J Indian Philos (2014) 42:9–25

DOI 10.1007/s10781-013-9209-0

On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity (mala) and the

Function of the Rite of Initiation

Diwakar Acharya

Published online: 4 December 2013

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This paper tries to trace the roots of the Śaiva Mantramārga concept of
innate impurity. Since innate impurity is regarded as one of the three bonds fettering
bound individual souls, this paper begins with the Pāśupata and early Śaiva views on
these bonds. It examines the Buddhist logician Dharmakı̄rti’s criticism of the Śaiva
idea that initiation removes sin, and discusses the Pāśupata concept of sin-cleansing
and two different concepts of innate impurity found in two early Śaiva scriptures:
the Sarvajñānottaratantra and Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. In search of the roots
of these Śaiva conceptions of innate impurity, this paper then goes over some Vedic
passages which speak of the removal of sin during the initiatory rite and identify it
as the internal impurity. Putting all these points together, this paper concludes
arguing that the Śaivas initially saw sin or the unseen force of merits and demerits as
innate impurity, but later, under the pressure of criticism, they introduced the idea of
innate impurity as a separate abstract substance affecting all souls with its multiple
powers.

Keywords Bonds · Merits and demerits · Removal of sin/innate impurity ·

Function of the Vedic · Pāśupata · and Śaiva rite of initiation · Dharmakı̄rti

A short version of this paper was presented in the special panel on Śaiva philosophy of the 15th World
Sanskrit Conference held at New Delhi in January 2012. I am grateful to the organisers and participants
of the panel, particularly to Lyne Bansat-Boudon, Dominic Goodall and Judit Törzsök for their important
suggestions. I am also grateful to Somdev Vasudeva for going over my English.

D. Acharya (&)
Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501,
Japan
e-mail: acharyadiwakar@gmail.com

123
10 D. Acharya

The Śaiva Mantramārga in its fully developed form, as presented in the seventh
century Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha (hereafter SvāSS),1 categorises individual
souls according to their conditions into three classes as isolated (kevala), as
associated with kalās (sakala), and finally, as freed from innate impurity (amala).2
All individual souls primordially have this defiling dark substance (mala) that
covers their innate nature of omniscience and omnipotence.3 In the isolated state
(kevala), they are absorbed in Māyā, the primal matter, but even in this state their
capacities are covered by this dark substance.4 They become bound (baddha) and
are called sakala as soon as they are associated with kalās. They get a body and
are connected with sense faculties.5 Thrown into the world, these bound souls
regard themselves as the agent of their deeds and the enjoyer of rewards in this
and the other world. This introduces another bond, and thus, in this worldly state,
they are bound with three bonds: innate impurity, the bond of Māyā, and that of
karman.6 Their omniscient and omnipotent nature can be realised only through a
ritual initiation (dīkṣā) that leads to the removal of these bonds fettering them.
They can be liberated only with Śiva’s intervention in the form of initiation.7
Without initiation, removal of the innate impurity is impossible, and all the more
impossible is liberation, because while this substance exists ‘the soul fails to
realize its innate omniscience and omnipotence.’ As Sanderson (1992, p. 285) has
summarised:
The ignorance that characterizes the unliberated is the effect of an
imperceptible Impurity (malam) that acts on the soul from outside; and this
Impurity, though it is imperceptible, is a material substance (dravyam).
Because it is a substance, only action (vyāpāraḥ) can remove it; and the only
action capable of removing it is that of the rituals of the initiation and their
sequel taught by Śiva in his Tantric scriptures.
In a way, the very entry of the bound souls into the world is for the sake of their
liberation. For, before they arrive in the world, innate impurity cannot be processed
and eliminated. Once this is accomplished, these souls are no longer absorbed in
Māyā but remain with Śiva for ever. Thus, the concept of mala, innate impurity,
1
The Śaiva Mantramārga emerged from the background of the Pāśupata Atimārga about the fifth century
CE. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā was the earliest of its scriptures, and following it in time till the seventh
century were the non-eclectic Dviśati and Sārdhatriśati redactions of the Kālottara, Pauṣkara-
pārameśvara, Sarvajñānottara, Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha, and Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. The early
eighth century Kashmirian scholar Sadyojyotis has based some of his works on the second-last of these
texts and partially commented on the last one which is doctrinally much advanced than all others. All
these texts except the Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha are preserved, completely or partially, in old Nepalese
palm-leaf manuscripts. For details, see Goodall and Isaacson (2011, pp. 127 and 190 (fn. 95)), Sanderson
(2009, p. 45), Goodall et al. (2008, p. 315), Goodall (1998, pp. xxxvii–xliii; 2004, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii). For
the date of Sadyojyotis, see Sanderson (2006a).
2
Cf. SvāSS 1.5.
3
Cf. SvāSS 2.1–6 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.
4
Cf. SvāSS 1.8–10.
5
Cf. SvāSS 1.6–7 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.
6
Cf. SvāSS 1.11–15, 2,21–23 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.
7
Cf. SvāSS 1.16–18, 2.24.

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 11

plays a vital role in the system of the Śaiva Mantramārga. This becomes clear from
the time of the SvāSS and its early eighth century commentator, Sadyojyotis, but
before this date, the situation appears to be different. Therefore, in this paper, I will
make an effort to trace the roots of the concept of innate impurity of bound souls. I
begin, however, with the bonds (pāśas) in general, because innate impurity is only
one of them, albeit the most prominent one.

Bonds in the Pāśupata Traditions, the Niśvāsa Corpus, and the

Sarvajñānottaratantra

Neither pāśa nor any other term meaning ‘bond’ features in the Pāśupatasūtra
(hereafter PS), the highest authority and the most ancient text in the tradition
of the Pāśupata Atimārga, but it does in the second variety of the Atimārga8
described in the Niśvāsamukha of the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā (hereafter NiTS).9 It
appears there among the five entities of the impure path: net (jāla),
embodiments (mūrti), bound souls (paśu), bonds (pāśa), and the divine body
(vigraha). The text, however, becomes elliptical at places as it elaborates on
these entities, and apparently it does not provide detailed information about the
nature of bonds.10
Kauṇḍinya, who might have lived in the 4th or 5th century CE,11 writes in his
Bhāṣya on the PS that individual embodied souls are called paśu because they see
(paśyanāt) and also because they are bound with bonds (pāśanāt). As he states, the
bonds are the material elements (kalās) which belong to the lord and are explained
as effects/products (kāryas) in the form of the five basic elements, earth and others,
and as instruments (karaṇas) in the form of the mind and its evolutes.12 Fettered by
them, bound, restrained, they are dependent on the operation of sense objects such
as sound, and as such they exist here in the world.13 This line of thinking provides a
new perspective and scheme for the presentation of the Pāśupata/ Śaiva world-view
in terms of the three categories of pati (‘the Lord’), paśu (‘bound souls’) and pāśa
(‘bonds’). This scheme is adopted by all Saiddhāntika scriptures of the Śaiva

