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 rhetoric 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.
Acharya Abhinavagupta
Vamana the propounder of Riti
school in Indian Rhetoric 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
meaning "at the head of Vitasta" i.e.
the source. However, in the quotation is used the
pronoun
(in) agreeing with
(Srinagar) hence this
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 reference 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 pantheon''' 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 ramblings which reigned
supreme for near about 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, hence
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 obviously 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 the 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 vacuum 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 communicating 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, the 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 reveling 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 super sensuousness 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 embracing 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
(unseen) into
(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 amalgam:
<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 remembrance 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 of
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 been 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 contradiction between unity and plurality, 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
marvelous 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
immanent-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 preponderance 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 vomiting out the contradiction
inherent in this theory in as much as this school
of Buddhistic philosophy divides the existentiality
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 explain
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 knowledge
is not appropriate. 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 the
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 the 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 trenchant criticism. According to this
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 intelligently 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 superamacy 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
irresistible
charisma of his thought, couched in dignified
language - does definitely enthrall 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 positive 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 essentially 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 likewise 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 admirably 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-provoking
treatises breathe an air of ravishing freshness,
even after a lapse of more than ten centuries.
|