The Journal of Hindu Studies 2012;5:210–231 doi:10.

1093/jhs/his020
Advance Access Publication 2 July 2012

Caught in the Net of Ś@stra: Devotion and its

Limits in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus
Jason Schwartz*
*Corresponding author: j_schwartz@umail.ucsb.edu

Abstract: This article aims to persuade that much light is shed on the history of

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

South Asian devotion when we retell its story in terms of the encounters of
specific sectarian communities with the conventions of the Sanskrit knowledge
systems and their sustained engagement with ś@stric interpretive practices.
Limiting our focus to a single recurrent discursive trend, I argue that as texts
and traditions aspire to acclimate themselves into the idiom of the ś@stric
mainstream, a process which almost inevitably involves acculturation to the
interpretive practices of the P+rva Mam@:s@ school of ritual exegesis, their un-
derstanding of what constitutes religious action and the character and role of the
religious actor is reimagined in response to an encounter with Mam@:saka
sensibilities. As an integral part of this process, the devotional elements of the
tradition are minimized and the lexeme bhakti is denuded of rhetorical force and
particularized semantic value. Through documenting how this process plays out
within the realm of emergent Śaiva textual communities over the course of the
first millennium, as they gradually abandon their resistance to taking represen-
tatives of the Sanskrit knowledge systems as their primary dialogical partners,
I begin to reconstruct both the depth of the contribution of the Śaiva traditions
to the developing discourse on bhakti as well as the conditions of possibility that
led to them being elided from our own historiographical record.

Recent inquiries into Śaiva Dharma literature1 suggests that the early Śaiva
communities set out to construct an alternative social order, offset from
Br@hma>ical normativity, with its own institutions, systems of practice, and
sociology of knowledge. The resulting Śaiva social imaginary encompassed not
just a range of competing doctrinal stances, but entirely distinctive value systems,
with some of its most compelling voices unabashedly rejecting both the content
and modes of understanding that were foundational to South Asian knowledge
systems. The circa eighth-century Śivadharmottara (ŚDhU) addresses the matter
with pointed concision:

The pur@>as, the Mah@bh@rata, the Veda, and the exceedingly great ś@stras;
(these) expansive texts of meager dharma destroy a human life.
The burden of Men, whose minds are deluded, are sons, wives, and so forth;

ß The Author 2012. Oxford University Press and The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com
 Jason Schwartz 211

the burden of the learned is ś@stra, which creates an obstruction to the practice
of true yoga.
He who wants to know everything, (thinking) “This has to be known” “This has
to be known” even at a thousand years of age, does not arrive at the end of the
ś@stras.
Having recognized that life is fragile, (and) the extent of the imperishable;
having cast off the net of ś@stra, one should engage in that which transcends the
worldly.
What use is a person, capable and embodied, even if he is a pa>nit,
if he is unable to bear the burden of merit that transcends this world?
Although a pa>nit, he is a fool, although possessing power, he is powerless;

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

2
(such is the state of one) who is unable to lift himself out of sams@ra.
_

Succinctly, the Śivadharmottara vividly re-imagines the process of acculturation into

the knowledge practices of the Sanskrit knowledge systems as entangling the hapless
scholar in the net of ś@stra (ś@straj@la) in a manner that inhibits access to the soter-
iologically beneficial practices and insights that might enable him to escape his state
of ontological bondage. From its perspective, greater understanding of the world and
its contents as mediated through systematic scholastic modes of reflection and
classification are a fool’s errand, for the scope of what could be known is effectively
unlimited and the act of knowing itself is a largely thankless task that bears little fruit.
At the same time that it challenges the efficacy of scholastic knowledge, our
passage also questions the validity of the normative textual canon, rather
audaciously claiming that such works provide us with meagre insight into the
nature of dharma. In order to substantiate such an outrageous claim that would
have us accept that neither the tale of the Dharmar@ja nor the inquiry into dharma
at the foundation of Jaimini’s s+tras offer us any meaningful insight pertaining to
dharma, dharma itself must be appropriated and the lexeme re-inscribed with
tradition-specific particularised meanings. It is no accident that already in the
earliest work of the corpus, the circa fifth-century Śivadharma (ŚDh), in the very
same breath that this self-defined ‘dharmaś@stra’ is dismissing the agniXbhoma and
similar sorts of y@jñas as costly and ineffective,3 it presents its own system of
practice and values as constituting the supreme (parama) dharma with Śiva himself
being represented as the knower of all dharma (sarvadharmajña).4 Especially in light
of the disciplinary history of the normative dharmaś@stras, which emerge out of a
Vaidika milieu and which by the seventh century had become inextricable from
P+rva Mam@:saka modes of interpretation, this combination of delegitimisation
paired with appropriation can plausibly be read as a deliberate rhetorical strategy
on the part of the early Śaiva authors to enable their scriptures to supplant the
strictures that support Br@hma>ical normativity. As the Śivadharma proclaims:

The one who knows the four Vedas is not dear to me.
Even a dog cooker who is my devotee, one may give to him or take from him.
And he is to be worshipped just like I am (to be worshipped.).5
212 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

Instead of valorising the pious learned Br@hma>a ritualist, the Śivadharma extols
the virtues of the Śaiva devotee, which accrue to him seemingly independent of
his social status, and encourages his enfranchisement within the logic of norma-
tive social exchange. In place of the worship of Br@hma>as as gods on earth,
drawing on its understanding of the nature of dharma, the text encourages
people to worship the devotees of Śiva, regardless of their social origins, as if
they were Śiva himself. In the Mah@bh@rata, the delineation of dharma proves
maddeningly elusive, and for the P+rva Mam@:sakas, an intrinsically inaccessible
dharma falls outside of the possible scope of human perception and can only be
accessed through the mediation of the ingenious hermeneutic provided by Jaimini.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

The early Śaiva communities, on the other hand, saw dharma as something tan-
gible, a knowable form of embodied knowledge, with clearly defined content and
limits at once familiar and surprising. In contrast to its rivals, our text is surpris-
ingly clear:

This essence (s@ra) of the Śivadharma is Śivabhakti.6

Thus, almost half a millennium before the Bh@gavata Pur@>a, the Śivadharma
corpus places the devotional problematic at the heart of the religious experience,
and offers its own precocious 8-fold taxonomy of the dimensions of bhakti, pre-
sented in a register eerily reminiscent of language that the scholarly community
typically equates with normative VaiX>ava traditions7:

And that bhakti, which has eight limbs,8 is to be performed always with effort.
Tenderness towards my devotees, delight in p+j@ (for others) and one’s own
worship.
Arcan@ with bhakti for one’s own sake, and the work of the body (for the sake of
devotion).
Bhakti when listening to my stories, transformations of the limbs, of the eyes, of
sounds,9 always recollecting me, devotional song, and living self sufficiently.
Indeed, when this eightfold bhakti dwells even in a mleccha, he is Lord of
Br@hma>as, a sage, a wealthy man, and a scholar . . ..10
He who gives to me with devotion, leaf, flower, fruit, water with the bh@va of
prati (love) I will consume (the offerings) of the one whose self is restrained.11

Needless to say, the integration of such materials into the Śivadharma corpus
raises interesting questions about the discursive location that bhakti occupies in
first millennium religious discourse. Sadly, though it is a matter to which I have
directed my energies for some time, this is not the occasion for pursuing this line
of inquiry. Instead, we will direct our focus to the somewhat less glamorous but
equally important story of how over the course of the first millennium the in-
creasingly erudite interpreters and composers of the Śaiva scriptural corpus
became bound by the net of the ś@stras and consciously divested themselves of
 Jason Schwartz 213

their devotional heritage in manner that has cast a miasmic shadow over our
own historiographies. In a stark departure from the independent vision of the
Śaiva dharma, the later Saiddh@ntika revelations of the Śaiva canon increasingly
came to treat representatives of the Sanskrit knowledge systems as their primary
dialogical partners. Towards this end, they set out to demonstrate that thematic
issues emerging from within the world of Br@hma>ical knowledge have been
accounted for within a Saiddh@ntika framework and that ś@stric interpretive
practices are integral to the elucidation of revealed scripture and thus can be
readily accommodated within the world of Śaiva knowledge.12 In essence, this
mode of apologetics itself becomes responsible for a fundamental re-inscribing of

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

the content of Śaiva values, thus contributing to the concealment of the consid-
erable contributions made by Śaiva discourse to the history of devotion in South
Asia.
This article aims to persuade that much light is shed on the history of South
Asian devotion in the first millennium of the Common Era when we retell its story
in terms of the encounters of specific sectarian communities with the conventions
of the Sanskrit knowledge systems and their sustained engagement with ś@stric
interpretive practices.
In the present context, we will limit our focus to a single recurrent discursive
trend; namely, as texts and traditions aspire to acclimate themselves into the
idiom of the ś@stric mainstream, a process that almost inevitably involves accul-
turation to the interpretive practices of the P+rva Mam@:s@ school of ritual exe-
gesis, their understanding of what constitutes religious action and the character
and role of the religious actor is re-imagined in response to an encounter with
Mam@:saka sensibilities. As an integral part of this process, the devotional elem-
ents of the tradition are minimised and the lexeme bhakti is denuded of rhetorical
force and particularised semantic value.
At the centre of our analysis lies the Mataṅgap@rameśvara, an Upabheda, or
supplementary ?gama, associated with the dualistic Śaiva Siddh@nta tradition of
the Mantram@rga.13 From its eccentric mantra system to its retention of archaic
and transgressive practices typically associated with power-seeking s@dhaka
adepts, the Mataṅga shows strong indications of lingering associations with the
very sorts of non-tantric Atim@rga Śaiva traditions that were also most likely
responsible for the production of the devotionally oriented texts of the Śiva
dharma.14 Yet at the same time that the Mataṅga gestures in the direction of
older traditions, it is also radically innovative, for its incorporation of these ma-
terials is placed in the service of reframing the Śaiva ?gama so as to place them
into dialogue not only with their Śaiva rivals, but also to situate themselves within
the intellectual milieu of more formalised Indian ś@stra. In other words, the
Mataṅgap@rameśvara can fruitfully read as an attempt, initially quite successfully,
to inhabit both worlds, much to the distaste of the later commentarial tradition,
which seeks to denude the work of its more archaic dimensions, at the expense of
its devotional orientation. As such, it offers us perhaps unparalleled access to a key
214 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

moment in the articulation of a recognisably Śaiva Siddh@nta identity.15 In this

way, in both its initial formulation as well as its reception history, the
Mataṅgap@rameśvara offers an almost perfect instantiation of larger discursive
trends that help us to account for the increasingly marginal place that devo-
tional religion was to occupy in the ś@stric imagination as the first millennium
unfolded.
The Mataṅgap@rameśvara begins with the expected vision of Kail@sa, imagined as
a realm where the devotees of the Lord keep his company dancing in ecstasy, free
from pain, stupidity, and accidental death. Within the realm of tantric discourse,
such a venue typically provides an occasion in which one of the gods or sages

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

inquires with the Śaiva Godhead, or one of his representatives, concerning specific
forms of esoteric knowledge or more general soteriological matters, sparking a
conversation that then occupies the remainder of the text. This narratological
tropos provides an excuse for organising the presentation of key elements of
doctrine and practice. In the Mataṅga, however, before the inevitable descent of
the talking heads, we first are treated to a story.16
Thus we are introduced to Mataṅga, a tiger among sages, and told that he is one
whose impurities are incinerated by the fire of knowledge (jñ@n@gnidagdhakaluXa)
one whose self and mind are solely meditating on Śiva (śivadhy@naikacitt@tm@).
When we encounter him, he is established in enstatic meditation (sam@dh@v
@sthita$) with his mind singularly focused on meditating on Śiva. As it so happens,
as he is meditating, the wind passes through some stalks of bamboo, producing a
soft sweet sound, and the distraction causes the sage to lose his meditational focus
(lakXya) on the supreme Lord, like a male elephant (mataṅga) led away into the
forest by a female elephant. Undeterred, Mataṅga snatches up a stalk of bamboo
and fashions it into a flute. He begins to play fervently (bhPśa:) with the supreme
bhakti (par@ bhakti) and the power of his playing is such that the master of every-
thing (viśvan@yaka) comes to down to Earth, appearing before him in the form of
Śraka>bha.

Having become one who is standing before Tryambaka, with his inner soul
enlivened, the sage played the flute fervently with par@ bhakti.
Then he, the Divine Lord Hara, along with P@rvata, showed his own body to the
ascetic Matanga.
_
Suddenly the Br@hma>a saw Śraka>bha, the Lord of the universe.
Having worshipped the Lord’s feet, he prostrated on the earth like a stick
Having washed his (Śraka>bha’s) feet with eyes filled with tears, because (he
was) possessed by the intensity of bhakti towards him (tadbhaktimanyor @veś@t),
the sage then began to recite stotras to him.17

Overcome by being in the presence of his Lord, because he was possessed by the
fervour of bhakti towards him, (tadbhaktimanyor aveś@t) Mataṅga falls prostrate on
the ground. He begins to weep so profusely that his tears wash the feet of the Lord,
 Jason Schwartz 215

spontaneously replicating the @rghya waters that a Br@h:a>a would offer an hon-
oured guest as a codified expression of hospitality. In another departure from the
typical register of the ?gamas, while such texts formulaically glorify the god and
his deeds, in an idiom instantly recognisable to scholars of bhakti literature,
Mataṅga speaks in a distinctive personal voice not only of the great and merciful
nature of his Lord, but of his own profound unworthiness and the immensity of his
sin, as hard as diamond. Ultimately, with great affection, Parameśvara offers the
delighted (hPXb@tm@) Mataṅga a boon, causing the sage’s body to erupt in horripil-
ations (rom@ñcitavapus). The chapter concludes by telling us that through worship-
ping the Lord with his sense of commitment, which took the form of the flute

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

playing (ve>v@kPtaniścayena), Mataṅga received access to the ocean of ś@stra, the
formalised ?gamic teaching.
To a scholar of bhakti reading comparatively across sectarian and disciplinary
boundaries, this model of an embodied bhakti theology is of course nothing new. In
fact, such a representation is all but identical to the characterisation of the com-
ponents and preconditions of the embodied devotional experience we find in the
Bh@gavata Pur@>a. Thus 11.14.23-24 reads:

Without the hair of the body bristling, without the heart melting, without being
inarticulate due to the tears of bliss (@nand@śru),17 without bhakti, how can
consciousness be purified? He whose speech is stammering, whose heart
melts, who weeps repeatedly and sometimes laughs, who unabashedly sings
and dances—such a person, united by bhakti with me, purifies the world.19
(Holdrege 2012)

