365bet娱乐

[Full title: When Tantra becomes Orthodoxy: 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and the Birth of Samayin 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻]

Among the various compositions attributed to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 over the years, by far the most numerous are his assortment of stotra s, or hymns, widely recognized and recited today by 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins in all regions of India. For many, 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 corpus of hymns includes a set of stotra s to the goddess known as the 笔补帽肠补蝉迟补惫墨 (Five hymns), which in the seventeenth century were attributed instead to the genius of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, understood then as now as one of the fountainheads of the Sanskrit literary tradition. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 most widely recognized 艢腻办迟补 hymn, however, is the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, or 鈥淲aves of Beauty,鈥� a work of high 办腻惫测补 popular enough to have accrued over the centuries several commentaries and an abundance of variant readings. Among such attested variants, one in particular caught the eye of early modern 厂尘腻谤迟补 readers and is preserved today in the commentary on a hymn of the 笔补帽肠补蝉迟补惫墨: the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补 (Hymn to the mother)^[1] by 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补,^[2] brother of the celebrated literary theorist R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补 of the court of Tanjavur, and son of Ratnakhe峁璦 顿墨办峁�i迟补 of the court of the Cenji 狈腻测补办补蝉.

In his critical edition of the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, Norman Brown reconstructs verse 102 as follows:

Your chest bearing the weighty breasts arisen from it, your gentle smile,
The love in your sidelong glance, figure resplendent like the blossomed kadamba flower:
Intoxicating Cupid has created [janay膩m 膩sa madano] an impression of you in the mind of 艢颈惫补.
Such is the highest fulfillment, O Um膩, of those who are your devotees.^[3]

础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 rendering, on the other hand, preserves a crucial variant in the second half of this verse, one that has proven foundational to a certain school of interpretation, not only of the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 itself, but also of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补鈥檚 oeuvre as a cohesive theological enterprise:

Samayins meditate in the mind [janayanta岣� samayino] on your deception of 艢颈惫补.
Such is the highest fulfillment, O Um膩, of those who are your devotees.^[4]

Although this variant may result in a rather less plausible or aesthetically satisfying verse, it provides our commentator with an ideal textual foundation for his exegetical project: a defense of a particular subschool of south Indian 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 exegesis typically referred to as the 鈥�Samaya鈥� school, of which the locus classicus is the sixteenth-century 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 commentary of Lolla 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补.^[5] A term that defies succinct English translation, samaya most literally denotes a mode of conventional behavior or a contractual agreement, from which usage it came to signify a set of social conventions adopted by initiates in many 艢补颈惫补 traditions.^[6] In 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 idiosyncratic appropriation, however, the term becomes meaningful only when paired with its antithesis, Kaula: whereas Kaula 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻, in theory, accepts without reservation the use of objectionable ritual elements such as the notorious 辫补帽肠补尘补办腻谤补 s, or five impure substances,^[7] Samaya 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 constrains its ritual observances in accordance with the strictures of Vaidika orthodoxy. In fact, 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 even suggests that ideal Samayins must eschew any external ritual worship altogether in favor of strictly mental observance. Hence, the reading 鈥淪amayins visualize in the mind.鈥�

Although one might expect 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 Samaya school to have attracted a fair following among the ranks of Brahminical orthodoxy, to date scholarship has discovered negligible textual attestation that such a 鈥渟chool鈥� in fact ever arose in response to his programmatic essay. In fact, the Samaya doctrine is often depicted as confined exclusively to 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 commentary itself. South Indian 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 today leans heavily in favor of a reformed version of the Kaula mata as expounded by 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补谤腻测补, whose popularity among contemporary initiates has all but eclipsed 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 legacy. In this light, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻 is a particularly intriguing textual artifact, one of the few surviving texts known to systematically advocate the Samaya position.^[8] And yet, not only does 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 accept the category of Samaya as expounded by 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, but he also stages his commentary as an explicit defense of the Samaya doctrine, signaled with little ambiguity in the title chosen for his commentarial essay: 鈥淓nlivening the Doctrine of the Samayins鈥� (厂补尘补测颈尘补迟补箩墨惫补苍补). Evidently for 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补, the Samaya doctrine was indeed a real entity and one of imminent relevance to his contemporaries, thus calling for a certain commentarial 鈥渆nlivening.鈥�

By enlivening the school promulgated by his predecessor 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, who himself 鈥渆nlivened鈥� the sixteenth-century court of Vijayanagara, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 is not engaged in a mere scholastic mimesis of a forgotten work of scholarship. His 厂补尘补测颈尘补迟补箩墨惫补苍补 does, in fact, deliberately invoke 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 厂补尘补测腻肠腻谤补 commentary, down to the very details of commentarial mechanics. It is the gap between 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 work and its prototype, however, that reveals the hidden seams of the sectarian community that 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 and his contemporaries were in the process of constituting. In the intervening generation or two, we observe a vast gulf in the self-constitution of Samaya 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 both through a conscious redaction of its scriptural corpus and through its public image as an esoteric wing of orthodox 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘. As we have seen, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 generation witnessed the emergence of an unprecedented alliance between 厂尘腻谤迟补 intellectuals and ascetics of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 monastic orders, a trend in which his family is known to have participated. 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 Samaya doctrine, then, initiates an equally unprecedented doxographical revisioning of the lineage鈥檚 purported founder, 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, here understood as the original exponent of a domesticated, Vedicized form of esoteric 艢腻办迟补 ritual practice. At the same time, by attributing the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补 itself to 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 advances this project a step further, claiming 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, as well, as a foundational figurehead in the emerging hagiography of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘. In essence, the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻 lays an intellectual foundation for the self-understanding of 厂尘腻谤迟补 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 initiates as active participants in the ongoing legacy of both 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, a sectarian community at once entirely Vaidika and entirely 艢腻办迟补.

First, let us consider the evidence that 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 厂补尘补测颈尘补迟补箩墨惫补苍补 does indeed systematically recapitulate the doctrinal position of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补. Not once during his commentary does 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 quote 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 or refer to him or his work by name. And yet, from the nuts and bolts of commentarial practice to the social values, doctrines, and works cited, the 厂补尘补测颈尘补迟补箩墨惫补苍补 is unmistakably a direct imitation of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补. Take, for instance, his commentarial mechanics: 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 co-opts piece by piece the structure of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 verse analysis, beginning with a painstakingly literal gloss of each word (for example, the rather rudimentary gloss amba! 尘腻迟补岣�! occurs often in both), and ending with a prose restructuring of the word order (both authors introduce this section with the phrase atra ittha峁� padayojan膩 rather than with a more common term such as anvaya) and a brief diagnosis of literary ornaments in the verse.^[9] Stylistics aside, however, the most striking point of comparison is the authors鈥� shared canon of textual sources. 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补, for his part, makes no secret of the authority underlying his work.

After showcasing his family credentials with the traditional benedictory verses, he declares that two 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 treatises in particular constitute the doctrinal foundation of his commentary:

Having reflected again and again, with discrimination, on the two treatises written by 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补,
Known as the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻 and Subhagodaya, may I compose this text according to their path.^[10]

In this succinct encapsulation of his tradition鈥檚 theological heritage, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 confidently attributes to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 himself a pair of 艢腻办迟补 theological tracts claimed to defend the reformed Vaidika 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 popular among seventeenth-century 厂尘腻谤迟补 intellectuals. No manuscripts have yet been located matching the description of the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻 or Subhagodaya,^[11] although both 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 and 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 provide substantial quotations, suggesting that the pair of works were readily accessible in the seventeenth century. That these two 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 treatises had come to be routinely acknowledged as the works of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is confirmed by R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补 in his 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补.

While depicting 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补鈥檚 completion of his education, he provides a resume of the young prodigy鈥檚 scholastic endeavors, including the two works in question:

At the command of Guru 骋辞惫颈苍诲补辫腻诲补, who was a treasury of virtue,
He first set forth the commentary on the thousand names of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻.

Having churned the great ocean of Mantra and 膧驳补尘补 with the churning stick of his intellect,
He extracted the nectar that was the treatises beginning with the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补.

He measured out the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻 as well as the ritual handbook, the Subhagodaya:
Two jewel boxes for depositing the meaning of the science of mantra.

To those of lesser eligibility, singularly attached to awareness of brahman with qualities,
He granted favor, bestowing hymns to Hari and Hara.

He granted treatises based on the nondual nature of the self,
As well as hundreds of further hymns, foremost being the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨.

He drew out the commentary on the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, which, arrayed with recurring floods of virtues,
Made manifest the nondual truth of the Self in the palm of one鈥檚 hand dispelling primordial, infinite delusion....

At the age of twelve, having reflected there upon the essence of the scriptures with the Brahminical sages absorbed in meditation,
He effortlessly composed the auspicious commentary, deep and mellifluous, on the collection of 蝉奴迟谤补蝉 of 艢r墨 痴测腻蝉补, crest jewel among preceptors.^[12]

While these two works, the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻 and Subhagodaya, do not typically figure in hagiographies or popular memory of 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 legacy, the Subhagodaya in particular is the foremost authority cited by 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 and 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 in defense of the very notion of a Samaya school of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻. Indeed, for 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, the Samayamata is no less than the central theological project of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, 鈥渢he knower of the truth of the Samaya doctrine鈥� (蝉补尘补测补尘补迟补迟补迟迟惫补惫别诲颈苍补岣�), who, he claims,^[13] crafted the entire 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 as a covert but systematic exposition of the doctrine. Thus, it is unsurprising that both commentators accept his attributed theological works as a central pillar of their analysis, including the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻 and Subhagodaya, and even the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄, a third 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 treatise attributed by 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 to the pen of 艢补峁卥补谤补.^[14]

In addition to 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 oeuvre, 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 invokes a second group of source texts as a mainstay of his exegetical project, one that 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 in turn implements enthusiastically in service of the Samaya doctrine. Known collectively as the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补 (The five pure scriptures), these five 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 鈥�厂补峁僪颈迟腻蝉鈥濃�攗ndoubtedly referred to as such to evoke a Vedic resonance鈥攂ear the names of the mythological Vedic sages to whom their authorship is attributed: 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补, Sanaka, 艢耻办补, Sanandana, and 厂补苍补迟办耻尘腻谤补.^[15] According to 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, 艢腻办迟补 耻辫腻蝉补办补 s have often strayed from the Vedic fold by accepting the more transgressive Tantras without proper reservation, failing to discriminate between those intended for orthodox Vaidikas and those appropriate only for 艢奴诲谤补蝉.^[16]

After providing a systematic inventory of the sixty-four Tantras listed in the 痴腻尘补办别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, delimiting those eligible to adopt their teachings, he concludes that with few exceptions, Vaidika practitioners of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 should restrict themselves to the precepts of the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补, which he considers the foundational scriptural authority for Samaya practice:

In the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补, the array of ritual practices is examined in accordance with the Vedic path alone. This path, examined by the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补, was set forth by the five sages 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补, Sanaka, 艢耻办补, Sanandana, and 厂补苍补迟办耻尘腻谤补. This alone is what is conventionally referred to as 鈥淪amaya conduct.鈥� In just the same way, I also have composed this commentary according to the views of 艢补峁卥补谤补 Bhagavatp膩da precisely by taking the support of the Samaya doctrine in accordance with the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补.^[17]

In this extended digression, 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 constructs an impeccable claim to Vedic orthodoxy, one that offered a considerable appeal to a new generation of 艢腻办迟补 intellectuals who held a vested interest in maintaining the orthodox reputation of their families and literary societies.^[18] Breaking from the textual sources of the earlier Kashmiri 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 tradition, he promotes in its place an entirely Vedicized scriptural canon that seems to have gained little currency in south India before his influence. Decentering the Kashmiri exegetes and all early 艢腻办迟补 Tantras aside from the 痴腻尘补办别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, he supplements his core canon with liberal citations from the 峁欢惫别诲补, texts of the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 艢腻办丑腻 of the K峁涐梗峁嘺yajurveda, early 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, the classics of Sanskrit court literature from the 惭腻濒补迟墨尘腻诲丑补惫补 to the 狈补颈峁�a诲丑墨测补肠补谤颈迟补, and, of course, the 艢腻办迟补 hymns attributed to 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补. 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, in turn, follows closely in 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 footsteps, adopting as his core canon the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻, Subhagodaya, 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补, the hymns of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, and the 痴腻尘补办别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, interspersed with the best sellers of courtly literary theory such as the 碍腻惫测腻诲补谤艣补, 碍腻惫测补辫谤补办腻艣补, 础濒补峁卥腻谤补蝉补谤惫补蝉惫补, and 颁补苍诲谤腻濒辞办补.

In short, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻 not only mimetically replicates the textual practices of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 commentary but also expands upon its larger project of repackaging 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 to suit the needs of a more Vedicized and Vedicizing audience.^[19] When it comes to the doctrinal innovations of the Samaya school, however, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 proves himself an even more meticulous advocate of its principles than 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 himself. Where 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 makes bold and seemingly unfounded assertions about Samaya doctrine, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 painstakingly documents the textual support underlying 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 claims, demonstrating their fidelity to the position taken by 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 in the Subhagodaya. After all, for 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补, the Samaya school is by no means the invention of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, seeing as he nowhere credits him as the source on which his commentary was modeled. Rather, his ambition is to communicate unambiguously that the Samaya is nothing less than the central teaching of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补鈥攖hrough the words of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 himself.

Take, for instance, the two central contentions of the Samaya doctrine: first, that Samayins ought to perform worship of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 through interior visualization rather than with external implements; and second, that whereas Kaulas typically perform such worship by concentrating on the lower two cakra s, or subtle yogic centers, of the body, Samayins worship only in the brahmarandhra at the crown of the head. Both of these points are fervently championed by 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, who is able to inform us鈥攚ith remarkable clarity on the material culture of 艢腻办迟补 worship鈥攖hat Kaula practitioners of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 worship a 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 inscribed on birch bark, cloth, gold, silver, or some similar surface.^[20] Nevertheless, during his extended digression on the Samaya-Kaula division, which spans several pages of the printed edition, nowhere does he adduce a single piece of unambiguous evidence in support of his views from the works of 艢补峁卥补谤补.

In fact, his lack of evidence often leads him to a precarious position. In one instance, instead of supporting his own argument, he remarkably selects a verse from the Subhagodaya that seems to state precisely the opposite, necessitating a series of replies to his anticipated objections:

As it is stated in the Subhagodaya: 鈥淭he qualified adept should meditate on the goddess 罢谤颈辫耻谤补蝉耻苍诲补谤墨, seated in the middle of the orb of the sun, bearing in her hands the noose, goad, bow, and arrows. He may quickly infatuate the three worlds, along with flocks of the best of women.鈥�...

Now, some may argue that because external worship is prohibited to Samayins, it is prohibited to worship [the goddess] as seated in the orb of the sun. That is not correct.^[21]

Rather than convincingly establishing the intended thesis, the remainder of the passage takes on something of an apologetic tone, engendering a sharp divide between scripture and commentary. The tenor of the verse he cites bears no particular resemblance to the literary aesthetic or values of the sixteenth-century Samaya school, evoking instead the archaic language of early 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 scripture, such as the 痴腻尘补办别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, which contains numerous such references to the efficacy of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 as essentially a sex-magic technology (鈥淗e may quickly infatuate the three worlds, along with flocks of the best of women鈥�). 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 seems, moreover, to have intentionally misread the phrase 鈥渢he orb of the sun鈥� (蝉奴谤测补尘补峁囜笉补濒补) in his Subhagodaya citation, as the phrase more often refers to a location in the subtle body around the region of the navel鈥攁 sense that would certainly do no service to his argument. It is no wonder that, throughout the argument, he prefers to cite one of his own works, a certain 碍补谤峁嚹乿补迟补峁僺补蝉迟耻迟颈 (Hymn to the earrings [of the goddess]),^[22] which proves much more amenable to his desired conclusion.^[23] Succinctly, on the basis of his thoroughgoing hesitancy, one is tempted to suspect that 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 did not have access to a citation that would unambiguously ground the Samaya doctrine in the words of 艢补峁卥补谤补;his only clear evidence for the connection of the Samaya to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is his creative exegesis of the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 itself.

础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补, on the other hand, suffers from no lack of textual exempla. Unlike 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 in his abortive attempt to attribute his thesis to 艢补峁卥补谤补, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 assembles a number of lengthy and detailed passages from the Subhagodaya that bear an astounding, and in fact rather suspicious, resemblance to the core doctrines of the Samaya school:

Because external worship is prohibited to Samayins, they are to perform worship only internally.... As is stated in the Subhagodaya, in the chapter on the instruction of Kaulas:

Some heretics, chiefly Kaulas and 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补蝉, devoted to external worship,
Are scorned by the Vedas, because their precepts are not supported by scripture.
My doctrine is that they are fallen due to practicing what is prohibited.
Therefore, the worship of the throne [辫墨峁环补] and so forth does not apply to Vaidikas.
The sages 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补, Sanaka and others, being devoted to internal worship,
Obtained their desired attainment. Thus, internal worship is superior.
Now, if one objects that rituals for ground preparation, installation of deities,
And so forth, as described by the 膧驳补尘补s and 础迟丑补谤惫补峁嘺蝉, would be prohibited鈥�
This is true. Those are stated in accordance with individual eligibility.
Those desiring liberation have no eligibility for such worship.
Thus, Samayins perform worship and so forth only in the inner cakras.^[24]

Intriguingly, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 Subhagodaya seems to say precisely what a Samayin intellectual would like to hear. By the time of 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻, the ambiguity of source material and argument we witness in 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 commentary has given way to perfect symmetry between source text and conventional theological wisdom. Further still, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 Subhagodaya establishes its own authority by appealing to the 艢耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补 by describing the sages 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补, Sanaka, and the others as the prototypical practitioners of Samaya 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻. Had 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 inherited a version of the Subhagodaya so faithful to his own views, it seems highly unlikely that he would have resisted supplying the citations. The fact that he did not鈥攁nd that 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 had access to such passages in abundance鈥攕trongly suggests that in the intervening decades, the Subhagodaya itself was heavily redacted to conform to newly emerging understandings of the social role of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 and of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补鈥檚 legacy.^[25]

In short, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 generation had witnessed, in a surprisingly short time frame, a thorough redaction of the core scriptures of Samaya 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻鈥攕uggesting not only a shift in religious values but also, more importantly, a community of initiates responsible for the redaction. It was during the decades between 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 and 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补, then, that the foundation was laid for the acceptance of Samaya 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 as a cornerstone of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religiosity.

Indeed, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 introduces two substantial modifications to our previous knowledge of the Samaya school, as attested by 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 work alone, both of which illustrate the diffusion of Samaya values across a wider community of 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmin practitioners. First, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 expands 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 efforts to categorize the religious ecology of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 practitioners in south India. Where 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 adopts an analytic distinction between 鈥淔ormer鈥� and 鈥淟atter鈥� Kaulas^[26] in order to reconcile the apparent doctrinal inconsistencies between two verses of the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨,^[27] 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 proposes an expanded typology of three types of 鈥渇ormer鈥� and four types of 鈥淟atter鈥� Kaulas, along with a delineation of multiple categories of Samayin initiates. And yet, that 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 is able to produce a precise and definitive list of seven types of Kaulas illustrates a process of conceptual reification, whereby 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 speculation has been elevated to the level of a scripturally authenticated model for navigating the sectarian landscape of seventeenth-century south India. In fact, the non-Samayin 艢腻办迟补s he enumerates鈥攚orshippers of the transgressive and ferocious goddesses 惭腻迟补峁単墨, 痴腻谤腻丑墨, Bagalamukh墨, and 叠丑补颈谤补惫墨鈥攚ere genuine participants in the religious economy of 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 day, from whom Samayin 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins wished to strictly demarcate themselves.

Second, and by no means less consequential, is the Vedicization of types of worship previously forbidden to 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins under 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 strictures.

Samayins, for their part, are fourfold: (1) those intent on worship according to Vedic procedures of external images of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 fashioned out of gold, etc., (2) those intent on both internal and external worship, (3) those intent on external worship only, and (4) those lacking in any worship. Among these, those adepts who have not acquired experience in yoga worship the goddess in images of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 according to Vedic precepts. Those who have become somewhat established in yoga worship externally and internally, those who are established in yoga worship the goddess only internally, and as for those who have obtained purity of mind, their manner of worship has been expounded previously.^[28]

While 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 forbids the external worship of any 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 image to Samayins, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 clearly accepts the worship of gold 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 icons as socially normative within 厂尘腻谤迟补 religious culture. Based on historical evidence, in fact, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 pronouncement appears to accurately capture the devotional practice of seventeenth-century Samayins: 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 lineage descendants, most notably, proudly display in his 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈 shrine an image of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 they believe to have been his personal object of worship.^[29]

FIGURE 3. The three 辫奴箩腻 images pictured in fig. 2 have been handed down in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 family and are believed to have been worshipped personally by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. As the Tamil caption clarifies, the image on the right is 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 personal 艣谤墨肠补办谤补, the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 yantra. This black-and-white photograph is mounted in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈 shrine in Palamadai, near Tirunelveli in southern Tamil Nadu. All three 辫奴箩腻 images are now in the possession of Jagadguru 叠丑腻谤补迟墨 罢墨谤迟丑补 Sv膩miga岣� of Sringeri. I have personally seen two of them on his public 辫奴箩腻; unfortunately, the Jagadguru鈥檚 attendants deny any knowledge of the 艣谤墨肠补办谤补鈥檚 location.

But while speaking volumes about ritual practice and scriptural redaction among 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 initiates, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 work, by virtue of its commentarial project, joins that of 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 and his contemporaries, who crafted a hagiographical past for the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 community. By selecting 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 template as the structural principle for an entirely different commentary, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 transposes the authority behind the Samaya doctrine from the purported author of the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, to the perceived author of the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补, 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补. Echoing the sentiment of 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 Yajvan expressed at Madurai鈥檚 Cittirai Festival, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 reshapes 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补鈥檚 identity into a fusion of celebrated 尘补丑腻办补惫颈 and loyal servant of the goddess 碍腻濒墨 (鈥湴�腻濒��-诲腻蝉补鈥�),^[30] merging both of these attributes in the author of the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补, an orthodox Samayin鈥檚 expression of personal devotion. With no less a figure than 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 representing the power of orthodox 艢膩ktism, it is little surprise that 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 offered seventeenthcentury 厂尘腻谤迟补 intellectuals a meaningful paradigm for integrating various facets of their ideal personas: 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmin, devotee of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage, and not least, poet-celebrity. 艢腻办迟补 devotionalism and literary genius were, for many of these poets, causally interrelated and functionally inextricable from each other. This is expressed perhaps most eloquently by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 himself in the benediction to his 艢颈惫补l墨l膩r峁嘺va (The sacred games of 艢颈惫补), evoking a pair of commonly cited legends linking the poetic aptitude of two south Indian poets鈥攖he Tamil bhakti saint 脩膩nacampantar and the Sanskrit poet M奴kakavi鈥攖o their unmediated contact with the goddess鈥檚 grace.

In his own words:

One became a poet through the breast milk of the Mother, another through her 迟腻尘产奴濒补 spittle.
Desiring to achieve even greater elevation [unnati], I served the more elevated [unnata] corner of Her eyes.^[31]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补 is at least old enough to have been quoted by 惭补丑别艣惫补谤腻苍补苍诲补 in the 惭补丑腻谤迟丑补尘补帽箩补谤墨, TSS ed., pg. 107.

[2]:

Although we are able to locate historically a number of 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 immediate family members, much less is known about his life and work. Brother of 碍别艣补惫补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补, he is believed to have educated his younger brother R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 in the 艣腻蝉迟谤补 s. Other (now lost) works attributed to his name include the 笔腻谤颈箩腻迟补丑补谤补峁嘺, 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺蝉腻谤补, 厂补迟测腻辫谤墨峁嘺苍补, and 厂腻丑颈迟测补蝉补谤惫补蝉惫补.

[3]:

蝉补尘耻诲产丑奴迟补蝉迟丑奴濒补蝉迟补苍补产丑补谤补尘 耻谤补艣 肠腻谤耻 丑补蝉颈迟补峁� 办补峁�膩k峁�e 办补苍诲补谤辫补岣� kusumitakadambadyutivapu岣� | harasya tvadbhr膩nti峁� manasi janay膩m 膩sa madano bhavaty膩 ye bhakt膩岣� pari峁嘺tir am墨峁Ｄ乵 iyam ume ||

[4]:

蝉补尘耻诲产丑奴迟补蝉迟丑奴濒补蝉迟补苍补产丑补谤补尘 耻谤补艣 肠腻谤耻丑补蝉颈迟补峁� 办补峁�膩k峁�e 办补苍诲补谤辫腻岣� katicanakadambadyutivapu岣� | harasya tvadbhr膩nti峁� manasi janayanta岣� samayino bhavaty膩 ye bhakt膩岣� pari峁嘺tir am墨峁Ｄ乵 iyam ume ||

[5]:

尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 appears to have spent his early years at the court of Gajapati 笔谤补迟腻辫补谤耻诲谤补 in Orissa, shifting later to the Vijayanagara court of K峁涐梗峁嘺devar膩ya after the latter鈥檚 defeat of the former, presumably circulating his 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 commentary among southern intellectual circles at this time. See Gode (1944).

[6]:

Take, for instance, the 艢补颈惫补 Siddh膩nta distinction between samaya 诲墨办峁Ｄ�, the first level of initiation, through which initiates are bound to adopt a certain samaya, or code of conduct, beyond that of external social convention, and 苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺 诲墨办峁Ｄ�, a higher level of initiation that grants access to a more sophisticated soteriological technology.

[7]:

The 辫补帽肠补尘补办腻谤补 s, a list of five traditionally impure substances that each begin with the letter m鈥�madya (wine), 尘腻峁僺补 (meat), matsya (fish), 尘耻诲谤腻 (typically translated as 鈥減arched grain鈥�), and maithun a (sexual intercourse)鈥攊s a common trope in many Tantric traditions.

[8]:

The only other author identified as closely conforming to 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 views is one 搁腻尘腻苍补苍诲补, who composed commentaries on the 罢谤颈辫耻谤腻 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 and 罢谤颈辫耻谤腻t膩pin墨 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. See Brooks (1992a, 221n64). 搁腻尘腻苍补苍诲补 likely postdates our generation of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 intellectuals, as none show any awareness of either of these 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉.

[9]:

A number of additional structural phrases, such as 鈥渁tra idam anusandheya峁冣�� and 鈥淴-tama艣loka-惫测腻办丑测腻n膩vasare vak峁�yate,鈥� also appear quite regularly in both commentaries.

[10]:

pa艣upatip膩帽car膩traga峁嘺n膩thakum膩ra艣iv膩gamair mahita岣� | vi艣vajid膩dikratuk峁泃 sa ratnakhe峁�膩dhvaripu峁単avo jayati || 艣r墨 艣r墨niv膩samakhinas tasya putra mah膩ya艣膩岣� | k膩m膩k峁Ｄ玹anaya岣� 艣r墨m膩n ardhan膩r墨艣vara岣� sudh墨岣� || tasm膩d adh墨tya 艣膩str膩峁噄 pitus sarv膩峁噄 sadguro岣� |ambasatavasya 惫测腻办丑测腻na峁� kurute gurusammatam ||... 艣r墨艣a峁卥ar膩c膩ryak峁泃au prabandhau saubh膩gyavidy膩subhagoday膩khyau | puna岣� puna岣� s膩dhu vicintya buddhy膩 tadadhvan膩 鈥榟a峁� karavai nibandham ||

[11]:

No text has yet been located bearing the name 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补惫颈诲测腻. A number of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 works have been given the title 鈥淪ubhagodaya鈥� over the centuries, including a Subhagodayastuti attributed to 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补, believed to have been the 鈥済rand-guru鈥� of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, and a much older work attributed to the Kashmiri 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 theologian 艢颈惫腻苍补苍诲补, cited by Am峁泃膩nandan膩tha in his 顿墨辫颈办腻 on the 狈颈迟测腻峁�o岣峚艣颈办腻谤峁嘺惫补 and 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 in his 惭补丑腻谤迟丑补尘补帽箩补谤墨parimala.

[12]:

艢 A 1.57鈥�62, 64. guror govindap膩dasya gu峁嘺r膩艣er anuj帽ay膩 | vi峁ａ箛or n膩mn膩峁� sahasrasya vyat膩n墨d bh膩峁�yam 膩dita岣� || mantr膩gamamah膩mbodhi峁� mathitv膩 buddhimanthata岣� | prapa帽cas膩rapramukhaprabandh膩m峁泃am 膩dade || saubh膩gyavidy膩m api t膩峁� subhagodayapaddhatim | nirmame mantra艣膩str膩rthanik峁�epama峁噄pe峁璱ke || sagu峁嘺brahmabodhaikasakt膩n mand膩dhik膩ri峁嘺岣� | anug峁沨峁嘺nn ath膩t膩n墨d asau hariharastut墨岣� || atantan墨t prakara峁嚹乶y advait膩tmapar膩峁噄 sa岣� | saundaryalahar墨mukhy膩岣� stut墨r api 辫补谤补岣� 艣补迟腻岣� || karatalakalit膩dvay膩tmatattva峁� k峁�apitadurantacirantanapramoham | upacitam uditoditair gu峁嘺ughair upani峁�ad膩m ayam ujjah膩ra bh膩峁�yam || sa dv膩da艣e vayasi tatra 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈ni峁ａ弓hair brahmar峁�ibhi岣� 艣ruti艣iro 产补丑耻诲丑腻 vic膩rya | 艣r墨vy膩sade艣ika艣ikh膩ma峁噄s奴trar膩艣o 产丑补惫测补峁� gabh墨ramadhura峁� pha峁嘺ti sma bh膩峁�yam |

[13]:

尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补, commentary on the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 (LDh), v. 1: iha khalu 艣a峁卥arabhagavatp奴jyap膩d膩岣� 蝉补尘补测补尘补迟补迟补迟迟惫补惫别诲颈苍补岣� samay膩khy膩峁� 肠补苍诲谤补办补濒腻峁� 艣loka艣atena prastuvanti.

[14]:

The attribution of a 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄 to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is not attested elsewhere, to my knowledge. Another 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 work titled the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄, apparently distinct from the one quoted by 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, is attributed to the sage 顿耻谤惫腻蝉补蝉 and plays a central role in the liturgy of the 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� temple in Kanchipuram.

[15]:

None of these texts appear to be extant today, although the names 痴补蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补sa峁僪it膩 and 厂补苍补迟办耻尘腻谤补samhit膩 have been claimed by other works, including a treatise on astronomy; a text titled the 厂补苍补迟办耻尘腻谤补sa峁僪it膩 belongs to the corpus of 笔补帽肠补谤腻迟谤补 膧驳补尘补. That R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补, as well, accepts the set of five 厂补峁僪颈迟腻蝉 as authoritative is suggested in his 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补: sanakasanandanadhyey膩 ghanakabar墨 bh膩tu 艣补颈濒补谤腻箩补蝉耻迟腻 (v. 7.78).

[16]:

LDh, v. 39, pgs. 77鈥�78. 艣奴dr膩峁嚹佱箖 catu岣メ梗a峁ａ弓hitantre峁�v 补诲丑颈办腻谤补岣� | evam adhik膩rabhedam aj膩n膩n膩岣� am墨尘腻峁僺补k膩岣� vy膩muhyanti|

[17]:

LDh, v. 39, pg. 78. 艣ubh膩gamapa帽cake vaidik膩game峁嘺iva anu峁ａ弓h膩nakal膩po 苍颈谤奴辫颈迟补岣� | 补测补峁� 艣耻产丑腻驳补尘补辫补帽肠补办补苍颈谤奴辫颈迟辞 尘腻谤驳补岣� vasi峁ａ弓hasanaka艣ukasanandanasanatkum膩rai岣� pa帽cabhi岣� munibhi岣� 辫谤补诲补谤艣颈迟补岣� | ayam eva samay膩c膩ra iti vyavahriyate | tathaiv膩sm膩bhir api 艣ubh膩gamapa帽cak膩nus膩re峁嘺 samayamatam avalambyaiva bhagavatp膩damatam anus峁泃ya 惫测腻办丑测腻 谤补肠颈迟腻 |

[18]:

A metanarrative central to the history of 艢腻办迟补 discourse in general is the steady sublimation, at least in public settings, of overtly 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补-inflected practices often occurring at the same time that a community is engaged in co-opting conceptual and ritual technology integral to these systems, such as formulations of 碍耻峁囜笉补濒颈苍墨 yoga and the newly conceived role of the ascetic 础惫补诲丑奴迟补, an unmarked naked ascetic who derives his identity from engaging in such practice. Though debuting in Picumatabrahmay膩mala, both of these formulations become mainstays of early modern Brahminical ascetic traditions. Thus for example, references in the Tantras originally intended to allude to the Brahmay膩mala鈥檚 苍补惫腻办峁�a谤墨 mantra 鈥淗ail to the ferocious female skull bearer!鈥� (h奴峁� ca峁囜笉e k膩p膩lini 蝉惫腻丑腻) are reinscribed as alluding solely to the Pur膩峁噄c mantra, associated with the 顿别惫墨 惭腻丑腻迟尘测补 (o峁� ai峁� h峁浤�峁� 办濒墨峁� c膩mu峁囜笉ayai vicche), providing a public face for other forms of 艢膩ktism. Close inspection of the scriptural sources of the 碍腻诲颈 invoked by our authors, however, call into question how much of this shift is dissembling, for 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补inflected mantras, as well as deities, continue to be transmitted even in these orthodox sources. See for example R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄鈥檚 invocation of the wine-quaffing 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 and 惭补丑腻办腻濒墨 in the next section.

[19]:

Work remains to be done on the social position of the 顿别惫墨m膩h膩tmya among North Indian intellectuals of this same period, a number of whom, such as Nagoj墨 叠丑补峁�峁�补, composed commentaries or practical manuals for its recitation (prayogavidhi). In Nepalese 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 traditions, and most likely in north India as well, the 顿别惫墨m膩h膩tmya remained a cornerstone of liturgy even after it had been overshadowed by the Lalit膩sahasra苍腻尘补 and associated scriptures in the South.

[20]:

LDh, p. 16. viyatp奴jyatva峁� 诲惫颈惫颈诲丑补峁�, dahar膩k膩艣aja峁� b膩hy膩k膩艣aja峁� ceti. b膩hy膩k膩艣aja峁� 苍腻尘补 b膩hy膩k膩艣膩vak膩艣e p墨峁環膩dau bh奴rjapatra艣uddhapa峁璦hemarajat膩dipa峁�峁璦 le likhitv膩 sam膩r膩dhanam. etad eva kaulap奴jety 膩hur 惫峁沝诲丑腻岣�. (LDh, v. 41, p. 116). 艣谤墨肠补办谤补sthitanavayonimadhygatayoni峁� bh奴rjahemapa峁�峁璦-vastrap墨峁環膩dau likhitv膩 p奴rva办补耻濒腻岣� p奴jayanti.

[21]:

LDh, v. 41, pg. 122. yad 耻办迟补峁� subhagodaye鈥敳跖�谤测补尘补峁囜笉补濒补madhyasth膩峁� 诲别惫墨峁� tripurasundar墨m | p膩艣膩峁卥u艣a-dhanurb膩峁嘺hast膩峁� dhy膩yet sus膩dhaka岣� || 迟谤补颈濒辞办测补峁� mohayed 膩艣u varan膩r墨ga峁嘺ir yutam ||... atra samayin膩峁� b膩hya辫奴箩腻ni峁�edh膩t s奴ryama峁囜笉al膩ntargatatvena 辫奴箩补苍补峁� ni峁�iddham ity 膩hu岣� tan na.

[22]:

This hymn seems not to be extant. The concept of a hymn to the goddess鈥檚 earrings may reflect the practice in Tamil 艢补颈惫补 temple culture of installing 艢谤墨肠补办谤补s in the place of the earrings on the temple 尘奴谤迟颈, best exemplified by the case of Akhil膩峁囜笉e艣var墨 of the 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补 temple near Srirangam.

[23]:

For instance, 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 cites the following verse from the 碍补谤峁嚹乿补迟补峁僺补蝉迟耻迟颈 in support of his claim that Samayins are to worship in the upper cakra s of the body: 腻箩帽腻迟尘补办补诲惫颈诲补濒补辫补诲尘补驳补迟别 tad膩n墨峁� vidyunnibhe ravi艣a艣iprayatotka峁�膩bhe | ga峁囜笉asthalapratiphalatkarad墨paj膩lakar峁嚹乿ata峁僺akalike kamal膩yat膩k峁�i ||

[24]:

础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻 (ASV): samayin膩峁� b膩hya辫奴箩腻y膩岣� ni峁�iddhatv膩d antar eva 辫奴箩腻 kartavy膩... subhagodaye kaula艣ik峁Ｄ乸a峁璦le鈥攂膩hya辫奴箩腻rat膩岣� kecit p膩峁�a峁囜笉膩 vedanindit膩岣� | 办补耻濒腻岣� 办腻辫腻濒颈办腻 m奴lam 膩gamair avidh膩nata岣� || ni峁�iddh膩cara峁嚹乼 辫腻迟补岣� te峁Ｄ乵 iti hi me matam | tasm膩t p墨峁環膩rcan膩d墨ni vaidik膩n膩峁� na vidyate || anta岣ケ枧�箩腻rat膩岣� santo vasi峁ａ弓hasanak膩daya岣� | v膩帽chit膩峁� siddhim 膩pann膩s tasm膩d adhikam 膩ntaram || atha cet kar峁�a峁嚹乨墨ni 辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓丑腻d墨ni c膩gamai岣� | 膩tharva峁嘺ir athokt膩ni b膩dhit膩rth膩ni t膩ni kim || 蝉补迟测补峁� t膩ni tathokt膩ni sv膩dhik膩r膩nugu峁噛ata岣� | mumuk峁Ｅ�峁嚹佱�� na tatr膩sti ki峁� 辫奴箩腻y膩m adhikriy膩 || tasm膩t samayin膩m anta艣cakre峁�v ev膩rcan膩dikam |

[25]:

Even more tellingly, we meet with a number of striking rhetorical similarities between 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 improved Subhagodaya and the prose of 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 commentary. Take, for instance, the imagined opponent in the above passage, who questions the place of non-厂尘腻谤迟补 ritual procedures within the corpus of orthodox scripture, particularly rituals of ground preparation (办补谤峁�a峁嘺) and the installation of deities (辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓丑腻): 鈥淣ow, if one objects that rituals for ground preparation, installation of deities, and so forth, as described by the 膧驳补尘补s and 础迟丑补谤惫补峁嘺蝉, would be prohibited...鈥� This very subject matter is raised by 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 himself while delimiting the scriptures suitable for Samayin 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 adepts, mentioning 办补谤峁�a峁嘺 and 辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓丑腻 specifically by name. Thus, not only does the seventeenth-century Subhagodaya explicitly and vehemently promote 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 notions of Samaya orthodoxy, but it also recycles language from disparate locations in his commentary. Evidently, the redactor of the Subhagodaya was quite familiar with 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 work and eager to respond to the more contentious points he raised.

Procedures for 办补谤峁�a峁嘺 rituals are a particular feature of South Indian 艢补颈惫补 Siddh膩nta 膧驳补尘补, a fact that 尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 as well seems to have noted, given that he attributes these procedures in particular to the 痴腻迟耻濒补, 痴腻迟耻濒辞迟迟补谤补, and K膩mika 膧驳补尘补s: LDh, v. 21, p. 76. 惫腻迟耻濒补峁�, 惫腻迟耻濒辞迟迟补谤补峁�, 办腻尘颈办补峁� ca tantratr补测补峁� kar峁�a峁嚹乨i辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓丑腻ntavidhipratip膩da kam. tasmin tantratraye kar峁�a峁嚹乨i辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓丑腻nt膩 vidhaya岣� ekade艣e pratip膩dit膩岣� | sa caikade艣o vaidikam膩rga eva. avasi峁ａ弓has tu avaidika岣�.

[26]:

ASV: 艣膩kt膩岣� prathamo 诲惫颈惫颈诲丑腻. 办补耻濒腻岣� samayina艣 ceti. tatra 办补耻濒腻 诲惫颈惫颈诲丑腻岣�. p奴rva办补耻濒腻 uttara办补耻濒腻艣 ceti. tatr膩pi p奴rva办补耻濒腻s 迟谤颈惫颈诲丑腻. m奴l膩dh膩rani峁ａ弓h膩岣� sv膩dhi峁ａ弓h膩nani峁ａ弓h膩 ubhayani峁ａ弓h膩艣 ceti. uttara办补耻濒腻s tu 肠补迟耻谤惫颈诲丑腻岣� m膩ta峁単墨v膩r膩h墨bagalamukh墨bhairav墨tantrasth膩岣�. tad 耻办迟补峁� subhagodaye k膩l墨bha峁単apa峁璦le鈥攎奴l膩dh膩re sv膩dhi峁ａ弓h膩ne ca bhajanti kecane艣in墨m | anyatarasmi峁僺 c膩nye tenaite p奴rva办补耻濒腻s 迟谤颈惫颈诲丑腻岣� || m膩ta峁単墨v膩r膩h墨k膩l膩mukh墨bhairav墨tantr膩ntarasthit膩岣� | 膩ntara辫奴箩腻rahit膩 uttara办补耻濒腻艣 肠补迟耻谤惫颈诲丑腻岣� j帽ey膩岣� || ete峁Ｄ佱箖 saptavidh膩n膩峁� 办补耻濒腻n膩峁� vig墨t膩c膩r膩峁嚹佱箖 蝉尘补谤补峁嘺尘 api pratyav膩yahetu岣� ki峁� punas te峁Ｄ乵 膩c膩rapradar艣ana峁�. ata岣� prak峁泃膩nupayuktatv膩c ca n膩tra 惫颈蝉迟补谤补岣� kriyate.

[27]:

尝补办峁�m墨诲丑补谤补 glosses 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨 v. 34 as an encoded representation of the doctrine of the 笔奴谤惫补 Kaulas, and v. 35 as that of the Uttara Kaulas.

[28]:

samayinas tu 肠补迟耻谤惫颈诲丑腻岣�. bahi岣�svar峁嚹乨iracitacakravigrah膩di峁�u vaidikena vidh膩nen膩rcanarat膩岣�, antarbahi艣c膩rcanarat膩岣�, antar ev膩rcanarat膩岣�, arcanarahit膩艣 ceti. atra ye asa峁僯膩tayog膩bhy膩s膩岣� 蝉腻诲丑补办腻蝉 te cakravigrah膩dau 诲别惫墨峁� vaidikair vidh膩nair 膩r膩dhayanti, ye tv 墨峁�ajj膩tayogasiddhayas te 鈥榥tarbahi艣 ca p奴jayanti, ye tu siddhayog膩s te 鈥榥tar eva dev墨m arcayanti, ye tu pr膩ptacitta艣uddhayas te峁Ｄ佱箖 辫奴箩腻prak膩ra艣 ca p奴rvam eva pratip膩dita岣�.

[29]:

This 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 is said to have been in possession of the family in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 in Palamadai near Tirunelveli until about two decades ago, at which point it was donated to the personal 辫奴箩腻 of Jagadguru 叠丑腻谤补迟墨 罢墨谤迟丑补 of Sringeri. When I visited Sringeri in August of 2011, I was able to observe the 骋补峁噀艣补 and 艣颈惫补濒颈峁単补 also pictured in this photo on the Jagadguru鈥檚 public 辫奴箩腻, but I was not permitted to see the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补. This is unfortunate, as a great deal could be learned from the iconographic features of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补 were a more precise image available.

[30]:

ASV: iha khalu k膩lid膩so 尘补丑腻办补惫颈岣� sarvama峁単al膩pras膩dalabdhasarvavidy膩dhi pa tyas t膩m eva sarvama峁単al膩m ekatrim艣at膩 艣lokair abhi峁ａ弓auti. ASV: atha 鈥渆katvam anek膩s t膩岣� 艣aktayo y膩nty up膩dhita岣モ�� ity uktar墨ty膩 lay膩din膩 艣akt墨n膩m 补产丑别诲补峁� pratip膩dayan svasya k膩li诲腻蝉补tv膩t sv膩bhimat膩峁� k膩l墨尘奴谤迟颈m abhi峁ａ弓auti.

[31]:

艢 LA 1.3: stanyena ka艣cit kavay膩mbabh奴va 迟腻尘产奴濒补s膩re峁嘺 paro janany膩岣� | aha峁� tato 鈥榩y unnatim 膩ptuk膩ma岣� seve tato 鈥榩y unnatam ak峁�iko峁嘺m || 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 here puns on the words unnati and unnata, suggesting that he will obtain even greater literary aptitude by worshipping the corners of the goddess鈥檚 eyes, which are spatially elevated above her breasts and mouth. 脩膩nacampantar is famously said to have been breast-fed by 笔腻谤惫补迟墨 as a young child when he wandered away from his parents while on pilgrimage, and M奴kakavi, as his name suggests, is believed to have been deaf and dumb before partaking of the 迟腻尘产奴濒补 spittle of the goddess. Little is known about the historical persona of M奴kakavi or about the origin the 惭奴办补辫补帽肠补艣补迟颈 attributed to him, a set of five centuries on the goddess widely read in Tamil Nadu even today but rarely circulating in other regions.