Tantric Argument: The Transfiguration of Philosophical Discourse in the Pratyabhij System of Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta Author(s): David Lawrence

Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 165-204 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399403 . Accessed: 08/07/2012 16:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

TANTRIC ARGUMENT: THE TRANSFIGURATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE IN THE PRATYABHIJNA SYSTEM OF UTPALADEVA AND ABHINAVAGUPTA

David Lawrence

Introduction The Enlightenment dichotomy between the detached, universally and discourse of science and philosophy on the one intelligible cogent hand and the devout, reasonless, emotional or mystical discourse of of religion on the other has greatly influencedWestern understandings Indian and other non-Western philosophies. Wilhelm Halbfass has observed that Indianphilosophy was excluded until recentlyfrom most Western historiesof philosophy because of its religious nature (i.e., its common purposeof facilitating the pursuitof salvation)as well as its situation outside the Europeanhistoricaldevelopment of Greek thought. The formerhas been viewed to contradicta "twofold concept of freedom" definitiveof philosophy: 1. a freedom frompractical interests-from motives andfrom soteriological utilitarian theoretical" attitude in which interests; i.e., a "purely ordinary is sought foritsown sake. knowledge to criticize, to thinkrationally, and to thinkfor traditions; i.e., the freedom oneself.1 Thiscriterionhas operatedequally in the exclusion fromserious considerationof other non-Westernphilosophies. Though for some time abjured by most scholars of non-Western philosophies,the religion-philosophy dichotomy has continued to have an insidiousinfluence in a polarizationbetween religious-historicist and philosophical researchmethodologies.2The historicistapproachostenin terms of holistic culsibly overcomes the dichotomy by interpreting turalcontexts, usually reducingphilosophyto the broadlyreligiouscategories of world view and ritual-ethicalpractice. This unification is achieved, however, at the expense of the rationalistprojectof philosophy-philosophy reducedto religionas mythor ritualis no longerseen as "philosophy."3On the other hand, a lot of the best philosophical work on non-Westernphilosophieshas tended to abstractdiscussionsof problemsof language, epistemology, and ontology from their functions within religioussystems in comparingthem to analogous discussions in the West.4 I believe that the modern philosophy-religiondichotomy may be better overcome by a historicallysensitive revision of the project of than by a relativistor postmoderndestruction philosophicalrationalism of philosophy.Lookingback, beforethe prejudicesof the Enlightenment,
2. a freedomfromthe gripof dogma,frommyth,and fromreligiousand other

Divisionof Humanities, Hong KongUniversity of Science and Technology

PhilosophyEast& West Volume46, Number2 April1996 165-204 ? 1996 of by University Hawai'iPress

165

a more synergisticconception of the relationof philosophicalrationality to religionis found in ourown paradigmatic Greekphilosophies.As Pierre Hadot has shown, most of these were conceived as systemsof "spiritual exercises," in that they aimed at the conversion (epistropheand metaof self and universe.5 noia) of the studentto a redemptiveunderstanding the of Christian Throughout long history philosophy and naturaltheolthere have been to use reason to determinereligioustruths ogy, attempts independentlyof the assumptionsof the Christianrevelation,as an instrument of religiousconversion,or underrubricssuch as "faithseeking In the still-developingpluralismof the contemporary understanding."6 there has been a steady increase of effortsto create dialogue academy, between Westernand non-Western,between religiousand nonreligious the mediationof religiousclaims.7 philosophies-frankly attempting This essay will examine the strong synergism between a "hardheaded" concern with philosophical justificationand intelligibilityon the one hand and soteriologyon the other, in the Pratyabhijfiworksof the tenth-and eleventh-century Kashmiri thinkersUtpaladevaand Abhion the initiative of Utpala'steacher Somananda, navagupta.8Building of conversion these two thinkerscreateda new, philosophicalinstrument for the Trikatraditionof monistic Saivism, to which I have given the name "tantric Thoughthe methodof this essay is exegetical, argument." I hope it can contribute to constructivephilosophicalas well as historical of the relationof philosophyand religion.9 understandings I will firstpresentthe originatingprojectof the Pratyabhijna system as the thinkers'effortto lead all humanityto salvation.Then I will exmethodology.Concernedto plain some key featuresof the Pratyabhijna achieve greater intelligibilityfor their traditionin order to accomplish their redemptive program, the Saivas appropriatesome of the most philoproceduresof the medieval Sanskrit widely accepted justificatory their resituate At the same time, however, they philsophical academy. Saivaworldviewand homoloosophical discoursewithin the traditional gize it to tantric praxis. Finally, I will sample some of the actual this method, in which the Saivas philosophicalargumentsimplementing refutetheir Buddhistopponents and demonstratetheir centraltheory of the Lord's self-recognition. System Originating Projectof the Pratyabhijna The creation of the Pratyabhijinsystem is said to ensue from the experience of salvation in the Trikatraditionby Utpaladeva.Itsexplicit purpose is to lead all humanityto the same soteriological realization. Utpaladevaexplains in the firstverse of the corpus: Lord to the Great somehowbeencausedto obtainservitude [dasya] Having the recogI am establishing of humanity, and desiring the benefit[upakara] all prosperity.10 of Him,whichis the causeof obtaining nition[pratyabhijna]f

&West East Philosophy 166

Servitude(dasya)is a widespreadSaiva term for a state of high spiritual this word as indicatingUtpaladerealization.Abhinavaguptainterprets va's realization of identity (tanmayata) with the Supreme Lord."1He this realization in a tantricmanner as comexplains characteristically of the attainment the Lord's and Self-enjoyment prising (svatmopabhoga), to obtain whateveris desired.12 The recognition the freedom (svatantrya) that Utpaladevawishes to convey is the very same real(pratyabhijfn) ization of identitywith Siva, which might be expressed "Indeed I am that very Lord."13This again includes the Lord's omnipotence and the Saivas'actual philobliss.14Itsdesignationas recognitionarticulates sophical theory,which will be taken up later. The word "humanity"(jana)addressesthe sastraicquestion of eligibility for studying the system. Abhinavaguptainterpretsthe term as indicating "those who are afflicted by incessant birth and death" and who "as objects of compassion, should be helped."15He explains that Utpaladeva'sgeneral referencemeans that there is no restriction regardwho not even of It is those are caste.16 that eligible, ing unlikely Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta really believed that all humanitywould read these texts composed in the elite language of Sanskrit.Nevertheless, I believe that we should extend the hermeneuticcharityof taking the Saivas seriously as intendingtheir work to be of benefit to people outside their tradition.'7This intentionis crucial to the discursivemethodology thatthey develop. The Pratyabhijha Methodology Because the Pratyabhijiasastraattemptsto bringabout salvation, it is in numerous places described as a spiritualmeans or path (upaya, as a specifically marga, patha). Abhinava describes the Pratyabhijha Trikamethod,as "a means for the goal of the Personwho is the Witness, who is none otherthan Anuttara."18 'not having a superior',is Anuttara, Trikadesignationsfor UltimateReality.Utpaladeva one of the important refersto the means taught by Somanandaand himself as a "new, easy path." Abhinava'sexplanation of the path's novelty is interesting.He states that "[the word] "new" signifies that it is contained in all the sacredtexts but not well known because of concealment."19 Abhinavais here giving the common hermeneuticdevice of groundinginnovationin the implicitor potentialsignificanceof a traditiona distinctivelytantric character of secrecy. In various places the Pratyabhijia is described
specifically as a means working through knowledge (jnanopaya).20

The Pratyabhijfathinkers'understanding of the manner in which this means works is remarkably complex. They appropriate procedures of philosophical justificationfrom outside their traditionwhile at the same time reinterpreting them with their own symbolic and practical resources.21In this section I will first present theological and meta- David Lawrence 167

physical considerationsadduced by them that in the highestperspective controvertthe possibility of any methodology regardingthe Supreme Lord.Then I will turnto the Saivas'appropriation of the classic justificaof I will show how, at the same time they utilize tory methods Nyaya. these methods of detached rationaldiscourse, they homologize them with proceduresof tantricpraxis. Negations of Methodology. The Saiva formulationsof procedure are immediatelyinterrupted by reflectionsupon what I would describewith our own terminology-as a fundamentalreligious problematic.I would describethis problematicmost broadlyas the possibilityor utility of any finite human behavior,whether linguistic,aesthetic, theological, devotional, ritual, and so on, for expressing, affecting, or attaininga this human-Ultimate religious Ultimate Reality.22For the Pratyabhijna "structural" issue has two aspects-coming from its nature as both a theistic and a fully monisticsystem. First,Siva is the omnipotent deity, responsiblefor everythingthat occurs.23How can a limitedhumanbeing bringabout identification with Him? Abhinavaguptadiscusses the familiar questions of divine will, grace, and finite humanaction in severalof his works.He acknowledges thatone may considerthe mostfavorableconditionsfor,or actionsof, an for salvation.At the same time, he statesemphaticallythat in the aspirant ultimate perspective salvation is entirely accomplished by the divine will. The favorable conditions do not in any way cause the grace of
Siva.24

Abhinava makes the same argumentat various places in the Pratyabhijnatexts, althoughnot at length.Thus he takes this issue up when explainingthe use of the causativein the gerund"havingbeen caused to attain"(asadya)in Utpaladeva'sintroductory verse quoted above. Abhinava explains that the Lord does everything. His grace is therefore even by means of hundredsof wishes. It is because of the unattainable obfuscationof its real naturethatactualcausationby the Lordappearsas ordinaryobserved causal relationships,such as the relation between means and goal (upayopeyabhava), accomplisher and accomplished and which makes known and that that (nispadyanispadakabhava), which is made known (jnapyajfnpakabhava). According to Abhinava, the unconditionednatureof the Lord'sgrace is indicatedby the adverb "somehow" (kathamcit) modifying"havingbeen caused to attain."25 It is to the second aspect of the human-Ultimate tension structural thatthe Pratyabhijna thinkersdevote most of theirreflection.At the same time thatthe UltimateRealityis understoodin "super-"personaltermsas the deity Siva, rather than as an impersonalprinciple,it is understoodto contain all realityin a pure unity. Ifthe UltimateRealityis nondual,the &West structureand cognitive presumptiveness East of its realizationmust be funPhilosophy 168

damentallydifferentfromordinaryexperience, which comprisesdichotomies between subject and object, and between differentsubjects and objects, and takes place as a process in time. It would be impossible for Him to be a mere cognitive object (prameya) establishedby sastraic discourse. The Saivas develop the AdvaitaVedantinconcept of self-luminosity to explain how Siva always already has a nondual real(svaprakaSatva) of ization Himself.26 Puttingtheirconvoluted discussionsof this concept in a more linearfashion,the thinkersdeny that(1) any cognizer (pramatr) could have (3) any cognition (prama,pra(2) by any means (pram.ana) miti) or proof (siddhi)-of which the object (prameya)is the Supreme Lord.LikeAdvaita,they explain the operationof the sastranegativelyas The following only removing the ignorance of this self-luminosity.27 this explanationby Abhinavagupta bringstogether point with the other in of terms of divine negation methodology omnipotence; it is the Lord who both creates and removes His self-concealment: new is accomplished. Nor is what is reallynot shining[aprakasaNothing illuminated the supposition that mana] [abhimanana] [Rather] [prakagyate]. whatis shining is notshining is removed. Forliberation, whichis the attainis nothing butthe removal mentof thestateof theSupreme of that[false Lord, The of in rebirth is but the [samsara] nothing supposition]. cycle suffering of liberation arein nonremoval of that.Bothof these[conditions andrebirth]
essence only supposition.And both are manifestedby the BlessedOne.28

