nirvANa sundarI

One frequently hears the story that our beloved Acharya bhagavatpAda was responsible for eliminating Buddhism from the Indian sub-continent. This is used both as a praise and as an accusation directed towards the Acharya. Several scholars have also pointed towards the inadequacy of Acharaya's criticism of Buddhism and it is indeed true that the refutation of Buddhism by Acharya is rather uni-dimensional. However, the reason for this is simply that Acharya's primary focus was not refuting Buddhism but rather pUrva mImAmsA which had already done a great job of handling the Buddhist accusations on the Vedic path. Even a simple look at a hagiography such as the mAdhavIya shankara digvijaya makes this clear (shaNmukha is described to have already contained the Buddhist epidemic by the time of AchArya's arrival). Here is a selection from Daivattin Kural where H H Mahaperiyava addresses this very issue. And he also mentions our beloved Anna in this context.

Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those who are adept in the Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyaya which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mimamsa. People proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well versed in grammar are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas are "pauranikas".

Udayanacarya, the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticised that religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don't believe that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of the dharmasastras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism, Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our actions.

I am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have formed with regard to Sankara's role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Sankara Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history is not true.

In my opinion at no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of Sri Ramakrsna Parmahamsa practising our traditional customs. Sri C. Ramanujacariyar, "Anna" (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar) and some others are intimately associated with the Ramakrsna Mission but they still adhere to our traditional beliefs.

When great men make their appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and wisdom. In the organisations established after them our sanatana dharma is followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes.

Many regard Gandhiji as the founder almost of a new religion (Gandhism), and look upon him as one greater than avataras like Rama and Krsna. But in their private lives few of them practise what he preached- for instance, widow marriage, mixing with members of other castes, and so on. People developed esteem for Gandhiji for his personal life of self-sacrifice, truthfulness, devotion and service to mankind. But applying his ideas in actual life was another matter.

It was in the same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character and exemplary personal life. "A prince renounces his wife and child in the prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow": the story of Siddhartha, including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his compassion, sense of detachment and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varnasrama system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to Vedic practices.

Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people.

Reformists today speak in glowing terms about Vyasa, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya and others. But they do not accept the customs and traditions I ask people to follow. Some of them, however, come to see me. Is it not because they feel that there is something good about me, because they have personal regard for me, even though they do not accept my ideas? Similarly, great men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our people any way had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations followed by them. Such was our people's attitude during the time of the Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanacarya and Kumarilabhatta even the few who had first accepted them returned to the Vedic religion.

Excerpts from Indian Esoteric Buddhism - A Social History of the Tantric Movement by Ronald M. Davidson

Because of its thematic and textual continuity with some shaiva scriptures, Alexis Sanderson has proposed that the more extreme branch of the new siddha literature, the <>yoginI tantras , represented an appropriation of kApAlika tantric literature by Buddhists. Based on his examination of mostly unpublished Sanskrit manuscripts, he has concluded that this level of Buddhist scriptures was entirely dependent on prior Shaiva tantras.

Certainly Sanderson is correct about some parts of the picture: the quick and dramatic formation of the extreme practices of the vajrayAna is inexplicable without taking into acount the influence of the kApAlikas. There can be little doubt that items essential to the literature of the yoginI tantras - such as the use of skulls, the employment of the specialized club (khaTvAnga), and the later chakrasamvara-based rhetoric of Heruka’s subjugation of maheshvara - cannot have arisen without sustained kApAlika influence. In the myth, Heruka becomes the emanation of vajrapANi, and bhairava is the form maheshvara takes. The twenty-four locales are sites where bhairava and his consort, bhairavI, are situated causing trouble for everyone. Heruka destroys maheshvara, redefines the bhairava/bhairavI couples as Buddhists, and establishes his maNDala by taking his place at the summit on Mount Meru. In some versions of the myth, Heruka is said to take on the image of maheshvara - the wearing of skulls, ashes, and other adornments - so as to attract to the noble Buddha-dharma those of the lowest moral level.

It is not surprising, therefore, that selected tantras of esoteric Buddhism present an aspect of intertexuality with received kApAlika Scriptures. Yet it is open to question whether the received kApAlika texts are actually the sole or even primary sources for the yoginI tantras. There are problems with Sanderson’s formulation that might mitigate his rather extreme version of a unilateral appropriation, without alternative sources or mutual influence. These problems may be summarized as chronological difficulties, a lack of examination of the sources of shaiva formulations, and an excessively narrow definition of materials available to Buddhists.

The mAlatImAdhava of bhavabhUti presents us with the earliest Buddhist siddha personality - uncharacteristically a woman, saudAminI - who is noticed in non-Buddhist literature. saudAminI represents a Buddhist nun who had trained with one of the female protagonists of this unusual literary work, the nun kAmandakI. However, saudAminI is portrayed as one who had given up her robes to pursue the study of the kApAlika path in the esoteric center of shrIparvata; this may be the same locale referred to in Shaiva literature as shrIshaila or kaumAra-parvata. She has gained siddhis, most particularly that of flight (khecharI), and has come to assist the Buddhists in their struggle with the evil kApAlika siddha, aghoraghaNTa, and his female companion, kapAlakuNDalA. As it turns out, the hero of the play (mAdhava) quickly dispathes aghoraghaNTa, and the play turns into a contest of wills between the nun kAmandakI and her archenemy kapAlakuNDalA. If kAmandakI represents the Buddhist antithesis of kapAlakuNDalA’s kapAlika propensity for violence, saudAminI indicates the redemption of its potential. She moves its brute force away from an obsession on personal gratification at any price to an impulse for compassion toward all beings. bhavabhUti is the first to chronicle one direction taken by Buddhists in the early medieval period and to acknowledge that one specifically Buddhist contribution to extreme ascetic practice was restraint in service of a moral direction.

