Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:03:25.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems of Name and lineage: relationships between South Indian authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Dominic Goodall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With this fourth volume Mme. Brunner-Lachaux completes her richly annotated translation of the influential eleventh-century book of rituals of the old pan-Indian Śaiva Siddhanta by Somaśambhu. The first of these volumes appeared in 1963, among the first fruits of the study of the Sanskrit texts of the Śaiva Siddhānta pursued by the French Institute of Pondicherry (hereafter IFP). Since then much has been discovered about the history of the development of the Śaiva Siddhānta (a great deal through the efforts of Brunner-Lachaux herself) and a number of its texts have seen publication, so that it is only to be expected that there should be a gulf between the first and fourth volumes (hereafter SP1, SP4, etc.). It is therefore excellent news that Brunner-Lachaux intends to produce an entirely revised SP1 (announced on p. lxv).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2000 , pp. 205 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The ground-breaking first editions published by the IFP of some scriptures of the school – three of which are accompanied by the exceptionally rich commentaries of the tenth-century Kashmirian exegete Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, whose works had a formative influence on Saiddhāntika theology – are well-known. Research, inaugurated by the IFP with the publication in 1961 of the first volume of an edition of the Rauravāgama (ed. N. R. Bhatt, Publications de l’lnstitut français d‘indologie No. 18, Pondicherry) into the scriptural and commentarial literature of the theological school of the Śaiva Siddhānta has made large strides in thirty years. That institute's initial objective was to collect and edit as much as possible of all Saiddhāntika literature, of which it now houses the world's greatest manuscript collection. Over the years a differentiated picture has emerged of the historical development of the school, of its spread over the Indian sub-continent and beyond (to Cambodia) before it came (mistakenly) to be thought of as no more than a regional development of the Tamil-speaking South, and of its influence on thinkers of other persuasions, notably in Kashmir in the ninth to thirteenth centuries. It has become clear that many of the Saiddhāntika scriptures are comparatively late South Indian compositions which were never adduced as authorities by (and therefore almost certainly not known to) the masters of the school in the period in which its presence was pan-Indian. (Many discoveries in the field are those of Alexis Sanderson, for, even though none of his articles are ostensibly devoted to the Śaiva Siddhānta, many bear on it, in particular his “Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra”, pp. 281–312 in Goudriaan, Teun (ed.) Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism: Studies in Honor of André Padoux (State University of New York Press, 1992)Google Scholar; his “Meaning in Tantric Ritual”, pp. 15–95 in Essais sur le rituel III. Colloque du centenaire de la section des sciences religieuses de I‘Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes sous la direction de Anne-Marie Blondeau et Kristofer Schipper (Louvain, Paris: Peeters, 1995)Google Scholar and his forthcoming “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Saivism, the Pāñcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras” a paper delivered at the international colloquium “Sources and Time” held in Pondicherry in 1997, organised by the École française d‘Extrême-Orient and the French Insitute of Pondicherry.) The IFP has directed attention both towards the demonstrably early scriptures and their commentaries (e.g., as alluded to above, Matangapārameśvarāgama (Vidyāpāda) avec le commentaire de bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. Bhatt, N. R. (Publications de l’lnstitut français d’indologie No. 56, Pondicherry, 1977)Google Scholar, Sārdhatriśatikālottarāgama avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. Bhatt, N. R., Publications de l‘lnstitut français d‘indologie No. 61 (Pondicherry, 1979)Google Scholar, Mataṇgapārameśvarāgama (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda) avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. Bhatt, N. R., Publications de l’lnstitut français d’indologie No. 65 (Pondicherry, 1982)Google Scholar) as well as to works more recently acknowledged as scriptures e.g. the body of text that now passes under the name (Ajitāgama, edited in 3 volumes by Bhatt, N. R., Publications de l’Institut français d‘indologie No. 24 (Pondicherry, 1964, 1967, and 1991)Google Scholar). But a reader will search in vain in the introductions to these editions for discussion of the relative dating of the scriptures of the ԛaiva Siddhānta. Some notes towards such a relative chronology are to be found on pp. xxxvi–lxxiv of my own work: Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇlha's Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Volume I: chapters 1–6. Critical edition and annotated translation, ed. and trans. Goodall, Dominic. Publications du département d’indologie 86.1 (Pondicherry: 1998)Google Scholar.

