several monistic and tantric religious traditions that flourished in
Kashmir from the latter centuries of the first millennium C.E. through
the early centuries of the second. These traditions have survived only
in an attenuated form among the Brahmans of Kashmir, but there have
recently been efforts to revive them in India and globally. These
traditions must be distinguished from a dualistic Shaiva Siddhānta
tradition that also flourished in medieval Kashmir. The most salient
philosophy of monistic Kashmiri Shaivism is the Pratyabhijnā, or
"Recognition," system propounded in the writings of Utpaladeva (c.
925-975 C.E.) and Abhinavagupta (c. 975-1025 C.E.). Abhinavagupta's
disciple Kshemarāja (c. 1000-1050) and other successors interpreted
that philosophy as defining retrospectively the significance of
earlier monistic Shaiva theology and philosophy. This article will
focus on the historical development and basic teachings of the
Pratyabhijnā philosophy.
1. Historical Development of Monistic Shaiva Philosophy in Kashmir
The great cultural dynamism of medieval Kashmir included a number of
cults that scholars now classify as "tantric," including the
interweaving Shaiva (Siva worshiping) and Shākta (Goddess worshiping)
lineages the Vaishnava Pancarātra (an esoteric tradition centered
around the worship of Visnu) and the Buddhist Vajrāyana tradition.
a. Tantra and Kashmiri Shaivism
While tantrism is a complex and controversial subject, one of its most
definitive characteristics for contemporary classifications—if not its
most definitive one—is the pursuit of power. Tantric traditions are
thus those that aim at increasing the power of the practitioner. The
theological designation for the essence of such power is Shakti (the
female counterpart to the male divine principle, whose essence is
power). The manifestations of Shakti that the practitioner of tantra
aspire after vary greatly, from relatively limited magical
proficiencies (siddhis or vibhūtis), through royal power, to the
deindividualized and liberated saint's omnipotence to the performance
of God's cosmic acts.
In his seminal essay, "Purity and Power among the Brahmans of
Kashmir," the Oxford historian Alexis Sanderson elucidates that the
tantric pursuit of such power transgresses orthodox, mainstream Hindu
norms that delimit human agency for the sake of symbolic and ritual
purity (shuddhi) (Sanderson 1985). Violating prescriptions regarding
caste, sexuality, diet and death, many of the tantric rites were
originally performed in cremation grounds.
Whereas in Shākta tantrism, Shakti as a Goddess is herself the
ultimate deity, in monistic Kashmiri Shaivism she is incorporated into
the metaphysical essence of the God Shiva. Shiva is the Shaktiman (the
"possessor of Shakti") encompassing her within his androgynous nature
as his integral power and consort. According to the predominant
monistic Shaiva myth, Shiva out of a kind of play divides himself from
Shakti and then in sexual union emanates and controls the universe
through her.
b. Basic Ritual Pattern of Kashmiri Shaivism
The basic pattern of spiritual practice, which also reflects the
appropriation of Goddess worship (Shaktism) by Shaivism is the
approach to Shiva through Shakti. As the Shaiva scripture
Vijnāna-Bhairava proclaims, Shakti is the door. The adept pursues the
realization of identity with the omnipotent Shiva by assuming his
mythic agency in emanating and controlling the universe through
Shakti. Thus in the sexual ritual a man realizes himself as the
possessor of Shakti within his partner. In more frequent internalized
"theosophical" contemplations one realizes oneself as the possessor of
Shakti in all her immanent modalities with the aid of circular
diagrams of cosmogenesis (mandalas) and mantras.
c. Domestication of Kashmiri Shaiva Thought
Scholars identify some of the preconditions for the eventual
development of monistic Shaiva philosophical discourse in the trend of
medieval tantric movements to "domesticize" themselves by assimilating
to upper-caste Hindu norms. Radical practices were toned down,
concealed under the guise of propriety, or interpreted as metaphors of
internal contemplations.
