponthequalifications(adhikāra)thatarerequiredforthe
versetoachievethisgoal.
StrategicPoetics:PratyabhijñāPhilosophyandParonomasia(śleṣa)
NārāyaṇabhaṭṭabeginshisWish-fulfillingGemofPraises(Stavacintāmaṇi)withthe
followingverse:
VictorytothehighestLordwhomakesthegloryof[his]blissshineforth,beingrevealedbythe[linguisticpowerknownas]paśyantī,whichcaptivatesthemindsinceitisanexcellent[formof]speech.36
Kṣemarājatakesfulladvantageofthisverse’sinclusionofthetechnicalterm
paśyantī(causalspeech)tosketchanelaboratecosmology,basedonthephonematic
emissionorlogostheoryhistraditiondevelopedfromthegrammarian,Bhartṛhari.
Kṣemarāja’scommentarytracesŚiva’sprogressiveunfurlingofthecosmosthrough
hispower(śakti),heredescribedasthesupremeword(parāvāk),throughfour
consecutiveandinterpenetratinglevelsofspeech,andthenhefillsoutthis
cosmologybydetailingthevariousbeingsinhabitingeachplaneofexistence.Thisis
followedinbyadetaileddescriptionoftherecognitivepathofawakeningforthe
limitedbeingsenmeshedinlowerepistemologicalvantagepointsofthatemanation,
inspiredbyŚiva’sdesiretobestowgrace(anujighṛkṣā).Thisgraceinitiatesanascent
throughthefourlevelsofspeech,37whoseculminationismountingthehighestlocus
ofidentity(dhārādhirūḍha),describedinexactlythesametermsabovein
36 SC,verse1:sugirācittahāriṇyāpaśyantyādṛśyamānayā|jayatyullāsitānandamahimāparameśvaraḥ37 Inorderofsoteriologicalascent,grossspeech(vaikharī),subtlespeech(madhyamā),causalspeech(paśyantī)andsupremespeech(parāvāk).
20
Kṣemarāja’sdescriptionofacertainperson(kaścit)becomingŚivaasthecosmic
poet(kavi).Asaknowingagent(pramātṛ)ascendsthroughincreasinglysubtleplanes
ofcosmicvocalization,eachoneisdecreasinglycharacterizedbydifferentiation,and
thereisasimultaneousexpansionofthecapacitytorelishthecoordinatingspheres
thatemerge.ThisprincipleisarticulatedbyAbhinavaguptaaccordingly,“themore
distinctiondims…themoreaestheticpleasure,relishing,rejoicing,cometothefore:
everybodyenjoysintensesatisfactionathearingamusicmadeofunmanifest
sounds.”38Theepitomyofthisprogressionistheall-embracingunityofŚivahimself,
anditlogicallyfollowsthatheisboththemodelforandpreeminentfulcrumof
“aestheticpleasure,relishing,andrejoicing.”
Inthenextsectionofthisextendedcomment,Kṣemarājareadsaśleṣadhvani
(suggestionofapun)mademanifest,liketheearlierexample,throughthepowerof
suggestionthatarisesafterapause,likethereverberationofabell(anuraṇana).
Kṣemarājarereadseachwordofthestotratorevealasuggestedpoeticscene,and
thencomparesittothefundamentalrecognitionthatNārāyanabhaṭṭa’sverseismeant
toinvoke:
Justasacertainlord(kaścit īśvara)isvictoriouswhosegloryistheblissthatbeingmadevisibleinthesomaticemotions(sāttvikabhāva),suchashorripilationandgoosebumps,arisingbecauseofseeing(paśyantyā)andbeingseen(dṛśyamānayā)byacertainyounggirl,withdesireonaccountofmutualaffection,a[girl]whoiscaptivating[his]heartwithsweetspeech(madhuragirā)thatispleasingto[her]beloved,inthesamewaythehighestSelfofŚivaisvictoriousasone’sownSelfbymeansofthesequence[processofascendingthroughplanesofspeech]thathasbeenexplainedabove.39
38 Torella,p.177.39 SC,commenttoverse1,p.5:yathā kayācit hṛdayahāriṇyā taruṇyā priyatamānurañjakamadhuragirā parasparānurāgavaśataḥ sābhilāṣaṁ dṛśyamānatayā paśyantyā ca udañcadromāñcādisakalasāttvikabhāvadarśanonnīyamānānandamahimā kaścit īśvaro jayati |tathā vyākhyātakrameṇāyamapi paramaśivātmā svātmā ityanuraṇanaśaktyā śleṣadhvaniḥ.