Of the recent editions of Saiddhāntika works that have not appeared in the series of the IFP, the most important is that of the only prose work of the earliest Saiddhāntika theologian by whom works survive: Le Tantra de Svayaṃbhū, vidyāpāda, avec le commentaire de Sadyojyoti, ed. and trans. Filliozat, Pierre-Sylvain, École Pratique des Hautes Études-IVe Section, Sciences historiques et philologies II, Hautes Études Orientales 27 (Geneva: 1991)Google Scholar. This has been reissued with an English translation under the title The Tantra of Svayaṃbhū vidyāpāda With the commentary of Sadyojyoti, Kalāmūlaśāstra Series 13 (Delhi: 1994)Google Scholar.

2 These give (1) an edition and translation of the conclusion of the commentary of Trilocana; (2) a list of authors and works cited by name in the commentary; (3) the astramantras used for diśāhoma; (4) the text and translation of the praveśabali drawn from Īśānaśivācārya's unpublished *Pratiṣṭhākriyādīpikā (and other sources); and (5) a list of Sanskrit botanica with their corresponding Latin names.

3 Srinivasan, P. R., in Darasuram: epigraphical study, élude architecturale, étude iconographique. Tome 1 – texte. Françoise L‘Hernault, with the collaboration of Srinivasan, P. R. and Dumarçay, Jacques, Publications de I‘École françhise d‘Extrême-Orient, Mémoires archéologiques XVI (Paris, 1987) p. 31Google Scholar.

4 Ibid. p. 21.

5 Nagaswamy, R., Śiva Bhakti (New Delhi, 1989) pp. 220–1Google Scholar, mentions that there is an inscription in the Bṛhadīśvara temple in Tanjore recording the names of forty-eight singers and two instrumentalists, who were employed to recite the Tēvāram in the temple by Rājarāja Colan. The reciters are called Bhaṭārar there and, as in Darasuram, both ordinary and initiatory names are given. The initiatory names that Nagaswamy lists all follow the same pattern, with the exception of Vyomaśiva, Yogasiva, Satyaśiva, Pūrvaśiva, and Oṃkāraśiva.

6 See Goodall, , op cit., pp. xxii–xvii, fn. 24Google Scholar.

7 Published under the title Siddhāntaprakāśikā, ed. Damodaran, T. R. in Vol. XXXIII (1984Google Scholar) of The Journal of the Tanjore Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal Library and, more recently, under the title Siddhāntaprakāśsika of Sarvātmaśambhu. Translation with Notes, ed. Dwivedi, Vrajavallabha. Research Publication Series No. 9 (Varanasi, 1996)Google Scholar.

8 When the same Siddhāntadīpikā appears in IFP MS T. 284, it follows a work called the *Sarvamatopanyāsa, a doxographical work in ślokas (pp. 1–23) that covers a handful of rival doctrines, concluding with the śaivamata. There is an elaborate concluding verse on p. 23 and the colophon: iti sarvamatopanyāsaḥ sampūrṇaḥ. There follows an appendix of scriptural quotations, and then, on p. 30, the following couplet: iti sarvamatasthānām uktvā siddhāntam āditaḥ/ paścād aghoraśisγeṇa sarvātmaśambhunā mayā/ śaivānam samaγasthānām śaivasiddhāntadīpikā/ sadāśivapadasthena cittena samudīritā/ / iti śam. There then follows the familiar (because it has been published) Siddhāntadīpikā of Sarvātmaśambhu, which is probably the text referred to in the verse just quoted (though it is conceivable that it is a quite different work that merely happens to follow).

9 The original part of that work consists of an introduction of forty-five verses and a few concluding verses (which may not be by the hand of the compiler) that give some details of the compiler's lineage. The bulk of the work is a concatenation of chapters relating to prāγaścitta (from various tantras) quoted in their entirety (including colophons) and without any remarks connecting them or commenting on them by the compiler.

10 The other quotation I have not been able to locate, but I have hitherto searched through only one manuscript.

11 Brunner-Lachaux urges (p. lvi) that this work should be edited if manuscripts of it could be found other than the one corrupt and lacunose source known to her, IFP MS T. 231. (An edition from just this manuscript would certainly be difficult.) As she rightly points out (p. lvi, fn. 73), IFP MS T. 107 bears the title Jñānaratnāvalī, but wrongly (she mentions no reason why she knows the title to be wrong, so it is perhaps worth pointing out one indication: IFP MS T. 107 twice [pp. 6 and 17] gives labelled quotations from the *Jñānaratnāvalī). Brunner-Lachaux does not mention IFP MS T. 106 (which may be a transcript of part of the same codex as IFP MS T. 107; both are said to have been copied from a manuscript “belonging to C. Swāminātha Śivāchārya, Secretary, South Indian Archaka Association, Madrass”), part of which (pp. 13–60) also bears the tide Jñāanaratnāvalī. The text it gives begins with a maṅgala verse (lost in IFP MS T. 231) and shares a few large quotations with IFP MS T. 231, but the connecting prose, which includes the texts of mantras, is quite different. It seems to me probable that it is a manual based on the *Jñānaratnāvalī.

12 The lineages are the same from Dharmaśambhu, Jñānaśiva's guru's guru's guru, whom both accounts refer to as having mastered a lakh of verses: Trilocana's account (SP4: 423) uses the expression śivamatāgamalakṣavettā and the *Jñānaratnāvalī (IFP MS T. 231, p. 642) mentions him thus: śrīdhannaśambhur ity eṣa lakṣādhyāyīti visrutaḥ. Knowing a lakh of verses appears as an optional qualification for an ācārya, e.g. in Rāmanātha's *Siddhāntadīpikā [verse 133ab: lakṣādhyāyī bhavet saptasaṃhitādhyayano ‘thavā IFP MS T. 914, p. 8].

13 Brunner-Lachaux's Appendix II, which lists citations of other works in Trilocana's commentary on the SP, mentions two quotations of the *Mrgendrapaddhati (I have noticed three: on pp. 113, 114, 174), but she does not record that one of them is additionally labelled asmadgurubhiḥ (perhaps because this was the quotation she missed, or perhaps because IFP MS T. 170 misleadingly punctuates after asmadgurubhiḥ.

This useful appendix could have been made yet more useful if references to the pages of the MS had been consistendy been given. Not that the page references that do appear do not use the pagination of IFP MS T. 170 but the pagination (noted in the margins) of its exemplar.

14 The existence of this manuscript and the state of its text are mentioned by Brunner-Lachaux in footnote 61 on p. xxiv of her Mrgendrāgama. Section des rites et section du comportement avec la vrtti de Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇakaṇṭa. Traduction, Introduction et Notes, Publications de l’Institut français d’Indologie No. 69 (Pondicherry, 1985)Google Scholar. As Brunner-Lachaux there points out, the final colophon (IFP. MS T. 1021, p. 253) gives Naṭeśaguru's initiatory name as Vaktraśambhu, a “synonym” of Tatpuruṣaśiva.

15 Suspicion as to whether the author is really the famous Aghoraśiva is justified, since its final colophon is missing, the commentator Naṭesaguru does not mention its author's name, and I have noticed no cross-referencesin it to others of his works (or to it in his other works); but one of the internal prose colophons (IFP MS T. 1021, p. 12) uses the biruḍa “lakṣadvayādhyāpaka”, which we know from colophons in, for example, Aghoraśiva's *Sarvajnānottamvrtti (IFP MS RE 47818) and *Dviśatikālottamvrtti (IFP MS T. 176), and the internal colophon verses are in a plausible style. Compare, for instance, that of the conclusion of the *Sarvajnānottaravrtti (quoted Goodall, , op cit., p. xviGoogle Scholar) with the following: ity agnikāryabalibhojanabhaikṣamudrāhḥ proktā hitaya krpayā bhuvi dīkṣitanām/śrī … śśatasatnkhyapadyair leśād aghoraśivadeśikakunjareṇa/ (IFP MS T. 1021, p. 24). Furthermore we would not expect many references to other works in it because it is entirely in verse and because it is expressly intended to follow the teachings of a single scripture.