An expression of this same process was the production by monistic
Shaiva Brahmans of increasingly systematic manuals of doctrines and
practices on the model of Sanskrit scholastic texts (shāstras). This
creation of what may be described as a religious mission to the
educated elites also led to the increasing consolidation of the
various streams of monistic Shaivism. This development began in the
ninth century with Vasugupta's transmission of the manual Shiva Sūtra,
ostensibly revealed to him by Shiva himself; and the further
systematization of its teachings by either Vasugupta or his disciple
Kallata in the Spanda Kārikā. These two works and their commentaries
form the core texts of the "Spanda system" of monistic Shaivism, known
for its interpretation of Shakti as spanda, "cosmic pulsation."
d. "Trika" Sub-tradition of Shaivism
The tradition of monistic Shaivism called "Trika" (referring to its
emphasis on various triads of modalities of Shakti and cosmic levels)
produced the first work of full-fledged scholastic philosophy. This
was the Shivadrishti, "Cognition of Shiva," by Somānanda (c. 900-950
C.E.). (See the summary of themes of the Shivadrishti below.)
Utpaladeva, a student of Somānanda, wrote a commentary on the
Shivadrishti, the Shivadrishtivritti. He also wrote several other
works interpreting and furthering the work of Somānanda with much
greater sophistication. Those texts are the foundational works of the
Pratyabhijnā philosophy of focus in this article. The most
comprehensive of these texts are the Īshvarapratyabhijnākārikā,
"Verses on the Recognition of the Lord," and two commentaries on the
Verses, the short Īshvarapratyabhijnākārikāvritti, and the more
detailed Īshvarapratyabhijnāvivriti. (The latter text has been
accessible to contemporary scholars only in fragments.) Utpaladeva
also wrote a trilogy of more specialized philosophical studies, the
Siddhitrayī, "Three Proofs"—Īshvarasiddhi, "Proof of the Lord;"
Ajadapramātrisiddhi, "Proof of a Subject who is not Insentient;" and
Sambandhasiddhi, "Proof of Relation."
Abhinavagupta, widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers
of South Asia, was a disciple of a disciple of Utpaladeva. Abhinava
profoundly elaborated and augmented Utpaladeva's arguments in long
commentaries, one directly on the Verses, the
Īshvarapratyabhijnāvimarshinī; and the other on Utpaladeva's longer
autocommentary, the Īshvarapratyabhijnāvivritivimarshinī.
While Abhinavagupta's Pratyabhijnā commentaries are of paramount
philosophical importance, this thinker's greatest significance in the
history of tantrism is probably his effort, in his monumental
Tantrāloka and numerous other works, to systematize and provide a
critical philosophical structure to non-philosophical tantric
theology. Abhinava utilized categories from the Pratyabhijnā
philosophy to interpret and organize the diverse aspects of doctrine
and practice and Shaiva symbolism from the "Trika" sub-tradition; and
he synthesized under the rubric of this philosophically rationalized
Trika Shaivism an enormous range of symbolism and practice from other
Shaiva and Shākta traditions as well. Abhinavagupta is also renowned
for his works on Sanskrit poetics—in which he interpreted aesthetic
experience as homologous to, and practically approaching the monistic
Shaiva soteriological realization.
Abhinava's own disciple, Kshemarāja, further pursued his teacher's
agendas with a simplified manual of monistic Shaiva doctrine and
practice, the Pratyabhijnāhridaya, "Heart of Recognition," and several
lengthy commentaries on tantric scriptures. As further diffused
through these and subsequent works, Utpaladeva's and Abhinavagupta's
philosophical thought came to have a large influence on tantric and
devotional (bhakti) traditions throughout South Asia.
2. Basic Themes of Somānanda's Shivadrishti
While the focus of this article is on Utpaladeva's and Abhinavagupta's
Pratyabhijnā philosophy, mention should be made of some of the basic
themes of Somānanda's precursory Shivadrishti.
Somānanda's broadest concern is to explain how Shiva through the
various modalities of his Shakti emanates a real universe that remains
identical with himself. In establishing the Shaiva doctrine he refutes
a number of alternative views on ultimate reality, the self, God and
the metaphysical status of the world. He devotes the greatest
polemical efforts against the theories of the 4th-6th century
Vaiyākarana (or "Grammarian") philosopher Bhartrihari.
According to Bhartrihari, the ultimate reality is the Word Absolute
(shabdabrahman)—a super-linguistic plenum, which fragments and
emanates into the multiplicity of forms of expressive speech and
referents of that speech. Somānanda repudiates the view that a
linguistic entity could be the ultimate reality, while at the same
time identifying the true source of language as the Sound (nāda)
integral to Shiva's creative power.
Somānanda takes a less polemical approach towards Shāktism. He argues
that there is ultimately no difference between Shakti and Shiva, who
is the possessor of Shakti. He supports this contention with the
analogy of the inseparability of heat from fire, which is the
possessor of heat. Nevertheless, he asserts that it is more proper to
refer to the ultimate reality as Shiva rather than Shakti. Other Hindu
schools criticized by Somānanda include the Pancarātra as well as the
Vedānta, Sāmkhya and Nyāya-Vaisheshika systems.
Somānanda briefly adduces some considerations against the Buddhist
theory of momentariness, which were directly picked up and elaborated
by Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta. The most important of these was his
advertence to the experience of recognition (pratyabhijnā) as evidence
both for the continuity of entities from the past through the present,
and for the self that connects the past and present experiences of
those entities. It was originally the Nyāya-Vaisheshika school that
adduced such considerations against the Buddhists, and the
ninth-century Shaiva Siddhānta thinker Sadyojyoti in his
Nareshvaraparīkshā had also recently employed these arguments.
Somānanda introduced them to monistic Shaiva philosophical reflection
with great future consequences.
Somānanda's claims that synthetic categories or universals are more
primitive than particulars, and his invocation of Sanskrit syntax to
explain Shiva's agency likewise had an important impact on Utpaladeva
and Abhinavagupta. (See below.) Also noteworthy is Somānanda's
advocacy of a "panpsychist" theory that all things, which emanate from
the consciousness of Shiva, have their own consciousness and agency.
Somānanda additionally engages in reflecting on the contemplations
that lead to the realization of identity with Shiva.
3. Purposes and Methods of Utpaladeva's and Abhinavagupta's Pratyabhijnā System
Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta ambitiously conceive the Pratyabhijnā
system as both a philosophical apologetics (which follows Sanskritic
standards of scholastic argument) and an internalized form of tantric
ritual that leads students directly to identification with Shiva. They
explain the basic means by which the system conveys Shiva-identity
according to the same basic ritual pattern described above, as
shaktyāvishkarana, "the revealing of Shakti."
The Pratyabhijnā philosophers, however, also frame Shakti as the
reason of a publicly assessable inference, or "inference for the sake
of others" (parārthānumāna). According to the scholastic logic, the
reason identifies a quality in the inferential subject "I" known to be
invariably concomitant with the predicate, "Shiva." Thus I am Shiva
because I have his quality, that is, Shakti, the capacity of emanating
and controlling the universe.
4. The Pratyabhijnā Epistemology
In order to address debates on epistemology that were then current,
Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta further explain the mythic and ritual
pattern of Shiva and Shakti in terms of recognition. The specific
problem the writers address had been formulated by the Buddhist logic
school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, which flourished in medieval
Kashmir. Contemporary interpreters have characterized the philosophy
of Buddhist logic as a species of phenomenalism akin to that of David
Hume. According to this school, the foundation of knowledge is a
series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakshana). There
are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring
entities through ostensible cognitions utilizing linguistic or
conceptual interpretation (savikalpaka jnāna). In debates over several
centuries, the Buddhist logicians had propounded arguments attacking
many concepts that seemed commonsensical and were religiously
significant to the various orthodox Hindu philosophical schools—such
as ideas of external objects, ordinary and ritual action, an enduring
Self, God, and revelation.
The Pratyabhijnā philosophers' response to the problematic posed by
Buddhist logic revolutionized earlier approaches of the Nyaya
philosophers, the Shaiva Siddhāntin Sadyojyoti and even Utpaladeva's
teacher Somānanda, and may be characterized as a form of
transcendental argumentation. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta interpret
their central myth of Shiva's emanation and control of the universe
through Shakti as itself an act of self-recognition
(ahampratyavamarsha, pratyabhijnā). Furthermore, abjuring Somānanda's
agonistic stance towards Bhartrihari, they also equate Shiva's
self-recognition (Shakti) with the principle of Supreme Speech
(parāvāk), which they derive from the Grammarian. They thereby
appropriate the Grammarian's explanation of creation as linguistic in
nature. Thus the Kashmiri Shaiva philosophers ascribe to Speech a
primordial status, denied by the Buddhist logicians.
As ritual recapitulates myth, the Pratyabhijnā system endeavors to
lead the student to participate in the recognition "I am Shiva," by
demonstrating that all experiences and contents of experience are
expressions of the recognition that "I am Shiva." The paradox of the
Pratyabhijnā formulation of the inference for the sake of others is
that the self-recognition "I am Shiva," as an interpretation of
Shakti, becomes in effect both the conclusion and the reason. This
circularity of conclusion and reason is a consequence of the Kashmiri
Shaiva monism. From the intratraditional perspective, there is no fact
that can be adduced in support of another separate fact, as everything
is always the same in essential nature. From the intertraditional
perspective of philosophical debate, however, the circularity is not
necessarily destructive. The Shaiva technical studies of various
topics of epistemology and ontology in effect provide further
ostensible justification for this apparent circularity.
Utpaladeva's and Abhinavagupta's epistemology may best be illustrated
by its approach to perceptual cognition. The Pratyabhijnā arguments on
this subject may be divided into those centered around two sets of
terms: prakāsha; and vimarsha and cognates such as pratyavamarsha and
parāmarsha.
Prakāsha is the "bare subjective awareness" that validates each
cognition, so that one knows that one knows. The thrust of the
arguments about prakāsha is analogous to George Berkeley's thesis of
idealism that esse est percipi. The Shaivas contend that, as no object
is known without validating awareness, this awareness actually
constitutes all objects. There is no ground even for a
"representationalist" inference of objects external to awareness that
cause its diverse contents, because causality can be posited only
between phenomena of which one has been aware. Furthermore, the
Kashmiri Shaivas argue that there cannot be another subject outside of
one's own awareness. They conclude, however, not with solipsism as
usually understood in the West, but a conception of a universal
awareness. All sentient and insentient beings are essentially one
awareness.
Vimarsha and its cognates have the significance of apprehension or
judgment with a recognitive structure, and may be glossed as
"recognitive apprehension." (The recognitive is the act of recognizing
or an awareness that something perceived has been perceived before.)
Utpaladeva's and Abhinavagupta's arguments centering on these terms
develop earlier considerations of Bhartrihari on the linguistic nature
of experience. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta refute the Buddhist
contention that recognition is a contingent reaction to direct
experience by claiming that it is integral or transcendental to all
experience. Some of the considerations they adduce to support this
claim are the following: that children must build upon a subtle,
innate form of linguistic apprehension in their learning of
conventional language; that there must be a recognitive ordering of
our most basic experiences of situations and movements in order to
account for our ability to perform rapid behaviors; and that some form
of subtle application of language in all experiences is necessary in
order to account for our ability to remember them.
The two phases of argument operate together. The idealistic prakāsha
arguments make the recognition shown by the vimarsha arguments to be
integral to all epistemic processes, constitutive of them and their
objects. Moreover, on the radical logic of the Kashmiri Shaiva
idealism, the recognition generating all things belongs to one
subject. It must therefore be his self-recognition. As it is through
the monistic subject's self-recognition that all phenomena are
created, the Pratyabhijnā thinkers have ostensibly demonstrated their
cosmogonic myth of Shiva's emanation through Shakti in terms of
self-recognition. The student, by coming to see this self-recognition
as the inner reality of all that is experienced, is led to full
participation in it.
