6. COMERCIO EXTERIOR DE PRODUCTOS DE ORIGEN VEGETAL
6.2. Exportación vegetal
Abhinava-MS. No. 5727, Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts, Asia-tic Society of Bengal, Vol. V I I I , (Tantras), p. 568.
For other verses see MS. No. RS 180. 4/A14B, Accesion No. 45723, Lucknow University Library. These verses are bound together with the Pranava-bala-bodhini of Samkaracarya.
5. Vide, Bh.G.S,, 12.6.8; T.A. 26.63-65; P.T.V., p p , 22, 59, 163, 198, 223;
Dh.L., pp. 197, 397; Bhas. (V), I, p. 42; St.C., V., p. 112; P.S.V., p. 112.
6. Vide Contribution, p. 347. But no textual authority could be traced in support of this statement.
Sources and Literature 161 gupta.1 According to the colophon of t h e MS there should
be two verses2 instead of five as available. As to the possibility of their having been composed by two a u t h o r s - the first three verses by some unknown author a n d t h e remaining two by Abhinavagupta - , Gnoli is inclined to believe t h a t they are all by Abhinavagupta since ''Nothing in t h e style or contents how-ever forbids us from attributing them to A b h i n a v a g u p t a . "3 A manuscript of t h e same is preserved in t h e B h a n d a r k a r Insti-tute4 which has not be?n consulted by Gnoli as per his own statement. A final judgement on his findings can only be pro-nounced after looking into the said manuscript.
Let us revert to the K r a m a system. T h e system has pro-fited by him in at least four positive ways - firstly, as an indi-spensable respository of tradition a n d t h o u g h t ; secondly, as a sourcebook of authors and their works preceding h i m ; thirdly, as a commentator on the few important K r a m a t e x t s ; a n d finally, as an original thinker of enviable value who fostered
t h e thought with a critical analysis a n d insight. But for him, we, today, would have missed the richness of the entire tradi-tional intellectual development.5 He assimilated the tradition and then enriched it by exposition a n d embellishment. In t h e history of the K r a m a thought only two names can be cited to match him in the enormity of historical allusions. They a r e J a y a r a t h a , his own commentator, a n d M a h e s v a r a n a n d a . But
for Abhinava's Kramakeli the early history of t h e system would have remained t h e "pre-history" for a m o d e r n student. As a commentator he has produced the Kramakeli on the Kramastotra
1. Vide Miscellanea Indica, (2, Five Unpublished Stanzas of Abhinava-gupta), pp. 222-23.
The MS., according to Gnoli, belongs to a private collection, details of which have not been furnished. Vide, p. 216.
3. Ibid., p. 222.
4. See Buhler, N o . 474.
(of Siddhanatha). His other commentary Vivarana is an expo-sition of his own Prakarana Stotra. T h e Tantraloka, Krama Stotra, Prakarana Stotra a n d Tantrasara are his original contributions to t h e system. T h e Tantraloka covers a vast expanse and, in its mas-sive efforts 10 preserve a n d present the K a s h m i r Saiva thought in its fullness, deals with t h e K r a m a dicta a n d theses to almost perfection. T h e Tantrasara tries to do the same in brief. His K r a m a works will be taken up for a fuller treatment.
When he diverted his attention from literature to the study of Saiva monism, K r a m a was his first love in philosophy. T h e earliest date of the Krama Stotra bears ample testimony to it. T h e first verse of the Krama Stotra makes it obvious t h a t he was rest-less and h a d no peace of mind before he t u r n e d to K r a m a .1
Abhinava attained his proficiency in K r a m i c experiments and went very far in realizing the true spirit of the system. He him-self affirms it.2 Apart from his specific K r a m a treatises, there a r e certain other texts namely, the Malinivijqya-varttika, Paryanta Pancasika and Paratrimsika-vivarana wherein he occasionally dwells on the K r a m a tenets at length. Among his K r a m a works, the Krama Stotra is his first contribution in t h e chronological order as its earliest date would vindicate.3 After ventilation of his views about t h e n a t u r e and purpose of devotional prayer, t h e Stotra grows t h r o u g h four stages viz., (i) t h e background of t h e K r a m i c emanation, (ii) rise and emergence of Kramic evolution through twelve Kalikas, (iii) repose of K r a m a in the Absolute, and (iv) t h e epilogue invoking the G o d h e a d ' s grace
Sources and Literature 163 on humanity. T h e order in which the various stages i.e., Kalis,
succeed each other is in consonance with the metaphysical aspect (Samvit-krama) of it and not with t h e ritualistic one (Pujana-krama). T h e ante-penultimate verse indicates Abhi-nava's unmistakable adherence to the school that held Siva as the ultimate reality.1 T h e Prakarana Stotra is known today only from a reference to it by Abhinava in t h e Tantrasara.2 Its chief purpose was to dwell on the concept of K a l i with an accent upon its etymological implications. T h e Prakarana Vivarana3
was in all probability a commentary by A b h i n a v a himself on the said Stotra. Both of these works were intended to cover in detail the n a t u r e of the dynamic Absolutism and its modus operandi echoing the manifold derivative significance of the word ' K a l a n a . ' A word of caution may be added. Abhinava does not give out the n a m e of this text as the Prakarana Vivarana. He simply says Vivarana. It is not known whether he m e a n t by it the Krama-keli, a commentary on the Krama Stotra, or an independent com-mentary on the Prakaranastotra itself. In such a fluid state of affairs one has to base one's hypothesis on the contextual evidence and should press it only to that extent, no further. In this connec-tion, it may be noted that he wrote another work called the Prakunaka-vivarana.4 It is yet hypothetical to say that the two were identical Dr. Pandey appears to take them as two separate works.5 Nagarajan follows Dr. Pandey.6 But on a close perusal
Jayaratha explains the word 'Anyatra' thus
-5. Vide Abhi, p p . 28 38.
6. Contribution , p. 356.
their difference does not remain tenable. According to Naga-rajan1 it is a grammatico-philosophical work. If one accepts this contention, which one should, their distance vanishes. Because even the two contexts resemble each other in t h e respect that the books in question are purported to answer t h e grammatical a n d derivational requirements a n d analyse ensuing implications of the philosophical concepts. Let us, however, await t h e verdict of future investigation on it. T h e single work called
Tantraloka is sufficient to m a k e him the doyen of t h e monistic philosophers of K a s h m i r . For fear of repetition no reference is being made to its varied contents. However, Ahnikas 4, 13, 31 a n d 32 specially deal with the K r a m a system while Ahnikas Krama Stotra of an earlier author, it speaks of the originality and vast comprehension of its author's mind. At present our know-ledge is limited to references only made by himself,3 Ksemaraja,4
1. Ibid.
2. While in Kashmir (1963 Summer) we made an extensive search to trace out its manuscript. We were told by Pt. D.N. Yaksa of the Sanskrit Section of Research Department, J a m m u and Kashmir Government, Srinagar that a MS of the Kramakeli was available with Mr. Somanatha Razdan of Purshiar, Aba Kadal (2nd bridge), Srinagar, but it was difficult to procure from h i m . The personal meeting with the gentleman resulted in the impression that he had inherited a large treasure of rare MSS from his grandfather, an avowed Sanskritist. But he could not be persuaded even to allow us to have a look of the text, not to talk of parting with it. Even the monetary temptations failed. On a later date Prof. B N. Pandit of Khannabal informed us that he knew of one MS of the Kramakeli in possession of a person whom he knew. But his efforts, too, were doomed to failure.
Sources and Literature 165