Within Tantric texts the words and teachings of yoginīs are particularly prized. The Mahārthamañjarī, Mahānayaprakāśa, and other similar texts are understood to record the teachings of yoginīs or other enlightened feminine beings, and are seen as particularly powerful and potent. However, what distinguishes these teachings from those of human male gurus, or other teachers, or even the teachings of the male god Śiva, apart from the gender of their revealer? Are there unique stylistic features of the teachings of yoginīs and other female beings that are uniquely amenable to accomplishing spiritual goals?
Interestingly, the alaṅkāraśāstra theorist Rājaśekhara has described the language of yoginīs in his Kāvyamīmāṃsā. In alaṅkāraśāstra literature much time and effort was spent in delineating the proper use of language within poetry and drama. For instance, in the eighteenth chapter of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra we find an entire litany of rules for the speech of men, women, upper class and lower class characters, as well as itinerant renunciates. Rājaśekhara follows in this vein, and in seventh chapter of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā he lays out the unique features of the languages of various divine and semidivine beings. This list includes the progeny of Brahmā, ṛṣis, vidyādharas, gandharvas, and serpents (Skt.: bhaujaṅgamam). Interestingly, another category of being is labeled yoginīgata (“abiding with yoginīs”). Rājaśekhara describes the speech of yoginīs as “a string of words with deep meaning, abounding in compounds and metaphors, and abiding within doctrine and convention.”
This is a very striking statement, pregnant with possibilities but also begging a number of questions. Is this a simple descriptive account of the language that Rājaśekhara himself heard yoginīs speak? Was he cataloguing the kinds of speech that he himself heard divine beings speak? Or rather was he outlining a normative framework following the cultural assumptions about these kinds of beings? In the latter (and more likely case), Rājaśekhara’s work is valuable in attesting to contemporary assumptions about yoginīs and divine language, but how well does it hold up to actual survivals of this kind of speech?
This paper will investigate this question by examining the kind of language used in texts understood to record the teachings of yoginīs, whether human or supernatural. These will include texts composed in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Apabhraṃśa. They will include a Sanskrit text composed by a female adept of Tantric Buddhism, i.e. the Advayasiddhi of Lakṣmīṅkarā. It will also texts with verses composed in Apabhraṃśa understood to be the teachings of Pīṭheśvarīs, the enlightened female beings that serve as the founders of the Krama school. This latter category will include the Mahānayaprakāśaand Chummasaṃketaprakāśa.
From the outset, it is my observation that Rājaśekhara’s description holds true for the yoginīteachings contained in Tantric Krama literature. The verses of the Mahānayaprakāśa and Chummasaṃketaprakāśa can certainly be described as “[strings] of words with deep meaning, abounding in compounds and metaphors, and abiding within doctrine and convention.” Consider the following verse from the Chummāsaṃketaprakāśa:
nija-para-śatti samūhu samaggo, akamu mahaughe avaṭi agādhi |
samarākkepa śameti abhaggo, pabhava-sāhasa-kośaa anādhi ||
sāhasakathā || #2
[nija-para-śakti-samūhaḥ samargaḥ, akramaḥ mahaughe avaṭe agādhe |
samarākṣepa śamayati abhagnaḥ, prabhava-sāhasa-kośakaḥ anādhiḥ || Skt. chāyā]
According to the Great Stream,
the Akrama is the whole throng of śaktis of self and other within the deep abyss,
Pacifying the constant embroilment with strife,
the vessel of energy and force is serene
The verse is describing the practices of the Akrama, the simultaneous method of attainment within the system theoretically outside of the structures of Krama practice. From the outset one sees compounds in the first and fourth padas, as well as specialized vocabulary from the Krama. One sees the term mahaughe, referring to the initiatory tradition descending from the pīṭheśvarīs themselves. There is also the obscure metaphor that the verse is using, that of śaktis within the deep abyss. The entire verse certainly “abides within doctrine and convention,” and is immersed in the terminology and conceptual resources of the Krama tradition.
However, does Rājaśekhara’s description hold true for other texts composed by yoginīs? Let’s examine a verse from Lakṣmīṅkarā’s Advayasiddhi:
mṛtyur eṣa vikalpo ‘yaṃ na bhāvaḥ sarva-vastuṣu |
hanyate sva-vikalpena pṛthag-jana-vijṛmbhitaiḥ || 34 ||
This conception is death: that there is no essence in all things.
One is killed by one’s conceptions and manifestations of lower people.
This verse challenges Rājaśekhara’s description of the speech of yoginīs. While it certainly contains Buddhist terminology, one only finds two compounds in this verse, hardly different from other works in classical Sanskrit composed by male authors. Furthermore, in terms of content, it certainly follows the Buddhist doctrine that conceptions lead one to ruin, however it seems to contradict the fundamental tenet of Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy. Indeed, this verse seems to argue that the belief in the lack of essence in all things leads one astray. One can hardly imagine a more direct contradiction of the doctrine of emptiness. For Rājaśekhara, the words of yoginīs fall within the bounds of doctrine and convention, and yet here we find a Tantric Buddhist Mahāsiddha preaching against a central tenet of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine.
As we can see from this preliminary examination, it is not always clear that Rājaśekhara’s description holds true for texts composed by yoginīs. It also begs the question: how unique are these features to yoginī literature? Compounds and metaphors are everywhere in Tantric literature, indeed this is true for many genres of Sanskrit literature across thousands of texts. They are hardly unique to the works of yoginīs. And specialized terminology is a standard feature of most religious texts. Are these features more common in Tantric yoginī literature than texts written by male authors? How useful exactly are Rājaśekhara’s observations (or rather prescriptions)? This paper will address these and other questions by interrogating these yoginī texts, and in so doing will contribute to our understanding of the intersection between alaṅkāraśāstra literature with Tantra, and the usefulness of these prescriptive accounts in describing the features of works of the latter.
In the seventh chapter of his Kāvyamīmāṃsā Rājaśekhara describes the different kinds of speech spoken by various celestial and mythological beings. The list includes the progeny of Brahmā, ṛṣis, vidyādharas, gandharvas, and serpents (Skt.: bhaujaṅgamam). Interestingly, another category of being is labeled yoginīgata (“abiding with yoginīs”). Rājaśekhara describes the speech of yoginīs as “a string of words with deep meaning, abounding in compounds and metaphors, and abiding within doctrine and convention.” However, who was Rājaśekhara referring to, divine mythological beings or their followers? What about human women, like Lakṣmīṅkarā? This paper will address this question by examining several texts attributed to divine female beings and teachers, will examine their style and content in light of Rājaśekhara’s comments. By so doing this paper will investigate how well an important alaṅkāraśāstra theorist was acquainted with Tantric traditions, and what insight his works might have on the style of the latter.