how is verbal signification possible understanding abhinavagupta s reply - raffaele torella

RAFFAELE TORELLA

HOW IS VERBAL SIGNIFICATION POSSIBLE:UNDERSTANDING ABHINAVAGUPTA’S REPLY1

We can find, scattered in Abhinavagupta’s works, a number of penetratingremarks on the nature of language. An overall assessment of his position inthe Indian speculation on sabda has not yet been attempted, and certainlythis is not an easy task due to the many components and the various sourcesof his eclectic teaching. Another reason for his absence from the generalsurveys of Indian linguistic studies may have been the implicit assump-tion that owing to his being a tantric master, and therefore above all a‘mystic’, his philosophy is not to be taken seriously, an exception beingmade only for his well-known contribution to aesthetics. Be this as it may,the available studies on Abhinava as a philosopher of language end up bybeing either a chapter attached to specific tantric studies or just a paragraphwhen dealing with the doctrine of Bhartr.hari, to which Abhinavagupta’sdoctrine is considered an esoteric appendix.2 Now that it is becoming moreand more apparent that Abhinavagupta is one of the great philosophers oftraditional India, time has come for us to make an attempt to reconsider hisideas in broader perspective.

The starting point of my enquiry was, in a sense, a negative one. At acertain point of my study of Abhinavagupta’s work I was struck by thefact that he hardly ever mentions sphot.a. Acceptance of sphot.a wouldseem the natural outcome of the central place that Abhinavagupta assignsto the whole of Bhartr.harian teaching in the Trika philosophy, since inBhartr.hari’s conception the sphot.a theory plays an essential role. On thecontrary, the rare occurrences of the term sphot.a in Abhinavagupta’s worksall show that he considers this doctrine as belonging to ‘others’,3 that is,the Vaiyakaran. as towards whom he never fails to exhibit a certain cold-

1 Extended version of a paper presented at the XII World Sanskrit Conference,Helsinki (July, 2003). Earlier drafts were read at La Sorbonne (May, 2002) and Berkeley(September, 2002).

2 Among the studies on linguistic speculation in Abhinavagupta, or more in general,in the so-called Kashmir Shaivism, see Gaurinath Shastri, 1959; Seyfort Ruegg, 1959:101–116; Padoux, 1990; Filliozat, 1994; Torella, 1998, 1999b, 2000.

3 E.g., IPVV vol. II, p. 188 ll.12–13 tatha ca vaiyakaran. air api vakyasphot. asya prayasobuddhinirgrahyataiva darsita.

Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 173–188, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

174 RAFFAELE TORELLA

ness.4 And, incidentally, this fact, too, deserves a closer investigation:how is it that Abhinavagupta is so often disparaging of the Vaiyakaran. asand at the same time so respectful and appreciative of their recognizedleader. The next step in my enquiry has been to see what is, then, themeaning-bearer for Abhinavagupta, once he has decided not to take theBhartr.harian sphot.a into account. An answer to this question is to besought, first of all, in the Paratrim. sikatattvavivaran. a (PTV), one of hismost personal and fascinating works, and in the Tantraloka (TA). Usefulhints are also to be found in Isvarapratyabhijñavivr. tivimarsinı (IPVV)and Malinıvijayavarttika. The picture which can be gathered from the fullrange of his texts is, if rather complex, nonetheless highly consistent.

To this old problem – what is the vacaka? – quite unexpectedlyAbhinavagupta furnishes the oldest of the solutions, that of the Mımam. sa:5

‘Ultimately, the power of verbal signification, consisting in the iden-tification with meaning, only pertains to phonemes’.6 The phonemeshave as their essential nature ‘sonority’ (sruti; PTV p. 249 l.20), whichpresupposes difference (without difference in sonority no articulation ofphonemes is possible). For the difference to be possible an inner unityis necessary; however, this unity, represented by supreme Consciousnessor Para Vac, does not cancel difference, but acts as the inner backgroundon which more and more interiorized forms of difference rest. For, as weshall see later, difference, multiplicity, are the very heart of phonemes.The fact that it is possible to speak inwardly implies that all the sourcesof differentiation of phonemes (place and organs of articulation, aspira-tion and so on) must also have some, so-to-speak, internal version (PTVp. 249 ll.24 antas tathasamucitasvabhavah. syad eva). The status of thephonemes in Abhinavagupta’s view seems to be very different from anyother classical conception, including the Mımam. sa’s. A telling evidencemay be represented by Abhinavagupta’s paradoxical answer to the objec-tion that not only the phonemes of language but many other sounds canexpress meanings, for example the sound of a drum or that of a bird (PTVp. 251 ll.10–11). Only phonemes, Abhinavagupta says, have by them-selves the power to express meanings (PTV p. 251 l.9 varn. anam eva ca

4 PTV (Gnoli edition) p. 236 ll.21–24 anyais caitat prayatnasadhitam iha caetavadupadesadharadhisayanasalinam aprayatna eva siddhyatıty nasmabhir atra vr. thavaiyakaran. agurugr. hagamane putasarıratavis. kriyamatraphale nirbandho vihitah. . IPVVvol. II, p. 194 ll.17–21, p. 195 ll.17–22, etc.

5 The first to maintain the identification of the word with the phonemes that compose itis held to be the Mımam. saka Upavars.a (Sabarabhas. ya p. 54, ad Mımam. sasutra I.1.5, athagaur ity atra kah. sabdah. | gakarokaravisarjanıya iti bhagavan upavars. ah. )

6 PTV p. 251 l.9 varn. anam eva ca paramarthato ’rthatadatmyalaks. an. am. vacakatvam;p. 241 ll.13–14 evam ekaikasyaiva varn. asya vastavam. vacakatvam.

