independent school of Kashmiri Saivism. We
find support for this view both in the tradition
and in the specific character of Spanda doctrine
and terminology.
C h a p t e r 4 B a s i c F e a t u r e s o f t h e S t a n z a s o n V i b r a t i o n
According to Ksemaraja, the Stanzas on Vibra-tion are so called because they teach that one's own true nature is Siva Himself, W h o is the pulsing radiance (sphuratta) of consciousness which is the energy of its vibration (spanda-sakti).1 Similarly, Rajanaka Rama declares that this work has been given this name because it expounds Spanda, which is the subtle vibration of the pure contemplation of one's own true nature (svabhava), and the supreme power of consciousness, which is God's most intimate and authentic attribute (dharma).2 Consisting of just fifty-one short verses,3 the formal struc-ture of the Stanzas is typical of the short, theo-logical Sanskrit tract that, as a concise statement of basic principles, could be easily learned and even committed to memory. A well known example of this type of text is the Stanzas on the Samkhya (Samkhyakarika) that expounds, in hardly more then seventy verses, the essentials of classical Samkhya and is considered to be a root text of that school.
More specifically, we know of a number of short tracts of this sort that were popular in Kashmir. Among them, for example, is the Stan-zas of the Sage Adhara (Adharakarika). Original-ly a short tract of some hundred verses expound-ing in brief the basic tenets of a form of monistic Vaisnavism, Abhinava modified it into a monis-tic Saiva tract known by its other name - the Essence of Ultimate Reality (Paramarthasara).4
Other notable examples are the Stanzas on Liber-ation (Moksakarika) and the Stanzas on Worldly Experience (Bhogakarika), both written by Sady-ojyoti who lived possibly a century or two before Vasugupta. Through these short Karika works and other brief tracts, generally a hundred or fewer verses in length, he was among the first to chalk out the basic outlines of the theology of the dualist Saivasiddhanta. The continuing popular-ity among Kashmiri Saivasiddhantins of this lit-erary form is attested by the Stanzas on Sound (Nadakdrika) written later by Ramakantha, who also commented on Sadyojyoti's works.
This was also a commonly accepted literary form among monistic Saivites, one of the best examples of which is the Stanzas on the Recogni-tion of God (Isvarapratyabhijnakarika) by Utpaladeva. Written some hundred years after the Stanzas, it is one of the root texts of the Kashmiri Saiva school of Recognition (Pratya-bhijna) which draws its name from it, as does the Vibration (Spanda) school from the Stanzas on Vibration. Clearly, the form in which the Stanzas on Vibration is cast indicates an attempt to establish through it an independent school of which it was to be the root text. The Stanzas was successful in this while other similar tracts were not. Thus, for example, we know of the exis-tence of a tract called the Stanzas on Undivided Reality (Abhedarthakarika) from quotations by Bhagavadutpala.5 This work has not only been
The Stanzas on Vibration
lost but is never quoted by any other Kashmiri author. The Stanzas on Vibration and the Stan-zas on Recognition, were, on the contrary, so well accepted that they inspired the writing of com-mentaries through which they gained sufficient depth and extent to be considered root texts of their respective schools.
From another point of view, we can think of the Stanzas as one of the many short Sanskrit tracts popular in Kashmiri circles, dealing with theological, philosophical and soteriological matters. We can get a good idea of their basic form from the ones still available in print or manuscript. There are a number of different types of such texts. One is the short tract set in the form of a dialogue between divine beings, usually Siva (or one of His forms) and the god-dess. They present themselves as revelation and so are rightly considered to be scripture even though such texts may not contain the word 'Tantra' or the like in their title. Usually more concerned with Yoga and furnishing brief, at times cryptic, explanations of esoteric matters rather than going into lengthy descriptions of rituals and related matters, their size conforms to the basic purpose for which they were com-posed. An example of this type of text is the Kulapancasika.6 It is set in the form of a dia-logue between Bhairava (the wrathful form of Siva) and His consort in the course of which Bhairava makes a few statements concerning some of the basic elements of Kaula Tantric Yoga and defines a few Tantric terms related to it. Again, it happens at times that a lengthy Tantra may contain a long, relatively compact and coherent passage dealing with basic princi-ples or Yoga that comes to assume an impor-tance in its own right and so acquires an inde-pendent existence, A well known example is the Vijnanabhairava which is, on its own authority, considered to be part of the Rudrayamala-tantra.7
Another important type of this genre of text is the theological ode (stotra) addressed to the god or goddess. Such odes are generally com-posed by known authors but they may also be drawn from the Tantras. An ode to the deity is an opportunity to refer to its divine qualities which makes of the ode both an exposition of basic theological and metaphysical principles as
20
well as a radiant mystical vision of the devotee who, wonder struck, contemplates the mystery of Deity.
The Stanzas is not scripture, an ode, a philo-sophical or even a purely yogic tract, while com-bining admirably all their qualities. At the same time the Stanzas is poetry. Bhagavadutpala styles the author accordingly as a 'great poet' (mahakavi) and quotes a verse from the Mirror of Suggestion (Dhvanyaloka).8 This well known work on poetics characterises the soul of poetry as its capacity to convey a deeper, suggested sense (dhvani) beyond its evident meaning.
Bhagavadutpala thus implies that the Stanzas are full of suggested meaning and invites us in this way to read and re-read them carefully, attentively alert to the richness of their teach-ings and the infinite, spiritual reality to whose existence they allude, that can only be discov-ered through developing the consciousness to which application of the teachings leads by Siva's powerful grace.
Searchable, web-optimized PDF created using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION Maestro
C h a p t e r 5 The A u t h o r s h i p o f t h e S t a n z a s o n V i b r a t i o n
We come now to a vexing problem which has been the source of dispute from the earliest times, namely, who wrote the Stanzas on Vibra-tion? Rajanaka Rama seems to tell us indirectly that there was some doubt about this even in his day, when he writes in one of the introductory verses to his commentary that "someone threaded (the teachings) together with his extending intellect. Some others made of it two threads."1 The first 'thread' that Rajanaka Rama is alluding to here is clearly the Sivasutra ('sutra' means 'thread'), while the second 'thread' is the Stanzas, also known as the Spandasutra. Thus just as, as we shall see, the Spanda commenta-tors disagree about the identity of the author of the Stanzas, so do modern scholars. Chattcrjce,2
Pandit3 and Kaw4 maintain that their author was Kallata, Vasugupta's disciple. Pandey5 and Gnoli,6 on the other hand, are of the opinion that they were written by Vasugupta himself.
Although this problem has already been dis-cussed by a number of scholars7 and there seems to be little hope of resolving it definitively, even so it would not be out of place to summarize the main facts here and so take the opportunity to make a few observations of our own.
Let us see first what Kallata himself has to say. Kallata concludes his Brief Explanation (vrtti) on the Stanzas in the usual manner with a few verses containing biographical data. The penultimate verse reads:
(I) Kallata have elucidated the nectar of Spanda extracted by Vasugupta from the ocean of the Sivasutra taught (him) in a dream by Mahesa on Mahadeva mountain.8
It seems that the 'nectar of Spanda' (spandamrta) may have been the name of a work. The question then arises as to whether the Spandamrta was an independent work by Vasugupta or was it the Stanzas7. Chatterjee, who believes the author of the Stanzas to be Kallata, opts for the former possibility and says accordingly that the Stanzas: "may not be any-thing more than the Spandamrta of Vasugupta with only a few additions and alterations of his (i.e. Kallata's) own."9 K. C. Pandey, however, sustains the latter possibility and so believes Vasugupta to be the author.1 0 Thus he agrees with Ksemaraja who declares in the beginning of his complete commentary on the Stanzas, the Discernment of Vibration (Spandanirnaya), that he had already 'relished the nectar of Spanda' in his earlier commentary, the Essence of Vibration, which was just on the first verse, but was now exerting himself once more to enjoy its relish to the full. There seems little reason to doubt that Ksemaraja's play on words was consciously intended to be a way of declaring that the Spandamrta to which Kallata refers and the Stanzas are one and the same. If this is true, then Kallata is basically telling us that he did no more
The Stanzas on Vibration
than explain the Stanzas composed by Vasugup-ta. But although this would appear to be the most natural way of understanding Kallata's words, other commentators did not take this to be what he meant. Thus, commenting on a verse the author of the Stanzas dedicates to his teacher, where he says: "I revere the speech of the master," Rajanaka Rama explains: "I praise the speech of the master Vasugupta. The speech (vac) of the flow of the nectar of Spanda, the secret of all secret teachings...."1 2 Rajanaka Rama clearly implies here that 'spandamrta' is not another name for the Stanzas. Moreover, if Vasugupta is the master to which this verse refers, then it must have been composed by Kallata who was the only one who could possi-bly have addressed himself to Vasugupta in this way. Ksemaraja's interpretation is quite differ-ent. According to him the compound 'guru-bharati is not to be taken as an ascriptive geni-tive compound (sasthitatpurusa) meaning 'the discourse of the master' but as an attribute com-pound (bahuvrihi). In this case the word 'guru' does not mean 'master' but 'great' or 'glorious' (mahati), thus the compound means 'glorious discourse', and refers to the highest level of speech (para vac) which is the pure reflective awareness of consciousness.13
But while Rajanaka Rama timidly asserts in this indirect and ambigious way that Kallata was the author of the Stanzas thus betraying his doubts, Ksemaraja certainly was convinced that Vasugupta wrote them and he finds several occasions in his commentaries to declare this to be the case.14 On the other hand, Bhaskara is, as we have already noted, clearly of the contrary opinion.15 Bhagavadutpala also unambigiously attributes the Stanzas to Kallata in the introduction to his commentary1 6 and refers to him throughout as the author. Moreover, his recension of the Stanzas contains an extra verse at the end which is not found in that of the other commentators. It reads:
Receiving this secret from the master Vasugupta who beholds the true nature of reality ( tattvartha ), the venerable Bhatta Kallata correctly set it down in verse.17
Pandey seeks to find ambiguity in the San-skrit to show that this verse should not be read
22
in this way and that Kallata was therefore not the author of the Stanzas.18 There can be no doubt, however, of Bhagavadutpala's conviction of Kallata's authorship and the pride he takes in being, as he felt at least, the recipient of the Spanda teachings transmitted in a direct line to him from Kallata himself.19 Utpala's opinion, and the fact that this verse is only known to him, leads one to suspect that it may have been writ-ten by him. That it was not impossible that he took the liberty to tamper with his text seems to find support in what may have been a similar alteration of the text on the part of Ksemaraja who, equally convinced that Vasugupta was the author, may have added an extra verse of his own to the text. Thus we find that Ksemaraja's recension also includes an extra verse at the end that is known only to him. This verse reads:
May this wealth of knowledge that, hidden in the cave of all men's heart, is so hard to discover, bring them peace (Siva) as it did Vasugupta, once he found it.20
Whoever read the Stanzas along with Kse-maraja's commentary and respected Ksemara-ja's authority would accept that this verse was a part of the original text of the Stanzas. Thus if Mahesvarananda, who belongs to the 13th cen-tury, or thereabouts, and lived in South India, quotes this verse,21 this fact merely serves to confirm the high regard he displays everywhere in his work for Ksemaraja and that he therefore understood the Stanzas through Ksemaraja's commentary. In fact there seems little room to doubt that the Stanzas in Kallata's time did not include this verse because, given that he wrote the Brief Explanation (vrtti) on it, which nobody doubts, he does not include this verse (or that found in Bhagavadutpala's recension for that matter) in his own recension. This is further confirmed by Rajanaka Rama's Extensive Expla-nation (vivrti) which follows Kallata faithfully and terminates in the same place as do all the manuscripts we have of the Stanzas alone and those that include Kallata's commentary. We cannot, therefore, agree with Rastogi who main-tains that Ksemaraja believes that Vasugupta wrote the Stanzas on the authority of the last verse in his recension22 and supports this view by pointing out that those commentators who