21
ThereisanextendedbackgrounddiscussioninthecontextofKashmirliterarytheory
(alaṁkāraśāstra)thatdistinguishesapunthatissuggestedfromonethatisdirectly
denoted.40InKṣemarāja’sreading,thesecondmeaningoftheverse,aparticularking
beingthrilledbytheappearanceandaffectionatesweetspeechofayounggirl,isnot
directlyexpressedbythesemanticrangethewordsthemselves,butinsteadimplied
(ākṣipta)“bytheinherentcapabilityofthesituation(sāmartha)”41throughthepower
ofsuggestion.Therelationshipbetweenthetwomeanings,thesceneofakingand
thebenedictionofthesupremeLord,issuggestedbecausebothhaveaninherent
similarity,andKṣemarājashowsthisbyusingarelative-correlativestructurethat
cuesasimile(yathā[justas]tathā [inthesameway]).Inthissimilethekingisthe
objectthatiscompared(upamāna)totheSupremeLord,thesubjectbeinglikenedto
(upameya).42Furthermorethisinherentsimilaritybetweenbothmeaningsisrevealed,
intechnicalterms,byasuggestionofthefigureofspeechknownasśleṣa
(paronomasia),apprehendedafterapauselikethereverberationofabellwiththe
primarymeaningstillinplay,anoticeablesequencebetweentheprimaryand
suggestedmeaning,andthesuggestedfigureofspeech(hereśleṣa)furnishedthrough
thepowerofmeaning(notwords).
TheexegeticalconcurrenceofaŚaivacosmologydisclosedthroughthelevels
ofspeech,areverseemanationintheformofasalvificascent,andacomplexliterary
40SeeIngalls,p.294,foratreatmentofĀnandavardhana’spositioncontrastedtoUdbhaṭaandIndurāja.41 Ingalls,p.295,footnote1.42 SeeIbid.,p.304,footnote4,whichelaboratesuponthefunctionofthissimilitudeoperativeforsuggestedpunsinthreeexamplesfromĀnandavardhanathateachincludeclarifyingcommentsbyAbhinavagupta.
22
glossofasuggestedpunthatcomparesthebenedictionofadeitytoaparticularking
beingenrapturedbyhisconsort,collectivelyconstituteanextremelycreative,andin
certainways,complementaryreadingofasinglestotra.Asmentionedinthe
beginningofthisstudy,Kṣemarājadoesnottellushowexactlyhowtheknowledge
systemsofŚaivismandliterarytheoryrelatetoeachother.Theirmerediscursive
adjacencyisremarkableinitself,buttheparticularformofthepoeticanalysisofthis
Śaivahymn,especiallyintheambianceofKṣemarāja’sparticulartheologicaland
philosophicalcontextexploredabove,doesnotappeartoberandomorhaphazard.
Kṣemarāja,inhisglossesofthestotras,isconstantlyshiftingbetweenadescription
ofaparticularizedentity(enrapturedking)andasupremeuniversalagent(Lord
Śiva),andintheabovecommentarythesetwoarepresentedthroughthemaximally
beautifulmodeofpoeticdisclosure(dhvani)inthelightofsimilitude.Furthermore,
KṣemarājadescribesthenatureofŚivawhoisbeingcomparedtoaspecifickingas
havingtheidentityofone’sownself(svātman).Itisnotobviouswhothisreflexive
pronounisreferringto,butfollowingAbhinavagupta’sargumentthattheideal
receptionofaversedescribingŚivaisthetransference(saṁkrānti)ofthatrealityinto
afirst-personrealization,thereflexivepronounlikelyreferstoaqualifiedreader
(adhikārin).TheliteraryoperationsthatKṣemarājaseesinBhaṭṭanārāyaṇa’sverse,in
homologizingaparticularentityandLordŚivathroughsimileandparonomasia,if
fullyrecognizedandrelished,seemdesignedtohelpthisprocessbypoetically
reinforcingtheequivalencebetweenanindividualandtheSupremeLord.Theyalso
raisequestionsabouttheliterarycompetence(adhikāra)necessarytoappreciate
23
Kṣemarāja’suseofpoeticstofurtherstimulatethecollapsingofdistinctionsbetween
theparticularandtheuniversal,thereaderandthetext,inthemomentofrecognition
(pratyabhijñā).
