Abhinavagupta
- the Philosopher
by
Prof. K. N. Dhar
Abhinavagupta
has been extolled as "Mahamahesvara" by
the subsequent Kashmiri authors, his disciples and
admirers, which precisely means the "great
devotee of Siva", or the "Supreme -
Self" in Shaivistic parlance. Kashmiri
tradition also is unequivocal in testifying to his
versatility. He wrote on philosophy (Saiva-Darshan,
commentary on Bhagvad Gita), commented upon
Anandavardhan's "Dhvanayloka", Bharata's
"Natya Shastra", thus epitomized in
himself the diverse talents of a philosopher,
rhetorician, and a critic on dramaturgy. Morever
on Ksemendra's testimony, we know that he himself
studied literature (Sahitya) with such a learned
Guru. His command over rhetorics was so
enthralling that Mammatta- the reputed author of 'Kavya
Prakash' out of veneration for his erudition in
the subject refers to him as " Abhinavagupta
Pada ". Pada is added to the names to show
great respect. Vamana the propounder of Riti
school in Indian Rhetorics and commentator of 'Kavya
Prakasha' known as "Bala Bodhini" bas
alluded to Abhinavagupta as 'an intellectual giant
and like a serpent (terror) to his young school -
fellows." This all goes to prove that
Abhinavagupta deserves these compliments fully as
given to him by the Kashmiri tradition and
literary authors as will be shown later. However,
in Indian literary tradition two such names have
come down to us. The first Abhinavagupta belongs
to Kamarupa (Assam) and is a Sakhta- a worshipper
of Shakti or Devi. The solitary reference made to
him is by one Madhva in his "Shankra
Digvijaya,"' who also wrote a Shanker Bashya,
presumably on Badrayan's Vedanta Sutras. He was a
contemporary of Sankaracharya who lived according
to accepted opinion from 788 to 820 A. D.
Abhinavagupta of Assam was in the first instance
antagonistic to the monistic theory as preached by
Sankara, but having been defeated in the
Shastrartha (interpretation of the sacred lore)
became his disciple. The Indologist of Dr.
Aufreeht's calibre should not have made such a
glaring mistake as to include. "Shaktabhashya"
among the works of Abhinavagupta of Kashmir.
Perhaps the prefixes "Shakhta" and
"Maheshwara" make all the difference
between the two and this distinction has been made
clear between the two even in very early times.
Abhinavagupta
being a conscious artist was not averse to
biography. He has given in the colophons of his
various works his genealogy and also some dates.
It definitely goes to his credit and does not
leave us guessing. In his "Paratrimshika
Vivarna" he explicitly pens down the name of
his earliest ancestor as Atrigupta who was born in
Antarvedi - the Doab between the Ganges and the
Jamuna. Again in 'Tantraloka' he refers to his
sterling qualities of head and heart and being
captivated by these was brought to Kashmir-
"The crest of Himalayas"- by King
Lalitaditya The date of the reign of Lalitaditya
is circa 725 - 761. He was also known as
Mukhtapida and was eager for conquests.' He
defeated the king of Kanauj Yasosvarman and along
with the booty brought Atrigupta also to Kashmir.
Abhinavagupta goes on to record "In that
beautiful city (Srinagar) like that of Kubera's (Alka)
in front of the temple of "Sheetanshumauli"
(Siva having the moon as his crest) on the Vitasta,
the king got built for him a spacious house and
also granted a Jagir of land to him. There is a
veritable gap of a century and a half between
Atrigupta and Abhinavagupta's grand father
Varahagupta. In between the two, the author has
left the family tree blank for reasons best known
to him. Coming direct to the Tantraloka commentary
Abhinavagupta explicitly says that his father was
Narasinhagupta, popularly known as Chukhulaka and
his mother's name was Vimalakala.
Herein
we have to refer to the observation made by late
Madhusudan Kaul of the Kashmir RP search
Department who in his introduction to "Ishvara
Pratyabhijna" has erroneously taken Laksmana
Gupta as his father. Swami Laksmana Ji also
corroborates the other view that Narsimha Gupta
was his father. Moreso, the direct confession of
Abhinavagupta as regards his parents and their
names leaves nothing to argue about. Laksmana
Gupta was definitely one of the preceptors of
Abhinavagupta who initiated him into the
Pratyabhijna Shastra as acknowledged by him in his
introduction to Ishvara Pratybhijna Vivriti
Vimarshini in the words:
<verses>
(Sri
Laksamna Gupta showed me the path to Pratyabhijna
theory (recognition).
The
silence of Kalhana about Abhinavagupta as such is
intriguing - he mentions three "Abhinavas"
in his Raja-Tarangini and the suffix
"Gupta" he has not appended with any of
these. The first 'Abhinava' is a "Divira"
or a scribe,' the second foster - brother of
Kayyamantaka in the reign of Samgramaraja and the
third a Damaraj a landed - aristocrat. No where
the name of Abhinavagupta appears as a scholar of
repute or a Saiva; whereas he has at times
referred to such names as Muktakana, Shivasvamin,
Anandavardhana and Ratnakara etc. It may be argued
that our author was more after learning than after
the favour of kings, hence was not attached to any
court. Consequently Kalhana, whose forte being the
description of kings, skips over him. However, the
fame which Abhinavagupta acquired during his life
time and even after could not have eluded the
chronicler Kalhana. He could not ignore the
powerful Kashmiri tradition. While mentioning
Ananda Vardhana the name of Abhinavagupta would
have been a natural corollary being his
commentator. Subsequent research in this behalf
might throw some light on this omission. About his
date or probable years in which he lived, he has
bequeathed to us some keys which if properly used,
can unlock this bane of Indian date - keeping most
easily. In the last verse of "Brhati
Vimarsini" he states that he finished this
assignment in the 90th year when 4 l 15 years of
Kaliyuga had elapsed; by deducting 25 years from
the Kali era. the local or Saptarsi era can be
found. It works at 4090th year of the Saptarsi
Calendar, and the word "Navatitame" used
by him in that verse corresponds to 90th year of
4000 Kali era. Even, we at present write down only
74 when actually it is 1974 - seventy fourth year
of 1900 Christian era.
Again
in one of his Stotras which is called "Bhairavastava"
in the last verse he gives the date and his name
also:
<verses>
"Abhinavagupta
composed this Stava (eulogy) on the 10th of dark
fortnight in the month of Pausha in the year Vasu
(8) Rasa (6)." (In Sanskrit the digits are
read from the left), hence it comes to 68. It is
definitely the 68th year of the Saptarsi Samvat
4000 as shown above. Moreover, in his Kramastotra
he again refers to date as:
<verses>
"In
the 66th year, on the ninth day of dark fornight,
I, Abhinavagugta, in the month of Maghar, praised
Lord Siva".
So
it can safely be inferred that Abhinavagupta's
literary period extended from 4066 to 4090 laukika
or Saptarsi era corresponding to 990-1O15 A. D.
Even though we have tried to locate the period,
but at the same time we are not sure that
Kramastotra is his first work. It is to be
remembered in this context that Abbinavagupta
having written a host of books, the chronological
order of his works cannot can be arranged without
any effort, but those which have no date or have
not been referred to by the subsequent authors
will defeat any such solution. In this way we can
safely say that "Kramastotra" might not
be his first composition, it might be pushed back
to two decades at least, as in the chronological
order fixed by Dr. K. C Pandey this Stotra stands
at No. 13. Hence we might safely assume that his
literary career commenced from 970 A. D. According
to his own testimony he adopted many Gurus for
pursuing knowledge in different fields and even
went outside Kashmir, presumably to Jalandhar to
find a Guru "Shamboo Nath" there. The
years of initiation after which maturity dawned on
him might be taken not less than 30 years, after
which, confidence was gained by him to write
independently. Hence we might place his birth near
about 940- A. D. He might have lived even beyond
1015 A. D. and the varacity of the tradition
prevalent in Kashmir to this day, that he entered
a cave while reciting the Bhairavastava alongwith
1200 disciples, and was never seen again cannot be
doubted. This cave, alleged to have received the
mortal frame of Abhinavagupta, is situated at
"Birwa" village some five miles from
Magam on the Gulmarg range.
Tke
thirst for knowledge in our author was insatiable.
A bevy of Gurus was adopted by him for this
purpose. According to his own statement he read at
the feet of :
|
Subject
|
1.
Narasimha Gupta (His father).
|
Grammar.
|
2.
Vainanatha.
|
Dvaitadvaita
Tantras.
|
3.
Bhuti Rajatanaya.
|
Daulistic
Saivism
|
4.
Bhuti Raja.
|
Brahma-
Vidya.
|
5.
Laksmanagupta.
|
Pratyabhijna.
|
6.
Indu Raja.
|
Dhvani.
|
7.
Bhatta Tota.
|
Dramaturgy
|
He
had other Gurus also but the subjects have not
been specified in their cases. From all his
compositions at least 19 such preceptors can be
gleaned.
As
will be said later, the 10th and 11th centuries in
Kashmiri literary lore have been a landmark. The
influence of religion has been pronounced. A
climate of religions rennaissance was ushered in
and many stalwarts like Anandavardhana, Vamana,
Ksemendra, Bilhana, Kalhana and last but not the
least Abhinavagupta contributed himself in making
the sanskrit literary tradition richer and all the
more diverse, in as much as, the subjects like
rhetories, dramaturgy, poetry, history and
philosophy, were treated in an admirable way. So,
it can be of value to learn that the whole family
of Abhinavagupta was renowned for its unique
literary bent of mind. His uncle Vamana Gupta was
an expert in poetics and he initiated our author
into this field. In the Abbinava Bharati
Abhinavagupta quotes him and is also included in
the list of his teachers. His younger brother
Manoratha was admitted to the disciplehood of his
brother-Abhinava gupta-perhaps he was first in
that order. His five cousins Ksema, Utpala,
Abhinava, Chakraka and Padamgupta were also very
well-read. If Ksema be identified with Ksema Raja
the Author of Spanda-Nirnaya and other treatises
on Shaivism, then the scholarship of his cousin is
beyond doubt. It need not be reitered that his
father Narasimhagupta possessed intellectual
calibre of highest order and was proficient in all
the Shastras and a great devotee of Shiva. In this
atmosphere of devotion and learning par
excellence, Abhinava Gupta was mentally groomed to
undertake the stupendous task awairing him.
So,
it is not surprising to find that "Jayaratha"
alludes to his being 'Yoginibhu', that his parents
while uniting for his birth rose above all wordly
desires and identified themselves with Shiva and
Shakti. The offspring thus born called Yoginibhu,
is looked upon as a fit vehicle for propounding
and propagating Shaivistic Monism.
Not
only this, Abhnivagupta has been called a Bhairava
incarnate by the commentator of Parmartha-Sara;
"Yoga - Raja," while commenting on the
last line of this treatise:
<verses>
has
explained this epithet at length. So the
traditional belief amongst the Kashmiri Pandits
that Abhinavagupta was a living Bhairava in human
form is not without basis.
Now
we come to the place of his mental activity. From
his own authority we learn that Lalitaditya had
got built a palatial house for Atrigupta when he
carried him along from Antarvedi to Kashmir
(quoted earlier). The house was built on the banks
of Vitasta. However, in one of the Msss of
Tantraloka belonging to Late Pt. Maheshwar Razdan
there is a different reading as <sanskrit>
meaning "at the head of Vitasta" i.e.
the source. However, in the quotation is used the
pronoun <sanskrit> (in) agreeing with <sanskrit>
(Srinagar) hence this <sanskrit> seems to be
an interpolation.
In
the first verse on the Vartika on "Malini
Vijaya" it has been specifically laid down:
<verses>
"The
Kashmirian Abhinavagupta is the East of the city
known as Pravarapura (Srinagar) composed the
Vartika on the very first verse of "Malinivijya".
From
this it is clear that Srinagar was divided into
several zones then - East, West etc. and in the
East Zone our author lived; but nothing can be
said whether this was his ancestral home or an
acquired house. However, there is a reft-rence in
the Tantraloka of his having shifted to another
city at the request of one of his disciples Mandra:
<verses>
"Mandra
in order to save him (Abhinavagupta) from
distraction requested him to shift to his
beautiful city."
It
is also clear from this, that this earlier house
must have been located in a very busy centre of
the city, so was not suitable for his calm
composure and undivided attention, so necessary
for the delineation of such a terse and delicate
subject as philosophy.
On
the authority of Kalhana we know that Lalitaditya
had built three more cities in the outskirts of
Pravarapura Srinagar. The one Parihasapura and the
other Lali'pura and the third Lokapunya However,
the former was meant as a respite for the war-worn
king and all the amenities of Parihasa (enjoyment)
were provided there: Hence it could not be a quiet
city. The latter was not taken kindly to by the
king as it was built by his architect in his
absence, hence it must have been comparatively
deserted and all the same calmer. It might be
surmised that Mandra lived there and invited his
Guru to that very city for being quieter and far
from the madding crowds, so that his
"distraction could be averted". The
third city along with a cluster of villages was
given in offering to Vishnu.
Even
though Abhinavagupta lived during the span of 940
- 1015 A. D. but no city worth the name was
founded by the kings during this period. Although
he saw the reigns of Yashaskara, Samgrama Deva,
Ksema Gupta, Didda and Samgrama Raja, yet the
cities founded by Lalitaditya still found favour
with the people. Even though one century and a
half had elapsed, the twin cities of Parihaspura
and Lalitpura had not fallen into oblivion. In the
reign of Samgrama Raja (1003 - 1028 A. D.) the
Brahmins of Parihasapura started a fast to bring
down the fall of Tunga his Prime Minister. This
allusion to the city nearly two hundred years
after it was founded, testifies to its being very
important at that time and might have been the
royal capital even.
Before
an attempt is made to pen down the contribution of
Abhinavagupta to Shaivism, it will be more
appropriate to trace the origin of Siva worship in
Kashmir. Perhaps as a corollary to this, we shall
have to furnish at least the rough contours on
which the earliest religion of Kashmiris was
based.
