To Borrow or not to Borrow? Some Remarks on vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa of Sātvatasaṃhitā

Some remarks on the possible methods of composing saṃhitās as hinted in chosen texts belonging to the Pāñcarātra school are presented in “Sect. 1”. In “Sect. 2,” the content and the structure of the Sātvatasaṃhitā and Īśvarasaṃhitā are compared. In fact, both texts are independent works even though in the light of some Pāñcarātrika texts they are considered to be mutually linked, the latter being considered a “commentary” of the former. In “Sect. 3,” the initiation (dīkṣā) as found in both texts is outlined. In “Sect. 4”, I focus on the re-use of the portions concerning dīkṣā: although the redactor of the Īśvarasaṃhitā borrowed almost all the Sātvatasaṃhitā’s chapters on initiation, he dealt in a very different way with the practice called vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa that in the context of the latter text plays the role of a unique preliminary purification. Strikingly, the Sātvatasaṃhitā’s redactor re-used the initial verses describing the vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa, putting them into other contexts, not necessarily connected to the issue of initiation, whereas he totally omitted its impressive section concerning magical powers (siddhi).

the Kashmirian Ś aiva mantramārga. In such circumstances, these three texts must have been composed around the middle of the ninth century in Kashmir. On the contrary, the younger saṃhitās of Pāñcarātra were most probably composed in the South of India. Due to the coexistence with South Indian brahmanical circles, the teachings they contain took a more orthodox shape approved by teachers of the Ś rīvaiṡṅava tradition. These are also the texts which gave the basis for the order of worship in South-Indian Śrīvaiṡṅava temples. Among them one can enumerate the texts believed by tradition to be specific commentaries (vyākhyā) of the oldest "three gems", i.e. Pādmasaṃhitā (PādS), Īśvarasaṃhitā (ĪS) and Pārameśvarasaṃhitā (PārS), as well as other relatively important saṃhitās.
That the textual borrowings happened to a great extent within the boundaries of the Pāñcarātra tradition has already been shown in the research done by Rastelli (2006) on the basis of PārS, which, so far, seems to be the best example of a text being itself a kind of compilation of the passages taken over from other sources, usually the most respected saṃhitās of Pāñcarātra, the already mentioned "three gems".
However, Sanderson (2001, pp. 1, 37-39) has shown that there are also extensive parallel passages linking the Tantric Ś aiva and Pāñcarātrika sources, proving, therefore, that there was also a movement from Pāñcarātrika literature toward Ś aiva. This is evident in the case of the Ś aivasiddhānta text Bṛhatkālottara, which in terms of the accounts of cremating initiates (antyeṣṭi) and śraddhā ceremonies draws richly from two chapters of JayS. The Śaiva redactor did not avoid some inconsistencies although he obviously attempted to eliminate the traces of the Vaiṡṅava material.
The focus of the present paper will be to analyze, in turn, a particular portion of the ĪS which is perceived by the tradition as a specific commentary upon SātS. At least in regard to the initiatory prescriptions, the former draws richly from the latter; however, the process is quite selective. My attempt will be, therefore, to discuss the possible reasons behind such a selection. Many questions arise in this connection. Is it at all meaningful that the compiler of the ĪS avoided the coherent passage on vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa, which, judging from its size (457 ślokas), was quite important for the SātS's initiatory system? One might say that there is no need to look for further explanations since there are many other portions of SātS neglected by the compiler of the ĪS. Yet, despite the negligence of vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa as a coherent section, there are single verses derived from it dispersed throughout many chapters of ĪS, which suggests that its compiler was familiar with it. Hence, the absence of the section as a consistent unit needs a specific explanation.
In order to give some arguments for the alleged purposefulness of the treatment (or rather: the lack of treatment) of SātS's vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa within the framework of ĪS, I will firstly discuss some passages suggesting that Pāñcarātrika authors were familiar with re-working and re-using the texts. Then I will proceed to the brief characteristic of the texts in question, i.e. both SātS and ĪS, followed by a short analysis of their concept of initiation (dīkṣā). After presenting their parallel passages, I will conclude with some cautious observations regarding the reasons for the omission of the vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa section in the case of ĪS.
