We can find, scattered in Abhinavagupta’s works, a number of penetrating remarks on the nature of language. An overall assessment of his position in the Indian speculation on sabda has not yet been attempted, and certainly ´ this is not an easy task due to the many components and the various sources of his eclectic teaching. Another reason for his absence from the general surveys of Indian linguistic studies may have been the implicit assumption that owing to his being a tantric master, and therefore above all a ‘mystic’, his philosophy is not to be taken seriously, an exception being made only for his well-known contribution to aesthetics. Be this as it may, the available studies on Abhinava as a philosopher of language end up by being either a chapter attached to specific tantric studies or just a paragraph when dealing with the doctrine of Bhartrhari, to which Abhinavagupta’s . doctrine is considered an esoteric appendix.2 Now that it is becoming more and more apparent that Abhinavagupta is one of the great philosophers of traditional India, time has come for us to make an attempt to reconsider his ideas in broader perspective. The starting point of my enquiry was, in a sense, a negative one. At a certain point of my study of Abhinavagupta’s work I was struck by the fact that he hardly ever mentions sphota. Acceptance of sphota would . . seem the natural outcome of the central place that Abhinavagupta assigns to the whole of Bhartrharian teaching in the Trika philosophy, since in . Bhartrhari’s conception the sphota theory plays an essential role. On the . . contrary, the rare occurrences of the term sphota in Abhinavagupta’s works . all show that he considers this doctrine as belonging to ‘others’,3 that is, the Vaiy¯ karanas towards whom he never fails to exhibit a certain colda .
1 Extended version of a paper presented at the XII World Sanskrit Conference,

Helsinki (July, 2003). Earlier drafts were read at La Sorbonne (May, 2002) and Berkeley (September, 2002). 2 Among the studies on linguistic speculation in Abhinavagupta, or more in general, in the so-called Kashmir Shaivism, see Gaurinath Shastri, 1959; Seyfort Ruegg, 1959: 101–116; Padoux, 1990; Filliozat, 1994; Torella, 1998, 1999b, 2000. 3 E.g., ¯ IPVV vol. II, p. 188 ll.12–13 tath¯ ca vaiy¯ karan air api v¯ kyasphot asya pr¯ ya´o a a a a s . . buddhinirgr¯ hyataiva dar´ it¯ . a s a Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 173–188, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



ness.4 And, incidentally, this fact, too, deserves a closer investigation: how is it that Abhinavagupta is so often disparaging of the Vaiy¯ karanas a . and at the same time so respectful and appreciative of their recognized leader. The next step in my enquiry has been to see what is, then, the meaning-bearer for Abhinavagupta, once he has decided not to take the Bhartrharian sphota into account. An answer to this question is to be . . sought, first of all, in the Par¯ trimsik¯ tattvavivaran a (PTV), one of his a .´ a . ¯ most personal and fascinating works, and in the Tantr¯ loka (TA). Useful a ¯svarapratyabhijñ¯ vivr tivimar´in¯ (¯ hints are also to be found in I´ a . s ı IPVV) and M¯ lin¯vijayav¯ rttika. The picture which can be gathered from the full a ı a range of his texts is, if rather complex, nonetheless highly consistent. To this old problem – what is the v¯ caka? – quite unexpectedly a Abhinavagupta furnishes the oldest of the solutions, that of the M¯m¯ ms¯ :5 ı a. a ‘Ultimately, the power of verbal signification, consisting in the identification with meaning, only pertains to phonemes’.6 The phonemes have as their essential nature ‘sonority’ (´ruti; PTV p. 249 l.20), which s presupposes difference (without difference in sonority no articulation of phonemes is possible). For the difference to be possible an inner unity is necessary; however, this unity, represented by supreme Consciousness or Par¯ V¯ c, does not cancel difference, but acts as the inner background a a on which more and more interiorized forms of difference rest. For, as we shall see later, difference, multiplicity, are the very heart of phonemes. The fact that it is possible to speak inwardly implies that all the sources of differentiation of phonemes (place and organs of articulation, aspiration and so on) must also have some, so-to-speak, internal version (PTV p. 249 ll.24 antas tath¯ samucitasvabh¯ vah sy¯ d eva). The status of the a a . a phonemes in Abhinavagupta’s view seems to be very different from any other classical conception, including the M¯m¯ ms¯ ’s. A telling evidence ı a. a may be represented by Abhinavagupta’s paradoxical answer to the objection that not only the phonemes of language but many other sounds can express meanings, for example the sound of a drum or that of a bird (PTV p. 251 ll.10–11). Only phonemes, Abhinavagupta says, have by themselves the power to express meanings (PTV p. 251 l.9 varnan¯ m eva ca .¯ a
4 PTV (Gnoli edition) p. 236 ll.21–24 anyai´ caitat prayatnas¯ dhitam iha ca s a et¯ vadupade´adh¯ r¯ dhi´ayana´alin¯ m aprayatna eva siddhyat¯ty n¯ sm¯ bhir atra vrth¯ a s aa s s¯ a ı a a . a vaiy¯ karanagurugr hagamane p¯ ta´ar¯rat¯ viskriy¯ m¯ traphale nirbandho vihitah. ¯ a u s ı a . a a . . . IPVV vol. II, p. 194 ll.17–21, p. 195 ll.17–22, etc. 5 The first to maintain the identification of the word with the phonemes that compose it is held to be the M¯m¯ msaka Upavarsa (S¯ barabh¯ s ya p. 54, ad M¯m¯ ms¯ s¯ tra I.1.5, atha ı a. a. ı a. a u . ´a gaur ity atra kah sabdah | gakarok¯ ravisarjan¯y¯ iti bhagav¯ n upavarsah) a ı a a . ´ . . . 6 PTV p. 251 l.9 varnan¯ m eva ca param¯ rthato ’rthat¯ d¯ tmyalaks anam v¯ cakatvam; a a a .¯ a . . . a p. 241 ll.13–14 evam ekaikasyaiva varnasya v¯ stavam v¯ cakatvam. a . . a