The Pratyabhijna thinkers'denials of the efficacy of humanthought and action, like other such qualificationsin the world's religions,do not prevent them from engaging in elaborate positive discussions of methodology. These negative formulationsmay accordingly be taken as "dialectically complicating"their more positive descriptions.What is for us is that in delimitingtheir new philosophicalprocedures important fromthe point of view of UltimateReality,the thinkersare fromthe start carefully preserving their intratraditional integrity.Though the Saiva will realization be entered into the game of methodologisoteriological it is debate, cally detached interreligious alreadythe winner. PositiveFormulations of Methodology:(a) ThePursuit of UniversalIntelThe It is Standards of the Pratyabhijina ligibility: Methodological Nyaya. thinkers'goal of sharingthe Trikaspiritualvision with all humanitythat motivates their development of a philosophical method. For, in order that those outside theirtraditionmay accept it, its validitymust be intelligibleto them. The Saivaeffortin this respecthas its parallelin the more rationalistic strainof Westernphilosophicaltheology and philosophyof religion. The Catholictheologian David Tracyhas analyzed the discourseof philosophicaltheology, which he calls fundamental theology, in a man- DavidLawrence 169

ner addressing problems of cross-cultural/interreligious interpretation and rationality. addressedto, follows Philosophicaltheology is primarily the standards,and addressesthe substantiveconcerns of the academy. Thus,althoughit may argueon behalfof a particular religioustradition,it is methodologicallydetached from the religious and ethical commitments and presumptions truthof other formsof theology (sysregarding tematic and practical): In termsof modesof argument, fundamental will be concerned theologies to provide thatall reasonable whether "reliprincipally arguments persons, or not,can recognize as reasonable. Itassumes, therefore, giouslyinvolved" the mostusualmeaning of publicdiscourse: thatdiscourse available (inprinand explicated to one's experience, intelliciple)to all persons by appeals and responsibility, and formulated in arguments where gence, rationality claimsare statedwith appropriate and rebuttal warrants, backings procedures.29 We may say that in the broadsastraic"academy,"there also developed a "philosophydivision,"analogousto those in the West and other cultures.Inthis sphere,the diverseschools of Hinduism,Buddhism, and have to for their Jainism attempted argue positions not simply by citing scripturalauthoritybut by using reasoning (yukti, tarka,etc.).30 Each school maintainedits own "intratraditional" point of view about what it was doing, whether it was apologetics to convert, means to allay the doubtsof theirown followers,or spiritualexercise. Though differences always remained, there emerged a number of convergences about methods and experientialand rationalcriteriafor philosophicaljustification spanningthe variousIndianschools. The most standardsin Indiawere those developed widely accepted argumentative tradition.Gautamasummarizedthese standards by the Nyaya-Vaisesika in sixteen categoriespertaining to philosophicaldiscussionat Nyaya Sutra 1.1, and these were elaborated with ever greatersophisticationin latercommentaries.31 Thoughin the truestperspectivethe Pratyabhijha systemdoes not do anything,when it comes to positive discussions of philosophical methassertsthat it adheresto the standards of Nyaya: odology, Abhinavagupta "Thereis the correctnessonly of the method of the Naiyayikasin the condition of Maya."32 He explains the very power of the systemto convince otherson the basis of its addressingthe Nyaya categories: Theultimate in that[9astra] is nothing but [explanation in terms of] purpose the sixteencategories, such as the meansof cognition[pramana], and so on.... Whenthe sixteencategories arearticulated another [niropyamanesu], is madeto understand which that is to be understood.33 completely The sixteen Nyaya categoriesenumeratea varietyof concernswhich East &West must be addressed in philosophical discussions. They refer to items Philosophy
170

of differentorders and are somewhat overlappingin their significance, and objects includingthe broadtopics of means of knowledge (pramarna) of knowledge (prameya),roughly correspondingto our fields of epistemology and ontology;a classificationof types of philosophicaldebates and of the criteriaoperativein this classification; and an enumerationof the formal requirements of a well-rounded philosophical discussion.34 Within the Naiyayikas'own soteriological project, the categories are oriented toward the comprehensionof particular objects of knowledge of and the elimination of error regardingrele(prameya).Knowledge as pertainingto what is and is vant objects of knowledge, particularly not the true self, leads to detachment and liberationfrom sufferingin rebirth.35 The Nyaya categories are in various ways explicitly and implicitly addressed in the Pratyabhijna system. However, two categories receive the greatestemphasis in the constructionof the Pratyabhijna philosophical method. We will now examine how these categories are approof these, priated.I will devote the greatestattentionto the most important Then I will more brieflyexplain the the schema for argument(avayava). In takingup of the Nyaya categoryof doubt (samsaya). Saivas'treatment each category,we will firstconsider how it is utilized in the Pratyabhijna Thenwe will observe how effortto achieve more universalintelligibility. is given its deepest sigthe employment of each in the Pratyabhijna nificance as spiritualexercise, by its homologization both with earlier patternsof tantricpraxis and with a particularclassification of praxis developed by Abhinava. In each case I will present only the minimum substanceof the Pratyabhijna necessaryto get a programmatic arguments of theirmethod;I will give an idea of the actualarguments understanding in the last section. of Methodology:(b) PhilosophicalRationalization PositiveFormulations Inferencefor the Sake of Others. with the Nyaya Schema for Argument: is the schema The Nyaya category most emphasized by Abhinavagupta for argument (avayava).This schema presents the steps of the Nyaya In Indianphilosophy 'inferencefor the sake of others' (pararthanumana). there is a distinctionbetween two types of inference,that for the sake of and that for the sake of others. The latter is oneself (svarthanumana) given a rigorously explicit formulationin orderto make logical justification from experientialand conceptual evidence assessable by any critical person.Abhinavaexplainsthat sastra"hasthe natureof an inference Its intelligibilityresults for the sake of others (parararthanumana)."36 directlyfrom its being constructedaccordingto the Nyaya category: This [work] is for compreWhatis the purpose with respectto the other? for the sake of hensionby the other.Andthereis thatfromthe inference of Nyaya,Aksapada, others.... It has been explained that DavidLawrence by the founder 171

every academic text [sastra] apartfrom scripturereally consists of the inference for the sake of others,and [thus]bringsabout complete comprehension by the other.37

I will firstoutline the Nyaya inferencefor the sake of others, using the common example of the inferenceof fire fromsmoke. This inference In the following, the numbereditems are has five steps and five terms.38 the steps; the other expressions given are the terms.39(1) Thesis (pratijna):There is fire on the hill. The hill is the subject (paksa)of the inference.The fire is thatwhich is to be established(sadhya) to pertaining it. (2) Reason (hetu):Because there is smoke. The smoke itself, like the inferential step that invokes it, is also designatedwith the word 'reason' (hetu).It is a propertyfound in the subject, and known to be concomitantwith that which is to be established.As such it is the justification for the inference. (3) General principle with exemplification (udaharana): Where there is smoke there is fire, like in the kitchenand unlikeon the lake. This step explains the concomitance underlyingthe reason. The the concomitance (sapaksa). kitchen is the positive example illustrating The lake is the negative example (vipaksa),showing that the property does not have concomitance with a class wider than that which is to be established.(Thisterm is usuallynot cited by the Saivas.)(4) Application The hill, because it has smoke on it, has fire on it. This step (upanaya): asserts thatthe subjectfalls within concomitance shown by the explicitly Thereforethere is fire on the previousstep. (5) Conclusion (nigamana): hill. This repeatsthe thesis as established. We mustnow get a programmatic of the Pratyabhijha understanding version of this inferenceabstracted fromthe technical details of the theories which actuallyarticulateit. The proposition which the Pratyabhijia inference demonstratesis that of the soteriologicalrecognition,that is, The subject (paksa)of the thesis is that one is identicalwith the Lord.40 the person, and what is to be established(sadhya)is that he or she is the Lord. The justificationfor the connection between the subject and what is to be establishedis made by the reasonstep in the inference.Thisstep is supposedto identifya quality(the reason term)in the subject,which is knownto be invariably concomitantwith thatwhich is to be established. The most distinctivefact known about Siva is expressed in the cosmogonic myth.That is, Siva emanatesthe universethroughHis power and consort Sakti,whose identitywith Himselfis describedas sexual union. The reason in the Pratyabhijia inferenceis preciselythatthe individualis the actor in the cosmogonic mythof emanation. The Saivas articulatethis reason, that the individualis emanatorof the universe, throughtheir actual technical philosophical discussions. East &West They also describe it with a variety of ad hoc figurativeexpressions, Philosophy
172

some of which will be seen below. However, in programmatic discussions of Pratyabhijha it two chief expressions, methodology, they give which we will take up presently.The firstexpression of the inferential reason is simplythatthe individualpossesses Sakti.As Utpaladevastates in the second verse of the sastra: Thisrecognition of Him,who thoughexperienced is not noticeddue to the forceof delusion,is madeto be experienced the revealing of [His] through Sakti[Saktyaviskarana].41 In this formulation,SaktiHerselfis the reason as constituentterm of the
reason step.42

In technical philosophical discussions, Sakti is often divided into special modalitiesthat designateSiva'semanatorypower as operativein the respectivespheresof explanation.The two most encompassingforms of Saktiare the Cognition(jfnana) Saktiand the Action (kriyj)Sakti,which are invoked in the fields roughly correspondingto epistemology and ontology.43These two are furtherdivided into a numberof Saktispertainingto subsidiary topics.44 the demonstration that the individualpossesses Speakingabstractly, the emanatorySaktioperative in a particular sphere is made by an idealistic reductionof all its featuresto modalitiesof his or her subjectivity. This is broughtout in a concise formulation by Utpaladeva: Thereis the establishment of insentient in entitiesas grounded [pratistha] The life of livingbeingsis maintained to be the livingbeings[jTvadasraya]. andAction.45 [Saktis of] Cognition explains that by "living beings" Utpaladevameans subAbhinavagupta These include all apparently limited subjects, from a jects (pramatr). worm to the gods Brahmaand Sadasiva.The system demonstratesthat the very existence of objects is the subject's exercise of cognition and action over them.46 The conception that one is the emanator of the universe, which formsthe inferential reason, is also describedas a special kindof insight PureWisdom is the awarenessthat called PureWisdom (Suddhavidya). one is the source emanatingall objective realityas identicalwith oneself. Thisawarenessis given the typical linguisticexpression"Iam this" (aham idam).47 Accordingto Abhinava,the following statementby Utpaladeva explainswhy this wisdom (vidya)is pure: whichhavefallento the levelof objectsof cognition andare underThings stoodinthecondition of "this" areessentially andare consciousness [bodha];
[throughPureWisdom]seen as they reallyare.48

Such knowledge is pure because it is an awareness of the ostensible essential natureof objects as one's emanation.49 DavidLawrence

173

The third step of the inference states the concomitance of Siva with His character as emanator, that is, Sakti, and so on, and gives examples demonstrating this concomitance. The fourth explicitly asserts that the individual falls within this concomitance. The conclusion reiterates the thesis that the individual is actually the Lord. The entire inference will be further clarified by the presentation and explication of some informal summaries of it by Abhinavagupta. In our first summary, the reason is formulated directly in terms of the Cognition and Action modalities of Sakti. Two supporting examples are mentioned: the LordSiva Himself, as known in sacred literature, and the king, who like the Lord Siva, knows and acts over all his subjects. Abhinava explains: The subject [pramatr], because he is endowed with the Cognitionand Action to is be understood Saktis, [vyavahartavyal as the Lord,like the Lordwho is well known in the Puranas,scriptures,and so on. Even if He is not well known [fromsuch texts], Lordshipis establishedto have the natureof the possessionof the Cognitionand Action Saktisover all objects. For [Lordship] is invariably associatedwith nothingbut these [two Saktis].Thusthe logical concomitance is understood in the case of one such as a king, who is regardedas Lord.Likethe king, one is the Lordover so much as one is the to the natureof one who is not the Lord cognizer and doer. It is contradictory to be a cognizer and a doer. And the Self is cognizer and doer with regardto is established.50 everything.Thusrecognition[pratyabhijfna] This may be put formally as follows: (1) The subject is the Lord. (2) Because he/she has the Cognition and Action Saktis. (3) Whoever has Cognition and Action Saktis is Lord. Like the Lord known in the Puranas and scriptures, and like the king. (4) The subject, since he/she has them, is the Lord. (5) The subject is the Lord. The following example is similar to that just given but describes the relationship of individual and universe in terms of dependence: "He who is depended on somewhere is the Lord, like a king over his domain. So does the universe [depend on] you."51 Formally: (1) You are the Lord. (2) Because the universe depends on you. (3) He/she who is depended on somewhere is the Lord. Like the king over his domain. (4) You, on whom the universe depends, are the Lord. (5) Therefore, you are the Lord. Several expressions by Abhinavagupta do not even mention the Lord as the inferential predicate but establish that the individual has divine status in other ways. Thus the following demonstrates that one is the pervader of the universe because he/she contains it: of so much, That in which somethingmanifestsis the pervader[vyapakah] earth and with the like a casket regarding The universe, beginning jewels. in you the with as has been [manifests] sastra, Sadasiva, explainedby ending who have the natureof consciousness.52

