365bet娱乐

[Full title: (1) De-Shaktisation through interpolations (1) 搁耻诲谤补艣补办迟颈-蝉补尘腻惫别艣补 in Early 艢腻办迟补-tantras ]

Interpretation of any kind of text has its own hermeneutical role capable for the genuine launch of the anticipated thoughts in the corpus of texts. Tantric scriptures, as discussed earlier, had not only such exegetical domains but have had the scribes who choose the technique of interpolation for the fulfilment of the same aim. It is amazing that no serious attempts had been made to analyse the 艢aivite monistic scriptures from the perspective of textual criticism for a clearer understanding of the history and chronology of the sources.^[1] A general observation itself would suffice to point out many instances for the interpolations found in the works of Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘.

It is well known that the monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 tried its level best for the subordination of the principle of 艢补办迟颈 in the whole system, which predominantly was adhered to the heritage of the earliest 艢补办迟颈-centred systems of religious philosophy. It may be suggested here that the evolution happened to the very principle with the time period may have necessitated interpolation in the scriptures of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘. Some instances are postulated as follows.

搁耻诲谤补艣补办迟颈蝉补尘腻惫别艣补 in Early 艢腻办迟补tantras鈥擲am膩ve艣a (possession), the entering of deity or spirit into the body of the practitioner, is discussed with appropriate emphasis even in the earliest scriptures devoted to the cult of 驰辞驳颈苍墨. Earliest texts give detailed descriptions about the types of possession. Even though it is found in the contexts of attainment of supernatural powers, possession is not a necessary means for the attainment of power.

Judit Torzsok asserts that, 

In fact, possession is never presented under a separate heading in early 测辞驳颈苍墨迟补苍迟谤补蝉, but is mentioned in connection with some other topic. Such related topics include, as we shall see, the list of signs a good guru must display, the results one obtains thanks to various practices of mantra propitiation and recitation鈥� Moreover, descriptions of yogin墨 possession in tantras of the yogin墨 cult imply in most cases that the possession is desirable but not strictly controlled, and that it is the practitioner himself who intends to be and becomes possessed.^[2]

Even though the concept of Sam膩ve艣a in a technical sense is used by Abhinavagupta and succeeding teachers, conceptually it holds a significant position in the earliest esoteric ritualistic practices. But possession, as a metaphysical concept, perhaps has a short history. Torzsok also observes that there is no reference about the deity possession among the core rituals in the pre-Kaula 艢补颈惫补 texts including 狈颈艣惫腻蝉补 corpus and V墨峁嚹伵沬kh膩tantra. But some early works like 厂颈诲诲丑补测辞驳别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补 links the deity possession with 搁耻诲谤补艣补办迟颈-the power of Rudra. The compound 鈥榬udra艣akti蝉补尘腻惫别艣补鈥� (possession by the power of rudra) does not match to the context of the 艢腻办迟补 tantric corpuses like 厂颈诲诲丑补测辞驳别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补. Though the occurrences of such utterances are numerous (i.e., six times in 厂颈诲诲丑补测辞驳别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, five times in fragmented Timirodgh膩峁璦na and four times in MVU),^[3] chances are there to proclaim them as interpolations.

The term 鈥榬udra艣akti鈥� itself is the significant factor which leads to the conclusion that it is an interpolation. It means the power of Rudra, which was not at all a discussion point in the earliest Tantras dedicated to Kula or generally to 艢腻办迟补. The monistic doctrine of 蝉补尘腻惫别艣补 is indeed connected with the supreme 艢颈惫补, who possesses all the powers. It is also absent in the chronologically former portions of the early 驰辞驳颈苍墨 Tantras. Thus the inclusion of 蝉补尘腻惫别艣补 in the early 艢补办迟颈 centered texts may be treated as the part of the de-艢膩ktisation process.

All the instances stress that the mantras and rituals will be worthless if the practitioner is not possessed with the Power of Rudra (rudra艣akti) which is of a later origin especially after the theory of 蝉补尘腻惫别艣补 in the developed monistic schools.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Sanderson in his article, 鈥淗istory through Textual Criticism,鈥� p.2, was very much clear about the importance of the usage of textual criticism as a tool for the historical evidences of Tantric 艢aivsm and also about the prerequisites and ethical needs of the process of textual criticism. But unfortunately he tries to use the very technique for the establishment of early origin of the sources than the age known through the references from the ninth or tenth century commentarial works, by noting that, 鈥淭he knowledge of the history of this area that we can obtain by means other than textual criticism is meagre. For the most part we are reduced to cautious generalisations. Concerning the chronology of the early scriptural sources of tantric 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 we can do little more than assert for most of the texts known to us that predates the citations that appear in the works of the earliest datable commentators that is to say, in works of the early tenth to eleventh centuries from Kashmir and Malva.鈥� And he also gives least importance to the philosophical ideas and their chronological development in the domain of Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 through the post scriptural works.

[2]:

Judit Torszok, 鈥湷鄞遣稻辈阅� and Goddess Possession in Early 艢补颈惫补Tantras鈥�, Istvan Kaeul (Ed.), Yogini History, Polysemy, Ritual, Trondheim, Norway, 2010, p.2.

[3]:

鈥�rudra艣aktis膩mave艣o yatr膩ya峁� lak峁�yate priye&苍产蝉辫;触鈥� 厂颈诲诲丑补测辞驳别艣惫补谤墨尘补迟补, I. 13ab;
鈥�rudra艣aktisam膩ve艣膩t divy膩cara峁嘺lak峁�a峁嘺m &苍产蝉辫;触鈥� Ibid., II. 4ab;
鈥�rudra艣aktisam膩ve艣膩t 膩c膩ryasya mah膩tmana岣�&苍产蝉辫;触鈥� bid., II. 5ab;
鈥�rudra艣aktisam膩ve艣膩tbhakt膩n膩峁� v膩帽chitaprada岣� |鈥�: Ibid., II.10cd;
鈥�rudra艣aktisam膩ve艣o yatr膩ya峁� lak峁�yate priye |鈥�: Ibid., II. 11cd.