On the Śaiva Concept of Innate Impurity (mala) and theFunction of the Rite of Initiation

Diwakar Acharya

Published online: 4 December 2013

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This paper tries to trace the roots of the Saiva Mantramarga concept of

innate impurity. Since innate impurity is regarded as one of the three bonds fettering

bound individual souls, this paper begins with the Pasupata and early Saiva views on

these bonds. It examines the Buddhist logician Dharmakırti’s criticism of the Saiva

idea that initiation removes sin, and discusses the Pasupata concept of sin-cleansing

and two different concepts of innate impurity found in two early Saiva scriptures:

the Sarvajñānottaratantra and Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. In search of the roots

of these Saiva conceptions of innate impurity, this paper then goes over some Vedic

passages which speak of the removal of sin during the initiatory rite and identify it

as the internal impurity. Putting all these points together, this paper concludes

arguing that the Saivas initially saw sin or the unseen force of merits and demerits as

innate impurity, but later, under the pressure of criticism, they introduced the idea of

innate impurity as a separate abstract substance affecting all souls with its multiple

powers.

Keywords Bonds · Merits and demerits · Removal of sin/innate impurity ·

Function of the Vedic · Pasupata · and Saiva rite of initiation · Dharmakırti

A short version of this paper was presented in the special panel on Saiva philosophy of the 15th World

Sanskrit Conference held at New Delhi in January 2012. I am grateful to the organisers and participants

of the panel, particularly to Lyne Bansat-Boudon, Dominic Goodall and Judit Torzsok for their important

suggestions. I am also grateful to Somdev Vasudeva for going over my English.

D. Acharya (&)

Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501,

Japan

e-mail: acharyadiwakar@gmail.com

123

J Indian Philos (2014) 42:9–25

DOI 10.1007/s10781-013-9209-0

The Saiva Mantramarga in its fully developed form, as presented in the seventh

century Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha (hereafter SvaSS),1 categorises individual

souls according to their conditions into three classes as isolated (kevala), as

associated with kalās (sakala), and finally, as freed from innate impurity (amala).2

All individual souls primordially have this defiling dark substance (mala) that

covers their innate nature of omniscience and omnipotence.3 In the isolated state

(kevala), they are absorbed in Maya, the primal matter, but even in this state their

capacities are covered by this dark substance.4 They become bound (baddha) andare called sakala as soon as they are associated with kalās. They get a body and

are connected with sense faculties.5 Thrown into the world, these bound souls

regard themselves as the agent of their deeds and the enjoyer of rewards in this

and the other world. This introduces another bond, and thus, in this worldly state,

they are bound with three bonds: innate impurity, the bond of Maya, and that of

karman.6 Their omniscient and omnipotent nature can be realised only through a

ritual initiation (dīkṣā) that leads to the removal of these bonds fettering them.

They can be liberated only with Siva’s intervention in the form of initiation.7

Without initiation, removal of the innate impurity is impossible, and all the more

impossible is liberation, because while this substance exists ‘the soul fails to

realize its innate omniscience and omnipotence.’ As Sanderson (1992, p. 285) has

summarised:

The ignorance that characterizes the unliberated is the effect of an

imperceptible Impurity (malam) that acts on the soul from outside; and this

Impurity, though it is imperceptible, is a material substance (dravyam).Because it is a substance, only action (vyāpāraḥ) can remove it; and the only

action capable of removing it is that of the rituals of the initiation and their

sequel taught by Siva in his Tantric scriptures.

In a way, the very entry of the bound souls into the world is for the sake of their

liberation. For, before they arrive in the world, innate impurity cannot be processed

and eliminated. Once this is accomplished, these souls are no longer absorbed in

Maya but remain with Siva for ever. Thus, the concept of mala, innate impurity,

1 The Saiva Mantramarga emerged from the background of the Pasupata Atimarga about the fifth century

CE. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā was the earliest of its scriptures, and following it in time till the seventh

century were the non-eclectic Dviśati and Sārdhatriśati redactions of the Kālottara, Pauṣkara-pārameśvara, Sarvajñānottara, Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha, and Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. The early

eighth century Kashmirian scholar Sadyojyotis has based some of his works on the second-last of these

texts and partially commented on the last one which is doctrinally much advanced than all others. All

these texts except the Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha are preserved, completely or partially, in old Nepalese

palm-leaf manuscripts. For details, see Goodall and Isaacson (2011, pp. 127 and 190 (fn. 95)), Sanderson

(2009, p. 45), Goodall et al. (2008, p. 315), Goodall (1998, pp. xxxvii–xliii; 2004, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii). For

the date of Sadyojyotis, see Sanderson (2006a).2 Cf. SvaSS 1.5.3 Cf. SvaSS 2.1–6 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.4 Cf. SvaSS 1.8–10.5 Cf. SvaSS 1.6–7 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.6 Cf. SvaSS 1.11–15, 2,21–23 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.7 Cf. SvaSS 1.16–18, 2.24.

10 D. Acharya

123

plays a vital role in the system of the Saiva Mantramarga. This becomes clear from

the time of the SvaSS and its early eighth century commentator, Sadyojyotis, but

before this date, the situation appears to be different. Therefore, in this paper, I will

make an effort to trace the roots of the concept of innate impurity of bound souls. I

begin, however, with the bonds (pāśas) in general, because innate impurity is only

one of them, albeit the most prominent one.

Bonds in the Pāśupata Traditions, the Niśvāsa Corpus, and theSarvajñānottaratantra

Neither pāśa nor any other term meaning ‘bond’ features in the Pasupatasutra

(hereafter PS), the highest authority and the most ancient text in the tradition

of the Pasupata Atimarga, but it does in the second variety of the Atimarga8

described in the Niśvāsamukha of the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā (hereafter NiTS).9 It

appears there among the five entities of the impure path: net (jāla),embodiments (mūrti), bound souls (paśu), bonds (pāśa), and the divine body

(vigraha). The text, however, becomes elliptical at places as it elaborates on

these entities, and apparently it does not provide detailed information about the

nature of bonds.10

Kauṇḍinya, who might have lived in the 4th or 5th century CE,11 writes in his

Bhāṣya on the PS that individual embodied souls are called paśu because they see

(paśyanāt) and also because they are bound with bonds (pāśanāt). As he states, thebonds are the material elements (kalās) which belong to the lord and are explained

as effects/products (kāryas) in the form of the five basic elements, earth and others,

and as instruments (karaṇas) in the form of the mind and its evolutes.12 Fettered by

them, bound, restrained, they are dependent on the operation of sense objects such

as sound, and as such they exist here in the world.13 This line of thinking provides a

new perspective and scheme for the presentation of the Pasupata/ Saiva world-view

in terms of the three categories of pati (‘the Lord’), paśu (‘bound souls’) and pāśa(‘bonds’). This scheme is adopted by all Saiddhantika scriptures of the Saiva

