The Soul as a Grain of Rice: The Way Out of Karman in Abhinavagupta’s Paramarthasara by AuperTo PEUSiERO L. The Doctrine of karman in Abbinavagupte's Paramarthasara ‘The Paramarthasara (") is a compendium of metaphysics and as such ic has in view the diflicul task to formulate difficult conceptual claberations by few and ranemonically easy stanzas. In order to do this the author uses a great number of figures of speech, such as metaphors, synecdlaches, metonymies. Fach of these has the double merit of being gifted of « strong representative value and of containing implicidy in its owa apparent immediacy the whole weight of complex argumentations which, if fully developed, would take a much greater space ‘One of the most important figures of speech regarding the karman theory in the work under analysis is inspiced by the agricultural lore. ‘The group of stanzas containing it extends from 53 to 57: Actually the auspicious or inauspicious fruit ofthe act [derives] from the union with crronsus knowledge. And this vice of attachment is regrotable indeed, jast as the involvement with thieves of person who isnot himself a thie. | Those dull beings, who pay homage here vo she ignorance formed by the wordly behaviour, go towards birth and death, being bound ky the hindrances of merit and demerit. || But the action, made up by merit and demeri, even if harvested during the time of ignorance, is later destroyed by the bright flame of discrimination, jast ike the cotton harvested long before. | On obtaining knowledge [the act], even if accomplished, does not exist inview ofa fruit. Ieso, how [could occur} the birth ofthe [enlightened] one? Having € Thetis an eater wore wt the same tte, composed by one Aden, from «Ahithdidntin (0tsinkdya) point of view. The mala eiitons we follows. Airs, Paurarasou, od. Guna Sasi; evans 1911, Parnas, Surya Natryana Ski, Varanasi 1932, Davielson The Bacar of Supreme Trdh Params), ransaon and wt By aiden 990, LD. Barnet, caus of Abhinevigpta's Potmtbada, IRAS, 1910, 9p. 718417; LC. Chatter, Fawndnasca of Abineagita (wk the come of Yoga), KSTS, Senagr 916; 1. burs, Le Paranerbbsne, tte sas et taut por.» Pais 195 . ‘Abbreviaicns: Pramantkads of Abhinavapspts = PS; Paraiba of Ader - PSA; Toweaigte = TA; Abbinswapapa = Abs; Adsesa = A; Yopusle = Ys jararaca = J t) 261the union ro the slavery of birth disappeared, be, the sun thats Siva shines through the rays of Self [Like the seed, free from outer integument, glurses and small bracts, does not indeed produce the sprout, justin the same way the Self, completely free from devs, may and harman, (dors not produce] the sprout of existence ‘The model for sloka 53 derives from PSA 52b: The union af the wpidbi-s (= the body snd the organs) with pleasure and pein, ‘which are the pleasant or unpleasant fruit of the action, occurs. The bond derives from the connection of the Sell with the upadis, jut lke a person who is not a thief lis supposed to be one] owing 10 his accompenving with thieves. In this patsage the figure of the thief is used to express the connection between purasa and prakyti (foreshadowed by the bond between atmaz and upadh). Here we hhave a dear example of how a model useful to explain a theory (PSA 52: simkhya conception of the apparent condition of slavery of the purnsa) can be satisfactorily used to explain another one (PS 53: nature of karsran On his part A apparentiy gets inspiration from one of the most authoritative sarmkbya sources () On this subject there is a scholastic example, Just like a person who is not a thief, if caught together with thieves, is supposed co be one, the same happers with the these acting gua-s:unived to them the punts, shough not being an agent himself appears as acting because of the aforesaid union ‘After having clarified the context whence the model in PS 53 comes out, let us ‘pass t0 examine its meaning as to the theory (= the working of the karmic mechanism). Good and bad results of actions ate ascribed to the union of the Self with a kind of erroneous knowledge. Such union is defined in PS 53b ‘vice of attachment’ (soigadose), and as such negatively conpoted. Erroneous knowledge (nithvariane) corsists according to ISvarakrsna in the fact chat the puraa believes to be united 10 the guns (in fact ie is the prakrti in the form of buddhé who believes that the gura-s, enlightened by the light of purusa, are endowed with light originating from themselves: the process of bondage as well as that of redemption always occur in the domain of pratrtt; purasa is always free). A puts it like a sore of erronecus identification of the dean ©) Upaihi generally means ‘aubstitae, sucedancous', ane abo “atiibute, “tation”, But bere the meaning i, according to DanieSen (vba fellows Righevinanda) ‘sonseching which iscese to the Self and conseqendy deternes it from the outside, i. the body together with its organ () Gaodapia's commentary to earakrana'sSdmebyabcriba 20. Dptinta mas meas equally well also ‘example, comparison, ellegony, type" On the wse und the val of dst in rhetoric ae poetics see RC. Duivedi, ee, The Poetic Light — Raeyaprabaia of Mamonata, wl. 1, (Ulitax VEIN) — text with tanslation 6 Sarpradsaprasisof Seidyscakeaartis with complete commen: Saikets of Reyyake, Delhi 1970. p 429 ff 262 flwith the physical body (the shift from a simkiye point of view towards a vedantic one is here ence more evident in him). According to Abh (and following Y's perusing) things are different. Also 2 great number of fevits of the action, cheracterized by merit and demerit and shaped in the Form of horse sacrifices, brahminicidesetc., emerge dve to the union with this erroneous knowledge. For instance such knowledge may take the form: ‘Tam a being provided with a body; thanks to my being provided with means, this horse sacrifice ete, be mine (= may it be favourable to me)”. Thus the subject falls prey first of an erroneous conception of the afm in what is not atmar, then of an erroneous conception of the absence of dimar in the deman. From the knowledge characterized by this sort of attachment (~ to zee the Self in not-Self and not-Self in the Self) derives the strong attachment. The multitude of worthy ot unworthy fruits of the action for the past rises from this sort of attachment, Consequently the subject incessantly partakes to the alfliction of sasire Conclusively this false knowledge is determined by the oblivion which makes the Sel forget its divine dignity (never lost, but only ignored) The key word of PS 54 is mda ‘dull beings’. It is an adjective (linked t0 the 2001 mub) whose main meaning is ‘stupefied, bewildered, confused’, but also ‘stupid, silly, lazy, affected by confusion andjor obnubilation’. According to medical texts such is for example the concition of a foetus curing a difficult birth. In our context it points to those who fall prey of the neishydiidna, being deprived of the intuision of the identity of the Self with Siva PS 55 offers us a model widely and trans-systemically diffused in Indian philosophical literature: the madel of knowledge compared to a purifying fire, The Tinks put in light presently will necessarily be not exhaustive, also because the study of the matter involves us only as far as we are thereupon allowed to make clear the mechanism by which the sterilization of karan is effecred First of all, here is the text of A: ‘That action which, accumslated (in the present body] before the rising of knowledge. is licked by the flame of knowledge, is no longer capable of producing new] birth, like a seed toasted by fire. () In PS 55 as well asin PSA 39 the theory referred to is the one according to which the possibility of defeating sama lies in the sterilization of the frait (pbala) of the action, The suggested model speaks of a parilying flame. But according to Abh the flame burns some co:ton (tis), while A refers to.a burt seed (degdhahija) as the target ) Te muse be noted that banea is here used improperty. instead of a more corect form like amasarastira (0 probably this was abo the epinion of Abk who in PS 33 qualifies karma with the tamadbivaye Ubarmadsorndtmaran’, In tact here the reference is ade not propel 9 the actcn in cour of being effeced, bu rater, more precisely, wo the tendencies eds) lai down by the alcady secomplshed sc, and stored somewhere BI 263of the action of the fire, We may here note that the toasted seed, if evidently hes lost its capacity to sprout, nevertheless it has not become unedible ’). Now, one of the terms used to indicate the experience of man during an attitude of pravytt type (9 is Abukti ‘fruition’, linked to the root Bbuk which means in primis to cat’ ‘This implies that before one can have access to the liberation, priaédéw must be disposed of through fruition, thet is ‘eaten’, by its carvier. It is difficule to answer the question about the possible doctrinaire importance of Abh’s choice of refusing to borrow the dagdbabije canonical figure in A) and preferring to adopt the tile one, fitting to the case but nor classical LL. The Problem of the Transfer of karman i the Tantratoks Anyway we can assume that in our context an importen: role is played by the explicit thearization, made by Abh in the TA (6), of the possibility for the devotee to transfer his own harman to other people. Let us pass to examine how this can happen ©). Even if the contracted state is nat annihilated, owing to the strong mental repeesentation of the type I am nos che doer’ the fruic of actions does not exist in the case of a deurken one, of an obaubilated one ete, of alto in the ease of « ritual cexplatory action accomplished, In fact the drunken or the ebaubilated one has not an intentionality of the type “L will do this act’, and the event is indeed performed without having in view eny (0) On the conteaty some kinds of seeds are edible only ater having been submitted 0 a process of torrefaction. (0) Regasing the opposition between pra und adil, Boge aed moge fin fact ena vane Jn the non-duilistc kagmurin dataampredeya, which operates a sort of courcsenta oppositorm) see K Pout, ‘The Kama Theory and Its Intespectason ip Some Indian Paiosepbical Systems a WD. Olahert, ed, Karma avd Rebteh #¥ Catal Iudian Tadtwors, Berkeley 1980, pp. 241-81 (0) Ath biel explains te figure in PS 62: "Like the sed completely tamed by fe seas the inability to sprout, san the same way the act bared bythe fire of knowledge smo Inger able to precice birt”. The image of the bared seed is to be found aap in the yoprderiane: a the cormmentary of Vyasa ad Yogeatna LL 2; and in eedante see: Upadetauabtr, oadya pabaadée 11 2. (0) See Abbinavagupea, Tantloka wits comm by Rajinaka Jeyerstha, 12 vls., RSTS, Srinagar Allaabid Rombay 1918-1938, vol. I. ed. Mukuad Fam Shasti, sol. TH/XIl, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastti; R. Gaol, Tents, Luce delle acre enter, di Abbinacggepes, Trina 1972, B.C. Dwivedi EN, eds, Tbe Tanto of ADbinavagubi, sit the camrmniary of leyntha, 8 vols, Delhi 1987; N. Rastogi, lntodncton to the Tennilokn, A Stay in Srctoe, Deb 1987 (6) TA, IX 10Sb/109% apd 110/116. In 1160 T vead eyes instead of tn the KSTS text The translation of the oka of Abh is composed in lesser size; Js commentary only summarized immedistely after 264 (aroel whatsoever: and then what could ever bear {ruit? In the course of an expiatory action perfonned in such way, with a strong refusing mental representation of the type ‘Twas not the doer at thar time’, the acts do not bear fruit owing to the weakening of intentionality towards this or that object. This is also ssid in the following terms: Even having done some evil, if ascesis has been pat into practice, due to this the subject is completely reed from evil | Havirg turned away from action thinking “alas, hadn't 1 done that way’ that man is purified. (") "May the ascesis today performed by mie favour chis one’ — evidently the action endowed witha similar intention does not bear fruit [for he who performs it, owing to this intention The action does not bear fruit because the thought of the doer who has in view ‘a goal of the type ‘may this be in fevour of someone else’ prevents him from ascribing the fruit to himself. And to this regard itis suid that ‘en undesired fruit does not come into being’ (!). So it is possible to transfer the fruit of a positive action, namely ascesis(iapas), to someone else. This is made clear in the following sfoka So, keeping inside the heart the aforesaid interest — that is @ karmic impression — coloured by the [future] fruit he causes [the desired subject} 10 obtain the [corresponding] fruit. Imposing into the mind the intentionality (aiming that the action may give its fruit to someone else) he causes the chosen subject o cbtein the fruit. At this regard the following ‘loka is quoted! 1f he has in mind fer you this or dha, in such way his act does bear fruit (2) But he who firmly leaves aleo the impression of the fruit obeains a particular fruit, namely the relinguishment of fruits. So far we have discussed virtuous zets, like ascesis. So naturally an objection rises (2) But if soit would be possible that some mischie! performed by us could, chrough intentionality, be ascribed to someone else”. — You have not understood the actasl ‘meaning of my speech, 0°) Stoke quoted by Jad TA, foc. e (0) Tread syiitpabli” instead of sti inthe KSTS txt. Soke quoted by Jad TA, do, cit. (9) Soke quoted by J ad TA, loc. oi () We igore the lines 1095/1102, not importan: for cur context, 6) 265Only if either in ns or in the [designated] fruitor there is the sarpe and equal intention could thet mischief belong to that other one. Dar own intention [to transfer the éamnan] becomes strong with the mutual agreement with someone eles intention [to receive the transferred barra], Lacking thie lather one's] interest there ir no retaion with the fruit for him, ‘May this evil act not belong :o me’: such resolution of his causes the act to bbe unfruitul Tre frit of an act cannot be partaen by someone who has not the intention todo iz. On the contrary in this person we can note the decision, which derives from the instinct of self preservation, that someone else's baleful action may not fall on himself. In fact its generally acknowledged that evil is considered as dreadful and someone else's intention does not allow the partaking of che fruit of a mischief of ‘one’s own, ‘The docs intention that the act would bear fruit for someone ele is taneffective, because in the latter’ intention there is an obstacle to such decision. The