• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15992 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15992 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Éditions de l’École des hautes études en...
  • ›
  • Purushartha
  • ›
  • Visages du dharma
  • ›
  • The Ways of the World, the Ways of Śiva....
  • Éditions de l’École des hautes études en...
  • Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales
    Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 1. Laukika Meaning Non-Religious, Concerning Matters of This World 2. Laukika Implying Dharma, While Śaivism Is Concerned with Mokṣa 3. Laukika Meaning Vaidika or Mainstream Brahmanical as Opposed to Śaiva 4. Laukika Referring to Householders as Opposed to Ascetics 5. Laukika Referring to Lay Śaivas as Opposed to Śaiva Initiates 6. Laukikas Maintain Dharmaśāstric Rules of Purity as Opposed to Śaiva Śāktas Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Visages du dharma

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    The Ways of the World, the Ways of Śiva. Remarks on the Meaning of Lokadharma/Laukika as Opposed to Śivadharma/Śaiva in Some Early Śaiva Tantric Sources

    Les voies du monde, les voies de Śiva. Remarques sur la signification de Lokadharma/Laukika par opposition à Śivadharma/Śaiva dans quelques anciennes sources tantriques shivaïtes

    Judit Törzsök

    p. 231-255

    Résumés

    Rather than trying to define dharma itself in early śaiva tantric sources, this paper aims at exploring the contrast between what is called mundane or lay (laukika) dharma and śaiva dharma and the ways in which the meaning of laukika changes depending on the context and the contrast focused on. Five contrasting pairs are examined: laukika in the sense of non-religious versus what pertains to religious life, laukika meaning vaidika as opposed to śaiva, laukika referring to the householder contrasted with the ascetic, lay śaiva religiosity as opposed to āgamic Śaivism and finally, ordinary notions of purity in the laukika domain versus śākta nondual practice. The majority of the examples confirms what is also stated in the Svacchandatantra, namely that whatever is laukika is related to dharma in the sense of social religion as opposed to soteriology.

    Plutôt que d’essayer de définir le dharma lui-même selon les sources anciennes tantriques shivaïtes, cet article explore le contraste entre ce que l’on appelle le dharma profane ou laïc (laukika) et le dharma śaiva ainsi que la manière dont la signification du terme laukika change en fonction du contexte et du contraste sur lequel on se concentre. Cinq oppositions sont examinées : laukika dans le sens de non religieux par contraste à ce qui relève de la vie religieuse, laukika signifiant vaidika contre śaiva, laukika se référant au maître de maison par opposition à l’ascète, la religiosité laïque śivaïte par opposition au śivaïsme āgamique et enfin, les notions ordinaires de pureté dans le domaine laukika par opposition à la pratique non duelle śākta. La majorité des exemples confirme ce qui est également énoncé dans le Svacchandatantra, à savoir que tout ce qui est laukika est lié au dharma au sens de la religion sociale par opposition à la sotériologie.

    Remerciements

    I would like to thank the editors of the volume, especially Christèle Barois, for all their corrections, suggestions and comments and Csaba Kiss for his invaluable remarks concerning an earlier draft of this paper. I am also grateful to all those in the Śivadharma project in Naples and beyond who listened to an oral presentation of this article and made several suggestions and comments, especially to Raffaele Torella, Francesco Sferra and Florinda De Simini.

    Texte intégral 1. Laukika Meaning Non-Religious, Concerning Matters of This World 2. Laukika Implying Dharma, While Śaivism Is Concerned with Mokṣa 3. Laukika Meaning Vaidika or Mainstream Brahmanical as Opposed to Śaiva 4. Laukika Referring to Householders as Opposed to Ascetics 5. Laukika Referring to Lay Śaivas as Opposed to Śaiva Initiates 6. Laukikas Maintain Dharmaśāstric Rules of Purity as Opposed to Śaiva Śāktas Bibliographie Sanskrit sources Secondary literature Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    1One of the most common oppositions that śaiva texts mention and describe is between the śaiva and the mundane or lay ways of life or conduct, the contrast between what is denoted by the adjectives śaiva and laukika. What is described concerns in most cases aspects of dharma, covering social duty, religious obligations, social law and order.1 Therefore, these adjectives can also qualify words that express facets of dharma and related concepts: ācāra (conduct), mārga (path), vṛtti (way of living), vyavahāra (action/practice), or even śāstra (teaching), jñāna (knowledge), and the like. The opposition seems ubiquitous and is present already in Kauṇḍinya’s commentary (4th-5th cent. CE?) on the Pāśupatasūtras, which contrasts the pāśupata practitioner with common people (laukika) seen as outsiders who do not understand the pāśupata observance.2 This meaning of laukika, to denote common people and their way of life, is frequently employed and is also used by Kauṇḍinya to define scripture (ad Pāśupatasūtra 1.1), by opposition:

    Scripture (āgama) is the teaching that comes from (ā-) the Great Lord and has been handed down (āgatam) by a succession of masters. Scripture (āgama) is considered to have been proclaimed as the cause of what does not belong to worldly transactions (a-laukika-vyavahāra) and the like.3

    2In this sense, whatever is worldly behaviour and transactions (vyavahāra) is opposed to acts prescribed by the Lord in the scriptures proclaimed by him. In other words, laukika means mundane outsider and alaukika means religious or pious, or, in the pāśupata context, more specifically, pāśupata.

    3In what follows, some of the meanings of the laukika-śaiva opposition shall be explored in early, pre-twelfth century śaiva sources, mainly in śaiva scriptures. There are nevertheless three issues that I need to exclude from these investigations. First, it is beyond the scope of this paper to define what is meant by śivadharma in the literature that bears this collective title.4 A large-scale ERC project is dedicated to this corpus5 and it is to be hoped that the results to be published will significantly enhance our understanding of these texts. Moreover, this paper does not aim at reconstructing the history of the two kinds of initiations (dīkṣā) called śivadharmiṇī or “śaivite” and lokadharmiṇī or “mundane,” for these two initiation procedures were analysed in a very lucid way, considering a large body of evidence, in Mirnig 2020. She shows that the two complementary terms could cover very different types of initiations in different periods and in different branches of Śaivism. Third, the laukika-śaiva opposition is not going to be discussed in the general sense of mundane or human versus divine or metaphysical, such as in the case of the meaning of words and mantras, or concerning acts (such as creation), measurements (mundane vs divine years, distances) etc. In other words, I intend to concentrate on the laukika-śaiva opposition in a socio-religious sense, concerning dharma: what kind of behaviour and social or socio-religious rules are implied by these terms and what textual corpora prescribing these rules are referred to.

    4With these limitations in mind, I have identified six basic usages of the laukika-śaiva opposition concerning what may be broadly defined as dharma or religious norm and duty in general. There may well be other usages I have not encountered, but the following definitions could be used as a starting point to understand these complementary terms.

    1. Laukika Meaning Non-Religious, Concerning Matters of This World

    5In a very general sense, any knowledge or activity that concerns non-religious matters may be termed laukika. As Kṣemarāja (10th-11th cent. CE) clarifies it in his commentary on the Svacchandatantra (seventh century?): “worldly [knowledge] is knowledge of agriculture, good and bad conduct, therapeutics and the like, which are expounded in [treatises on] business [including trade and agriculture] (vārttā), [royal] administration of justice (daṇḍanīti), medicine, archery, the performing arts etc.” 6

    6It is an important detail that this knowledge comes from one of Śiva’s faces, to be more precise, from Sadyojāta. In other words, worldly knowledge also derives from Śiva from the śaiva point of view; therefore, it is ultimately also śaiva. However, other teachings, coming from Śiva’s other faces, are all religious: vaidika or Vedic from the Vāmadeva face, ādhyātmika or the traditional brahmanical philosophical systems such as the Sāṃkhya and the Yoga from the Aghora face, the atimārga or the pre-tantric śaiva ascetic movements from the Tatpuruṣa face and the mantramārga or tantric or āgamic Śaivism from the Īśāna face, which is above the other four.7 In the hierarchy of the five faces, the Sadyojāta face teaching “worldly knowledge” always represents the lowest and most basic level, also standing for the element earth for instance, while the other faces represent the elements from water upwards.

    7The attribution of different doctrines to different faces goes back chronologically to the Niśvāsamukha (added, perhaps in the seventh century, to the beginning of the oldest tantra, the Niśvāsatattvasahitā), which also states that laukika knowledge has been expounded by Śiva’s western (or Sadyojāta) face.8 The Svacchandatantra’s passage later reappears, basically verbatim, in the 11th chapter of the Tantrasadbhāva (eighth/ninth century?). It is also taken up in Abhinavagupta’s tenth/eleventh century opus magnum, the Tantrāloka, albeit in a different form. For Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka 35.30) argues that all scriptures, including even laukika knowledge, are in fact one, since all have been propounded by the Lord. Abhinavagupta’s verse is introduced by Jayaratha’s (early thirteenth century) explanation as follows:

    Therefore, scripture is only one, this one that has been propounded by the Lord, in which everything resides starting from worldly teachings. In order to express this idea, the author [Abhinavagupta] says: “Thus, there is only one scripture, for everything is established in it, starting from worldly knowledge (laukikaśāstra), up to Vaiṣṇava, Buddhist and Śaiva teachings.”9

    8Thus, while Kṣemarāja stresses, in conformity with the Svacchandatantra, the hierarchy of different revelations even if all come from Śiva, Abhinavagupta intends to show the unity of all forms of knowledge, in conformity with his non-dualist point of view and agenda. Here too, laukika may cover the domain of teachings that are not religious strictly speaking, although Abhinavagupta does not provide a definition himself.

    9Although the exegetes, Kṣemarāja in particular, seem to understand laukika teachings to contain non-religious branches of knowledge, this might not be the position of the scriptures themselves. At least the Niśvāsamukha certainly seems to take laukika acts rather in the sense of pious generosity and the like as part of dharma, as it turns out in the subsequent passages of the chapter in question. The Niśvāsamukha’s understanding is discussed below in part 5.

    10Kṣemarāja might nonetheless be right in taking laukika in the sense of non-religious here, at least in the Svacchanda. For a few verses later, the Svacchanda groups together various people of evil deeds (pāpakarmin) and mentions two kinds in particular: those who devote themselves to laukika knowledge and those who focus on the science of logic (hetuśāstra). The science of logic, when it is condemned as here, normally refers to logical reasoning that does not take into account revelation. This is already pointed out in the Manusmti (2.10-11), which identifies these “logicians” as atheists (nāstika) who do not respect the Vedas (vedanindaka):

    Śruti is the Veda and Smṛti is the science on dharma. They are not to be questioned on any subject matter, for it is from them that we know dharma. A twice-born who looks down upon these two sources because he relies on the science of logic (hetuśāstra) should be excommunicated by the pious: he is an atheist who does not respect the Veda.10

    11In a similar vein, the Svacchandatantra itself (11.174-177) goes as far as declaring, through Śiva’s words addressed to the goddess, that the science of logic is by definition contrary to dharma:

    I shall teach you the branches [of knowledge] that are [established] in non-dharma and the like. The science of logic disgraces what is permanent and impermanent in this world. Unsure people dispute with each other, using various theses, overbearing replies, fallacious controversies. Statements grounded in logic are devoid of substance, O Virtuous Lady. They have no concern for the practice of [true] knowledge (jñānayoga) or for god. No conclusion can be reached with them about [the four aims of men:] dharma, wealth, sexual pleasure and final liberation. They are composed with ignorance and are deliberately devoid of dharma. Men who are happily engaged in them shall go to hell.11

    12What is condemned in fact is not necessarily logical arguments themselves, but rather what is called śuṣkatarka or “dry logic,” which is defined as logic that does not take into account revelation. As the Śivadharmottara explains (10.2-4):

    He who reflects, for the sake of obtaining dharma, on [true] knowledge and final liberation, with a logic that does not contradict his own [religious] doctrine is the person who knows reality, nobody else. “What meaning is intended here that should not contradict what comes before and after?” This is [proper] reasoning, [but] one should avoid dry reasoning. Therefore, a wise person must reflect on the subtle meaning of things only in accordance with scriptural reasoning, never with pure inference.12

    13Going back to the Svacchandatantra, which groups together those who focus on logic and those who engage in laukika knowledge, it seems very likely that laukikajñāna denotes here, as Kṣemarāja understands it, non-religious knowledge, which should not be one’s exlusive focus of attention, just as the science of logic is not to be prioratized on its own without regard to divine revelation. In this sense, laukika knowledge concerning non-religious matters, coupled with hetuśāstra, appears to epitomize adharma, the absence of religion, duties and right conduct, and the absence of religiosity in general. Thus, while laukika knowledge defined in this way may be necessary for daily transactions (vyavahāra), it is duly relegated to the lowest level of revelation and knowledge in the Svacchandatantra and related texts.

