365bet娱乐

Let us rejoin the scene at Madurai鈥檚 Cittirai Festival at the debut of 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 Yajvan鈥檚 Sanskrit drama. Among the author鈥檚 relatives and colleagues likely in attendance that day, a number were responsible for poetic, didactic, and devotional compositions in Sanskrit that refer directly, in no uncertain terms, to their personal relationships with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 preceptors and their knowledge of esoteric 艢腻办迟补 ritual and theology.

Take, for instance, the celebrated poet 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 himself, honored on that day by his younger brother as master of the court鈥檚 elite literary society, who opens his Sanskrit 尘补丑腻办腻惫测补, the 艢颈惫补濒墨濒腻谤峁嘺惫补, with the following benedictory verse:

What good is 艢颈惫补, proud that the Daughter of the Mountain is half his body?
I worship him who in his entire being consists of the Daughter of the Mountain鈥擥墨rv膩峁嘺, the best of yogins.^[1]

Here, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 includes in his traditional set of benedictory verses an homage to the preceptor he elsewhere acknowledges as guru, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨鈥攚ho is superior even to 艢颈惫补 himself, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 opines with a trope of rhetorical censure, as 艢颈惫补鈥檚 traditional iconography (础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补) depicts 笔腻谤惫补迟墨 as half of his body, while his own is in essence a full incarnation of the goddess herself. Very little, unfortunately, is known about G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 as a historical figure, best known for his single surviving composition, the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, an extensive textbook of practical mantra applications modeled directly on the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补 attributed to 艢补峁卥补谤补, with a number of chapters devoted to 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻. As for the history of his lineage, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra himself, by way of conclusion to the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, acknowledges the three previous preceptors of his tradition: he is a disciple of one 痴颈艣惫别艣惫补谤补, disciple of Amarendra or 础尘补谤别艣惫补谤补,^[2] disciple in turn of a previous G墨rv膩峁噀ndra.^[3] Given his occasional invocations of Malayalam vocabulary, or 鈥淜eralabh膩峁Ｄ�,鈥� in addition to the local Tamil vernacular, it is plausible that G墨rv膩峁噀ndra himself relocated his lineage to Kanchipuram from Kerala in the late sixteenth century.

While little is known about these predecessors, his successors, on the other hand, include a number of the most noteworthy scholars of Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补 of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.^[4] Among these noteworthy disciples, the most widely recognized is N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin, a prolific and respected scholar of Advaita.^[5] Family history remembers him as a close friend and advisor to Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 granduncle, and he is reputed to have directly influenced Appayya鈥檚 works of Advaita.^[6] At the outset of his 础诲惫补颈迟补诲墨辫颈办腻, N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin refers to G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 by name, even declaring that it was at his behest that he undertook to compose the work.^[7] Svayamprak膩艣ayati, another of the period鈥檚 leading Advaita scholars, also accepted G墨rv膩峁噀ndra as his preceptor. But perhaps more intriguing still, yet another of G墨rv膩峁噀ndra鈥檚 noteworthy students was one Bodhendra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, understood by tradition to be the same individual revered as the fifty-ninth Jagadguru of the 碍腻帽肠墨 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补, Bhagavann膩ma Bodhendra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨.

Whatever his actual monastic affiliation may have been, Bodhendra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 recognizes G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 as his guru in his 贬补谤颈丑补谤腻诲惫补颈迟补产丑奴峁�a峁嘺, as well as in his 膧迟尘补产辞诲丑补峁�墨k腻, in which he describes him as follows:

The preceptor installed at the seat of the Advaita lineage [补诲惫补颈迟补辫墨峁环补蝉迟丑颈迟补], his inner form luminous with the delightful knowledge of the Self,

I worship him always inside my heart, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra, the best of yogins, pure of heart.^[8]

In addition to his esteem for his guru, Bodhendra conveys to us that G墨rv膩峁噀ndra was considered the head of a certain lineage by his use of the phrase 补诲惫补颈迟补辫墨峁环补, suggesting an established monastery or institutional center for the propagation of Advaita thought. Beyond the association with Advaita, we are given no further information as to this lineage鈥檚 self-portrayal or the location of its center of operation. Nevertheless, the memory of Bodhendra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 as equivalent to one of the pontiffs of the Kanchipuram 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage is highly suggestive, particularly in light of the rather distinctive initiatory title borne by nearly all of G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨鈥檚 gurus and disciples: 鈥�-Indra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨,鈥� an appellation attested only among the preceptors of two Kanchipuram orders, that of the 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补s and the lineage of R膩macandrendra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, better known as 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 Brahmendra, a late seventeenth-century ascetic so named for his feat of commenting on 108 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉. In short, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 was a highly celebrated and influential figure among renunciant scholars of Advaita and most likely the pontiff of a monastic order centered in Kanchipuram, one that bears some historical relationship to the lineages now most commonly associated with the city.^[9]