8
For the two varieties of Atimārga, see Acharya (2011) and Sanderson (2006b).
9
The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā is a collective name given to the corpus of Niśvāsa scriptures which goes
back at least to the ninth century, the estimated date of the Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript. This
manuscript preserves a redaction of all these scriptures assembled under this collective title. The Niśvāsa
corpus comprises Niśvāsamukha, Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra, Nayasūtra, and Guhyasūtra, but the first and
last of these texts are apparently earlier and serve to bracket the core texts. For detail information, see
Goodall and Isaacson (2007).
10
NiTS Niśvāsamukha 4.93-94ab: prathame jālam etat tu dvitīye mūrtisaṃjñakam | tṛtīye paśur ākhyātaḥ
pāśāṃś caiva caturthake || pañcame vigrahaḥ khyātaḥ aśuddhās te prakīrtitāḥ | According to Sanderson’s
analysis (2006b, p. 165), bonds cover that segment of the Atimārga cosmos which extends from the realm
of Gahana up to that of Ananta.
11
Sastri (1940, pp. 12–13), see also Bakker (2010, p. 517).
12
Cf. Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 2.24.
13
Kauṇḍinya's Bhāṣya ad PS 1.1: paśyanāt pāśanāc ca paśavaḥ. tatra pāśā nāma kāryakaraṇākhyāḥ
kalāḥ. tābhiḥ pāśitāḥ baddhā sanniruddhāḥ śabdādiviṣayaparavaśāś ca bhūtvāvatiṣṭhante.

123
12 D. Acharya

Mantramārga, and much of it is appropriated even by other non-Saiddhāntika

scriptures.14
At this point, I would like to make two observations. First, it appears that the
concept of innate impurity (mala) has no place, or at least no defined place, in this
triadic scheme. To be more precise, mala as the defiling dark substance innately
existing in every bound soul is not compatible with the early concept of pāśa as
direct or indirect kāryas and karaṇas of the Lord. Second, in the earliest stage of
theorisation in Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya, the bonds belong to the Lord, not to the bound
souls. But by the time of the SvāSS the opposite is true; the bonds now belong either
to the embodied souls or to Māyā who is standing between the Lord’s pure world
and the impure world of the bound souls. Innate impurity is now postulated as the
first and most fundamental of all bonds. It is described as covering and concealing
the true nature of individual souls and as belonging to them.15 It is one for all, only
its powers are separate for each soul.16 Placed second is the bond of Māyā
(māyeyapāśa) and included in it is everything, all mental and physical entities,
issued from Māyā; there is no need to say that it belongs to Māyā.17 The third bond
is the personal karman of individual souls and this, too, belongs to the bound souls.
It is the cause of all forms of triadic transformation of the world.18
The NiTS’s description of bonds stands between the Pāśupata concept of bonds
and the one found in the fully developed version of the Śaiva Mantramārga, as it
appears in the SvāSS. The Uttarasūtra (2.28–31) of the NiTS enumerates the bonds
of the entities starting from Prakrti up to Sadāśiva, then it adds the bonds of Śiva’s
˙
gaṇas and the bond of one’s merits and demerits (dharmādharma). Appended to
these are also the human sentiments, love, anger, and others. The next text in the
same corpus, the Nayasūtra (1.83–111), elaborates on these different kinds of
bonds, and also mentions new kinds of bonds in the body (dehapāśas). Both of these
texts speak of the bonds of even Īśvara and Sadāśiva, and here bonds are not just
negative; for example, Sadāśiva’s power of grace, too, is a bond. The Nayasūtra
(1.1–14) repeatedly states that all these bonds are cut and burnt at the time of
initiation, and also makes a remark that this is a special feature of the Śaiva system.
Also the Guhyasūtra, the last text of the NiTS corpus, incidentally mentions that the
bonds of an initiated person are burnt by the rite of initiation.19 But unlike the
Uttara- and Naya-sūtras, it does not elaborate much on these bonds, except that in
one place (7.159) it figuratively calls this world a bond (saṃsārapāśa) and once in
passing mentions the bond of merits and demerits (3.112).
Thus in these scriptures a background is set for further sophistication. It can also
be observed that as these scriptures deal with bonds, they identify any positive and

14
Though the non-Saiddhāntika scriptures put the notion of pati in the shade, they make good use of the
other two notions of bound souls and their bonds. For a description of early Saiddhāntika and other
Tantric scriptures, see Goodall and Isaacson (2011).
15
Cf. SvāSS 2.1–6.
16
Cf. TattvaTN verses 7, 11, 31.
17
Cf. SvāSS 2.8–11.
18
Cf. SvāSS 2.12–14 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.
19
NiTS Guhyasūtra 8.118: dīkṣayā dagdhapāśasya na tīrthe maraṇaṃ hitam |

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 13

negative force that circumscribes the individual souls starting from human
sentiments and ending with the grace of Sadāśiva. In this process, it is imaginable
that the force of merits and demerits accumulated from good and bad deeds is also
included.
The next phase of development is seen in the Sarvajñānottaratantra (hereafter
SJU), where effort is made to set all bonds in a frame, to classify them, and to be
clear about their status and nature. This text also makes mention of innate impurity
(mala). However, here it is defined not as a concealing substance, one for all, like in
the SvāSS, but differently, as one’s merits and demerits, and it is not included
among the bonds. Here I translate the relevant passage:
The entities belonging to the guṇas are regarded as the bonds, [and] merit and
demerit together are regarded as impurity (mala), innate to all creatures and
situated in them just like the blackish verdigris on copper. The bonds are
thought to be of three types: innate, adventitious, and contagious. Listen
further, O Guha, to the individual ascertainment of them. Those entities such
as the tanmātras, which are very subtle and omnipresent, are proclaimed as the
highest of bonds innately present in all creatures. The sense faculties, the gross
elements, and whatsoever seed has arisen there, all those are regarded as
adventitious ones. Different from them, further, are the contagious [bonds].
Due to the contact [of the sense faculties with the sense objects] whatever
deeds are done, either good or bad, they form the contagious bonds and they
provide the reward in the form of happiness and sorrow. […] The bonds are
without beginning and end, but the individual soul is proclaimed as without
beginning; and the cutter of [these bonds], who is the lord of both the bonds
and the bound souls, is also without beginning.20
This scheme involves a good degree of sophistication, but it is not properly
conceptualised like that in the SvāSS. Here an effort is made to classify the
bonds into innate, adventitious, and contagious types. It also identifies the
force of merits and demerits resulting from one’s good and bad deeds
(dharmādharma) as innate impurity (mala) distinguished from the bonds. It
has, however, an overlap between dharmādharma and karman. It first defines
dharmādharma as innate impurity and counts it separately beyond the bonds,
and then lists karman as the last of three bonds. But the text does not state if

