BIT TER MEDICINE:

A B H I N AVA G U P TA’ S D E F E N S E O F
SACRIFICE

S.D. Vasudeva
Columbia University
Contents

Abbreviations and Sigla of Manuscripts used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Sacrifice as liberating initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The six-times reborn victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix: Netratantra 20.1–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Abbreviations and Sigla of Manuscripts used

N Tantrasadbhāva. NAK 5-445 śaivatantra 185, accessed through microfilm NGMPP A 44/2, palmleaf, 210 folios. Desig-
nated by “Kh” in Dycskowski’s etext.
Q Tantrasadbhāva. NAK 1-363 śaivatantra, accessed through microfilm NGMPP A 44/1, palmleaf 140 folios. Designated
by “K” in Dycskowski’s etext.
Ted Tantrāloka. Edition by Madhusūdan Kaul. KSTS lxi 1939.
K2 Tantrāloka. Śrīnagar acc. no. 1054-iii, 190 fol., Śāradā, only the Tantrāloka.
K5 Tantrāloka. Śrīnagar acc. no. 1792, 519 fol., Śāradā, the Tantrāloka with the Viveka or Vivecana commentary of Jayara-
tha.
K7 Tantrāloka. Śrīnagar acc. no. 2201, 299 fol., Śāradā, only the Tantrāloka.
Ned Netratantra. Edition by Madhusūdan Kaul. KSTS lxi 1939. In her review in the BEFEO, H. Brunner (1974:125–6)
finds reason to doubt that Kaul was more than a “nominal” editor, for his listing of chapter titles is « en grand
part inutilisable… les titres donnés son en effet souvent fantaisistes », and she doubts he even read the work to
which he attached his name.
Ś1 Netratantra. Śrīnagar acc. no. 845, fol 56r ff., Śāradā, contains both the Netratantra and the Netroddyota
Ś2 Netratantra. Śrīnagar acc. no. 1054, fol 74v ff., Śāradā, contains both the Netratantra and the Netroddyota
Ś4 Netratantra. Śrīnagar acc. no. 1521, fol 83r ff., Śāradā, contains both the Netratantra and the Netroddyota
Ś5 Netratantra. Śrīnagar acc. no. 1635, fol 73v ff., Śāradā, contains both the Netratantra and the Netroddyota
Ś6 Netratantra. Śrīnagar acc. no. 2334, fol93pc (83ac )v ff., Śāradā, contains both the Netratantra and the Netroddyota

conj. conjecture
corr. correction
em. emendation
om. omitted
[[x]] top of x missing
<no.> supplies no. of akṣaras missing
∗∗∗ illegible akṣaras
x → y citation ranges from x to y
⇻...⇺ obeli enclose corrupt passages that the present editor cannot improve upon
⁘ marks āiśa sandhi.

Introductory
In a recent study Sanderson (2009) has challenged a still widespread narrative that presents the
category of the Tantric as atypical and marginal to a mainstream of non-Tantric Indic religions.1 He
has identified the period from the fifth to the thirteenth centuries AD as the “Śaiva age,” thereby
1
I would like to thank Mrinal Kaul and Kei Kataoka or their help.

2
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

moving Śaiva, Śāktaśaiva and Śākta Tantrism from the periphery to the center of medieval Indian
culture. As a consequence, much tacit knowledge concerning the pre-modern Indian cultural and
religious landscape is in need of amplification in light of early Tantric and Purāṇic traditions that
rivaled, were influenced by, and in turn impacted this ‘mainstream’ of Brahmanism, Buddhism and
Jainism.
The following is a brief study of one aspect of Abhinavagupta’s eleventh century AD Śaiva de-
fense of sacrifice that shows how he engages, or rather deliberately fails to openly engage, with Vai-
dika material that covers a similar ground.2 The particular line of reasoning adopted by Abhina-
vagupta is congruent with arguments found already in the Vaidika domain. When Abhinavagup-
ta does not openly acknowledge such parallels we may assume that this silence is in itself a state-
ment about his valuation of the relationship between the Vaidika and the Śaiva. Rather than seek ex-
plicit validation from Vaidika authorities, Abhinavagupta adduces Śaiva revealed scriptures which
have transparently borrowed Vaidika material. Abhinavagupta’s fourteenth century commentator Ja-
yaratha does explicitly acknowledge the fact that some Vaidika Śrauta and Smārta sources such as
the Aitareyabrāhmaṇa or the Manusmṛti follow a similar apologetic strategy, presumably signaling
a shift in the perceived corroborative importance of Vaidika sources in the Śaiva defense of sacri-
fice. The works of the exegetes of the Śaivasiddhānta show that the validity of Vaidika Śruti and
Smṛti were in their system similarly contested in a wide range of contexts, not just around the is-
sue of sacrifice.3
Against this backdrop, the present study is narrowly concerned with a short section of Abhinava-
gupta’s Tantrāloka where he attempts to resolve an apparent conflict in Śaiva revelation.

The problem
In the sixteenth Āhnika of the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta sets out to harmonize two apparently con-
flicting views on the nature of the ideal candidate for ritual sacrifice, the “six times reborn vic-
tim.” The problem can be stated quite simply by juxtaposing the two inherited scriptural teach-
ings generating this conflict:

1. Sacrifice liberates the sacrificial victim, uniting it with Śiva.4

2. The ideal sacrificial victim has been reborn as a sacrificial victim six times before.5
2
There are many helpful studies that explore ritualized violence in the Indian cultural milieu, for an overview see for
example Houben & Van Kooij (1999); Schmithausen 2000.
3
For a fuller picture the reader is referred to Sanderson 2006.
4
Unambiguously at Tantrāloka 16.59cd–62ab (paraphrasing Netratantra 20.18–21) and also ambiguously at Netratan-
tra 20.9ab. The latter passage possibly referred to no more than rebirth on a higher level of existence, ūrdhvagatiḥ, a view
borrowed again from the Vaidika domain, namely from the Manusmṛti 5.40d: utsṛtīḥ.
5
Tantrāloka 16.63d, quoting unidentified scripture: ṣaḍjanmā paśur uttamaḥ.

3
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Evidently, if [1] holds and the victim is liberated by sacrifice, then it should not be reborn, making
the occurrence of [2] an impossibility.

1. Sacrifice as liberating initiation

To substantiate the first scriptural statement Abhinavagupta quotes as scriptural authority the Ne-
tratantra’s twentieth chapter.6 This is evidently a Śaiva appropriation and reworking of a view found
already much earlier in the Vaidika domain, where frequent appeal is made to the view that the soul
of the victim is transported to heaven or liberation (svarga) during the sacrifice.7 In the passage Abhi-
navagupta uses, however, the context is more specifically an apologia for the violence committed by
semi-divine Yoginīs, Mātṛs and Śākinīs. Why do the Yoginīs, Mātṛs and Śākinīs extract (ākarṣanti) the
vital energies (prāṇa) from the bodies of other living beings? Are they simply malevolent or are they
otherwise motivated?
The answer given is that the Yoginīs assail living beings in three ways: ‘transcendent’ (para), ‘imper-
ceptible’ (sūkṣma) and ‘physical’ (sthūla).8 It is neither desire, enmity, nor craving that drives them to
do this. They act in this way to worship Bhairava as stipulated in his own teachings, it is not their goal
to cause harm (hiṃsā). Śiva himself created sacrificial victims for this very purpose: by killing them
the Yoginīs, Mātṛs and Śākinīs are in reality bestowing liberating grace (anugraha) upon them, re-
deeming them from their severe sins (pāpa) and uniting them with Śiva. In the transcendent at-
tack by Yoginīs that concerns us here,9 the resulting union is compared to that occurring in Śaiva ini-
tiation (dīkṣā). As such the sacrifice itself must not be considered an act of killing (māraṇa) but rather
an act of liberating (mokṣaṇa).
Much of this has precursors in the rival brahminical Smārta religion. The Manusmṛti delineates the
fundamentals of what we might call a divinely created food-chain:10 Prajāpati created the world to
be the food of the vital spirit (prāṇa).11 As a consequence, the Manusmṛti can argue that sacrifice is
6
Sanderson (2004:Appendix): “…the Netratantra was composed in Kashmir and at some time between about AD
700 and 850.” Since the twentieth chapter of the Netratantra (specifically 20.1–21) is so important in this context it is re-
edited as an appendix with Kṣemarāja’s Netroddyota. For a brief summary of the whole Netratantra see Brunner 1974.
7
At TĀVksts 16.59 Jayaratha quotes as supporting evidence a passage from the Aitareyabrāhmaṇa 2.1.6.8: paśur vai
nīyamānaḥ sa mṛtyuṃ prāpaśyat sa devān nānvakāmayataituṃ (em., nānvakāmayatetthaṃ Ed.), taṃ devā abruvann ehi svargaṃ tvā
lokaṃ gamayiṣyāmaḥ //, “The victim, being led, directly beholds Death; he does not want to go to the Gods. The Gods
say to him: Come! we will transport you to heaven.”
8
Netratantra 20.40: trividhena tu yogena yoginyo balagarvitāḥ / jighāṃsanti yadā devi tadā śreyaḥ samācaret //
9
On the results of the other attacks see Netroddyota 20.40: trividhād yogād ādyaḥ prakāraḥ paśor muktiṃ dadātīti śrutyaivokto
dvitīyatṛtīyau bhogamokṣau vitarata ity arthalabdhau /
10
For an attempt to make sense of this in the context of Āyurveda see F. Zimmermann (1987:196–206).
11
Manusmṛti 5.28–30 (translation by G. Bühler 1886): “28. The Lord of creatures (Prajāpati) created this whole (world
to be) the sustenance of the vital spirit; both the immovable and the movable (creation is) the food of the vital spirit. 29.
What is destitute of motion is the food of those endowed with locomotion; (animals) without fangs (are the food) of
those with fangs, those without hands of those who possess hands, and the timid of the bold. 30. The eater who daily

4
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

the fulfilment of the sacrificial victim’s existential purpose.12 Even though the continuity of this Vai-
dika theorisation13 into the Śaiva domain must have been evident to his readers, it is noteworthy
that Abhinavagupta does not explicitly refer to any of this material. This does not imply that Abhi-
navagupta’s Śaivism is openly hostile to the brahminical religion,14 rather it follows quite naturally
from his position that the revealed scriptures of the Śaiva Mantramārga are independently validated
and superior. Jayaratha, on the other hand, does quote material from the Vaidika domain to further
substantiate his position. As Sanderson (2006) has noted it is not until we come to Vaktraśam-
bhu, a twelfth century disciple of the celebrated Aghoraśiva that we see a Śaiva author attempt a more
pervasive, ecumenical accommodation with the brahminical religions validated by Vaidika revelation
(śruti) and tradition (smṛti).
Returning to our first point, Abhinavagupta (Tantrāloka 16.59cd–61ab) paraphrases, rather freely,
the Netratantra (20.18cd–21, edited in the appendix) as scriptural authority for the view that sacrifice
liberates; it does so by virtue of being an unusual kind of initiation (dīkṣā):

śrīmanMṛtyuñjaye coktaṃ pāśacchede kṛte paśoḥ //

2 malatrayaviyogena śarīraṃ na prarohati /
dharmādharmaughavicchedāc charīraṃ cyavate kila //
4 tenaitan māraṇaṃ noktaṃ dīkṣeyaṃ citrarūpiṇī /
rūḍhapāśasya yaḥ prāṇair viyogo māraṇaṃ hi tat //
6 iyaṃ tu yojanaiva syāt paśor devāya tarpaṇe /

1 codd.= K2 119v , K5 7r , K7 42r

1 śrīman฀ ] TedK5K7, śrīmat฀ K2 1 coktaṃ ] K2K5, proktaṃ TedK7 4 tenaitan māraṇaṃ ]

TedK5, tenaitat pāraṇaṃ K2K7 4 citrarūpiṇī ] TedK5K7, citsvarūpiṇī K2 5 viyogo māraṇaṃ ]
TedK5, viyogo pāraṇaṃ K2, viyogaḥ pāraṇaṃ K7
And it is taught in the venerable Mṛtyuñjaya (=Netratantra): When the bonds have been
even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those
who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).”
12
Manusmṛti 5.39–40, 42 (translation by G. Bühler 1886): “39. Svayambhū (the Self-existent) himself created animals
for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of
beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word). 40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other)
animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences. …42. A twice-born man who,
knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a
most blessed state.”
13
Even whole textual passages are borrowed, for example Manusmṛti 5.39ab is incorporated nearly verbatim into Ne-
tratantra 20.7ab.
14
For example, among the Svacchandatantra’s post-initiatory samaya vows is an explicit injunction forbidding the crit-
icism of the smārta religion since it is the basis for ācāra, Svacchandatantra 5.44–45: na ninded bhairavaṃ devaṃ śās-
traṃ vānyasamudbhavam / sāṃkhyaṃ yogaṃ pāñcarātraṃ vedāṃś caiva na nindayet // yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve hy apavargapha-
lapradāḥ / smārtaṃ dharmaṃ na nindet tu ⁘ ācārapathadarśakam (note the aiśa sandhi) //