param¯ rthato ’rthat¯ d¯ tmyalaks anam v¯ cakatvam), so, if all sounds are a a a . . . a seen potentially to have this power, this simply means that all sounds, without distinction, must have phonemes as their ultimate stuff. Even when they are indistinct or not fully manifested or articulated, the various sounds cannot exceed the corpus of the phonemes (m¯ trk¯ ).7 Nor can one say that, a. a though being acknowledged as not going over the range of the m¯ trk¯ , the a. a indistinct/unmanifest sounds are not to be taken into account because they lack any efficiency or practical application.8 In fact, they can for example generate pleasure and pain, as is the case with the sound of the ocean or ´ the drum. Further, for the Saiva schools it is the avyaktadhvani ‘unmanifest sonority’ itself to be described as being the very stuff of the mantra (PTV p. 250 ll.19–20 mukhyatayaiva pr¯ ya´o mantratvam), the powerful sound a s par excellence. An additional evidence for the ultimately phonemic nature of all sounds is to be found in the somewhat cryptic statement made by Patañjali in the Yogas¯ tra (III.17): ‘There is an overlapping of word, object and concept u due to their being superimposed on each other. Thanks to directing [yogic] exercise on their differentiation one can obtain the knowledge of the sounds of all beings’. If, as seems obvious, ‘the knowledge of the sounds’ is to be understood as ‘the knowledge of the meaning of the sounds’, this means that all sounds are given the qualification of not exceeding the nature of unperceived phonemes,9 since only phonemes can indeed signify. Before attempting to find a rationale for bold statements like these, let us broaden our perspective and see what is the place of phonemes in ´ the theology of the Saiva advaita tradition which Abhinavagupta stems ´ from. It is very high, indeed. The whole of reality, in Saiva ritual, can be traversed by six ‘paths’ (adhvan). The guru has to resort to one of them, according to the circumstances and the leanings of the adept, particularly during the initiatory ceremony. These paths are divided by Abhinavagupta and his followers into two groups of three, called v¯ caka (padas, mantras, a ´ phonemes) and v¯ cya (words, kal¯ s, principles), respectively. In the Saiva a a advaita outlook, the ‘linguistic’ paths hold an undiscussed ontological supremacy with respect to the ‘realistic’ ones, while the opposite holds ´ true in the dualist Saivasiddh¯ nta.10 a
7 PTV p. 250 ll.15–16 avyaktatve ’pi ta eva t¯ vantah sabdatv¯ t sabdasya ca a a ´ . ´ m¯ trk¯ tirekino ’bh¯ v¯ t. a. a a a . 8 PTV p. 250 ll.16–17 m¯ trk¯ natireky (my emendation for m¯ trk¯ tireky in the edited a. a a. a text) api avyaktah sabdo ’nupayog¯ n na samgrh¯ta ity apy ayuktam. ´ a ı . . . 9 PTV p. 251 ll.7–8 sa katham, asphutavarnar¯ patv¯ tirekivihag¯ dik¯ jitajñ¯ n¯ ya a a u a a . . . u paryavasyet. 10 See Torella, 2001: 854–855.



The pada-adhvan (here pada refers to the parts of a long and composite mantra) corresponds to the level of ordinary language, with its putting together the various phonemes to form words and sentences, and constitutes the body itself of discursive thought. Within the v¯ caka group the a phonemes stand first as representing the essential components both of the padas and the mantras: phonemes do not depend on anything else, they are svanis. ha.11 But the very special, unique, rank of the phonemes .t can be well understood from a significant detail found in the complicated picture of universal reality given by Abhinavagupta in the PTV. Here the phonemes and the ontological principles (tattva) are viewed according to the different planes of being, represented by the four levels of the Word. Par¯ and Pa´yant¯ (or the goddesses Par¯ and Par¯ par¯ ) are seen a s ı a a a as bimba and pratibimba, that is, as the reflecting image and the reflected image, respectively (PTV p. 234 ll.14 ff.). What is very revealing is that while in the mirror of Pa´yant¯ the tattvas of the manifested world appear s ı in reverse order (from bh¯ mi to sakti instead of from sakti to bh¯ mi; u ´ ´ u see table 5.1 in Padoux, 1990: 318–319), just like any reflected image, the consonantal phonemes (from K to Ks), which are their quintessen. tial nature, remain unchanged. Abhinavagupta’s explanation is that the nature of phonemes does not tolerate alteration (PTV pp. 234 l.29–235 l.1 svar¯ p¯ nyath¯ tv¯ sahis nuk¯ dipar¯ mar´ananyath¯ bh¯ venaiva). They u a a a a s¯ a a .. a are the par¯ mar´as of the tattvas, i.e., the way in which consciousa s ness becomes aware of them. At the level of Par¯ V¯ c, the nature a a of the phonemes is ‘beyond convention, eternal, spontaneous, made of consciousness’.12 The above remarks clarify another significant feature of Abhinavagupta’s linguistic ideas: the division of the word into three or four ´ levels, upheld by Bhartrhari and his followers – and, among them, the Saiva . ´ philosophers themselves –, does not conflict with the Saiva emphasis on the role of phonemes. Abhinavagupta is not willing to see any gap between consciousness and phonemes (this after all cannot be a matter of too much surprise as his ontology and gnoseology typically do not like gaps). Were it not premature with respect to the development of our presentation of his ideas, we could introduce right now the enigmatic expression found ¯ in the TA (XI.67b), in which the answer to the question we are dealing with here is implicitly fully contained: varnasamvit, probably a hapax in . .

11 pad¯ ni mantr¯ rabdh¯ ni mantr¯ varnaikavigrah¯ h / varnah svanisth¯ ity esam a a a a a. . . ¯. .. a .¯. ¯ sth¯ las¯ ksmapar¯ tmat¯ //. Source unknown, quoted in Tantr¯ loka-viveka (TAV) vol. IV, u u . a a a p. 34. 12 PTV p. 220 ll.26–27 am¯sam varnan¯ m par¯ v¯ gbh¯ mir iyam iha nirn¯yate ı. ¯ . a a u . ¯ a. .ı yatraivesam as¯ mayikam nityam akrtrimam samvinmayam eva r¯ pam. a u . .¯ . .



¯ Sanskrit vocabulary, in front of which Jayaratha himself (the TA’s learned commentator) remains silent. But let us apparently abandon the main track and allow ourselves a short digression, which, however, will prove to be not devoid of interest. The more distinction dims, says Abhinavagupta at a certain point of his magnum opus, the more aesthetic pleasure, relishing, rejoicing, come to the fore: everybody enjoys intense satisfaction at hearing a music made ı a s ı of unmanifest sounds.13 Vaikhar¯, Madhyam¯ , and Pa´yant¯ are to be seen as ontologically higher and higher planes precisely due to differentiation progressively diminishing in them (also within each of them there is an inner gradation towards non-difference, each of them showing a gross, subtle, and supreme level). From the linguistic point of view, this can be seen as the v¯ cya component losing prominence in favour of the v¯ caka a a component. The tantric Abhinavagupta comes here to the foreground: the presence of the v¯ cya is always a sign of non-fullness,14 at the mantra a level it is precisely due to the lack of a v¯ cya and to the total absence a of conventionality that the b¯japindas ‘agglomerates of seed-mantras, i.e., ı .. of mantras consisting of a single syllable’ can cause consciousness to ‘vibrate’ (spandayanti).15 Starting from everyday reality, in which we have the proliferation of the multiplicity of discursive thought and of the
13 TA III.243cd–244ab avibh¯ go hi nirvrtyai drsyat¯ m t¯ lap¯ thatah // kil¯ vyak¯ a a . . ´ a . a a. .