dissimilarity with someone ebe’s Intention and ibe lack of one’s ov invctest causes the inexistence of the frit for both, due to its being ablicerated by a reason of annihilation ‘That is: as che docr locks the intention to bear the consequences of his own mischieves, and oa the other hand nobody is willing to take upon himself someone else's demect, the frait of similar evil acts vanishes. The ‘reeson of annihilation’ is infact characterized by the lack of oae’s own and anyone else's intention to take upon oneself the fruit. Moreover, just as the desire to take upon oneself someone else's demerit is not to be found in anyone, in the same way the desite not to take upon oneself someone else's merit does not exist. Otherwise the above mentioned cransfer could not be effected () But let us go back to TA: the conclusive reasoning argues that everyone is willing to enjoy pleasure and to avoid pain, And J adds Let it be the partaking to the fruit of a postive actions but not also the partaking to the fruit o! a negative one. (09 Ie a abo wo be acca ha the inenistence of the deste not co rssive mecit i che gener rule. But this iste only for scmeone vho is engaged in an attede of praia. For a man of this kind the respect of the dara isthe fundamental gol nile, and merit (for ecarmle rebirth in stare A Denelcial ard desited side-effect of this attitude. Cn the contrary he who pats himself nan atitade ‘of inten he fundamental gol in ifs ae consisting in kuz. In order to cain this aim che stage ff merit & ony a hindrance, ehouga a pleasant axe. Therefore inthe course ofthe taser of erie fh matial edvantage takes plac: he who tearsers put inte an atinade of mip) gets eof # hindrance in view of his actinment of roku; he whe receives (involved into an atinade of pres) enjoys that merit which isthe tangible evidence of fis loyalty to dbire. 266, (aLIL, The Problens of the Transfer of karman in the Pasupatasitras AA theory of karmic transfer much more complex and also more radical in its conclusions isto be found in the works of the pasupate system (5). Here a certain phase of the spicitual development of the devotee is characterized by a sort of odd and grotesque (antinomienistc) behaviour, whose peculiar aim is just to transfer merits from the subject 10 someone else (the reverse in the case of demerits) ‘The basic text in this regard are the Patapatasdira-s III 1-19 with the commentary of Kaundinya (abridged K), hereafter summarized. 1) ‘Unmanifese as to exterior marks” K explains that these marks are all those exterior attitudes (e.g. the bath of flowers left from a sacrificial ceremony, or the continued abode in the same place) adopted by the devotee during his vyakta phase, now abandoned due to his having passed to the avyakta one 2) ‘Manifest as to his behaviour During this phase the devotee behaves like an actor, playing the role of a debauched but remaining pious in his heart, 3) “Looked down upon” (Owing to the fact that other people perceive in him the absence of exterior marks, and duc to his antinomianistic behaviour, the devotee is overwhelmed with contempt, held responsible of every sort of vice (8), () For the texts see AR. Sasi, ed, Palunate Siar with Paxcharticbhashya of Kaui, Toivandcum 1940, H, Chakravaei, ears, Pitypuanng, Santiniketan 1970; C.D. Daal, Gupabat ‘oth Ramatiea, Gaccoar Oriental Series, XV. Baroda 1920; R. Gael, Test dello vsiono, ‘Torino 1962 lit contre an italan sranletion of she Pasepetasites without commentary). For the sadica see DR. Bhandarkar, “An Ebling! Stone Inscription and the Onjgn and History of the Lakulsa Sect, Journal of Asiatic Secity, Bombay Brazch, XXUL 1904.1907, ». 151 ff Id, Laka’, ASTAR, 1606-1907, . 179 fs] F Flet, ‘Shiva ss Lakalaa’, JRAS, 1907, . 419 ff; Gopinath Kavia), Note on Pasepats Philoopiy Princess of Wales Srasuati Bhavara Stadies, 9, Banaras 1934, yp. 69-106; TV. Mahalingar, ‘The Pisipaca in South Ini", Jounal of Inde Misery, XVII, 1949, p. 4) If JN. Baneries, Laka. ‘The Founder or the Sistematiser ofthe Pigupata Order’, Procedins ofthe Jaipur Sessions ofthe Inars seared Congres, 1951, p. 32 (fs RN. Meh, ‘Kesavan. "The Seat of Lebisa See’ iid, p. 71; BLP. Majumdar. ‘LakulitaPesupates and Their Temples n Medieval Ini’ Joara ofthe Bikar Research Society, XXXIK, 1953, p. 141K. Bhateacharya, ‘Le secte des Padupute dans Passion Cambedge’, [4, CCXLIM, 1955, p. 497 1; P.C. Divan, Lakulsa of Karvin ang Hs Pasupata C "he Grant Rear Secnty, XV, 1955, p 419 f€; TV. Mabalingam, "A Fara of Ppa at Jambulesvaram’,Jounset of Onertal Research, XY, 1937, p. 18 Hf: F-A. Schulz, Dis phlosopbich ‘heoloyrhe Lab de Péypatsytnm nach dens Pacitbabiaie udder Ramiba, Bown 193%; Minors Hara, ‘Nakulsa PisupatxDastanan”, I, 1, 1958, p. 8 ff; D-H.H. legals, ‘Cynics and Pasapacs: she Sechire of Dishonor", Hamer! Toeolgcu! Review, 5/8, 1562, op. 281.98; RC, Agravala, ‘Two Standing Lakai Sculprures fom Rajasten’, Journal ofthe Ovcnalinsinie, XIV, 1965, p 388 tf, Minoru Hore, “Pigopata and Sarabhva Yor. Jaumal of Oriental Research, XXKIVXXXV, 195466, pp. 1687, (05K endshis commentary to this ie quoting fou Sines vbich acordng to A, Sest corsespond a 2674) ‘In the middle of all other beings That is, the full-right members of hindu society, included within the earsdftarsa order Devas, animals and yaleccba's are exchided. >) ‘Mortified mast he wander abot’. In ‘mortified’ (paribbyiyamdna) pari means ‘all around’, bbiiya ‘variously’ (it means the ‘bodily’ contempt, by which the despise is united with fists, rods etc). The arrogance (nina) then consists in this, that the devotee is considered as the producer af negative karman. By his conduct he becomes despised by despicable people. 6) ‘Being suppressed the experiences due to demerie’. There are two kinds of such experiences: those charactevized by pleasure (as drunkness, lost, obmubilation, sleep etc.) and those characterized by pain (as headache, toothache etc). 7) ‘Owing to the reproof of other people Resentful words distress him in this wa cone, a lustful one ete.’ 8) Either he gives them demerit’ Demetit (paps) is 50 called because it purifies, it causes to fall, it binds (eavakapatakepasate). In fact it purifies the devotee from headache, toothache ete; it canses other people to fall down into the various kinds of hell; it binds them to cause-and-effect (the causal relation becween demerit and its experience being the same as between seed and sprout) 9) ‘Or he takes on himself their own merits’ ‘Their’, that is of those who despise him. 10) “Therefore’ “Therefore, that is owing to this contempt etc., the destruction of demerit and the obtainment of merit comes into being, Li) "He must wander about like ¢ ghost’. He must bebave like a drunken one, a wsctehed, long-bearded, with the body soiled with dust ete 12) ‘Or he must snore’ Having obtained the permission from his guru the devotee artives near @ house or a ‘he is an obrubilated, a ghost, a drunken to Mesut 2.162.163, The rwo fakes refer to the behaviour of + brahman who voluntarily secs ‘he contempt of hs own community and escapes its honours. rom this atcitade no anguish whatsoever tomes to him: he seakes and walk ight heuriedly; whereas thor who derpee him perch, Tn fact the socalled quocation from Maran reveals itself st