20
SJU 28.11–15, 21:
guṇatattvāḥ smṛtāḥ pāśā dharmādharmau malaḥ smṛtaḥ |
sahajaḥ sarvajantūnāṃ tāmre kālikavat sthitaḥ ||
trividhās te smṛtāḥ pāśāḥ sahajā-’’gantukās tathā |
sāṃsargikās tathā bhūyaḥ śṛṇu teṣu vinirṇayam ||
tanmātrādyās tu ye tattvāḥ susūkṣmāḥ sarvagā guha |
te tu pāśāḥ parāḥ proktāḥ sahajāḥ sarvajantuṣu ||
indriyāṇi ca bhūtāni yad bījaṃ teṣu sambhavam |
āgantukāḥ smṛtā hy ete tasmāt sāṃsargikāḥ punaḥ ||
saṃsargād yad bhavet karma śubhaṃ vā yadi vāśubham |
te tu sāṃsargikāḥ pāśāḥ sukhaduḥkhaphalapradāḥ || …
anādinidhanāḥ pāśā jīvo ’nādis tu kīrtitaḥ |
chedakaś ca tathānādiḥ paśupāśapatis tu yaḥ ||

123
14 D. Acharya

there is any difference between these two. It is not logical to speak about
merits and demerits separately if one wants to speak about karman. When the
Niśvāsa texts speak about the bonds, they do not mention karman, but mention
dharmādharma instead. In fact, karman stands for the unseen force of one’s
deeds, and it is often explained as dharmādharma, the merits and demerits one
has accumulated by performing good and bad deeds. This explanation is found
in many early Śaiva scriptures, e.g., SvāSS 2.17, RauSS 10.83, MatVP 8.98,
PaT 1.79. Therefore, the only way to avoid this problem, is to say that
dharmādharma is limited to the pre-existing merits and demerits of past lives,
while karman refers to deeds and their effects in the present life. This appears
to be the underlying idea, because the first is said to be innate and the other
contagious. Anyway, the scheme of the SJU provides a very good ground for
the development of a proper systematic concept of bonds by providing a
tripartite structure for bonds and an extra concept of the innate impurity. When
this much is already there, it is possible to improve on it.
The SJU scheme had relied too much on Sāṃkhya categories, and even there
it was concerned only with the products of Prakṛti. It had also postulated that
the subtle elements are innate and form the first of bonds. Correcting these
perceived mistakes, the SvSS incorporated everything that issued from Māyā,
the adventitious bond of the SJU, in one category, namely the bond belonging
to Māyā (māyeyapāśa). It also explained that karman consists of dharmād-
harma (cf. SvāSS 2.17), but still retained the concept of innate impurity as a
bond different from others, and defined it as the existential property of the
bound soul.
Now the question is: from where comes the possible inspiration for the concept of
innate impurity, its initial identification with dharmādharma, and its removal by the
rite of initiation? The rite of initiation alone, as mentioned in the beginning, can
remove innate impurity; only then, eventually, the other two are extinguished and
the initiated person is liberated.

What is Removed by Initiation

We know that Dharmakı̄rti (c. 550–660) “goes to the trouble of attacking the Tantric
Śaiva practice of initiation as the means to liberation” (cf. Sanderson 2001, p. 10).
His criticism can be helpful in understanding the development of the notion of
innate impurity and the function of the rite of initiation. Therefore, I propose to read
this criticism carefully:
The rite [of initiation], which is validated by the example of a seed and the
like, is not sufficient for the absence of [future] births of embodied souls,
because [if that is allowed] there would be the undesired consequence that
liberation by means of oil massage, burning oneself in fire, and the like[,
too, is validated]. That a man who weighed heavier before becomes lighter
[after initiation] does not mean that his sin is removed. Let it even be the

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 15

case that he has no weight at all; but sin cannot be heavy because it is not
embodied.21
This statement documents that the rite of initiation in the time of Dharmakı̄rti was
known as the remover of sin, and that most probably sin was regarded as a
substance, because it is apparently imagined with some weight. This was at least
implied, as the Śaivas had the practice of weighing a man before and after the
initiation to show that he has become lighter than he was prior to initiation.22
Dharmakı̄rti attacks this opinion about the function of the rite with the argument that
since sin is not embodied, it cannot have weight, and so, the idea that sin is removed
by the rite of initiation cannot be accepted. Following this criticism, Dharmakı̄rti
first presents the Buddhist position on the actual cause of future birth (PV
pramāṇasiddhi 262cd–264ab), and then allows his Śaiva opponent to defend his
position. His opponent speaks as follows:
The senses serve as the grounds of [all kinds of] movements and perceptions,
and they originate from the unseen [force of merits and demerits] (adṛṣṭa).
[But for an initiated man], because that unseen force has been destroyed
[during initiation], there will be no movement [into the transmigratory plain
again], and [also] no awareness that is the latent impression of that [unseen
force on ātman].23
In this defense, Dharmakı̄rti’s Śaiva opponent is stating that the unseen force of
merits and demerits (adṛṣṭa), which he recognises as the cause of the karaṇas, is
destroyed by the rite of initiation. Though Dharmakı̄rti appears to interpret karaṇa
in his own line as the senses, it is possible that the Śaiva opponent had meant more
than that by this term. Anyway, Dharmakı̄rti responds to this defense the following
way:
The capacity [of the senses to move] is still there [even after initiation],
because it is seen that his senses arise depending on the positive and negative
applications of the mind, nothing else. They thus still exist, so why do you say
that they do not move [to the next life]? If they do not have such capacity, then
following the very moment of initiation the [senses] should no longer be
capable of any of the functions dependent on awareness, like retention,
instigation, agitation, and suppression. If it is said that at the time [of death]
the mind is absent, and therefore, the [above mentioned] functions will no
longer be there, [then] my answer is that [the mind] is [instantaneously]
installed by impurities [even at that time]. If the impurities are incapable of

21
PV pramāṇasiddhi 260cd–262ab:
nālaṃ bījādisaṃsiddho vidhiḥ puṃsām ajanmane ||
tailābhyaṅgāgnidāhāder api muktiprasaṅgataḥ |
prāg guror lāghavāt paścān na pāpaharaṇaṃ kṛtam ||
mā bhūd gauravam evāsya na pāpaṃ gurv amūrtitaḥ |
22
On this practice, see TAK III, s.v., tulādīkṣā.
23
PV pramāṇasiddhi 264cd–266ab:
gatipratītyoḥ karaṇāny āśrayās tāny adṛṣṭataḥ ||
adṛṣṭanāśād agatiḥ tatsaṃskāro na cetanā |