    2. Laukika Implying Dharma, While Śaivism Is Concerned with Mokṣa

    14The Svacchandatantra makes another point concerning mundane knowledge, independently of the above-mentioned fivefold system. It attributes various combinations of the buddhidharmas or “constitutive elements of the intellect” to the various branches of knowledge. The four buddhidharmas, which are also commonly visualized by the practitioner as the four legs of Śiva’s throne,13 are the following: dharma or “religion/duty/order of the world,” knowledge (jñāna), absence of passion (vairāgya) and mastery/supremacy (aiśvarya). Mundane knowledge (laukikajñānam) is associated with only dharma or the “order of the world/duty.” Then, the text mentions other, non-śaiva religious movements and attributes various combinations of buddhidharmas to them (Svacchandatantra 11.179cd-182). Among these, the tantric Vaiṣṇavas (pāñcarātra) and Veda-followers (vaidika) are associated with both dharma and knowledge, the Buddhists and the Jains represent the absence of passion, the school of Sākhya is linked with knowledge and the absence of passion, and the school of Yoga is established in the three elements of knowledge, the absence of passion and supremacy/mastery.14

    15In the Svacchandatantra, branches of Śaivism are distinguished from the above-mentioned movements in that they go beyond these buddhidharmas, which is the reason (according to the Svacchandatantra) why the pretantric śaiva ascetic movements are called atimārga “the way beyond.”15 Thus, while mundane knowledge concerns only the first of the four buddhidharma, namely dharma, Śaivism goes beyond all four. In this way, here too, what is laukika represents the lowest level of knowledge, while Śaivism (in the broader sense, including the pre-tantric atimārga) is found at the top, they thus appear as the two extremities of a scale. Nonetheless, since laukika knowledge is associated with dharma in this description, it does not seem to mean non-religious, but rather the lowest level of (brahmanical) religiosity: indeed, placed next to Buddhism and Jainism, which also possess only one buddhidarma albeit not the same one, it seems to correspond to the common denominator of brahmanical currents.

    16In the subsequent verses, the Svacchandatantra also points out that those who are “worldly” or laukika will not be liberated and will remain in the cycle of transmigration as opposed to Śaivas including the atimārga, who shall obtain final release from this world and attain their respective levels in the śaiva universe. “The laukika people will experience a new creation and a new dissolution [again and again], they are mounted on the wheel of transmigration and go round and round like the wheel that takes the water from a well.”16

    17The image of this wheel is further elaborated upon. It has eight spokes that are formed by dharma and the rest, which must refer to the eight buddhidharmas including this time the negative ones too: dharma and absence of dharma (adharma), knowledge and ignorance (jñāna and ajñāna), absence and presence of passion (vairāgya and avairāgya) and supremacy and non-supremacy (aiśvarya and anaiśvarya). In Kṣemarāja’s understanding, this wheel is called cakra-ka with the suffix -ka to express a pejorative sense (kutsitam). Furthermore, it is presided over by the Lord, is impelled by fate (niyati) instead of a stick, is permeated by the three impurities of limited capacity, action and knowledge, and it revolves by the impetus of time.17

    18Śaivism, which again includes the ascetic traditions of the atimārga, is said to be able to obtain more success in this life and even final liberation in the next. Final liberation may be granted even to followers of the atimārga, who first reach a lower level of the śaiva universe (the form of Śiva called Īśvara in the case of the skull-bearing kāpālikas and Dhruva in the case of pāśupatas). It is remarkable that the Svacchandatantra in fact seems to argue from an atimārgic point of view of pre-tantric Śaivas, stressing the way in which śaiva currents all go beyond (ati-) mundane pursuits. Thus, an opposition is finally established between the Śaivas including the atimārga who can obtain liberation, and all the others, who are now commonly said to belong to the world (loka) and are bound souls. In this sense, what is laukika is non-Śaiva, for it does not lead one beyond this world or the various lower paradises (such as brahmaloka etc.), unlike Śaivism, which takes one to final liberation.18

    19Most of the above passages are also cited in Jayaratha’s commentary on the Tantrāloka (ch. 35) and they are fully taken over in chapter 11 of the Tantrasadbhāva. They demonstrate that Śaivism saw itself as representing the opposite end of the spectrum in relation to laukika knowledge associated only with dharma or “social religion,” while other religious currents were seen as standing in between them. Śaivism also presented itself as the only system of thought or religion that proposed true and definite liberation from the world of transmigration. In this sense, the opposition of laukika and śaiva is that between the first and last of the four aims of man (puruṣārtha): between dharma in the sense of social religion and duty and mokṣa or final liberation, provided here only by śaiva soteriology.

    3. Laukika Meaning Vaidika or Mainstream Brahmanical as Opposed to Śaiva

    20In the examples cited thus far, laukika or worldly knowledge and precepts were explicity distinguished from what is termed vaidika religion and knowledge. While laukika precepts are understood in the above-mentioned hierarchies to refer to either non-religious knowledge or knowledge of social religion (dharma), vaidika teachings represent the next level in the order of revelations, and vaidika scriptures are taught by Śiva’s Vāmadeva face. Furthermore, while laukikas are associated only with dharma, vaidikas possess both dharma and knowledge (jñāna) and are thus grouped together with the tantric Vaiṣṇavas: the pāñcarātra. These categorizations suggest that laukika knowledge and activities concern what is prescribed by smṛti or dharmaśāstra, such as certain obligatory rites, rules of conduct, socio-religious rules and the like, while the term vaidika covers perhaps what is more precisely the domain of śruti, such as the solemn or śrauta rites (agniṣṭoma, aśvamedha, etc. meant for the selected few) and upaniṣadic precepts.

    21Despite these distinctions, it also happens that what is termed laukika is identified with the vaidika religion. This is the case in a list given by Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka 13.346cd), mentioning only three elements: loka, ādhyātmika (“related to the self”) and atimārga (“going beyond the [common] path”). Here, according to the commentator, Jayaratha, loka does not denote non-religious knowledge or texts, but Vedic scriptures (śruti), books on traditional law, order and religious duties (smṛti) and the like. He also takes ādhyātmika to refer to the Vedānta and related schools, while atimārga, instead of denoting śaiva pre-tantric traditions, seems to cover such movements as the Sāṃkhya school and the classical Yoga of Patañjali. One may of course question Jayaratha’s understanding, especially concerning the last elements, but his interpretation seems possible for the first one.

    22This usage, namely denoting vaidika by laukika, is not proper to Abhinavagupta or Jayaratha. Such a usage assumes, as pointed out above, that vaidika covers not only the śrauta but also, or primarily, the smārta domain of ritual and practice, i.e. what may be called mainstream brahmanism. The locus classicus to prescribe for Śaivas all the laukika i.e. vaidika rituals up to and including marriage is to be found in an early, pre-tenth century scripture of the Siddhānta, the Sarvajñānottara (also referred to in the Tantrāloka). Here, the main point is that despite general conformity to the common form of religion (laukika and vaidika being identified), laukika rites should not be a śaiva devotee’s main occupation. In this sense, the passage illustrates the meaning of laukika as vaidika in the sense of mainstream brahmanical.

    23The identification of laukika and vaidika in the Sarvajñānottara may well be due to the ritual context of the occurrence of these words: for rites prescribed in the Vedic corpus (śruti) and in related literature (smṛti) constitute the ritual core of what those who follow the order (dharma) of this world (loka) must perform. Indeed, the first compound (varṇāśramācārāḥ) strongly suggests that we deal with the dharma concerning the social classes, life stages and right conduct. Moreover, since the passage enjoins the use of general brahmanical rituals up to marriage, it implicitly also says that the householder is the practitioner envisaged, who subsequently must concentrate on śaiva rites. Śaivism thus seems to be in charge of one’s preparation for the next world, mainly in the period after marriage, while vaidika ritual is supposed to prepare one for the mundane (laukika) function of the householder.

    One should not question the validity of worldly social classes, stages of life, and conduct (varṇāśramācāra), nor the relevance of worldly propitiatory rites (prāyaścitta), relations and recognized local rules (deśadharma). From the rite of conception up to the rite of marriage, [one must perform] Vedic [life cycle] rites, then one should devote oneself to śaiva ritual. One should not perform worldly duties/ritual as one’s main occupation, O Skanda, and one should not mentally recall other religious teachings or other deities. One must have a pure mind, concentrate solely on Śiva and one shall obtain the pure place [of final liberation], which is impossible to understand, and which is omnipresent and eternal.19

    24Even if one may follow a more esoteric branch of Śaivism requiring the performance of transgressive rites, the prescription to conform to vaidika precepts remains valid. This is explained by Jayaratha with a famous unattributed citation: “Kaula inside, śaiva outside, and vaidika as far as worldly behaviour is concerned. One should abide by taking what is essential, like a coconut [whose juicy essence is inside, but which has a hard outer shell that protects it].”20 Here again, being vaidika in wordly matters seems to refer to the fact that to the outside world, a śaiva or an adept of the more esoteric Kaula must maintain Vedic rituals and obey norms established in the lawbooks (dharmaśāstra) of mainstream brahmanism. In other words, although his Śaivism is not a secret (unlike his Kaulism), his basic, general worldly interface is vaidika.

    25Incidentally, the identification of vaidika with laukika in certain contexts may have a very straightforward explanation: for the three upper varṇas and especially for a brahmin, what is prescribed as vaidika ritual in śruti and smṛti constitutes his general duty. In other words, vaidika denotes laukika or worldly interface for the three uper classes, particularly for brahmins, but not for Śūdras, women and those outside the varṇa system, who do not have access to Vedic rites. For them, as we shall see in part 5, the laukika domain of ritual means rites that anyone may accomplish without restrictions.

    4. Laukika Referring to Householders as Opposed to Ascetics

    26Closely related to this usage is the use of laukika to refer to householders (gṛhastha) or their dharma. Although vaidika religion also accommodates ascetics (after a certain moment in its history),21 it is the householder that represents the typical vaidika practitioner and the mainstream brahmanical norm. For this reason, it is not surprising that laukika may often coincide with or denote the householder and his practice. Nonetheless, this usage of laukika can be considered distinct from the previous one, for the word laukika in this case refers to a way of living rather than doctrine or rites, although a householder may have his own ritual obligations.

    27One example for such usage is found in a (seventh century?) śākta scripture, the Brahmayāmala, which enumerates four different types of practitioners who represent four ways of living. They are called the “worshipper” (ārādhaka), “he who lives in a noble way” (udāravṛtta), the “mixed one” (miśraka) and the “untainted one” (nirañjana). Of these four, the first one, basically a householder, is repeatedly described as laukika or following laukika rules. The first words of his description define him already as such:

    He who is called a “worshipper” shall be explained henceforth with respect to his way of living. He lives in a village as a householder but follows religious prescriptions such as meditation. He resorts to the common way [of practice] (laukikatvam) in that he worships with flowers and the like. In a hidden house, where he lives together with his wife, he practises observances and uses [śākta] mantras (vidyā). He is is characterized by the sixty-three observances. He meditates on the highest realm, has no sectarian signs and is not occupied with livelihood. He resorts to the householder’s conduct and practises ritual using substances [defined by] duality [i.e. pure substances from the brahmanical point of view]. He only practises knowledge.22 He should use substances that conform to the type of mantra he uses23 and avoid any mingling or contact with others such as his son, etc.24

    28In order to understand the category of the ārādhaka, one must also compare him with the other practitioners. The second one called “of noble conduct” represents a contrast to the ārādhaka, for he is defined primarily as an ascetic “who lives in the forest as his refuge” (vanāśrayanivāsin). He is a restrained yogi, leads a celibate life, and may use any kind of flowers or any substances for worship. The third one called the “mixed” type is also unmarried, he is a practitioner of observances (vratastha) and uses a skull as a substrate of worship. The last one is called the “untainted one” because he does not distinguish between pure and impure substances but is not affected by any impurity. He sees the world as made of the goddess(es) and as being inside of him. Although these last two categories are somewhat vaguely defined, only the first one, the householder ārādhaka, is said to follow laukika prescriptions and the word laukika only occurs in his description. Thus, in this case, the laukika worship conforms not only to mainstream brahmanical purity, but corresponds to leading the life of a householder.

    29The insistence on the conformity of the householder to worldly norms is of course very common and is also found in many other early āgamic sources, such as in the Svāyambhuvasūtrasagraha (22.18), which states that “householders stay on the path of laity (lokamārga), they should not transgress [the rules of] worldly conduct (laukikam ācāram) [even] when initiated. Thus, they must act [in this way] because they should accomplish [their duties in] the world (lokasaṃvṛtti).”25

    30In addition, it is also common to see a contrast between the householder representing laukika norms and the (śaiva) ascetic who leaves them behind. It is in this sense that the Matagapārameśvaratantra (vidyāpāda 17.77cd-85) contrasts the laukika way of living in society with going to the forest and leading the life of an ascetic. Here, however, there is no discussion about pure or impure substances, for the text belongs to the non-transgressive Śaiva Siddhānta. The passage describes three ways in which one may undergo sufferings in society (suffering deriving from oneself, from other beings or from spirits) and choose to withdraw in the forest as an ascetic, which results in his becoming contented (tuṣṭi).

    He who is tormented by internal pain, such as [sufferings caused by] the wind, the bile and the phlegm, shall experience a sudden lack of passion [for worldly matters]. Due to that, he will go to the forest, live on air and restrain his senses. Having abandoned worldly life (laukika), he will be contented. This is the contentment related to the self (ādhyātmikī).

    He who is tormented by thieves and soldiers or by a very powerful king shall experience pain, which will cause him to become free from worldly diversity (viraktas... laukikāt prapañcāt). He shall say to himself: “what is the point in this excessive enjoyment that depends on someone else? There is a much better thing than that: final beatitude.”26 Thinking in this way he will become passionless and will turn away from the duties of a householder. He who is overcome and transformed [in this way] shall experience contentment related to beings (ādhibhautikī).

    He who suffers as he is overcome by divine possessing beings, spirits and the like, and is pervaded by them shall become dispassionate for this reason. Even if he is retained by his relatives, he shall leave his home and go to the forest. “There is no happiness superior to this one,” he will reflect and concentrate on his aim. “There is no happiness superior to this contentment.” Thinking in this way in his mind, he shall rejoice again and again. This is called the contentment related to spirits (ādhidaivikī), it is experienced by someone who is free of passions.27

    31Sometimes the contrast between the laukika householder and the śaiva ascetic is less explicit but is clearly implied. One such instance is found in the Svāyambhuvasūtrasagraha (17.8-9), which prescribes both the Vedic and the śaiva saṃdhyā rituals (performed at the “junctures” of the day) as obligatory for householders, but treats the Vedic one as optional for those who abandon social obligations and seek spiritual or other goals.

    A man in one of the stages of his religious life, after consecration with the [mantras] and breath control with Śiva,28 should perform the ritual sipping of water, must do the sandhyā ritual twice, the Vedic one being first. However, others [not being in the āśrama system of stages of life], who are devoid of passion and turned away from worldly matters, may or may not perform the Vedic one, they may only do the śaiva one as a rule.29

    32The passage confirms that householders as well as all those who are concerned with matters in this world and are part of the Vedic system must perform the Vedic sandhyā. In fact, āśramin may not denote here someone in the four stages of life in the strict sense, as Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha first takes it, but rather someone who remains in the Vedic or mainstream brahmanical social system. Ultimately the injunction basically concerns householders, without saying so—and this is how Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha also understands this the second time round, at the end of his paraphrase (in his commentary on the Mṛgendratantra kriyāpāda 2.9), when he contrasts householders with other initiates, whether they are liberation seeking putrakas or others:

    He who is in one of the four stages of life called celibate student, householder, forest-dweller and itinerant mendicant, should not neglect the sequence of Vedic rituals. He has obtained permission [to do the śaiva rites, through consecration] and is [now] intent on performing śaiva ritual. He should do that [sandhyā] ritual twice. This means that he should perform the śaiva saṃdhyā immediately after performing the smaller one known from the Vedas. However, in some cases, putrakas or other initiates except if they are householders shall only perform the śaiva saṃdhyā and can do as they please concerning the performance of the Vedic saṃdhyā.30

    33As the end of this passage suggests, the opposition is probably intended between the householder, who remains in society, and other initiates, who leave worldly life behind. The householder, being concerned with worldly (laukika) matters, must conform to mainstream brahmanical norms and perform the Vedic sandhyā before the śaiva one, even if it is considered less important.31 However, those śaiva initiates who have left society behind (whether we call them ascetics or hermits or the recluse) do not need to conform to the niceties of this world and can reduce their ritual routine to the śaiva one, doing the Vedic one as optional.

    34Similar ways of contrasting the dharma of the householder and the ascetic also occur elsewhere than Śaivism, for the opposition is almost ubiquitous in the whole brahmanical tradition. It is nonetheless notable that Śaivas elaborated their own set of prescriptions for householders even in the context of transgressive śākta rituals that were certainly not meant for them in the first place. The householder is thus a category accomodated in some way in all branches of the early scriptures. Moreover, contrarily to what one may assume, it is not the hermit or the ascetic who devotes more time and effort to ritual obligations. For it is the householder that has the double task of performing both general laukika and specialized śaiva rites.

    35The laukika-śaiva opposition that mirrors the householder-ascetic one concerns only male adepts of the three upper varṇas. In what follows, other categories of adepts are also potentially involved, such as women, Śūdras and those outside the varṇa system.

    5. Laukika Referring to Lay Śaivas as Opposed to Śaiva Initiates

    36One, in fact quite old, opposition concerns social forms of śaiva religiosity and initiatory Śaivism, the first being termed laukika even if it assumes and requires śaiva affiliation. Such a usage of the word laukika can be observed in the Niśvāsamukha (1.52cd-55).

    I shall now teach you worldly [practices of Śaivism], thanks to which people go to heaven. Wells, water tanks, houses, parks […] sacrificial pavilions, […] donations, pilgrimages, fasting, observances, [eating] what is to be eaten and avoiding what should not be eaten, recitation, fire offerings, worship, throwing oneself into water, fire, or jumping off a hill-top [as a form of religious suicide], complete fasting, giving up possessions, honouring masters and elders—all these are said to be worldly (laukika) practice. Vedic religion is the one related to the four stages of life.32

    37Although these practices are not necessarily śaiva but often general smārta33, they seem to comprise some that may commonly or typically be śaiva rather than anything else, such as jumping off a cliff as a way of religious suicide (as from the famous Kālañjara hill for instance). Also, the fact that these laukika practices appear to be distinguished from vaidika or mainstream brahmanical rites (Vedic ritual basically standing for the life cycle rites here) suggests that we may deal with prescriptions assuming some devotional background.

    38Indeed, the bulk of that chapter describes various donations (dāna), fasts (upavāsa), and ways of worship (arcana) that are śaiva in character and concern particularly the liṇga. These are religious acts the śaiva uninitiated laity could perform for certain rewards. The rewards are mentioned after each act, such as the reward one would get from the Vedic agniṣṭoma ritual if one burns guggulu incense near Śiva (1.89-90). It is in fact common in this context that the reward is defined as being the equivalent for the reward obtainable thanks to a solemn Vedic (śrauta) sacrifice, once again making a clear distinction of laukika and vaidika. Moreover, it is also often promised that the worshipper shall obtain the status of being one of Śiva’s immortal followers or gaṇas. The passage ends with a statement that clearly shows that the practitioners envisaged are uninitiated Śaivas. For it asserts that the rewards mentioned earlier (such as living in paradise for a certain time, saving one’s ancestors from hell etc.) are meant for those ignorant persons who have not been initiated, but śaiva initiates can obtain final liberation with the same practices.34

    39A similar usage can be seen in the Mṛgendratantra (kriyāpāda 8.78ff), if we follow Nārāyaṇakaṇṭḥa’s commentary thereon. Here, in the context of initiation, the text lists five types of karman of the bound soul that must be purified with five śaiva mantras. These five types of (religious) acts, which are also homologized with five parts of the śaiva universe governed by various Rudras, are the following: worldly rites (lokātmaka), rites of the [Vedic] tradition (āmnāyātmaka), intentional/spiritual acts (abhisandhyātmaka),35 acts of the atimārga (atimārgātmaka) and śaiva (śaivātmaka) karman36 The karman are produced by different types of activities, namely, worldly acts or rites come from ritual actions in general (karmajanyāni), Vedic ritual from ritual acts that are difficult to perform (karmakṛcchrajanyāni, perhaps alluding to the solemn or śrauta rites), intentional/spiritual acts from absence of passion (vairāgyajanyāni), atimārga acts from yoga (probably of the Pāśupatas, yogajanyāni) and śaiva acts from [right] knowledge (vijñānajanyāni).

    40Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha explains some of these by giving examples: worldly acts are those that are called pious generosity (pūrtākhyāni) such as establishing a water tank or a well; tradition means the Veda (āmnāyo vedaḥ) and the ritual acts are those taught by the Veda such as the initial Soma sacrifice (somasaṃstha), which are also well-known as iṣṭa or “wished” (i.e. non-obligatory) rites. In other words, here again, laukika is neither āgamic śaiva, nor strictly speaking vaidika, since the latter term is reserved for the solemn rites. It refers to acts inspired by religious piety that anyone may perform, and that would or could fall into the category of śivadharma within Śaivism. As De Simini (2021) points out concerning the usage of these terms in the Śivadharma corpus, in the triad of laukika-vaidika-śaiva, laukika rites (and mantras) would be meant for those who were excluded from the Vedic ones and did not have access to full śaiva initiation either, such as women and Śūdras.

    41In a different context, the Matagapārameśvara also seems to maintain an opposition between laukika covering lay forms of religion, and what it calls śaiva, i.e. the acts of those who have been initiated according to āgamic procedure. In both cases, the term śaiva is strictly reserved for initiates as above.