As an aside, I feel impelled to comment on the epithet of Aghoraśiva just mentioned, lakṣadvayādhyāpaka, because others have speculated rather wildly on what it means. The article on Aghoraśiva in the New Catalogus Catalogorum (an article now in need of thorough revision) improbably suggests that lakṣadvaya is an expression that refers to the Mīmāmsā. This is based on a misinterpretation of a verse that forms part of an anecdote about Śālikanāthamiśra, the Raja of Cochin and the Zamorin of Calicut narrated by C. Kunhan Raja on p. 7 of his introduction to Brhafī of Prabhākara Miśra śon the Māmāmsāsūtrabhāṣya of Śabarasvāninŝ with the Bhāṣyaparśiṣṭa of Śālikanātha [Tarkapāda], ed. Sastri, S. K. Ramanatha, Madras University Sanskrit Series, No. 3, Part II (Madras, 1937)Google Scholar. The verse in question is:

dvaite lakṣadvayādhītī cādvaite lakṣapāragaḥ

adyāpi vidyālābhāya jāganny eva jarann api.

C. Kunhan Raja's translation wrongly implies (by clumsy use of definite articles) that the Mīmārnsā is spoken of as consisting of two lakhs of verse-length units: “Having studied the two lakhs of Granthas in Dvaita (Mīmāmsā) and having reached the further shore of the lakh of Granthas in Advaita, even now I keep awake to earn knowledge though I am aged.” Clearly the speaker rather intends to say that he has studied two lakhs of verse-length units of text relating to the Mīmāmsā and half of that amount relating to Vedāntic Advaita. The no less improbable interpretation that Aghorasiva claimed to have taught two hundred thousand pupils has been put forward more recently by Dunuwila, Rohan A. (p. 69 of his fundamentally unreliable Śaiva Siddhānta Theology: a context for Hindu- Christian Dialogue, [Delhi: 1985])Google Scholar and, apparendy independendy, by Davis, Richard H. (p. 368 of his “Aghoraśiva's Background”, The Journal of Oriental Research, Madras Vols. LVI-LXII (1986–1992), 1992, pp. 367–78)Google Scholar and, with some hesitation, by Gengnagel, jörg (p. 14 of his Māyā, Purusa und Śiva: Die dualistische Tradition des Śivaismus nach Aghoraśivacāryās Tattvaprakāśavrtti, Beiträge zur Kenntnis siidasiatischer Sprachen und Literaturen 3, [Wiesbaden, 1996])Google Scholar. I propose that the expression means “teacher of two hundred thousand verses”, in support of which I adduce the above-mentioned verse cited by C. Kunhan Raja and the prescription of Rāmanātha's *Siddhāntadipikā cited in fn. 12 on p. 209 above.

16 The New Catalogus Catalogorum (s.v. Pañcāvaraṇastuti) records that a manuscript of a Pañcāvaraṇastuti (for which it mentions no author, but which might be the work of the famous Aghoraśiva) is described in a supplementary twentieth volume of the descriptive catalogue of the Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in the Saraswati Mahal Library, Tanjore: “TD 22062–4 XX Sup. No. 872 (p.)”. (This twentieth volume is not at the moment available to me.)

17 Anantaśambhu twice quotes from it attributing it to Aghoraśiva in his commentary on the Siddhāntaśārāvali ad verses 20 and 78 (ed. Parthasarathi, K. R., Viswanathan, T. H., Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras Vol. XVII.2, p. 25 and Vol. XVIII.2, p. 27.Google Scholar)