5
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

severed a body does not arise again for the victim (/bound soul) because of disjunc-
tion from the three malas.15 It is agreed that the body falls away when the flood of
[karmic] dharma and adharma is stopped.16 Therefore this is not killing but an extraor-
dinary initiation. For killing is the separation of the vital energies from a being that is
firmly bound, but this is a fusion17 of the bound soul in the act of worshipping God.

Abhinavagupta uses this passage as scriptural evidence to substantiate the illustration (nidarśana)
given below that construes sacrifice as “disagreeable assistance,” comparable to painful medicine and
a harsh dietary regimen (Tantrāloka 16.58cd–59ab, cf. Netratantra 20.8–9ab):

paśor mahopakāro ’yaṃ tadātve ’py apriyaṃ bhavet //

2 vyādhicchedauṣadhatapoyojanātra nidarśanam /

Tantrālokaviveka: tatkālaṃ paśor apriyam api bhavan māraṇam anugraha-

4 lakṣaṇo mahān ayam upakāro yatra vyādhicchedādi nidarśanam / auṣad-
haṃ kṣārādi, tapaḥ kṛcchrādi /

1 codd.= K2 119v , K5 6r , K7 42r

1 mahopakāro ] TedK5, dehopakāro K2K7 1 ’py apriyaṃ ] TedK5, pi priyaṃ K2K7

This [immolation] is a great assistance to the sacrificial victim, though it appears to be

disagreeable at that time.18 In this context the utilization19 of [caustic] medication and
a [harsh] regimen20 in order to destroy disease can serve as an illustration.

Abhinavagupta concedes that although sacrifice appears “disagreeable” (apriya) to the victim at
first, it is in reality a great service (mahopakāra). He likens it to the working of medicine that is ini-
tially unsettling: the resulting cure justifies the preliminary discomfort. The process is soteriologi-
cally effective because the excision of the three defilements (mala) makes it impossible for a new body
15
The Netratantra (see 19.145cd: kiṃ tv āṇavas tathā kārmo māyīyas trividho malaḥ) uses the standard list of three malas
inherited from the Śaivasiddhānta: āṇavamala, kārmamala, māyīyamala. See Goodall 000.
16
Jayaratha explains dharma and adharma as constitutive of the body: dharmādharmaugheti śarīrārambhaka
-sya. In other words, this specifically highlights kārmamala, which is commonly analyzed into dharma and adharma, as
responsible for the physical body; Cf. Mataṅgapārameśvara VP 7.63ab: dharmādharmātmakaṃ karma tac ca bandhasya kāraṇam,
Mālinīvijayottara 1.24ab.
17
[Śiva]yojanā, -yojanikā is the ritual fusion of the bound soul with Śiva during initiation, see Netratantra 4.8–9 for its
specific instructions of which acolytes are fused with what level of Śiva.
18
I.e., the time of being carried out.
19
Note that Abhinavagupta deliberately uses the word yojanā, also a technical term for the ritual fusion of the individual
soul with Śiva.
20
Tapas must probably be read also independently of the medical example as “penance, hardship,” see below.

6
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

to come into existence. The Netratantra passage paraphrased here had ambiguously stated that the im-
molated victims were rewarded with an “invariably higher form of existence.”21 This is again trans-
parently a borrowing from the Manusmṛti.22 Kṣemarāja glossed this with two alternatives. 1. ūrdhva-
gatiḥ = śuddhavidyādipadasṛṣṭiḥ: coming into existence at the level of Śuddhavidyā etc. (i.e. in the śud-
dhādhvan or pure universe beyond māyā as a Mantra-, Mantreśvara- or Mantramaheśvara-experient)23
and thus freed from a conventional physical body. 2. = muktir vā: liberation. In either of these two
cases return to transmigratory existence is ruled out.
With this illustration Abhinavagupta allies his defence of sacrifice with a long tradition of argu-
ments current in medical and legal literature that are concerned with the motivation of the agent
of an act of violence. These were far-reaching debates with practical consequences. A moral equiv-
alence between the violence of killing animals and capital punishment had already been implied in
Aśoka’s fourth pillar edict, and in K.R. Norman’s re-reading both are equally condemned, and con-
sequently feasible methods to avoid capital punishment were sought and proposed.24
As an example, a very similar argument can be adduced from the Vāyavīyasaṃhitā of the Śivapurāṇa.25

When an expert pathologist employs aggressive cures on a patient there is no cruelty

whatsoever involved, to the contrary, it is compassion that is the motivation.

The translation of Abhinavagupta’s compound vyādhicchedauṣadhatapoyojanā given above is however

best not construed too narrowly with reference to medical procedures alone. “Penance” (tapas) is in
itself a good example of present pain with a future beneficial result. The Vāyavīyasaṃhitā’s example of
the expert pathologist is cited by the commentator Śrīkumāra in his Tātparyadīpikā commentary on
the Tattvaprakāśa where he also chooses to include two more verses from the Vāyavīyasaṃhitā. Both are
cases where violence (nigraha) is not intrinsically demeritorious:26