HOW IS VERBAL SIGNIFICATION POSSIBLE 175

paramarthato ’rthatadatmyalaks. an. am. vacakatvam), so, if all sounds areseen potentially to have this power, this simply means that all sounds,without distinction, must have phonemes as their ultimate stuff. Even whenthey are indistinct or not fully manifested or articulated, the various soundscannot exceed the corpus of the phonemes (matr. ka).7 Nor can one say that,though being acknowledged as not going over the range of the matr. ka, theindistinct/unmanifest sounds are not to be taken into account because theylack any efficiency or practical application.8 In fact, they can for examplegenerate pleasure and pain, as is the case with the sound of the ocean orthe drum. Further, for the Saiva schools it is the avyaktadhvani ‘unmanifestsonority’ itself to be described as being the very stuff of the mantra (PTVp. 250 ll.19–20 mukhyatayaiva prayaso mantratvam), the powerful soundpar excellence.

An additional evidence for the ultimately phonemic nature of all soundsis to be found in the somewhat cryptic statement made by Patañjali in theYogasutra (III.17): ‘There is an overlapping of word, object and conceptdue to their being superimposed on each other. Thanks to directing [yogic]exercise on their differentiation one can obtain the knowledge of thesounds of all beings’. If, as seems obvious, ‘the knowledge of the sounds’is to be understood as ‘the knowledge of the meaning of the sounds’,this means that all sounds are given the qualification of not exceeding thenature of unperceived phonemes,9 since only phonemes can indeed signify.

Before attempting to find a rationale for bold statements like these,let us broaden our perspective and see what is the place of phonemes inthe theology of the Saiva advaita tradition which Abhinavagupta stemsfrom. It is very high, indeed. The whole of reality, in Saiva ritual, canbe traversed by six ‘paths’ (adhvan). The guru has to resort to one of them,according to the circumstances and the leanings of the adept, particularlyduring the initiatory ceremony. These paths are divided by Abhinavaguptaand his followers into two groups of three, called vacaka (padas, mantras,phonemes) and vacya (words, kalas, principles), respectively. In the Saivaadvaita outlook, the ‘linguistic’ paths hold an undiscussed ontologicalsupremacy with respect to the ‘realistic’ ones, while the opposite holdstrue in the dualist Saivasiddhanta.10

7 PTV p. 250 ll.15–16 avyaktatve ’pi ta eva tavantah. sabdatvat sabdasya camatr. katirekin. o ’bhavat.

8 PTV p. 250 ll.16–17 matr. kanatireky (my emendation for matr. katireky in the editedtext) api avyaktah. sabdo ’nupayogan na sam. gr. hıta ity apy ayuktam.

9 PTV p. 251 ll.7–8 sa katham. , asphut.avarn. arupatvatirekivihagadikujitajñanayaparyavasyet.

10 See Torella, 2001: 854–855.


The pada-adhvan (here pada refers to the parts of a long and compositemantra) corresponds to the level of ordinary language, with its puttingtogether the various phonemes to form words and sentences, and consti-tutes the body itself of discursive thought. Within the vacaka group thephonemes stand first as representing the essential components both ofthe padas and the mantras: phonemes do not depend on anything else,they are svanis. t.ha.11 But the very special, unique, rank of the phonemescan be well understood from a significant detail found in the complicatedpicture of universal reality given by Abhinavagupta in the PTV. Here thephonemes and the ontological principles (tattva) are viewed accordingto the different planes of being, represented by the four levels of theWord. Para and Pasyantı (or the goddesses Para and Parapara) are seenas bimba and pratibimba, that is, as the reflecting image and the reflectedimage, respectively (PTV p. 234 ll.14 ff.). What is very revealing is thatwhile in the mirror of Pasyantı the tattvas of the manifested world appearin reverse order (from bhumi to sakti instead of from sakti to bhumi;see table 5.1 in Padoux, 1990: 318–319), just like any reflected image,the consonantal phonemes (from K to Ks.), which are their quintessen-tial nature, remain unchanged. Abhinavagupta’s explanation is that thenature of phonemes does not tolerate alteration (PTV pp. 234 l.29–235l.1 svarupanyathatvasahis. n. ukadiparamarsananyathabhavenaiva). Theyare the paramarsas of the tattvas, i.e., the way in which conscious-ness becomes aware of them. At the level of Para Vac, the natureof the phonemes is ‘beyond convention, eternal, spontaneous, made ofconsciousness’.12 The above remarks clarify another significant feature ofAbhinavagupta’s linguistic ideas: the division of the word into three or fourlevels, upheld by Bhartr.hari and his followers – and, among them, the Saivaphilosophers themselves –, does not conflict with the Saiva emphasis onthe role of phonemes. Abhinavagupta is not willing to see any gap betweenconsciousness and phonemes (this after all cannot be a matter of too muchsurprise as his ontology and gnoseology typically do not like gaps). Wereit not premature with respect to the development of our presentation ofhis ideas, we could introduce right now the enigmatic expression foundin the TA (XI.67b), in which the answer to the question we are dealingwith here is implicitly fully contained: varn. asam. vit, probably a hapax in

11 padani mantrarabdhani mantra varn. aikavigrahah. / varn. ah. svanis. t.ha ity es. am.sthulasuks. maparatmata //. Source unknown, quoted in Tantraloka-viveka (TAV) vol. IV,p. 34.

12 PTV p. 220 ll.26–27 amıs. am. varn. anam. paravagbhumir iyam iha nirn. ıyateyatraives. am asamayikam. nityam akr. trimam. samvinmayam eva rupam.


Sanskrit vocabulary, in front of which Jayaratha himself (the TA’s learnedcommentator) remains silent.

But let us apparently abandon the main track and allow ourselves ashort digression, which, however, will prove to be not devoid of interest.The more distinction dims, says Abhinavagupta at a certain point of hismagnum opus, the more aesthetic pleasure, relishing, rejoicing, come tothe fore: everybody enjoys intense satisfaction at hearing a music madeof unmanifest sounds.13 Vaikharı, Madhyama, and Pasyantı are to be seenas ontologically higher and higher planes precisely due to differentiationprogressively diminishing in them (also within each of them there is aninner gradation towards non-difference, each of them showing a gross,subtle, and supreme level). From the linguistic point of view, this can beseen as the vacya component losing prominence in favour of the vacakacomponent. The tantric Abhinavagupta comes here to the foreground: thepresence of the vacya is always a sign of non-fullness,14 at the mantralevel it is precisely due to the lack of a vacya and to the total absenceof conventionality that the bıjapin. d. as ‘agglomerates of seed-mantras, i.e.,of mantras consisting of a single syllable’ can cause consciousness to‘vibrate’ (spandayanti).15 Starting from everyday reality, in which wehave the proliferation of the multiplicity of discursive thought and of the

13 TA III.243cd–244ab avibhago hi nirvr. tyai dr. syatam. talapat.hatah. // kilavyak-tadhvanau tasmin vadane paritus. yati /.

14 This may be connected with the old question, first mentioned as early as at thetimes of Yaska’s Nirukta (I.15), whether the vedic mantras are to be assumed as havinga meaning or not. The meaninglessness of the mantras was upheld by Kautsa, whoseposition is recorded and criticised by Yaska (I.16). The question is taken up again bythe Mımam. sasutra (I.2.31–39) and its commentators, who all endorse the ‘meaningful-ness’ option (for obvious reasons; the sutras 31–39 give voice to a purvapaks. a); cf. Staal,1967: 24–26, 45–47. A Buddhist Mahayana text raises the question from a differentperspective (cf. Dasgupta, 19693 [1946]: 20–22; see also Gonda, 1975 [1963]: 299–300, totally depending on the latter without clearly acknowledging it). There are fourkinds of dharan. ıs according to the Bodhisattvabhumi: dharma◦, artha◦, mantra◦ anddharan. ıs serving for obtaining the forbearance (ks. anti) of the bodhisattva. The latter,considered to be the highest, is made of totally meaningless syllables. But it is preciselysuch meaninglessness that is said to constitute their meaning (Bodhisattvabhumi p. 185l.25 ayam eva cais. am artho yad uta nirarthata). Through meditating on their meaningless‘meaning’, one can attain by himself the realization of the ineffable nature of all dharmas(ibid., p. 186 ll.1–4 sa tes. am. mantrapadanam artham. samyak pratividhya tenaivanusaren. asarvadharman. am apy artham. samyak pratividhyati svayam evasrutva [. . .] sarvabhilapaih.sarvadharman. am. svabhavarthaparinis. pattih. | ya punar es. am. nirabhilapyasvabhavataayam evais. am. svabhavarthah. .

15 TA V.140–141 kim. punah. samayapeks. am. vina ye bıjapin. d. akah. / sam. vidam.spandayanty ete neyuh. sam. vidupayatam // vacyabhavad udasınasam. vitspandatsvadhamatah. / pran. ollasanirodhabhyam. bıjapin. d. es. u purn. ata //. Cf. also ibid., VII.2cd–3ab bıjapin. d. atmakam. sarvam. sam. vidah. spandanatmatam // vidadhat parasam. vittav


language which makes it possible – a language made of fully developedwords and sentences endowed with fully defined objects –, we arrive,at end of a long journey, close to the very roof of being (however, it isalways to be borne in mind that in the Saiva advaita outlook there is noreal vertical division and the highest plane is already present in the veryheart of the lowest). This top reality is constituted by the plane of Sakti,or, from a ‘linguistic’ viewpoint, by the Matr.ka, whose body is articu-lated in nine and fifty forms. The former are the alphabetic classes of theSanskrit language, while the latter are the single phonemes. But Matr.ka,in which a shadow of objectivity (amr. sya) is still present,16 is not the laststep, which is instead represented by Bhairava, in the form of Sabdarasi‘mass of sounds’. In it, all objectivity and multiplicity are totally absent,it is only a single and unitary amarsa.17 At this point we are legitimatelycurious to see what happened to the fifty phonemes in what is the very coreof non-differentiated universal consciousness. Will they too be reduced toan undifferentiated unity, just like amarsa? Not at all. Even in Bhairava-Sabdarasi the phonemes keep their multiplicity, only they are so-to-speak‘compressed’ (sam. kal-), hence the denomination itself of ‘Sabdarasi’.18

Now it is high time that we put all the pieces together and attempt anexplanation. The phonemes are the only reality which is not swallowedby supreme consciousness; they never lose their own essential identityand nature regardless of the ontological level in which they act; theyfreely run through Vaikharı, Madhyama, Pasyantı and Para. Why is this?Simply because they are not a content of consciousness but consciousnessitself, amounting to its energetic, cognitive aspect. Thanks to this germ ofmultiplicity alone, which they constitute, consciousness can be alive, can

upayah. iti varn. itam /. As Jayaratha clarifies, it is not the vacya in itself that is altogetherabsent, but the vacya as distinct from the vacaka, since they shine in perfect unitywith consciousness (TAV vol. III, p. 455 sam. vidaikatmyena sphuran. at vyatiriktasyavacyasyabhavat . . .). In the case of mantras (and their varieties, like mantresvaras,mantramahesvaras etc.), the Saiva theology distinguishes a vacaka component (themantra proper in its ‘linguistic’ nature) and the vacya, i.e., the devata signified by it(Brunner, 2001: 184).

16 TA III.198cd amr. syacchayaya yogat saiva saktis ca matr. ka //.17 TA III.198ab ekamarsasvabhavatve sabdarasih. sa bhairavah. /. From the union of

Bhairava-Sabdarasi with Matr.ka arises another alphabet goddess, Malinı ‘the Garland-bearing One’, characterized by an apparently chaotic mixture of the phonemes (from Nto Ph) and specially connected with power.

