International Journal of Hindu Studies

DOI 10.1007/s11407-016-9197-2

Poetry as Prayer: The Śaiva Hymns of

Jagaddhara Bhaṭṭa of Kashmir

Hamsa Stainton

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

The stotra, or Sanskrit hymn of praise, has long been a popular literary genre and form
of prayer in South Asia.1 This is especially true in Kashmir, historically a dynamic
center of Sanskrit literary production and theological innovation. Throughout their
history in this region, stotras have brought together Kashmir’s religious and literary
traditions in unique ways. In this essay I examine a remarkable collection of literary
hymns from fourteenth-century Kashmir called the Stutikusumāñjali in order to
consider a form and practice of Hindu prayer. Jagaddhara Bhatta, the author of this
˙˙
text, explores various ways in which stotras can function as prayers, and he embraces
the poetic features of these hymns as integral to their efficacy. He offers multiple
interpretations of how poetic prayer works, including comparisons to a beautiful
offering of flowers and to a virtuous, beautiful woman who pleases her husband. In
this examination of Jagaddhara’s poetry, I suggest that scholarship on devotional
traditions needs to pay closer attention to Sanskrit sources, especially stotras, which
provide evidence for the diversity of Hindu devotionalism and its relationship to
complex traditions of poetry and poetics.
In addition, I argue that Jagaddhara’s poetry and other such Sanskrit hymns
challenge persistent presumptions in the study of Hindu prayer. In particular,
scholarship on Hinduism continues to be influenced by the limited view that
spontaneous outpourings of the heart are the only “true” prayers, despite the diversity
of Western academic and theological reflections on the subject. The ornate, literary
complexity of the Stutikusumāñjali suggests that devotionalism takes on many forms.
The erudite scholar can also be a faithful devotee, articulating emotional prayers to a
1
For an overview of the stotra genre and its history, see Stainton (2010).

& Hamsa Stainton

stainton@ku.edu

Department of Religious Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

123
 H. Stainton

deity that are also highly structured and self-consciously poetic. Overall, this essay
aims to rehabilitate the category of prayer in the study of Hinduism and introduce
new sources and perspectives into the comparative study of prayer.

Studying Hindu Prayer

As a general category, prayer suggests various ways of using language to relate

directly to some type of divinity or revered figure. Prayer implies a relationship
between the speaker and the implied or direct addressee of prayer, a relationship that
can include such acts as petition, praise, adoration, thanksgiving, and homage.
Despite the many genres and practices that use religious language in such ways, the
nature and history of prayer has received less treatment by scholars than it deserves.
While theologians have lingered over questions of prayer, historians of religion have
more often hurried by, accepting reductive psychological or functional explanations.
For instance, a great deal more could be learned about individual and communal
religious life by paying closer attention to how religious practitioners have
performed and interpreted prayers, how the meaning of prayers is deeply context-
dependent, and what kinds of relationships and human audiences are implied by
prayer. For some, for example, there is an epistemological dimension to prayer and
praise; some Christian authors argue that “there is a knowledge of God that can only
come in praising him” (Hardy and Ford 1985: 10). The content and form of
laudatory prayer is very suggestive, since it involves an affirmation of value and
meaning: whom or what is worth praising, and why?
Nevertheless, scholarship on religion, and on Hinduism in particular, often skirts
the complexity of prayer. Despite some notable exceptions,2 Sam Gill’s assessment
in 1987 is hardly less accurate today:

The most striking fact is that in the past half century the general study of prayer
has received little attention. This is in spite of the advancements in the study of
language, speech acts, and religious language made in several fields.…While the
study of prayer remains undeveloped, the fact is that prayer is among the most
peculiarly remarkable of religious phenomena. It is foremost, and undeniably,
religious. It has not been taken nearly seriously enough by students of religion.
Can we claim to know much about religion while having ignored such a central
and crucial act as prayer? (94–95).
One could easily replace “religion” with “Hinduism” in this appraisal, for Hindu
prayer has not received scholarly attention nearly commensurate with its variety,
vitality, and historical and contemporary prominence.3

2
See, for instance, the exciting new scholarship included in the Social Science Research Council
initiative, “New Directions in the Study of Prayer” (http://www.ssrc.org/programs/component/religion-
and-the-public-sphere/new-directions-in-the-study-of-prayer/; accessed March 28, 2016), supported by
funding from the John Templeton Foundation.
3
It is significant that Gonda’s excellent study, Prayer and Blessing: Ancient Indian Ritual Terminology
(1989), has not been complemented by similar studies of these phenomena in later Indian history.

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

Why have ethnographers and textual scholars alike generally avoided prayer as a
substantial analytic and comparative category in the study of Hinduism? Most
immediately, the sheer quantity of source materials has complicated efforts to
discuss prayer in this region. But other challenges are conceptual and historical.
Some scholars have been hesitant to rely on prayer as an interpretive lens because of
translation difficulties. In Sanskrit as well as many other South Asian languages
there is no single word equivalent to prayer, and individual terms used to translate
“prayer” often have limited signification. The Sanskrit and Hindi term prārthanā,
for instance, is commonly translated as “prayer,” but it has a narrower scope and
less historical significance than many other terms. A variety of religious concepts
and compositions can be productively interpreted in terms of prayer, including japa
(“repetition” of a mantra), āśis (“blessing”), kīrtana (devotional singing), and stotra
(“hymn of praise”). The inclination to avoid the use of English-language categories
such as prayer may also stem in part from a desire to circumvent the pitfalls of
Orientalism, ethnocentrism, neocolonialism, and so on. Such avoidance, however,
implies a rejection of the comparativism inherent in the study of religion as a field.
Part of our task as scholars of various religions and regions is the practice of
translation as interpretation. Through translation we make the unfamiliar intelligible
for the sake of analysis and comparison. The benefits of analytic categories such as
prayer allow for movement from the specific to the general, from the singular to the
comparative, and thereby facilitate knowledge valuable beyond a highly distinctive
context.
Another challenge is a perceived association of the term “prayer” with the study
of Christianity. No doubt this is due in part to the quantity of theological literature
on Christian prayer and to the history of Christian missionary efforts in South Asia
during the Colonial period. Christian scholars have certainly offered lofty
assessments of prayer—Friedrich Schleiermacher asserted that “to be a religious
man and to pray are really one and the same thing” (1890: 38)—and for centuries
Christian theologians and then scholars of Christianity have ruminated on the
nature, function, and importance of prayer. While one must engage with this corpus
with a critical, self-reflective eye, it is precisely this long, rich history of Christian
reflection on prayer that offers resources to the study of prayer in other traditions.
Already in the third century CE, Origen wrestled with the subject of prayer in ways
that continue to provide valuable starting points for analysis. He looked to Christian
scripture to consider different terms for prayer, distinguished between distinct types
of prayer (praise, thanksgiving, petition, and so on), and considered various
questions—from the logic of praying to an omniscient being to the role of prayers as
models to what one should pray for and with what disposition—that are relevant in
the interpretation of prayer in diverse contexts, including South Asia.4 Many
Christian theologians, and to a lesser extent, scholars of Christianity, have
approached the subject of prayer with the same gravitas as Origen.5
4
See “On Prayer” in Origen (1979: 81–170).
5
The most notable scholar working across boundaries in this regard is Francis X. Clooney, whose work
on Hinduism and Catholicism illustrates the full possibilities of serious comparative work. For a recent
study that pays particular attention to the power of poetry in relation to theology, see his His Hiding Place
is Darkness: A Hindu-Catholic Theopoetics of Divine Absence (2014).

123
 H. Stainton

Prayer, moreover, has long been recognized as central in other traditions,

particularly Judaism and Islam. Theologians and scholars of these traditions
continue to investigate the nature and function of prayer. As just one example,
Reuven Hammer interprets a wide variety of Jewish prayers in Entering Jewish
Prayer (1994). During a time of mourning, for instance, he explains that Jews recite
blessings that bring the community together “at this time of personal loss in order to
affirm its belief, and to speak words of consolation to the bereaved, putting the
sorrow into a universal context, demonstrating the concern of all for the suffering of
each one, and praising those who fulfill this act of kindness” (281). His analysis
reflects the value Jewish tradition has placed on prayer and the diverse functions it
serves at critical junctures such as mourning.
Despite the variety and long history of Western reflection on prayer, especially
among theologians, scholarship on Hindu prayer continues to grapple with a set of
presumptions it has inherited from a specific strain of early scholarship on Christian
prayer. Many nineteenth- and twentieth-century theologians and scholars alike
emphasized prayer’s “spiritual” and psychological character and defined it primarily
in terms of a personal conversation. In his famous work on religious experience,
William James characterizes prayer “as meaning every kind of inward communion
or conversation with the power recognized as divine” (1902: 464), while Friedrich
Heiler, in his classic monograph on prayer, exuberantly describes it as “a living
relation of man to God, a direct and inner contact, a refuge, a mutual intercourse, a
conversation, spiritual commerce, an association, a fellowship, a communion, a
converse, a one-ness, a union of an ‘I’ and a ‘Thou’ ” (1932: 357). Even more
tellingly, Heiler privileges what he considers to be original, “free” prayer, in
contrast to the empty formalism he sees in ritualized prayer: “Prayer is at first a
spontaneous emotional discharge, a free outpouring of the heart. In the course of
development it becomes a fixed formula which people recite without feeling or
mood of devotion, untouched both in heart and mind. At first prayer is an intimate
intercourse with God, but gradually it becomes hard, impersonal, ceremonial, a rite
consecrated by ancestral custom” (65).6
Such descriptions present prayer as something deeply personal, emotional, and
spontaneous, and thus, by this logic, genuine or “real.” This understanding,
however, stands in contrast to the textual and performative realities of prayer, which
can be, for example, prescribed, repetitive, complex, and sophisticated.7 Many
Western scholars and theologians have criticized Heiler’s interpretation for just
these reasons. In their popular survey of prayer, for instance, Philip and Carol
Zaleski observe that Heiler “disparages prayer that is highly ritualistic, tinged with
magic or folk piety, or laden with strong penitential, intercessory, or sacrificial
themes,” and go on to note that “this excludes a significant percentage of the world’s

6
In his nineteenth-century early anthropological work, Primitive Culture (1871), Taylor attributed a
psychological and “spiritual” character to prayer. He called it “the soul’s sincere desire, uttered or
unexpressed” and “the address of personal spirit to personal spirit” (329).
7
See Bühnemann (1984: 78–81) for a discussion of the contrast between Heiler’s conception of prayer
and the formulaic use of many stotras.

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

repertoire of prayer” (2005: 30).8 Gill argues that “Heiler’s predisposition for the
psychological nature of prayer, conjoined with his failure to make any clear or
useful distinction between prayer as text and prayer as act, placed his consideration
of prayer in a nonproductive position, one that has generally discouraged the
academic study of prayer, especially beyond particular prayer traditions” (2005:
7368). This disjunction has hindered the study of prayer in general, and Hindu
prayer in particular. Heiler’s interpretations, while representative of many views on
prayer, do not do justice to the full range of Christian (and non-Christian) reflection
on prayer. Prayer has been central to Christian liturgy, and there are many forms of
prayer that are highly structured and contemplative. For example, lectio divina has a
long history in Christianity. This practice of “divine reading” focuses on turning the
reading of scripture into a meditative prayer; in Jean Leclercq’s gloss, “lectio divina
is prayed reading” (1957: 72, cited in Magrassi 1998: 18). This tradition directly
challenges Heiler’s verdict as to what counts as “true” prayer. In general, many
scholars of religion have broadened their definitions of prayer to include a variety of
practices and texts. One of the most significant developments in the study of prayer
has been the infusion of ideas and frameworks from ritual and performance studies.
Textual and performative aspects of prayer can no longer be conflated, as they
frequently were before the latter half of the twentieth century, and this means that
the interpretation of prayers has benefitted from closer attention to context.9
Nonetheless, Heiler’s views have pervaded—and hindered—the study of Hindu
prayer. A number of scholars seem to have embraced the ideal of heartfelt,
spontaneous prayer, specifically in the form of devotional poetry. Sources that
present devotion and prayer in ways that contradict this presumption have been
sidelined or derided. If emotion and spontaneity are the predominant criteria for
genuine religious expression, then many compositions, including the majority of
stotras, can be disregarded as less worthy of study and analysis, despite their
popularity and prevalence.10 This problem persists among Indian scholars as well as
those working outside of India. In a lengthy dissertation on stotra literature, one
Indian scholar, describing the stotra form, claims that “here, the expression of the
various devotional moods will be in their natural form, in the sense, that no external
aid of an artificial character is required. The devotee rapt in ecstasy, extolls the
attributes of his Chosen Deity” (Gayathri 1981: 27). In words that Heiler would
surely have approved of, this scholar also explains: “Vedic Stotras are simple and
sublime outpourings of the God-intoxicated heart” (33). Similarly, a European
scholar describes the Sanskrit hymns of the Śaiva theologian and philosopher

8
While the Zaleskis are not concerned with critiquing such problematic categories as magic, their
resistance to Heiler’s position reflects a mainstream recognition of the complexity and diversity of prayer.
9
See Gill (1987).
10
Gonda notes: “As to their literary merit and quality the—older as well as later—stotras are very
unequal. Many of them—especially many of the late ones which are much more numerous—composed of
time-worn phrases and traditional figures of speech, make for a modern Westerner dull and monotonous
reading” (1977: 234). Pollock, as part of his analysis of “the death of Sanskrit literary culture as a
historical process,” describes the constriction and evaporation of creativity in Sanskrit “until only the dry
sediment of religious hymnology remained” (2001: 394, 417).

123
 H. Stainton

Utpaladeva (ca. 925–975) by saying that “in their conciseness and intensity the
hymns seem like spontaneous exclamations with the colours, moods and times of
different [musical] ragas” (Fürlinger 2009: 73). Another, speaking about the same
poetic hymns, argues that: “Since most of these verses were the spontaneous
outpouring of their author in states of ecstasy and devotional emotion, they do not
follow any logical order or, with a few exceptions, a single theme. The irregularity
of metres within a stotra, or even irregular metres, show that his concern was not
poetry (of which he was perfectly capable), but the spontaneous expression of his
inner experience, which could not be bound even by the exigencies of Sanskrit
metre” (Bäumer 2008: 3–4).
Such depictions rightly point out the often personal and intense tone of this
poetry and its deep theological undercurrents. Yet interpretations of such religious
poetry cannot and should not stop here. Its rhetorical, pedagogical, performative,
and aesthetic dimensions are also crucial to its functioning as prayer, which often
serves as an instructive model for a human audience with rich aesthetic sensibilities.
The legacy of scholarship that privileges inner experience and heartfelt, emotional
expression remains influential in the discourse around poetry and prayer within
Hinduism, even though it only represents part of the Western discourse on the
subject.
At the same time, there are premodern Indian authors and traditions that
emphasize—at least rhetorically—direct emotion and apparently spontaneous
expression.11 Some of the greatest contributions to our understanding of religious
history in South Asia have focused on poetry and communities that both Indian and
international scholars have interpreted in terms of bhakti. This term, very familiar to
students of religion and culture in South Asia, encompasses a rich complex of
meanings, from devotion and loyalty to sharing and participation. There remains a
great deal of constructive debate around the history and historiography of “the
bhakti movement.” A commonly repeated narrative links the production of
vernacular poetry at different times in Indian history, starting with Tamil devotional
poetry in the middle of the first millennium CE in South India and climaxing in
sophisticated poetry dedicated to Krsna in the middle of the second millennium in
˙˙ ˙
North India. Various unifying features are adduced to support this compelling story
of a bhakti movement, including the expression of intense devotion, a general
populism, and a tendency to offer social critique or suggest religious reform. But
many scholars have worked to challenge the coherence of this neat and idealistic
narrative. When we look at the bhakti movement historiographically, we can see, as
John S. Hawley (2009, 2015) has argued, that this idea has its own history and
cannot simply be accepted as a straightforward description of reality. The study of
bhakti in vernacular contexts has been one of the most dynamic and productive
areas of scholarship on South Asian religions.12

11
See Hopkins (2002: 144–45), where he discusses the rhetorical claim for certain poems as “outpouring
of spontaneous emotion” (145).
12
See, for instance, Novetzke’s (2008) work on Nāmdev and Maharashtrian traditions of poetry and
performance, which analyzes the complex relationships between personal devotion, communal identities,
and the interpretation and narrativization of the past.

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

The problem, however, is that the vibrancy of this subfield often colors the
interpretation of bhakti in other contexts. Despite the fact that devotional poetry has
been composed in Sanskrit consistently for thousands of years, its trajectory and
major developments have not even been charted in broad terms. In part this is
because discussions of vernacular bhakti have dominated academic discourse. To
realize this one only needs to consider the vast quantities of Sanskrit stotras that
have never been studied, translated, or even properly edited. Scholars have had good
reasons to focus on vernacular expressions and explorations of bhakti, including the
accessibility and popularity of vernacular poetry. But debates about the narrative of
a bhakti movement unifying the vernacular languages of South Asia often disregard
the trajectory of Sanskrit expressions of and reflections on bhakti, which include
most stotra literature.13 Thus, in addition to criticizing the coherence and
dominance of this narrative, scholars should also consider what this narrative has
crowded out. Sanskrit did not simply cease to be important, even if there were
important changes taking place in the second millennium. It continued to be a
medium for innovation, particularly in the form of stotras.14
Notably, the few exceptions that do study bhakti poetry in Sanskrit in the second
millennium focus on examples that are closely linked to vernacular practices and are
themselves exceptions within Sanskrit literary culture. The Gītagovinda, for
instance, enjoyed great popularity first in eastern India, where it was composed, and
then throughout the subcontinent. But part of its success was due to the uniqueness
of this text, based on a Sanskrit lyricism that drew both from classical Sanskrit
sources and vernacular poetic traditions.15 Yet some prominent scholars have
treated this text as representative of developments within Sanskrit poetry as a whole,
rather than as an exceptional text that stands out in large part because of the lack of
previous and subsequent works in the same style.16 Scholars have also studied the
Sanskrit discourse around bhakti in the Gaudı̄ya Vaisnava tradition centered on the
˙ ˙˙
incarnate god Krsna and the region of his youth, Vraja. In the sixteenth century, the
˙˙ ˙
religious teacher and reformer Caitanya invigorated the worship of Krsna in eastern
˙˙ ˙
India, and in Vraja in particular. The tradition he founded combined Sanskrit and
vernacular literary traditions and was developed by his followers, chiefly the
Gosvāmins. The texts they produced radically revised and reoriented theories about
bhakti and aesthetic experience developed in Sanskrit over many centuries. They
elevated bhakti as the premier aesthetic quality17 and dissolved boundaries between
aesthetic, religious, and worldly experience. The religious and aesthetic contours of

13
In his work on Vedāntadeśika, who self-consciously composed poetry in multiple languages, Hopkins
notes that the “equation of bhakti with the vernacular alone is also an inadequate model to use in
assessing the Sanskrit and Tamil devotional poetry of the later generation of Ācāryas and is perhaps partly
responsible for their relative neglect in the study of South Indian bhakti literature until fairly recently”
(2002: 40).
14
On Sanskrit and vernacularization in the second millennium, see Pollock (2006) and Bronner and
Shulman (2006).
15
For the best introduction to the Gītagovinda, see Miller’s (1977) introduction and translation.
16
See McCrea’s (2008: 11–19) critique of Edwin Gerow’s interpretation of the text in this way.
17
The sixteenth century was not the first time bhakti was considered as an aesthetic category, but the
most dramatic and successful attempts to do so were articulated during this period.

123
 H. Stainton

the Gaudı̄ya Vaisnava world have received ample attention by contemporary

˙ ˙˙
scholars, and many students of South Asian religions and aesthetics have some
familiarity with this tradition.18 But the Gaudı̄ya Vaisnava vision of religious
˙ ˙˙
aesthetics is not the only such vision in South Asia. Poets and scholars in Kashmir
composed texts that embodied or suggested their own interpretations of the
relationship between poetry and religious experience. Central to these alternative
visions, and key to a revitalized response to many of the challenges I have outlined
here, is the Sanskrit hymn of praise (stotra).

Stotras as Prayer: Jagaddhara Bhaṭṭa’s Stutikusumāñjali

Stotras have a long and fascinating history in Kashmir.19 Many of Kashmir’s most
prominent authors, such as Ānandavardhana, Utpaladeva, and Abhinavagupta,
composed their own hymns, in addition to more well-known works on theology,
philosophy, and aesthetics. The thin scholarship available on these stotras consists
primarily of translations and studies of a few famous works.20 Moreover, most
scholarship on Kashmir, with a few notable exceptions, focuses almost exclusively
on the period between the ninth and the twelfth centuries.21 While this was the most
productive period in Kashmir, notable texts in various genres were also composed in
the centuries that followed. One of the most important is the Stutikusumāñjali, or
“Flower-Offering of Praise.”22 Jagaddhara composed this highly ambitious collec-
tion of literary hymns to Śiva in the fourteenth century.23 It consists of thirty-eight
individual stotras, plus an additional poem on the poet’s lineage, totaling almost
fifteen hundred verses in all.24 It is a major literary work that provides an important

18
See, for instance, Haberman (1988) and Raghavan (1940). Edelmann (2013) analyzes how several
learned Sanskrit traditions, particularly grammar and poetics, played a role in Gaudı̄ya Vaisnava theology
and scriptural hermeneutics. ˙ ˙˙
19
For the most comprehensive work on this history, see Stainton (2013).
20
An excellent example is Bailly (1987).
21
The most important exception to these trends is the work of Alexis Sanderson; in particular, see his
article “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir” (2007).
22
The Stutikusumāñjali was first published in 1891 as part of the Kāvyamālā series (Jagaddhara Bhatta
1891). However, all references to the Stutikusumāñjali in the present work refer to the edition of Panta, ˙˙
Tripāthı̄, and Vaijāpurakara (Jagaddhara Bhatta 1964).
23
˙ ˙˙
We do not know the precise date of the Stutikusumāñjali’s composition. However, we can infer that
Jagaddhara flourished during the fourteenth century because of information in Śitikantha’s commentary
on the Bālabodhinī, Jagaddhara’s own commentary on the Kātantra grammar. Śitikan ˙ ˙tha composed his
commentary during the reign of Hasan Šāh (r. 1472–1484), and he identifies himself ˙ ˙ as the son of
˙
Jagaddhara’s grandson’s granddaughter (tannaptṛkanyātanayātanūjo), most likely placing Jagaddhara in
the latter half of the fourteenth century. See Premavallabha Tripāthı̄’s introduction to Jagaddhara Bhatta
(1964: 24). According to Sanderson (2007: 332n329, and also 300), ˙ however, Śitikantha was the son ˙of ˙
the daughter of Jagaddhara’s grandson. Nevertheless, either assessment places Jagaddhara ˙ ˙ roughly in the
latter half of the fourteenth century.
24
In Stutikusumāñjali 39.14 Jagaddhara depicts his own composition as containing 1,425 verses. It is
unclear whether this number includes the thirty-ninth poem describing Jagaddhara’s lineage, which
consists of sixteen verses. The edition of Panta, Tripāthı̄, and Vaijāpurakara (Jagaddhara Bhatta 1964)
˙ table of contents.
lists 1,439 verses (including the thirty-ninth poem) in its ˙˙

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

window on a poorly understood period in Kashmir’s history.25 Moreover, it offers a

valuable perspective on the nature of the stotra form as both Sanskrit poetry and
prayer.
As for Jagaddhara himself, we have very little information about him outside of
the Stutikusumāñjali and his only other extant work, an unpublished commentary on
the Kātantra grammar called the Bālabodhinī. As a whole, the Stutikusumāñjali
presents a general Śaivism, one that requires no special initiation and focuses on the
worship of Śiva in pan-Indian forms recognizable across exoteric Śaiva scriptures,
especially the Purānas, as well as Sanskrit literature more broadly. In addition to his
˙
basic form as the husband of Pārvatı̄, these include Śiva’s manifestations as the lord
who is half-male and half-female (Ardhanārı̄śvara), the cosmic dancer (Natarāja),
˙
and his fierce incarnation (Bhairava). Occasionally, however, Jagaddhara refers to
forms of Śiva specific to traditions or regions. Some of his verses allude to the form
of Śiva known as Amrteśvara from the Netratantra, whose cult was very popular in
˙
Kashmir.26 Others refer to Sadāśiva, the five-faced Śiva of the Śaiva Siddhānta
27
tradition, and in some places he praises the eightfold form of Śiva called
Astamūrti that dates back to the Vedic tradition.28 He also alludes to one of the
˙˙
foremost temples to Śiva in Kashmir, called Vijayeśvara, which was apparently
under Śaiva Siddhānta control until at least the thirteenth century (Sanderson 2009:
121).29 These various references indicate his familiarity with a range of Śaiva
traditions. He may have been an initiate into a specific tradition, but the
Stutikusumāñjali does not provide any clear evidence for this. Instead, it promotes
a Śaivism that seeks to be inclusive and general, rather than accessible only to
specific Śaivas.
The Stutikusumāñjali, in other words, is not particularly Tantric. It is not rooted
in the technical practices and theologies of specific, esoteric Tantric scriptures.
Given the prominence of Tantric Śaiva and Śākta traditions from Kashmir, it is
surprising how little Jagaddhara refers to them.30 In fact, Jagaddhara uses many
more technical terms from Sanskrit aesthetics than he does from Tantric Śaivism. It
is his frequent references to key aesthetic terminology like rasa (aesthetic
sentiment) and dhvani (suggestion) that connect him to prominent Kashmirian
Śaivas like Abhinavagupta, rather than any reliance on technical terms from Śaiva
theology or ritual (though Jagaddhara charts his own course through the waters of
Sanskrit poetics, rather than strictly following any single literary theorist). Overall,
Jagaddhara’s poetry presents and celebrates an exoteric tradition of efficacious
worship to Śiva, especially through praise poetry.

25
For an extended study of this work, see Stainton (2013).
26
For example, Stutikusumāñjali 2.28 and 19.30.
27
For example, Stutikusumāñjali 11.116.
28
For example, Stutikusumāñjali 33.36–43. See Miller (1984).
29
devyāṃ bhramadbhruvi jayāvijayārcitāyāṃ saktā tavāstavijayā vijayāya dṛṣṭiḥ | vṛṣṭyeva bhūr divijayā
vijayākhyayā te mūrtyā trasadravijayāvi jayāhvayā ca || Stutikusumāñjali 30.70 ||
30
Jagaddhara occasionally alludes to concepts or practices common to many Tantric traditions, but he
does so without limiting the orientation of the text as a whole.

123
 H. Stainton

The organization and scale of the praise poetry in the Stutikusumāñjali is

significant in several ways. As far as I know, there are no earlier examples of such a
large and cohesive collection of Sanskrit stotras, and certainly none in Kashmir. In
size, scope, and style it is an unprecedented and ambitious text. Jagaddhara is
explicitly concerned with elevating the status of the stotra within the world of
Sanskrit literature, as I have argued elsewhere (Stainton 2013: 232–97). The
organization and content of the Stutikusumāñjali present a series of reflections on
the stotra form itself. More specifically, this text systematically demonstrates how
the stotra form encompasses a host of religious practices that can be classified as
prayer, including praise, the offering of homage and blessings, the invocation of
auspiciousness, and petition. For Jagaddhara, the stotra is an umbrella category. He
disaggregates these various functions the stotra can serve, and in doing so he
highlights and celebrates the flexibility of the stotra form. For example, the first four
hymns of the Stutikusumāñjali identify and extol several key roles often performed
by stotras: offering praise (stuti), paying homage (namas), offering blessings
(āśīrvāda), and invoking auspiciousness (maṅgala). It is appropriate that he
spotlights these functions in the first hymns of the Stutikusumāñjali, for each is
traditionally considered a favorable way to begin a Sanskrit text. By isolating and
expanding upon these functions, Jagaddhara unpacks how they are all subsumed
within the stotra form. Developing the logic of these individual practices, he adds
nuance to his own presentation of the stotra genre and how it consists of, and
reflects upon, prayer in general.
Other hymns in the Stutikusumāñjali emphasize different practices, such as
petitioning Śiva directly, visualizing his iconographic forms, praising and reflecting
on the nature of loving devotion to Śiva, and taking refuge in his protection. On the
most basic level, the Stutikusumāñjali’s verses perform various types of prayer. The
text also serves as a model for others to use in their own performance of prayer and
establishes its importance in Śaiva worship more broadly. The Stutikusumāñjali is
filled not just with praise for Śiva, for instance, but also with praise for praising
Śiva, for Śaiva practices, and for those devotees who offer such praise. The text as a
whole can be seen as a demonstration, analysis, and advertisement for Śaiva prayer
through the flexible stotra form.
In the Stutikusumāñjali, the poetic features of stotras are presented as essential to
their efficacy as they facilitate specific interactions between a devotee and his or her
divine—and human—audiences. Literary figures allow the poet to depict complex
theological ideas and to relate to his chosen deity in ways unavailable through
expository language. For instance, the auspiciousness invoked in one of his early
hymns derives from the amazement produced by Śiva’s form as half-Visnu and half-
˙˙
Śiva (Hari-Hara), which is expressed through literary figures such as poetic
imagination (utprekṣā) and complex puns (śleṣa). The third stotra, called the
Āśīrvādastotra, consists in sixty verses offering blessings to its human audience.
The term āśīrvāda means a statement of blessing or benediction, and each verse
ends with such a statement.31 The first parts of this hymn describe specific features

31
The concept of āśis has a long history in South Asia and was central to the Vedic tradition. See Gonda
(1989).

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

of Śiva’s nature or, more often, his physical form. The verses invoke Śiva’s
distinctive identity and then pray that it is beneficial for its audience. The following
verse, for example, begins a long section describing Śiva’s body and iconographic
features:
It is white like snow and the great clouds of autumn,
resplendent, and covered with luminous ashes,
while its throat is dark like a black bee.
May this body of Śambhu,
resembling the autumnal moon adorned with a mark,
grant you auspiciousness || Stutikusumāñjali 3.10 ||32
Whiteness is associated with purity, and in the Sanskrit literary world white is also
the color of fame (kīrti), which spreads in all directions like the light of the sun or
the full moon. In Śiva’s case, this auspicious radiance is created by the white ashes
on his body, but it is made even more beautiful by the contrasting dark color of his
throat, stained when he consumed the cosmic poison to save the world. Thus his
form suggests his pervasive and auspicious brilliance, which appears all the brighter
due to the dark mark of his compassion for those who seek his protection.
Jagaddhara pairs the imagery and suggestion in the verse with extensive alliteration.
Consider the original Sanskrit for the verse translated above; notice the repetition of
sibilants and the consonant bh throughout the verse (as well as the consonant k in the
last quarter):
śambhor adabhraśaradabhratuṣāraśubhraṃ bhrājiṣṇubhūtibharaśībharabhāsvarā-
bham ∣ diśyād vapur bhasalanīlagalaṃ kalaṅkālaṅkāraśāradaśaśāṅkanibhaṃ śubhaṃ
vaḥ ∥ Stutikusumāñjali 3.10 ∥
The key words in the verse are śambhu, a name for Śiva meaning “benevolent,” and
śubha, a word for “auspiciousness” that also suggests brightness, whiteness, and
light. Thus the repetition of the consonants ś and bh amplifies these two central
concepts that bookend the verse (it begins with śambhor and ends with śubhaṃ
vaḥ). Sound and sense here combine to invoke Śiva’s form, and the verse prays for
this to benefit “you,” the human audience for the hymn. Such verses suggest that for
Jagaddhara the poetic features of his prayers are central to their success; in this case,
glorifying a particular form of Śiva and invoking its auspiciousness for the poet’s
human audience.
Throughout his composition, Jagaddhara offers several ways of thinking about
poetic prayer. The most central view derives from the overarching metaphor of the
Stutikusumāñjali. “Kusumāñjali” refers to the offering of a handful of flowers.
“Stuti” means praise, or more specifically a poem or hymn expressing praise.
According to this metaphor, therefore, the flowers being offered are these ornate,
beautiful praises—hence the title of this text can be translated as “Flower-Offering
of Praise.”

32
śambhor adabhraśaradabhratuṣāraśubhraṃ bhrājiṣṇubhūtibharaśībharabhāsvarābham | diśyād vapur
bhasalanīlagalaṃ kalaṅkālaṅkāraśāradaśaśāṅkanibhaṃ śubhaṃ vaḥ || (meter: Vasantatilakā).

123
 H. Stainton

Various verses play with this overarching metaphor.33 The following verse
examines the compound “stutikusumāñjali” itself; Jagaddhara says:
This flower-offering of praise (stutikusumāñjali)
has been prepared here at the lotus feet
of the lord adorned by the crescent moon
by this servant, who collected it
from the vine of fresh, beautiful praise poetry
watered by uninterrupted devotion.
May it make the hearts of the virtuous
full of longing with its fragrance || Stutikusumāñjali 38.26 ||34
This verse makes the central metaphor explicit: Jagaddhara offers his collection of
praise poems at Śiva’s feet like a handful of beautiful flowers, and he hopes to
inspire his human audience through its “fragrance.” In this sense, his poetry is an
offering analogous to other offerings in Hindu worship, like fresh flowers or fruit.
The beauty and quality of such offerings are far from irrelevant; in fact, they are key
to their success. One does not offer any old flowers or food; one tries to make a
beautiful offering, according to one’s resources. This offering is first enjoyed by the
deity and then by a religious community as prasāda—a term often translated as
“grace,” but which also refers to the blessed offerings returned to and shared by
devotees at the end of worship. Just as offerings like food are enjoyed as prasāda by
a community after first being enjoyed by the deity, such poetry is also enjoyed
communally. Jagaddhara’s Stutikusumāñjali, therefore, becomes verbal or aural
prasāda, and this interpretation underscores a crucial dimension of devotional
poetry more broadly, and the logic of bhakti in some Sanskrit poetry in particular.
Bhakti means devotion or love, but also sharing and participation, as several
scholars have emphasized.35 For many stotra authors, at least in Kashmir, bhakti
means a form of devotional sharing and participation that is markedly aesthetic.36
Such hymns indicate the importance of considering the aesthetic dimensions of
bhakti poetry and the communal participation envisioned in their consumption. As
poetry, prayer links individual devotion, literary skill and tradition, and a
community’s relationship to the divine.
Let us consider one final way in which Jagaddhara suggests that the literary features
of his prayers contribute to their success. The first five verses of this text use a series of
śleṣas, or complex puns, to compare his poetry to the Sarasvatı̄ River, a stringed
instrument, a virtuous woman, a royal goose, and Pārvatı̄ (Stutikusumāñjali
1.1–1.5).37 These metaphors emphasize the power of poetry to please Śiva, each

33
For example, Stutikusumāñjali 5.3, 36.2, and 37.12.
34
ayam iha kiṅkareṇa racitaś caraṇāmbujayoḥ stutikusumāñjalir bhagavatas taruṇendubhṛtaḥ | avirala-
bhaktisiktanavasūktilatāvacitaḥ kalayatu saurabheṇa sukṛtāṃ spṛhayālu manaḥ || (meter: Nardataka).
35
˙
See Prentiss (1999, especially page 24).
36
Buchta’s (2016) contribution in this volume shows how this was also true in Vraja.
37
On śleṣa, see Bronner (2010).

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

relying on extended puns on the word “sarasvatī” to make comparisons about poetry.
Thus poetic prayer, like a beautiful stringed instrument, makes Śiva’s mind abandon
its wandering.38 These fascinating verses are important because they emphasize the
poetic features of this composition. This is most explicit in the third verse, which uses
extended puns to compare poetry to a woman who can please her husband. Jagaddhara
says:
This devotional poetry (sarasvatī) (of mine)
has a beautiful style.
It is faultless and shines with the poetic qualities.
It is sweet with pleasing meters, full of aesthetic sentiment (rasa),
and adorned (with literary figures) (alaṅkṛtā).
May it please the heart of the lord
as a beloved wife of noble conduct,
sinless and shining with good qualities,
sweet and pleasing in appearance,
and beautifully adorned,
pleases the heart of her husband! || Stutikusumāñjali 1.3 ||39
Jagaddhara presents a synthesizing view of good poetry, combining concepts such
as the poetic styles or “ways” (rīti), poetic qualities (guṇa), prosody, aesthetic
sentiment (rasa), and poetic figures (alaṅkāra).40 In doing so, he presents his stotras
as meeting the high standards of Sanskrit poetics and implies that the poetic features
of his composition help him achieve his goals. They enable the poet to please and
persuade his official audience—Śiva himself—as well as his human audience of
Śaiva devotees and aesthetic connoisseurs.
Such descriptions dramatize the uniqueness of poetry. Poetry does not function
like other usages of language. From its beginnings in South Asia, it was
differentiated from other types of language. Hence the old formulation that “the
Veda acts like a master in commanding, the seers’ texts like a friend in counseling,
and kāvya like a mistress in seducing” (Pollock 2003: 52). Jagaddhara expands upon
and dramatizes this formulation, drawing out its implications in a religious context.
Poetic prayer, as we see in the Stutikusumāñjali, persuades and pleases just as a
virtuous wife does and captivates the mind like the music of a stringed instrument.
Jagaddhara’s creative depictions of how poetry works highlight its distinct

38
See Stutikusumāñjali 1.1–1.5.
39
ramyarītir anaghā guṇojjvalā cāruvṛttarucirā rasānvitā | rañjayatv iyam alaṇkṛtā manaḥ svāminaḥ
praṇayinī sarasvatī || (meter: Rathoddhatā).
40
Other verses offer similar depictions. See, for example, Stutikusumāñjali 5.31, which introduces an
extensive list of concepts as it uses śleṣa to praise both the poet and his poetry: the standard poetic
qualities (guṇa) of vigor (ojas), sweetness (mādhurya), and clarity (prasāda); the poetics ways or styles
(rīti, mārga); the three functions of language, namely direct denotation (abhidhā), secondary expression
(bhakti, a synonym for lakṣaṇā), and suggestion or implicature (vyakti, a synonym for dhvani);
appropriateness (aucitya); adornment with poetic figures (alaṅkāra); prosody; and refinement, including
the implied use of Sanskrit (indicated here by the epithet aprākṛta, “refined” or “not vulgar”). ojasvī
madhuraḥ prasādaviśadḥ saṃskāraśuddho ’bhidhābhaktivyaktiviśiṣṭarītir ucitair arthair dhṛtālaṇkṛtiḥ |
vṛttasthaḥ paripākavān avirasaḥ sadvṛttir aprākṛtaḥ śasyaḥ kasya na satkavir bhuvi yathā tasyaiva
sūktikramaḥ || Stutikusumāñjali 5.31 ||

123
 H. Stainton

advantages for the devotee offering prayers to a chosen deity. Poetic prayers can
satisfy and delight, beguile and captivate, and thereby win divine favor.

Conclusion

In this brief examination of Jagaddhara Bhatta’s Stutikusumāñjali, I have argued that

˙˙
this collection of Śaiva hymns provides a valuable starting point for analyzing the
stotra genre and the functioning of poetry as prayer. The Stutikusumāñjali
systematically unpacks the various functions encompassed by the stotra form,
from praise to petition to the offering of blessings. It is this very versatility that has
been a key factor in the long-term success of this genre.
In the Stutikusumāñjali Jagaddhara offers multiple interpretations for how poetic
prayer works. He compares poetic prayer to a beautiful offering of flowers to Śiva,
which I have suggested then functions as a type of verbal or aural prasāda that is
enjoyed by a community of aesthetically oriented devotees. He also likens poetry to
a virtuous, beautiful woman who delights her husband. In each of these cases, his
prayers are effective because of their ability to please and persuade both human and
divine audiences through their poetic qualities. In the example of his hymn to Hari-
Hara, I have shown how Jagaddhara uses poetic figures to invoke the unique
auspiciousness of Śiva’s amazing form specifically for the benefit of his human
audience. The most explicit goal of Jagaddhara’s prayers is to win Śiva’s favor for
the poet’s own salvation, but they also bring together Śaiva devotees in beautified,
devotional worship that celebrates and relies upon sophisticated Sanskrit literary
traditions. In both cases, the poetic qualities of Jagaddhara’s prayers are integral to
their success.
The Stutikusumāñjali’s combination of devotional prayer and aesthetic sensitivity
also suggest the need for greater appreciation of Sanskrit expressions of and
reflections on bhakti, particularly in North India. Sanskrit devotional poetry remains
an important but understudied component of the history of bhakti traditions in South
Asia, especially in the second millennium CE. Even as vernacular bhakti traditions
arose and developed in this period, Sanskrit continued to be an important medium
for innovation in many regions. Stotras were—and remain—a vital genre for
exploring the intersection of religious and aesthetic concerns. For many Kashmirian
authors, stotras functioned as a form of devotional prayer that made aesthetic
sensibilities central to a devotee’s interaction with the deity. In addition to
showcasing the diversity of devotionalism in South Asia, greater consideration of
such Sanskrit hymns may suggest new avenues for exploring the role of aesthetics in
vernacular devotional poetry as well.
Finally, I have suggested that at least this author’s interpretation of poetic prayer
challenges a persistent view in the study of Hinduism that “true” prayer is a
spontaneous and natural outpouring of the heart. Such presumptions neglect the
wide spectrum of Western religious and academic reflection on prayer, and they
have led to distorted assessments of Hindu traditions. In Kashmir, with its rich
history of literary production, many stotra authors were deeply concerned with the
relationship between prayer, poetry, and poetics. When we take poets like

123
The Śaiva Hymns of Jagaddhara Bhatta of Kashmir
˙˙

Jagaddhara seriously, we gain a richer, more nuanced view of the possibilities and
popularity of poetic prayer. Greater attention to the diversity of Western theological
and academic reflection on prayer also enables more sensitivity to the complexities
and creativity of Hindu sources. Last but not least, my hope is that careful analysis
of texts, practices, and reflections related to prayer in South Asia will lead to new
perspectives on poetic prayer as a complex, global religious phenomenon.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of the participants on the panel entitled “The Art of Prayer:
Stotras in Multiple Contexts,” which I organized for the American Academy of Religion Annual
Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, November 23–26, 2013: David Buchta, Lynna Dhanani, Steven P.
Hopkins, M. Whitney Kelting, and Steven M. Vose. I am also grateful to the members of the audience for
that panel, who offered thoughtful and useful feedback. In addition, I thank Audrey Truschke and the
Journal’s two reviewers for critical feedback on drafts of this essay.

References
Bailly, Constantina Rhodes. 1987. Shaiva Devotional Songs of Kashmir: A Translation and Study of
Utpaladeva’s Shivastotravali. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bäumer, Bettina. 2008. “Introduction.” In Swami Lakshman Joo, Śivastotrāvalī of Utpaladeva: A Mystical
Hymn of Kashmir (transcr. and ed. Ashok Kaul), 1–18. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
Bronner, Yigal. 2010. Extreme Poetry: The South Asian Movement of Simultaneous Narration. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Bronner, Yigal and David Shulman. 2006. “ ‘A Cloud Turned Goose’: Sanskrit in the Vernacular
Millennium.” Indian Economic and Social History Review 43, 1: 1–30.
Buchta, David. 2016. “Evoking Rasa Through Stotra: Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Līlāmṛta, A List of Krsna’s
Names.” In this volume. ˙˙ ˙
Bühnemann, Gudrun. 1984. “Some Remarks on the Structure and Application of Hindu Sanskrit Stotras.”
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 28: 73–104.
Clooney, Francis X. 2014. His Hiding Place is Darkness: A Hindu-Catholic Theopoetics of Divine
Absence. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Edelmann, Jonathan. 2013. “Hindu Theology as Churning the Latent.” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion 81, 2: 427–66.
Fürlinger, Ernst. 2009. The Touch of Śakti: A Study in Non-Dualistic Trika Śaivism of Kashmir. New
Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
Gayathri, P.K. 1981. “Stotra-Kāvya in Sanskrit: Origin and Development.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University
of Mysore.
Gill, Sam. 1987. Native American Religious Action: A Performance Approach to Religion. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Gill, Sam D. 2005. “Prayer.” In Lindsay Jones, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion, 11: 7367–72. Second
Edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Gonda, Jan. 1977. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Gonda, Jan. 1989. Prayer and Blessing: Ancient Indian Ritual Terminology. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Haberman, David L. 1988. Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hammer, Reuven. 1994. Entering Jewish Prayer: A Guide to Personal Devotion and the Worship Service.
New York: Schocken Books.
Hardy, Daniel W. and David F. Ford. 1985. Praising and Knowing God. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Hawley, John Stratton. 2009. “The Bhakti Movement—From Where? Since When?” IIC Occasional
Publication 10. New Delhi: India International Centre.
Hawley, John Stratton. 2015. A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Heiler, Friedrich. 1932 [1918]. Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of Religion (ed. and trans.
Samuel McComb). London: Oxford University Press.

123
 H. Stainton

Hopkins, Steven Paul. 2002. Singing the Body of God: The Hymns of Vedāntadeśika in Their South Indian
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jagaddharabhatta. 1891. The Stutikusumāñjali of Jagaddharabhaṭṭa, with the Commentary of Rājānaka
˙˙ (eds. Durgāprasād and Pānduraṅg Parab). Kāvyamālā 23. Bombay: Nirnaya-Sāgara
Ratnakaṇṭha
Press. ˙˙ ˙
Jagaddharabhatta. 1964. Stutikusumāñjali, with the Laghupañcāśikā Commentary [Sanskrit] of Rājānaka
˙˙ and the Premamakaranda Translation [Hindi] of Premavallabha Tripāṭhī (eds. Śrı̄krsna
Ratnakaṇṭha
Panta, Premavallabha Tripāthı̄, and Govinda Narahari Vaijāpurakara). Varanasi: Acyuta Gran- ˙˙ ˙
thamālā-Kāryālayah. ˙
James, William. 1902. The ˙ Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, Being the Gifford
Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902. London: Longmans, Green, and
Co.
Leclercq, Jean. 1957. L’amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du
moyen-âge. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Magrassi, Mariano. 1998 [1990]. Praying the Bible: An Introduction to Lectio Divina (trans. Edward
Hagman). Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
McCrea, Lawrence J. 2008. The Teleology of Poetics in Medieval Kashmir. Cambridge: Department of
Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Miller, Barbara Stoler, ed. and trans. 1977. Love Song of the Dark Lord: Jayadeva’s Gītagovinda. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Miller, Barbara Stoler. 1984. “Kālidāsa’s Verbal Icon: Astamūrti Śiva.” In Michael W. Meister, ed.,
Discourses on Śiva: Proceedings of a Symposium on˙˙ the Nature of Religious Imagery, 223–39.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Novetzke, Christian Lee. 2008. Religion and Public Memory: A Cultural History of Saint Namdev in
India. New York: Columbia University Press.
Origen. 1979. Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (trans. Rowan A. Greer).
Mahwah: Paulist Press.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. “The Death of Sanskrit.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 43, 2: 392–
426.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2003. “Sanskrit Literary Culture from the Inside Out.” In Sheldon Pollock, ed., Literary
Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, 39–130. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in
Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Prentiss, Karen Pechilis. 1999. The Embodiment of Bhakti. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raghavan, V. 1940. The Number of Rasas. Adyar: The Adyar Library.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2007. “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” In Dominic Goodall and André Padoux, eds.,
Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner/Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner,
231–442, 551–82. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry/École française d’Extrême-Orient.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. “Kashmir.” In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Volume
One: Regions, Pilgrimage, Deities, 99–126. Leiden: Brill.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1890. “The Power of Prayer in Relation to Outside Circumstances.” In,
Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher (trans. Mary F. Wilson), 38–51. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Stainton, Hamsa. 2010. “Stotras, Sanskrit Hymns.” In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brill’s Encyclopedia of
Hinduism. Volume Two: Sacred Texts, Ritual Traditions, Arts, Concepts, 193–207. Leiden: Brill.
Stainton, Hamsa. 2013. “Poetry and Prayer: Stotras in the Religious and Literary History of Kashmir.”
Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, New York.
Taylor, Edward A. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,
Religion, Art, and Custom. Volume 2. London: John Murray.
Zaleski, Philip and Carol Zaleski. 2005. Prayer: A History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

123