Violence is not inherently distasteful to the wise, hence kings are praised for punishing
criminals. Nor is all violence in this world preceded by hostility, for a father who pun-
ishes his son during study does not hate him.
21
Netratantra 20.9ab: paśūnām upayuktānāṃ nityam ūrdhvagatir bhavet.
22
Manusmṛti 5.40cd: yajñārthaṃ nidhanaṃ prāptāḥ prāpnuvanty utsṛtīḥ punaḥ.
23
For these categories of experient and the nature of their embodiment see Vasudeva (2004:151–179).
24
See Norman (1975).
25
Śivapurāṇa Vāyavīyasaṃhitā 7.1.31.38: nidānajñasya bhiṣajo rugṇe (em., rugṇo Ed.) hiṃsāṃ prayuñjataḥ / na kiṃ cid api nairghṛ-
ľaṃ ghṛṇaivātra prayojikā //. Further arguments are adduced (7.1.31.39–42) to demonstrate that compassion is not invari-
ably positive when shown to things that are harmful. Similarly, avoiding intervention when one has the power to do some-
thing can lead to harm, whether compassion is positive therefore depends on the context.
26
Tātparyadīpikā to Tattvaprakāśa 2.15: tad uktaṃ śrīVāyavīye— nigraho ’pi svarūpeṇa viduṣāṃ na jugupsitaḥ / ata eva hi daṇḍyeṣu
daṇḍo rājñāṃ praśastaye // sarvo ’pi nigraho loke na ca vidveṣapūrvakaḥ / na hi dveṣṭi pitā putraṃ yo nigṛhyāpi śikṣayet //.

7
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Abhinavagupta carefully adheres to an apologetic strategy that bluntly denies that Śaiva sacrifice
is a form of violence, rather it is a method through which Śiva bestows divine grace.27 The sacrificer,
“even if he is not a virtuoso practitioner (vīra, lit. “hero”), or is filled with doubt, or is tenderhearted,
must not under any circumstances think that violence is involved in animal sacrifice.”28 This erasure
of violence from sacrifice can be contrasted with a very different defense of sacrifice advocated by
the Mīmāṃsaka Kumārila, who decided to manage violence instead of denying it. He defends the
principle that an act of violence (hiṃsā) can have a positive result, such as heaven, on the grounds
that the Veda is our only source for reliable knowledge of this outcome.29 If the Veda enjoins animal
sacrifice there is no higher court of appeal. This does not seem to be an argument Abhinavagupta
wishes to pursue. Some later Śaiva authors, however, do seem indebted to this strategy of defending
sacrifice, at the cost of introducing Vedic Śruti and Smṛti into their scheme of scriptural validation.30

2. The six-times reborn victim

According to a preliminary classification in the Tantrāloka there are eight types of victims plus the
“external victim” (bāhyapaśu) and excluding in all cases the female victim (strīpaśu).31 These already
problematic categories are not of concern here, rather the conflicting scriptural statement relates
to yet another hierarchical grading of these victim types. Introducing the passage in question, Ja-
yaratha cites an untraced verse stating that victims may be once-born, twice-born or seven-times-
born.32
niveditaḥ punaḥprāptadeho bhūyoniveditaḥ /
2 ṣaṭkṛtva itthaṃ yaḥ so ’tra ṣaḍjanmā paśur uttamaḥ //
yathā pākakramāc chuddhaṃ hema tadvat sa kīrtitaḥ /
4 kāṃ siddhiṃ naiva vitaret svayaṃ kiṃ vā na mucyate//

1 codd.= K2 119v , K5 7v , K7 42r

3 sa kīrtitaḥ ] TedK5K7, prakīrtitaḥ K2 4 vitaret svayaṃ ] TedK7, vitasvetayaṃ K2, vitanet

svayaṃ K5

One who has been immolated, who again attained a body, and who was immolated
27
Tantrāloka 16.56cd–57ab.
28
Tantrāloka 16.57cd–58ab, reading ādadyāt with K5 and K7 for Ted ’s ādadhyāt in 16.58a.
29
For a detailed analysis of this principle see Kei Kataoka, “Is Killing Bad? Dispute on Animal Sacrifices between
Buddhism and Mīmāṃsā,” forthcoming.
30
See for example Vaktraśambhu’s Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā T. 1021 p.211.
31
These are taught in Tantrāloka 16.29 and further defined in 16.32–36ab. The eight are 1. dṛṣṭapaśu, 2. prokṣitapaśu, 3.
saṃdraṣṭṛpaśu, 4. prālabdhapaśu, 5. upāttapaśu, 6. yojitapaśu, 7. nirvāpitapaśu, 8. vīrapaśu.
32
Tantrāloka 16.63–64 avataraṇikā: ekajanmā dvijanmā vā saptajanmā samudbhavet /

8
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

once more, and so on six times over is the best sacrificial victim. Just as gold is purified
through a series of reheatings, so too this victim is praised [as pure]. What perfection
does he not bestow, and how could he not be released?

The illustration of gold refined by repeated heating and the hyperbole guaranteeing success of
course only apply to the ṣaḍjanmā type of victim, not the intermediate ones. To be clear, Abhinavagup-
ta understands the victim to have been sacrificed six times before, making this his seventh existence
as a sacrificial victim. The most immediately problematic statement in this citation concerns the fact
that the victim “becomes once more embodied.” Jayartha explains that this is “because some requisite
for success is lacking.”33 The Tantrāloka is therefore saying that even though the victim was sacrificed
(niveditaḥ) he attained a body again and again because something unspecified went wrong. As the
illustration with the repeated heating of gold makes clear, these six re-embodiments are presumably
consecutive, we are not looking at a situation where the victim may go to a paradise world for one or
several births and then be incarnated on earth again as a sacrificial victim.
It is likely that the six-times-reborn victim corresponds to the seven-times-born (saptajanmā) vic-
tim of Jayaratha’s anonymous source if we count the original birth as well. The Tantrasadbhāva, a scrip-
ture of the Trika surviving in early Nepalese manuscripts and cited by early Kashmirian exegetes uses
this term too.34
ekajanmā dvijanmā ca tṛjanmā caturo ’thavā /
2 pañcaṣaṭsaptajanmā ca paśavas tu na saṃśayaḥ /
tena jagdhena siddhyeta khecaratvaṃ varānane /
4 antardhānaṃ bilottiṣṭhaṃ rūpādiparivartanaṃ /
cakrasāmānya -m- evaṃ ca tataḥprabhṛti jāyate /

1 codd.= N 38r , Q 63v

3 jagdhena ] NQ , jastena K, jagvena Kh 3 khecaratvaṃ ] N, khecaratva Q Kh 5 evaṃ ]

N, eva Q Kh

Sacrificial victims are certainly once-born, twice-born, thrice-born, four-times-born,

five-, six-, or seven-times-born. When it is consumed35 the power of becoming a khecara
is mastered, fair-faced lady, as is invisibility, the power of entering the netherworld
33
Tantrālokaviveka 16.63: punaḥprāptadeha iti kathaṃcit sampattyayogāt.
34
I thank Prof. A.G.J.S. Sanderson for drawing my attention to this passage in the Tantrasadbhāva. The verses of
the whole section correspond to 7.102–112 in Dycskowski’s etext dated Aug. 1, 2006. As Sanderson has pointed out
to me, this passage is important also for its parallels with Buddhist tantric works that have adapted a similar paradigm
of grading sacrificial victims. My acquaintance with Buddhist Tantric works is currently too superficial to pursue these
parallels further here. See Gray (2005:55).
35
As caru.

9
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

(bila), the ability to resurrect a corpse (uttiṣṭha), shape-shifting, and subsequently one
becomes equal to the deities.36

But what exactly might have gone wrong, leading to the unexpected rebirth of the sacrificial victim?
In the prequel to the Tantrasadbhāva passage cited above, we learn that there exist initiates who
might be averse to their religious duties. They are therefore stigmatised as being malicious towards
their guru (gurudrohin), and as a consequence of their religious dereliction, they become excluded
from liberation. After death, such a delinquent initiate is reborn with devotion to Śiva, but he again
fails to honor his duties. This cycle continues up to seven times. Abhinavagupta cites a close doctrinal
harmony from the Ānandaśāstra, which affirms that the cause of the rebirth is such dereliction of post-
initiatory duty. Tantrāloka 16.65-68ab:
uktaṃ tv Ānandaśāstre yo mantrasaṃskāravāṃs tyajet /
2 samayān kutsayed devīr dadyān mantrān vinā nayāt //
dīkṣāmantrādikaṃ prāpya tyajet putrādimohitaḥ /
4 tato manuṣyatām etya punar evaṃ karoty api //
ittham ekādisaptāntajanmāsau dvividho dvipāt /
6 catuṣpād vā paśur devīcarukārthaṃ prajāyate //
dātryarpito ’sau taddvārā yāti sāyujyataḥ śivam / K7 42v

1 codd.= K2 119v , K5 7v , K7 42r

1 uktaṃ tv ānanda° ] TedK2K5, ityuktvānanda° K7 2 devīr ] TedK5, devīn K2, devī K7 2

dadyān ] TedK5, dadhyān K2 2 nayāt ] TedK2K5, nayat K7 4 evaṃ ] TedK5K7, ekaṃ K2
5 dvividho ] TedK5, vividho K2K7 6 catuṣpād ] TedK2K5, catuṣpādād K7 7 dātryarpito ]
K2K7, dātrarpito Ted, mātryarpito K5 mg

But it is stated in the Ānandaśāstra that a recipient of mantra-consecrations who neglects

his pledges, who scorns the Goddesses, who gives mantras without [correct] procedure,
who has attained [the status] etc. conferred by the initiation-mantra and then abandons
[it], seduced by a desire for sons etc., and who then is reborn as a human being and
does so again, [and continues] in this way from one up to seven births, is reborn as a
sacrificial victim of two types: bipedal or quadripedal, for the sake of providing caru37
for the Goddess. Delivered with a sickle,38 he goes to union with Śiva.
36
For the notion of becoming X-cakrasāmānya compare Parātrīśīkā 20cd: śākinīkulasāmānyo bhaved yogaṃ vināpi hi, which is
explained by the Parātrīśīkālaghuvṛtti as: śākinīkulena devatācakreṇa sāmānyas tulyo bhavati. The same expression is also found
in Brāhmayāmala 14.18c: khecarīcakrasāmānyo, ibid., 77/79.29cd: aśeṣacakrasāmānyo devyā tulyas tu jāyate.
37
Here caru made from vīradravyas is intended. See Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, p. 233.
38
The variants mātryarpito K5 and mātrarpito K5 (commentary) would simply mean “offered to the mothers”.

10
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Conclusion
Abhinavagupta has resolved the apparent contradiction between two scriptural sources by adducing
a third source that does not contain the initial broad claim that any sacrifice invariably liberates.
Rather, the six- or seven-times reborn victim is presented as a rare superlative instance and not a
commonly encountered paśu. In all of these cases, even the initial birth as a sacrificial victim, the
responsibility for victimhood lies in the wrongdoing of the victim in a previous life. This evidently
serves to exonerate the sacrificer from any feelings of guilt or suspicion of cruelty.
Since this passage mentions victims as being either bipeds or quadripeds it implies that the victim
may be born as an animal after being a human negligent of his initiatory vows for six lives. There is,
moreover, no indication in the Ānandaśāstra that the delinquent initiate ends his intermediate life by
being sacrificed, he is simply said to be reborn as a human being (tato manuṣyatām etya...). It is possible
it intended to teach no more than that the sin of neglecting one’s vows is so great that it perdures for
up to seven lives. Against this, Tantrāloka 16.63 is explicit about the occurrence of successive sacrifices
in successive lives.

11
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Appendix: Netratantra 20.1–21

परस मा दयो न म तान प लीलया ।
उ म य परा त नमो म िशतः ॥

3 पव तसग तपव भा य धकाराथमवतार यत ी यवाच—

उ त न त सव प रप ह य मया ।
अधना ोतिम छािम सशयो द ि थतः ॥१॥
6 यो ग यो मातर व शा क यो बलव राः ।
कथ परपरा ाणा णादाकषयि त ताः ॥२॥
क मा च नघणा रौ ाः क वा तास योजनम् । Ś1 56v

9 एत सवम षण भगव व तमह स ॥३॥

ोतिम छामी त भा व नाथवा य नणयम धग तिम छािम । कथिम त क मा द त क यि तिभः कार त योजन वषय
िज ास फटय त । एति नणयाय ीभगवानवाच—

12 शण व व यािम रह य परमा तम् । Ś2 75r

यथा ाणाि जघ सि त पशन प तशासनात् ॥४॥

राग ष वम ता ता लोभमोह वव जताः ।
15 यागाथ व व य पश व ो यि त ताः ॥५॥
न लो न न हसाथ न चव ह िजघ सया ।
महाभरव व य शासन पालयि त ताः ॥ ६
18 तदथ पशवः स ाः वय व वय भवा ।

1 codd.= Ś1 56r ff., Ś2 74v ff., Ś4 83r ff., Ś5 73v ff., Ś6 93v

5 सशयो द ि थतः ] cf. Netratantra 16.4d 18 = Manusmṛti 5.39ab: य ाथ पशवः स ाः वय व वयभवा