The
most ancient book on Kashmir History 'Nilamata
Purana' specifically lays down that Shiva and His
Shakti were propitiated at that time, but other
deities such as Ganesha, Puranic gods, Vedic
pantheon and even Buddha (as an Avatara) were not
ignored. This fact without any doubt proves that
earliest Kashmiri religion was polytheistic in
content and character, but the worship of Shiva
and His consort Parvati had an edge over all other
gods. Not only this, the aboriginal deities like
Nikumbha etc. were also owned. On the same subject
S. C. Ray observes, "that the earliest
inhabitants of Kashmir probably cherished some
aboriginal beliefs..ID the third cenlury B. C.
Buddhism seems to have made some headway in
Kashmir. Among Hindu gods Shiva either originated
or entered the valley some time before the faith
of the Shakya prince.
In
this connection the word "Naga used to
describe the people of Kashmir, did drop a hint as
to its being related to Snake - worship. But word
"Naga" in Sanskrit does not mean snake
only, it is synonymous with a semi-divine being a
cruel person, an elephant or a cloud also.
However, Shiva's association with the religion of
Kashmir did provide a context for translating
"Naga" as a serpent, as it is worn by
the Lord around His neck. In this connection H. H.
Wilson remarks, "originally, no doubt, it
(the religion of Kashmir) was oplute or snake-
worship, but this is a part of the Hindu ritual
and the Nagas are included in the orthodox
parltheon''' So it is abundantly clear that the
ancient religion of Kashmir was an amalgam of the
"new" as preached by Kashyapa and the
old - that of the aboriginals whose king was
Nikumbha. Even though other gods were also
worshiped, the emphasis on Shiva and His Shakti
was pronounced. The influence of Buddhism as such
in those times was not worth mentioning, since it
was only being adopted by the land then, and after
some time did give a fillip to the philosophical
remblings which reigned supreme for nearabout two
centuries in Kashmir.
Kalhana
has copiously furnished us the proof that Buddhism
and orthodox creeds of Shiva and Visnu co-existed
in a most tolerant manner here. Whenever any
endowment is made for religious purposes, or a
Stupa or a Vihara is constructed, the individual
or the king, or his members of the family or his
Minister with equal zeal and faith constructed
shrines of Shiva and Vishnu also.
However,
this climate of accomodation between the two
faiths - Hinduism and Buddhism was disturbed by
the advent of Nagarjuna on the Kashmir scene. He
lived at Shadarhatvana (modern Harwan) and took
preaching of Buddhism in right earnest. This
provoked the "orthodoxy". Insult was
added to the injury by King Kanishka (125-60 A.D)
who encouraged the propagation of the Buddhistic
teachings and gave it royal patronage. Kalhana
while recording all this has to say: "After
defeating in disputations all learned opponents (Nagarjuna),
these enemies of tradition brought to an end etc.
the observance of the rites prescribed in the
Nilamata." This was a veritable revolt
against the established faith of the land and the
astute Brahmin lost no opportunity in providing a
more palatable alternative to Buddhistic tenets -
which may well be called the seeds of Shaivism
which sprouted forth in full bloom later.
Perhaps
this pre-supposes the give and take which must
have preceded before Buddhism went into oblivion
in Kashmir. The most potent cause for its decline
was that the Shaivism fought on its own ground and
assimilated such tenets which were finding favour
with the people. Thus the Shaivas on account of
their exceptional erudition did provide such a
faith to people which though new, was not at all
alien. It respected orthodoxy but at the same time
did not abhor the "new". A compromise
between the two did the trick and Buddhism had to
eat the humble pie.
Moreover,
the versatile Brahmin of Kashmir did not stop to
lick his wounds inflicted by Buddhist propagation,
but like a seasoned general attacked its weakest
point i. e. the silence about God. Indians at
1arge and a Kashmiri especially, are a God-fearing
nation, hcnce the Shaivite knowing full well this
credulity of a Kashmiri, transplanted God again in
their faith by naming it Paramshiva or Sadashiva
with its antecedent - the Para Shakti. In all the
treatises on Shaivism hair-splitting arguments are
laid down in proving the existence of the
"Supreme Soul". Hence the Buddhists had
to take up to their heels in the absence of any
powerful counter- argument on this subject.
Perhaps the people in general, also became sceptic
about their faith, because their belief in God is
skin-deep. This has actually permeated their
marrow even. They could consequently not reconcile
themselves with more are less "Godless"
faith. The adage "Had there been no God, Man
would have invented one" was proved to the
hilt in Kashmir. Herein it will be of interest to
mention that Shankaracharaya's visit to Kashmir
acted as the last nail in the Buddhist coffin.
Shankara
after his unparalled victory over the Buddhists in
plains came to Kashmir sometime about the second
decade of the 9th century. Even though no other
reference regarding his visit to Kashmir has been
traced as yet, the popular tradition corroborates
its authenticity. This cannot be dismissed
cheaply, in as much as, that on the perusal of
Shankra's treatises it becomes patently clear that
his compositions did influence the Kashmiri Saiva
literature; more so his imprint on Pratyabhijna
(theory of recognition) is obviusly discerned. In
his "Dakhshina Murti Stotra" commented
upon by his pupil Sureshvaracharya the conception
of ultimate reality as preached by him and known
as Tantric philosophy and that expounded in
Pratyabhijna seems to be tbe same. Not only this,
even some technical terms as used in Pratyabhijna
have been earlier used by him in the same sense:
(1)
<verses>
(Dakshina
Murti Stotra Commentary (2), 13)
(2) <verses>
(Ishwara
Pratyabhijna Vimarshini- 1, 39)
Translation:
(i)
"
The universe has been created out of knowledge and
action and seems also possessed of
consciousness."
Translation
(ii)
"
Knowledge and action are considered the source of
all living beings."
(1)
<verses>
(Dakshina
Murti Stotra Commentary (2), 13)
(2)
<verses>
(Ishwara
Pratyabhijna Vimarshini 1, 207)
Translation
(i)
"Therefore,
that shining spirit follows everywhere the
opposite direction (beyond time and space)."
Translation
(ii)
"
The shining supreme spirit is not bound by space
and time."
Such
examples can be multiplied and so the internal
evidence culled from the compositions of Shankara
regarding his coming to Kashmir and subsequently
not only the thought but even the expresions being
found common in both (as above), it may be safely
inferred that he did come to Kashmir and had
presumably discussions with the propounders of
Shaiva faith here. On a profound perusal of his
"Saundarya Lahari" it becomes lucid that
he got influenced also by Kashmirian Shaiva
Acharyas and did concede the existence of monistic
Tantras and also their number:
<verses>
(Saundaraya
Lahari)
Translation:
(
O Devi ), You having built the whole universe with
sixty four Tantras............
Hence
we come to the stage when Buddhism being banished,
the vaccum thus created began to be filled by the
Acharayas of Saivism who had the blessings of
Shankaracharya also.
However,
the Buddhists definitely earn credit for
initiating the modus operandi of discussions,
symposia and religious congregations for
propagating their philosophy and projecting this
to the masses. We have references of Buddhist
councils being held here in Ashoka's and
Kanishka's time. In this connection Dr. R. K. Kaw
has to say "It will be observed that
Buddhists initiated a critical view in matters
which were so far believed only as gospel
truths." Hence as a reaction to this, the
Brahmin votaries of Shiva and Shakti also inducted
into their cult the method of philosophal
reasoning and persuasive argumentation. "Shaiva
Literature" is fully replete with these two
ingredients.