123
16 D. Acharya

[installing] the mind, they should be so, incapable, even when the person is
living.24
With this response, Dharmakı̄rti is bringing the discussion on the Buddhist track,
and so, he argues that migration or non-migration of a living being into the next life
depends on the state of his mind and that depends on the existence or non-existence of
the mind’s impurities (mala/doṣa) arising from the wrong view (mithyājñāna) which
makes one see happiness in sorrow. I cut short this discussion because it is not relevant
to the present topic. It is, however, important to note that the Śaiva position criticised
by Dharmakı̄rti speaks either of sin (pāpa) or the unseen force of one’s merits and
demerits (adṛṣṭa) as the thing removed or destroyed by the rite of initiation. It does not
speak of impurity (mala). Instead, surprisingly, Buddhist Dharmakı̄rti speaks of it.
With this clue at hand, we can search and locate these opinions in the Śaiva
scriptures themselves. The second tenet of the Śaiva opponent of Dharmakı̄rti,
namely that the initiatory rite removes one’s merits and demerits, can be found in
the RauSS, the only text other than the SvāSS on which the seventh century
Sadyojyotis commented. Thus goes the relevant statement:
As darkness gets instantly destroyed after having reached the time of sunrise, in the
same way one is freed from merits and demerits as soon as he receives initiation.25
This statement does claim that merits and demerits are removed after the rite of
initiation but, like the SJU passage cited earlier, it does not identify these as innate
impurities. From this passage, it is not possible to know whether the removal of
merits and demerits was regarded as permanent or otherwise.
The first tenet of Dharmakı̄rti’s Śaiva opponent, namely that the rite of initiation
removes sin, can be traced back in the core of the Niśvāsa corpus, in the
Niśvāsamūlasūtra itself. Here is the relevant passage:
With a weighing scale [the teacher] would be able to cleanse his own sin or
that of others.26
This weighing ceremony probably was not an essential part of the rite of
initiation but an extra ceremony intended to inspire faith in this rite. Nevertheless,
this statement implies that in the earliest stage of its development, the Śaiva
Mantramārga posited the rite of initiation as the remover of sin. Only from this
statement we cannot decide whether the removal of sin as an effect of the rite of
initiation was regarded at that stage as permanent or otherwise. There is, however,
another statement in the same text which clearly asserts that bonds being burnt by
24
PV pramāṇasiddhi 266cd–269ab:
sāmarthyaṃ karaṇotpatter bhāvābhāvānuvṛttitaḥ ||
dṛṣṭaṃ buddher na cānyasya santi tāni na yanti kim? |
dhāraṇapreraṇakṣobhanirodhāś cetanāvaśāḥ ||
na syus teṣām asāmarthye tasya dīkṣādyanantaram |
atha buddhes tadābhāvāt na syuḥ sandhīyate malaiḥ ||
buddhes teṣām asāmarthye jīvato 'pi syur akṣamāḥ |
25
RauSS 8:3: yathā sūryodayaṃ prāpya tamaḥ kṣipraṃ vinaśyati |
evaṃ dīkṣāṃ samāsādya dharmādharmair vimucyate ||
26
NiTS Mūlasūtra 7:15ab: tulayā śodhayet pāpam ātmanasya parasya vā |

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 17

the rite of initiation cannot sprout and rise, therefore an initiated man goes to Śiva
after his body has fallen away.27 There is no doubt that merits and demerits are
included among these bonds burnt by initiation.28
We have now an important clue: the idea that the rite of initiation removes sin
(pāpa) innately present in the person of the embodied soul, or rather, the force of
both merits and demerits of his past deeds, probably predates the theorised concept
of the substance of innate impurity, its ripening, and removal.

The Removal of Sin in the Vedic, Pāśupata, and Śaiva traditions

Now the question can be reformulated: Where are the roots of this early Śaiva
belief that the rite of initiation removes all sorts of bond, sin particularly? The
Sūtra text of the Pāśupatas speaks of vow (vrata) and observance (caryā), but not
of the rite of initiation (dīkṣā). Kauṇḍinya, however, mentions in his Bhāṣya that a
Pāśupata teacher transforms his brahmin disciple using ashes empowered with
Sadyojāta and other mantras. He also refers to the rite of initiation. He apparently
uses the term saṃskāra and dīkṣā almost interchangeably, and the same is true
with the Saṃskāravidhi. The Pāśupatas appear to subscribe to the idea that during
the rite of transformation internal evils along with the external ones are removed.
As the Saṃskāravidhi (in verses 79–80) says, “Having attached himself to the
supreme among the gods this way, the [teacher], conversant with the ritual, should
approach the southern face [of the linga]. Then, reciting the mantra, he should
besmear the brahmin with ashes sanctified with mantras, and give again water
mixed with ashes, for the sake of cleaning the interior evils inherited from the
[male and female] seed and womb.”29 Nevertheless, the reward of the rite of
transformation or initiation in the Pāśupata systems is defined as eligibility for the
prescribed way of approaching Rudra, the Lord. The Saṃskāravidhi (verse 6)
clearly states that “the fruit of the rite is said to be eligibility for the prescribed
way [of approaching Rudra, the Lord].”30 Commenced with this rite is the lifelong
Pāśupata vow that is to be observed in various stages and with much care.
Throughout the observance of the Pāśupata vow, a Pāśupata should constantly
strive for the cleansing of sin and accumulation of virtues (pāpaśuddhi and
sukṛtavṛddhi: cf. PS 3.2–6), and only in the final stage of his observance can he
accomplish perfection. He is then no more stained by sin or his good or bad
actions (cf. PS 5.12). Only then, at the end of the observance, does he cut off his
connection to the substance of sin, identified as ‘net’ (jāla)31 in its evolved form,

27
NiTS Mūlasūtra 5:26cd: dīkṣādagdhā na rohanti bhinnadehe śivaṃ vrajet |
Though the sentence in pāda C is elliptical, we can be relatively sure that the implied subject qualified
by dīkṣādagdhāḥ is pāśāḥ. The Nayasūtra (1.11, 12–13, 22) explicitly and repeatedly states that all bonds
are burnt in the Śiva sacrifice at the time of initiation.
28
Cf. NiTS Nayasūtra 1.111.
29
Acharya (2007, pp. 35, 45–46).
30
Acharya (2007, pp. 29, 37).
31
Let me remind you that ‘net’ (jāla) is the entity at the bottom of the impure world in the scheme of the
second variety of Atimārga stated in the Niśvāsamukha. See above, p. 4.

123
18 D. Acharya

and as the ‘cause’ (hetu) of the fall of the mind in its fundamental form. Here is
an interesting discussion from Kaundinya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 5.35:
˙˙
[Question:] Is it so that the scripture simply obliges one to cut down the
polluting factors or to cut oneself off from these factors?

[Answer:] Not [just that]! Because, they [also] state: “the cause.” The cause
here is demerit. Why? Because it is the cause of the fall of the mind. For, being
possessed by this [demerit], the initiated practitioner deviates from his duties
such as studies and remembrance of Rudra. Because of this reason, demerit is
regarded as the cause in this context. Merit, on the other hand, is the cause of
endurance and other positive outcomes.

[Question:] What is that of which this [demerit] is the cause?

