devi uvaca or the theology of the perfect tense - raffaele torella

RAFFAELE TORELLA

“DEV�I UV �ACA”, OR THE THEOLOGY OF THE PERFECT TENSE1

Many Shaiva tantras present themselves in the form of dialogues betweenthe Goddess and�Siva or Bhairava, in which generally the Goddessasks and�Siva replies. These roles may also be inverted, as happens inthe tantras assigning the highest position to the Goddess, accompaniedin a subordinate position by the God, who may sometimes even beabsent altogether. Thus in these texts sentences like these continu-ously recur: “The Goddess said [i.e. asked]” (dev�ı uv�aca), “Bhairavasaid [i.e. replied]” (bhairava uv�aca). In spite of their familiarity withsuch expressions which are very common in epic, narrative or�s�astricliterature of all time periods, the�Saiva theologians did not concealtheir embarrassment about them. How could it be possible to make theGoddess or Bhairava speak in the perfect tense? All the three essentialfeatures that grammatical speculation attributes to the perfect tense,namely, referring to the past (bh�uta), not pertaining to the current day(anadyatana) and being out of reach of direct experience (paroks.a),conflict with the nature of the Goddess, who, on the contrary, isparexcellencewhat abides in the heart of any reality, not only directly per-ceivable in all the planes of being, but even forming the very substratumof any human experience.

Prior to examining how the�Saiva philosophers of the K�a�sm�ırianadvaita faced and solved this theological-grammatical problem, it isconvenient to outline the grammatical frame of reference of the question.P�an. ini defines the perfect tense (lit.) in III.2.115 paroks.e lit. “[When theaction refers to the general past time excluding the current day] andbeyond the perception of the speaker,l-substitutes oflit. are introduced”(transl. Katre 1989: 253).2 The concept ofanadyatanais sufficientlyclear and does not require particular explanation. Pata~njali (MBh vol. IIp. 118) only underlines its being abahuvr�ıhi – which gives negation themeaning ofprasajyapratis.edha(cf. Uddyotathereon) for the declaredpurpose of excluding the use of the imperfect (la _n) in sentences like‘We have eaten yesterday and today’, which, instead, require the aorist(lu _n). Thus,anadyatanameans ‘not concerning today’. But what does‘today’ mean? Grammarians provide a rather varied list of definitions, ofwhich the most widely accepted seems to be ‘the current day together

Journal of Indian Philosophy27: 129–138, 1999.c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

130 RAFFAELE TORELLA

with half the preceding night and half the following day’ (Prad�ıpavol. III p. 249; cf. Kiran. �aval�ı on Paramalaghuma~njus. �a p. 211).

Far more problematic is the second feature ‘out of [or beyond] directexperience (lit. ‘sight’)’, being the object of an extensive analysis in theMBh, of which I will refer to only the points more directly relevant tothe question that interests us here. Pata~njali (MBh vol. II pp. 119–120)asks himself three questions: ‘what is the meaning and derivation ofthe term’ (kim. paroks.am. n�ama), ‘what is its referent’ (kasmin punah.paroks.e) and ‘what is its connotation’ (katham. j �at�ıyakam. punah. paroks.am.n�ama).3 He does not ask ‘with respect to whom’ as it is obvious thatthe reference is to the speaker. The meaning is ‘out of reach not ofthe sense of sight alone but of all senses in general’ (cf.Uddyotavol. III p. 251 indriyajanyaj~n�an�avis.aya ity arthah. ). Obviously,paroks.acannot refer to time, which, therefore, is not discussed at all (na vaik�al�adhik�aro ’sti). Thus, by exclusion, it must refer to the verbal root(dh�atu). However, the latter cannot be taken in its formal aspect (�sabda),since the qualificationparoks.a/pratyaks.a cannot apply to the word. Forthe word, in order to be able to fulfill its function of manifestor of themeaning, cannot but bepratyaks.a, as Kaiyat.a points out.4 What is leftis solely the root taken as ‘the meaning’ of the root, that is, action (kah.punar dh�atvarthah. /kriy�a). But every action, notes Pata~njali, is alreadyparoks.a by its own nature since it is a process formed by a sequence ofsegments. Only each single segment can be directly perceived, whilstthe action as a whole can only be inferred. If, through a cognitive effort,we lump together the single segments into a compact entity, the resultis something to which the name of ‘action’ does not apply any more(“like an embryo taken out from the uterus”).5 In this way, if we haveto exclude action, we are only left with the means of action (s�adhana).6

