CRACOW I N D O LO G I C A L STUDIES Tantric Traditions in Theory and Practice VOL. XVI KRAKÓW 2014 Edited by Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz and Ewa Dębicka-Borek JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY I N S T I T U T E O F O R I E N TA L S T U D I E S Contents Preface Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz, Ewa Dębicka-Borek ................ v Józef Lączak (05.12.1926–21.08.1989). A Linguist, Specialist in Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric and Polish Studies, Teacher, Human Lidia Sudyka, Agata Lenard ........................................................... 1 The Śaiva Atimārga in the Light of Niśvāsaguhya 12.1–22ab Andrea Acri .................................................................................... 7 When Gods Get Broken—the Theory and Practice of the jīrṇoddhāra and navīkaraṇa in the Pāñcarātrika Sources Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz ................................................ 51 How to Realize the Four Goals of Life by Means of mantra? Ewa Dębicka-Borek ...................................................................... 87 Vedic Predecessors of One Type of Tantric Ritual Shingo Einoo .............................................................................. 109 Lesser Known Śaiva Initiations: Critical Edition of the Vijñānadīkṣā Chapter of the Hitherto Unpublished Acintyaviśvasādākhyāgama, One of the Āgamas of the Śaivasiddhānta Tradition and Its Brief Presentation T. Ganesan .................................................................................. 145 Saiddhāntika paddhatis I. On Rāmanātha, the Earliest Southern Author of the Śaivasiddhānta of Whom Works Survive, and on Eleventh-century Revisions of the Somaśambhupaddhati Dominic Goodall ........................................................................ 169 On yantras in Early Śaiva Tantras Csaba Kiss .................................................................................. 203 Sandhyā Worship in the 14th Century Pāñcarātra: Theory and Practice? Marion Rastelli........................................................................... 235 Paḷḷivēṭṭa, or the ‘Royal Hunt’, in Prescriptive Literature and in Present-day Practice in Kerala S.A.S. Sarma ............................................................................... 289 Five Great Sins (Mahāpātakas) with Special Reference to Śaiva Siddhānta R. Sathyanarayanan ................................................................... 315 Women in Early Śākta Tantras: Dūtī, Yoginī and Sādhakī Judit Törzsök .............................................................................. 339 Prasenā, Prasīnā & Prasannā: The Evidence of the Niśvāsaguhya and the Tantrasadbhāva Somadeva Vasudeva ................................................................... 369 Gyula Wojtilla, Kāśyapīyakṛṣisūkti. A Sanskrit Work on Agriculture. Reviewed by Jaroslav Vacek ....................................................... 393 Cracow Indological Studies vol. XVI (2014) 10.12797/CIS.16.2014.16.08 Dominic Goodall (École française d’Extrême-Orient) Saiddhāntika paddhatis I. On Rāmanātha, the Earliest Southern Author of the Śaivasiddhānta of Whom Works Survive, and on Eleventh-century Revisions of the Somaśambhupaddhati Summary: The study of ritual in India is indissociable from the study of prescriptive texts. Now the Śaiva scriptures of the Śaivasiddhānta purport to lay down every aspect of the Śaiva religion, from doctrine to comportment, but they are for various reasons typically not straightforward guides to the performance of rituals and, in spite of their presenting themselves as revealed literature, they do not teach one body of ritual activity that is coherent and free from internal contradictions, as Śaiva exegetes have long freely acknowledged.1 One way of helping practitioners to perform rites ‘according to the rules’ was to write commentaries on particular scriptures. 1 Only on doctrine were the scriptures held to be univocal; in matters of ritual, each taught different practices, as is acknowledged in a much quoted verse (cited, e.g., by Rāmakaṇṭha ad Sārdhatriśatikālottara 4.2ab) attributed to Sadyojyotiḥ, who seems to have been active between 675 and 725 AC (see Sanderson 2006) : kriyādibhedabhedena tantrabhedo yataḥ smr̥taḥ tasmāt tatra yathaivoktaṃ kartavyaṃ nānyatantrataḥ. Since it is held that tantras are divided up according as they differ in details of ritual and such [other non-doctrinal matters], therefore one should perform what is enjoined in one particular tantra exactly in the way that it is enjoined there and not following some other tantra. 170 Dominic Goodall The tenth-century Kashmirian theologian Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, a back-to-the-texts fundamentalist at least in the matter of ritual correctness, clearly advocated this strategy and has left us commentaries on the ritual portions of the Mataṅgapārameśvaratantra and the Sārdhatriśatikālottara. Another strategy was to craft ritual handbooks, paddhatis, that clearly set out ritual practice step-by-step. Almost all surviving paddhatis, as Sanderson has observed (Sanderson 2004:358), are notionally based upon a single scripture, the Dviśatikālottara; but in practice this strategy gave ample room for innovation, typically by eclectic blending of ritual elements from different sources. A large number of Śaiva ritual manuals composed from the tenth century onwards survive (the best known are listed by Sanderson in his fn. 24 on p.358 of Sanderson 2004), only a few of which have been published to date. Because these manuals acknowledge themselves to be the works of human authors rooted in time and place, they can be of particular interest to the religious historian partly because they allow us to map the spread of different currents of Śaivism in time and place. Like the scriptures, they borrow generously from each other, thus demonstrating how they are mutually related. This article, to be followed by a few others on the same general theme, is intended as a small contribution to the history of Saiddhāntika paddhati literature. KeywordS: Indian religious history, ritual manuals/paddhati, Śaivasiddhānta, Rāmanātha, Tiruvārūr, Sanskrit text-transmission It is dificult to exaggerate the importance for medieval Śaivism of the Karmakāṇḍakramāvalī, the verse manual of ritual composed by an eleventh-century scholar and pontiff of the monastery commonly known as Golakīmaṭha in Northern India.2 Hélène Brunner’s remarkable four-volume study of the work (1963–1998) has now made the work For further exploration of how this verse was understood and used, see Goodall forthcoming. 2 I am grateful to the following colleagues who joined me to produce together an electronic transcription of an important part of the evidence on which this article is based, namely the text of Rāmanātha’s Naṭarājapaddhati: Michael Gollner, Nirajan Kale, Dr. S.A.S. Sarma and Dr. R. Sathyanarayanan. I am also grateful to Michael Gollner, Alexis Sanderson and S.A.S. Sarma for their comments on an earlier draft of this article, to Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz for having invited me to contribute it to this journal, and to Emmanuel Francis for bibliographical suggestions. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 171 famous again to students of classical India in our own time, but there is evidence that the work was widely diffused, imitated and quoted from as soon as it had been produced. Naturally enough, Śaiva authors indebted to Somaśambhu are numerous indeed, the most celebrated being the twelfth-century South Indian exegete Aghoraśiva, whom we shall have occasion to mention below, but one recently noticed reworking of Somaśambhu’s words is even Buddhist: Harunaga Isaacson has spotted that a fragmentary Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript microilmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project (‘prakīrṇa patra’, NAK 5-7495, NGMPP A 933/1) transmits a portion of Somaśambhu’s treatment of reparation rites, but one in which distinctive and important Śaiva details, such as the names of mantra-deities, have been supplanted with Buddhist ones (Isaacson 2011:1–2)! It has been noted, moreover, that Somaśambhu’s paddhati, like the Yājñavalkyasmr̥ti and other works of wide authority, has been incorporated almost whole into the extant Agnipurāṇa,3 and more than one region of India has claimed the author as its own: Brunner, for example, found it natural to believe, when she began her magnum opus, that Somaśambhu was a Southerner (1963:xli) and Sanderson has recently discussed the claim (by which he is not convinced) that Somaśambhu was a Kashmirian (Sanderson 2007:245–247):4 It may be thought that Somaśambhu’s famous Paddhati should be included in this account of Kashmirian Saiddhāntika literature. For the Rājānakas of Padmapura (Pampur, 34°02’35”N 74°53’53”E) have claimed Somaśambhu as one of their remote ancestors, at least from the ifteenth century onwards. But the claim is dubious. In the Kashmirian version of the inal verses of his Paddhati he is said to have been a brahmin of the Gārgya Gotra, while the Rājānakas of Padmapura tell us that their Gotra is the Gautama. In any case, even if Somaśambhu was from Kashmir, the Saiddhāntika Śaiva ritual system that he teaches is in no sense characteristic of that region. Somaśambhu wrote for a pan-Indian audience while holding ofice as the abbot of the prestigious Golakīmaṭha near Tripurī in Central India. 