Extraordinary siddha behavior is apparent in early eighth-century Buddhist scriptures as well, even if its presence has been sometimes glossed over by apologists. The subAhupariprcchA, whose first translation is attributed to shubhakarasimha in 726 C.E., is the earliest example of this known to me; several siddha or kApAlika rituals are found in this text. Sections of this scripture invoke the cemetery-based ghoul (vetAla) practices, the employment of corpses in the center of the maNDala, the selling of human flesh, and its use in ferocious homa rituals. As seen above, it also specifies the attraction of female spirits (yakShI) as sexual partners to confer siddhi and specifies which clothing is appropriate for the rite. Since the well-dressed mantrin wears blue to the ritual, we may suppose that this is the earliest datable attestation of the notorious nIlAmbara mob, whose sartorial preferences became the insignia of their infamous behavior. They are possibly connected to the extremely popular cult of nIlAmbara-vajrapANi, a system enjoying a plethora of Buddhist texts and ritual manuals. The use of bones is also enjoined, specifically the use of a bone vajra when the mantrin engages in rituals of magical murder (mAraNa).

The evidence of subAhuparipricchA is chronologically reinforced by the presence in the eighth century of two texts that eventually came to be classified as yoginI tantras - the sarvabuddhasamAyoga dAkinIjAla samvara tantra and the laghusamvara. A form of the name for the first of those appears in the list of eighteen vajrashekhara tantras that are said to constitute the earliest esoteric canon. Although it is uncertain that the reference there is to the same scripture currently found in the Tibetan canon, the slightly later mention of this title by jnAnamitra as a member of the canon of eighteen gives a measure of credence to a continuity with the text known to amoghavajra (746-774). The sense of authenticity is reinforced by the presence of two recensions of the sarvabuddhasamAyoga, a longer one included in the normative Tibetan canon and a shorter version found only in the nNying-ma rgyud’bum (Old Tantric Canon) of the Nyingma tradition. The Tsamdrak and Tingkye manuscripts contain both recensions and classify them as mahAyoga tantra - indicating its earlier placement, while the editors of the standard canon included only the longer version and identified it as yoginI tantra. Probably, then, some Indic text used as the basis for the Tibetan translation was formalized during the eighth to ninth centuries.

Unfortunately for the proposal that kApAlika scriptures are the exclusive source of Buddhist works, the chronology of the vidyApITha tantras is by no means so well established. We may legitimately question the somewhat speculative chronology that has been proposed by Sanderson. Most affirmations of the earliness of shaiva materials, for example, rely on the Sdok Kak Thom inscription, an important Cambodian bilingual inscription in both Khmer and Sanskrit. The inscription, broken at the end, records various dates, the last being 1052 C.E., probably close to the actual date of composition. Most important, for the history of shaiva tantras, it maintains that, at the moment of independence of kambujadesha from Java, King Jayavarman II had rituals performed by one hiraNyadAma based on the text of the vINAshikhA. He then had his favorite priest, shivakaivalya, learn three texts - the vINAshikhA, the nayottara-sammoha and the shirashCheda - from the oral recitation of hiraNyadAma, and they would be passed down that family. The date given for shivakaivalya is in the early ninth century, and scholars of shaiva tantra have taken this date as veridical, indicating that the texts included therein (at least one of which has been maintained as also within the vidyApITha) must have been composed well before that time.

Yet what the Sdok Kak Thom inscription really says is that three texts, of sufficient importance n the middle of the eleventh century to be included in a Cambodian inscription, were part of a family’s representation about their position in the foundation of a state and proof of their religiopolitical stature. We might have more confidence in the inscription’s content f the texts were not described as entirely oral, if the occasion were not concerned with the origin myth of Khmer independence or if these texts had shown up in any other inscriptions. This latter might be considered when we see that a certain shivasoma appears in the Sdok Kak Thom inscription as an inheritor of shivakaivalya’s position as the royal preceptor and the guru of shivakaivalya’s grandnephew, vAmashiva. Shivasoma is featured in at least one inscription earlier than 1052, the Prasat Kantal Dom north inscription of Indravarman. However, not only are all of the many Cambodian inscriptions before 1052 mute about these shaiva tantras, but there is also no indication that kApAlika behavior had ever been employed by the principals, which would be expected if the works were as central as the eleventh-century inscription claims. Shivasoma himself is described as eternally of the right behavior (sadA dakShiNAchAra), expected in a pAshupata disciple but utterly foreign to kApAlika decorum. Beyond this, the eleventh-century Sdok Kak Thom inscription itself has problems in projecting later events to the earliest period, as noted by Chakravarti in his study.

In reality, the available evidence suggests that received shaiva tantras come into evidence sometime in the ninth to tenth centuries with their affirmation by scholars like Abhinavagupta; all chronologies affirming their extreme antiquity remain largely problematic. Other models of their historical formation require sustained special pleading about single reference citations, a questionable method of arguing history. Were there other, earlier tantras? We certainly have indications that such was the case, and there were assuredly earlier example of shaiva heterodox practice. dharmakIrti in the mid-seventh century specifies that he was familiar with the DAkinIbhaginI tantras and others.

In all probability, the postulation of two and only two possible categories of sources for the Buddhist yoginI tantras - Buddhist and Shaiva - will prove unsustainable and appears to suppose that all cemetery or antinomian rituals must, by definition, be shaiva. Perhaps the greatest problem with the model is that it closes discussion about other potential sources of esoteric Buddhism. One need not postulate a pan-Indic religious substrate (as did Ruegg) in order to acknowledge that Buddhist authors might have drawn on other sources. The two instances cited by Sanderson, that of the secret signs for the recognition of intimates in the esoteric gathering and the twenty-four sites of praxis (pITha, upapITha etc.) are, in reality, excellent examples of why the shaiva scriptures are impossible as unique sources, although they were clearly contributory.