On the other hand, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨鈥檚 importance extended beyond the confines of the monastery walls, attracting the attention of a number of court intellectuals, including 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥攚ho went so far as to name his son, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 顿墨办峁�i迟补, after his preceptor. 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 sentiment is best captured from his own words, expressed eloquently in one of his versified hymns, the 骋耻谤耻迟补迟迟惫补尘腻濒颈办腻,^[10] a garland of twenty-eight stanzas (苍补办峁�a迟谤补尘腻濒腻) devoted entirely to his guru and rich with devotional sentiment:

A few people, here and there, have been saved by ancient gurus, through the
Purification of all six 艢补颈惫补 adhvan 蝉鈥�tattva, 蝉迟丑腻苍补, 办补濒腻, pada, 补办峁�a谤补, and mantra.^[11]
But, with the single mantra adhvan, made manifest in his work the
厂腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra Guru unchains the entire world, from the proudest to the humblest.
My thirst to accept the water of your feet and smear their purifying dust,
To bear on my forehead at length those feet resembling two golden lotuses,
O master, even a hundred lifetimes cannot fulfill! And yet,
You will never obtain even a single rebirth, except in the minds of your devotees.
Pointing the way to austerities [办峁沜肠丑谤补], it removes all hardships [办峁沜肠丑谤补] of its own accord;
It swallows our karma by the roots, bringing our actions [karma] to fulfillment;
Bestowing liberation to all who hear it, may this four-syllable mantra, G墨r-v膩-峁噀-ndra, be my comfort so long as I draw breath.
If the descent of power [艣补办迟颈辫腻迟补] is certainly the fruit of fortune from an
Array of meritorious action conditioning this lifetime, amassed through the bondage of endless mortal bodies,
It is still conveyed through contact with the compassionate glance of the preceptor.
Thus, proclaim, you who are freed from error, that there is no reality [tattva] higher than the Guru!^[12]

狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 makes it abundantly clear over the course of the hymn that the preceptor he honors is none other than the author of the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, a composition 鈥渁dept at manifesting the heart of the great sayings of 艢补峁卥补谤补.鈥�^[13] He proceeds to honor G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 variously as kulaguru鈥攑receptor of one鈥檚 family, clan, or lineage鈥攐r as 鈥渕antra guru,鈥� the bestower of a sectarian or esoteric initiation by means of the revelation of a mantra, which 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 implicitly claims to have received through the process of 艣补办迟颈辫腻迟补, the descent of power or grace at the hand of the initiatory guru, affirmed to be the sole source of liberation in many schools of 艢补颈惫补 thought.^[14] Such initiation also carried with it ritual obligations designed to cultivate a devotional experience directly linking the devotee with his chosen preceptor; indeed, the visualized worship of the preceptor was an essential part of the daily enactment of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 liturgy. As with all 艢补颈惫补 traditions from the middle of the first millennium, in fact, the initiating guru or teacher was equated for all intents and purposes with the god 艢颈惫补 himself. The preceptor, as a result, was seen as possessing the capacity to bestow the liberating power of 艢颈惫补鈥檚 grace through ritual initiation, severing the bonds that tied the individual soul to the cycle of transmigration. An initiate, therefore, who wished to attain liberation himself, could cultivate a devotional bond with his personal teacher, which, when inculcated through a regimen of ritual practice, facilitated the union of the disciple with 艢颈惫补 himself.

Taken as a whole, the evidence strongly suggests that it is this G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 who provided 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 with the initiation required to pursue knowledge of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual, the procedure for which the renowned poet-theologian sets forth at length in his unpublished ritual manual, a previously unknown work (paddhati), the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 (Moonlight of auspiciousness). In the context of adjudicating ritual procedure, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 cites the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补 on a number of occasions, referring to its author by the honorific 补蝉尘补诲腻谤腻诲丑测补肠补谤补峁嚹佱弗, 鈥渢he one whose feet are fit to be worshipped by me.鈥� Interestingly enough, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 is not the only one of his immediate circle to refer in such laudatory terms to G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨. In fact, a similar claim is made by another of the most prominent intellectuals of his day, R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补, best known as the author of the 碍腻惫测补诲补谤辫补峁嘺, one of the most celebrated treatises of aesthetic theory written in later centuries. For our present purposes, however, R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 was also the author of a highly refined narrative chronicle of the life of 艢补峁卥补谤补 titled the 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补 (The ascension of 艢补峁卥补谤补),^[15] a reworking of the traditional 鈥渦niversal conquest鈥� narrative that concludes with 艢补峁卥补谤补 ending his life in Kanchipuram and establishing the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补, the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 icon or ritual diagram at the heart of the 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� Temple.

R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 prefaces his work, in addition to an impressive resume of his academic achievements, with a number of benedictory verses addressed to G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, in which he confides that this same preceptor came to him in a dream and instructed him to write the 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补. R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 refers to his preceptor as 鈥渁 veritable 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, situated at the far shore of speech, the creator of the compilation on the essence of the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补.鈥�^[16] The term 鈥渁 veritable 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补鈥� (辫补谤测腻测补艣补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补) prompts close attention but leaves us with more questions than answers. Does R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 mean to say that he considers G墨rv膩峁噀ndra to be an incarnation of the original 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, or that he was one among a lineage of successive preceptors who adopted the title 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, as do the present-day lineages of Jagadgurus? The text of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补 leaves no doubt, however, that R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补 himself envisioned an intimate connection between 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and Kanchipuram, best exemplified by the work鈥檚 seventh chapter, in which 艢补峁卥补谤补 completes his pilgrimage and his life by establishing in Kanchipuram (rather than Kashmir) the Sarvaj帽ap墨峁環a, the 鈥淪eat of the Omniscient鈥� and the heart of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage蝉鈥攁 claim supported today, quite naturally, only by the Kanchipuram 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage.

Given the testimony of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补, two of seventeenth-century south India鈥檚 most prominent intellectual figures, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨鈥檚 fame seems to have circulated well beyond his immediate lineage, serving as a pivotal link in the nascent social alliance between 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins and the lineages of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 preceptors. Before the generation of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄, not a single nonrenunciant Sanskrit intellectual professed a personal or family allegiance to a 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 order. Even Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 granduncle, who devoted much of his intellectual energy to reviving the 艢补颈惫补 Advaita philosophy of 艢谤墨办补峁囜弓丑补 and transmitting it liberally to his students, to our knowledge makes no such claim.^[17] That G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 was not an isolated charismatic figure but a participant in a larger social configuration becomes clear in the following generation: among 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 pupils, 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补,^[18] one of the leading lights among the first generation of scholars at the Maratha court of Tanjavur, adopted a similar relationship with the ascetic and scholar of Advaita 碍峁涐梗峁嚹乶补苍诲补 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨.

In fact, 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 honors his own preceptor and lineage with a unique hymn, one reminiscent of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 骋耻谤耻迟补迟迟惫补尘腻濒颈办腻, titled the 膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补产丑奴峁�a峁嘺, commemorating (and even addressing in the vocative!) a similar devotional hymn written by 叠谤补丑尘腻苍补苍诲补 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 in honor of their mutual preceptor, 碍峁涐梗峁嚹乶补苍诲补, the 膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补.^[19]

Your birth from 叠谤补丑尘腻苍补苍诲补 himself, your brilliant golden form,
The three worlds made subject to you, your familiarity with all the sciences;
The insightful praise refuge to you, which even for a moment gives birth to happiness,
膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补! What poet would be bold enough to praise your virtues?

Surely the feet of 碍峁涐梗峁嚹乶补苍诲补, on occasions of worship bearing a double multitude
Of tender blooming lotuses, with heaps of buds, strewn by assemblies of learned men,
Become even more radiant when you are attached to them. And yet,
I declare that it is you who are indeed the most charming, 膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补.

The elixir of life of the entire world, a cloud serves mostly to please the young 肠腻峁璦办补 bird;^[20]
Bringing joy to all, the moon awakens at will for the pleasure of the night-blooming lotus.
膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补, you bring bliss to the learned of the world, and now,
You bedeck yourself most particularly for the delight of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 heart.^[21]

In addition to 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 evident devotion to his lineage鈥攎anifested in his celebration of its textual incarnation in the form of the 膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补鈥攈is mode of address, compelling all learned scholars to take delight in his composition, makes it unambiguously clear that 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 intended his hymn not for the confines of a monastery but for a more public consumption among connoisseurs of sophisticated Sanskrit verse. Moreover, that the audience he invokes is at once impeccably educated in Sanskrit poetics and philosophy and sympathetic toward 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 devotion to his chosen lineage suggests that, by the late seventeenth century, affiliation with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 preceptors had become an unproblematic, or even commonplace, feature of 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmin identity.

Such an implication, in fact, is fully supported by the sheer evidence of numbers: a staggering number of south Indian intellectuals, beginning around the seventeenth century, came to be involved one way or another with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补s, 艢膩ktism, Advaita philosophy, and if we extrapolate from the emerging pattern, most likely all three at once. Reference might be made to 碍腻濒补丑补蝉迟颈 Kavi, an acquaintance of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, who composed the 叠丑别诲补诲丑颈办办腻谤补惫颈惫峁泃颈, a commentary on N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin鈥檚 treatise. One might mention a certain resident of Kanchipuram who referred to himself as 鈥湴�腻尘腻办峁Ｄ�诲腻蝉补鈥� (servant of the goddess 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ�) and, by his own admission, received 艢补颈惫补 诲墨办峁Ｄ� at the hand of Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 himself. Or, one might take the case of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 pupil Nalla Adhvarin, who refers to himself in his 础诲惫补颈迟补谤补蝉补尘补帽箩补谤墨 as a disciple of 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补 Brahmendra, the latter himself the author of a popular compendium, the 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补办补濒辫补惫补濒濒墨, based on Appayya鈥檚 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补濒别艣补蝉补峁単谤补丑补. Taken together, these figures exemplify the emergence of a network of theologians, who over the course of several decades, participated actively in the reimagination of the institutional boundaries and the religious culture of the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 sectarian community.

As it turns out, the most intriguing works of the this formative period of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religious culture have yet to be studied, remaining untranslated and largely inaccessible to academics and modern-day practitioners alike. Perhaps the most revelatory of these documents is the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. A manual for the daily ritual obligations of the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 initiates, the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 is a far cry from the insipid cookbook-like procedural manuals that often go by the name paddhati. After all, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was one of the greatest stylists of the Sanskrit language in the precolonial period, in his prose as well as his poetry. What we discover, instead, is an instructive (to us as well as his pupils) intertwining of ritual and social commentary, through which 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 actively negotiates a place for 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual practitioners (耻辫腻蝉补办补 s) within the broader orthodox climate of south Indian 艢补颈惫补 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补.^[22]

The second work to be addressed is a little-known commentary on a Sanskrit hymn popular in south India, the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补, attributed at the time to 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补.^[23] The author of the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补惫测腻办丑测腻, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, was the elder brother of R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and, like his brother, was extensively well-read in the classics of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 scripture. As a didactic treatment of what was likely a popular work of poetry in his day, 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补鈥檚 commentary consistently strives to establish a canon for the interpretation of 艢腻办迟补 verse, ranging from the earliestknown 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 scriptures to the personalities construed by his contemporaries as the archetypal 艢腻办迟补 devotees: 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补. In doing so, this commentary casts 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 as the forerunners and champions of a sanitized model of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 suited to the social demands of orthodox 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins.

The final work under discussion is the aforementioned 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补 of R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补, by far the most aesthetically refined example of the 艢补峁卥补谤补digvijaya genre and, perhaps for that reason, one of the least studied.^[24] One of the few such narratives to situate the final destination of 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 journey in Kanchipuram, the 艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补 forges an intrinsic connection between the lineage of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, Kanchipuram, its resident goddess 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ�, and 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual practice. In particular, the final two cantos of the work contain an array of astoundingly precise references to the esoteric vocabulary of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻, including a sixteen-verse hymn to 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� that embeds each of the syllables of the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 mantra, leaving the reader with no doubt that the author was intimately familiar with 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual and viewed this practice as inextricably connected to the lineage of 艢补峁卥补谤补.

To be clear about what is at stake in these rhetorical strategies, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his colleagues did not promulgate 艢腻办迟补 ritual and theology purely through their own social capital. Rather, they substantiated the authority of their lineage by invoking two of Indian history鈥檚 most celebrated cultural figures: 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, the most celebrated poet of Sanskrit literary history (or perhaps of any Indian literary tradition), and 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, the figurehead of the Advaita school of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 philosophy, which had become the language of intersectarian debate in south India for much of the second millennium. Through this process, 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 came to be understood unequivocally by seventeenth-century 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins as the teachings of 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 themselves. Within the Western tradition this phenomenon evokes the Renaissance European defense of the Hermetic tradition, in which the walls of the Vatican immortalized portraits of Hermes Trismegistus, who was understood by prominent intellectuals to have disseminated the esoteric truth of the Christian doctrine many centuries before Christ.