8 For the two varieties of Atimarga, see Acharya (2011) and Sanderson (2006b).9 The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā is a collective name given to the corpus of Niśvāsa scriptures which goes

back at least to the ninth century, the estimated date of the Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript. This

manuscript preserves a redaction of all these scriptures assembled under this collective title. The Niśvāsacorpus comprises Niśvāsamukha, Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra, Nayasūtra, and Guhyasūtra, but the first and

last of these texts are apparently earlier and serve to bracket the core texts. For detail information, see

Goodall and Isaacson (2007).10 NiTS Niśvāsamukha 4.93-94ab: prathame jālam etat tu dvitīye mūrtisaṃjñakam | tṛtīye paśur ākhyātaḥpāśāṃś caiva caturthake || pañcame vigrahaḥ khyātaḥ aśuddhās te prakīrtitāḥ | According to Sanderson’s

analysis (2006b, p. 165), bonds cover that segment of the Atimarga cosmos which extends from the realm

of Gahana up to that of Ananta.11 Sastri (1940, pp. 12–13), see also Bakker (2010, p. 517).12 Cf. Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 2.24.13 Kauṇḍinya's Bhāṣya ad PS 1.1: paśyanāt pāśanāc ca paśavaḥ. tatra pāśā nāma kāryakaraṇākhyāḥkalāḥ. tābhiḥ pāśitāḥ baddhā sanniruddhāḥ śabdādiviṣayaparavaśāś ca bhūtvāvatiṣṭhante.

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 11

123

Mantramarga, and much of it is appropriated even by other non-Saiddhantika

scriptures.14

At this point, I would like to make two observations. First, it appears that the

concept of innate impurity (mala) has no place, or at least no defined place, in this

triadic scheme. To be more precise, mala as the defiling dark substance innately

existing in every bound soul is not compatible with the early concept of pāśa as

direct or indirect kāryas and karaṇas of the Lord. Second, in the earliest stage of

theorisation in Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya, the bonds belong to the Lord, not to the bound

souls. But by the time of the SvaSS the opposite is true; the bonds now belong either

to the embodied souls or to Maya who is standing between the Lord’s pure world

and the impure world of the bound souls. Innate impurity is now postulated as the

first and most fundamental of all bonds. It is described as covering and concealing

the true nature of individual souls and as belonging to them.15 It is one for all, only

its powers are separate for each soul.16 Placed second is the bond of Maya

(māyeyapāśa) and included in it is everything, all mental and physical entities,

issued from Maya; there is no need to say that it belongs to Maya.17 The third bond

is the personal karman of individual souls and this, too, belongs to the bound souls.

It is the cause of all forms of triadic transformation of the world.18

The NiTS’s description of bonds stands between the Pasupata concept of bonds

and the one found in the fully developed version of the Saiva Mantramarga, as it

appears in the SvaSS. The Uttarasūtra (2.28–31) of the NiTS enumerates the bonds

of the entities starting from Prakr˙ti up to Sadasiva, then it adds the bonds of Siva’s

gaṇas and the bond of one’s merits and demerits (dharmādharma). Appended to

these are also the human sentiments, love, anger, and others. The next text in the

same corpus, the Nayasūtra (1.83–111), elaborates on these different kinds of

bonds, and also mentions new kinds of bonds in the body (dehapāśas). Both of thesetexts speak of the bonds of even Isvara and Sadasiva, and here bonds are not just

negative; for example, Sadasiva’s power of grace, too, is a bond. The Nayasūtra(1.1–14) repeatedly states that all these bonds are cut and burnt at the time of

initiation, and also makes a remark that this is a special feature of the Saiva system.

Also the Guhyasūtra, the last text of the NiTS corpus, incidentally mentions that the

bonds of an initiated person are burnt by the rite of initiation.19 But unlike the

Uttara- and Naya-sūtras, it does not elaborate much on these bonds, except that in

one place (7.159) it figuratively calls this world a bond (saṃsārapāśa) and once in

passing mentions the bond of merits and demerits (3.112).

Thus in these scriptures a background is set for further sophistication. It can also

be observed that as these scriptures deal with bonds, they identify any positive and

14 Though the non-Saiddhantika scriptures put the notion of pati in the shade, they make good use of the

other two notions of bound souls and their bonds. For a description of early Saiddhantika and other

Tantric scriptures, see Goodall and Isaacson (2011).15 Cf. SvaSS 2.1–6.16 Cf. TattvaTN verses 7, 11, 31.17 Cf. SvaSS 2.8–11.18 Cf. SvaSS 2.12–14 and Sadyojyotis’ commentary thereupon.19 NiTS Guhyasūtra 8.118: dīkṣayā dagdhapāśasya na tīrthe maraṇaṃ hitam |

12 D. Acharya

123

negative force that circumscribes the individual souls starting from human

sentiments and ending with the grace of Sadasiva. In this process, it is imaginable

that the force of merits and demerits accumulated from good and bad deeds is also

included.

The next phase of development is seen in the Sarvajñānottaratantra (hereafter

SJU), where effort is made to set all bonds in a frame, to classify them, and to be

clear about their status and nature. This text also makes mention of innate impurity

(mala). However, here it is defined not as a concealing substance, one for all, like in

the SvaSS, but differently, as one’s merits and demerits, and it is not included

among the bonds. Here I translate the relevant passage:

The entities belonging to the guṇas are regarded as the bonds, [and] merit and

demerit together are regarded as impurity (mala), innate to all creatures and

situated in them just like the blackish verdigris on copper. The bonds are

thought to be of three types: innate, adventitious, and contagious. Listen

further, O Guha, to the individual ascertainment of them. Those entities such

as the tanmātras, which are very subtle and omnipresent, are proclaimed as the

highest of bonds innately present in all creatures. The sense faculties, the gross

elements, and whatsoever seed has arisen there, all those are regarded as

adventitious ones. Different from them, further, are the contagious [bonds].