Conclusion
Thedichotomybetweeninhabitingaworldthatisinsipid(nīrasa)and
relishingthetransformationofthatworldthroughliberatedagency,iscentralto
Kṣemarāja’spoeticinterpretiveengagementwithŚaivastotras,andfullofprecedents
inthephilosophicalandreligioustexttraditionsatplayinhiscommentaries.
Kṣemarāja’sprescription,similarinmanywaystoAbhinavagupta,istobecomeŚiva
inordertorelishtheworldasnectar.Kṣemarāja,poeticallycapturesthis
transformationoftheworldinhisclosingversesoftheŚivastotrāvalī:
Destroythedefilements,causethelotusofthehearttobloom,awakenvitality,surely,causemylimbstodance.Havingsippedtheawareness(cetas)thatisawheelradiance(marīcicakra)fromthemoonofConsciousness(citi)liketheCakorabird,completelytransformthisuniverseintonectar.43
Theascendantprocessofrealizingthisparamountidentityenablesoneto
inhabittheofficeofsupremepoet,thesolekaviwhocomposesanddirectsthedrama
ofthethreeworlds.Furthermore,thiscosmicproductionmetaphoricallycontainsthe
elementsofclassicalIndiandramaturgicaltheory,suchasthepragmaticfactor
(arthaprakṛti)knownastheseed(bīja)thatgivesbirthtotheexternaldevelopmentof
auniversalplot.Theseseedsarealsoregisteredassourcesofcontractionby
Kṣemarāja,spawningthedelusiveidentitiesthatareformedinthewomb(garbha)of
43 SSA,p.446:kleśānvināśaya vikāsaya hṛtsarojamojo vijṛmbhaya nijaṁ nanu nartayāṅgam |cetascakoraciticandramarīcicakramācamya samyagamṛtīkuru viśvametat.
24
thephenomenalworld(māyā),andsothetensionbetweenproducingtheworld,and
beingtrappedbyit,isalwaysintheforeground.
Śivaisalsoimaginedasthesupremeactor,whoaloneperformseveryrole,
swayingintherelishofsupremeblisswhilesportinginthoseroles.Nevertheless,
whenthedramaticnatureofaplayorthethreeworldsisnotrecognized,the
otherworldlycontextofbothrecedestothebackground,andthepedestriannatureof
theworlddirectlyimpingesupontheunlimitedagencyinherentinthiscosmicactor.
Thisisfurtherclarifiedbythecontrastbetweenthemind,thelocusofidentityfor
limitedactors,beingasourceofendlesssufferingorbecomingtheconditionforthe
highestrealization,whensprinkledwithbhaktirasa.
TherealizationofŚivaalsotakesthemodalityofbecomingtheidealaudience
tothisdrama,theperfectconnoisseurthatknowshowtostabilizethepleasuresof
senseexperience,transmutethepreviouslyblindingactivitiesofcognitioninto
objectsofenjoyment,andrelishone’sownpower(śakti)astheentirecosmic
expanse.Theattenuationofdistinctions,whichareinteriorized,relished,and
assimilatedaccordingtothevisionaryimaginationofcertainKaulaandKramasects,
concomitantlyincreasesaestheticpleasure,relishingandrejoicingaccordingto
Abhinavagupta’sdictumstatedabove:“everyoneenjoysintensesatisfactionat
hearingamusicmadeofunmanifestsounds.”Butthosesameliberatinggoddessesof
thecognitionexertabindingforcefortransmigratorybeings(saṁsārin)whooften
cometobecomparedtotetheredcattle(paśu).