For 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 to cite 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 as the forefather of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 is strikingly reminiscent of the claim of a poet-intellectual in the court of Queen Elizabeth, Sir Philip Sidney, stating that:

Mercurius Trismegestius, who (if the bookes which are fathered vppon him bee his in d茅ede, as in trueth they bee very auncient) is the founder of them all, teacheth euerywhere, That there is but one God: That one is the roote of all things, and that without that one, nothing hath bene of all things that are: That the same one is called the onely good and the goodnesse it selfe, which hath vniuersall power of creating all things.... That vnto him alone belongeth the name of Father and of Good.^[25]

艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻, for 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his contemporaries, was not a novel fashion in 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 circles but the central insight of India鈥檚 greatest intellectual luminaries. In recasting the hagiographies of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, then, the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologians of seventeenth-century south India aimed, not only to rewrite the 鈥渆cclesiastical history鈥� of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 monastic lineages, but also to provide a model for religious belonging in their own day and age. Their ecstatic devotion, couched in the garb of the sophisticated poet and intellectual, was no abstract ideal but, rather, served as a model for the self-fashioning of the 厂尘腻谤迟补艢补颈惫补 theologian. Spared the rigors of an ascetic lifestyle of renunciation, these householder theologians found themselves saddled with the unique obligation of constructing a new religious public, one that cohered around a unified religious culture and shared sites of public memory. When the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologian spoke of his sectarian identity, he was, simply, just like 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, the consummate literary genius who received his talents through the grace of the goddess herself, whom he held dearer than his own life breath. Just like 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, these theologians portrayed themselves in their poetry and scholastic ventures as the paragons of the poetic talent of their generation and the ideal devotees of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and of the goddess.^[26]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

ardhe tanor adrisut膩mayo 鈥榮m墨ty aha峁儁un膩 ki峁� phalam 膩diy奴n膩 | g墨rv膩峁嘺yog墨ndram up膩smahe ta峁� sarv膩tman膩 艣ailasut膩tmako ya岣� || 艢颈惫补濒墨濒腻谤峁嘺惫补 (艢尝础) 1.5.

[2]:

A manuscript of a work ascribed to 础尘补谤别艣惫补谤补 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, remarkably enough a commentary on the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补, is currently held at the Punjab University Library, Lahore.

[3]:

艣a峁卥ara艣 c膩marendra艣 ca vi艣ve艣vara iti 迟谤补测补岣� | punantu m膩mak墨峁� buddhim 腻肠腻谤测腻岣� 办峁沺补测腻 尘耻诲腻 || amarendrayati艣 艣i峁�yo g墨rv膩峁噀ndrasya yogina岣� | tasya 惫颈艣惫别艣惫补谤补岣� 艣i峁�yo g墨rv膩峁噀ndro 鈥榟am asya tu || B眉hnemann (2001) understands the original G墨rv膩峁噀ndra in the latter verse to be another name for 艢补峁卥补谤补 referred to in the former, but this seems implausible, as the convention at work in the first verse is the tradition of invoking first the founder of the lineage (in this case understood to be 艢补峁卥补谤补) followed by the two preceding gurus in the lineage.

[4]:

The Advaita authors and texts enumerated below are described in some detail by Minkowski (2011), who clearly articulates for the first time many of the lines of influence among early modern scholars of Advaita.

[5]:

The 痴别诲腻苍迟补 compositions of N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin include the 叠丑别诲补诲丑颈办办腻谤补, Tattvaviveka, 础诲惫补颈迟补诲墨辫颈办腻, and commentaries on the 痴别诲腻苍迟补s膩ra and 厂补峁僰峁�e辫补艣腻谤墨谤补办补.

[6]:

See Minkowski (2011, 224) for a discussion of this evidence. Also worthy of note is that the N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin is credited as guru by 惭补丑墨诲丑补谤补, the author of the Mantramahodadhi, the most respected work of 惭补苍迟谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补 in the north Indian sphere, comparable in influence to the 笔谤补辫补帽肠补蝉腻谤补蝉补峁単谤补丑补 in the South.

[7]:

kaly膩峁嘺gu峁嘺samp奴r峁嘺峁� nirv膩峁嘺vibhav膩layam | g墨rv膩峁噀ndrasarasvaty膩艣 肠补谤补峁嘺峁� 艣补谤补峁嘺峁� bhaje || (v. 4). The colophon to the first pariccheda also refers to N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin as the pupil of one Jagann膩th膩艣ramin, who, judging by the similarity of their titles, may have been the one who initiated him into 蝉补苍苍测腻蝉补 (renunciation). The commentator N膩r膩ya峁嚹伵況amin (himself N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin鈥檚 immediate disciple) describes G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 as the author鈥檚 鈥渕antra guru.鈥� The distinction between 腻艣谤补尘补 guru and mantra guru may also aid in explaining what otherwise may seem like a troubling chronological inconsistency: how can G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 have been venerated as guru by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 as well as by N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin, who was a contemporary of his granduncle? Both 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and N峁泂i峁僪膩艣ramin claim to have received a particular initiation from G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 by means of the bestowal of a mantra or 艣补办迟颈辫腻迟补, which may have taken place at any time during their lives. Furthermore, an intriguing verse from 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 骋耻谤耻迟补迟迟惫补尘腻濒颈办腻 (verse 8, see below) appears to suggest that G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 was no longer alive during most of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 adult life, as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 mourns not having the opportunity to serve him personally in his embodied form.

[8]:

补诲惫补颈迟补辫墨峁环补蝉迟丑颈迟补de艣ika峁� ta峁� h峁沝y膩tmavidy膩vi艣ad膩ntara峁単am | 苍颈迟测补峁� bhaj膩mo vi艣adasva谤奴辫补峁� g墨rv膩峁嘺yog墨ndraguru峁� h峁沝anta岣� || In the 贬补谤颈丑补谤腻诲惫补颈迟补产丑奴峁�a峁嘺: g墨rv膩峁噀ndrayat墨ndr膩峁嚹佱箖 cara峁嚹乵buruhadvayam | svarg膩pavargada峁� pu峁僺膩峁� naumi vighnopa艣膩ntaye ||

[9]:

Documentary evidence does not yet permit us to establish the precise line of descent from G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 to the lineages of 碍腻帽肠墨 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补 or 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 Brahmendra. The Kanchi 尘补峁环补鈥檚 own lineage chronicles are historically dubious, as the lineage claims a precise list of preceptors going back so far as the early centuries b.c.e. On the grounds of the historical evidence available, critics argue that the 碍腻帽肠墨 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补 has existed in its present form only from the mid-eighteenth century onward. For this controversy see, for instance, Sarma (1987) and Venkatraman (1973). The relatively late origins of the present-day 碍腻帽肠墨 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补 do not, however, preclude us from inquiring into its formative antecedents.

Also worthy of note is an inscription recorded as ARE 443 of 1919, which attests that a village in the vicinity of Kanchipuram now known as 艢uru峁�峁璱l was once referred to as 鈥溑毑贯箙k补谤腻肠腻谤测补puram.鈥� The date of this inscription is unknown.

[10]:

On the surviving manuscript evidence for this hymn, see Filliozat (1967).

[11]:

On the six adhvan s enumerated by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, a common set of ontological categories in the 艢补颈惫补 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补, see Filliozat (1967). The remainder of the hymn contains a number of technical references to 艢补颈惫补 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补 theology, such as a traditional visualization for the five faces of 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补.

[12]:

骋耻谤耻迟补迟迟惫补尘腻濒颈办腻 (GTM) 5, 8, 9, 20. tattva蝉迟丑腻苍补办补濒腻pad膩k峁�araman奴n 艣aiv膩n 峁�a岣� apy adhvana岣� sa峁兣沷dhyaiva cirantanai艣 ca gurubhi岣� kecid kvacit t膩rit膩岣� | ekenaiva tu s膩rasa峁僩rahak峁泃ivyaktena mantr膩dhvan膩 g墨rv膩峁噀ndragurur vi艣峁涐箙khalam avaty 膩pr膩u岣峢am奴岣峢a峁� jagat || sv墨kartu峁� cara峁噊daka峁� cara峁嘺yor m膩r峁ａ弓u峁� 谤补箩补岣� 辫腻惫补苍补峁� m奴rdhn膩 dh膩rayitu峁� cir膩ya cara峁嘺u hem膩bjas膩m膩jikau | 蝉惫腻尘颈苍 me janu峁Ｄ佱箖 艣atair api 迟峁涐梗腻 n膩paiti janmaiva tu dvait墨y墨kam alabhyam eva bhavat膩 bhakte峁�v acitte k峁泃am || k峁沜chr膩峁噄 pradi艣an sak峁沜 chrava峁嘺ta岣� krcchr膩峁噄 hanti 蝉惫补迟补岣� karm膩峁噄 grasate sam奴lam api na岣� karm膩峁噄 蝉颈诲诲丑颈峁� nayan | g墨rv膩峁噀ndra iti 艣谤耻迟补岣� 艣ruti峁�u ya岣� sarv膩su nirv膩峁嘺do mantro 鈥榶a峁� caturak峁�aro mama bhavatv 膩艣v膩sam 膩艣v膩sanam || ant膩nanta艣ar墨rabandhapariv膩hop膩ttatattacchubhapr膩rabdh膩rthasam膩jabh膩gyaphalito ya岣� 艣补办迟颈辫腻迟补s 迟补谤补岣� | nir峁嚹玹o yadi so 鈥榩i de艣ikaday膩p膩峁単aprasa峁単膩vahas 迟补迟迟惫补峁� tarhi guro岣� 辫补谤补峁� kim api nety 腻办丑测腻迟补 v墨tabhram膩岣� ||

[13]:

艣 谤墨尘补肠肠丑补峁卥补谤补辫腻诲补蝉奴办迟颈丑峁沝补测腻惫颈峁�k腻谤补苍颈峁ａ箛腻迟补测腻... 办峁泃测腻 | GTM 17.

[14]:

See for instance Wallis, 鈥淭he Descent of Power,鈥� 2008.

[15]:

R膩jac奴岣嵞乵a峁噄 顿墨办峁�i迟补 also composed a work titled the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补t膩r膩vali, which does not appear to survive today but is attested by the author in his 碍腻惫测补诲补谤辫补峁嘺.

[16]:

艢补峁卥补谤腻产丑测耻诲补测补 (艢础) 1.1, 1.5鈥�10. asti svastik峁沝astoka艣asti艣 c奴岣嵞乵a峁噄r 尘补办丑墨 | kartror vi艣vajita岣� 辫耻迟谤补岣� k膩m膩k峁Ｄ�艣r墨niv膩sayo岣� || k膩vyaprak膩艣ik膩y膩艣 ca ya岣� karoti sma darpa峁嘺m | kar峁嚹乵峁泃膩gram膩n膩ni k膩vy膩ni ca tath膩 艣atam || 艣arvary膩艣 carame y膩me 艣补测腻苍补蝉 sa kad膩cana | g墨rv膩峁噀ndraguru峁� buddhy膩 g墨rv膩峁噀ndram alokata || anugrah膩d 膩ptavidya m amare艣varayogina岣� | vi艣ve艣varayat墨艣膩navineya峁� vinayojjvalam || 辫补谤测腻测补艣补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 峁� p膩re v膩c膩m avasthitam | prapa帽cas膩rapramukhaprabandhak峁泃ivedhasam || pratyagbrahmaikyanidhy膩naprahasanmukhapa峁卥ajam | tattanmantr膩nusandh膩natat辫补谤补峁� 迟补尘补蝉补岣� param || 办峁沺补测腻 coditas tena k峁沺a峁嚹乶ujigh峁沰峁�u峁嚹� | sa e峁�a kurute 办腻惫测补峁� 艣a峁卥ar膩bhyuday膩bhidham ||

[17]:

The inscription in the K膩laka峁囜弓he艣vara temple in Appayya鈥檚 补驳谤补丑腻谤补尘, Ad ayapalam, includes mention of an endowment for general instruction in 艢谤墨办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 艢补颈惫补 Advaita. See chapter 3 for further details; see also Bronner (2007) on the educative function of many of Appayya鈥檚 stotras (hymns).

[18]:

搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 was a reputed grammarian and author of the 鲍峁嚹乨颈尘补峁噄诲墨辫颈办腻, having studied under 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 himself.

[19]:

Despite 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 high praise, the original 膧肠腻谤测补蝉迟补惫补谤腻箩补 unfortunately does not appear to be extant today.

[20]:

The mythical 肠腻峁璦办补 bird is said to drink only raindrops.

[21]:

膧 SR 3, 4, 7, 41, 125. labdhai岣� s膩dhukaviprabandhajaladhi峁�v anta艣 肠颈谤补峁� majjat膩 艣abd膩khyair ma峁噄bhi岣� pata帽jalivaca岣ヅ浤佱箛opalottejitai岣� | yatnena 驳谤补迟丑颈迟补峁� 尘补测腻 sumataya岣� sarve 鈥榩i kaut奴hal膩d 膩c膩ryastavar膩jabh奴峁�a峁嘺m ida峁� pa艣yantu h峁涐梗yantu ca || ya岣� 艣膩stre峁�v akhile峁�u 艣ik峁�itamatir ya岣� k膩vyap膩ntho 产丑峁浥沘峁� ya岣� 艣akto 鈥榯im峁沝u svaya峁� kavayitu峁� ya艣 c膩nas奴y膩ka峁璾岣� | bhaktir yasya ca de艣ike sa jagati 蝉迟辞迟耻峁� 办峁�a尘补蝉 tv膩峁� vidann 膩c膩ryastavar膩ja mugdhah峁沝aya岣� kv膩ha峁� kva te var峁嘺nam || brahm膩nandata eva janma bhavato 谤奴辫补峁� 蝉耻惫补谤峁噊箩箩惫补濒补峁� 迟谤补颈濒辞办测补峁� ca 办峁泃补峁� va艣e paricaya岣� 艣膩stre峁�u sarve峁�v api | 艣l膩ghante sud峁浥沘艣 ca saukhyajanan墨峁� 艣补测测腻峁� muhus t膩vak墨m 膩c膩ryastavar膩ja kas tava 办补惫颈岣� 蝉迟辞迟耻峁� pragalbho gu峁嚹乶 || yatp奴j膩vasare峁�u s奴ripari峁�atk墨r峁嘺i岣� saroj膩dibhi岣� p膩峁璦lya峁� dvigu峁嘺峁� bibharti m峁沝ubhi岣� smerai岣� pras奴notkarai岣� | k峁涐梗峁嚹乶andamune岣� 辫补诲补峁� tadadhikodbh膩si tva诲腻蝉补帽jane 鈥榩y 膩c膩ryastavar膩ja komalatama峁� tv膩峁� 苍奴苍补尘 膩khy膩ti na岣� || j墨v膩tur jagato 鈥榩i c膩taka艣i艣o岣� pr墨tyai 辫补谤补峁� v膩rida岣� sarv膩hl膩dakaro 鈥榩i kairavamude j膩garti 办腻尘补峁� 艣补艣墨 | 膩c膩ryastavar膩ja vi艣vavidu峁Ｄ乵 膩nandan墨yo bhav膩n 辫谤腻测补岣� samprati r膩mabhadrah峁沝ayoll膩s膩ya sannahyati ||

[22]:

See below (the section titled 鈥溑毎�墨惫颈诲测�� and Society in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补鈥�) for a brief overview of the history of the 艢补颈惫补 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补, a prominent school of Tantric (惭补苍迟谤补尘腻谤驳补) 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘.

[23]:

One of a set of five hymns titled the 笔补帽肠补蝉迟补惫墨, the 础尘产腻蝉迟补惫补 is in other regions commonly attributed to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 as well as to 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补.

[24]:

See Bader (2000) for a thorough treatment of the extant 艢补峁卥补谤补digvijaya (艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 conquest of the directions) narratives and their genealogical relationships.

[25]:

A Woorke concerning the trewnesse of the Christian Religion (1587, 27). Cited in Yates (1964, 178).

[26]:

Of course, there is no evidence that 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 himself was a 艢腻办迟补. The false etymology of his name (碍腻濒墨-诲腻蝉补, 鈥渟ervant of the goddess 碍腻濒墨鈥�), as we will see, was accepted as valid by 础谤诲丑补苍腻谤墨艣惫补谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. Another 艢腻办迟补 work attributed to 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 is the 颁颈诲驳补驳补苍补肠补苍诲谤颈办腻, a commentary on the Krama Stotra of 厂颈诲诲丑补苍腻迟丑补. Although cited as the work of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 by 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补谤腻测补, the 颁颈诲驳补驳补苍补肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 includes a self-attribution of authorship to one Sr墨vatsa, whom Rastogi (1979) dates to the twelfth century on the grounds of the dates of composition of the Krama Stotra and the earliest known citation of the 颁颈诲驳补驳补苍补肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 by 惭补丑别艣惫补谤腻苍补苍诲补. In addition, South India in particular has attributed a number of 艢腻办迟补 hymns to the name of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, most popular among which is the 艢测腻尘补濒腻诲补峁囜笉补办补.