Due to the contact [of the sense faculties with the sense objects] whatever

deeds are done, either good or bad, they form the contagious bonds and they

provide the reward in the form of happiness and sorrow. […] The bonds are

without beginning and end, but the individual soul is proclaimed as without

beginning; and the cutter of [these bonds], who is the lord of both the bonds

and the bound souls, is also without beginning.20

This scheme involves a good degree of sophistication, but it is not properly

conceptualised like that in the SvaSS. Here an effort is made to classify the

bonds into innate, adventitious, and contagious types. It also identifies the

force of merits and demerits resulting from one’s good and bad deeds

(dharmādharma) as innate impurity (mala) distinguished from the bonds. It

has, however, an overlap between dharmādharma and karman. It first defines

dharmādharma as innate impurity and counts it separately beyond the bonds,

and then lists karman as the last of three bonds. But the text does not state if

20 SJU 28.11–15, 21:

guṇatattvāḥ smṛtāḥ pāśā dharmādharmau malaḥ smṛtaḥ |

sahajaḥ sarvajantūnāṃ tāmre kālikavat sthitaḥ ||

trividhās te smṛtāḥ pāśāḥ sahajā-’’gantukās tathā |

sāṃsargikās tathā bhūyaḥ śṛṇu teṣu vinirṇayam ||

tanmātrādyās tu ye tattvāḥ susūkṣmāḥ sarvagā guha |

te tu pāśāḥ parāḥ proktāḥ sahajāḥ sarvajantuṣu ||

indriyāṇi ca bhūtāni yad bījaṃ teṣu sambhavam |

āgantukāḥ smṛtā hy ete tasmāt sāṃsargikāḥ punaḥ ||

saṃsargād yad bhavet karma śubhaṃ vā yadi vāśubham |

te tu sāṃsargikāḥ pāśāḥ sukhaduḥkhaphalapradāḥ || …

anādinidhanāḥ pāśā jīvo ’nādis tu kīrtitaḥ |

chedakaś ca tathānādiḥ paśupāśapatis tu yaḥ ||

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 13

123

there is any difference between these two. It is not logical to speak about

merits and demerits separately if one wants to speak about karman. When the

Niśvāsa texts speak about the bonds, they do not mention karman, but mention

dharmādharma instead. In fact, karman stands for the unseen force of one’s

deeds, and it is often explained as dharmādharma, the merits and demerits one

has accumulated by performing good and bad deeds. This explanation is found

in many early Saiva scriptures, e.g., SvaSS 2.17, RauSS 10.83, MatVP 8.98,

PaT 1.79. Therefore, the only way to avoid this problem, is to say that

dharmādharma is limited to the pre-existing merits and demerits of past lives,

while karman refers to deeds and their effects in the present life. This appears

to be the underlying idea, because the first is said to be innate and the other

contagious. Anyway, the scheme of the SJU provides a very good ground for

the development of a proper systematic concept of bonds by providing a

tripartite structure for bonds and an extra concept of the innate impurity. When

this much is already there, it is possible to improve on it.

The SJU scheme had relied too much on Sāṃkhya categories, and even there

it was concerned only with the products of Prakṛti. It had also postulated that

the subtle elements are innate and form the first of bonds. Correcting these

perceived mistakes, the SvSS incorporated everything that issued from Maya,

the adventitious bond of the SJU, in one category, namely the bond belonging

to Maya (māyeyapāśa). It also explained that karman consists of dharmād-harma (cf. SvaSS 2.17), but still retained the concept of innate impurity as a

bond different from others, and defined it as the existential property of the

bound soul.

Now the question is: from where comes the possible inspiration for the concept of

innate impurity, its initial identification with dharmādharma, and its removal by the

rite of initiation? The rite of initiation alone, as mentioned in the beginning, can

remove innate impurity; only then, eventually, the other two are extinguished and

the initiated person is liberated.

What is Removed by Initiation

We know that Dharmakırti (c. 550–660) “goes to the trouble of attacking the Tantric

Saiva practice of initiation as the means to liberation” (cf. Sanderson 2001, p. 10).

His criticism can be helpful in understanding the development of the notion of

innate impurity and the function of the rite of initiation. Therefore, I propose to read

this criticism carefully:

The rite [of initiation], which is validated by the example of a seed and the

like, is not sufficient for the absence of [future] births of embodied souls,

because [if that is allowed] there would be the undesired consequence that

liberation by means of oil massage, burning oneself in fire, and the like[,

too, is validated]. That a man who weighed heavier before becomes lighter

[after initiation] does not mean that his sin is removed. Let it even be the

14 D. Acharya

123

case that he has no weight at all; but sin cannot be heavy because it is not

embodied.21

This statement documents that the rite of initiation in the time of Dharmakırti was

known as the remover of sin, and that most probably sin was regarded as a

substance, because it is apparently imagined with some weight. This was at least

implied, as the Saivas had the practice of weighing a man before and after the

initiation to show that he has become lighter than he was prior to initiation.22

Dharmakırti attacks this opinion about the function of the rite with the argument that

since sin is not embodied, it cannot have weight, and so, the idea that sin is removed

by the rite of initiation cannot be accepted. Following this criticism, Dharmakırti

first presents the Buddhist position on the actual cause of future birth (PV

pramāṇasiddhi 262cd–264ab), and then allows his Saiva opponent to defend his

position. His opponent speaks as follows:

The senses serve as the grounds of [all kinds of] movements and perceptions,

and they originate from the unseen [force of merits and demerits] (adṛṣṭa).[But for an initiated man], because that unseen force has been destroyed

[during initiation], there will be no movement [into the transmigratory plain

again], and [also] no awareness that is the latent impression of that [unseen

force on atman].23

In this defense, Dharmakırti’s Saiva opponent is stating that the unseen force of

merits and demerits (adṛṣṭa), which he recognises as the cause of the karaṇas, isdestroyed by the rite of initiation. Though Dharmakırti appears to interpret karaṇain his own line as the senses, it is possible that the Saiva opponent had meant more

than that by this term. Anyway, Dharmakırti responds to this defense the following

way:

The capacity [of the senses to move] is still there [even after initiation],

because it is seen that his senses arise depending on the positive and negative

applications of the mind, nothing else. They thus still exist, so why do you say

that they do not move [to the next life]? If they do not have such capacity, then

following the very moment of initiation the [senses] should no longer be

capable of any of the functions dependent on awareness, like retention,

instigation, agitation, and suppression. If it is said that at the time [of death]

the mind is absent, and therefore, the [above mentioned] functions will no

longer be there, [then] my answer is that [the mind] is [instantaneously]

installed by impurities [even at that time]. If the impurities are incapable of

21 PV pramāṇasiddhi 260cd–262ab:nālaṃ bījādisaṃsiddho vidhiḥ puṃsām ajanmane ||

tailābhyaṅgāgnidāhāder api muktiprasaṅgataḥ |

prāg guror lāghavāt paścān na pāpaharaṇaṃ kṛtam ||

mā bhūd gauravam evāsya na pāpaṃ gurv amūrtitaḥ |22 On this practice, see TAK III, s.v., tulādīkṣā.23 PV pramāṇasiddhi 264cd–266ab:gatipratītyoḥ karaṇāny āśrayās tāny adṛṣṭataḥ ||

adṛṣṭanāśād agatiḥ tatsaṃskāro na cetanā |

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 15

123

[installing] the mind, they should be so, incapable, even when the person is

living.24

With this response, Dharmakırti is bringing the discussion on the Buddhist track,

and so, he argues that migration or non-migration of a living being into the next life

depends on the state of his mind and that depends on the existence or non-existence of

the mind’s impurities (mala/doṣa) arising from the wrong view (mithyājñāna) whichmakes one see happiness in sorrow. I cut short this discussion because it is not relevant

to the present topic. It is, however, important to note that the Saiva position criticised

by Dharmakırti speaks either of sin (pāpa) or the unseen force of one’s merits and

demerits (adṛṣṭa) as the thing removed or destroyed by the rite of initiation. It does not

speak of impurity (mala). Instead, surprisingly, Buddhist Dharmakırti speaks of it.