[Answer:] Of the net. In this system, when demerit is in unaltered state/

uniformity, it has not yet begun to produce its effects, till then it is named as
‘the cause.’ But when, by the force of the latent impression of nescience, it is
consolidated and, by that process, has entered the state of stability and further,
it receives the name ‘net.’32
This process of cutting off of impurities, their net, and the cause is completed only
at the end of the Pāśupata observance. In short, though the Pāśupatas, too, regarded
demerit or sin as the source of all impurities and the cause of transmigration, they
never viewed the rite of initiation as the means for its eradication and therefore as
liberation of the initiated. Thus, the function of the rite of initiation in the Pāśupata
systems was simply to put the initiated person on the right path.
We know that the Śaiva Mantramārga emerged as closely related to the Pāśupata
Atimārga. If the Śaiva idea of the permanent removal of sin though initiation does
not come from the Pāśupatas, we should look into the Vedic texts of the ritualistic
tradition. The Śaivas may well have resorted to Vedic texts when they had to
readjust their theory in order to respond to their opponents’ criticism, because they
knew that the Pāśupatas had adapted and adopted the rite of initiation and related
ideas from the Vedic context.
Once we enter the Vedic world of rituals, it is possible to find parallels for this
concept of sin already in the Vedic Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas. According to these
passages, the removal of sin is necessary to achieve the ultimate good, either in the
form of heaven, liberation, or otherwise. These passages also assert, like the NiTS
Mūlasūtra, that the rite of initiation removes sin. As they do so, some of them
clearly speak of the substance of sin like the Śaivas did in the context of the
weighing rite. In the following, therefore, I present some such passages selectively.

32
Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 5.35: āha: kiṃ doṣāṇāṃ doṣebhya eva vā chettavyam uktam? na. yasmād
āhuḥ— hetuḥ. atra hetur adharmaḥ. kasmāt? cittacyutihetutvāt. yasmāt tenāviṣṭaḥ sādhako ’dhyayanas-
maraṇā-dibhyaś cyavatīty ato ’trādharmo hetuḥ. dharmas tu sthityādihetuḥ. āha— kasyāyaṃ hetuḥ?
ucyate— jālasya. atra yadā adharmaḥ kūṭastho ’nārabdhakāryas tadā hetur ity ucyate. yadā tv
ajñānavāsanāvaśād dhṛtyā sthityādibhāvam āpannas tadā jālākhyāṃ labhate.

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 19

The following passage comes from the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā (hereafter MaiS) and
informs us about the transfer of the initiated man’s sin, divided in three portions, to
three groups of beings, three portions that harm him in three different ways. The
passage tells about the removal of the initiated man’s sin as well as about the
consequence of speaking ill of him. A man who intends to perform a sacrifice must
first be free of sin. He, therefore, goes through the rite of initiation and during this
rite his sin passes to his adversaries. Here is the exact passage with my translation:
They divide the sin of that man who undergoes initiation into three portions:
he who eats his food [receives] one third [of it], he who speaks ill of him
[receives] another one third,33 and those ants which bite him [receive] the
other one third. Therefore, surely, the food of that man is uneatable. Therefore,
one should not speak ill of [an initiated man]. Therefore, one should not
procure the clothing of an initiated man, for, there are those ants which bite
him.34
As mentioned earlier, the notion of freeing oneself from sin has an important
place in Pāśupata soteriology, and the ways in which a Pāśupata is freed from sin
matches with the ways in which a Vedic ritualist Brahmin is freed from it. In the
Pāśupata system, however, this notion is sightly exaggerated and appropriated in
favour of the Pāśupata observing his vow. PS 3.5–9 reveal that an abused Pāśupata
takes away the abuser’s good deeds and gives him his bad deeds. Similarly, PS
4.10–11 assert that when Indra observed the Pāśupata vow amongst Asuras he took
their merits of the sacrificial acts and of the sacrificial charities (iṣṭāpūrta).35
Therefore, as PS 3.10–18 teach, a Pāśupata observing his vow should speak and act
in such a way as to make himself the target of others’ abuse and revilement. But
Vedic texts, like the MaiS passage I cited, simply say that those speaking ill of an
initiated man take away his sin. In rare instances, Vedic texts also say that if one
abuses an initiated man he would lose his merits. However, they never ask an
initiated man to behave strangely to invite abuse and revilement.
Another notable difference in the Pāśupata system is that here the process of sin-
cleansing has a lifelong span. Once a Pāśupata enters this path, he constantly
observes the Pāśupata vow. Here emphasis is put on the observance of vow (caryā),
33
This idea that an initiated man’s sin is transferred to his abuser continues into the Pāśupata Atimārga,
cf. Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya as PS 3.7–9, 3.15–17, 4.12.
34
MaiS III.6.6 = KāS 23.3: tredhā vā etasya pāpmānaṃ vibhajante yo dīkṣate yo ’syānnam atti sa tṛtīyaṃ
yo ’syāślīlaṃ kīrttayati sa tṛtīyam yā enaṃ pipīlikā daśanti tās tṛtīyaṃ tasmād vā etasyānnam anādyaṃ
tasmād aślīlaṃ na kīrtayitavyaṃ tasmād dīkṣitavāso ’bhartavyam atra hi tāḥ pipīlikā yā enaṃ daśanti.
Only a German translation of the first two books of this important Vedic text has been recently published
(Amano 2009), the rest remains untranslated.
35
See Sakamoto-Gotō (2000) for the meaning of iṣṭāpūrta. She also discusses the loss of iṣṭāpūrta in
certain situations in the third section of her article. It is possible to reconcile this original meaning of
iṣṭāpūrta with Kauṇḍinya’s interpretation of it (Bhāṣya ad PS 4.11):
yan mantrapūrvakeṇa vidhinā datta hutaṃ stutyādiniṣpannaṃ tad iṣṭam, yad amantrapūrva-
keṇaiva tat pūrtam.
What is [done] following a procedure using mantras, donated or offered into the fire, [the reward
of all that and also] that resulting from prayer and the like is known as iṣṭa. What is done in a
simple way without a mantra is known as pūrta.

123
20 D. Acharya

whereas the Vedic rite of initiation has a limited, short span, and the process of sin-
cleansing is swift—it is carried out in order to prepare a person for a certain
sacrifice. From a certain point of view, the Śaiva rite of initiation is close to the
Vedic one. Both Vedic and Śaiva versions of the rite remove sin instantly during the
rite itself. Nevertheless, there is a major difference: the Vedic rite of initiation has a
temporary effect, but the Śaiva version of the same puts one in the path of liberation
and its effect is permanent.
Now I present a relevant passage from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (hereafter AiB)
and its translation by Haug. Here all seasons and months are portrayed as being
burdened with sin, and they want to go through the rite of initiation so that their sin
is removed.
The Seasons and Months felt themselves burdened, as it were (with guilt), for
having accepted at the Dvādaśāha (which they performed for Prajāpati) a
reward. They said to Prajāpati, “Make us (also) sacrifice with the Dvādaśāha.”
He consented and said to them, “Become ye initiated (take the Dīkṣā).” The
deities residing in the first (the so-called bright) half of the month first
underwent the Dīkṣā ceremony, and thus removed the consequences of guilt.
Thence they are in the daylight as it were; for those who have their guilt (really)
removed, are in the daylight, as it were (may appear every-where).
The deities residing in the second half (of the months) afterwards underwent
the Dīkṣā. But they (could) not wholly remove the evil consequences of guilt.
Thence they are darkness, as it were; for those who have the guilt not removed
are darkness, as it were (comparable to it). Thence he who has this knowledge
ought to have performed his Dīkṣā first and in the first half (of the month). He
who has such knowledge, thus removes (all) guilt from himself. (Haug 1977,
pp. 205–206)36
Unlike the Śaiva tradition, the Vedic tradition does not restrict the task of the
removal of sin to the rite of initiation. It can also be removed by some other means,
for example, by performing the daily obligatory Agnihotra ritual or by reciting
Vedic stanzas specifically the Gāyatrı̄ ones. Here is one passage from the Jaiminīya
Brāhmaṇa (hereafter JaiB) that speaks of removal of sin by means of the Agnihotra:
The evil that is committed in the day time, of that the sun is the cause. What is
committed at night, of that the fire. The two of them said: “If we shall (ever)
be thus, we shall not be able to support the creatures. Well, let us be food (and)
let us offer ourselves in each other.” When the sun sets, it offers itself in the
fire. Whatsoever evil the sun commits in the day time, that the fire drives away
for it at night. When the sun rises, the fire rises after it. It offers itself in the
sun. Whatsoever evil the fire commits at night, that the sun drives away for it

