REGLA DE TRES COMPUESTA

Tantrika Sahitya, the most recent catalog specializing in Tannic texts and manuscripts, lists forty-one commentaries on the SL. However, this catalog does not specify where these commentaries are to be found; it simply collects infor-mation from older catalogs, some of which were prepared almost a hundred years ago. Many of the manuscripts men-tioned in those catalogs may no longer exist. It was possible to obtain only thirteen commentaries. Among them, ten are edited and published; three are still in unedited manuscript form.124

So far, no study has been done with the intention of expli-cating the commentaries themselves. Swami Visnutirtha's Saundarya-Lahari Ka Hindi Anuvada and S. Subrahmanya Shastri and T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar's Saundarya-Lahari of Sri Samkara-Bhagavatpada are general works that derive their materials from LD, as well as from other commentaries such as Kaivalyasrama's Saubhagyavardhani and Kames-varasuri's Arunamodini. The most outstanding of the avail-able commentaries are Laksmidhara's LD, Kaivalyasram's Saubhagyavardhani, and Kamesvarasuri's Arunamodini.

Ramakavi's dindima and Anandagiri's Anandagiriya also deserve mention because they occasionally present unique interpretations oriented towards Sankhya and mantra

sadhana, respectively. Laksmidhara, Kaivalyasrama, and Kamesvarasuri attempt to extract and elaborate upon the meaning of the original text within the limits of Sakta philos-ophy, while Ramakavi compromises between Tantra and Sankhya doctrines, identifying sakti with prakrti and siva with purusa. Anandagiri, on the other hand, attempts to demonstrate how a number of srividya mantras or mantras of secondary Srividya deities are derived from or represented by the verses of the SL.

Because of the depth of knowledge it displays in regard to Samaya philosophy and practice, Laksmidhara's commen-tary on the SL holds a place similar to that of Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras or Vyasa's on the Yoga Sutras. Laksmidhara gives a detailed treatment of the Sa-maya method of Srividya sadhana and philosophy. He rejects the views of the Kaula and Misra groups, considering them to be un-Vedic and unworthy. He draws heavily on the Sub-hagodaya of Gaudapada, for which he claims to have written a commentary. The version of SU published in the appendix of NS cites Sivananda as its author and mainly focuses on de-scribing an external method for ritualistic worship of sricakra. This version, consisting of a mixture of anustup meter and prose, contains almost nothing related to Sama-yacara. Another version of the SU, consisting of fifty-two sikharini chandas, is published in the appendix of Shiva Shankar Awasthi Shastri's Mantra Aur Matrkaon ka Rahasya (hereafter cited as MMR),125 and gives Gaudapada as its au-thor. There is a great similarity between the Gaudapada SU and some of the verses of the SL; this is particularly evident in LD, not only in the usage of terms but even in the duplica-tion of complete phrases.

However, Laksmidhara, in his commentary on the SL, quotes the SU which is in anustup meter, not in sikharani.126

Further, the material that he quotes is not found in Sivananda's anustup chanda nor in the prose version of SU.

These contradictions lead us to believe that there must have been another version of SU by Gaudapada, most probably in anustup meter, which was commented upon by Laksmidhara and quoted in his commentary on the SL verses 11, 32, and 41. Whatever the case may be, the present version of SU ascribed to Gaudapada, published in the appendix of MMR, is one of the most significant Samayacara texts, and it either utilizes Laksmidhara's exposition (if it is later than Laksmi-dhara's text) or vice versa.

In addition to SU, Laksmidhara draws heavily on the Vamakesvara Tantra (Catuhsati), Sanatakumarasamhita, Arunopanisad, Vasistha Samhita, and the texts of Vedic lore, such as Taittriyasamhita, Taittriyabrahmana, Taittriya-ranyaka, Taittriyopanisad, and Yogakundali Upanisad.127 As stated earlier, SL simply consists of devotional verses dedi-cated to the goddess Tripurasundari and contains so little Tantric material that it hardly qualifies as a Tannic text.128 It is Laksmidhara who brings in Tantric ideas and magnifies them in his commentary on SL, especially verses 1,8-11, 14, 31-32, 34-36, 40-41, 92, and 99. Most of the other verses describe the anthropomorphic form of the goddess and carry little philosophical weight. By selecting only those verses which serve his purpose, Laksmidhara clearly demonstrates that he is a sectarian commentator. His interest lies in ex-pounding the theories related to sricakra, the srividya man-tra, the cakras in the human body, matrika, the awakening of kundalini, and attaining the direct experience of the union of siva and sakti in the sahasrara. He attempts to pull together all these components and unite them under one main con-cept, sakti. Unlike other Tantric scriptures, commentators, and writers of independent texts, Laksmidhara insists on

using the specific terms samaya, sadhakhya, and candrakala with precisely defined meanings. By conducting a philologi-cal analysis of these terms, and thus understanding the process through which their general meanings resolved into the specific meanings we encounter in LD, we may gain a better insight into the historical and philosophical develop-ment of Sakta Tantrism as a whole.

General and Specific