18 Jayaratha thereon (vol. II, p. 191) ekah. – amr. syasunyatvan nih. sahayah. , amarsanamamarsah. paramarsakah. pramata, tatsvabhavatve pañcasato ’pi varn. anam. sam. kalanaya‘sabdarasir iti’, bhairava’ iti vyapadesah. . In other traditions sabdarasi may also be simplya synonim of matr. ka (e.g., Parakhya VI.3–4; apparently also in Siddhayogesvarı pat.alaXVI).


elude the impasse of the vedantin sat-cid-ananda, and perform its cosmicfunction, or, to use Abhinavagupta’s words, it can allow the successive toenter into itself and transform it into the non-successive.19 Language isprecisely the device by means of which succession (krama) is introducedinto consciousness so that consciousness can dissolve it into pure reflectiveawareness, in an eternal pay.20 The phonemes ‘support’, ‘feed’ authenticconsciousness (TA XI.65cd varn. aughas te pramarupam. satyam. bibhratisam. vidam //; Jayaratha thereon, ‘bibhrati’ pus. n. anti), enable it to approachobjects in terms of ‘this’. While remaining at same time in the planeof overflowing consciousness, they can ‘designate’, know everything.21

Signification by words and sentences, on which the articulation of thoughtand ultimately knowledge itself depend, is made possible by the fact thatthey are made of phonemes, constituting the very cognitive and activestructure of consciousness. All words and objects (and their knowledge)rest on this language-principle, which Abhinavagupta calls the ‘suprememantra’, but its supremely undifferentiated nature, its ‘greatness’ has inany case to contain within itself the differentiation of the various phon-emes; for without this inner distinction it would be impossible to distin-guish the various avikalpa experiences from which the various discursivearticulations will then arise, and everything would be the same.22 Humanlanguage is, of course, based on conventions.23 But conventions in order

19 Only the successive can enter into consciousness, then to be transformed into non-successive (PTV p. 243 ll.19–20 akramasya tat [i.e., krama] purvakatvena samvidy evabhavat).

20 PTV p. 243 ll.21–23 tatha ca sarva evayam. vagrupah. paramarsah. kramikaeva, antah. samvinmayas tv akrama eveti sadaiveyam evam. vidhaiva evam eva vicitraparamesvarı parabhat. t.arika.

21 TA XI.63cd–65 ucchalatsam. vidamatravisrantyasvadayoginah. // sarvabhidhana-samarthyad aniyantritasaktayah. / sr. s. t.ah. svatmasahotthe ’rthe dharaparyantabhagini //amr. santah. svacidbhumau tavato ’rthan abhedatah. / varn. aughas te pramarupam. satyam.bibhrati sam. vidam //.

22 PTV p. 251 ll.26–29 tac ca paramantramahah. pr. thivyadau suddhavyamisradi-paramarthikabıjapin. d. arupakadivarn. atmakam eva, anyatha merubadarajalajvalanab-havabhavaghat. asukhanirvikalpajñananıty ekam. sarvam. syat.

23 Significantly different from the status of ordinary language is that of mantras as theykeep a more direct contact with consciousness. Ordinary words have come down to usthrough the usage of the elders from which they are to be learnt. Their ultimate rooting inparamarsa takes place through intermediate steps and gradual ‘refinements’, whereas themantras are transmitted through a chain of gurus, starting with Siva himself, just as theyare, that is, with their innate and unlimited nature as consciousness absolutely intact: TAVvol. X, p. 107 (on XVI.265cd–267ab), mantran. am. punar anadiguroh. prabhr. ty adyapianavacchinnasahajaparamarsatmakatvam avisis. t.am eveti. It is precisely due to this pecu-liarity of the mantras that the supreme Lord is so highly careful about them (ibid., p. 106yena tatra paramesvarasyadarah. ).


to be effective and not simply depend in turn on other conventions with aregressus ad infinitum must have their roots in the universal conscious-ness in its ‘phonemical’ nature, the varnasam. vit we mentioned above(akr. trimanantavarn. asam. vidi rud. hatam. sam. keta yanti; see below note 24).The status of vacaka is nothing but this: the becoming a-conventional ofconventions through their having an ultimate resting place in varn. asam. vitor mahamantra.24 All levels of verbal usage must have as their basis thelimitless body of non-mayic phonemes which are intrinsically associatedwith the cognitive power of consciousness (sam. vidvimarsasacivah. ; seebelow note 25) and make it possible.25 The non-mayic phonemes give riseto the phonemes of worldy language and are described in the revealedtexts as being their ‘strength’ (vırya).26 If their ‘strength’ is covered,they are like impotent written letters with respect to the mantra.27 Atthis point we are in a position fully to understand what a passage of theMalinıvijayottara28 meant to say: ‘Once fully awakened by her, the Lord,

24 TA XI.67cd–69 (vv.67cd–69ab asyam. cakr. trimananta-varn. asam. vidi rud. hatam //sam. keta yanti cet te ’pi yanty asam. ketavr. ttitam / anaya tu vina sarve sam. keta bahusah.kr. tah. // avisrantataya kuryur anavastham. duruttaram /). See also PTV p. 252 ll.3–6.

25 TA XI.71 tenananto hy amayıyo yo varn. agrama ıdr. sah. / sam. vidvimarsasacivah.sadaiva sa hi jr.mbhate //. Jayaratha adds a further elucidation: sadaiveti,kr. trimamayıyavarn. avyavaharan. avasare ’pıty arthah. | iha hi ya kacana prama samullasatitatravasyam idam iti varn. asam. bhedena bhavyam iti bhavah. .

26 TA XI.72 ata eva ca mayıya varn. ah. sutim. vitenire / ye ca mayıyavarn. es. u vıryatvenanirupitah. //. The same vırya is what makes mantras effective (cf. the passage from theSiddhayogesvarı, quoted in TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 65 [. . .] sarves. am eva mantran. amato vıryam. pragopitam / tena guptena te guptah. ses. a varn. as tu kevalah. // [. . .] (almostidentical passage from the Tantrasadbhava quoted by Ks.emaraja in Sivasutravimarsinıp. 25, Torella, 1999a: 88–89). The passage comes from Siddhayogesvarı I.13, accordingto J. Törzsök’s edition, who also refers to another parallel passage in the Kubjikamata(Törzsök, 1999: 1). An interesting passage of the Siddhayogesvarı (XXXI.2–11) presentsthe matter in a very peculiar way. While Devı is asking him a further question, Bhairavabursts into a wild laughter which makes her tremble and shakes the whole universe; thislaughter, Bhairava then explains to his frightened consort, has as result the ‘awakening’ ofmantras (10a mantravabodham. tu kr. tam).