Also noteworthy is the Kashmiri Shaiva theory of what may be called
"semantic exclusion" (apoha). This concept had originally been
formulated by the Buddhist logicians to explain a nonepistemic
"coordination" (sārūpya) between language and momentary perceptual
data as the basis for successful reference in communication and
behaviors. According to the Buddhists, words have no isomorphism with
the sense data, but only exclude other words that would not lead to
successful behavior. The only reference of the word "cow" to a
perceived particular is that it excludes non-cows, for example, a
horse, a car, and so on. The Buddhist theory has an interesting point
of agreement with contemporary structuralist and poststructuralist
conceptions of the determination of linguistic value by difference,
although it is not formulated like the latter (that is, on the basis
of considerations about the systematicity of entire languages).
Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta argue that exclusion itself depends upon
a comparative synthesis, or recognition, of what does and does not fit
within particular categories. We recognize that the cow is not a
non-cow such as a horse. The Pratyabhijnā theorists thus in effect
explain difference itself as a kind of similarity. Difference is
identified in various circumstances like other forms of similarity.
According to the Shaivas such difference-identification is one of the
principal expressions of Shiva's emanating self-recognition.
5. The Pratyabhijnā Ontology: The Syntax of Empowered Identity
Just as Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta appropriate Bhartrihari in
equating self-recognition with Supreme Speech and thereby interpreting
recognitive apprehension as linguistic in nature, they also follow the
Grammarian school in interpreting being or existence (sattā) (the
generic referent of language) as action (kriyā). The Grammarian view
itself originated in Brahmanic interpretations of the Veda as
expressing injunctions for sacrifice. The Kashmiri Shaivas further
agree with much of Vedic exegetics in conceiving being as both
narrative and recapitulatory ritual action. Following the account
above, it is Shiva's mythic action through Shakti as self-recognition
that constitutes all experience and objects of experience, and that is
reenacted by philosophical discourse.
The Pratyabhijnā thinkers propound their philosophy of Shiva's action
to explain a wide range of topics of ontology. One of their concerns
is to describe how Shiva's action generates a multiplicity of
relationships (sambandha) or universals (sāmānya) as the referents of
discrete instances of recognitive apprehension. With this theory they
attempt to subvert the Buddhist logicians' contention that evanescent
particulars are ontologically fundamental. For the Shaivas, categories
are primitive, and particulars are formed out of syntheses of those
categories.
Most illustrative of the Pratyabhijnā thinkers' "mythico-ritual
approach" to ontology is their use of theories of Sanskrit syntax to
explain Shiva's action. Again reflecting the Vedic roots of South
Asian philosophies, many schools of Hinduism and Buddhism—even those
which do not view all existence as action—frequently advert to
considerations of action syntax in treating ontological or
metaphysical topics. The relevant considerations pertain to how verbs
articulating action relate to declined nouns indicating the
concomitants of action (kārakas)—in English, roughly, the agent,
object, instrument, purpose, source and location. Now, most Sanskritic
philosophies, Hindu as well as Buddhist, have tended to delimit the
syntactic role of the agent (kartri kāraka)—to different degrees, but
sometimes quite strongly. The explicit and implicit reasons for this
tendency are complex. At one level it evidently reflects the orthodox
Brahmanic norms that subordinate the individual's agency to the order
of objective ritual behavior—pertaining to sacrifice, caste, life
cycle, and so on. It also seems more broadly to reflect both Hindu and
Buddhist concepts of the agent's bondage to the process of action and
result (karma) extending across rebirths (see Gerow 1982). The
mainstream Buddhist philosophies completely deny the existence of a
self in the dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) of karma.
Developing suggestions of Somānanda, the Pratyabhijnā philosophers
expound a distinctive theory of agency to rationalize their tantric
mythic and ritual drama of omnipotence. In their theory they take up
several earlier understandings of the positive albeit delimited role
of the agent and radicalize them. According to the Kashmiri Shaivas,
all causal processes and other relationships constituting the universe
are synthesized and impelled by the mythic agency of Shiva in his act
of self-recognition. Shiva's agency encompasses the actions of
sentient beings as well as the motions and transformations of
insentient beings. The Kashmiri Shaivas ultimately reduce the entire
action of existence to agency. As Abhinavagupta explains, "Being is
the agency of the act of becoming, that is, the freedom characteristic
of an agent regarding all actions (Īshvarapratyabhijnāvimarshinī,
1.5.14, 1:258-59)."
Again, this theory of omnificent syntactic agency is ritually
axiomatic as well as mythical. Utpaladeva describes the method of the
Pratyabhijnā philosophy, in a manner homologous to the epistemology of
recognition, as leading to salvation through the contemplation of
one's status as the agent of the universe. Abhinavagupta likewise, in
his explanation of the preliminary ceremonies of the tantric ritual,
identifies various components of the ritual—such as the location,
ritual implements and object of sacrifice, flowers, and oblations—with
the Sanskrit grammatical cases. He explains that the aspirant's goal
in the ritual action is identification with Shiva as agent of all the
cases.
6. References and Further Reading
(References are given only to works available in English.)
* Dyczkowski, Mark S.G. The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of
the Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism. Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press, 1987.
o An historical introduction to monistic Kashmiri Shaiva
religion and philosophy, centering on the Spanda system.
* Dyczkowski, Mark S.G, trans. The Stanzas of Vibration: The
Spandakārikā with Four Commentaries. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1992.
o Elucidates how the Spanda system was interpreted in the
light of the subsequent Pratyabhijnā philosophy.
* Lawrence, David Peter. Rediscovering God with Transcendental
Argument: A Contemporary Interpretation of Monistic Kashmiri Shaiva
Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
o Analyzes the Pratyabhijnā methodology and engages its
substantive theories with Western philosophy and theology.
* Muller-Ortega, Paul Eduardo. The Triadic Heart of Shiva: Kaula
Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
o Provides insight into Abhinavagupta's synthetic spiritual
theology, focusing on symbolism of the heart.
* Pandey, K.C., trans. Īshvarapratyabhijnāvimarshinī of
Abhinavagupta, Doctrine of Divine Recognition. Vol. 3. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1986.
o The only published translation of Abhinavagupta's shorter
Pratyabhijnā commentary; a pioneering work, though problematic and
rather opaque to nonspecialists.
* Sanderson, Alexis. "Purity and Power Among the Brahmans of
Kashmir." In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy,
History, ed. Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins and Steven Lukes,
190-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
o The first of a series of groundbreaking articles by this
scholar on the social history of monistic Kashmiri Shaivism.
* Singh, Jaideva, ed. and trans. Pratyabhijnāhridayam: The Secret
of Self-Recognition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980.
o A manual of basic principles of monistic Shaiva doctrine
and practice in the light of Pratyabhijnā philosophy by
Abhinavagupta's disciple Kshemarāja.
* Singh, Jaideva, ed. and trans. Shivasūtras: The Yoga of Supreme
Identity; Text of the Sūtras and the Commentary Vimarshinī of
Kshemarāja. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.
o An accessible translation and introduction to one of the
core texts of monistic Kashmiri Shaivism.
* Torella, Raffaele, ed. and trans. The Īshvarapratyabhijnākārikā
of Utpaladeva with the Author's Vritti. Corrected Edition. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 2002.
o A foundational text and commentary on Pratyabhijnā
philosophy with detailed scholarly annotations.
* White, David. Kiss of the Yoginī. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2003.
o An important though controversial recent work that
argues—against "domesticizing" interpretations—that the tantric quest
for power (Shakti) originated in ancient siddha practices aimed at
gaining benefits from dangerous female divinities through offerings of
sexual fluids.
No comments:
Post a Comment