365bet娱乐

[Full title: Svacchandatantra, chapter 12 (Summary) part 1: The Nature of the Lower Planes]

The opening dialogue of this book (pp. 1-2) summarizes the topics of the preceding book, sc. the emanation, maintenance, and reabsorption of the planes, and introduces a related topic: knowledge of the planes (tattvavijnanam) that yields specific attainments (siddhih) connected with them (tesu). 1 Before presenting the announced topic, however, the text has a long section (pp. 2-35) discussing the general nature of the lower planes. In content, this discussion both differs from and repeats those of the preceding two books. If the discussion of the planes for the sake of attainments depended on the general presentation of the planes by the preceding books, then this material would be superfluous. The re-presentation of the planes argues that in a source document, this general discussion accompanied, as a kind of explanatory preface, the examination of the planes for the sake of attainments. When constructing this section of the text, compilers then carried over this prefatory discussion accompanying the material on specific attainments. Hypothetically, as suggested by its primary interest in meditative attainments, this book may represent the core discussion of the planes in the Bhairava source. The preceding books, in contrast, as indicated by their emphasis on 1 Kshemaraja explains vijnanam or knowledge, as realizing (saksatkarah) by practices such as concentration (dharana). (v. p.2, vs. 2 a, and commentary: "tattvavijnanamakhyahi siddhistesu yatha bhavet vijnanam dharanadikramena saksatkarah tesvati tadvisaya siddhiryatha syat. ") By using the term vijnanam, these dialogue verses apparently intend to distinguish the practical knowledge of the planes, directed to adepts, presented in this book, from the more theoretical knowledge (jnanam), presented in the preceding book. (V. for this distinction, Franklin Edgerton, The Beginnings of Indian Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p.361, with references.)

335 initiation ritual and doctrine, would then represent related material drawn from scriptural Saiva sources. The first part (pp. 2-6) of this section describes the five elements in terms of their manifestations, not only externally, but also internally, in the body. First internally, under its form of hardness (kathinarupena), the element earth occurs in the body in hard substances as bone (asthi); water in fluids such as sweat (svedah), fire in digestion (pacanam); air in the functions of the various breaths such as elimination (visargah); and ether under the form of the nine apertures. 1 For the external manifestations, the text simply alludes to the traditional conception that the elements possess specific properties (laksanam) in a decreasing number, from earth with five to ether with one, but does not list them. Kshemaraja, therefore, supplies these in his commentary. He lists, for example, the specific sounds of the five elements, then the specific tactile quality for the four up to wind, and so forth. 2 Next (pp. 5-13), deviating, as noted by Kshemaraja, from the standard order, come not the sensory media but the organs of action and perception. 3 The text first (pp. 6-8) enumerates the characteristic activities for each organ of action. In addition to their activities, this characterization includes some related information, such as the kinds of speech, such as Sanskrit, Prakrit, and so forth, uttered by the organ of speech, or the kinds 1 This list repeats basic concepts, codified in the Ayurvedah, and current in many traditions, such as the Samkhyam. (For the relationship between these systems and the properties assigned to the elements, v. R.F.G. Muller, esp. pp.72 ff, of "Medizin der Inder in kritischer Ubersicht," Indo-Asian Studies II, Prof. Raghu Vira Memorial Volume, ed. Lokesh Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series 37 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1965.), pp.3-124. Z V. his commentary, pp.4-5. 3 Cf. the description of Samkhyakarika, 26, 28, Jawaji, The Sankhya Karika, pp.349 ff, 359 ff.

336 of terrain, muddy, uneven, and so forth, traversed by the feet. After enunciating the general principle that the organs of perception (budhindriyani) operate through contact with the intellect (buddhih), the text next (pp. 8-13) discusses them by enumerating the range of objects and properties (visayah) covered by their perceptive activity. For the first, hearing, there follows an extensive list of notes, scales, musical instruments, and the like. For the others, the text has shorter lists, such as soft, hard, and the like, for the skin, or colors for the eye. At the end of this list, a half-verse marks the field possessor (ksetri) or knower, deluded by the ego as one who perceives the objects. This remark evidently echoes the common Samkhya notion that the purusah and not the perceptive organ cognizes objects. 1 After the organs, comes a verse and a half that (pp. 13-14) briefly characterizes the activity of the internal perceptive organ (manah), which by intention (sankalpah) and conception (vikalpah) coordinates the activities of the other organs. 2 Next a group of general verses (pp. 14-16) correlates each sensory medium (tanmatram) with the operation of a single sense organ, and the perception of a single object. As explained by Kshemaraja, the sensory medium, for example, of smell (gandhatanmatram), as an agent, localizes and restricts the sense organ of smelling (ghrana), as an instrument, to a specific location, such as the tip of the nose, and to a single property, such as smell (gandhah) as its object. Through their association with and location in the 1 V. p.13, vs.30 b: "yenasau buddhyate ksetri ahamkarena mohitah . " Kshemaraja interprets this apparently Samkhya statement in a non-dual fashion: "sariradau baddhabhimanatvadeva vyatirekena visayanvetti. "V. for this distinction in early Samkhyam, Edgerton, The Beginnings of Indian Philosophy, p.288, n.2. 2 V. the similar characterization of the manah in Samkhyakarika, 27, Jawaji, The Sankhya Karika, pp.351.

337 perceptive organ, they enable perception by limiting the activity of a given perceptive organ to its corresponding object. They further mediate between the perceptive organs and the ego, and thus allow ego impressions of a particular object to occur. Otherwise, if, as in the view of Nyayah, the sensory media constituted only subtle forms of objects, they would not leave a particular impression on the ego. And, if, as in the view of the classical Samkhyam, they were related only to the ego, then they would not be able to restrict perception to a particular object. Without the sensory media, the organs would be pervasive and unfocused like the ego, and cognition of specific objects would be impossible. 1 Several verses follow (pp. 16-17) that enumerate the series of erroneous identifications, such as I am powerful, I am a victor in battle, and so forth, that stem from the ego, and cause bondage to transmigration. This section begins by declaring that above there is the transforming (vaikarika-) ego, and ends by declaring that the threefold ego has been discussed. Although, Kshemaraja interprets this first declaration as intentionally asserting that the constituent rajah represented by the transforming ego dominates, the discrepancy probably indicates that the compilers have here inserted only part of a fuller description of the ego found in a source document. 2 The section on the intellect (pp. 18-26) consists of an extensive listing of its properties (dharmah), which comprise the eight primary psychic dispositions (bhavah) and their secondary divisions. Before these lists of divisions, there comes a general 1 V. his commentary, pp. 15-16: "niyamitatanmatroparaktahankarikatvamindriyanam anyatha sankhyavatkevale ahankarikatve niyatavisayasambandho na ghatate naiyayikavadva kevalabhautikatve tu ahampratityanugamo na syat. 鈽� " and p.18, vs. 40 b: Z V. p.16, vs.36 a: "vaikarikastatas . "trividhasyapyayam dharmo 'hankarasya prakirtitah."

338 verse that characterizes the intellect as binding the soul to tranmigration by seven dispositions, and by the eighth, knowledge, deluding it, and which then in traditional fashion classifies the intellect's main activity as determination (adhyavasayah).¹ In the following lists, first, notably, for righteousness (dharmah), comes a longer and different series of divisions than the preceding books. In order to preclude any intra-scriptural contradiction, Kshemaraja attempts to harmonize these lists by demonstrating that the longer list simply amplifies and alters the pattern but not substance of the shorter. Z Second, for knowledge, instead of a list, come several verses that appear to praise the Samkhya knowledge that leads to liberation from matter. At the end of this description, however, the text declares that the lord (isvarah), the agent of emanation, 1 V. p. 18, vs. 42 b: "badhnati saptadha sa tu jnanabhavena mohayet." The contrast, marked by tu, might suggest that the verse orginally read: by seven it, i.e., the intellect binds, but by the eighth, knowledge, it liberates. Redactors presumably have changed mocayet into mohayet. The original verse would then fit the praise given elsewhere of knowledge as liberating, and the alteration would correspond to the redactorial denigration of Samkhya knowledge later in this section (V. pp. 21-22, vss.50-51). Cf. the probable model of this verse found in a similar context in the preceding book (p. 84, vs.141): "badhnati saptadha sa tu pumsah samsaravartmani/mocayejjnanabhavena samkhyajnanaratannaran. "V. Samkhyakarika, 63, and commentary, in Esnoul, Les strophes de Samkhya, p.73, that contains the same model of seven that bind and one that liberates ("rupaih saptabhir eva badhnatyatmanamatmana prakrtih/saiva ca purusartham prati vimocayatyekarupena." And in Gaudapada's commentary "ekarupena jnanena. "On the function of the intellect as adhyavasayah, v. Samkhyakarika, 23, Jawaji, The Sankhya Karika, pp.333 ff. 2 Thus, for example, Kshemaraja (p.20) has wisdom (vidya), study (abhyasah), and guarding life (jivitaraksa), in this list, match obedience to the master (gurususrusa), in preceding lists (Bk. 11, p.86), because they form its fruit (phalam) or consequence ("vidyabhyaso jivitaraksa ca gurususrusayah phalam").

339 nonetheless rebinds the soul to transmigration. The source document used to construct this section probably contained this praise of Samkhya knowledge. Instead of excising it, in as much as it represented the entire description of the knowledge disposition, redactors retained it and added this final verse, qualifying this knowledge as subordinate to the lord. Third, for dispassionateness, instead of members of the intellectual emanation as in preceding lists, the text lists specific austerities such as the five fires (pancagnih), and ritual suicide. For mastery, the text also lists specific acts, including, notably, criminal acts, which its realization makes possible. Without morally rationalizing the instructions to commit such reprehensible acts, Kshemaraja simply comments that acts like deceitful murder, for example, help acquire mastery of their corresponding constituent, in this case, tamah or darkness. Closing this section, the text then discusses the negative dispositions almost as if an interconnected set of circumstances; acts of unrighteousness (adharmah) lead, as it were, to the ignorance (ajnanam) which believes that no right or wrong exists. And in this misery, the person drags on suffering in passionateness (avairagyam), or persists unconcerned in a worsening condition through lack of mastery (anaisvaryam). The next section (pp. 26-30) characterizes matter and the three constituents. The first verse calls matter or the unmanifest that which contains the three constituents, the stimulator (pravartakah) of transmigration, and that through which there is the production of the world (jagadutpattih). Recognizing that these verses invite a Samkhya interpretation, Kshemaraja adds the qualification that matter exercises these functions only through the impulse of the lord (isvarah). Historically, however, this unqualified characterization points to a probable earlier Samkhya context for this section. The text presents the three constituents by characterizing the prototypical men that would result from their unalloyed

340 embodiment. Though not named explictly, the traits enumerated depict the perfect embodiment of the good (sattvam) as the serene brahmana sage, of the active (rajah) as the violent ksatriya king, of the dark (tamah) as the criminal and indolent outcaste. This description of the constituents (gunah), then leads directly to the next section (pp. 30-35) on the person (purusah) or soul. These verses not only characterize the person but in effect recount and celebrate the growing awareness of its nature that leads to liberation. In absolute contrast to the activity of matter and all its preceding manifestations, the person consists of pure, inactive, consciousness. No real connection exists between the two, and discriminating between them by realizing the true nature of the person immediately ends the person's bondage. At the end of this apparent celebration of Samkhya knowledge, however, come several verses that denigrate it and the liberation it provides as limited, deluded, and ultimately leading back to the cycle of transmigration. The lord, they assert, actually controls the process of rebirth and the cosmic cycles. Consequently, the knowledge of Samkhyam fails to liberate and the delusional identifying with activity re-engulfs the person in transmigration. As before, compilers have apparently incorporated and then qualified a Samkhya source by appending verses asserting theistic control of the universe. Their qualification, however, does not extend far enough for Kshemaraja. In particular, he must readjust the crucial assertion that the person is a non agent (akarta), which even the theistic qualifiation had left intact. His commentary stresses, accordingly, the standard non-dual Saiva position, that the person remains bound not because he erroneously identifies himself as an agent, but because he fails to identify himself as the supreme agent, Shiva. This differing criticism of the Samkhya doctrine suggests that the compilers of this section belonged to Saiva traditions other than those immediately antecedent to non-dual Saivas like Kshemaraja.