27 TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 64 anyatha hi te lipyaks. arasam. nivesakalpa na kam. canasiddhim. vidadhyuh. ; cf. also TA XXVI.22 lipisthitas tu yo mantro nirvıryah. so ’trakalpitah. / sam. ketabalato nasya pustakat prathate mahah. //. However, Abhinavagupta addsthat in some cases, due to a very special grace of the Lord, a fully effective apprehensionof mantras from books is also possible (ibid., 23cd–24ab).

28 III.27–28. The full passage reads: sa taya sam. prabuddhah. san yonim. viks. obhyasaktibhih. / tatsamanasrutın varn. am. s tatsam. khyan asr. jat prabhuh. // te [var.tair]tair alingitah. santah. sarvakamaphalapradah. / bhavanti sadhakendran. am. nanyathavıravandite //. Interestingly, the Malinıvijayottara sees a ‘sound’ nature also in the divinecounterparts of human phonemes, while Abhinavagupta, for his part, speaks of the formeras asrauta (PTV p. 235 l.13).


after perturbing the matrix with the powers, has created [in the phenomenicworld] the phonemes having the same sound and the same number asthose [phonemes: i.e., those forming the body itself of the Sakti]. It is onlywhen they are “embraced” (alingita) by the latter that they can fulfill allwishes’. Without this ‘embrace’ by the archetypical phonemes, the humanphonemes cannot have access to their special powers (first of all, that of‘signifying’), and knowledge (prama) could not arise; as a consequence,the world would be ‘dumb’, as it were.29 It is because of their effective-ness in bringing the power of vac to perfection – Abhinavagupta notes inthe TA, having in mind another passage of the Malinıvijayottara – thatphonemes are to be worshipped.30

The paramarsa of the word ‘cow’, which is in itself the result ofconvention and has been established and used by people before us fromwhom we have learnt it, and the paramarsa of the corresponding idea‘cow’ associated with it at the time of convention, ‘fall’ (nipatati) intothe plane of a paramarsa beyond maya and convention (PTV p. 252 ll.6–9). The power of denotation pertains, strictly speaking (vastavam), to thesingle phonemes, that is why certain specially gifted persons are able tounderstand the meaning of a word from a single phoneme of it (cf. PTVp. 268 ll.11–14).31 Moreover, we can point out the example of particlesmade of a single syllable, like a- or ca, which possess a power of significa-tion less dependent on maya: their meanings are, so-to-speak, not reified(asattvabhutam), naturally oriented towards the knowing subject and awayfrom objectivity (ibid., ll.17–20). The phonemes, for their part, do not allshare exactly the same status, the status of the vowels, for example, being‘higher’ than consonants’. The vowels in fact are viewed as being closerto consciousness and, consequently, as being able to manifest the variousmovements of the soul more directly and independently from conven-tions; in fact, they are the first to be pronounced by newly born babiesand are also spontaneously present in animals. Following the lead of thetantric scriptures, here particularly the Malinıvijayottara, it becomes evenpossible to introduce a further vacya-vacaka differentiation between thephonemes: vacaka proper are the vowels, linked to Siva as pure knowing

29 TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 58 anyatha hi praguktavad anavasthopanipatat pramotpadaeva na syat, – ity anena mukaprayam. visvam. bhaved iti bhavah. .

30 TA XI.80cd ata eva hi vaksiddhau varn. anam. samupasyata //.31 Abhinavagupta is reminiscent here of Bhartr.hari, for whom the first dhvani (here

phoneme) is sufficient to manifest the indivisible sphot.a (cf. VP I.82 and vr. tti; Paddhatithereon, p. 148 l.22 ekaiko dhvanih. kr. tsnam. sphot.am abhivyanakti); Sphotasiddhi v. 18pratyekam api te ’vikalam. sphot. atmanam. abhivyañjanti. Cf. also VP II.2ab, quoted byAbhinavagupta in PTV p. 268 l.22, where Bhartr.hari mentions the thesis, upheld by some,that the first word contains in itself the meaning of the entire sentence.


subject, while vacya are the consonants, linked to Sakti as disclosingherself to the world of objectivity; the Malinıvijayottara calls them bıja‘seed’ and yoni ‘matrix’.32 But the Saivas are not afraid of all these diversi-fications – including the very diversification of phonemes, whose standardnumber is fifty but which can be seen as sixty-four33 or even as potentiallyinfinite.34 For them, differentiation does not affect the essential unity ofthe language principle (the word-consciousness), which, on the contrary,manifests itself precisely through this multiplicity, also at the level of thefully differentiated linguistic usage of ordinary reality.35

How may we define Abhinavagupta’s position in the context of Indianlinguistic speculation? His reference point is clearly Bhartr.hari’s teaching,particularly in recognizing the interpenetration of reflective awarenessand language, or, in other words, the inner ‘linguistic’ nature of theprocess of knowledge. From Utpaladeva onwards, this constitutes the veryhinge of the Pratyabhijña philosophy.36 But there is something that keepsAbhinavagupta away from a whole-hearted acceptance of the whole ofBhartr.hari’s conception: first of all, Bhartr.hari’s dismissal of the phonemesand his considering them as pure abstractions. This must have seemedunacceptable to Abhinavagupta, in his position as a tantric master. Hecannot ignore that practically any tantra belonging to the Saiva tradi-tion deals with the phonemes, assigning them a central place both inritual and speculation. What he says in the IPVV, precisely addressingthe Vaiyakaran. as, sounds like a proud vindication: ‘For us, the “totality ofsounds” is the supreme Lord himself, the goddess Matr.ka [or the alphabetin the usual sequence] – both distinct and not distinct [from Him] – is HisPower, the eight alphabetic classes are the eight Powers of the Rudras,the fifty phonemes are the fifty Powers of the Rudras’.37 If Abhinavaguptaintends to give space to the role of phonemes, this cannot but take place at

32 PTV p. 236 ll.4–11.33 PTV p. 251 ll.14–20.34 Isvarapratyabhijñakarika-vr. tti p. 77 l.8 tattatkakaradisatanantagan. ana. On the other

hand, the Saivas also conceive of a single phoneme, undividedly present in all the others:TA VI.217 eko nadatmako varn. ah. sarvavarn. avibhagavan / so ’nastamitarupatvad anahataihoditah. //.