1 How the saṃhitās of Pāñcarātra might have been Composed The Pāñcarātrika saṃhitās were regarded to be revealed by God himself and composed in the form of a dialogue, which was actually the divine revelation (Rastelli 2003, p. 1). Accordingly, their authors or compilers remain unknown to us: "they hide themselves completely behind the divine figures and sages whom they introduce as instructors and questioners" (Gonda 1977, p. 119). Therefore, "the catena of divine and prehistoric transmitters is the counterpart of the exact indications of the preceptors and ancestors of a commentator so often found in exegetical works: the guruparaṃparās guaranteeing the reliability of the tradition" (Gonda 1977, p. 119). Yet, as Gonda continues: "this does not however mean that the compilers are not committed to that which is taught in their books. They expound, as well as they can, the religious doctrines of their community, that is of the Pāñcarātra school of thought as handed down in a definite region and in definite milieus of which these authors are learned guides" (Gonda 1977, p. 119).
A passage found in JayS sheds some light on the features of text compilers and, possibly, copyists. One finds there the definitions of both the knower of a treatise (śāstrajña) and its preserver (śāstradhāraka) 1 suggesting that among the followers of the tradition there were people responsible for knowing the doctrine as well as people responsible for reconstructing and maintaining the texts/manuscripts. The JayS 22.51cd-56ab reads: "[Characteristic of the knower of a treatise: ] Know that he [who] knows purāṇas, dharmaśāstras and Vaiṡṅava itihāsas, [he who] would not only listen to the doctrine of Vedānta but also explains it, [he who] having discussed the reading of the lost words with their knowers, with effort and attentively keeps on refining the treatise (āgama), such [a person] is a knower of a treatise belonging to the Vaiṡṅava tradition. [Characteristic of the preserver of a treatise: ] Know that he [who] having collected all treatises (āgamas) wherever they were with faith, then maintains them carefully meditating on Brahman, [he who] worships the seat of the treatise with the arghya-offerings, flowers etc., [he who] transmits [the texts] of the Vaiṡṅavas and keeps away those of unprepared minds following other doctrines, such [a person] is a preserver of a treatise." By saying that through the reconstruction of the lost words the knower of a śāstra arranges the treatise or, in other words, makes it perfect, refines it (saṃskaroti), the text points most probably to the fact that those treatises, even though treated with the highest esteem, were, with time, subjected to reworking, modifications and manipulations. 2 One of the aspects of changes that happened within the boundaries of Pāñcarātrika literature in the course of time seems to be the concept that the 1 Also treated in Czerniak-Drożdżowicz (2003, p. 40;/2007.
2 Among the reasons for such modifications one can enumerate not only religious factors but also changes in the social, political and economic situation of a given community. See Czerniak-Drożdżowicz (2006/2007. To Borrow or not to Borrow? 583 particular younger texts are linked to the most respected ones. The best known passage on both the concept of mutual relations between the older and younger saṃhitās as well as the technique of composing the latter ones comes from the additional chapter of JayS called Adhikapāṭha (JaySA). The JaySA is relatively young, since it must have been composed after the time all the texts it mentions had been composed, including ĪS, PārS and the text which is traditionally linked to JayS itself, i.e. PādS. 3 Here, for the first time within the scope of the Pāñcarātra literature the idea of a "basic" (mūla) text and its traditional commentary (vyākhyā) is openly expressed. In accordance with JaySA, the latter one is composed through borrowing to a certain extent the content of the former. Thus JaySA 1-8ab says that the whole corpus of Pāñcarātrika scriptures has been revealed by Nārāyaṅa himself. Out of these, the SātS, the PauṡS and the JayS are called the "three gems" (ratnatraya). They are regarded to be the essence of the teaching of the Sāttvata [clan], to be secret, approved by learned men and to have emerged directly from the mouth of Bhagavān in their accomplished form. This means that they are neither defective nor too broad. The other scriptures, among them the so called commentaries (vyākhyā), are said to be composed through filling them up with the essence coming out of the mouth of Bhagavān by adding, removing or keeping it. Their value depends, however, on the coexistence with the basic text (mūla), i.e. one of the "three gems". The texts are believed to function in pairs. JaySA 11cd-12ab 4 reads: "The wise one should know that the three treatises present one doctrine which can be fruitfully used, since it has the form of, respectively, basic text and commentary". The PārS is said to have descended in the form of vyākhyā in order to explain the meaning (vivṛtyartha) of PauṡS, ĪS has been caused to descend in order to explain the meaning of SātS and PādS is said to be the commentary (vyākhyāna) on JayS. It has already been generally accepted that it was the particular idea of the author of JaySA to present the three vyākhyās/vyākhyānas as commentaries, even though in terms of structure they are not proper commentaries. 5 Those vyākhyās are in fact independent, self-sufficient texts arranged in the same way as the rest of Pāñcarātrika saṃhitās, including the aspect of the unknown authorship. Nevertheless, most probably for the sake of a greater authority, they borrow more or less richly from the elder saṃhitās. Still, neither do the compilers of vyākhyās limit themselves to borrow from the particular saṃhitā ascribed to them by the author of the additional chapter of JaySA, nor do the compilers of the rest of the known saṃhitās resign from that, which shows the conventionality of the concept presented in JaySA. 6 The technique of re-using the older texts is not limited to the three so called commentaries, but it is visible throughout almost the whole corpus of Pāñcarātra. One can also observe a change in respect to the subjects treated: in the course of time, there is an internal trend to depict the tradition as fitting the brahmanical environment of South India and, in consequence, to betray much fewer tantric features.

Sātvatasaṃhitā versus Īśvarasaṃhitā
Let us turn to the case of certain borrowings between ĪS and SātS. It was already mentioned that as for the latter one, the redaction available to us was most probably composed in Kashmir, in the ninth century AD. In the case of ĪS, there are still controversies regarding the time of its composition. However, all scholars agree that it must have been compiled in the South of India. Both Schrader (1995, p. 16) and Gonda (1977, pp. 54-55) propose to consider it the oldest saṃhitā among those of Southern Indian origin, but not earlier than the tenth century. According to Matsubara (1994, pp. 27-31), 7 the text is much younger and should be dated at the fourteenth century, and its compiler must have been inspired by the older PārS. Nevertheless, as Matsubara continues, there must have been two variants of ĪS, the older and the younger one, out of which the latter one is now available, whereas the former one is known from quotations found in Yāmuna's (tenth century) Āgamaprāmāṇya.