Thus, the perfect tense applies to a past action when the factorsthat brought it about are beyond the direct experience of the speaker.But then it would be impossible to use the perfect in order to say thatsomebody, who is presently in front of us, cooked some rice in the past,which is also in front of us now, because in that case both thekartr.and thekarmanwould not beparoks.a. Therefore, it is not thes�adhana(conceived as�saktivyatiriktam. �saktimad dravyam. , Prad�ıpa vol. IIIp. 253) as being a substance that has to be out of the direct experienceof the speaker, but thes�adhanaas connected to a particular�sakti or,in other words, thes�adhanaas engaged in a particular action.7 Thisis, in outline, the grammatical state of affairs, which makes Pata~njali(provisionally) conclude that on these grounds the use of the first person

“DEV�I UV �ACA”, OR THE THEOLOGY OF THE PERFECT TENSE 131

of the perfect is to be altogether excluded (sarvathottamo na sidhyati).8

I will dwell on this point later on.Let us go back to the�Saiva theologians and their feeling of embar-

rassment, fully justified indeed, at the use of the perfect tense in “dev�ıuv�aca”. To this has to be added the embarrassment at the very fact thatthe Goddess, who represents the totality of knowledge and conscious-ness itself, might be depicted in the act of ‘asking’, which, on the onehand, entails a limitation in her knowledge and, on the other, evokesthe presence of something outside her towards which she turns. Thesources where we are to search for the complex solution of this seem-ingly insoluble problem are, firstly, the two commentaries (Laghuvr. ttiandVivaran. a) that Abhinavagupta devoted to thePar�atrim. �sik�a, then the(only partly extant) commentary of Ks.emar�aja to theVij ~n�anabhairava9

and a very brief hint by Amr.t�ananda in hisD�ıpik�a on theYogin�ıhr.daya10

(the last two authors basically follow Abhinavagupta’s arguments). Tothese texts we may add the unpublished commentary by Kr.s.n.ad�asa onthe Anuttaratrim. �sik�a [i.e. Par�atrim. �sik�a]-Laghuvr. tti.

11

I have said ‘solution’, but in fact the two commentaries by Abhi-navagupta furnish two essentially different solutions.

Let us see first theLaghuvr. tti:

Here [in the Par�atrim. �sik�a], it is the very deity of the own self that, while awakening [toits fullness], incessantly asks its own self with a part of its reflective awareness [: : : ].In this way, when, in the course of its awakening, Consciousness asks the question,the ultimate essence of which is an imperfect shining, then, once it has attained thecondition of ‘perfectly awake’, it is itself who, in the state of fullness, consisting ofBhairava, becomes the ‘answerer’. And there is no question here of something comingbefore or afterwards but it is only a primordial reality that, continuously revolving,appears under the illusory construction of a temporal differentiation. Consequently,the Goddess is presented in the sphere of ordinary linguistic communication as ‘past’(bh�utatvena). Then, she is presented as being ‘beyond direct experience’ (p�aroks.yen. a)in the sense that there is no possibility of direct perception [of her] since by hervery nature she cannot be the object of knowledge.12

In this way, the use of the perfect tense is made acceptable, and withall its three essential features13 included (if taken in a less obviousand subtler way). The linguistic realization in grammatical terms ismade to correspond integrally to thevivaks. �a of the prayoktr. (here theauthor of the text) who remains, basically, on the metaphorical plane(cf. bh�utatvena vyavahriyate; see alsoVij ~n�anabhairava-uddyotap. 2paroks.am iva [: : : ] bh�utam iva [: : : ] anadyatan�ım iva). According toKr.s.n.ad�asa, the initial sentence (tatra sv�atmadevataiva: : : ) is preciselyaimed at giving a preliminary orientation to the listener/reader andpreventing him from accepting a more obvious (and unacceptable)interpretation of the three features:


Here the phrase ‘the deity of the own self’ [i.e. ‘that is the own self’] is meant tonegateparoks.a [in its current acceptation] in the sense of ‘out of reach of directexperience’ by affirming instead that it is uninterruptedly manifested in all livingbeings as ‘present to direct experience’, as being the I. By saying “: : : the deity ofthe own self [asks] its own self: : : ”, it eliminates the differentiation between thequestioner and the answerer; by saying “asks incessantly”, it also negates the featureof ‘past’ [taken literally] affirming that it has no contact with time, which wouldimply impermanence, the latter only qualifying objects of knowledge.14

The only tense that would have been compatible with the Goddess’saction of speaking, on account of her being present – her asking is alsonot subject to temporal limitation – and accessible to direct experience,is the present tense (lat.); if a past tense has been used, this is alsoto arouse in the disciples a firm adhesion to and understanding of thedoctrine, which is favoured by the presentation of the teaching as beingold.15

The analysis of the same sentence “dev�ı uv�aca” in the PTV is utterlydifferent, and much subtler. First of all, the grammatical interpretationitself is unexpectedly different: by exploiting the fact that the first andthe third persons of the perfect tense are morphologically identical(uv�aca), now the meaning is no longer “the Goddess said (asked)” but“I, who am the Goddess, said (asked)”. In so doing, Abhinavaguptaaims to avail himself of the observations that the grammatical tradition,from K�aty�ayana onwards, has elaborated on the issue of the first personof the perfect. Such a kind of sophisticated operation – to translategrammatical paradigms into theological ones, and viceversa – is notnew to him. He moves with elegance and suppleness between twofactually different dimensions, nourishing one through the other, thuspointing, through the liberty of his exegeses, to the unpredictability ofthe paths of supreme Consciousness.

Whether one considers asparoks.a the action, thes�adhanasor theconcrete entities being the substrata of thes�adhanas, the first personwould still be impossible, as here the speaker and the agent subjectcoincide, and an action is by necessity directly experienced by itsagent,16 or, from a slightly different viewpoint, the agent, in carryingout his function, must be self-conscious.17 The impossibility of the firstperson is to be accepted, replies a (possible)v�arttika by K�aty�ayana,except for a subject acting in a state of sleep or intoxication (MBh vol. IIp. 120suptamattayor uttamah. ). Or, Pata~njali adds, it is also possiblethat someone, though being awake, is not aware of what happens infront of him (or even of what he is doing himself); for example, oneamong the grammarians,�S�akat.�ayana, though standing on the road,does not notice the multitude of chariots that are passing.18 This can


be explained, goes on Pata~njali (ibid.), by the fact that the senses canproduce a certain perception only if united tomanas, and heremanasisabsent, viz. engaged in other activities. Thus, when somebody, havinghis mind directed elsewhere – due to intoxication, sleep or mere absent-mindedness – is not aware of what he did on a certain occasion andsomeone else who witnessed that action reminds him of it, then he isallowed to say, by using the perfect tense: “Indeed, while I was sleeping,I spoke a lot”.19 This is the grammatical background of the complexinterpretation of “dev�ı uv�aca” in the PTV. In spite of its length, it isworthwhile to quote this very interesting passage in full:

In this way, when the Blessed Goddess [as] Pa�syant�ı and Madhyam�a becomes awareof herself in these terms: “In the form of the deity Par�a V�ac, thus I spoke (avocam)”,20

then, being in that state, in conformity with the differentiation with respect to herselfcaused by m�ay�a – for it is precisely in this stage that the m�ayic creation beginsunfolding – she conceives of that plane of Par�a V�ac21 as past (bh�utatvena), looks atit as beyond direct experience (p�aroks.yen. a) inasmuch as she [Par�a] transcends thepaths of the inner and outer senses, to which the appearance of differentiation alonegives life, and, lastly, [conceives of Par�a as ‘not concerning today’] in that she is notdefined by the notion of ‘belonging to the current day’, created by the division intodays which in its turn depends on the transit of the sun, etc. The three conditionsof bh�uta, paroks.a and anadyatanahaving been fulfilled, the perfect tense in thefirst person is allowed. The meaning comes to be as follows: “I, who am nobodyelse but the Goddess Par�a V�ac – as the state of non-differentiation of all expressingwords and expressed meanings – said.” This use of the first person is only possibleif we refer to situations and expressions such as “Indeed, while sleeping, I spoke alot”. To elaborate: He does not recall that past situation because in the past he hadnot been able to apprehend it; now, instead, either because somebody witnessed itor due to some physical alteration, such as stammering caused by having spoken orsung too much, he comes to realize it with wonder. In fact, we cannot say that thisis merely a case of non-apprehension. The fact of being out of direct experience(paroks.atva) derives from the non-apprehension of a particular knowable object incases like intoxication, sleep or stupefaction (“While being intoxicated or sleeping,indeed I spoke a lot”); in the state of Par�a, on the contrary, it derives from the veryabsence of any particular knowable object. The difference between the two situationslies precisely in this: the absence of any knowable object depends on the fourth statearising [in Her] once She attains the perfect identification with the knowing subject,whereas in the other cases (intoxication and so forth) it depends on the predominanceof obfuscation. However, the fact of being out of direct experience (paroks.atva) is,in itself, the same.22

In Abhinavagupta’s involute discourse, diverse levels of meaningprogressively emerge, without, however, excluding each other. Afterall, it is the Supreme Goddess that is at issue here. The use of theperfect tense in the first person has the purpose of implicitly indicating,so-to-speak, a stratification in the subject but within a basic unity. Thisimperfect coincidence accounts, on the one hand, for the differentiationbetween a questioner and an answerer, which, as we have seen, would notsuit the nature of the Goddess; these two roles correspond respectively


to the plane of ‘being about to awake’ and ‘fully awake’. In fact, theutterance of this verb in the perfect tense occurs in the present, that is,within sam. s�ara, and has as its agent Pa�syant�ı-Madhyam�a (in the latter, Ibelieve, also Vaikhar�ı is to be understood). Such ‘imperfect coincidence’,on the other hand, is grounded on a basic unity too. The three featuresof the perfect do not concern action (thedh�atvartha) but its stratified orconcentric agent. In particular, the termparoks.a is explained twice andwith two different meanings, always with reference to Par�a. The firsttime it refers to her being inaccessible to an objectifying knowledge;the second time it points to the general absence of the very notionof ‘knowable object’ on the Par�a level, thus making the question ofparoks.a/pratyaks.a meaningless.

Abhinavagupta does not say it explicitly but he seems to expect therecipient of his teaching to realize by himself that all this argument isessentially only a variation on the theme of recognition, evoked throughthe solution of a grammatical problem. Just as the first person of theperfect presupposes, so-to-speak, a splitting of the subject followedby a new integration and reconstitution of the original unity, so theGoddess starts from the state of Pa�syant�ı-Madhyam�a and finally re-affirms herself as the all-encompassing Par�a, or, in other words, begins asthe questioner (Dev�ı) and ends as the answerer (Bhairava). In fact, whatAbhinavagupta says about the subject who, thanks to the interventionof somebody close to him or to his noticing certain unequivocal signs,becomes aware that he has spoken in his sleep, irresistibly recalls thedynamics of the recognition of one’s own identity with the Lord.

However, since He, though being directly perceived is not discerned for what He isbecause of delusion, precisely for this reason, by bringing His powers to light, therecognition of Him is shown.23

When, on the contrary, by virtue either of the guru’s words or of the recognitionof the powers of knowledge and action in the self, he realizes the greatness of hisown Mahe�svara’s nature, then liberation in life, consisting in the state of absolutefullness, is immediately achieved.24

This experience is connotated by ‘wonder’ (camatk�ara).25 But hadnot Abhinavagupta described precisely in these terms (camatk�ar�atpratipadyate) the recovering of the speaker’s awareness of his nocturnaltalking?

The perfect tense in the first person is therefore the ideal model toexpress a distinction and a coincidence of planes at the same time, thatis, the empirical subject’s existing and acting in ordinary reality and,at the same time, his being eternally rooted in supreme Consciousness.To conclude with Abhinavagupta’s words:


evam. sarva eva pram�at�a guru�sis.y�adipade anyatra v�a vyavah�are sthitah. sarvak�alameva yat kim. cit kurv�an. a en�am eva sam. vidam anupravi�sya sarvavyavah�arabh�ajanam.bhavati / atas t�am eva vastuto vimr.

�sati dev�ı uv�aca iti.Thus, every subject, in whatever empirical state he may be (either of master or

disciple or any other), at any time, whatever he may be doing, is able to deal withall human transactions [only] because he is compenetrated with this Consciousness.Therefore, it is it alone that, in reality, he refers to in saying “I, the Goddess, said”(PTV p. 190).

NOTES

1 This paper intends to be a small contribution to the study of the interactionbetween grammatical doctrine and religious-philosophical speculation, a study carriedout (and, if not opened, at least re-opened) by Professor Kamaleshvar Bhattacharyawith a series of masterly papers, too well-known to be listed here.2 The specifications ‘the general past time’ and ‘excluding the current day’ are tobe added to the s�utra throughanuvr. tti from P. III.2.84 and III.2.111. For a surveyof the lak�aras’ doctrine see Renou 1960 and Gune 1978.3 Pata~njali refers to different views: something can beparoks.a because it belongsto a more or less remote past, because it is hidden by a screen, and so forth (MBhvol. II p. 120 kecit t�avat �ahur vars.a�satavr. ttam. paroks.am iti / apara �ahuh. kat. �antaritam.paroks.am iti / �ahur dvyahavr. ttam. tryahavr. ttam. ca).4 Prad�ıpa vol. III p. 252 pratyayaprakr. teh. �sabdasyocc�aryam�an. asy�anubh�utatv�atparoks.atv�asam. bhavah. .5 MBh vol. II p. 120 kriy�a n�ameyam atyant�aparidr.s. t. �anum�anagamy�a�saky�a pin. d. �ıbh�ut�anidar�sayitum yath�a garbho nirlut.hitah. .6 Provided that they are conceived as something different from the variousgun. asthat compose them, for, in this case, beinggun. as (= �saktis), they too could only beknown by inference (MBh vol. II p. 120yadi t�avad gun. asamud�ayah. s�adhanam apyanum�anagamyam / ath�anyad gun. ebhyah. s�adhanam. bhavati pratyaks.aparoks.at�ay�am.sam. bhavah. (Prad�ıpa vol. III p. 253 �sakt�ın�am. nity�anumeyatv�at).7 Prad�ıpa vol. III p. 253 [ : : : ] s�adhanatvasya sam. rambhar�upasya paroks.atv�atpap�aceti yuktam; Uddyota ibid. sam. rambhah. �saktis tad�avis. t.ar�upasyety arthah. ;Vy�akaran. abh�us.an. as�ara p. 186 vy�ap�ar�avis. t. �an�am. kriy�anuk�ulas�adhan�an�am ev�atrap�aroks.yam. vivaks. itam.8 ‘In all cases’ (sarvath�a), that is, irrespective of howparoks.a may be conceived(see above n. 3).9 P. 2 tatra pa�syanty�adipade dyotan�adisatattv�a sam. viddev�ı prabudhyam�anatay�apras. t.r�ı sv�am. (KSTS Ed. sv�a) parabhairav�abhinn�am. (KSTS Ed. �abhinn�a)par�abh�umim. sad�a sv�abh�as�am apy antarb�ahy�aks. �agocaratv�at paroks. �am iva,pa�syanty�adik�al�apeks.ay�a tu bh�ut�am iva, tattadrudraks.etraj~natattatpr�an. �am. �s�am. -�sik�apeks.yakalp�avadhikadinam�as�anvay�abh�av�at anadyatan�ım (KSTS Ed.adyatan�ım) ivay�avad anves. t.um �amr. �sati, t�avat ’supto ‘ham kila vilal�apa’ itivat aham eva sam. viddev�ıpa�syanty�adipade prabubhutsur asphut.asphuritapar�abhat.t. �arikaikyacak�asadrahasyamuv�ac�amamar�sa.10 P. 4 �siva ev�aham. vaikhar�ıparyantam. vy�apr. tya vimar�s�am. �sena pr.s. t.av�an iti y�avat/ uv�aceti lid. uttamapurus.aikavacanam / bh�utatvam. ca vaktavyasya sad�atanatv�at /anadyatanatvam ak�alakalitatv�at / paroks.atvam anindriyagocaratv�at.11 Oriental Research Institute and MSS Library, Trivandrum, MSS No. C.2108Dand 5854F.


12 P. 1 tatra sv�atmadevataiva prabudhyam�an�avasth�ay�am. sv�atm�anam.par�amar�s�am. �sen�anavaratam(KSTS Ed. avatarantam) pr.cchati [: : : ]; p. 3 evam.prabudhyam�anar�up�a sam. vid yad�a pra�snam. nibhr. t�avabh�asanaparam�artham. (KSTS Ed.nirbhr. t�avabh�asam�anaparam�arthasvar�upam. ) karoti tad�a prabuddh�avasth�apratipattausaiva p�urn. ar�up�a bhairavadevat�atmik�a prativacanad�atr�ı sam. padyate / na caatredam. prathamik�a k�acid (KSTS Ed. atra aidam. pr�athamikatvam. kad�acid) api tupur�atanam eva tat param�avartam�anam. k�alabhedakalpanay�a bh�at�ıti bh�utatvenavyavahriyate ’vedyar�upatvena(KSTS Ed.divyar�upatvena) pratyaks. �abh�av�at p�aroks.yen. a(KSTS Ed.paroks.en. a) tad etad ucyate. I have emended the edited text on the basisof the readings found in Kr.s.n.ad�asa’s [Anuttaratrim. �sik�a]laghuvr. ttivimar�sin�ı (MSS);see above n. 11.13 In fact, anadyatanais not mentioned, but we may consider it as understood inthe phrasek�alabhedakalpanay�a.14 Oriental Research Institute and MSS Library, Trivandrum, MS No.C.2108D f.156b tatra sv�atmadevatety ukty�a sarvapr�an. is.v ani�sam aham ityaparoks.atay�a pratham�anatv�at paroks.atvam. nir �akr. tam. , sv�atmadevataiv�atm�anamiti vacanena pras. t.r.prativ�aktr.bhedo ’pahasthitah. , anavaratam. pr.cchat�ıty anenavedyavi�ses.an. abh�utatay�anityatv�ap�adakak�alaspar�s�abh�av�abhidh�an�at bh�utatvam apinirastam.15 Oriental Research Institute and MSS Library, Trivandrum, MSSNo. C.2108D f.157avastugaty�a tu ak�alakalitatvena tatpra�snavacanasy�apivartam�anatv�ad aham iti sv�atmar�upen. �aparoks.atv�ac ca lat.prayoga eva yogyaityabhipr�ayen. �anavaratam. pr.cchat�ıti vy�akhyeye p�urvam uktam. bh�utaprayogepade’pi deva[read dev�ı�] pra�snaprativacanar�upasya�s�astrasya pur�atanatvadyotan�atn�utanatvaprayukt�apratipattinir�akar.an. �at �sis.y�an. �an dr.d. hapratipattir upap�adit�a bhavati.16 At least, this is the common assumption; in fact, for the above men-tioned reasons, action as a whole cannot be experienced directly even by theagent (Prad�ıpa vol. III p. 254 �atmas�adhy�ay�ah. kriy�ay�ah. pratyaks.atv�abhim�anaiti bh�avah. ; the sense of Kaiyat.a’s remark is overlooked by his commentatorR�amendrasarasvat�ı (Mah�abh�as.yasiddh�antaratnaprak�a�sa vol. VI p. 279 �atmas�adhy�ay�ah.kriy�ay�ah. pratyaks.atv�ad iti bh�avah. ) whilst it is correctly pointed out by N�ar�ayan.a(Mah�abh�as.yaprad�ıpavivaran. a vol. VII p. 280 kriy�apratyaks.atvabhrama ity arthah. /na hi sam�uhar�up�ay�ah. kriy�ay�ah. satyatah. pratyaks.atvam.17 Padama~njar�ı on K�a�sik�avr. tti vol. II p. 630 tatra hi buddh�ındriya�sar�ır �adisa_ngh�atah.kart�a sa c�atmanah. pratyaks.a eva.18 According to N�age�sa, Pata~njali says ‘one among the grammarians’ to let us knowthat this is not a case of intoxication or madness, but of mere absent-mindness,to which, it seems, grammarians (not to speak of most modern indologists) wereparticularly inclined.19 Padama~njar�ı vol. II p. 630, madasvapn�adibhi�s citte vy�aks. ipte bhavati vai ka�scitsvakr. tam eva na j�an�ati, pa�sc�ad eva tvay�a kr. tam iti p�ar�svasthebhyah.

�srutv�a prayu_nkte– supto ’ham. kila vilal �apeti.20 Interestingly, here the aorist, not the perfect, is used. This means that Abhinav-agupta does not intend to give this past any specific connotation. He wants to expressonly a ‘basic’ past, which, only after receiving the specifications that immediatelyfollow, will become a perfect tense. In fact, the aorist (lu _n, P.III.2.110) expressesfirst of all a generic past (its specific use for anadyatanapast, which is the morefrequent in common practice, is established only indirectly through the followings�utra anadyatane la_n). However, as thePadama~njar�ı points out in an interestingpassage, the aorist can express any past action, even belonging to the most remotepast, provided that the speaker is not driven by the wish to express (or, as well,is driven by the wish not to express) the specific connotations of that past action(vol. II pp. 623–624iha bh�utas�am�anye lu_n vidh�ıyate, tasya vi�ses.e ’nadyatane la_nlit. �av


apav�adau, tadvis.aye ’pi lu_n dr. �syate [: : : ] tatra vi�ses. �avivaks. �ay�am. s�am�any�a�srayan. enavastuto’ nadyatane ’pi lun. upapadyate, tadr�upavivaks. �ay�am eva tu la_nlit.au). This isprecisely the case of Abhinavagupta’s argument.21 A plane which, instead, coincides with herself.22 evam. bhagavat�ı pa�syant�ı madhyam�a ca sv�atm�anam eva yad�a vimr. �sati ahameva par�av�agdevat�amay�ı evam avocam iti, tad�a tena r�upen. oll �asanm�ay�arambhatay�asv�atm�apeks.atay�a tanm�ay�ıyabhed�anus�ar�at t�am eva par�abhuvam. sv�atmamay�ım.bh�utatvena abhimanv�an�a, bhed�avabh�asapr�an. an�antarbahis.karan. apathavyativartin�ıtv�atparoks.atay�a s�ury�adisam. c�ar�ayattadinavibh�agakr. t�adyatan�anavacched�at [: : : ]bh�ut�anadyatanaparoks.

�arthaparip�uran. �at paroks.ottamapurus.akramen. a vimr. �set /aham eva s�a par�av�agdev�ır �upaiva sarvav�acyav�acak�avibhaktatayaiva uv�acetit�atparyam / supto ’ham. kila vilal �apa iti hy evam evopapattih. / tath�ahi t�amat�ıt�am avasth�am. na smarati pr�agavedyatv�at, id�an�ım. purus. �antarakathitam�ah�atmy�atativil �apag�an�adikriy�ajanitagadgadik�adidehavikriy�ave�sena v�a tadavasth�am. camatk�ar�atpratipadyate / na hy apratipattim�atram evaitat / mattah. supto v�aham. kila vilal �apaiti madasvapnam�urch�adis.u hi vedyavi�ses. �anavagam�at paroks.atvam, par�avasth�ay�am.tu vedyavi�ses.asy�abh�ava eva, kevalam atra vedakat�ad�atmyapratipatty�a turyar�upatv�at,mad�adis.u tu moh�ave�sapr�adh�any�at – it�ıy�an vi�ses.ah. , paroks.at�a tu sam�anaiva.23 �IPK I.1.3 kim. tu mohava�s�ad asmin dr.s. t.e ’py anupalaks. ite / �sakty�avis.karan. eneyam.pratyabhij~nopadar�syate// (tr. Torella 1994: 86).24 �IPV vol. II p. 275 �atmani guruvacan�aj j~n�anakriy�alaks.an. a�saktyabhij~n�an�ader v�ayad�a p�arame�svaryotkars.ahr.daya_ngam�ıbh�avo j�ayate, tad�a tatks.an. am eva p�urn. at�atmik�aj�ıvanmuktih. .25 Cf. e.g.�IPV vol. II p. 273 “aham. mahe�svarah. ” iti evam. bh�utacamatk�aras�ar�apar�aparasiddhilaks.an. �a j�ıvanmuktivibh�utiyogamayy arthakriy�a : : : .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TEXTS

Abhinavagupta,Par�atrim. �sik�avivaran. a (see Gnoli 1985).Abhinavagupta,Par�atr�ı�sik�alaghuvr. tti, edited by Pandit Jagaddhara Z�adoo Sh�astri,

KSTS No. LXVIII, Srinagar 1947.Abhinavagupta,�I�svarapratyabhij~n�avimar�sin�ı, edited by Mukund R�am Shastri, vols.