1 ॰यो न ] NedŚ1Ś5, ॰ ण Ś2Ś4Ś6 2 उ म यत् ] Ned, उ म यन् Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6 2 नमो ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , नमा Ś2Ś4Ś6
ac 3 ॰पव ] NedŚ1Ś5, ॰पव Ś2, ॰पव॰ Ś4Ś6 3 ी य् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, आ ी य् Ś4 3 उवाच ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś4Ś5, om.
Ś6 4 यन् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś4Ś6, तन् Ś5 5 ] Ś1Ś5 त , ऽय NedŚ2Ś4Ś6 7 परपरात् ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, परपरान् Ś1Ś5
7 ाणा णाद् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5, ानाकणाद् Ś4, ाणा कणाद् Ś6 10 भा व नाथवा य॰ ] Ś1Ś5, वी नवा याथ॰ NedŚ2,
व नवा यात् Ś4, व नवा याथ॰ Ś6 10 इ छािम ] Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, इ छ त Ned 10 क माद् ] NedŚ1Ś5, त माद्
Ś2Ś4Ś6 11 िज ास ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , व ास Ś2Ś6 ac , व ाश Ś4 14 ॰ वम तास् ] NedŚ1Ś5, ॰ वय तास् Ś2Ś4Ś6 15
पशन् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, पश Ś4 17 ॰ व य ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, ॰ ह य Ś4

6 यो गनीन बल न पण Ś4 mg

12
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

पशवः प तयागाथमपय ता न चा यथा ॥७॥

प तशासना द त तदाि य । एव क मा द त तय गाथिम य न च योजन नण तम् । लोभमो या दना

21 नघण व य तम् । ो य यपहाराय योजयि त । हसाथमप वाय । तदथिम त यागाय । वय य न Ś1 57r

प तशासना द यि तः माणीकता । न त च एवाथ ॥ अत ताः—

एषामन हाथ य पशन त वरान ।

24 मोचयि त च पा यः पापौघ दयि त तान् ॥८॥

अन हो मि तः । तान् पशन् । यत एव ततः—

पशनामपय तान न यम वग तभ त् ।

27 ऊ वग तः श व ा दपदसि मि तव । पव ता यः— Ś6 94r

वधन त यो न योजयि त िशवा या ॥९॥

प णव ह स ण थ न त नत।
30 योजयि त

उपहरि त । यत व यो ग यः पशन् योजयि त ततः—

न चवा घातयि त ब न ताः ॥१०॥ Ś5 74r

33 त परयोग ताव तमप म —

परः सव मको ऽन तो नि यो नमल त यः ।

यापकः पर शानः सवकारणकारणम् ॥११॥
36 सवभता तराव थः सव न हकारकः । Ś2 75v

26 cf. Manusmṛti 5.40cd: य ाथ नधन ा ताः ा नव य सतीः पनः

20 एव ] NedŚ1Ś5, एव च Ś2Ś4Ś6 20 ॰मो या दना ] Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, ॰मोह इ या दना Ned 21 ो य य् ] NedŚ1Ś5,

य य् Ś2Ś6, कय य् Ś4 21 उपहाराय ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, उपहाराव Ś4 23 एषाम् ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , षाम् Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac
24 च ] NedŚ1Ś5, ह Ś2Ś4Ś6 24 पापौघ श् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5, पाशौघाश् Ś4, पाशौघाञ् Ś6 24 तान् ] NedŚ1Ś5, च Ś2Ś4Ś6
27 ॰सि र् ] NedŚ1Ś5, ॰सि ॰ Ś2Ś4Ś6 28 यो न ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6 mg , या न Ś4Ś6 29 स ण ] NedŚ1Ś5, श न Ś2Ś4Ś6
29 त न ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, तती न Ś1Ś5(उ चल्) 31 उपहरि त ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5, उपसहरि त Ś4Ś6 31 चव ] NedŚ1Ś6Ś5,
pc
चव Ś2Ś4 35 ॰कारणम् ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6 , ॰कारणः Ś1Ś5Ś6 ac

13
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

सव मको व ा दपरा त पः । अन तः कालानवि छ नः । नि यः स म याश यः फर ा मा । Ś1 57v

अ म याश या त न यय तः । न ा तो मलो य मा स एव ह व पगोपनया मलो लासक मला प

39 । यापको नासकिचतः । पर शानः वत ः । अत एव सवष ा दकारणान कारणम तराव थः
काश वमश म पः । त त गीतास—
ई रः सवभतान ष वस ऽजन । इ त ।
42 एष एव च वा द था मान सवषामन ह करो त ॥ ताद —

ति म व नय ता ता नमला वगतकमाः ॥१२॥

एकीभावमन ा य न वय ताः कथचन ।

45 नः षण य ताः समा व ा अत परमान दलाभा गतो ह ाणा ा यः कमो यासामत तदिभ नाः ।

त छ तौ त वलीना ता इ छा ण सि थताः ॥१३॥

ानो कष ः याव था यागयोगावध तकाः ।

48 इ छा ण य वक पस व फा ण ानो कष ः याव था ा ाः या फार न ाः । यागः पर श य Ś1 58r

पश न दन योगः पर श यापि ता यामवहत धत क पो यास ता तथा न लतद यम यः ॥ त द थ

ताः—

51 त ाव त समा थाय त प योजयि त यान् ॥१४॥

म ताः िशवभता त िशवश या िश रताः । Ś2 76r

41 ई रः सवभतान ष वस ऽजन ] cit. in this form also at Svacchandoddyota 12.82cd; see Bhagavadgītā 18.61ab: ई रः
सवभतान ऽजन त त 43 वगतकमाः ] cf. Svacchandatantra 10.372cd (=Tantrasadbhāva 10.408ab): मलकमकला त
नम तो वगतकमः

37 अन तः कालानवि छ नः ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6, ∗∗∗∗∗नवि छ नः Ś2Ś4 37 नि यः ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, नि या Ś4 37