The
whole of Shaiva literature comes under the name of
Trika, Trikashastra or Trikashasana. The
derivation of the epithet "Trika" among
other things can be ascribed to triple principle
with which this system deals e. g. Shiva, Shakti,
Anu; Pati, Pasha and Pashu; Nara, Shakti and
Shiva; Para and Apara. and Parapara and finally
Bheda, Abheda; Bheda, and Abehda; or it may have
been called as such, "For the reason that its
chief authority is the the triad consisting of
three chief Agamas - Siddha, Namaka, and Malini.
This literature falls into three categories:
i)
The Agama - Shastra.
ii)
The Spanda - Shastra.
iii)
Pratyabhijna - Shastra.
"The
Agamas are believed to be revelations, having come
down through ages." These emphasize the
doctrine of Jnana (knowledge) and Kriya (action)
for becoming one with the superself.
The
most important composition of this branch are the
"Shiva Sutras." Their authorship is
attributed to Lord Shiva and were in course of
time revealed to Sage Vasugupta. On the authority
of Raja Tarangini we know that Bhatta Kallata, the
pupil of Vasugupta lived in the reign of Avanti
Varman (855- 883 A. D.)
Hence
it is clear that Vasugupta whose reputation was
established as a Shaiva teacher must have preceded
him at least by 30 years if not more i.e. 825 A.
D. The purpose of writing this thesis (or
comunicating it as the tradition goes) was to
counteract the dualistic teachings in vogue at
that time. In Shivasutra Vimarshini by Kshema
Raja, it is clearly laid down:
<verses>
"
The occult school (of Saiva) may not get into
oblivion by the preaching of duality amongst the
people - with this purpose."
So
the Agamas taught the pure non-dualistic Monism.
The
Spandashastra aclually amplifies the main
principles of shaivism in greater detail than the
Shiva-Sutras. The main treatise on this Shastra is
Spanda Sutras or Karikas which have been commented
upon by Kallata, Ramakantha, Utpalavaishnava (Not
of Shaiva School) and Kshema Raja. The content of
philosophical reasoning is missing in the main
treatise, while the commentators have tried to
supply it with meaningful success. Kshema Raja in
his commentary ascribes to Vasugupta the
authorship of this Shastra also. But Utpala (Vaishnava)
uses the unambiguous phrase while commenting on
the very first Sutra in his Pradipika. He gives it
as "Sangraha- granthakrta" meaning
"a work which gathers together the meaning of
Shiva Sutras." In one of his verses he
attributes its authorship to Bhatta Kallata via
Vasu Gupta. But this verse is not found in the
recension of Kshema Raja. However, it is to make
clear that contents being the same in Shiva-Sutras
and Spanda Sutras the authorship could not be
different. As the Shiva-Sutras have been revealed
to Vasu Gupta, hence Spanda Shastra may also be
his acquisition.
The
word "Spanda" as prefixed with this
branch of Trika means "a throb",
"quivering" or "movement." The
quivering of the mind receives the beautitude of
the "Super soul" and hence attains ~he
"Nishkampa Pradipa" ‹ unquivering
flame of the lamp as given in Bhagvad Gita, or the
name to this treatise may be explained as the
"throbs of Lord Shiva" clothed in words
by later Yogis and Siddhas such as Vasugupta etc.
The
third and the most important school of
Shaivadarshan is the Pratyabhijna cult with which
our author is directly concerned. Somananda is
said to be the originator of this branch and has
been called as "Tarksya Karta" meaning
the founder of reasoning". He was a pioneer
in grafting the element of argument reasoning,
support and refutations on rational lines into
this system. The first book of this system is
"Shiva Drishti" whose authorship is
attributed to Soma Nanda. Unfortunately this
masterly treatise is now extant upto four Ahnikas
(Chapters) only; atleast it had seven as is
clearly quoted by Abhinavagupta in Para- Trimsika.
Perhapes this is the main reason as to why his
erudite commentator Utpaladeva does not go beyond
74th verse of the IV Ahnika. Subsequently the
three chapters were salvaged and the number made
seven; but it seems that these form a part of the
Vrtti (gloss) compiled by Somananda himself and
not the original one. Tho "Forte" of
Somananda's teaching is:
<verses>
"Shiva"
the auspicious and Supreme soul, is the giver and
he is the enjoyer. This whole universe is
(permeated by) Shiva."
His
disciple and at times taken to be his son also.
Utpaladeva commented in a most scholastic manner
on the "Shiva Drishti" of Soma Nanda,
and for the first time introduced the element of
Pratyabhijna in Shaiva literature. He named his
treatise, though based on the doctrine taught by
Somananda as "Ishwara Prtayabhijna-Karikas"
in Sutra form consisting of four Adhikaras
(cantos), further sub-divided into a number of
Ahnikas or sections. He also propounded "Svatantriya"
theory of his own, independent of his Guru
Somananda. By Svatantriya he means the "self
dependent power of the lord". His exposition
of the "Recognition Doctrine" has the
sanctity and the authority what it should have
deserved, and was even equated with Somananda the
orginator as:
<verses>
"Reflection
of the wisdom of Somananda"
(Ishwara
Pratyabhijna Vimarshini - 2, introduction)
Perhaps
being very much enamoured by the wisdom of
Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta composed the shorter and
longer versions of his commentary on the Ishwara
Pratyabhijna of Utpala; who discarding all other
names for this system annointed it with
Pratyabhijna - recognition. This name alone has
stood the test of time and is perhapes synonymous
with Trika as a whole; while in, essence this is
not the case.
The
order of Gurus (Guru Parampara) as given in Shaiva
Darshani's as follows:
<verses>
"I
bow to Lord Shiva, Vasugupta, Somananda, and
Utpalacharaya, Lakshmana (Gupta), Abhinavagupta
and Kshema Raja."
A
faint echo of teacher-taught relation can also be
heard into it. Vasugupta pupil of Lord Shiva,
Somananda pupil of Vasugupta, Utpala pupil of Soma
Nanda, Abhinavagupta pupil of Lakshmanagupta and
Kshemaraja the pupil of Abhinavagupta. Had both
Vasugupta and Somananda been the pupils of Lord,
then the insertion of "Cha" would have
made it clear.
From
this it is clear that Vasugupta and Somananda
represent the originators through the good offices
of Lord Shiva while Utpala, Lakshmanagupta,
Abhinavagupta and Kshemaraja constitute the heirs
to this system, who in their own way interpreted,
supplemented and enriched the word sent to the
humanity by Lord Shiva through the first two
Gurus.
Out
of a host of such interpretors Abhinavagupta is
not only the best but also possessed of multifaced
genius. Not confining himself to the ramifications
of "Saiva Darshan" he also strayed into
the domain of Rhetorics by subscribing to Rasa
theory in his commentary on Bharata Natya Shastra,
and also into poetics when elucidating the "Dhvani"
as enunciated by Ananda Vardhana. However, we have
to delimit his versatility and shall describe him
only as a religious philosopher.
However,
before embarking upon this, it will not be out of
place to give roughly the main characteristics of
this "Darshan" so that in light of
these, we might determine the place of
Abhinavagupta as a philosopher; as to how he
explained these and for sooth, even improved upon
these.
The
" Saiva Shasana" starts with the
assumption that Atman is the real and innermost
self in everything. It does not undergo any change
and is a vehicle to experience the "Parameshwara"
or the Chaitanayam. This "Parameshwara"
or Param Shiva" is not bound by time, space
and form, so is omnipotent and omnipresent.
However, He has a dual role - the one which
pervades whole of the universe and the other
transcendental in which he defeats all
mainfestations. His power of pervading the
universe is called Shakti, but coming out of His
fountain-head is only an aspect of His and not in
any way different from Him. Even though these
Energies or powers have been called numerous, yet
only five are the most notable. The Chita Shakti
(the power of resplendence), Ananda Shakti (the
power of bliss), Ichha Shakti (the power of
desire), Jnana Shakti (the power of knowledge),
and the Kriya Shakti (the power of action), with
the help of these, the "Paramshiva"
manifests itself which in Saiva language is called
Udaya, Unmesha, Abhasa or Srishti.
However,
to create a universe is the necessity even though
He is world-incarnate. Hence the universe has been
thought to be composed of "Shiva Tattva
(pure, auspicious element), Shakti Tattva
(potential element), Sadakhya Tattva (the element
of self realisation, or being), Aishwaraya Tattva
(element of identification) and last but not the
least the Sad-Vidya Tattva (the element of true
perception). When in between the self and
self-realization, Maya (obduration, delusion)
obscures the real form of objects, the Sadhaka (experiencer)
has to rise above Kala (time), Niyati (sequence),
Raga (attachment), Vidya (limited perception of
consciousness), Kala (limited authorship). Such an
experiencer who has been doped by Maya and is
obsessed with time etc. is called "Purusha".
Simultaneously with it is also born Prakritis,
that latent power in him which goads him onto act
or react. To awake from the slumber under the
influence of Maya, the Purusha conjointly with
Prakriti has to undergo some mental drill and
comprehend the implication of Buddhi (conception),
Ahanakara (personal I or ego) and Manas (desire).
Taken in reverse order, the desire actuates
"I" ness and at the last stage
conception of things becomes clear. Hence the
Purusha awakenes by rejecting Maya and its five
concomitents beginning with Time (Kala) etc, comes
face to face with chitswaroopam resplendence or
Shambhavi state and attains the Paramaishwarya or
Self-dependence (Supreme bliss). This is the
purport of Shaiva Darshan or Shaiva Monism as
given in the "Shiva Sutra" and
"Shiva Drishiti" on broad lines.
Dr. K.C. Pandey has given a long list of some 41
compositions attributed to Abhinavagupta. Among
these some bear dates, some are referred to by
subsequent authors and some have been owned by
tradition. However, the most famous works of his
on "Shaiva darshan", strictly speaking
are:
1.
Para - Trimshika Vivarna.
2.
Prataybhijna Vimarshini (expurgated)
3.
Pratyabhijna Vivriti Vimarshini (full)
4.
Tantrasara
5.
Tantraloka
6.
Parmarthasara
7.
Commentary on Bhagvadgita called
Gitartha-Sangraha.
Many
other compositions of his such as "Shiva
Drishtyalocana" commentary on "Shiva
Drishti" as the name clearly signifies, is
lost.
Chronologically
speaking the "Para Trimshika" seems to
be his first work in the "Shaiva Lore".
It is in reality composed of the concluding
portion of "Rudrayamala Tantra"
belonging to Agama school on which Abhinavagupta
penned down a commentary calling it Vivarna.
However, the title of the book suggests it
containing thirty verses only (Trimshika), but it
has even more than these. There seems to be some
confusion amongst the later commentators regarding
its name, while the author himself has tried to
justify it like this:
"Trimshika"
is so called because it is the Supreme Lord of
three powers desire, knowledge, and action."
<verses>
'Para'
in Shiava terminology is identical with 'Parasamvid'
- the highest power of Self-Dependence. Hence
'Para Trimshika' would connote 'thirty verses of
Self-Dependence', or the Super Lord of the triple
formula of desire, knowledge, and action.
Pratyabhijnavimarshini
and its larger edition Viviriti belong to the
Pratyabhijna (recognition) school of Shaiva
Shastra as propounded by Utpala Deva and orginated
by Somananda.
Tantrasara
and Tantraloka deal with the same contents with
the difference that the former is a brief Summary
(Sara) of the !atter, a voluminous treatise. The
Tantrasara is couched in prose while the
Tantraloka is in metrical form. These are
definitely based on Malini Vijayatantra belonging
to Agama school.
Parmarthsara
is a philosophical composition of 105 verses and
is supposed to be based on the Karikas of Shesha.
In his Gitarthasangraha, Abhinavagupta has
emphatically declared that freedom from all
miseries can be obtained by seeing Him (Paramshiva)
in everything and everywhere. This freedom cannot
be achieved by renunciation of the world. The
battle between Pandvas and Kaurvas is actually the
race between Vidya (knowledge, perception) and
Avidya (ignorance, blurred perception).
From
the above it is clear that Abhinavagupta not only
explained Pratyabhijna on which his fame rests,
but also other Tantric works belonging to
different schools. He did not believe in isolation
but in collation which is the keynote of his
philosophic bent of mind . Other commentators like
Utpala, Kshemaraja etc. confined themselves to a
single path but Abhinavagupta not only rode on
other paths but also proved the old adage
"All roads lead to Rome." He made a
compromise between different views and presented
such a philosophy of life which never grew stale.
His synthesis - oriented approach to life gave a
meaningful and healthy direction to his ideas.
Philosophy,
strictly speaking, is the science of knowledge or
the Tattva Vidya, the lore of the real nature of
human soul or malerial world as being identified
with the supreme spirit. Since knowledge emanates
from Him, hence it can be usefully used as a
medium to interpret Him. If there be no
originality and no Shaivacharya has claimed it,
since "Shivasutras" are the word of God,
tlle originality definitely lies in interpreting
these and unravelling the esoteric content in a
most intelligible and homely idiom. In this field
also Abhinavagupta has no parallel.
It
is also to be remembered that our author does not
rest his oars on the philosophic polemics, but
also connects these with the ritual. Herein also
he shows a master - mind in fitting ritual with
philosophy, the mundane with the the spirit, the
real with the ideal and to crown all practice with
the precept. On account of his versatile genius he
is at home in explaining the abstract in the
context of the concrete. While revelling in the
super world he does not forget the world as such.
He is not a dreamer but an awake artist feeling
rightly the pulse of supersensuousness but at the
same time not forgetting the converse form of it.
He tries to explore the obverse and the converse
at the same time. Hence his treatment of the
subject is more realistic. Perhaps that is the
main reason as to why pratyabhijna school though
bequeathed to him by earlier Acharyas was actually
made popular by him. He not only translated the
terse philosophy in the tongue of the people but
also gave it the most natural direction.
Abhinavagupta does not claim any originality for
introducing this "Shaiva Darshan", but
most candidly records:
<verses>
"Having
thought over the views of Shri Somananda, I
systematized these."
Moreover,
in the realm of philosophy, originality is a
misnomer; because the philosophy as such is the
cumulative thinking processed through ages and
then finding expression through the pen or mouth
of an erudite scholar. Even Shankara without
mincing words, categorically states that the
authenticity of a system is to be tested on the
touchstone of Vedas. Somananda, the originator of
Pratyabhijna school admits that his "Shaivadrishti"
is based on Shastras, though his pupil
Utpalacharya testifies to its showing new path for
final emanicipation. In all humility (because true
knowledge bestows humility) Abhinavagupta follows
the same tradition of thinking.
It
may be contended tbat he did not compose any
treatise independently, but only commented upon
the works of his predecessors. Therefore he can be
a commentator at best, but not an original
thinker. Commentary from Abhinavagupta's view
point is not merely a jugglery of words but
actually the personal exporience gained through
spiritual experiments. He lived the maxims on
which he commented. So in the exposition of such
matters he sets for himself three norms - first
being the personal experience, reason the second,
and ancient authority the third. So the
contribution of Abhinavagupta to this system of
philosophy is not simply of academic interest but
is replete with other dimensions of thinking which
even the originators failed to comprehend. The
commentators preceding him gave mere dogmatic
statements of the basic tenets of the Spanda
school. They dared not subtract or add to these by
way of argument, reasoning and judicious
explanation for or against the fundamental
principles. Even though some commentators notably
Utpalacharya did introduce the element of argument
into it, but his domain was only one - sided
related to Pratyahhijna only and not the "Trika"
as a whole. Abhinavagupta on the contrary did
improve on him, though being his disciple, making
it broad-based and embraching the whole gamut of
Shaiva Shastra. He provided rational base to it
and also dwelt on the ritualistic aspect of this
system. He has exhaustively explained the Monistic
Shaiva rituals also. He made a happy blend of
philosophy and psychology, quoted extensively from
the Agamas and other established authorities;
perhaps he has every right to assert:
<verses>
"I
(we) will unravel the "unseen" at the
bidding of my Guru and Lord."
This
verse does allude to the shortcomings of the
earlier commentators who could not convert <sanskrit>
(unseen) into <sanskrit> (seen3) and so it
was left to Abhinavagupta to perceive it in light
perspective and accordingly transmit it to others
through his writings - commentaries. His scathing
criticism of Buddhists and schools of philosophy
other than Shaiva with biting wit and pungent
sarcasm is perhaps the most original content of
what he has written.
His
brief yet most pregnant definition of "Trika"
definitely portrays his mastry over this system:
<verses>
"The
unison of Shiva (Paramashiva) and "Shakti"
(Para Shakti) is termed as supertrika".
Very
succinctly he also lays down the aim of this
Shastra - "The removal of veil of
ignorance." However, the fundamental
difference between the Vedanta and Shaivism though
professing the same aim, is real rather than
apparent. In Vedanta the negation of the facts of
experience are a must presupposition for
realization of the self; The illusion regarding
the snake and rope is quite known. But in Trika
there is no negative approach towards the universe
but in fact an affirmation of the facts of
experience with new interpretation. With this
positive understanding of the environs, the
realizer is simply face to face with
self-recognition which in Shaiva-terminolgy is
called self-realization.
While
dealing with Pratyabhijna (self-recognition) Guru
Somananda defines it as the two fold function of
perception and rememberance in its totality at the
same time. Utpala Deva thinks that the term
Pratyabhijna connotes, the power of self, the
power of cognition and power of action - a triple
amalgm:
<verses>
In
this realm also Abhinavagupta shows his
originality in defining the term "Pratyabhijna"
as:
<verses>
"Recognition
of that supreme self is to be face to face with
what was forgotten through effulgence (of
consciousness).
While
explaining the word Pratipam he very lucidly says
that " (it) means that which was forgotten,
or concealed but now coming into view not through
rememberance but by clear cognition."
Furthermore
to make it more lucid, Abhinavagupta explains that
cognition is composed of:
<verses>
"When
the past perception and the present perception are
revived (by the object coming in full view)
".
<verses>
Giving
an example of past perception and present
perception and their getting revived he says:
<verses>
"He
is that very Chaitra" (name of a person, who
was already seen befor ). His coming face to face
now is called present perception and his cognition
(that he is really the same person) was done by
the previous or past perception, the bridge
between the perceptions being rememberance born of
mental impression. Our author's independent
thinking can very easily be inferred from an
ingenious definition of Pratyabhijna.
Herein
he does not follow his preceptor but provides a
very homely definition, when he says that the Lord
is possessed of Infinite Powers. This
characteristic of Him is corroborated extensively
by Puranas, Siddhantas and Agamas as also by
reasoning and inference etc. When by direct
experience we ascertain His Nature in our own
self, this map be termed as having recognized Him,
or in other words, the cognition takes place.
Abhinavagupta
does not consider remembrance the only vehicle af
identifying the present perception with the past
one. Even though Somananda explicitly lays down
the role of rememberance in connecting the present
and past perception and Utpala also endorses it;
Abhinavagupta comments:
<verses>
"But
being face to face and not by remembering alone,
the knowledge (perception) because of being made
clear, Recognition takes place."
He
very cogently argues that rememberance is related
to sight; first having seen a certain object we
are reminded of it when some such farm crosses our
eyes. But there are cases of falling in love
without seeing each other, wherein the medium of
arousing love and accepting the lover from the
depths of heart is confined to "either the
words of female messenger or confidante or the
perception of such traits in him (as heing her
ideal) or by any other deeds which made him
renowned, she is persuaded to accept him".
Here in this case sight has played no part, hence
the image which first sight would have caught
cannot bo repeated at the subsequent sights. The
rememberance is altogether absent in it. The
master philosopher goes on to argue that in this
case the love-lorn lady naturally weaves the
pictures of his beauty, gallantry or any other
exceptional distinction on the authority of three
sources mentioned above. This picture will
definitely be at variance with the one if the
lover meets her incognito. There is no repetition
of image as in the case of "Chaitra"
(given earlier), how will the recogoition take
place? Abhinavagupta raising the controversy
himself provides a most plausible answer to this
predicament. When incognito hero is introduced as
lover whom she has been loving for his qualities
all along, the heroine receives a shock instead of
joy. As long as the qualities of the hero are not
revealed to her and she certifies these by her own
experience and also on the authenticity of others.
"He is that very person" the recognition
is not so simple and easy. Hence the obstruction
between what has becn heard and what is actually
seen is to be removed, so that the identification
between the "imaginary" and the
"real" is possible. Thus at this
juncture the recognition is possible only by the
removal of the veil as also the reconciliation
between both the mental images one imaginary or
unseen and the other seen or face to face.
Accordingly Abhinavagupta supplements the
rememberance (smarn) with (anubhav) cognition
derived from personal observation or experience.
On the seeming contradition between unity and
plularity, Utpaladeva contends that:
<verses>
"The
internal reality of things of diverse nature is
unity".
<verses>
"that
very unity attaining the knowledge or perception
of senses."
<verses>
"gets
multiplied under the influence of time, space and
real nature of objects." Like an original
thinker Abhinavagupta makes it more clear and
simple by saying:
<verses>
"The
cause or no cause are one and same, so unity and
plurality can be the attributes of one and same
object."
<verses>
"So,
in essence the objects internally are one
consciousness, but practically speaking as being
differentiated by the blue and yellow (colours)
unchangeable indeterminate or determinate imply
multiplicity externally at the illusionary
level."
It
will be pertinent here to allude to the aim of the
system of philosophy as preached by Abhinavagupta.
The unavoidable preamable to every philosophic
thought is to describe the why and what of that
what teacher or preacher wishes us to know. In the
treatment of this subject Abhinavagupta set norms
of personal experience, reasoning and thirdly the
scripture and in the context of these he tries to
explain the domain of his experience. Herein he
exhibits a marvellous sense of independent
judgment. He does not accept the theories of
Logicians is given in Nyaya Shastra, of as
expounded in Vaishesika in details or fundaments.
From the dualism of Sankhya, idealism of Baudhas
and monism of Vedanta he only differs mostly in
fundamentals. According to him the world of
experience is not God-made nor a portion of
Prakriti (Sankhya) nor purely a subjective
experience (Baudhas), nor even a mere illusion
(Vedanta). It is real as it is a manifestation of
superself or universal consciousness. In support
of his theory he introduces the Abhasa Vada, which
to define most briefly in his own words:
"
All that is i.e. all that can be said to exist in
any way and with regard to which the use of any
kind of language is possible be it the subject,
the object or the means of knowledge or the
knowledge itself, is Abhasa."
He
further contends that subject and object cannot be
divorced from each other, so the self also from
the not - self. Knowledge of objects is the the
inter-mixture of the both, if these are treated as
separate and opposite entities, there cannot be
any concordance between these just as between
light and darkness. Hence Abhinavagupta most
cogently supplies the answer:
<verses>
"The
(ultimate) in form is immanent and without form is
transcendental."
In
order to discriminate between His two aspects-
transcendental and immanetnt-Vimarsha is the
inevitable instrument. It could have been compared
to the image- reflecting nature of a mirror, but
during darkness images cannot be reflected, hence
it needs external agents to illumine it. But the
self does not need any such illuminator and can
receive images by virtue of his self -
independence "Svatantraya."
This
Abhasa in its immanent aspect is composed of
"Prakasha" and "Vimarsha" .
ln
Shaiva terminology by "Prakasha" is
meant residual traces also which are essentially
the same as their substratum. As has been said
above, these images being reflected are the same
as Prakasha - the cause of reflection-light-in the
ordinary sense. This "Prakasha" is
definitely synonymous with "Sanskara".
"Vimarsha" may be explained as the power
of self to know it- in all its purity and not
being obssessed by affections whatsoever.
Abhinavagupta
has most successfully made his point in this field
by saying:
<verses>
"This
Self- Dependence (Svatantraya) faculty is
essentially the power of action, which propels the
"bliss of consciousness" and that may be
taken as Vimarsha, its proponderence is quite
appropriate."
This
word "Svatantraya" has been given other
names also by the Preceptors of Shaivism Vasugupta
calls it "Chaitanya" being associated
with "Chita" mind. The Spanda school
takes it as "Sphurta" or Spanda. It is
also called as ''Mahasatta'' and Paravak. This
extraordinary interest in this faculty of "Svatantraya"
by Shaiva teachers only proves as to what
importance they attach to it. Perhaps it will be
pertinent to relate here the conception of
"Maya" as propounded by "Shaivas"
and what personal contribution has been made by
Abhinavagupta to illustrate and explain it.
"Maya"
has been treated as a force of obscuration.
<verses>
It
is more precisely born of the limited experience
and so the perception of that universal experience
gets blurred hence called "Ashudhavan"
the path of impurity, as also the Mayadhavan, the
course of Maya.
However,
Abhinavagupta, gives a very concise yet pregnant
definition of "Maya" by saying that
"Maya" is the unmixed part of that
transcendental self which engenders the shade of
distinction in His "Svatantraya" power
bereft of any kind of aids." Moreover this
very faculty infatuates hence may be equated with
Moha (embarrasment). Hence he says "Maya is
the name of seduction". By the introduction
of the word "Moha" as an equivalent of
Maya it becomes very easy for the layman even to
understand it in essence, the Moha of Arjuna being
very well known. This Maya not only conceals the
true nature of things and also self, but the
experience of of identity with the super-self is
also obliterated. To bridge the presence of
identity of the self with the superself, the Jnana
(perception) plays a prominent part.
The
Jnana (true perception) has been enunciated as
having two aspects, Baudha (intellectual) and
Paurusha (spiritual), the latter is the panacea
for removing the obscuration because "the
experiencer having attained the stage of Highest
bliss when his animal instincts have vanished
altogether," finds that kind of perception
which can differentiate between the real and the
unreal. Consequently the course of Maya is
replaced by "Transparent course."
Now
the idea of "Moksha" (emancipation) as
conceived by the Shaivas deserves some mention.
While defining "Moksha", Abhinavagupta
has to say:
<verses>
"The
purity of consciousness, devoid of significance or
otherwise is not only called "Moksha"
but can taken any other name also."
Proceeding
further, he explains the consciousness as:
<verses>
"The
state of consciousness is nothing but Supreme
perception."
From
the above it is clear that "Moksha" is
subjective realization of one's self and is both
unilluminable by any external agent and unknowable
by any means of knowledge.
It
is super-transcendental state of experience. The
three impurities of Maya comprising perception,
action and innate ignorance (Anava) are to be
surpassed as a whole. The predominance of Jnana
(perception) is treated as a means of emancipation
by other systems of Indian philosophical thought
too, but Shaivas do not subscribe to this view in
totality. They contend that even if the Jnana
impurity is conquered, still the realizer cannot
be treated as having been liberated in real sense
of the term, in as much as, the two remaining
impurities still persist in him. Hence the perfect
freedom according to Trika can be got only through
cognition - when all these three impurities get
dissolved simultaneously into that supreme soul (Samvit).
Finally,
the image of Abhinavagupta as a philosopher can
remain incomplete if his arguments to refute
various theories of Buddhists, Sankhyas,
Naiyayikas and others are not reproduced here.
Among the four schools of Buddhistic philosophy
only two Sautantrikas and Vijnanvadins have been
singled out for criticism by Abhinavagupta.
The
first school argues that perception is momentary,
since everything is momentary. The object of
perception justt as a jar etc. ceases to exist
immediately after casting it reflection on the eye
and other sense-organs. By inference it can be
established that the object aod its reflection
cannot co-exist. The one being the cause and the
other the effect.
Abhinavagupta
proceeds most intelligently to smash this verbose
of Buddhist argumentative acumen.
"This
external object is prone to perception, if this is
not the case then no inference can be drawn even.
From the rising smoke the inference of fire is
quite clear, but the fire as such has already
caught our perception in our kitchen or
elsewhere." So it becomes quite clear that
object cannot be detached from the subject. If
these two are divided, then the question of
building a bridge from one to another is very
difficult.
The
Vijnanavadins (sensationalists) do no at all
believe in the existence of the external world.
According to them self- consciousness is momentary
and proceeds in the form of a chain or a stream.
The links in chain are the Vasanas, which generate
numerous sensations, called as daily cognitions.
Hence a cognition is nothing but a presentiment
brought about by Vasana. Abhinavagupta proceeds to
refute this theory by vomittig out the
contradiction inherent in this theory in as much
as this school of Buddhistic philosophy divides
the existenciality in two groups the real (parmartha)
and the apparent. The Vijnana only is real and
that is reflected in it has only an apparent
entity. The learned Shaiva commentator further
contends logically that even if the apparent be
unreat but its causes or source is to be admitted
as real; but how can what is nothing in itself be
the cause of something? When the sensationalist
brings in the Vasana element he merely repeats
what the Bahayarthavadin means by object. How can
even Vasana be the cause of presentiments which
have no variety in themselves, and if each stream
of self-consciousness is different from the rest,
if the sensation caused by its own Vasana is
exclusive and independent of each other, then each
soul will be living in a world of its own and
there would be no collaboration of many
individuals in respect of the same object for
instance carrying a heavy log.
Furthermore,
Abhinavagupta proceeds to dismantle the house of
sand built by Mimamsakas whose chief exponent is
said to be Kumarila Bhatta. His Prakatatavada lays
down that the relation between the subject and
object is brought about by the "movement of
the knowing-self and is an object of internal
perception." He takes knowledge to mean
simply an act of cognisor which engenders
perception and manifested state in the object.
<verses>
Abhinavagupta
proceeds to remark that Kumarila being a dualist
cannot conceive the self-effulgent nature of
knowledge. If the subject and object have an
exclusive existence at the time of cognition and
at the stage of manifestation, this is a part of
the object exactly as are the other qualities such
as blackness, in the case of a jar; but it should
be manifest to all and, not to a few, as can be
inferred from what Kumarila says. In this way, if
a jar is made by a potter- its creator - then as
the mimamsakas contend it should only become
manifest to him alone. So this theory of
manifestedness is not tenable as it cannot exptain
the fact of individual experience.
The
Naiyayika's theory of knowledge consists in taking
it as the illuminator of the object illuminated.
The knowledge can be taken as the lamp which makes
the object manifest:
<verses>
This
example of lamp for knowlcdge is not appropnate.
The lamp shines independently without having any
kind of relation with any object it illuminates;
knowledge is not so. It cannot be divorced from
its antecedents. Moreover while imparting its
light to the object actually transfers its own
luminosity to it, because as we know that the
appearance of the object is dependent on the
1ight, but thc Naiyayikas do not hold that
knowledge can affect the object, so it cannot hold
water in view of the refutation given above. Now
we turn over to Sankya system of philosophy which
lays down that intellect is composed of three
qualities - Sattva (transparence), Rajas
(mobility) and Tamas (inertia). However, the
content of "Sattva" (transparance) is
predominant in it, so it is spotless by Nature. So
it can receive reflection on all sides. It is like
a mirror wherein the light of self-luminous self
within and the reflection of an object outside
become one. The aid of thc intellect has been
refuted by Abhinavagupta as follows:
The
example of mirror and jar on which this theory is
based is not correct, because according to this,
then the reflecting agent and reflected object
should be similar in their nature. Actually it is
not the case; the intellect is sentient and the
other insentient. They are definitely opposite to
each other. Secondly even Sankhya will never admit
that transperance of intellect is more than that
of the self, such as the reflection of a flame in
a mirror or that of the sun in the water; it
cannot even satisfactorily answer that Buddhi with
the light of the Luminous - self does itself
become light or not. So the separate identity of
intellect from the self is never possible, hence
this theory does not cut much ice. So his verdict
the insentient cannot have the capacity to
manifest the objects, cannot stand any review
whatsoever. It is definitely logically true and
convincing.
Abhinavagupta
does not even spare the "Dualist Shaivas"
from his trenchent criticism. According to tbis
Dualistic school of Shaivism whose chief advocate
is Khetapala, the ignorance is a veil which
conceals the perfection of self in respect of
powers of knowledge and action. Accordingly each
soul by its separate variety of power cannot come
face to face with that perfection which has been
actually hidden by this (power etc), when this
concealing power of ignorance is shattered by
Divine grace in the case of a soul, then only the
soul retains its former glory.
Abhinavagupta
begins the refutation with a pertinent inquiry as
to what can be the reason of the destruction or
otherwise of this ignorance. It can not be action
because it is acknowledged to be the cause of
pleasant or unpleasant experience which a person
enjoys or suffers. Lord's will cannot be also
responsible for this because He is above
partiality. He will not free some and imprison
others. Thee second pertinent query made by
Abhinavagupta is to the effect that what and how
this ignorance conceals? Souls have been called
eternal and un- changing, so ignorance cannot
conceal these, if we concede this, then the souls
will have to become transitory. If it can affect
the changeless souls, then the liberated soul of
even "Shiva" cannot remain unaffected by
the concealing power of knowledge and action. If
this will be the case, the cognition of self can
never take place. Hence this theory is not only
self-contradictory but also deluding.
In
this scholarly way Abhinavagupta has very
intelligenlly pointed to "Achilles heel"
inherent in each of these systems of philosophy
and has unerringly established the superiority of
his faith over all others. He has no mercy, no
compunction in riding rough - shod over the
"premise" of his rivals. Their seemingly
convincing arguments cannot bear the inherent
supermacy of his thought as also of his diction,
and get melted like snow before the scorching rays
of the sun.
Abhinavagupta
like a true son of the soil, does not advocate a
fanatical devotion to his line of thinking. He
allows us every right to differ from him, but the
irrestible charisma of his thought, couched in
dignified language - does definitely enthral us.
To speak squarely, he pleads for facing life and
not fleeing from it. Like a practical thinker he
exhorts us to eschew the meaning of life and
afterwards yoke ourselves to redeem it in its
truest possible perspective. His pasitive attitude
to life and universe makes the existence more
meaningful and hence rewarding.
He
does not preach to discard the world and disown
its attendant responsibilities, because it is
essentialy real. He instead of it, asks us to
recognize ourselves in the image of the Lord who
is not at all different from us. A person ought to
develop true perception ‹ healthy attitude for
looking at his environment ‹ then only he can
recognise Him in himself and become likewike
self-effulgent. The distance between the
"ideal" and "real" can be
easily fathomed by cognition when the mind is
prepared to receive and emit images like an
unblurred mirror.
Abhinavagupta
performed his mission adrmirably and saved the
humanity from the Jig-saw of intellectual
acrobatics of Buddhist theology, culminating in
nothingness, and in the same way from the Jargon
of other systems of Indian philosophy which
neither preach practical approach nor practical
thinking, only telling us to reject the
"present" just to prepare for
"future". But Abhinavagupta affirms the
existence of the present and treats it not as a
means but as an end itself. Living in the present,
taking life as it comes, taming it by the strength
of perception and cognition is a sound
prescription for the strife- torn world even at
present, when its restiveness can easily be
converted into quiet calm of super soul.
His
attitude to life and its chief actor man - is
summed up in this couplet; which he has
understandably quoted from the Shastras:
<verses>
He,
whose hands, feet, mind, learning, religious
austerity and conduct are well balanced
(restrained), enjoys the fruits of piligrimage
(even without going there)".
So,
this Kashmiri philosopher weaning philosophy away
from the mire of impracticability lives up to his
name Abhinava. New from all angles, and his
thought-provnking treatises breathe an air of
ravishing freshness, even after a lapse of more
than ten centuries.
|