[INDOLOGY] Descriptive sanskrit manuscript catalogues best practices

[Harry Spier]

Dear Dominik and list members,
Since this appears to be of some interest, with my informants( S.
Bhattacharya) permission, the following is the rest of his reply about
these annotations.


Let me consider the section to illustrate the use of the nyasa and how it
relates to the mantra. From the manuscript of Sahib Kaul, I quote:
"ṛṣyādi smaraṇaṃ
vidadhīta yatha tatrādau śrīmahāgaṇapateḥ asya śrīmahāgaṇapati-mantrasya
śrībrahmā-ṛṣiḥ (śirasi) gayatri-chandaḥ (mukhe) śrīmahāgaṇapatirdevatā
 (hṛdi) gaṃ bījaṃ (guhye) hrīṃ śakti (pādayoḥ) namaḥ kīlakaṃ (nābhau) mama
caturvarga-phala-prāptyarthe gaṇapati-prasāda-sidhyarthe jape viniyogaḥ iti
ṛṣyādi-nyāsaḥ [...] atha mantraḥ hrīṃ gaṃ hrīṃ gaṇapataye namaḥ" (emphasis
added).

Here, it is not simply a matter of uttering the mantra. This is the pitfall
of seeing ritual as simply a performance, since a performance exists only
in its activity and is ontologically distinct from the performer or actor.
This is not to say that mantras cannot be performances; a lay bhakta's jap
of 'om gaṇapataye namaḥ' is still an acceptable use of a mantra and
correctly a performative activity. But in other rituals (like Kaul's), the
ritualist embodies, enacts and re-produces (re-creates) the mantra. Through
the placement of the ṛṣi on his head, he conjoins his mind (manas) into
union with the genius of the ṛṣi (the dṛaṣṭā), through the placement of the
chanda on his mouth, he conjoins his speech (vāc) with the sanctity of the
metre, and by the placement of the devatā in his heart (the āsana), he
establishes the devatā within him (sāyujya). In effect, his enunciation of
the mantra is not a repetition of a mere phrase composed previously.
Thinking (and seeing) *as *the ṛṣi, speaking *as *the ṛṣi spoke in the
chanda and with the devata *present within *him, he speaks forth and
manifests the mantra. He (re-)creates the mantra in its most original form
(and not simply as a phrase handed down through a lineage). Consider how
the term 'kalpa' is both 'creation', 'ideation', as well as 'ritual' bound
by an ontological connection. Thus, the ritualist is no more ontologically
separate from either the ṛṣi, chanda, devatā or even the mantra. The
ritualist's enunciation of 'hrīṃ gaṃ hrīṃ gaṇapataye namaḥ' is only the
externally observable effect of a self-transformation that has already
taken place or begun within him, and not its cause. Through this, the
ritualist re-cognizes himself (cf. "so'ham") and completes the
self-transformation. The entire prayoga (in the nitya-paddhati) may be seen
as a series of such successive self-transformations.

If we take a more laukika example (albeit of limited comparison) to
understand the two usages of the mantra, consider eating a mango. One
person consumes the mango, desiring to taste its flavor and to satiate his
hunger (and having done so, moves on and forgets it). Another person also
consumes the mango, savoring its taste and satiating his hunger, but doing
so while reflecting the eternal play of mango farming and harvesting, of
the fertile grounds and the nourishing monsoons, the unending play between
food and its consumer (himself). In other words, in seeing beyond the
obvious (through his insight/dṛṣṭi), he allows himself a glimpse of the
immortal within the mortal.

The Guptavatīṭīkā cites the Śaktisaṇgama-tantra ("ṛṣi-cchando-devatādi
paṭhet stotre samāhitaḥ | yatra stotre na dṛśyet praṇava-nyāsam-ācaret")
that the ṛṣi-chanda-devatā must be yoked whenever there is to be recitation
and where these are not known or given, one must conjoin the praṇava in its
place. For its own prayoga (in the Saptaśatyupodghāta , the Guptavatīṭīkā
mandates ("ṛṣi-cchando-daivatāni śiro-mukha-hṛdi nyaset | śaktibījāni
stanayostattvāni hṛdaye punaḥ hrīṃ caṇḍikāyai vyastena sarveṇa ca ṣaḍaṇgakau")
for example that the ṛṣi-chanda-devatā must be conjoined at
head-mouth-heart and (specific to their tradition) the śakti to the breasts
and the tattva to the heart. This varies by ritualist tradition and
generalizations are unlikely to yield reliable conclusions. I would say
that the reason they may not be easily found in textual format is less due
to secrecy and more because (a) most of it is so well-known in nitya praxis
that codification is superfluous and (b) too much variation (and scope for
innovation) resists the production of standardized codes.

As for your question regarding the kīlaka, you are correct that it refers
to a bolt or pin. It refers to the inaccessibility or unusability of a
mantra in prayoga / ritual application. So, in a way, both the answers you
have received hitherto (namely, that is a bolt to be taken out to release
the mantra, and that it is a bolt to restrain the mantra lest it injures
the speaker) are actually correct. Some mantras are said to be dangerous
so they have 'utkīlana' rites. Not all mantras (or even tāntrika mantras
for that matter) have an associated kīlaka; most simply have the triad of
ṛṣi-chanda-devatā. The śakti-bījā-kīlaka goes one step further. Again,
while the exact way these are understood and employed vary by tradition, so
my account here must not be taken for a generalization. Some mantras have
greater applicability (they can induce certain effects in the world by the
ritualist's will) but these are not easily accessed or employed by those
who know their words or syllables alone. One would need the appropriate
adhikāra (eligibility / aptitude) - whether by initiation, family, bestowed
grace, etc. - to know the skilful ways of employing the mantra to yield its
power. Thus the caryā (the lifestyle/practices that must accompany the
ritual - nitya observances, etc.) is often what 'seals' the mantra from
general access (even if they are read in a text or overheard somewhere);
its meaning is constituted and preserved more in lived experience than
semantics. The Kīlakastava that is part of the Caṇḍī tradition speaks
of "itthaṃ
rūpeṇa kīlena mahādevena kīlitam" (8b) and "niṣkīlañca tathā kṛtvā
paṭhitavyaṃ samāhitaiḥ" (16b).

Put another way with the previous metaphor of the mango, a third way is to
access the mango tree itself and to grow as many mangoes as one needs. Or
perhaps think of the milk and the cow. The milk is easily attainable
though soon spoilt. The cow is difficult to keep and maintain, but provides
a supply of milk. Similarly, the skilfully understood and employed mantra
becomes a vessel for desires fulfilled (kāmadugha). The Guptavatīṭīkā,
citing the Ḍāmara-kalpa, writes: "mantrāṇaṃ pallavo vāso mantrāṇaṃ praṇavaḥ
śiraḥ | śiraḥ pallava-saṃyukto mantraḥ kāmadugho bhavet namontaḥ śāntike
puṣṭau praṇīpāte ca kīrtitaḥ | vatsākarṣaṇa-homeṣu svāhāntaḥ siddhidāyakaḥ
| yantrabhañjanakāryeṣu sughorabhayanāśane | vaṣaḍantaḥ prakalpyastu
grahabādhavināśakaḥ | uccātane tu saṃprāpte mantraḥ phaṭpallavānvitaḥ | ete
pallava-vāsasas-tat-tat-karmaṇi caṇḍipāṭhepi ślokāntādau yojyāḥ" - the
pallavas (namaḥ, svāhā, vaṣaṭ, huṃ, phaṭ)
are like the clothes of a mantra, while the praṇava is its head, mantras
become wish-fulfilling when they are conjoined with head and pallavas, and
different usages are given for achieving different outcomes. Having
specified this, it cites the Ḍāmara: "nyāsahīno bhavenmūko mṛtaḥ
syācchirasā vinā | apallavastu nagnaḥ syātsuptaḥ syād-āsanaṃ vinā | guruṃ
vinā vṛthā mantraḥ śravyajāpasty śūnyakaḥ | nirvamyo duṣṭadattaḥ
syād-anyabījastu *kīlitaḥ*" - of which the last part is interesting because
it shows a meaning of kīlaka.

Finally, the nyāsa of the kīlaka in the navel (nābhau) also carries its
natal symbolism with respect to the śakti-bījā-kīlaka triad. The navel is
paradoxically both an opening and an enclosure: an inaccessible access. By
conjoining the kīlaka with the navel, the ritualist establishes a natal
(creative/productive) link with the mantra that is thereafter sealed and
therefore unalterable (as is the bond of birth). Loosely compared, the
ritualist generates the mantra within himself and his navel becomes the
inaccessible seal that may be taken to mean the unalterable (natal) bond
now-established - i.e., the  kīlaka/navel securely holds the mantra within
his body. Just like a womb (cf. śakti) envelops the seed (cf. bījā) and
binds it to the natal cord, if you see the final mantra, you will see the
gaṃ bījā enveloped on both sides by the hrīṃ śakti - thus creating hrīṃ gaṃ
hrīṃ - and suffixed with the namaḥ kīlakam. These are elements added to a
mantra - often distinct words or syllables, often not so - that evoke its
latent transmutative potential. Just as the womb, seed and natal cord
'produce' a baby (which is ontologically neither womb nor seed, but a
distinct entity), the ritualist manifests the mantra by *transmuting *its
śakti-bījā-kīlaka within himself to bring forth its phala[=in the form of
his kāmanā].

Thus, 'om gaṇapataye namaḥ' is a mantra too, as is 'om gaṃ gaṇapataye namaḥ',
but the mantra shown here - hrīṃ gaṃ hrīṃ gaṇapataye namaḥ -  encapsulates
a specific idea within a specific ritual tradition / prayoga paramparā
(giving it specific meaning in the process).

I re-iterate that this is only one way of interpreting and understanding
the ritual praxis. Generalizations are difficult when it comes to ritual,
and what is a good way of explanation for some traditions may not be so
transparent for others. Nonetheless, this kind of work is in the purview of
the Prayogaśāstra Research Group at our centre under my supervision, so we
would be happy to be looped in on such questions and investigations.

I hope this helps. Please forward to the Indology list if it is of
relevance.
S. Bhattacharya




On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:43 AM Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:

> How fascinating, Harry!  That's all new to me and really interesting.
> Thanks!
> Dominik
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20240809/0b670595/attachment.htm>