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 68 of: Svacchandatantra (history and structure)
68 (of 511)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
62
material. Perhaps these deletions went beyond the substitution of
standard forms and even phrases to include substantive excisions
and abridgements. 1 Although, naturally, no direct evidence exists
for such large scale cutting, K峁mar膩ja's commentary provides
ample witness that the manuscripts which had reached him
carried a text not only variant but also somewhat corrupted,
fragmented, damaged and needing reconstitution. 2 Evidently, a
chronological as well as a socially qualitative gap still separated the
last anonymous editors from the sectarian commentators. These
pre-commentatorial redactors or editors, thus, partially revised the
language, harmonized the various books, and interpolated verses
and smaller sections reflecting their own doctrinal position. 3 The
label "艢aiva redactorial" source might best cover their collective
imprint where discernible as affecting the extant recension of
Svacchandatantram. As with preceding sources, the documents
that may have served as the paradigm for their operations on
Svacchandatantram, remain obscure and only hypothetically
1 Cf., for evidence of deletion in the Puranic literature,
Rocher, The Pur膩峁嘺s, pp. 37-38. For example, many authors on
dharma岣�, both commentators and nibandhak膩ras, quote verses
from the Pur膩峁嘺s which can not be found in any extant version.
2 V. bk. 13, p. 120, where K峁mar膩ja岣�, in a rare account of his
commentatorial activity states: "And thus, as a rule, the
interpolation of other books, the reversal (of the order] of books, and
the reversal of readings of this book, [that have] a hundred
branches, [which] are seen, are fabricated by the ignorant. That is
removed by us through the investigation of ancient books, as
regards the sense . (evam ca praya艣o granth膩ntaraprak峁po
granthavipary膩sa岣� p膩峁環avipary膩sa艣ca asya granthasy durmedhobhi岣�
parikalpita岣� 艣atak艣膩kho dr艣yate/sa 'sm膩bhi岣�
pur膩tanapustak膩nve峁峁嘺to y膩vadgati apas膩rita 鈥︹��..)鈥�
"
3 V., for example, bk.4 p.13, where an editor has apparently
added a verse marking the end of the daily ritual ("nityakarma")
and the beginning of the occasional ritual ("naimittikakarma"),
using these terms that do not appear elsewhere in the text except in
the commentary of K峁mar膩ja岣�.