tadhvanau tasmin v¯ dane paritusyati /. a . 14 This may be connected with the old question, first mentioned as early as at the times of Y¯ ska’s Nirukta (I.15), whether the vedic mantras are to be assumed as having a a meaning or not. The meaninglessness of the mantras was upheld by Kautsa, whose position is recorded and criticised by Y¯ ska (I.16). The question is taken up again by a the M¯m¯ ms¯ s¯ tra (I.2.31–39) and its commentators, who all endorse the ‘meaningfulı a. a u ness’ option (for obvious reasons; the s¯ tras 31–39 give voice to a p¯ rvapaksa); cf. Staal, u u . 1967: 24–26, 45–47. A Buddhist Mah¯ y¯ na text raises the question from a different a a perspective (cf. Dasgupta, 19693 [1946]: 20–22; see also Gonda, 1975 [1963]: 299– 300, totally depending on the latter without clearly acknowledging it). There are four kinds of dh¯ ran¯s according to the Bodhisattvabh¯ mi: dharma◦ , artha◦ , mantra◦ and a .ı u dh¯ ran¯s serving for obtaining the forbearance (ksanti) of the bodhisattva. The latter, a .ı .¯ considered to be the highest, is made of totally meaningless syllables. But it is precisely such meaninglessness that is said to constitute their meaning (Bodhisattvabh¯ mi p. 185 u l.25 ayam eva caisam artho yad uta nirarthat¯ ). Through meditating on their meaningless a .¯ ‘meaning’, one can attain by himself the realization of the ineffable nature of all dharmas (ibid., p. 186 ll.1–4 sa tesam mantrapad¯ n¯ m artham samyak pratividhya tenaiv¯ nus¯ ren a a a a a . .¯. . sarvadharm¯ n am apy artham samyak pratividhyati svayam ev¯ srutv¯ [. . .] sarv¯ bhil¯ paih a. ¯ a´ a a a . . sarvadharm¯ n am svabh¯ v¯ rth¯ parinis pattih | y¯ punar esam nirabhil¯ pyasvabh¯ vat¯ a. ¯ . a a a a a a a . . .¯. ayam evaisam svabh¯ v¯ rthah . a a .¯ . . 15 TA V.140–141 kim punah samay¯ peksam vin¯ ye b¯japindak¯ h / samvidam ¯ a .¯. a ı . . . . a. . . spandayanty ete neyuh samvidup¯ yat¯ m // v¯ cy¯ bh¯ v¯ d ud¯ s¯nasamvitspand¯ t a a a a a a aı a . . . svadh¯ matah / pr¯ noll¯ sanirodh¯ bhy¯ m b¯japindesu p¯ rnat¯ //. Cf. also ibid., VII.2cd– a a. a a a. ı . .. . u . a 3ab b¯japindatmakam sarvam samvidah spandan¯ tmat¯ m // vidadhat parasamvitt¯ v ı a a a ..¯ . . . . .



language which makes it possible – a language made of fully developed words and sentences endowed with fully defined objects –, we arrive, at end of a long journey, close to the very roof of being (however, it is ´ always to be borne in mind that in the Saiva advaita outlook there is no real vertical division and the highest plane is already present in the very ´ heart of the lowest). This top reality is constituted by the plane of Sakti, or, from a ‘linguistic’ viewpoint, by the M¯ trk¯ , whose body is articua. a lated in nine and fifty forms. The former are the alphabetic classes of the Sanskrit language, while the latter are the single phonemes. But M¯ trk¯ , a. a in which a shadow of objectivity (¯ mrsya) is still present,16 is not the last a .´ ´ step, which is instead represented by Bhairava, in the form of Sabdar¯ si a´ ‘mass of sounds’. In it, all objectivity and multiplicity are totally absent, it is only a single and unitary amar´a.17 At this point we are legitimately s ¯ curious to see what happened to the fifty phonemes in what is the very core of non-differentiated universal consciousness. Will they too be reduced to an undifferentiated unity, just like amar´a? Not at all. Even in Bhairavas ¯ ´ Sabdar¯ si the phonemes keep their multiplicity, only they are so-to-speak a´ ´ ‘compressed’ (samkal-), hence the denomination itself of ‘Sabdar¯ si’.18 a´ . Now it is high time that we put all the pieces together and attempt an explanation. The phonemes are the only reality which is not swallowed by supreme consciousness; they never lose their own essential identity and nature regardless of the ontological level in which they act; they freely run through Vaikhar¯, Madhyam¯ , Pa´yant¯ and Par¯ . Why is this? ı a s ı a Simply because they are not a content of consciousness but consciousness itself, amounting to its energetic, cognitive aspect. Thanks to this germ of multiplicity alone, which they constitute, consciousness can be alive, can
up¯ yah iti varnitam /. As Jayaratha clarifies, it is not the v¯ cya in itself that is altogether a . a . absent, but the v¯ cya as distinct from the v¯ caka, since they shine in perfect unity a a ¯ with consciousness (TAV vol. III, p. 455 samvidaik¯ tmyena sphuranat vyatiriktasya a . .¯ v¯ cyasy¯ bh¯ v¯ t . . .). In the case of mantras (and their varieties, like mantre´varas, a a a a s ´ mantramahe´varas etc.), the Saiva theology distinguishes a v¯ caka component (the s a mantra proper in its ‘linguistic’ nature) and the v¯ cya, i.e., the devat¯ signified by it a a (Brunner, 2001: 184). 16 TA III.198cd amrsyacch¯ yay¯ yog¯ t saiva sakti´ ca m¯ trk¯ //. ¯ ¯ .´ a a a ´ s a. a 17 TA III.198ab ek¯ mar´ asvabh¯ vatve sabdar¯ sih sa bhairavah /. From the union of ¯ a s a ´ a´ . . ´ Bhairava-Sabdar¯ si with M¯ trk¯ arises another alphabet goddess, M¯ lin¯ ‘the Garlanda´ a. a a ı bearing One’, characterized by an apparently chaotic mixture of the phonemes (from N to Ph) and specially connected with power. 18 Jayaratha thereon (vol. II, p. 191) ekah – amrsya´ unyatv¯ n nihsah¯ yah, amar´anam a a . ¯ s . ¯ . ´ s¯ . amar´ah par¯ mar´akah pram¯ t¯ , tatsvabh¯ vatve pañc¯ sato ’pi varnan¯ m samkalanay¯ ¯ s . a s . aa a a´ a . ¯ a. . ‘´abdar¯ sir iti’, bhairava’ iti vyapade´ah . In other traditions sabdar¯ si may also be simply s a´ s . ´ a´ a synonim of m¯ trk¯ (e.g., Par¯ khya VI.3–4; apparently also in Siddhayoge´var¯ patala a. a a s ı . XVI).



elude the impasse of the ved¯ ntin sat-cid-¯ nanda, and perform its cosmic a a function, or, to use Abhinavagupta’s words, it can allow the successive to enter into itself and transform it into the non-successive.19 Language is precisely the device by means of which succession (krama) is introduced into consciousness so that consciousness can dissolve it into pure reflective awareness, in an eternal pay.20 The phonemes ‘support’, ‘feed’ authentic ¯ consciousness (TA XI.65cd varnaugh¯ s te pram¯ r¯ p¯ m saty¯ m bibhrati a a u a. a. . samvidam //; Jayaratha thereon, ‘bibhrati’ pusnanti), enable it to approach . .. objects in terms of ‘this’. While remaining at same time in the plane of overflowing consciousness, they can ‘designate’, know everything.21 Signification by words and sentences, on which the articulation of thought and ultimately knowledge itself depend, is made possible by the fact that they are made of phonemes, constituting the very cognitive and active structure of consciousness. All words and objects (and their knowledge) rest on this language-principle, which Abhinavagupta calls the ‘supreme mantra’, but its supremely undifferentiated nature, its ‘greatness’ has in any case to contain within itself the differentiation of the various phonemes; for without this inner distinction it would be impossible to distinguish the various avikalpa experiences from which the various discursive articulations will then arise, and everything would be the same.22 Human language is, of course, based on conventions.23 But conventions in order
19 Only the successive can enter into consciousness, then to be transformed into non-

successive (PTV p. 243 ll.19–20 akramasya tat [i.e., krama] p¯ rvakatvena samvidy eva u bh¯ v¯ t). a a 20 PTV p. 243 ll.21–23 tath¯ ca sarva evayam v¯ gr¯ pah par¯ mar´ ah kramika a a s . . a u . eva, antahsamvinmayas tv akrama eveti sadaiveyam evamvidhaiva evam eva vicitr¯ a . . p¯ rame´var¯ par¯ bhat.tarik¯ . a s ı a . ¯ a 21 TA XI.63cd–65 ucchalatsam vid¯ m¯ travi´ r¯ nty¯ sv¯ dayoginah // sarv¯ bhidh¯ na¯ a a sa a a a a . . s¯ marthy¯ d aniyantrita´aktayah / srs.tah sv¯ tmasahotthe ’rthe dhar¯ paryantabh¯ gini // a a s a a .. ¯. a . amrsantah svacidbh¯ mau t¯ vato ’rth¯ n abhedatah / varnaughas te pram¯ r¯ p¯ m saty¯ m ¯ .´ u a a a u a. a. . . . bibhrati samvidam //. . 22 PTV p. 251 ll.26–29 tac ca paramantramahah prthivy¯ dau suddhavy¯ mi´ r¯ dia ´ a sa . . p¯ ram¯ rthikab¯japin dar¯ pak¯ divarn atmakam eva, anyath¯ merubadarajalajvalanaba a ı a .. u a .¯ h¯ v¯ bh¯ vaghat asukhanirvikalpajñ¯ n¯ n¯ty ekam sarvam sy¯ t. a a a a a ı . . . a 23 Significantly different from the status of ordinary language is that of mantras as they keep a more direct contact with consciousness. Ordinary words have come down to us through the usage of the elders from which they are to be learnt. Their ultimate rooting in par¯ mar´a takes place through intermediate steps and gradual ‘refinements’, whereas the a s ´ mantras are transmitted through a chain of gurus, starting with Siva himself, just as they ¯ are, that is, with their innate and unlimited nature as consciousness absolutely intact: TAV vol. X, p. 107 (on XVI.265cd–267ab), mantr¯ nam punar an¯ diguroh prabhrty ady¯ pi a. ¯ . a a . . anavacchinnasahajapar¯ mar´atmakatvam avi´ is.tam eveti. It is precisely due to this pecua s¯ s. liarity of the mantras that the supreme Lord is so highly careful about them (ibid., p. 106 yena tatra parame´varasy¯ darah ). s a .



to be effective and not simply depend in turn on other conventions with a regressus ad infinitum must have their roots in the universal consciousness in its ‘phonemical’ nature, the varnasamvit we mentioned above . (akrtrim¯ nantavarn asamvidi r¯ dhat¯ m samket¯ y¯ nti; see below note 24). a u. a . . . . . a a The status of v¯ caka is nothing but this: the becoming a-conventional of a conventions through their having an ultimate resting place in varnasamvit . . or mah¯ mantra.24 All levels of verbal usage must have as their basis the a limitless body of non-mayic phonemes which are intrinsically associated with the cognitive power of consciousness (samvidvimar´asacivah ; see s . . below note 25) and make it possible.25 The non-mayic phonemes give rise to the phonemes of worldy language and are described in the revealed texts as being their ‘strength’ (v¯rya).26 If their ‘strength’ is covered, ı they are like impotent written letters with respect to the mantra.27 At this point we are in a position fully to understand what a passage of the M¯ lin¯vijayottara28 meant to say: ‘Once fully awakened by her, the Lord, a ı
24 TA XI.67cd–69 (vv.67cd–69ab asy¯ m c¯ krtrim¯ nanta-varnasamvidi r¯ dhat¯ m // ¯ a. a . a u. a . . samket¯ y¯ nti cet te ’pi y¯ nty asamketavrttit¯ m / anay¯ tu vin¯ sarve samket¯ bahu´ah a a a a a s . . . . a . a krt¯ h // avi´r¯ ntatay¯ kuryur anavasth¯ m duruttar¯ m /). See also PTV p. 252 ll.3–6. a. sa a a. a . 25 TA XI.71 ten¯ nanto hy am¯ y¯yo yo varnagr¯ ma ¯drsah / samvidvimar´ asacivah ¯ a a ı a ı .´ . s . . . sadaiva sa hi jrmbhate //. Jayaratha adds a further elucidation: sadaiveti, . krtrimam¯ y¯yavarnavyavah¯ ran avasare ’p¯ty arthah | iha hi y¯ k¯ cana pram¯ samullasati a ı a .¯ ı a a a . . . tatr¯ va´yam idam iti varnasambhedena bh¯ vyam iti bh¯ vah. a s a a . . . 26 TA XI.72 ata eva ca m¯ y¯y¯ varnah s¯ tim vitenire / ye ca m¯ y¯yavarnesu v¯ryatvena ¯ a ı a a ı . ¯. u . . . ı nir¯ pit¯ h //. The same v¯rya is what makes mantras effective (cf. the passage from the u a. ı ¯ Siddhayoge´var¯, quoted in TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 65 [. . .] sarvesam eva mantr¯ nam s ı a. ¯ .¯ ato v¯ryam pragopitam / tena guptena te gupt¯ h sesa varnas tu keval¯ h // [. . .] (almost ı a. ´ . ¯ a. . .¯ ´ identical passage from the Tantrasadbh¯ va quoted by Ksemar¯ ja in Sivas¯ travimar´ in¯ a a u s ı . p. 25, Torella, 1999a: 88–89). The passage comes from Siddhayoge´var¯ I.13, according s ı to J. Törzsök’s edition, who also refers to another parallel passage in the Kubjik¯ mata a (Törzsök, 1999: 1). An interesting passage of the Siddhayoge´var¯ (XXXI.2–11) presents s ı the matter in a very peculiar way. While Dev¯ is asking him a further question, Bhairava ı bursts into a wild laughter which makes her tremble and shakes the whole universe; this laughter, Bhairava then explains to his frightened consort, has as result the ‘awakening’ of mantras (10a mantr¯ vabodham tu krtam). a . . 27 TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 64 anyath¯ hi te lipyaksarasamnive´ akalp¯ na k¯ mcana ¯ a s a a. . . ¯ siddhim vidadhyuh; cf. also TA XXVI.22 lipisthitas tu yo mantro nirv¯ryah so ’tra ı . . . kalpitah / samketabalato n¯ sya pustak¯ t prathate mahah //. However, Abhinavagupta adds a a . . . that in some cases, due to a very special grace of the Lord, a fully effective apprehension of mantras from books is also possible (ibid., 23cd–24ab). 28 III.27–28. The full passage reads: sa tay¯ samprabuddhah san yonim viksobhya a . . . . saktibhih / tatsam¯ na´rut¯n varnams tatsamkhy¯ n asrjat prabhuh // te [var.tair] ´ a s ı a . . .¯. . . tair ali˙ git¯ h santah sarvak¯ maphalaprad¯ h / bhavanti s¯ dhakendr¯ n am n¯ nyath¯ ¯ n a. a a. a a. ¯ . a a . v¯ravandite //. Interestingly, the M¯ lin¯vijayottara sees a ‘sound’ nature also in the divine ı a ı counterparts of human phonemes, while Abhinavagupta, for his part, speaks of the former as a´rauta (PTV p. 235 l.13). s



after perturbing the matrix with the powers, has created [in the phenomenic world] the phonemes having the same sound and the same number as ´ those [phonemes: i.e., those forming the body itself of the Sakti]. It is only when they are “embraced” (¯ li˙ gita) by the latter that they can fulfill all a n wishes’. Without this ‘embrace’ by the archetypical phonemes, the human phonemes cannot have access to their special powers (first of all, that of ‘signifying’), and knowledge (pram¯ ) could not arise; as a consequence, a the world would be ‘dumb’, as it were.29 It is because of their effectiveness in bringing the power of v¯ c to perfection – Abhinavagupta notes in a ¯ the TA, having in mind another passage of the M¯ lin¯vijayottara – that a ı phonemes are to be worshipped.30 The par¯ mar´a of the word ‘cow’, which is in itself the result of a s convention and has been established and used by people before us from whom we have learnt it, and the par¯ mar´a of the corresponding idea a s ‘cow’ associated with it at the time of convention, ‘fall’ (nipatati) into the plane of a par¯ mar´a beyond m¯ y¯ and convention (PTV p. 252 ll.6– a s a a 9). The power of denotation pertains, strictly speaking (v¯ stavam), to the a single phonemes, that is why certain specially gifted persons are able to understand the meaning of a word from a single phoneme of it (cf. PTV p. 268 ll.11–14).31 Moreover, we can point out the example of particles made of a single syllable, like a- or ca, which possess a power of signification less dependent on m¯ y¯ : their meanings are, so-to-speak, not reified a a (asattvabh¯ tam), naturally oriented towards the knowing subject and away u from objectivity (ibid., ll.17–20). The phonemes, for their part, do not all share exactly the same status, the status of the vowels, for example, being ‘higher’ than consonants’. The vowels in fact are viewed as being closer to consciousness and, consequently, as being able to manifest the various movements of the soul more directly and independently from conventions; in fact, they are the first to be pronounced by newly born babies and are also spontaneously present in animals. Following the lead of the tantric scriptures, here particularly the M¯ lin¯vijayottara, it becomes even a ı possible to introduce a further v¯ cya-v¯ caka differentiation between the a a ´ phonemes: v¯ caka proper are the vowels, linked to Siva as pure knowing a
29 TAV vol. VII (part II), p. 58 anyath¯ hi pr¯ guktavad anavasthopanip¯ t¯ t pramotp¯ da ¯ a a aa a eva na sy¯ t, – ity anena m¯ kapr¯ yam vi´vam bhaved iti bh¯ vah. a u a . s . a . 30 TA XI.80cd ata eva hi v¯ ksiddhau varnan¯ m samup¯ syat¯ //. ¯ a a a . ¯ a. 31 Abhinavagupta is reminiscent here of Bhartrhari, for whom the first dhvani (here . phoneme) is sufficient to manifest the indivisible sphota (cf. VP I.82 and vrtti; Paddhati . . thereon, p. 148 l.22 ekaiko dhvanih krtsnam sphotam abhivyanakti); Sphotasiddhi v. 18 . . . . pratyekam api te ’vikalam sphotatm¯ nam abhivyañjanti. Cf. also VP II.2ab, quoted by . .¯ a . Abhinavagupta in PTV p. 268 l.22, where Bhartrhari mentions the thesis, upheld by some, . that the first word contains in itself the meaning of the entire sentence.