18 Naṭeśaguru's opening verses are these (IFP MS T. 1021, p. 65): śivaḤ śivatvasamprāptikāraṇain karuṇānidhim/ praṇamāmi gaṇeśaṃ ca gurusatnjnaṃ śivaiṃ tataḥ/ śrīkālottarabhedeṣu catuśśatikasaṃjnitam/ †sampradāyena garbheṇa† vivrtaṃ gurubhih purā sarvajnānottaradini śāstrāṇi vyākṛtāni ca/ śrīmanṃrgendrasatnjnasya (conj.; °saṃjnaca MS) paddhatiś ca kriyākrame/ rantā(em.; racitaṃ MS) gurubhih pūrvaṃ pancāvaraṇasamjnitam/ stotraṃ ca tena racitaṃ dhyānaśāstrānusāratḥ / śrīmanmrgendrapaddhatyāḥ praṇetāraś gurūttamam/ praṇipatya vidhāsyāmi fikām asyas †tv apekṣite†/ asyāś tu yāny anuktāni sūryārcādini santatau/ kriyamāṇāni cātraiva karmāṇy api vadamy aham.Note that it is not made explicit that Naṭeśa is the direct disciple of Aghoraśiva (and he was not his son, since the final colophon mentions that Naṭeśaguru's father was called Śarikara), but these verses do serve to identify the author of the paddhati with the author of a Pañcāvaraṇastotra. Naṭeśa's interesting work quotes widely from a similar range of early sources to thatdrawn on by the commentator on the SP, and it is not implausible that they should both have been co-pupils of a single guru. In one place (p. 165) he refers to a *Siddhāntasamuccaya, but I have not been able to identify a passage to which he might be alluding to the *Siddhāntasamuccaya attributed to a Trilocanaśiva (for which see below.

19 That Jñānaśiva might just be another name of Aghoraśiva has been suggested in the New Catalogus Catalogorum (s.v. Aghoraśiva); but even if Jñānaśiva were another of Aghoraśiva's names, he could not, because of what we know about his lineage, be the Jñānaśiva who authored the *Jñānaratnāvali and who appears to be the Jñānaśiva to whom the commentator on the SP refers. Furthermore the evidence for assigning the name Jñānaśiva to the famous Aghoraśiva is slim: a (prose) colophon of a manuscript of a part of a Kriyākramadyotikā (Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras MS No. 5436) recorded on p. 4233 of A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, Vol. XI by Rangacarya, M. (Madras, 1911)Google Scholar.

20 For confirmation of Aghoraśiva's date, see Goodall, , op. cit., p. xiii–xvii, fn. 24Google Scholar. Brunner-Lachaux had reached the conclusion that the Siddhāntasārāvali must have been written before the early 14th century (p. xlix, fn. 57), but only on the questionable evidence that that work is quoted in the Śataratnasaṅgraha, a work now traditionally attributed to the same Umàpati who was the great-grand-disciple of Meykaṇṭar (according to verse 5 of the pāyiram of his Civappirakācam) and who wrote a number of Saiddhāntika treatises in Tamil, including the Caṅkaṟpanirākaraṇam, the introduction to which recounts that it was based on a discussion held in Chidambaram in 1313 AD (both the Civappirakācam and the Caṅkaṟpanirākaraṇam appear in the 1988 University of Madras edition of the Meykaṇṭacāttiraṅkal). It is, I think, problematic to assume that the various Saiddhāntika works in Sanskrit and Tamil attributed to authors called Umāpati are all by the same man (see Goodall, , op. cit., p. xliv, fn. 99Google Scholar and Bhatt, N. R.'s “Paśu and Pāśa in Śataratna-saṅgraha” pp. 70–82Google Scholar in Śri Umāpati Śivācārya: His Life, Works and Contribution to Śaivism, ed. Janaki, S. S.. Madras: Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, 1996, p. 71)Google Scholar.

21 The opening is defective, hence the uncertainty: … prathitaś colamaṇḍale/ lebhe sekottarāṃ dīkṣām asmād asmatpitāmahaḥ/ nāmnāsadāśivo loke sabhāpatir iti śrutaḥ/ sa mahābhāgyayogena mahādevam ajījanat/ so ’pi labdhādhikāro ’smād abhūt siddhāntapāragaḥ/ īśānaśiva ity anyad dikṣāyām apy abhakta yaḥ/ (conj.; dīkṣāyām api bhakti yaḥ MS) vidvatsandehanāśāya nirvicāraḥ pravartate. (IFP MS T. 170, p. 1). IFP MS RE 25188 does not have these ślokas but joins IFP MST. 170 at this point for the following verse in śārdūlavikriḍita (IFP MS RE 25188, f. 142‘, lines 1–2:

sarvādhvordhvapade sthitaṃ paraśivaṃ śaktiṃ gaṇeśaṃ gurūn

natvā somaśivoktapaddhativare durbodhako yo șṃśakaḥ

tat sarvaṃ gurutaś ca śāstrasamayāt jñātaṃ pravakṣye kramād

āmardāśramadeśikānvayabhavaḥ śrinetraśmbhu[ḥ] sphuṭam

• paraśivaṃ śaktiṃ gaṇeśaṃ gurūn ] em.; paramaśivaṃ śaktiṣ gaṇeśeṃ gurūn 25188; paraśivabhaktiṃ gateśaṃ gurun T. 170 • ◦vare durbodhako yo ’ṃśakaḥ ] 25188; ◦paraṃ durbodhako ’dhośayah T. 170. •tat sarvaṃ ] 25188; jñātvā sad T. 170 • jñātaṃ pravakṣye ] 25188; jñātaprasaṅga◦ T. 170 •◦kānvayabhavaḥ ] conj.; ◦kāhvayabhava◦ 25188; ◦kānvayabhava◦ T. 170 (Brunner-Lachaux quotes this last line on p. xlix, fn. 58, replacing the “śri” by “[tri]”, but that would be unmetrical.)

I interpret this opening as follows: “ … who was famous [under the name …] in the Cōḻa region. From him my grandfather, by [initiatory] name Sadāśiva [and] known in the world as Sabhāpati, received initiation, followed by consecration [as an ācārya]. He [viz. Sabhāpati] by good fortune begot [my father] Mahādeva, and that [Mahādeva] too, who received in initiation another [name], that of Iśānaśiva, received responsibility [as an ācārya] from him [viz. from the same man as my grandfather received it from] and became one who reached the further shore of [knowledge of] the [Śaiva] Siddhānta. Without [the need to pause for] reflection he is active in destroying the doubts of the wise. After bowing to the supreme Śiva, who stands at the place above the entire universe, to his Śakti, to Gaṇeśa and to [all] gurus, I shall [now] teach clearly [and] in [due] order all those portions that are difficult to understand in the excellent paddhati of Somaśambhu [and] which I, Netraśambhu, born of the lineage of teachers of the āśrama of Āmarda[ka], have learnt also from [my] gurus in accordance with the rules of scripture.”

22 Identified as the author also of a *Jñānaratnāvaḷī of seven thousand granthas in the commentator's introduction to the first verse. This identification may be questioned on the grounds that that the Jñānaśiva who wrote the surviving *Jñānaratnāvalī claimed to live in Vārānasī, whereas the Sivapūjāstava concludes with: viprottuṅgaś coladeśī ca sūriḥ śambhoḥ pūjāstotram etat pavitram/ siddhāntajño jñānaśambhuḥ śivoktyā cakre bhaktyā bhuktaye muktaye ca. (Śivapūjāstavaḥ Savyākhyaḥ Jñānaśambhuśivācāryaviracitaḥ, ed. Subrahmaṇyaśāstrin, K. M.. Śivāgamasaṃghaprakāśita-granthasaṃkhyā 19. Devakoţṭai, 1935, pp. 109–10Google Scholar.) But a verse at the conclusion of the pavitrakavidhi of the *Jñānamtnāvalī (IFP MS T. 231, p. 222) reveals that its author was a brahmin from the Cola country (śricoḷadeśasambhūta-(conj.; -sambhūtā MS) -bhūsureṇa tapodhinā / śrimajjñānaśivenāyaṃ pavitrakavidhiḥ kṛtaḥ), and verses elsewhere (IFP MS T. 231, pp. 272 and 420) express his devotion for Dabhrasabheśvara of Chidambaram (perhaps his home town) and for Viśveśvara of Benares. (I am indebted to Professor Sanderson of All Souls College, Oxford, for pointing out to me these allusions to the South in the *Jñānaratnāvalī.)

23 The Ȝgrace of Kārtikeyaȝ is appropriate because the *Dviśatikālottara was taught by Siva to Skanda.

24 For the lateness of this particular work, see Goodall, , op. cit., pp. xliii–xlvGoogle Scholar.

25 e.g. Uttarakāmika, ācāryābhiṣekapatala 84ȓ85b, 87C–91b and Pūrvakāmika 1:180–19, 21 on p. 53Google Scholar, and Uttarakāmika 1:83–9 on pp. 81–2Google Scholar – the verse numeration is that of the reprints of the South Indian Archaka Association, Madras 1975 and 1988.