PhilosophyEast& West

174

We analyze: (1) You are the pervaderof the universe.(2) Because in you of the universe. (3) That in which something there is the manifestation manifestsis the pervaderof so much. Likea casket regarding jewels. (4) the universe. the of are in whom the universe manifests, You, pervader (5) Therefore,you are the pervaderof the universe, beginning with the earthand ending with Sadasiva. I hope these examples have given a sufficientgeneral view of the by the Nyaya inferPratyabhijfn methodologicalprogramas structured their of ence for the sake others.53By submitting soteriologicalvision to this academic regimen, the Saivas are in a sense suspending their assumptionsof its validity in orderto demonstrateits cogency on extratraditional grounds.54 of Methodology: (c) The Encompassmentof the Positive Formulations Inferencefor the Sake of OtherswithinTantricPraxis.At the same time, thinkers understandwhat they are doing with this the Pratyabhijina inference in intratraditional terms. From this perspective, the Praformulation of the tyabhijna Nyaya inferencegets its deepest significance as following the patternsof earlierand contemporaneoustantricpraxis. To proceed, the approachto Siva throughSaktior other representations of His emanatorypower is an ancient and pervasive tradition.55 Some of the most importantexpressions of this approach are found in Kramatantrism,where a numberof ritualsand contemplationsaim to give the aspirantthe realizationof himself as the Lordover circles of There was also a later developSaktis in the form of Kalis (gakticakra). ment of approachesto Siva throughHis emanation in the formof 'creative vibration'(spanda).56 I will cite two examples of an approach to Siva through his emanation prescribedin the scriptureVijnanaBhairava, which vividly preto sent the traditional the inference: background Pratyabhijna
There is always nondifferencebetween Saktiand the possessorof Sakti [i.e., Siva]. Since She is thus the possessor of His qualities, She is the Supreme the burningpower [para]Sakti of the Supreme Self [paratman].[Similarly] [sakti]of fire is not considered to be differentfrom fire. There is this [the analysisof powerand possessorof power]only as a beginningin enteringinto the state of knowledge. If one who has entered into the condition of Sakti would meditateon their nondifference,he would come to have the natureof Siva. Siva'sconsort [Saivi]is explained here to be the door. Dear,just as differentplaces, and so on, are cognized by meansof the lightof a lampand the raysof the sun, so is Siva [cognized]by means of Sakti.57 The second passage is even more interesting. This passage refers to Siva's character of emanating the world without using the word "Sakti." However, it mentions the two fundamental modalities of Sakti, Cognition and Action, which organize the Pratyabhijnatexts:

David Lawrence

175

One can become Siva from the firm conviction: "The SupremeLordis allall-doer [sarvakartr], and pervasive. I, who have the cognizer [sarvajfia], of am none but He. [dharma] Justas the waves belong to the Siva, qualities water,the flames belong to a fire, and lightbelongs to the sun, these waves58 of the universebelong to Bhairava, who is none but me."59 This contemplation is remarkably similar to the later Pratyabhijna inference. One understands oneself as Siva because of having his distinctive character of emanation.60 The use of the Nyaya category has only elucidated the "rationality" already contained in a traditional practice. The post-Abhinavagupta commentator Sivopadhyaya, looking backwards through the philosophical interpretation, explicitly identifies this passage as describing the contemplation of Pratyabhijna.61 The spiritual significance of the Pratyabhijna inference is not limited to its reenactment of earlier tantric practices. This inference fits within one of the classifications of spiritual means, systematized by Abhinavagupta in his Tantralokaand Tantrasara,called the sakta upaya.62 As I have just observed, the commentator Sivopadhyaya identifies the lastquoted passage of the Vijnana Bhairava as describing the contemplation of Pratyabhijna. In the same explanation, he also classifies this contemplation within the sakta upaya.63 The two programmatic formulations of the conception that is the reason step in the Pratyabhijna inference, the revealing of Sakti and Pure Wisdom, are in fact the most definitive methodological themes of the sakta upaya. Thus the special importance of the revealing of Sakti in this upaya is indicated by its very name.64 As Navjivan Rastogi has explained: The element of Sakti permeatesall these three in varying measuresand is characterized variouslyas gross,subtle,ultimate,etc., as the case may be. But it is the superabundanceof Sakti because of which this Upaya is called Sakta.65 It is in the chapters of the Tantralokaand Tantrasara presenting the sakta upaya that Abhinavagupta develops a Trika appropriation of the Krama procedure of meditating on one's Lordship over circles of Saktis.66 Abhinava describes the revealing of Sakti in the sakta upaya in terms of the same modalities of Cognition and Action that are the foci of the Pratyabhijnaarguments: There is the condition of conceptual constructionsin the sakta [means]. In that [state], [the Saktis of] acting and cognizing are evident. However, accordingto the previous reasoning,there is a contractionof them. To the there is revealedblazing one occupied with destroying all of this contraction, Sakti,which bringsabout the desired internalillumination.67 PhilosophyEast& West Perhaps more distinctive than the revealing of Sakti per se is Abhinavagupta's consolidation in the sakta upaya of developing understand-

176

The sakta upayais ings of the religiousfunctionof intellectualactivity.68 We the classificationof the means based upon knowledge (jfnanopaya).69 is described as a have already observed that the Pratyabhijna system means of knowledge by both Utpaladevaand Abhinavagupta. Abhinavaguptathus describes the modus operandi of the sakta of conceptualization'(vikalpaupayagnoseologicallyas the 'purification of conceptualizaThe quintessential"tool"of the purification samskara). or true of the sakta is and tion, reasoning (satthereby upaya, good a seen as was tarka).70Reasoning spiritual means in increasingly Of the greatestimportancefor AbhinabeforeAbhinavagupta. scriptures of were the assessments reasoning in his most revered Trika vagupta This the Tantra. scriptureitself tantricizesIndian scripture, MalinTvijaya academic traditionsin explainingthe soteriologicalrole of reasoningas which encouragesthe movementfromthatwhich is to the discrimination be abandoned (heya)to that which is to be pursued(upadeya).7 In his sakta upaya, Abhinavaguptaidentifiesthese two categories, respectively,with the impureand pure kindsof conceptualization.Now, which makes one pure ratherthan the the distinguishingcharacteristic other is whetheror not there is apprehendedthe absorptionof the objective universeinto the emanatorysubject: fromSivathese is the ideawhichdistinguishes Theimpurity calledsupreme of this is the destruction whichreally haveHimas theirnature. Purity [things]
idea... 72

As the goal of this process, Abhinava posits a principle found in a number of Saiva cosmological schemes. This is none other than the conception with which we are alreadyfamiliar,PureWisdom,that is, the awarenessof emanationexpressed "I am this [universe]."73 Abhinava also identifies this goal of Pure Wisdom with the tool leading toward it, good reasoning:"Good reasoningis nothingbut Pure Wisdom...." 74PureWisdom may thus be understoodas the insightthat informs,and leads toward itself, the purificationof conceptualization. The following passage gives an idea of the overall process:
who is The multitudeof things appear clearly in that jewel [the Self/Lord], That[conceptualconstruction] pure,and has omnipotentfreedom[svatantra]. is said to be benighted [and is impure]which comprehendsdifferentiation

between[thosethings] andthe Self.However is also conceptual con[there the nature of Pure whichcomprehends the Selfas struction] Wisdom, having
containingall objects [as is expressed]:"I am all this." This conceptual constructionhas the natureof PureWisdomand is clearlymanifest; it destroysthe which causes differentiation.75 mayic conceptual construction

inferential Thus we see that both formulationsof the Pratyabhijna rationaleare also the centralpracticalthemes of the saktaupaya.I do not wish to claim, however, that the upayais nothingbut the inference.The DavidLawrence
177

two methodologicalthemes in the saktaupayainclude a varietyof other practices, including nonphilosophicalstudies of sacred scripturesand discussionsof them with gurus,and elaboratemeditationson mandalas. Abhinava formulatesthe upaya to encompass the Pratyabhijna argumentationalong with these other practices.76 of Methodology:(d) ThePhilosophicaland Tantric PositiveFormulations Encounterwith Doubt. We may now more briefly consider the Praof one other Nyaya category, that of tyabhijnathinkers'appropriation doubt (samsaya). Accordingto Nyaya, philosophyproceeds by firstconsideringdoubt or indecision regardinga view. It then utilizes the inference for the sake of others and other proceduresof debate to reach a justifieddecision (nirnaya).77 Most Indianphilosophical texts are structuredas a series of statements, questions, and answers expressingthe views of opponents (purvapaksa-the 'prima facie') in confrontationwith the position being established(siddhanta-the 'establishedconclusion'). In the IPKand its commentaries,the whole second chapter is devoted to an initial presentation of the views of opponents. The discussions are developed furtheras the proponentsargue their response in the remainderof the book. The Nyaya requirement for the considerationof doubt may be taken of "otherness"to philas coming fromthe cognizance of the integrality The effort to one's views, or to make their osophical rationality. justify ostensible validity more universallyintelligible, requiresan awareness of alternativepossibilities. Abhinavaguptaagain is explicit about the intelligibility accomplishedthroughthe effortof answeringdoubt: is explained the Thenature here[inthissystem] of Ultimate Reality through of theviewsof opponents as doubts andthe refutation of them; consideration it is thusveryclearly manifested.78 Given the Saivas' redemptive-apologetic project, it should not be do alternative views as trulyviable that not understand they surprising the of philosophical to otherness options. They attempt reencompass by Abhioppositionwithin theirtraditional categories.This is illustrated the views of the benedictoryverse to the chapterpresenting navagupta's opponents: We pay obeisanceto Siva, who manifests the differentiated universeas the prima facie argument, andthen leadsit backto unityas the established
conclusion.79

Here Abhinavais interpreting the process of philosophicaldebate with the mythical understanding that the Lordproduces both delusion and East &West revelationfor humanity.Shortlyafter this benediction, Abhinavagupta Philosophy 178

quotes for supporta statementfrom a devotional work, the Stavacintamani of BhattaNarayana,which more generallydescribesthese acts:
Homage to God [deva] who creatingthe delusion of the deluded who are within worldly existence, destroys it; and concealing the transoppositional bliss of cognition, uncoversit.80

We know that Siva ultimatelydoes everything.Nevertheless,correthe eliminationof philosophical spondingto the mythicalidentification, within tantric is also practice.Thus in Abhinaencompassed opposition va's discussions of the sakta upaya, he polemically makes opponent doctrines an object of the purificationof conceptualization. He states thatthe pathto be abandoned [heya] is the means to liberation taughtby other systems.81 Amongthose whom Abhinavamentionsare Buddhists, Blinded by maya, these Jains, Vaisnavas, Vaidikas, and Sanmkyas.82 schools lack good reasoningand do not understandthe purificationof their However,throughpurifying conceptualization(vikalpasamskara).83 can be saved: those who follow other schools reasoning,
Even one who [because of karma]has developed within those [wrongsysabout his risingjudgments[paramarsa]. tems] can come to be discriminating Due to the excellence of PureWisdom, he is purifiedby the descent of Sakti a way of describingmysticalgrace], and ascends the good path, [saktipata, fromwhich the obstacles have been removed.84

In one of his final comments in the IPV,Abhinavaassertsthat the sastramakes the views of variousother systems help bring Pratyabhijna about the recognitionof the Self, as the sun unitesthe essences (rasa)of of grains.85 Fromthe Saivas'point of earthand waterforthe nourishment to are reflect their tantricmetaview, they purifyingconceptualizations a This also has rhetorical self-understanding consequence. As will physics. be illustratedin the next section, the Saivas' argumentsattemptthoroughly to subvertthe views of theiropponents in establishingtheirown. The Implementation of Tantric Argument The explanationof the Pratyabhijin methodologythat has just been has been confined to formulations of a programmatic nature.To given understand it more deeply, we mustturnto theirtechnical philosophical discussions. It is not possible to presenta detailed analysis of such discussions here. Iwill only give an overviewof the chief implementation of the Saiva method in the arenaof epistemology,that is, the philosophyof the recognitionof the Lord.86 The Challenge of the BuddhistLogicians.Followingprotocol, we must first turn to the challenge of the Saivas' opponents. Though they deal with variousrivals,the Saivas'chief opponentsare the school now often called "Buddhist logic," which was founded by Dignaga and most DavidLawrence 179

Buddhistlogic develops two influentiallyinterpreted by Dharmakirti.87 of Buddhism-on the transitoriness of all soteriologicalemphases early things and on the dangers inherentin speculation-into a critical philosophythat has often been comparedwith the phenomenalismof David Hume. Buddhist a radicaldistinction and disaccordbetween logic formulates (1) a series of evanescent flashes of direct perception lacking all conceptualization (nirvikalpakajnana)-of evanescent svalaksanas, 'selfor 'point instants'and (2) cognition, characterized','unique particulars', which includes vikalpa(i.e., savikalpakajnanna), that is, all imaginative, which synthesizes the unique conceptual, and linguistic interpretation, into ostensible characterized objects by universals (samaparticulars while the Buddhists Now, acknowledge that this internyalaksana). has a kind of provisionalvalidityfor ordinarybehavior in the pretation world, they contend that it is ultimatelyunfoundedin immediateexperience and is invalid.88 In polemics spanningseveral centuriesbefore the Pratyabhijfisasas invalid the tra, Buddhistlogiciansattemptedto refuteor "deconstruct" of the commonsensical generalizationsof evanescent experiences many and religiously significant conceptions held by the Hindu schoolsas well as ritualaction, an enduringSelf, God, externalobjects, ordinary the sacred languageof revelation,and so forth.A particular development in the debates was crucial in defining the immediateintellectualprobthinkersattemptedto resolve in their lematics which the Pratyabhijfin The entire experience process of interpreting philosophical theology. came to be viewed by both Buddhistsand Hindusto be epitomized in the experience of recognition(pratyabhijfin). Recognitionin ordinarylife is understoodas the realizationthat an object of a presentexperience is the same as an object of a past experience, as retainedin the memory. It has the typical expression "This is that." The same process actually occurs in all applications of interpretationto experience. In our memory are stored the semantic conWe the words thatwe use in interpretation. ventions (samketa) regarding mnemonic imrelevant the to when apply interpretations experience of all are activated. Thus, applications interpretapressions (samskara) tion, which in contemporaryWestern philosophy are described as "seeing as," came to be understoodas comprisingthe "This is that" of a very generalsortof recognition.89 structure The Buddhistsclaimed that this process of recognition is invalid. They arguedthat memory has no epistemic relevance to presentdirect experience. Their most energetic Hindu opponents, the realistschools of Nyaya-Vaisesikaand Purva MTmamsa, argued that our recognitive a world of genuinely indeand is in, elucidates, seeing-as grounded West intrinsic East & Philosophy pendentobjects possessing qualities.90
180

Now it is possible to appreciatewhy the Saivasformulatethe soteriological realizationthat they wish to convey as a kind of recognition. They deliberatelyset it up as having the recognitivestructureof interpretationthat has been problematizedby the Buddhists.In this regard, I must also point out that in Indian philosophy inference itself, as an was understoodto operate througha kind of recognitive interpretation, Inferenceis the application pratisamdhana). judgment (lihgaparamarsa, of the knowledge-or memory-of a concomitance to a case presently at hand.91Forthe Pratyabhijna, we have a memoryfrom scriptures and other sources of the LordSiva as causing the emanationof the universe, possessing Sakti, and so on. One applies this memory to the direct experience of one's own self, as is expressed in the statement"IndeedI am that very Lord."92 The Saivas' interpretation of the challenge of the Buddhiststo their soteriological recognition is oriented toward the structureof the Pratyabhijna inference for the sake of others.93The Buddhistsattack the overarchingrecognitionby attackingthe recognitionsof the inference's key terms along with their entailments:Self; Cognition as a faculty, which it mustbe to be a Sakti; Action as enduringprocess,again which it must be to be a Sakti;and the very possibilityof relation,which Cognition and Action would have to have with the Self in orderto be Saktis. The Buddhistcontention is that, as there are no groundsfor recognizing these categoriesin the flux of unique particulars, there are no groundsfor the Saiva soteriologicalrecognition.94 The Saiva Response to the Buddhists.How do the Saivas answer this sweeping doubt, metaphysicallysubvert Buddhistlogic, and establish the inference leading to the soteriological recognition?Their response may be understoodas a highly creative development of the thought of the fourth-to-sixth-century Bartrhari linguistic philosopher Bhartrhari.95 had interpreted the Vedic revelationmetaphysicallyas the Word Absolute (sabdabrahman) or SupremeSpeech (paravak).96 This principle is a and superlinguisticplenum containing language reality in a unity and into the universe of and words emanating separated objects. Bhartrhari's postulation of this principle as the source makes the entire universe of experience inherently linguistic, and thus provides the ground for the re-connection of words and objects in conventional linguistic reference.97 His basic position is diametricallyopposed to that of the
Buddhists.98

Utpaladevaand Abhinavagupta interpret SupremeSpeech as Siva's very self-recognition(ahampratyavamarsa).99 apExtendingBhartrhari's to the new proach problematics,they explain theircosmogonic myth of Siva emanating the universe throughSakti as this process of His selfDavid Lawrence recognition.As Abhinavagupta puts it:

181

The SupremeLord, who has the natureof awareness,makesHis own Self into an object of cognition,even though it is not an object of cognition, because the Cognizer is unitary.... As He recognitivelyapprehends[paramrsati] His Self, so, because everythingis containedwithin Him, He appearsas blue, and
so on.100

The emanationof the recognitionsof discrete objects such as "blue" is understoodas a kind of fragmentation of the Lord'sself-recognition.In this process, there is firstthe pure monistic self-recognition"I." Then of objectivity there is a recognition involving a partial differentiation fromsubjectivity,havingthe structure we know as PureWisdom,that is, "I am this." Finally,there is the loss of the awarenessof the "I" in the recognition of apparentlyseparate objects as "This," or, more fully, "Thisis that,""Thisis blue," and so on.101 Siva's self-recognitionis, of course, the very realizationthat the SaiThe Pratyabhijna thinkers' vas aim to convey to humanity. ascriptionof a primordial, cosmogonic statusto it is of great importin their arguments with the Buddhists. Theyare therebyable to arguethattheirsystem'sgoal constitutesthe veryfactsthatthe Buddhists say preclude it. As the Saivas' Lord's self-recognitionas the speculation alleges the necessity of the underlyingrealityof the basic epistemologicaland ontological facts, it inquiry.'02 may be classifiedas a highlyambitiousformof transcendental emanates Accordingto the Saivas,just as the Lord'sself-recognition it emanates into difof discrete into the recognitions apparently objects, ferent types of experiences of such objects. The chief among these are perceptualcognition, memory,and conceptual exclusion (apohana).In of epistemology,Utpaladevaand Abhinavagupta theirtreatment attempt to reducethese processesas well as theirostensibleobjects to modalities of Siva'sself-recognition.103 Here it will be possible to give a briefsummaryof the Saivas'treatment of only one topic of epistemology,which, I believe, is most representative: perceptual cognition. The Saivas' argumentson perceptual cognition may be roughlydivided into those centered on the term prakasa and those centered on the term vimarsaand its cognates such as and so on. Thoughcontemporary scholarship pratyavamarsa, paramarsa, has given much attentionto these terms,I do not believe there has been a basic appreciation of the way the discussionsemployingthem function and redemptiveagendas of leadto articulatethe Saivas'argumentative the students to ing soteriologicalrecognition.104 Prakaga, 'light, illumination'or 'awareness', has the philosophical to the Saivas' argumentsabout it, of a kind of significance, preliminary subjective awareness that validates each cognition, so that one knows that one knows.'05The thrustof the argumentsabout prakasais idealThe Saivascontend that, as no object is known withoutthis valistic.106 East & West Philosophy idatingsubjectiveawareness,this awarenessconstitutesall objects: 182

If the object did not have the nature of awareness [prakasa],it would be without illumination[aprakasa], as it was before [its appearance].Awareness is the [prakasa] cannot be different[thanthe object]. Awareness[prakasata] essential natureof the object.107 Nor can objects external to awareness be inferred as the causes of the diversity of awareness. For inference can only be made regarding things which have already been experienced, and not objects which by definition can never have been experienced.'08 Furthermore, the Saivas contend that one could never experience another subject outside one's own awareness. However, their conclusion is not solipsism as usually understood in the West, but a conception of a universal awareness: Even the cognition of others is nothing but one's own Self. Otherness is entirely due to accidental attributes[upadhi]such as the body, and so on. such as the body] has been determinednot And that [an accidental attribute to be other [thanawareness].Thus everythingfalls underthe categoryof the subject. The subject is really unitary.And He alone exists.... Therefore, beginningwith "BhagavanSadasivacognizes" and ending with "Theworm cognizes"-there is only one subject. Consequently,all cognitions [by apsubjectsreally]belong to that [one] subject.109 parentlydifferent The term vimarsa and its cognates have the significance of a judgment with a recognitive structure.110The arguments centering on these terms develop earlier considerations of Bhartrharion the linguisticality of experience. They refute the Buddhist contention that recognition is just a contingent reaction to direct experience, by claiming that it is integral or transcendental to it. As Utpala explains: They attest that recognitive judgment [vimarsa]is the essential nature of awareness [avabhasa]. Otherwise,awareness [prakasa], even though colored [upararakta] by the object, would be like that which is insentient,such as a and on.111 so crystal, Among the considerations the Saivas adduce for this thesis are: that children must build upon a subtle form of linguistic judgment 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 kind of subtle application of language in all experiences is necessary in order to account for our ability to remember them.'12 The Saivas further elaborate their position on the transcendental nature of recognition against the Buddhists by inverting the latters' point of view on the epistemic statuses of universals and particulars. The Saivas make the recognition of universals primary, and hold that particulars are constructed at a secondary level through the synthesis of these syn-

David Lawrence

183

theses. As Abhinava puts it briefly in the course of discussing another issue: It has been explained here [in the Pratyabhijia] that objects are nothingbut manifestations. They are sometimesmixed, throughthe unificationof recogwhen they have the formof the particular. And nitivejudgment[paramarsa], sometimes they are recognitivelyjudged [paramnrsyante] as unmixed,when they have the formof the universal.113 In this explanation, the Saivas attempt to achieve a double victory. The perceptions of both sorts of entities are claimed to depend intimately on conceptualization, especially that alleged by the Buddhists to be of the most basic and discrete sense data. Now, neither the arguments about prakda nor those about vimarsa and its cognates are meant to stand alone. The idealistic prakiaa arguments make the recognition shown by the vimarsa arguments to be integral to all epistemic processes, constitutive of them and their objects. The following statement places vimarsa in the idealistic algebra: of thingsare recognitivelyapprehended[vimrsyate], Here, as the multiplicity exist This is so because Being [astitva] so they [asti]. depends upon awareness of is the manifestation That there is, Being as depending on the [prakasa]. what is broughtabout throughthis regarding recognitivejudgment[vimarsa] exists as much and in whatever awareness[prakasa].... Therefore, something and it is way recognitively apprehended[vimrrsyate] unsublated.114 Several points must now be spelled out. Since according to the prakasa arguments all experience belongs to one subject, this recognition must be His self-recognition. And, inasmuch as this self-recognition is the means by which Siva causes the emanation of the universe, it is none other than His Sakti. This identity of self-recognition and Sakti is stated very frequently: which has the natureof Lordship, The Saktiwhich is Creatorhood [kartrtva], contains all the Saktis.That [Sakti]has the natureof recognitivejudgment Thereforeit is properthat only it is predominant.... As He recog[vimarsa]. His Self, so, because everythingis contained nitivelyapprehends[paramrsatf] within Him, He appearsas [objectssuch as] blue, and so on.115 Sakti is, of course, also the reason term in the Saiva inference. In the following passage, Utpala thus places the two chief Saktis of Cognition and Action, interpreted in terms of recognition, in the position of inferential reason: He [the subject] is the Great Lordsince it is necessarilythe case that he is recognitivelyjudging [vimarsattvena niyatena], and since that very reis the [vimarsa] pure Cognition and Action of God cognitive judgment [deva]. 6

