COMPARISION STUDY -Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta AND Par Advaita

8/3/2019 COMPARISION STUDY -Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta AND Par Advaita

1/27

COMPARISION - Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta

Among the various Hindu philosophies, Kashmir Shaivism (Kamir aivism) is a schoolofaivism consisting ofTrika and its philosophical articulation Pratyabhija. It iscategorized by various scholars as monistic idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism,

realistic idealism, transcendental physicalism or concrete monism).

Due to the Islamic subjugation of north India, Kashmir Saivism is essentially extinct.

The trident (trilbija maalam), symbol and yantra of ParamaShiva, representing the triadic energies ofpar,par-aparand apar

aktiVedas, which are considered revealed knowledge through the medium of Indianseers (rishis), are revered as mother of all religions in India. They form the matrix

of all the theistic philosophies of Indian religions including Kashmir Shaivism.

Therefore, the objective here is not to compare Vedas with Kashmir Shaivism but to

present their complementary roles in the development of post- vedic India.

I. Background

It is said at the end of the Mahabharata war, which symbolizes the end of the DvapuraEra and the beginning of the Kalyuga Era, through which we are passing now, the

influence of Vedas dwindled as the Vedic seers disappeared. New class of seers emergedfrom time to time who interpreted Vedic knowledge for the benefit of suffering humanity.Thus six systems of Vedic schools called darshanas came into being. These are:1. Samklya2. Yoga3. Nyaya4. Vaisheshika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aaivismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aaivismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism


2/27

5. Purva mimamasa6. Advaita Vedanta

The last one Advaita Vedanta was propounded by Shankaracharya in the 9th century ADand culminated in the final interpretation of Vedas (Ved anta end of Vedas). Although

these Vedic darshanas differ in their approach to the interpretation of Vedas but all ofthem consider Vedas as their base.

The focus of all these systems (darshanas) was to explain or resolve the dichotomybetween subject and object; the knower and the known; the Cosmic Self and this self; I(aham) and this self (idam). We may group all these systems as Vedanta for the sake ofthis discussion.


3/27

II. Kashmir Shaivism


4/27

Along with this group of seers, another group of seers tried to resolve this dichotomy byinvestigating their inner nature. They carried experiments on their bodies by employingyogic practices confined to mental processes and came out with their findings in poeticterms using metaphors, symbols, and allegories. This yogic practice came to be known asTantra. As against the Vedic knowledge, which came mainly through the process of

revelation, the tantric knowledge came mainly through various forms of practices(kriyas). Tantric practices were inward by nature i.e. they centered aroundpsychophysical makeup of the practitioner as compared to the outward nature of Vedicpractices, which focus on sacrificial ceremonies along with yoga.

Over a period of time thousands of tantric traditions developed in India and abroad,which came to be classified under three major categoriesa) Shaiva-Shakti Tantrism,b) Buddhist Tantrism, andc) Vaishnava Tantrism.

Shaiva-Shakti Tantrism which recognizes Lord Shiva as the Supreme and AbsoluteConsciousness with Shakti as His dynamic energy came to be known as Shaivism anddeveloped in three widely apart regions in India:a) Kashmir in the north,b) Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the south, andc) Gauda (Bengal) in the east.

The tantric practices prevalent in these regions came to be grouped under six traditions:a) Shaiva Sidanta,b) Pashupati Shaivism,c) Kashmir Shaivism,

d) Vira Shaivism,e) Shiva Advanta, andf) Siddha Sidhanta.

It is Kashmir Shaivism that provided the philosophy of Trika, which providedrelationship between God, nature, and man. It also provided the philosophy of Shiv-Shakti and Nara (man), which forms the main philosophy (Vidya Pada) of all Shaivicphilosophies.

Kashmir Shaivism is a theistic philosophy that identifies Lord Shiva as the Absolute,Infinite, and pure Consciousness lying beyond the reach of speech, mind, and intellect. Itis transcendental and immanent and can be realized through yoga. It advocates how ahuman being engrossed in the inferior objective world of Lord Shiva can be takenupwards i.e. towards the Supreme energy of Lord Shiva through his cognac energy(Shakti). It was in Kashmir Shaivism that the concept of dynamic energy (Shakti) playingan important role in the evolution of cosmos was introduced.

The development of Kashmir Shaivic philosophy can be traced back to Aagamas (18)which were written from 3rd century BC to 3rd - 4th century AD. Malinivijayattara is the


5/27

most important Aagama of this period. Vasugupta who lived in Kashmir during the endof the 8th century AD wrote Shiv Sutra and it was his disciple Bhatta Kalatta (mid 9thcentury AD) who wrote Spanda Karika. Somananda wrote Shiv dreshti in late 9th centuryAD. He is the father of Pritibijna (recognition) school that forms the basis of KashmirShaivism philosophy. However, it was his worthy disciple Utpaldeva who presented the

Pritibijna philosophy in a comprehensive way in his book Ishvara-pratiyabijna-karika inlate 9th century or beginning of the 10th century AD. Later on, it was Abhinavgupta(between 10th 11th century AD) who summarized the view points of all previousthinkers and presented the philosophy in a logical way along with his own thoughts in histreatise Tantraloka. Thus one could say just as Shankaracharya was the last exponent ofVedic knowlegde, Abhinavgupta was the last exponent of Kashmir Shaivism.

The main philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism rests on the non-dualistic foundation.Abhinavgupta used the word paradvaita the supreme and absolute non-dualism todescribe Kashmir Shaivism.

A casual reader may not be able to make out the differences in the final presentation ofphilosophy of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta. However, careful analysis and readingwill reveal the differences. But before getting into the differences let us first go over tothe commonalties.


6/27

III. Common Concepts

Process of Creation - Kashmir Shaivism

Cosmology vertically seen.

From the highest Cosmic Universal to the tattvas of the individual and specific -Universal Cosmic Being.


7/27

Gradations or categories of consciousness.

Paramasiva Highest most refined purest of pure Consciousness prior to allmodifications or after all modifications have been burned through. That from which theDancer of the Siva Nataraz emerges. The Ineffablebefore the dance commences and

after it ends.Shakti: the Divine Creative freely creates out of Her own substance, Hisconsciousness represented by the bindu in Siva/Sakti representation.

Siva: Divine quiescent consciousness embracing Her creations. Nowhere in any anyexperience of any sort except the very highest, Paramasiva, are the two elements ofSiva/Shakti undiscernable as two. Thinking can contemplate itself only because these twoaspects are one.

The individual man vertically seen. The movements of the activity of consciousness up to

the purest of pure thought. The reflection of the Cosmic Universal in the Individual man.The common concepts of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism may be summarized as follows:

1. Cyclic nature of eternityBoth believe in the cyclic nature of eternity that consists of vast phases of creation,preservation, and their dissolution.

2. Bound SoulBoth accept the belief that life and death are but two phases of a single cycle to whichsoul is bound.

3. DharmaBoth accept dharma as the moral law of universe that accounts for these eternal cycles ofnature as well as the destiny of human soul in its evolution.

4. MokshaBoth accept that knowledge is the path of freedom and yoga as the method of attainingliberation.

5. Chit (Consciousness)Both recognize consciousness as Supreme Reality. Vedanta calls it Parmatma whereas

Shaivites call it Parmshiva.IV. Points of Disagreement

Some of the points of disagreement are:

1. Ultimate RealityThe one creative force out of which everything emerges is known as Ultimate Reality.


8/27

According to Vedanta, Brahman (chit) is the Ultimate Reality, while Kashmir Shaivismcalls this Ultimate Reality as Parmshiva. Brahman is believed to have no activity (kriya.)It is the knowledge (prakash or jnana). As per Kashmir Shaivism, Parmshiva isknowledge (prakash/jnana) plus activity (kriya or vimarsha). Vedanta consider activity(kriya) residing only in the empirical subject (Jiva) and not in Brahman. Shivites on the

other hand think that Vedanta takes kriya in a very narrow sense whereas it should betaken in a wider sense.

They argue that even knowledge (jnana) is an activity (kriya) of the Divine, withoutactivity chit or the Divine Being would be inert and incapable of bringing about anything,least of all the whole cosmos. Parmshiva is svatantra (has free will) and therefore is aKarta (doer). Knowledge (jnana) is not a passive state of consciousness but an activity ofconsciousness, though an effortless one. Knowledge is not really like the reflection of

moon in a pond; in knowledge there is an active grasping on the part of the knowerwhich is an activity of mind (kriya).

2. MonotheismWhile monotheism is one of the central principles of most of the Vedantic philosophies,it is interpreted differently by its various schools. Advaita Vedanta explains the problemof phenomenal existence on the basis of two mutually exclusive and independent entities.The first is known as Brahman (pure consciousness) and the second Avidya (inexplicableignorance) as an attachment (upadi). Both are said to be beginning less in existence.Kashmir Shaivism does not agree with the concept of Avidya to explain the phenomenalexistence. Abhinavgupta in his treatise on Kashmir Shaivism, Tantraloka, refutes this

concept. The principle of absolute existence of Brahman along with Avidya as anupadi cannot be accepted as a definite principle of pure monotheism (ibid. 111:404)because it implies the eternal existence of two entities Brahaman and Avidya, whichamounts to clear dualism. He further states there is self- contradiction in saying thatAvidya is indescribable as very statement that Avidya is a divine power of God impliesthat such a power is describable.


9/27

3. Manifestation (Abhasvada)Vendanta states that phenomenal universe we live in is not real. It only appears as an

existent reality. It is other than what it seems e.g. like a rope mistaken for a snake. It islike a dream or a mirage Vivarta. Brahman exists but appears falsely as God, finite soul(Purusha) and insentient matter (prakriti).

Abinavgupta contradicts these assumptions by stating how can it be unreal when it ismanifested. This has to be given due consideration. An entity that appears clearly andcreates the whole universe must be something real and substantial and should bedescribed as such. (Ishvarpritabijna 111-80)

4. Manifestation ProcessManifestation of cosmos as per Kashmir Shaivism is called Descent which means

descent of cosmic self (Parmashiva) to a limited self (Jiva). Vedanta explains this processof manifestation through 25 elements. Kashmir Shaivism explains the cosmic evolutionthrough 36 elements (tattvas) which include 23 elements of Vedanta withoutmodification, 2 with modification, and prescribes 11 more elements (tattvas).

Parmshiva of Kashmir Shaivism is not the same Shiva of Vedanta who is meditating atMount Kailash with Parvati by His side. Parmshiva is a Being, not necessarily in physicalsense, who is Absolute, pure, eternal, infinite, and totally free I-consciousness whoseessential nature is vibrant creative energy which Kashmir Shaivism describes aswonderful spiritual stir of blissfulness known as spanda. This spanda causes AbsoluteReality to be continuously inclined towards the outward and joyful manifestation of itscreative energy Shakti. This manifestation is brought about by the freewill play (leela)of Parmshiva Himself like a childs play that is without motivation. The outward divinemanifestation of this creative energy appears in five activities:1. The activity of creation.2. The activity of preservation.3. The activity of dissolution of all the elements including the beings living in them.4. The activity of self-oblivion.5. The activity of self-recognition of these created beings.


10/27

Stages 1-3 are common to both Kashmir Shaivism as well as Vedanta. However, Stages 4and 5 listed above are present in Kashmir Shaivism only.

Kashmir Shaivism includes 36 elements (tattvas) of manifestation process as mentionedearlier. These are categorized into following four major and their sub-categories:

A. Five pure (shudh) elements These are called Pure because they have been createdby Parmshiva Himself as against others which have been created by intermediary andlower beings as per the wishes of Lord Himself.

1. Shiva Tattva2. Shakti Tattva

These two tattvas are only a linguistic convention and are not actually part of creation.They are in reality one with Parmshiva. They are considered to be two tattvas only for theconvenience of philosophical thinking and as a way of clarifying the two aspects of the

one Absolute Reality-Parmshiva. Shivatattva is transcendental unity and shakti tattva isuniversal diversity. The changeless Absolute and pure Consciousness is Shiva while asnatural tendency of Shiva towards the outward manifestation of divine activities isShakti.

3. Sadashiva Tattva (also known as Iccha tattva)The desire (Iccha) for creation takes place very faintly. While the Absolute is limitless I-Consciousness (aham), small desire for objectivity this (idam) takes place. The beingsat this stage are known as mantra maheswaras with the presiding deity SadashivaBhattaraka who is actually Parmshiva Himself and has descended to this level as themaster of creation.

4. Isvara Tattva (also known as jnana Tattva)The awareness (jnana) of I-Consciousness is not lost but the awareness of this-nessbegins to dominate. Awareness shines as This is myself. Created beings at this stage ofmanifestation are known as mantreshwaras and the presiding deity is Iswara Bhattaraka.

5. Sadvidya (also known as Shuddvidya or kriya) TattvaThe vision of the beings in the 3rd and 4th elements above has been defined as unity indiversity and diversity in unity as I-ness and this-ness is still not balanced. Whenthe vision becomes balanced so that there is equal emphasis on I-ness and this-ness,it is called Sadvidya. At a further stage of diversity, where the awareness of I-ness

becomes I am I and of this-ness becomes this is this, this is called Mahamaya.Beings living in this stage are known as mantras and the presiding deity is Anantnatha.He is actually Ishwara Bhattaraka who has descended to this level as the divine


11/27

administrator of further creation.

6. Maya TattvaThis is the final tattva created by the Lord Himself that is considered to be impure i.e.filled with limitations. It has two main effects:

a) it hides the pure and divine nature of created beings residing in its plane andconsequently they forget their purity and infiniteness of their I-consciousness as well astheir infinite potency. Hence they are given the name anu (atoms) i.e. finite beings orpashu (animal-like) or simply man Nara.


12/27

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

Maya is thus the plane of Absolute self-oblivion and diversity. This is the abode of thefinite beings. Under its influence, being loose its state of oneness with the Absolute andalso their divine potency. Maya causes feeling of imperfection and emptiness within thebeings which they try to fill up with outer objects which leads to development of desireand passions for objects of enjoyment.

B. Five layers of limitations (Kuncukas)The deity Anantnatha who presides over maya and is the master of mahamaya shakes up

maya, so to say, causing it to expand into the next five tattvas collectively calledkuncukas or cloaks which covers the real nature of the knowing objects. Sometimes maya


13/27

tattva is itself included as the sixth kuncuka.

7. Kala Tattva(limitation of activity, authorship)To fulfill our desires, maya allows a little power of action to achieve a little amount ofsuccess.

8. Avidya (ashudh) Tattva (limitation of knowledge)Since doing is not possible without knowing, maya gives a little knowledge to know acertain amount.

9. Raga Tattva (limitation of interest)To further the limit the scope of our doing and knowing, maya appears in us as raga or

limited interest.

10. Niyati Tattva (restriction)Niyati is the law of nature that establishes the order of succession in all phenomenons e.g.the way in which seed develops into a tree. This law of nature appears as the law ofrestriction and causation.


14/27

11. Akala (or Kaala) Tattva (Time sequence limitation)The above four limitations, limit our capacity of knowing and doing but this tattva limitsour very being as well. Our real self is in fact infinite and is in no way conditioned byconcept of time imposed on us by maya in the way that we feel we were, we are, andwe shall be. Thus imposing on us conditions of time sequence.

12. Parusha TattvaThe I-Consciousness reduced to utter finitude is known as Parusha. It is also known asjiva, pashu , anu nara.

13. Prakriti (or mul prakriti) TattvaPrakriti is the un-diversified source of all the remaining 23 elements as established byVedanta system. This represents the complete this-ness of the objective manifestation.

C. Thirteen (13) instrumental tattvas

C1. The three (3) interior instrumental elements (antah-karnas):14. Buddhi (intellect) Faculty of judgement15. Manas Faculty of Imagination16. Ahamkara Personal ego

C2. Five (5) exterior elements of perception (jnanendrayas):

17. Sravanendreya (Hearing)18. Supershanendreya (Feeling by touch)19. Darshanendreya (Seeing)

20. Resanendreya (Taste)21. Ghranendreya (Smell)

C3. Five (5) elements of action (karmendreya):

22. Vagendreya (Voice or expression)23. Hastendreya (Handling)24. Padendreya (Locomotion)25. Payvendreya (Rejecting, Discharging)26. Upasthendreya (Resting or recreating)

D. Ten (10) objective elements:D1. Five (5) subtle objective elements (tanmatras):27. Shabdatanmra (sound)28. Sparshatanmra (Feel)29. Rupatanmra (Color)30. Rasatanmra (Flavor)31. Ghandhatanmra (Odour)


15/27

D2. Five (5) gross objective elements (bhutas):

32. Akasha (ether)33. Vayu (Air)34. Agni (Fire)

35. Apas (Water)36. Pritvi (Earth)Kashmir Shaivism does not consider the above analysis of manifestation as final. It isonly a tool for contemplative meditation. Through a further analysis the number ofelements (tattvas) can be increased to any level and similarly through synthesis they canbe decreased to only one tattva. For example, the practitioners of Trika system use onlythree tattvas in the process of their Yoga meditation viz. - Shiva (Absolute Unity), Shakti(link between unity and duality), and Nara (extreme duality).

Three important observations to highlight the differences in the manifestation

philosophies of Vendana and Kashmir Shaivism are:a) PurushaWhile the Purusha of Vedanta is a Universal soul (God-like), He is atmen (pure spirit).

In contrast, in Kashmir Shaivism it is bound soul a jiva, nara, pashu or anu a limitedsoul.

b) PrakritiPrakriti in Vedanta is involved in manifestation as an independent element. It is a cosmicsubstance that is termed as perennial impulse in nature (like Shakti tattva). But thePrakriti of the Kashmir Shaivism deals with limited jiva only.

c) MayaMaya in the Vedanta is the means of operation. It is not an element. It is force that createsthe illusion of non-perception in nature. It has no reality. It is only the appearance offleeting forms which are all unreal and like mirage vanishes when the knowledge ofreality draws. In contrast, in Kashmir Shaivism maya is a tattva. It is real. It is the powerof contraction or limiting the nature of five universal modes of consciousness. It cannotbe separated from Absolute Reality Parmshiva.

5. Three Gunas (attributes)Vedanta describes Prakriti as a combination of three Gunas Satvic, Rajas, and Tamas.Further it describes the nature of these gunas. Thus Satva is enlightenment and pleasure;Rajas is turbulence and pain; and Tamas is ignorance and lethargy. It does not explain thesource of the nature of these gunas.Kashmir Shaivism has examined this issue. In their view, Paramshiva possesses limitlesspower to know, to do, and to diversify. These powers are known as jnana, kriya, andmaya. By the limitations brought about by maya, the Infinite Consciousness is reduced tofinite consciousness purusha (the limited being, anu or pashu).Here they view theseexperiences as pleasure, pain, and ignorance.


16/27

6. Moksha (liberation from bondage)In Vedanta we have four fold description for achieving liberation from bondage:i) Discriminationii) Dispassioniii) Right Conduct

iv) Desire for liberationTo get liberated one must:i) act with zeal and faithii) act for the good of humanityiii) get immersed in meditation

Kashmir Shaivism has a simple prescription for liberation from bondage. The logicbehind this is that just ignorance is inspired by God so is revelation inspired by Him. Thisinspiration of divine knowledge is known as His Grace (anugraha) or the Descent of Hispowers (shaktipata). Only those individuals who receive Lords Shaktipata become

interested in path of correct knowledge for achieving moksha. Three types of shaktipatahave been described:i) Tivra (swift) shaktipataii) Madya (moderate) shaktipataiii) Manda (slow) shaktipata

Each of the above has further three sub divisions, thus making a total of nine shaktipatas.There is no restriction of caste, color, or creed for achieving moksha. Yoga is the meansof liberation.

7. Yoga

Both Vedanta as well as Kashmir Shaivism recommends Yoga for achieving moksha.However, there are differences in practice.In Vedanta Yoga practices, emphasis is laid on controlling mind by strict discipline inday-to-day life that for its success can be practiced by highly motivated ones orascetics. A Shiva Yogi is free to live without restrictions - be a householder - andparticipate in the pleasures of the senses of the mind (bhoga) within the limits of thesocially accepted norms. He is advised to pursue some yogic practices known as trikayoga that leads its practitioner to self-bliss and at that stage the lust for worldlyenjoyments automatically loose its charm. At that stage, senses develop a spontaneousindifference known as anadaravikrati to former pleasures. The three yogic practices oftrika system are:

i) Shambhavayoga In this highest form of practice, the minds tendency is to think ofhimself as one with Ultimate Reality and nothing else. The practitioner stands still andloses itself in the vibrant glow of I-consciousness. It is the practice of non-ideation(nirvikalpa).ii) Shaktiyoga In this practice, one uses the mind and imagination to constantlycontemplate the real nature of Self as taught by Shiva monotheistic philosophy. One issupposed to think that one is everything and yet beyond everything. It is a practice of


17/27

pure-ideation (shuddhvikalpa). It is also known as jnanayoga.iii) Anavayoga Its practice is recommended for those who are not capable of adoptingthe higher yogic practices mentioned above. Anu stands for finite ordinary beingsbounded by their limitations and objective meditation is recommended for them wherethe focus of attention shifts to kriya (action).

Kashmir Shaivism encourages practitioners to start from higher yogic practices(shambhavayoga) down to the last by stages if he is not comfortable there. Vedantic yogarecommends a completely different set of yoga practices and one has to go up the ladderfrom lower practices to upper practices.

V. Conclusion

These are some of the main points of differences of philosophies. But we have toremember that purusha in Kashmir Shaivism is a finite being a man Pashu (animal like)because of his ignorance brought about by maya. He is free from sin and his highest goal

is to get out of ignorance and merge his limited self with the Real Self. This is calledAscent. The way to reach there is through trika yoga.

To quote Swami Laxmanjoo, a great Kashmir Shivism scholar of the 20th century,although Kashmir Shaivism can hardly be grasped unless the Vedanta philosophy iscomprehended, yet no system of Vedanta will be complete without it. Kashmir Shaivismgives most detail account of Ultimate Reality, Vedanta has done it in its way.


18/27

parAdvaita

ABHINAVAGUPTA lived in Kashmir about the end of the tenth and beginning ofeleventh centuries A.D.

As an original thinker he shattered to pieces the established belief which laid heavyemphasis on caste and gender restrictions in relation to spiritual practice. He took to taskthose philosophical systems which held the prerequisite that spirituality required rigorousdisciplinesystems which made the quest for enlightenment the legitimate right of achosen few. He abhorred the idea that spiritual revelation was only possible in a purelymonastic surrounding, or that those caught in the householder way of life had to wait tillthe last portion of life before they could fully give themselves to spiritual pursuits. Thisidea was best expressed by Abhinavagupta in one of his concluding verses ofPatanjali'sParamarthasara:

O my devotees! On this path of supreme Bhairava, whoever has taken a step with puredesire, no matter if that desire is slow or intense; it does not matter if he is a Brahmin, ifhe is a sweeper, if he is an outcast, or if he is anybody; he becomes one with Para-bhairava. (103)

Abhinavaguptas ideas were radical for his time, but since he spoke from the level ofdirect experience no one was capable of refuting him.


19/27

While monism is one of the central principles of Indian philosophies, it is interpreteddifferently by philosophers from various schools. The most popular school of monism isthe Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya. However, many Indian philosophers take

exception to this schools concept of monism. For example, Vallabhacharya, an ancientVaishnavite philosopher, calls his own principlepure non-dualism (shuddhAdvaita),because in his view, Advaita Vedanta explains the problem of phenomenal existence onthe basis of two mutually different and independent entities. The first entity is known asbrahman, the pure consciousness, and the second is avidyA, or inexplicable ignorance.Both are said to be beginninglessly existent. For this reason Vallabhacharya takingmAyA as the paver of brahman, does not consider Advaita Vedanta to be pure monism.

Abhinavagupta, the great eleventh century sage of Kashmir Shaivism, also finds severallogical and psychological defects in Shankaras school of vedAntic monism and thereforecalls his monismparAdvaita or absolute non-dualism. He uses this term specifically to

differentiate it from Advaita Vedanta, which he thoroughly examines and criticizes inseveral of his works. An example can be found in his IshvarapratyabhijnAvivrti-vimarshinI where he says, the principle of the absolute existence of brahman, alongwithavidyA as his upAdhi (an adventitious element attached to Him), cannot be accepted as adefinite principle of pure advaita, because it implies the eternal existence of two entities,brahman and Universal ignorance. This amounts, according to him, to clear dualism.Criticizing the principle of avidyA as being the source of creation, Abhinavagupta says:

There is self-contradiction in saying that avidyA is indescribable and in describing it asthe entity that assumes the whole infinitely varied display of phenomena. To say thatfinite beings are deluded by the beginningless ignorance brought about by avidyA implies

that such a power is surely describable, and it is actually described in that way. Besides, anon-substantial entity could not have the capacity to manifest such an extraordinaryshow. If it is really capable of creating, then it must be a truly existent entity and notapparent and indescribable.

In the very beginning of that voluminous work, he also criticizes another theory ofcreation, the principle of false appearance (vivarta). This theory has two aspects. First, itcan refer to the appearance of some non-existent phenomenon like a dream or a mirage.According to this aspect, the universe does not exist, but only appears as an existentreality. Vivarta can also refer to the appearance of something that is other than it seems,as when a rope is mistaken for a snake, or a shell for silver. According to this aspect of

vivarta, brahman exists, but appears falsely as God, finite soul and insentient matter. InAbhinavaguptas words:

It has been said that vivarta is the manifestation of an unreal entity. How can it be unrealwhen it is manifested? This anomaly has not been given due consideration.


20/27

To sum up, Abhinavagupta is saying that an entity that appears clearly and creates thewhole universe must be something real and substantial and should be describable asmuch.

In his commentary on parAtrishikA, Abhinavagupta insists that his philosophic view

about the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views ofeither sAmkhya or vedAnta, as it is specifically a shaiva view. Explaining the creativenature of brahman, he says:

Brahman is one compact whole, that power of bliss that projects itself externally by akind of spilling out of universal creative potency lying within. Infinite Consciousnessgets evolved into all phenomenal existence just as the word brahman means both the all-pervading infinite and the evolved entity.

Comparing these views on brahman with those of Advaita Vedanta, he adds:

The brahman of Shaivism is not the same as that of advaita Vedanta which comes veryclose to the final principle of nihilistic Buddhism.

Discussing this issue in IshvarapratyabhijnAvimarshinI, he criticizes both the AdvaitavedAntins and the teachers of Buddhist idealism, known as vijnAnavAdins, when hesays:

Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity quite irreconcilable, some thinkers(i.e. vedAntins) stated that apparent diversity was inexplicable because of its being basicignorance (avidyA) , while other (i.e. Buddhists) said that diversity was false because itwas an outcome of mental ideation (samvrti). Thus both of them deceived themselves and

others as well.In another context in the same work, he discusses the topic in considerable detail andargues as follows:

If it is argued that the unity of absolute Consciousness and that (the appearance) ofdiversity is due to the disturbance caused by avidyA, then it is not possible to resolvewho is responsible for the defect of avidyA. For on the other hand, how could brahman,who is pure knowledge, assume the form of ignorance?

Abhinavagupta refuses to accept avidyA as an inexplicable entity. He argues:

If avidyA is said to be inexplicable, it is not clear to us for whom it is inexplicable. Onthe one hand, its essential character becomes manifest, and, on the other hand, it is said tobe an indescribable entity. How absurd is it? If this means that its existence cannot beexplained or justified through logical arguments, then we ask what kind of logic is it thatcould contradict direct experience? How can an entity, which shines in experience, beunjustifiable?


21/27

Next, Abhinavagupta introduces a supposition about creation characteristic of AdvaitaVedanta:

Brahman, the pure Consciousness, shines alone as an existent truth in nirvikalpacognition, a direct experience free from ideation, and phenomenal diversity appears as a

result of mental ideation.He refutes this argument as follows:

Who conducts such ideation? If brahman conducts it, He becomes stained by avidyA.None other than He exists, so who else could conduct it?

A further argument on this point is then presented:

How can a distinction be established that knowledge without ideation is real whileknowledge with ideation is false, when both of them shine with equal brilliance?

The Advaitins might finally attempt to take shelter in the authority of Vedic scriptures,but Abhinavagupta refutes this also as follows:

If it is argued that unity is established on the basis of scriptural authority with disregardfor mundane knowledge, then it is pointed out here that scriptures themselves holdauthority in the field of diversity and have diversity as their character.

The whole discussion is finally concluded by Abhinavagupta in the following passage:

If the absolute monistic existence of pure Consciousness is accepted, then its independent

activity of bearing diverse forms cannot be explained at all. But all this can be justifiedand explained if it be accepted as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness.

This is how Abhinavagupta presents and discusses the views of Shankaracharyas schoolof Advaita Vedanta. One can easily understand why Abhinavagupta felt the need todifferentiate the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism from the apparent monism of thefollowers of Shankaracharya, while coining the termparAdvaita in the process of thesedebates.

It should be pointed out that the main difference between the vedAntic monism discussedand accepted by Shankaracharya, and the parAdvaita developed by the exponents of

Kashmir Shaivism, is probably more a difference of logic than of faith. As we havealready seen, vedAntic teachers place the source of phenomenal existence outside ofabsolute Consciousness and view its creative power as dependent on the external elementof avidyA, while parAdvaita exponents insist that this creative power is the essentialnature of absolute Consciousness and the source of all phenomenal manifestation.

Since Shankara and Gaudapada were interested in refuting Buddhist logic, they studied itthoroughly and in the process seem to have become influenced by many of the Buddhist


22/27

arguments. Since the above mentioned shortcomings in their philosophical approach werealso present in the logic of their main opponents, the Buddhist logicians, the Advaitinsignored them and made no attempt to refute them. After all, debaters need not payattention to inconsistencies held in common.

It should also be noted that Shankaracharya did not live long enough for his logicalthinking to possibly reach full maturity. Further, most of the prominent post-Shankaraadvaitins ignored the works of the great vedAntic teachers onpracticalaspects of thephilosophy and concentrated instead on their logical works. These later advaitinsfocussed mainly on debating and logic instead of practicing the philosophy in order toexperience an actual realization of brahman, shrIharSha, one of the greatest vedAnticlogicians, goes so far as to boastfully declare his preference for logical debate overpractice.

The tendency to primarily and majorly focus only on the intricacies of logicalargumentation caused Advaita Vedanta to drift towards a point very close to the nihilism

of the Buddhists. It was because of this trend in Advaita philosophy that Abhinavaguptafelt the need to clarify the theistic and absolutist monism of Kashmir Shaivism which hadbeen previously discovered and developed by somAnanda and utpaladeva.

Although there is not doubt that the seeds of such nihilistic thinking are present in thepassages of some important logical works of Shankaracharya, still, his prominent workson practical vedAnta deserve due consideration, as does his young age during the periodin which he composed the commentaries on the prasthAnatrayI.

It is with an open-minded approach to the basic principles of other schools of philosophythat Abhinavagupta states in his IshvarapratyabhijnAvivritivimarshinI, If a vedAntic

aspirant identifies avidyA with mAyA and takes the latter as as the divine potency ofbrahman, he also can attain the highest perfection. He makes similar remarks about LordBuddhas teachings and lays the burden of the blame for any logical confusion on thelater commentators.

According to this supreme monism of Abhinavagupta, absolute I-consciousness is theonly entity that exists. It is infinite, eternal, perfect and pure Consciousness, endowedwith divine creative power. This creative power is essentially vibrant in nature and isactively engaged in the manifestation of relative unity and all diversity. The termrelative unity is used here because manifested unity has only relative oneness whencompared to the absolute unity of infinite I-consciousness in which all creation isconsidered to be present and absolutely real. A perfect yogin, established in parAdvaita,sees one Absolute God in all diversity and unity. In this philosophy, diversity is notconsidered to be an illusion like the son of a barren woman, but is as real as relativeunity. Absolute reality itself shines in both the manifestations of relative unity anddiversity. As Abhinavagupta says:


23/27

It is not being said that diversity does not exist at all in this (understanding of) non-dualism. The manifestation of diversity has been accepted even in that which is devoid ofall differentiation (mAlinIvijayavArttika).

This divine creative power is the basic and essential nature of monistic I-consciousness.

In their exploration of consciousness during deep states of meditation, shaiva yoginsdiscovered that this divine essence was infinitely blissful and playful as well as vibrant.Because of its divine and playful nature, ancient philosophers called it paramashiva.

Creation, preservation, absorption, obscuration and revelation are the five main acts inthe divine play of the Lordship of paramashiva. He creates, preserves, and absorbs allphenomena. In the process, He conceals his real nature and appears as finite beings. Hecauses these beings to become increasingly identified with their limited individual egos.After undergoing births and deaths in innumerable species, He finally realizes his truenature of lordship, thus concluding his divine play. All this is the manifestation of Hisdivine power, and is not any way different from Him. This, a finite being is not different

from the Supreme, who is simply hiding in this form. In the words of Abhinavagupta:But Almighty Lord, being able to do even the impossible, and possessing pureindependence, is skilled in playfully concealing His real Self (Tantraloka).

According to this absolute non-dualism of parAdvaita, He and he alone exists in all thevarious scenes of this play. All creation has its real and eternal existence within theSupreme in the form of divine potency of His pure consciousness. Once creation becomesmanifested as apparent phenomenal existence, it has a beginning and an end. Even so,perfect yogins see only the existence of one Absolute Supreme Lord in both the apparentphenomenal existence and the pure existence of absolute Consciousness. Shiva-yogins

must not only know this truth, they have to actually experience it as well. Then and thenalone do they attain perfect and complete Self-realization.

The Supreme is supreme in both His and phenomenal aspects. A poet is a poet even whenhe is in deep sleep. A Supreme ruler, though involved in mundane activities or quietlyresting, is still a ruler. Similarly, He remans fully Himself, complete with His divinepower, even when He appears in His noumenal aspect. Therefore, it is due to Hisessential nature that He is the Lord, not because of His relation with phenomenalexistence. This is the main difference between the advaita approach of Shankaracharyaand the parAdvaita approach of Abhinavagupta.

Brahman, while appearing as all phenomena, does not undergo any change ortransformation - calledpariNAma, according to post-Shankara vedAntins. According toAbhinavagupta, all phenomenal manifestations take place in the manner of a reflection.He teaches realism (satkAryavAda), but his realism is neither a material realism nor doesit involve any process of pariNAma. All of the creation is merely an outward reflection ofthe divine powers of brahman. His powers shine in Him as I but their outwardreflections appear as this. This is the secret of the reality of all phenomena. In this way,thesatkAryavAda of Abhinavagupta can be considered a form of spiritual realism. All


24/27

creation is the materialisation of the divine will of brahman. It is a wonderful and divinetransmutation brought about by paramashiva through His own free will.

There is nothing lacking in His playful nature because He is not only full but overflowing(paripUrNa). All the external manifestations of paramashivas divine potency spill out

from this blissful fullness. He projects His powers outward not because of any need, butbecause it is the basic nature of His infinite and divine potency to do so. A person mayask why this is His nature, but it is useless to question or challenge the essential nature ofa thing. It would be absurd to ask why fire is warm, or why it shines, or why it burns, andso on. Fire, devoid of such qualities, would, quite simply, cease to be fire. Similarlybrahman, devoid of the vibrant manifestation of his divine creative power, would bereduced to the position of an insentient entity. In the words of Abhinavagupta:

If Almighty Lord had remained forever in one form, He would have to give up Hisconsciousness and creative power, thus becoming an insentient article like an earthenwater vessel.

The manifestation of contradictory concepts like bondage and liberation, relative unityand diversity, ignorance and knowledge, etc., are simply parts of brahmans divine play.Abhinavagupta says:

These twin concepts of bondage and liberation are the essential character of AlmightyLord, because, in fact, the concept of differences does not exist in Him at all(bodhapanchadashikA).

Another difference between advaita and parAdvaita approach is that while Advaitins canexperience true monism only in he state of samAdhi, parAdvaitins experience it even

during mundane transactions. Because of this, Narasimhagupta, the father ofAbhinavagupta, called itpratyakShAdvaita, immediate (perceived) non-dualism. AsAbhinavagupta says:

The great teacher, Narasimhagupta, having ripened his intellect in the art of correctcontemplation, calls this the non-dualism that can be perceived through ones externalsense (mAlinIvijayavArtika).

contd ...

parAdvaita

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


25/27

Abhinavagupta teaches that an insentient object cannot prove or assert its existencethrough its own power, but requires the help of a sentient being to witness it and to saythat it exists. This brings to mind berkeleys famous dilemma of the tree falling in theforest. If no sentient being is present, does the tree falling make a noise? The KashmirShaivite would say, Yes. There is noise, because it all happens within and is witnessed

by Absolute consciousness.In this philosophy, sentience alone is said to have an independent existence. It proceedsto some insentient object, assumes its form, and appears as that object as well. Themanifested insentient object itself is thus considered real. However, such an object isconsidered to be in a more real and pure form when it shines within the consciousness ofsome living being where that object can actually be said to exist. Finally, the insentientobject is eternal and therefore absolutely real (paramArthasat) only with infiniteConsciousness itself. Whether finite or infinite, it is consciousness alone which canappear as a knowing subject. This proves two things: a. Consciousness alone has anindependent existence, and b. Consciousness alone shines.

This approach to the truth through the intuitive vision of unity in diversity clarifies thenon-dualism of divinely potent Consciousness, and shows that this consciousness has thepower to assume the forms of unconscious entities and to shine in their forms as well. AsAbhinavagupta says:

Therefore, only the Atman shines (everywhere) taking as its form the whole objectiveexistence known as the universe, and appearing as all this without any break. The object,being itself of the nature of consciousness, is also wholly immersed in the in the light (ofconsciousness); since the ultimate truth is merely that the light (of consciousness) shines,what distinction could there be between omniscience and its absence?

(IshvarapratyabhijnAvimarshinI with bhAskarI)Here Abhinavagupta shows that the supposed difference between finite and infiniteconsciousness is commonly based on the phenomenal existence of the objects ofconsciousness such as the body, senses, and the brain. However, because these objectsowe their existence to, and emerge out of, Consciousness itself, they can hardly becapable of forming sound judgements about that Consciousness.

Instead of depending on conventional logic, sattarka is based on the authority of intuitiveexperiences of supreme monism realized during the practice of Yoga. The views andteachings of Abhinavagupta may initially be considered illogical by certain scholars ofWestern philosophy, but exposure to this method might also lead them to take a closerlook at the essence of their own form of logic, which depends solely on the mind and theminds ideation for its authority.

There is an important difference between Indian darshana and Western philosophy.Basically, Indian philosophy (darshana) derives from intuitive realizations of truths,while books dealing with these truths are considered darshanas in a secondary sense. InIndian darshanas, logic is used only in the writings of this secondary form in order to


26/27

present and debate the truths gleaned during Yogic experience. By contrast in the West,philosophy is basically a tradition of worldly wisdom and logic developed throughordinary intellectual abilities. Because there is no Yogic practice involved, this use of theintellect is essentially the only method that Western philosophy has for arriving at truths.

Abhinavagupta explains the parAdvaita principle of Kashmir Shaivism at several placesin his prominent works and discusses it from several points of view. In his opinion,scriptural passages which express this principle do not need to employ theinclusive/exclusive implication method (bhAgatyAga lakShaNa) as commentary orexplanation. He says:

Just as students not acquainted with certain synonyms are taught as follows - a pAdapa(tree) is a bhUruha, and a ghaTa (pot) is a kumbha, so it is said that the Almighty Lord isthis whole phenomenon (mAlinIvijayavArtika).

By this he simply means that the definition of Supreme does not add any new predicate

about Him, but simply substitutes a synonym - like saying a rug is a carpet.parAdvaita neither accepts diversity nor rejects it totally. Though diversity is not anabsolute reality, yet it has its roots in such a reality. Abhinavagupta says:

The absolute monism is that principle which neither refutes nor establishes diversity(mAlinIvijayavArttika)

He asserts that no apparent diversity can in any way disturb the absolute unity of the LordWho shines brilliantly due to the blissful luster of His pure consciousness.

Adopting the view of supreme non-dualism, Abhinavagupta says that parAdvaita is theprinciple wherein monism, dualism and mono-dualism appear equally as themanifestations of one and the same divine reality:

The real non-dualism is that philosophical view that sees only one Truth in diversestatements like, this is diversity, this is non-diversity, that is unity, and, this is bothdiversity and unity.

According to Abhinavagupta, a yogin who is established in the understanding andexperience of supreme non-dualism, sees only one reality shining in all mutually oppositeentities like pleasure and pain, bondage and liberation, sentience and insentience, and so

on, just as an ordinary person sees both a ghaTa and kumbha as only one thing expressedthrough different words (tantrAloka).

Seeing through the lens of supreme monism, Abhinavagupta says that the Lord canappear as anything and everything in the universe, because He enjoys full independenceand is capable of bringing about even the impossible. Elucidating this principle further,he says that the Lord shines Himself in different ways as (1) uncovered truth, (2)disguised truth, and (3) partly hidden truth. Emphasizing the principle of supreme non-


27/27

dualism, he says that the single absolute Consciousness, being endowed with independentcreative power, appears itself in wonderfully varied forms. He adds that it is pureConsciousness alone that appears in the form of all different phenomena.

Aside from the differences with Shankaras Advaita Vedanta discussed earlier,

parAdvaita should also not be confused with the bhedAbheda orvishiShTAdvaitaprinciples of shaiva and vaiShNava schools of Southern India for the following reasons:

1. parAdvaita maintains an absolutist view in its metaphysics and ontology and this is notpopular with shuddhAdvaitins like vallabha, or with vishiShTAdvaitins like rAmAnuja,shrIkaNTha etc., bhedAbhedavAdins like nimbArka and chaitanya, alongwith the shaiva-siddhAntins do not support absolution either.

2. According to Abhinavagupta, paramashiva is not some form of personal God living ina superior heavenly abode like vaikunTha, goloka, kailAsa, vrndAvana or rudraloka. Allthese abodes, alongwith their divine masters, are simply the playful creations of

paramashiva. As already seen, He produces these abodes by means of the reflectivemanifestations of His divine powers. By definition these creations have beginning and anend; only paramashiva is eternal.

3. The final liberation in the parAdvaita view is a state of perfect and absolute unity farmore profound than even the highest type of sAyujya or sAlokya - the forms of liberationknows to these other schools.

4. Creation by paramashiva involves no transformation (pariNAma) either inparamashiva or his Supreme shakti. It is instead a transmutation that causes no changewhatsoever in the source.

5. The parAdvaita of Kashmir Shaivism does not accept any kind of svagatabheda orinterior variety of paramashiva that impairs his essential unity the way that thevishiShTAdvaitins, for example, see this variety in their eternal truth, which they callnArAyaNa.

6. The parAdvaita of Kashmir Shaivism is clearly a logical non-dualism because it seesonly one absolute reality in all phenomenal and noumenal entities. It sees perfect unityeven in mundane transactions. The mind of a parAdvaitin becomes double-edged. Itconducts worldly transactions through its outward edge and remains immersed in theabsolute unity through its inward edge. Great royal sages like janaka and shrIkrShNa are

examples of yogins who have been described as established in parAdvaita.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nmjoshi77859
View:	250 times
Download:	2 times

COMPARISION STUDY -Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta AND Par Advaita

Documents