If we compare the colophons of SātS and ĪS, both comprising 25 chapters, it turns out that in accordance with the changes which took place in the course of time, the former one focuses mostly on two subjects: the prominent role of different facets of the worship on vyūha and vibhava modes of God (2-6, 9-13) and, further, on the issues related to the initiation (dīkṣā) (16-23), whereas the latter one presents mostly the prescriptions connected with various aspects of temple practice. Its first section (2-9) regards the daily routine of temple priests, the second (10-15) regards the occasional festivals taking place throughout the year, the third (16)(17)(18)(19)(21)(22) regards the optional activities such as those performed in the context of the temple, including its building, furnishing, consecration as well as the vows (vrata) and initiation (dīkṣā). The additional fourth part (23-25) contains in turn the answers to six questions regarding the interests of professional priests (Smith 1975(Smith -1980. In accordance with convention, the first chapter of ĪS contains the mythical story of the text's revelation (śāstrāvatāra). It is where the link with SātS is established and the 6 For example, as for the first case, there are parallel passages between all three "gems" and PārS (Rastelli 2006). As for the second case, there are parallel passages between Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā and SātS regardless of the fact that the former one is not believed to be a vyākhyā of any older saṃhitā, see Padmanabhan (2006). 7 The thirteen lines of the text quoted under that title in Āgamaprāmāṇya (to be found in Narasimhachary 1976, p. 163) do not appear in the published version (Matsubara 1994, p. 28 Rastelli (1999, pp. 80-84) and Matsubara (1994, p. 29 And then (ĪS 1.64-71ab) 11 : "O divine sages! Therefore, there is no better śāstra then the divine Sātvata. Those beginning with Sātvata, Pauṣkara and Jayākhya are divine śāstras announced by Hari himself in accordance with the Root Veda for the sake of the benefit. These three śāstras, starting with Sātvata, are everywhere (vyāpaka), o best sages! Likewise, the three mantras starting with the eight-syllabled one (aṣṭākṣara), 12 o wise ones! Thus, according to the prescriptions of the three texts (tantra), Hari is worshipped in Yādavācala, Ś rīraṅga and Hastiśaila respectively. Among these divine śāstras, however, Sātvata is the greatest among the greatest. The God himself directly announced it and Lord Saṁ karṡaṅa listened to him: How to characterize the greatness of this Sātvata, o divine sages! Thus, o the best of twice born! I will tell you about the tantra called Īśvara, which is the essence of the śāstras communicated directly by Īśvara, which explains specifically the meaning of Sātvata[saṃhitā] (sātvatārthopapādaka) and has been heard from Saṁ karṡaṅa himself. Listen, o sages, with attention." In addition, the mutual connection between ĪS and SātS is similarly expressed in the last chapter of the former, where the text says that it elucidates the meaning of SātS (sātvatārthaprakāśika) (ĪS 25.213). 13 Although one could expect that due to the traditional link between SātS and ĪS, it was the compiler of ĪS who was primarily interested in the content of SātS; according to the information mentioned above (that is the fact that the śāstrāvatāra of the ĪS has been influenced by that of the PārS), also the short summary of SātS found in ĪS 21.567cd-577ab appears to be borrowed from PārS 19.529-538. In both 11 ĪS 1.64-71ab: ato divyāt parataraṃ nāsti śāstraṃ munīśvarāḥ / sātvataṃ pauṣkaraṃ caiva jayākhyaṃ ca tathaiva ca //64// evamādīni divyāni śāstrāṇi hariṇā svayam / mūlavedānusāreṇa proktāni hitakāmyayā //65// sātvatādyaṃ trikaṃ caitat vyāpakaṃ munisattamāḥ / yathā cāṣṭākṣarādīnāṃ mantrāṇāṃ tritayaṃ budhāḥ //66// etat tantratrayoktena vidhinā yādavācale / śrīraṅge hastiśaile ca kramāt sampūjyate hariḥ // 67// eteṣu divyaśāstreṣu sātvatan tūttamottamam / vaktā sākṣād īśvaro´sya śrotā saṃkarṣaṇaḥ prabhuḥ // 68// kiṃ varṇyate´sya māhātmyaṃ sātvatasya munīśvarāḥ / atas sākṣādīśvaroktaśāstrāṇāṃ dvijapuṅgavāḥ //69// sārabhūtaṃ viśeṣeṇa sātvatārthopapādakam / īśvarākhyām idaṃ tantraṃ sākṣātsaṃkarṣaṇāc chrutam //70// sampravakṣyāmi munayaḥ śṛṇudhvam avadhānataḥ / 12 The three mantras are the six-syllabled (ṣaḍakṣara), the eight-syllabled (aṣṭākṣara) and the twelvesyllabled (dvādaśākṣara) ones. Since ĪS teaches the eight-syllabled mantra, it is said to be the first one. 13 ĪS 25.213: sarvottamā saṃhitā eṣā sātvatārthaprakāśikā / nākhyeyā duṣṭabuddhīnām abhaktānāṃ janārdane //213// "O Janārdana! This saṃhitā, which is the best one among all and elucidates the meaning of Sātvata[saṃhitā], should not be told to the bad-minded people who are not devoted to Viṡṅu." cases the passage appears in the context of presenting the features of the mantrasiddhānta (one of the four doctrines into which the Pāñcarātra is traditionally divided), to which SātS belongs. It includes the outline of several subjects dealt with (in the same order) in SātS, among them the section on different forms of prādurbhāva deities; the section on the worship both in the heart-lotus and the lotusthrone, along with the worship of śaktis such as Lakṡmī, Puṡṫi etc. as well as the worship of divine attributes such as conch and discus; the section on the initiation of Narasiṁ ha; the section on three initiations called vibhava, vyūha and sūkṣma; the section on the four ranks of samayī, putraka and others; the section on consecration; the section on the rules of religious and social behaviour (samaya); and the section on the order of the installation of idols, characteristics of mantras, maṇḍalas, mudrās, a fire pit and others. Additionally, the same passage is partly re-used in another chapter of ĪS, i.e. ĪS 20, which praises the greatness of Yādavācala (yādavācalamāhātmya), the holy Vaiṡṅava site linked to the tradition of SātS and ĪS. In that case, the verses presenting SātS as belonging to mantrasiddhānta are abandoned (ĪS 20.196-207ab). As a result, there might be two streams of borrowings: the re-use of the passage of PārS by the compiler of ĪS 21 (PārS 19.529-538 = ĪS 21.567cd-577ab) and the shortened version of the same passage re-used again within ĪS 20 with the same variants present in ĪS 21

Borrowings in the Case of Chapters on Initiation (dīkṣā)
Despite the conventionality of the idea proposed by the author of JaySA, there are in fact many parallel passages between ĪS and SātS. An interesting example of textual borrowings between them is the case of initiatory chapters. The compiler of ĪS reused the relevant portions of the latter to a great extent, however, as was already mentioned, this happened quite selectively. Whereas he rewrote many substantive passages from the consecutive chapters of SātS, others have been excluded by him. What is more, to provide his own chapters with an expected, logical structure, some new, original portions have been added by him. Therefore, at least in regard to the initiatory prescriptions, the account of ĪS makes the impression of being a kind of an essence (sāra) of SātS, though at the same time it reflects the changes which took place within the tradition due to the historical circumstances. In short, the SātS teaches the system of three initiatory paths. Each one of them is supposed to bear a particular result. In general, the highest dīkṣā (paradīkṣā) provides liberation (kaivalya), the middle one (vyūhadīkṣā) provides worldly pleasures (bhoga) together with liberation and finally, the lowest among them, namely vibhavadīkṣā, provides first and foremost worldly pleasures (bhoga) (SātS 19.3-7). The three initiations of SātS differ in the type of initiatory mantra in the sense that a candidate, depending on his predisposition, might be initiated with the mantra belonging to the vibhava, vyūha or para aspect of Viṡṅu. Nevertheless, there is only one initiatory pattern presented within the text, focusing on the initiation with the usage of vibhava-mantras. 14 Therefore, we can presume that the procedures are similar in the case of all three dīkṣās. In this connection each of them comprises the hierarchical entitlements of samayin, putraka, sādhaka and ācārya. However, before the initiation one should undertake the specific purification, or, if there is a need, cut off his previous religious affiliations by the means of an initiation with the help of the mantra of Narasiṁ ha. Then, as is explained in SātS 16, in order to check the readiness of the candidate to be initiated, the teacher observes him when he worships the mantra of Narasiṁ ha. As we could see from chart no 1, seven chapters of SātS deal with various initiatory prescriptions. These are: The dīkṣā-related portions of ĪS are, in turn, enclosed within two chapters: the 21st chapter, entitled "The prescriptions about initiation" (dīkṣāvidhi), and the 22nd chapter, entitled "The prescriptions about the restrictions [for proper religious behaviour]" (niyamavidhāna). The former comprises many parallels with SātS 16 and SātS 18-20: three fourths of SātS 16 and almost the complete SātS 18, 19 and 20. The latter almost entirely (without introductory statements) corresponds to SātS 21. The borrowed passages are taken systematically from the subsequent chapters of SātS (with the exception of SātS 17) and put in the order following the structure of SātS's exposition. Nevertheless, there is no reference to the source of borrowing. Most often, the re-used portions are joined together by means of short passages authored, possibly, by the compiler of ĪS. As for significant interferences in the structure of transmission of SātS (apart from occasional small modifications of, usually, single words or corruptions) one can enumerate the omission of SātS 17 containing the elaborate description of the procedure of worshipping the mantra of Narasiṁ ha in his vibhava form (vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa) and the addition of the pañcasaṃskāra rite.
As we can see, the passages taken over from SātS do not cover the whole content of ĪS 21. There are also visible additions reflecting the innovations which took place during the development of the Pāñcarātra tradition. In these terms, the significant portion appears just at the beginning of the instructions regarding the course of the proper initiation (corresponding to SātS 19). It discusses tāpa (branding) and ūrdhvapuṇḍra (painting the mark) rites (ĪS 21.283cd-318), supplemented with the nāman (naming) element. The passage regarding the latter one is again rewritten from SātS (ĪS 21.319-325= SātS 19.39cd-46ab) but placed in a new context. Those three rites, after adding two additional ones, i.e. mantra (conferring mantra) and yāga (interpreted usually as offering an idol or teaching), together form an initiatory practice of five sacraments (pañcasaṃskāra). It is not attested in such a form in the oldest saṃhitās of Pāñcarātra. 15 The ceremony, optionally called samāśrayaṇa, is still performed nowadays in the South of India. As Raman claims, 16 the pañcasaṃskāra rite, or at least some aspects of it, has been a marker of Vaiṡṅava identity in the Tamil country at least since the ninth century AD. With time passing it took over a role of a basic initiatory rite endowing Ś rīvaiṡṅavas with the competence to participate in the religious life of the community. In comparison to SātS, the new element is also the portion at the end of ĪS 21 expressing again the different historical background. It discusses the features of the worship for oneself (svārtha) and for others (parārtha) (ĪS 21.504-512ab), continues with the greatness of Ś āṅḋilya and other sages important for the ĪS tradition (ĪS 21.512cd-558) and ends with the division into four Pāñcarātrika doctrines, so-called siddhāntas (ĪS 21.559-587).
4 Why has the vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa Section been Omitted?
As we could see in charts no. 2 and no. 3, while preparing his own description of the dīkṣā practice, the compiler of ĪS omitted the 17th chapter of SātS. This happened 15 As Young summarizes, branding (tāpa) with a conch and discus was not specific for Pāñcarātra but associated with Vaiṡṅavas in general. The earlier saṃhitās neither mention pañcasaṃskāra nor branding, although there is one exception. SātS 22.9 describes a samayin as having the body branded with cakra (cakrataptatanu), but as explained by Rastelli, "this could be a later modification of the text" (aber dies könnte eine spätere Modifikation des Textes sein, TĀ K 3, s.v. tāpa). See Young (2006, p. 207). 16 On different aspects of this ceremony see Raman (2005Raman ( , 2006. To Borrow or not to Borrow? 593 regardless of the fact that he re-used the other chapters of SātS on different aspects of initiation very extensively. SātS 17 contains the account of a fully-fledged practice devoted to the mantra of Narasiṁ ha in his vaibhava form (according to colophon: vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa). It might be divided into two broad but closely related sections: the former considers the practice of an ācārya preparing to confer the narasiṃhīdīkṣā (SātS 17.3-148), and the latter considers the practice of an adept already initiated by the means of the mantra of Narasiṁ ha, including the account of magical powers (siddhi) he acquires (SātS 17.148-150cd, 153ab-456).
The contemporary interpreters of the procedure devoted to Narasiṁ ha as described in SātS (Smith 1975(Smith -1980Gupta 1983;Hikita 1990Hikita , 1991Hikita , 1993Hudson 2002Hudson , 2006Carman 2006) follow to some extent the strategy of the compiler of ĪS in the sense of focusing mostly upon the information given in SātS 16 and SātS 18-20 so that the narasiṃhadīkṣā seems like a kind of preliminary rite. If we consider its function exclusively from the perspective of SātS 16, Hudson's proposal to interpret narasiṃhadīkṣā as a unique converting ceremony/purification seems the most convincing. Based on the Ś aiva accounts of converting ceremonies, 17 one can say that in the context of Hindu tantric traditions only after the converting rite comprising purifying ceremonies is accomplished, the proper initiation can be undertaken. Structurally it recalls the schema outlined in SātS 16, where after completing expiations in the form of prāyaścitta along with brahmakūrca, one is, if there is such a need, supposed to undertake narasiṃhadīkṣā to remove previously gathered serious sins or even religious affiliations. Being new-born, the adept is finally allowed to be regularly initiated into the tradition of SātS. 18 However, in contradistinction to the content of SātS 16 as well as prevailing interpretations, the SātS 17 presents narasiṃhīdīkṣā as entitling the advanced adept to worship the mantra of Narasiṁ ha for the sake of realization of worldly aims (bhoga). In this connection, since the logical discrepancy between the 16th and 17th chapters of SātS is obvious, it makes us consider the content of the previous one as a kind of purposeful manipulation aiming at reformulation of the original meaning of the kalpatype 19 ceremony devoted to Narasiṁ ha for the sake of establishing the unique cleansing ritual introducing even strangers, like nāstikas, into the tradition of Pāñcarātra.
Strikingly, it was the SātS 17 as a coherent, meaningful unit which has been neglected by the redactor of ĪS. That he must have been familiar with its content is suggested by the fact that many verses of SātS 17, most of them verbatim, can be found within the limits of ĪS's corpus. The size of these borrowings, adjusted to different contexts without any reference to the original source, ranges from half a śloka to nearly ten. All of them, however, come from the first section of SātS 17 presenting the activities of an ācārya preparing to perform narasiṃhadīkṣā so that, 17 There are at least two such examples: one is mentioned in the 27th verse of cāryapāda section of Mṛgendrāgama (eighth century AD) and the other in Somaśambhupaddhati dated from the eleventh century AD. For the latter one, called liṅgoddhāra, see Gengnagel (2010). 18 On the structure of converting ceremonies see Gengnagel (2010, p. 294 SātS's context it is the twelve-syllabled mantra of Narasiṁ ha, in the context of ĪS it has been changed into the eight-syllabled mantra of Bhagavān. This particular case of re-using the 17th chapter of SātS by the compiler of ĪS shows, on the one hand, to what almost unimaginable extent the notion of intertextuality was common for Pāñcarātrika authors, and, on the other, makes it tempting to consider the omission of SātS 17 as a meaningful section intentional for some reasons.
Are there any reasons for such lack of treatment of the procedure related to the Narasiṁ ha-mantra within ĪS?
In chart no. 3 we could see that in the case of SātS 16 the compiler of the ĪS restricts himself to quoting, word for word, only up to SātS 16.29ab. Significantly, that particular verse recommends conferring three regular initiations called vibhava, vyūha and sūkṣma (SātS 16.29ab: vibhavyavyūhasūkṣmākhyāṃ dīkṣāṃ kuryād anantaram; ĪS 21.28cd: vibhavavyūhasūkṣmākhyāṃ dīkṣāṃ kuryāt tadantaram) immediately after performing narasiṃhīdīkṣā which removes past sins (SātS 16.26ab = ĪS 21.25cd: kalmaṣasya vighātārthaṃ nārasiṃhīṃ mahāmate). Then, the exposition of ĪS smoothly continues with the portion taken from SātS 18 dealing with preliminary ceremonies of regular dīkṣā. In such circumstances it seems that the idea of the redactor of ĪS 21 was most likely to present the initiation with the help of Narasiṁ ha-mantra simply in terms of purification to be taken before the proper initiation, quite similarly as it is implied by SātS 16.
Yet, within the passages borrowed from SātS 16 (SātS 16.4-29ab = ĪS 21.3cd-28), a reference is made there to nāstikas etc., who by the means of the cleansing power of narasiṃhīdīkṣā may join the regular initiation of the vibhava, vyūha or para type. Afterwards, there are passages taken over from SātS 18 considering preliminaries to the dīkṣā proper (adhivāsa) and the beginning of SātS 19 regarding the dīkṣā itself but supplemented in its initial part with an account of the pañcasaṃskāra rite unknown to SātS (ĪS 21.283cd-325). According to Raman (Raman 2005, pp. 91-114), it was the pañcasaṃskāra rite which in certain Śrīvaiṡṅava contexts "enabled a person to cross over from Ś aivism to Vaiṡṅavism". In such circumstances, it might not be coincidental that at the beginning of the description of the regular initiation, borrowed in fact mostly from SātS instead of narasiṃhīdīkṣā, the compiler of ĪS provided an account of the pañcasaṃskāra rite. If we accept the interpretation of Raman, then both narasiṃhadīkṣā and pañcasaṃskāra rites occur to have the similar function, i.e. the function of introducing strangers into the tradition.
However, it might also have happened that due to the general tendency, the compiler of ĪS being aware of the actual content of SātS 17, 20 aimed at invalidating of 20 It seems that at least the compiler of AhS was familiar with the actual function of narasiṃhakalpa, i.e. the function of providing a sādhaka with magical powers arising out of mastering the mantra of Narasiṁ ha. He does not quote from SātS but refers to it. The meaningful passage appears in the context of a teaching regarding magical amulets (yantra) meant for kings and the like to secure the kingship. AhS 27.31-33ab: sāttvatādiṣu tantreṣu vihitenaiva cādhvanā / sudarśanasya mantrasya nārasiṃhasya vā mune //27.31// kalpaprayuktā vidhayaḥ sarve caitasya saṃnidhau / bhavanti sakalāś caitatprabhāveṇa prayojitāḥ //27.32// tasmād yathoktamārgeṇa pratiṣṭhāpyaitad arcayet / "O sage! The prescriptions related to the worship (kalpa) of the mantra of Sudarśana or Narasiṁ ha [should be performed] with the method [given] in Sātvata and other tantras. In its [yantra's?] presence all of them become complete [if] performed with its power. Therefore, he should worship it having placed it according to the aforesaid way". On the vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa in SātS see Dębicka-Borek (2013).
To Borrow or not to Borrow? 597 the role of a sādhaka described therein. Such purposeful removal of the passages on sādhaka's practice would not be surprising if we take into account, on the one hand, the observations of Brunner regarding the general devaluation of sādhakas within Indian society (Brunner 1975), and on the other, the visible incoherence of the function of vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa as presented in SātS 16 and SātS 17 respectively, which might have appeared problematic also to the compiler of ĪS when he decided to re-use SātS's passages on initiation. By neglecting the content of SātS 17, which discusses the particular methods of worshipping the mantra of Narasiṁ ha applied by a sādhaka striving for particular siddhis, the compiler of ĪS 21 aptly omitted the logical ambiguity between the two chapters and therefore emphasized even more clearly the view presented by SātS 16. By doing so, he successfully led to the actual exclusion of the awkward results of narasiṃhīdīkṣā in the form of creating a sādhaka aiming at the realization of bhoga with the help of magical powers. Yet, we cannot exclude the possibility that the omission of vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa happened simply because such a procedure was well-known and, therefore, presenting it was redundant.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.