With this clue at hand, we can search and locate these opinions in the Saiva

scriptures themselves. The second tenet of the Saiva opponent of Dharmakırti,

namely that the initiatory rite removes one’s merits and demerits, can be found in

the RauSS, the only text other than the SvaSS on which the seventh century

Sadyojyotis commented. Thus goes the relevant statement:

As darkness gets instantly destroyed after having reached the time of sunrise, in the

same way one is freed frommerits and demerits as soon as he receives initiation.25

This statement does claim that merits and demerits are removed after the rite of

initiation but, like the SJU passage cited earlier, it does not identify these as innate

impurities. From this passage, it is not possible to know whether the removal of

merits and demerits was regarded as permanent or otherwise.

The first tenet of Dharmakırti’s Saiva opponent, namely that the rite of initiation

removes sin, can be traced back in the core of the Niśvāsa corpus, in the

Niśvāsamūlasūtra itself. Here is the relevant passage:

With a weighing scale [the teacher] would be able to cleanse his own sin or

that of others.26

This weighing ceremony probably was not an essential part of the rite of

initiation but an extra ceremony intended to inspire faith in this rite. Nevertheless,

this statement implies that in the earliest stage of its development, the Saiva

Mantramarga posited the rite of initiation as the remover of sin. Only from this

statement we cannot decide whether the removal of sin as an effect of the rite of

initiation was regarded at that stage as permanent or otherwise. There is, however,

another statement in the same text which clearly asserts that bonds being burnt by

24 PV pramāṇasiddhi 266cd–269ab:sāmarthyaṃ karaṇotpatter bhāvābhāvānuvṛttitaḥ ||dṛṣṭaṃ buddher na cānyasya santi tāni na yanti kim? |dhāraṇapreraṇakṣobhanirodhāś cetanāvaśāḥ ||na syus teṣām asāmarthye tasya dīkṣādyanantaram |atha buddhes tadābhāvāt na syuḥ sandhīyate malaiḥ ||buddhes teṣām asāmarthye jīvato 'pi syur akṣamāḥ |

25 RauSS 8:3: yathā sūryodayaṃ prāpya tamaḥ kṣipraṃ vinaśyati |evaṃ dīkṣāṃ samāsādya dharmādharmair vimucyate ||

26 NiTS Mūlasūtra 7:15ab: tulayā śodhayet pāpam ātmanasya parasya vā |

16 D. Acharya

123

the rite of initiation cannot sprout and rise, therefore an initiated man goes to Siva

after his body has fallen away.27 There is no doubt that merits and demerits are

included among these bonds burnt by initiation.28

We have now an important clue: the idea that the rite of initiation removes sin

(pāpa) innately present in the person of the embodied soul, or rather, the force of

both merits and demerits of his past deeds, probably predates the theorised concept

of the substance of innate impurity, its ripening, and removal.

The Removal of Sin in the Vedic, Pāśupata, and Śaiva traditions

Now the question can be reformulated: Where are the roots of this early Saiva

belief that the rite of initiation removes all sorts of bond, sin particularly? The

Sutra text of the Pasupatas speaks of vow (vrata) and observance (caryā), but notof the rite of initiation (dīkṣā). Kauṇḍinya, however, mentions in his Bhāṣya that a

Pasupata teacher transforms his brahmin disciple using ashes empowered with

Sadyojata and other mantras. He also refers to the rite of initiation. He apparently

uses the term saṃskāra and dīkṣā almost interchangeably, and the same is true

with the Saṃskāravidhi. The Pasupatas appear to subscribe to the idea that during

the rite of transformation internal evils along with the external ones are removed.

As the Saṃskāravidhi (in verses 79–80) says, “Having attached himself to the

supreme among the gods this way, the [teacher], conversant with the ritual, should

approach the southern face [of the linga]. Then, reciting the mantra, he should

besmear the brahmin with ashes sanctified with mantras, and give again water

mixed with ashes, for the sake of cleaning the interior evils inherited from the

[male and female] seed and womb.”29 Nevertheless, the reward of the rite of

transformation or initiation in the Pasupata systems is defined as eligibility for the

prescribed way of approaching Rudra, the Lord. The Saṃskāravidhi (verse 6)

clearly states that “the fruit of the rite is said to be eligibility for the prescribed

way [of approaching Rudra, the Lord].”30 Commenced with this rite is the lifelong

Pasupata vow that is to be observed in various stages and with much care.

Throughout the observance of the Pasupata vow, a Pasupata should constantly

strive for the cleansing of sin and accumulation of virtues (pāpaśuddhi and

sukṛtavṛddhi: cf. PS 3.2–6), and only in the final stage of his observance can he

accomplish perfection. He is then no more stained by sin or his good or bad

actions (cf. PS 5.12). Only then, at the end of the observance, does he cut off his

connection to the substance of sin, identified as ‘net’ (jāla)31 in its evolved form,

27 NiTS Mūlasūtra 5:26cd: dīkṣādagdhā na rohanti bhinnadehe śivaṃ vrajet |Though the sentence in pāda C is elliptical, we can be relatively sure that the implied subject qualified

by dīkṣādagdhāḥ is pāśāḥ. The Nayasūtra (1.11, 12–13, 22) explicitly and repeatedly states that all bonds

are burnt in the Siva sacrifice at the time of initiation.28 Cf. NiTS Nayasūtra 1.111.29 Acharya (2007, pp. 35, 45–46).30 Acharya (2007, pp. 29, 37).31 Let me remind you that ‘net’ (jāla) is the entity at the bottom of the impure world in the scheme of the

second variety of Atimarga stated in the Niśvāsamukha. See above, p. 4.

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 17

123

and as the ‘cause’ (hetu) of the fall of the mind in its fundamental form. Here is

an interesting discussion from Kaun˙d˙inya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 5.35:

[Question:] Is it so that the scripture simply obliges one to cut down the

polluting factors or to cut oneself off from these factors?

[Answer:] Not [just that]! Because, they [also] state: “the cause.” The cause

here is demerit. Why? Because it is the cause of the fall of the mind. For, being

possessed by this [demerit], the initiated practitioner deviates from his duties

such as studies and remembrance of Rudra. Because of this reason, demerit is

regarded as the cause in this context. Merit, on the other hand, is the cause of

endurance and other positive outcomes.

[Question:] What is that of which this [demerit] is the cause?

[Answer:] Of the net. In this system, when demerit is in unaltered state/

uniformity, it has not yet begun to produce its effects, till then it is named as

‘the cause.’ But when, by the force of the latent impression of nescience, it is

consolidated and, by that process, has entered the state of stability and further,

it receives the name ‘net.’32

This process of cutting off of impurities, their net, and the cause is completed only

at the end of the Pasupata observance. In short, though the Pasupatas, too, regarded

demerit or sin as the source of all impurities and the cause of transmigration, they

never viewed the rite of initiation as the means for its eradication and therefore as

liberation of the initiated. Thus, the function of the rite of initiation in the Pasupata

systems was simply to put the initiated person on the right path.