    42Two passages may illustrate this opposition. The first one speaks of the laukika and the śaiva ways of conduct (Matagapārameśvaracaryāpāda 2.2-6):

    There are two ways of conduct [prescribed] in treatises for pious beings, they are both efficient and help one obtain visible and invisible results. The lay one is well-known because its authority is never opposed. It must be respected by the virtuous both in case one strives for beatitude (naiśreyasa) beyond this world and if one is in worldly occupations (saṃvṛtti). The śaiva one is the other one, it must be properly understood by those who are true practitioners and who obey the Lord’s command. It bestows final liberation (mukti) and supernatural powers (siddhi). In each region, the way in which people behave according to the view of their own tradition should be adopted by the pious. But lay conduct must not become a constituent of special [śaiva] conduct. Nonetheless, lay conduct must be respected, for there is no fault if one respects it.37

    43From this passage, it can be adduced that the word śaiva is applied to initiatory, āgamic Śaivism, for it is āgamic Śaivism that promises liberation from this world (mukti) and supernatural powers (siddhi). It also seems obvious that the word naiśreyasa must refer to the activity of devoting oneself to aims beyond this world (such as reaching a paradise or saving one’s ancestors from hell) and saṃvṛtti may denote common occupation in society. In this way, Śaiva and laukika aims form a parallel set: while Śaiva initiates aim at obtaining powers (siddhi) in this world, laukikas modestly intend only to fulfill their social and occupational tasks (saṃvṛtti) here; and while śaiva initiates are promised to attain final liberation (mukti) after death, laukikas modestly hope to attain a pleasant paradise (from which they will be reborn after some time) and to save their ancestors from hell. This in turn corresponds to the Niśvāsamukha’s understanding of the different aims of śaiva initiates and the śaiva laity.

    44Similarly, a distinction between the śaiva and the laukika system of social classes is established in another passage of the same text (Matagapārameśvaracaryāpāda 5.30cd-33). It mentions two sets of four social categories, one set being āgamic śaiva and the other laukika.

    There exists an injunction concerning the social categories [= a śaiva understanding of the varṇa] here, according to the words of the Lord. Four categories are established: the preliminary initiate, the initiate, the [professional] practitioner and the guru—they fulfill their respective duties. And this injunction [concerning the social categories] is the command of the Lord, which should be followed in this system at all costs.38 Just as each such category in the world is commonly said to have its own prescribed conduct, so here too, O tiger among the sages, they have their own prescribed behaviour. The system of different social categories determined by birth is known to be the worldly one.39

    45Again, the contrast is between the system of four types of śaiva initiates in the āgamic systems as opposed to the fourfold varṇa system of the mainstream varṇāśramadharma, which would be also maintained by lay Śaivas.40

    46Although it is not surprising to find this opposition in śaiva scriptures, it is remarkable that in all the above examples, lay Śaivas following the common varṇāśramadharma are definitely not included in the śaiva category. In this sense, these passages attest that for śaiva initiates, at least as far as their scriptures show, the distinction between the śaiva and non-śaiva laity was not crucial, for it had no soteriological relevance. For them, lay Śaivas following the Śivadharma were just like any laukika person focusing on dharma, as in the categorization of the Svacchandatantra discussed in part 2.

    6. Laukikas Maintain Dharmaśāstric Rules of Purity as Opposed to Śaiva Śāktas

    47Śaiva śākta tantras, which teach the use of impure substances such as wine and bodily liquids in ritual, and whose pantheon is dominated by female deities, commonly contrast their own practice termed nondual (for it goes against the conventional duality of pure/impure established in dharmaśāstras), as opposed to dualist practice, which basically implies conformity to mainstream brahmanical norms. However, such norms are also respected by the Śaiva Siddhānta. Thus, when more esoteric, śākta scriptures mention those who respect laukika norms, they include lay śaivas and adepts of the Śaiva Siddhānta. Of course, one could again just file this contrast under the heading of laukika meaning “mainstream brahmanical” (discussed in part 3) and sometimes it also coincides with what is prescribed for householders (discussed in part 4); but since the focus is different here, and the religious groups covered by the term laukika are not the same, this usage and opposition may merit a separate discussion.

    48One example for such a usage contrasting pure and impure ritual can be found in a passage of the Brahmayāmala (92.33-42). The text explains that a practitioner who conforms to dualist prescriptions concerning ritual purity may also succeed in his practice, but with more difficulty than those who use impure substances. He must recite only obeisance mantras (ending with namaḥ) for common worship and must not use any impure materials. He is called laukika, “common/worldly” in the sense that he must conform to common or dharmaśāstric rules of purity.

    Even a lay (lokika=laukika) practitioner can obtain success if he performs worship [turning] in his [right/prescribed] direction, with the [appropriate] substances of [prescribed] form, conforming to social class and caste and other traits, O Mother of the Gaṇas. [Such a person] is tied by mental distinctions [being as he is established] in the dualist world view. Thus, final liberation or enjoyments come about easily [only] for those who are devoid of such mental distinctions [of what is pure or impure]. Nonetheless, [anyone can have] a wish to obtain the Lord’s grace, which is in accordance with one’s own nature. I have taught that results come about [also] thanks to a worldly way of living (lokācāra), O Sinless Goddess, [but] they are difficult and cause considerable pain. They are obtained by those who have mental distinctions [of the pure and the impure]. Nevertheless, sometimes someone may only [wish to do] that, following his own nature. In case of worship, [mantras of] adoration may be augmented with the ending “homage” (namas). But adoration [mantras] should not be augmented with the syllable SVĀHĀ in case of fire offerings. Sometimes the adoration may be performed by four worshippers.41 They should not fashion a shield, a knife, (?, khetrālabhana corrupt for kheṭalavana?),42 a skull-topped staff, a skull as a recipient of guest offering, or a rosary out of human bone or skull pieces. The incense should not be made with human flesh and the guest offering should not contain impure nectars [=sexual fluids] and the like. He should not ever perform recitation, fire offerings or adoration facing south. Rather, he must always remain hidden, concentrating on the Secret Female Spirits (guhyakā). And he must do the worldly way of worship, with fear [of impure substances]. In worldly adoration (ārādhane laukike), one can make use of a liṅga, a platform, which may be of silver, gold or sandalwood, or a piece of cloth, as a support of worship. One should follow all the rules of conduct except those concerning food and drink. One should follow the path of left-hand practice but still conform to [the rules of] this world.43

    49Although the last injunction remains somewhat enigmatic (how is one to follow left-hand practice of impure offerings and conform to worldly rules of purity?), the description makes it clear that someone conforming to rules of purity can also perform śākta worship and obtain success, albeit with much more difficulty. This is a notable concession made in a scripture whose primary teaching concerns nondual ritual performed with impure substances.

    50Some śākta scriptures may also prescribe lay conduct for all practitioners, not only for one type of them as above. They maintain that nondual, esoteric śākta practice must only be performed in secret, while one must display a “worldly behaviour” in general, according to which dharmaśāstric rules of purity must be respected. The Kubjikāmata (eighth or ninth century?) 10.142-3 prescribes, for instance, the following:

    While one must always remain on the path of Kaula behaviour, nondual attitude and the nonduality of ultimate reality, one must preserve worldly behaviour (laukikācāra) and [thus] perform nondual [practice]. One must always protect the hidden [sectarian] signs that are associated with it.44

    51It is also pointed out that one must perform everything prescribed in a hidden, solitary place and not in the presence of other people, for otherwise there would be a transgression of the bounds of morality (sthitibhaṅga/sthitibheda) and the teaching would perish.45 The Kubjikāmata thus strongly supports the maintenance of laukika social and religious norms (laukikācāra/laukikadharma), which provides a necessary façade for the existence of this more esoteric cult.46

    52In other transgressive tantras, conformity to social and other norms is more strongly rejected: the Ūrmikaulārava (eighth or ninth century?) for instance warns against revealing its teachings to those who stick to lay conduct (laukika-ācāra).47

    53Mundane laukika in the sense of “ritually pure” is also repeatedly used in ritual manuals. The Tantrāloka thus contrasts laukika materials or pure substances, used for the ritually prepared rice, with what is called “substances for heroes,” i.e. impure substances.48 As the commentator, Jayaratha makes it clear, the heroic ones are the [impure] nectars (sārādirūpāṇī),49 while the worldly ones are milk, rice grains and the like kṣīrataṇḍulādirūpāṇi.

    ⁂

    54The six different usages of the word laukika as opposed to śaiva in śaiva scriptures could be all subsumed into the meaning of “lay”. However, what this laity means exactly varies in the different contexts it is used in and the boundaries of what is lay and what is śaiva shifts depending on these contexts and on the affiliation of the scripture or the author. On several occasions, when śaiva scriptures define what is laukika and what is śaiva, it is often a question of defining who are “us” the Śaivas, as opposed to “them,” the worldly or laukika people, the outsiders.

    55First, laukika can denote what could be appropriately called “mundane” (lit. “of this world” or loka), for it can simply mean non-religious (relating to business, agriculture etc.). The other five meanings all carve out a different territory from what could be called dharma or religious or socio-religious practices. Thus, laukika precepts and practices may cover (1) social religion defined by dharma as opposed to Śaivism aiming at salvation, (2) vaidika ritual as opposed to śaiva, (3) the householder’s dharma as opposed to the ascetic’s dharma (4) śaiva lay devotional rules and practices not requiring initiation (śivadharma) as opposed to initiatory Śaivism, and (5) all non-transgressive or non-śākta forms of Śaivism, opposed to śākta nondual practice.

    56The first context is based on a soteriological approach: Śaivas of the atimārga and the mantramārga are those who can attain final liberation (mokṣa), while the laukika will always belong to this world (loka) of transmigration being as they are only determined by dharma.

    57Among the remaining four socio-ritual contexts, laukika referring to vaidika ritual and laukika meaning the householder’s dharma can overlap to a certain extent. However, they represent somewhat different points of view. For when laukika refers to mainstream dharmaśāstric prescriptions, it is the obligation to maintain vaidika ritual that is emphasized as is prescribed by the tradition (śruti and smṛti); while when it means a householder’s dharma, it is often contrasted with ascetic practices that require one to leave society. In the first case, it is the continuity of the Vedic tradition that must be upheld, which is a general doctrinal and ritual imperative; in the second, one’s social functions are maintained, which is more of an individual choice (one may or may not decide to leave society and become an ascetic/hermit).

    58Śaiva lay devotional practices or acts of generosity that do not require initiation do not belong to the vaidika territory of religion (although some overlap is evident here too, such as the respect of varṇa categories); nor are they commonly prescribed in the āgamic literature. This is basically the domain of the Śivadharma literature, including its purāṇic ramifications, of which the āgamic sources seem to be aware to some extent. Since these acts and practices do not require initiation, they are considered laukika or lay, non-specialized, from the āgamic point of view. In this context, by opposition, śaiva refers to the system of mantramārgic, initiatory Śaivism.

    59Finally, more esoteric śākta scriptures that require the performance of transgressive rites hold all other, non-transgressive forms of religion to be “lay” or “common,” thus extending the usage of the term to cover the vast majority of brahmanical practices and practitioners.

    60In the last four instances, whatever is described as laukika (ācāra, vṛtti and the like) is related to religious duties, social religion and rules of conduct. In this sense, the Svacchanda’s statement proves to be right: most things belonging to the laukika domain are related to dharma, and dharma alone, while Śaivism, at least in its āgamic variety, presents itself as primarily concerned with catering for individual needs for power and salvation.

    Bibliographie

    Sanskrit sources

    Kubjikāmata. Kubjikāmatatantra, Kulālikāmnāya version T. Goudriaan, J.A. Schoterman, eds., Leiden, Brill.

    Tantrasadbhāva, electronic edition by M. Dyczkowski based on three manuscripts (NGMPP Reel Nos. A 188/22, A 44/1, and A 44/2) published on the website of the Muktabodha Indological Research Institute: http://www.muktabodha.org.

    Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta with commentary (-viveka) of Rājānaka Jayaratha.The Tantraloka of Abhinava-Gupta. With Commentary by Rājānaka Jayaratha, Madhusūdan Kaul Śastrī, ed., Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 23, 28, 30, 35, 29, 41, 47, 59, 52, 57 and 58, Bombay and Srinagar, 1918–1938.

    Niśvāsamukha, see Kafle 2020.

    Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra, vol. 1, D. Goodall et al., ed., Pondichéry, IFI, 2015.

    Pāśupatasūtras. Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya by Kaundinya, Ananthakrishna Sastri, ed., Trivandrum, Trivandrum Oriental Manuscripts Library of the University of Travancore, 1940.

    Brahmayāmala, NAK MS 3-370, unpublished electronic transcription provided by Shaman Hatley.

    Mataṅgapārameśvara vidyāpāda. Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Vidyāpāda) avec le commentaire de Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha N.R. Bhaṭṭ, ed., Pondichéry, IFI, 1977.

    Mataṅgapārameśvara, kriyāpāda, yogapāda et caryāpāda. Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (kriyāpādayogapāda et caryāpāda) avec le commentaire de Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, N.R. Bhaṭṭ, ed., Pondichéry, IFI, 192.

    Mṛgendra. Mṛgendrāgama (kriyāpādaetcaryāpāda) avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa-Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, N.R. Bhaṭṭ, ed., Pondichéry, IFI, 1962.

    Sarvajñānottara, e-text based on NAK MS 1-1692, NGMPP Reel No. A 43/12 and GOML R 16829, GOML MS D 5550 and IFP T. Nos. 334, 760, paper transcripts in Devanāgarī. The verse and chapter numeration used is that of D. Goodall’s edition in progress (unpublished version of 2010).

    Svacchandatantra the Svacchanda Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja, Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, ed., 6 vols. (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 31, 38, 44, 48, 51 [vol. V A], 53 [vol. V B], 56), Bombay, 1921–1935.

    Svyāmbhuvastrasaṃgraha, Śaivāgame Svāyaṃbhuvastrasaṃgrahaḥ, Veṅkaṭasubrahmaṇyaśāstrī, ed., Mysore, 1937, E-text provided by D. Goodall.

    Secondary literature

    Goodall, D., Sathyanarayanan, R., Sarma, S.A.S. et al., eds (2005), The Pañcāvaraṇastava of Aghoraśiva: A Twelth-Century South Indian prescription for the visualisation of Sadāśiva and his retinue, Pondichéry, Institut français de Pondichéry/École française d’Extrême-Orient (“Indologie” 102).

    Kafle, N. (2020), Niśvāsamukhatattvasaṃhitā: A Preface to the Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra: On Non-Tantric Śaivism at the Dawn of the Mantramārga, Critical Edition, with Introduction & Annotated Translation and an Appendix Containing Śivadharmasaṅgraha 5-9, Pondichéry, IFP/EFEO.

    Mirnig, N. (2020), “Adapting Śaiva Tantric Initiation for Exoteric Circles: Lokadharmiṇī Dīkṣā and its History in Early Medieval Sources” in D. Goodall, S. Hatley, H. Isaacson, S. Raman, eds., Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions, Essays in Honour of Alexis G.J.S. Sanderson, Leiden/Boston, Brill, pp. 249-82.

    Olivelle, P. (2003), The Renouncer Tradition in G. Flood, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 271-287.

    Sanderson, A. (2009), “The Śaiva Age” in S. Einoo, ed., Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, pp. 41-349.

    Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, vol. III (2013), D. Goodall, M. Rastelli, eds., Wien, Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Notes de bas de page

    1It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the definition of dharma in general. Nevertheless, by examining the laukika-śaiva opposition, it is to be hoped that some more light will be shed on what constitutes dharma.

    2See e.g. in the commentary on 3.12, in which the passers-by who misunderstand the pāśupata’s acts are called laukika.

    3āgamo nāma ā maheśvarād gurupāramparyāgataṃ śāstram | āgamo ’laukikādivyavahārahetur ācakṣitaḥ smṛtaḥ.

    4For some important publications on this subject, see works by Alexis Sanderson, Florinda De Simini, Nina Mirnig, Peter Bischop and Nirajan Kafle.

    5The “Śivadharma” project under Florinda De Simini’s supervision, based at the university “L’Orientale” in Naples, Italy.

    6laukikaṃ vārttā-daṇḍanīty-āyurveda-dhanurveda-nāṭyavedādi-pratipādya-kṛṣi-nayānaya-cikitsādi-vijñānam 11.44.

    7Svacchandatantra 11.43cd-45ab: laukikaṃ devi vijñānaṃ sadyojātād vinirgatam || vaidikaṃ vāmadevāt tu ādhyātmikam aghorataḥ | puruṣāc cātimārgākhyaṃ nirgataṃ tu varānane || mantrākhyaṃ tu mahājñānam īśānāt tu vinirgatam.

    8paścimenaiva vaktreṇa laukikaṃ gaditaṃ sadā, 3.196cd. The question of laukikadharma in this text is discussed in detail in part 5.

    9Tad evam eka eva ayam īśvarapraṇīta āgamaḥ, yatra idaṃ laukika-śāstrāt prabhṛti sarvaṃ viśrāntam—ity āha: “eka evāgamas tasmāt tatra laukika-śāstrataḥ | prabhṛty āvaiṣṇavād bauddhāc chaivāt sarvaṃ hi niṣṭhitam.”

    10śrutis tu vedo vijñeyo dharmaśāstraṃ tu vai smṛtiḥ | te sarvārtheṣv amīmāṃsye tābhyāṃ dharmo hi nirbabhau || yo ’vamanyeta te mūle hetuśāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ | sa sādhubhir bahiṣkāryo nāstiko vedanindakaḥ.

    11adharmādyeṣu yāni syus tāni te kathayāmy aham| hetuśāstraṃ ca yalloke nityānityaviḍambakam || vādajalpavitaṇḍābhiḥ vivadante hy aniścitāḥ | hetuniṣṭhāni vākyāni vastuśūnyāni suvrate || jñānayogavihīnāni devatārahitāni tu | dharmārthakāmamokṣeṣu niścayo naiva jāyate || ajñānena nibaddhāni tv adharmeṇa nimittataḥ | nirayaṃ te pragacchanti ye tatrābhiratā narāḥ.

    12svasiddhāntāvirodhena yas tarkeṇa vicārayet / dharmajñānāpavargārthaṃ sa tatvaṃ vetti netaraḥ /pūrvottarāvirodhena ko ’trārtho ’bhimato bhavet / ityādyam ūhanaṃ tarkaḥ śuṣkatarkān vivarjayet // tasmād āgamayuktyaiva sūkṣmārthapravicāraṇam / kartavyaṃ nānumānena kevalena vipaścitā. Draft edition by Dominic Goodall.

    13For more details, see Goodall et al. 2005.

    14dharmeṇaikena deveśi baddhaṃ jñānaṃ hi laukikam || dharmajñānanibaddhaṃ tu pāñcarātraṃ ca vaidikam | bauddham ārahataṃ caiva vairāgyeṇaiva suvrate || jñānavairāgyasambaddhaṃ sāṃkhyajñānaṃ hi pārvati | jñānaṃ vairāgyam aiśvaryaṃ yogajñānapratiṣṭhitam.

    15evaṃ laukikādīni yogāntāni śāstrāṇi dharmādirūpabuddhidharmaniṣṭhāni taduttaraṃ tu pārameśvaram. “atītaṃ buddhibhāvānām atimārgaṃ prakīrtitam / lokātītaṃ tu tajjñānam atimārgam iti smṛtam” Kṣemarāja ad Svacchandatantra 11.181.

    1611.185cd-186ab: laukikānāṃ punaḥ sṛṣṭiḥ punaḥ saṃhāra eva ca || saṃsāracakram ārūḍhā bhramanti ghaṭayantravat.

    1711.186cd-187: dharmādyarakasaṃyuktam aṣṭāraṃ cakrakaṃ priye || īśvarādhiṣṭhitaṃ devi niyatyādaṇḍakāhatam | malakarmakalāviddhaṃ bhramate kālavegataḥ.

    1811.183-5ab: lokāś ca paśavaḥ proktāḥ sṛṣṭisaṃhāravartmani | teṣām atītās te jñeyā ye ’timārge vyavasthitāḥ || kapālavratino ye ca tathā pāśupatāś ca ye | sṛṣṭir na vidyate teṣāṃ īśvare ca dhruve sthitāḥ || yasmān mokṣaṃ gamiṣyanti apunarbhavakāraṇam |

    19ye ca varṇāśramācārāḥ prāyaścittāś ca laukikāḥ | sambandhān deśadharmāṃś ca prasiddhān na vicārayet ||garbhādhānāditaḥ kṛtvā yāvad udvāham eva tu | tāvat tu vaidikaṃ karma paścāc chaive hy ananyabhāk || na mukhyavṛttyā vai skanda lokadharmān samācaret | nānyaśāstrasamuddiṣṭaṃ na cānyāṃ devatāṃ smaret || viśuddhabhāvanāyuktaḥ śivaikagatamānasaḥ | viśuddham āpnuyāt sthānam acintyaṃ sarvagaṃ dhruvam || (Sarvajñānottara 14.23-26)

    20antaḥ kaulo bahiḥ śaivo lokācāre tu vaidikaḥ | sāram ādāya tiṣṭheta nārikelaphalaṃ yathā.

    21This development has been amply analyzed. For an overview, see, for instance, Olivelle 2003: 271-287.

    22Although the compound jñānayoga could be understood as a Dvandva, it is likely to be a Tatpuruṣa and to denote a meditative practice of śaiva knowledge, as it seems to be the case in the texts of the Śivadharma corpus.

    23This prescription is not entirely clear. Perhaps it implies that one should use pure substances with the non-esoteric śaiva mantras. The last injunction (understanding tyajaṃ for tyajan) is also odd: why and in what way does the householder need to avoid contact with his son and others (and who are the others)?

    24ārādhakaḥ samākhyāto vṛttatas tu -r- ato ’cyate | grāmāśrayī gṛhastho yaḥ kintu dhyānādisaṃyamaḥ | puṣpādibhis tu yajane laukikatvam (laukikatvam corr., laukikatvām MS) samāśritaḥ (samāśritaḥ em., mahāśṛtaḥ MS) | gupte gṛhe sapatnīko vratavidyāsamanvitaḥ | bhāvayan paramā[ṃ] kāṣṭhā[ṃ] tṛṣaṣṭhi[vra]talakṣaṇaḥ | muktaliṅgo (muktaliṅgo em. Hatley, muktaliṅgā MS) vivṛttis tu gṛhavṛttasamāśrayaḥ | dvaitadravyakriyāyuktaḥ kevalaṃ jñānayogakṛt | svamantrajātirūpāṇi dravyāṇ+i+ viniyojayet | tyajan (tyajan corr., tyajaṃ MS) saṅkarasaṃparkka[ṃ] putrādibhi[ḥ] parais saha. Brahmayāmala (92.5cd-9)

    25gṛhiṇo lokamārgasthā laṅghayeyur na laukikam | ācāraṃ dīkṣitās tasmāt kurvīran lokasaṃvṛtteḥ.

    26The word śreyas is probably used in two meanings: “better” and “final beatitude.”

