Journal of Indian Philosophy (2005) 33: 583–599 DOI 10.

1007/s10781-005-2827-4 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE

Ó Springer 2005

REMARKS ON ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTIONw

The glorious Lord of Gauri manifests on the extended and clear mirror of his own " Self the supreme river of Creative Action [kriya] – which is splendorous with the ´ fluid-relish [rasa] of his own Sakti and is the locus of numerous, ever–arising waves between the two banks of the subjective aspects that are [limited] cognizers, and the objects of cognition. May he reveal to us the Supreme Truth! "s Abhinavagupta, Ivarapratyabhij~avimarin" 2.1, benediction n" s i

INTRODUCTION: THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION IN SOUTH ASIAN RELIGIOUS METAPHYSICS

In South Asian religious and philosophical traditions there is a long and complex history of the use of the analogy or metaphor of reflection to explain the relation of the Ultimate Reality, God or the higher Self – to the multiplicity of limited subjects and the objects of their experience that make up the universe.1 Within the Hindu orbit, one of the most ancient examples is the instruction of Indra by Praj"pati in the Ch" a andogya Upanisad. In that account, Indra learns – contra Virocana and the : Western Narcissus – to distinguish his witness Self from his bodily self as reflected in the eyes of others, a mirror and a plate of water.2 Also well
w This paper presents some findings of an ongoing research project on the monistic ´ Kashmiri Saiva philosophy of personal and soteriological identity. An earlier version was presented at the conference, Language, Consciousness and Culture: East–West Perspectives, Calcutta, January 2004. I wish to thank Pt. Hemendra Nath Chakravarty of Varanasi and Dr. Navjivan Rastogi, Prof. Emeritus of Lucknow University, for their helpful suggestions. 1 Here I will use the terms ‘‘analogy,’’ ‘‘metaphor’’ and ‘‘model’’ as roughly equivalent in meaning. Abhinavagupta and the other thinkers discussed themselves alternate freely between explicitly comparative and metaphorical discussions of reflection. 2 " _ Chandogya Upanisad, in Jagadisha Shastri, ed., Upanisatsangraha (Delhi: Motilal : : Banarsidass, 1970), 8.7–12, 80–83.

part 1. As Phyllis Granoff has shown. For Padmap"da. 4 See Karl H. 86–88. I also note that the sixteenth century commentator on the Yoga S"tra. pratima) provides an accessible mode of approach to the ultimate. 1981).6 : In its moment of immanentism..’’ in The Integrity of the Yoga Darana (Albany: State University of New York Press.3 : ´ _ In Sankara’s rather ad hoc treatment of the reflection model. 84–85. unitary and un" changeable Atman/Brahman in the diversity of limited subjects and objects. 1963–1973). : : . and then : the reflection of buddhi in purusa.3. with the analogies of the reflection of the sun in rippling water and of a person in a mirror. Sankara sometimes talks of reflections of the transcendent. in these traditions reflection is often said to constitute the body of the Ultimate Reality or the enlightened being. Advaita  _ " Vedanta up to Samkara and His Pupils (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vakyapad"ya of Bhartrhari with the i : "" ": : Commentary of Helaraja. ed. vol. Rukmani. Vijn"nabhiksu. He also sometimes describes ad" ventitious qualifications as reflections in the Atman. 5 Potter. with the illustration of the reflection of colors in a clear crystal.’’ According to this theory. ‘‘Theory of Reflected Consciousness in Yoga. The great Upanisadic utterances point : towards the identity of the individual as reflection with its the prototype which is the true Self. As manifest in iconography " or imaginary forms the reflection (pratibimba. 367–375.584 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE known are the S"mkhya and Yoga theories of the reflection of the a_ purusa and arthas in the buddhi. Padmap"da finds a " greater heuristic value in the model of reflections of the Atman/ Brahman. The linguistic philosopher. See T. there is first the reflection of purusa in buddhi. ‘‘Vijn"nabhiksu’s Double ˜a : : Reflection Theory of Knowledge in the Yoga System.40–41.5 This mode of explanation was extensively developed in the Vivarana school.S.’’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 16. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. we ´ _ may usefully distinguish two alternative conceptions. 6 It is not possible here to consider the complexity of later Advaita discussions of ` reflection vis-a-vis saguna and nirguna Brahman. see Ian Whicher. s 1998). 135–142. Granoff explains: a s" n " 3 On the latter. 3. K. Bhartrhari had used the analogy of the reflection of : colors in a crystal to describe how the meaning of an individual word is affected by " the meanings of other words in a sentence. Generalizing her observations on R"jas´ ekhara’s Viddhaalabha~jika. ed. 151–153. Padmap"da’s reflection theory rea sonates with more widespread usages of the model of reflection in Hindu. Subramania Iyer (Pune: Deccan College. Potter. 3. kanda 3. Buddhist and Jaina traditions.A. the j "va is not merely an accidental a i qualification of the Ultimate.4 " In developing his full–fledged pratibimbavada. propounds a ‘‘double reflection theou ˜a : ry.

. the object of art. I will indicate the page numbers in the edition of Abhinava’s commentary cited in the following note.. respectively. n" " " : corrected edition. 360–361. 101–102. eds. and trans. no. captures the very essence of God’s nature. be abbreviated IPK and n" " " : IPKV. the image of the deity. Madhu: s: sudan Kaul Shastri. 10 "s Utpaladeva. in discussions of the nature of image making and the nature of God’s body.11. The Ivarapratyabhij~akarika of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vrtti. non-corporeal self may in fact be captured. and u :: their employment as a metaphor for the perfected body in ‘‘Maitreya’s Jewelled World: Some Remarks on Gems and Visions in Buddhist Texts. Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe Barasch (Leiden: Brill. 1. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies. 9  " " The Sivadr: ti of Srisomanandanatha with the Vritti by Utpaladeva. This refutation is stated by the Buddhist logician p"rvapaksin. On another level. 1999). it is not a real moon at all. When referring only to the IPK.’’ in Jan Assmann and Albert L. it is the true body of God. 124. 197. . n" and trans. I will refer to this edition when citing either the latter or both together. Cf. the remarks on reflections and shadows in Wendy Doniger.) . as image. ‘‘Portraits. 70–74. Indeed some poetic passages on the reflected self suggest that it is only in reflection that the true. ‘‘pratibimba’’ or ‘‘pratim". ed.9 "s Utpaladeva in his foundational works on Ivarapratyabhij~a refutes n" the S"mkhya theory of the reflection of the self and objects in the a_ a buddhi.2. 135. The Vij~ana Bhairava speaks of the reflection of the n" a universe in the buddhi as like that of the sun in water.10 as well as the Sautr"ntika ‘‘representationalist’’ theory of the 7 Phyllis Granoff. we find occasional and usually rather incidental examples of the analogy prior to Abhinavagupta. (Henceforth u : "s the Ivarapratyabhij~akarika and Vrtti will. 2001). 8 Vij~anabhairava or Divine Consciousness: A Treasury of 112 Types of Yoga.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 585 On one level a reflection is distinguished from the object reflected and the perception of a reflection as the reflecting object is an error. 8. Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The moon on the surface of the water is not the moon in the sky.. Jaideva Singh (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. See also her discussion. . ed. 2002). ed. Likenesses and Looking Glasses: Some Literary and Philosophical Reflections on Representation and Art in Medieval India. 54 (Pune: Aryabhushan Press.’’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 26 (1998). 1934). 6. Raffaele Torella (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.8 Som"nanda in  his Sivadr: ti mentions the pratibimba model among various Ved"ntin s: a : theories of creation. 1979).’’ all terms that designate reflection as well as a likeness. Baumgarten.8.. the reflected body is considered to be the purest body conceivable. . regarding the magical power of reflective jewels. centering on the Gandavy"ha.7 ´ ABHINAVAGUPTA’S MONISTIC SAIVA PREDECESSORS ON THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION ´ Turning to the monistic Kashmiri Saiva traditions. In the discourse about God’s body as reflection.

While monistic ´ Kashmiri Saivism comprises a plethora of interweaving traditions. (Abhinavagupta’s commentary will henceforth be referred to as IPV and the " commentary on it. Sivadr: tivrtti. K. Utpaladeva does not thematize reflection as a basic theoretical and practical approach to the Ultimate Reality.13 Utpaladeva does not understand the reflections within the Self as adventitious qualifications. though he does not like directly to quote Advaita Ved"nta.14 Nevertheless.. 1. 2 vols. 23.5. ed.C. Utpaladeva is here refuting the S"mkhya understanding of prakrti as a_ : unconscious. such IPK and IPKV 1. 14.5. 60. See Torella’s remarks on this passage in his translation. ibid. I will review some of the most relevant of these. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.’’ Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 65 (1984). 1.11. Pandey (Reprint. 15 This point is made in Navjivan Rastogi. 28. 14   " " Utpaladeva. will be referred to as BIPV. In his treatments of the metaphor.11b–13a. ´ BASIC MYTHIC AND RITUAL STRUCTURES OF MONISTIC KASHMIRI SAIVA TANTRISM It is Abhinavagupta who may be credited with making the metaphor ´ of reflection into a favored trope of monistic Saiva theological dis15 course. in the Self. Thus he argues that it is because the Self is pure (svaccha) that it is able to contain a plurality of reflections without contradicting its unitary nature.) i a :: 12 "s IPK 1. n" s i " Doctrine of Divine Recognition: Sanskrit text with Bhaskar". Ivarapratyabhij~avimarin" of Abhinavagupta. Bhaskar" by Bh"skarakantha.11 He also argues that it is recognitive apprehension (vimara) that distinguishes the awareness s "s (prakaa) of phenomena from unconscious reflection such as the reflection of colors in a crystal. 1:209. On vimara and prakaa. His interpretation of reflection was further diffused along with the rest of his theology to other intellectual traditions of Hindu tantrism. 1:241. see below. He argues that the universe is essentially identical with consciousness just like reflections are identical with a mirror. n.12 Utpaladeva occasionally uses the metaphor of reflection. See below on Abhinavagupta’s interpretation of this verse. in The Sivadr: ti of Srisomanandanatha with the Vritti : s: : : s: by Utpaladeva. 186n. ‘‘Some More Ny"yas as Employed by a Abhinavagupta. 16. 1986).A.4–6.5.13b–17. s 13 IPKV 2. in a more constructive manner. Most importantly – and a the central point of this paper – Abhinava established the use of the metaphor of reflection fully to articulate basic mythic and reca´ pitulatory ritual structures of monistic Kashmiri Saiva tantrism. I follow Abhinava’s interpretation that this is a "s theory of bimba and pratibimba.586 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE reflection of external objects in consciousness. Subi ramania Iyer and K.19. 20–21.. 11 . 1. Abhinava evinces greater familiarity with the broader South Asian discussions.4.4.

ed.16 In his classic study.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 587 as the Kaula. circles of Saktis. Siva performs emanation and the other ´ central monistic S ´ cosmic acts that control the universe – through Sakti as his self-identical power and consort. through u political power. As the Vij~ana S n" ´ ´ Bhairava says. which ´a Sanderson has also suggested reflects the appropriation of S"ktism by   ´ aivism.’’ Alexis Sanderson emphasized how the tantric pursuit of such power transgresses orthodox. In Krama tantrism one contemplates oneself as the possessor of ´  " " sakticakras.17 David Gordon White in The Kiss of the Yogin" has s propounded an argument recently that is already controversial. ‘‘Purity and Power Among the Brahmans of Kashmir. ´ akti is encompassed by or overcoded in this stream of tantrism S ´ within the metaphysical essence of the God Siva. mainstream Hindu norms that delimit human agency for the sake of symbolic–ritual i purity (uddhi). i 2003). that this quest for power originated in ancient siddha practices aimed at gaining benefits from yogin" through offerings of sexual fluids. Michael Carrithers. is the approach to Siva through Sakti. 19 Vij~ana Bhairava 20.18 s ´ Be that as it may. 1985). we may proceed from broader patterns. The common theological designation ´ for the essence of such power is Sakti. n" . Philosophy. According to the ´ aiva myth. the Trika and the Spanda. as the appellation ‘‘monistic Saivism’’ suggests. ‘‘Creative Vibration. History. the Krama. ‘‘Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir. 190–216. The basic pattern of praxis.’’ 16 The typical list of five cosmic acts comprises: (1) Creation of the universe (2) Preservation of the universe (3) Destruction of the universe (4) Bringing about the _ " delusion of creatures that leads them to suffer in samsara (5) Graciously liberating creatures from delusion and suffering.19 ´ ´ One pursues identification with Siva as the Saktiman by reenacting and thus assuming his mythic agency in emanating and controlling the ´ universe through Sakti. 18 David Gordon White. Probably the most generic and distinctive feature of the broad range of phenomena that contemporary scholars call tantrism is the pursuit of power. 17 Alexis Sanderson.’’ in The Category of the Person: Anthropology. The Spanda Karikas pursue the engross ment of sakticakras understood as Spanda. 17. Its expressions vary widely from relatively limited ‘‘magical proficiencies’’ (siddhis or vibh"tis). Kiss of the Yogin" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sakti is Siva’s ‘‘door’’ or ‘‘face’’ (mukha). Steven Collins and Steven Lukes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. to the omnipotence of the liberated person performing the divine cosmic acts. Thus in the Kaula sexual ritual a man realizes ´ himself as the possessor of Sakti immanent within his partner.

’’ : However. pratyabhij~a). See Lawrence. pantheons of higher and lower deities.20 :: The Pratyabhijn" philosophical theology propounded by Utpaladeva ˜a and further developed in the commentaries of Abhinavagupta follows the same pattern. in order to address the Naiy"yika-Buddhist debates about a vikalpa. and especially in the grand syntheses of Abhinavagupta.’’ ahambhava.22 The s n" Pratyabhijn" sastra endeavors to lead the student to participate in the ˜ a " ´ recognition ‘‘I am Siva.’’ by demonstrating that all experiences and ob´ jects of experience are expressions of the recognition that ‘‘I am Siva. and various other symbols. 32 below on the concept of : " " agential self-determination (svatantrya). Rediscovering God with Transcendental Argument: A Contemporary Interpretation of Monistic  Kashmiri Saiva Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York Press. With regard to the latter concept. see n.’’ referred to by such ˜a _ " " terms as ahamkara. the metaphysical essence of mantras. 85–132. which they derive from Bhartrhari. paramara.’’23 This same process is also described as a purification of conceptualization _ ara) (vikalpasamsk" – leading from the ordinary impure (auddha) cons ceptualization that lacks the realization of emanatory self–recognition to " the Pure Wisdom (uddhavidy" sadvidya) that comprehends the same. ‘‘the revealing of Sakti. The Pratyabhijn" methodology and substantive theories are analyzed and engaged ˜a in dialogue with Western philosophy and theology in David Peter Lawrence. Also relevant to Abhinavagupta’s use of the metaphor of reflection. the iconography of mandalas.’’ and _ " ahamta. theories and analogies. cosmic principles. pratyavamara) constitutive of all instances of s s s "s awareness (prakaa). Michel Hulin and Mark Dyczkowski have drawn attention to an innovation in the Pratyabhijn" approach to ordinary. 1999). s a. 23 ´ ´ Siva’s Sakti/self-recognition/Supreme Speech is immanent as recognitive " apprehension (vimara. ‘‘I-construction. 22 In their Pratyabhijn" works Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta also identify this ˜a ´ " " self-recognition (Sakti) with the principle of Supreme Speech (paravak). it explains the process epistemologically in terms of recognition. ‘‘I-ness. ‘‘I-hood.588 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE ´ Within the historical elaboration of monistic Saiva theology. deluded ˜a personal identity that I would describe as a correlative in philosophical psychology to the theory of self-recognition. ´ ´ Siva’s emanation and control of the universe through Sakti is described as an act self-recognition (ahampratyavamara. Such recognitive awareness itself idealistically generates experienced objects. 21 20 .’’ Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta do not advocate See Rastogi for an overview of Abhinavagupta’s use of several analogies. This is the Pratyabhijn" approach to ‘‘egoism’’ or ‘‘egoity.21 This system pursues the liberating realization of ´ ´  " : identity with Siva through saktyaviskarana. and omnipotent : agency (kartrta). an astonishing number of what might be called secondary codes were propounded for the same mythic and ritual pattern – in terms of emanating mantras.

‘‘Self Awareness. which must be universalized and transfigured into its ´ essential nature as what Dyczkowski calls Siva’s ‘‘super-egoity. the universe. 1–22. ´ forthcoming). is one’s body. Own Being. however. The pattern is similar to that observed by Granoff regarding images or reflections as the body and immanent ´ mode of access to the divine. 1970). Upanisads and G" a interprets t" : ´ ´ the Self’s/Siva’s cosmic emanation through Sakti as the true body.G.E. For the monistic Saivism of Abhinavagupta. in Tantrasamgraha (Part 1). On the monistic Saiva body symbolism regarding the diverse and hierarchical realia of emanation.26 ABHINAVAGUPTA’S BASIC USES OF THE METAPHOR IN METAPHYSICAL EXPLANATION Abhinavagupta treats the metaphor of reflection as a code for the ´ mythic and ritual process of Sakti engrossment closely related to those of egoity and the body.  The Siva S"tra thus proclaims that all that is observable (drsya). 32. 1993). 1911). and ´ r. see Gavin Flood.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 589 ´ the surrender of egoistic identity in devotion to Siva or the sublation of it in the identification with his higher consciousness. Body and Cosmology in Kashmir  Saivism (San Francisco: Mellen University Press. Chatterji (Srinagar: i : Nirnaya-Sagar Press. Abhinava conceives of reflection as both of and in ´ the Self/Siva. He alternates between the two ideas most freely in his " " " short Paramarthasara. the reflections and body are traces leading to the realization of one’s own empowered identity. Vir"paksapa~caika.C. J. 1992). ´ _ Like Sankara.’’ Michel Hulin. 279–358. the human ego is itself an immanent expression of God’s identity. 25 The Shiva S"tra Vimarshin": Being the S"tras of Vasu Gupta with the u i u " Commentary Called Vimarshin" by Kshemaraja. ed. Gopinath Kaviraj u ": n "s " (Varanasi: Sansar Press. . a reworking of Adis´ esa’s S"mkhya-influenced a_ : 24 See Mark S. Egoity.14. 37–48. ‘‘La notion de p"rnahamta dans le Sivaisme du Kas´ m" in Le principe u :" _ " de l’ego dans la pensee Indienne classique (Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne.’’24 Another pertinent mythico-ritual code developed by the monistic ´ Saivas out of antecedents in the Vedas. Dyczkowski.’’ in The Stanzas on Vibration (Albany: State University of New York Press. According to them. 1978).25 The circa 12th century C. One empowered by that conviction is able even to move mountains as his or her own hands. 1. I translate and further interpret this text in The Teachings of the Odd-Eyed One (Albany: State University of New York Press. ed. 26 _ Vir"paksapa~caika.. that u : is. teaches a way to the realization of identity with u ": n "s " ´ Siva through the cultivation of the conviction that the universe is one’s own body.

8–9. My translation follows the gloss of the term as n"lap"tadisarabh"ta i i " " u in BIPV 2. 6. the agent is ‘‘self-determined’’ or ‘‘free’’ (svatantra) in instigating and controlling the processes of the other accessories.31 Besides the example of the reflection in a mirror of a village or city. a flowing river.29 When focusing specifically on the reconciliation of unity and multiplicity in his Pratyabhijn" commentaries and other writings on ˜a Tantra. svatantrya) is basic to the monistic Saivas’ analysis of Siva’s creative " action (kriya) using Sanskrit grammatical theory – regarding the syntactic relations between verbs expressing action and declined nouns referring to accessories to action " (karakas. 29 Ibid. he says that the universe is reflected in the consciousness of the Self/Bhairava like a village or city in a mirror.C. n" accommodates within himself contrary divisions of his essential nature.4.1. 18. whereas they as controlled by ´ the agent are ‘‘determined by another’’ (paratantra). mountains. 2:9. and like Rahu’s shadow i eclipsing the moon.27 Likewise.. In the Saiva syntax of omni´ potence.. IPV 2. 21. roughly corresponding to the Western notion of cases). or colors in a crystal. 1916). Thus Abhinava says that there is a ´ the reflection of the Self/Siva in diverse bodies. See Lawrence. this is the crux: How can what is unitary be a multiplicity? To this it has been replied: He who has the essential nature of consciousness is like a mirror.4. This is from the discussion of the Pratyabhijn" theory of action ˜a " (kriya). Abhinava argues that such reflections are not illusory. organs and worlds like the moon in moving water..5. 2:160.590 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE Vaisnava manual. he also talks of the reflections of elephants. Elaborating Utpaladeva’s earlier suggestion. 32 IPV 2. According to Sanskrit grammar. 28 Ibid. 133–154. Here we find typical S"mkhya as well as Advaita a_ :: Ved"ntin illustrations of reflection. and other things. 30 " " " padarthatma. the Essential Nature of things. .30 though unitary through the force of recognition [pratyabhij~a]. As he puts it in an epitome of the Saiva debate with the Buddhist logicians: In all of the opponent’s view. Chatterji (Srinagar: Kashmir Pratap Steam Press.1. the Self as Siva is the self-determining agent of all subordinate processes of all things in the universe.28 Conversely. 24–27.19.1. J. there is the reflection of it in the intelligence (dh") like a face in a mirror. 7.1. 2:8–9. it seems that Abhinava generally prefers the metaphor of ´ ´ reflection in the Self/Siva. 2:199.32 27 " " " The Paramartha-Sara of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary of Yogaraja. 35. ed. 31 IPV 2. he contends that it is both the purity (svacchatva) and agential self-determination (svatantratva) of the medium that enables it to contain a diversity of reflections as identical with itself. [In this way] there is the possibility of a diversity of appearances without contradicting his unity. What is the contradiction? Therefore. The concept of ‘‘agential self-determination’’ ´ ´ " (svatantratva. 12–13.

the absolutely independent will of God which is the mirror and which is the cause of this effect which is the reflection. this is not the case with Abhinavagupta. 3.18–20.4. water or a crystal is its recognitive apprehension of Thus Abhinava’s systematic correlation between the two kinds of reflection diverges from that of the later Vijn"nabhiksu. 35 TA and TAV 3.33 This leads to a question regarding which Abhinavagupta does give inconsistent answers in his texts – whether or not there is a prototype object (bimba) for the reflection (pratibimba) that is the universe. 1987). His basic point is that there is no bimba if that is conceived as something external to consciousness. 34 " See The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary of Jayaratha. for Abhinava : they are two ways of describing the same fact of emanation. For Abhinavagupta there is a conceptual linkage between the alternative kinds of reflection as interpretations ´ of the myth of Siva’s emanation and control of the universe through ´ akti.’’ in Kashmir Saivism: The Secret Supreme (Srinagar: Universal Shaiva Trust.34 That ´ cause is none other than Sakti.  ´ " " " Supreme Speech (paravak). the Tantralokaviveka. the Un" " surpassed (anuttara). an " " efficient cause (nimitta) rather than a material cause (upadana). .) This denial of an upadana karana must still be reconciled with " " Abhinava’s defense of a version of satkaryavada in his Pratyabhijn" commentaries.60–61.C. ˜a See IPV 2. It is svatantrya. 36 " The Tantrasara of Abhinavagupta. 17 (Reprint. Dwivedi and Navjivan Rastogi (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. and the analysis in Lawrence. . he always makes it clear that there is a cause (hetu) for the pratibimba.you see only the reflected thing and not anything that is " reflected. 1985). 11. . 2:425–427. 2:194–206. 4.36 and " the various modes of self-recognition (vimara. (Abhinavagupta’s work will henceforth be " referred to as TA. 8 vols. However. 1982). and so on). ed. ´ Lakshman Joo. Mukunda Ram Sastri. Siva/the Self is both the source and the locus of reflections. Whereas for Vijn"nabhiksu reflections ˜a ˜a : : of and in the purusa represent two stages of the process of knowledge. ed. Delhi: Bani Prakashan.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 591 ´ _ Whereas Sankara alternates between ideas of reflections of and in because he uses the metaphor in an ad hoc manner. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies. All ´ S reflections are of the Self in the Self. 148–149. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri and Mukunda Rama Shastri. variously identified as the Kaulik" Sakti. R. and Jayaratha’s commentary on it. 33 . no. . republication. (This text ´ will henceforth be referred to as TS. will be " " : referred to as TAV. 30–31: In consciousness. That which is reflected (bimba) is in fact svatantrya. This whole universe is " " reflection in god Consciousness of svatantrya. Abhinava explains ´ that what makes the Self/Siva different from other reflecting media such as a mirror..65–67.35 agential self-determination (svatantrya). Sometimes Abhinava indicates that there is a bimba and sometimes that there is not. 2:420–421. ed. semantic intuition (pratibha). explains in ‘‘The Theory of Reflection. s s Again elaborating Utpaladeva’s earlier view. that is..) The 20th century monistic Saiva holy man. paramara.

5. Abhinava conceives the modus operandi of the Pratyabhijn" ˜a _ " system as a purification of conceptualization (vikalpasamskara). 1:242–243. . 2:216–220. he occasionally utilizes the ˜a metaphor to support his explanations of how the contemplation of the arguments leads to liberation.6. which like reflections do not exist as separate from him.592 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE " itself (ahamparamara). (Here he also mentions the analogy of perception within a dream. IPV 3.10. so does he use it in interpretations of the praxis that recapitulates the myth. 38 37 . IPV 2. 9–11.40 To give another example.3. When this self-recognition gen: : erates the apprehension (vimara) that ‘‘I who have the nature of s "s " " "s awareness am aware’’ (aham. He states that those who apply concentration to this ´ teaching are able to find identity with Siva within that very worldly _ " experience that is ordinarily regarded as the condition of samsara.5. Abhinava compares the manifestation of a potter creating a pot to the reflection in a mirror of a potter creating a pot. With regards to the Pratyabhijn" philosophical theology itself.4.1.14. n. n s " " " Bodhapa~cadaika and Paramarthacarca (Srinagar: Krishna Printing Press.1–2. ´ Siva is the true agent of all human actions. and Paramarthacarca. pramana and prameya.8. Abhinava thematizes this purIPV 1. 1947).7. See above. 2:26–27. This is the cause of the externalization of s what is internal (antarbahiskarana). ed. For example. IPV 2.4.1.4.. see IPV 1. according to one schema mentioned above. in Jagaddhar Zadoo. 32.. " " (In his Tantraloka and Tantrasara. 2:1. 1:309.1 benediction. Bodhapa~cadaika. 2:158.) For other examples of Abhinava’s basic metaphysical uses of the analogy of reflection. he asserts that the philosophical proofs establish – through concomitances and noncomitances.38 Applying the reflection model to this point.11. 2:173.prakaatma prakae).37 ´ The monistic Saivas’ systematic reduction of things to emanative ´ manifestations of the Sakti or self-recognition of universal consciousness does not except the apparent agency of limited individuals. there then arise the structures of ordinary multiplistic experience in the triad of ": ": pramatr.39 ´ SAKTI ENGROSSMENT AS THE REALIZATION OF COSMIC REFLECTION Just as Abhinavagupta uses the model of reflection in his metaphysical ´ interpretations of the monistic Saiva myth. 39 See IPV 2. . IPV 2. 4–5. n s " " " 4. 40 IPV 1. 1:390–391. idem. and on the basis of worldly experience – that all worldly behavior rests upon the Lord who is inlaid (khacita) or colored by diverse manifestations such as blue and pleasure.

as with the determination of individual actions from injunctions.1.’’42 See Lawrence. Focusing on s" " Utpaladeva’s assertion that ‘‘desiring the benefit [upakara] of humanity. Abhinavagupta consolidated earlier efforts of systematization into a typology of four increasingly internal and unitive sets of spiritual practices: (1) the ": " anava up" ‘‘individual means.’’ that is. purpose and method of the entire astra from this verse. To explain this passage more fully. 1:44–46. the most concrete rituals.’’ involving study. with little or no practice. aya. Such a qualified student will from Utpaladeva’s pronouncement receive the transmission of the meaning of the astra like the reflection of an original image s" (bimbapratibimbavat).1. (Reprint. and (4) the anup" ‘‘nonmeans. 1:313. 42 IPV 1. philosophy and discursive meditations.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 593 ification as typifying a broader classification of spiritual practice that ´ " " he calls the sakta upaya. ‘‘means of Sakti. and realize himself or herself to have attained the recognition of the Great Lord. are distinguished by whether or not one realizes one’s ´ emanatory self-recognition (Sakti). 2 vols.6.6.) Despite the minor disagreement. ´ ‘‘means of Sakti.1. in a discussion of the a Pratyabhijn" theory of ‘‘egoity. which define the trajectory of s purification.4–5. which animates the s " " Pratyabhijn" sastra and Abhinavagupta’s sakta upaya. correlates them with the states of the Supreme ´ ´ Siva and Sad"s´ iva. 1:6) – Abhinava explains that one who is qualified will interpret the reference to humanity as applying to oneself.’’ Abhinava distinguishes the pure ˜ "i (uddha) from the delusory (may"ya) recognitive apprehension of ‘‘I’’ s (ahamityavamara) by qualifying the former as belonging to a ‘‘pure s nature that is inlaid with the reflections of the universe. it is significant that both scholars ascribe the realization of the universe as reflection to Sad"s´ iva. Madhusudan Kaul. In this vein. 1:247. The commentator. ‘‘differentiation41 s and-nondifferentiation. the Great Lord. 57–65.’’ the direct absorption into the Ultimate aya. the realization that the Ultimate has always been realized. Siva]’’ (IPK n" 1. (These notes are believed to have some basis in Saiva interpretive a traditions. I am estab´ lishing the recognition [pratyabhij~a] of him [that is. Abhinava states that the pure egoity belongs either to a ‘‘pure consciousness undifferentiated from the universe’’ _ " (samvinmatre vivabhinne) or one ‘‘having a pure nature that is inlaid with the reflections s " " " of the universe’’ (vivacchayacchurit" atmani). one should understand that such engrossment actually occurs in all the spiritual means. ˜ a " Also of interest is Abhinavagupta’s brief advertence to reflection in his explanation of the qualified student’s reception of the meaning of Utpaladeva’s introductory verse "s to the Ivarapratyabhij~akarika. (2) the sakta up" aya. 1:313.1. 1984). While ´ " the term sakta up" emphasizes the importance of the process of Sakti-engrossment to aya this category.’’ which operates discursively " at the intermediate metaphysical level of bhedabheda. Abhinavagupta exegetically unpacks a summary of n" " " the context. Sad"s´ iva is known to possess a a " the Pure Wisdom (uddhavidya) of the fact of emanation. That is.’’ ) The pure (uddha) and the impure (auddha) forms of conceptualization. n" s i Delhi: Butala & Company. ‘‘means of Sambhu’’ higher and progressively more intuitive contemplations. (3) the ´ " sambhava up" aya.4–5. The "s Ivarapratyabhij~a of Utpaladeva with the Vimarin" of Abhinavagupta. one will resolve what is in Western grammar called the ‘‘third person’’ (in Sanskrit the ‘‘first person’’) into the first person (Sanskrit ‘‘final person’’). IPV 1. in his notes to his Kashmir Series edition. Bh"skara specifies s acch" a ´ the two qualifications as pertaining respectively to the tattvas Siva and Sad"s´ iva. 41 . BIPV a 1.

creation is the instigation of the reflection and ´ destruction the realization of the reflection’s unity with the Self/Siva. and withdrawal (samhara) as three phases of cognition. Alexis Sanderson.283–285. ed. Their vision. while touching. Anne-Marie Blondeau and Kristofer Schipper (Louvain-Paris: Peeters. With this realization. which is Consciousness – he is indeed the Lord of the universe.43 In another formulation. Abhinava posits a special linkage between reflection and the persistence (sthiti) of things. While they are doing all of these various actions they see that all of these actions move in their Supreme Consciousness. multitudinous collection of entities appears as a reflection within his Self. Abhinava makes the contemplation of all things as reflections into a definitive feature of this way to realization. persistence (sthiti). I am the agent of their persistence [sthitikarta]. They exist in the state of Sadaiva. : : " Persistence is also identified with embodiment (avatara). 63. their perception. 43 . Lakshman Jee. In the generic fivefold scheme of divine acts. 1995). one comprehends the universe in one’s nature. This theory teaches them how to be aware in their daily activities. one finds [ultimate] rest. The universe becomes dissolved in me. Cf. III. Abhis" navagupta actually utilizes the metaphor of reflection most substantively and elaborately in describing the less discursive and more " " unitive contemplations of what he calls the sambhava upaya. 44 TA 3. . Thus I am the creator and the essence of the universe. while walking.44 From this perspective. Each and every action of their life becomes glorious. . The entire group of the six adhvans [courses of " emanation] is reflected in me. identifies emission _ " (srsti). He identifies this persistence as the expression of the divine act of preservation. while tasting.’’ which is the focus of the parallel third chapters of his " " Tantraloka and Tantrasara. ‘‘Meaning in Tantric Ritual.45 TA 3. 2:598. They see each and "s every action in their God Consciousness.594 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE The contemplations of the Pratyabhijn" sastra may be understood ˜ a " " as falling within what Abhinavagupta calls the akta upaya.’’ in Essais sur le Rituel. while smelling. 45 Krama tantrism. delusion and grace are the homologues in the experience of limited subjects of cosmic creation and destruction. while hearing. 2:608. ‘‘means ´ of Sambhu. intermediate between creation and withdrawal: I manifest the universe in the ether of consciousness that is nothing but my own Self. appropriated by the late Kashmiri Trika. " As he typifies this in the Tantraloka: The one for whom the entire. while talking. whose nature is entwined with the flames of the eternally arisen great " wisdom [mahabodha]. The mode of their actions becomes absolutely unique.268.. With this understanding. This is awareness that comes from the practice of pratibimba. one realizes identity with Bhairava. heretofore limited becomes unlimited. Seeing this. 32: " The theory of reflection (pratibimbavada) is meant for advanced yogins.

viz.’’ and Apara. are manifest on the lower levels in an inverted. As such. 306–316. This remarkably complex s" scheme has been analyzed by scholars such as Andre Padoux and Jaideva Singh. Vac: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras.’’ (abdaraibhairava) for he s contains within his unity all the undifferentiated phonemes as well as the archetypal bimbas of all the tattvas.46 My basic point is that this scheme enhances the cosmological scope of ´ reflection as a metaphorical code for the monistic Saiva mythicoritual process. A Trident of Wisdom: Translation of the Paratr"sikaVivarana. 1990). Abhinava propounds a number of specialized ‘‘theosophical’’ ruminations on the mantric aspects of emanation. At the Para. passim. ‘‘Intermediate.. " i " See Abhinavagupta.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION BIMBAS AND PRATIBIMBAS IN PHONEMATIC EMANATION 595 " " " In his discussions of the sambhava upaya in the Tantraloka and " Tantrasara. Jacques Gontier (Albany: State University of New York Press. with notes by Jaideva Singh (Albany: State University of New York : " Press. from Sakti to Earth. and Andre Padoux. Siva subsists in unity with the Goddess Par" a ´ akti who is the same as Supreme Speech. It provides both an intricate account of emanation as ´ the reflection of and in the true Self/Siva and a rigorous program " " for the meditations of the sambhava upaya that recapitulate that mythic reality.’’ cosmic a levels. He further develops these " is " teachings in his Paratr"ika-Vivarana. trans. which may also be interpreted : " as largely describing the ambhava upaya. mirror image of their order as ´ bimbas in Siva’s monistic consciousness at the Para level. ´ " " This scheme explains how Siva’s Supreme Speech (paravak) emanates into all the phonetic components of mantras and corresponding cosmic principles (tattvas). the collectivity of sound. Also notable is Abhinavagupta’s theory that the Para i level’s eternal present is the bimba of future and past times respectively at the Intermediate and Lower levels. para-payant". The Para level also includes the " s " bimbas of the subsequent stages of emanating speech. As such. The concrete phonemes from a to ksa emerge in the descent : through the Par"para. trans. 46 . Abhinava also ´ explains that all the tattvas. including the tables at 106–107. parai " " madhyama and para-vaikhar". ‘‘Lower. which make use of the model of reflection. ‘‘Supreme. they constitute the media in which are reflected the series of pratibimbas that are the hierarchy of tattvas. 1989). Siva is also called ´ S "s ‘‘Bhairava. and I will only say a little bit about it here.’’ level of Abhi´ nava’s Trika rubric.

47 For Abhinava the sexual ritual. but not for each one [spectator] separately. Abhinava describes the realization of power in the congregation of yogin" (yogin"melaka) as a mutual mirroring of the s i participants. "s See The Ivarapratyabhij~avivrtivimarin" by Abhinavagupta. 7:3265–3266. 50 p"rnananda. n" : s i Madhusudan Kaul Shastri.. 3 vols. 1987).50 When there is the absence of causes of contraction.5. which deindividualizes their corporeality: Consciousness is the essential nature of everything. it becomes contracted in different bodies. However. TS 3. aims at the universalization and transfiguration of pleasure into its essential nature as the blissful self–satisfaction and ´ perfect egoity of Siva’ emanating consciousness.1–2. the blissful consciousness of each individual attains such a state of unity. Particularly interesting is his use of it in the explanation of the sexual ritual. in the more internalized practices described above. there is delight when there is identification of all [the spectators with each other in the experience]. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies (Reprint. According to Abhinava. 1. and thus enjoys perfect bliss. and so on.11. and so on. like aesthetic connoisseurship.373b–375a. In the dance. blazing. Sanderson and White emphasize how Abhinavagupta’s philosophical rationalization and aestheticization of the sexual ritual domesticized tantrism for a brahmanical audience. 7:3593–3594 " " " interprets the mudra as a pratibimba. 48 47 . citing the authority of the Devyayamalatantra. 49 TA 28. That is the bliss of the yogin" 51 .596 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE REFLECTION IN THE SEXUAL RITUAL AND AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE Abhinavagupta applies the metaphor of reflection in a more ad hoc manner to other practices. Delhi: Akay Book Corporation.375b–378a. 2:177–179. The flow of shining innate rays is reflected in the consciousnesses [of the participants] like in many mirrors. 7:3264–3265. In the congregation it becomes expansive [again] through [the participants’] reflection of each other in their union. sexual sensations like other forms of sense experience have the character of reflections. and so on. To mention one more example of these ritual applications of the reflection model. they become universal [sarvayeta] without effort. 10–11. such as envy. the individual contemplates his or her self-reflection in the entire universe – the participants in the sexual rites find immanent media for the reflection of their divine identity in each other. in an audience of many for a series of songs. In the following passage. Abhinavagupta at TA 32. u :" 51 TA 28. ed. consciousness becomes expansive without obstacles. jealousy.49 He further explains that the communion of the audience of singing and dancing works in the same way: For the same reason.48 Just as.

55. ‘‘The Power of the Yogin" Tantric Actors in : South Asia. a i : a : a ed. ‘‘Kings. He knows ‘‘I am the one of whom there is the reflection. a circa : : a ´ vidy" 13th century writer in the lineage of Abhinavagupa. who is [actually] situated within himself. 10. egoity. . Power and the Goddess. s : a Cidvall".’’ in Kiss of the Yogin". 123–138. This passage is discussed in Lawrence. I will conclude by quoting a few excerpts from post-Abhinavagupta texts that – whether or not ´ they had the ancient scripture in mind – illustrate the monistic Saiva traditions’ ‘‘transvaluation’’ of the stance on reflected identity of the " Chandogya Upanisad’s instruction of Indra. 52 " " " Puny"nanda and Natan"ndan"tha. 123–159. 1:67–68 on the king as illustrative example (dr: tanta) in the : s: " Pratyabhijn" inference of the individual’s Lordship. s s " Recognitive apprehension [paramarana] is the knowledge of [that] form ‘‘I. Puny"nanda. cosmic embodiment and emanating Supreme Speech. 53 See IPV 1..3. This is the meaning: A certain enthroned and very handsome king observes facing himself the reflection of himself on the surface of a clear mirror that is facing him. Kamakalavilasa with Commentary Cidvall".’’ South Asia Research 6 (1986).’’ Similarly the Supreme Lord ´ also observes facing himself his own Sakti. the king’s realization of 53 sovereignty: ´ The essential form or aspect of Siva is expressed ‘‘I. sovereignty is also an important practical ´ expression of the engrossment of Sakti. For historical perspectives see Senjukta Gupta and Richard Gombrich. of that essential form]. One infers and recognizes that ˜a one is Lord of the universe like the king over his domain.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION CONCLUSION 597 ´ Thus with Abhinavagupta reflection is added to the monistic Saiva and high tantric repertoire of interpretive codes for the mythic and ´ ritual engrossment of Sakti. associates the contemplation of one’s reflection with ani ´ other common code for Sakti-engrossment.1. 2.’’ The s ´ "s taintless mirror [that is.’’ There is the recognitive dis" cernment [vimara] or recognitive apprehension [paramara.52 Natan"ndan"tha in his commentary. homologous to and intertwined with the fundamental schema of self-recognition. Svamiji Maharaja Vanakhandeshvara (Datia: Pitambarapith Sanskrit Parishad. . Sakti] discloses [prakaane] that [form] as facing oneself. 1979). and White. As already mentioned. in his Sr" a ´ " " " work Kamakalavilasa describes Sakti as the ‘‘taintless mirror ´ of Siva’s recognitive apprehension of his own form’’ (ivar"s u " s a pavimaranirmaladara). i .

metaphysics.55 s 54 Puny"nanda and Natan"ndan"tha.7–12. 2 vols. 80–83. (Patna: Bihar Rastrabhasa Parisad. this [world-egg. 1:20. This passage is discussed in Gopia : a : a " i _ : " " nath Kaviraj. the Gurunathaparamara. sacrifice. in their valuations of agency and immanence. All these have been removed by the thorough study of the reasoning of Abhinavagupta. 8. Tantric : as well as bhakti traditions often highlight themes in the Upanisads in particular : that are exegetically downplayed by other traditions. Raghavan. ed. in Abhinavagupta and His a s Works (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia. Note that in ˜a : " speaking of a transvaluation of the Chandogya Upanisad’s stance on reflected : identity. V. 13. Thus this whole world-egg shines [in the heart] like a face in a mirror. The dis: embodied and non-imaginary witness Self with which Indra learns to identify in " Chandogya Upanisad. as he does to the Pratyabhijn" philosophy. Bharat"ya Samskrti aur Sadhana. 10. In fact. In the 19th century Paul Deussen. echoed the " former traditions in his argument that a ‘‘pantheistic’’ identification of Atman/ Brahman with the world is the dominant viewpoint of the Upanisads. 1981). 29. for example. as is expressed ‘‘I am completely perfect [parip"rna]. I am not addressing the broader complex of relations of tantrism with the Vedas and Upanisads in myth. The Philosophy of the Upanishads (Reprint. . actually] is not separate and consists of self-recognitive apprehension [svavimaramaya]. Gurunathaparamara. Though appearing as separate.’’54 u : " " In his eulogy of Abhinavagupta. s Madhur"ja’s describes the impact of the guru’s teachings: a The darkness of doubts had veiled the heart. 1966). New York: Dover Publications. mantra.598 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE He knows his own essential form. 55 " " Madhur"ja. is paradoxically described in a manner of : ´ which the monistic Saivas would approve – as one upon the realization of which a "_s " " "_s person ‘‘obtains all worlds and all desires’’ (sarvamca lokan apnoti sarvamca " " kaman). Natan"ndan"tha frequently refers to the a : a " Chandogya Upanisad. 2. and so on. 1977–1979).

1987). It may likewise be said that the ancient Neoplatonists placed ‘‘quantitatively’’ less value on the approach to the transcendent through the immanent than the tantric traditions. In future publications. trans. the hypostases constitute a series of reflections emanating from the One. Box 7128. Plotinus compares one who does not immediately trace the beauty immanent in the world to its transcendent source – to Narcissus who perished gazing at his image in the pool. For Abhinavagupta – as for Plotinus as well as Indra and Virocana " in the Chandogya Upanisad – the spiritual error is believing in the independent and : substantial existence of what is only a reflection. including Platonism. have frequently described God as creating the world and creatures in his own image. Grand Forks. 147–181. I mention that Julia Kristeva has made some interesting and germane observations on Plotinus’ interpretation of the myth of Narcissus. 15. Leon S. relishing s [rasika] in the play of manifesting creation and destruction according to our own intention.net 56 Ibid.ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 599 Having recognitively apprehended [vimrya] the universe on the clear surface of the :s " mirror of self-recognitive apprehension [svatmavimara]..O. Tales of Love. Hermeticism. 44.H. Julia Kristeva. Armstrong. ‘‘Platonic Mirrors. Also see the rich study of A. In Neoplatonism. for example. 103–121. while Plotinus thus deplores Narcissism. I plan to engage comparatively the monistic ´ aivas’ usage of the model of reflection with Western discussions of reflection and S ‘‘narcissism’’ in metaphysics and philosophical psychology. ND 58202-7128. 1990). the Platonic–Neoplatonic conception of the participation (methexis) or imitation (mimesis) of the ideal in ´ matter or nonbeing differs ‘‘qualitatively’’ from Saiva and other South Asian understandings of emanation. University of North Dakota. USA E-mail: davidptrlawrence@netscape. However. P. we wander freely. Neoplatonists use the concept of reflection to describe the immanence of the transcendent. Renaissance Neoplatonism and later idealism and Romanticism increased the valuation of the immanent reflection of the transcendent. . Gnosticism and Judeo-Christian thought. Western philosophy and theology since the Hellenistic period. by which one may trace one’s way back to the Ultimate Reality. Kristeva observes that the ascent to and identification with the One that he advocates is itself ‘‘Narcissan. Great Britain: Variorum.56 Department of Philosophy and Religion. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press.’’ as he describes the experience of one who is ‘‘alone with him who is alone’’ in terms of gaze and reflection. However. As with monistic ´ Saivism along with many expressions of the broader range of South Asian traditions examined by Granoff.’’ in Hellenic and Christian Studies (Hampshire.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.