35 PTV p. 236 ll.18 nasman akulayet ye vayam ekam. tavad anantacitrata-garbhinım. tam. sam. vidatmikam. giram. sam. giramahe | mayıye ’pi vyavaharapadelaukikakramikavarn. apadasphut. atamayı ekaparamarsasvabhavaiva pratyavamarsakarin. ıprakasarupa vac.

36 I need not repeat here what I have already treated in detail in former studies (Torella,2001: 857; Torella, 2002: XXV–XXVII).

37 Vol. II, pp. 195 l.24–196 l.3 iha tavat paramesvarah. sabdarasih. , saktirasya bhinnabhinnarupa matr. kadevı, vargas. t.akam. rudrasaktyas. t.akam. pañcasad varn. ah.pañcasad rudrasaktayah. .


the expense of the sphot.a doctrine, which in fact he totally ignores. Willthis result in going closer and closer to the Mımam. sa? Why not? After all,both the Mımam. sakas and the Saivas feel as their primary duty the defenceand exegesis of the Sruti, as embodied in the Vedas for the former, in theTantras for the latter. This is, however, only a prima-facie answer. On acloser examination, it becomes clear that Abhinavagupta’s position is theresult of cooking, as it were, Mımam. sa elements in a Bhartr.harian sauce.He can easily do without the sphot.a because a strong unity characterizeshis conception of language, which makes the linking/unifying role of thesphot.a unnecessary. Also the usual argument used by the sphot.avadinsagainst the varn. avadins (the varn. as, discrete as they are, are unfit toaccount for the unity of the word, hence the necessity of the sphot.a)loses force in front of the intrinsic unity of the phonemes-structure. ‘Thephonemes’, says Abhinavagupta (PTV p. 253 ll.20–23), ‘imply each other,otherwise they could not aggregate in a word. Precisely because they implyeach other, the phonemes must exist inside the speaker as an internal non-discursive structure. Likewise, all the devatas are present in each cognitiveact simultaneously and by aggregating themselves they bring about thewonderfully variegated activity of consciousness’.

We have the phonemes at both ends of the language and knowledgeprocess. The phonemes as acting in ordinary language already possess,besides a sound nature (which meets the first general requirement ofa word, that is, of being something to be ‘heard’38), a cognitive and‘grasping’ nature, which can be seen at its height in their archetypes, thedivine phonemes, which constitute the very core of Consciousness, a germof quintessential multiplicity inside the absolute unity of Consciousness. IfConsciousness is an active power and not a lifeless mirror this is due firstof all to its ‘phonemic’ nature, which alone enables it to have access to,and assimilate to itself, the (apparently) other.

To the many merits of this extraordinary thinker we can add alsothis: to have created a bridge between the two main schools of Indianlinguistics, finding an apparently impossible madhyama pratipad betweenMımam. sakas and Vaiyakaran. as.

38 Cf. Sabarabhas. ya p. 54, ad Mımam. sasutra I.l.5, srotragrahan. e hy arthe lokesabdasabdah. prasiddhah. | te [i.e., varn. ah. ] ca srotragrahan. ah. ; Slokavarttika, Sphot.avadav. 5 tasmac chrotraparicchinno yady artham. gamayen na va / sarvatha tasyasabdatvam. lokasiddham. na hıyate; Nyayamañjarı vol. II, p. 144 ta [i.e., varn. ah. ]eva ca sravan. akaran. akavagamagocarataya sabdavyapadesabhajah. Nagesa (Uddyotaad Mahabhas. ya I.l.1, pp. 14–15, loke vyavahartr. s. u padarthabodhakatvena prasiddhah.srotrendriyagrahyatvad varn. arupadhvanisamuha eva sabda ity arthah. .


∗ ∗ ∗Appendix: The position of the dualistic Saivasiddhanta.

A detailed treatment of the linguistic doctrines elaborated in theSaiddhantika tantras and in the works of the Saiddhantika authors wouldrequire a separate study. I will limit myself here to some observationson particular aspects that can contribute, by contrast, to a better under-standing of the Saiva advaita position as elaborated by Abhinavagupta.To begin with, it should be pointed out that the Saiddhantikas tooreject sphot.a, the only exception known to me being the south-IndianPaus. karatantra, which is, however, undoubtedly a very late and eclectictext. The implicit rejection of the sphot.a doctrine has a significantplace in a well-known treatise of Ramakan. t.ha (approximately contem-porary to Abhinavagupta), the Nadakarika, originally included in hiscommentary on the Sardhatrisati-Kalottara (pp. 9–12, on I.5ab). UnlikeAbhinavagupta, Ramakan. t.ha does not subscribe to the ‘phoneme’ optioneither, but presents yet another solution to the question at issue. The vacakais the nada, ‘a subtle entity made of “inner discourse” (antah. sam. jalpa),by virtue of which the objects such as forms/colours, tastes, smells,sounds etc. are made into objects of reflective awareness’ (v. 11acruparasagandhasabdadyartha yenamr. syatam. nıtah. / so ’ntah. sam. jalpatmanadah. ). This nada is in turn the product of Mahamaya, the so-calledPure Matter, also called Bindu. As Ramakan. t.ha immediately points out,nada, though representing the highest manifestation of the language prin-ciple, and the ultimate source and background of all human linguisticactivities, belongs to a totally different sphere from Consciousness, isnot a form of Kriyasakti (as some ‘knowers of the words’ maintain)and is not integrally connected with the conscious soul (v. 18 seyamavastha kaiscit padavidbhir varn. yate kriyasakteh. / iha punar anyaivoktapurus. asamavayinı ca vag yasmat). If we examine his short treatise insome detail, we see that he has in mind two main opponents: overtly,the Mımam. sakas, against whom he uses the standard Vaiyakaran. a (orbetter, sphot.avadin, like Mandana Misra’s) arguments, and, implicitly, theVaiyakaran. as, whose sphot.a he does not mention but for which he tacitlyattempts to find a saiva substitute.39 In front of Ramakan. t.ha’s straight-forward dismissal of the ‘phoneme’ option the commentator Aghorasiva