36
Another translation of the same can be seen in Keith (1920, p. 215). The original text (AiB 4.25.1) is
here: te vā ima ṛtavaś ca māsāś ca gurava ivāmanyanta dvādaśāhe pratigṛhya te 'bruvan prajāpatiṃ
yājaya no dvādaśāheneti sa tathety abravīt te vai dīkṣadhvam iti te pūrvapakṣāḥ pūrve dīkṣanta te
pāpmānam apāhata tasmāt te diveva diveva hy apahatapāpmāno 'parapakṣā apare 'dīkṣanta te natarām
pāpmānam apāhata tasmāt te tama iva tama iva hy anapahatapāpmānas tasmād evaṃ vidvān
dīkṣamāṇeṣu pūrvaḥ-pūrva eva didīkṣiṣeta apa pāpmānaṃ hate ya evaṃ veda

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 21

by day. As a snake frees itself from its skin, as one pulls a rush out of its
sheath, so he frees himself from all evil, who knowing thus offers the
Agnihotra. (Bodewitz 1973, p. 38)37
The next citation is a passage from the AiB which speaks of removal of sin by
reciting Vedic Gāyatrı̄ stanzas. This function of the Gayatrı̄ stanza is also attested in
the Pāśupata system. PS 5.21–22 teach to repeat the Rudragāyatrı̄ or the stanza of
Bahurūpa regularly, and PS 1.14–17 recommend to repeat the same, after taking an
extra bath in ashes and performing prāṇāyāmas, in case by mistake one breaches a
rule of the Pāśupata vow. Let us now read the passage:
One doomed as a non-Brahmin has to repeat [the Gāyatrı̄] eight hundred times.
Whoever is condemned and is overpowered by impurity should make this
sacrifice. The Gāyatrı̄ has eight syllables. By the Gāyatrı̄ the gods removed sin,
the impurity. By the Gāyatrı̄ itself they remove sin, the impurity, of that man.
He removes his sin who knows thus.38

Sin as Internal Impurity in Vedic Texts

The following passages, as well as the one just cited, are important in order to
understand the background and gradual development of the Śaiva concept of innate
impurity. For, in these three passages sin is interpreted as impurity. In the following
passages, both from the JaiB, sin is identified as impurity, and a man overpowered
by sin or impurity is compared to a gold coin smeared with dirt. A similar analogy to
the blackish verdigris on copper can be attested in Śaiva Mantramārga texts also
(cf., e.g., NiTS Nayasūtra 1.5, SJU 28.11 quoted on p. 5 above, MatVP 6.81).
He offers for four days. Thus altogether sixteen oblations are accomplished.
Brahman definitely consists of sixteen digits. The gods consist of sixteen
digits. Every entity consists of sixteen digits. Whenever he does a dirty, sinful
deed, he does that with merely one of those sixteen digits. As a gold ornament
when heated reaches the height of its gold nature, so he goes to heaven after
casting off the impurity, sin, onto his hating rivals.39

37
JaiB 1.9: yad dha vā ahnā pāpaṃ kriyata ādityas tat kārayati yad rātryāgnis tat tāv abrūtām itthaṃ ced
vai bhaviṣyāvo na vai tarhi śakṣyāvaḥ prajā bhartuṃ hantānnam evāsāvānyonyasminn evātmānaṃ
juhavāveti sa yad ādityo ’stam ety agnāv eva tad ātmānaṃ juhoti sa yat kiṃ cādityo ’hnā pāpaṃ karoti tad
asyāgnī rātryāpa hanty ādityam udyantam agnir anūdety āditya eva tad ātmānaṃ juhoti sa yat kiṃ cāgnī
rātryā pāpaṃ karoti tad asyādityo ’hnāpa hanti sa yathāhir ahicchavyai nir mucyeta yathā muñjād iṣīkāṃ
vi vṛhed evam eva sarvasmāt pāpmano nir mucyate sa ya evaṃ vidvān agnihotraṃ juhoti.
38
AiB 2.17.5-7: aṣṭau śatāny anūcyāny abrāhmaṇoktasya yo vā duruktoktaḥ śamalagṛhīto yajeta
aṣṭākṣarā vai gāyatrī gāyatryā vai devāḥ pāpmānaṃ śamalam apāghnata gāyatryaivāsya tat pāpmānaṃ
śamalam apa hanty apa pāpmānaṃ hate ya evaṃ veda.
39
JaiB 1.28: caturahaṃ juhoti ṣoḍaśāhutayas sampadyante ṣoḍaśakalaṃ vai brahma ṣoḍaśakalā devāṣ
ṣoḍaśakalam idaṃ sakṛt sarvaṃ sa yad iha ripraṃ pāpaṃ karma karoty ekayaiva tataḥ kalayā yathā
suvarṇaḥ pravṛttas tapyamānas suvarṇatām abhiniṣ padyata evam eva dviṣatsu bhrātṛvyeṣu malaṃ
pāpmānaṃ pratyūhya svargaṃ lokam abhipraiti. I am not aware of any translation of this and the next
passage from the JaiB.

123
22 D. Acharya

One desirous of brightness, one desirous of the splendour of brahman, should

sacrifice with threefold Agnistut; one desirous of virility with fifteen, one
˙˙
desirous of cattle with seventeen, one desirous of production of offspring with
twenty-one, one desirous of standing ground with twenty-seven, and one
desirous of excellence with thirty-three. In these vital functions [in the body]
the fire is located. Therefore, he who is well-read but still cannot distinctly
shine should perform this sacrifice. Just like a silver coin is covered with an
encrustation, the same way is he who is well-read but cannot shine. They push
him forward to the fire whom they assist in performing the Agnistut sacrifice.
˙˙
Just like one would hurl in fire a silver coin covered with a filthy encrustation
and remove from it all of the filth by an iron hammer, in the same way they
remove all impurity of that [man performing Agnistut]. His impurity has been
˙˙
removed, [now] he possesses brightness and the splendour of brahman.40
Here is one more passage, from the MaiS, that explains why a human being has
defiling dark substance inside him and what he should do for its removal:
The gods beat the demons (asuras) and expelled them from these worlds.
Their life substances (asus) entered the humans. That is this smearing
substance inside every person, and likewise, that black substance around the
eyes.41 Therefore one should fast [during the rite of initiation]. One repels that
demonic substance when he does not have anything inside [after fasting during
the rite of initiation].42
Because of this equation of sin and internal impurity, the Manusmṛti takes mala and
pāpa/pāpman as equivalent terms, and uses mala at least in three places (11.71, 102,
108)43 when pāpa is meant, and in one place (11.94) he clearly states that sin, too, is
called filth.44

40
JaiB 2.136: trivṛtā tejaskāmo brahmavarcasakāmo 'gniṣṭutā yajeta pañcadaśena vīryakāmas saptadaśena
paśukāmaḥ prajananakāma ekaviṃśena pratiṣṭhākāmas triṇavenaujaskāmas trayastriṃśena śrīkāmaḥ
imān vai prāṇān agnir anvāyattaḥ sa yo ’nūcānas san na vi roceta sa etena yajeteti yathā ha vai niṣkaś
śamalagṛhīta evaṃ sa yo 'nūcānas san na vi rocate agnā u vā etaṃ prāsyanti yam agniṣṭutā yājayanti tad
yathā niṣkaṃ śamalagṛhītam agnau prāsya tasyāyoghanena sarvaṃ śamalaṃ nir hanyād evaṃ haivāsya
sarvaṃ pāpmānaṃ nir ghnanti so 'pahatapāpmā tejasvī brahmavarcasī bhavati.
41
I assume that this black substance is the collyrium applied to the eyes of the person going through the
initiatory rite. As it appears, when this black substance disappears from the eyes at the end of three days
fasting, the person observing the vow is regarded as freed from impurities.
42
MaiS III.6.6 = KāS 23.2: devā asurān hatvaibhyo lokebhyaḥ prāṇudanta teṣām asavo manuṣyān
prāviśaṃs tad idaṃ ripraṃ puruṣe ’ntar atho kṛṣṇam iva cakṣuṣy antas tan nāśnīyād asuryam evāpahate
yadā vai puruṣe na kiṃcanāntar bhavati.
43
Cf. Olivelle (2005, p. 341, note on 11.94). He has by mistake written 107 instead of 108.
44
Manusmṛti 11.94: surā vai malam annānāṃ pāpmā ca malam ucyate |
tasmād brāhmaṇarājanyau vaiśyaś ca na surāṃ pibet ||
“Liquor is clearly the filth of various grains; sin is also called filth. Therefore, Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, and
Vaiśyas must not drink liquor” (Olivelle 2005, p. 219).
This statement of Manu is based on the following statement from the Taittirı̄ya Brāhmana (1.3.3.6)
which declares that impurity in itself is sin: ˙
annasya vā etac chamalam yat surā pāpmaiva khalu vai śamalam
That is impurity of food-grains what is known as liquor; actually impurity is nothing but sin.

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 23

Summing up, we can now say that in an essential form the concept of innate
internal impurity and its removal can be traced back to the Vedic texts. The Vedic
texts of the ritualistic tradition state that every human being has internal impurity in
the form of sin. It is a polluting, smearing, demonic substance, and when one
undergoes the rite of initiation this substance is removed. But in the Vedic
perspective the rite of initiation is not the only way to remove it. For example, the
daily Agnihotra rite and recitation of specific Vedic stanzas also can remove sin.
Here the removal of sin by any means is not permanent, because merits and demerits
are accumulated every day, and therefore, every day one needs to get rid of the sin
accumulated that day. Thus, in the Vedic ritualistic tradition, the removal of sin is
basically a gradual and regular process.
The Pāśupata tradition, being set up against the Vedic background, adopts the
same model of gradual and constant cleansing of sin and accumulation of merits. A
Pāśupata accumulates merits by observing his vow in various stages, transfers his
demerits to those who criticise and abuse him, and also draws their accumulated
merits. But for this he has to observe the Pāśupata vow lifelong. This proves that the
removal of external and internal evils at the time of the Pāśupata rite of
transformation or initiation is temporary. A repetition of certain procedures of the
initiatory rite at the time of the last funerary rite betrays the same logic.45 Therefore,
in the Pāśupata tradition the rite of initiation is not devised in the same way as it is
devised in the developed phase of the Śaiva Mantramārga. It only prepares a
Brahmin candidate once initiated in the Vedic tradition to enter the new path of
Pāśupatism.
The Śaiva Mantramārga believed that all accumulated sin is removed by the rite
of initiation, and also that this rite alone can remove it. But already in an early phase
of the development of Śaiva ideology, the Pāśupata-Śaiva belief that initiation
removes sin, permanently or otherwise, was met with strong criticism from the
Buddhists, and they had to readjust their theory. For this, the Śaivas apparently
resorted to those Vedic texts from which their Pāśupata predecessors had adapted
and adopted the rite of initiation and related ideas. In these texts sin was depicted as
innate impurity.46 As it was possible to theorise this idea of innate impurity, they
were also able to avoid adopting the Buddhist idea of ‘wrong view’ (mithyājñāna;
cf. PV pramāṇasiddhi 262cd–264ab). So, they immediately changed their rhetoric
and began to talk about innate impurity instead of sin, identified it as the
fundamental cause of bondage, and postulated that it is one for all, but its powers are
different for individual bound souls. With this revision in the perception of initiation
and the removal of sin, the Śaivas outsmarted the Pāśupatas, because now they were
capable of ensuring liberation for the initiated person,47 while in the Pāśupata model
liberation remained uncertain.

45
See Acharya (2010, p. 145) (Anteṣṭividhi verse 22).
46
It is also possible that they had found this idea in some later text narrating this Vedic proposition, for
example, the Manusmṛti. See above, fn. 44.
47
Evidence for this is found already in the NiTS Mūlasūtra. For the actual passage, see fn. 27 above.