The question about the filiation of such sacred sites (as opposed to lists of them) is their professional clientele. Based on his fieldwork, Gross has shown that modern Indian sAdhus congregate and encounter one another at sites of mythic importance, and it might be expected that such was formerly the case as well. The twenty-four sites represented in the chakrasamvara recasting of the eighth-century legend of vajrapANi’s conquest of maheshvara are certainly not particularly Buddhist, nor are they uniquely kApAlika venues, despite their presence in lists employed in both traditions. Briefly, one list of the twenty-four sites is arranged in the following manner:

Four pIThas: uDDiyAna, jAlandhara, pullIyamalaya and arbuda.
Four upapIThas: godAvarI, rAmeshvara, devIkoTa and mAlava.
Two kShetras: kAmarUpa and oDra
Two upa-kShetras: trishakuni and koshala.
Two chandohas: kalinga and lampAka.
Two upacchandohas: kAnchI and himAlaya.
Two Melapakas: pretapurI and grhadevatA.
Two upa-Melapakas: saurAShTra and suvarNadvIpa.
Two smashAnas: nagara and sindu.
Two upa-smashAnas: maru (meru) and kulaTA.

Although there are many variations in the items, this list is quite peculiar. For example, none of the major Buddhist pilgrimage areas are mentioned (mahAbodhi, rAjagrha, kapilavastu etc.) even though these were of clear concern to esoteric Buddhists. Because the Buddhists pretended that they were claiming the locales from shaivas, we might expect that they would be shaiva, and specifically kApalika pilgrimage venues. A well-attested practice of the kApAlikas, however, is the mahAkalahrdaya, which evidently focused on the mahAkAlapITha in Avanti, a known kApAlika stronghold. Yet neither mahAkAla nor avantI are listed among the twenty-four sites, but only the broader area of mAlava, and even then it is not given a position of importance. Similarly, vArANasI, tripurA, Khajuraho, Bhuvaneshvara and shrIparvata are all well attested as strong kApalika sites, but are not identified in the list. This contrasts with other shaiva tantras, which are much more pointed in listing specifically shaiva sites as their sacred locales.

Among the four great pIThas often found in this list, ODDiyAna is now verified as the Swat valley by the inscriptions published by Kuwayama, and it was clearly a Buddhist site, with little in the way of shaiva representation and none whatsoever of kApAlika that we can determine. Certainly, it was Buddhist earlier than any other formalized Indian tradition, and similar problems arise with many of the other sites in the list. kAmarUpa, for example, indicates indicates the kAmAkhyA-pITha and its environs and is listed as a pITha in the alternate Hevajra list. Yet its prior history as a tribal site of the kirATas is fully acknowledged by the kAlikA purANa, which indicates that case Hindus simply took the expedient of driving out the tribal occupants and pursued the worship of the goddess along the lines established before the Hindus arrived.

Likewise, jAlandhara pITha, where the goddess mahAmAyA (vajreshvarI) is worshipped in the modern town of Kangra; it was probably a Gaddi tribal site before the shaiva sAdhus and brAhmaNas arrived. We have yet to locate the exact position of another of the pITha pulliya-malaya (sometimes identified with pUrNagiri). However, its name malaya seems to indicate that it was located in South India and was probably a Buddhist name for all or part of the Agastya Malai, the southernmost mountain rage of India and very close to the fabled Buddhist pilgrimage site of Potalaka. This is in line with rAjashekhara’s list of four malaya mountainous areas in South India/Sri Lanka, with the sacred one among them being made pure by Agastya’s proximate abode.

Arbuda is also included in the Chakrasamvara lists and is the well-known Mount Abu. While Eklinji, to the north of Udaipur, was a pAshupata locale, the area around Mount abu was originally associated with the Bhilla and Abhira tribes. The language spoken there was peculiar enough to warrant a mention of its imitation by actors in Bharata’s nATyashAstra. The Gurgi stone inscription of Kokalla-deva II identifies arbuda as a place name, and no precise religious associations for the site are specified. Even when it became closely associated with Sanskrit culture, it was apparently first vaiShNava and jaina, rather than shaiva, and it remains today a predominantly jaina center. Its only mention in the twelfth century krtya-kalpataru, for example, was in a quotation from the nrsimha purANa - where the site was recommended for all vaiShNavas - and lakShmIdhara was seemingly unable to place it in a shaiva context, despite his obvious interest in doing so. Since lakShmIdhara was familiar with the skandapurANa of his time, the eventual inclusion of a pilgrimage guide to arbuda tIrtha as the next to the last section of the final khaNDa in some redactions of the skandapurANa is verified as being exactly what it appears, a rather late medieval addition.

The centerpiece of the chakrasamvara recasting of the eighth century myth is the placement of samvara on the pinnacle of Mount Meru. With this in mind, it might be thought that this is actually the replacement of shiva by samvara on Mount kailAsa, a well-known shaiva pilgrimage site just inside the Tibetan border. All the other pIThas, upapIThas and so forth were to be governed by the divinity from the Mount Meru vantage point, and we might be tempted to see the Buddhist appropriation of the shaiva site as indicated by the myth, especially since current Tibetan understanding is that kailAsa is the home of samvara. However, McKay has shown that the literary sources are not so neat as this; kubera, not shiva, was the original inhabitant of kailAsa, and kubera was originally associated with outcasts and criminals.

How should we assess this record? Long ago, Sircar had already noted the tribal affiliation of many of the sites, while for others, Names of the tIrtha, devI and bhairava were often fabricated by the writers who had only vague ideas about some of the tIrthas and often took resort to imagination. This is particularly the case for uDDiyAna/ODDiyAna, which was lost to Islam precisely in the tenth to eleventh centuries, when it became a popular item in pITha lists, a most curious phenomenon. Moreover, many different lists of sacred sites were distributed throughout the yoginI-tantras, and the good scholarly monk shAkyarakShita is forced to go through elaborate hermeneutical gymnastics to try somehow to correlate them all with Buddhist doctrinal and meditative categories in his pIThAdhinirNaya. After trying to explain away the profound inconsistencies in the various lists of pIThas found in the yoginI tantras, he addresses the obvious question - So, are not these various lists mutually contradictory? In the establishment of these places as a pITha or upakShetra, do we not have mutually incommensurate temperatures, properties or absences thereof? In answer - no, the lists are not in contradiction. This is because for one place there may be many identities. So we say here this place may be nagara, pATalIpuTa or malava, yet they are the same place and it is an upakShetra.

shAkyarakShita is being both a good exegete and utterly disingenuous, for there can be no question that there are far more places than twenty-four specified even in the lists he employs, with very few points of commonality among them. The major similarity is that they are unified by the number twenty-four, another demonstration of the general Indian emphasis on numerical form over actual content, as seen in the case of the eighteen tantras of the early esoteric Buddhist canon.

