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4 owxase ap ecany ff his subjective consciousness, i applied to their perception Similarly, objects, perceptions, emotions, mental images and all tlse that manifests objectively acquire a nature of their own (Caimalabha because they are grounded in the universal vibration ‘of consciousness - Spanda - with which one's own nature is identified, For the same reasons it would be wrong to translate the expression “dimalabha’ as attainment of Self. In kdrika 39 the YyoRi is insiructed to be established within himself. Here 100 the ‘expression ‘svatmani’ should not be translated 10 mean “in his own Self”? ‘nthe vet the tems ‘svabhiva’ and ‘swasvabhava’, meaning ‘own nature’ or ‘own own nature, are recurrent. We also come across the synonyms dimasvaripa® and ‘amasvabhava*. In one place, however, Kallata writes: "sarvatmaka evayamaima” ic. this Self i indeed ofthe nature ofall things". The Self refered 10 here i the insividual living being (va). Here Kalla seems to be making use of « standard expression drawn trom the Upanigads well know to his literate readers generally 10 state that the individual sot himself, just ashe is is complete and perfect “The ‘own nature’ of am emiy is that which makes it what iis and accounts forall ils inherent properties and causal efficacy. Siva as one’s own ‘own nature’ this tends 10 personalize this inner identity us compared 10 the concept of Self worked out in ‘other types of monism that tend towards a pure transcendentalism in whieh the Self is understood purely as the transcendental aground ofthe person and, as such, it has no inherent phenomenal properties or powers. Its causality or agency are adventitious {qualities they are secondary and non-essential, just asa jar ean be blue or re without it being essentially affected thereby. 1 erat ea Bi Serger wh een cw erarafeerte wre "See hn os tight er svar awanesese 5 “The distinctive temminology points to a more personal view of the Self that is no just a passive perceiver but also the subject that is never known as an object but only through an act of self awareness ( svasamvedanasamvedya ). We seems that once the individual Self which, as pure consciousness, is known through an act ofsel-awarenes, is identified with Siva Whois one's own ‘own nature’ and this self-awareness is understood as bas'c non- discursive awareness which precedes, sustains and generates discursive, individualized and individuating menial representations Cvtkaipa ), we come very close 10 the intuitive insight of an absolut slt identity experienced as a pure "I" consciousness, But this need not necessarily be the ease fr virtually all Indian schools ‘of thought accept that the distinctive feature ofthe subject is this ‘capacity for sell-awareness contrasted with the phenomenological ‘status ofthe object which is never an object ofits own awareness but always that ofa subject. There is no need even to posit the existence of an absolute Self for this 10 be the case. Thus, the Buddhist Dinnaga, for example, also refers 10 the distinction between subject and object and ther relation in these terms. The individual sou! can be self-conscious without this implying any inherent egoity, even as this self-consciousness is the basis of an adventitious notion of "I". This is the view of the earlier ‘Saivasidahanta texts. Thus, Sadyojyos in his Naresvaraparitsa in the course of his proof for the existence of the individual soul advances the argument tha the individual Self exists because itis "the field ofthe notion of I" ( ahampranyayagocara), RAmakantha “(Although ) the notion of self ( ahampranyaya ) is (distinct ‘rom the Self) which isthe object of ascenainment, ii perceived ‘concomitantly with i because itis a reflective awareness ofthe persisting perceiving subject and has the Self as it object (isaya ). Thus both are true as they are established to exist by their (common nature ) as consciousness, Thus there is no non- existence ofthe Se”!6 commas as ncaery Ramakanha continues, saying that both the Self and the notion of Seif are invariably found together although the Self transcends thought constructs, Thus, even though the notion of Selfsa thought constr, it cannot be sai to be false in the sense that it can indicate something unreal, A! reflective determination Cadhyavasaya) of one's Set is invariably accompanied by this ‘notion and thus, boing an aet of eansclousnes, iis as Vridical as the Self which is consciousness. He goes on wo ad thatthe notion of Seif may appear wo bea projection of conceived egoe atogation ‘onto an object, namely. the body ete. and not the Self, in such a way that one thinks." Tam fa” oF "Lam thin’, Countering this possible objection fe says that the ego potion relating to the Self is non-specific ic. itis not specified by objective qualities. This unspecified (aviista notion is primary and a such applies 10 the Self! Kallaya snd the Spandakarik, each an idcalism according to which the ipvidual soul as the enjoyer (bhoktr Js one with the ‘object oF enjoyment because the perceptive awareness (savedana) ‘whieh links them as subject ana! object an isthe eommon reality Of both is possessed by the former a ils essential nature. This perceptive awareness focused open itself isthe conscious sate of the subject who contains and i all dhings.? The proximity ofthis notion 10 that of the Self or ‘own’ nature’ as a pure ego- consciousness is so close that it seems natural for the lat commentators, who all uote Utpaladeva and so post-date him, 10 ierpret the Karika’s view in this way, Thus Rajanaka Rama insist that there are two egos which he contrasts, the one @ notion and hence ‘ereated’or'anfcial (yerima), ad the other uncreated and hence one's own nature ite, Silay, Abhinavagupta says “From the intellcc arises the product ofthe ego which consists ff the notion that this light generated by the individual soul reflected (in the intellect) and suid by objectivity is (he tue) ego. ‘Thus as is indicated by the word ‘product, this 2 Skt ss awannss 7 (created ego) is uiferet trom the essential nature ofthe ego ‘which is uncreated and perfectly pure freedom" “The anificial ego Seemingly limits and bins the uncrated go. In this sate af bondage the individual pereeivr believes himself conditioned by dh cous forms of diversity related 1 the divided field in which he operates, namely, the egoity (ahanpraé) established on the basis of mutual exclusion betwee llering egos. Is egy falsely projeaed oto the body which isthe way in which, according 10 Utpaladeva als, we perceive the unfolding ofthe power of Maya Conversely, as Rjaaka Rima explains, the pare consciousness encompasses the sees of pre prinipes om Siva o Sudahavidya. Its one's cown essential nature (svasvabhava ) a ParamaSiva whois fee of all contact with duit Thus, an uninterrupted awareness ofthe goiy(akamdara) hich shat of one's own tre essential nature (Grasvabhava is iberating The egoity aanprazyaya) which takes its suppor rom the body i destroyed when itis iadicated by the authentic cgo.* "melts 10 use Raja expression "ikea heap of snow. by coming in con gh of the sun ofthe authentic eg (sabhavikahampraryaya that transcends al Fits supports” Atthe same ime, however 3s Rijanaka Rima sy, the eBoty(ahanpratyaya projected ono the bry isnot alse Cypaparna in that iculimately abies in areal ‘which isnot iansitory.* Thus, according to im, whatever the Self sustains through the medium ofthe eg0 (aham i prazpa st body. The fetiered state is the projection of this notion onto a reality which is other than the Sel, iil the tiberte state i that in whieh this ego notion is realised to be that of one's own authentic nature svasnabhdva) > Thus, Rajnaka Rama says ofthe awakened yoy Spikes. 12,8 mesa cnr "When his ego-sense(ahampratipa is Firmly established in the essential nature of his authentic derity (domasvabhava ) whieh i distinct from the body et. st manifests in brilliant evidence 10 the clear vision that unfolds by the enlightened awareness generated (in him ) by the rays of energy which, emited by Siva, thé Sun (of consciousness ), fall (upon him) it is then made manifest by the powers of the reflective awareness (pardmaraiat ) ofthe cognitive consciousness of things just as ‘they are in reality. Then he realises Siva Who is the Wheel of Energies consisting of the manifestations of the wonderfully diverse universe sketched out (in this way ) by (His own ) will, alone."! Rajdnaka Rima was Uipuladeva's direct disciple and the profound influence thatthe Pratyabhiji had on him is evident {throughout his commentary, Ths sso not only in his presentation ‘ofthe realisation of Sparda and ts atvity as an act of recognition but in his views on the two types of egoity. That this is his personal interpretation of Spada docteine ant not originally to be found init finds confirmation, partially at lest, inthe absence of this distinction in Bhagavadupala’s commentry which, apparently ‘more consistent with the Karka and vr, invariably relegate all ‘ego-consciousness 10 the level of «notion, He does thi. it seems to me, not so much as a conscious atiempt to keep Spanda doctrine ‘pur’, i¢, not to overlay it with higher hermeneutical imterpretations, but because the view which panicularly inspired him eas not that oF Use Pratyabhijia, although he quotes it several times, but the monisic Vaisnavat idealism of Vimanadatta's Samvigprakaéa. In this work, the sense of Tis consistently relegated tothe level of a thought construct: iti the notion of (asmadvikalpa ) are noting more? Ksemaraja, the remaining major commentator, takes the senso 10 be absolute, adding to it further interpretations, which as we shall see, are continuation of the views his teacher, Abhinavagupta, developed, Here absolute '' consciousness is 2. Statiminmy fin ts a ARES ° Sakai whi Kyemarija deities with Spanda, the power of Siva, ‘one's own authentic nature, that infuse is energy into the body find mind, Thus he writes "Even that which is insentient stains entience because itis consecrated with drops ofthe juice ofthe esthetic delight-rasa ) of Iness, Thus that prineiple not ony renders the sss fit 0 operale once it has made them sentient but ‘does the same also 10 the subject that one presumes is their Smpellor even though be is ( merely) conceived to exist (Aalpita fs presumes that tis he that impels the senses. But heals is nothing fhe is not penctrated by the Spanda principle"! ‘But let's got back to Uipaladeva Is well know to students of Kashmir Saivism that Somaranda was his teacher and the first ‘exponent of the philosophy which was to draw its name fosm LUtpaladeva’s work, the fSvarapraryabhia, Somananda wishes 0 trace the geneology of his views 1o personalities associated with the propagation of Suivism in the Tantras2 In this way he not only {ries to stamp his views with the seal of scriptural authority But also affirms that they are ultimately drawn from the Tantras. Now, itis in fact sr that a number of basic concepts he presents are already taught in Tanti traditions which precede him. But even though he draws from this fund of ideas he nowhere posits the existence ofan absolute exo and in this he i consistent with the ‘Tanna. ‘When we get 1 Upaladeva, even though he declares thatthe ‘new end easy pall be expounds in his ISvaraprasyabhiiakarik is tna shown o him by his teacher Somananda in the Svadrst, he introduces an entirely new idea, namely, thatthe ego-sense that i relative when related 1 the body is ultimately grounded in an authentic, absolute ego, Thus as Abhinava tells us: The idea that, that which manifests as the "I" is perfect, ‘omnipresent. omnipotent and eternal being, that i, the idea that the "I is identical with the Lord, the subject, the lustrous one. ‘was nol in vogue before because of ( man's state of inate) ignorance. This Sdstra makes people fit to live this 1 Serpe 2 Son i10 ‘omen sooty idea in practice by bringing 10 light ( Siva's ) powers of ‘knowledge. will and action, This happens by virtue ofthis ease ‘nthe Pratyabhijfa which essentially consists of series of proofs 1 justify this id in pratie."* Uipatadva develops the notions ofthe Self and absolute Being that were already worked out before him to what he must ave thought were their ultimate conclusion, Thus he writes that “repose in one’s own essential nature ( svasvardipa ) is the reflective awareness ( vimarsa ) that "Tamt"?One might say that Urpaladeva is here explaining in his own Pratyabbijt terms that ‘the Spanda doctrine adopied from the Tantra of establishment in ‘one's own essential ature” (svasvardpasehit) implies that this, the liberated condition, is that of dhe pure ego-identity. Now in order to make this transition, Upaladeva must Introduce a concept which finds a pregedent in Bharfhai bu is lunknoven it scems, to the Tantras. Thus Bharehan declares that the universal light of consciousness which shines as all things, ‘must be full of the power of speech, otherwise it would not be the ‘one light ut the darkness ( qprakaa ) of is negation as the Mayic World of multiplicity. This power he defines as ‘slf-reflecive awareness’ (pranyavamarsin).) But while Bharshar does not 1 DE ami os em ges eal at moet Sa ees Eck gtion nates Am cumple memnnce cancel Geers deren menace ge eee ee ise oammrete eigeearar (oar) ig ha Cos pects curate io Be wlio yer para eo a ‘cncxpisre ecco Dt he ly developed you he gf be pene ena legac ip ov cmche contoncn eh ei sy AWALENSS n plaints ovon fll 0 fe he wate conlsion tha conn selective consciousness, absolute ae uns makes fall ee O 1 inate his, Ths Ce maria ops te reflective awareness ee fe mneincurive repression or jagement tat sm ass own nite rare whieh bo ts aie ae and cogtive power hough which toms sees Aland hugh whe the As esl back a see on uname the ters the round oF al psi erase, conta tala) and iniive een conten of corecouess in and tog ch nt vommon, ste seleawareness Of & sasnoncdiscurve egote wonssiusness. ti tis inherent Mrevute which makes consciousness uimate, Ts echoing rs Uiplara 3)3 "orf weet consier te refetve awareness (vimana) of the light of snsclouness ( prakdia ) 1 be other then its ova ‘Rema are sto Ht wou be as insentet as esta cnn the Tight 1s coloured by (seemingly external) plenomens (ara) "reo awareess (via) isexpiitely idenified by Uipatatevs, with, the reflective awareness. of “I” (akampraysvamaria. term which we can corrast wit he eter poten 1 Cahampraryaya His the consciousness (aha a vmayia) whch nanos se sujet rami) tne apc physi complex, as the notion (rapa bth of Eitan teeppeste? But she weet awareness of isin fst he very rue of he igh of consciousness (oral it iets ofa though consrcs (vata) fr these depend upon the duly of lave asintions? ‘A important ape ofthe concept of wna. which, 8 we snail sce, AbRinaagupla developed into a wide-ranging ane arEnn Dassen stusisECEESEEREE rE UnOSnEIon Suse ay cara ate te ea . fem 2 ts Sau2 ‘owes nmne ax ones hermeneutical Key to interpret, oF better 1 reinterprete, an important part of Tantic doctrine, i its identification with the supreme level of speech. Now, Somananda had already done this before, but his concept of vimaréa_ was much more tite than that whien Lipaladeva developed. Thus. in his refutation of what the took o be the grammarians view that pasyan isthe supreme level of speech, he advances as one of his many arguments that paiyanti-the spoceh which "sces”-cannot view ether selfs sch ‘or the supreme principle without this involving both ina subject- ‘object relationship whic degrades it and the ultimate principle to the level ofan objec which would then requite another pasyanti to see that and that another leading to an unacceptable infinite regress! Thus, the perceiver's subjective status as the seer (rstrta precedes pasyanti as the supreme level of speech “Although Somiinana calls this subjective stat 'vimaréa’ is no, 4s its for Utpaladova, the awareness the light of consciousness has of itself as all Unings and as beyond them, for tha would involve an unacceptable split into an intemal subject-object ‘relationship. Thas, Somananda explain it as follows: ‘ust the product an agent like a pote intends to generate) as, for example, ajar, abides 38a reflective awareness (vimaréa) in he form ofan intention (ica), such ste case here alo (with Supreme Speech ), This (supreme level of speech ) abides prior (Go all things ) for herwise if consciousness were not 1 possess subtle (inner ) outpouring (ullasa ) which abides inert upon its task (karyonmukha ) how could that desire unfold (and reach fulfilment). Siva abides as the one who is endowed withthe state (of this (supreme level of speech ) when in a condition of oneness (samarasya on? ‘This concept of absolute consciousness as charged inwardly ‘power that lows through it even as it rests in itself and ‘expresses itself a8 tension towards ils extemalisation into the form of the phenomenal world in and through the act of perception, is known to the preceding Tantric traditions, ~ as ass B paniculaly those ofthe Kaula Tantras and similar wadtons eared in some ofthe Bhairava Tantra. But what Uipaladeva create following passage in which a set of tems already Tees ro these carer views ae brought togeer inthe concept of ae ened with te supreme level of speech, presets iti incu mare complex formulation. He writes wre nature ofthe power of consciousness (cit!) i reflective awareness { praryavamaréa ) and is Supreme Speech which, ‘Spontancousiy emergent, i the lordship ofthe Supreme Self the Teed wich isthe intent (aunmukhy towards both immannce land transoendence), That pulsing radiance (sphurartd ), the Great Being, unspecified by time and space, is the essence of the Supreme Lord and so is said 0 be His Heart"? ‘ ‘We might notice ineidently before moving on that this Jmportant passage leaves the way clear for Abhinavagupta in his subsequent detailed Nemmencurics of the Tantras to expound the Syinbotism of the Heart ss the dynamics of pure I-consciousness ‘hich be developes in particular in his commentaries on the Pare, We shal tur wo this point ater. "Now we must briefly stempt to tackle the vas sprawling mass ‘of Tanric sources prior to Uipaladeva. Although I cannot claim, ‘oF course, o have read al the Tantras that predate Utpaladeva i hone of what lite [have managed to study in print and manuscript fs there any mention ofan absolute ego. While all the other notions tne have dealt with conceming the Seif and is relation t0 the exo tnd ultimate reality are attested in the Tantra, this in not the case ‘with the absolute ego, Barring one important exception whieh I ‘hall-deal with latter, which is anyway very ambigious, our Kashmiri Saivites do ot quote a single Agamic source in which the concept appears. One could argue, perhaps, that they did not choose to do $0, but this seems handly likely if we consider the key role it assumes from Upatadvas time onwards. On the other hand, a host of other notions that are woven together in the fully developed notion of the absoluie ego which we find in ‘Ablinavagupta are found there, so much so that it seems hard 104 ‘omnia aso Honry resist the conclusion that what has taken place is a higher hermeneutic in which there has not only been interpretation ad presentation of single notions but a grand synthesis of various ‘concepts ofthe absolute already found in dhe Tantra inthis one ‘There is no point in examining every detail ofthis process here, that would require an extensive study. AI that ean be done here is to point 10 a few key examples which can serve as representative illustrations ofthis hermeneutic method. As I said before, there is only one reference in all hose quoted by Kashmiri Saivite authors from earlier Tanias that can be construed 10 be a reference to an absolute ego, This is a verse which Abhinava quotes that is also quoted by Mahesvarinanda in his ‘Maharthamanjari who asibutcs tw the Srianhiyasamhis? the original Sanseitit reads erence TEER | Tederterraared = att ated his means Mania: devoid of the first oter andthe last (ae baren ike autumn clouds, Kea thi this Consciousness ofthe Fis nd Jas eters the characteris ofthe master: Tins passage, although seemingly of ile significance, is ‘extremely impetant frit isthe nly oe Kashmir exegtes quot fs being a elerence 10 he absolute eg inthe Tarts, One may however, understand this, admitedly erypic verse, to mean Simply thatthe adept must recite his Mantra mindful of each pa. including its beginning a end. One the adept can maintain an abiding, unistrctd state of minal eoncentation onthe eure Manisa from the frst tothe last letter, Be atans a level of spiritually mindful concencation that makes him fit to bea teacher ‘Ofte But Ahinavs understands hs vere in aque dif more elevated, way which i explained as follows by Jayarata in bis commentary on this pasage + saws 15 tin ist (ater) is (A symbolic ofthe ) absolute (anuatara ) and the last is H Garich symbolizes the completion of its acon). tus oven Mantra if devoid ofthe reflective awareness Spe which is Cencompassed by these ) the first and last leties artne apt) and are not know to be ofthat nature ae Tike (Gluran clouds, tha is t0 say, they 40 nothing... While if, athe contrary, they afe known to be the supreme vitality of ‘Manta (parameantrairya) whichis the reficcive awarenes oT" they perform their respective functions."" hat Fayaratha is saying becomes clear when we examine the context in which tis reference appears. Abhinavagupta dedicates the third chapter of his Tantraloka to a detailed exposition of ‘Mairkacakra Simply this i the series of the fifty letters of the alphabet which, inthe ‘antras, is understood t0 exist a filly tnergies or aspects ofthe universal potency ofthe supreme level bf speech connected with which Mantras are spiritually effective, Inthe Srtanirasadbhava, iva says o his consort: “oO dear one, all Mantras consist of leters and energy is the soul ofthese (leters) while energy is Madirka and one should knows her to be Siva's nature."* "the Tantras deal with this concept extensively. According 10 cone purely Tantsc! explanation, Magrkd as Mantrc energy isthe Souree of the higher iberaing knowledge of non-duality as the power of Ahora which makes inner and outer manifestation one ‘with Her own nature inthe all embracing experience ot liberated tonsciousness.© Matrka is also the basis of the lower binding Knowledge associated with discursive thought when her true nature is unknown and functions as the power Ghord which deprives man of the awareness of unity and obscures Siva's ‘universal activity. Thus in this sense too, Mantras devoid of the £ PR, 5 Theta pf sly rae a ibe eae Sno “feta. mean ave yes Sash ae 4 SSL Nppent p92 STS. ein6 voneve asp a0 Fist and last eter, fruitless. Now nal those between them in Maurdacasra are fording w Abhinavagupt’s higher hermeneutics Matrhacakra represents the creative aspect of pure "T ‘consciousness - AHAMM, tha, like a whee! rotates from A 10 Ha fd back again around the hub of bindu - Mf. There is no point in Sealing at tength with this highly complex symbolism bere which fs worked oot in Abhinava’s commentaries on the Paratiskas & few remarks will sulfice, Abhinavagupta introduces his explanation ofthe secret the godess secks to know from the 20d inthe Tantric passage he comments, by quoting Urpaladeva as saying that"ogoity (ahambhava is said to be the repose the light Of consciousness has within is own mature”! He identities this pure “T*consciowsness wi the supreme level of speech, as does Uipatadeva, an! goes on 10 s8y “The real feeling is that in. which, in the process of withdrawal all extemal objects ike jar, cloth ete.. being Wwthdravn from thee manifoldness come 10 est of final repose in their essential uninterrupted absolute (anuttara ) aspect. This absolute (amtactara ) aspect iste real [ecling (ahambhava ). This is a seerci, a great mystery, In the process of expansion, the hangeless,unsurpassable, eer, reposeful venerable hairava {sof te form "A" which i the naural primal sound, the Fife ofthe tre range cl eter - ener (sadalakaajajivanabha) ein the process of expansion, assumes the Ha orm (the symbol of ‘Sakt) for expansion (visarga) is ofthe form ‘Hat i.e. Kundainl Sakti and then he expands into a dot symbolizing objective phenomena (nardrjpena ) and indicative ofthe entire expansion of Sakti ( ie. the entie manifestation starting with Bhairava ). Similarly, the lowest part of the last phase of objective rmanifestasion ( mor mara ) with its three powers ( of will, Knowledge and action ) sss Tife is the trident of Para, Pardpard and Apard Sukts. in its retam movement through its union with bisarga ie He Sokti, penetrates amuttara ie. A which is its se awaMENs ” Fundamental, unalterable state... Thus there is AHAM in pansion and MAHA-A in withdrawal? ‘No afule-Abhinava understands the reflective awareness of <1» an being Supreme Speech which isthe Heart of consciousness sncady posited by Ulpaladeva, he ads that itis Mark which iene vitality of Maria Cmantravira ). Thus he writes: This chective awareness ofthis (Mantrc nature, unereated ‘and unsuied, (Ae Masters ) call the “I” Caham His this indeed that isthe luminosity oF the light ( of consciousness), Tis 1s the iy (yaad ea ofall Mantras without which they would be insentien ike living beings without a bear"? ‘Many more observations could be made coneeming how “Abhinva presents the absolute ego a the highest expression of the ultimate state conceived by the Tantric traditions he considers to be thove dat teach the highest doctrines, Thus, Re overcodes i this way the Trka conception of reality. The Teka teachers refer to the Suldhayogesvarimata asthe supreme authority. Quoting this text, just belore the reference we have cited above, he says: “The soed here (of all things) is Kundalini, the Tie-principle of the nature of consciousness, From this is bomn the Triad ( Trika } of the Absolute - (A ) the Will (1) and Expansion (U ) and from this al the exer enters" Now asa the other letters together constitute the fifty aspects of ihe reflective awareness of "I" consciousness, this, the atsolute is rounded in this way’in the supreme Triad, or one of fis representations, which is taken as characteristic of the Trika view ofthe one reat. Further on Abhiniva similarly presents the absolute ego asthe tliat reabty the Krama Schoo! expounds, This he does by fist declaring that Matrk ast second aspect known as Malin. Markt represents dynamic consciousness as perpetually creative; Malini 3 FALUGES ewe P Talkin Sat dines coaoame a ros hwey neo pd ego a t eee Pap Wel eeu pime wih8 comvmin anny represents consciousness ts pospotally withdrawing ino ise all fifferentiation to fase it nt ts universal oneness, This symbolism fs supported by the Tantra, bul in a much grosser sense, one ould say, ata lower level of solf-reflection. Thus, Marrkacakra figures ay a symbolic cosmogram in which the leters of the alphabet are collocated in their nomal serial order. Maing isa ‘itferent collocation (prasara YF the alphabet in which the order is disarranged so that the vowels, symbolizing Siva’ sed (bia) fare mixed with the consonants symbolizing Sakt’s womb (yon. In this way, Abhinava represents Malin’ both as the choatic pleroma iio which everyting is withdrawn and, athe same time Es the one reality thal fertilizing ise, is adored with the Nux of Now, just as the supreme form of speech, identified with, Marks i grounded in Teka as is expansion, so Malin, similarly ‘denied with Supreme Speech i sad to be Kalakarsin one of the forms of Kall worshiped as the embodiment ofthe dynamic power of consciousness according 10 the Kalikula, more Commonly known as Kram, In this consciousness, Siva and Sakit, symbolized by the A and H of AHAM, unite, Thus ‘Abhinava vies "iThis (i. the eneegy Malini ) which isin reality one ony. and supreme, is She Who Attracts Time (kdlakarsin ) and by {union withthe power-holder aspect (of absolute consciousness ) “ssumes the nature oft couple (mala). The reflective awareness {Of this (couple ) is completely full I™ (consciousness ) which by Wirtue of this freedom manifests division within its own nature ‘hee folds said tobe is form when division manifests, namely. Cae Speech of Vision (pusvant) the Middle Voice (madhyama) and gross Corporal Spoech (vaitha ‘Although the identification of Kalasamkarsini with the supreme level of speech is attested in purely Krama sources, the identification ofthis, the supreme energy of consciousness, with absolute egoity i$ not, although to Abhivavagupta this seems sy avaunss 0 naturally implied. Kalasankargin! isthe pure conscious energy ‘which courses through subject, object and means of knowledge “whilst abiding in a Fourth tate Beyond them (arya) which is the ‘ne reality that dynamically regenerates itself penpetually even as treats in is wn nature. "Thus it seemed naturally identifiable to him withthe absolute ego and its cosmic dynamism. But even sO, this identification is far fom the intentions of the teachings in the briginal‘Tanrie Krama sources. The Kalama teaches tha the htimate state is egolesess ane that iis tained by destroying the ‘ego, Thus arpasima wetes of Kalasamkarsini dha She is ‘Kalikas, the one (realty Who s such ) by virtue of Her being the C univers) process (of consciousness ) in the form of the ‘mistress ofthe whee ofthe eyele (of consciousness ) She shines ‘Constantly and perfectly and Her inherent attribute is epolessness (irahaaradharmini)”* “Again, sll Her powers ae aspects of the Goddess, each of which is worshipped in this, the highest ritual procedure (ijakrama) and are "emergent to withdraw ( all dings into ‘undiferentated consciousness ), their forms ( the reality ) which is tro of ego (niahamkaravigraha Finally, we notice how Ksemaraja extends his teachers hermeneutic to his treatment of the Spanda teachings. Kgemaraja, ike his predscessor, Rajanaka Rama considers the nue nature of the subject to be the inner light of "I consciousness. This is the inner form of Siva, While the outer form is perishable, the inner form isthe subjective aspect whichis supreme "I" consciousness for, as Kyemaraja says, even though the subject resides in its ish Km wa by Amin whe sa ne nr Carbine, Aran ws ea i inees cep on areca areca Epebeeit se eneciarecee rctmeau aha norma rss eae he cited ven goad. “ee a scout fee mag PAE 1 2. fa ka wea Sen eS™ cous nnne a ony body, it is stil identical with the Lord (who is pure 1 consciousness)."! Ksemaraja adds «further dimension (0 the notion of Spanca with respoet vo the commentators before him by fderifying i squarely withthe supreme energy of consciousness and this with Supreme Speech and the absolute ego, much 2 ‘Abbinava docs. ‘Thus he says of Spanda that it i the creative fauionomy of Siva (stdtantrya P as "the perfect I-eonsciousness {ol the Lord) (pvnahanta ) consisting oF te higher power-A-and the innate power-Hla-which encompass within themselves a i bowl, all dhe letters from A to KS, That ( alia ) is the power of ‘Supreme Specch whieh i the sugreme resonance of consciousness (earandla) that sever emergent (and etemal although unutterabe This the great Mana, dhe life ofall, and successnnless awareness that contains within sl he uninterrupted series of eeations and estructions and encloses within itself the entire aggregate of ‘energies tha constitute the cosmic order ( sadadhvan ) which fonsists of innumerable wonts and thet FLERE." -To conclude we may note tha others alter Kgemaraja went on to extend these reflections into the brilliantly diverse world of “Tanase symbolism in many ways. Thus, Siva is identified with th Tight of consciousness ( prakaia ) and Sakti with his reflective arenes (vimaria ) andthe (wo ae porrayed 3s locked together inthe amorous and sportive play of Kamakala. This is a theme developed by Punydnanda and a number of other important texezctes ofthe Srividya tradition in their commentaries on the Nityasoasikarnava and Yoginihrdaya as well as in thei independent works, Here we notice how, amongst other things, basie Tari cosmological models ae overcoded with this briliant new concept This bocomes especially clear when we compar the ‘Cosmologis ofthe Prapafcasara and Saradatlaka, for example, ‘wth that of Une Kamaaavilasa of Punyananda, Although all hres, jn variant forms, take up symbolic cosmology in which ultimate reafity i represented a8 splitting tse up initially into two and X Geenan ange Re ECan one Kn 88 + sanawnnenss a hos ekmenes to ahen goon an develop oto self Wweesbony th rain of cosmic a merocosmie panes 5 Or aoe data which deties wes original elemenss Wt soe er ofthe pe sae eg ad sees in tele ean, and asec yi cosmic and ransceent wt. THis fae sa develope tying when wo observe that de orignal symbol of a as ha the triangle i ae centre of Sricakra, 6 it ate Miasoaiarnaa an Yogi vo pre craton Ts we ean clearly sce How the concep OF 9 e structure ae is prot onto an eater symbol asa ins tending pete hermeneutical dept an! more pou conxpin of he aso trou a be Sam drew substarsalyfrom heir fellow tn this we) amanda he 12 eetuy commentator 0 the Sas a ne of he cies tacher ofthis ie, area hs ion oat frm Kasi. a ey wont concept and te associated Tac cymbal, ot ihe absolute ego developed at the secondary Sey uct bu tals found ts way io er primary Seen nly tmber of later Sakta and Saiva Tans ser on seamed, butts ong appeal iuenced the Vaisnava reesei Tyas the Akrbudhnyasamhiid and, more Feta he Lakin, bth of whi ae cy aueneed rgetuh ne i undaetl conception of he absolute Puy which the Lagann in parle Mens with the tess wo is "Ines Thus hela night of one san, Uipaadeva, whose swtng ae moe concemed wit pilosophical and theological sues th the fneaces of Tanti symbolism is used 1 ‘pecmatly wade Inds way we nd eoainmed the view of the Tantas which declare tat "this knowledge Cof realty ) has three sore, may the teacher, the septs ¢ Sasa), and nest Alough the indian aiion in general mistuss new cas a nocmally atm neg them io what has gone 2, Reese gen ern2 comnannc assay ‘before so that they may be sealed with the stamp of authority {great new ideas are bom from what i, according to Ablinava, the greatest ofthe three sources of knowledge, namely, onesel.* Abbreviations APS. Ajadapeamausidai i. Ivaraprayabhijakarka TA, “Tanuatoka Ne. Narevarparist NT, Netratanroddyots NSA. [Nityasodaimava PT. Parauisikavivarana MM. Mahannamanja Ve. Vakyapatiya SD. Sats ssiv Sivasavavimarsin Sp.Ka, Spandakirika SpKavi Sparvakankaviv Sp.Nir. Spandanimaya BIBLIOGRAPHY Iivarapratyabhijndarika by Uspaladeva with Vimarsini by ‘Abhinavagupia. Vol. IK. 8.7. S.No 22, 1918. edited by MR. Sistri Vol. 2K. S. T..no 33, 1921 edited by M.S. Kaul Tantraloka byAbhinavagupta (12 vol) with viveka by Sayaratha, Part I edited by MR. Siste, parts 2-12 edited by M.S. Kaul. K.S.T. S., no, 23, 1918; 28, 192%; 30, 1921; 35, 1922; 136, 1922; 29, 1921; 41, 1924; 47, 1926; 59, 1938: 52, 1933: 57, 1936 and 58, 1938, ‘Nareivarapariksa of Sadyojyoti with commentary by Ramakantha. K.S.T. S.,no 45, 1926. Edited by M. S. Kaul Nityasodasikarnavarantra, With the commentaries rijuvimarsini by Sivinanda and Artharaindvali by Vidyananda, Eaited by Vrajavallabha Dviveda. Yogatantragranthamala no. 1 ‘Varanasi: 1968 sr AVARENSS 2B Netratanira with uddyota by Kgemarij. Vol. 1, K.S.T.S. ro. 46, 1926: vol. 2, no. 61, 1939, Both edited by M.S. Kaul Porairsiaivarana, The seert of Tatic Mysticism, English transtacion with notes and tunning exposition by Jaideva Singh, tdited by Bettina Baumer, Motil Bangrasiass, Delhi, 1988. Youtniirdaya with commentaries Dipila by Amanda a Semubandha by Bhaskara Raya, Edited by Gopinatha Kaviraj, Soragvauibhavanagranthamsla No.7. 2nd ed. Varanasi: 1963 ‘Stvadrsti by Somananda with vriti (incomplete) by Utpaladeva, K. 8. T. S. 54, 1934, Edited by M.S. Kaul ‘Siddhitrayi by Uspaladeva, This consists of three works: Ajadapramatrsiddhi, lvarasiddhi and Sambandhasiddhi. W'S'T'S. no. 354, 1931, Edited by M, S. Kaul. ‘Siva Sutras the Yoga of Supreme Identity. Jaideva Singh, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1990, Sivasutravinarsini by Ksemardja. K.S.T-S, second edition with no tie page Spandatarika with ort by Kallaabbatta.K. 8. S. 1918, Edited by IC. Chaterje. Spandanirnaya by Ksemardja. K. 8. T. S.,n0. 43, 1925, ale with English wanslation by Mc S. Kaul 05.