´ subject, while v¯ cya are the consonants, linked to Sakti as disclosing a herself to the world of objectivity; the M¯ lin¯vijayottara calls them b¯ja a ı ı ´ ‘seed’ and yoni ‘matrix’.32 But the Saivas are not afraid of all these diversifications – including the very diversification of phonemes, whose standard number is fifty but which can be seen as sixty-four33 or even as potentially infinite.34 For them, differentiation does not affect the essential unity of the language principle (the word-consciousness), which, on the contrary, manifests itself precisely through this multiplicity, also at the level of the fully differentiated linguistic usage of ordinary reality.35 How may we define Abhinavagupta’s position in the context of Indian linguistic speculation? His reference point is clearly Bhartrhari’s teaching, . particularly in recognizing the interpenetration of reflective awareness and language, or, in other words, the inner ‘linguistic’ nature of the process of knowledge. From Utpaladeva onwards, this constitutes the very hinge of the Pratyabhijñ¯ philosophy.36 But there is something that keeps a Abhinavagupta away from a whole-hearted acceptance of the whole of Bhartrhari’s conception: first of all, Bhartrhari’s dismissal of the phonemes . . and his considering them as pure abstractions. This must have seemed unacceptable to Abhinavagupta, in his position as a tantric master. He ´ cannot ignore that practically any tantra belonging to the Saiva tradition deals with the phonemes, assigning them a central place both in ritual and speculation. What he says in the ¯ IPVV, precisely addressing the Vaiy¯ karanas, sounds like a proud vindication: ‘For us, the “totality of a . sounds” is the supreme Lord himself, the goddess M¯ trk¯ [or the alphabet a. a in the usual sequence] – both distinct and not distinct [from Him] – is His Power, the eight alphabetic classes are the eight Powers of the Rudras, the fifty phonemes are the fifty Powers of the Rudras’.37 If Abhinavagupta intends to give space to the role of phonemes, this cannot but take place at
32 PTV p. 236 ll.4–11. 33 PTV p. 251 ll.14–20. 34 I´varapratyabhijñ¯ k¯ rik¯ -vr tti p. 77 l.8 tattatkak¯ r¯ di´ at¯ nantagan an¯ . On the other ¯s a a a . aa s a . a ´ hand, the Saivas also conceive of a single phoneme, undividedly present in all the others: TA VI.217 eko n¯ d¯ tmako varnah sarvavarnavibh¯ gav¯ n / so ’nastamitar¯ patv¯ d an¯ hata a a a a u a a . . .¯ ihoditah //. . 35 PTV p. 236 ll.18 n¯ sm¯ n akulayet ye vayam ek¯ m t¯ vad anantacitrat¯ a a ¯ a. a a garbhin¯m t¯ m samvid¯ tmik¯ m giram samgir¯ mahe | m¯ y¯ye ’pi vyavah¯ rapade ı. a. a a. a a ı a . . . laukikakramikavarn apadasphut at¯ may¯ ekapar¯ mar´asvabh¯ vaiva pratyavamar´ak¯ rin¯ ı a s a s a .ı . . a prak¯ sar¯ p¯ v¯ c. a´ u a a 36 I need not repeat here what I have already treated in detail in former studies (Torella, 2001: 857; Torella, 2002: XXV–XXVII). 37 Vol. II, pp. 195 l.24–196 l.3 iha t¯ vat parame´ varah sabdar¯ sih, saktir a s a´ . ´ . ´ asya bhinn¯ bhinnar¯ p¯ m¯ trk¯ dev¯, varg¯ s.takam rudra´aktyas. akam pañc¯ sad varnah a u a a. a ı a. s a´ . .t . . ¯. pañc¯ sad rudra´aktayah . a´ s .



the expense of the sphota doctrine, which in fact he totally ignores. Will . this result in going closer and closer to the M¯m¯ ms¯ ? Why not? After all, ı a. a ´ both the M¯m¯ msakas and the Saivas feel as their primary duty the defence ı a. ´ and exegesis of the Sruti, as embodied in the Vedas for the former, in the Tantras for the latter. This is, however, only a prima-facie answer. On a closer examination, it becomes clear that Abhinavagupta’s position is the result of cooking, as it were, M¯m¯ ms¯ elements in a Bhartrharian sauce. ı a. a . He can easily do without the sphota because a strong unity characterizes . his conception of language, which makes the linking/unifying role of the sphota unnecessary. Also the usual argument used by the sphotav¯ dins . . a against the varnav¯ dins (the varnas, discrete as they are, are unfit to a . . account for the unity of the word, hence the necessity of the sphota) . loses force in front of the intrinsic unity of the phonemes-structure. ‘The phonemes’, says Abhinavagupta (PTV p. 253 ll.20–23), ‘imply each other, otherwise they could not aggregate in a word. Precisely because they imply each other, the phonemes must exist inside the speaker as an internal nondiscursive structure. Likewise, all the devat¯ s are present in each cognitive a act simultaneously and by aggregating themselves they bring about the wonderfully variegated activity of consciousness’. We have the phonemes at both ends of the language and knowledge process. The phonemes as acting in ordinary language already possess, besides a sound nature (which meets the first general requirement of a word, that is, of being something to be ‘heard’38 ), a cognitive and ‘grasping’ nature, which can be seen at its height in their archetypes, the divine phonemes, which constitute the very core of Consciousness, a germ of quintessential multiplicity inside the absolute unity of Consciousness. If Consciousness is an active power and not a lifeless mirror this is due first of all to its ‘phonemic’ nature, which alone enables it to have access to, and assimilate to itself, the (apparently) other. To the many merits of this extraordinary thinker we can add also this: to have created a bridge between the two main schools of Indian linguistics, finding an apparently impossible madhyam¯ pratipad between a M¯m¯ msakas and Vaiy¯ karanas. ı a. a .

sabdasabdah prasiddhah | te [i.e., varnah] ca srotragrahan ah; Slokav¯ rttika, Sphotav¯ da ´ ´ a . . . ¯. . ¯. ´ . a v. 5 tasm¯ c chrotraparicchinno yady artham gamayen na v¯ / sarvath¯ tasya a a a . sabdatvam lokasiddham na h¯yate; Ny¯ yamañjar¯ vol. II, p. 144 ta [i.e., varnah] ´ ı a ı . . . ¯. eva ca sravanakaranak¯ vagamagocaratay¯ sabdavyapade´abh¯ jah N¯ ge´a (Uddyota ´ a a ´ s a . a s . . ad Mah¯ bh¯ sya I.l.1, pp. 14–15, loke vyavahartrsu pad¯ rthabodhakatvena prasiddhah a a. a .. . srotrendriyagr¯ hyatv¯ d varnar¯ padhvanisam¯ ha eva sabda ity arthah. ´ a a u ´ . u .