The shaiva jayadrathayAmala list generated to define one version of these sites is as yet indeterminate in origin, though it may prove to be a shaiva appropriation of an earlier Brahminical list, or generated by either kapAlikas or Buddhists. Certainly Buddhists had long since shown their willingness to pursue rigorous demonology by their elaborate schematism of various and sundry nonhumans in the mahAmAyUrIvidyArAjnI sUtra, but by this time they were not the only ones doing so. Buddhists, however, were among the major proponents of specifying a site wherein was located a divinity with specific properties and specific mantras. The manjushrImUlakalpa for example, also has a long list of places, beginning with chIna and mahAchIna. In these two locales, the bodhisattva manjushrI’s mantras may be recited for siddhi to occur and the eight century text continues on through other geographical areas, many of which appear on the chakrasamvara roaster.

The site question is closely related to the issue of the deity bhairava and his Buddhist counterpart, Heruka. Bhairava is unattested in the early shaiva literature, such as the pAshupata sUtras, which mentions many other names for shiva. Even in the seventh century drama mattavilAsa, which is supposed to identify kApalikas, bhairava is not mentioned. At the same time, in the harShacharita, the shaiva character of bhairavAchArya clearly has a relationship to the divinity, even if he is not explicitly identified as a kApAlika. The myth of the twenty-four bhairavas occupying sites attacked by vajrapANi (or heruka) and his retinue appears simply to be an articulation of that these pIThas, and so on, started as place-specific sacred areas, and bhairava seems to have been little more than a local ferocious divinity at one time. He was eventually appropriated by shaivas, much as they aggressively appropriated so much other tribal and outcaste lore for their own end. By the time of the kAlikA purANa, a lingam called bhairava was identified on the side of durjaya hill, in kAmarUpa, and the text provides two birth stories for this figure. The first is that bhairavas are manifestations of the middle part of the sharabha body of shiva, the sharabha being a mythic eight-legged beast. The other birth story provides a discussion of the origin of the two brothers bhairava and vetAla, who are both monkey-faced sons of shiva and possessed of ghostly essence (vetAlatva). Animal-headed divinities are frequently indicative of tribal origins, perhaps again from the kirATas, who were among the original inhabitants of Assam and are identified by Shafer as having been speakers of a Tibeto-Burman language. They are possibly ancestors of the Bodo-Kacharis of modern Assam.

The use of Heruka to destroy maheshvara and bhairava is similarly comprehensible. While Heruka is formed in imitation of maheshvara in the myth contained in the sarvatathAgata tattvasamgraha, the 726 C.E. Translation of the subAhuparipriccha contains an apparently earlier reference to Heruka, there depicted as a local demon like ghost (pishAcha). This is in close consonance with the kAlikA purANa, which identifies Heruka as the divinity of a cremation ground.

And there is a cemetery called Heruka, ferocious and red in color. He carries a sword and human skin, angry, devouring human flesh. Festooned with three garlands of heads, all oozing blood from their severed necks, he stands on a ghostlike corpse, its teeth falling out from the cremation fire. Ornamented with weapons and his vehicle, let him be worshipped only with your mind.

The description of Heruka as a cemetery is also consistent with the curious translation of his name into both Tibetan and Chinese: blood drinker (khrag thung). This is probably not derived from his iconography or from some hermeneutical reading of his name; instead, it is an extension of the fact that cemeteries absorb the blood of the deceased. In December 2001, I visited kAmAkhyA pITha, to see if I could locate the Heruka cremation ground. It appears that the kAlikA purANa refers to the cremation area found approximately two hundred meters east of the current location of the main temple and around three hundred meters from the oldest site on the nIlagiri hill, where kAmAkhyA was located before the most recent temple was built. None of the priests at the site knew of the name Heruka, but the cremation ground is now called Masaan Bhairao (shmashAna bhairava), and a small temple there is dedicated to the ferocious divinity of the site. The name change should not surprise us, and by the time of the composition of the yoginI tantra or the kAmAkhyA tantra, the Heruka designation appears to have become occluded. Although this cemetery may have migrated some, as did the parent kAmAkhyA site itself, I feel confident that it is the lineal descendent of the smashAna that the kAlikA purANa describes as serving those who came with their deceased to the sacred area of the goddess.

In the kAlikA purANa decripton, Heruka is clearly divine, yet is to be worshipped only mentally, rather than with great physical offerings. Moreover, the Heruka origin myth, as recounted in the longer sarvabuddhasamAyoga, describes Heruka in the manner of a cemetery divinity, rather than specifically as the tamer of maheshvara or as his imitation. In this mythic beginning, mAra and other criminal elements are more clearly specified as his opponents. Thus the Buddhists apparently appropriated a local term for a specific Assamese ghost or cemetery divinity and reconfigured it into the mythic enemy of evil beings in general. Because shiva and mAra were at the head of the very long list of criminal gods, they were included and subordinated to heruka’s establishment of his maNDala. His local and possibly tribal background suggests that there may have been a tribal affiliation as well.

The analogous entity of samvara, often called Heruka, further illustrates the complexity of the situation. Shambara, as the name of a quasi-divinity, is well known in the rgveda as the fundamental enemy of indra and agni; he was also the leader of the dasyus and a demander of ransom. In particular, he has many fortresses or castles, either ninety-nine or a hundred, which are conquered by indra in one of those mythic struggles that make vedic literature so interesting. In the course of struggle, indra assaults shambara from a high mountain. Evidently, shambara was still alive enough by the first to second century for him to be noticed in the arthashAstra, where he is described as a divinity who possesses a hundred illusions. I have no intention of arguing that the dasyu leader in the vedas, the divinity in the arthashAstra, the shaiva employment of the designation as a name for shiva, and the Buddhist vajrayAna divinity are somehow the same. It is remotely possible that a cult to a local god of this identity survived for two millenia; I know of no evidence for this, however. It is probable, though, that the resonance of opposition to the Hindu varNAshrama dharma as sustained in this name, which was still available to the literate, and that the designation was eventually used by the Buddhists in the eighth century, when the figure of samvara was described. The earliest employment appears to be in the sarvabuddhasamAyoga, where the author discusses the term as samvara, the highest bliss. At the same time, the author introduces the name as the application or involvement of all illusion (mAyA), which works well in the context, yet also resonates with the arthashAstra’s employment of the name. So, although Buddhists clearly abstracted from shaiva sources certain iconographic features for the composite samvara, it is likely that other sources were also tapped.

Finally, shaiva literature was heavily influenced by other forms of Hindu and non-Hindu myth and ritual and was as involved in opportunistic appropriation as the Buddhists. Evidently, village or tribal divinities like tumburu have been appropriated by both the shaiva tantras and esoteric Buddhist works. Buddhist practices are paralleled in such places as the end of the vINAshikhA tantra where we encounter the doctrine of a unique syllable (ekAkShara) other than OM; in esoteric Buddhism the ideology and attendant practices of ekAkShara developed around the figure of ManjushrI at least since the 702-705 translations of several dharaNI scriptures. In the middle of the shaiva tantra, the rudrayAmaLa, moreover, are four chapters on vaiShNava worship - not the hallmark of a self-contained shaiva corpus. In addition, the kAlikA purANa relies heavily on vaiShNava forms and frequently references a vaiShNavI tantra.

In the area of myth as well, Bhattacharya long ago pointed out that the tArA tantra, the brahmayamala, and the rudrayAmala all depict discussions about how vasistha received instruction from the Buddha on esoteric ritual, and the received texts of these demonstrate a concerted awareness of the Buddhist contribution to shaiva practices. It would be remarkable, indeed, if some vidyApITha literature were to prove the sole exception to this shaiva syncretism, particularly since the practice of penance by carrying a skull precedes the formation of the kApAlika lineage, which must therefore be minimally based on dharma shAstra decision systems. In reality, one of the kAlikA purANa myths of the origin of bhairava, the result of shiva’s having split his sharabha body, is shown as following a lengthy struggle with viShNu. The vaiShNava connection is further emphasized in a later version of the twenty-four pilgrimage sites’ origin as found in gorakShasiddhAntasamgraha:

Why was the kApAlika path proclaimed? To answer this question, it has been said that the twenty-four enumerated incarnations of viShNu were born and, at the completion of their tasks, they each went crazy. How is that? Creatures born into the womb of animals end up playing around without purpose, and the same happened to the incarnations - who ended up creating fear of their habitats, the earth, jungle, and forest. Some attacked cities and villages, while others fell on the ocean. krShNa, especially, went around indulging in seduction. parashurAma destroyed many kShatriyas because of the fault of a single kShatriya. So, the Lord Shiva became angered by all this degenerate activity, and the twenty-four kApAlika forms were sent onto the twenty-four incarnations of viShNu. They struggled together, and the kApAlikas cut off the heads of all the incarnations and carried them around in their hands. Thus the kApalikas were born.

Like the other forms of the origin myths, this late one has no great claim to an accurate record of the source of the kApAlika tradition, even though vaiShNava influence is occasionally visible. It simply demonstrates that shaiva traditions engaged in the hermeneutics of superiority with the adversary of the moment, not because it is an articulation of the actual foundations of the system. We might expect that the Buddhists acted similarly in their description of iconographic and ritual sources, which communicate a plethora of involvements and interactions. Thus it is premature to jump to the conclusion that the received shaiva tantras were formulated without appropriating any material from the Buddhist tantras or oral tantric traditions. A more fruitful model would appear to be that both heavily influenced the final formulation of the agnostic other and that each had alternative sources as well.

There are occasional records of Buddhists becoming shaivas, for example, the nine nAthas mentioned in the kubjikAmata system. This would probably be the reason that the jayadrathayamala, one of the works claimed as the origin of Buddhist yoginI tantras, cites the Buddhist guhyasamAja, suggesting both its dependence on Buddhist tantras and its probable final editing well after the middle of the eighth century. We also have records of shaivas becoming Buddhists, reflecting the fact that the Buddhist proselytization of ascetic traditions had been going on at least since the mythic conversion of Urubilva kAshyapa and his five hundred dreadlocked followers by the Buddha. What is different with the Buddhist siddha system of the early medieval period is that these converts no longer necessarily gave up their previous modes of behavior.

