the structural interplay of tantra vedanta and bhakti

77

5

The Structural Interplay of Tantra, Vedanta, andBhakti: Nondualist Commentary on the Goddess

Thomas B. Coburn

One of the abiding problems for scholars of South Asian religion is how best toconceptualize the relationship between the different strands of the traditions weare trying to understand. Even if one factors out the minority traditions of thesubcontinent, the problem of an adequate approach to the remainder—conventionally called “Hinduism”—looms large. The persistence of the problemis suggested by the widespread attention it has received of late, not just in scholarlycircles, as a result of the convergence of religion and politics in apparently newforms. How much of the agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the VisvaHindu Parishad is an expression of traditional religious sentiment, how much is afunction of that sentiment in distinctly twentieth-century guise, and how much ispurely political opportunism? How much truth lies in the quip that the Indianshave been religious for millennia, but “Hinduism” was born in the nineteenthcentury? Answers to such questions are not simple nor easy to come by.

Nowhere is the problem of conceptualizing Indian religion more vexingthan in trying to determine the status of Tantra and its relation to non-TantricHinduism. Recently we have begun to make progress on the long-standing defini-tional problem, and for my purposes in this article, the definition of Andre Padouxwill suffice:

Tantrism [is] a practical path to supernatural powers and to liberation,consisting in the use of specific practices and techniques—ritual, bodily,mental—that are always associated with a particular doctrine. These prac-tices are intrinsically grounded in the doctrine that gives them their aim andmeaning and organizes them into a pattern. Elements of the doctrine mayalso be associated and welded into a practical worldview, Tantrism is there.1

This definition acknowledges that Tantra cuts across both Buddhist and Hindutraditions, but it leaves open such unresolved questions as the historical antiquityor the social or geographic provenance of Tantrism. Opinions on these mattersremain very diverse. The dominant scholarly view, of course, is that Tantrismbegins in the early centuries of the Christian era and becomes a dominant feature

5

The Structural Interplay of Tantra, Vedanta, andBhakti: Nondualist Commentary on the Goddess

Thomas B. Coburn

One of the abiding problems for scholars of South Asian religion is how best toconceptualize the relationship between the different strands of the traditions weare trying to understand. Even if one factors out the minority traditions of thesubcontinent, the problem o f an adequate approach to the remainderconventionally called "Hinduism" looms large. The persistence of the problemis suggested by the widespread attention it has received of late, not just in scholarlycircles, as a result of the convergence of religion and politics in apparently newforms. How much of the agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the VisvaHindu Parishad is an expression of traditional religious sentiment, how much is afunction of that sentiment in distinctly twentieth-century guise, and how much ispurely political opportunism? How much truth lies in the quip that the Indianshave been religious for millennia, but "Hinduism" was born in the nineteenthcentury? Answers to such questions are not simple nor easy to come by.

Nowhere is the problem of conceptualizing Indian religion more vexingthan in trying to determine the status of Tantra and its relation to non-TantricHinduism. Recently we have begun to make progress on the long-standing defini-tional problem, and for my purposes in this article, the definition of Andre Padouxwill suffice:

Tantrism [is] a practical path to supernatural powers and to liberation,consisting in the use of specific practices and techniques—ritual, bodily,mental—that are always associated with a particular doctrine. These prac-tices are intrinsically grounded in the doctrine that gives them their aim andmeaning and organizes them into a pattern. Elements of the doctrine mayalso be associated and welded into a practical worldview, Tantrism is there.'

This definition acknowledges that Tantra cuts across both Buddhist and Hindutraditions, but it leaves open such unresolved questions as the historical antiquityor the social or geographic provenance of Tantrism. Opinions on these mattersremain very diverse. The dominant scholarly view, of course, is that Tantrismbegins in the early centuries of the Christian era and becomes a dominant feature

77

78 Thomas B. Coburn

of the Hindu landscape over the course of the next millennium. We are accus-tomed to thinking of Hinduism in partially overlapping historical stages—theVedic, the epic, the Puranic, and then the Tantric—but we often hear an alterna-tive voice, usually from Indian scholars, claiming much greater antiquity forTantra. On the contemporary scene, Madeleine Biardeau indicates how verycomplex the situation is:

Although tantric theory clearly distinguishes itself in its most general aspectsfrom bhakti, and although it seeks to deepen this cleavage through a reversalof brahmanic values in practice as well as in a broad range of its religiousliterature, the gap is in fact a very small one. We find tantric themes in thePuranas, and references to the Puranas in the Tantras as well as authors whowrite commentaries in both bodies of literature. The great Puranas are readin temples in which the ritual is said to be tantric, but in which the majorityof worshipers are mainstream Hindus who come to the temple with a vaguenotion of the meaning of ritual . . . and who would never dream of takinginitiation into a tantric sect.2

As a modest contribution to understanding further the relationship betweenthese concepts or texts or worldviews, I should like here to look at a particularpassage from the Puranas and how it is interpreted by two commentators, one aTantric of the Srı Vidya school, one a Vedantin, both of whom are philosophicaladvaitins (nondualists). The passage comes from the famous sixth-century Saktatext, the Devı-Mahatmya or Durga-Saptasati, which comprises thirteen chapters inthe Markandeya Purana. The commentators are two eighteenth-century figures,Nagoji Bhatta or Nagesa the Vedantin, and Bhaskararaya the Tantrin. In a recentmonograph, I have explored the nature of the text and the relationship of thesecommentators to it in some detail.3 What I should like to do here is look closely ata specific passage—whose discussion in my monograph is limited to one footnotebecause of the complexity of the commentaries on the passage—as a lens forviewing the larger conceptual issues. I leave to one side my discussion elsewhere ofthe commentator’s biographies and of the nature and structure of their commen-taries. I simply note in passing that the primary concern of both Bhaskararaya andNagoji Bhatta is the proper division of the verses of the Devı-Mahatmya into 700mantras for recitation and the proper technique for reciting them. In other words,they consider it chiefly a ritual text, whose verbal power is to be controlled andthen released, not a philosophical text, whose meaning is to be understood. It is allthe more noteworthy, then, that both commentators do take pains to understandthe meaning of this particular passage. The reasons for this are not hard to find, forit is indeed a puzzling passage, as we shall now see.

The passage comes at the very beginning of the third of the Devı-Mahatmya’s three episodes (caritas). The Goddess has previously promised to assistthe gods whenever they find themselves in difficulty. The fifth chapter begins:

78 T h o m a s B. Coburn

of the Hindu landscape over the course of the next millennium. We are accus-tomed to thinking of Hinduism in partially overlapping historical stages t h eVedic, the epic, the Purauic, and then the Tantric b u t we often hear an alterna-tive voice, usually from Indian scholars, claiming much greater antiquity forTantra. On the contemporary scene, Madeleine Biardeau indicates how verycomplex the situation is:

Although tantric theory clearly distinguishes itself in its most general aspectsfrom bhakti, and although it seeks to deepen this cleavage through a reversalof brahmanic values in practice as well as in a broad range of its religiousliterature, the gap is in fact a very small one. We find tantric themes in thePuranas, and references to the Puranas in the Tantras as well as authors whowrite commentaries in both bodies of literature. The great Puranas are readin temples in which the ritual is said to be tantric, but in which the majorityof worshipers are mainstream Hindus who come to the temple with a vaguenotion of the meaning of ritual a n d who would never dream of takinginitiation into a tantric sect.2As a modest contribution to understanding further the relationship between

these concepts or texts or worldviews, I should like here to look at a particularpassage from the Purar.las a n d h o w i t i s i n t e r p re t e d b y t wo c o m me n t a to r s , one a

Tantric of the r i Vidya school, one a Veclamin, both of whom are philosophicaladvaitins (nondualists). The passage comes from the famous sixth-century a•l(tatext, the Devi-Mahatmya or Durga-Saptasati, which comprises thirteen chapters inthe Markandeya Purana. The commentators are two eighteenth-century figures,Nagoji Bhatta or Nagea the Veclamin, and Bhaskararaya the Tantrin. In a recentmonograph, I have explored the nature of the text and the relationship of thesecommentators to it in some detail.3 W h a t I s h o u l d l i k e t o d o h e r e i s l o o k c l o s el y a t

a specific passage whose discussion in my monograph is limited to one footnotebecause of the complexity of the commentaries on the passage—as a lens forviewing the larger conceptual issues. I leave to one side my discussion elsewhere ofthe commentator's biographies and of the nature and structure of their commen-taries. I simply note in passing that the primary concern of both Bhaskararaya andNagoji Bhatta is the proper division of the verses of the Devi-Mahatmya into 700mantras for recitation and the proper technique for reciting them. In other words,they consider it chiefly a ritual text, whose verbal power is to be controlled andthen released, not a philosophical text, whose meaning is to be understood. It is allthe more noteworthy, then, that both commentators do take pains to understandthe meaning of this particular passage. The reasons for this are not hard to find, forit is indeed a puzzling passage, as we shall now see.

The passage comes at the very beginning o f the third o f the Devi-Mahatmya's three episodes (caritas). The Goddess has previously promised to assistthe gods whenever they find themselves in difficulty. The fifth chapter begins:

79The Structural Interplay of Tantra, Vedanta, and Bhakti

Once upon a time, the two demons, Sumbha and Nisumbha . . . Took awayIndra’s three worlds and shares in the sacrifice. Similarly, they took away thepowers of the sun, the moon, Kubera, Yama, and Varuna, . . . [Vayu andAgni]. Then the gods, fallen from their kingdoms, were scattered anddefeated [whereupon] they all . . . remembered the invincible Goddess . . .Having made up their minds, the gods went to the Himalaya, [and there]they praised the Goddess who is Visnu’s maya [power of illusion].4

There follows a hymn of thirty verses, most of which designate and praise theGoddess for dwelling within all creatures in some particular form: sleep, con-sciousness, intelligence, hunger, etc. At the end of the hymn, the text proceeds:

5.37 Thus (entreated) by the gods who are filled with praise and the like,Parvatı then went to bathe in the waters of the Ganges . . . .]

5.38 She of beautiful brows said to the gods: “Who is being praised here byyou?” An auspicious (siva) (form) came forth from the sheath [kosa] ofher body (and) said:

5.39 “This hymn is made to me by those who have been vanquished bySumbha . . . [and] Nisumbha . . . ”

5.40 Since Ambika came forth from the body sheath [kosa] of Parvatı, Sheis sung of in all the worlds as “Kausikı.”

5.41 When she had come forth, Parvatı became black (krsna). Known as“Kalika,” she makes her abode in the Himalayas.5

The figure who is here called Ambika and Kausikı remains the central object ofand the central agent in the rest of the Devı-Mahatmya, throughout all theproliferation of divine forms in battle. She is understood as commensurate withthe Goddess with a capital G who has been described earlier in the text, who is alsocalled Ambika in her defeat of the demon Mahisa. However, of Parvatı, “the blackone” (Kalika, krsna), who abides in the Himalayas, we hear not a word morethroughout the rest of the text. She is, quite simply, not mentioned at all.

Elsewhere I have suggested that this mysterious treatment of the forms ofthe Goddess is consistent with the overall spirit and apparent intention of the text.It is a bhakti (devotional) text. Its concern is to portray the Goddess as thefundament of the universe, to describe three of her salvific interventions in theworld in some detail, and then to glorify her kaleidoscopic metamorphic potential.Like many other Puranic texts, the Devı-Mahatmya is not interested in delineatingwith precision how various divine forms are related to one another. Its concern isto praise, not to analyze. Indication of this is found in two facts: first, throughoutthe course of the narrative, the text applies over two hundred different names tothe Goddess, and second, contrary to the dominant Hindu conceptualization, onone occasion the text describes sakti or female power as coming forth from theGoddess herself, not just from the male deities who are on the scene. The myste-

The Structural Interplay of Tantra, Vedanta, and Bhakti 7 9

Once upon a time, the two demons, umbha. and Mumbha T o o k awayIndra's three worlds and shares in the sacrifice. Similarly, they took away thepowers of the sun, the moon, Kubera, Yama, and Varuna, [ V a y u andAgni]. Then the gods, fallen from their kingdoms, were scattered anddefeated [whereupon] they all remembered the invincible GoddessHaving made up their minds, the gods went to the Himalaya, [and there]they praised the Goddess who is V ig.lu ' s m a y a [ p o w e r o f i l l u s i o n ] .4

There follows a hymn of thirty verses, most of which designate and praise theGoddess for dwelling within all creatures in some particular form: sleep, con-sciousness, intelligence, hunger, etc. At the end of the hymn, the text proceeds:

5.37 Thus (entreated) by the gods who are filled with praise and the like,Parvati then went to bathe in the waters of the Ganges . 1

5.38 She of beautiful brows said to the gods: "Who is being praised here byyou?" An auspicious (s'iva) (form) came forth from the sheath [kos'a] ofher body (and) said:

5.39 "This hymn is made to me by those who have been vanquished byumbha [ a n d ] Nigumbha

5.40 Since Ambika came forth from the body sheath [kos'a] of Parvati, Sheis sung of in all the worlds as "Kalthiki."

5.41 When she had come forth, Parvati became black (lerpla). Known as"Kalika.," she makes her abode in the Himalayas.5

The figure who is here called Ambika and Katikiki remains the central object ofand the central agent in the rest o f the Devi-Mahatmya, throughout all theproliferation of divine forms in battle. She is understood as commensurate withthe Goddess with a capital Gwho has been described earlier in the text, who is alsocalled Ambika in her defeat of the demon Mahip,. However, of Parvati, "the blackone" (KOlika., klyza), who abides in the Himalayas, we hear not a word morethroughout the rest of the text. She is, quite simply, not mentioned at all.

Elsewhere I have suggested that this mysterious treatment of the forms ofthe Goddess is consistent with the overall spirit and apparent intention of the text.It is a bhakti (devotional) text. Its concern is to portray the Goddess as thefundament of the universe, to describe three of her salvific interventions in theworld in some detail, and then to glorify her kaleidoscopic metamorphic potential.Like many other Puranic texts, the Devi-Mahatmya is not interested in delineatingwith precision how various divine forms are related to one another. Its concern isto praise, not to analyze. Indication of this is found in two facts: first, throughoutthe course of the narrative, the text applies over two hundred different names tothe Goddess, and second, contrary to the dominant Hindu conceptualization, onone occasion the text describes s'akti or female power as coming forth from theGoddess herself not just from the male deities who are on the scene. The myste-

80 Thomas B. Coburn

riousness and multiplicity of the Goddess’s diverse forms are not a problem for theauthor or compiler of the text. If anything, they enhance the wonder she evokes inher devotees.6

Thirteen hundred years later, however, the relationship between the severalforms of the Goddess, and their bearing on pressing matters of religious truth, wasthe concern of our commentators. It was incumbent upon them, therefore, todilate upon the substance of this passage. Both Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararayabring to their analysis of this passage two kinds of hermeneutical methods. Theyare in agreement that both of these approaches are relevant to understanding thepassage, but they apply them in different ways. One is the rudimentary philosophyspelled out in the three Rahasyas or “secrets” that have been appended to the Devı-Mahatmya since at least the fourth century. The other is a cluster of passages drawnfrom the Siva Purana. Let us look briefly at both of these.

The Rahasyas together amount to some ninety-three verses and constitute akind of appendix to the Devı-Mahatmya.7 They are placed in the mouths of thesame interlocutors as those in the Devı-Mahatmya. They begin with the kingsaying to the seer: “You have told me all about the Goddess’s avatars. Now pleasetell me about their material nature (prakrti), their primary form (pradhana), theGoddess’s very own form (svarupa), and how she is to be worshiped.” The seerthen proceeds to provide what one of my Indian colleagues has called “the earliestsystematic statement of Sakta philosophy.”8 Charts 5.1 and 5.2 provide the im-portant relationships in this philosophy, which is conveyed in mythological lan-guage. The important affirmations are these. The foundation of the universe isMahalaksmı, whose own form is both with and without characteristic marks. Sheis constituted of three qualities (triguna) and pervades everything. She has fourarms. On seeing the universal void, she took on two other forms, in each of whomthere is a predominance of one of the three qualities (gunas) that are formallyassociated with Samkhya philosophy, but that have pervaded Indian cosmologicalthinking since the time of the Bhagavad Gıta. In the form named Mahakalı, thereis a predominance of tamas guna (quality of darkness), while in the one namedMahasarasvatı there is a predominance of sattva guna (power of light, knowledge,and purity). Each of the three goddesses then produced a set of twins, one male,the other female. Mahalaksmı proceeded to arrange three marriages—betweenBrahma and Sarasvatı, between Visnu and Laksmı, and between Rudra andGaurı—and each couple was given one of the three cosmic functions of creation,preservation, and destruction. Though Mahalaksmı has three qualities (triguna),she has an implicit predominance of the guna of rajas (dynamic energy) by virtueof having assigned the other gunas to her other two forms. All of this activity, weshould note, takes place within the realm of the unmanifest (avyakrta), as a kind ofinternal life of the Godhead or, more properly, the Goddesshead.

At the level of the manifest world (vikrti), the Goddess also has three chiefforms, “immanent” forms, if you will, with the same names as, but slightlydifferent iconography from, their “transcendent” (avyakrta) counterparts. Each of


riousness and multiplicity of the Goddess's diverse forms are not a problem for theauthor or compiler of the text. If anything, they enhance the wonder she evokes inher devotees.6 Thirteen hundred years later, however, the relationship between the severalforms of the Goddess, and their bearing on pressing matters of religious truth, wasthe concern of our commentators. It was incumbent upon them, therefore, todilate upon the substance of this passage. Both Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararayabring to their analysis of this passage two kinds of hermeneutical methods. Theyare in agreement that both of these approaches are relevant to understanding thepassage, but they apply them in different ways. One is the rudimentary philosophyspelled out in the three Rahasyas or "secrets" that have been appended to the Devi-Mahatmya since at least the fourth century. The other is a cluster of passages drawnfrom the Siva Purana. Let us look briefly at both of these.

The Rahasyas together amount to some ninety-three verses and constitute akind of appendix to the Devi-Mahatmya.7 T h e y a r e p l a c e d i n t h e m o u t h s o f t h e

same interlocutors as those in the Devi-Mahatmya. They begin with the kingsaying to the seer: "You have told me all about the Goddess's avatars. Now pleasetell me about their material nature (prakrti), their primary form (pradhana), theGoddess's very own form (svarfipa), and how she is to be worshiped." The seerthen proceeds to provide what one of my Indian colleagues has called "the earliestsystematic statement of a.kta philosophy."8 C h a r t s 5 . 1 a n d 5 . 2 p r o v i d e t h e i m -

portant relationships in this philosophy, which is conveyed in mythological lan-guage. The important affirmations are these. The foundation of the universe isMahalaksmi, whose own form is both with and without characteristic marks. Sheis constituted of three qualities (triguna) and pervades everything. She has fourarms. On seeing the universal void, she took on two other forms, in each of whomthere is a predominance of one of the three qualities (gunas) that are formallyassociated with Sarpkhya philosophy, but that have pervaded Indian cosmologicalthinking since the time of the Bhagavad Gitd. In the form named Mahakali, thereis a predominance of tamas guna (quality of darkness), while in the one namedMahasarasvati there is a predominance of sattva guna (power of light, knowledge,and purity). Each of the three goddesses then produced a set of twins, one male,the other female. Mahalakgni proceeded to arrange three marriages betweenBrahma and Sarasvati, between V ig.lu a n d L a k s m i , a n d b e t w e e n R u d r a a n d

Gauri a n d each couple was given one of the three cosmic functions of creation,preservation, and destruction. Though Mahalakgni has three qualities (triguna),she has an implicit predominance of the guna of rajas (dynamic energy) by virtueof having assigned the other gunas to her other two forms. All of this activity, weshould note, takes place within the realm of the unmanifest (avyakrta), as a kind ofinternal life of the Godhead or, more properly, the Goddesshead.

At the level of the manifest world (vikrtz), the Goddess also has three chiefforms, "immanent" forms, i f you will, with the same names as, but slightlydifferent iconography from, their "transcendent" (avyakrta) counterparts. Each of

The unmanifest (avyakrta)

Four-armed Mahalaksmı

Four-armed Mahakalı

(tamas)

(three-gunas)

(rajas)

four-armed Mahasarasvatı

(sattva)

!!"

Rudra Sarasvatı

!!"

Brahma Laksmı

!!"

Visnu Gaurı

!!!

creation

!!!

destruction

!!!

protection

Chart 5.1 Diagram of relationships in the Pradhanika Rahasya

The unmanifest

Four-armed Mahalaksmı*

Four-armed Mahakalı

(tamas)

(three-gunas)

(rajas)

four-armed Mahasarasvatı

(sattva)

manifest/incarnated(vikrti)

"ten-armed Mahakalı

first carita

of DM

(ch. 1)

hymn in ch. 1

!!!!!"

18-armed Mahalaksmı

second carita

of DM

(2–4)

hymn in ch. 4

!!!!!"

eight-armed Mahasarasvatı

third carita

of DM

(5–13)

hymn in ch. 11*The hymn in DM ch. 5 is to the unmanifest form of Mahalaksmı.

Chart 5.2 Diagram of relationships in the Vaikrtika Rahasya

The unmanifest (avyakrta)

1

I IRudra Sarasvati

The unmanifest

Four-armed Mahakali(tamas)

manifest/incarnated(vikrti)

ten-armed Mahakali

Four-armed Mahatakmi

Four-armed Mahakah ( t h ree -gu lps ) f o u r - a r m e d Mahasarasvati

(tamas) ( r a j a s ) ( s a t i v a )1 11 1 1

Brahma Lakmi V i g i u Gauri

creation destructionChart 5.1 Diagram of relationships in the Pradhanika Rahasya

Four-armed Mahalakgni*

protection

(three-gurps) f o u r - a r m e d Mahasarasvati(ra'as) ( s a t t v a )

18-armed Mahalalqmi eight-armed Mahasarasvati

first carita s e c o n d carita t h i r d caritaof DM o f DM o f DM(ch. 1) ( 2 - 4 ) ( 5 - 1 3 )

hymn in ch. 1 h y m n in ch. 4 h y m n in ch. 11*The hymn in D M ch. 5 is to the unrnanifest form of Mahalaksmi.

Chart 5.2 Diagram of relationships in the Vaikrtika Rahasya

82 Thomas B. Coburn

these forms is understood to preside over one of the three episodes (caritas) of theDevı-Mahatmya, according to the pattern indicated in Chart 2. Moreover, each ofthe four hymns of the Devı-Mahatmya, which are widely agreed to constitute thedevotional core of the text, is understood to be directed to a manifestation of theGoddess. There is one hymn in each of the first two episodes that is straightfor-ward enough: the hymns are directed to the two vikrti forms of the Goddess thatpreside respectively over those two episodes. Of the two hymns in the thirdepisode, the one in chapter 11 is directed to the vikrti form of Mahasarasvatı,while the one in chapter 5—the hymn that we have just seen precedes ourpuzzling passage—is directed to the highest form of Mahalaksmı, her avyakrta or“transcendent” form. The origin of the hermeneutical apparatus that the Rahasyasprovide remains a mystery. For our purposes, it is enough to note that bothBhaskararaya and Nagoji Bhatta take the assimilation of the Rahasyas to the textfor granted, and one of their fellow commentators goes so far as to allege that thereal reason Rama slew Ravana was because the demon recited the Devı-Mahatmyawithout the Rahasyas!9

All of the passages that Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya cite from the SivaPurana, the second of the templates they use for understanding our passage, comefrom the first part of the seventh book, the Vayu SaMhita, from chapters 24, 25, or27.10 In three cases, the commentators cite exactly the same passage. In two cases,they cite very similar passages, where the differences are likely mere textual vari-ants, a common Puranic phenomenon. Nagoji Bhatta then cites one furtherpassage. There is, in other words, a common pool of passages that both commen-tators cite, though they do not cite them in the same order or to the same purpose.

The relevant chapters in the Siva Purana recount the events that follow inthe wake of the destruction of Daksa’s sacrifice, and they tell a reasonably coherentstory. Siva and his consort, called Siva or devı, the Goddess, who has earlier beencalled Parvatı (7.23.15), settle down to enjoy themselves on Mount Mandara.After several years two demon brothers, named Sumbha and Nisumbha, are bornand through tapas (internal heat) gain from Brahma the boon that they cannot beslain by a man. “Rather, let us be slain in battle by a woman with whom we havefallen in love, an invincible maiden, who has not taken delight in the touch of aman, not born from a womb, but produced from a fragment (amsa) of Ambika”(7.24.26). When the demons have subsequently vanquished all the gods, Brahmaasks Siva to anger or tease the Goddess so that a sakti (power), a maiden utterlydevoid of passion, may be born from the sheath (kosa) that has her bodily color(7.24.26–30). So Siva playfully teased the Goddess by calling her Kalı, “the blackone,” whereupon she grew angry, reviling him for apparently only pretending tolove her, and reviling herself for apparently having given displeasure to her hus-band. Siva apologizes, indicating that his remarks had been made in jest and thattheir purpose will eventually become evident. The Goddess will have none of this,saying it must be her non-lustrous form (agauram vapuh) that had prompted himto call her black; she will rectify the situation by practicing tapas, winning a boon


these forms is understood to preside over one of the three episodes (caritas) of theDevi-Mahatmya, according to the pattern indicated in Chart 2. Moreover, each ofthe four hymns of the Devi-Mahatmya, which are widely agreed to constitute thedevotional core of the text, is understood to be directed to a manifestation of theGoddess. There is one hymn in each of the first two episodes that is straightfor-ward enough: the hymns are directed to the two vikrti forms of the Goddess thatpreside respectively over those two episodes. O f the two hymns in the thirdepisode, the one in chapter 11 is directed to the vikrti form of Mahasarasvati,while the one in chapter 5 t h e hymn that we have just seen precedes ourpuzzling passage—is directed to the highest form of Mahalakmi, her avyakrta or"transcendent" form. The origin of the hermeneutical apparatus that the Rahasyasprovide remains a mystery. For our purposes, it is enough to note that bothBhaskararaya and Nagoji Bhatta take the assimilation of the Rahasyas to the textfor granted, and one of their fellow commentators goes so far as to allege that thereal reason Rama slew Ravarja was because the demon recited the Devi-Mahatmyawithout the Rahasyas!9 All of the passages that Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya cite from the SivaPurana, the second of the templates they use for understanding our passage, comefrom the first part of the seventh book, the Vayu SaMhita, from chapters 24, 25, or27.1() In three cases, the commentators cite exactly the same passage. In two cases,

they cite very similar passages, where the differences are likely mere textual vari-ants, a common Purar.fic p h e n o m e no n . N a g o ji B h a tt a t he n c i te s one f u rt h er

passage. There is, in other words, a common pool of passages that both commen-tators cite, though they do not cite them in the same order or to the same purpose.

The relevant chapters in the Siva Purana recount the events that follow inthe wake of the destruction of Dakp.'s sacrifice, and they tell a reasonably coherentstory. Siva and his consort, called Siva or devi, the Goddess, who has earlier beencalled Parvati (7.23.15), settle down to enjoy themselves on Mount Mandara.After several years two demon brothers, named Sumbha and Niumbha., are bornand through tap as (internal heat) gain from Brahma the boon that they cannot beslain by a man. "Rather, let us be slain in battle by a woman with whom we havefallen in love, an invincible maiden, who has not taken delight in the touch of aman, not born from a womb, but produced from a fragment (aths'a) of Ambika"(7.24.26). When the demons have subsequently vanquished all the gods, Brahmaasks Siva to anger or tease the Goddess so that a s'akti (power), a maiden utterlydevoid of passion, may be born from the sheath (kos'a) that has her bodily color(7.24.26-30). So Siva playfully teased the Goddess by calling her Kali, "the blackone," whereupon she grew angry, reviling him for apparently only pretending tolove her, and reviling herself for apparently having given displeasure to her hus-band. Siva apologizes, indicating that his remarks had been made in jest and thattheir purpose will eventually become evident. The Goddess will have none of this,saying it must be her non-lustrous form (agauram vapub) that had prompted himto call her black; she will rectify the situation by practicing tapas, winning a boon


from Brahma, and becoming lustrous (gaurı: 7.24.53). She retreats to the Hima-layas and performs fierce austerities, even taming a tiger that comes to devour her.Brahma, pressured again by the gods for relief from Sumbha and Nisumbha, hashis attention caught by the power generated by the Goddess’s practice of tapas.Approaching her and learning of her desire to shed her blackness, he is puzzled,for, as the Goddess, she can have anything she wants just for the asking. But hethen chooses to make use of the power (sakti) she has built up, for the purpose ofdestroying the demons. Upon request then, “the Goddess, casting off the sheath ofher skin (tvakkosa), became golden (gaurı). A Black (kalı) maiden with the lustreof a thundercloud, was born from the skin-sheath and called ‘Kausikı’ ” (7.25.38–39). This power (sakti), called Visnu’s yogic slumber (yoganidra), whose nature ismaya (illusion) (7.25.40), bows to Brahma and to Gaurı, who is called her mother,and immediately goes off to slay the demons. When Gaurı returns to Siva’s abode(7.27), Siva asks if her anger has passed, says that he loves her whether she is kalı orany other color, and points out the many ways in which they are mutuallyinterdependent. He repeats that it was just to assist the gods in getting rid of thedemons that he teased her. The Goddess ignores this flattery, but asks if he hasseen the maiden Kausikı, whose like has never been nor will be known. Brahmawill provide him with details of that maiden’s battle with the demons, she says.The faithful tiger is then installed as guardian of the household and the text moveson to other, very different concerns.

This account is of intrinsic interest for a number of reasons. It clearlyunderstands the relationship between Siva and Devı as a much more symbioticone, as Ardhanarısvara (see 7.15), than does the parallel passage in the Devı-Mahatmya, where the Goddess reigns virtually supreme. It is concerned to explainthe relationship between the various forms of the Goddess with greater precisionthan is in our text, and it has a more fully developed concept of sakti. I suspect itwas composed a good deal later than the sixth-century Devı-Mahatmya. Mostintriguingly, the Siva Purana account reverses the emphasis of the name and thecolor of the form called “Kausikı.” The Devı-Mahatmya, as we have seen, has aluminous form named Ambika arising from the kosa of Parvatı, whence Ambikagets the designation “Kausikı.” It is Parvatı who becomes black and retires to theHimalayas, leaving Ambika/Kausikı at center stage. The Siva Purana, however,sees the figure who arises from the kosa, who is therefore named Kausikı, to takethe color from the kosa, which is black. It is she who makes the quick exit, to dobattle, leaving the luminous (gaurı) Parvatı, who has earlier been called Ambika, asthe dominant presence in the text. All of this, however we now leave to one side, aswe turn to exploring how Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya bring citations fromthis account, and from the Rahasyas, to bear on our puzzling passage.

Nagoji Bhatta’s position is a good deal easier to understand thanBhaskararaya’s, in part because it is more familiar to Western scholarship, in partbecause he has less at stake here religiously. So let us start with Nagoji Bhatta.11 Ihave suggested above, and elsewhere, that he may be understood as an Advaita


from Brahma, and becoming lustrous (gaud: 7.24.53). She retreats to the Hima-layas and performs fierce austerities, even taming a tiger that comes to devour her.Brahma, pressured again by the gods for relief from umbha. and Niumbha, hashis attention caught by the power generated by the Goddess's practice of tap as.Approaching her and learning of her desire to shed her blackness, he is puzzled,for, as the Goddess, she can have anything she wants just for the asking. But hethen chooses to make use of the power (s'akti) she has built up, for the purpose ofdestroying the demons. Upon request then, "the Goddess, casting off the sheath ofher skin (tvakkos'a), became golden (gauri). A Black (ka/i) maiden with the lustreof a thundercloud, was born from the skin-sheath and called '1Kauiki'" (7.25.38—39). This power (s'akti), called V ig.lu 's y o g i c s l u m b e r ( y o g a n i d r a) , w h o se n a t ur e i s

maya (illusion) (7.25.40), bows to Brahma and to Gauri, who is called her mother,and immediately goes off to slay the demons. When Gauri returns to iva's abode(7.27), iva asks if her anger has passed, says that he loves her whether she is kali orany other color, and points out the many ways in which they are mutuallyinterdependent. He repeats that it was just to assist the gods in getting rid of thedemons that he teased her. The Goddess ignores this flattery, but asks if he hasseen the maiden Kauiki, whose like has never been nor will be known. Brahmawill provide him with details of that maiden's battle with the demons, she says.The faithful tiger is then installed as guardian of the household and the text moveson to other, very different concerns.

This account is of intrinsic interest for a number of reasons. I t clearlyunderstands the relationship between iva and Devi as a much more symbioticone, as Ardhanarigvara (see 7.15), than does the parallel passage in the Devi-Mahatmya, where the Goddess reigns virtually supreme. It is concerned to explainthe relationship between the various forms of the Goddess with greater precisionthan is in our text, and it has a more fully developed concept of s'akti. I suspect itwas composed a good deal later than the sixth-century Devi-Mahatmya. Mostintriguingly, the Siva Purana account reverses the emphasis of the name and thecolor of the form called "Katthiki." The Devi-Mahatmya, as we have seen, has aluminous form named Ambika arising from the kos'a of Parvati, whence Ambikagets the designation "Kalthiki." It is Parvati who becomes black and retires to theHimalayas, leaving Ambika/Kauiki at center stage. The Siva Purana, however,sees the figure who arises from the kos'a, who is therefore named Kauiki, to takethe color from the kos'a, which is black. It is she who makes the quick exit, to dobattle, leaving the luminous (gauri) Parvati, who has earlier been called Ambika, asthe dominant presence in the text. All of this, however we now leave to one side, aswe turn to exploring how Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya bring citations fromthis account, and from the Rahasyas, to bear on our puzzling passage.

Nagoji Bhatta's position is a good deal easier to understand thanBhaskararaya's, in part because it is more familiar to Western scholarship, in partbecause he has less at stake here religiously. So let us start with Nagoji Bhatta. 11 Ihave suggested above, and elsewhere, that he may be understood as an Advaita

84 Thomas B. Coburn

Vedantin.12 Nowhere, in either his Devı-Mahatmya commentary or elsewhere,have I found him giving a systematic exposition of his view, but general evidencefor my suggestion is that his chief claim to fame is as a grammarian, a field which,in the eighteenth century, was steeped in the culture of Sankara’s school. Morespecifically, we find him using revealing terminology throughout his commentaryon the Devı-Mahatmya. Thus, when at the end of the final battle, the Goddessresumes all the diverse forms into herself, Nagoji says that Ambika then stoodentirely alone “because of the lack of differentiation within the mula-sakti (primalpower)” (10.4). Elsewhere (4.6) he calls her the mula-prakrti (primordial sub-stance). Similarly, it is in the form of ignorance that she causes samsara (rebirth),but in the form of knowledge (vidya) that she brings it all to an end (5.11). Mayaitself is to be understood as ignorance (avidya: 11.4). Most telling is Nagoji’s claimthat what makes the terribleness of the Goddess so great is that it cannot be“sublated” (atirikta) by anything other than knowledge of Brahman, for he is hereusing one of the specific master concepts of Advaita Vedanta.

If we grant then that Nagoji appears to be an Advaita Vedantin, certainconclusions follow.13 Adopting a dualistic epistemology, he assumes that there is a“lower” sphere of conventional knowledge (vyavaharika), and a “higher” realm ofultimate truth (paramarthika). What the Devı-Mahatmya presents, with its mythsand hymns and devotional fervor, belongs entirely to the former realm. It offers apowerful and temporarily valid understanding of the universe, but it is not finallytrue, for it is sublated, or surpassed, or transcended by knowledge of a non-dualBrahman. What Nagoji Bhatta is about in his commentary, then, is simply thesetting in order of fragments of truth, the rearrangement of approximately accu-rate formulations.

This turns out to be exactly what is on Nagoji Bhatta’s mind in his commen-tary on our puzzling passage. It is too glib to imagine him saying—“Well, it’s nowonder the passage is puzzling: what can you expect from myths and otherdetritus from the vyavaharika (ordinary) realm!”—for his search for intelligibilityruns deeper than that. But he does appropriate, almost mechanically, a particularway of explaining the dynamics of the vyavaharika realm in general and of thispassage in particular. What he alights on is the three-guna theory of the Samkhyaschool, often used by Advaita Vedanta to explain the ordinary world and, as wehave seen, introduced in the Rahasyas in association with the different forms ofMahalaksmı. The problem for Nagoji Bhatta here and throughout the thirdepisode, is as follows. In the first episode of the Devı-Mahatmya, the association ofkilling with Mahakalı, in whom tamas predominates is comprehensible: ignoranceand maya are part of Mahakalı’s power, and she uses them to delude the demonsMadhu and Kaitabha into challenging Visnu in this episode. Similarly, in thesecond episode, the association of Mahalaksmı and rajas is necessary to kill thebuffalo demon Mahisa. But how can the power of sattva, which logically belongsto Mahasarasvatı in the third episode, be used to justify any killing? Goodnessalone does not kill, so how can Mahasarasvatı do so? This is the hermeneutical


Vedantin.12 N o w he r e , i n e it he r his D ev i -M ah at my a commentary or elsewhere,

have I found him giving a systematic exposition of his view, but general evidencefor my suggestion is that his chief claim to fame is as a grammarian, a field which,in the eighteenth century, was steeped in the culture of alikara's school. Morespecifically, we find him using revealing terminology throughout his commentaryon the Devi-Mahatmya. Thus, when at the end of the final battle, the Goddessresumes all the diverse forms into herself, Nagoji says that Ambika then stoodentirely alone "because of the lack of differentiation within the maa4akti (primalpower)" (10.4). Elsewhere (4.6) he calls her the mala-prakrti (primordial sub-stance). Similarly, it is in the form of ignorance that she causes samsara (rebirth),but in the form of knowledge (vidya) that she brings it all to an end (5.11). Mayaitself is to be understood as ignorance (avidya: 11.4). Most telling is Nagoji's claimthat what makes the terribleness of the Goddess so great is that it cannot be"sublated" (atirikta) by anything other than knowledge of Brahman, for he is hereusing one of the specific master concepts of Advaita Vedanta.

If we grant then that Nagoji appears to be an Advaita Vedantin, certainconclusions follow." Adopting a dualistic epistemology, he assumes that there is a"lower" sphere of conventional knowledge (vyavaharika), and a "higher" realm ofultimate truth (paramarthika). What the Devi-Mahatmya presents, with its mythsand hymns and devotional fervor, belongs entirely to the former realm. It offers apowerful and temporarily valid understanding of the universe, but it is not finallytrue, for it is sublated, or surpassed, or transcended by knowledge of a non-dualBrahman. What Nagoji Bhatta is about in his commentary, then, is simply thesetting in order of fragments of truth, the rearrangement of approximately accu-rate formulations.

This turns out to be exactly what is on Nagoji Bhatta's mind in his commen-tary on our puzzling passage. It is too glib to imagine him saying—"Well, it's nowonder the passage is puzzling: what can you expect from myths and otherdetritus from the vyavaharika (ordinary) realm!" f o r his search for intelligibilityruns deeper than that. But he does appropriate, almost mechanically, a particularway of explaining the dynamics of the vyavaharika realm in general and of thispassage in particular. What he alights on is the three-guiya theory of the Sarhkhyaschool, often used by Advaita Vedanta to explain the ordinary world and, as wehave seen, introduced in the Rahasyas in association with the different forms ofMahalakmi. The problem for Nagoji Bhatta here and throughout the thirdepisode, is as follows. In the first episode of the Devi-Mahatmya, the association ofkilling with Mahakali, in whom tamas predominates is comprehensible: ignoranceand maya are part of Mahakah's power, and she uses them to delude the demonsMadhu and Kaitabha into challenging V*Ju in this episode. Similarly, in thesecond episode, the association of Mahalakgni and rajas is necessary to kill thebuffalo demon Mahisa. But how can the power of sattva, which logically belongsto Mahasarasvati in the third episode, be used to justify any killing? Goodnessalone does not kill, so how can Mahasarasvati do so? This is the hermeneutical


problem for Nagoji Bhatta. The passage with which we are concerned has greatpotential for solving this problem and demonstrating how the distribution of theforms and qualities of the Goddess works. What is the characterization of Ambika/Kausikı as Siva, auspicious, indicates, says Nagoji (comm. on 5.38), is that she is aportion (amsa) of the Devı in whom the guna of sattva predominates. Hence theexpectation that sattva dominates in this episode is met. Beyond that, however,because of the close connection (sahodaritva) between the two forms that thispassage demonstrates, it is legitimate to expect that the tamasic qualities of theblack Kalika/Parvatı, who retires to the mountains, will spill over into the formand actions of Ambika, enabling her to do battle with the demons (comm. on5.41). It makes good sense for Nagoji to quote the Siva-Purana in this regard, for,as we have seen, the reversed emphasis in that text invites us to blur the distinctionbetween light and dark forms in just the way that Nagoji wants us to. The passageis indeed troubling, but Nagoji makes a virtue of necessity and shows how there isindeed a logic to the forms of the Goddess that are active within the vyavaharikarealm. This passage demonstrates that logic by identifying the activity of the sattvaguna form of the Goddess.

Bhaskararaya’s commentary on this passage proceeds in quite a differentfashion, for while he too is a nondualist, his nondualism is of a Tantric sort,specifically of the Srı Vidya school.14 He therefore does not accept the epistemo-logical dualism of Vedanta; his philosophy points toward the ritual actualization ofthe power of the unmanifest Mahalaksmı, which is ontologically connected to,and accessible in, the mantras of the Devı-Mahatmya. He knows the power thatinheres the ritual recitation of the text and he is concerned to show how that powersprings from the very foundation of the universe.

There are three chief points that Bhaskararaya makes in his commentary onthe verses of our passage. In typical scholastic fashion, he pays careful attention todiction and grammar, so let us meet him on his own terms with a similar kind ofanalysis.

His first point is that there is a kind of interchangability between the twoforms of the Goddess in this passage, Kalı (ka) and Parvatı, which is a secret(marmatva: comm. on 5.38). In support of this, he cites the relevant passages fromthe Siva Purana account and says that the dark maiden who emerges from the kosaafter Parvatı’s tapas in the Siva Purana was the vibhuti of Parvatı. The word vibhutiis a pregnant term, with a range of meanings from “beauty” and “prosperity” to“what is most important about something,” its “essence.” Daniel Ingalls hassuggested it means something like Eliade’s concept of hierophany.15 In the Devı-Mahatmya itself this is the term that is used at the end of the last combat, whenSumbha accuses the Goddess of false pride for relying on the power of the otherdeities, and she responds: “’I alone exist here in the world; what second, other thanI, is there? O wicked one, behold these my vibhutis entering back into me!’Thereupon, all the goddesses . . . went to their resting place in the body of theGoddess, then there was just Ambika, alone” (10. 3–4). Thus, like Nagoji Bhatta,


problem for Nagoji Bhatta. The passage with which we are concerned has greatpotential for solving this problem and demonstrating how the distribution of theforms and qualities of the Goddess works. What is the characterization of Ambika/Kaukiki as Siva, auspicious, indicates, says Nagoji (comm. on 5.38), is that she is aportion (aths'a) of the Devi in whom the gulya of sattva predominates. Hence theexpectation that sattva dominates in this episode is met. Beyond that, however,because of the close connection (sahodaritva) between the two forms that thispassage demonstrates, it is legitimate to expect that the tamasic qualities of theblack KalikdiParvati, who retires to the mountains, will spill over into the formand actions of Ambika, enabling her to do battle with the demons (comm. on5.41). It makes good sense for Nagoji to quote the Siva-Puralya in this regard, for,as we have seen, the reversed emphasis in that text invites us to blur the distinctionbetween light and dark forms in just the way that Nagoji wants us to. The passageis indeed troubling, but Nagoji makes a virtue of necessity and shows how there isindeed a logic to the forms of the Goddess that are active within the vyavaharikarealm. This passage demonstrates that logic by identifying the activity of the sattvagulya form of the Goddess.

Bhaskararaya's commentary on this passage proceeds in quite a differentfashion, for while he too is a nondualist, his nondualism is of a Tantric sort,specifically of the r i Vidyd school." He therefore does not accept the epistemo-logical dualism of Vedanta; his philosophy points toward the ritual actualization ofthe power of the unmanifest Mandlakmi, which is ontologically connected to,and accessible in, the mantras of the Devi-Mahatmya. He knows the power thatinheres the ritual recitation of the text and he is concerned to show how that powersprings from the very foundation of the universe.

There are three chief points that Bhaskararaya makes in his commentary onthe verses of our passage. In typical scholastic fashion, he pays careful attention todiction and grammar, so let us meet him on his own terms with a similar kind ofanalysis.

His first point is that there is a kind of interchangability between the twoforms of the Goddess in this passage, Kali (ka) and Parvati, which is a secret(marmatva: comm. on 5.38). In support of this, he cites the relevant passages fromthe Siva Puralya account and says that the dark maiden who emerges from the kos'aafter Parvati's tapas in the Siva Puralya was the vibhuti of Parvati. The word vibhutiis a pregnant term, with a range of meanings from "beauty" and "prosperity" to"what is most important about something," its "essence." Daniel Ingalls hassuggested it means something like Eliade's concept of hierophany.15 I n t h e D e v i -Mahatmya itself this is the term that is used at the end of the last combat, whenumbha accuses the Goddess of false pride for relying on the power of the other

deities, and she responds: " I alone exist here in the world; what second, other thanI, is there? 0 wicked one, behold these my vibhutis entering back into me!'Thereupon, all the goddesses w e n t to their resting place in the body of theGoddess, then there was just Ambika, alone" (10. 3-4). Thus, like Nagoj i Bhatta,

86 Thomas B. Coburn

Bhaskararaya asks us to blur the distinction between the two forms, but he does so,not to justify the correspondence of the Goddess’s forms with the theory of thethree gunas, but to emphasize that there is, in fact , only one Goddess, one reality,no matter how many different names or labels we may apply to her.

Bhaskararaya’s second and third points depend on the interpretation of acrucial half line, so let me cite again the last two verses of our passage:

5.40 Since Ambika came forth from the kosa of ParvatıShe is sung of in all the worlds as “Kausikı.”

5.41 When she had come forth, Parvatı became black.Known as “Kalika.” she makes her abode in the Himalayas.

The Sanskrit for the first half of the last verse is tasyam vinirgatayam tu krsnabhutsapi parvatı. The clear sense, on which all other commentaries that I have seenagree, is that the first half of the line is a locative absolute, and that the “she” refersto Ambika/Kausikı who has just “come forth” from Parvatı. Bhaskararaya, how-ever, prefers a variant reading for the first half of this line tasyavinirgata ya tu,which he glosses as tasya vinirgata ya tu, yielding the translation “The one who hadcome forth from her, Parvatı, became black.” That is, tasya(h) is a feminineablative, joined in false samdhi to vinirgata, and designating the unnamed sourcefrom which Parvatı came. Parvatı came forth from “her,” but we do not yet knowwho “she” is. Moreover Bhaskararaya then goes on at great length to explain whatthe verb vinirgam, “to come forth,” can and cannot mean. Just what isBhaskararaya up to, and what seems to be at stake here for our commentator?

The key to answering these questions lies in returning to the rudimentarySakta philosophy sketched out in the Rahasyas. As noted in passing above,Bhaskararaya rejects the epistemological dualism of Advaita Vedanta, but it iscomparably important to note that, for him, all the different forms of Mahalaksmıdo not designate ontologically different deities. He remains a monist. The variousforms for Bhaskararaya are simply different manifestations of the same reality.That reality can admittedly be spoken about in different ways, but the differencesare not of major consequence. When ultimate reality is spoken of in its aggregate(samasti) form, it is named Mahalaksmı, or Candı, or Brahman. One of the firstlines of his commentary declares “the deity named Candı is the highest Brahman,”who is (quoting Saundaryalaharı 98) “the queen through whom the crown isinherited.” But when this same reality is spoken of in its separate (vyasti) forms, itis named Mahalaksmı, Mahakalı and Mahasarasvatı.16 What is crucial forBhaskararaya is that the shifting from samasti to vyasti forms of Mahalaksmı, thatis, from aggregate to separate, or moving from the “level” of the unmanifest(avyakrta) to that of the manifest (vikrti), or from the Pradhanika to the VaikrtikaRasasya, we are not moving to a secondary or diminished form of reality. Theultimate is still ultimate. The ontological connection is still utter, for reality is avirtually seamless web. The Goddess, the great slayer of Mahisa and other demons,


Bhaskararaya asks us to blur the distinction between the two forms, but he does so,not to justify the correspondence of the Goddess's forms with the theory of thethree gul:las, but to emphasize that there is, in fact, only one Goddess, one reality,no matter how many different names or labels we may apply to her.

Bhaskarardya's second and third points depend on the interpretation of acrucial half line, so let me cite again the last two verses of our passage:

5.40 Since Ambika came forth from the kos'a of ParvatiShe is sung of in all the worlds as "Kalthiki."

5.41 When she had come forth, Parvati became black.Known as "Kalikd." she makes her abode in the Himalayas.

The Sanskrit for the first half of the last verse is tasyam vinirgatdydni tu kr,cnabhutsapi pdrvati. The clear sense, on which all other commentaries that I have seenagree, is that the first half of the line is a locative absolute, and that the "she" refersto Ambika/Kauiki who has just "come forth" from Parvati. Bhaskarardya, how-ever, prefers a variant reading for the first half of this line tasydvinirgata ya tu,which he glosses as tasyd vinirgataya tu, yielding the translation "The one who hadcome forth from her, Parvati, became black." That is, tasyd(b) is a feminineablative, joined in false scandhi to vinirgatd, and designating the unnamed sourcefrom which Parvati came. Parvati came forth from "her," but we do not yet knowwho "she" is. Moreover Bhaskarardya then goes on at great length to explain whatthe verb vinirgam, "to come forth," can and cannot mean. Just what isBhaskarardya up to, and what seems to be at stake here for our commentator?

The key to answering these questions lies in returning to the rudimentaryal(ta philosophy sketched out in the Rahasyas. As noted in passing above,

Bhaskarardya rejects the epistemological dualism of Advaita Vedanta, but it iscomparably important to note that, for him, all the different forms of Mahalakmido not designate ontologically different deities. He remains a monist. The variousforms for Bhaskararaya are simply different manifestations of the same reality.That reality can admittedly be spoken about in different ways, but the differencesare not of major consequence. When ultimate reality is spoken of in its aggregate(sama,c0) form, it is named Mahalakmi, or Caucli, or Brahman. One of the firstlines of his commentary declares "the deity named Caucli is the highest Brahman,"who is (quoting Saundaryalahari 98) "the queen through whom the crown isinherited." But when this same reality is spoken of in its separate (vya,c1)) forms, itis named Mahalakmi, Mahakall and Mahasarasvati.16 W h a t i s c r u c i a l f o rBhaskarardya is that the shifting from samagl to vyagl forms of Mahalakmi, thatis, from aggregate to separate, or moving from the "level" o f the unmanifest(avyakrta) to that of the manifest (vikrtz), or from the Pradhanika to the Vaikt-tikaRasasya, we are not moving to a secondary or diminished form of reality. Theultimate is still ultimate. The ontological connection is still utter, for reality is avirtually seamless web. The Goddess, the great slayer of Mahip and other demons,


whose activity is described in the verses of the Devı-Mahatmya, whose power isaccessible in those mantras, is also the foundation of the universe.

Given the narrative and hymnic nature of the Devı-Mahatmya,Bhaskararaya is hard-pressed to find textual support for this interpretation. Butthe variant reading that he accepts for this crucial verse provides him with animportant piece of evidence. It gives him a specific reference to the avyakrta formof Mahalaksmı. She is the one whom Bhaskararaya understands to be referred toby the ablative case “her.” In his own words, the form that is designated Kalika,who is essentially the same as Parvatı (a matter to which we shall return in amoment), this very form “came forth from the presence of the highest deity(paradevata: comm. on 5.41),” that is from the unspecified “her” in the variantreading. She is the transcendent Goddess who looms behind all specific activity,who forms the backdrop and underpinning of all particular existence. Elsewhere,using a term that is deliberately reminiscent of Gaudapada’s famous Karika on theMandukya Upanisad, Bhaskararaya calls this foundational samasti Mahalaksmıturıya, “the fourth.”17 In developing this point, Bhaskararaya maintains that theverb vinirgam, to go forth, can be used either in the mundane fashion, as in “goingforth to bathe,” or metaphysically, to describe the relationship between the highestavyakrta form of Mahalaksmı and her several other vikrti forms. But it cannot beused, he says, with the highest form of Mahalaksmı as the subject of the verbbecause it is improper to impute action to the highest deity, just as it is improper toimpute color to her. Following this line of thinking on the word vibhuti that wenoted above, he argues that this verb cannot be used to describe the relationshipbetween Kausikı/Ambika and the Parvatı from whom she sprang because there isno essential difference between them. They are, as it were, on a par with eachother, virtually interchangeable vikrti forms. What they have in common out-weighs by far the contrast in which they both stand to the transcendent Ma-halaksmı from whom they have “come forth.”

Let me conclude by suggesting that this admittedly technical discussion mayhelp in understanding the relationship between the different strands of Hindutradition, in particular, the strands of bhakti, philosophy (darsana) as representedby Advaita Vedanta, and the Tantra. Let me do so in heuristic fashion, with adiagram that points toward an aphorism.

The diagram asks us to think of the Hindu tradition as a conversation inwhich there are three participants, visualized structurally as a triangle with threevertices. At one vertex is the great mythology of popular Hinduism, as found inthe Puranas. Its animating spirit is bhakti, devotion, and its narratives moveunselfconsciously and unsystematically through a variety of philosophical views.Casually informed by Samkhya terminology, the accounts are more or less dualis-tic in their ontologies, and in their understanding of the relationship betweenmale and female deities (Radha and Krsna, Parvatı and Siva, Sakti and Siva). Theyare also casually dualistic in their varied understandings of the relationship be-tween male and female deities and human beings and of the relationship between


whose activity is described in the verses of the Devi-Mahatmya, whose power isaccessible in those mantras, is also the foundation of the universe.

Given the narrative and hymnic nature o f the Devi-Mahamiya,Bhaskararaya is hard-pressed to find textual support for this interpretation. Butthe variant reading that he accepts for this crucial verse provides him with animportant piece of evidence. It gives him a specific reference to the avyakrta formof Mahalakgni. She is the one whom Bhaskararaya understands to be referred toby the ablative case "her." In his own words, the form that is designated Kalika,who is essentially the same as Parvati (a matter to which we shall return in amoment), this very form "came forth from the presence of the highest deity(paradevata: comm. on 5.40," that is from the unspecified "her" in the variantreading. She is the transcendent Goddess who looms behind all specific activity,who forms the backdrop and underpinning of all particular existence. Elsewhere,using a term that is deliberately reminiscent of Gaudapada's famous Karika on theMandukya Upani,cad, Bhaskararaya calls this foundational samagl Mahalakmituriya, "the fourth." 17 In developing this point, Bhaskararaya maintains that theverb vinirgam, to go forth, can be used either in the mundane fashion, as in "goingforth to bathe," or metaphysically, to describe the relationship between the highestavyakrta form of Mahalakmi and her several other vikrti forms. But it cannot beused, he says, with the highest form of Mahalakmi as the subject of the verbbecause it is improper to impute action to the highest deity, just as it is improper toimpute color to her. Following this line of thinking on the word vibhuti that wenoted above, he argues that this verb cannot be used to describe the relationshipbetween Kauiki/Ambika and the Parvati from whom she sprang because there isno essential difference between them. They are, as it were, on a par with eachother, virtually interchangeable vikrti forms. What they have in common out-weighs by far the contrast in which they both stand to the transcendent Ma-halakgni from whom they have "come forth."

Let me conclude by suggesting that this admittedly technical discussion mayhelp in understanding the relationship between the different strands of Hindutradition, in particular, the strands of bhakti, philosophy (dars'ana) as representedby Advaita Vedanta, and the Tantra. Let me do so in heuristic fashion, with adiagram that points toward an aphorism.

The diagram asks us to think of the Hindu tradition as a conversation inwhich there are three participants, visualized structurally as a triangle with threevertices. At one vertex is the great mythology of popular Hinduism, as found inthe Purarjas. Its animating spirit is bhakti, devotion, and its narratives moveunselfconsciously and unsystematically through a variety of philosophical views.Casually informed by arial(hya terminology, the accounts are more or less dualis-tic in their ontologies, and in their understanding of the relationship betweenmale and female deities (Radha and K ly.la , P a r v a t i a n d i v a , a k t i a n d i v a ) . T h e y

are also casually dualistic in their varied understandings of the relationship be-tween male and female deities and human beings and of the relationship between

88 Thomas B. Coburn

both of these and the material world. While Puranic myths may invoke theconcept of maya in a narrative (not philosophical) sort of way, they basically affirma single epistemology: the commonsense world, though slippery, is more or lessknowable as it is presented to us. The point throughout the Puranas is nurturanceand expression of the devotional spirit, glorification of God, or of Goddess, or ofboth. Although the Devı-Mahatmya is distinctive in its effort to place the Goddessat center stage, it is nicely representative of this Puranic devotional spirit, where, asthe great Bengali bhakta Ramprasad, would have said it, the goal is to taste thesugar of the divine, not to become it.18 The other two partners in the conversation,occupying the other two vertices, are concerned to resolve the tensions and philo-sophical problems inherent in the casually dualistic myths and hymns of devo-tional fervor. What we have met in the commentaries on the Devı-Mahatmya aretwo such efforts. Both of them move toward nondualism, but they do so in quitedifferent ways, and so each occupies a different vertex of the triangle.

Advaita Vedanta, as represented by Nagoji Bhatta, can “make sense” of theDevı-Mahatmya, including the puzzling passage we has been considering, byaffirming an ontological monism. But it can do so only by affirming as well anepistemological dualism. Ultimately, the Goddess and her activity and the text arerelegated to the realm of ordinary, less-than-ultimate knowledge. Only Brahman-without-qualities is finally real.

Tantrics as represented by Bhaskararaya, can also “make sense” of the Devı-Mahatmya as a whole, and of our puzzling passage, and they, too, adopt a monisticposition. But they are unwilling to ascribe secondary status to the physical world,or to the senses, or to the manifest diversity of the Goddess’s forms. The way inwhich they avoid epistemological dualism is not philosophically, but ritually—through the esoteric, experiential transformation of the world. This is surely onereason for Bhaskararaya’s preoccupation elsewhere in his commentary with theproper ritual use of the text. What differentiates the two nondualisms, then, is thatone—Advaita Vedanta—is of a public and profoundly philosophical sort, whilethe other—Tantra—inclines toward a private and ritualized experience ofoneness.19

My aphorism, which I offer by way of summarizing our discussion, is this:Puranic bhakti, reflecting Samkhya, affirms an ontological dualism and so is

able to affirm a single epistemology. Nondual Vedanta affirms an ontologicalmonism, but the price it pays for this is epistemological dualism. Tantric nondual-ism also affirms a monistic ontology, but relies on the esoteric, ritualized, experien-tial transformation of the material world in order to avoid a dualistic epistemology.

NOTES

Charts 5.1 and 5.2 are reproduced with permission from Thomas B. Coburn, Encoun-

tering the Goddess: A Translation of the Devı-Mahatmya and a Study of Its Interpretation

(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).


both of these and the material world. While Purauic myths may invoke theconcept of maya in a narrative (not philosophical) sort of way, they basically affirma single epistemology: the commonsense world, though slippery, is more or lessknowable as it is presented to us. The point throughout the Purarjas is nurturanceand expression of the devotional spirit, glorification of God, or of Goddess, or ofboth. Although the Devi-Mahatmya is distinctive in its effort to place the Goddessat center stage, it is nicely representative of this Purauic devotional spirit, where, asthe great Bengali bhakta Ramprasad, would have said it, the goal is to taste thesugar of the divine, not to become it." The other two partners in the conversation,occupying the other two vertices, are concerned to resolve the tensions and philo-sophical problems inherent in the casually dualistic myths and hymns of devo-tional fervor. What we have met in the commentaries on the Devi-Mahatmya aretwo such efforts. Both of them move toward nondualism, but they do so in quitedifferent ways, and so each occupies a different vertex of the triangle.

Advaita Vedanta, as represented by Nagoji Bhatta, can "make sense" of theDevi-Mahatmya, including the puzzling passage we has been considering, byaffirming an ontological monism. But it can do so only by affirming as well anepistemological dualism. Ultimately, the Goddess and her activity and the text arerelegated to the realm of ordinary, less-than-ultimate knowledge. Only Brahman-without-qualities is finally real.

Tantrics as represented by Bhaskararaya, can also "make sense" of the Devi-Mahatmya as a whole, and of our puzzling passage, and they, too, adopt a monisticposition. But they are unwilling to ascribe secondary status to the physical world,or to the senses, or to the manifest diversity of the Goddess's forms. The way inwhich they avoid epistemological dualism is not philosophically, but ritually—through the esoteric, experiential transformation of the world. This is surely onereason for Bhaskararaya's preoccupation elsewhere in his commentary with theproper ritual use of the text. What differentiates the two nondualisms, then, is thatone—Advaita Vedanta i s of a public and profoundly philosophical sort, whilethe other—Tantra—inclines toward a private and ritualized experience o foneness.1 9 My aphorism, which I offer by way of summarizing our discussion, is this:

Purauic bhakti, reflecting Sarikhya, affirms an ontological dualism and so isable to affirm a single epistemology. Nondual Vedanta affirms an ontologicalmonism, but the price it pays for this is epistemological dualism. Tantric nondual-ism also affirms a monistic ontology, but relies on the esoteric, ritualized, experien-tial transformation of the material world in order to avoid a dualistic epistemology.

NOTES

Charts 5.1 and 5.2 are reproduced with permission from Thomas B. Coburn, Encoun-tering the Goddess: A Translation o f the Devi-Mahatmya and a Study of Its Interpretation(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).


1. Andre Padoux, “Tantrism,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New

York: Macmillan, 1986), 14:273.

2. Madeleine Biardeau, Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilization, trans. Richard

Nice (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 156.

3. Thomas Coburn, Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the Devı-Mahatmya

and a Study of Its Interpretation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).

4. Ibid., 52–53; Devı-Mahatmya 5.1–6.

5. Coburn, Encountering the Goddess, 55.

6. See Thomas B. Coburn, Devı-Mahatmya: The Crystallization of the Goddess Tradi-

tion (Delhi and Columbia: Motilal Banarsidass and South Asia Books, 1984), 80n, 137,

146–53, 247–49n.

7. For fuller discussion of the Rahasyas, see Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, chap-

ter 5, esp. 109–117.

8. A. N. Jani, cited in ibid., 109.

9. Ibid., 101, and 209, 8n.

10. Here I follow the Sanskrit text given in The Siva Mahapurana, ed. Pushpendra

Kumar (Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1981). See also the Siva Purana, trans. Board of Scholars

(Delhi, Vanarasi and Patna: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970).

11. The commentaries of Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya on which I draw in the

ensuing discussion are those published in Durga-saptasatı saptatika-samvalita [The Durga

Saptasatı with seven commentaries], ed. Harikrsnasarma (Bombay: Venkatesvara Press,

1916; and Delhi and Baroda: Butala and Company, 1984).

12. Coburn, Encountering the Goddess, 129–31.

13. See Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 1969), 15–26.

14. See Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 122–29.

15. Ingalls made this suggestion orally in 1971, in discussing the Bhagavad Gıta’s use of

the word.

16. For more on samasti and vyasti, see Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 135–39,

142–43.

17. See Bhaskararaya’s comment on Pradhanika Rahasya 4, Durga-saptasatı.

18. See Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 166 and 227–28, 73n.

19. The recent work of Douglas R. Brooks is very provocative in thinking about these

matters: The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism (Chicago

and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1990), particularly 93, 127–28.


1. Andre Padoux, "Tantrism," The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (NewYork: Macmillan, 1986), 14:273.

2. Madeleine Biardeau, Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilization, trans. RichardNice (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 156.

3. Thomas Coburn, Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the Devi-Mahatmyaand a Study of Its Interpretation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).

4. Ibid., 52- 53; Devi-Mahatmya 5.1-6.5. Coburn, Encountering the Goddess, 55.6. See Thomas B. Coburn, Devi-Mahatmya: The Crystallization of the Goddess Tradi-

tion (Delhi and Columbia: Moti lal Banarsidass and South Asia Books, 1984), 80n, 137,146-53, 247- 49n.

7. For fuller discussion of the Rahasyas, see Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, chap-ter 5, esp. 109-117.

8. A. N. Jani, cited in ibid., 109.9. Ibid., 101, and 209, 8n.

10. Here I fol low the Sanskrit text given i n The Siva Mahapur4a, ed. PushpendraKumar (Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1981). See also the Siva Pural:/a, trans. Board of Scholars(Delhi, Vanarasi and Patna: Moti lal Banarsidass, 1970).

11. The commentaries of Nagoji Bhatta and Bhaskararaya on which I draw in theensuing discussion are those published in Durga-saptafatz saptatika-samvalita [The DurgaSaptagati w i th seven commentaries], ed. Harikrsnasarma (Bombay: Venkatesvara Press,1916; and Delhi and Baroda: Butala and Company, 1984).

12. Coburn, Encountering the Goddess, 129-31.13. See Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 1969), 15-26.14. See Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 122-29.15. Ingalls made this suggestion orally in 1971, in discussing the Bhagavad Gita's use of

the word.16. For more on samagl and vya,ct , see Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 135-39,

142-43.17. See Bhaskararaya's comment on Pradhanika Rahasya 4, Durga-saptajati.18. See Coburn, Encountering The Goddess, 166 and 227-28, 73n.19. The recent work of Douglas R. Brooks is very provocative in thinking about these

matters: The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism (Chicagoand London: The University of Chicago Press, 1990), particularly 93, 127-28.

the structural interplay of tantra vedanta and bhakti

Documents