38 Cf. S¯ barabh¯ s ya p. 54, ad M¯m¯ ms¯ s¯ tra I.l.5, srotragrahane hy arthe loke ´a a. ı a. a u ´ .



∗∗∗ ´ Appendix: The position of the dualistic Saivasiddh¯ nta. a A detailed treatment of the linguistic doctrines elaborated in the Saiddh¯ ntika tantras and in the works of the Saiddh¯ ntika authors would a a require a separate study. I will limit myself here to some observations on particular aspects that can contribute, by contrast, to a better under´ standing of the Saiva advaita position as elaborated by Abhinavagupta. To begin with, it should be pointed out that the Saiddh¯ ntikas too a reject sphota, the only exception known to me being the south-Indian . Pauskaratantra, which is, however, undoubtedly a very late and eclectic . text. The implicit rejection of the sphota doctrine has a significant . place in a well-known treatise of R¯ makantha (approximately contema .. porary to Abhinavagupta), the N¯ dak¯ rik¯ , originally included in his a a a commentary on the S¯ rdhatri´ati-K¯ lottara (pp. 9–12, on I.5ab). Unlike a s a Abhinavagupta, R¯ makantha does not subscribe to the ‘phoneme’ option a .. either, but presents yet another solution to the question at issue. The v¯ caka a is the n¯ da, ‘a subtle entity made of “inner discourse” (antahsamjalpa), a . . by virtue of which the objects such as forms/colours, tastes, smells, sounds etc. are made into objects of reflective awareness’ (v. 11ac r¯ parasagandha´ abd¯ dyarth¯ yen¯ mrsyat¯ m n¯t¯ h / so ’ntahsamjalp¯ tm¯ u s a a a . ´ a . ı a. a a . . n¯ dah). This n¯ da is in turn the product of Mah¯ m¯ y¯ , the so-called a . a a a a Pure Matter, also called Bindu. As R¯ makantha immediately points out, a .. n¯ da, though representing the highest manifestation of the language prina ciple, and the ultimate source and background of all human linguistic activities, belongs to a totally different sphere from Consciousness, is not a form of Kriy¯ sakti (as some ‘knowers of the words’ maintain) a´ and is not integrally connected with the conscious soul (v. 18 seyam avasth¯ kai´cit padavidbhir varnyate kriy¯ sakteh / iha punar anyaivokt¯ a s a´ a . . purusasamav¯ yin¯ ca v¯ g yasm¯ t). If we examine his short treatise in a ı a a ¯ . some detail, we see that he has in mind two main opponents: overtly, the M¯m¯ msakas, against whom he uses the standard Vaiy¯ karana (or ı a. a . better, sphotav¯ din, like Mandana Mi´ra’s) arguments, and, implicitly, the a s . Vaiy¯ karanas, whose sphota he does not mention but for which he tacitly a . . a attempts to find a saiva substitute.39 In front of R¯ makantha’s straight´ .. forward dismissal of the ‘phoneme’ option the commentator Aghora´iva s
39 One may suppose that R¯ makantha might have felt embarrassed at mentioning and a .. then attacking a thesis, which is not so distant from his own: the reasons that he could have brought forward against the sphota might have been easily used against the n¯ da as well. It a . is the commentator Aghora´iva who, in the only long excursus of his succinct commentary s (pp. 240–241, on v. 7), feels the need to make up for the puzzling silence of R¯ makantha a ..



feels compelled to explain away an apparent contradiction with regard to a Saiddh¯ ntika scripture, the Par¯ khya, which instead endorses it (p. 242, a a on v. 12, katham punah sr¯matpar¯ khye ‘p¯ rvavarn ajasamsk¯ rayukto ´ ı a u . . . . a ’ntyo ’rno ’bhidh¯ yakah ’ ity uktam). Aghora´iva’s explanation is far from a s .. . convincing (n¯ d¯ bhivyañjakatvenopac¯ r¯ d ity adosa), but has the merit a a aa . to focus our attention on this relatively early and important agama. ¯ The Par¯ khya, which until recently was deemed to be completely lost, a is currently being edited by D. Goodall, who has discovered the only extant manuscript. The above quotation, which looked a bit suspicious owing to its repeating almost verbatim the well-known passage ´a of the S¯ barabh¯ s ya – a fact quite unexpected in a ‘revealed’ text –, a. does indeed occur in the VI chapter of the Par¯ khya (v. 14ab), a portion a of which (1–28) has been edited and translated in a very recent article (Goodall, 2001). Interestingly, the Par¯ khya starts with a bold affirmation about the a status of abhidh¯ yaka (i.e., v¯ caka) having to be assigned first of all a a to the phonemes (secondly, to the words and sentences made out of them). While doing so, the text also presents and easily dismisses a sphotav¯ din opponent. However, in the latter part of the chapter the . a original M¯m¯ ms¯ -like thesis gradually makes way for a Naiy¯ yika-like ı a. a a one, with an increasing emphasis on the role of convention (samketa). . In the attempt to make sense of these scattered remarks, we may say that both R¯ makantha and the Par¯ khya ultimately view the phonemes, as a a .. ´ presented in the Saivasiddh¯ nta tradition, as too ‘weak’ candidates for the a role of v¯ caka. Being made of a material stuff, however refined,40 their a nature is not so intrinsically dynamic and ‘creative’ as to enable them to perform this high task. Particularly interesting, if a bit enigmatic, is the solution proposed by R¯ makantha. After taking into account and rejecting a .. several alternative possibilities, he arrives at a solution which, if nominally inspired by a famous passage of S¯ rdhatri´ati-K¯ lottara,41 verily has much a s a in common with that of his concealed adversaries, the Vaiy¯ karanas (cf. a . for example the concluding verse 25: sth¯ laih sabdair vyakt¯ h s¯ ksm¯ u . ´ a. u . a n¯ d¯ tmak¯ s tato dhvanayah / v¯ cyavibhinnam buddhim kurvanto vara a a a . . .
and takes on himself the task of openly criticizing the sphota theory. He does so by using . the standard M¯m¯ msaka and Naiy¯ yika arguments. ı a. a 40 The Par¯ khya (VI.2–6) refers to their having bindu as material cause and ¯svara as a I´ efficient cause. In sum, the phonemes are only ‘secondary’ realities; they are products and, as such, devoid of consciousness. 41 Vidy¯ p¯ da I.5–8 n¯ d¯ khyam yat param b¯jam sarvabh¯ tes v avasthitam [. . .] sth¯ lam a a a a u . u . . . ı . sabda itit proktam s¯ ksmam cint¯ mayam bhavet / cintay¯ rahitam yat tu tat param ´ u . a a . . . . . parik¯rtitam //. We can say that this scriptural passage is read by R¯ makantha at the light ı a .. of the sphota doctrine. .



dhayanty janay¯ tr¯ m //).42 More flexible than the ‘stiff’ phonemes of a a ´ the Saivasiddh¯ nta tradition and also authorized by the sacred scriptures a is in fact the n¯ da. In keeping his distance from the sphota, which in a . the Vaiy¯ karanas’ conception ranks very high in the ontological-spiritual a . hierarchy, R¯ makantha seems driven by the aim to stress the ultimately a .. ‘instrumental’ nature of language, which does condition human knowledge but is cut off from the very core of divine, and also human, consciousness (cit). As we have seen, Abhinavagupta’s position is precisely diametrically opposed to this.