People today seem to be impatient beyond any measure. A certain elderly upAsaka from the guhAnanda maNDalI called up last week to relate some personal problem and seek a solution. We reminded him of the ukti, kalau ChaNDI-vinAyakau and reiterated that durgA-saptashatI is the best solution to all problems of the material world today. In fact, our Guru Brahmasri KPS reminded us to give as much importance to chaNDI as mahAShoDashI and mahAprAsAda for durgA alone is capable of destroying various kleshas that cause obstacles on the sAdhanA-patha. The response from this gentleman was something like this - "H-ji, who has the time to recite 700 verses with pUrva and uttarAngas? Instead, I will follow the instruction of a New Age Guru (who is not even faintly associated with guhAnanda maNDalI) who states that saptashlokI durgA grants the complete fruit of saptashatI and will simply recite the seven verses". We decided it was pointless to argue with him and point out the fact that thousands of upAsakas who spent lifetimes reciting and perfecting saptashatI were not fools if they could have attained the same result through the seven verses. The argument is similar to the ones where people claim bAlA or panchadashI to be superior to ShoDashI and so on. While not ignoring the fact that the same parAshakti pervades all mantras and devatA-s, one must think from the perspective of energetics and analyze carefully the hierarchy that unmistakably exists within mantras and the corresponding dIkSha methodologies. If panchadashI or bAlA were to be the end of it all, why would the tantras speak of them as preparatory stages for ShoDashI? It must also be noted that many who trash ShoDashI-s and pAdukAs and higher dIkShA-s are the ones who have no experience in any of these and have Sadhana Grantha Mandali or Rajesh Dikshit or something similar as their source of esoteric knowledge. All roads lead to Rome is a much exaggerated quote effectively misused by the bookish parrots of this kind.

So the message to members of our maNDalI is clear - No shortcut navAvaraNa pUjA-s, no saptashlokI replacements or quickfix methods supposedly revealed by kAmAkshI or kAmAkhyA or someone else. Stick to what you've been taught. There is NO replacement for hard work, be it upAsanA or otherwise. Apaddharma cannot replace nitya krtya and it does not take a genius to figure that out. Anymore queries that attempt to crosscheck such prescriptions from New Age Gurus will promptly be trashed as it is of no interest to us and presumably to most of our readers.

This reminds me of the saying by the Venerable Monk Hsuan Hua who comments thus on the ways of the New Age teachers:

The dumb transmit to the dumb,
One is teaching but neither has any idea.
The sifu goes to hell.
Where will the student end up?

namaH shivAbhyAm

Someone sent us a picture that is supposedly of a five-headed snake spotted at Kukke Subrahmanya, a great kaumAra kShetra. This does seem to be a product of Photoshop but you never know!

Satish Arigela pointed us to this interesting article. Good find!

Considering this article is on our buddy Dwai's website, I am surprised how I missed it. Time to have another of our interesting talks

It is totally another matter that Nithyananda's own learning and teachings are simply a big joke. Such buffoons always make me appreciate Jiddu Krishmamurti better.

Those who seek refuge in the lotus feet of bhagavAn vAsudeva alone shall attain true nityAnanda. Other Pashandins shall face the wrath of Lord Kalki and his mighty sword.

इत्थं कलौ गतप्राये जनेषु खरधर्मिषु |
धर्मत्राणाय सत्त्वेन भगवानवतरिष्यति ||

चराचरगुरोर्विष्णोरीश्वरस्याखिलात्मनः |
धर्मत्राणाय साधूनां जन्मकर्मापनुत्तये ||

शम्भलग्राममुख्यस्य ब्राह्मणस्य महात्मनः |
भवने विष्णुयशसः कल्किः प्रादुर्भविष्यति ||

अश्वमाशुगमारुह्य देवदत्तं जगत्पतिः |
असिनासाधुदमनमष्टैश्वर्यगुणान्वितः ||

विचरन्नाशुना क्षौण्यां हयेनाप्रतिमद्युतिः |
नृपलिङ्गच्छदो दस्यून्कोटिशो निहनिष्यति ||

अथ तेषां भविष्यन्ति मनांसि विशदानि वै |
वासुदेवाङ्गरागाति पुण्यगन्धानिलस्पृशाम् ||

पौरजानपदानां वै हतेष्वखिलदस्युषु |
तेषां प्रजाविसर्गश्च स्थविष्ठः सम्भविष्यति ||

वासुदेवे भगवति सत्त्वमूर्तौ हृदि स्थिते |
यदावतीर्णो भगवान्कल्किर्धर्मपतिर्हरिः ||

कृतं भविष्यति तदा प्रजासूतिश्च सात्त्विकी |
एकराशौ समेष्यन्ति भविष्यति तदा कृतम् ||

Our buddy Sandeep does it again. For those who seek some laughs to beat the mid-week blues, here is his take on the new Mile Sur video.

Pune is just the name of another city where the blasts occurred. A welcome gift on the eve of Valentines Day to reassure our hearts pining for terror-love that we were so used to during UPA Ver 1.0. And the difference between Shivraj Patil and Chidambaram is probably nothing more than name, education, and taste in fashion.

Pune is just the name of another city because we’ve had a history of one attack in every six weeks: does it really matter where it happened and where it’ll happen next?

Needless, the usual charade followed this time as well: thundering media noise, outraged bloggers, shocked stars, a whimpering BJP, and the rest. It’s quite amusing actually. When 26/11 happened, India was under attack! and Mumbai (was) besieged! complete with the media copywriters’ semen stains on the headlines. But poor Pune has been robbed of such glamour. What the ugly assortment of politicians, penpushers, kingmakers, and the crown prince don’t realize–or don’t want us to know is the fact that India has been under attack for more than 1000 years. More on that after asking a rapid-fire round of questions:

Dear Shahrukh Khan, this attack was done by your good neighbours. No. we’re not questioning your patriotism. We need honest answers. Your “good neighbour” remark might’ve been in the context of your IPL tomfoolery but Pakistan’s cricket team is NOT Pakistan. It’d do good for you to read this letter addressed to you. And next time, please don’t take Shakespeare’s “all the world’s a stage” too literally.

Dear media, I know you’re already overworked with 24/7 spinning. And one of your Gin-sipping sisters has already speculated something about Sanathan Sanstha. Do us a service. Just STFU. We know operate largely in the space of cerebral vacuum but for once, don’t go overboard trying to prove it again and again. We know you won’t show the same spine you displayed in hammering the recent Shiv Sena hooliganism. Also do not spin the following:

- Terror has no religion
- Muslims are victims
- This happened in because Hindu fanatics are very strong here.
- The spirit of will keep us going!
- Shiv Sena and Taliban/JeM/LeT are the same
- Secularism is under threat
- Any and/or all of the above

Dear fence-sitters and liberals, do not wax eloquent on the need for a “responsive” and “preventive” security apparatus, latest technology, advance warning signals, effective policing/Home ministry, international pressure, and similar nonsense.

Dear Rahul Gandhi: where are you? The country needs you now! You can take a break from giving sleepless nights to those pretty university lasses.

What was limited to just Kashmir has merrily spread across the land in a space of just 6 years. A phenomenon familiar to anybody who has read Indian history–not the Romila Thapar version. To them, we’re a land of Kaffirs. Our eminent op-ed writers who try to explain this away are actually insulting the unblemished religious fervor of the perpetrators. These guys also harbour the illusion that Pakistan is really a democratic country–witness their several calls to “restore demoratic processes/norms/machinery” in Pakistan. Pakistan remains an Islamic theocracy. It’s even “purer” than Saudi Arabia in that it routinely vacuum-cleans non-Sunni Muslims (Ahammadiyas for example).

And because it is an Islamic theocracy, it is faithful to the Koran. Those who use the fancy military-jihadi complex need to consider this. What is the raison d’être for this military-jihadi complex? What propels and sustains it? The answer is uncomfortable but so is the truth. Military-jihadi is actually using the same word twice. If you are a pure Islamic country, your military exists not just to defend but to launch Jihad when the time is opportune. Also, Jihad essentially implies that you need to use military might to cleanse the world of infidels. There’s a reason why the likes of Kasab are given hardcore military training. To them, they are soldiers of Allah, sevants of the Prophet (PBUH). It’s therefore irrelevant if they are army regulars or freelancers. As history shows us, there’s no such thing as permanent peace in nations firmly under the sway of Islam. A current state of peace is simply preparations for the next Jihad. Which is why it is very important to use terms with full knowledge of their exact meaning. “Islamic terror” simply means Jihad. You cannot separate Islamic terror from its teachings. And it is the teachings that provide the justification for what’s known as the military-jihadi complex. People who call for a dismantling of this complex need to read the Quran and the Hadis first.

In the end, India has to take care of India’s interests. A friend might lend a supporting shoulder but you need to shed your blood and tears; he can’t do it on your behalf. Every country has its own methods to teach its enemies a lesson in a way they think is fit. Appealing to the US to mount pressure, etc won’t work. Pakistan’s relentless attacks against India is India’s problem. Talking international diplomacy and strategy is an optional next step. The first step is to grow a spine. (Vetoed! said Sonia).

Which city wants to go next?

Another brilliant piece from Seriously Sandeep

It’s that time of the year again. You might want to check where and how it all started or simply scan the awardees that made it to the 2008 list. Presenting the Most Loathsome People of India circa 2009. Truth be told, the folks who made it this year fiercely vied with each other in loathsomeness and except in very few cases, it was hard to award a rightful place to those who made to the list.

Another pain point was there were just too many contenders, each outclassing the other. To avoid the risk of expanding the list beyond managable proportions, I’ve restricted it to just 12. There was so much loathsomeness this year that lots of people ranked pretty much equally on all parameters of loathsomeness. I had to use a new parameter: uniqueness, or that one factor that put a certain person over and above his/her contender. From this perspective, it is unsurprising that this year’s list of the Most Loathsome People of India consists almost entirely of new people.

Here you go.

Vishnu Som: A real gatecrasher. With exactly one comment regarding the fundamental threat to Indian Muslims. To his credit, he did try to explain at great length how his “fundamental threat” comment was justified but we wish he applied logic instead of psychology, various mindbends, and an inexplicable concern for the tender feelings of Muslims.

Sentence: Mandatory reading of Logic 101 till he scores 100/100.

Vir Sanghvi: My new-found Guru, and mentor for dishing out an unwelcome dose of nauseating secular sanctimony. Not that he hasn’t done this before but there’s a difference in this piece: he explicitly targets a generation of “young readers . mystified by the fuss and annoyed by the refusal of journos to tell them what it was all about.” An open proclamation that the idea is to brainwash these young readers with secular falsehood. His choice of words is equally revealing: the Ayodhya issue is a fuss. He’s right in a way…to a person engrossed in culinary explorations, issues of long term civilizational impact do sound like a “fuss.”

Sentence: Eat until death.

USCIRF: The pontificating–in many ways, literally–quidnunc for displaying exemplary shamelessness in its “report.” For the last time, set your house in order first. At the moment, nothing is going right for you. We’ve survived greater challenges over a few thousand years. We don’t need your idea of religious freedom and related nonsense. Plus, we know the exact nature of the dung that you were fed with.

Sentence: Replace the existing members of the USCIRF with the members of the Saudi royal family.

Mahesh Bhatt: For his successful debut as an actor in real life. Looks like his insane histrionics worked. There’s no trace of news of this Rahul Bhatt guy now. When reports last came in, Mahesh Bhatt was using every trick in the book–including pressurizing senior police officers to nudge-nudge wink-wink. And this is from the same filmmaker whose movies contain elaborate sermonizing on ethics and crime and “human nature” and society and religion and secularism. Ok the last word explains why Mahesh Bhatt made it to this list.

Sentence: Lock him up in a room and make him watch Saatwaan Aasmaan on endless loop at gunpoint.

Nisha Susan: For pushing an already-dirty public morality deeper into the gutters that our urban youth revel in confusing it for paradise courtesy the Pink Panties “campaign.” Hypothetically, we’d like to know if she’d send pink panties to her parents if they objected to her going to a pub. But then she works amidst a certain brand of liberal people who hold different standards for panties and burqas.

Sentence: Compulsory washing of other people’s underwear for a year wearing a burqa while she’s washing the underwear.

Y S Rajashekhara Reddy: For showing what he’d exactly done to Andhra Pradesh. His chronicles of misdeeds is as gory as it is voluminous. That his death was an eye-opener is an understatement. In a way, it’s a pity that it required his death to open the lid off the murky dealings of the Congress “YSR” party in Andhra Pradesh. An email that was doing rounds a few months ago showed that his combined worth is upwards a few thousand crores.