consising only in a very rough correspondence, regarding mre mening tan form. lceaie are given the ro versions, the fit ene By K, the second ane from Maras Ici easy to note the reverse in 1 of the first Iwo lines of 2; the presence of an inal clause and of one pide identical in the two versions; and a certain synonymity. — 1) amtrseos Spaces naive nina viekganal | vinsyevs agupscta saarndnayy sada defah | share byevuraiah Ste sarvasufgevivanita | dost parasya aa ayaver tasia papam sada nih | (K) — 2).arnanad brcbman sityamadvijete visdiva | empaiyone cikatlocdavaranoy served || they Ryavamata fete sakharn a praubuelbyate | subhara carat lake’ sminnavamanca vinasyat | (tabcs for certain parts ts ou. 268 (8)village. Having sat down in such a way as to be well visible to everybody he mast make his show, pleving the role of « person on the point of falling asleep, ostentatiously snoring and the like. He must emit his breath very loudly in the region of the neck So the other people will think: this man seems extremely drowsy’. From this untrushful practice derives this fruit, that his own demerits go to the other people, and theit ‘merits go to him. 13) ‘Or he must fling himself about’ ("7 ‘The people who see him think : ‘this is 2 man whose life breaths are in conflict’, From this untruthful practice derives etc. (the same as in the commentary to the preceding sina). 14) ‘Or be must limp’. ‘The people who see him think: ‘this is 2 man whose feet are damaged’. From this untruthful practice derives etc. 15) ‘Or he must fir’ “Flisc’ means here the gratuitousness of the expressed feeling. Having approached a group of women he must make himself perfectly visible by one of them, endowed with beauty and youth. Having addressed to her he must glance at her with intention, nergy, desixe exc. He must make use of the signs of lustfalness like loosening his hair ete. So the people who see him will say: ‘this is a lustful man, he is not a bbrahmanical student bond to chastity’ From this untruthfal practice derives ete 16) ‘Or he must make nonsensical actions’. Properly here the practice of laughing coarscly is referred to. Therefore those talkative people will say of him: ‘this is a man acting improperly, not knowing the difference between what is to be done and what is not to be done, between pure and impure’ From this untruthfal practice derives etc. 17) ‘Or he must speak nonsensical words’ Properly here the practice of confusedly repeating nonsensical words is referred to. Therefote those ralketive people say of him: ‘this is a man speaking improperly, act knowing the difference between what is to be told and what is ot co be told’. From this untruthful practice derives ete 18) ‘From this may he obtain despise” Having violated every regard by his conduct he obtains contempt etc. 19) ‘Despised indeed the sage becomes perfect in his ascesis'. ‘The sage is he who is conscious of having leamed the meaning of the studied words, and who knows the remedies to the defects of his own knowledge. The main characteristic of the perfect ascesi les in this, chat che Self is perceived (#) (09) The cemnmentary to the Ganka nan a follow ‘the shaking or trembling of the boll breath’ (09) The divine model of the atu ofthe arychu stat isto be found in Patupetanina TV 1.20 and js aitached o the fgute of Indra. In the paranic envirormert a silat behaviour is chat esumed bby Sioa while sedvcing the wives of she hypocrite sages in the pine forest (tee Brabmiedepunina 0 269IV. The Problem of the Transfer of karman: the Siaie of the Debate Now we have to consider two different theories about the transfer of Barman, cone to be considered as rationalistic and velunteristic (Ab), the other one as magicel and mechanicistical (Lakuliéa). According to Abh the devotee can transfer his own ‘merit (representing for him only hindrance on his way towards modxa) to others. This is due to the general natural tendency to receive every sort of satisfactions. On the other hand, the demerit simply fades away. It can no longer belong to the ascetic, ‘who detaches himself from it, not ascribing to himself the authorship of his own acts contrary to dharma. Nor can this demerit belong to others, because no one desires to take upon himself what is cause of negative experiences. We can presume that this adharma is reabsorbed by Siva who here makes ase of his enarzhaiakti () ‘According to Abh the transfer is double (towards the receivers of merit, :owards Siva for the demerit) but also an unidirectional one: i always starts from the devotee. Fartherly itis alays voluntary, thet is voluntarily begun by he ascetic and voluntarily accepted by the receivers. According to Lakulige the transfer takes place at a much lower ascetic level, The devotee still needs to store up merits, and disguising his own actual nature by trickery he obtains the merits of the profane ones, discharging on them his own demerit in the same time. So the transfer is double but it is a two-directional one, And certainly the receivers of demerit would not wish that the exchange took place, if only they could be aware of the tcuth. But their will has no importance, being overwhelmed by the ascetic’s superiority. "The exchange isan unequal one: there is no mutual advantage like in Abh's case To sum up: Abh Lelealifa dharma devotee —> human receivers devotee ~ profane ones adbarna devotes > Siva devotee — profane ones This problem of the possibilty of the transfer of Ramat is a deeply and thoroughly debated one. ‘According to Devasenapathi Siva uses the prinabiha of the soul existing in a state not differentiated from Him as a means to cause experience to those who benefit or damage this soul, This is done in order to remove their karmart, and also to free the liberated coul from its own arman (2), That is, Siva frees the jivenmmulia from his L2g7.164a, 91697, 101-25; Devibhagauatapunina 1.32, 12.9; Kurmapurne 2.37; maze 1.29, 1.31 tc). Avi ie eay to note, the ration between antnomienstc behaviout and deematical acting isnot new at all, (0? Like Siva Niakantha who swallows the deadhul poison made up by the deny instincts of all beings. See ea, Mabibbarta 1.19.9-13, 1.16.1-49, 117.130 ete 9 See VA. Devesenspathi, Sate Siddbanta as expounded in she Sajtinasdabiyar and Ts Sie Commentaries, Madras 1960 (2rd ea. 1974), pp. 274.79. 