वन्दे गुरुं शङ्करम् |
श्रीनीलताराधिपतये नमः |
There have been several queries if one should add Praṇava before mantras such as Pañcadaśī or Mahāṣoḍaśī. In our opinion, such an act is unwarranted, and here are the reasons.
A mantra, as revealed in its uddhāra śloka, has a specific number of letters. This is especially true for Srīvidyā where even the number of vowels and consonants are specifically counted and explained in various ways by Tantras such as the Nityāṣoḍaśikārṇava. For example, Pañcadaśī has fifteen letters, Saubhāgyavidyā has eighteen letters, Laghu Shoḍaśī has sixteen letters, and Mahāṣoḍaśī constitutes of twenty-eight letters. This count is very significant. Chandas, which is central to a mantra, is altered by the addition or removal of even a single letter. There is a specific pattern of letters taught during the Nyāsas and this additional letter will find itself without a place during the performance of various nyāsas. Antaryāga and inner visualization of the mantra involve specific imagery for specific letters or groups of letters (kūṭas) – and once again, the sādhaka will be left confused as to what he should do this extra praṇava which none of the Tantras teach.
Tantras like Yoginīhṛdaya explain various meanings of Srīvidyā mantra and none of them talk about the need or requirement for adding a Praṇava at the beginning of the mantra. In fact, it is stressed that the three kūṭas of the mantra, along with the turīya bīja, represent the gross and subtle aspects of the śuddha praṇava.
Tarkaratna Bhaṭṭācārya, most likely a direct disciple of Kṛṣṇānanda Agamavāgīśa, wrote a magnificent essay on Chaṇḍī where he lists various reasons why Navākṣarī mantra should not be ‘corrupted’ by turning it into daśākṣarī through the addition of praṇava at the beginning of the mantra. In this context, he also quotes the example of ‘fools’, as he calls them, who add praṇava or tritārī before Pañcadaśī and Shoḍaśī, and ridicules their behavior as śāstra viruddha and arising out of sheer ignorance of scriptural authority. We find no reason to disagree with his arguments even by the slightest degree. We had written a post earlier, espousing the same view.
Now, the question is, why do people add praṇava or tritārī before these mantras? Most of them probably receive it that way from their Gurus and practice it as taught – this is the most likely case today as most Gurus and their disciples are devoid of even customary knowledge of the Tantras and practice mantras only through the agency of faith or devotion, without a holistic and skillful approach. We cannot try to convince such people and should let them progress in their practice at their own pace, respecting their good intentions.
There is the next group that will assert the need to add praṇava before these mantras without which, we are told, ‘the mantra is powerless’. The more ignorant ones go to the extent of claiming that the mantra becomes ‘non-vedic’. We will not here get into the discussion of whether this view was propagated to ‘smārtify’ popular Tantric mantras such as Srīvidyā but for argument’s sake, let’s accept that there is value in intoning praṇava before Japa. But this does not mean that one adds praṇava to the mantra itself, affixing it before every single repetition. Bhāskararāya Makhīndra states clearly that one is to recite dīrgha praṇava at the beginning of mantra japa and then conclude the japa again with the recital of praṇava. This is also the instruction of Trikūṭā Rahasya of Rudrayāmala. Moreover, before the japa of Mahāṣoḍaśī, one recites praṇava as ‘Setu’ and also recites the mantra with saṃpuṭīkaraṇa of praṇava for the sake of getting rid of mantra sūtaka. This, in itself, will take care of the need for praṇava before japa, if one would want to apply the rule of certain Dharma śāstras everywhere including activities purely Tantric in nature.
One of our readers pointed us to a source on the internet which claims that Kubjikā Tantra and Siddhayāmala Tantra prescribe the addition of praṇava before ṣoḍaśī. The copy of Kubjikā Tantra we have examined has nothing related to Shoḍaśī mantra and this claim seems rather fictitious, probably derived from some medieval folk manual. One would need to go with popular, available, authoritative and widely accepted sources of Srīvidyā rather than unavailable and unknown sources from which one is not even able to quote the pramāṇa śloka. I wonder what they would do in the case of Tāraṣoḍaśī or Praṇavasundarī which starts with praṇava!
This source quotes the following verse as proof from Kulārṇava Tantra regarding the addition of praṇava before any and every mantra:
jātasūtakamādau syādante mṛtasūtakam |
sūtakadvayasaṃyukto yo mantraḥ sa na siddhyati ||
ādyantarahitaṃ kṛtvā mantramāvartayeddhiyā |
Sutakadvayanirmukto yo mantraḥ sarvasiddhidaḥ ||
As explained earlier, it should be rather clear that this verse describes sūtakanāśa krama to be performed at the commencement of Japa. It does not mean one should add praṇava before every single recitation of the mantra. Even manuals like Nityotsava incorporate this step in their japa krama in the same fashion that we described earlier. Interestingly, this source, while quoting the above verse as pramāṇa for affixing praṇava at the beginning of the mantra, conveniently omits adding the same to the end of the mantra! There is also some discussion about Chāndogya śruti but I would rather not discuss that here due to its utter irrelevancy to the topic under discussion.
Similar is the case with the addition of tritārī, which seems to be popular with adherents of Paraśurāma Kalpasūtra. Even here, some add just the tritārī, some others conveniently add praṇava as well, and so on. Again, to any sensible person, it should be evident that the sūtrakāra’s intention is to add tritārī during saparyā krama and certain ritualistic applications and not to the very mantra during Japa. Rāmeśvara vehemently argues this point in his commentary on the Kalpasūtra. Now, take other groups which follow say Tantrarāja or Paramānanda Tantra as chief references. One of them prescribes dvitārī during rituals and yet another teaches pañcatārī. So, now are those folks expected to add all these bījas before Mahāṣoḍaśī? The author of Manoramā commentary on Tantrarāja sufficiently indicates the fallacy of such ridiculous interpretation of the sūtra.
Thus, in our opinion, there is absolutely no reason to add praṇava or tritārī before Pañcadaśī or Shoḍaśī during Japa. We are yet to see any pramāṇa even faintly supportive of this argument, while those disproving this baseless claim are too many.
Simplicity is a virtue, over-simplification is not. In Einstein’s words: ‘Make things as simple as possible but no simpler.’