स म या॰ ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, स मा या॰ Ś1Ś5 39 यापको ना॰ ] NedŚ1Ś5, यापको ना॰ Ś2Ś4Ś6 39 अत ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6,
om.Ś4 40 त त ] NedŚ1Ś5, उ त Ś2Ś4Ś6 41 वस ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, वस Ś4 42 अन ह ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, अन ह
Ś4 42 ताद ] NedŚ1Ś5, तदीद Ś2Ś4Ś6 43 ता ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, ता त Ś4 43 वगतकमाः ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, वगत माः
Ś1Ś5 44 अन ा य ] NedŚ1Ś5, अन ा ता Ś2Ś4Ś6 45 नः षण ] NedŚ1 pc Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, नः ष Ś1 ac 45 समा व ा अतश् ]
NedŚ5, समा व ा । अतश् Ś1, समा व ाः अतश् Ś2Ś4Ś6 45 परमान द॰ ] NedŚ1Ś5, परान द॰ Ś2Ś4Ś6 45 ह ाणा ा यः ]
NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, ह ाणा ः ि यः Ś4 45 कमो ] Ned, मो Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6 45 तदिभ नाः ] NedŚ1Ś5, तदिभ नाय Ś2Ś4Ś6
47 ानो कष ः ] Ned, ानो कष त् Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6 48 ॰स व फा ण ] NedŚ1Ś4Ś5Ś6, ॰ फ ण Ś2 ac , ॰स व फ ण Ś2 pc 48
ानो कष ः ] Ned, ानो कष त् Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6 48 याव था ] NedŚ1Ś5, याव था इ त Ś2Ś4Ś6 48 ा ाः ] NedŚ1,
ा य॰ Ś2Ś4, ा ा॰ Ś5, ा य Ś6 , ा ac Ś6 mg 48 ॰ फार॰ ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 mg , ॰ थान॰ Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 48 पर शाय ]
Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, पर श य Ned 49 योगः ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , यागः Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 49 अवहत ] NedŚ1Ś5, एव हतम् Ś2Ś4Ś6 49
॰ऐ यम यः ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, ॰ऐ य यः Ś4 51 त प ] NedŚ1Ś5, त पा Ś2Ś4Ś6 52 ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 52
म ताः िशवभतास् ] NedŚ1Ś5, म ता ∗∗भतास् Ś2Ś4, म ता[िशव]भतास् Ś6 pc

14
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

नमलाः िशव पा त त भावा वि त च ॥१५॥

54 त पाः स यो ऽथ व या योजयि त तास यो गनीन भावाि छवश या िशवमी रताः रताः िशवभताः
ा त नमलिशवक पा भवि त । अत — Ś4 84r

यथा यो न दी ाय िशव वमपल य ।

57 हि थत व दीि तः ।

तथा व यो गयो न िशव वमपयाि त ॥१६॥

यो गनीन यो न च डीशच पकरणन । एव ह—

60 अ य तमिलन या य पव त या धका रणः । Ś5 74v

मल व त प य नम य य जयि त ताः ॥१७॥

न वल मिलन य याव मलः व त कि सतभो वापा तत प य य तादशो ऽ धका रणो हनो नम य Ś1 58v

63 ान याश या मत च ॥ एता यः—

मल न ह पशो जघ सि त मल यम् ।

तत —

66 मल य वय त य शरीर न रोह त ॥१८॥

64 मल न →त बधाः ] cf. Tantrāloka 16. 59cd–62ab; cit. Tantrālokaviveka 16. 59cd–62ab

53 नमलाः िशव पा त ] NedŚ1Ś5, ∗∗∗∗∗ पा त Ś2Ś4, [ नमलाः िशव] पा त Ś6 pc 53 त भावाद् ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc ,

त भावा Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 54 त पाः ] NedŚ2Ś6, त पा॰ Ś1Ś4Ś5 54 ऽथ व ] NedŚ1Ś5, ∗ व Ś2Ś4, [थ त्] त व Ś6
54 यान् ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5, या यान् Ś4Ś6 54 िशवमी रताः ] Ś1Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, िश रताः Ned 54 रताः ] NedŚ1Ś5, प रताः
Ś2Ś4Ś6 54 िशवभताः ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , िशवभताःŚ2Ś4Ś6 ac 55 ा त॰ ] Ned, ा ता Ś1Ś5, ा ताः Ś2Ś4Ś6 56 दी ाय ]
NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6, दीकाय Ś4 57 हि थत व ] NedŚ1Ś5, हि थ व Ś2Ś4Ś6 57 दीि तः ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś6, दी कतः Ś4 58
तथा ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc , यथा Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 59 यो गनीन ] NedŚ1Ś5, यो गनीन च Ś2Ś4Ś6 59 यो न ] NedŚ1Ś5, या न
Ś2Ś4Ś6 pc
59 ॰च पकरणन ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6 , ॰च करणन Ś1Ś5Ś6 ac 61 ॰ व त॰ ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, ॰ श त॰ Ś1Ś5 61
mg
॰ प य ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 , ॰पाप य Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 62 व त ] NedŚ2Ś4Ś6, श त Ś1Ś5 62 कि सत॰ ] NedŚ1Ś5, कि सत
Ś2Ś4Ś6 62 ॰भो वापा तत प ] Ned, ॰भो ष प तत पŚ1Ś5, ॰भो ष पा तत प Ś2Ś4Ś6 62 ऽ धका रणो ] NedŚ1Ś2Ś5Ś6,
ऽ धका रण Ś4 63 ॰श या मत च ] NedŚ6 mg , ॰श या मता चŚ1Ś5, ॰आ मत Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 64 ह पशोर् ] Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac
Tantrālokaviveka, ष ह NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 mg 65 तत ] Ś2Ś4Ś5Ś6, अत NedŚ1

15
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

त द थम्—

दी ाव ोजन त य पशोनव ह घातनम् ।

69 परयो ग यो ह—

याप न व ण वशि त वभ न च ॥१९॥

ोटयि त पशोः पाशा छरीर न न य त ।
72 शरी ण न न मो ण न ह मारणम् ॥२०॥

याप न िशवा मना । वशि त वभ न शा न। त ोट न ॥ यदीद मरण न कीद त ह त द याह—

दढ ढपाश य ब य प ष य यः ।
75 वयोग त शरी ण मारण त बधाः ॥२१॥

उपसहर त

एव परः कार त

68 दी ावद् ] Ś2Ś6 ac Tantrālokaviveka, दीपवद् NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 mg , दीकावद् Ś4 69 ह ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 mg , प Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 70

वशि त वभ न च ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 pc Tantrālokaviveka, वशि त ∗∗∗∗∗ टयि त Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 71 पाशाञ् ] Ś1Ś5 Tantrālokaviveka,
पाशाच् Ned, पाशाः Ś2, पाशा Ś4Ś6 73 न कीदक् ] NedŚ1Ś5Ś6 mg , कीदक् Ś2Ś4Ś6 ac 75 मारण ] Ś1Ś5 Tantrālokaviveka,
मरण NedŚ2Ś4Ś6 77 एव परः कारस् त ] Ś1Ś5, एव परः काश त Ned, एव कारम् अ त Ś2Ś4Ś6

16
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aitareyabrāhmaṇam Sukhapradāvṛttisahitam. The Aitareyabrāhmaṇa, with the Sukhapradāvṛtti of Ṣaḍguruśiṣya from
chs. 1–32 & Sāyaṇa’s commentary from chs. 33–40. Dillī, Nāga Prakāśaka, 1991.
Kiraṇavṛtti by Bhaṭṭarāmakaṇṭha. Bhaṭṭarāmakaṇṭhaviracitā Kiraṇavṛttiḥ. Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on
the Kiraṇatantra. Vol. 1, ch. 1-6, critical edition and annotated translation by Dominic Goodall. (PIFI
86.1). Pondichéry 1998.
Bhagavadgītā. 1968. (Reprinted from the Bhīṣmaparvan of the BORI Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata), edited
by S.K. Belvalkar, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1968.
Brāhmayāmala. Picumatabrahmayāmala. Etext of NAK ms. 3-370 (= NGMPP A 42/6), kindly provided by Shaman
Hatley.
Mālinīvijayottaratantra. Śrī Mālinīvijayottara Tantram. [Ed.] by Madhusūdan Kaul Shâstrî. (KSTS 37). Bombay
1922.
Manusmṛti. The Manusmṛti with the ‘Manvarthamuktāvalī’ Commentary of Kullūkabhaṭṭa with The ‘Maṇiprabhā’ Hindī
Commentary by Harigovinda Śāstrī. Ed. with Introduction, Interpolated Verses and Index by Gopāla Śāstrī
Nene. (KSS 114. Dharma Śāstra Section 3). Varanasi 1970.
Mataṅgapārameśvara. Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama, avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Éd. critique par N.R.
Bhatt. 2 vols. [Vol. I, VP ; vol. II, KP, YP, et CP]. (PIFI 56, 65). Pondichéry 1977–1982.
Mṛgendrapaddhatiṭīkā of Vaktraśambhu. Pondicherry transcript T. 1021.
Netratantra. The Netra Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. Ed. by. Edition by Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī.
2 vols. (KSTS 46, 61). Bombay 1926–1939.
Parātrīśikālaghuvṛtti of Abinavagupta. The Parātrīśikā Laghuvritti by Abhinavagupta. Ed. by Jagaddhara Zādoo Shāstrī.
(KSTS 68). Srinagar 1947.
Śivapurāṇa. Śivamāhāpurāṇa. Puṣpendrakumārabhūmikayā sanāthitam Nāgaśaraṇa Siṃha sampādita ślokānukramaľā
sahitam. 2 parts. Delhi 1986.
Svacchandatantra. The Svacchanda Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. Ed. with notes by Madhusūdan Kaul
Shāstrī 6 vols. (KSTS 31, 38, 44, 48, 51 [vol. V A], 53 [vol. V B], 56). Bombay 1921–1935.
Tantrasadbhāva. etext by Mark Dycskowski, dated Aug. 1, 2006. Accessed from the Muktabodha website.
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta with the Viveka of Jayaratha. Ed. by Mukund Rām Shāstrī (Vol.1) & Madhusūdan
Kaul. KSTS 23, 28, 30, 36, 35, 29, 41, 47, 59, 52, 57, 58). Allahabad – Bombay, 1918–1938.
Vāyavīyasaṃhitā, see Śivapurāṇa.

Secondary Sources
Brunner, Hélène, 1974. Un Tantra du Nord : le Netra Tantra. In: Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient.
Tome 61, 1974. pp. 125-197.
Bühler, Georg, 1886. The Laws of Manu, Sacred Books of the East Vol. XXV. Oxford.
Gray, David B. 2005. Eating the Heart of the Brahmin: Representations of Alterity and the Formation of Identity in Tantric
Buddhist Discourse. History of Religions 2005 45:1, pp. 45–69.

17
 abhinavagupta’s defense of sacrifice

Houben, Jan E.M. & Karel R. Van Kooij, 1999. Violence denied : violence, non-violence and the rationalization of
violence in South Asian cultural history. Brill’s Indological library, v. 16. Brill, 1999.
Kataoka, Kei, forthcoming. “Is Killing Bad? Dispute on Animal Sacrifices between Buddhism and Mīmāṃsā,”
forthcoming.
Norman, K.R., 1975. “Aśoka and Capital Punishment: Notes on a Portion of Aśoka’s Fourth Pillar Edict, with
an Appendix on the Accusative Absolute Construction,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, No. 1 (1975), pp. 16–24.
Sanderson, Alexis G.J.S., 2004. “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the Brahmanical
Royal Chaplain (with an appendix on the provenance and date of the Netratantra).” In: Indo-Iranian Journal
47 (2004), pp. 229–300. (Actual publication date: 2005.)
—2006. Śaivism and Brahmanism in the early medieval period, Expanded version of a text delivered as the 14th Gonda
Lecture on 24 November 2006. To be published by the Gonda Foundation.
—2009. “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period.” In: Genesis
and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of
Tokyo, 2009. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, 23, pp. 41–350.
Schmithausen, Lambert, 2000, “A note on the Origin of Ahiṃsā,” Harānandalaharī, Volume in Honour of Professor
Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Ryutaro Tsuchida & Albrecht Wezler, Reinbek, pp. 252–
283.
Tāntrikābhidhānakośa II, A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature ed. H. Brunner, G. Ober-
hammer, A. Padoux, ÖAkdW, Vienna 2004.
Vasudeva, Somadeva, 2004. The Yoga of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra. Chapters 1-4, 7, 11-17. Critical Edition,
Translation & Notes by Somadeva Vasudeva. (Collection Indologie 97). Pondichéry 2004.
Zimmermann, Francis, 1987. The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An Ecological Theme in Hindu Medicine. University
of California, 1987.

18