270 [10]prarabéha either by descharging it on those who interac: with Him (if itis a positive ‘one), oF by dissolving it into Himself Git is a negative ene). This theory seems quite similar to Abh’s one, except for this, that in the TA the initiative of the transfer of merit constantly starts from the devotee rather than from the godhead. Devasenspathi, basing himself on Saivasiddhdna, often tends to ascribe every activity whatsoever to Siva to the detriment of the patis. O'Flaherty admits the existence af a karmic transfer, but restraine it 10 the transformations pertaining to the domain of food and sex, while examining the vedic derivations of puranic episodes (). This transfer is conceived as a sort of exchange of gross material substances, that scrvally are merit and demerit rather than being its rebicles. This is not the case of the two theories of Abh and Lakulige. In the First cone the exchange is effected by intentionality (‘may my merit go to others; Lam not responsible of my demerit). In the second one it is effected by the subtle balance between the dramatic improper behaviour of the devotee and the emotional answer (that is, contempt) of the profanes Powter definitely denies the transferability of kannan in the domain of philosophicel literature (?)) The soundness of his arguing weekens someway if we consider the fact eg, that in Snikara types of a real collective Barzan are to be found ®). And itis clear that if itis implicitly eccepted the fact tha: karmen could be not strictly pertaining to individual, but cather something that can be ascribed to 2 group, one is on the path of admitting its transferability. ‘Another sort of misunderstanding seems to be found in Keyes (4), who recently has focused the question from an anthropological point of view. His arguing runs as follows. If moral responsibility were centsed wholly and only on the individual, every tort of social interactions would be vanified. So the original karmic theory, contrary to transferability, has been remodelled to allow the social imperatives to condition the way in which ary moral action is undertaken. Firstly the same concept of an ‘original’ Karmic theory is sub iudice. We cannot exclude the existence of a pleiad of differing theories, now complementary now opposing each other. Secondly, from the above quoted texts it is clear that atleast t370 Saita schools (cectain'y not () Sce W.D, O'Faherty, ‘Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas aod Pusspas' in Ea, ed,, Kara and Rebirth... cit. pp. 10-13 Uanster of Merit in Vedic Text) and pp. 28°33 (the Teaser of areal, ©) See Potter, ct, p. 239. His analysis is based on the exam of texts pertaining 10 yope and fankite vedints, ©) See M. Planteli, “Kramanukt. A few notes, Indologice Tewrinensi, Il, 1974-1975, pp. 25978, pas. The ineical aetompe made by Lavon :o mediate betwosn the assumptions of (Olaberty and Poetcr does not sound very convincigls, nor does he seem o interpreta quite corectly Porter's there See G.]. Larton, “Kerma ata "Socalogy of Knowledge” or *Sacal Pechelegy” of Process/Prais, in O'Flaherty, ed, op ct, pp. 30316 See CF. Keyes, Iareduetin: the Study of Popular Mens of Kart’, ia CE. Keyes & EV. Dante, eds., Kara, an Ambropologial lagu, Berkely & Los Angeles 1983, p21 i 2mdefinable as illiterate ones) have conceived a karmic transfer justin opposition to moral imperatives, in view of the supreme goal of Indian soteriology: moka #t not least we can consider Sivaraman’s opinion, who chooses non. transferability: Kanna can yield ics consequence as til yields its fruit bur it eannot also cause it toattach to the agent ofthe deed, any more than one’s toil necessary forthe fruit 4s alo sufficient to guarantee its accruing to the person that has put forth the tol In the latter case such guarantee is provided by the law of the land and similacly, ‘rigati the cosmic law provides the guarantee for experience of karma specifying non ttansferably the fruic co the one that is entitle to it. (>) According to him kannan is a sort of cosmic lew, individualized and personalized only through the action of niyaii, and being indissolubly bond to it (ninatisdpetsa) “The individuality and personality of kerman do not prevent the fact that the acts of a subject X could influence the subjects ¥ and 7. But itis not possible that Y and Z may ever enjoy the fruits of the acts of X. A certain mutual influence is to be admitted, but not a real transferability. "This explanation sounds the most correctly balanced one bersreen those examined 30 far. However our conclusions, deriving from the above quoted texts, ate obviously different: the transferability of harman is a not negligible step in the spititual path of the devotee. This transferability, restricted in its use to those people who master the indispensable techniques to effect it, does not question at all the normal working of kerman as a general rule, Being Aarmart based on a net of possibilities which regulates the interactions of the individuals (with, themselves, with others and with their environment), its transferability reveals itself as a chance offered by the godhead to those who seck after mrokya, But this docs not obliterate the normal functioning of the karmic mechanism forall the other people. V. The Image of the Grain of Rice: the Way Out of karman According to the PS After this long excarsus (it is hoped not # useless one) on the transfer of harman wwe may come back 0 the question introduced about PS 55 ("But the action exc.’ Ii is possible now to suppose that the replacement of the image of the degdhabifa in PSA 39 with the other one, that of tla, in PS 55, is made by Abh intentionally, This replacement allows him to introduce implicitly in the text the theory of the transfer ©) See K Siataman, fasion Philosophical Parpecte — A Sudy ofthe Formative Coc, Problems and Medd of Sats Sian, Deli 1913, p. 238 with slave fas Now-ranserality ieadnited ako by SK. Mair, Te Fibs of Hind, New Deh 192% Geoe 1978), p 9; GS. Pls “Tnwadacion and Histery of Save Sdcnia,in Cleve Lerarson Sabu Sr, Acsataaingtt 1965.65 272 (12)of karman, In fact the burned seed is nevertheless still edible (that is, the pnirabdb mast be consumed also by the jftarmukte), but as for the cotton the process of burning brings with itself a quite different effect. Ic is explicitly said that the cotton has been. callected long time before (cirasacitantn tila ie. completely dried up. Ie isquite evident that the result of the burning of such material could be only ash and nothing else, But ashes are among the most common symbols of bradmar. Just as if one burs some wood he obtains ass, but if one tries to burn ash he can obtain oaly ask again, in the same way the brahman is the ultimate ground of dissolution of every sort of categories, something not reducible to a further principle. And so Siva (who already in the uparisad-s did take upon Hisself the chasactetistics of drahmar) peclorms & sort of personalized pralaya towards the devotee, extinguishing his own negative prirabdha. (As it has been seen the positive one is transferred to other people! Immediately one recalls Bhagavadgtd LV 37 (quoted also by ¥ in his comm, to PS 55): ‘As the fire once kindled does reduce the pieces of wood to ashes, so in the same way the fire of knowledge does reduce all the acts to ashes’ PS 56 COn obtaining knowledge etc.’) does not show any particular hermeneutic difficulty, and simply restates the absolute certainty for he who has reached knowledge not to be born again. ‘Far more complex is the analysis that one mast perform on PS 57, whose transiation is repeated hereafter, accompanied by Y's commentary: Like the seed, free from outer integament, glumes and small bracts, does not indeed produce the spront, justin the same wey the Self, completely free from dnava, vidya and harman, [does not produce] the sprout of existence Like the grain of rice, if disjoined from ‘outer integument, ghames and small bracts (that is, owing to the absence of the complex of outer integument exc., which mekes up the proper way of being of the seed), even if it stays in the middle of earth and ‘water and is exposed to the sun, ‘does not indeed’ become a cause characterized by the effect of arousing a sprout, so ‘in the same way’ the ‘Self’ (= awareness), when ‘free’ (= disioined) from énaca (representing small bracts), mya (representing glumes) and karman (representing outer integament) (that is, wing to the absence of the complex showing itself as the triad of mala), does no longer produce the ‘sprout of existence’, that is the shoot of transmigration. Considering in himself the variety of the coming inco being and of the destruction of che multitudes of the differing and omnipresent categories, he becomes the Supreme Lord () If we want to better understand this metaphor itis necessary to remember that the spikelet of rice, oval-shaped, is « hollow of the flower having as its wrapping parts, (enclosing the fertile flower}: (09) From the commentary of ¥ ad DS 57, ed. Chattercs, p. 109 (3) 231) two enveloping glumeles, the real flower wrapper, fertile, boat-shaped and fitting together: the upper glumelle palea) with three prominent nerves (one mid-dorsal, two marginals), that forms 1/3 of the flower hollow; the lower glumelle (lemma), with five nerves (two marginals, two mids and one on the rib). ‘This latter is alternated with channels: in the muticate varieties it has the apex high up; in the awned varieties it has the awn 10 cm long. ‘The lemma forms 2)3 of the flower hollow. For brevity these two glumelles are hereafter called sovall bracts (synonyms: glumelles, hull. 2) two awkshaped ghames, small, carinate and rigid, 3-4 mm long and 1 mm wide, adhering to the respective glumelles close to the attach, enclosing the rudimentary glumes, For brevity they are hereafter called glavtes (synonym: brac:s) 3) two rudimentary glumes, or small scales, disposed in half-ctcle, opposed in their axes, being the prosecution of the peduncle between it and the glumes and glamelles.. Nor perfectly visible with naked eye, they seem an expansion of the peduncle of the spikelet, And in fact when the spikelet is detached from the peduncle, as daring the threshing, they adhere to the latter, For brevity they are hereafter called outer integument (synonym: envelope) eis then clear that there are three wrapping organs, from the inside cowards the outside, that enclose the grain within themselves: tmall bracts, glumes, outer integument "Nevertheless it must be noted that the three sanskrit terms, kabua (small bracts), tuys (ghumes) and kinsaruka (outer integument) are practically fangible °), But these © See RC. MeLean & WAR Ivines-Cook, Teutbook of Theories! Botiny, London 1964 (tt 4. 1996), ol I po. 2080 ff; L, Pomini, Labotanca detro, Vercel 1958, pp. 13 fl; A. Angladerte, Le is, Paris 1988, p. 7 fig. Land p. 8; ELV (de) Carvalho, Ores, Lshoa 1953; RILM. Ghose, M.B. GGhatge oe V. Subrahmanyan, Rit in India, Dei 1936; X. Portes, Taxonomic arobceanigne des Ris cubtivds O. sation ot. gleam Steud, Pais 1956. (9) Few examples will clear the mscter. ad PS 5 invertes the order with respec 10 Aba (euplambukakiméroka = inavanayilarms in Abh; kanbulethinivena Szavena.. rane mayanelens, ‘kimsaroke" kerme" in ¥). Another Index of the tendenial synonyaity ofthe trad ssa” is given by ite diffrent reeerings by viens exegees and trantlatore, According eg. to Devisenapath op it, p. 192 £) harman would corespond not t9 outer ‘neyument but tothe sprout, and its function vould be to allow the frition of pleesare and pain. Mayé would corespend to bran, and its function would be the absumption of a body (by which fruition of pleasure and pain is made possble). save vould then corespol to the has, and its fanction woulé he theabsimption ofthe state of an enoying sbi. ‘Aecording t KC. Pandey (Abbinaagunts: ax Hitricel ond Philovophiel Say, Varanasi 1963, rev ‘en! eky p. 306): ‘the sell i covered with these thre impure [of nace Ignorance, of karma and of tranemigratory existence (apavs, karma and miyiys alas) exactly in the mane in which an ovale (kana swith nucellasQkambuice), ncegurent (Kisiraka) and hisk (tus). These covers are cespotsibe fee the tranurigraton of the individual self as ucla, integument and husk are forthe development of ove’. Te ealo 0 be nated tha: kiesieda isnot given by M. Monier Wiliams (4 Sansbne Eng Dictionary, Orford 1899, p. 282 cal IM, who teprts only Kinséma ‘the beard of coer’. Far ofher readeringy of the moe! na see MB, Mudalist, "Saiva Seldhants’ in Collected Lectures on Sais Stdaina, ct. p. 28 tk; TIMP. Mahadevan, "The Idea of Ged in Saiva Sidchenta bid. p. 8 274 n4terms mast be carefully distinguished in the translation, in order to better preserve the spirit and the semantic and hermeneutical impoctance of the image. What was perfectly cleat to every Indian of the time of Abh is no longer so evident in our times and places, as moreover we are accustomed to eat (not even daily) polished rice. So it has not seemed useless the recourse to the botanical terminology above. ‘The same image is partially 10 be found in Secaratmasurngraba 20, whee it refers to dnaea and its relationship with may: ‘The bepinningless maia isso called ‘condition of the cattle’ for men; it has to be understood like what confers to mgd its ability o sprout, os the hask and chaff lfor the grain). According to Sivaraman the relation between the three malas detiving from such conceptual building includes respectively hdrmamals as upadinabirana, miyiza® 23 sabekarikdrana and arava? as nimiltekarana ), with regard to the experience (enioyed by the subject) of fruition (boge), considered as Lérya ‘When we putin the question about the source of the rice image some interesting remarks come to light First of all the model is an analogical one, derived from the agricultural world. This recalls the remarks of Potter (*), according to vhom agricultural metaphors are 4 recurring element in all Indian philosophical literature, and moreover often referring to theories on karman. Also O'Fiaherty () takes the rice into consideration as & fundamental constituent of the sacrificial offering in the ‘rida citual: the pinda Fartheely che scholar notices some interesting links between the separation of rice into water and sediments during the cooking process on one hand, and the development of the human embryo on the other hand. Then some compariscn (proper to tamil thought) are drawed between sexual life and the farming of rice (*). ‘The conclusion ©) P, Thirugonrasambandhen, faaarrsanaba by Undpal Seacdry, Madias 1973, p36. A. similar line in Shuamaparbhaameyiari 3.196 (B. Dagens. Le floriége de in doctrine seat, Seinsgemapeibbisanurjart de Vedoiira, Pondichéry 1978, p. 102 1) “nasanale i sid “innate” [to soull as expectively isk and chat are co the grain ©) See Sivaraman, op. cf, p. 356, fn, 29. This model recalls che relalioaship berween the srubaxdie|grtinandhe| amhanibe snd aii genta types of al. (9, See Potter, 09. ci, p. 247 ff. ‘the von texts len the karmic process to varius stages ince ving’, referring to Vogoritna, books 2 and with the commentarie: of Vea end Viesepati Mies snd p. 4: the man born esa grain of rice in the pirydna anlysed by Sankara 0) See O'Flaherty, Tntroduction, in Bad, ed, op oi, p. XVIU., and did, "Karena and Reith in the Vedas end Purigas, pp. 69, 19 (0 See MT. Egnce, The Sacred Spel and Other Conceptions of Life is Tomi Celwve, PhD. dis. Univ, of Chicago, Dep of Anthropology, Merch 1978, and Ea, Te Symbatn of Paddy Tore Nadu, paper presented at the Confereuce of Religion in South India wt Nasthe's Vineyad, Mey, 1B, 1979, squsted in Haberty, “Introduction. in Bad, e609 cit. p. XVI. fo. 4 5, 15] 275of O'Haherty is that the supremacy of the images centred on rice (and not eg. on wheat or barley) wo illustrate problems relating to karnan and (rebirth (and thence also t sex) possibly allows to exclude the Indus valley as « source of the karmar: theory. In fact the civilization settled here was based on wheat farming. Rice was cultivated at the other extreme of Gangetic plain, among tribel populations living on the border of Southern-Eastern Asia. It is then easy to understand why a theory of karman could berter rise among rice farmers rather than among wheat farmers. Rice is planted nwice (first the seed, then the seedling when it is transplanted); ic allows more than cone crop in the same year (instead of only one as for the wheat): therefore it is an evident symbol of rebirth. Such thesis is Eurtherly strenghtened by the arguings of Hare (¥), who considers the introduction of the belief in reincarnation in the sites of the tamil civilization as being due to the amis. According to him the barman theory reflects buddhist and jaina influences, when ic appears for the first time in mil texts. This hypothesis of a tribal origin (") (rather chan coming from the Indus valley oF rom the dya-s) of the kartzan theory would probably sound quite convincing to those who support (often without serious arguments) a similarly anaryan origin of the figure and cult of Siva, Secondly, PS 57 (a alceady PS 53 and 55) contains a parsiculertropological tool the metaphor. It is useful to remember here the conclusions of Keyes and Daniel about the use of this figure of speech to illustrate different barren theories. The metaphor is bond to that parcicular communicetion sign, the symbol, by which the representation of the described phenomenon is effected. “The symbol is definable a: a sign conventionally choosen to indicate an arbitrary relationship between two poles: the object to be explained (referent) and the object forming the model (sem). So in poetic language the metaphor occupies the same place that the model occupies in scientific laguage: either model or metaphor are tools ased to re-describe reality (%). Furtherly harman theories are seen as interpretable in the terms of two other figures, of speech: metonymy (by using an index it offers a reduction of the object to be (9) See G.L. Hare, ‘The Theory of Relacatmaton among the Tans’, in O'Flaherty, el, op. pm 11633 (©) For which see G. Obevesecere, “The Rebirth Eschatology and Its Transformations: & Conrtibution to the Sociology of Early Buddhinm’, in OTlaherty, ed, op. eit, pp. 137-64 (09 See N. Black, Models and Metapkom, Whacs 1962; P. Ricoeut, The Rule of Metaphor. Toronto 1925, pp. 241 EL, M.B. Hesse, The Explinatory Function of Metaphor. Models and Analogs in Science, [Notre Due. Indian 1970 |qucted in EV. Daiel,"Concusion: Kain, the Uses ofan [dean Keres 4 Dari, ods, op. «it, p. 290), The analyic of metaphor ac being bond tothe symbol goes back to 4 twishotomy of signs mace up by Peis. According to im the teor isa sign in which referent and toma ave pt in relation by the shoring of quality; the inde i «sign in which the relation between referent and sema is one of comity, the symbols sign defined by the arbirar nature ofthe elation bheracen referent and sea See CS. Peive, Collcted Paper, ed. C. Hartshorne de P- Weis, Cambridge 1958, pp. 227-307, quoted in Daniel, ‘Karina Divined in a Riual Capauk, in Keyes & Daniel, es op. cit. 89. fn. 4 276 (16)explained) and synecdoche (by using an icon it shows the inherence into a model of the phenomenon to be explained) (”). Deep and fruitfal pages on metaphor have been writsen by Potter, who going back to Lakoff and Johnson proposes the following definition for this figure: “understanding and experiencing (of) one kind of thing in terms of another’ (8), Metaphors do permeate our daily speech, and also our way of thinking. A map of the metaphors mostly diffused in the normally used locutions ofa linguistic community represents therefore a graphic explanation of the conceptual systems shared by the members of the same community Potter's conclusion (according to which from the Indian point of view ‘every activity is a making of some thing for a purpose’) is that karman theory is centred around a metaphor (doing is moking), which in its turn derives from a peculiarity of the sanskrit language, according to which every act is conceived as the building or making of something, rather than as a simple activity fo make as opposed to fo do) () All these speculations on the role of metaphor with respect to karman are no doubt interesting (sometimes affectedly origina), but seem to be accompanied with some defects commen to occidental scholars: inebility to grasp the core of eastern culture; exclusive attention to the texts; surreptitious, captious and chaotie accumulation of arguments; vice of turning unexpressed points into main ressons; arbitrary building of reasonments; more interest into extablishing one’s own favousite cheories than into ascertaining the actual facts (4%), ‘Therefore, as one of the most valid criteria to avoid such mistakes lies in choosing ‘indigenous’ hermeneutical schemes to interpretate the conceptual scheme to be analyzed, ve propose to substitute here the more correct sanskrit word upacira (°) See Dane “Conclusion. et, p. 293 E, wo refers to H. White, Metabiton. The Historical Imagination iy Niotont Contry Europe, Baltimore 1973. For che different kinds of signs oo the eove footnote (0°) K, Potter, Ker: the Metaphor of Making, paper forthe Fourth Kars Woslabop, act for publication, Weshington n.d, recewed from the author in june 1983 a! Naples. &. Some of the retapiers commenty wed by speakers in Northern America as examined by Labo and Jobnsoa (C. Lekof! «eM. Johnson, dMetaphor we Gor by, Chicago 1980, cuoted in Poter, unpublished paper, cit) te the fllowing once: “argument i wae, tae ic ones, happy ie up, “nation i an ent’ labour isthe resource’, ‘theocies are buildings’ etc. Ti Is obvious that (bid, p. 19) the use made by Potter, ka and Jahnsoa of the crm ‘metaphor is pot referable othe wel-known Fine of speech, bu: rather vo the very round key of the strciuse of communication: that i, de fac cba language and though constantly request to formulate something inthe terms of something ele, ie to supply asabject with s predate. The nota linguistic expressions thas more oweety a metaphorical’ rather than. ‘Teal Ihe. tauolonead one. €) ower, unpublished paper, cry. 14 (®) See NIN. Bhide, The Kama Theor, Mysore 1950, p 3, uoted in E Gerew, ‘What i harms (kim karmnet)? An Exercise in Paibsophie Semantics’, Ifologica Taursensa,X, 1982, p. 108, i. 3-36. 7) a7‘figural expression’ ("!) 