    27ādhyātmikena duḥkhena vātapittakaphādinā || virāgaḥ pīḍyamānasya sahasā yo ’bhijāyate | sa tena vanam āśritya vāyubhuṅ niyatendriyaḥ || tuṣṭo ’sau laukikaṃ tyaktvā tuṣṭir ādhyātmikī hi sā | taskarair balibhiś caiva rājñā vātha balīyasā || pīḍyamānasya yad duḥkhaṃ viraktas tena laukikāt | prapañcāt so ’py athaivaṃ syāt kim anena balīyasā || bhogena paratantreṇa śreyo ’sty anyat suśobhanam | evaṃ saṃcintya virato gṛhadharmāt parāṅmukhaḥ || tuṣṭiś caivābhibhūtasya bhāvitasyādhibhautikī | divyair grahādibhir bhūtair abhibhūtasya tatkṣaṇāt || yas tāpo bhāvitasyaiva tena tasmād virajyate | bandhubhir vāryamāṇo ’pi gṛhaṃ tyaktvā vanaṃ vrajet || sukham asmāt paraṃ nāsti manyamānaḥ subhāvitaḥ | saṃtoṣān na paraṃ loke sukham anyat pradṛśyate || evaṃ saṃcintya manasā bhūyo bhūyaḥ prahṛṣyati | tuṣṭiḥ soktā viraktasya nāmnā caivādhidaivikī.

    28It is unclear to me what this expression means exactly here. Perhaps a mantroccāra, so we can understand “breath control with Śiva’s mantra(s).”

    29abhiṣekaṃ ca tair eva prāṇāyāmān śivena tu | kṛtvācamya purā brāhmīṃ bhajet sandhyāṃ dvir āśramī || itaras tu virāgātmā laukikārthaparāṅmukhaḥ | kuryād brāhmīṃ na vā kuryāt śaivīm eva niyogataḥ.

    30brahmacāri-gṛhastha-vānaprastha-parivrājakākhyāśrama-catuṣṭayād (catuṣṭayād em. Goodall, catuṣṭayādi ed.) anyatamasminn āśrame vartamānaḥ śrautakriyākramam anāgarhyānujñātaḥ parameśvara-kriyānuṣṭhāna-paraś ca, dvir iti dvau vārau tām anutiṣṭhet | veda-siddha-sūkṣmānuṣṭhānād anantaraṃ śaivīṃ sandhyāṃ vandetety arthaḥ | kvacit tu gṛhastha-vyatiriktasya putrakādeḥ śaiva-sandhyaivānuṣṭheyā | śrautasandhyānuṣṭhāne tu kāma-cāraḥ.

    31Similarly, the Mṛgendratantra (kriyāpāda 8.217) commands the guru to perform all laukika ritual that is not against śaiva prescriptions: Every day, he must not omit any duties, even if they concern a small fire oblation, recitation or worship. He must proceed with [all] worldly [ritual] that does not go against his own [Śaiva] scriptures (svalpahomajapejyābhir aluptaniyamo ’nvaham | vartethā laukikenāpi svāgamād avirodhinā).

    32laukikaṃ sampravakṣyāmi yena svargam vrajanti te | kūpavāpīgṛhodyāna [——] tha maṇḍapāḥ | dānatīrthopavāsāni vratāni niyamāni ca || bhakṣābhakṣaparīhārañ japahoman tathārcanam | jalāgnibhṛgupāto hi tathānaśanam eva ca || vidyamānanivṛttiś ca guruvṛddhābhipūjanam | laukikaṃ kathitaṃ hy etad vaidikañ cāturāśramam. The translation follows Kafle 2020: 223, with some minor modifications.

    33For an overview of the relation of the smārta and śaiva installation rites of wells and the like, see Sanderson 2009: 282-284.

    34evaṃ yaḥ pūjayed ajñaḥ śivadīkṣāvivarjitaḥ || tasyedaṃ phalam uddiṣṭam apavargāya dīkṣite (1.169cdef).

    35This term is not easy to interpret, and I have followed Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha who glosses it with ādhyātmika once (which often means Sāmkhya and Yoga), and then, more enigmatically, as “producing true outside actions with respect to faithfulness” (śraddhātmikatve satyabāhyakriyājanyatvena).

    36Lokāmnāyātimārgābhisandhiśaivātmakāṇy aṇoḥ | karmāṇi kṣetrikādīśagaṇakāṅgāntakāni tu. 8.78.

    37ācāro dvividhaḥ śāstre caratāṃ bhāvitātmanām | dṛṣṭādṛṣṭaphalaprāptir amogho sampravartate || laukikaḥ suprasiddho ’yam avirodhanidarśanāt | pālyo naiḥśreyase caiva saṃvṛttāv apy aninditaiḥ || śaivo ’nyo ’py atra boddhavyaḥ prayatnāt sādhakātmabhiḥ | muktaye siddhaye caiva kāraṇājñānuvartibhiḥ || yasmin yasmin yathopātto deśe svāmnāyadarśanāt | tasmiṃs tasmin prakartavyo hy ācāraḥ prayatātmabhiḥ || na ca vaiśeṣikācāre laukiko ’ṅgatvam āpnuyāt | tathāpi pālanīyo ’sau yasmād doṣo na pālite.

    38I am grateful to Csaba Kiss for clarifying the meaning of this sentence.

    39niyogo ’sty atra varṇānāṃ vacanāt parameṣṭhinaḥ || samayī dīkṣitaś caiva sādhako ’nyo gurus tathā | caturdhā saṃsthitā varṇāḥ svaniyogavaśānugāḥ || niyogaś ca vibhor ājñā pālyā cāsmin prayatnataḥ | yathā lokasthito ’nyatra svācāro ’bhimataḥ sadā || tathātrāpi munivyāghra svācāraḥ parikīrtitaḥ | jātibhedavyavastheyaṃ laukikī parikīrtitā.

    40Many other, similar examples could be cited, such as the distinction between two types of yogins: “mundane” practitioners of yoga and śaiva initiates practising yoga. This is a surprising use of the term laukika, for a yoga practitioner would rarely be thought of as “mundane” or “lay”. However, it is clearly used in this sense by Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka 28.301), whose usage is explained by his commentator, Jayaratha: the worldly yogin is the one who remains in the classical tradition of Patañjali’s system (laukikā iti pātañjalādiniṣṭhāḥ), while the others are śaiva tantric yogins who have received initiation (dīkṣitāḥ). Incidentally, this categorization raises the question whether the Dharmaputrikā is not meant to provide a yoga teaching that is neither completely non-śaiva like Patañjali’s classical yoga, nor reserved only for Śaiva initiates.

    41The constitution of the text is uncertain here and the meaning seems somewhat unusual, for it is odd why a group of four should be mentioned.

    42The compound probably includes a list of objects that should not be fashioned of human bones. Some of them are made of skull or bones by definition. So the point is that no object should be used that is made of human bones or skulls, whether they are necessarily made of those (such as a skull-staff) or optionally (for instance, a rosary). Nevertheless, it is unclear how the first two words of the compound, which seem to be corrupt, should be emended.

    43svadiśā dravya-m-ākāravarṇṇajātiguṇādibhiḥ | pūjanaṃ (emend to pūjane?) siddhim āpnoti lokiko [’]pi gaṇāmbike | yasmād vikalpito (for vikalpato?) baddho bhavate dvaitadarśane | mokṣo vikalpahīnānāṃ [bho]gam vā suprajāyate | tathāpi śaktipātecchā svabhāvasyānusārataḥ | lokācāreṇa vṛttena phalam proktaṃ mayānaghe | duṣkaraḥ duṅkhadaṃ (for duḥkhadaṃ) devi vikalpātmaprasādhanaṃ (for prasādhitam?) | tathāpi svānusāreṇa tad evācarate kvacit | namontādhika pūjāyā[ṃ] na home [śvāha]yādhikaṃ (for svāhayādhikam) | karttavyārādhanan devi caturbhy [= caturbhiḥ] ārādhakaiḥ kvacit | khetrālabhanakhaṭvāṅgamahāsaṅkhārghapāttrakaṃ | a+kṣa+sūttraṃ tathā tūraṃ na karttavyaṃ nṛśaṅkhajaṃ | na dhūpa phalguṣopetaṃ nārghaṃ vāmāmṛtādikaṃ | nāsau dakṣamukhaḥ kuryāj japahomārccanaṅ kvacit | kintu guptas tu sarvvatra guhyakābhāvatatparaḥ | kuryāc cārādhane vṛttaṃ laukikaṃ śaṅkayā saha | liṅgaṃ vā sthaṇḍilaṃ raupyaṃ rugmañ candanadārujaṃ || paṭaṃ cārādhane kuryāt pūjāpātran tu laukike | samayām pālayet sarvvāṅ khānapānavisarjitāṃ | vāmācāragatitvan tu kin tu lokānuvarttanaṃ.

    44kaulikācāramārgeṇa bhāvādvaitena sarvathā | tattvādvaitena mārgeṇa sarvathā yatra saṃsthitaḥ || pālayel laukikācāram advaitaṃ samanuṣṭhayet | gopayed guptaliṅgāni tatpraviṣṭāni sarvathā.

    45Ekānte ’pihitaṃ sarvaṃ kurvīta na janākule | anyathā sthitibhaṅgaḥ syān naśyate śāsanaṃ priye 10.145. The edition reads vihitam for ’pihitam, the latter is my conjecture.

    46A very similar idea is expressed in the passage quoted above, at the end of part 2, from the Tantrālokaviveka. There, however, one’s ritual identity is triple (vaidika, śaiva and kaula), while here the contrast is between laukika and kaula, which makes the boundaries different.

    47“This teaching should not be revealed, it should not be given to those who stick to lay conduct and/or to those who are against mantras, sacred sites or the guru” laukikācārasaktānāṃ mantrapīṭhagurudviṣām | na prakāśyam idaṃ śāstraṃ na deyo ’yaṃ mahāpriye || 4.125 (The Muktabodha etext has: laukikācāraśaktānāṃ mantrapīṭhagurudhviṣām | na prakāśyamidaṃ śāstraṃ na deyoyaṃ mahāpriye.)

    48caruḥ sādhyo ’thavā śiṣyair homena samakālakaḥ | carau ca vīradravyāṇi laukikāny athavecchayā. 15.437.

    49This term sāra itself is ambiguous and I understand it to refer to the five bodily “nectars” or pañcāmṛta (the sexual fluids, blood, urine etc., for a discussion see Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III).

    Auteur

    • Judit Törzsök

      Directrice d’études à l’École pratique des hautes études PSL, Section des sciences religieuses, occupant la chaire « Religions de l’Inde : études shivaïtes », ses recherches se concentrent sur le culte de déesses et de yogini ainsi que sur le shivaïsme puranique. Elle a contribué au projets internationaux Early Tantra et Skandapurāṇa et participe actuellement aux projets du dictionnaire tantrique (Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, Vienne) et du Śivadharma (Naples). Elle travaille également sur la poésie classique d’inspiration shivaïte.

      Publications

      – 2008 ed. & transl., Murāri: Rāma Beyond Price (Clay Sanskrit Library), New York, New York University Press.
      – 2014 Śaiva Philosophy, volume collectif consacré à la philosophie shivaïte, direction du volume et introduction en collaboration avec L. Bansat-Boudon, Numéro spécial du Journal of Indian Philosophy 2014 (1).

      torzsokjudit[at]hotmail.com

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Rites hindous

    Rites hindous

    Transferts et transformations

    Gérard Colas et Gilles Tarabout (dir.)

    2006

    L’espace du temple I

    L’espace du temple I

    Espaces, itinéraires, médiations

    Jean-Claude Galey (dir.)

    1985

    L’espace du temple II

    L’espace du temple II

    Les sanctuaires dans le royaume

    Jean-Claude Galey (dir.)

    1986

    La dette

    La dette

    Charles Malamoud (dir.)

    1980

    Divins remèdes

    Divins remèdes

    Médecine et religion en Asie du Sud

    Ines G. Županov et Caterina Guenzi (dir.)

    2009

    Circulation et territoire dans le monde indien contemporain

    Circulation et territoire dans le monde indien contemporain

    Véronique Dupont et Frédéric Landy (dir.)

    2010

    Construire les savoirs dans l’action

    Construire les savoirs dans l’action

    Apprentissages et enjeux sociaux en Asie du Sud

    Marie-Claude Mahias (dir.)

    2011

    Politique et religions en Asie du Sud

    Politique et religions en Asie du Sud

    Le sécularisme dans tous ses états ?

    Christophe Jaffrelot et Aminah Mohammad-Arif (dir.)

    2012

    L’Inde des Lumières

    L’Inde des Lumières

    Discours, histoire, savoirs (XVIIe-XIXe siècle)

    Marie Fourcade et Ines G. Županov (dir.)

    2013

    Indianité et créolité à l’île Maurice

    Indianité et créolité à l’île Maurice

    Catherine Servan-Schreiber (dir.)

    2014

    Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud

    Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud

    Sources, itinéraires, langues (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle)

    Corinne Lefèvre, Ines G. Županov et Jorge Flores (dir.)

    2015

    L’Inde et l’Italie

    L’Inde et l’Italie

    Rencontres intellectuelles, politiques et artistiques

    Tiziana Leucci, Claude Markovits et Marie Fourcade (dir.)

    2018

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Rites hindous

    Rites hindous

    Transferts et transformations

    Gérard Colas et Gilles Tarabout (dir.)

    2006

    L’espace du temple I

    L’espace du temple I

    Espaces, itinéraires, médiations

    Jean-Claude Galey (dir.)

    1985

    L’espace du temple II

    L’espace du temple II

    Les sanctuaires dans le royaume

    Jean-Claude Galey (dir.)

    1986

    La dette

    La dette

    Charles Malamoud (dir.)

    1980

    Divins remèdes

    Divins remèdes

    Médecine et religion en Asie du Sud

    Ines G. Županov et Caterina Guenzi (dir.)

    2009

    Circulation et territoire dans le monde indien contemporain

    Circulation et territoire dans le monde indien contemporain

    Véronique Dupont et Frédéric Landy (dir.)

    2010

    Construire les savoirs dans l’action

    Construire les savoirs dans l’action

    Apprentissages et enjeux sociaux en Asie du Sud

    Marie-Claude Mahias (dir.)

    2011

    Politique et religions en Asie du Sud

    Politique et religions en Asie du Sud

    Le sécularisme dans tous ses états ?

    Christophe Jaffrelot et Aminah Mohammad-Arif (dir.)

    2012

    L’Inde des Lumières

    L’Inde des Lumières

    Discours, histoire, savoirs (XVIIe-XIXe siècle)

    Marie Fourcade et Ines G. Županov (dir.)

    2013

    Indianité et créolité à l’île Maurice

    Indianité et créolité à l’île Maurice

    Catherine Servan-Schreiber (dir.)

    2014

    Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud

    Cosmopolitismes en Asie du Sud

    Sources, itinéraires, langues (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle)

    Corinne Lefèvre, Ines G. Županov et Jorge Flores (dir.)

    2015

    L’Inde et l’Italie

    L’Inde et l’Italie

    Rencontres intellectuelles, politiques et artistiques

    Tiziana Leucci, Claude Markovits et Marie Fourcade (dir.)

    2018

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    • lcdpu.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the definition of dharma in general. Nevertheless, by examining the laukika-śaiva opposition, it is to be hoped that some more light will be shed on what constitutes dharma.

    2See e.g. in the commentary on 3.12, in which the passers-by who misunderstand the pāśupata’s acts are called laukika.

    3āgamo nāma ā maheśvarād gurupāramparyāgataṃ śāstram | āgamo ’laukikādivyavahārahetur ācakṣitaḥ smṛtaḥ.

    4For some important publications on this subject, see works by Alexis Sanderson, Florinda De Simini, Nina Mirnig, Peter Bischop and Nirajan Kafle.

    5The “Śivadharma” project under Florinda De Simini’s supervision, based at the university “L’Orientale” in Naples, Italy.

    6laukikaṃ vārttā-daṇḍanīty-āyurveda-dhanurveda-nāṭyavedādi-pratipādya-kṛṣi-nayānaya-cikitsādi-vijñānam 11.44.

    7Svacchandatantra 11.43cd-45ab: laukikaṃ devi vijñānaṃ sadyojātād vinirgatam || vaidikaṃ vāmadevāt tu ādhyātmikam aghorataḥ | puruṣāc cātimārgākhyaṃ nirgataṃ tu varānane || mantrākhyaṃ tu mahājñānam īśānāt tu vinirgatam.

    8paścimenaiva vaktreṇa laukikaṃ gaditaṃ sadā, 3.196cd. The question of laukikadharma in this text is discussed in detail in part 5.

    9Tad evam eka eva ayam īśvarapraṇīta āgamaḥ, yatra idaṃ laukika-śāstrāt prabhṛti sarvaṃ viśrāntam—ity āha: “eka evāgamas tasmāt tatra laukika-śāstrataḥ | prabhṛty āvaiṣṇavād bauddhāc chaivāt sarvaṃ hi niṣṭhitam.”

    10śrutis tu vedo vijñeyo dharmaśāstraṃ tu vai smṛtiḥ | te sarvārtheṣv amīmāṃsye tābhyāṃ dharmo hi nirbabhau || yo ’vamanyeta te mūle hetuśāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ | sa sādhubhir bahiṣkāryo nāstiko vedanindakaḥ.

    11adharmādyeṣu yāni syus tāni te kathayāmy aham| hetuśāstraṃ ca yalloke nityānityaviḍambakam || vādajalpavitaṇḍābhiḥ vivadante hy aniścitāḥ | hetuniṣṭhāni vākyāni vastuśūnyāni suvrate || jñānayogavihīnāni devatārahitāni tu | dharmārthakāmamokṣeṣu niścayo naiva jāyate || ajñānena nibaddhāni tv adharmeṇa nimittataḥ | nirayaṃ te pragacchanti ye tatrābhiratā narāḥ.

    12svasiddhāntāvirodhena yas tarkeṇa vicārayet / dharmajñānāpavargārthaṃ sa tatvaṃ vetti netaraḥ /pūrvottarāvirodhena ko ’trārtho ’bhimato bhavet / ityādyam ūhanaṃ tarkaḥ śuṣkatarkān vivarjayet // tasmād āgamayuktyaiva sūkṣmārthapravicāraṇam / kartavyaṃ nānumānena kevalena vipaścitā. Draft edition by Dominic Goodall.

    13For more details, see Goodall et al. 2005.

    14dharmeṇaikena deveśi baddhaṃ jñānaṃ hi laukikam || dharmajñānanibaddhaṃ tu pāñcarātraṃ ca vaidikam | bauddham ārahataṃ caiva vairāgyeṇaiva suvrate || jñānavairāgyasambaddhaṃ sāṃkhyajñānaṃ hi pārvati | jñānaṃ vairāgyam aiśvaryaṃ yogajñānapratiṣṭhitam.

    15evaṃ laukikādīni yogāntāni śāstrāṇi dharmādirūpabuddhidharmaniṣṭhāni taduttaraṃ tu pārameśvaram. “atītaṃ buddhibhāvānām atimārgaṃ prakīrtitam / lokātītaṃ tu tajjñānam atimārgam iti smṛtam” Kṣemarāja ad Svacchandatantra 11.181.

    1611.185cd-186ab: laukikānāṃ punaḥ sṛṣṭiḥ punaḥ saṃhāra eva ca || saṃsāracakram ārūḍhā bhramanti ghaṭayantravat.

    1711.186cd-187: dharmādyarakasaṃyuktam aṣṭāraṃ cakrakaṃ priye || īśvarādhiṣṭhitaṃ devi niyatyādaṇḍakāhatam | malakarmakalāviddhaṃ bhramate kālavegataḥ.

    1811.183-5ab: lokāś ca paśavaḥ proktāḥ sṛṣṭisaṃhāravartmani | teṣām atītās te jñeyā ye ’timārge vyavasthitāḥ || kapālavratino ye ca tathā pāśupatāś ca ye | sṛṣṭir na vidyate teṣāṃ īśvare ca dhruve sthitāḥ || yasmān mokṣaṃ gamiṣyanti apunarbhavakāraṇam |

    19ye ca varṇāśramācārāḥ prāyaścittāś ca laukikāḥ | sambandhān deśadharmāṃś ca prasiddhān na vicārayet ||garbhādhānāditaḥ kṛtvā yāvad udvāham eva tu | tāvat tu vaidikaṃ karma paścāc chaive hy ananyabhāk || na mukhyavṛttyā vai skanda lokadharmān samācaret | nānyaśāstrasamuddiṣṭaṃ na cānyāṃ devatāṃ smaret || viśuddhabhāvanāyuktaḥ śivaikagatamānasaḥ | viśuddham āpnuyāt sthānam acintyaṃ sarvagaṃ dhruvam || (Sarvajñānottara 14.23-26)

    20antaḥ kaulo bahiḥ śaivo lokācāre tu vaidikaḥ | sāram ādāya tiṣṭheta nārikelaphalaṃ yathā.

    21This development has been amply analyzed. For an overview, see, for instance, Olivelle 2003: 271-287.

    22Although the compound jñānayoga could be understood as a Dvandva, it is likely to be a Tatpuruṣa and to denote a meditative practice of śaiva knowledge, as it seems to be the case in the texts of the Śivadharma corpus.

    23This prescription is not entirely clear. Perhaps it implies that one should use pure substances with the non-esoteric śaiva mantras. The last injunction (understanding tyajaṃ for tyajan) is also odd: why and in what way does the householder need to avoid contact with his son and others (and who are the others)?

    24ārādhakaḥ samākhyāto vṛttatas tu -r- ato ’cyate | grāmāśrayī gṛhastho yaḥ kintu dhyānādisaṃyamaḥ | puṣpādibhis tu yajane laukikatvam (laukikatvam corr., laukikatvām MS) samāśritaḥ (samāśritaḥ em., mahāśṛtaḥ MS) | gupte gṛhe sapatnīko vratavidyāsamanvitaḥ | bhāvayan paramā[ṃ] kāṣṭhā[ṃ] tṛṣaṣṭhi[vra]talakṣaṇaḥ | muktaliṅgo (muktaliṅgo em. Hatley, muktaliṅgā MS) vivṛttis tu gṛhavṛttasamāśrayaḥ | dvaitadravyakriyāyuktaḥ kevalaṃ jñānayogakṛt | svamantrajātirūpāṇi dravyāṇ+i+ viniyojayet | tyajan (tyajan corr., tyajaṃ MS) saṅkarasaṃparkka[ṃ] putrādibhi[ḥ] parais saha. Brahmayāmala (92.5cd-9)

    25gṛhiṇo lokamārgasthā laṅghayeyur na laukikam | ācāraṃ dīkṣitās tasmāt kurvīran lokasaṃvṛtteḥ.

    26The word śreyas is probably used in two meanings: “better” and “final beatitude.”

