nātha lokābhimānānām apūrvaṃ tvaṃ nibandhanam |
mahābhimānaḥ karhi syāṃ tvadbhaktirasapūritaḥ ||
O Lord, you are unprecedented cause of the self-conceptions (abhimāna) of all beings. Filled with the nectar of immersion in you, when shall I possess a vast self-sense (abhimāna)?
Kṣemarāja's comment:
You alone, whose form is consciousness, are the nibandhanam, i.e. the cause of those various types of self-conceptions from (semi)-liberated (rudras) beings to individuals (kṣetrajña), thus [they respectively think] “I will create, I will sustain, I will destroy; in the same way, I am a scholar (creating [knowledge]), warrior (protecting), or sacrificer (destroying).” Having become apūrvaṁ, i.e. without cause, the sense is because of his own supreme independence. This is true because of the fact that You alone are the doer of everything; it is not the case that Brahmā, etc, is the creator, or a certain person is a scholar. You alone bring about such self-conceptions with respect to all of those [beings]. karhi, i.e. when, in accordance with your will, shall I who is pūritaḥ, i.e. pervaded by your bhaktirasa be mahābhimāṇa, i.e., [when will I have] the self-confidence (avaṣṭambha) that is a fixed resolve in the [conviction] -- “I am nothing but Śiva who is a mass of bliss and consciousness which contains the universe.” This is the intention of the speaker in the statement “bhaktirasapūrita” – even for one by whom the great self conception has been attained, merely being a slave of the Lord which consists in the relishing of immersion, is appropriate.
Some additional thoughts, i.e. my upavṛtti:
Kṣemarāja deepens the creative paradox of humble grandiosity by equating "being a servant of the Lord" with "relishing immersion / interpenetration" into him. This attitude or comportment of a servant is fitting (yukta), even for one who has realized his great self-conception, "I am nothing but Śiva". In other words, the subject of the poem should become the very object of his own reverence and service. In a non-dual restructuring of apparently dualistic panegyric, the meanings of all the dialogical concepts, including service to a divine Other, are re-calibrated as a quasi cosmic narcissism, where the ultimate object of devotion is our very own, supremely sovereign Self; namely, Śiva.
What is the value of being a servant to oneself? The answer seems to lie in relishing the immersion in the reality, which the root text pronominally asserts in second person [You], as a first person, ecstatic and revelatory mode of aesthesis. Therefore, being pervaded by rasa -- a superlative relishing, of bhakti -- supreme immersion, comprises a mysterious normative injunction for an otherwise absolutely fulfilled self-sense, which has internalized the entire cosmos and recognized itself to be the source of all limited forms of agency.
Just who relishes, what is being relished, and how? Kṣemarāja is not clear on this point, but a deeper understanding of his philosophical context can help. The union or immersion into Śiva does not mean a cessation of all activity -- the creative, divinized drama continues, the theater of the three worlds (trailokyanāṭaka), and the now fully-realized agent par-excellence is not merely a detached witness. He is a connoisseur, pervaded by bhaktirasa, a cosmic relishing of the fact that all phenomena is his own expansion, made possible by his own self-reflective awareness (vimarśa). This capacity (śakti), his own intimate power or beloved (priyā), is itself the ground of all activity, all the scenes, if you will, of his projected drama: the cosmos.
Then, and only then, is He truly the star of the show.
Thanks for the post, enjoyed it! As a side note relevant to both our work, I think it's an open question how technically they both use 'bhaktirasa' as term. Do you think either of them really intends it as a rasa in the strict aesthetic sense, or do they use rasa here simply as a synonym for amṛta etc.? I'm skeptical about the former, although perhaps the phrase is deliberately suggestive. In any case it's quite relevant for translating such passages---leaving it as an untranslated compound suggests the technical term, but translating rasa in same way suggests the more general meaning.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response, Hamsa-ji. Following Abhinava who explicitly states that bhakti is not a rasa (in terms of the 9 major rasas -- I recently found the reference in the Abhinavabharatī), Kṣemarāja, as a faithful disciple, certainly does not consider bhakti rasa in that light. Rasa is often glossed with amṛta by Kṣemarāja, as you said, and also as camatkāra or āsvāda. The fascinating thing is how the language surrounding the compound, in both Kṣemarāja's comment and Utpaladeva's base text, parallel's aesthetic technical language, from the theme of relishing to Kṣemarāja's use of dramatic terms like ceṣṭā and his glossing of particular varieties of suggestion, etc. Also, there is clearly a deep metaphor between the terms rasa, amṛta, and ānanda, both metaphorically, and conceptually, that allow at least the suggestion of the aesthetic category, while still speaking primarily in the tantric philosophical context. I will let you know if I discover anything more concrete than this -- I am following the amṛta lead, and noticing that Kṣemarāja uses the word in the introduction to almost all of his texts, often within the scope of the verbal activities of relishing (carvaṇa) or extracting (uddhṛ / ākṛṣ).
ReplyDeleteOn a final note, this is still a rough translation, and I realize I should translate the compound, as a general practice. I have just paused because I am still mystified by what Utpala really meant by it.
Hi Ben, thanks for this interesting post.
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you what is the Sanskrit word(s) you translate with "scholar"?
As for the conundrum you hint at (how could one be a servant, if one is Śiva?), I usually interpret its first part as relevant to people who have still not recognised that their essence is the Supreme Lord. Furthermore, the dynamic character of the Lord makes it for Him enjoyable to be worshipped, although by Himself, as in a cosmic līlā, isn't it? I look forward for the next post on the Pratyabhijñā school!