3 Brunner1998:lix–lxi. For Pāñcarātra sources that have been similarly incorporated, see Rastelli 2007. 4 For the details of the claim, see Sanderson 2007:245–246, footnotes 49–50. 172 Dominic Goodall It is generally agreed now that Somaśambhu, whatever his origin, was the pontiff of this monastery, a foundation of Yuvarājadeva I of the Kalacuri dynasty, in the Rewa District of Madhya Pradesh, but, as Sanderson has demonstrated, the name of the place in Somaśambhu’s time seems rather to have been Golagī (2009:264). As for the date of his composition, we often see this given as 1095/6 AD (e.g. Sanderson 2004:358, fn. 24), but in a recent article Sanderson has tended to favour instead an earlier date, namely 1073 AD. His footnote on the subject is worth quoting in full (2007:420–421, fn. 640): In the colophonic verses in the edition of the text published in the KStS from Kashmirian manuscripts it is said to have been completed in year 1130 of the Vikrama era (vikramārkanr̥pakālasamudbhaveṣu śūnyāgnibhiḥ samadhikeṣu ca tacchateṣu | ekādaśasv amalaśāstram idaṃ samastaṃ [v.1813]), that is to say, in a.d. 1073/4, if we assume that the years are counted as expired rather than current, as is usual with dates given in this era. But in the Devakoṭṭai edition, prepared from Grantha manuscripts, and reproduced in the edition of Brunner (1963–1998, pt. 4, p.419) the same verse gives the year as Vikrama 1153 (vikramārkanr̥pakālasamudbhaveṣu pañcā­ śatā trisahiteṣu śaracchateṣu | ekādaśasv amalaśāstram idaṃ samāptaṃ), which is a.d. 1096/7. An East Indian palm-leaf manuscript of the text prepared in the seventh year of the reign of the Pāla king Madanapāla [mS A, f.120v2–4: *parameśvaraparama(em.: pareśvarapara Cod.)bhaṭṭāra­ kamahārājādhirājaśrīmanmadanapāladevasya pravardhamāne vijaya­ rājye saptame samvatsare […] bhagavatpādapaṇḍitaśaivācāryakumāra­ gaṇena likhāpito ’yaṃ śaivāgamaḥ śomaśambhukr̥taḥ], that is to say, in a.d. 1149 in the chronology of D.C. Sircar (1976), doubtless conceals the same reading beneath its errors: vikramārkanr̥pakālasamudbhaveṣu pañcāhata triṣuśateṣu śaracchateṣu | ekādaśaśca mama śāstram idaṃ samāptaṃ (f.121r3). An early undated Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript of the text (mS B) lacks this verse, ending after the preceding verse with the prose śrīmatkarṇaprakāśavyavaharaṇāya sasamasaṃvatsare kriyākāṇḍakramāvalīpustakaṃ paṇḍitācāryaśrīsomaśivena vira<ci> taṃ samāptam iti (f.74r4–5). The reading sasama is meaningless. If this is an error for daśama, the meaning will be ‘Here ends the text of the Kriyākāṇḍakramāvalī composed by Somaśiva for the use of the excellent Karṇaprakāśa in the tenth year’. The work was composed while Somaśambhu was abbot of the Golakīsthāna in the domain of the Ka- Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 173 lacuri kings of Tripurī in Central India, whom we know to have appointed Saiddhāntikas of this richly endowed monastic institution as their Rājagurus. The year is surely regnal and I propose that the name Karṇaprakāśa is a periphrasis for Yaśaḥkarṇa, the Kalacuri king who ruled from Tripurī from a.d. 1073 to 1123, radiance/whiteness (prakāśaḥ) being the deining characteristic of fame/success (yaśaḥ) in Indian poetic convention (see, e.g. Haravijaya 13.3: yaśaḥprakāśam; 16.54: śaśiśubhrayaśaḥprakāśa-; Cambodian inscription K. 286, v.16bc (Coedès 1952, p.90): kṣitīndrāḥ jātā jagattraya vikīrṇayaśaḥprakāśāḥ). If this is correct we have a third date of composition, 1082. But daśama is not the only possibility. If sasama is a corruption of prathama the year will be a.d. 1073 and so agree with the version of the Kashmirian manuscripts. The fact that two different dates are given in an otherwise identical verse indicates not corruption but conscious revision. Perhaps the text circulated in two editions, an earlier and a later. This footnote of Sanderson’s presents a rather fascinating muddle of dates and ends with an intriguing conclusion. But before we consider the concluding remark, I should like to muddy the waters further by introducing evidence of a different kind that, while it furnishes no speciic date, points to a time of composition a little earlier still than the dates hitherto proposed. Somaśambhu and Rāmanātha In the Śaiva monastery at Tiruvāvaṭuturai, near Kumbhakonam (Tamil Nadu), a single paper manuscript survives of a South Indian Naṭarāja­ paddhati by a certain Rāmanātha.5 The text is full of close verbal echoes 5 The manuscript appears to have been written with a fountain pen with black ink in modern Devanāgarī script on a feint-lined exercise book and its cover appears to proclaim in Tamil that it bears Copy Number 9 (kā. pi. eṇ: 9). The title-page states that it was copied from a manuscript in the same library: iyaṃ kila śrīmannaṭarājapaddhatiḥ śrīmad­Gomuktīśv arapurastha[Tiruvāvaḍuturai]śrīmacchaivamaṭhālayād āgataprāktanamātr̥k āpustakānusāreṇa vilikhitā yathāmātr̥kaṃ saṃśodhitā ca satī vijayatetarām. I am grateful to the maṭha for having permitted the Pondicherry Centre of the École française d’Extrême-Orient to take digital photographs of this manuscript in 2004. 174 Dominic Goodall of the Somaśambhupaddhati, and on irst reading parts of it I suspected that it might have been a source for Somaśambhu for two reasons. The irst was that many of the formulations that were extremely close seemed slightly clumsier in Rāmanātha’s version. Admittedly with only one manuscript surviving of his text, some apparent “clumsiness” might simply be attributed to poor transmission, but such an explanation does not account for the kinds of clumsiness I mean, involving, for instance, slightly less satisfactory metrical breaks and sentences that yield their sense less readily. Compare for example these two closely parallel accounts of mendicancy, the irst being that of Rāmanātha (MS, p.39).6 viśuddhabhasmanā snātaḥ kaupīnaṃ mekhalādi ca 2:31 parivartya samācamya maunī dhyātvā guruṃ śivam tayor ājñāṃ samāsādya tāmrādyaṃ tuṃbakādi vā 2:32 ādāya pātram astreṇa kṣāḷitaṃ ghoramantritam tanutrajaptakāṣāyaśucivastrāvakuṇṭhitam 2:33 astreṇa japtadaṇḍañ ca chatropānatparigrahaḥ kopaṃ vivādaṃ niṣṭhīvaṃ sparśanaṃ mārgasarpaṇam 2:34 kutsāñ ca hitvā7 varṇānāṃ caturṇām etya mandiram8 bhikṣāṃ dehīti sañjalpya tāvat tiṣṭhed adhomukhaḥ 2:35 yāvat prasnauti9 gaur vatsayogāt gacchet tato ’nyataḥ Bathed with pure ash, after putting on his loin-cloth and girdle, etc., and after sipping and silently venerating (dhyātvā) the guru and Śiva, he should obtain their permission [to go begging, then], taking up a vessel of copper or other [metal], or [one fashioned out of] a gourd or the like, which has been washed with water and has had the aghora-mantra recited over it, and which has been covered over with a clean reddish-brown-dyed cloth over which the Kavaca has been recited, and a stick over which the aStra has been recited, and equipped with a parasol and [ascetic’s] sandals, avoiding anger, discussion, spitting, touching, wandering [from] the way, and censure [of others], he should go the home of [one of any of] the four classes, 6 7 8 9 The provisional numeration of chapters and verses is mine. hitvā] conj.; bhitvā MS mandiram] conj.; mandiraḥ MS prasnauti] conj.; prastauti MS Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 175 uttering “Give alms”. He should stand face down for as long as it takes for a cow to lactate after being united with her calf. Then he should go elsewhere. Now there is nothing actually wrong with any of this, but as soon as we put it beside Somaśambhu’s account we shall see two things very plainly. First of all we see that the two accounts are unquestionably so closely related to one another that we are likely to assume one to have been derived from the other,10 and secondly we shall notice several small awkwardnesses in Rāmanātha’s account that are absent from Somaśambhu’s: • In 2:34a, e.g., there is an unpleasing sāpekṣa­samāsa. • There are three instances where a unit of sense runs across the pāda-break in such a way as to create a slightly awkward widow- or orphan-effect: 2:33ab, 2:35ab and 2:36ab.11 Somaśambhu’s passage has not one such awkwardness. • A concatenation of absolutives ties the whole unit together, whereas Somaśambhu’s unit is more clearly articulated because of the occasional use of main verbs. • The appearance of words that are key to the understanding of units of sense is sometimes delayed: in 2:32d, for instance, qualiiers of pātram are introduced before pātram itself, and in 2:34cd we have to read through an oddly disparate list, beginning abruptly with kopam, before we reach the verb hitvā, which clariies why this collection of items have been clumped together. 