somananda e-book

and the Buddhist epistemologist Dharmakīrti in particular.16 The seventh and last chapter, in turn, deals with tantric religious practices, and it will be discussed in some detail in what follows. The reader should therefore understand the present volume to constitute the first installment of a larger project—namely, the production of a complete edition and annotated translation of the ŚD in seven chapters, along with all of the extant passages of the ŚDVṛ.

In the course of examining Somānanda’s interaction with his tantric interlocutors, I address three issues in the remainder of the present Introduction. First, I examine the substance of the arguments of the ŚD, and in doing so I demonstrate the ways in which the ŚD articulates a monism that is strictly pantheistic. Somānanda repeatedly shows himself to be emphatically opposed to the conception of any difference whatsoever between Śiva and the universe he creates, so much so that he repeatedly argues that any and every entity found in the world is fully equal to Śiva himself. Central to this notion is Somānanda’s striking and sweeping theory that Śiva’s power of will (icchā) precedes and shapes all cognitions and actions, be they those of humans or other beings who are subjected to the rounds of transmigration and rebirth, of the various apparently inanimate objects and entities that populate the universe, down to the mundane pot, or even of Śiva himself.

Second, I detail Somānanda’s interaction with the various tantric schools, texts, and authors of his day, including the dualist Śaiva Siddhāntins, the Spanda School, the Krama, and the Trika. (I also discuss in passing the two mainstream philosophical schools with which one must be familiar in order fully to understand the selections of the ŚD and ŚDVṛ

16Thus, ŚD 4 explains how “everything is of the nature of Śiva” (see ŚD 4.1ab: athedānīṃ pravaktavyaṃ yathā sarvaṃ śivātmakam), the treatment of a matter the author promised to address in ŚD 1.45cd-46ab, but it does so in a manner that shows cognizance of and draws heavily from the Vijñānavādins, as it addresses a number of issues presented by Dharmakīrti. ŚD 5 explains how a unitary Śiva may be divided, again with an eye primarily on the same Buddhist schools and authors. Finally, ŚD 6 explains how the same Śiva-nature is omnipresent, this on the basis of the identification of agent of action and power, but the arguments found herein contrast the author’s position with those of various strains of the Vedānta, the Pāñcarātrikas, the philosophy of the Bhagavadgītā, the Jains, the Sāṅkhya, Nyāya, and Vaiśeṣika schools, again the Vijñānavādins, as well as the realist Buddhists, and even the materialist Cārvākas.

The degree to which Somānanda responds to Dharmakīrti and the Buddhist epistemologists in particular, as opposed to the Buddhist Vijñānavādins, remains, moreover, a subject for further consideration. Torella (1994: xxii, fn. 28; cf. Torella 1992) has already noted some points of contact with the philosophy of the Buddhist epistemologists in the ŚD, including the famous quotation of Pramāṇavārttika (PV) 3.282 in ŚD 1.45cd-46ab, as well as reference to PV 3.354 in ŚD 6.39. He further notes reference to the ideas of the Buddhist epistemologists in ŚD 4.81a (reference to svalakṣaṇas), 6.76c (apoha), 5.55a (svārthānumāna), and 5.61c (parānumāna). My hypothesis, to be examined in greater detail in a future study, is that contact with the philosophy of the Buddhist epistemologists is demonstrably more extensive than even this in the ŚD, with the fourth and sixth chapters showing the pervasive influence thereof, this over and above the more general influence of the Buddhist Vijñānavādins on the ŚD.

Somānanda’s Works and His Biography

3. The Author and His Works

Although the lineage of Pratyabhijñā authors who concern us17 has been known since the publication of Pandey’s landmark and eponymous study of the great Kashmiri polymath, Abhinavagupta,18 and although the historical dates of the authors in question have since been established beyond any reasonable dispute,19 the motivations that inspired the works of Somānananda and his successor, Utpaladeva, remain a subject worthy of further consideration and analysis. In particular, questions arise as to what purpose or purposes the authors of the Śaiva post-scriptural literature meant their texts to serve, and in particular what Somānanda might have intended for his ŚD.

Two leading tantric studies scholars have already articulated, in broad terms, their respective views of the general purpose of the mass of Śaiva post-scriptural

17As noted above, we here propose only to study the philosophy of Somānanda as seen in the ŚD, comparing and contrasting with the works of his disciple, Utpaladeva, principally his ŚDVṛ and ĪPK and ĪPVṛ. Reference to Abhinavagupta’s work will be made en passant, while the writings of Pratyabhijñā authors who follow Abhinavagupta, such as Kṣemarāja, will not enter into the present discussion. As such, reference to the “Pratyabhijñā” in the present work should be taken to refer to the philosophical writings of Somānanda, Utpaladeva, and Abhinavagupta, which are found in the ŚD and ŚDVṛ, the ĪPK, and the four commentaries thereon, the two auto-commentaries of Utpaladeva (namely, the ĪPVṛ and ĪPṬ, the latter of which is lost excepting in fragments published in recent years by Torella), and the ĪPV and ĪPVV of Abhinavagupta.