    27ādhyātmikena duḥkhena vātapittakaphādinā || virāgaḥ pīḍyamānasya sahasā yo ’bhijāyate | sa tena vanam āśritya vāyubhuṅ niyatendriyaḥ || tuṣṭo ’sau laukikaṃ tyaktvā tuṣṭir ādhyātmikī hi sā | taskarair balibhiś caiva rājñā vātha balīyasā || pīḍyamānasya yad duḥkhaṃ viraktas tena laukikāt | prapañcāt so ’py athaivaṃ syāt kim anena balīyasā || bhogena paratantreṇa śreyo ’sty anyat suśobhanam | evaṃ saṃcintya virato gṛhadharmāt parāṅmukhaḥ || tuṣṭiś caivābhibhūtasya bhāvitasyādhibhautikī | divyair grahādibhir bhūtair abhibhūtasya tatkṣaṇāt || yas tāpo bhāvitasyaiva tena tasmād virajyate | bandhubhir vāryamāṇo ’pi gṛhaṃ tyaktvā vanaṃ vrajet || sukham asmāt paraṃ nāsti manyamānaḥ subhāvitaḥ | saṃtoṣān na paraṃ loke sukham anyat pradṛśyate || evaṃ saṃcintya manasā bhūyo bhūyaḥ prahṛṣyati | tuṣṭiḥ soktā viraktasya nāmnā caivādhidaivikī.

    28It is unclear to me what this expression means exactly here. Perhaps a mantroccāra, so we can understand “breath control with Śiva’s mantra(s).”

    29abhiṣekaṃ ca tair eva prāṇāyāmān śivena tu | kṛtvācamya purā brāhmīṃ bhajet sandhyāṃ dvir āśramī || itaras tu virāgātmā laukikārthaparāṅmukhaḥ | kuryād brāhmīṃ na vā kuryāt śaivīm eva niyogataḥ.

    30brahmacāri-gṛhastha-vānaprastha-parivrājakākhyāśrama-catuṣṭayād (catuṣṭayād em. Goodall, catuṣṭayādi ed.) anyatamasminn āśrame vartamānaḥ śrautakriyākramam anāgarhyānujñātaḥ parameśvara-kriyānuṣṭhāna-paraś ca, dvir iti dvau vārau tām anutiṣṭhet | veda-siddha-sūkṣmānuṣṭhānād anantaraṃ śaivīṃ sandhyāṃ vandetety arthaḥ | kvacit tu gṛhastha-vyatiriktasya putrakādeḥ śaiva-sandhyaivānuṣṭheyā | śrautasandhyānuṣṭhāne tu kāma-cāraḥ.

    31Similarly, the Mṛgendratantra (kriyāpāda 8.217) commands the guru to perform all laukika ritual that is not against śaiva prescriptions: Every day, he must not omit any duties, even if they concern a small fire oblation, recitation or worship. He must proceed with [all] worldly [ritual] that does not go against his own [Śaiva] scriptures (svalpahomajapejyābhir aluptaniyamo ’nvaham | vartethā laukikenāpi svāgamād avirodhinā).

    32laukikaṃ sampravakṣyāmi yena svargam vrajanti te | kūpavāpīgṛhodyāna [——] tha maṇḍapāḥ | dānatīrthopavāsāni vratāni niyamāni ca || bhakṣābhakṣaparīhārañ japahoman tathārcanam | jalāgnibhṛgupāto hi tathānaśanam eva ca || vidyamānanivṛttiś ca guruvṛddhābhipūjanam | laukikaṃ kathitaṃ hy etad vaidikañ cāturāśramam. The translation follows Kafle 2020: 223, with some minor modifications.

    33For an overview of the relation of the smārta and śaiva installation rites of wells and the like, see Sanderson 2009: 282-284.

    34evaṃ yaḥ pūjayed ajñaḥ śivadīkṣāvivarjitaḥ || tasyedaṃ phalam uddiṣṭam apavargāya dīkṣite (1.169cdef).

    35This term is not easy to interpret, and I have followed Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha who glosses it with ādhyātmika once (which often means Sāmkhya and Yoga), and then, more enigmatically, as “producing true outside actions with respect to faithfulness” (śraddhātmikatve satyabāhyakriyājanyatvena).

    36Lokāmnāyātimārgābhisandhiśaivātmakāṇy aṇoḥ | karmāṇi kṣetrikādīśagaṇakāṅgāntakāni tu. 8.78.

    37ācāro dvividhaḥ śāstre caratāṃ bhāvitātmanām | dṛṣṭādṛṣṭaphalaprāptir amogho sampravartate || laukikaḥ suprasiddho ’yam avirodhanidarśanāt | pālyo naiḥśreyase caiva saṃvṛttāv apy aninditaiḥ || śaivo ’nyo ’py atra boddhavyaḥ prayatnāt sādhakātmabhiḥ | muktaye siddhaye caiva kāraṇājñānuvartibhiḥ || yasmin yasmin yathopātto deśe svāmnāyadarśanāt | tasmiṃs tasmin prakartavyo hy ācāraḥ prayatātmabhiḥ || na ca vaiśeṣikācāre laukiko ’ṅgatvam āpnuyāt | tathāpi pālanīyo ’sau yasmād doṣo na pālite.

    38I am grateful to Csaba Kiss for clarifying the meaning of this sentence.

    39niyogo ’sty atra varṇānāṃ vacanāt parameṣṭhinaḥ || samayī dīkṣitaś caiva sādhako ’nyo gurus tathā | caturdhā saṃsthitā varṇāḥ svaniyogavaśānugāḥ || niyogaś ca vibhor ājñā pālyā cāsmin prayatnataḥ | yathā lokasthito ’nyatra svācāro ’bhimataḥ sadā || tathātrāpi munivyāghra svācāraḥ parikīrtitaḥ | jātibhedavyavastheyaṃ laukikī parikīrtitā.

    40Many other, similar examples could be cited, such as the distinction between two types of yogins: “mundane” practitioners of yoga and śaiva initiates practising yoga. This is a surprising use of the term laukika, for a yoga practitioner would rarely be thought of as “mundane” or “lay”. However, it is clearly used in this sense by Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka 28.301), whose usage is explained by his commentator, Jayaratha: the worldly yogin is the one who remains in the classical tradition of Patañjali’s system (laukikā iti pātañjalādiniṣṭhāḥ), while the others are śaiva tantric yogins who have received initiation (dīkṣitāḥ). Incidentally, this categorization raises the question whether the Dharmaputrikā is not meant to provide a yoga teaching that is neither completely non-śaiva like Patañjali’s classical yoga, nor reserved only for Śaiva initiates.

    41The constitution of the text is uncertain here and the meaning seems somewhat unusual, for it is odd why a group of four should be mentioned.

    42The compound probably includes a list of objects that should not be fashioned of human bones. Some of them are made of skull or bones by definition. So the point is that no object should be used that is made of human bones or skulls, whether they are necessarily made of those (such as a skull-staff) or optionally (for instance, a rosary). Nevertheless, it is unclear how the first two words of the compound, which seem to be corrupt, should be emended.

    43svadiśā dravya-m-ākāravarṇṇajātiguṇādibhiḥ | pūjanaṃ (emend to pūjane?) siddhim āpnoti lokiko [’]pi gaṇāmbike | yasmād vikalpito (for vikalpato?) baddho bhavate dvaitadarśane | mokṣo vikalpahīnānāṃ [bho]gam vā suprajāyate | tathāpi śaktipātecchā svabhāvasyānusārataḥ | lokācāreṇa vṛttena phalam proktaṃ mayānaghe | duṣkaraḥ duṅkhadaṃ (for duḥkhadaṃ) devi vikalpātmaprasādhanaṃ (for prasādhitam?) | tathāpi svānusāreṇa tad evācarate kvacit | namontādhika pūjāyā[ṃ] na home [śvāha]yādhikaṃ (for svāhayādhikam) | karttavyārādhanan devi caturbhy [= caturbhiḥ] ārādhakaiḥ kvacit | khetrālabhanakhaṭvāṅgamahāsaṅkhārghapāttrakaṃ | a+kṣa+sūttraṃ tathā tūraṃ na karttavyaṃ nṛśaṅkhajaṃ | na dhūpa phalguṣopetaṃ nārghaṃ vāmāmṛtādikaṃ | nāsau dakṣamukhaḥ kuryāj japahomārccanaṅ kvacit | kintu guptas tu sarvvatra guhyakābhāvatatparaḥ | kuryāc cārādhane vṛttaṃ laukikaṃ śaṅkayā saha | liṅgaṃ vā sthaṇḍilaṃ raupyaṃ rugmañ candanadārujaṃ || paṭaṃ cārādhane kuryāt pūjāpātran tu laukike | samayām pālayet sarvvāṅ khānapānavisarjitāṃ | vāmācāragatitvan tu kin tu lokānuvarttanaṃ.

    44kaulikācāramārgeṇa bhāvādvaitena sarvathā | tattvādvaitena mārgeṇa sarvathā yatra saṃsthitaḥ || pālayel laukikācāram advaitaṃ samanuṣṭhayet | gopayed guptaliṅgāni tatpraviṣṭāni sarvathā.

    45Ekānte ’pihitaṃ sarvaṃ kurvīta na janākule | anyathā sthitibhaṅgaḥ syān naśyate śāsanaṃ priye 10.145. The edition reads vihitam for ’pihitam, the latter is my conjecture.

    46A very similar idea is expressed in the passage quoted above, at the end of part 2, from the Tantrālokaviveka. There, however, one’s ritual identity is triple (vaidika, śaiva and kaula), while here the contrast is between laukika and kaula, which makes the boundaries different.

    47“This teaching should not be revealed, it should not be given to those who stick to lay conduct and/or to those who are against mantras, sacred sites or the guru” laukikācārasaktānāṃ mantrapīṭhagurudviṣām | na prakāśyam idaṃ śāstraṃ na deyo ’yaṃ mahāpriye || 4.125 (The Muktabodha etext has: laukikācāraśaktānāṃ mantrapīṭhagurudhviṣām | na prakāśyamidaṃ śāstraṃ na deyoyaṃ mahāpriye.)

    48caruḥ sādhyo ’thavā śiṣyair homena samakālakaḥ | carau ca vīradravyāṇi laukikāny athavecchayā. 15.437.

    49This term sāra itself is ambiguous and I understand it to refer to the five bodily “nectars” or pañcāmṛta (the sexual fluids, blood, urine etc., for a discussion see Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III).

    Visages du dharma

    X Facebook Email

    Visages du dharma

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Visages du dharma

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Törzsök, J. (2023). The Ways of the World, the Ways of Śiva. Remarks on the Meaning of Lokadharma/Laukika as Opposed to Śivadharma/Śaiva in Some Early Śaiva Tantric Sources. In S. D’Intino & C. Barois (éds.), Visages du dharma. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. https://doi.org/10.4000/1583o
    Törzsök, Judit. « The Ways of the World, the Ways of Śiva. Remarks on the Meaning of Lokadharma Laukika as Opposed to Śivadharma Śaiva in Some Early Śaiva Tantric Sources ». In Visages Du Dharma, édité par Silvia D’Intino et Christèle Barois. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2023. doi:10.4000/1583o.
    Törzsök, Judit. « The Ways of the World, the Ways of Śiva. Remarks on the Meaning of Lokadharma Laukika as Opposed to Śivadharma Śaiva in Some Early Śaiva Tantric Sources ». Visages Du Dharma, édité par Silvia D’Intino et Christèle Barois, Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/1583o.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    D’Intino, S., & Barois, C. (éds.). (2023). Visages du dharma. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. https://doi.org/10.4000/1583s
    D’Intino, Silvia, et Christèle Barois, éd. Visages du dharma. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2023. doi:10.4000/1583s.
    D’Intino, Silvia, et Christèle Barois, éditeurs. Visages du dharma. Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/1583s.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales

    Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://editions.ehess.fr

    Email : editions@ehess.fr

    Adresse :

    Éditions de l’EHESS

    105 boulevard Raspail

    75006

    Paris

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement