COMPARISION - Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta

Among the various Hindu philosophies, Kashmir Shaivism (Kaśmir Śaivism) is a school of Śaivism consisting of Trika and its philosophical articulation Pratyabhijña. It is categorized by various scholars as monistic idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism, realistic idealism, transcendental physicalism or concrete monism). Due to the Islamic subjugation of north India, Kashmir Saivism is essentially extinct.

The trident (triśūlābija maṇḍalam), symbol and yantra of Parama Shiva, representing the triadic energies of parā, parā-aparā and aparā śakti
Vedas, which are considered revealed knowledge through the medium of Indian seers (rishis), are revered as mother of all religions in India. They form the matrix of all the theistic philosophies of Indian religions including Kashmir Shaivism. Therefore, the objective here is not to compare Vedas with Kashmir Shaivism but to present their complementary roles in the development of post- vedic India. I. Background It is said at the end of the Mahabharata war, which symbolizes the end of the Dvapura Era and the beginning of the Kalyuga Era, through which we are passing now, the influence of Vedas dwindled as the Vedic seers disappeared. New class of seers emerged from time to time who interpreted Vedic knowledge for the benefit of suffering humanity. Thus six systems of Vedic schools called darshanas came into being. These are: 1. Samklya 2. Yoga 3. Nyaya 4. Vaisheshika

5. Purva mimamasa 6. Advaita Vedanta The last one Advaita Vedanta was propounded by Shankaracharya in the 9th century AD and culminated in the final interpretation of Vedas (Ved –anta – end of Vedas). Although these Vedic darshanas differ in their approach to the interpretation of Vedas but all of them consider Vedas as their base. The focus of all these systems (darshanas) was to explain or resolve the dichotomy between subject and object; the knower and the known; the Cosmic Self and this self; I (aham) and this self (idam). We may group all these systems as Vedanta for the sake of this discussion.

II. Kashmir Shaivism

Along with this group of seers, another group of seers tried to resolve this dichotomy by investigating their inner nature. They carried experiments on their bodies by employing yogic practices confined to mental processes and came out with their findings in poetic terms using metaphors, symbols, and allegories. This yogic practice came to be known as Tantra. As against the Vedic knowledge, which came mainly through the process of revelation, the tantric knowledge came mainly through various forms of practices (kriyas). Tantric practices were “inward” by nature i.e. they centered around psychophysical makeup of the practitioner as compared to the “outward” nature of Vedic practices, which focus on sacrificial ceremonies along with yoga. Over a period of time thousands of tantric traditions developed in India and abroad, which came to be classified under three major categories a) Shaiva-Shakti Tantrism, b) Buddhist Tantrism, and c) Vaishnava Tantrism. Shaiva-Shakti Tantrism which recognizes Lord Shiva as the Supreme and Absolute Consciousness with Shakti as His dynamic energy came to be known as Shaivism and developed in three widely apart regions in India: a) Kashmir in the north, b) Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the south, and c) Gauda (Bengal) in the east. The tantric practices prevalent in these regions came to be grouped under six traditions: a) Shaiva Sidanta, b) Pashupati Shaivism, c) Kashmir Shaivism, d) Vira Shaivism, e) Shiva Advanta, and f) Siddha Sidhanta. It is Kashmir Shaivism that provided the philosophy of Trika, which provided relationship between God, nature, and man. It also provided the philosophy of ShivShakti and Nara (man), which forms the main philosophy (Vidya Pada) of all Shaivic philosophies. Kashmir Shaivism is a theistic philosophy that identifies Lord Shiva as the Absolute, Infinite, and pure Consciousness lying beyond the reach of speech, mind, and intellect. It is transcendental and immanent and can be realized through yoga. It advocates how a human being engrossed in the inferior objective world of Lord Shiva can be taken upwards i.e. towards the Supreme energy of Lord Shiva through his cognac energy (Shakti). It was in Kashmir Shaivism that the concept of dynamic energy (Shakti) playing an important role in the evolution of cosmos was introduced. The development of Kashmir Shaivic philosophy can be traced back to Aagamas (18) which were written from 3rd century BC to 3rd - 4th century AD. Malinivijayattara is the

most important Aagama of this period. Vasugupta who lived in Kashmir during the end of the 8th century AD wrote Shiv Sutra and it was his disciple Bhatta Kalatta (mid 9th century AD) who wrote Spanda Karika. Somananda wrote Shiv dreshti in late 9th century AD. He is the father of Pritibijna (recognition) school that forms the basis of Kashmir Shaivism philosophy. However, it was his worthy disciple Utpaldeva who presented the Pritibijna philosophy in a comprehensive way in his book Ishvara-pratiyabijna-karika in late 9th century or beginning of the 10th century AD. Later on, it was Abhinavgupta (between 10th – 11th century AD) who summarized the view points of all previous thinkers and presented the philosophy in a logical way along with his own thoughts in his treatise Tantraloka. Thus one could say just as Shankaracharya was the last exponent of Vedic knowlegde, Abhinavgupta was the last exponent of Kashmir Shaivism. The main philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism rests on the non-dualistic foundation. Abhinavgupta used the word paradvaita– the supreme and absolute non-dualism to describe Kashmir Shaivism. A casual reader may not be able to make out the differences in the final presentation of philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta. However, careful analysis and reading will reveal the differences. But before getting into the differences let us first go over to the commonalties.

III. Common Concepts Process of Creation - Kashmir Shaivism

Cosmology – vertically seen. From the highest Cosmic Universal to the tattvas of the individual and specific Universal Cosmic Being.

“Gradations” or “categories” of consciousness. Paramasiva – “Highest” “most refined” purest of pure Consciousness “prior” to all modifications or “after” all modifications have been burned through. That from which the “Dancer” of the Siva Nataraz emerges. The Ineffable“before” the dance commences and after it “ends”. Shakti: the Divine Creative freely creates out of Her own “substance”, “His” consciousness represented by the “bindu” in Siva/Sakti representation. Siva: Divine quiescent consciousness embracing “Her” creations. Nowhere in any any experience of any sort except the very highest, Paramasiva, are the two elements of Siva/Shakti undiscernable as two. Thinking can contemplate itself only because these two “aspects” are one. The individual man vertically seen. The movements of the activity of consciousness up to the purest of pure thought. The reflection of the Cosmic Universal in the Individual man. The common concepts of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism may be summarized as follows: 1. Cyclic nature of eternity Both believe in the cyclic nature of eternity that consists of vast phases of creation, preservation, and their dissolution. 2. Bound Soul Both accept the belief that life and death are but two phases of a single cycle to which soul is bound. 3. Dharma Both accept dharma as the moral law of universe that accounts for these eternal cycles of nature as well as the destiny of human soul in its evolution. 4. Moksha Both accept that knowledge is the path of freedom and yoga as the method of attaining liberation. 5. Chit (Consciousness) Both recognize consciousness as Supreme Reality. Vedanta calls it Parmatma whereas Shaivites call it Parmshiva. IV. Points of Disagreement Some of the points of disagreement are: 1. Ultimate Reality The one creative force out of which everything emerges is known as Ultimate Reality.

According to Vedanta, Brahman (chit) is the Ultimate Reality, while Kashmir Shaivism calls this Ultimate Reality as Parmshiva. Brahman is believed to have no activity (kriya.) It is the knowledge (prakash or jnana). As per Kashmir Shaivism, Parmshiva is knowledge (prakash/jnana) plus activity (kriya or vimarsha). Vedanta consider activity (kriya) residing only in the empirical subject (Jiva) and not in Brahman. Shivites on the other hand think that Vedanta takes kriya in a very narrow sense whereas it should be taken in a wider sense.

They argue that even knowledge (jnana) is an activity (kriya) of the Divine, without activity chit or the Divine Being would be inert and incapable of bringing about anything, least of all the whole cosmos. Parmshiva is svatantra (has free will) and therefore is a Karta (doer). Knowledge (jnana) is not a passive state of consciousness but an activity of consciousness, though an effortless one. Knowledge is not really like the reflection of moon in a pond; in knowledge there is an active “grasping” on the part of the knower which is an activity of mind (kriya). 2. Monotheism While monotheism is one of the central principles of most of the Vedantic philosophies, it is interpreted differently by its various schools. Advaita Vedanta explains the problem of phenomenal existence on the basis of two mutually exclusive and independent entities. The first is known as Brahman (pure consciousness) and the second Avidya (inexplicable ignorance) as an attachment (upadi). Both are said to be beginning less in existence. Kashmir Shaivism does not agree with the concept of Avidya to explain the phenomenal existence. Abhinavgupta in his treatise on Kashmir Shaivism, Tantraloka, refutes this concept. “The principle of absolute existence of ‘Brahman’ along with ‘Avidya’ as an upadi cannot be accepted as a definite principle of pure monotheism” (ibid. 111:404) because it implies the eternal existence of two entities – Brahaman and Avidya, which amounts to clear dualism. He further states “there is self- contradiction in saying that Avidya is indescribable as very statement that Avidya is a divine power of God implies that such a power is describable.

3. Manifestation (Abhasvada) Vendanta states that phenomenal universe we live in is not real. It only appears as an existent reality. It is other than what it seems e.g. like a rope mistaken for a snake. It is like a dream or a mirage – Vivarta. Brahman exists but appears falsely as God, finite soul (Purusha) and insentient matter (prakriti). Abinavgupta contradicts these assumptions by stating “how can it be unreal when it is manifested. This has to be given due consideration. An entity that appears clearly and creates the whole universe must be something real and substantial and should be described as such”. (Ishvarpritabijna 111-80) 4. Manifestation Process Manifestation of cosmos as per Kashmir Shaivism is called “Descent” – which means descent of cosmic self (Parmashiva) to a limited self (Jiva). Vedanta explains this process of manifestation through 25 elements. Kashmir Shaivism explains the cosmic evolution through 36 elements (tattvas) which include 23 elements of Vedanta without modification, 2 with modification, and prescribes 11 more elements (tattvas). Parmshiva of Kashmir Shaivism is not the same Shiva of Vedanta who is meditating at Mount Kailash with Parvati by His side. Parmshiva is a Being, not necessarily in physical sense, who is Absolute, pure, eternal, infinite, and totally free I-consciousness whose essential nature is vibrant creative energy which Kashmir Shaivism describes as wonderful spiritual stir of blissfulness known as spanda. This spanda causes Absolute Reality to be continuously inclined towards the outward and joyful manifestation of its creative energy – Shakti. This manifestation is brought about by the freewill play (leela) of Parmshiva Himself like a childs’ play that is without motivation. The outward divine manifestation of this creative energy appears in five activities: 1. The activity of creation. 2. The activity of preservation. 3. The activity of dissolution of all the elements including the beings living in them. 4. The activity of self-oblivion. 5. The activity of self-recognition of these created beings.

Stages 1-3 are common to both Kashmir Shaivism as well as Vedanta. However, Stages 4 and 5 listed above are present in Kashmir Shaivism only. Kashmir Shaivism includes 36 elements (tattvas) of manifestation process as mentioned earlier. These are categorized into following four major and their sub-categories: A. Five pure (shudh) elements – These are called ‘Pure’ because they have been created by Parmshiva Himself as against others which have been created by intermediary and lower beings as per the wishes of Lord Himself. 1. Shiva Tattva 2. Shakti Tattva These two tattvas are only a linguistic convention and are not actually part of creation. They are in reality one with Parmshiva. They are considered to be two tattvas only for the convenience of philosophical thinking and as a way of clarifying the two aspects of the one Absolute Reality-Parmshiva. Shivatattva is transcendental unity and shakti tattva is universal diversity. The changeless Absolute and pure Consciousness is Shiva while as natural tendency of Shiva towards the outward manifestation of divine activities is Shakti. 3. Sadashiva Tattva (also known as Iccha tattva) The desire (Iccha) for creation takes place very faintly. While the Absolute is limitless IConsciousness (aham), small desire for objectivity “this” (idam) takes place. The beings at this stage are known as mantra maheswaras with the presiding deity Sadashiva Bhattaraka who is actually Parmshiva Himself and has descended to this level as the master of creation. 4. Isvara Tattva (also known as jnana Tattva) The awareness (jnana) of I-Consciousness is not lost but the awareness of “this-ness” begins to dominate. Awareness shines as “This is myself”. Created beings at this stage of manifestation are known as ‘mantreshwaras’ and the presiding deity is Iswara Bhattaraka. 5. Sadvidya (also known as Shuddvidya or kriya) Tattva The vision of the beings in the 3rd and 4th elements above has been defined as “unity in diversity and diversity in unity” as “I-ness” and “this-ness” is still not balanced. When the vision becomes balanced so that there is equal emphasis on “I-ness” and “this-ness”, it is called Sadvidya. At a further stage of diversity, where the awareness of “I-ness” becomes “I am I” and of “this-ness” becomes “this is this”, this is called Mahamaya. Beings living in this stage are known as “mantras” and the presiding deity is Anantnatha. He is actually Ishwara Bhattaraka who has descended to this level as the divine

administrator of further creation.

6. Maya Tattva This is the final tattva created by the Lord Himself that is considered to be “impure” i.e. filled with limitations. It has two main effects: a) it hides the pure and divine nature of created beings residing in its plane and consequently they forget their purity and infiniteness of their I-consciousness as well as their infinite potency. Hence they are given the name anu (atoms) i.e. finite beings or pashu (animal-like) or simply man Nara.

b) they see every other activity as different from what they are.

Maya is thus the plane of Absolute self-oblivion and diversity. This is the abode of the finite beings. Under its influence, being loose its state of oneness with the Absolute and also their divine potency. Maya causes feeling of imperfection and emptiness within the beings which they try to fill up with outer objects which leads to development of desire and passions for objects of enjoyment. B. Five layers of limitations (Kuncukas) The deity Anantnatha who presides over maya and is the master of mahamaya shakes up maya, so to say, causing it to expand into the next five tattvas – collectively called kuncukas or cloaks which covers the real nature of the knowing objects. Sometimes maya

tattva is itself included as the sixth kuncuka.

7. Kala Tattva(limitation of activity, authorship) To fulfill our desires, maya allows a little power of action to achieve a little amount of success. 8. Avidya (ashudh) Tattva (limitation of knowledge) Since doing is not possible without knowing, maya gives a little knowledge to know a certain amount. 9. Raga Tattva (limitation of interest) To further the limit the scope of our doing and knowing, maya appears in us as raga or ‘limited interest’. 10. Niyati Tattva (restriction) Niyati is the law of nature that establishes the order of succession in all phenomenons e.g. the way in which seed develops into a tree. This law of nature appears as the law of restriction and causation.

11. Akala (or Kaala) Tattva (Time sequence limitation) The above four limitations, limit our capacity of knowing and doing but this tattva limits our very being as well. Our real self is in fact infinite and is in no way conditioned by concept of time imposed on us by maya in the way that we feel “we were”, “we are”, and “we shall be”. Thus imposing on us conditions of time sequence. 12. Parusha Tattva The I-Consciousness reduced to utter finitude is known as Parusha. It is also known as jiva, pashu , anu nara. 13. Prakriti (or mul prakriti) Tattva Prakriti is the un-diversified source of all the remaining 23 elements as established by Vedanta system. This represents the complete “this-ness” of the objective manifestation. C. Thirteen (13) instrumental tattvas C1. The three (3) interior instrumental elements (antah-karnas): 14. Buddhi (intellect)– Faculty of judgement 15. Manas – Faculty of Imagination 16. Ahamkara – Personal ego C2. Five (5) exterior elements of perception (jnanendrayas): 17. Sravanendreya (Hearing) 18. Supershanendreya (Feeling by touch) 19. Darshanendreya (Seeing) 20. Resanendreya (Taste) 21. Ghranendreya (Smell) C3. Five (5) elements of action (karmendreya): 22. Vagendreya (Voice or expression) 23. Hastendreya (Handling) 24. Padendreya (Locomotion) 25. Payvendreya (Rejecting, Discharging) 26. Upasthendreya (Resting or recreating) D. Ten (10) objective elements: D1. Five (5) subtle objective elements (tanmatras): 27. Shabdatanmra (sound) 28. Sparshatanmra (Feel) 29. Rupatanmra (Color) 30. Rasatanmra (Flavor) 31. Ghandhatanmra (Odour)

D2. Five (5) gross objective elements (bhutas): 32. Akasha (ether) 33. Vayu (Air) 34. Agni (Fire) 35. Apas (Water) 36. Pritvi (Earth) Kashmir Shaivism does not consider the above analysis of manifestation as final. It is only a tool for contemplative meditation. Through a further analysis the number of elements (tattvas) can be increased to any level and similarly through synthesis they can be decreased to only one tattva. For example, the practitioners of Trika system use only three tattvas in the process of their Yoga meditation viz. - Shiva (Absolute Unity), Shakti (link between unity and duality), and Nara (extreme duality). Three important observations to highlight the differences in the manifestation philosophies of Vendana and Kashmir Shaivism are: a) Purusha While the Purusha of Vedanta is a Universal soul (God-like), He is atmen (pure spirit). In contrast, in Kashmir Shaivism it is bound soul – a jiva, nara, pashu or anu – a limited soul. b) Prakriti Prakriti in Vedanta is involved in manifestation as an independent element. It is a cosmic substance that is termed as perennial impulse in nature (like Shakti tattva). But the Prakriti of the Kashmir Shaivism deals with limited jiva only. c) Maya Maya in the Vedanta is the means of operation. It is not an element. It is force that creates the illusion of non-perception in nature. It has no reality. It is only the appearance of fleeting forms which are all unreal and like mirage vanishes when the knowledge of reality draws. In contrast, in Kashmir Shaivism maya is a tattva. It is real. It is the power of contraction or limiting the nature of five universal modes of consciousness. It cannot be separated from Absolute Reality – Parmshiva. 5. Three Gunas (attributes) Vedanta describes Prakriti as a combination of three Gunas – Satvic, Rajas, and Tamas. Further it describes the nature of these gunas. Thus Satva is enlightenment and pleasure; Rajas is turbulence and pain; and Tamas is ignorance and lethargy. It does not explain the source of the nature of these gunas. Kashmir Shaivism has examined this issue. In their view, Paramshiva possesses limitless power to know, to do, and to diversify. These powers are known as jnana, kriya, and maya. By the limitations brought about by maya, the Infinite Consciousness is reduced to finite consciousness – purusha (the limited being, anu or pashu).Here they view these experiences as pleasure, pain, and ignorance.

6. Moksha (liberation from bondage) In Vedanta we have four fold description for achieving liberation from bondage: i) Discrimination ii) Dispassion iii) Right Conduct iv) Desire for liberation To get liberated one must: i) act with zeal and faith ii) act for the good of humanity iii) get immersed in meditation Kashmir Shaivism has a simple prescription for liberation from bondage. The logic behind this is that just ignorance is inspired by God so is revelation inspired by Him. This inspiration of divine knowledge is known as His Grace (anugraha) or the Descent of His powers (shaktipata). Only those individuals who receive Lords Shaktipata become interested in path of correct knowledge for achieving moksha. Three types of shaktipata have been described: i) Tivra (swift) shaktipata ii) Madya (moderate) shaktipata iii) Manda (slow) shaktipata Each of the above has further three sub divisions, thus making a total of nine shaktipatas. There is no restriction of caste, color, or creed for achieving moksha. Yoga is the means of liberation. 7. Yoga Both Vedanta as well as Kashmir Shaivism recommends Yoga for achieving moksha. However, there are differences in practice. In Vedanta Yoga practices, emphasis is laid on controlling mind by strict discipline in day-to-day life that for its success can be practiced by highly motivated ones or ascetics. A Shiva Yogi is free to live without restrictions - be a householder - and participate in the pleasures of the senses of the mind (bhoga) within the limits of the socially accepted norms. He is advised to pursue some yogic practices known as trika yoga that leads its practitioner to self-bliss and at that stage the lust for worldly enjoyments automatically loose its charm. At that stage, senses develop a spontaneous indifference known as anadaravikrati to former pleasures. The three yogic practices of trika system are: i) Shambhavayoga – In this highest form of practice, the minds’ tendency is to think of himself as one with Ultimate Reality and nothing else. The practitioner stands still and loses itself in the vibrant glow of I-consciousness. It is the practice of non-ideation (nirvikalpa). ii) Shaktiyoga – In this practice, one uses the mind and imagination to constantly contemplate the real nature of Self as taught by Shiva monotheistic philosophy. One is supposed to think that one is everything and yet beyond everything. It is a practice of

“pure-ideation” (shuddhvikalpa). It is also known as jnanayoga. iii) Anavayoga – Its practice is recommended for those who are not capable of adopting the higher yogic practices mentioned above. Anu stands for finite ordinary beings bounded by their limitations and objective meditation is recommended for them where the focus of attention shifts to kriya (action). Kashmir Shaivism encourages practitioners to start from higher yogic practices (shambhavayoga) down to the last by stages if he is not comfortable there. Vedantic yoga recommends a completely different set of yoga practices and one has to go up the ladder from lower practices to upper practices. V. Conclusion These are some of the main points of differences of philosophies. But we have to remember that purusha in Kashmir Shaivism is a finite being a man Pashu (animal like) because of his ignorance brought about by maya. He is free from sin and his highest goal is to get out of ignorance and merge his limited self with the Real Self. This is called Ascent. The way to reach there is through trika yoga. To quote Swami Laxmanjoo, a great Kashmir Shivism scholar of the 20th century, “although Kashmir Shaivism can hardly be grasped unless the Vedanta philosophy is comprehended, yet no system of Vedanta will be complete without it”. Kashmir Shaivism gives most detail account of Ultimate Reality, Vedanta has done it in its way.


ABHINAVAGUPTA lived in Kashmir about the end of the tenth and beginning of eleventh centuries A.D. As an original thinker he shattered to pieces the established belief which laid heavy emphasis on caste and gender restrictions in relation to spiritual practice. He took to task those philosophical systems which held the prerequisite that spirituality required rigorous discipline–systems which made the quest for enlightenment the legitimate right of a chosen few. He abhorred the idea that spiritual revelation was only possible in a purely monastic surrounding, or that those caught in the householder way of life had to wait till the last portion of life before they could fully give themselves to spiritual pursuits. This idea was best expressed by Abhinavagupta in one of his concluding verses of Patanjali's Paramarthasara: “O my devotees! On this path of supreme Bhairava, whoever has taken a step with pure desire, no matter if that desire is slow or intense; it does not matter if he is a Brahmin, if he is a sweeper, if he is an outcast, or if he is anybody; he becomes one with Parabhairava.” (103) Abhinavagupta’s ideas were radical for his time, but since he spoke from the level of direct experience no one was capable of refuting him.

While monism is one of the central principles of Indian philosophies, it is interpreted differently by philosophers from various schools. The most popular school of monism is the Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya. However, many Indian philosophers take exception to this school’s concept of monism. For example, Vallabhacharya, an ancient Vaishnavite philosopher, calls his own principle pure non-dualism (shuddhAdvaita), because in his view, Advaita Vedanta explains the problem of phenomenal existence on the basis of two mutually different and independent entities. The first entity is known as brahman, the pure consciousness, and the second is avidyA, or inexplicable ignorance. Both are said to be beginninglessly existent. For this reason Vallabhacharya taking mAyA as the paver of brahman, does not consider Advaita Vedanta to be pure monism. Abhinavagupta, the great eleventh century sage of Kashmir Shaivism, also finds several logical and psychological defects in Shankara’s school of vedAntic monism and therefore calls his monism parAdvaita or absolute non-dualism. He uses this term specifically to differentiate it from Advaita Vedanta, which he thoroughly examines and criticizes in several of his works. An example can be found in his IshvarapratyabhijnAvivrtivimarshinI where he says, the principle of the absolute existence of brahman, alongwith avidyA as his upAdhi (an adventitious element attached to Him), cannot be accepted as a definite principle of pure advaita, because it implies the eternal existence of two entities, brahman and Universal ignorance. This amounts, according to him, to clear dualism. Criticizing the principle of avidyA as being the source of creation, Abhinavagupta says: There is self-contradiction in saying that avidyA is indescribable and in describing it as the entity that assumes the whole infinitely varied display of phenomena. To say that finite beings are deluded by the beginningless ignorance brought about by avidyA implies that such a power is surely describable, and it is actually described in that way. Besides, a non-substantial entity could not have the capacity to manifest such an extraordinary show. If it is really capable of creating, then it must be a truly existent entity and not apparent and indescribable. In the very beginning of that voluminous work, he also criticizes another theory of creation, the principle of false appearance (vivarta). This theory has two aspects. First, it can refer to the appearance of some non-existent phenomenon like a dream or a mirage. According to this aspect, the universe does not exist, but only appears as an existent reality. Vivarta can also refer to the appearance of something that is other than it seems, as when a rope is mistaken for a snake, or a shell for silver. According to this aspect of vivarta, brahman exists, but appears falsely as God, finite soul and insentient matter. In Abhinavagupta’s words: It has been said that vivarta is the manifestation of an unreal entity. How can it be unreal when it is manifested? This anomaly has not been given due consideration.

To sum up, Abhinavagupta is saying that an entity that appears clearly and creates the whole universe must be something real and substantial and should be describable as much. In his commentary on parAtrishikA, Abhinavagupta insists that his philosophic view about the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of either sAmkhya or vedAnta, as it is specifically a shaiva view. Explaining the creative nature of brahman, he says: Brahman is one compact whole, that power of bliss that projects itself externally by a kind of spilling out of universal creative potency lying within. Infinite Consciousness gets evolved into all phenomenal existence just as the word brahman means both the allpervading infinite and the evolved entity. Comparing these views on brahman with those of Advaita Vedanta, he adds: The brahman of Shaivism is not the same as that of advaita Vedanta which comes very close to the final principle of nihilistic Buddhism. Discussing this issue in IshvarapratyabhijnAvimarshinI, he criticizes both the Advaita vedAntins and the teachers of Buddhist idealism, known as vijnAnavAdins, when he says: Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity quite irreconcilable, some thinkers (i.e. vedAntins) stated that apparent diversity was inexplicable because of its being basic ignorance (avidyA) , while other (i.e. Buddhists) said that diversity was false because it was an outcome of mental ideation (samvrti). Thus both of them deceived themselves and others as well. In another context in the same work, he discusses the topic in considerable detail and argues as follows: If it is argued that the unity of absolute Consciousness and that (the appearance) of diversity is due to the disturbance caused by avidyA, then it is not possible to resolve who is responsible for the defect of avidyA. For on the other hand, how could brahman, who is pure knowledge, assume the form of ignorance? Abhinavagupta refuses to accept avidyA as an inexplicable entity. He argues: If avidyA is said to be inexplicable, it is not clear to us for whom it is inexplicable. On the one hand, its essential character becomes manifest, and, on the other hand, it is said to be an indescribable entity. How absurd is it? If this means that its existence cannot be explained or justified through logical arguments, then we ask what kind of logic is it that could contradict direct experience? How can an entity, which shines in experience, be unjustifiable?

Next, Abhinavagupta introduces a supposition about creation characteristic of Advaita Vedanta: Brahman, the pure Consciousness, shines alone as an existent truth in nirvikalpa cognition, a direct experience free from ideation, and phenomenal diversity appears as a result of mental ideation. He refutes this argument as follows: Who conducts such ideation? If brahman conducts it, He becomes stained by avidyA. None other than He exists, so who else could conduct it? A further argument on this point is then presented: How can a distinction be established that knowledge without ideation is real while knowledge with ideation is false, when both of them shine with equal brilliance? The Advaitins might finally attempt to take shelter in the authority of Vedic scriptures, but Abhinavagupta refutes this also as follows: If it is argued that unity is established on the basis of scriptural authority with disregard for mundane knowledge, then it is pointed out here that scriptures themselves hold authority in the field of diversity and have diversity as their character. The whole discussion is finally concluded by Abhinavagupta in the following passage: If the absolute monistic existence of pure Consciousness is accepted, then its independent activity of bearing diverse forms cannot be explained at all. But all this can be justified and explained if it be accepted as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness. This is how Abhinavagupta presents and discusses the views of Shankaracharya’s school of Advaita Vedanta. One can easily understand why Abhinavagupta felt the need to differentiate the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism from the apparent monism of the followers of Shankaracharya, while coining the term parAdvaita in the process of these debates. It should be pointed out that the main difference between the vedAntic monism discussed and accepted by Shankaracharya, and the parAdvaita developed by the exponents of Kashmir Shaivism, is probably more a difference of logic than of faith. As we have already seen, vedAntic teachers place the source of phenomenal existence outside of absolute Consciousness and view its creative power as dependent on the external element of avidyA, while parAdvaita exponents insist that this creative power is the essential nature of absolute Consciousness and the source of all phenomenal manifestation. Since Shankara and Gaudapada were interested in refuting Buddhist logic, they studied it thoroughly and in the process seem to have become influenced by many of the Buddhist

arguments. Since the above mentioned shortcomings in their philosophical approach were also present in the logic of their main opponents, the Buddhist logicians, the Advaitins ignored them and made no attempt to refute them. After all, debaters need not pay attention to inconsistencies held in common. It should also be noted that Shankaracharya did not live long enough for his logical thinking to possibly reach full maturity. Further, most of the prominent post-Shankara advaitins ignored the works of the great vedAntic teachers on practical aspects of the philosophy and concentrated instead on their logical works. These later advaitins focussed mainly on debating and logic instead of practicing the philosophy in order to experience an actual realization of brahman, shrIharSha, one of the greatest vedAntic logicians, goes so far as to boastfully declare his preference for logical debate over practice. The tendency to primarily and majorly focus only on the intricacies of logical argumentation caused Advaita Vedanta to drift towards a point very close to the nihilism of the Buddhists. It was because of this trend in Advaita philosophy that Abhinavagupta felt the need to clarify the theistic and absolutist monism of Kashmir Shaivism which had been previously discovered and developed by somAnanda and utpaladeva. Although there is not doubt that the seeds of such nihilistic thinking are present in the passages of some important logical works of Shankaracharya, still, his prominent works on practical vedAnta deserve due consideration, as does his young age during the period in which he composed the commentaries on the prasthAnatrayI. It is with an open-minded approach to the basic principles of other schools of philosophy that Abhinavagupta states in his IshvarapratyabhijnAvivritivimarshinI, “If a vedAntic aspirant identifies avidyA with mAyA and takes the latter as as the divine potency of brahman, he also can attain the highest perfection”. He makes similar remarks about Lord Buddha’s teachings and lays the burden of the blame for any logical confusion on the later commentators. According to this supreme monism of Abhinavagupta, absolute I-consciousness is the only entity that exists. It is infinite, eternal, perfect and pure Consciousness, endowed with divine creative power. This creative power is essentially vibrant in nature and is actively engaged in the manifestation of relative unity and all diversity. The term “relative unity” is used here because manifested unity has only relative oneness when compared to the absolute unity of infinite I-consciousness in which all creation is considered to be present and absolutely real. A perfect yogin, established in parAdvaita, sees one Absolute God in all diversity and unity. In this philosophy, diversity is not considered to be an illusion like the son of a barren woman, but is as real as relative unity. Absolute reality itself shines in both the manifestations of relative unity and diversity. As Abhinavagupta says:

It is not being said that diversity does not exist at all in this (understanding of) nondualism. The manifestation of diversity has been accepted even in that which is devoid of all differentiation (mAlinIvijayavArttika). This divine creative power is the basic and essential nature of monistic I-consciousness. In their exploration of consciousness during deep states of meditation, shaiva yogins discovered that this divine essence was infinitely blissful and playful as well as vibrant. Because of its divine and playful nature, ancient philosophers called it paramashiva. Creation, preservation, absorption, obscuration and revelation are the five main acts in the divine play of the Lordship of paramashiva. He creates, preserves, and absorbs all phenomena. In the process, He conceals his real nature and appears as finite beings. He causes these beings to become increasingly identified with their limited individual egos. After undergoing births and deaths in innumerable species, He finally realizes his true nature of lordship, thus concluding his divine play. All this is the manifestation of His divine power, and is not any way different from Him. This, a finite being is not different from the Supreme, who is simply hiding in this form. In the words of Abhinavagupta: But Almighty Lord, being able to do even the impossible, and possessing pure independence, is skilled in playfully concealing His real Self (Tantraloka). According to this absolute non-dualism of parAdvaita, He and he alone exists in all the various scenes of this play. All creation has its real and eternal existence within the Supreme in the form of divine potency of His pure consciousness. Once creation becomes manifested as apparent phenomenal existence, it has a beginning and an end. Even so, perfect yogins see only the existence of one Absolute Supreme Lord in both the apparent phenomenal existence and the pure existence of absolute Consciousness. Shiva-yogins must not only know this truth, they have to actually experience it as well. Then and then alone do they attain perfect and complete Self-realization. The Supreme is supreme in both His and phenomenal aspects. A poet is a poet even when he is in deep sleep. A Supreme ruler, though involved in mundane activities or quietly resting, is still a ruler. Similarly, He remans fully Himself, complete with His divine power, even when He appears in His noumenal aspect. Therefore, it is due to His essential nature that He is the Lord, not because of His relation with phenomenal existence. This is the main difference between the advaita approach of Shankaracharya and the parAdvaita approach of Abhinavagupta. Brahman, while appearing as all phenomena, does not undergo any change or transformation - called pariNAma, according to post-Shankara vedAntins. According to Abhinavagupta, all phenomenal manifestations take place in the manner of a reflection. He teaches realism (satkAryavAda), but his realism is neither a material realism nor does it involve any process of pariNAma. All of the creation is merely an outward reflection of the divine powers of brahman. His powers shine in Him as “I” but their outward reflections appear as “this”. This is the secret of the reality of all phenomena. In this way, the satkAryavAda of Abhinavagupta can be considered a form of spiritual realism. All

creation is the materialisation of the divine will of brahman. It is a wonderful and divine transmutation brought about by paramashiva through His own free will. There is nothing lacking in His playful nature because He is not only full but overflowing (paripUrNa). All the external manifestations of paramashiva’s divine potency spill out from this blissful fullness. He projects His powers outward not because of any need, but because it is the basic nature of His infinite and divine potency to do so. A person may ask why this is His nature, but it is useless to question or challenge the essential nature of a thing. It would be absurd to ask why fire is warm, or why it shines, or why it burns, and so on. Fire, devoid of such qualities, would, quite simply, cease to be fire. Similarly brahman, devoid of the vibrant manifestation of his divine creative power, would be reduced to the position of an insentient entity. In the words of Abhinavagupta: If Almighty Lord had remained forever in one form, He would have to give up His consciousness and creative power, thus becoming an insentient article like an earthen water vessel. The manifestation of contradictory concepts like bondage and liberation, relative unity and diversity, ignorance and knowledge, etc., are simply parts of brahman’s divine play. Abhinavagupta says: These twin concepts of bondage and liberation are the essential character of Almighty Lord, because, in fact, the concept of differences does not exist in Him at all (bodhapanchadashikA). Another difference between advaita and parAdvaita approach is that while Advaitins can experience true monism only in he state of samAdhi, parAdvaitins experience it even during mundane transactions. Because of this, Narasimhagupta, the father of Abhinavagupta, called it pratyakShAdvaita, immediate (perceived) non-dualism. As Abhinavagupta says: The great teacher, Narasimhagupta, having ripened his intellect in the art of correct contemplation, calls this the non-dualism that can be perceived through one’s external sense (mAlinIvijayavArtika). contd ...

Abhinavagupta uses a special type of logical reasoning that he calls sattarka. All prevalent logic (tarka) is based on those conventions that have evolved out of the mundane experiences of people working within the usual confines of the mind and emotions. By contrast, sattarka is based on the intuitive experiences of yogins who transcend limited existence and experience reality at the plane of unity in diversity (vidyA).

Abhinavagupta teaches that an insentient object cannot prove or assert its existence through its own power, but requires the help of a sentient being to witness it and to say that it exists. This brings to mind berkeley’s famous dilemma of the tree falling in the forest. If no sentient being is present, does the tree falling make a noise? The Kashmir Shaivite would say, “Yes. There is noise, because it all happens within and is witnessed by Absolute consciousness”. In this philosophy, sentience alone is said to have an independent existence. It proceeds to some insentient object, assumes its form, and appears as that object as well. The manifested insentient object itself is thus considered real. However, such an object is considered to be in a more real and pure form when it shines within the consciousness of some living being where that object can actually be said to exist. Finally, the insentient object is eternal and therefore absolutely real (paramArthasat) only with infinite Consciousness itself. Whether finite or infinite, it is consciousness alone which can appear as a knowing subject. This proves two things: a. Consciousness alone has an independent existence, and b. Consciousness alone shines. This approach to the truth through the intuitive vision of unity in diversity clarifies the non-dualism of divinely potent Consciousness, and shows that this consciousness has the power to assume the forms of unconscious entities and to shine in their forms as well. As Abhinavagupta says: Therefore, only the Atman shines (everywhere) taking as its form the whole objective existence known as the universe, and appearing as all this without any break. The object, being itself of the nature of consciousness, is also wholly immersed in the in the light (of consciousness); since the ultimate truth is merely that the light (of consciousness) shines, what distinction could there be between omniscience and its absence? (IshvarapratyabhijnAvimarshinI with bhAskarI) Here Abhinavagupta shows that the supposed difference between finite and infinite consciousness is commonly based on the phenomenal existence of the objects of consciousness such as the body, senses, and the brain. However, because these objects owe their existence to, and emerge out of, Consciousness itself, they can hardly be capable of forming sound judgements about that Consciousness. Instead of depending on conventional logic, sattarka is based on the authority of intuitive experiences of supreme monism realized during the practice of Yoga. The views and teachings of Abhinavagupta may initially be considered illogical by certain scholars of Western philosophy, but exposure to this method might also lead them to take a closer look at the essence of their own form of logic, which depends solely on the mind and the mind’s ideation for its authority. There is an important difference between Indian darshana and Western philosophy. Basically, Indian philosophy (darshana) derives from intuitive realizations of truths, while books dealing with these truths are considered darshanas in a secondary sense. In Indian darshanas, logic is used only in the writings of this secondary form in order to

present and debate the truths gleaned during Yogic experience. By contrast in the West, philosophy is basically a tradition of worldly wisdom and logic developed through ordinary intellectual abilities. Because there is no Yogic practice involved, this use of the intellect is essentially the only method that Western philosophy has for arriving at truths. Abhinavagupta explains the parAdvaita principle of Kashmir Shaivism at several places in his prominent works and discusses it from several points of view. In his opinion, scriptural passages which express this principle do not need to employ the inclusive/exclusive implication method (bhAgatyAga lakShaNa) as commentary or explanation. He says: Just as students not acquainted with certain synonyms are taught as follows - a pAdapa (tree) is a bhUruha, and a ghaTa (pot) is a kumbha, so it is said that the Almighty Lord is this whole phenomenon (mAlinIvijayavArtika). By this he simply means that the ‘definition’ of Supreme does not add any new predicate about Him, but simply substitutes a synonym - like saying a “rug” is a “carpet”. parAdvaita neither accepts diversity nor rejects it totally. Though diversity is not an absolute reality, yet it has its roots in such a reality. Abhinavagupta says: The absolute monism is that principle which neither refutes nor establishes diversity (mAlinIvijayavArttika) He asserts that no apparent diversity can in any way disturb the absolute unity of the Lord Who shines brilliantly due to the blissful luster of His pure consciousness. Adopting the view of supreme non-dualism, Abhinavagupta says that parAdvaita is the principle wherein monism, dualism and mono-dualism appear equally as the manifestations of one and the same divine reality: The real non-dualism is that philosophical view that sees only one Truth in diverse statements like, ‘this is diversity, this is non-diversity, that is unity, and, this is both diversity and unity”. According to Abhinavagupta, a yogin who is established in the understanding and experience of supreme non-dualism, sees only one reality shining in all mutually opposite entities like pleasure and pain, bondage and liberation, sentience and insentience, and so on, just as an ordinary person sees both a ghaTa and kumbha as only one thing expressed through different words (tantrAloka). Seeing through the lens of supreme monism, Abhinavagupta says that the Lord can appear as anything and everything in the universe, because He enjoys full independence and is capable of bringing about even the impossible. Elucidating this principle further, he says that the Lord shines Himself in different ways as (1) uncovered truth, (2) disguised truth, and (3) partly hidden truth. Emphasizing the principle of supreme non-

dualism, he says that the single absolute Consciousness, being endowed with independent creative power, appears itself in wonderfully varied forms. He adds that it is pure Consciousness alone that appears in the form of all different phenomena. Aside from the differences with Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta discussed earlier, parAdvaita should also not be confused with the bhedAbheda or vishiShTAdvaita principles of shaiva and vaiShNava schools of Southern India for the following reasons: 1. parAdvaita maintains an absolutist view in its metaphysics and ontology and this is not popular with shuddhAdvaitins like vallabha, or with vishiShTAdvaitins like rAmAnuja, shrIkaNTha etc., bhedAbhedavAdins like nimbArka and chaitanya, alongwith the shaivasiddhAntins do not support absolution either. 2. According to Abhinavagupta, paramashiva is not some form of personal God living in a superior heavenly abode like vaikunTha, goloka, kailAsa, vrndAvana or rudraloka. All these abodes, alongwith their divine masters, are simply the playful creations of paramashiva. As already seen, He produces these abodes by means of the reflective manifestations of His divine powers. By definition these creations have beginning and an end; only paramashiva is eternal. 3. The final liberation in the parAdvaita view is a state of perfect and absolute unity far more profound than even the highest type of sAyujya or sAlokya - the forms of liberation knows to these other schools. 4. Creation by paramashiva involves no transformation (pariNAma) either in paramashiva or his Supreme shakti. It is instead a transmutation that causes no change whatsoever in the source. 5. The parAdvaita of Kashmir Shaivism does not accept any kind of svagatabheda or interior variety of paramashiva that impairs his essential unity the way that the vishiShTAdvaitins, for example, see this variety in their eternal truth, which they call nArAyaNa. 6. The parAdvaita of Kashmir Shaivism is clearly a logical non-dualism because it sees only one absolute reality in all phenomenal and noumenal entities. It sees perfect unity even in mundane transactions. The mind of a parAdvaitin becomes double-edged. It conducts worldly transactions through its outward edge and remains immersed in the absolute unity through its inward edge. Great royal sages like janaka and shrIkrShNa are examples of yogins who have been described as established in parAdvaita.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful