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.