We know that the Saiva Mantramarga emerged as closely related to the Pasupata

Atimarga. If the Saiva idea of the permanent removal of sin though initiation does

not come from the Pasupatas, we should look into the Vedic texts of the ritualistic

tradition. The Saivas may well have resorted to Vedic texts when they had to

readjust their theory in order to respond to their opponents’ criticism, because they

knew that the Pasupatas had adapted and adopted the rite of initiation and related

ideas from the Vedic context.

Once we enter the Vedic world of rituals, it is possible to find parallels for this

concept of sin already in the Vedic Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas. According to these

passages, the removal of sin is necessary to achieve the ultimate good, either in the

form of heaven, liberation, or otherwise. These passages also assert, like the NiTS

Mulasutra, that the rite of initiation removes sin. As they do so, some of them

clearly speak of the substance of sin like the Saivas did in the context of the

weighing rite. In the following, therefore, I present some such passages selectively.

32 Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya ad PS 5.35: āha: kiṃ doṣāṇāṃ doṣebhya eva vā chettavyam uktam? na. yasmādāhuḥ— hetuḥ. atra hetur adharmaḥ. kasmāt? cittacyutihetutvāt. yasmāt tenāviṣṭaḥ sādhako ’dhyayanas-maraṇā-dibhyaś cyavatīty ato ’trādharmo hetuḥ. dharmas tu sthityādihetuḥ. āha— kasyāyaṃ hetuḥ?ucyate— jālasya. atra yadā adharmaḥ kūṭastho ’nārabdhakāryas tadā hetur ity ucyate. yadā tvajñānavāsanāvaśād dhṛtyā sthityādibhāvam āpannas tadā jālākhyāṃ labhate.

18 D. Acharya

123

The following passage comes from the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā (hereafter MaiS) and

informs us about the transfer of the initiated man’s sin, divided in three portions, to

three groups of beings, three portions that harm him in three different ways. The

passage tells about the removal of the initiated man’s sin as well as about the

consequence of speaking ill of him. A man who intends to perform a sacrifice must

first be free of sin. He, therefore, goes through the rite of initiation and during this

rite his sin passes to his adversaries. Here is the exact passage with my translation:

They divide the sin of that man who undergoes initiation into three portions:

he who eats his food [receives] one third [of it], he who speaks ill of him

[receives] another one third,33 and those ants which bite him [receive] the

other one third. Therefore, surely, the food of that man is uneatable. Therefore,

one should not speak ill of [an initiated man]. Therefore, one should not

procure the clothing of an initiated man, for, there are those ants which bite

him.34

As mentioned earlier, the notion of freeing oneself from sin has an important

place in Pasupata soteriology, and the ways in which a Pasupata is freed from sin

matches with the ways in which a Vedic ritualist Brahmin is freed from it. In the

Pasupata system, however, this notion is sightly exaggerated and appropriated in

favour of the Pasupata observing his vow. PS 3.5–9 reveal that an abused Pasupata

takes away the abuser’s good deeds and gives him his bad deeds. Similarly, PS

4.10–11 assert that when Indra observed the Pasupata vow amongst Asuras he took

their merits of the sacrificial acts and of the sacrificial charities (iṣṭāpūrta).35

Therefore, as PS 3.10–18 teach, a Pasupata observing his vow should speak and act

in such a way as to make himself the target of others’ abuse and revilement. But

Vedic texts, like the MaiS passage I cited, simply say that those speaking ill of an

initiated man take away his sin. In rare instances, Vedic texts also say that if one

abuses an initiated man he would lose his merits. However, they never ask an

initiated man to behave strangely to invite abuse and revilement.

Another notable difference in the Pasupata system is that here the process of sin-

cleansing has a lifelong span. Once a Pasupata enters this path, he constantly

observes the Pasupata vow. Here emphasis is put on the observance of vow (caryā),

33 This idea that an initiated man’s sin is transferred to his abuser continues into the Pasupata Atimarga,

cf. Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya as PS 3.7–9, 3.15–17, 4.12.34 MaiS III.6.6 = KaS 23.3: tredhā vā etasya pāpmānaṃ vibhajante yo dīkṣate yo ’syānnam atti sa tṛtīyaṃyo ’syāślīlaṃ kīrttayati sa tṛtīyam yā enaṃ pipīlikā daśanti tās tṛtīyaṃ tasmād vā etasyānnam anādyaṃtasmād aślīlaṃ na kīrtayitavyaṃ tasmād dīkṣitavāso ’bhartavyam atra hi tāḥ pipīlikā yā enaṃ daśanti.Only a German translation of the first two books of this important Vedic text has been recently published

(Amano 2009), the rest remains untranslated.35 See Sakamoto-Goto (2000) for the meaning of iṣṭāpūrta. She also discusses the loss of iṣṭāpūrta in

certain situations in the third section of her article. It is possible to reconcile this original meaning of

iṣṭāpūrta with Kauṇḍinya’s interpretation of it (Bhāṣya ad PS 4.11):

yan mantrapūrvakeṇa vidhinā datta hutaṃ stutyādiniṣpannaṃ tad iṣṭam, yad amantrapūrva-keṇaiva tat pūrtam.

What is [done] following a procedure using mantras, donated or offered into the fire, [the reward

of all that and also] that resulting from prayer and the like is known as iṣṭa. What is done in a

simple way without a mantra is known as pūrta.

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 19

123

whereas the Vedic rite of initiation has a limited, short span, and the process of sin-

cleansing is swift—it is carried out in order to prepare a person for a certain

sacrifice. From a certain point of view, the Saiva rite of initiation is close to the

Vedic one. Both Vedic and Saiva versions of the rite remove sin instantly during the

rite itself. Nevertheless, there is a major difference: the Vedic rite of initiation has a

temporary effect, but the Saiva version of the same puts one in the path of liberation

and its effect is permanent.

Now I present a relevant passage from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (hereafter AiB)

and its translation by Haug. Here all seasons and months are portrayed as being

burdened with sin, and they want to go through the rite of initiation so that their sin

is removed.

The Seasons and Months felt themselves burdened, as it were (with guilt), forhaving accepted at the Dvādaśāha (which they performed for Prajāpati) areward. They said to Prajāpati, “Make us (also) sacrifice with the Dvādaśāha.”He consented and said to them, “Become ye initiated (take the Dīkṣā).” Thedeities residing in the first (the so-called bright) half of the month firstunderwent the Dīkṣā ceremony, and thus removed the consequences of guilt.Thence they are in the daylight as it were; for those who have their guilt (really)removed, are in the daylight, as it were (may appear every-where).The deities residing in the second half (of the months) afterwards underwentthe Dīkṣā. But they (could) not wholly remove the evil consequences of guilt.Thence they are darkness, as it were; for those who have the guilt not removedare darkness, as it were (comparable to it). Thence he who has this knowledgeought to have performed his Dīkṣā first and in the first half (of the month). He

who has such knowledge, thus removes (all) guilt from himself. (Haug 1977,

pp. 205–206)36

Unlike the Saiva tradition, the Vedic tradition does not restrict the task of the

removal of sin to the rite of initiation. It can also be removed by some other means,

for example, by performing the daily obligatory Agnihotra ritual or by reciting

Vedic stanzas specifically the Gayatrı ones. Here is one passage from the JaiminīyaBrāhmaṇa (hereafter JaiB) that speaks of removal of sin by means of the Agnihotra:

The evil that is committed in the day time, of that the sun is the cause. What is

committed at night, of that the fire. The two of them said: “If we shall (ever)

be thus, we shall not be able to support the creatures. Well, let us be food (and)

let us offer ourselves in each other.” When the sun sets, it offers itself in the

fire. Whatsoever evil the sun commits in the day time, that the fire drives away

for it at night. When the sun rises, the fire rises after it. It offers itself in the

sun. Whatsoever evil the fire commits at night, that the sun drives away for it

36 Another translation of the same can be seen in Keith (1920, p. 215). The original text (AiB 4.25.1) is

here: te vā ima ṛtavaś ca māsāś ca gurava ivāmanyanta dvādaśāhe pratigṛhya te 'bruvan prajāpatiṃyājaya no dvādaśāheneti sa tathety abravīt te vai dīkṣadhvam iti te pūrvapakṣāḥ pūrve dīkṣanta tepāpmānam apāhata tasmāt te diveva diveva hy apahatapāpmāno 'parapakṣā apare 'dīkṣanta te natarāmpāpmānam apāhata tasmāt te tama iva tama iva hy anapahatapāpmānas tasmād evaṃ vidvāndīkṣamāṇeṣu pūrvaḥ-pūrva eva didīkṣiṣeta apa pāpmānaṃ hate ya evaṃ veda

20 D. Acharya

123

by day. As a snake frees itself from its skin, as one pulls a rush out of its

sheath, so he frees himself from all evil, who knowing thus offers the

Agnihotra. (Bodewitz 1973, p. 38)37

The next citation is a passage from the AiB which speaks of removal of sin by

reciting Vedic Gayatrı stanzas. This function of the Gayatrı stanza is also attested in

the Pasupata system. PS 5.21–22 teach to repeat the Rudragayatrı or the stanza of

Bahurupa regularly, and PS 1.14–17 recommend to repeat the same, after taking an

extra bath in ashes and performing prāṇāyāmas, in case by mistake one breaches a

rule of the Pasupata vow. Let us now read the passage:

One doomed as a non-Brahmin has to repeat [the Gayatrı] eight hundred times.

Whoever is condemned and is overpowered by impurity should make this

sacrifice. The Gayatrı has eight syllables. By the Gayatrı the gods removed sin,

the impurity. By the Gayatrı itself they remove sin, the impurity, of that man.

He removes his sin who knows thus.38

Sin as Internal Impurity in Vedic Texts

The following passages, as well as the one just cited, are important in order to

understand the background and gradual development of the Saiva concept of innate

impurity. For, in these three passages sin is interpreted as impurity. In the following

passages, both from the JaiB, sin is identified as impurity, and a man overpowered

by sin or impurity is compared to a gold coin smeared with dirt. A similar analogy to

the blackish verdigris on copper can be attested in Saiva Mantramarga texts also

(cf., e.g., NiTS Nayasūtra 1.5, SJU 28.11 quoted on p. 5 above, MatVP 6.81).

He offers for four days. Thus altogether sixteen oblations are accomplished.

Brahman definitely consists of sixteen digits. The gods consist of sixteen

digits. Every entity consists of sixteen digits. Whenever he does a dirty, sinful

deed, he does that with merely one of those sixteen digits. As a gold ornament

when heated reaches the height of its gold nature, so he goes to heaven after

casting off the impurity, sin, onto his hating rivals.39

37 JaiB 1.9: yad dha vā ahnā pāpaṃ kriyata ādityas tat kārayati yad rātryāgnis tat tāv abrūtām itthaṃ cedvai bhaviṣyāvo na vai tarhi śakṣyāvaḥ prajā bhartuṃ hantānnam evāsāvānyonyasminn evātmānaṃjuhavāveti sa yad ādityo ’stam ety agnāv eva tad ātmānaṃ juhoti sa yat kiṃ cādityo ’hnā pāpaṃ karoti tadasyāgnī rātryāpa hanty ādityam udyantam agnir anūdety āditya eva tad ātmānaṃ juhoti sa yat kiṃ cāgnīrātryā pāpaṃ karoti tad asyādityo ’hnāpa hanti sa yathāhir ahicchavyai nir mucyeta yathā muñjād iṣīkāṃvi vṛhed evam eva sarvasmāt pāpmano nir mucyate sa ya evaṃ vidvān agnihotraṃ juhoti.38 AiB 2.17.5-7: aṣṭau śatāny anūcyāny abrāhmaṇoktasya yo vā duruktoktaḥ śamalagṛhīto yajetaaṣṭākṣarā vai gāyatrī gāyatryā vai devāḥ pāpmānaṃ śamalam apāghnata gāyatryaivāsya tat pāpmānaṃśamalam apa hanty apa pāpmānaṃ hate ya evaṃ veda.39 JaiB 1.28: caturahaṃ juhoti ṣoḍaśāhutayas sampadyante ṣoḍaśakalaṃ vai brahma ṣoḍaśakalā devāṣṣoḍaśakalam idaṃ sakṛt sarvaṃ sa yad iha ripraṃ pāpaṃ karma karoty ekayaiva tataḥ kalayā yathāsuvarṇaḥ pravṛttas tapyamānas suvarṇatām abhiniṣ padyata evam eva dviṣatsu bhrātṛvyeṣu malaṃpāpmānaṃ pratyūhya svargaṃ lokam abhipraiti. I am not aware of any translation of this and the next

passage from the JaiB.

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 21

123

One desirous of brightness, one desirous of the splendour of brahman, should

sacrifice with threefold Agnis˙t˙ut; one desirous of virility with fifteen, one

desirous of cattle with seventeen, one desirous of production of offspring with

twenty-one, one desirous of standing ground with twenty-seven, and one

desirous of excellence with thirty-three. In these vital functions [in the body]

the fire is located. Therefore, he who is well-read but still cannot distinctly

shine should perform this sacrifice. Just like a silver coin is covered with an

encrustation, the same way is he who is well-read but cannot shine. They push

him forward to the fire whom they assist in performing the Agnis˙t˙ut sacrifice.

Just like one would hurl in fire a silver coin covered with a filthy encrustation

and remove from it all of the filth by an iron hammer, in the same way they

remove all impurity of that [man performing Agnis˙t˙ut]. His impurity has been

removed, [now] he possesses brightness and the splendour of brahman.40

Here is one more passage, from the MaiS, that explains why a human being has

defiling dark substance inside him and what he should do for its removal:

The gods beat the demons (asuras) and expelled them from these worlds.

Their life substances (asus) entered the humans. That is this smearing

substance inside every person, and likewise, that black substance around the

eyes.41 Therefore one should fast [during the rite of initiation]. One repels that

demonic substance when he does not have anything inside [after fasting during

the rite of initiation].42

Because of this equation of sin and internal impurity, theManusmṛti takesmala andpāpa/pāpman as equivalent terms, and uses mala at least in three places (11.71, 102,108)43 when pāpa is meant, and in one place (11.94) he clearly states that sin, too, is

called filth.44

40 JaiB 2.136: trivṛtā tejaskāmo brahmavarcasakāmo 'gniṣṭutā yajeta pañcadaśena vīryakāmas saptadaśenapaśukāmaḥ prajananakāma ekaviṃśena pratiṣṭhākāmas triṇavenaujaskāmas trayastriṃśena śrīkāmaḥimān vai prāṇān agnir anvāyattaḥ sa yo ’nūcānas san na vi roceta sa etena yajeteti yathā ha vai niṣkaś

śamalagṛhīta evaṃ sa yo 'nūcānas san na vi rocate agnā u vā etaṃ prāsyanti yam agniṣṭutā yājayanti tadyathā niṣkaṃ śamalagṛhītam agnau prāsya tasyāyoghanena sarvaṃ śamalaṃ nir hanyād evaṃ haivāsyasarvaṃ pāpmānaṃ nir ghnanti so 'pahatapāpmā tejasvī brahmavarcasī bhavati.41 I assume that this black substance is the collyrium applied to the eyes of the person going through the

initiatory rite. As it appears, when this black substance disappears from the eyes at the end of three days

fasting, the person observing the vow is regarded as freed from impurities.42 MaiS III.6.6 = KāS 23.2: devā asurān hatvaibhyo lokebhyaḥ prāṇudanta teṣām asavo manuṣyānprāviśaṃs tad idaṃ ripraṃ puruṣe ’ntar atho kṛṣṇam iva cakṣuṣy antas tan nāśnīyād asuryam evāpahateyadā vai puruṣe na kiṃcanāntar bhavati.43 Cf. Olivelle (2005, p. 341, note on 11.94). He has by mistake written 107 instead of 108.44 Manusmṛti 11.94: surā vai malam annānāṃ pāpmā ca malam ucyate |

tasmād brāhmaṇarājanyau vaiśyaś ca na surāṃ pibet ||“Liquor is clearly the filth of various grains; sin is also called filth. Therefore, Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, and

Vaisyas must not drink liquor” (Olivelle 2005, p. 219).

This statement of Manu is based on the following statement from the Taittirıya Brahman˙a (1.3.3.6)

which declares that impurity in itself is sin:

annasya vā etac chamalam yat surā pāpmaiva khalu vai śamalamThat is impurity of food-grains what is known as liquor; actually impurity is nothing but sin.

22 D. Acharya

123

Summing up, we can now say that in an essential form the concept of innate

internal impurity and its removal can be traced back to the Vedic texts. The Vedic

texts of the ritualistic tradition state that every human being has internal impurity in

the form of sin. It is a polluting, smearing, demonic substance, and when one

undergoes the rite of initiation this substance is removed. But in the Vedic

perspective the rite of initiation is not the only way to remove it. For example, the

daily Agnihotra rite and recitation of specific Vedic stanzas also can remove sin.

Here the removal of sin by any means is not permanent, because merits and demerits

are accumulated every day, and therefore, every day one needs to get rid of the sin

accumulated that day. Thus, in the Vedic ritualistic tradition, the removal of sin is

basically a gradual and regular process.

The Pasupata tradition, being set up against the Vedic background, adopts the

same model of gradual and constant cleansing of sin and accumulation of merits. A

Pasupata accumulates merits by observing his vow in various stages, transfers his

demerits to those who criticise and abuse him, and also draws their accumulated

merits. But for this he has to observe the Pasupata vow lifelong. This proves that the

removal of external and internal evils at the time of the Pasupata rite of

transformation or initiation is temporary. A repetition of certain procedures of the

initiatory rite at the time of the last funerary rite betrays the same logic.45 Therefore,

in the Pasupata tradition the rite of initiation is not devised in the same way as it is

devised in the developed phase of the Saiva Mantramarga. It only prepares a

Brahmin candidate once initiated in the Vedic tradition to enter the new path of

Pasupatism.

The Saiva Mantramarga believed that all accumulated sin is removed by the rite

of initiation, and also that this rite alone can remove it. But already in an early phase

of the development of Saiva ideology, the Pasupata-Saiva belief that initiation

removes sin, permanently or otherwise, was met with strong criticism from the

Buddhists, and they had to readjust their theory. For this, the Saivas apparently

resorted to those Vedic texts from which their Pasupata predecessors had adapted

and adopted the rite of initiation and related ideas. In these texts sin was depicted as

innate impurity.46 As it was possible to theorise this idea of innate impurity, they

were also able to avoid adopting the Buddhist idea of ‘wrong view’ (mithyājñāna;cf. PV pramāṇasiddhi 262cd–264ab). So, they immediately changed their rhetoric

and began to talk about innate impurity instead of sin, identified it as the

fundamental cause of bondage, and postulated that it is one for all, but its powers are

different for individual bound souls. With this revision in the perception of initiation

and the removal of sin, the Saivas outsmarted the Pasupatas, because now they were

capable of ensuring liberation for the initiated person,47 while in the Pasupata model

liberation remained uncertain.

45 See Acharya (2010, p. 145) (Anteṣṭividhi verse 22).46 It is also possible that they had found this idea in some later text narrating this Vedic proposition, for

example, the Manusmṛti. See above, fn. 44.47 Evidence for this is found already in the NiTS Mūlasūtra. For the actual passage, see fn. 27 above.

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 23

123

References

Acharya, D. (2007). The Saṃskāravidhi: A manual on the transformatory rite of the Lakulısa-Pasupatas.

In D. Goodall & A. Padoux (Eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner: TantricStudies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Collection Indologie 106. Pondicherry: French Institute/Ecolefrancaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Acharya, D. (2010). The Anteṣṭividhi: A manual on the last rite of the Lakulısa Pasupatas. JournalAsiatique, 298(1), 133–156.

Acharya, D. (2011). Pasupatas. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 3, 458–466.AiB = Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, Containing the Earliest

Speculations of the Brahmans on the Meaning of the Sacrificial Prayers, and on the Origin,

Performance, and Sense of the Rites of the Vedic Religion. Vol. I: Sanscrit Text, with Preface,

Introductory Essay, and a Map of the Sacrificial Compound at the Soma Sacrifice. Vol. 2:

Translation, with Notes. Bombay–London, 1863. Reprint: Bharatiya Publishing House, Delhi, 1976

and 1977.