18See Pandey [1963] 2000: 160; Kupetz 1972: 24; and Sanderson 1990: 163.

19There exists more or less a consensus on the dates of Somānanda’s textual production. Pandey writes that Somānanda wrote “in the 9th century A.D.” (Pandey [1963] 2000: 20); Bhattacharyya places Somānanda “at end of the ninth century” (Bhattacharyya 1999: 64), as does Rastogi (Rastogi 1979: 92); Torella places Somānanda between 875/900 and 925/950 (Torella 1994: xii). Finally, Sanderson’s date, accepted in the present study (along with his dating of the other authors of the Pratyabhijñā), is slightly later than the others, as he places Somānanda in the early tenth century, flourishing from circa 900–950 (Sanderson 1990: 158). The explanation for these dates is offered in Sanderson 20071: 411ff.

literature. Torella, for one, has suggested that the emergence of a work of exe- gesis—exegesis being defined as “the reformulation of [the] teaching [of the scriptures] and the organizing and hierarchizing of their contents ”—requires by the very nature of such a work that the author took “the decision to emerge in the open, to escape from the dimension of a restricted circle of adepts.” For Torella, this is a decision that the Śākta Śaiva authors made in order “to offer [Śākta Śaiva works and the traditions they represent] implicitly as an alternative to the dominant Śaiva Siddhānta, or at least to establish [themselves] as a non-extraneous element (or rather as an element which, though not intended to constitute the whole, was able to give it its ultimate significance).”20 Sanderson similarly postulates the existence of a single telos for all of the post-scriptural writings. He argues that the Brahmins who wrote the works in question emphasized liberating knowledge over visionary experience in their writings, and he claims that the choice of this emphasis stemmed directly “from the nature of the commentators’ social milieu, which is one of Śaiva brahmins eager to consolidate their religion on the level of high culture.”21 Thus, for Sanderson it is the authors’ social context that explains their interest in philosophical discourse.

Together this pair of theses identifies the general parameters in which and by which the post-scriptural authors operated, as it is indisputable that the various Śaiva post-scriptural writings allowed their authors to “emerge in the open,” as Torella argues, and “to consolidate their religion on the level of high culture,” as Sanderson argues. In comparing the ŚD to the ĪPK, however, one identifies more specifically the individual authors’ intended audiences, as well as the particular strategies each author employs in conceptualizing their tradition in terms that were chosen to reach a wider audience in a language that touched the register of high culture. This is to say that, in the case of Somānanda’s ŚD and Utpaladeva’s ĪPK, one discerns distinct authorial strategies, ends, and intended audiences for each of the two authors’ works.

With regard to the ŚD, the work was written primarily for an audience of initiates. A number of Somānanda’s editorial choices in the composition of the work, particularly when compared with the decisions taken by Utpaladeva in composing his ĪPK, clearly show that Somānanda was not interested in making the work accessible to any but those who were already familiar with the contents, or at least the spirit, of the scriptural sources on which the ŚD unarguably draws. A brief consideration of the larger œuvre of works he is said to have composed further points to the idea that Somānanda was not overly concerned with reaching the noninitiate, even if he wished to establish his particular interpretation of the scriptures as an alternative to those of competing tantric schools, such as the Śaiva Siddhānta.

20See Torella 1994: xiii

21See Sanderson 20071: 241.

Even if it did, any consideration of the intended audience of such an autocommentary could only lead one back to a consideration of the text it is said to have glossed, as the two surely would not have been meant to have been read in mutual isolation. In sum, this is not the body of literature one would expect to come from the hand of an author who wished to reach a wider audience of noninitiates.26

To turn to the contents of the ŚD itself, it first goes without saying that the founder of the Pratyabhijñā is by definition the author of that text, the only work attributed to Somānanda (aside from the ŚāVi) that survives in full. It may be reiterated that the work engages its subject matter through the liberal use of tantric terminology, principally that of the Trika but also occasionally the Spanda, as will be discussed below. One also senses the influence of the Krama in the work, even if no distinctly Krama formulations can be identified therein.27 The clear and pervasive presence of such tantric influences stands in direct contrast to the structure and content of Utpaladeva’s ĪPK, which I argue has a larger, court audience in view.

Torella has already noted that Utpaladeva uses only logic in the first two sections of the ĪPK and ĪPVṛ (which make up three-quarters of the entire work), where the commonly accepted language of public debate dominates the author’s style, only then to yield to scripture in the third section (of four).28 It is important

of it is found in the primary literature, whether by Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta, Kṣemarāja, Jayaratha, or Somānanda himself. Indeed, those who thought Somānanda wrote such a commentary refer only to one source that makes reference to what could be construed as an auto-commentary called the Vṛtti or Vivṛti. This reference to the auto-commentary, if it exists, is found in the manuscript sources in the colophon to the autobiographical portion appended to the end of the ŚD, wherein it is said that the passage in question may be found in the “Vṛtti.” (It is Chatterji who reports having seen this reference in several unnamed manuscript sources; see Chatterji [1914] 1986: 151, fn. 1. I myself have one manuscript that includes in it the text of the autobiography and nothing more, attributing the passage in question to the “Śivadṛṣṭivivṛti,” for which see note 45, below.) What is lacking, however, is any definite reference to Somānanda as the author of a [Śivadṛṣti-]vṛtti (or vivṛti). All that we have is a passage that uses the first-person voice in describing Somānanda’s life, a passage that some manuscripts tell us is contained in a commentary called the vṛtti or vivṛti. Indeed, the rumors of the very existence of this work seem to have arisen with Chatterji’s report of the existence of the work, this, I believe, solely on the basis of the manuscript colophons to this autobiography. In a word, I am as skeptical as Stein 1894: xliii was uncertain that the autobiography is a part of an auto-commentary written by Somānanda.

26This may be illustrated by way of contrast, with a decidedly brief mention of a pair of Utpaladeva’s writings other than the ĪPK and related commentaries, which clearly were composed in a manner that allowed them to serve precisely this end: first, the devotional hymns of the Śivastotrāvalī, still sung by Kashmiri pandits today, speak in the language of the scriptures but in a manner that is generally accessible, and popular; second, the Īśvarasiddhi, which convincingly speaks in the language of the mainstream Naiyāyikas, offers a treatment of philosophical concerns that is utterly accessible to the learned scholar of that orthodox philosophical school. See Torella 1994: xxi.

27Thus, I agree with Torella (1994: xiv) that the ŚD is close to the Trika and the Krama, though rather more significantly the former than the latter, about which I will say more, below. (See sections 7, 8, and 11.)

28See Torella 1994: xx and xxx.

further to note that this approach is precisely the opposite of Somānanda’s: the ŚD opens with an invocatory verse praising Śiva as one who has penetrated Somānanda’s very form (asmadrūpasamāviṣṭa)—the language of possession is here used!—and immediately following is a description of Śiva’s process of manifestation that is thoroughly steeped in Trika tantric terminology and expressed in the language of theology rather than philosophy. The ŚD does give way to a more philosophical style of analysis in the second and subsequent chapters of the work, excepting the seventh chapter and, to some extent, the third; but Somānanda is steadily willing, even in these subsequent chapters, to evoke a rather more scriptural flavor in his writing than is Utpaladeva. Indeed, he is famous for his use of “mixed registers,” i.e., the alternate use of philosophical and tantric terminology, juxtaposed with the occasional burst of emotion or humor.29 Also noteworthy is the fact that Somānanda addresses a range of concerns that are peculiar to Śākta Śaiva scripture and exegesis—and to his own scripturally based ideas in particular. This practice stands in direct contrast to that of Utpaladeva in his ĪPK, where he arguably only addresses scriptural matters that are already readily comprehensible to those who are familiar with the teachings of the Śaiva Siddhānta. And in many instances Utpaladeva uses language that is even more generally shared by the full range of Indian philosophical schools.30

The third chapter of the ŚD is also telling in this regard, for it contains a sustained argument against the position of Bhaṭṭa Pradyumna, a Śākta opponent. This surely cannot be the tactic of an author who wished to reach the noninitiate: to quibble with an opponent who subscribes to a closely related, esoteric tantric point of view is not a likely path for reaching a wider audience. Moreover, this approach again stands in contrast to that of Utpaladeva, who withheld any criticism of his tantric counterparts, Bhartṛhari and the Hindu grammarians, and even, for the most part, the realist and dualist Hindu Naiyāyikas. Instead, Utpaladeva chose to prosecute a sustained argument against the Buddhist epistemologists.31 Finally, even the second chapter of the ŚD, being the most philosophical chapter of the ŚD given its thoroughly logical

29The expression here quoted is Torella’s, for which see Torella 1994: xx.

30Consider the various issues Utpaladeva addresses in the third adhikāra of the ĪPK, the chapter dedicated to scriptural matters. These include: a thoroughgoing treatment of the thirty-six tattvas (ĪPK 3.1); the relationship of the adept and the Lord, spoken of in terms of the Trimūrti (ĪPK 3.2.1); māyā (ĪPK 3.2.2); paśu and pati (ĪPK 3.2.3); the malas (ĪPK 3.2.4–5 and 3.2.10–11); reference to the puruṣa in the state of kaivalya (ĪPK 3.2.6; cf. Torella 1994: 199, fn. 10); the various categories of subjects (Vijñānakevalas, etc.) (ĪPK 3.2.7–9); the three states of wakefulness (ĪPK 3.2.15–18); and the vital breaths (ĪPK 3.2.19–20). “Possession” or penetration by the divine is mentioned in one place (ĪPK 3.2.12 and the Vṛtti thereon). In fact, little more than Utpaladeva’s understanding of the existence of four levels of subjective awareness (for which see ĪPK 3.2.11–14; cf. ĪPK 4.1–3) appears in the third adhikāra that would not already be known to one who had not gained initiation into more than the practices of the Śaiva Siddhānta, and in many instances even less than this initiation would be needed to acquire full cognizance of the ideas and issues presented in the section in question.

31See Torella 1994: xxi–xxvii.

analysis of Bhartṛhari’s grammatical philosophy, makes a number of references to Śaiva Siddhānta scriptural sources and, more important, to a peculiarly tantric interpretation of Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya (VP). As such, it could not have been directed primarily at an audience that was not familiar with these traditions.

Now, the ŚD is unlike a great number of the tantric post-scriptural works that have come down to us. Many of these texts appear in the form of direct exe- gesis—commentaries that gloss scriptural sources—and many of the Kashmiri post-scriptural works, even when appearing in the form of hymns or other sorts of freestanding compositions, regularly cleave closely to the particular scriptural sources that they aim to elucidate. At the other extreme is the ĪPK, which is constructed essentially as a work of pure philosophy, even if it accounts for soteriology (as do so many Indian philosophical works)32 and is admittedly “based on a scriptural back-ground.”33 The ŚD, by contrast, appears as a work that carries the flavor of the tantras more or less throughout, but does so for the most part without tying itself too closely to any particular scriptural source. This approach, then, is more or less in line with the apparent strategy of the two root texts of the Spanda School, the Spandakārikās (SpKā) and the Śivasūtras (ŚSū). The concern here, then, is to distingish Somānanda’s ŚD from the sort of works that closely follow and meticulously gloss scripture, on the one hand, and from the rather more intentionally philosophical ĪPK, on the other, while simultaneously recognizing the differences between the ŚD and the root texts of the Spanda School that we have just mentioned. In doing so, we will be able more clearly to identify Somānanda’s strategy in writing the text.

To that end, if Abhinavagupta may be said to exhibit virtually all the tendencies of a scholastic commentator, in his ĪPV and ĪPVV, at least,34 Somānanda does not show the inclination (or, perhaps, the capacity) to aspire to the encyclopedic heights of Abhinavagupta’s works, even if there are flashes in the ŚD of the sort of synthesis found in the ĪPV and ĪPVV. On the other hand, the ŚD is

32On this notion, see, e.g., Dyczkowski 1987: 33.

33This is Torella’s expression, for which see Torella 1994: xx.

34I would indeed suggest that Abhinavagupta holds a unique place in the Pratyabhijñā lineage, for unlike the writings of Somānanda or Utpaladeva, his ĪPV and ĪPVV closely fit with José Cabezón’s definition of “scholasticism,” described as follows. Such works reflect: (1) a strong sense of tradition; (2) a concern with language, meaning a concern with both scripture and the mode of expression; (3) “proliferativity,” or “the tendency to textual and analytical inclusivity”; (4) “completeness and compactness: the belief that the tradition overlooks nothing and contains nothing that is unessential”;

(5)“epistemological accessibility of the world: the belief that the universe is basically intelligible”; (6) “systematicity,” or order in exposition; (7) rationalism, defined as “the commitment to reasoned argument and non-contradiction”; and, finally, (8) “self-reflexivity: the tendency to objectify and to critically analyze first-order practices.” Abhinavagupta exhibits all these tendencies, with a pair of caveats regarding the last two: regarding “rationalism,” Abhinavagupta follows the principle to the point, but he also tends toward mystical expressions and interpretations; and, regarding the last, he is not always entirely explicit in his analysis of the “rules, principles, and problems related to the act of exegesis,” though he exhibits an implicit understanding of these issues. See Cabezón 1998: 1–19, esp. 4–6.