365bet娱乐

68
dualistic theologies of union, grace, and control. 1 While the use of
metaphors does not preclude philosophical argument, its absence in
the text of Svacchandatantram argues that throughout its
transmission this imagistic representation adequately served the
needs of its redactors, who thus largely preceded or stood outside
the sub-sects of the later systematic Saiva schools. Thus the use of
imagery in teaching does not rule out its containing systematic
1 For example, the text (Bk.4, p.276) compares the relationship
of the soul and Siva岣� after initiation to that of a river, which once
dissolved into the sea, does not return. For K峁�emar膩ja岣� this image
and its accompanying assertions of unity offer a natural scriptural
support for his non-dual and idealistic-emanational philosophy
(abh膩sav膩da岣�). The compilers of the text, in contrast, may be
expressing a simpler non-idealistic notion, which simply asserts that
when liberated the soul is literally or materially dissolved in the
supreme lord (layav膩da岣�). The actual metaphysical status and
philosphical implications of this ambiguous union would then have
been open to several later interpretations.
Accordingly, the following verse (Bk.4, p.277, vs. 443) restates
the literal equivalent of this metaphor by saying that self becomes
S铆va岣� (艣ivibh膩vati) through having the same essence, or
participation (samarasatvena). In Svacchandatantram this
samarasa- or s膩marasyam is used to characterize one of the many
procedures in which the master extracts the soul of the initiate and
moves it up the planes of existence to dissolve it in the consciousness
of 艢iva岣�. Although apparently tending to support the later non-dual
exegesis, this practice and the term (samarasyam) also occurs in
the commentaries of dualistic Siddh膩ntins, and in the scriptures of
other non-艢aiva traditions. (V. K峁�emar膩ja's Pratyabhij帽膩h峁沝ayam
Singh, Pratyabhij帽膩h峁沝ayam, p.49 for a definition of dissolution as
non-dual fusion (samarasyam): "par膩dvayasamarasy膩p膩dan膩tmani
ca samh膩re %; for the Siddhantins, v. Brunner-Lachaux,
Somasambhupaddhati, troisi猫me partie, pp. 348ff, n.405; on laya-
and samarasya in the P膩帽car膩tra岣�, v. Sanjukta Gupta, Laksmi
Tantra, p.xxxiv, pp. 127-134, esp., vs. 41, p. 131; for an example of
the debate among later sectarian Saivas over the nature of
liberation, taking these images and related images as its point of
departure v. Schomerus, Aru峁嘺ntis 艢ivaj帽膩nasiddhiy膩r 1:.372ff.)
".