39 One may suppose that Ramakan. t.ha might have felt embarrassed at mentioning andthen attacking a thesis, which is not so distant from his own: the reasons that he could havebrought forward against the sphot.a might have been easily used against the nada as well. Itis the commentator Aghorasiva who, in the only long excursus of his succinct commentary(pp. 240–241, on v. 7), feels the need to make up for the puzzling silence of Ramakan. t.ha


feels compelled to explain away an apparent contradiction with regard to aSaiddhantika scripture, the Parakhya, which instead endorses it (p. 242,on v. 12, katham. punah. srımatparakhye ‘purvavarn. ajasam. skarayukto’ntyo ’r. n. o ’bhidhayakah. ’ ity uktam). Aghorasiva’s explanation is far fromconvincing (nadabhivyañjakatvenopacarad ity ados. a), but has the meritto focus our attention on this relatively early and important agama.The Parakhya, which until recently was deemed to be completely lost,is currently being edited by D. Goodall, who has discovered the onlyextant manuscript. The above quotation, which looked a bit suspi-cious owing to its repeating almost verbatim the well-known passageof the Sabarabhas. ya – a fact quite unexpected in a ‘revealed’ text –,does indeed occur in the VI chapter of the Parakhya (v. 14ab), a portionof which (1–28) has been edited and translated in a very recent article(Goodall, 2001).

Interestingly, the Parakhya starts with a bold affirmation about thestatus of abhidhayaka (i.e., vacaka) having to be assigned first of allto the phonemes (secondly, to the words and sentences made out ofthem). While doing so, the text also presents and easily dismisses asphot.avadin opponent. However, in the latter part of the chapter theoriginal Mımam. sa-like thesis gradually makes way for a Naiyayika-likeone, with an increasing emphasis on the role of convention (sam. keta).

In the attempt to make sense of these scattered remarks, we may saythat both Ramakan. t.ha and the Parakhya ultimately view the phonemes, aspresented in the Saivasiddhanta tradition, as too ‘weak’ candidates for therole of vacaka. Being made of a material stuff, however refined,40 theirnature is not so intrinsically dynamic and ‘creative’ as to enable them toperform this high task. Particularly interesting, if a bit enigmatic, is thesolution proposed by Ramakan. t.ha. After taking into account and rejectingseveral alternative possibilities, he arrives at a solution which, if nominallyinspired by a famous passage of Sardhatrisati-Kalottara,41 verily has muchin common with that of his concealed adversaries, the Vaiyakaran. as (cf.for example the concluding verse 25: sthulaih. sabdair vyaktah. suks. manadatmakas tato dhvanayah. / vacyavibhinnam. buddhim. kurvanto var-

and takes on himself the task of openly criticizing the sphot.a theory. He does so by usingthe standard Mımam. saka and Naiyayika arguments.

40 The Parakhya (VI.2–6) refers to their having bindu as material cause and Isvara asefficient cause. In sum, the phonemes are only ‘secondary’ realities; they are products and,as such, devoid of consciousness.

41 Vidyapada I.5–8 nadakhyam. yat param. bıjam. sarvabhutes. v avasthitam [. . .] sthulam.sabda itit proktam. suks. mam. cintamayam. bhavet / cintaya rahitam. yat tu tat param.parikırtitam //. We can say that this scriptural passage is read by Ramakan. t.ha at the lightof the sphot.a doctrine.


dhayanty janayatram //).42 More flexible than the ‘stiff’ phonemes ofthe Saivasiddhanta tradition and also authorized by the sacred scripturesis in fact the nada. In keeping his distance from the sphot.a, which inthe Vaiyakaran. as’ conception ranks very high in the ontological-spiritualhierarchy, Ramakan. t.ha seems driven by the aim to stress the ultimately‘instrumental’ nature of language, which does condition human knowledgebut is cut off from the very core of divine, and also human, consciousness(cit). As we have seen, Abhinavagupta’s position is precisely diametricallyopposed to this.

REFERENCES

Texts

As. t.aprakaran. am, edited by Vrajavallabha Dvivedı, Yogatantra-Granthamala 12, Varanasi,1988.

Abhinavagupta, Isvarapratyabhijñavivr. tivimarsinı, edited by Madhusudan Kaul Shastri,vols. I–III, KSTS LX LXII LXV, Bombay, 1938–1943.

Abhinavagupta, Paratim. sikatattvavivaran. a (see Gnoli, 1985).Abhinavagupta, Tantraloka with Commentary by Rajanaka Jayaratha, edited with notes by

Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, vols. I–XII, KSTS XXIII, XXVIII, XXX, XXXVI, XXXV,XXIX, XLI, XLVII, LIX, LII, LVII, LVIII, Allahbad-Srinagar-Bombay, 1918–1938.

Bhartr.hari, Vakyapadıya (mulakarikas), Bhartr. haris Vakyapadıya, edited by W. Rau,Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 42, Wiesbaden, 1977.

Bhartr.hari, Vakyapadıya with the Commentaries Vr. tti and Paddhati of Vr. s. abhadeva,Kan. d. a I, edited by K.A.S. Iyer, Deccan College, Poona, 1966.

Bodhisattvabhumi [being the XVth Section of Asangapada’s Yogacarabhumi], edited byNalinaksha Dutt, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol. VII, Patna, 1966.

Jayanta Bhat.t.a, Nyayamañjarı [. . .], edited by K.S. Varadacharya, 2 vols., OrientalResearch Institute Series No. 139, Mysore, 1983.

Ks.emaraja, Sivasutravimarsinı, edited by J.C. Chatterji, KSTS I, Srinagar, 1911.Kumarila, Slokavarttikam with the commentary Nyayaratnakara of Srı Parthasaratimisra,

edited and revised by Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, Pracyabharati Series-10, Varanasi,1978.

Malinıvijayottaratantram, edited by Pt. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, KSTS No. 37, Bombay,1922.

Mandana Misra, Sphot.asiddhi with Gopalika commentary, edited by S.K. RamanathaSastri, Madras University Sanskrit Series No. 6, Madras, 1931.

Parakhyatantra (see Goodall, 2001).

42 See also Aghorasiva’s remarks p. 242 (on v. 11) katham. punar vaktr. gatonadah. pratipattur vacyabuddhim. janayati iti cet, taduccaritasthulasabdabhivyaktah.pratipattr. gato nadas tasyapi vacyabuddhim. janayati. At Goodall notes (2001: 344 n.84),later Saiddhantika authors like Jñanaprakasa and Umapatisivacarya will tend to considernada and sphot.a as interchangeable terms.


Patañjali, Vyakaran. a-Mahabhas. ya with the commentaries Bhat.t.oji Dıks. ita’s Sabdakaus-tubha, Nagojibhat. t.a’s Uddyota and Kaiyat.a’s Pradıpa [. . .], edited with footnotes [. . .]by Bal Shastri, vol. I, Varanasi, 1988.

Ramakan. t.ha, Nadakarika with Aghorasiva’s commentary (see As. t.aprakaran. am, alsoFilliozat, 1984).

Siddhayogesvarımatatantra (see Törzsök, 1999).Sardhatrisatikalottaragama, avec le commentaire de Bhat.t.a Ramakan. t.ha, édition critique

par N.R. Bhatt, Publications de l’Institut Français d’Indologie No. 61, Pondichéry, 1979.Sabarabhas. ya. In: Mımam. sadarsana [. . .], vols. I-7, Anandashram Sanskrit Series No. 97,

repr. Pune, 1994 (I Ed. 1929–1943).Utpaladeva, Isvarapratyabhijñakarika with vr. tti (see Torella, 2002).Yaska, Niruktam nighan. t.hupat.hasamupetam. durgacharyakr. ta-r. jvarthakhyavr. ttya

samavetam, edited by R.G. Bhadkamkar, vols. I–II, Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit SeriesNos. LXXIII, LXXXV, Bombay, 1918–1942.

Translations and studies

Brunner, H. (2001). Mantras et mantras dans le tantras sivaïtes. In R. Torella (ed.), LeParole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno (pp. 183–212), 2 vols. IsIAO, Roma: Serie Orientale Roma.

Dasgupta, Sh. (19693). Obscure Religious Cults. Calcutta (I Ed. 1946).Filliozat, P.-S. (1984). Les Nadakarika de Ramakan. t.ha. Bulletin de l’École Française

d’Extrême Orient LXXIII, 223–255.Filliozat, P.-S. (1994). Bhartr.hari and tantra. In P-S. Filliozat, C.P. Bhatta and S.P. Narang

(eds), Pandit N.R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume (pp. 463–480). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Gaurinath, Sastri (1959). The Philosophy of Word and Meaning. Calcutta Sanskrit College

Research Series 5, Calcutta.Gonda, J. (1975). The Indian mantra. In Selected Studies [. . .] (pp. 248–301), vol. IV.

Leiden (originally published: Oriens, 16, pp. 244–297).Goodall, D. (2001). The Saiddhantika Parakhyatantra, its account of language, and the

interpolation of the eighth chapter of the published Paus.karagama. In R. Torella (ed.),Le Parole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno (pp. 327–350), 2 vols. IsIAO, Roma: Serie Orientale Roma.

Padoux, A. (1990). Vac. The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras. Albany.Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1959). Contributions à l’histoire de la philosophie linguistique

indienne. Paris.Staal, F. (1967). Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Foundations of

Language, Supplementary Series 5, Dordrecht.Torella, R. (1998). The kañcukas in the Shaiva and Vaishnava tantric tradition: A few

considerations between theology and grammar. In G. Oberhammer (ed.), Studies inHinduism, II, Miscellanea to the Phenomenon of Tantras (pp. 55–86). ÖsterreichisceAkademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 662.Band, Wien.

Torella, R. (1999a). Gli Aforismi di Shiva con il commento di Ks. emaraja (Sivasutravi-marsinı). Milano.

Torella, R. (1999b). Devı uvaca, or the theology of the prefect tense. Journal of IndianPhilosophy (Special Issue in Honor of Prof. Kamaleshvar Bhattacharya) 16, 129–138.


Torella, R. (2001). The Word in Abhinavagupta’s Br.hadvimarsinı. In R. Torella (ed.), LeParole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno, 2 vols. IsIAO,Roma: Serie Orientale Roma.

Torella, R. (2002). The Isvarapratyabhijñakarika of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vr.tti.Critical Edition and Annotated Translation, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi (I Ed. SerieOrientale Roma LXXI, IsMEO, Roma, 1994).

Törzsök, J. (1999). The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits: A Critical Edition of SelectedChapters of the Siddhayogesvarımata(tantra) with Annotated Translation and Analysis,D. Phil. Thesis, Merton College, Oxford.

Facoltà di Studi OrientaliUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”

how is verbal signification possible understanding abhinavagupta s reply - raffaele torella

Documents