SELF AWARENESS OWN BEING AND EGOITY by MARK S. G. DyczKOWSK1© Autor Price Year of Publication: 1990 rine atthe Ratna Printing Works (Photo-Oftser Section) ‘Kamachha, Varanas. ‘The thesis proposed inthis paper can be simply stated in a few words. One of the most distinctive features of the monistic Saivism that developed in Kashmir from about the middle of the ‘ninth century with the revelation ofthe Sinatra to Vasugupta was ‘introduced some three generations later by Utpaladeva, one ofthe ‘major exponenis ofthe Pratyabhijia school, Tis was the eoncept ff what, for convenience, I will term the “absolute ego. It is a ‘concept of the one absolute reality which is at once, Siva, the Self {and pure consciousness undersiood as a self-eflectve pure egoity (ahambhava ).Ivis the transcendental ground within which and ‘through which the entre range of cosmic and individual principles, inthe sphere ofthe subject, object and means of knowledge are generated, sustained and destroyed through a process in which its transcendental nature immancnialiss ise even as itrevens back to transcendence ‘The concem of this paper is 10 establish that i is with Utpaladeva that this subtle and complex intuition ofthe absolute Fist appears inthe history of Indian philosophical thought. In ‘order to support this conclusion and explain how I came t0 it, 1 will doal witha numberof basic concepts, most historically prior {0 Utpaladeva, others new. that have led to its formulation. Our point of departure are the eatliest works that can be ‘defined as Kashmir Saiva in the sense that they represent them. ‘selves as systematic treatises (stra of avowedly purely human ‘authorship rather than revealed scripture. These are the ‘Spandakarika (swiven either by Vasugupta or hs direet disciple Kallatabhaiia) and the vrvion the same that is universally attributed 10 the latter, The metaphysical, theological and soteiological views they present, are rlaively simple compared, to the complex systems worked out inthe treatises that followed, {immediately afterwards inthe most vigorous period of Kashmiri Saivism’s development from the middle ofthe ninth tothe middle Of the cleventh centuries. Even so, they provide us witha fairly ‘complete formulation of te nature of ultimate reality,2 easing ano notry ‘The first thing 1 notice here rom the point of view of our present discussion is that nether the Spandatarika nor vr take the ego to be in any way absolute, They thus fall inline with all the other schools of thought that developed in India up to then Which unanymously agree thatthe ego - the “I~ is relative! From ‘one point of view, te ego is understood as the ahamkara which is a part of the inner mental organ that processes, coordinates and denies Une sensory data supplied bythe senses. From a diferent ‘of point of view itis the ‘notion of sa = ahampratyaya, As such itis the conceptualized counterpart of the notion formed of the ‘object in such a way that when we say "I sce and know this particular X" both “I” and "X" ae part of a proposition formed at {the conceptual, discursive level (vikalpa ) It is also the feeling ‘one has of oneseif as reacting subjectively othe object as pleasant Or painful, that is, as involved in the play ofthe gunas and so appears in the notions the perceiver forms of himself as happy sad Or dull, Athough related to one's own deeper authentic nature in that this is the essential ground of such egoic notions, they are distinct from i. Thus in the Spandakirida we read: "No nations such as "I am happy", "am miserable” or “Lam tached" (exist independently). They ll clearly eside elsewhere, ‘namely, in tha which threads through (all) the states of pleasure and the rest, Kalla commen, "The ( subject ) threads through all the states ( of consciousness ). He connects them together ( in the continuity of the experience that): "am the same (person ) who is happy and sad, or who later becomes attached.” (They all reside) ‘elsewhere in that state independent ( of all transitory perceptions ). AS scripture (declares ): ‘this ) one's own nature is considered 10 be the highest reality”? ‘This view doesnot posit a pure "ness" outside and apan from relational, conceptual propositions referring to cognitive ats. The isha reipec tit a Ronde 2 Spkedand orm te me ss avansnss 3 go-notion ( ahampratyaya ) isthe condition ofthe disturbed or disrupted (Asubdha ) sate of personal existence which is that of he individu soul subject othe inate impurity of ignorance and hence transmigratory existence. Thus the Spandakarita. declares ‘An individual who though desirous of doing various things but incapable of doing them due to his innate impurity, ‘Cexperienoes) the supreme state (param padam ) when disruption ‘Csobha) ceases" Kallta comments ‘The individual soul) pervaded by this innate impurity may. esire to act, but even so cannot make contact wit his inherent power. However, ifthe disturbance of his conceived notion of his ‘own identity 1" ( aham iti pratyayabhavaripa ) were to cease, the would be established in the supreme state"? This disturbed condition which is the egoie notion of the fered soul ( pasu ) prevents it from abiding in the state of Permanent repose within itself which is its basic condition ( svaamasthit’) considered, aecording to this monistic view, to be that of Siva Himself, Freedom from bondage is thus understood as the attainment of one's own nature’ ( svdimalabha ). This ‘attainment ( ldbha ) or "laying hold of one’s own nature’ (svdimagraha_) is a direct experience of one's own nature svabhava } which, though egolss, isnot entirely impersonal as the avoidence of the term ‘arman’ in preference to the term ‘svasvabhava’ inthe Spandakarika indicates. “Thus the word ‘doman’ almost invariably figures inthe text in ‘compounds where it functions asa reflective pronoun in the sense of ‘one’s own’ rather than meaning the ‘SelP, Thus, for example, inthe eighth Aarita we are told thatthe senses operate by vine of the power inherent in one's own essential nature. The expression for this is abla’ that one could, it seems at fist sight, translate asthe strength or power ofthe Sel? This, however, isnot ight, asthe use of the analogous form ‘svabala’in kdrika 36 indicates, ‘There the author says that objects become progressively more {evident to the subject a ‘his own strength’ i. the inherent power