123
24 D. Acharya

References

Acharya, D. (2007). The Saṃskāravidhi: A manual on the transformatory rite of the Lakulı̄śa-Pāśupatas.
In D. Goodall & A. Padoux (Eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner: Tantric
Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Collection Indologie 106. Pondicherry: French Institute/École
française d’Extrême-Orient.
Acharya, D. (2010). The Anteṣṭividhi: A manual on the last rite of the Lakulı̄śa Pāśupatas. Journal
Asiatique, 298(1), 133–156.
Acharya, D. (2011). Pāśupatas. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 3, 458–466.
AiB = Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, Containing the Earliest
Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning of the Sacrificial Prayers, and on the Origin,
Performance, and Sense of the Rites of the Vedic Religion. Vol. I: Sanscrit Text, with Preface,
Introductory Essay, and a Map of the Sacrificial Compound at the Soma Sacrifice. Vol. 2:
Translation, with Notes. Bombay–London, 1863. Reprint: Bharatiya Publishing House, Delhi, 1976
and 1977.
Amano, K. (2009). Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā I-II. Übersetzung der Prosapartien mit Kommentar zur Lexik und
Syntax der älteren vedischen Prosa. Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft
(MFhS) Bd. 9. Berlin: Hempen Verlag.
Bakker, H. (2010). The Gospel of Kauṇḍinya: The descent of god in Gujarat and the practice of imitating
god. In J. Dijkstra, J. Kroesen, & Y. Kuiper (Eds.), Myths, martyrs, and modernity. Brill: Leiden.
Bodewitz, H. W. (1973). Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa I, 1–65. Translation and Commentary with a Study:
Agnihotra and Prāṇāgnihotra. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Goodall, D. (1998). Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Volume I: chapters 1–6.
Critical edition and annotated translation. Publications du département d’indologie 86.1.
Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry/Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient.
Goodall, D. (2004). see PaT.
Goodall, D., & Isaacson, H. (2007). Workshop on the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā: The earliest surviving Śaiva
Tantra? Newsletter of the NGMCP, 3, 4–6. ˙
Goodall et al. (2008). A first edition and translation of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Tattvatrayanirṇayavivṛti,
A treatise on Śiva, Souls and Māyā, with detailed treatment of Mala. In D. Goodall, K. Kataoka,
D. Acharya, & Y. Yokochi (Eds.), South Asian Classical Studies, No. 3 (pp. 311–384). Fukuoka:
Department of Indology, Kyushu University.
Goodall, D., & Isaacson, H. (2011). Tantric traditions. In J. Frazier (Ed.), The continuum companion to
Hindu studies (pp. 122–137, 189–191 (notes), 361–400 (bibliography, joint for the whole volume)).
London/New York: Continuum.
Haug, M. (1977). See AiB.
JaiB = Jaiminı̄ya Brāhmaṇa. Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa of Sāmaveda. ed. Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra.
Second Revised Edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.
Keith, A. B. (1920). Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya And Kausı̄takı̄ Brāhmanas of the Rigveda.
Translated from the Original Sanskrit. Harvard Oriental Series ˙25. Second Indian˙ Reprint: Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.
KāS = Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā. Kâṭhakam. Die Saṃhitâ der Kaṭha-Çâkhâ. Volume II. ed. Leopold von
Schroeder. Leipzig, 1909. Reprint: Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1971.
Manusmrti. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-dharmaśāstra.
˙ Olivelle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Patrick
MaiS = Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā: Die Saṃhitā der Maitrāyaṇīya-Śākhā. ed. Leopold von Schroeder. Drittes
Buch. Leipzig, 1885. Reprint: Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972.
MatVP = Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Vidyāpāda) avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāma-kaṇṭha. ed. N. R.
Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 56. Pondicherry: IFI, 1977.
NiTS = Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. NAK MS 1–227, NGMPP Reel No.A 41/14. Palm–leaf, Folios 117, early
Nepalese (Kuṭilā) script. There are two apographs available, both in Devanagari and on paper: NAK
MS 5-2401, NGMPP Reel No. A 159/18, and Welcome Institute for the History of medicine, London,
Sanskrit MS I.33. The verse and chapter numeration used in footnotes is that of Goodall’s edition in
progress.
Olivelle, P. (2005). See Manusmṛti.

123
On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity 25

PaT = The Parākhyatantra, a scripture of the Śiva Siddhānta. A critical edition and annotated translation.
ed. and trans. Dominic Goodall. Collection Indologie 98. Pondicherry: Institut français de
Pondichéry/Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004.
PS = Pāśupatasūtra. See Sastri (1940).
PV = Pramāṇavārtika. Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārtika with a Commentary by Manoratha-nandin. ed.
Swami Dwarikadas Shastri. Benares: Bauddha Bharati, 1984.
RauSS = Raurasūtrasaṃgraha. Surviving Chapters are published as the Vidyāpāda of the Rauravāgama, in
Rauravāgama. Vol. I. ed. N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 18. Pondicherry: IFI, 1961.
Sakamoto-Gotō, J. (2000). ‘Das Jenseits und iṣṭāpūrtá- “die Wirkung des Geopferten-und-Geschenkten”
in der vedischen Religion’ in Indoarisch, Iranisch und die indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangeen: 475–490. Wiesbaden:
Reichert Verlag.
Samskāravidhi. See Acharya (2007).
˙
Sanderson, A. (1992). The Doctrine of the Mālinı̄vijayottara. In T. Goudriaan (Ed.), Ritual and
speculation in early Tantrism. Studies in honour of André Padoux (pp. 281–312). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Sanderson, A. (2001). History through textual criticism in the study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the
Buddhist Yoginı̄tantras. In F. Grimal (Ed.), Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time.
A Colloquium, Pondicherry, 11–13 January 1997 (pp. 1–47). Publications du département
d’Indologie 91. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO.
Sanderson, A. (2006a). The dates of Sadyojyotis and Brhaspati. Cracow Indological Studies, VIII, 39–76.
Sanderson, A. (2006b). The Lākulas: New evidence˙ of a system intermediate between Pāñcārthika
Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism. Indian Philosophical Annual, 26(2003–2005), 143–217.
Sanderson, A. (2009). The Śaiva age: The rise and dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval
Period. In S. Einoo (Ed.), Genesis and development of Tantrism (pp. 41–349). Tokyo: Institute of
Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Sastri, R. A. (1940). Pāśupatasūtras with Pañcārthabhāṣya of Kaundinya (R. Ananthakrishna Sastri, Ed.).
Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, No. 143. Trivandrum: University ˙ ˙ of Travancore, 1940.
SJU = Sarvajñānottaratantra. NAK MS 1–1672. NGMPP Reel No. A 43/12. Palm-leaf, early Nepalese
script. Described by Śāstri (1905:lxxiv–lxxv and 85–86). Also GOML MS D 5550 and IFP T. Nos.
334, 760, paper transcripts in Devanāgarı̄. The Verse ans chapter numeration used is that of
Goodall’s edition in progress.
SvāSS = Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. ed. Veṅkaṭasubrahmaṇyaśāstrī. Mysore, 1937.
TAK III = Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III. A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature.
fondé sous la direction de H. Brunner, G. Oberhammer et A. Padoux. Direction éditoriale à partir du
troisième volume: D. Goodall, M. Rastelli. Östereichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Vol. 839. Band. Beiträge zur Kultur- und
Geistesgeschichte Asiens Nr. 76. Vienna: Verlag der Östereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten, 2013.
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa with the commentary of Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara Miśra. Vol. I: Aṣṭaka I. ed. R. Shama Sastry.
Mysore: University of Mysore, 1921. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985.
TattvaTN = Tattvatrayanirṇaya of Sadyojyotis. See Goodall et al. (2008).

123