I–II, KSTS Nos. XXII XXXIII, Bombay 1918–1921.Kaun.d.a Bhat.t.a, Vaiy�akaran. abh�us.anas�ara with ‘Darpan. a’ Hindi Commentary, edited by

�Sr�ı Brahma Datta Dvived�ı, Chaukhambha Pracyavidya Series No. 17, Varanasi-Delhi1985.

M�ah�abh�as.ya Prad�ıpa Vy�akhy�an�ani, �edition par M.S. Narasimhacharya, Publicationsde l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Indologie, No. 51, 6 Pondich�ery 1979.

N�age�sa Bhat.t.a, Vaiy�akaran. asiddh�antaparamalaghuma~nj�us. �a, edited with ‘Kiran.�aval�ı’Sanskrit Commentary and Hindi Translation by Acharya Lokmani Dahal,Chaukhambha Surabharati Granthamala No. 180, Varanasi 1991.

N�ar�ayan.a, Mah�abh�as.yaprad�ıpavivaran. a (seeM�ah�abh�as.ya Prad�ıpa Vy�akhy�an�ani).Pata~njali, Vy�akaran. a-Mah�abhas.ya with Kaiyat.a’s Prad�ıpa and N�age�sa’s Uddyota,

edited by Guru Prasad Shastri and Bal Shastri, vols. I–V, Varanasi 1987–1988.R�amendrasarasvat�ı, Mah�abh�as.yasiddh�antaratnaprak�a�sa (seeM�ah�abh�as.ya Prad�ıpa

Vy�akhy�an�ani).Utpaladeva,�I�svarapratyabhij~n�ak�arik�a (see Torella 1994).Vij~n�anabhairava with Commentary partly by Ks.emar�aja and partly by�Sivop�adhy�aya,

edited with notes by Pan.d. it M. R. Sh�astr�ı, KSTS No. VIII, Bombay 1918.


V�amana-Jay�aditya, K�a�sik�avr. tti with Ny�asa or Pa~ncik�a commentary of�Ac�aryaJinendrabuddhip�ada and Padama~njar�ı of Haradatta Mi�sra, vols. I–VI,Sudh�ıgrantham�al�a No. 2, Varanasi 1983.

Yogin�ıhr.dayam amr. t�anandayogikr. tad�ıpikay�a bh�as. �anuv�adena ca sahitam, anuv�adakah.samp�adaka�s ca Vrajavallabhadvivedhah. , Delhi 1988.

TRANSLATIONS AND STUDIES

Gnoli, R. (1985) Il Commento di Abhinavagupta alla Par�atrim. �sik�a(Par�atrim. �sik�atattvavivaran. am), traduzione e testo, Serie Orientale Roma LVIII,IsMEO. Roma.

Gune, J. A. (1978)The Meanings of Tenses and Moods[The Text of Kaun.d.abhat.t.a’sLak�ar�arthanirn. aya with Introduction, English Translation and Explanatory Notes],Pune.

Katre, S. M. (1989) (tr.)As. t. �adhy�ay�ı of P�an. ini, Roman transliteration and Englishtranslation by: : : , First Indian Edition, Delhi.

Renou, L. (1960) “La th�eorie des temps du verbe d’apr�es les grammariens sanscrits”,Journal Asiatique248 (pp. 305–337); repr. in J. F. Staal (ed.),A Reader on theSanskrit Grammarians, SIL (1), Cambridge (Mass.), 1972 (pp. 478–499).

Torella, R. (1994)The �I�svarapratyabhij~n�ak�arik�a of Utpaladeva with the Author’sVr.tti. Critical Edition and Annotated Translation, Serie Orientale Roma LXXI,IsMEO. Roma.

Dipartimento di Studi OrientaliUniversit�a di Roma ‘La Sapienza’piazzale Aldo Moro 500185 Roma

devi uvaca or the theology of the perfect tense - raffaele torella

Documents