PhilosophyEast& West

184

We are led to the startling realization thatself-recognition, the thesis-goal of the Saiva's inferential-ritual methodology,is identicalwith the reason thatjustifiesit. Thatis, one is inferentially led to the recognitionthat one is the Lord,because everythingis one's self-recognition. This may be put another way. The Pratyabhijna treatmentsof perceptual cognitionalong with othertopics of epistemologymay be understood as a recoveryor reintegration of the Lord'sself-recognition, which has been fragmentedinto the recognitionsconstitutingordinaryexperience. The followingtersestatementby Abhinavagupta elucidatesas such both key formulationsof the inferentialrationaleand the sakta upaya modus operandi,that is, the revealingof Saktiand the operationof Pure Wisdom/Good Reasoningin purifying conceptualization:
17wordand object,charThe ascertainment [adhyavasa] judges [paramrSantT acterizedby name and form,as one, in the form"Thisis that."[That ascertainwho has the natureof recognitive ment]is the Saktiof the SupremeLord, judgment [vimarsa]. Itappearsonly "as the Self,"that is, nonseparately from"I." However,it never appearsas "this,"that is, as separate[fromthe Self].118

The recognitionof an objective "This"/"This is that" is reallythe emanatoryself-recognition"I." This fact may be expressed either as "'This' is Sakti"or with the expressionof PureWisdom "I am this."'19The primordialstatusaccorded to self-recognitionin the interpretation of Saiva emanationismhas defined the radical conclusion of it's transcendental inquiry.It is the fact that the Pratyabhijna theory of recognitionso fully encodes the Saiva myth that makes the inquiriesthat disclose it into tantricritualthat bestows salvation. Our discovery of the identityof the reason and conclusion of the inference brings us back to the overarchingtheological Pratyabhijna negationswe considered at the beginning of the discussion of methodof the Lord'sultimate ology. I there explained the Saivas' understanding in terms of their of nonobjectifiability conceptions grace and self-lumiAbhinava these ideas another articulationin his nosity. gives important workson practicaltheology. Above his threefoldscheme of increasingly subtle and internalmeans, he postulateswhat he calls the "nonmeans" (anupaya).This is a final stage of immediate realization involving no effortor very slighteffort. Some of Abhinava'sremarksin his discussion of this nonmeansare directly pertinentto our present considerationof the steps of the Pratyabhijin inference. More fundamentalthan but homologous to the denial identityof inferentialreason and conclusion is Abhinavagupta's here of the ultimatevalidityof any relationbetween a distinctspiritual means (upaya)and goal (upeya):
andgoal [upeya]is an illusionof grossness Therelation of means [upaya] of cogwhich is the cause of bothbondageand liberation.120 David Lawrence nition.Itis the ActionSakti

185

What use is there with reasoningsregarding the self-luminousprincipleof consciousness [samvittattva]?...All means [upaya], external and internal, it?... [Objects depend upon it. How could they be means [upaya]regarding of different kindsof experience, such as] blue, yellow, and pleasureare only awareness [prakaa], that is, Siva. Since there is [reallyonly] this supreme nondualitywhich has the nature of awareness [prakasa],what relation of means [upaya]and goal [upeya]could therebe which is otherthan it?Forthat of means and goal] is only awareness[prakasa].121 [relation It is the Lord's omnipotence and self-luminous unity that preclude all relationships of distinct means and the goal. This general conception of practical theology is exemplified in the identity of reason and conclusion in the Pratyabhijna inference. From a philosophical point of view, the identity of reason and conclusion in the Pratyabhijna inference may seem to admit a vitiating circularity. Though this essay is not strictly philosophical, even its exegetic project requires that I say that I do not believe this is so. For, in the Pratyabhijna, the soteriology is not presumed but is supposed to be discovered in inquiries into common problems and following common rules of Sanskrit philosophical discourse. The Saivas' development of these inquiries required an enormous amount of creative interpretation and hard "methodologically detached" thinking. In effect, all these inquiries that they have developed constitute "reasons for the reason" that is emanation/self-recognition. From our extratraditional perspective, the circularity of the inference is thus transformed into a cognitively advancing hermeneutic circularity. It is only within the intratraditional perspective that the elaborate argumentation of Pratyabhijna sastra does not do anything. We must recur to the monistic mythical dynamics of emanation and return. Utpaladeva describes the soteriological reintegration of self-recognition through the Pratyabhijnasystem as a sort of "telos" of the phenomena of ordinary experience: of the separatedrecognitive The accomplishmentof the purpose [krtarthata] the "this"-is recognitive judgment [vimarsa]of rest judgment [vimarsa] in its own nature essential [visranti] [expressed]"I am He."122 The progress of phenomena toward self-recognition is nothing but a clarification of their nature as self-recognition. Cosmogony and teleology are the same. Thus Abhinavagupta compares the recognition constituting ordinary experience to a point of rest in a paradoxical journey between the identical origin and goal of Siva's self-recognition. is the absolutelyfinal Thatwhich is called recognitivejudgment[paramarsa] of rest eva paramarthikam] and true [paryantikam [visrantisthanam]; place to a village, the intermediate and it only has the form"I."Intraveling pointof rest[madhyavisrantipadam], at the rootof a tree, is explainedto be createdas

PhilosophyEast& West

186

expectantof that [finalpoint of rest].... Thusalso blue, and so on, existingin as "This is blue," are the intermediaterecognitive judgment [paramarsa] established to consist of the Self. For they rest upon the root recognitive
judgment [paramarsa] "1."123

The new Saiva philosophy, with all of its technical procedureof justification, is a path of return in a circular journey that never really departs.124 NOTES

and the RecThis essay develops one of the themes in my "Argument ognition of Siva: The PhilosophicalTheology of Utpaladevaand Abhiof Chicago, 1992). An earlierversion navagupta"(Ph.D.diss., University of this essay was presentedin the session "Encodingand Overcodingin the Tantras"at the 22d Annual Conference on South Asia, Madison, 1993. are used in the text or the notes: The following abbreviations Bhaskar,by Bhaskarakantha, commentaryon IPV. Isvarapratyabhijnakarika, by Utpaladeva. on IPK. by Utpaladeva,commentary Igvarapratyabhijfinkarikavrtti, by Abhinavagupta, 1svarapratyabhijfnavimarsinT, commentaryon IPK. IPW IgvarapratyabhijnafvivrtivimarsinT, by Abhinavagupta, commentary on Utpaladeva'sIsvarapratyabhijnavivrtti. SD Sivadrsti by Somananda. TA Tantraloka, by Abhinavagupta. TAV Tantralokaviveka, by Jayaratha, commentaryon TA. TS Tantrasara, by Abhinavagupta. 1 - Wilhelm Halbfass,India and Europe:An Essayin Understanding (Albany:State Universityof New YorkPress,1988), p. 157. 2 - There was an effortto create a bridge between these approaches at the Universityof Chicago Conferences on Religions in Culture and History, 1986-1989, and the resulting SUNY series, Toward a ComparativePhilosophyof Religion. For examples of several approaches,see Francisa Cho Bantly,ed., Deconstructing/ the of Reconstructing Philosophy Religion:SummaryReportsfrom the Conferenceson Religionsin Cultureand History 1986-1989 (Chicago:Universityof Chicago Divinity School, 1990); and see FrankE. Reynolds and David Tracy, eds., Myth and Philosophy of New YorkPress,1990), Discourseand David Lawrence (Albany:StateUniversity BIPV IPK IPKV IPV

187

Practice(AlbanyState Universityof New YorkPress, 1992), and Religion and PracticalReason: New Essays in the Comparative Philosophy of Religion (Albany State University of New York Press,1994). 3 - The relativistHoward EilbergSchwartzthus attemptsto destroy the universalityand normativity of philosophical rationalitypreit to See cisely by reducing myth. "Myth,Inferenceand the Relativism of Reason:An Argumentfrom the Historyof Judaism,"in Reynoldsand Tracy,Mythand Philosophy,pp. 247-285. 4 - One of the greatest pioneers of comparativephilosophy, Bimal Krishna of religion,particularly Matilal,did do some interpretation in his later years. However, most of his work has the form deAn Essay scribed. Thus, see his most important study, Perception: on Classical Indian Theoriesof Knowledge (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986). One of the most outspoken advocates of the seriousness of Indian philosophies, Daya Krishna,has claimed that their expressed religious objectives are an excuse to legitimate intellectualspeculations. 5 - See PierreHadot,Exercicesspirituelset philosophie antique(Paris: EtudesAugustiniennes,1981). 6 - David Tracy is an heir to the traditionof Christian philosophical theology who has made greateffortsto develop it to addressconand rationality. See his analtemporary problemsof interpretation ysis of the differenttypes of philosophicaland nonphilosophical theological discourse in The Analogical Imagination:Christian Pub(New York:Crossroad Theologyand the Cultureof Pluralism lishingCo., 1975), pp. 47-98. I will referto this analysis in interpretingthe Pratyabhijha philosophybelow. Also see David Tracy, "The Uneasy Alliance Reconceived: Catholic Theological Method,Modernity,and Post-Modernity," TheologicalStudies50 548-570. (1989): 7 - Scholars making such efforts are as diverse as Bimal Krishna Matilal, Michael Hayes, Paul Griffiths,Robert Neville, and Tu Wei-ming. 8 - The main textual focus of this essay will be Utpaladeva's igvar(IPK)and Abhinavagupta'sIgvarapratyabhijapratyabhijiakarika navimarsinT (IPV).For these texts I will use the edition [gvarof Abhinavagupta, Doctrine of Divine apratyabhijfnavimarsinT Sanskrit Text with Bhaskar, 2 vols., ed. K. A. SuRecognition: and K. C. Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass, bramania lyer Pandey(reprint, 1986). I will sometimes refer to the eighteenth-centurycomAlso withinthe (BIPV). mentaryon the IPV,Bhdskari, by Bhaskara

East &West Philosophy 188

and the Isvarapratyaessay's scope are: Utpaladeva, SiddhitrayT ed. Madhusudan Kaul KashmirSeries Shastri, bhijnakarikavrtti, of Texts and Studies, no. 34 (Srinagar:KashmirPratap Steam Press, 1921), and Abhinavagupta,lsvarapratyabhijiavivrtivimar3 vols., ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, KashmirSeries of sinm, Texts and Studies (reprint,Delhi: Akay Book Corporation, 1987). The gSvarapratyabhfinakarikavrtti and ISvarapratyabhijfnavivrtivimarsinTwill henceforth be referred to as IPKV and IPVV, respectively. Thisessay will for the most parttreatthe Pratyabhijiia theories of Utpaladeva and Abhinavaguptaas an integralwhole. As is usual in foundationalverse and aphorismtexts, Utpaladeva'sIPK is densely writtenand is intendedto be expounded in subordinate commentaries. However, there is presently available only the shorterof Utpaladeva'scommentaries,centered on the IPK-the IPKV-which is mostly concerned with clarifying the basic commentarieshave the meaning of the verses. Abhinavagupta's of and it is most often imposbut quality deep originalthought, sible to distinguish arguments which had direct precedent in Utpaladeva from those which either furtheror depart from his discussions. It is also in accordance with the intentions of the Indiangenre of text and commentaryto treatthem as presenting one system. 9 - I am workingon a constructivephilosophicalinterpretation of the in and the Recsystem transforming Pratyabhijna my "Argument of Siva" into a in and an article. book, ognition 10 IPK1.1, benedictoryverse, 1 :18. 11 - IPV1.1, on IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 :17.
12 - IPV 1.1, on IPK,benedictory verse, 1 :28-29.

13 - IPV1.1, on IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 :37-38. 14 - There are numerousdiscussions of the soteriologicalsignificance of the recognitionwhich the Pratyabhijin system aims to convey. See IPV1.1, on IPK, 1 benedictoryverse, :33-34, and on this BIPV, IPV on 33-34; 1.1, IPK,benedictoryverse, 1 :38-39; IPV1.1, on and IPV3.2.11-12, 2 :256IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 :41-42; IPK 259; IPKandIPV4.1.15, 2:308; IPK4.1.18,2:315-316; and also the discussionsof the practicalcausal efficacy (arthakriya) of rec1 at IPK and 2:312-315. IPV4.1.17, ognition IPV1.1.2, :58-59; 15 - IPV1.1, on IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 :32. 16 - IPV1.1, on IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 :29-30; BIPVon IPV1.1, on DavidLawrence IPK, benedictoryverse, 1 : 30; IPV4.1.18, 2 :316.

189

17 - On hermeneuticcharity,see Paul Griffiths, An Apology for ApolYork: New Orbis Books, 1991), pp. 20-21. ogetics (Maryknoll, 18 - IPV1.1, introductory verse, 3, 1 :8. 19 - IPV4.1.16, 2:309. 20 - See IPVV,1.1, 1 :16. Cf. IPVand BIPV1.1.4, 1:78; and Utpaladeva in The Sivadrstiof Srisomanandanatha with the Vrittiby ed. Kaul Kashmir Series of Madhusudan Shastri, Utpaladeva, Texts and Studies,no. 54 (Pune:Aryabhushan Press,1934), 3.16, 105. Somananda's as SD. text will henceforthbe abbreviated 21 - In this way, the Pratyabhijha illustrates what Alexis Sandersonhas Saiva trawhich the various Kashmiri called the "overcoding"by the symbolismand praxisof other traditions have appropriated in this patternof appropriation ditions. BrianSmithhas interpreted the Vedic and largerSouth Asian contexts as "encompassment" on the basis of a presumed"hierarchical resemblance."See Brian K. Smith, Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual and Religion (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress, 1989), pp. 46-49, 186-189. I believe that the patternis actuallya reflectionof the hermeneutic circle, necessaryto all acts of interpretation. 22 - MirceaEliadeconceptualizedthis issue in termsof historyand the transcendenceof history,as the "dialecticof the Sacred." 23 - In Saivism generally, He is said to performfive cosmic acts: the of it, of it, the destruction creationof the universe,the preservation the creationof humandelusion (which is the cause of sufferingin and the bestowal of salvificgrace. rebirth), and 24 - See the discussionof sections fromthe Tantraloka, Tantrasara, The in Debabrata Sen Sharma, Philosophyof MalinTvijayavarttika, Sadhana: WithSpecial Referenceto Trika Philosophyof KgamTra (Karnal, Haryana: NatrajPublishingHouse, 1983), pp. 88 ff. 25 - IPV1.1, on IPK, 1.1, 2. benedictoryverse, 1 :24-28. Cf. Sivadrsti 26 - The Advaita Vedantin theory itself interpretsdiscussions in the doctrine Upanisads,and was also influenced by the MTmamsaka of the means of of the 'self-established-ness'(svatahpramanya) as well as the Buddhistlogicians' notion cognition (pramanas), inherent in all of the 'validatingself-awareness'(svasamvedana) experiences. 27- The two chief sections where Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta are IPK and IPV1.1.1, 1: 47focus on the issue of self-luminosity and 2:134-139. 2.3.15-16, 56, points out the (Abhinavagupta connection between these discussions,in IPV2.3.15-16, 134.) Cf.

East &West Philosophy

190

IPV1.1, on IPK, in benedictoryverse, 1 :38. On ignorance/illusion the context of self-luminosity,also see IPKand IPV1.1.2, 1 :5759; IPKand IPV2.3.17, 2:141-143. 28 - IPV2.3.17, 2:143-144.

29 - Tracy,Analogical Imagination, p. 57. See the analysis of the differences between fundamental,systematic,and practicaltheologies in terms of five rubrics,ibid., pp. 54-58. Also see the discussion focusing on fundamentaltheology, in ibid., pp. 62-64. Tracy acknowledges that, because it is produced in particular historicalsituations,the effort of fundamentaltheology is intrinsically "problematic," "uncertain," and only "partly historySee his Blessed Rage for Order:TheNew Pluralism transcending." in Theology(Minneapolis: Press,1975), pp. 64Winston-Seabury Alliance and his Reconceived,"pp. 557-559, 56787, "Uneasy 568. Cf. Paul J. Griffiths' descriptionof philosophy in its idealof character transcending the limitations of historical typical as "denaturalized discourse," in "DenaturalizingDiscontext, and the Comparative course: Abhidharmikas,Propositionalists, Philosophy of Religion," in Tracy and Reynolds, Myth and Philosophy,p. 66. 30 - I emphasize that not all sastraicdiscourse is philosophical in the sense that I have given the term here. Accordingto this criterion, for whom even the well-knownAdvaitaVedantinthinkerSahkara, to the process of exegesis of scripture,is a reason is subordinated philosopher only on exceptional occasions. He would more accuratelybe described as a systematicand practicaltheologian or "Brahmalogian." With Vatsyayana's 31 -The list is given at Nyayadarsanam: Bhasya, and VigvaVarttika, VacaspatiMigra'sTatparya.tka Uddyotakara's and Amarendramoed. Taranatha natha's Vrtti, Nyaya-Tarkatirtha with introd.by NarendraChandraVedantatirtha han Tarkatirtha, (Delhi: MunshiramManoharlal,1985), p. 28. The paradigmatic role of the Nyaya standardsis demonstratedin the studies of Matilal. See particularly"The Nature of PhilosophicalArgument," chap. in Matilal,Perception,pp. 69-93. 32 - IPV 1.1, on IPK,benedictoryverse, 1 :43. Abhinava states here that he is explainingthe view of Utpaladeva.I note that we must in consideringthe relation rely on explanationsof Abhinavagupta of the Pratyabhijfi method to the Nyaya standardsof philosophical argument.Utpaladevadoes not seem directlyto treatthis issue in his available writings.Certainlythe classic philosophicalstandards are in many ways implied in his speculation, and Abhina- DavidLawrence 191

va's formulationsare profoundlyelucidative of Utpala'sthought. We may neverthelesssee in Abhinava'sdiscussionsof the Nyaya method some of his genuine innovations. The stress here on the Saivas' use of Nyaya concerns their constructionof their philosophicalmethodology in the pursuitof I am not claimingthat the Saivasare more universalintelligibility. "influenced"by Nyaya than other schools of Indian substantively Buddhistlogic, Samkhya,Advaita, philosophysuch as Vyakarana, etc.
33 - IPV 2.3.17, 2:140.

34 - Fora good explanationof the Nyaya categories,see Matilal,Perception, pp. 71-93. 35 - According to Nyaya, it is the knowledge of the following prameyas which leads to liberation: atma, siro, indriya, buddhi, manas, pravrtti, dosa, pretyabhava, phala, duhkha,and apavarga 1.1.9, 180). (Nyayadarsanam 36 - IPV2.3.17, 2:140. 37 - IPV.Cf. IPVV 2.3.1 7, 3: 181-182. 38 - Therewere debates between the Indianschools about the precise numberof steps and the structure of the inferencefor the sake of others.Abhinavadismissesthe Buddhist of the number disputation of partsas mere obstinacy(IPV2.3.17, 2 :140). 39 - This account largelyfollows the interpretations by KarlH. Potter, of Indian ed., Encyclopedia Philosophies, vol. 2, Indian MetaThe Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika physics and Epistemology: up to Motilal and Pre180-181, (Delhi: Banarsidass, 1977), Gangesa pp. of New India's Cliffs, suppositions Philosophies(Englewood Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 60-61, and by Matilal,Perception, p. 78. 40 - IPV2.3.17, 2:142-143. 41 - IPK 1.1.2, 1 :57. The same idea is expressedat IPK2.3.17,2:141. Utpaladevanever explicitlymentionsthe inferencefor the sake of others in his available writings. However, his statementsfit precisely into Abhinava'sexplanation of the inference. See above, note 32. 42 - Abhinavaexplains elsewhere that by the word "Saktis"there are indicatedthe qualities (dharma) of the Lord(IPVV 2.3.17, 3:182; IPV2.3.17, 2:146). At IPVV1.5.21, 2:269, Abhinavaexplains that in different contextsthe same fact may be variouslyreferred to the terms and attribute Sakti, by quality(dharma), (guna) operation (vyapara).

East &West Philosophy

192

43 - On the lattercorrespondence,see note 124. The Saktisof Cognition and Action are also central categories of prephilosophical tantras. 44 -Thus there are the Memory (smrti)Sakti, Semantic Exclusion (niyati) (apohana)Sakti, Time (kala)Sakti, and Causal-Regularity Sakti. 45 - IPK1.1.3, 61. 46 - See IPV1.1.3, 1 :62-67; IPV1.1.4, 1: 76-77; IPV1.6.11, 1:141143. 47 - PureWisdom is discussed at IPKandIPV3.1.3-7, 2:221-232. 48 - IPK 3.1.4, 2:225. Thistranslationis influencedby that of Pandey, Doctrineof Divine Recognition,3: 193. 49 - On the operationof PureWisdom in bringingabout the soteriological recognition,see IPV3.1.7, 2:230-231; and IPKand IPV 3.2.2-3, 2:246-247. 50 - IPV1.1.3, 1 :67-68.
51 - IPV2.3.17, 2:144-145. 52- IPV2.3.17, 2:145-146.

53 - Otherexpressionsof the inferenceassertthat the individualis full of the universe, like a treasureis of jewels; and pervades (pQrna) the priorand latterpartsof the universe, like the earth in relation to sprouts.See the series of expressionsat IPV2.3.17, 2: 144-146, and IPVV, 2.3.17, 3:181-182. 54 - I note that Abhinava goes so far in what might be called his as to indicate correenthusiasmfor philosophical rationalization inferential with of of the text. steps parts Pratyabhijna spondences verse states the thesis, He assertsthat Utpaladeva'sintroductory and that one of his concluding verses, IPK4.1.16, 2 :309, states the conclusion. The middle of the book expresses the "reason (hetu),and so on," i.e., steps 2 through4 (IPV1.1, on IPK,benethesis may only be dictory verse, 1:42-43). The Pratyabhijna understood implicitly within the introductoryand concluding verses, which do not at all have the style of an inferentialthesis secand conclusion. Thoughthe correspondenceswith particular tions must thus not be taken too strictly,the characterizationis The middle of the text, which is supposed to contain illuminating. the reason, general principle, and application, is largely constitutedby the technical discussionsof problemsof epistemology and ontology importantto the Indian philosophical academy. DavidLawrence 193

These discussions logically substantiate the soteriologicalpurpose of the system articulatedin the thesis. 55 -Alexis Sandersonsuggested in a personal conversation in 1991 that this practice reflects the assimilation of Saktism within Saivism. 56 - Abhinavagupta's pupil Ksemaraja gives interestinginterpretations of the revealingof Saktiin his commentaries on the SivasCtras and Krama He the of circles of Saktis Spandakarikas. explains mastery as the backgroundto practices in these texts. See SivasCtras: The of of Text the Sctras and the Yoga SupremeIdentity: Commentary Vimarsini of Ksemaraja, ed. and trans.JaidevaSingh (Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, of 1979), 3.30, 196-197, and TheSpandakarikas with the ed. and trans. MadhuVasugupta Nirnayaby Ksemaraja, sudan Kaul Shastri,Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 42 Kashmir (Srinagar: PratapSteam Press, 1925), 1.1, 3-8; 3.19, 74; view about the Krama 1.5, 19. Sanderson accepts Ksemaraja's as see Alexis Sanderson,"Saivismand the background probable; TantricTraditions," in The World'sReligions,ed. StewartSutherland et al. (London:Routledge, 1988), pp. 694-695. Cf. Bhaskara'sexplanationof the process of becoming the Lordof the circle in BIPV1.8, 1 :399-400. The last passage was pointed out by Monismof Kashmir: NavjivanRastogi,"The Philosophyof Krama An AnalyticalStudy" (Ph.D. thesis, Lucknow University,1967), on the relation pp. 417-418. Thiswork also contains information of Krama to spanda. 57 - The Vijnana-Bhairava with Commentary and Partly by Kshemaraja Series of ed. MukundaRamaShastri,Kashmir by Shivopadhyaya, Texts and Studies, no. 8 (Bombay:Tatva-vivechaka Press, 1918), 18-21, 13-15. This translationis influenced by that of Vijnafnaof 112 Types of bhairavaor Divine Consciousness:A Treasury Motilal ed. and trans. Jaideva (Delhi: Banarsidass, Yoga, Singh is cited in The 16-17. The 18-21, 1979), passage by Jayaratha of Jayaratha, 8 of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary Tantraloka vols., ed. MadhusudanKaulShastriand MukundaRamaShastri, Kashmir Seriesof Textsand Studies,ed. R. C. Dwivedi and Navjivan Rastogi (reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1987), 1.74, to as TA, 2:115. Abhinavagupta's workwill henceforthbe referred and Jayaratha's will referred to be commentary,Tantralokaviveka, as TAV. 58 - Forthis word, bhargyah, I follow Singh, Vijfnanabhairava, p. 99. East &West Philosophy 194 59 - Shastri, The Vijfnana-Bhairava with CommentaryPartlyby Ksheand 109-110, 95-96. maraja Partly by Shivopadhyaya,

60 - Thisexpressioncontainsexactly the fourth,application,step of the inference, i.e, "I, who have the qualities [dharma]of Siva, am none but He."
61 - Ibid.

62 -The features of the sakta upaya treated below are discussed of AbhinavathroughoutTA4, 1:617-923, and in The Tantrasara Kashmir Series of Texts and ed. Mukunda Ram Sastri, gupta, 1982), 4, 21-34. Studies, no. 17 (reprint,Delhi: Bani Prakashan, I can make only a few comments here about Abhinava'sclassificationof means of realization.The firstthree means-typesare distinguishedby operationon the levels of the Trikacosmological triads. In ascending order, these are the individualmeans (anava upaya), the means of Sakti (sakta upaya), and the means of Sambhu, a.k.a. Siva (sambhavaupaya). Above them, Abhinava posits the 'non-means' (anupaya),which designates the direct absorptioninto UltimateRealityinvolvinglittleor no effort. Some contemporary scholars have assumed that the Pratyabhijnasystem teaches the 'nonmeans' (anupaya).See, e.g., R. K. Kaw, The Doctrine of Recognition (Pratyabhijfna Philosophy), Vishveshvaranand VishIndological Series, no. 40 (Hoshiarpur: veshvaranandInstitute, 1967), p. 264, and MarkDyczkowski, The An Analysisof the Doctrinesand Practices Doctrine of Vibration: of Kashmir Shaivism,ed. HarveyAlper,SUNYSeries in the Shaiva Traditions of Kashmir StateUniversity of New YorkPress, (Albany: 1987), p. 179. Dyczkowski apparentlybases his classificationon citations of the authorityof Somanandaon the Abhinavagupta's nonmeans, and on the lack of need for practiceafterSiva is realized. However, none of the relevantstatementsby Somanandaor Abhinavaguptastate that the Pratyabhijfnsystem works through the nonmeans.See SD 75b-6, 209; TAand TAV2.48,2 :349-350; IPV1.1, on IPK,benedictoryverse, 1 :31-32; IPV4.1.16, 2:311. In my opinion, the significanceof the nonmeans is closely related to that of the doctrinesof self-luminosity and divine omnipotence. The highest realization is that Siva is already realized, and this highest realizationitself is known to be broughtabout by Siva. I further develop this point at the end of the essay. The sakta upayaclassificationwas firstsuggestedto me by Pt. HemendraNath Chakravarty. This well supportedmy own analysis of practicalthemes that seemed to contradictthe nommeans classification. Pt. Chakravarty and I then spent a considerable amount of time researchingthe sakta upaya classificationof the system together. Dr. Navjivan Rastogilater informedme that he also made the sakta upaya classification.He provided me with a DavidLawrence 195

copy of the unpublishedsecond volume of his dissertation,"The An AnalyticalStudy," Philosophyof KramaMonism of Kashmir: which elucidatesmanyconnections between the Pratyabhijia and of the Pratyabhijha the sakta upaya. My understanding system in terms of the sakta upaya is thereforeindebtedto Pt. Chakravarty and Dr. Rastogi-though I have also researchedit on my own. Alexis Sandersonalso latersupportedthe sakta upaya interpretation in our personal conversation. A summary of my underand the Recogstandingof this issue is found in my "Argument nitionof Siva," pp. 85-98. The chief points on this topic made in this essay are my own: the way the revealingof Saktiand Pure Wisdom in the Pratyabhijfasystem as well as the sakta upaya articulatethe same knowledgeof emanation,theirfunctionwithin an inference in the Pratyabhijna system, and the connections between this inferenceand the sakta upaya. on Vijfinna-Bhairava, 63 - See his commentary 109-110, 95-96. I may have learnedof this statementfrom Dr. Rastogi. 64 - In personalconversation,Sandersondid not wish to make a special connection of the saktaupaya with the practiceof the revealing of Saktibecause this practice is so general. Boththe revealing of Sakti and the operation of Pure Wisdom actually figure in Abhinava'sotherclassifications.However,they are given thematic prominencein the sakta upaya. 65 - Rastogi,"Philosophyof Krama," p. 388. 66 - See TA4, 3:617-923 and TS4, 21-33. 67 - TA1.217-218,2:240. 68 -Alexis Sandersonexplained in personal conversationthat an increasing valuationof knowledge is evident even in the composition of the Saiva scriptures. 69 - TAand TAV1.148, 2:186-187. On this section of the text, see p. 416. The fact that the sakta Rastogi,"Philosophyof Krama," upaya is the means of knowledge can be understoodon the basis of its operation on the middle level of the Trikacosmic triad, which is in one version the Cognition/Knowledge (jnafna)Sakti. See Alexis Sanderson,"Mandalaand Agamic Identityin the Trika
of Kashmir,"in Mantras et diagrammes rituels dans L'Hindouisme,

East &West Philosophy 196

CentreNationalde la RechercheSciened. Andre Padoux(Paris: 173 n. 9. 1986), p. tifique, 70 - See TAand TAV4.13,3:628-629. 71 - Sri MalinTvijayottara Tantram,ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri (Delhi: Butalaand Company,1984), 17.18-19, 114. These verses

are quoted at TA 4.15-16, 3:630-631. The role of reasoning in bringingabout the discrimalong with scholarlyworks (sastras) ination between heya and upadeya is discussed in Nyayadarsanam 1.1, 1. 72 - TA4.118-119, 3:737. Cf. TA4.218-220, 3:858-859. In his definitions of purityand impurity,Abhinava is subvertingorthodox of the objective realityof these qualities.For Hindu understanding his criticismof orthodox ideas, again citing the authorityof the also see TS4.43, 31. Tantra, MalinTvijaya I should also observe here that,aside fromthe operationof the inference, Abhinava frames an elaborate discussion in the Praof the sortsof subjectsexistingon differtyabhijfna Agamadhikara ent cosmological levels in termsof the categoriesof that which is to be avoided and that which is to be pursued.He even explains the soteriological recognition itself in terms of making the discrimination between these two (IPV 3.2, Introduction,2:244). Utpaladevahimself refersto certain states of consciousness as to be abandoned (heya) at IPK 3.2.18, 2:269. The difference between the two classes is again that of the absorptionor nonabsorptionof the object into the emanatorysubject (IPV3.2.2-3, 2:246-247). 73 - PureWisdom is fifth from the top in the thirty-sixfold scheme of tattvas,and intermediatein the Trikacosmic triads. In personal conversation, Alexis Sanderson suggested that Abhinavagupta may have utilized this principle in explaining the sakta upaya because of its importancein the Pratyabhijia. 74 - TA4.34, 3:655. Likewisesee TS 4, 23-26. Abhinavagupta frequently utilizes the terms interchangeably;see TA 4.44b-45a, 3 :665; TA4.109-118, 3: 729-737. The identification exemplifies Abhinavagupta'sgeneral view that spiritual means (upiya) are identical with their goal (upeya).This view will be discussed further at the end of this essay. 75 - TA4.111-114, 3:731-733. 76 - To emphasize furtherthe encompassment of the Pratyabhijna inference by the soteriology, I mention one other point: Pure Wisdom in the Pratyabhijna itselfis also referred to as the Wisdom Sakti to its character as an highlight (vidya) activity of the Lord. Abhinava explains: "When there is born the condition of the His Lordship, as has been explained by means of the previously stated arguments.She due to whom some, having accepted these argumentsand having their heartsencouraged, become success- DavidLawrence
bound creature ... then the Sakti of the Supreme Lord illuminates

197

ful-is the Wisdom Power"(IPV3.1.7, 2 :230-231). Also see IPK

3.2.2, 2 :246, and IPV3.2.2-3, 2 :246-247.

77 - See Matilal, Perception, pp. 53, 74, 80. Decision (nirnaya)is anotherNyaya category. 78 - IPVI.2, Introduction, 1 :82. Cf. IPV4.1.16, 2 :309-310. I observe that many nonphilosophical sastras are also structuredaround debates with opponents. For example, there may be doubt or debate about interpretations of texts, doctrines,or practiceswhich are assumed to be correct.This sort of discussion is common to nonphilosophicalacademic (and, of course, nonacademic) discussion aroundthe world. Thereare certainlygray areas between what should and should not be considered philosophical. The distinctionperhapsdepends upon the systematicityand depth of reflexivity. 79 - IPV1.2, benedictoryverse, 1 :81. 1 :82. The verse is in TheStava-Chintamani 80 - IPV1.2, Introduction,
of Bhatta Narayana with Commentary by Kshemaraja, ed.

MukundaRamShastri,Kashmir Seriesof Textsand Studies,no. 10 Kashmir Steam Press,1918), 71, 80. (Srinagar: Pratap 81 - TA4.17, 3:632. Abhinavaidentifiesdoubt with the propensityto of subject and object, which is elimiseeing duality, particularly nated by good reasoning(sattarka); see TA4.105, 3: 726. The significance of doubt in tantric practice is discussed in Rastogi, "Philosophyof Krama," pp. 593-594. 82 - TA4.18-32, 3:636-653; TS4, 31-32. 83 - TS 4.4-5, 21-22. Cf. Jayaratha'sdiscussion of the difference between the good reasoningof the Saivas and the non-good reaof othersat TAV4.17,3 :636. soning (asattarka)
84 - TA4.39-40, 3: 659-660. 85 - IPV, Conclusion, 2, 2:317.

East &West Philosophy 198

86 - See note 124 for remarkson the Saivas' development of "tantric argument"in the realmof ontology. 87 - ThoughAbhinavagupta mentionsvariousother Buddhistthinkers, the Saivas' understanding centers most on the thought of DharmakTrti. Buddhist logic is sometimes described as a hybrid of Yogacara and Sautrantika.I note that there are not presently known any texts expressingcriticismsof the Saivasby this school. Whether or not there were previous confrontations,what is importantis that the Buddhistlogicians were seen as a great intellectual threat by the large community of Hindu philosophers.

By answering the challenges posed by them, the Saivas understood themselves as giving their soteriology a strong intellectual foundation. 88 - See the Saivas' summaryof the basic views of Buddhistlogic at and IPV1.2.1-2, 1 :85-91. IPK of 89 - See Abhinavagupta's explanationof the "Thisis that"structure at IPVV1.2.1-2, 1 :115. He supportsthis by quoting interpretation kanda 2, ed. K. A. Subramanialyer of VakyapadTya Bhartrhari, Motilal (Delhi: Banarsidass,1983), 2.128. I note that the Saiva theory of recognition is actually elaborated with three sets of terms, all of which have extensive backgroundsin the earlier linalong guistic and epistemological speculations:(1) Pratyabhijfin, transwith cognates such as abhijna,is usually unproblematically from root mrs, Derivatives the lated just as 'recognition'. (2) such as vimarsa,paramarsa, amarsa,etc., convey pratyavamarsa, notions of linguistic interpretation, judgment,apprehension,etc., which have a recognitive structure.I accordingly often translate these terms as 'recognitive judgment'. (3) Terms derived from attachingvarious initialprefixesto the second prefixsam and the and abhisamdhiroot dha-e.g., anusamdhana, pratisamdhana, of the develop significance recognitionthroughnotionsof synthesis or association. I often translatethem as 'recognitivesynthesis.' Previous scholars have not understood the way the latter two classes of terms articulatethe Saiva theory of recognition.In the Pratyabhijnatexts, these three classes of terms are variously and placed in close defined by one another,used interchangeably, functional relationships.They are also employed disjunctively. The presentationin this essay is made on the basis of the synonymies and homologiesbetween the classes of terms.Textualsupport and the Recogis found in my "Argument for my interpretation nitionof Siva," pp. 131-133. 90 - See Nyayadarsanam, 1.1.4, 93-131. especially the TatparyatTka, vis-a-visrecUseful discussionof the debates about interpretation Nath Shastri,The Philosoognition may be found in Dharmendra and ItsConflictwith the BuddhistDignaga phy of Nyaya-Vaisesika of IndianRealism),with a forewordby Sarvepalli School (Critique Radhakrishnan (Agra:Agra University,1964; reprint,Delhi: Bha1976), pp. 144, 201-209, 227-230, 456ratiyaVidya Prakashan, 471. I note that in manydiscussionsrecognitionand memorywere invoked by Hindu thinkersas proofsof a persistingSelf functionfor the impressionsof the past. Thoughthey are ing as substratum sometimes used to defend epistemological points, these are in David Lawrence of philosophicalpsychology. themselves arguments 199

91 - This is evident particularly in the fourth,application,step of the inference for the sake of others. See the discussions of lingapain Nyayadarsanam, ramarsa 1.1.5, by Uddyotakara, Nyjya Varttika and JhalakTkar, 142-143, by MahamahopadhyayaBhTmacarya or Dictionaryof TechnicalTerms of IndianPhilosophy, NyayakoSa, revised and re-edited by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev Shastri Oriental Bhandarkar Research (Poona: 1978), Institute, Abhyankar and see and Daniel pp. 709-710, Abhinavagupta Ingalls'explanation in The "Dhvanyaloka" of Anandavardhanawith the "Locana"of Abhinavagupta, trans. Daniel H. H. Ingalls,Jeffrey MoussaieffMasson, and M. V. Patwardhan Harvard (Cambridge: 547-548 n. and the re7, UniversityPress, 1990), 3.33b, 546, marksin Daniel Ingalls,Materialsfor the Study of Navya-Nyaya Logic, ed. Walter Eugene Clark,HarvardOrientalSeries, no. 40 (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 1951), 32-33. The converse view, that all conceptual constructionis inferential,is well known;see Matilal,"Perceptionas Inference,"in Perception,pp. 255-291.
92 - IPV 1.1, on IPK,benedictory verse, 1 :37-38.

93 - This fact stronglysuggests that Utpaladevahimself, like Abhinavagupta,framedthe operationof the sastraas the inferencefor the sake of others. 94 - The challenge of the Buddhistsis presented in IPKand IPV1.2, 1:82-119. 95 - The Navya-Nyayalater developed an approachto epistemology that in some ways parallelsthe Pratyabhijna use of the ideas of Bhartrhari the see Buddhists; Matilal, "Conception-free against Awareness:Gargesa," in Perception,pp. 342-354. The Navyais a Nyaya is, however,a realisticsystemwhereasthe Pratyabhijin kindof monistic idealism. 96 - The Saivas use the latterdesignation.Contemporary scholars are not agreed on whetherthis term reflectsa properinterpretation of Bhartrhari. 97 - For Bhartrhari, the Word Absolutegrounds linguisticreferenceas accessed through semantic intuition (pratibha) or manifestation
(sphota).

East &West Philosophy 200

98 - This is not to deny that Bhartrhari's analysisof the role of language in experience also had a great influenceon the Buddhists. 99 - Somananda had already identifiedSupreme Speech with Siva's creative Sakti. See SD 2, 36-93. For the identificationof selfrecognitionwith Supreme Speech, see IPV 1.5.13, 1 :252-255;

IPK1.6.1, 1:302; and IPKV1.6.1, 22. Utpaladevalists Supreme and Lordshipas Speech along with recognition (pratyavamarsa) descriptionsof consciousness at IPK1.5.13, 1:250. Utpaladeva also identifies the Lord Himself as semantic intuition (pratibha) (IPK1.7.1, 1 :341). 100 - IPV1.5.15, 1 :267-268. 101 -In explaining this cosmogony of self-recognition,the Saivas correlate the Trika cosmological triad's levels of emanation with states of the emanation of speech. For a good disBhartrhari's see IPV 1.5.13, 1:252-255. Cf. IPV cussion by Abhinavagupta, 1.8.11, 1 :423-424; IPKand IPV4.1.13-14, 2:305-307. On the unfragmentedcharacter of the highest level of the Lord'sselfrecognition/speech,see IPKand IPV 1.6.1, 1 :301-305. On the lowest level of fragmentedself-recognition,see IPK1.6.6, 1 :324; and IPV IPKV 1.6.6, 24; IPV1.6.6, 1 :324-327. The entiretyof IPK inherentin ordinarycon1.6, 1 :299-344, is about differentiation ceptual constructions.Abhinava describes the lowest instances of recognition as reflected recognition (chayamayT pratyabhijfna) (IPVV1.6.6, 2:314). He also describesthem as impure(asuddha) (IPV1.6.6, 1:324-327; IPVV1.6.6, 2:314). 102 - Cf. David Tracyon the natureof fundamentaltheology as a traninquiry,in Tracy,Blessed Rage, pp. 55scendental/metaphysical his and 56, 108, "Uneasy Alliance Reconceived,"p. 559. His self-recognition 103 -The Saivas believe that the Lorddifferentiates into the differenttypes of experience such as cognition, memory, and IPV1.5.18, decision, and doubt throughHis Maya Sakti(IPK 1 :280-283; IPKand IPV1.5.21, 1:296-298). Also see Bhaskara on IPV1.6.10, 1 :340, on the subtle judgment(pratyavamarsa) in all formsof experience. 104 -This is true of the studies of these terms by Harvey Paul Alper, of the Conceptof CognitivePower:A Translation "Abhinavagupta's of with the ComJifnasaktyahnika TsvarapratyabhijhavimarsinT (Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pennsylvamentaryand Introduction" the "Siva and nia, 1976), Ubiquity of Consciousness:The Spaof IndianPhilosophy7 (1979): ciousness of an Artful Yogi,"Journal 345-407, and "'SvabhavamAvabhasasyaVimarsam': Judgment in as a Transcendental Saiva Category Utpaladeva's Theology:The Evidenceof the Pratyabhijnakarikavrtti" (unpublished). 105 -It will be noticed that prakja is the same word as svaprakasa, withoutthe reflexiveprefixsva. The significance 'self-luminosity,' of prakasaas a validating awareness is also understoodagainst DavidLawrence 201

the backgroundof the Upanisadic, Advaita Vedantin, MTmamsaka, and Buddhistlogician conceptions mentioned in note 26 above. 106 -These arguments develop in a monisticdirectionearlierarguments of Vijinanavada Buddhism. However, the Saivas conspicuously avoid the Vijnanavada arguments tryingto raise doubts about the of on validity ordinaryexperience the basis of the occurrence of perceptualillusions. 107 - IPK1.5.2, 1 :198. Also see IPV 1.5.2, 1 :197-203; IPVV1.5.2, 2:68. 108 - See IPKand IPV1.5.4, 1 :210-212; IPKand IPV1.5.6, 1 :221and IPV1.5.8-9, 1 :230-235. The Saivas here are refut225; IPK the of the Sautrantikas. "representationalism" ing 109 - IPV1.1.4, 1: 76-77. Cf. IPV1.1.3, 1 :66-67; TS1, 5-6. 110 - See note 89 above.
111 -IPK1.5.11, 1:241.

112 -For these arguments,see IPKand IPV 1.5.11, 1 :241-243; IPK 1.5.13, 1:250; IPV1.5.14, 1:255-265; IPV1.5.15, 1:267-268; IPV1.5.19, 1:283-293. 113 - IPV4.1.7, 2:292-293. There is discussion pertainingto the syntheses of universalsand particulars and IPV2.3.1throughoutIPK On IPV this also see 14, 2:67-134. 1.5.19, 1:293; IPKand IPV 2:214. 1.8.5-9, 1 :408-421; IPV3.1, Introduction, The Saiva treatmentof universals and particularsis again On Bhartrhari's much indebtedto Bhartrhari. views, see Radhika on Individuals and Universals," in Herzberger, "Bhartrhari Bhartrhari An Essayin the Developmentof Fifth and the Buddhists: and Sixth Century Indian Thought, ed. Bimal K. Matilal and J. MoussaieffMasson, Studies in Classical India (Dordrecht:D. Reidel, 1986), pp. 9-105. 114 - IPV1.1.3, 1 :61-62. For statementsof the identityof awareness and recognition (vimarsa) also see IPKand IPV 1.5.11, 1 :241244; and IPV1.5.17, 1:273. 115 - IPV1.5.15, 1 :267-268. In this passage I include an earlierstatement along with a sentence alreadyquoted. Anotherexample will be quoted shortly.I also mentionthat Abhinavaidentifiespratyavamarsawith synonyms for Sakti, creative freedom (svatantrya), and Lordship at IPV1.5.13, 1 :254. Recognitivesynthe(aisvarya) East & West sis is identified with Sakti(s) at IPKV 1.3.7, 10, and (anusamdhana) Philosophy 202

with the Supreme Lord'screatorhood at IPV 1.6, Introduction, 1:301. 116 - IPK1.8.11, 1 :1 :421. See also IPV1.8.11, 1 :423-424. 117 - Bhaskaraexplains this word: "'Judges' [paramrs'antT] [means] to the condition of of brings object judgment [paramarsavisayatam]by means of recognition [pratyabhijfi],which has the nature of the unification of word and object [Sabdarthaikrka(BIPV1.5.20, 1 :294). ranarupa]" 118 - IPV1.5.20, 1 :294-295. Also see IPK1.5.20, 1 :294. 119 -For furtherelucidation of how the argumentof the Pratyabhijna relates to the sakta upaya theme of the purificationof conceptualization, see Abhinavagupta'sdiscussion of the spiritual ascent through ordinary conceptual constructions through the flashing forth in them of the Wisdom Power (vidyasakti,a.k.a. suddhavidya,Pure Wisdom) at IPV 1.6.6, 1:325-327. Cf. IPV 2.3.13, 2:129; TS4, 27; and IPKand IPV4.1.13-14, 2:305307. 120 - TA1.145, 2:184. 121 - TA2.10-11, 16-17, 2 :319-323. The readerwill recallthat in his sakta upaya, Abhinavaguptaidentifiesthe tool, good reasoning, with the goal, PureWisdom. in SiddhitrayT and the Isvarapratyabhijfnaka122 - Ajadapramatrsiddhi, rikavrtti,15, 6. This is perhaps the most frequentlycited verse throughoutAbhinava'scommentaries.Examplesare found at IPV 1.1, on IPK,benedictoryverse, 1 :35; IPV 1.5.11, 1: 1:244; IPV 1.5.17, 1:279; IPVV1.1, 1:54. 123 - IPV1.5.17, 1:278-279. 124 -As I have mentioned,the Saivasdevelop an ontology corresponding to the epistemology of recognition. I can only make a few remarkson this subject here. The Saiva ontology relies upon the of Being/Existence(satta) as mythicoVyakaranainterpretation ritualaction (kriya), and makes extensive use of grammatical discussions of verbal-actionsyntax (karakatheory).Utpaladevaand Abhinavaguptaparticularlyengage earlier linguistic considerations which either emphasize or de-emphasize the role of the agent in relationto verbalaction. The Saivasdevelop the formerto reduce action along with its accessories, such as objects, instruments, etc., to the omnipotentagency of Siva. Siva'sagency is the ontological counterpartto His self-recognition.As Utpaladeva says: "Being is the condition of one who becomes, that is, the ...) David Lawrence agency of the act of becoming" (sattabhavattabhavanakartrta

203

reenactsas it 1.5.14, 19). With this theory,the Pratyabhijna (IPKV the of Saiva the drama.The interprets very syntax mythico-ritual Saiva treatmentof action is found throughoutthe Kriyadhikara of the Pratyabhijna texts (IPK and IPV2.1-4, 2 :1-209). This subis in discussed and the Recognitionof Siva," ject my "Argument in I and an article am pp. 192-229, writing,"TheMythico-Ritual of Syntax Omnipotence."

PhilosophyEast& West

204