It is in passages such as this that Western and modern Indian scholars have
located what has been represented as the Bh@gavata’s grand contribution to Indian
thought, namely an unprecedented sensibility in which abstract devotion to a
personal deity is married to intense affective emotional experience. Thus, writing
in the twenties, J.N. Farquhar tells us that what distinguishes the Bh@gavata Pur@>a
‘from all earlier literature is its new theory of bhakti . . . . Bhakti in this work is a
surging emotion which chokes the speech, makes the tears flow, and the hair thrill
with pleasurable excitement . . . . Thus the whole theory and practice of bhakti in
this pur@>a is very different from the bhakti of the Bhagavadgat@ and of R@m@nuja
(Holdrege 2012)’.
Ironically, as we have seen, it is precisely those elements that we would be
inclined to read as representing the Mataṅgap@rameśvara’s grand contributions to
the history of Indian devotionalism, heralding the Bh@gavata’s more systematic
articulation of a theology of bhakti, which reflect some of the most archaic parts
of its inheritance.
Intriguingly, our Mataṅga shares with the Bh@gavata not only the formulation
itself, but also the rhetorical function that it plays in the wider text. Just as the
Bh@gavata verses themselves present this formulation of bhakti specifically in the
216 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

service of a polemic against the S@:khya, Yoga, and Mam@:s@ traditions, each
inadequate because it fails to grasp that bhakti offers a superior path to realising
soteriological goals, a similar dynamic structures the Mataṅga’s own narrative.
Thus, when we first encounter the sage, he is quite specifically depicted as an
accomplished adept established in a state of enstatic meditation (sam@dh@v @sthita)
a devout Śaiva practicing some analogue of the sort of ?tim@rgic yoga that the
Śivadharma implored the devotee to embrace once he had freed himself from
the net of ś@stra. It is quickly made apparent to the reader that the issue is not
the inadequacy of the exemplary yogin himself, but rather of his mode of practice.
All it takes is one sweet sound (madhura: svaram), which is very soft (śanai$

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

śanai$), and this master yogin entirely loses his concentration and his mind falls
away from Śiva. The total inefficacy of sustained yogic practice is then immediately
contrasted with the wonder that is bhakti. Just as one soft sound was sufficient for
overturning the strenuous efforts of yogic discipline, one slight sound, issuing out
of the very same bamboo, when combined with the supreme bhakti, is enough to
cause the Lord himself to manifest on Earth.
Before we set aside the root text and engage with its commentary, which sys-
tematically sets out to undermine most of the interpretive choices we have just
explored, it will prove profitable to reflect in somewhat more general terms on
what our narrative has to say about the role of the ritual actor, his place in the
world, and the nature of religious action. Succinctly, we are told of how at one
specific moment in time a Śaiva yogin who talked to God in a distinctive voice,
responding organically to changes in his environment, came to a new kind of
religious understanding. Mataṅga’s religious practice is from the outset explicitly
Śaiva, and over the course of the story he graduates from ineffective meditation, to
ecstatic flute playing, to the composition of devotional verse. Noticeably, there is
no mention made of Mataṅga engaging in formal ?gamic ritual procedures nor are
there any discussions of his eligibility for receiving scriptural revelation as
founded on the internalisation of Śaiva doctrine. Instead, throughout the text,
the emphasis is placed on the spontaneous nature of his practice, arising from
his own inner state of attainment, and it is this that pleases the God. This is
perhaps best exemplified by the vivid image of the tears of the sage, the product
of an overwhelming visceral embodied devotional experience, of their own accord
manifesting in a manner that simulates the routinised prescribed practices for
welcoming an honoured guest. Thus, while the chapter culminates in the revela-
tion of a systematic body of prescriptive knowledge, the preconditions for this
revelation are the sage’s particularised devotional experience.
In contrast, the Mataṅgap@rameśvara’s only surviving commentary, by the
ninth-century Kashmiri Br@hma>a exegete Bhabba R@maka>bha II, heir to the lin-
eage of householder Śaivas who effectively reinvented the Siddh@nta, virtually
rewrites the passages we have just examined through the medium of creative
exegesis in the service of a markedly different agenda. In his hands, the
Mataṅga becomes a story about how a pious Vedic Br@hma>a converted to
 Jason Schwartz 217

Śaivism and achieved his goals through the meticulous practice of ?gamic ritual.
Momentarily, we will look at R@maka>bha’s interpretive choices in more detail, but
first it is perhaps worthwhile to briefly place his intellectual agenda in the some-
what broader context of his scriptural tradition, which, in the interim since the
Mataṅga’s composition, had redoubled its both constructive and critical engage-
ment with a wider array of forms of ś@stric knowledge.
In contrast to the earlier Śaiva scriptures, the MPgendra ?gama (MA) begins not
on the quintessentially Śaiva slopes of Kail@sa but in the pur@>ic environs of the
N@r@ya>@śrama.20 There we encounter a generic collection of Vedic sages, led by
Bharadv@ja, engaged in the worship of Śiva. If Mataṅga’s story is at some level

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

about the glory of bhakti, then the MPgendra’s central focus is about justifying Śaiva
practices, including the devotionally inflected ones, within Br@hma>ical frames.

Now on one occasion, having understood that they were possessing Śiva’s
Bh@va, the Lord of the gods (Indra) went to the state (bheje) of the @śrama of
the gods, he himself wearing the garments of an ascetic.21

Thus Indra descends to earth explicitly to test the quality of the bh@va, the
embodied meditative state of the sages. Much like the phrase tadbhaktimanyor,
which we encountered earlier in the root text of the Mataṅga, the phrase t@n
bh@vit@n is intended to invoke a semantic constellation of related terms—centered
around the lexeme bh@van@—that have circulated in Śaiva circles as a evocative of
embodied forms of ‘devotional’ practices, and that have been associated with and
even served as synonyms of the bhakti lexeme at least since the fourth-century CE
Bh@Xya of Kau>ninya on the P@śupata S+tras, our earliest work of Śaiva exegesis.22
In much the same way as our earlier text set out to question, and then reinter-
pret the value of Yoga in proclaiming the value of bhakti, the MPgendra places
bhakti itself on trial.

He being honored by them, having inquired about their well being, said, “Why
is the codan@ dharma not being observed?”23

At the heart of this verse is a somewhat garbled allusion to Jaimini Mam@:s@

S+tra 1.2: codan@lakXa>o ‘rtho dharma$. As the verse is interpreted by the great
Bh@bba Mam@:saka commentators, Śabara and Kum@rila, what the text prescribes
is nothing less than a selective hermeneutic for reading Vedic scripture in a
manner that privileges the force of injunctive statements identifiable by the pres-
ence of the lob, liṅ, and tavya verbal formations. In essence, what this means is that
the meaning and purpose of the Veda is locatable solely in the power it has to
compel the performance of ritual actions by a designated class of purified ritual
actors, and not in its semantic content or in the effect that it has on the per-
formers of ritual actions themselves. The force that compels ritual action as the
Mam@:sakas envision it is not a god, but an impersonal automatonistic process. So
218 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

long as the general criteria for ritual eligibility have been met, the particularised
qualities of specific ritual agents are unimportant. Thus the core of this story is
that Indra appears in the guise of a Mam@:saka intent upon testing the faith of the
sages in the idea that faith in Śiva has any relation to religious practice.
It is important for us to recognise that, within the fold of Śaiva Siddh@nta
exegesis, these are not new issues that had yet to be addressed by the learned
commentators. In fact, they had already been engaged with, from a markedly
different perspective, by the first great Śaiva exegete, the mid seventh-century
Sadyojyotis. In his one surviving work of scriptural exegesis, a commentary on the
Svayambhuv@gama (SV), Sadyojyotis writes:

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

What is relevant at present is the manifoldness of that very knowledge that
brings about the aforementioned fruit. Nor is it reasonable that the Vedas
should be able to bring about the stated fruit. If they were able to produce
the stated fruit, Śaiva [knowledge] would be superfluous and the Vedas would
lose their inferiority. One might object, however . . . that the author will go on
to say that the knowledge of Śiva is divided into Vedic knowledge, etc. This is
true, but it is reasonable to say so in that context, because [that statement]
validates the undifferentiated mass of language, whereas here what is relevant
is quite specifically the knowledge that produces the stated fruit. Moreover, it is
a particular instance of the mass of language that is unobstructed and consist-
ing of Śiva; everything else consists of bondage. And that which consists of Śiva
is divided into the categories of the K@mika [?gama], and so forth; that which
consists of bondage is divided into the categories of the Vedas, etc. For what
purpose was it conceived of in this manner? Because a thing consisting of
bondage is not capable of illuminating Śiva, etc, nor does it belong to Śiva as
something that bestows grace.24

Having demolished the claims of Vedic systems of knowledge that they have any
relevance whatsoever to the values or methods of Śaiva revelation at the begin-
ning of his text, after elucidating the particularities of Śaiva doctrine, in his con-
clusion Sadyojyotis offers our earliest commentarial account of the traditional
Śaiva Siddh@nta understanding of the relationship between ritual, the ritual prac-
titioner, the Śaiva godhead, and the scriptures:

It is popularly known, however, that her (the Śakti’s) place of manifestation is

the book “Śaiva,” i.e., the means of authoritative knowledge regarding Śiva. By
whom was it created? It is understood to be made by Śiva based on the un-
interrupted teaching of particular subject matters. Why does he do so? To uplift
individual souls. For, his intrinsic nature is the upliftment of all [souls]. And, he
engages in action in order to uplift individual souls. He thinks: “These men,
indeed, are endowed with the highest good, and they cannot unite with me
without the knowledge of me and without the means of producing that know-
ledge. And there are other fruits that are produced by the means stated by the
 Jason Schwartz 219

paśus; these as well do not possess the knowledge of the stated object, because
their power is intrinsically obstructed by bondage . . . . Therefore, I will illumin-
ate for them of my own accord the means not commonly known by the doc-
trines of the paśus.” Having reflected thus, Śiva bestows his grace in such a
manner: “I am of this nature, these are the means, and by these are [attained]
union with me and other fruits.25”

Here Sadyojyotis elegantly outlines a theory of the origins of revelation and an

account of scriptural authority that closely reflects the sort of values underlying
the account that we found in the Mataṅga, where scriptural revelation is an ex-

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

pression of grace, which provides a means to the end of enabling all souls to
connect with god through the medium of ritual, and within which neither scrip-
ture nor ritual are ends in and of themselves. Moreover, it is an account in which
the doctrines of bound souls, under the auspices of which we must certainly
include the Veda, can in no way offer any insight into the soteriologically effica-
cious Śaiva mysteries.
Compare this account then, with how the ‘Stockholm–syndromed’ sages of the
MPgendra attempt to counter their Mam@:saka challenger:

They said, (nanu) isn’t it the case, O Sage, that this dharma enjoined by codan@
is the means of worshipping the god for the purpose of obtaining through
austerity what is most desired?
In the Veda, there is a Raudra Sa:hit@ that is to be recited and the Devat@ is
Rudra. In this ritual injunction the summoning of the deity is enjoined.26

Before the discussion has even begun, we can see that the devout Śaiva Vedic
PXis have already conceded to the Mam@:sakas almost the entirety of their con-
ceptual framework, dispensing entirely with uniquely Śaiva interpretations of the
nature of dharma. In place of a Śaiva universe in which Vaidika inputs can be of no
real lasting value, Śaiva tradition now seeks to identify itself as an optionality, one
particular incidental but unobjectionable element within the wider world of
Br@hma>ical thought, which derives its legitimacy from the recitation of the
Śatarudraya of the KPX>a Yajur Veda. But even this radically accommodationist ap-
proach is ineffective when confronted with the perspective that Indra here pre-
tends to embody.

He who is wanting to evaluate (their) highest bh@va, laughing, he said to them,

“This knowledge of yours is false, for god is merely a word”.27

As the remainder of this portion of the text, which will have to be addressed on
another occasion, makes apparent, essentially these worldviews are incommen-
surable. Śaiva practice is about appealing to, even pleasing, Śiva, whereas the focus
of the Mam@:saka’s is on the proper execution of ritual itself. More importantly,
220 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

Mam@:saka doctrine clearly demonstrates that neither the gods themselves nor
something called ‘pleasing the gods’ are possible objects of human perception,
even for the most exalted yogin. Thus, the only thing we can know about the
gods is their names—the words, as they are given in the Veda—and these serve
only as indexical referents devoid of content. In essence, you can not have rela-
tionship with gods that do not exist, let alone gain any benefit from serving them.
Ultimately, over the course of the chapter, everything works out in the end for
the Śaivas, which is not surprising as this is their ?gama. Nevertheless, I would
argue that the mere process of apologetically reframing the tradition leads to the
ceding of tremendous ground to the presuppositions of a Br@hma>ical worldview.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

This results, for example, in a mechanisation or routinisation of the understanding
of how Śiva’s grace operates in the world in a manner that mimics Mam@:saka
accounts of the automatic and impersonal efficacy that underlies ritual. Such an
understanding entails a general rethinking of the role of ritual action. And it is
these very interpretive choices that are so integral to Bhabba R@maka>bha II’s
re-imagining of the Mataṅgap@rameśvara.
As we shall see, an integral component of his effort involves decoupling the text
from its archaic Śaiva predecessors, an approach that demands the elision of the
text’s many references to earlier forms of Śaiva yoga and devotional practice.
Along the way, the character of Mataṅga as a religious adept is brought into
closer conformity with a vision of religious practice that emphasises formalised
eligibility and ritual acumen over particularised religious experience. R@maka>bha
even goes so far as to re-imagine the pedigree and source of the scripture. Thus, in
his commentary, we find him arguing:

“Of you” means “of Mataṅga.” “This one” means “the Mataṅgap@rameśvara.” But
not the YakXi>ap@rameśvara or PauXkarap@ramesvara, even though it is said to be a
P@rameśvara text.28

Thus, contrary to the general knowledge transmitted within Śaiva circles,

R@maka>bha tell us that the Mataṅgap@rameśvara itself in fact has no relationship
whatsoever with its parent text the PauXkarap@rameśvara, but in fact is connected
to another P@rameśvara scripture that contains more ‘orthodox’ doctrinal content.
Along much the same lines, the sage Mataṅga’s own connections to the archaic
Śaiva past are forcibly severed. This is accomplished primarily through some
rather implausible reconstruals of perfectly transparent compounds. Thus, when
we are told that Mataṅga is jñ@n@gnidagdhakaluXa, it does not mean that his onto-
logical impurities have been entirely incinerated by the fire of the Śaivajñ@na, the
typical term for Śaiva revelation, but rather:

Here knowledge refers specifically to that knowledge of which the object is the
self, established by scriptures such as “the self is to be known.29”
 Jason Schwartz 221

As will soon become clear, the intent of this reading against the grain of a key
term of art of Śaiva theology to have it correspond to UpaniXadic revelations is
nothing less than the reinvention of the Śaiva adept Mataṅga as a member of the
Br@hma>ical community who has never been exposed to any Śaiva teachings
whatsoever. Thus R@maka>bha continues:

Because, as we will show, in fact here the sage Mataṅga does not have adhik@ra
with regard to Śaiva knowledge because he is not initiated.30

Similarly, faced with the compound Śivadhy@naikacitt@tm@, R@maka>bha takes

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

great pains to deny the obvious meaning: that his self and consciousness are
solely meditating upon Śiva, because this interpretation again would require
Mataṅga to already be some sort of Śaiva.

And so by śivadhy@naikacitt@tm@, (what is meant is) he is one whose mala is

ripened. It does not mean one who is solely intent on Śiva.31

Eliding the obvious meaning, which has dozens of attested parallels throughout
the Śaiva corpus and even resurfaces later on in the root text of the
Mataṅgap@rameśvara itself, R@maka>b$a argues that the compound signifies
almost the exact opposite of its intended meaning, namely, that the mechanised
process of karma ripening has reached its fruition and so Mataṅga is now eligible
for dakX@: entrance into the Śaiva community. This particular formulation of the
doctrine of pari>atamala, along with its usual correlate, the doctrine of malapar-
ip@ka, seems to represent R@maka>bha’s own theological innovations, and their
essential function is to re-imagine the role that grace plays in Śaiva tradition. In a
drastic departure from the attitude we saw on display in Sadyojyotis, here Śiva’s
grace becomes not a matter of the god’s will, but an automatic and impersonal
process that activates when perfect equilibrium is reached in an individual soul’s
balance of good and bad karmas. It is then this abstract ontological qualification,
almost entirely out of the conscious control of the individual non-initiate, that
serves as the precondition for initiatory entrance into the Śaiva community, and
not the affective emotional state of the practitioner.
A central consequence of this set of interpretive choices is that they basically
render the narrative dimension of our root text superfluous, as in this telling
Mataṅga’s interactions with his environment no longer play a causal role in his
development or in the revelation of the scripture. Succinctly, everything that has
made our story a story is rendered irrelevant through creative exegesis. Thus, in
R@maka>bha’s reading, Mataṅga’s efforts in developing his inner capacity as an
adept are elided. He only becomes an accomplished adept when he achieves the
particular status of dakXita mediated through ?gamic doctrine and procedure. Once
again, underlying this stance is the idea that the particularised religious practices
222 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

of individual human beings are immaterial, for adhik@ra is conferred equally on all
people who have obtained a certain status.
R@maka>bha’s re-imagining sidelines the various particularised devotional elem-
ents we have explored earlier in favour of emphasising the scrupulous adherence
to ritual procedure, features particularly apparent in his account of the pivotal
moment when Mataṅga plays his flute. Let us reorient ourselves by returning to
the root text:

Having become one who is standing before Tryambaka, with his inner soul
enlivened, the sage played the flute fervently with par@ bhakti.32

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

Then he, the Divine Lord Hara, along with P@rvata, showed his own body to the
ascetic Mataṅga.33

Here is a portion of R@maka>bha’s treatment of these passages:

“Of Tryambaka” means of Trilocana, of Um@pati, who has been ritually installed
according to the sequence of Vedic mantras laid down in the Kalpaś@kh@ by
means of the dharmic injunction that is established in the smPti: “he who dir-
ectly [before the image] fills Śiva’s abode with pure sacrifices”.34
‘Standing before Tryambaka’ means that [standing] in front of him he made
himself the instrument of the sacrifice, the first, i.e. primary ritual action, as
has been established in the scripture.
“Tryambaka: yaj@mahe”; the sense is, having sacrificed to Tryambaka.
Then, “fervently” is in the sense of excess.
Here in the place of worship, he played the flute.

Thus, we are told that when the text says he stood before the image of the deity,
what it must really mean is that he recited the mPtyuñjaya mantra and executed a
series of ritual procedures following the guidance of the Kalpaś@kh@s of the Veda. In
short, we have stepped into a world in which ritual is read through the frame of a
mode of conceptualisation analogous to the one that had been internalised by the
Vaidika Śaivas in the MPgendra. What R@maka>bha is telling us is that it is these
ritual acts, and nothing else, which brought about the revelation of the scripture.

One might also argue that playing instruments is permitted according to the
ś@stras. This is true. It is made optional—when accompanied by vijñ@na and yoga,
etc.—as a subsidiary component of the sacrifice, but not playing instruments
alone.35

As for the playing of the flute, R@maka>bha tells us, Mataṅga was permitted to
do this, we must assume, for his own edification, precisely because an ?gama proof
text can be located permitting such activities. Nevertheless, our commentator is
adamant that mere flute-playing itself has no soteriological efficacy. It is ritual
alone that is soteriologically efficacious, and we learn how to perform rituals from
 Jason Schwartz 223

the ?gamas themselves, which are made up of injunctions and prohibitions. As

R@maka>bha tells us, vidhiniXedhar+patv@c ch@strasya: “it is ś@stra (by which he
means the non-narrative portions of Śaiv@gama) because it has the form of injunc-
tion and prohibition.” Succinctly, he has entirely internalised this dimension of
the Mam@:saka account of the role of scriptural revelation. Texts are no longer a
means towards a goal handed down by the grace of a personified being. They are
collections of commands and restraints that an individual must obey. Such a
worldview leaves very little place for a devotional vision of the world that links
embodied affective experience of individual actors with the experience of the
majesty of the divine.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

R@maka>bha takes two steps to remedy this problem. The first, which need not
much concern us, is that he declares that the Śraka>bha whom the sage Mataṅga
encounters, and whom the text also calls the Master of the Universe, The Lord of
Um@, and Parameśvara, is really just a being called Śraka>bha, who governs a
specific ontological level of reality, and is in no way the same as transcendent
Śiva. R@maka>bha tells us that Śiva has no body, and thus cannot descend into the
world under any circumstances. Now that this is no longer a story about the
encounter between a Śaiva adept par excellence with supreme reality incarnate,
but something more like an account of some random promising Br@hma>a’s ben-
evolent close encounter with an otherworldly supernatural being to which he has
no real connection, R@maka>bha can proceed with denuding the text of its re-
maining devotional elements. In order to follow his discussion, we must return to
verse 14 of the root text, where Mataṅga’s intense devotional experience upon
seeing his God releases an ocean of tears:

Having washed his (Śraka>bha’s) feet with eyes filled with tears, because (he
was) possessed by the intensity of bhakti towards him (tadbhaktimanyor @veś@t),
the sage then began to recite stotras to him.

Here is how R@maka>bha approaches this passage:

“Bhakti” here means that he resides exclusively in the scope of him [Śiva]
precisely because of his suitability for Śaktip@ta. As it has been said [in a lost
scripture]:
Also, another smPti concerning the upahPta (sacrificial animal) that is character-
ized by the suitability for possession (@veśa), that one (the text) refers to one
separate component of vijñ@na as bhakti.
And moreover, he does so because of his enlivened inner soul, and not for any
other reason, such as aiming after the fruits.36

Working within pre-existing ?gamic conventions, R@maka>b$a defines bhakti as

residing exclusively in the scope of the Lord, a state of affairs made possible by
śaktip@tayogyat@, the suitability which is or which arises from śaktip@ta, depending
224 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

on how we take the compound. It is interesting to note here, especially in light of

the remainder of R@mka>bha’s interpretive choices, that in the archaic and mostly
lost interpretive context that supplies his definition, the lexeme is linked with
positive forms of ritual possession. Regardless, we can already begin to see that in
his hands bhakti becomes a rather bloodless thing, divested of the visceral and
embodied quality we find in the root text.

For just that reason he stopped performing the p+j@, not merely playing the
flute, as we have clarified earlier. Bhakti was in that Lord; because of that bhakti,
[he experienced] passion. “After so much time, the Lord is not pleased with me,

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

although I am a bhakta;” hence, his inner dispassion. Caused by that passion was
his possession—or, agitation of the mind; from that agitation, he cried pure
tears—or tears of joy—and because of that, having washed his feet, the sage
began to recite stotras to him—i.e., to Umap@ti, then, i.e., immediately.37

Here, instead of bhakti having the power to move heaven and earth so that God
himself descends to celebrate his devotee and his flute-playing and grant him
boons, R@maka>bha re-imagines bhakti as a catalyst for mental confusion and
self doubt. Despite numerous statements in the text to the contrary, in this reading
God is no longer pleased by Mataṅga. It is an expression of recognition of that
displeasure which causes the sages ‘possession’, which here is no longer the lib-
erative entrance of grace in the form of the goddess into the body of the sage, as it
is in earlier accounts of śaktip@ta, but is instead a detrimental disordering of his
mental state.
I end with one last observation made by our commentator, which I find par-
ticularly compelling in terms of the interpretive violence it does to the aesthetic
and theological sensibility of the original text, and which nicely encapsulates the
overall thrust of R@maka>bha’s Mam@:s@-inspired interpretive programme. This is
in relation to the rather beautiful image of Mataṅga washing the feet of the Lord
with his tears, a spontaneous and nonetheless perfectly appropriate response,
expressing the devotional feeling the wells up inside him when he at long last
sees his Lord:

But, those who gloss “in front of” as “prior” [rather than “in front of”] may
say that Mataṅga Muni, as if born of a disreputable lineage, has worshipped
according to a sequence not permitted by the Ś@stras. This is not what has
been said—because, [Mataṅga Muni] is one who offered purification water.
This will be explained [further under the passage] “having worshipped his
feet . . .”38

Succinctly, R@maka>bha takes this poignant image, strips it of everything that is

emotionally evocative, and then reads it, like a Mam@:saka combing through smPti
 Jason Schwartz 225

texts for supplementary information affirming Vaidika practices, as confirmation

of Mataṅga’s status as pakka Vaidika Br@hma>a.
There is a palpable difference between such an attitude and the value system
underlying the root text. With this gesture, Mataṅga is expressing one last time,
sometime around the mid-sixth or early seventh century, the devotional voice of
the early Śaiva traditions prior to their colonisation by the intellectual practices
and prejudices of the P+rva Mam@:s@. Fittingly, Mataṅga also directs our attention
to the worship of feet, which for him do not give sanction to academic arguments,
but are a boundless compassionate source of release from suffering and
degradation:

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

Even by merely recalling the capacity of your lotus feet, the sinners . . .
Become ones whose storehouse of sin is annihilated, partaking of siddhi.
How much more so the constant sages who have offered their minds into you
alone?39

References
Bhatt, N. R. (ed). 1977. Mataṅgap@rameśvar@gama (Vidy@p@da) avec le commentaire de Bhabba
R@maka>bha. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry.
Filliozat, P. (ed). 1994. The Tantra of Svaya:bh+ Vidy@p@da with the Commentary of
Sadyojyotis. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
Goodall, D. (ed). 2004. The Par@khyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddh@nta. Critical edition
and annotated translation. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry, École fran-
çaise d‘Extrême-Orient.
Goodall, D., Harunaga, I., 2007. ‘Workshop on the Niśv@satattvasa:hit@: The Earliest
Surviving Śaiva Tantra?’ Newsletter of the Nepalese German Manuscript Cataloguing
Project 3: 4–6.
Hatley, S., forthcoming. ‘Erotic Asceticism: the Knife’s Edge Observance of Brahmay@mala:
(asidh@ravratapabala), with a critical edition and translation.’ Journal of Tantric Studies.
Hazra, R. C., 1985. ‘The Śivadharmottara.’ Pur@>a 27: 181–209.
Holdrege, B., 2012. Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in
KPX>a Bhakti. London: Routledge.
Sanderson, A., 2006a. ‘The L@kulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between
P@ñc@rthika P@śupatism and ?gamic Śaivism.’ Indian Philosophical Annual 26: 143–217.
Sanderson, A., 2006b. ‘The Date of Sadyojyotis and BPhaspati’. In: Dro_zd_zowicz, M. C. (ed).
‘Tantra and ViśiXb@dvaitaved@nta. Cracow Indological Studies, Vol. 8. Cracow: Ksiegarnia
Akademicka.
Sanderson, A., 2006c. Śaivism and Br@hmanism in the Early Medieval Period. 14th Gonda
Lecture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Śivadharma. ‘Institut français de Pondichéry transcript no. 72 from p. 25 copy of Adyar
library, Madras. ms. no.: 75425. Data entered by the staff of Muktabodha Indological
Research Institute, under the supervision of M.S.G.’ Dyczkowski.
Shastri, M. K. (ed). 1930. Śra MPgendra Tantra: Vidy@p@da and Yogap@da, with Commentary of
N@r@ya>aka>bha. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Shastri, R. Anantakrishna (ed). 1940. P@śupatas+tra with Kau>ninya’s Bh@Xya. Trivandrum:
The Oriental Manuscripts Library of the University of Travancore.
226 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

Torella, R., 1998. ‘The Kañcukas in the Śaiva and VaiX>ava Tantric Tradition: A Few
Considerations between Theology and Grammar’. In: Oberhammer, G. (ed). ‘Studies
in Hinduism II, Miscellanea to the Phenomenon of Tantras. Wien: Ōsterreichisce
Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Notes
1 The next few years will see the emergence of a critical body of scholarship on the
central texts of first millennium lay Śaiva traditions, which will offer us much
deeper insights into the early Śaiva social imaginary. This work, most of which is

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

text-critical in nature, is the product of both systematic research programmes as
well as independent inquiries conducted by scholars of European and South Asian
origins. The interested reader is directed to the much anticipated forthcoming
works of Peter Bisschop, Niranjan Kafle, Timothy Lubin, Nina Mirnig, and
Florinda De Simini, as well as related projects under the auspices of the
University of Hamburg’s Early Tantra and Early Śaiva Mythology research pro-
grammes conducted in association with the École française d‘Extrême-Orient,
Pondicherry. Currently, the only recent scholarship published which focuses exclu-
sively on this corpus is Paolo Magnone’s short survey of the Śivadharmottara.
Additionally, while none of his published works deal explicitly with these texts in
a comprehensive fashion, Alexis Sanderson’s characterisation of the first millen-
nium as constituting a Śaiva Age is deeply informed by his careful study of the Śiva
dharma literature, which is intermittently referenced in a more direct manner
throughout his recent publications.
My own independent engagement with these materials from the perspective of
the history of religious ideas in South Asia, particularly in relation to the production
of a philologically sensitive and historically rigorous account of the discourse on
bhakti, has been made possible by the dissemination of the transcripts of key texts
of the corpus produced by Mark Dyczkowski and his team of researchers under the
auspices of the Muktabodha foundation. My inquiry is deeply indebted to the extra-
ordinary methodological and philological contributions of Alexis Sanderson and his
many students towards the reconstruction of the history of Śaiva and Ś@kta Śaiva
traditions that have been carried out over the past several decades.
2 pur@>a: bh@rata: veda$ ś@str@>i sumah@nti ca/
@yuXa$ kXaya>@$ sarve dharmo’lpogranthavistara$//
putrad@r@dika: bh@ra$ pums@: _ sammunhacetas@m/
_
viduX@: ś@strasambh@ra$
_ sadyog@bhy@savighnaXkPt//
idam _ jñeyam idam_ jñeya: ya$ sarvam _ jñ@tum icchati/
api varXasahasr@yu$ ś@str@nta: n@dhigacchati//
vijñ@y@kXaratanm@tra: javitam _ c@ticañcalam/
vih@ya ś@straj@l@ni p@ralaukikakam @caret//
pa>niten@pi kim _ tena samarthena ca dehin@/
ya$ pu>yabh@ram udvonhum aśakta$ p@ralaukikam//
pa>nito’pi sa murkha$ sy@c chaktiyukto’py aśakim@n/
ya$ sams@r@t
_ sv@tm@nam utt@rayitum akXama$// (ŚDhU)
 Jason Schwartz 227

The text cited here is from the transcript by R.C. Hazra (1985), as reproduced in
his short treatment of the Śivadharmottara on the basis of manuscript no. G.3852, a
twelfth-century Nepalese palmleaf in the collection of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
Unless otherwise noted all translations are by the present author.
Rather confusingly, the transcript identified as Śivadharmottara provided on the
Muktabodha archive in fact contains the circa fifth-century Śivadharma, the foun-
dational document of the corpus. This misidentification seems to be a common state
of affairs among South Indian manuscripts. The Malayalam manuscripts I have
acquired, which include an unpublished Śivadharmavivara>a commentary, all of
which are catalogued as pertaining to the Śivadharmottara, appear to transmit the
more archaic Śivadharma.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

3 agniXbhom@dayo yajñ@$ bahuvittakriy@nvit@$ /
aśakt@s te yata$ kartum alpavittair dvij@dibhi$ // (ŚDh. 1.6)
4 bhagavan sarvadharmajña śivadharmapar@ya>a /
śrotuk@m@$ para: dharmam ime sarve sam@gat@$ // (ŚDh. 1.5)
5 na me priyaś caturveda madbhakta$śvapaco’pi v@ /
tasmai deya: tato gr@hya: sa sa:p+jyo yath @h yaham // (ŚDh 1.36)
6 śivadharmasya s@ro ’ya: śivabhaktiś ca niścal@. (ŚDh. 1.29)
7 A close reading of the numerous textual parallels and surprising doctrinal harmo-
nies between the early Śaiva as well as later Saiddh@ntika discourse on devotion and
the materials found in the more familiar interpretive milieu of the Bh@gavata Pur@>a
would be a worthwhile endeavour. From the moment, the delineation of bhaktiyoga
as presented in BhP 11.19 bears a striking resemblance to the content included
within the Śivadharma’s vision of 8-fold bhakti.

bhaktiyoga$ puraivokta$ prayam@>@ya te ‘nagha/

punaś ca kathayiXy@mi madbhakte$ k@ra>a: para://
śraddh@mPtakath@y@: me śaśvan madanukartanam/
pariniXbh@ ca p+j@y@: stutibhi$ stavana: mama//
@dara$ paricary@y@: sarv@ṅgair abhivandanam/
madbhaktap+j@bhyadhik@ sarvabh+teXu manmati$//
madartheXv aṅgaceXb@ ca vacas@ madgu>era>am/
mayy arpa>a: ca manasa$ sarvak@mavivarjanam//
madarthe ‘rthaparity@go bhogasya ca sukhasya ca (BhP 11.19.19–24)

8 Intriguingly, not only does this 8-fold bhakti prefigure the Bh@gavata Pur@>a’s more
famous formulation of the navalakXa>as of bhakti, but multipart delineations of
bhakti which are invested with comparable rhetorical significance seem to be en-
tirely absent from the sectarian dharmaś@stras of the early VaiX>ava communities.
Thus, while the Bh@gavata places its vision of 9-fold bhakti in the mouth of Prahl@da,
the devoted son of the demon king Hira>yakaśipu, and has him defiantly proclaim
the dharma of bhakti to his appalled guru, in the perhaps seventh century
ViX>udharma, Prahl@da is represented as obediently receiving instruction in the
Bh@gavata dharma from the very same teacher with scant attention paid to the
problem of devotion.
228 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

9 Transformations (vikriy@) of sound, eyes, and limbs appears to refer to the sort of
involuntary gesticulations and utterances more commonly associated with states of
possession. Their inclusion as dimensions of Śaiva bhakti is a strong indication that,
much like the more familiar devotional exempla of the second millennium, the
bhakti under discussion is not just a doctrinal abstraction but is in fact closely
linked with a theology of embodiment grounded in particularised modes of practice.
10 s@ c@Xb@ṅga śivenokt@ k@ry@ nitya: prayatnata$
śrabhagav@n uv@ca
madbhaktajanav@tsalya: p+j@y@: c@numodanam/
svayam abhyarcana: bhakty@ mam@rthe c@ṅgaceXbanam//
matkath@śrava>e bhakti$ svaranetr@ṅgavikriy@/

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

mam@nusmara>a: nitya: kartanenopajavati//
bhaktir aXbavidh @h yeX@ yasmin mlecche’ pi vartate/
sa viprendro muni$ śram@n sa yati$ sa ca pa>nita$ (ŚDh 1.29–32)
11 patra: puXpa: phala: toya: yo me bhakty@ prayacchati j
tad aha: pratibh@vena hy aśn@mi prayat@tmana$ // (ŚDh 1.37)
Compare with Bhagavad Gat@ 9.26, from the chapter on the R@javidy@:

patra: puXpa: phala: toya: yo me bhakty@ prayacchati/

tad aha: bhaktyupahPtam aśn@mi prayat@tmana$//

As we can see, excluding the substitution of the Gat@’s ambiguous compound

bhaktyupahPta: with the Śivadharma’s much more easily parseable pratibh@vena, the
verses are almost identical. In fact, the Śivadharma’s choice infuses the verse with a
much more straightforward affective devotionalism than we find in the original.
12 Thus in the first pabala of the Par@khya Tantra (Goodall 2004), a presentation of the
canonical pad@rthas or topoi of Śaiva knowledge and preliminary delineation of the
Lord and his powers, is suddenly subordinated to the disciplines of Vy@kara>a,
Mam@:s@, and Ny@ya, which we are told provide the necessary preconditions for
the use and interpretation of scripture. The text goes so far as to assert that these
knowledge systems form the foundation of Śaiva pedagogy, as they originate in Śiva
himself.
13 Linked with the more archaic PauXkarap@rameśvara, the Mataṅga can tentatively be
assigned to the early seventh or late sixth century of the Common Era, largely on
the basis of Abhinavagupta’s suggestion in Tantr@loka 1.46 that it was commented on
by the great Śaiva @c@rya Sadyojyotis, whom Alexis Sanderson (2006a) has convin-
cingly placed in the middle of the seventh century.
14 As has been discussed by Hatley (forthcoming), Goodall (2004), and Sanderson
(2006b).
15 As the Mataṅga’s first pabala draws to a close, we are offered a perfect illustration of
its imagined equilibrium, as Parameśvara informs his accomplished devotee that the
scripture he transmits consists of the six topoi of Śaiva knowledge (Xabpad@rtham)
that have been arranged solely in conformity with the path of formal of logic
(ny@yam@rge>aiv@nulomata$). In essence, this is a splendid compromise, as it
imbues the text with the unprecedented systematicity that has made the work
the locus classicus for many presentations of Śaiva doctrinal content (Torella
 Jason Schwartz 229

1998), while at the same time preserving the autonomy of Śaiva systems of con-
ceptualisation from outside interpretive systems.
16 tatr@sau muniś@rd+las tapasotkPXbam+rtim@n/
jñ@n@gnidagdhakaluXo vPtt@mbha$kX@lit@tmav@n//
śivadhy@naikacitt@tm@ sam@dh@v @sthita$ sudha$//
y@van m@rutasampark@n mumoca madhura: svaram/
kacaka$ Xabpad@v@savivare>a śanai$ śanai$//
t@van muner mataṅgasya sahas@ kXubhita: mana$/
bh+yo bh+yo nin@dena śrotr@mPtavapuXmat@//
kari>y@ra>yam@taṅga$ sa vaśakPtya nayate/
van@t par@ṅmukhas tadvac citta: lakXy@c chiv@tmak@t//

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

tataś c@sau muni$ śram@ñj ñ@tv@ bhraXba: mana$ śiv@t/
@d@ya taras@ ve>u: susamamPjumavra>am//
ślakX>atvaca: suniX>@ta: kPtv@ chidrair ala:kPtam/
tadotp@ditav@:l leś@d dhvani: saptasvar@nvitam// (MP 1.4–10; text in Bhatt
1977)
17 tryambakasy@grato bh+tv@ prahPXben@ntar@man@/
munir v@ditav@n ve>u: bhakty@ tu paray@ bhPśam//
tata$ sa bhagav@n n@tha$ p@rvaty@ sahito hara$/
sva: vapur darśay@m@sa matang@ya _ tapasvine//
dadarśa sahas@ vipra$ śraka>bha: viśvan@yaka:/
sa tasya p@d@v abhyarcya da>navat patito bhuvi//
tadbhaktimanyor @veś@n nayan@malav@ri>@/
p@dau prakX@lya tam ata$ stotum @rabdhav@n muni$//(MP 1.11–14)
18 In fact, the Mataṅga’s only surviving commentary glosses the compound
nayan@malav@ri>@ with this very same term @nand@śru. And while, as we shall see,
R@maka>bha II’s reading of the text is frequently theologically motivated in a
manner that sets out to subvert the original intent of the work, in the present
delimited context, where nothing is at stake for his larger interpretive project, he is
quite reliable and working within a deeply conventional learned tradition of
exegesis.
19 katha: vin@ romaharXa: dravat@ cetas@ vin@ /
vin@nand@śrukalay@ śudhyed bhakty@ vin@śaya$ //
v@ggadgad@ dravate yasya cittam rudati abhakX>a: hasati kvacic ca /
vilajjaudg@yati nrbyate ca madbhaktiyukto bhuvana: pun@ti //
20 The MPgendra ?gama was the subject of an extensive commentary by Bhabba
R@maka>bha II’s father, Bhabba Nar@y@>aka>bha and seems to be the source for a
considerable number of doctrinal innovations. Its centrality to the interpretive
tradition of later Śaiva exegesis, as well as the degree to which it becomes conflated
with the intellectual project of the lineage of R@maka>bha II, is reflected in the fact
that twelfth century South Indian doyen of dualistic Śaiva traditions Aghoraśiva
not only directs his disciple to produce a ritual manual for the system, but himself
composes a MPgendra commentary that is heavily indebted to R@maka>bha’s Mataṅga
commentary
21 atha t@n bh@vit@n matv@ kad@cit tridaś@dhipa$ /
tad@śramapada: bheje svaya: t@pasaveXabhPt // (M? 1.1.3; text in Shastri 1930)
230 Devotion in an Evolving Śaiva Corpus