26 Richard Davis, on the other hand, places the Kāmika implausibly early: “I would propose, as a tentative approximation, that the most significant recasting of the Kāmikāgama took place in Tamilnad during the eleventh century, in light of Cola-period temple culture [sic] and under the strong influence of the Śaiva Siddhānta school. Some of its contents are no doubt older than this, and some have been added since, but the weight of the text is grounded, it seems to me, in that period” (p. 13 of Davis, Richard' Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshiping Śiva in Medieval South India (Princeton, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar)). This dating seems to me difficult to defend, because neither the works of Aghoraśiva, whom we know to have flourished in Chidambaram in the middle of the twelfth century, nor those of his immediate disciples quote from or refer to this published Kāmika. Furthermore the notion that the printed text is a “recasting” of an earlier Kāmika seems to me questionable, since there is no evidence to support it other than the fact that the name Kāmika is an old name for a Siddhāntatantra. Early quotations attributed to the Kāmika by Abhinavagupta (see Goodall, , op. cit., p. xliv, fn. 103Google Scholar) might equally be from an ancient lost Kāmika for which the surviving printed Kāmika was intended as a replacement. Davis' book is of course not primarily concerned with the historical development of the Śaiva Siddhānta, since it is intended as a synchronic account of Saiddhāntika ritual ‘at the high point of Śaiva ritualism” (Davis, , op cit., p. 19Google Scholar).

27 The placing of Tirumūlar's Tirumantiram between the fifth and the seventh century, for example, is widely accepted on the basis of scant evidence. As I have attempted to demonstrate (Goodall, , op. at., pp. xxxvii–xxxix, fn. 85Google Scholar), if the Tirumantiram were really written in the sixth century, then we would have to accept that we find in a Tamil work the first attestation of a nexus of ideas – with Sanskrit labels – that did not make its appearance in any other related Saiddhāntika literature until at least six centuries later and at the end of a development that we seem to be able to trace through Sanskrit sources that are later than the sixth century.

28 Thus we find Douglas Renfrew Brooks (on p. 47 of his The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Śākta Tantrism (Chicago, 1990)Google Scholar) asserting that “[b]y the sixth century, elements of Śrīvidyā in written form are present in the work of Tirumūlar” (see preceding footnote). Brooks apparently manages to believe this because he persuades himself that “Śrīvidyā, like most Sanskrit-based forms of Hindu Tantrism, certainly predates its first systematic literary presentations in the eleventh and twelfth centuries” Ibid.

29 The name is Siddhāntārthasamuccaya in the opening verses but Siddhāntasamuccaya in the concluding ones. The work is transmitted in IFP MS T. 284 (pp. 127–74) and IFP MS T. 801 (pp. 97–103) [both transcripts of Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras MS R 6635], in IFP MS T. 206 (pp. 56–111) and in Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras MS R 14393 (PP. 1–52).

30 Particularly striking is a passage (IFP MS T. 284, pp. 141ff) echoing Aghoraśiva's commentary on Tattvasaṅgraha 56c'57b, which in turn has been largely lifted from Rāmakaṇtha's commentary on Mokṣakārikā 146–7. I deduce that Trilocana follows Aghoraśiva here because, though both Trilocana's and Aghoraśiva's remarks and quotations derive ultimately from Rāmakaṇtha's commentary, there is a much closer relationship in phrasing between the passages by the two of them than there is between Rāmakaṇtha's commentary and either one of the two.

31 IFP MS T. 284, p. 174: śnlocanśivācāryaih sitāranyamathādhipaih/ sarvāgamāt samuddhrtya siddhāntasya samuccayam/ sarvesām śaivamukhyanām asmābhih samyag ī;ritam/ iti siddhāntasamuccayam/ trilocanaśivacāryacaraṇebhyo namaṅ. Note that the name given in the verse is śrīlocana. When the verse is quoted in A. A. Ramanathan and T. H. Viswanathan's introduction to the Siddhāntasārāvalī (Bulletin of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras XVII. 1, p. 31Google Scholar), this is “corrected” to Trilocana, but this emendation is unnecessary, for cf. the last opening verse of the commentary on the SP quoted in fn. 21 on p. 211 above. The same editors here point out that Anantaśambhu, the commentator on the Siddhāntasārāvalī, refers to its author as āmardakāśramanivāsi; but I am inclined to disregard this as Anantaśambhu failing to distinguish between belonging to the (legendary) vaṃśa of Āmardaka and living in a place called by that name.