25
NavigatinghisreadingoftheStavacintāmaṇīandtheŚivastotrāvalīwiththese
poeticizedcosmologies,modesofpraxis,tantricimaginaries,andphilosophical
strategiesofrecognition(pratyabhijñā),Kṣemarājaisalwaysmovingbetweenthe
universalandtheparticular,theotherworldlyandtheworldly,andthisshiftingof
registersisintensifiedbyKṣemarāja’suseofliterarytheory.AsIargueabove,
Kṣemarāja’suseofliterarytheorygoesbeyondamerecoincidenceofpoeticsand
Śaivism.InmakingŚaivastotrasthedirectobjectofpoeticanalysis,andleveraging
thepowerofliterarysuggestiontopoeticallyjuxtapose(śleṣa,upamā)Śivaanda
limitedindividual,thetranscendent(alaukika)andtheimmanent(loka),Kṣemarāja
reachesoutthroughhistexttowardsanaudienceofhismaking:aŚaivaaesthetethat
canrelishthenectarofthisuniversetransformed.
Abbreviationsinthenotes
KSTS=KashmirSeriesofTextsandStudies
IPK ĪśvārapratyabhijñākārikābyUtpaladevawithautocommentary(-vṛtti) Ed.MadhusudanKaulSastri.KSTS34.Srinigar.1921NS,-ABh Nāṭyaśāstrawithacommentary(Abhinavabhāratī)ofAbhinavagupta. Ed.M.RamakrishnaKavi.Gaekwad’sOrientalSeries36.Baroda. 1926 SC StavacintāmaṇibyBhaṭṭanārāyaṇawithcommentary(-vivṛti)by Kṣemarāja.Ed.MukundRamaSastri.KSTS10.Srinigar.1918SSA ŚivastotrāvalībyUtpaladevawithcommentary(-vivṛti)byKṣemarāja.
Ed.withHindicommentarybySwamiLakshmanjoo.NewDelhi:IshwarAshramTrust.2000
SSVā Śivasūtra byVasuguptawithcommentary(-vārttika)ofBhāskara.Ed.J.C.Chatterji.KSTS4.1916
26
SSV ŚivasūtrabyVasuguptawithcommentary(-vimarśinī)ofKṣemarāja. Ed.J.C.Chatterji.KSTS1.Srinagar.1911VBh,-U,-V Vijñānabhairavatantrawithcommentary(-uddyota)byKṣemarāja Survivingonverses1to23completedbythecommentaryof Śivopādhyāya(-vivṛti).Ed.MukundRamaSastri.KSTS8.Srinigar. 1918 SecondarySources
Gerow,Edwin.“Abhinavagupta’sAestheticsasaSpeculativeParadigm.”Journal of the American Oriental Society114/2(1994):186-208.
Ingalls,DanielH.H.,JeffreyMoussaieffMasson,andM.V.Patwardhan,trans.The
Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta.HarvardOrientalSeries,no.49,Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1990.
Lawrence,David.“Abhinavagupta’sPhilosophicalHermeneuticsofGrammatical
Persons.”The Journal of Hindu Studies1/1-2(2008):11-25.Sanderson,Alexis.“ŚaivismandtheTantricTraditions.”InThe World's Religions,
editedbyS.Sutherland,L.Houlden,P.ClarkeandF.Hardy.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul(1988),pp.660-704.
_____.“MeaninginTantricRitual.”InEssais sur le Rituel III: Colloque du
Centenaire de la Section des Sciences religieuses de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études,editedbyA.-M.BlondeauandK.Schipper.Bibliothèquedel'ÉcoledesHautesÉtudes,SciencesReligieuses,VolumeCII.Louvain-Paris:Peeters(1995),pp.15-95.
–––––.“TheŚaivaExegesisofKashmir.”In:Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire
d’Hélène Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner,editedbyDominicGoodallandAndréPadoux,Pondicherry:Institutfrançaisd'Indologie/Écolefrançaised’Extrême-Orient,(2007),pp.231–442.
_____.“MandalaandĀgamicIdentityintheTrikaofKashmir.”InMantras et
Diagrammes Rituelles dans l'Hindouisme,ed.AndrePadoux.Équipeno.249'L'hindouisme:textes,doctrines,pratiques.'Paris:ÉditionsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique(1986),pp.169-214.
Torella,Raffaele.“HowisVerbalSignificationPossible:Understanding
Abhinavagupta’sReply.”Journal of Indian Philosophy32/2-3(2004):173-188.