22 In his commentary on P@śupatas+tra 2.20. Kau>ninya offers the following gloss of the
lexeme bhakti as part of one of the earliest surviving commentarial engagements
which imbues with term with particularized rhetorical significance. bhaktir bh@va-
netyarthah // (PSBh 2.20:2)
23 sa tai$ sa:p+jita$ pPXbv@ t@:ś ca sarv@nan@mayam /
prov@ca codan@dharma$ kimartha: n@nuvartyate // (M? 1.1.4)
24 prakPtam uktaphalas@dhakasya jñ@nasyaiv@nekatva: / na ca ved@dan@m
uktaphalas@dhakatva: yukta: / uktaphalas@dhakatve śaivasy@tireko ‘sti
ved@dan@: c@paratvahani$ / nanu ca . . . ved@dijñ@nabhedena śivajñ@na: bhi-
dyata iti vakXyati / satyam, ki:tu tatra tacchabdar@śer aviśiXbasya pramitatv@d
yukta: iha viśiXbam evoktaphalas@dhaka: jñ@na: prakPta: / ki: ca śabdar@-

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

śer viśeXaś c@b@dhita$ śiv@tmaka$, anyataraś ca p@ś@tmaka$ / ya$ śiv@tmaka$
sa k@mik@dibhedena bhidyate, yas tu p@ś@tmaka$ sa ved@dibhedena/ kimartham
eva: kalpyate / yato na p@ś@tmaka: vastu śiv@dya: prak@śitu: śaknoti / n@pi
śaivanugr@hakam // (SV of Sadyojyotis 10–12; Filliozat 1994)
25 lokaprasiddhy@ tu tasya vyaktisth@na: śaiv@khyo grantha$ śaiva: pram@>am/
sa kena kPta$/ śivena kPto ‘vagamyate viśiXbapratip@danato ‘vicchinn@t / sa
kimartha: karoti / pudgal@n@m anugrah@ya pravPtta$ / idam @locayati ama
hi pum@:sa$ praśreyobh@ja$, na caiX@m etatparijñ@nas@dhanam
matparijñ@na: ca vin@ mats@yujyam any@ni ca paś+ktas@dhan@s@dhy@ni phal@ni
bhavanti, na caiX@: proktaviXayaparijñ@na: svata$ p@śasa:niruddhaśaktitv@t
n@pi p@śobhyas teX@: sa:nirodhakatv@t, ato ‘ham eX@: svayam @tm@nam
any@ni paśumat@prasiddh@ni s@dhan@ni prak@śay@maty evam @locya aham
adPśa et@ni s@dhan@ny ebhir mats@yujyam any@ni ca phal@ni bhavantaty
eva:vidham anugraha: karoti // (SV of Sadyojyotis 88; Filliozat 1994)
26 ta +cur nanv aya: dharmaś codan@vihito mune /
devat@r@dhanop@yas tapas@bhaXbasiddhaye //
vede ‘sti sa:hit@ raudra v@cy@ rudraś ca devat@ /
s@nnidhyakara>e ‘py asmin vihita$ k@lpiko vidhi$ //
27 ityukte ‘pi para: bh@va: jijñ@su$ prahasan prabhu$ /
t@n @ha mithy@ jñ@na: va$ śabdam@tra: hi devat@ // (M? 1.1.5–7)
28 taveti mataṅgasya ida: m@taṅga: p@rameśvaram ucyate /
na tu yakXi>ap@rameśvara: pauXkarap@rameśvara: v@ p@rameśvaratve ‘pati

All citations from Bhabba R@maka>tha’s VPtti on the Mataṅgap@rameśvara are cited
from the edition of N. Bhatt, drawing on the commentary which runs from pp. 6–20
on the first pabala of the Vidy@p@da.
29 (tad ev@gni$ tena jñ@n@gnin@ dagdha$ kaluXa$) . . . . atra jñ@nam “@tm@
jñ@tavya” ity@diśrutisiddh@tmaviXayam eva /
30 vastuto mataṅgamuner dakXitatven@tra śaive ‘nadhik@r@d iti darśayiXy@ma$ /
31 api ca śivadhy@naikacitt@tm@ pari>atamala$ / na hy anyath@ śivaik@niXbho
bhavatati /
32 tryambakasy@grato bh+tv@ prahPXben@ntar@tman@ /
munir v@ditav@n ve>u: bhakty@ tu paray@ bhPśam //
33 tata$ sa bhagav@n n@tha$ p@rvaty@ sahito hara$ /
sva: vapur darśay@m@sa mataṅg@ya tapasvine //
 Jason Schwartz 231

34 tryambakasya “pakveXbak@cita: samyag ya$ karoti śiv@layam” iti

smPtisiddhap+rtadharmavidhin@kalpaś@khopadiXbavaidikamantretikartavy
at@krame>a
p+rvapratiXbh@pitasya trilocanasyom@pate$ agrata$ agre “tryambaka:
yaj@mahe”
ity@diśrutisiddhitv@t prathame pradh@ne karma>i y@ge nimitta: /
35 nanu v@danam api ś@strayam eva / satyam / y@g@ṅgatay@ sa eva
vijñ@nayog@dibhi$ saha vikalpyate / na tu v@danam@tra /
36 bhakti$ śaktip@tayogyatayeva tanniXbhatvam/ yad @hu—
anyo ‘pi yogyat@veśalakXa>opahPtasmrti$
bhaktitvena sam@khy@to vijñ@n@vayava$ pPthak iti

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on May 25, 2015

tathaiva prahPXbena antar@tmana / na tu k@ra>@ntare>a phal@dyanusandh@nen-
ety artha$ /
37 ata eva p+j@y@: nirato ‘sau / na tu v@danam@tre iti s+kta: pr@k / tasmin
bhagavati bhakti$, tay@ manyu$ bhaktasy@payat@ me k@lena bhagav@n na pra-
sanna ity antargato vir@ga$ / tato manyor heto$ ya @veśa$ cittakXobha$,
tasm@d yad nayan@malav@ri @nand@śru, tena sa tasya p@dau prakX@lya tam
um@patim . . . /
38 ye tu agrata$ purata$ iti vy@cakXate, taiś c@ś@straye>a krame>a kuva:śikasyeva
mataṅgamuner @r@dhakatva: ukta: sy@t / na caitad yuktam / vPtt@mbha$
kX@lit@tmatvenoktatv@t / vakXyati ca, sa tasya p@d@v abhyarcya iti
39 tvatp@d@mbujas@marthyasmara>@d api p@pina$//
pradhvastap@panicay@$ siddhibh@jo bhavanti hi/
ki: punar munayo dhar@s tvayy ev@rpitacetasa$// (MP 1.16–17)