32 The corrupt concluding verse runs (IFP MS T. 284, p. 188): trilocaneśena sitātaviśvara-(conj.; sītātavīśa- MS [unmetrical]) – stikādvaitāmajhadhipena/ visuddhasaivagamacakravartinapy akāri siddhāntarahasyasāraḥ/ I assume that the name Sitāṭavi (a conjecture, but necessary because the metre requires that the first syllable of the name be short) is, like the names Śvetaraṇya and Sitaranya, intended as a translation of the Tamil name Tiruvenkātu.

33 I mention this because Vrajavallabha Dwivedi, echoing the New Catalogus Catalogorum, encourages this erroneous identification in his introduction to his new edition of the Siddhāntasārāvali, where he refers to the text as the Sarvamatasiddhāntarahasyasāra and identifies it with the *Siddhāntasamuaaya (Siddhāntasārāvali of Trilocanaśivācācārya. Short Commentary by Saddharma Ujjayini Pithādhiśvar Shri 1008 Jagadguru Marulasiddha Śivācārya Mahāswātmiji. Full Commentary and Edited by Dwivedi, Pt. Vrajavallabha, Research Publication Series 16 (Varanasi, 1998) p. 6.Google Scholar

34 Note that the manuscript numbers given are said (p. liii) to be those given in the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, but they are not the microfilm reel numbers of that project; they appear rather to be the numbers of the National Archives, Kathmandu.

35 Thus colophon verse 4 on p. 418.

36 See, e.g., 1:15a (p. 14, fn. 44), 1:19b (p. 18, fn. 55), 1:36b (p. 31, fns. 95 and 96), 1:37b (p. 32, fn. 99), 1:40a (p. 32, fn. 105), 1:47b (p. 40, fn. 123), 1:50b (pp. 42–3, fn. 132), etc., etc.

37 e.g. 1:19d (p. 18, fn. 56), 1:21a (p. 19, fn. 60), 1:22a (p. 20, fn. 62 – but here Brunner-Lachaux does not tell us what the readings of the editions are), 1:31a (p. 28, fn. 84), 1:33b (p. 28, fn. 88bis), 1:53d (pp. 44–5, fn. 148), 1:60b (p. 47, fn. 162), etc.

38 Since this expression is today so variously understood among indologists, I must state what 1 understand by it. A critical edition is an editor's reconstruction of a text as he supposes it to have been at a particular time in its transmission (in this case the time of its composition). Although it is a hypothesis, it is made on the basis of all evidence for the wording of the text that the editor can consult (ideally all surviving evidence) and by an editor who has striven to understand as far as possible the ideas of the author(s) as well as the relationships between the sources that make up that evidence, and it is equipped with an apparatus that reports all of that evidence that is relevant to the constitution of the text (in some cases this means all the evidence). Such editions, as yet all too rare, are invaluable tools for all who are interested – from any perspective – in texts and their transmissions.

39 Actually there are instances where she does not report even D's readings, e.g. 1:22a (p. 20, fn. 62).

40 e.g. śatam tu in 1:52a should be corrected (as is implied by the translation and by fn. 139 on p. 42) to śatādi; prajapeñca in 1:52c (p. 45), should read prajapec ca; athalirigapratisthāyām in 2:1 (p. 69) should read atha lingapratisthāyāṃ.

41 Prominent among the unpublished though surviving texts that Somaśambhu used for this part of the text are the *Piṅgalāmata, the *Mohaśūrottara, and the *Mayasaṅgraha (on which a commentary by Bhaţṭa Rāmakaṇţa II's disciple, Bhaţţa Vidyākaṇṭha II, also survives, described by Goodall, , op. cit., pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar), all of which deserve editions.

Aside from these pratiṣṭhātantras, I propose that the *Parākhyatantra (part of the relevant portion of which is quoted by Goodall, , op. cit., pp. liv–lv, fn. 121Google Scholar) served as the source of the list of tattveśvaras tabulated in Pl. 1, p. 467.