Essay name: Svacchandatantra (history and structure)
Author: William James Arraj
The essay represents a study and partial English translation of the Svacchandatantra and its commentary, 鈥淯ddyota鈥�, by Kshemaraja. The text, attributed to the deity Svacchanda-bhairava, has various names and demonstrates a complex history of transmission through diverse manuscript traditions in North India, Nepal, and beyond.
Page 189 of: Svacchandatantra (history and structure)
189 (of 511)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
183
and universal importance, the text asserts (pp. 108-110) that the
soul or breath functions only in indissoluble union with the
Pra峁嘺va岣�. Thus this assertion prescribes a structure of the
Pra峁嘺va岣� that has 'h' prefixed, representing the breath. By
stressing this structure at various times in the text, the Saivas,
according to K峁mar膩ja岣�, differentiated their Pra峁嘺va岣� from the
ordinary Pra峁嘺va岣� of other traditions. 1
In a parenthetical declaration characteristic of this section's
generalizing tone, the text next (pp. 111-112) states that effective
cognition, and, by implication, use of the Pra峁嘺va岣� requires the
urging (codana) of the scripture. A similarly general or theoretical
description of the components of the Pra峁嘺va岣� follows (pp. 113-
124). Here (pp. 113-115), the text equates the 'a' with the
supreme lord in his transcendent aspect as the lord without parts
(ni峁ala岣�). The 'u' is equated with the lord with attributes
(sakala岣�). When united, they emanate the multileveled universe
that corresponds to the pentadic Pra峁嘺va岣�. The discussion of the
next component, the 'm', apparently follows (pp. 116-118) in an
elliptical aside describing a meditation where the exercitant
reverses emanation and dissolves the 'm' back into the supreme
艢iva岣�. The panegryic quarter-verse closing this description signals,
once again, that redactors have likely here interpolated a fragment
from a longer and more coherent description of a Pra峁嘺va岣�
meditation. K峁mar膩ja岣�, accordingly, maintains the
1 V. section 1.1.3 for the earlier use of the Pra峁嘺va岣�. Here the
previous traditions appear in vs. 7a (p.110) which apparently equates
the breath to the solitary soul ("...jiva eko vyavasthita岣�"). Since
previous commentators had also interpreted the breath in this
resticted sense, instead of in the requisite universal sense,
K峁mar膩ja岣� (pp. 109-110) has to refute them by reinterpreting this
declaration in his commentary: 鈥渆ka iti advitiya /
sarvamantraviryantarvyavasthita ityavicaladr奴patay膩nucc膩rya岣�
athac膩vyavasthito na kenacitpratiniyatena r奴pe峁嘺 sthito
'niyantritasph膩ra ityartha岣�.
鈽�
