One Thursday, after what had been a sardonic, wet, rainy day, I addressed a small group of academicians who were interested in the topic, ‘Haṭha Yoga in Traditional Tantra’. One of the illustrious scholars, who is a known name in the field of Shaiva Siddhānta related research, surprised me by stating that he was a Srīvidyā Upāsaka initiated by a Guru from Kāśī. His primary practice was centered around the hallowed Parāṣoḍaśī vidyā, which, thankfully, was not the same medieval mantra that most seem to be be aware of in the present day.
This discussion brought back memories of someone I consider a mentor, the late Shāstrālaṅkāra Dr. S K Ramachandra Rao. Sri Rao, who I first met when I was, I think fifteen, lived pretty close to my childhood home. Before the advent of the despicable Daivajña Somayaji, who has made a mockery of vāstuśāstra today, Dr. Rao headed the Kalpataru Research Academy, funded by Sringeri Shāradā pīṭha, in some capacity. I was told, by several acquaintances of my Guru, that he was a treasurehouse of many rare manuscripts. One afternoon, I decided to show up at his door unannounced and asked him access to his library with what I can now only term incredible audacity. He regarded me with dismissive amusement and told me to come back another day. I returned, with more determination, this time with some name throwing. My Guru’s name gained me entry, and he asked, ‘what have you studied lately” I replied, without hesitation, ‘Tripurārṇava Tantra’ and that seemed to impress him. Over the course of a few visits he seemed to warm up to me, albeit with some reluctance.
So far he had only allowed access to some of his published works and nothing else, which was quite disappointing to me. It was during one such visit that I noticed Dr Rao suffering from a certain condition associated with the excretory system that put him in immense pain. I decided to try to assist him and did what I could do best, given my age and incompetence – recite Vanadurgā for a fortnight every night, and took some Bhasma to him. It seemed to work and his condition improved overnight. After this incident, he completely opened up to me and let me run amok examining his manuscripts.
Around the same time, I was initiated into the sacred Parāṣoḍaśī mantra and into the hoary lineage of Bhagavatī Bimbāmbikā. The first thought that came to my mind was: ‘Hey! This mantra is not what I had read in manuals listed as Parāṣoḍaśī’. I had a reason, a theory and when I explained it to Dr Rao, who had documented this mantra (in the incorrect form) in some of his books, agreed vigorously with me. His nod of approval encouraged me immensely and taught me to think out of the box. It reemphasized Kālidāsa’s words: purāṇamityeva na sādhu sarvaṃ, an ideal that Dr Rao lived, breathed and embodied.
Years later, Smt. Rajam (Suri) Mami of Guhananda Mandali was the second person that I shared my hypothesis with. At that time, she was examining a text named Nābhividyā (a very recent text of questionable origin and authenticity), which again centered around the same Parāṣoḍaśī. She pondered over it for days and finally agreed that I was possibly correct. Her regard for this text seemed to have drastically depleted after this incident.
Anyway, the popular version of Parāṣoḍaśī seems to be traced back to Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī who presents a certain mode of worship of Srīcakra where Mahālakṣmī is worshiped in the sṛṣṭikrama and Mahātripurasundarī in saṃhārakrama. The ṛṣi of this mantra is listed as Nārāyaṇa and the Goddess is visualized as a certain hybrid form of Lakṣmī and Tripurasundarī, within Viṣṇu’s heart. Her popular dhyāna is:
तार्क्ष्यरूढहरिहृत्सरोजके भाति या परमचित्स्वरूपिणी |
पद्मयुग्ममणिपात्रधारिणी भासतां हृदि सदा ममाम्बिका ||
Now let us look at the uddhāra śloka for this mantra:
लक्ष्मीपरामदनवाग्भवशक्तियुक्ता
तारं च भूतिकमले कथिता च विद्या |
शक्त्यादिकान्तु विपरीततया प्रयुक्तं
श्रीषोडशार्णमिदमागमसंप्रसिद्धम् ||
Now let us look at the uddhāra ślokas for the more mainstream Mahāṣoḍaśī:
श्रीबीजमायास्मरयोनिशक्तिः
तारञ्च माया कमलाथ विद्या |
शक्त्यादिबीजैश्च विलोमतः सा
श्रीषोडशी यच्च शिवप्रदिष्टा ||
लक्ष्मीः परा मदनयोनियुता च शक्तिः
तारं परा च कमलाप्यथ मूलविद्या |
शक्त्यादिभिश्च विपरीततया प्रदिष्टं
श्रीमन्त्रराजमुदितं परदेवतायाः ||
Now, Rudrayāmala provides a strikingly similar uddhāra, but for Mahāṣoḍaśī:
लक्ष्मी परा मदनवाग्भवशक्तिबीजं
तारञ्च भूतिकमलेऽप्यथ मूलविद्या |
कूटत्रयञ्च विपरीततया नियुक्तं
श्रीषोडशाक्षरमिहागमसुप्रसिद्धम् ||
Now let us take the uddhāra of the so-called Parāṣoḍaśī by Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī and examine his interpretation. He traces this to a work called Mahālakṣmī Ratnakośa which deals mainly with saṃpuṭīkaraṇa of Srīsūkta with Kādi Srīvidyā. I examined two manuscripts of this unpublished work, first one at Tanjore’s Saraswati Mahal Library, and second in the possession of Dr Rao. Interestingly, neither talked of Parāṣoḍaśī. Anyway, getting back to Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī:
लक्ष्मीपरामदनवाग्भवशक्तियुक्ता
तारं च भूतिकमले कथिता च विद्या |
शक्त्यादिकान्तु विपरीततया प्रयुक्तं
श्रीषोडशार्णमिदमागमसंप्रसिद्धम् ||
लक्ष्मीति श्रीबीजम् | परेति बालातृतीयबीजम् | मदन इति कामबीजम् | वाग्भव इति बालाप्रथमबीजम् | शक्तिरिति भुवनेशी | तार इति प्रणवः | भूतिरिति भुवनेशी | कमलेति श्रीबीजम् | कथिता च विद्येति | श्रीविद्यायाः सोमसूर्यानलात्मकक्रमेण खण्डत्रितयम् ||
Here, he interprets ‘Parā’ as the third bīja of Bālā mantra, and śakti as Māyābīja. Also, he proceeds to interpret ‘śaktyādikāntu viparītatayā’ to mean – reverse the three kūṭas of Kādividyā.
The term ‘Parā’ can be interpreted to mean both Māyā bīja as well as Bālā tṛtīya bīja, sacred to the Trika lore. Mantrābhidhāna kośa says:
परा – दन्त्यसकारः | ह्रीमिति हकाररकारचतुर्थस्वरबिन्दुयोगेन मायेति |
Similarly, the term śakti can mean either the Māyā bīja or the Bālā tṛtīya bīja.
शक्तिः – सकारोदन्त्यः | ह्रीमिति मायाबीजम् |
He seems to clearly mix up these two bījas. And then, the instruction ‘śaktyādikāntu viparītatayā prayuktaṃ’ (to reverse the starting five bījas, at the end of the mantra) is again misinterpreted as reversing of the main three kūṭas of Kādividyā. And this incorrect interpretation results in the vikāra which he calls Parāṣoḍaśī mantra.
If we examine the famous uddhāraśloka for Mahāṣoḍaśī from Rudrayāmala, it becomes evident that the above interpretation of the Mantra is incorrect:
लक्ष्मी परा मदनवाग्भवशक्तिबीजं
तारञ्च भूतिकमलेऽप्यथ मूलविद्या |
कूटत्रयञ्च विपरीततया नियुक्तं
श्रीषोडशाक्षरमिहागमसुप्रसिद्धम् ||
Also, the term ‘āgamasuprasiddhaṃ’ can only apply to the extremely well-known Mahāṣoḍaśī, and not to this hardly known, obscure mantra!
So, what this boils down is to this: Some medieval manual picked the famous Mahāṣoḍaśī mantra and detailed its Vaiṣṇava adoption by placing Mahālakṣmī at its center in a syncretic ritual. Someone later, possibly Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī himself, assumed this mantra to be different from Mahāṣoḍaśī, interpreted the uddhāra śloka incorrectly and generated a whole new Mantra which was not found in any older, classic Tantras of Srīkula. And this error continued to be propagated by others copying the mantra without discrimination, in their manuals and compilations.
This mantra of Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī is not found in any other standard Tantras or manuals. Also, there are no other uddhāra ślokas that reveal his mantra, except for the above one. Even the popular Trailokyamohana Kavacha does not talk about it, nor do works like Srīvidyārṇava Tantra, Srītattvacintāmaṇi, Bṛhattantrasāra, Mantramahodadhi, Puraścaryārṇava, etc.
Those initiated into the Krama system are well-aware of the closely guarded, correct mantra of Parāṣoḍaśī. Clearly, the mantra should have Parā (in other words, Bālātṛtīya bīja) in a central position for a certain ṣoḍaśī to become Parāṣoḍaśī. Needless to say, Mantrasaṅketa for the correct form of the mantra should be learned from a competent Guru. It would suffice to state that the actual Parāṣoḍaśī mantra does not resemble Gīrvāṇendra Sarasvatī’s version even faintly. And it certainly has no association with Mahālakṣmī.