Sentence: You can’t sentence a dead man.

Kancha Ilaiah: Another gatecrasher who suddenly soared to popularity thanks to our braindead media, which thinks it’s ok to pit a pig against Hindu causes as long as the pig emits appropriate amounts of anti-Hindu stink. This parasite has mooched taxpayer money throughout his despicable career as an academic among other things, and his capacity for harm, given a chance, is incredible.

Sentence: Compulsory reading of the Bhagavad Gita for the rest of his life.

Wendy Doniger: Strictly speaking, she’s not an Indian but she rammed her way through to this Hall of Shame with her latest sex fantasy-fiction about the lurid lives of the Hindus. Her Freudian sex-obsession is equally matched by a variant of McCarthyism. In her sex-fantasy world, the only job of Hindu Gods and Goddesses and sages is to have sex and more sex and more and more sex in different forms and with different men and women. And we only have her word as the proof of that. Anybody who questions her word is a deadly right-wing Hindutva communalist. We only need to figure out what she was deprived of in childhood to understand her “writing.” Welcome, Prof Wendy.

Sentence: Psychoanalyzed by Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel.

Sudheendra Kulkarni: For singlehandedly shoving the BJP’s electoral fortunes down the drain. You only need one man of his calibre to make sure that you’re decimated without a trace. His election “strategy” is a study in stupidity. Equally, his desertion of the party to don a plush job is study in charlatanism.

Sentence: Sculpt a statue of Mamta Banerjee or lose your job.

Rahul Gandhi: For giving us regular Glimpses of the Future History of India under his reins. From performing repeated faux pas and scoring self goals at the hands of the media and university students who’ve been led to believe in the prowess of this dynamic, sexy young leader, Rahul Gandhi has accomplished tremendously. As only a functionary of the Congress party, the Crown Prince is giving us a foretaste of where he’ll take us if he becomes the Prime Minister. “Discovering” that Arunachal Pradesh is actually somewhere on the Indian map ranks as one of those accomplishments I mentioned.

Sentence: Draw a map of India and point the exact location of Arunachal Pradesh. Organize a Fake the Nation show on Congress News Network-Islamic Broadcasting Network and show the cute map to the nation.

Manmohan Singh: Who is he?

Sentence: Nothing. Really. Because he doesn’t exist.

Burkha Dutt: Zooms up from #13 to #1 this year. Her stellar performance in covering 26/11, her courageous battle with the Naval chief, and her consistent criticism of, and sending legal notices to intimidate helpless bloggers have contributed in a huge way to her success in this Hall of Shame. Not the one to rest content on past laurels, she continues to assault her yeowoman contributions to maintaining the health of Indian democracy week after week in She the People. We strongly suspect she’ll retain her #1 position when this list is drawn in 2010.

Shahrukh 'talentless' Khan seems to think he can insult India and her sidelined Hindus and get away with it time and again. And he probably can considering he is a Moslem! There is all this talk of Arts being above and beyond boundaries of religion etc., but a six-year old pointed out that most songs of his upcoming film My Name is Khan are sung by Pakistanis. A song or two here and there by Rahat does not seem unnatural, but all songs? Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Shafqat Amanat Ali, Adnan Sami, Rashid Ali and Strings, the Pakistani band. No, I am not listing the who’s who of Pakistan’s music scene but merely naming the artists who render their voices for Mr. Khan in his new movie. Does this mean Mr. Khan and his friends assume there is no talent in India? A Sufi theme is a good cover-up for Mr. Khan’s reaching out to Pakistan and to Moslems everywhere, if his lashing out at the IPL fiasco has not already highlighted this.

And we Indians, specifically Hindus, still want to watch his movies? Shame on us!

shrImAtre namaH
prAsAda parameshvarAya namaH

It has been brought to our notice that this website or articles here are being listed as associated or belonging to Kanchi Mutt. Though this has been clarified on our front page, we take a moment to clarify again that Sri Kamakoti Mandali is not associated in any way with Kumbhakonam Mutt that currently goes by the name Kanchi-Kamakoti Mutt. We have always sought blessings of the two Acharyas at Kanchi and have had associations with them at a personal level but similar is the case with several other seers such as the heads of Shivaganga Mutt, Swarnavalli Mutt, Yedathore Mutt, Kudali Mutt, Hebbur Mutt and so on. These 'associations' simply reflect our deep respect for the fourth Ashrama and for the tradition of our beloved AchArya bhagavatpAda. After all, every yati is of the svarUpa of nArAyaNa says the shAstra!

We have been fortunate to have been blessed with guidance from the shankarAchArya-s of three of the four AmnAya mutts (combining Badari and Dwaraka as one); but we are not functionally or financially associated with any of them. We however hold H H Mahasannidhanam of Sringeri as our Guru and prescribe to his conclusions on matters of dharma and adhyAtma. This is driven not only by the deep reverence the AchAryas of this Tradition have earned through centuries but also by their spotless conduct, spiritual realization and deep scholarship. Thus, we would object humbly to being associated with 'this' Mutt or 'that' Mutt with the exception of Sringeri (or Dwaraka to an extent on account of the close association of our Gurus shrI chinmudrAnandanAtha and the bimbAmbikA lineage with dvArakA Mutt).

It is unnecessary to explain the need for this seemingly sudden declaration but we have been sufficiently convinced by several of our well-wishers that this piece of writing is worth publishing and at this time. Why bother bhagavatI brahmAstranAyikA for petty nonsense?

That said, we should now return our attention to our most precious Mother. And this is the final call for Mutt-gossipers to jump out of the plane

yatra kutra sthito vA.api kR^iShNa kR^iShNeti kIrtayet |
sarvapApavishuddhAtmA sa gacChet paramAM gatim ||

hare krShNa