Texts As.taprakaranam, edited by Vrajavallabha Dvived¯, Yogatantra-Grantham¯ l¯ 12, Varanasi, ı aa . . 1988. ¯s Abhinavagupta, I´varapratyabhijñ¯ vivrtivimar´in¯, edited by Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, a . s ı vols. I–III, KSTS LX LXII LXV, Bombay, 1938–1943. Abhinavagupta, Par¯ timsik¯ tattvavivarana (see Gnoli, 1985). a .´ a . Abhinavagupta, Tantr¯ loka with Commentary by R¯ j¯ naka Jayaratha, edited with notes by a aa Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, vols. I–XII, KSTS XXIII, XXVIII, XXX, XXXVI, XXXV, XXIX, XLI, XLVII, LIX, LII, LVII, LVIII, Allahbad-Srinagar-Bombay, 1918–1938. Bhartrhari, V¯ kyapad¯ya (m¯ lak¯ rik¯ s), Bhartrharis V¯ kyapad¯ya, edited by W. Rau, a ı u a a a ı . . Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 42, Wiesbaden, 1977. Bhartrhari, V¯ kyapad¯ya with the Commentaries Vrtti and Paddhati of Vrsabhadeva, a ı . .. . K¯ nda I, edited by K.A.S. Iyer, Deccan College, Poona, 1966. a. . Bodhisattvabh¯ mi [being the XVth Section of Asa˙ gap¯ da’s Yog¯ c¯ rabh¯ mi], edited by u n a a a u Nalinaksha Dutt, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol. VII, Patna, 1966. Jayanta Bhatta, Ny¯ yamañjar¯ [. . .], edited by K.S. Varadacharya, 2 vols., Oriental a ı .. Research Institute Series No. 139, Mysore, 1983. Ksemar¯ ja, Sivas¯ travimar´ in¯, edited by J.C. Chatterji, KSTS I, Srinagar, 1911. a ´ u s ı . ´ ´ ı a Kum¯ rila, Slokav¯ rttikam with the commentary Ny¯ yaratn¯ kara of Sr¯ P¯ rthas¯ ratimi´ra, a a a a a s edited and revised by Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, Pr¯ cyabh¯ rati Series-10, Varanasi, a a 1978. M¯ lin¯vijayottaratantram, edited by Pt. Madhus¯ dan Kaul Shastri, KSTS No. 37, Bombay, a ı u 1922. Mandana Mi´ra, Sphotasiddhi with Gopalik¯ commentary, edited by S.K. R¯ man¯ tha s a a a . Sastri, Madras University Sanskrit Series No. 6, Madras, 1931. Par¯ khyatantra (see Goodall, 2001). a
42 See also Aghora´ iva’s remarks p. 242 (on v. 11) katham punar vaktrgato s . . n¯ dah pratipattur v¯ cyabuddhim janayati iti cet, taduccaritasth¯ la´abd¯ bhivyaktah a . a u s a . . pratipattrgato n¯ das tasy¯ pi v¯ cyabuddhim janayati. At Goodall notes (2001: 344 n.84), a a a . . later Saiddh¯ ntika authors like Jñ¯ naprak¯ sa and Um¯ pati´iv¯ c¯ rya will tend to consider a a a´ a s a a n¯ da and sphota as interchangeable terms. a .



´ Patañjali, Vy¯ karana-Mah¯ bh¯ s ya with the commentaries Bhat. oji D¯ksita’s Sabdakausa a a. ı . . .t tubha, N¯ gojibhat. a’s Uddyota and Kaiyata’s Prad¯pa [. . .], edited with footnotes [. . .] a t ı . . by Bal Shastri, vol. I, Varanasi, 1988. R¯ makantha, N¯ dak¯ rik¯ with Aghora´iva’s commentary (see As.taprakaran am, also a a a a s .. . . Filliozat, 1984). Siddhayoge´var¯matatantra (see Törzsök, 1999). s ı S¯ rdhatri´atik¯ lottar¯ gama, avec le commentaire de Bhat. a R¯ makan. ha, édition critique a s a a .t a .t par N.R. Bhatt, Publications de l’Institut Français d’Indologie No. 61, Pondichéry, 1979. ´a S¯ barabh¯ s ya. In: M¯m¯ ms¯ dar´ana [. . .], vols. I-7, Anandashram Sanskrit Series No. 97, a. ı a. a s repr. Pune, 1994 (I Ed. 1929–1943). ¯s Utpaladeva, I´varapratyabhijñ¯ k¯ rik¯ with vrtti (see Torella, 2002). a a a . Y¯ ska, Niruktam nighan. hup¯.thasamupetam durg¯ ch¯ ryakr ta-rjvarth¯ khyavrtty¯ a a a a . . . a .t a . samavetam, edited by R.G. Bhadkamkar, vols. I–II, Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series Nos. LXXIII, LXXXV, Bombay, 1918–1942.

Translations and studies ´ Brunner, H. (2001). Mantras et mantras dans le tantras sivaïtes. In R. Torella (ed.), Le Parole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno (pp. 183– 212), 2 vols. IsIAO, Roma: Serie Orientale Roma. Dasgupta, Sh. (19693 ). Obscure Religious Cults. Calcutta (I Ed. 1946). Filliozat, P.-S. (1984). Les N¯ dak¯ rik¯ de R¯ makantha. Bulletin de l’École Française a a a a .. d’Extrême Orient LXXIII, 223–255. Filliozat, P.-S. (1994). Bhartrhari and tantra. In P-S. Filliozat, C.P. Bhatta and S.P. Narang . (eds), Pandit N.R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume (pp. 463–480). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Gaurinath, Sastri (1959). The Philosophy of Word and Meaning. Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series 5, Calcutta. Gonda, J. (1975). The Indian mantra. In Selected Studies [. . .] (pp. 248–301), vol. IV. Leiden (originally published: Oriens, 16, pp. 244–297). Goodall, D. (2001). The Saiddh¯ ntika Par¯ khyatantra, its account of language, and the a a interpolation of the eighth chapter of the published Pauskar¯ gama. In R. Torella (ed.), . a Le Parole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno (pp. 327– 350), 2 vols. IsIAO, Roma: Serie Orientale Roma. Padoux, A. (1990). V¯ c. The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras. Albany. a Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1959). Contributions à l’histoire de la philosophie linguistique indienne. Paris. Staal, F. (1967). Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 5, Dordrecht. Torella, R. (1998). The kañcukas in the Shaiva and Vaishnava tantric tradition: A few considerations between theology and grammar. In G. Oberhammer (ed.), Studies in Hinduism, II, Miscellanea to the Phenomenon of Tantras (pp. 55–86). Österreichisce Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 662. Band, Wien. ´ Torella, R. (1999a). Gli Aforismi di Shiva con il commento di Ksemar¯ ja (Sivas¯ travia u . mar´ in¯). Milano. s ı Torella, R. (1999b). Dev¯ uv¯ ca, or the theology of the prefect tense. Journal of Indian ı a Philosophy (Special Issue in Honor of Prof. Kamaleshvar Bhattacharya) 16, 129–138.



Torella, R. (2001). The Word in Abhinavagupta’s Brhadvimar´ in¯. In R. Torella (ed.), Le s ı . Parole e i Marmi, Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70◦ compleanno, 2 vols. IsIAO, Roma: Serie Orientale Roma. Torella, R. (2002). The ¯svarapratyabhijñ¯ k¯ rik¯ of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vrtti. I´ a a a . Critical Edition and Annotated Translation, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi (I Ed. Serie Orientale Roma LXXI, IsMEO, Roma, 1994). Törzsök, J. (1999). The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits: A Critical Edition of Selected Chapters of the Siddhayoge´var¯mata(tantra) with Annotated Translation and Analysis, s ı D. Phil. Thesis, Merton College, Oxford.

Facoltà di Studi Orientali Università di Roma “La Sapienza”