Trishati Bhasya - Tantric works

[Guest guest]

shrIH

 

Shankaracharya quotes from a work called Bhuvaneshvari Kalpa when

commenting on LT-91-hrIMpadArAdhyA.

 

Elsewhere in the bhasya He refers to Mantra Shastra.

 

What is generally referred to as mantra shastra is actually Tantra

if I am to trust some sources. By its name, I assume Bhuvaneshvari

Kalpa is a tantric work.

 

Corrections welcome.

[Guest guest]

1. It is wrong to say that tantra is referred to by the term mantra

shaastra. The word mantra without any qualifying adjectives often

denotes veda mantra-s. This is the standard. This is specifically so

for the samhita portion. For instance, the upanishad

iishaavayopanishad occurs in samhita portions, it is even known as

mantropanishad. Not only that, vedaanga-s such siixa, chhandas, etc

deal with proper intonation of mantra-s.

 

 

2. What makes you think kalpa by itself denotes allegiance to tantra.

On the contrary, kalpa is one of the vedAnga-s and known as the arms

of veda. This is so because it induces action. It spells out how

vedic rituals have to conducted, etc. If at all, tantric works have

adopted, borrowed this name from veda-s.

 

Having said this:

 

You can not assume what a book is about from its name. Even if the

work explicitly uses the word tantra. For instance, thirumantiram,

has every section named as tantra. But it is NOT a work of tantra. It

actually forms the basis for shaiva siddanta. Not only that, this

book are makes clear mention that "vAmachara is the surest way to

hell".

 

Interestingly, this work bhuvaneshvarii kalpaa is not quoted by

bhAskararAya. Certainly, it will be useful to know its contents.

 

3. Sankara has so many places to bring in explicit references from

tantric works in triSati bhAShya. He avoids them all and quotes

mostly from shruti. YOu have to keep this mind while searching hard

for some remote connection to tantric works in the bhAShya.

 

Ravi

 

 

, "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela>

wrote:

> shrIH

>

> Shankaracharya quotes from a work called Bhuvaneshvari Kalpa when

> commenting on LT-91-hrIMpadArAdhyA.

>

> Elsewhere in the bhasya He refers to Mantra Shastra.

>

> What is generally referred to as mantra shastra is actually Tantra

> if I am to trust some sources. By its name, I assume Bhuvaneshvari

> Kalpa is a tantric work.

>

> Corrections welcome.

[Guest guest]

, "MSR" <miinalochanii> wrote:

> 1. It is wrong to say that tantra is referred to by the term

mantra

> shaastra. The word mantra without any qualifying adjectives often

> denotes veda mantra-s. This is the standard. This is specifically

so

> for the samhita portion. For instance, the upanishad

> iishaavayopanishad occurs in samhita portions, it is even known as

> mantropanishad. Not only that, vedaanga-s such siixa, chhandas,

etc

> deal with proper intonation of mantra-s.

 

 

Whenever he quotes from veda he says shruti says so(iti shR^iteH or

iti shR^iti vacanAt.h etc)), or something like purusha vidhana

brahmana says so(iti puruShavidhAna brAhmaNa vacanAt.h) etc. For

atleast one nAma(LT-95), he makes a reference to mantra sastra and

antarmukha sadhana(antarmukhAnAmeva mantra shAstreShu...). This(and

some random reading elsewhere) made me wonder if mantra sastra here

refers to tantra.

 

For LT-95-hrIMkArapUjyA, the bhashya makes a reference to those

agamas(Subhagama panchaka?) where Shrichakra puja is dealt with.

He also makes a reference to bahiryAgakrama for some other nAma.

 

> 2. What makes you think kalpa by itself denotes allegiance to

tantra.

> On the contrary, kalpa is one of the vedAnga-s and known as the

arms

> of veda. This is so because it induces action. It spells out how

> vedic rituals have to conducted, etc. If at all, tantric works

have

> adopted, borrowed this name from veda-s.

 

 

I am not suggesting that having kalpa in title denotes tantric

leanings of any work.

My focus is only on Bhuvaneshvari Kalpa and not on other Kalpas.

 

Since I did not see Bhuvaneshvari kalpa, I cant tell for sure if it

is a tantric work. It is an assumption. The reason for the

assumption being the existence of other tantric works with similar

titles.

Maybe someone who is familair with the text or a couple of quotes

from the text will be able to confirm.

 

The following is the quote from Bhuvaneshvari kalpa in the bhashya

"hrIMkArenaiva saMsiddho bhuktiM muktiM ca vindati"

> Having said this:

>

> You can not assume what a book is about from its name. Even if the

> work explicitly uses the word tantra. For instance, thirumantiram,

> has every section named as tantra. But it is NOT a work of tantra.

 

 

It definitely has tantric leanings.

Chapter four deals extensively with various mantras and yantras,

which is generally a topic of most(or all?) tantric works.

> It

> actually forms the basis for shaiva siddanta. Not only that, this

> book are makes clear mention that "vAmachara is the surest way to

> hell".

 

Vamachara is neither my focus, nor do I have any interest in it.

Being a tantra/agama doesnt imply that the text discusses vamachara.

It is mentioned in Saubhagya Bhaskara that those texts which

emanated from above the navel of Parameshvara are devoid of

vamachara.

 

> 3. Sankara has so many places to bring in explicit references from

> tantric works in triSati bhAShya. He avoids them all and quotes

> mostly from shruti. YOu have to keep this mind while searching

>hard

> for some remote connection to tantric works in the bhAShya.

 

There is no way one can dispute above.

We are not yet sure of Bhuvaneshvari kalpa and the reference to

mantra shastra.

As an aside, I happened to stumble upon this ref while

searching for some thing else in the text.

> , "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela>

> wrote:

> > shrIH

> >

> > Shankaracharya quotes from a work called Bhuvaneshvari Kalpa

when

> > commenting on LT-91-hrIMpadArAdhyA.

> >

> > Elsewhere in the bhasya He refers to Mantra Shastra.

> >

> > What is generally referred to as mantra shastra is actually

Tantra

> > if I am to trust some sources. By its name, I assume

Bhuvaneshvari

> > Kalpa is a tantric work.

> >

> > Corrections welcome.

[Guest guest]

>

> It definitely has tantric leanings.

> Chapter four deals extensively with various mantras and yantras,

> which is generally a topic of most(or all?) tantric works.

>

 

namaste Satish:

 

Description of mantra-s, yantra-s, worshipping methods, etc. are found in

other works also. You can consider brahmANDa puraaNa as an example. Hence,

it is not priviliged domain of tantra-s. Typically, shaiva and vaishNava

aagama-s take up this matter. In the case of thirumanthiram, it is

considered as a shaiva aagama. Even though it is written by Thirumular in

Tamil, he himself mentions that Lord Shiva ashed him to make his works

available in Tamil (thannai thamizh cheyyumaaRu -- I am writing this memory

and may be wrong). This work, forms the essential core of shaiva siddhanta

and contains its maha vaakyams such as anbE shivaM -- God is love.

 

Coming back to mantra-s, the most important ones are from veda-s (such as

gAyatri, namaH shivAya, etc.) Even if it is non-vedic, people go out of the

way to establish some vague link with veda-s. Not only that, R^ishhi-s are

known as mantra drashhTa-s. Hence, the assertion that mantra-s are the

domain of tantra does not stand a solid ground.

 

 

I am not aware of a good and clear definition to decide whether such and

such work is tantra or not. Often, there is a tendency to make all the

agama-s with respect to devii as tantra. Why should one accept an assertion

that a specific aagama is a tantra? I think the association is loose.

 

I think it easier look at a work and say whether it is in line with

samayAchara or vAmachAra or mishra. I am using the word samAyachara in a

generic sense (that is, what is in line with shruti, smRti, and puraaNa-s)

and not in a specific Srividya sense (as inner worship).

 

My belief is: if Sankara chose to quote from a tantra, he would have done so

in hundreds of places. And he would not do so in some remote parts. Hence,

I believe that this bhuvaneshvari kalpa quote by Sankara must be a work that

conforms to shruti, smriti, and puraaNa.

But the bhAshya itself is by Sankara or not, is something only a time

traveller can confirm. In any case, it is safe to consider the commentary

on each name by its own merrit, rather than by who wrote it.

 

In any case, thanks for highlighting this reference.

 

My 2c. Corrections are welcome.

 

Ravi

shrImAtre namaH

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

, "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram"

<miinalochanii> wrote:

Hence,

> it is not priviliged domain of tantra-s. Typically, shaiva and

vaishNava

> aagama-s take up this matter. In the case of thirumanthiram, it

is

> considered as a shaiva aagama.

>

> Coming back to mantra-s, the most important ones are from veda-s

(such as

> gAyatri, namaH shivAya, etc.) Even if it is non-vedic, people go

out of the

> way to establish some vague link with veda-s. Not only that,

R^ishhi-s are

> known as mantra drashhTa-s. Hence, the assertion that mantra-s are

the

> domain of tantra does not stand a solid ground.

 

My intention is not to say that mantra-s are the domain of tantra.

 

What I am referring to, when I say tantra is, that literature which

cannot be classified as shruti, smRti or purANa. Which means, I am

using the words tantra and agama(Shaiva and Pancharatra)

interchangeably even though differences exist.

Ex: 1)Lakshmi tantra being a Pancharatra work.

2)Tripura Rahasya referring to itself as aagama.

3)Some Shaiva aagama-s having works with tantra in title as part of

that aagama.

(I welcome corrections here as I am not quite knowledgable on these)

 

> I am not aware of a good and clear definition to decide whether

such and

> such work is tantra or not. Often, there is a tendency to make

all the

> agama-s with respect to devii as tantra. Why should one accept an

assertion

> that a specific aagama is a tantra? I think the association is

loose.

 

 

Varahi tantra is known to have a description as to what makes a

text an aagama, a tantra or a yaamala. But texts which go by the

name of tantra, yamala etc., do not seem to necessarily confirm to

these definitions.

(I can be wrong here due to limited exposure)

> I think it easier look at a work and say whether it is in line with

> samayAchara or vAmachAra or mishra. I am using the word

samAyachara in a

> generic sense (that is, what is in line with shruti, smRti, and

puraaNa-s)

> and not in a specific Srividya sense (as inner worship).

>

> My belief is: if Sankara chose to quote from a tantra, he would

have done so

> in hundreds of places. And he would not do so in some remote

parts. Hence,

> I believe that this bhuvaneshvari kalpa quote by Sankara must be a

work that

> conforms to shruti, smriti, and puraaNa.

 

Above makes absolute sense. I am trying to say almost the same

thing that, bhuvaneshvarI kalpa might be a work which belongs to

-tantra/agama- class which most probably conforms to shruti, smRti

and purANa(like shubhAgama pa~ncaka).

 

Probably I should have expressed myself clearly that, when I say

tantric works(like in subject of thread), I only meant those works

which cannot be classified as shruti, smRti, purANa, but strictly

conform to them.

 

Regards