10 the term ‘merephor’. The term appears in Nydyasira 2.2.62, where it indicates a fundamental function of language, based on the very concept of predicability of an attribute with regard to a subject. Without this function the communicative act is condemned to be 2 mere tautology. Here is the stfma: Even in absence of the Literal meaning of that certain referent, the figucl predicability of a word does exist, 4s for the words ‘brshmanical priest, ‘platform, ‘mat’, ‘king’, flour’, ‘sandal’, Gatiga’, ‘dh’, ‘food’, ‘man’. This happens respectively in reason of astociation, plece, aim, behaviour, mearure, the fact of containing something, proximity, conjunction, cause and supremacy. ‘The most fitting relation to our case (the soul predicated as rice) is the one concerning ‘behaviour’ (optt2, also possibly rendered with ‘function’ or "working’) ‘The expressions ‘the king is a Yama’ or ‘the king is a Kubera’ imply that the king, owing to his crucly or magnanimity, behaves like the two divine characters above mentioned. In the stme way the thrice stained soul ‘works’ like the rice with its three sheaths. So it is proper to predicate the soul as a grain of rice (*). er how we want 10 call it, this image, explaining che soul in terms of , has been someway successful ia the PS. In fact itis contained in three other passages of this work. In each of them, now one now another of the different aspects of the same simile are from time to time put into light. (This sbstuion bees wth self the solution to another clemuma (even mere @temiaclogical cons) tha, the problem whether raeaphor is Hee erring fornia (having the form of according WE. Gesow, A Glosary of Indi Figures of Spec, The Hague Pa's 171, pp. 2939) or instead fo: puma Ccomparson’ according to Gero, del, pp. 14070). Gero rer the igor nour as wramaaake ih sindle-mctopher” (bd 170), la Ms. Coulson, Sans An Itrdactcn to this Caza! Langue, New York 1982 Ist ed. 1874), p. 92, «brief note is dedicated to the problem whether such compounds 8 pdspedmss are tobe conskered in terms of one or the other ofthe abore qacted figure. Ite cleat that the use ofa general, stl unpecilzed term like upacawalows to skip the stbect, that rises only ‘when Indian shetori and porice arrive atthe acme oftheir earishing (ther in dimes by long posterior to the compiling ofthe Nyayesi) (©) Nydyesdtne 2.2.62 corteaponds te 2.2.64 aconding to Svimi Dravhidis Sant (Vatydyona Dissaansaiten sauansan Nyiyalasenm, Boiibbisimanianpasrare toparyedsamalamirtarca Beaddhabharati, Varanasi 1976, p. 1706). D. Chattopednyaya &N. Gangepudhyasa, Noaye Pilsepby, Literal Towslaion of Gautama’s Nyéyestis and Vatpeyna'sbbisya.., 2nd par. UL adbyéya, Caleta 1968, p. 149. and S Radhabrichnan & C.A. Mote, A Soeebock i Indian Pilerophy, Princeton 1973, p. 370 count i #8 22.62. Vateyavana eeplaies szedbhive i upaci by ‘vo give a cerale meaning vo 4 word that not that one’ Sstit makes cee tha che meaning of the str 's'the wie ofa word also iF s nce [the proper one]. The glom explaining ott as the behaviour of king ike Vane and Kubera is mide by Vateyayana. Siti points out tha ths expression must be intended as an antonomsis: ‘eve to the reason given by thebchaviour such expression iswued at "the king is Vara" for his crel behaviour ‘or “he s # Kubera” (for his genecesty 778 1g)Firstly let us consider Sioka 18: na certain degree the husk that adheres to the grain of rice, even if it is distinct from it, (seems) not differentiated (from it]. But he obtains purification, in omoquece of his ardent turning his face coward: the path of Siv.F) Sitburn explains ‘husk’ (kambuieam) by a generic formula (es curasses de P'ilsion gai forment la portion iatime de ’ime finie’). It is not elear if this refers to néyd illusion’) in a technical sense (nayijanral) or rather in a broad one. It would seem more correct (if we accept the equation siramarge = iamibhavopaya = icchopaya) to understand dambudam more precisely as meaning the dyavarala, This makes sense because what icchopiye intends to weaken is just dxavarels. We cannot in fact forget that each of the three melas is bond to a Sakti Every male represents the limited individualization in the va of the corresponding godly powers (iccha/anava"; iftina/ miyiza®; briylRarma®) (4) Secondly there are the sleka-s 23.4: Like the chaff (usa) does envelope the grain of rice (tarduiakania), so in the same way this manifestation, represented by the [elements renging from] nature going down as far as the earth, [does cover] the awareness through the apparition of a bbody. I The sypreme obscruction here is the fro0t] impurity, The subse one is the ccuirass formed by may etc. (~ plus the five haicuka-s). The grote one is external and (takes) the form of the body. So the Self is covered by the triple sheath, The internal (or ‘supreme’, para) glume corresponds to dravemala, the vel (varaxa) ‘made up by the non-intuition (akéyait) of the real natare of Self. ‘The mid (or ‘subtle’, siiksraa) glume does extend itself from mayd as far as niyatl, thus covering the domain of the six cuirasses (haiicuka: maya and the ether five ones). It is the mapiyamala ‘The gross (sthila) impurity finally forms the external (hibya) glume: itis made up by the body (serra), through which the jfta endures the consequences of his own well- or backdeserving acts. It is the kirmamala (*). As it is to be noticed, the same structure is presented here as the one alzeady showed in PS 57, with each of the three glumes corresponding with one mala Finally there are the sloke-s 85-6: ‘Acgranof rice has been periectly detached from the cuter integument and the plumes. (©) See BS, ed. Sibuea, pp. 58, 70; PS, ed. Chameriee, p49 () See PS, ed. Sibu, p70. About the four paths rowards wal (avepiyn, dambhavopava ce lechopia,Sksopaya or jinopiys, inavonéya or triyopiye) sec ibid, p- 22, summary schedule atthe end of the Introduction (9) ¥ ed PS 24, ed. Chetterice, p. 35 £ 19] 29‘The introduction ofa grain of rice in 4 fragment of the integument does not produce its same [originary] shape egain So isthe awareness, that has been here detached, dae to purification, from the vel of the curasses. Let([the cuirasses) be all the same: the Liberated soul becomes free from their goniact “The liberated sou!’ its honds destroyed, ‘becomes free from their contact’. The contact is an influence due to the earmamala. It has the form of merit and demerit, and it does support the birth, sprout of transmigration. The soul becemes free {rom this, that is, i escapes from it. In the same way the grain of rie forced into a fragment of integament is bereft of the contact, being the sprouting of the shoot (*) In conclusion we are allowed to extend the basic image (grain of rice = soul) into a wider model. The particle cru) is similar to the grain of rice (éardulakera). So the soul can sprout to give birth to 2 new plant (arpsériikura, ‘the sprout of transmigration’), that is a new life. The only way to interrupt the cycle is to force the seed (= anu) inio a state incapable to sprout (dagdbabaa "burned seed”), Or the seed can be made barren by mechanically removing from it its cuirasses (tusebamsbucka). So the seed will be no longer able to sprout a shoot, not even if it is forced into a fragment of the integument (tusadala). Lest the differentiation of the cuirasses into outer integument, glumes and small bracts (PS 57) does extablish an exact parallel with the three male \dzeva’, mayiya® and kirmanala), ordered according to their own peculiar hieratchy. (9) Y ad PS 8, ed, Chateree, p. 168 f 280 [2a]