10 As always in such cases of textual relationship, many other more complex scenarios could be imagined too. 11 Such “enjambement” is not remotely problematic in philosophical kārikās or in versiied instructions of this kind, but it can be jarring when it occurs frequently in a short sample of text, as here. 176 Dominic Goodall Here is Somaśambhu’s treatment of the same ideas:12 bhikṣārthaṃ tāmrajaṃ lohaṃ brahmavr̥kṣādipatrajam13 bubhukṣor vihitaṃ pātraṃ mumukṣos tumbikādijam14 1.9.32/345 pavitraṃ śikyakālambi15 bahurūpābhimantritam tanutrajaptakāṣāya16 śucivastrāvaguṇṭhitam17 1.9.33/346 viśuddhabhasmanā snātaḥ18 kaupīnaṃ cottarīyakam19 parivr̥ tya20 samācamya maunī dhyātvā śivaṃ gurum 1.9.34/347 tayor ājñāṃ samādāya daṇḍaṃ cāstrābhimantritam ātapatrakaro yāyād bhikṣārthaṃ śuddhaveśmasu 1.9.35/348 tadā praṇāmaṃ niṣṭhīvaṃ21 sparśam unmārgasarpaṇam kutsanaṃ22 ca na kurvīta tyajec ca śvādisaṃkulam23 1.9.36/349 caturṇāṃ śuddhavarṇānāṃ samāsādya gr̥hāṅgaṇam bhikṣāṃ dehīti saṃjalpya24 pādāṅguṣṭhāgralocanaḥ 1.9.37/350 tāvatkālaṃ pratīkṣeta yāvad gaur25 vatsayogataḥ prasnavaṃ26 samavāpnoti tato ’nyatra vrajen muniḥ 1.9.38/351 For gathering alms, the vessel made for a Sādhaka (bubhukṣoḥ) is of 12 C = a Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript in Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 1406; K = Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies edition; D = Dēvakkōṭṭai edition; P = Pondicherry edition of Brunner. 13 °patrajam] CK; °sambhavam DP 14 tumbikādijam] KP; tumbakādikaṃ C; kambukādijam D 15 pavitraṃ śikyakālambi] KP; pavitraśikkikālambi C; pavitraśuktikālambi D 16 tanutrajaptakāṣāya°] KD; tanutrajaptakaṣāya° C; tanuprajaptakāṣāya° P 17 °guṇṭhitam] CK; °kuṇṭhitam DP 18 snātaḥ] CDP; snātam K 19 cottarīyakam] DP; uttarīyataṃ C; sottarīyakam K 20 parivr̥ tya] conj.; parivartya CK; parivr̥ ttya DP 21 tadā praṇāmaṃ niṣṭhīvaṃ] DP; tadā praṇāmaniṣṭhīva C; tato ghrāṇamalaṣṭhīva° K 22 kutsanaṃ] KDP; kucchanaṃ C 23 tyajec ca śvādi°] DP; tyajeyuḥ śvādi° C; tyajedaśvādi° K 24 saṃjalpya] KDP; saṃjanya C 25 gaur] CDP; gau K 26 prasnavaṃ] P; pratyāvaṃ C; prasravaṃ K; prasnucaṃ D Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 177 copper, of iron, or of leaves from such plants as the Brahmavr̥kṣa; for the seeker of liberation it should be made of a gourd or the like. [It should be] puriied, suspended from a sling, having had the aghora recited over it, and covered over with a clean reddish-brown-dyed cloth over which the Kavaca has been recited. Bathed with pure ash, after putting on his loin-cloth and upper cloth, and after sipping and silently venerating (dhyātvā) the guru and Śiva, he should obtain their permission [to go begging], he should take his stick, over which the aStra has been recited, and he should go out in search of alms in pure households with a parasol in his hand. At that time he should not greet, not spit, not touch [others], not go off on detours and not revile [others]; and he should avoid groups of dogs and such. Reaching the yard of a house of [people belonging to any of] the four pure social groups, he should say “Give alms” and wait, with his eyes ixed on his big toes, for as much time as it takes for a cow to produce milk on being united with her calf. Then the muni should go elsewhere. The comparative clarity and elegance of Somaśambhu’s treatment of this subject is striking and would not, as I have indicated above, seem inconsistent, to my mind with his treatment having been a careful reworking of Rāmanātha’s. Moreover, many other examples could be found to illustrate both that the two texts are very closely related to each other and that Somaśambhu’s is more polished and more readily comprehensible. We come now to the second reason that initially made me leap to the conclusion that Rāmanātha was a source for Somaśambhu. Flipping to the back of the manuscript, a feint-lined exercise book with pagination on both sides of each page, we ind that Rāmanātha gives an account of his lineage, date and location. A full edition of that account is given below as an appendix, but for now I give only the last two verses exactly as they appear in the MS (p.192). śrīmat-Puṣpavanādhīśadhāmaprāṅmaṭhadeśikaḥ † śākā † śakābdadaśaśate viṃśativarjite Goḷakīmaṭhaniṣṭhāna - - - - vidhāyinīm paddhatin naṭarājākhyām akarot sukhabodhitām 178 Dominic Goodall Sadly, this is damaged in two rather important places,27 but here is what it seems to say: The pontiff of the monastery to the east of the temple of the venerable Puṣpavanādhīśvara [when] ten hundred less twenty years of the Śaka era † [had passed?] † , [i.e. in 980, viz. 1058 AD,] produced [this] manual, called the Naṭarāja, which is easily taught,28 and which performs † … † of Goḷakī monastery. Now a damaged verse offering an otherwise unsubstantiated date, corresponding to 1058 AD, is of course rather limsy evidence on which to build anything. But we do ind a corroborating echo of this date in another work of Rāmanātha, namely a doctrinal prakaraṇa teaching the tenets of the Śaivasiddhānta called the Siddhāntadīpikā (not to be confused with the prose works of that title, namely the published Siddhāntadīpikā or Siddhāntaprakāśikā of a certain Sarvātmaśambhu and the unpublished Siddhāntadīpikā of Madhyārjunaśiva). Rāmanātha’s Siddhāntadīpikā is a work in 420 anuṣṭubh verses transmitted in a few South Indian manuscripts and here is its conclusion, transcribed from IFP T. 914, T. 284 and T. 112: śakābdake daśaśate29 samāpte nyūnasaptake30 śrīmat-Puṣpavanādhīśadhāmaprāṅmaṭhavartinā31 kālenālpena sarveṣāṃ siddhāntārthaprakāśikā32 subodhā Rāmanāthena33 kr̥tā siddhāntadīpikā 27 One could perhaps repair the second half-line to read: samāpte śākābdadaśaśate viṃśativarjite, which would yield a tolerable bha­vipulā, but not a locative phrase, which we seem to require. 28 Perhaps one could consider correcting here to sukhabodhinīm, “which teaches easily”. 29 śakābdake daśaśate] 914; śakābdayugasāhasre 284; śakābde … 112 30 samāpte nyūnasaptake] 914, 284; … 112 31 °dhāmaprāṅmaṭha°] 914, 284; … 112 32 °prakāśikā] 914, 112; °prakāśakāḥ 284 33 rāmanāthena] 914, 112; nāmanāthena 284 Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 179 abhidhārthābhidhā34 padyaiḥ saviṃśatiścatuśśataiḥ35 śrotre niveśya36 sasnehaṃ satataṃ prajvalatv iyam37 The wording is not elegant, and corruption and attempts to emend it may have disigured it further. Here is a tentative translation of this very tentatively restored conclusion. When ten hundred minus seven Śaka years had passed, [i.e. in 993 (=1071 AD),] Rāmanātha, residing in the monastery to the east of the temple of the venerable Puṣpavanādhīśa, composed the Siddhānta­ dīpikā, which is easy to understand, which reveals the doctrines of the Siddhānta quickly (kālenālpena) to everyone, whose name has the sense of its literal meaning (abhidhārthābhidhā), with four hundred and twenty stanzas. Once one has allowed it to enter one’s ears with devotion, may it always shine brightly. The formulation of this conclusion echoes that of the paddhati, and once again it gives a date in the second half of the eleventh century that is earlier than any of the dates hitherto proposed for the composition of Somaśambhu’s manual. Excursus on Rāmanātha being the irst dated South Indian Saiddhāntika writer of whom works are extant We may remark in passing that the dates of composition of Rāmanātha’s two works place him about a century earlier than the celebrated commentator Aghoraśiva, whose Kriyākramadyotikā is dated to 1157 AD,38 and thus makes Rāmanātha the earliest known South 34 abdhidhārthābhidhā] conj.; abhidhārthābhidhaḥ 914; abhidarthābhiḥ 284; … dima° 112 35 saviṃśati°] 914, 112; saviṃśatiś° 284 36 niveśya] 914, 284; nibasya 112 37 satataṃ prajvalatv iyam] conj.; santataṃ prājvantvimāḥ 914 (unmetrical); santataṃ prājvalanti mām 284; satataṃ projvalanti mām 112 38 For a detailed discussion of this date, see Goodall 1998:xiii–xvii, fn. 24. 180 Dominic Goodall Indian theologian of the Śaivasiddhānta of whom works survive.39 Of course that he is South Indian is an assumption, for I am not certain of the place of his monastery,40 but it seems a reasonable assumption to make given even just the rather typically Southern name he has chosen to give his paddhati.41 Of course that name is a relection of his guru’s name, but that his guru should be called Naṭarāja (or variants 39 No pre-twelfth-century works in Tamil appear to have been considered to be in any sense Saiddhāntika until after the twelfth century: see the Preface entitled ‘Explanatory remarks about the Śaiva Siddhānta and its treatment in modern secondary literature’ in Goodall 2004. This is of course not to say that the Śaivasiddhānta had not long reached the Tamil-speaking South, for we know of its presence there as early as the seventh century from Pallava inscriptions (see Goodall 2004:xix, fn. 17, and Goodall et al. 2005:112–113); but no surviving Sanskrit or Tamil literature belonging to this current of thought is known to us that proclaims a Southern origin. 40 On the basis of the name-element Puṣpavana, numerous conceivable identiications could be advanced, such as Pūvaṉūr on the southern bank of the Kaveri, or Pūvaṇam in Sivaganga District, where there appears to have been a Puṣpavaneśvara temple from perhaps as early as the eighth century (ARIE 1894, B. 17 and ARIE 1985–86, B. 377, an inscription in “characters of the 8th century” that refers to the construction of the temple for Tiruppūvaṉattudēvar); but an equivalent of Puṣpavana might not form part of the toponym, and there may once have been several places with quite different names in which there was a Śiva-temple named Puṣpavaneśvara or Puṣpavanādhīśvara or the like, e.g. Tiruppūndurutti (ARIE 1894, B. 166). 41 This is not to claim, of course, that Naṭarāja or Naṭeśa or other Sanskrit equivalents, or indeed any Tamil equivalents such as Āṭavallāṉ (used, for instance, as the name for a measure of weight in many of the eleventh-century inscriptions at the great temple in Tanjore: Hultzsch in South Indian Inscriptions II, No. 1, p.2) was by this stage exclusively or even particularly associated with Chidambaram, or even necessarily with the distinctive iconography of Śiva dancing in a posture known as bhujaṅgatrāsita that is found, among other places, at Chidambaram. Recent scholarship (e.g. Kaimal 1999 and WesselsMevissen 2012) has underlined how dificult it is to determine which Sanskrit term, if any, was at irst privileged as the label for this iconographic type. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 181 thereof) is still itself perhaps an indication that he was a Southerner. Sometimes Rāmanātha uses the name in such a way that it must refer only to his guru, e.g. in the following concluding verse (p.41): akarot pāśavicchedaṃ yasya sākṣān naṭeśvaraḥ42 tena rāmeśvareśena prokto nityavidhikramaḥ 2:4743 The procedure for obligatory daily enjoined rites (nityavidhikramaḥ) has been taught by Rāmeśvareśa, whose bonds Nateśvara in person (sākṣāt) cut away. But in other places, for instance the concluding verse to the irst section of Rāmanātha’s paddhati, he appears to make the name Naṭarāja allude both to Śiva and to his own guru (p.147): naṭarājapadāṃbhojasmaraṇadhvastakalmaṣaḥ44 rāmeśvaraḥ śivaśrāddham45 antyeṣṭyā saha so ’bravīt Rāmeśvara, from whom all impurity has been shaken off my meditating on the lotus-feet of Naṭarāja, has taught Śaiva post-mortuary rites, together with the death-rite. We may note also that Rāmanātha’s Naṭarājapaddhati is much cited by later Southern authors, in particular Nirmalamaṇi in his Prabhāvyākhyā on the Kriyākramadyotikā, albeit using the title Rāmanāthapaddhati,46 and the wording of some passages in Aghoraśiva’s works suggest that Aghoraśiva too was inluenced by Rāmanātha.47 One further indication naṭeśvaraḥ] conj.; naṭaśvaram MS nityavidhikramaḥ] conj.; nityavidhiḥ kramaḥ MS 44 °smaraṇadhvastakalmaṣaḥ] conj.; °smaraṇāvāstrakalmaṣaḥ MS 45 rāmeśvaraḥ śivaśrāddham] conj.; rāmīśvareṇa - srāddham MS 46 The citations may nonetheless be located in the Naṭarājapaddhati. 47 Compare, for instance, the visualisation of the planets in the retinue of the sun as given by Rāmanātha (MS, p.13): 42 43 somaṃ sitaṃ budhaṃ gauraṃ rocanābhaṃ br̥haspatim sitaṃ bhārgavam aindrādidikṣv āgneyyādidikṣv atha 1:100 182 Dominic Goodall of Southern origin may be mentioned: all the historical igures in Rāmanātha’s spiritual lineage (see appendix) are associated with Kamalālaya, as is Nirmalamaṇi himself (see the verses on pp.389, 517 and 523 of his commentary), which is presumably to be identiied with Tiruvārūr.48 raktam aṅgārakaṃ dhyātvā śyāmavarṇaṃ śanaiśvaram vāmorunyastahastāṃś ca dakṣiṇaiś cābhayapradān 1:101 kr̥ṣṇaṃ kr̥ṭāñjaliṃ rāhuṃ ketuṃ dhūmrādisannibham 100d āgneyyādidikṣv atha] conj.; agnyādidakṣvathaḥ MS (unmetrical) 101a aṅgārakaṃ] em.; aṅgāraka MS 101c °nyasta°] conj.; °nyasya MS 102a kr̥ṭāñjaliṃ] conj.; kr̥ṣṇāñjaliṃ MS with the same visualisation in Aghoraśiva’s Pañcāvaraṇastava: somaṃ sitaṃ budhaṃ gauraṃ guruṃ gorocanādyutim śukraṃ śuklaṃ ca pūrvādidikṣv athāgnyādikoṇagān 3 raktaṃ bhaumaṃ śyāmadehaṃ ca sauriṃ kr̥ṣṇaṃ rāhuṃ dhūmravarṇaṃ ca ketum vāmair hastair naumi tān ṣaṭ sametān vāmorusthair dakṣiṇaiḥ sābhayaiś ca 4 For further striking evidence, see the discussion of verses 1–5 of the appendix. 48 It is uncertain how old the use of Kamalālaya to refer to Tiruvārūr is. Today, it seems commonly to be used as a label for the tank (e.g. in The Hindu of 18th March 2004), perhaps because the name, “abode of lotuses”, can be a kenning for a tank. But an undated 3-verse Sanskrit inscription “on a stone near a well in the irst prakara” of what is today known as the Tyāgarājaswāmi temple reveals that the name Kamalālaya used to refer rather to the place. The irst verse (SII, IV, No. 398, ARIE 74 of 1890) reads: Śaṅkhatīrtham iti khyātaṃ Kamalālayamadhyagam| vanmīkasaṃbhavasyāgre sarvarogakṣayāpaham| [This is] called Śaṅkhatīrtha, situated in the middle of Kamalālaya, in front of [the liṅga] that arose from the ant-hill; it removes all maladies and aflictions. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 183 Given that Pūṅkōyil, “Flower-temple” is also used as a name for the principal Śiva-temple in Tiruvārūr,49 it seems not inconceivable that this should have been sanskritised as Puṣpavanādhīśadhāma and that Rāmanātha’s maṭha should have been to the east of the temple.50 Whether or not this is correct, it is clear that Kamalālaya is in the South, since Rāmanātha’s antecedent from Gauḍadeśa is said to have come to Kamalālaya in order to raise up Southerners (see verse 6 of the Appendix). Rāmanātha’s awareness of Somaśambhu Given such a date, and given the many instances of shared verses, it seemed reasonable to assume that Rāmanātha’s paddhati was A long Tamil inscription dated to the 7th regnal year of Kulottuṅga II, in other words c. 1140 ad, concludes with 3 not entirely clear Sanskrit verses that appear to give our toponym twice, once in the form Lakṣmyālaya and once in the form Kamalāpura. The inscription is found in SII, VII, No. 485 (ARIE 269 of 1901) and the verses in question read: śrīmatbrahmapurīśavāgadhipatis svasvāmimitraś ca ye tebhyo (31) hemasabhādhināthacaraṇannyāsollasanmastakaḥ[|] prādāt bhūmihiraṇyakaṃ sarajatānn anyān dhanān sottamān śrīyĀrūradhipasya mūlavasatau devo [’]napāyo nr̥paḥ|| Lakṣmyālaye racitadharmmaparānupāla-(32)śīlān nr̥pāṃ[ghri] kamalāṃ cirasā namāmi[|] Vyāghrāgrahāravarahemasabhānaṭeśapādāravindamadhu[p]o [hy anapāya]nāmā|| āḷuṭaiya nampi mātākkaḷ icaiñāniyār jananī bhavato ñānaśivācāryakule bhavet śaive gau[tama]gotre smin ñānākhyā Ka[malā]pure|| 49 Thus Tēvāram 4.19:5, according to V. M. Subrahmanya Aiyar’s interpretation in the Digital Tēvāram. 50 Of course the compound puṣpavanādhīśadhāmaprāṅmaṭha could be interpreted differently: one could understand the Eastern Monastery at the temple of Puṣpavanādhīśa. A number of mentions of an “Eastern Monastery” are found in Southern inscriptions in different Southern towns with the label kīḻai­maṭha. Rajeshwari Ghose has written that kīḻai­maṭha ‘seems to be the Tamiḻ for Dakṣiṇa Golakī maṭha’ (Ghose 1996:165), but this seems improbable, since kīḻai does not mean ‘southern’. 184 Dominic Goodall an unacknowledged source for Somaśambhu. But this assumption must now be rejected, because it turns out that Rāmanātha actually alludes to Somaśambhu when quoting his prescription for the manufacture of the sruk (MS, p.76): rāmavedāṅgulaḥ kuṃbho gaṇḍī yugayamāṅgulā51 vistr̥ tā gartagāmbhīryaṃ tryaṅgulaṃ dviyavottaram52 vedāṅgulaṃ ca53 vistāraṃ ity uktaṃ Somaśaṃbhubhiḥ śrīparṇī śiṃśapā54 dāru bījakāmravikaṅkatāḥ55 sruci vr̥ kṣāḥ praśasyante56 kiṃśukādyāś ca yājñikāḥ The “pot” [of the ladle] should be three or four inger-breadths across; the “cheek” should be of four or two inger-breadths. The depth of its bowl should be two-barley grains more than three inger-breadths. And its breadth should be four inger-breadths—thus Somaśambhu has taught. The woods recommended for the ladle are śrīparṇī, śiṃśupā, cedar, bījaka, mango, vikaṅkata, and sacriicial woods such as that of the kiṃśuka. The corresponding passage in Brunner’s edition is easy to identify (SP4 2:83 and 87): rāmavedāṅgulaḥ kumbho gaṇḍī yugayamāṅgulā khātaṃ vedāṅgulair vr̥ttaṃ dviyavaṃ tryaṅgulaṃ khanet 83 … śrīparṇī śiṃśapā dāru bījakāmravikaṅkatāḥ sruci vr̥ kṣāḥ praśasyante kiṃśukādyāś ca yajñikāḥ 87 Rāmanātha’s other surviving work too, the Siddhāntadīpikā, although it apparently contains no explicit mention of Somaśambhu, appears to echo Somaśambhu’s classiications of initiation types (cf. SP3, 1:1–13 °yamāṅgulā] conj.; MS vistr̥ tā gartagāmbhīryaṃ tryaṅgulaṃ dvi°] conj.; tisr̥ ṇāṃ gartagāṃbhīrya tryaṅguladviṃ° MS 53 vedāṅgulaṃ ca] conj.; vedāṅgulastha° MS 54 śrīparṇī śiṃśapā] conj.; śiparṇī śiṃśupā MS 55 °mravikaṅkatāḥ] conj.; dravikaṃkatā MS 56 sruci vr̥ kṣāḥ praśasyante] conj.; sāci vr̥kṣāḥ praśalyante MS 51 52 Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 185 and IFP T. 914, pp.5–6) and of ive varieties of pratiṣṭhā (cf. SP4, 1:1–7 and IFP T. 914, pp.9–10). We could choose to assume then either that all our dates for the composition of Somaśambhu’s work are wrong, or that the dates for Rāmanātha’s works are. But there is a third possibility. If Rāmanātha was indeed writing in the 1050s and yet had access to Somaśambhu’s text, perhaps he had access to an earlier edition of the work. We may recall that Sanderson, without being aware of Rāmanātha’s manual, concluded his above-quoted footnote with the remark: ‘[p]erhaps the text circulated in two editions, an earlier and a later’. Furthermore, Sanderson has since found further evidence that points to another, still earlier date for the completion of the Somaśambhupaddhati than those advanced above, and he has told me that he intends to present this evidence in a future publication. In his stimulating introduction to a recent volume of the Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (Band LII–LIII) devoted to textual criticism, Hanneder makes the following observation (2010:9–10): In view of the wide-spread occurrence of author variants in modern, that is, better documented times, it is not unrealistic to assume that some ancient authors worked like Goethe and kept record of how they developed their work. Furthermore, according to Pasquali, a plausible scenario for the “publication” of works is the following: an author composed and wrote down or dictated his work and permitted reproduction of his own copy. Not all authors died afterwards or lost interest in their work, leaving us with a single autograph without variants. Some authors may have added corrections in the margins, or copied a revised version. If we assume that the text was copied by the author in different stages of its development, every text could be slightly different and all variants at that stage would be authorial variants; the inal copy of the author would contain the last version, which – as we have seen – is not necessarily the deinite one. In other words, we could have the same problem as the new philologist, but we are unlikely to notice it. In the case of Somaśambhu, at the head of a well-endowed and important Saiddhāntika monastery,57 one can imagine him being visited 57 For the wealth of the Golagīmaṭha, see Sanderson 2009:263–265. 186 Dominic Goodall by Saiddhāntika initiates from many parts of the country, many of whom may have wished to take away copies with them of his extremely carefully written and for them clearly useful ritual manual. This might account for there being more than one date given as the date of completion in the sources that survive, and it might also account for a Southern abbot using a copy of the work before the issue of the dated “editions” now known to us. There may have been little difference between the various editions, but it is also not inconceivable that the work grew and improved over time and that Rāmanātha had a shorter and less polished work before him. We have observed above that Rāmanātha’s formulations make the impression of being less polished drafts of passages that we ind in Somaśambhu’s paddhati. This may simply be because Rāmanātha does not write particularly well, but it may also be because he had before him an earlier version of Somaśambhu’s work. Similarly, Rāmanātha’s omissions may be attributable to Rāmanātha choosing not to treat certain topics, but it is also conceivable that such topics were not all from the irst included by Somaśambhu. To give one example, Rāmanātha provides no account of the damanotsava. Could this have been added later by Somaśambhu, who prefaces his account with a sort of apology for introducing it into a Saiddhāntika manual in spite of the absence of any Saiddhāntika source? With this short article I hope to have illed out a little our knowledge of South Indian Saiddhāntika literary history, for which, hitherto, no testimony earlier than the mid-twelfth century was known.58 Those interested in the precise details of the apparently partly nonbrahmin spiritual lineage leading to Rāmanātha in eleventh-century Tiruvārūr may consult the appendix that follows. I have also embroidered on a possible partial explanation of the conlicting evidence for the date of composition of the Somaśambhupaddhati. The hypothesis that it circulated in several eleventh-century “editions” may not have 58 For more on the twelfth-century writers of the school, see Goodall 2000. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 187 much impact on editorial choices in the editing of the work,59 but it is a speculation that it is interesting to entertain and it might provoke useful speculation about the circulation and use of other texts in premodern India. APPENDIX: Rāmanātha’s lineage Here follows the concluding section of Rāmanātha’s paddhati (MS, pp.189–192): granthakarttr̥praśaṃsā60 ādau śivaśikhājyotisāvitryākhyān61 gurūttamān62 anugrahārthaṃ lokānāṃ anujagrāha śaṅkaraḥ 1 tebhyas siddhāntasaṃsiddhaṃ gocarāṇāṃ catuṣṭayam mantreśarudradeveśakramād bhūmim upāgatam 2 † jyotiṣāṃ lāttīti † yasmād utpannā gurusantatiḥ addhyāsta bhārate varṣe Goḷakīsaṃjñakaṃ maṭham 363 A new edition of the text covered by Brunner 1963, together with the hitherto unpublished commentary of the Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā, is being prepared in the Pondicherry Centre of the EFEO by Dr. S.A.S. Sarma. 60 Note that verses 1 and 2 are identical with the verses that introduce the brief account of Aghoraśiva’s genealogy at the end of his Dviśatikālottaravr̥tti, which have been edited in Goodall 1998:xiv, fn. 24. The following verse there, however, although clearly related to our verse 3, places emphasis on Āmardaka, rather than on Golakī, as the most important of the Śaiva monasteries: see below. 61 śivaśikhā°] conj.; śivaḥ śiva° MS 62 gurūttamān] conj.; gurusattamān MS (unmetrical) 63 In place of verses 3–5 of our text, the corresponding section of the conclusion to the Dviśatikālottaravr̥tti (Goodall 1998:xiv, fn. 24) has been reconstructed to read as follows: 59 tebhyaḥ śivakulād ādyād utpannā gurusantatiḥ śrīmadāmardakaṃ nāma sthānaṃ mokṣasya bhārate guravas tatsamudbhūtā nānāścaryavidhāyinaḥ 188 Dominic Goodall gotraṃ manonmanīsaṃjñaṃ64 yasya vr̥ kṣo vaṭaḥ65 smr̥ taḥ yatsantateḥ sa kūṭastho Dūrvāsā bhagavān muniḥ66 4 śrīmān asmin maṭhe Bhāvaśaṃbhuḥ śambhusamaḥ sthitaḥ67 guravo ’smāt samutpannā68 nānāścāryavidhāyinaḥ 5 teṣv eko gauḍadeśīyaḥ69 prāptavān Kamalālayam īdr̥śīṃ mūrtim ādāya dākṣiṇātyottitīrṣayā 6 āgataḥ70 śiva evāyam iti lokānumoditaḥ padavākyapramāṇajñaḥ śrīmān Brahmaśivaḥ71 svayam 7 tatra Puṣkariṇītīre Dakṣiṇe72 Golakīmaṭhe vidvadbhir avasat sārddham agnikalpais tapodhanaiḥ 8 yathādhipuram āsādya73 śivaḥ pāṇinaye purā sūtraṃ vyākaraṇasyāha karaṇānām agocaraḥ 9 Puṣkarādhipatitvena yaḥ74 pr̥ thivyāṃ prathāṃ gataḥ brahmacaryatapovidyādayāśāntisamanvitaḥ 10 sadehikaś ca devaś ca mahāṃs tacchiṣyatāṃ gataḥ sa mahātmā Mahādevaḥ sadā pratyaṅmukhendriyaḥ 11 yathāvajjñātaśaivārthas tathānyeṣv75 abhiyogavān vītarāgaḥ praśāntaś ca tatraiva Kamalālaye 12 śiṣyaiḥ tapodhanaiḥ prājñaiḥ sārddhaṃ Prācīmaṭhe ’vasat But sthānaṃ mokṣasya bhārate is a restitution based on a parallel in Aghoraśiva’s Gotrasantati, and the Trivandrum MS there reads sthānam adhyasta bhārate. It seems therefore more probable that we should correct adhyasta to adhyāsta and supply a missing half-line similar or identical to our 4cd (which supplies Dūrvāsas as the subject for adhyāsta). 64 gotraṃ manonmanīsaṃjñaṃ] conj. Sanderson; gotrannā ¯ nmanīsaṃjñaṃ MS 65 vaṭaḥ] em.; vaṭa MS 66 muniḥ] em.; maniḥ MS 67 Bhāvaśaṃbhuḥ śambhusamaḥ sthitaḥ] conj. Sanderson; śaṃbhuḥ śaṃbhuḥ samāsthitaḥ MS (unmetrical) 68 °tpannā] em.; °tpanno MS 69 gauḍadeśīyaḥ] conj.; gauḍadeśe yaḥ MS 70 āgataḥ] em.; agataḥ MS 71 brahmaśivaḥ] conj.; brahmaśivaṃ MS 72 dakṣiṇe] conj.; dakṣiṇo MS 73 āsādya] conj.; ānyāya MS 74 yaḥ] conj.; yāṃ MS 75 yathāvajjñātaśaivārthas tathā°] conj.; yathāvat jñānaśaivārtthaḥ tada° MS Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 189 kaniṣṭho ’syāvasad Vāmaśivaḥ Puṣkariṇīmaṭhe 13 yaḥ siddhānte śivaḥ sākṣāt śilpe ’pi ca vidhiḥ śrutaḥ76 jñātvāntaṃ svecchayā dehaṃ tyaktvā77 yaḥ śivam āviśat 14 devasya ca mahān śiṣyo Devadevāhvayo78 vaśī Śrīśaile duścaraṃ cakre tapaḥ kandaphalāśanaḥ79 15 tasya śiṣyottamaḥ śrīmān Naṭarājasya deśikaḥ yasyāpi ca kramāyātaḥ80 sa eva Kamalālayaḥ 16 ayatnapūrvaṃ yasyāsta brahmacaryātapovratam81 † śrīmatpārśvapuvaṃrāyaḥ † Nr̥ttarājaś ca82 viśrutaḥ 17 yaḥ prāpa sarvavidyānāṃ pāraṃ tatra kr̥taśramaḥ83 Gayāyāṃ yo dadau piṇḍaṃ kr̥payātmaprabhāvataḥ84 18 ceṣṭāḥ śivārcanaṃ yasya yasya svairakathā japaḥ85 śivatvāpādanaṃ yasya86 cakṣuḥpāto87 yadr̥ cchayā 19 devo ’nantaḥ prasannātmā yasya śiṣyo bahuśrutaḥ śrutaśīlopapannaś ca śrīmāṃs Tatpuruṣaḥ88 śivaḥ 20 tapovidyādhikaś cāpi Śrīkaṇṭhaśivasaṃjñakaḥ89 jñānābdhir bhūtale khyātaḥ90 prāṅmaṭhādhipasaṃjñayā 21 śivāgamānāṃ vyākhyātā padādiṣu ca paṇḍitaḥ so ’pi Viśveśvaro devo yacchiṣyo deśikottamaḥ 22 vidhiḥ śrutaḥ] conj.; vidhiśrutau MS tyaktvā] em.; tyaktā MS 78 mahān śiṣyo Devadevāhvayo] conj.; mahat śiṣyo devadevāṃhyayo MS 79 duścaraṃ cakre tapaḥ kandaphalāśanaḥ] conj.; ¯¯ raṃ cakre tapaḥ ¯¯ palāśanaḥ MS 80 ca kramāyātaḥ] conj.; kākramāyātā MS 81 yasyāsta brahmacaryātapovratam] conj. Sanderson; yasyāstat brahmacādhātaye vratā MS 82 Nr̥ ttarājaś ca] conj.; tatra jā ¯ ś ca MS 83 pāraṃ tatra kr̥taśramaḥ] conj. Sanderson; vāmaṃ pārastaṃbakr̥ttamaḥ MS 84 °prabhāvataḥ] conj. Sanderson; °prabhā ¯¯ MS 85 svairakathā japaḥ] conj. Sanderson; sverakathāśanaḥ MS 86 °pādanaṃ yasya] conj.; °pādanaṃ svasya MS 87 cakṣuḥpāto] conj. Sanderson; cakṣuḥpādo MS 88 Tatpuruṣaḥ] em. Sanderson; tatpuruṣa° MS (unmetrical) 89 Śrīkaṇṭha°] conj.; śrīkaṇṭhaḥ MS 90 jñānābdhir bhūtale khyātaḥ] conj.; jñānābdhi bhūtale khyāntaḥ MS 76 77 190 Dominic Goodall prājñaḥ Pañcākṣaro devaḥ91 pañcākṣaraparāyaṇaḥ Triyaṃbakaśivaḥ śāntyā tapasā munisannibhaḥ 23 tasmād anantaraṃ dhīmān ¯¯¯¯ sabhāpatiḥ92 kr̥tāgamārthavinyāsaḥ93 śānto Jñānaśivaḥ94 sudhīḥ 24 tataś śāntaḥ śrutinidhiḥ Nīlakaṇṭhaśivābhidhaḥ Oṃkāropapado devaḥ sarvasaṃgavivarjitaḥ 25 devo Maheśvaraḥ śāntaḥ tapovidyādayānvitaḥ bahuśrutaḥ sudhīr devaḥ Somanāthaḥ taponidhiḥ 26 yasyaite deśikāḥ sarve śiṣyāḥ prājñāś ca naiṣṭhikāḥ tasya śrī-Nr̥ttarājasya śiṣyaḥ śrīkaṇṭhatejasaḥ 27 śrī-Rāmeśvaranāthākhyaḥ savarṇakulasaṃbhavaḥ tanmukhāj jñātasiddhāntarahasyārthaḥ samāhitaḥ95 28 śrīmat-Puṣpavanādhīśadhāmaprāṅmaṭhadeśikaḥ † śākā † śakābdadaśaśate viṃśativarjite 29 Goḷakīmaṭhaniṣṭhānāṃ96 ¯¯¯¯ vidhāyinīm paddhatin naṭarājākhyām akarot sukhabodhitām 30 Panegyric of the author of the book: In the beginning, Śaṅkara, in order to bestow compassion on [all] men, bestowed compassion on the greatest gurus, who were called Śiva, Śikhā, Jyoti and Sāvitrī (1). From them the four lineages that are established within the Śaivasiddhānta came to earth, via Mantreśas, Rudras and gods (2). There came to reside (adhyāsta) in the continent of Bharata at the monastery called Goḷakī, † [so-called] because it takes (lāti) from among light (jyotiṣāṃ) † ,97 from which there arose a lineage of gurus (3). † … † whose [emblematic] tree is the banyan, and from which lineage [sprang] devaḥ] conj.; devaṃ MS sabhāpatiḥ] conj.; sahāpatiḥ MS 93 kr̥tāgamārthavinyāsaḥ] conj.; kr̥tāgamārttho vinyāsaḥ MS 94 Jñānaśivaḥ] conj.; jñānaḥ śivaḥ MS 95 tanmukhāj jñātasiddhāntarahasyārthaḥ samāhitaḥ] conj.; tanmukhā jñānasiddhāntarahasyārtthasamāhatāḥ MS 96 °niṣṭhānāṃ] conj. Sanderson; °niṣṭhāna MS 97 This attempt at a translation assumes that this is a nirvacana of Golakī in which the element go is interpreted as a “ray of light” and the element la is interpreted as representing the verb lā, a favourite root for nirvacanas. 91 92 Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 191 that supreme (kūṭasthaḥ) sage the lord Dūrvāsas (4).98 In this monastery was the venerable Bhāvaśambhu, the equal of Śambhu [himself].99 From him descended gurus who accomplished many extraordinary feats (5). Among them, one who was from Gauḍadeśa came to Kamalālaya, approved with joy by men with the thought that this was Śiva himself who, assuming such a [human] form, had come in order to bestow salvation on Southerners: knowledgeable in grammar, exegesis and logic [this was] the venerable Brahmaśiva himself (6–7). There, on the bank of the [temple] tank [of Tiruvārūr (?)], in the Southern monastery of Golakī, he lived together with learned, ire-like ascetics, just as, once upon a time, Śiva, who is [usually] inaccessible to the senses, having reached Ādhipura taught the sūtras of grammar to Pāṇini (8–9).100 He who has become wellknown on earth as the Lord of Puṣkara, equipped with chastity, [the stored up power of] penance, knowledge, compassion, and peace, a god incarnate (sadehikaḥ ?), great (mahān), became his pupil. That was the greatsouled Mahādeva, whose senses were always turned inwards [away from 98 Dūrvāsas is elsewhere usually associated not with Golakī, but with Āmardaka, e.g. in Anantaśambhu’s commentary on Siddhāntasārāvalī 116 (penultimate verse of the kriyāpāda), and the banyan tree is the emblematic tree of Raṇabhadra. But such an association may not be very old. The earliest account of the gocaras in which it appears is probably that of Aghoraśiva in his Gotrasantati (pp.428–9), which appears at the end of the Mahotsavavidhi that is attributed to him. And, as we have seen above (in footnotes 60 and 63), Aghoraśiva appears to have adopted and adapted Rāmanātha’s account of the gocaras, changing Dūrvāsas’ association with Golakī to an association with Āmardaka. 99 Ex conj. This follows a conjecture of Alexis Sanderson (letter of 23.xi.2010): “In my view samāsthitaḥ yields no acceptable sense. As for what precedes, we need, I think, a name ending in śambhuḥ, with a twosyllable pūrvapada to make up the number of syllables required. I propose bhāvaśambhuḥ, understanding this as synonymous with Prabhāvaśiva/ Sadbhāvaśambhu, the irst abbot of the maṭha at Golagī.” 100 As Alexis Sanderson has pointed out to me (letter of 22.xi.2010), Ādhipura is to be identiied with Tiruvoṟṟiyūr in North Madras. For the myth that Śiva appeared here to Pāṇini to bestow the grammar on him—hence his worship in a Maṇḍapa there as Vyākaraṇadānaperumāḷ—see ARIE 1913, p.110 (and ARIE 201 and 202 of 1913). 192 Dominic Goodall the senses] (10–11).101 Just as he had learned Śaiva doctrine, so too he exerted himself in other areas. Devoid of passion, at peace, he lived there itself in Kamalālaya with his followers, who were wise ascetics, in the Monastery of the East (prācīmaṭhe) (12–13b). His youngest [disciple] Vāmaśiva lived in the Puṣkariṇīmaṭha (13cd).102 He was a veritable (sākṣāt) Śiva in [his learning about] the Śaivasiddhānta, and he was famed as [a veritable] Brahmā also in craftsmanship (śilpe).103 Knowing [the time of his] death, he deliberately left his body and entered śiva (13c–14). The great self-controlled disciple of [Mahā-]deva was called Devadeva,104 [who] Several points are uncertain here, but it seems clear that this person was called Mahādeva from the play on words in 11a. As for where or what Puṣkara is here, I do not know. Could it be the town of Tiruvārūr? For the turning inwards of the senses, cf. the irst verse of the fourth vallī of the Kaṭhopaniṣad. 102 Is the Puṣkariṇīmaṭha not the same as the Prācīmaṭha? 103 Ex conj. This conjecture rests on the assumption that Brahmā, as creator, is supremely skilled as a craftsman (cf., for instance, Raghuvaṃśa 7:14). Alexis Sanderson has proposed another conjecture (letter of 23.xi.2010): “I am reluctant to accept that śrutau is a corruption of śrutaḥ, not least because Brahmā has no obvious association with Śilpa. I propose an alternative: yaḥ siddhānte śivas tvaṣṭā śilpe ’pi ca vidhiḥ śrutau.” He offers this translation: ‘Śiva [himself] in [his mastery of] the Siddhānta, Tvaṣṭr̥ in the practical arts, and Brahmā in [his mastery of] Śruti’. 104 Several of the names in this lineage are initiatory names with the familiar ending -śiva, but the names ending in -deva (Mahādeva, Devadeva, Anantadeva, Viśveśvara-deva, Pañcākṣara-deva, Oṃkāradeva, Maheśvara-deva, Somanātha-deva) might also be initatory names, for the endings -śiva and -deva are prescribed respectively for Brahmin and Kṣatriya initiates in Somaśambhu’s Kriyākāṇḍakramāvalī (SP3, samayadīkṣāvidhi 107–9; Brunner 1977:96,102), as well as in several later Southern works and in one other Northern source that may be of comparable antiquity, namely Vimalācārya’s Tattvaratnāvalī (unnumbered folio of fragmentary codex unicus NGMPP B 26/16): 101 taddhaste puṣpam āropya śive prakṣepayet tataḥ udghāṭya netre deveśaṃ darśayen muktibhuktidam puṣpapātavaśān nāma śivadevagaṇāntikam Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 193 viprādīnāṃ kramāt kuryād athavā svecchayā guruḥ (śivadevagaṇāntikam] conj.; śivadeveṅgaṇāntikam MS) Placing a lower in his [scil. the disciple’s] hand, he should then cause him to cast it upon Śiva [in the maṇḍala]. Unbinding his eyes, he should cause him to see the Lord of gods [in the maṇḍala], who grants liberation and supernatural power. He should form his [initiatory] name according to [the mantra] where the lower falls, ending with -śiva, -deva and -gaṇa for brahmins, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas respectively. Alternatively, the guru [may form the irst part of an initiate’s name] as he wishes. Evidence for the use of the sufix -deva as the sufix of an initiatory name is confusing because the sufix is so common in non-initiatory names. A certain Bhaṭṭāraka Jñānasiu of (the temple of) Aṇupamveśvara is mentioned, along with several other temple priests on a 12th-century pillar inscription: bhaṭṭāraka Varuṇasiu of Aṇahileśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Maheśvarasiu of Jendrarājeśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Īśānū of Pr̥thivīpāleśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Muktideu of Jojaleśvara, Vināyaka and Sāṃtisiu of Tripuruṣu, bhaṭṭāraka Mūladeu of Āsāleśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Tatpuruṣa of Padmaleśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Kedārū of Tripālakeśvara, bhaṭṭāraka Brahmarāsi of Āsapāleśvara [after which are mentioned some persons styled aboṭī, whose names appear not to be initiatory ones]. All are witnesses to a deed of the townspeople of Nāḍōl on a pillar in the temple of Someśvara (Jodhpur State), dated [Vikrama-]Samvat 1198 (=1142 AD). Epigraphia Indica XI, No. 4.9, pp.26ff. Bhandarkar comments (p.39): Abōṭīs are an inferior class of Brāhmaṇas, who are generally temple servants, and are still chiely found in Dvārka. Of the names of the bhaṭṭārakas of temples, many end in siü (Śiva), two in deü (dēva), and only one in rāśi. I have elsewhere said that of the four well-known sects of the followers of Śiva, those whose names ended in Śiva were Śaivas, and those whose names ended in rāśi were Lakulīśa-Pāśupatas. But to what sect the ascetics who bore the honoriic sufix deü (dēva) belonged, is not clear. It is possible that in that inscription too the names in -deva are initiatory names of initiates to the Śaivasiddhānta. Returning to our own context, some of the instances of -deva are clearly intended as sufixes (see, e.g., 25c: oṃkāropapado devaḥ), but in some cases the element deva precedes or is separated from the name (e.g. 22c, 26a, 26c), which suggests rather that 194 Dominic Goodall deva might be used as a title. But we should not lose sight of the possibility that some of the initiates of this lineage, including perhaps Rāmanātha, were non-brahmin. Alexis Sanderson has kindly sent me (letter of 22.xi.2010) the following list of Saiddhāntika names in -deva extracted from his prosopography ile: Aghoradeva. An inscription of the reign of an unidentiied Jaṭāvarman Tribhuvanacakravartin Vīrapāṇḍyadeva (362 of 1916) records a grant to an Aghoradeva of the Jñānāmr̥tācāryasaṃtāna of the Golakīmaṭha (at Kallaḍakurucci in the Tinnevelly district). He is called Śoḻan Śīyan alias Aghoradeva in a record of the fourth year of the reign of Māṟavarman Tribhuvanacakravatin Sundarapāṇḍya. See Saletore, Ancient Karnataka, p. 398. 358 of 1916, an inscription of Māravarman Sundarapāṇḍya, tells us that Aghoradeva alias Śoḻan Śīyan belonged to the Jīyar santāna of the Golakī school (Swamy 1975, p. 175). Aghoradeva. Of the Āmuṇḍamaṭha. See Nandikeśvarasantāna. 422 of 1907. Aghoradevarāvaḷar. alias Śivadavanapperumāḷ. 145 of 1932/3, AD 1216. See -rāvaḷar and cf. Rāvaḷan. Astradeva. Guru of Vandandeva (q.v.); Guru of the Kīḻaimaṭha lineage. Tiruvārūr, Tañjāvūr district. 131 and 132 of 1894. Īśānadeva. Alias Sadavacananallur. Resided with his pupils in the Nailapperumal maṭha at Karungalam. They came from the Kr̥ṣṇagolakimaṭha at Tiruvārūr in the Tanjore District. 504 of 1909, time of Sundarapāṇḍya I (c. AD 1250–). Īśānadeva. Maṭhādhipati. 311 of 1927/8. Swamy 1975, p. 187. = Īśānaśiva. Jñānamūrtideva. Of the Āmuṇḍamaṭha. 560 of 1911. Swamy 1975, p. 181. But on p. 176 he refers to the same as Jñānāmr̥tadeva; see Nandikeśvarasantāna. Tatpuruṣadeva. of the Jñānāmr̥tācāryasaṃtāna (q.v.). 364 of 1916. Namaśśivāyadeva. Abbot of the Nārpetteṇṇāyiravan maṭha of the Tirucchattimuṟṟam lineage at Tirunaikkaval (ARE Part II, § 53). Swamy 1975, p. 176. Namaśśivāyadeva. Of the Āṇḍār-marudapperumāḷ lineage at Tirucchengattankudi; abbot of the Siṟutondar maṭha. 76 of 1922, AD 1232, from Siyattunagai, Nannilam taluk, in the Tañjāvūr district. Swamy 1975, p. 184. Namaśśivāyadeva. Attached to the Terkil maṭha. 95 of 1942/3. Swamy 1975, p. 186. Vandandeva. Disciple of Astradeva; a guru of the Kīḻaimaṭha lineage. Tiruvārūr, Tañjāvūr district. 131 and 132 of 1894. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 195 practised dificult asceticism at Śrīśaila, eating [only] roots and fruits(15).105 His greatest disciple was the venerable teacher of Naṭarāja,106 by whom also this same [monastery at] Kamalālaya was inherited (16). Effortlessly… famed as Nr̥ ttarāja107 … (17). Who attained the farther shore of all disciplines of knowledge…; who, out of compassion, performed a śrāddharite (piṇḍaṃ dadau) at Gayā (18); Whose actions were [all] worship of Śiva; whose spontaneous conversation (svairakathā) was the muttering of mantras (japaḥ);108 the chance fall of whose glance (cakṣuḥpātaḥ)109 brought about Śiva-hood (19). His erudite disciple was the serene-minded Ananta-Deva (?), and the venerable Tatpuruṣaśiva, full of learning and virtue, and also Śrīkaṇṭhaśiva, superior in asceticism and wisdom, an ocean of knowledge, known on earth by the title “Head of the Monastery of the East” (20–21). And there was also Viśveśvara-deva, a commentator on the Śaiva scriptures and a Paṇḍit in grammar and the others [of Vāgīśvaradeva. A Guru of the Kīḻaimaṭha lineage. Cidambaram. 483 of 1920. Viśveśvaradeva. Mudaliyār connected with the Tyagavinodan maṭha in Tirukacchiyur in the Chinglepet district. 58 of 1932/2, time of Vijatagaṇḍagopāla (13th c.). Viśveśvaradeva. Of the Periyamaṭha at Tiruvannamalai. 305 of 1919, AD 1359, of Kampana Odeyar (Vijayanagara dynasty). Swamy 1975, p. 186. Śivadeva. Alias Kayilāyadevan; 1of the Kīḻaimaṭha lineage; Vikkiramangalam, Madurai district. 617 of 1926. 105 Ex conj. One might equally have conjectured mūlaphalāśanaḥ (perhaps the commonest cliché), or pattraphalāśanaḥ, or tr̥ṇaphalāśanaḥ, or parṇa­ phalāśanaḥ. Alexis Sanderson has pointed out, however, that these last three seem somewhat extreme, and suggests therefore śākaphalāśanaḥ (letter of 23.xi.2010). 106 If the text is correct here, then this should be Rāmanātha’s guru’s guru, in which case the several students who follow from verse 18 onwards must have been colleagues. This seems to be conirmed by verse 27 below. 107 Ex conj. Cf. verses 16 and 27. 108 Ex conj. This is the proposal of Alexis Sanderson (letters of 22.xi.2010 and 23.xi.2010) who referred to a number of other parallels for the use of the expression svairakathā, e.g. Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 50.9c–10b and Kṣemendra’s Avadānakalpalatā 8.5cd, and who also pointed to Śivasūtra 3.27: kathā japaḥ. 109 Ex conj. This is again the suggestion of Sanderson (letter of 22.xi.2010). If one were to retain cakṣuḥ pādo yadr̥cchayā, then one could interpret “whose [mere] glance or [the touch of whose] foot, [met with] by chance, brought about Śiva-hood”. 196 Dominic Goodall the basic disciplines, namely exegesis and logic], and whose disciple was the excellent teacher Pañcākṣara-deva, wise and focussed upon the ivesyllabled mantra, [and] Triyambakaśiva, like a muni by his peace and his asceticism (22–23). After him [came] the wise … (…sabhāpatiḥ),110 calm, intelligent Jñānaśiva, by whom a compendium of scriptural doctrine was produced (kr̥tāgamārthavinyāsaḥ) (24).111 Then the calm respository of scripture called Nīlakaṇṭhaśiva, [and] Oṃkāradeva, devoid of all attachments [to this world], [and] Maheśvaradeva, calm, possessed of [the stored up power of] asceticism, wisdom and compassion, [and] the learned, intelligent Somanātha-deva, an ascetic (25–26). Of this glorious Nr̥ ttarāja, whose iery power was that of Śrīkaṇṭha [himself], and of whom all these [above-named] teachers and wise followers of religious observance until death (prājñāś ca naiṣṭhikāḥ) were disciples, the glorious bearer of the name Rāmeśvaranātha, born of a family of the same varṇa (savarṇakulasaṃbhavaḥ), was the disciple (27–28b). Concentratedly he learned the secret doctrines of the Siddhānta from his [viz. Nr̥ttarāja’s] mouth (28cd). Pontiff of the monastery to the east of the temple of the venerable Puṣpavanādhīśvara [when] two hundred less twenty years of the Śaka era † [had passed?] † , [i.e. in 980, viz. 1058 AD,] he produced [this] manual, called the Naṭarāja, which is easily taught,112 and which performs † … † for those belonging to the Goḷakī monastery (29–30).113 110 A small emendation of sahāpatiḥ to sabhāpatiḥ has been made, but I have hesitated to ill out the gap. This could be done, for example by reading śrīmān Dabhrasabhāpatiḥ, in which case this would be an anthroponym based on the name of the deity in Chidambaram. But Alexis Sanderson has suggested to me (letter of 23.xi.2010) that it is more likely to be an adjective qualifying Jñānaśiva, and has proposed ‘something like arcitacitsabhāpatiḥ’. 111 Ex conj. This appears to refer to the composition of at least one nonexegetical doctrinal work by a South Indian contemporary of Rāmanātha. 112 Perhaps one could consider correcting here to sukhabodhinīm, “which teaches easily”. 113 Alexis Sanderson (2nd letter of 23.xi.2010) made the following helpful observation on this half-line: “I am not sure what the idea is here. But it is probably what could be expressed by, e.g., golakīmaṭhaniṣṭhānāṃ samyagvidhividhāyinīm or kriyākāṇḍavidhāyinīm or similar, i.e. something like ‘that ordains the ritual procedures to be followed by those who are initiates of the Golakīmaṭha’.” Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 197 There follows below a schematic representation of what the above account tells us about Rāmanātha’s lineage. Dūrvāsas (4) | Bhāvaśambhu, irst head of Golagī (5) | numerous gurus | Brahmaśiva (?), who came to Kamalālaya from Gauḍadeśa (6–8) | Mahādeva, who dwelt in Prācīmaṭha in Kamalālaya (10–13b) | Vāmaśiva, who lived in Puṣkariṇīmaṭha (13c–14) | Devadeva (15) | Naṭarājasya deśikaḥ, who inherited Kamalālaya (16) | Nr̥ ttarāja (?) (17 & 27) | Anantadeva, Tatpuruṣaśiva, Śrīkaṇṭhaśiva (Head of Prāṅmaṭha) (20–21), Viśveśvaradeva (22), Pañcākṣaradeva, Triyambakaśiva (23), …sabhāpati (?), Jñānaśiva (24), Nīlakaṇṭhaśiva, Oṃkāradeva, Maheśvara-deva, Somanātha & Rāmanātha (puṣpavanādhīśadhāmaprāṅmaṭhadeśikaḥ), l. 1058 AD Bibilography: Primary sources: ARIE Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy EI Epigraphia Indica 198 Dominic Goodall NAK National Archives, Kathmandu NGMPP Nepal­German Manuscripts Preservation Project SII South Indian Inscriptions Avadānakalpalatā of Kṣemendra. Avadāna=kalpalatā of Kṣemendra. Volume I, ed. P.L. Vaidya. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 22. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1959. Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā. The Ahirbudhnya­saṃhitā of the Pāñcarātrāgama, ed. M.D. Ramanujacharya, under the supervision of F. Otto Schrader, revised by V. Krishnamacharya. The Adyar Library Series 4. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1966. Kaṭhopaniṣad. See Olivelle1998. Karmakāṇḍakramāvalī of Somaśambhu. Karmakanda Kramavali by Sri Somashambhu, ed. Jagaddhar Zadoo. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 73. Srinagar, 1947. See Brunner 1963–1998. Kriyākramadyotikā of Aghoraśivācārya with the commentary (Prabhāvyākhyā) of Nirmalamaṇi, ed. Rāmaśāstrin and Ambalavānajñānasambandhaparāśaktisvāmin. Chidambaram, 1927. Tattvaratnāvalī of Vimalaśiva. NAK 1-1697 7/6, NGMPP B 26/16. Fragmentary palm-leaf manuscript in a non-Nepalese Nāgarī script that uses pr̥ṣṭhamātra vowel-notation. There are twenty-six disordered leaves, on some of which foliation is still visible. Tēvāram. Hymnes sivaïtes du pays tamoul, édition établie par T.V. Gopal Iyer sous la direction de François Gros, volume II Appar et Cuntarar. Publications de l’Institut français d’Indologie 68.2. Pondicherry: IFI, 1985. Digital Tēvāram, ed.V.M. Subrahmanya Aiyar, Jean-Luc Chevillard and S.A.S. Sarma. Collection Indologie 103. Pondicherry: IFP, EFEO, 2007. Naṭarājapaddhati of Rāmanātha. Preliminary electronic text typed in by Nirajan Kale, Michael Gollner, Dominic Goodall, S.A.S. Sarma, and R. Sathyanarayanan from the Paper Devanāgarī MS at the Math in Tiruvāvaṭuturai. Pañcāvaraṇastava of Aghoraśiva. The Pañcāvaraṇastava of Aghoraśivācārya: A twelfth-century South Indian prescription for Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 199 the visualisation of Sadāśiva and his retinue. An annotated critical edition by: Dominic Goodall, Nibedita Rout, R. Sathyanarayanan, S.A.S. Sarma, T. Ganesan, S. Sambandhaśivācārya. Collection Indologie 102. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, 2004 (appeared 2005). Śivasūtra. The Shiva Sūtra Vimarshinī being the Sūtras of Vasu Gupta with The Commentary called Vimarshinī by Kṣhemarāja, ed. J.C. Chatterji. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 1. Srinagar, 1911. Sārdhatriśatikālottara. Sārdhatriśatikālottarāgama avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No.61. Pondicherry: IFP, 1979. Siddhāntadīpikā of Rāmanātha. IFP MSS T.284, pp.48–89, and T.914. Paper transcripts in Devanāgarī. Siddhāntasārāvalī of Trilocanaśiva. with the commentary (vyākhyā) of Anantaśivācārya, published in ive parts in the Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras Vol.17.1, pp.29–68 (ed. A.A. Ramanathan and T.H. Viswanathan); Vols.17.2, pp.1–48; 18.1, pp.1–64 and 19.1, pp.53–84 (ed. R.K. Parthasarathi and T.H. Viswanathan); Vol.19.2 pp.1–48 and Vol.20.2, pp.49–71 (ed. T.H. Viswanathan, P.G. Seetharaman and R. Ganesan). Madras, 1965–1968. Secondary sources: Bhandarkar, D.R. The Chahamanas of Marwar. In: Epigraphia Indica XI (1911–12): 26–79. Brunner, H. (ed. and trans.). 1963, 1968, 1977, 1998. Somaśambhupaddhati. 4 vols: Première Partie. Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu; Deuxième Partie. Rituel Occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu I : Pavitrārohaṇa, Damanapūjā et Prāyaścitta; and Troisième Partie. Rituels occasionels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu II : dīkṣā, abhiṣeka, vratoddhāra, antyeṣṭi, śrāddha; and Rituels dans la tradition sivaïte selon Somaśambhu. Quatrième partie : rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā. Publications de l’IFI No.25. Pondicherry: IFI. Ghose, R. 1996. The Lord of Ārūr. The Tyāgarāja cult in Tamilnāḍu. A Study in Conlict and Accomodation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 200 Dominic Goodall Goodall, D. (Ed. and trans.) 1998. Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Volume I: chapters 1–6. Critical edition and annotated translation. Publications du département d’indologie 86.1. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry/ École française d’Extrême-Orient. Goodall, D. 2000. Problems of Name and Lineage: relationships between South Indian authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta. [a review article of Brunner 1998]. In: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, Vol. 10, Part 2: 205–16. Goodall, D. (Ed. and trans.) 2004. The Parākhyatantra, a scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta. A critical edition and annotated translation. Collection Indologie 98. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry/ École française d’Extrême-Orient. Goodall, D. et al. 2005. See Pañcāvaraṇastava. Hanneder, J. 2010. Introduction. In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, LII–LIII (2009–2010): 5–16. Hultzsch, Eugen, 1890. South-Indian Inscriptions, II, No. 1, p.2 Madras. Isaacson, H. 2011. Yoginīyoga/Yogin as Yoginī. On the sādhana of female deities in Indian mantranaya Buddhism. Handout for a presentation given at the Śākta Traditions Conference organised by the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies given on 11.ix.2011. (Downloaded from https://uni-hamburg.academia.edu/HarunagaIsaacson on 26.v.2014.) Kaimal, P. 1999. Shiva Nataraja: Shifting Meanings of an Icon. In: The Art Bulletin 81 (1999): 390–419. Olivelle, P. 1998. The Early Upaniṣads. Annotated Text and Translation. New York–Oxford: OUP. Rastelli, M. 2007. The “Pāñcarātra Passages” in Agnipurāṇa 21–70. In: D. Goodall and A. Padoux (Eds). Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner. Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Collection Indologie 106. Pondichéry : IFP/EFEO: 187–229. Sanderson, A. 2004. The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I). In: Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême­Orient 90–91 (2003–2004): 349–462. Sanderson, A. 2006. The Date of Sadyojyotis and Br̥haspati. In: Cracow Indological Studies 8 (2006): 39–91. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I… 201 Sanderson, A. 2007. The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In: D. Goodall and A. Padoux (Eds). Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner. Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Collection Indologie 106. Pondichéry : IFP/EFEO: 231–442. Sanderson, A. 2009. The Śaiva Age—The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism in the Early Medieval Period. In: S. Einoo (Ed.). The Genesis and Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo: 41–349. Wessels-Mevissen, C. 2012. The Early Image of Śiva Naṭarāja: Aspects of Time and Space. In: D. Boschung and C. Wessels-Mevissen (Eds). Figurations of Time in Asia. Morphomata volume 4. Munich: Wilhelm Fink: 298–348.