Amano, K. (2009). Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā I-II. Übersetzung der Prosapartien mit Kommentar zur Lexik undSyntax der älteren vedischen Prosa. Munchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft

(MFhS) Bd. 9. Berlin: Hempen Verlag.

Bakker, H. (2010). The Gospel of Kauṇḍinya: The descent of god in Gujarat and the practice of imitating

god. In J. Dijkstra, J. Kroesen, & Y. Kuiper (Eds.), Myths, martyrs, and modernity. Brill: Leiden.Bodewitz, H. W. (1973). Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa I, 1–65. Translation and Commentary with a Study:

Agnihotra and Prāṇāgnihotra. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Goodall, D. (1998). Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Volume I: chapters 1–6.

Critical edition and annotated translation. Publications du departement d’indologie 86.1.

Pondicherry: Institut francais de Pondichery/Ecole francaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Goodall, D. (2004). see PaT.

Goodall, D., & Isaacson, H. (2007). Workshop on the Nisvasatattvasam˙hita: The earliest surviving Saiva

Tantra? Newsletter of the NGMCP, 3, 4–6.Goodall et al. (2008). A first edition and translation of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Tattvatrayanirṇayavivṛti,

A treatise on Siva, Souls and Maya, with detailed treatment of Mala. In D. Goodall, K. Kataoka,

D. Acharya, & Y. Yokochi (Eds.), South Asian Classical Studies, No. 3 (pp. 311–384). Fukuoka:

Department of Indology, Kyushu University.

Goodall, D., & Isaacson, H. (2011). Tantric traditions. In J. Frazier (Ed.), The continuum companion toHindu studies (pp. 122–137, 189–191 (notes), 361–400 (bibliography, joint for the whole volume)).

London/New York: Continuum.

Haug, M. (1977). See AiB.

JaiB = Jaiminıya Brāhmaṇa. Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa of Sāmaveda. ed. Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra.Second Revised Edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.

Keith, A. B. (1920). Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya And Kaus˙ıtakı Brahman

˙as of the Rigveda.

Translated from the Original Sanskrit. Harvard Oriental Series 25. Second Indian Reprint: Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.

KaS = Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā. Kâṭhakam. Die Saṃhitâ der Kaṭha-Çâkhâ. Volume II. ed. Leopold von

Schroeder. Leipzig, 1909. Reprint: Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1971.

Manusmr˙ti. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-dharmasastra.

Patrick Olivelle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

MaiS = Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā: Die Saṃhitā der Maitrāyaṇīya-Śākhā. ed. Leopold von Schroeder. Drittes

Buch. Leipzig, 1885. Reprint: Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972.

MatVP = Matangaparamesvaragama (Vidyapada) avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāma-kaṇṭha. ed. N. R.Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 56. Pondicherry: IFI, 1977.

NiTS = Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. NAK MS 1–227, NGMPP Reel No.A 41/14. Palm–leaf, Folios 117, earlyNepalese (Kuṭilā) script. There are two apographs available, both in Devanagari and on paper: NAKMS 5-2401, NGMPP Reel No. A 159/18, and Welcome Institute for the History of medicine, London,Sanskrit MS I.33. The verse and chapter numeration used in footnotes is that of Goodall’s edition inprogress.

Olivelle, P. (2005). See Manusmṛti.

24 D. Acharya

123

PaT = The Parakhyatantra, a scripture of the Siva Siddhanta. A critical edition and annotated translation.ed. and trans. Dominic Goodall. Collection Indologie 98. Pondicherry: Institut francais de

Pondichery/Ecole francaise d’Extreme-Orient, 2004.

PS = Pasupatasutra. See Sastri (1940).

PV = Pramāṇavārtika. Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārtika with a Commentary by Manoratha-nandin. ed.

Swami Dwarikadas Shastri. Benares: Bauddha Bharati, 1984.

RauSS = Raurasūtrasaṃgraha. Surviving Chapters are published as the Vidyapada of the Rauravagama, in

Rauravagama. Vol. I. ed. N. R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI No. 18. Pondicherry: IFI, 1961.

Sakamoto-Goto, J. (2000). ‘Das Jenseits und iṣṭāpūrtá- “die Wirkung des Geopferten-und-Geschenkten”

in der vedischen Religion’ in Indoarisch, Iranisch und die indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangeen: 475–490. Wiesbaden:

Reichert Verlag.

Sam˙skaravidhi. See Acharya (2007).

Sanderson, A. (1992). The Doctrine of the Malinıvijayottara. In T. Goudriaan (Ed.), Ritual andspeculation in early Tantrism. Studies in honour of Andre Padoux (pp. 281–312). Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Sanderson, A. (2001). History through textual criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pancaratra and the

Buddhist Yoginıtantras. In F. Grimal (Ed.), Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time.

A Colloquium, Pondicherry, 11–13 January 1997 (pp. 1–47). Publications du departement

d’Indologie 91. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO.

Sanderson, A. (2006a). The dates of Sadyojyotis and Br˙haspati. Cracow Indological Studies, VIII, 39–76.

Sanderson, A. (2006b). The Lakulas: New evidence of a system intermediate between Pancarthika

Pasupatism and Agamic Saivism. Indian Philosophical Annual, 26(2003–2005), 143–217.Sanderson, A. (2009). The Saiva age: The rise and dominance of Saivism during the Early Medieval

Period. In S. Einoo (Ed.), Genesis and development of Tantrism (pp. 41–349). Tokyo: Institute of

Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.

Sastri, R. A. (1940). Pasupatasutras with Pañcārthabhāṣya of Kaun˙d˙inya (R. Ananthakrishna Sastri, Ed.).

Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, No. 143. Trivandrum: University of Travancore, 1940.

SJU = Sarvajnanottaratantra. NAK MS 1–1672. NGMPP Reel No. A 43/12. Palm-leaf, early Nepalese

script. Described by Sastri (1905:lxxiv–lxxv and 85–86). Also GOML MS D 5550 and IFP T. Nos.

334, 760, paper transcripts in Devanagarı. The Verse ans chapter numeration used is that of

Goodall’s edition in progress.

SvaSS = Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. ed. Veṅkaṭasubrahmaṇyaśāstrī. Mysore, 1937.

TAK III = Tantrikabhidhanakosa III. A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature.

fonde sous la direction de H. Brunner, G. Oberhammer et A. Padoux. Direction editoriale a partir du

troisieme volume: D. Goodall, M. Rastelli. Ostereichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Vol. 839. Band. Beitrage zur Kultur- und

Geistesgeschichte Asiens Nr. 76. Vienna: Verlag der Ostereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-

ten, 2013.

Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa with the commentary of Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara Miśra. Vol. I: Aṣṭaka I. ed. R. Shama Sastry.

Mysore: University of Mysore, 1921. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985.

TattvaTN = Tattvatrayanirṇaya of Sadyojyotis. See Goodall et al. (2008).

On the Saiva Concept of Innate Impurity 25

123