2 ĀBHĀSAVĀDA or "REALISTIC IDEALISM "

2 ĀBHĀSAVĀDA or “REALISTIC IDEALISM "

ĀBHĀSAVĀDA. or “REALISTIC IDEALISM.”

The aim of every system of philosophy is to explain the why, the what and the wherefrom of the knowable. Every system bases its conclusions on a careful study of facts of experience and the comparative importance of each depends upon how far it satisfactorily accounts for these facts. Abhinava claims this basis of facts for his system, the Trika. To the facts of experience, as has already been stated, he gives the first, to reason the second, and to a scriptural authority only the last place as the basis of his theories.

Abhinava differs in his explanation of the world of experience from both the realistic and the idealistic schools of Indian Thought. From the logical realism of the Nyāya and from the atomistic pluralism of the Vaiśesika he completely differs both in details and in fundamentals. From the realistic dualism of the Sankhya, from the subjective idealism of the Bauddha and from the monistic idealism of the Vedānta, however, his difference is confined mostly to the fundamentals only. Because the Trika system, on which his explanation is based, accepts, with some modifications of course, the twenty four categories together with the Puruṣa concept of the Sankhya, the principle of momentariness of the Bauddha and the Māyā of the Vedāntin.

T. A., 1, 149

196

CHAPTER II

The world of experience, according to him, therefore, is not a creation the God, who is simply an active agent and brings the experienceables into being with the help of some such material cause as the atoms; nor is it an evolute of the Prakrti, as the Sānkhya conceives; nor & purely subjective experience, as the Vijñānavādin represents : nor even & mere illusion, as the Vedāntin believes it to be. It is, he holds, real, because it is a manifestation of the All inclusive Universal Consciousness or Self exactly as a creation of a yogin is a manifestation of an individual self, But it is ideal, because it is nothing but an experience of the Self and has its being in the Self exactly as our own ideas have theirs within us. Hence the Trika, because of its theory of Ābhāsavāda, presented in these pages, is called the “Realistic Idealism”.

ABHÄSA DEFINED.

All that appears; all that forms the object of per ception or conception ; all that is within the reach of the external senses or the internal mind : all that we are cons cious of when the senses and the mind cease to work, as in the state of trance or deep sleep; all that human conscious ness, limited as it is, cannot ordinarily be conscious of and, therefore, is simply an object of self-realisation ; in short, all that is i. e. all that can be said to exist in any way and with regard to which the use of any kind of language is possible, be it the subject, the object or the means of knowledge or the knowledge itself, is Abhāsa.

THE COMMON BASIS OF ABHĀSAS.

The explanations of the phenomenon of knowledge, as given by the dualists and the pluralists, have been declared unsatisfactory, because they present an insurmountable

IP. V., I., 35-6.

ABHĀSAVĀDA

192

difficulty in bridging the gulf that divides the self from the not-self. If the subject and the object are completely cut off from each other, have exclusive and independent existence, and are of opposite nature, like light and darkness, (Tamahprakāśavad viruddhadharminoh, S. Bh.) how can there be any connection between the two, which is so very necessary for the production of the phenomenon of knowledge. The meeting of the self and the not-self, in this case, seems to be as difficult as that of the two logs which are carried by two different currents which separately lose themselves in the sands.

Na hi prthak prthak pariksīṇeṣu srotahsu taduhyamānāh trnolapādayah samanvayam kamcid yānti,

I. P. V., I, 283. The realistic idealism therefore, puts forth its theory of the All-inclusive Universal Consciousness or Self.

ANUTTARA. This All-inclusive Universal Consciousness, this logical necessity to satisfactorily account for the phenomena of knowledge, is called Anuttara? (the Highest Reality) or Parā or Pūrṇā Samvid (Supreme or perfect consciousness) in this system. As the word Anuttara implies, it is a reality beyond which there is nothing: it is, therefore, free from all limitations. It is undefinable in terms of ordinary every day life

Na vidyate uttaram prasna prativacorūpam yatra

6 P. T. V. 19. It cannot be spoken of as this or that’ nor as “not this " or “not that”. It is “all”, but not in the sense in which “all” is apprehended by the limited human mind. The mind cannot grasp it, and, therefore, no talk

P.T. V.,9.

P.T. V., 21.

198

CHAPTER IL

about it is possible. It is not a thing to be perceived or conceived but simply to be realised. Whatever word or words we may use to indicate it, we fail to convey the idea of its real nature ; because the words stand for a certain definite idea but it is indefinite, not in the sense that it is a shadowy nothing or nihility, but that it is much more than is signified by some word or words. All the statements to define it are like those of the proverbial four blind men who described an elephant to be something like a table, a broom stick, a rough pillor, or a winnowing brsket, according as each of them could know it by feeling the back, the tail, the leg or the ear only respectively. Who can say that the conception of an elephant of each one of them was altogether wrong? Because nobody can deny that an elephant is partly like what each one of them separately described it to be. Nor can the conception be said to be wholly correct, because the elephant is not only as described by each one of them separately or even collectively but something more also. The Highest Reality is similarly all that which can possibly be conceived by those who possess the power of conception ; but it is not that much only. It is much more than the limited human mind can imagine it to be.

The ideas of unity and multiformity, of time and space, and of name and form, are based upon certain ways and forms in which the Ultimate appears. The transitory world represents an insignificantly small part of the whole of the manifestation. It is, therefore, as unreasonable to apply these ideas to the Anuttara as such, as it would be to apply the ideas formed by each blind man separately to the elephant as such :

“Uttaram ca sabdanam, tat sarvathā ‘idrsam tādrsam iti vyavacchedam kuryāt tad yatra na bhavati, avyavacchi nnam idam anuttaram,’’ P. T. V., 21.ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

199

This concept of the Anuttara is very much similar to that of the pure suddha) Brahman of the Vedāntin. Compare for instance the following quotation from the Tavalakāro panıṣad :

“Na tatra cakṣur gacchati no vāg gacchati no mano na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitad anuśiṣyād anyadeva viditād atho aviditād adhi.” T. U., Ch. I, 3.

After the admission that the Ultimate Reality is beyond the reach of thought and language, the attempt of the Abhāsavādin to speak on it is similar to that of the Vedāntin, who, as we have just pointed out, agrees to a very large measure with the former on this point. Both attempt to give an idea of the Ultimate in its relation to us as the Creator. Both admit that no definition of the Ultimate can be perfect and still both attempt to define it in words, which, according to them, express the reality in the best possible way.

THE ULTIMATE AS PRAKĀŚA VIMARSAMAYA.

The Ultimate, according to the Abhāsavāda, has two aspects, the transcendental (viśvottīrṇa) and the immanent (viśvamaya). The latter is described as “prakāśavimarsa maya”. The conception of macrocosm of this system is based on a careful study of microcosm. In order, therefore, to show clearly as to what these two words really stand for, it is necessary to point out their import when they are applied to the individual self.

Each of the two words represents an aspect of the individual self. The prakāśa is conceived to be very much like a mirror. In this aspect, the self is simply & substratum of the psychic images, which are merely its modes or forms due to the stimulus received either from

T. A., I. 104.

alidad

CHAPTER U

Arrass -0342 213 ceny leo ya OT on one

hord

TUene el

tiem. The sETUT maut akses teema le lance Get oud As Saiyaret

en pamet

Claude SC (200 ALAM YODAY I posse lan af (9shes 424e fanteazioni!

external objects, as at the time of direct perception, or from internal factors, the revived residual traces, as at the time of imagination or dream. These images have very great similarity with those, cast by external objects on a mirror, which shows them as one with itself without losing its purity or separate entity. The difference, however, between this aspect of the individual self and a mirror is that the latter, in order that it may receive reflection, requires an external light to illumine it. A mirror in darkness does not reflect any image. But the self shines independent of all external lights and does not need an illuminator, in order that it may receive reflection.

The word “prakāśa” implies the residual traces also which are essentially the same as their substratum. The reason is obvious. The reflections are essentially the same as their substratum. The psychic images, because of their being of the nature of reflection, are, admitted to be essentially the same as prakāśa. And because these very psychic images, existing under a sort of cover, are called residual traces or sarskāras, they too, therefore, are not regarded as different from prakāśa. 1. The prakāśa aspect, however, is not the most distinctive aspect of the individual self, because it is to a large extent common to other things also, such as mirror, crystal, and maṇi, If, therefore, the individual self had been only prakāśamaya it would have been no better than a substance capable of receiving reflection. The word vimarśa explains what other distinctive features it possesses and why it does not belong to the same category as that to which a maṇi or a crystal does.

“Vimarśa” stands for the distinctive aspect of the self. It signifies the capacity of the self to know itself in all its purity in the state of perfect freedom from all kinds of

ABHĀSAVĀDA

201

affections; to analyse all its states of varying affections due either to the internal or the external causes; to retain these affections in the form of residual traces (samskāras); to take out, at will, at any time, any thing out of the existing stock of the sarskāras and bring back an old affected state of itself as in the case of remembrance, and to create an altoge ther new state of self-affection by making a judicious selection from the existing stock and displaying the material so selected on the back-ground of its prakāśa aspect as at the time of free imagination. The word “Vimarsa” stands for all this and much more. At times “āmarsa” and “pratya vamarsa” also are used as substitutes of «vimarsa”; but they always do not connote all that «vimarsa” does. It represents the distinctive aspect of the individual self and differentiates it from mirror, maṇi, crystal and similar other substances capable of receiving reflection. The point has very clearly been stated by Abhinava in his Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī as follows:

“Atha anyenāpi satā ghatena, yatovabhāsasya prati bimbarūpā chāyā dattā, tām asau avabhāso bibhrad ghatasya prakāśa ityucyate,/ tatasca ajadah, tarhi sphatikasalilamukurādih api evambhūta eva iti ajadah syāt. Atha tathābhūtam api ātmānam tam ca ghatā. dikaṁ sphatikādih na parāmrṣtum samarthah iti jadah. tathā parāmarśanam eva ajādyajīvitam antarvahiṣ. karanasvātantryarūpam” 1. P. V., I, 198.

Thus when the Trika speaks of the individual self as “Prakāśa vimarśamaya” it means that the self is self luminous, and contains residual traces within and that it is capable of receiving reflection, of knowing itself and others, of controlling what it contains within and of giving rise to new psychic phenomena with the residual traces which are essentially the same with itself,

202

CHAPTER II

Let us now see what does the expression “Prakāśa vimarśamaya” mean when it is used with reference to the Universal Self. According to the Trika, as said before, the creation of the universe by the Universal Self is a manifestation without of what is already within on the back-ground of itself (svātmabhitti). The manifested universe is only apparently separate from the Self much as reflected external object is from a mirror. It is in its essential nature exactly like the limited manifestation of an individual at the time of dream, remembrance, imagination or yogic creation. Its substratum is, as in the case of the limited manifestation, the prakāśa aspect of the Self which is affected in the same manner as the individual Buddhi (the self itself so called at the time of affection) is at the time of dream. The reasons, therefore, which justify the use of the word “prakāśa” in reference to the individual self hold good in the case of the Universal Self also. For, both shine’ (prakāśate) and are capable of receiving reflection, of shining as one with the cause of affection and of making it one with themselves.

One point of difference, however, between the individual prakāśa and the universal, as substrata of what is reflected on them, has to be noted here ; namely, that the affection of the former is caused not only by the internal causes, as in the case of dream or imagination, but by the external also, as at the time of & direct perception. But, since the latter is universal and all-inclusive, its affection by any external cause is out of question.

But the manifestation is a systematic action and requires a selection to be made out of the existing stock within. Therefore, it presupposes knowledge, will and self-consciousness (ānanda) Each of the above three

T. A., II, 3-4.

I. P. V., I, 182.

ABHĀSAVĀDA

203

attributes depends upon that which immediately follows; because without self-consciousness, as our experience tells us, there can be no desire ; similarly without desire no knowledge is possible: and how can any systematic action be possible unless there be knowledge of the object, towards the accomplishment of which a particular activity is to be directed, and of the means by which the said object is to be achieved ? The word “vimarśa” therefore, when used with reference to the Universal Self stands for that power which gives rise to self-consciousness, will, knowledge and action in succession.

SVÄTANTRYA SAKTA

This very “vimarśa’ is spoken of as “Svātantrya,” because its existence does not depend upon any thing else, as does that of will, knowledge and action, each of which depends for its existence upon what immediately precedes. This represents the principal power of the Highest Lord (Maheśvara) as the Self is often called. This includes all other powers which are attributed to the Ultimate as the following quotations show :

“Citih pratyavamarśātmā parāvāk svarasoditā

Svātantryam etat mukhyam tad aiśvaryam parameśituh.”

P. V., I, 204. “Eka evāsya dharmosau sarvākṣepena vidyate

Tena svātantryaśaktyaiva yukta ityānjaso vidhih.”

T. A., I, 107. “Vastutah punarapyahampratyavamarśātmā svātantrya

saktirevāsyāsti.”

T. A., Comm., 1, 108.

For the conception of the principal power of the Parama śiva as Svātantrya, the Trika seems to be indebted to Pāṇini; because it is Pāṇini, who, so far as we know at

204

CHAPTER 11

4.cm

present, first conceived the svātantrya to be the chief characteristic of an agent.

“Svatantrab kartā.” Pā.. I, 4, 54. For, according to the Trika, the relation between the

Parama S’iva and the universe is that of the manifestor my and the manifested or manifestable, that is, of the subject

and the object; and because it is the power of «Vimarsa” which gives rise to self-consciousness etc. and distinguishes the subject, and because, unlike the will etc., it does not depend for its being and causal efficiency on any thing else, therefore, the word “svātantrya” has at places been substituted for “Vimarśa.” The word “Svātantrya” does not imply capriciousness, wantonness or self-willedness. The ultimate power, is not wanton, capricious or self-willed, according to the Trika, as a superficial reader of its literature often thinks. The simple implication of this expression, when used with reference to Parama śiva, firstly is, that He has the same independent power over what He contains within, as we ourselves, as limited conscious beings, have over our samskāras which lie within us before their rise, much as the universe lies within Him before its manifestation; and secondly, that just as in our case it is the power of conscious ness (vimarsa) which is responsible for bringing the sub conscious ideas into conscious state at the time of remem brance and imagination etc. so it is the svātantrya sakti which manifests without what lies within the Ultimate. The assumption of the svātantrya sakti will thus appear to be simple, natural and based on the fact of common experience and not a preposterous conception without any other basis than a theological prejudice, as some critics have opined.

“Svātantrya sakti” is a very comprehensive expression of the Trika terminology. It is used with reference to the

ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

205

Universal Self when all the possible powers, which can be attributed to it (Self), are intended to be implied. It is so often to be met with in the Trika literature and the idea, implied by it, is so characteristic of this system that it is often called the Svātantryavāda.

OTHER NAMES OF SVĀTANTRYA SAKTI. Al

The Saiva writers on the various branches of the Trika, looking at the Svātantry aspect of the Universal Consciousness from different points of view have given it different names. In the śiva Sutra of Vasugupta it is called “Caitanya’ for the simple reason that it has the power of uniting and separating and dealing in multifarious other ways with what is within”. It is called Sphurattā or Spanda in Spanda literature, because it represents that essential nature of the Universal Consciousness which is responsible for its apparent changes from the state of absolute unity. It is also called Mabāsattā, because it is the cause of all that can be said to exist in any way. Another name by which it is referred to at some places is Parāvāk", because it represents the speech in its most subtle form.

PRAKĀśA AND VIMARSA EXPLAINED. From what has been stated above two points become clear, namely, (I) that the word “prakāśa” is used for that aspect of the immanent Ultimate, which serves as a subs tratum for all that it manifests, exactly as the Buddhi does for the images that an individual builds up at the time of imagination ; and (II) that similarly the word “vimarsa.” stands for that aspect which is simply a power, which, for

I. P. V., I, 214. 3. I. P. V., I, 208-9. 5. I. P. V., I, 203.
I. P. V., I, 200. 4. I. P. V., I, 209.

206

CHAPTER II

want of a better word, we call here “consciousness”; a power, which, by giving rise to self-consciousness, will, knowledge and action in succession, is responsible for selection from what is already within and manifestation of the so selected material as apparently separate from itself. The self-consciousness, and the powers of will, knowledge and action, may be said to be different aspects of this very “vimarsa”.

THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE MANIFESTED AND

THE MANIFESTABLE. But now the question arises : if the power which is ultimately responsible for manifestation is “Vimarśa" and the substratum of manifestation is prakāśa" what about the manifested and the manifestable? Are they different from both “prakāśa” and “vimarsa” and so something separate from the Ultimate ? The reply of the Trika to this question is that the manifestable and so naturally the manifested are prakāśa.

(Prakāśātmā prakāśyortho nāprakāśaśca siddhyati).

I. P. V., I, 159. The reason is not far to seek. This system holds that the manifested universe is brought about by the Ultimate exactly as are the objects of a dream by an individual and that the relation of the Ultimate with the manifested universe is the same as that which exists between the objects of a dream and the dreaming self. The objects of a dream and the residual traces of the former experiences, which are responsible for the rise of the appearances of a dream, are accepted to be essentially the same as the prakāśa aspect of the dreaming self. Believing, therefore, that what is true in the case of the mircocosm is no less so in that of the macrocosm, the Trika holds that the manifestable and the manifested are essentially prakāśa.

The usage has tia? Alam

spremey sona

the sneht ear regret tants!

ABHĀSAVĀDA

207

THE IMPLICATION OF “PRAKAŚA-VIMARSAMAYA”

SUMMARIZED. Thus it appears that the word prakāśa stands not only for the common substratum of all the manifestables and the manifested but also for the manifestables and manifested themselves. Therefore, when the Trika speaks of the Ultimate as ‘prakāśa vimarśamaya" it means to imply that the Ultimate, in its aspect of prakāśa, is both the universe, in either manifested or unmanifested state, and its permanent substratum ; and that in its aspect of Vimarsa, it is that power which is ultimately responsible for keeping the universe in the state of perfect identity with itself, as at the time of Mahāpralaya, and for manifesting it as apparently separate from itself, as at the time of Creation.

Inopin ala 457

THE NAMES OF THE ULTIMATE AND THEIR DISTINCTIVI

IMPLICATIONS.

The Ultimate in its immanent aspect is referred to by three names with a distinctive implication in each case. The implied distinction refers to the relation of the Universal Consciousness with the manifestable. It is called Anuttara when the manifestable is in the state of absolute unity with it, as, for instance, at the time of the total universal dis solution (mahāpralaya). When the relation of absolute unity is substituted by predominant unity (bhedābheda) it is spoken of as śiva, as at the time of pure creation. The term Maheśvara, however, is applied only when the manifestable assumes distinct existence within the Universal Consciousness much as our thought currents or ideas do within ourselves, when we are about to deliver a very thoughtful speech. For a clear conception of the different relations of the manifestable with the Universal Conscious ness, as implied by the words Anuttara, śiva and Maheśvara, their comparison with the relations of speech

an à branch af K.Sta ca

pot nani non

208

CHAPTER II

with consciousness (self) in the states of Parā Paśyanti and Madhyamā respectively, as described in the second chapter of the first part, will be useful.

The available literature does not speak much on the former two, perhaps, because the first represents a state of absolute unity of all and, therefore, has not got much that calls for an explanation, and the second is related to & creation to which the perceptual and the inferential means of right knowledge do not apply: it is known only from the Āgamas It is only the last with which the Trika

literature deals in detail. In fact, the Pratyabhijñā branch 1 of the Trika, which expounds the highest philosophy of the

system, is primarily concerned with proving or establishing the existence of, Maheśvara. The two Adhikāras, Jõāna and Kriyā, which cover more than four-fifths of the Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī, give simply an exposition of Maheśvara’s two powers, after which the above mentioned Adhikāras are called. The following verses make it abundantly clear that the word “Maheśvara, in the Saiva terminology, means the manifestor of the impure creation, on which all the worldly transactions depend :

“Evamanyonyabhinnānām

Aparasparavedinām Jhānānāmanusandhāna Janmā naśyejjanasthitih Na cedantahkrtānanta Visvarūpo maheśvarah Syādekaścidvapur jñāna Smrtyapohanaśaktimän.”

P. V., I, 103-6.

Our object in these pages, as set forth in the very beginning, is to explain the phenomena of knowledge of every day life. After discussing, therefore, a few questions which more or less relate to all the three aspects of theABHĀSAVĀDA

209

Universal Consciousness and the ābhāsas in general, we shall mostly confine ourselves to the impure creation and the Maheśvara.

HOW ARE THE ABHĀSAS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSAL

CONSCIOUSNESS ? The Trika. conception of the macrocosm, as we have just pointed out, is based on a very careful study of the microcosm. It holds that what is true in the case of the individual self is equally so in that of the Universal Self, for, both are identical ; and that the Self is nothing but consci ousness (Caitanya). We shall, therefore, be best able to answer the above question by pointing out how the individual manifestations are connected with the individual conscious ness. We know of five states of the individual consciousness, the waking, the dreaming, the deep sleep, the transcendental and the pure, which are technically called Jāgrat, Svapna, Suṣupti, Turīya and Turīyātīta. The first three are well known. The last two refer to two kinds of concentrated states (Samādhi avasthās), The varying experiences of these states may be spoken of as the experiences of the unaffected (Suddha) and the affected (Parimlāna) states of consciousness. The latter is not always due to the external stimulus. At the time of imagination and dream there is no such external stimulus as there is at that of the direct perception ; but in the former case the consciousness is no less affected than in the latter.

If we analyse our consciousness as affected by imagina tion, we find two elements in it, the subjective and the objective, i. e. the imagining consciousness which is respon sible for the rise of the images, of which it is itself both the back-ground and the perceiver, and the images them selves which have no other basis than the consciousness

210

CHAPTER II

itself and are due to internal factors. These factors, in order that they may affect the consciousness in a certain order and not promiscuously all at once, have to be supposed to be within the control of some intelligent power. This controlling power is nothing else than the consciousness itself, which may also be called self, because, as has already been pointed out, according to this system, self is nothing else than consciousness.

Now the question is how these factors are connected with the self, or rather, where and how do they exist before their rise ? Our experience tells us that they rise at our will from our consciousness independently of all external help and appear on the back-ground of consciousness and again merge in the same, much in the manner of waves in the ocean. If so, the answer to the above question is that just as the waves exist in the ocean before they rise, so do the images, which affect the purity of consciousness at the time of imagination, in the self, before they appear on the back-ground of its prakāśa aspect. This is exactly what Abhinava says in regard to the relation of Abhāsas with the Universal Self in the course of discussion on the several meanings of the word “Anuttara” in the Parātrimśikā vivarana :

“Tattvāntarāṇi ṣaṭtrimśat anāśritaśivaparyantāni

parabhairavānupraveśāsāditatathābhāvasiddhīni.”

Thus, according to this system, all that has existen tiality, from the śiva down to the earth, exists within the Ultimate much in the same way as do our ideas within ourselves at the time when the self is in an unaffected state and so also all is externally manifested, at will, independently of all external causes. This explains why all that exists is called Abhāsa. It is Abhāsa because it is manifested (Abhāsyate) by the Universal Self or because it is manifest (Abhāsate).

ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

211

THE “WHY’ OF THE MANIFESTATION EXPLAINED.

Here it may be asked “Why does the Self manifest these Ābhāsas ?” Abhinava answers this question by saying that the nature of a thing cannot be questioned. It is absurd to ask why fire burns. To burn is the very nature of fire and so to manifest without what lies within is the very nature of the Self. It is natural for consciousness to assume a variety of forms. In fact, it is this that differen tiates self from not-self. A jar, for instance, cannot change itself independently of external causes, but the self can and does :

“Asthāsyadekarūpeṇa vapusā cenmaheśvarah

Maheśvaratvam samvittvam tadatyakṣyad ghatādivat.”

Our study of the microcosm fully supports the fact that such is the nature of the Ultimate Reality. Can we attribute the individual manifestation of dream or imagination to anything else than the very nature of the individual self ?

DOES THE ULTIMATE REALITY CHANGE ?

Here it may be asked if the Ultimate Reality appears in all the perceptible forms it must be admitted to be changing ; how then can its eternal character be maintained ? In every day life the changeability and the destructibilty are found universally concomitant. In fact, our idea of destructibility of such things as the sun and the moon is simply a matter of inference drawn from the change that we perceive them undergo. Therefore, if the Highest Reality also changes, as it must, in order to appear in a variety of forms, it must also be transitory like momentary things of the world. Moreover, if the Highest Reality contains within all that it manifests how can it be represented to be one 2

212

CHAPTER II

To take up these questions in their respective order, let us find out what is meant by change. When a thing is seen with some additions, it is said to have changed. When, for instance, we visit a certain place after a very long time and see very many things in addition to those which we saw on a former occasion, we say “the place is changed”. Further, when the case is the reverse i. e. when we do not find many things which attracted our attention before, we say the same. The former kind of change is called “Āgama” (literally, coming in) or addition, and the latter “Apāya” (going out) or loss. There are two more kinds of change, known as transformation (Pariṇāma) and modification (Vikāra). When milk changes into curd it is said to have been transformed (Pariṇata) but when clay is changed into a jar, or gold into an ear-ring, it is said to have been modified (Vikāram gamitah), The chief distinction between the above two kinds of change is that while in the former case the thing cannot recover its former condition, milk, for instance, once it changes into curd, cannot again become milk in any way; in the latter case such a recovery is very common. A lump of gold, for instance, after having assumed a variety of forms, such as those of ear-ring and bangle etc., can again recover its old form of lump. It is thus clear that, while the first three kinds of change involve addition to or loss of the existing constituents, as in the first two, and irrecoverable loss of quality, as in the third, in the last there is simply a difference in the arrangement of the constituents. It is because of this that, while destructibility is admitted to be universally concomitant with the former three kinds of change, it is not so with the last one. How1 else could the Vaiseṣika, who holds the atoms to be eternal, maintain their indestructibility? Because, according to him, these very atoms, being stirred by the Lord’s wish at the

Ta. San., T. D., 9.

ABHÄSAVADA

213

time of creation and getting united with one another, form the various objects of the world, through the intervening stages of the binary’ and the ’tertiary’. This is what the Vedāntins also imply, when they say that the eternal Brahman is both the material and the operative cause of the world exactly as clay and gold and the potter and the gold smith are of the earthen wares and gold ornaments.

If we analyse the idea a little further we find that such a change, as is always concomitant with destruction, presupposes the changing thing to be limited and so the existence of something apart from it, something that it becomes. A seed, for instance, changes into a tree and so is destructible, because it is limited in its nature and becomes, what originally it was not, by assimilating with itself what has a separate existence from it. The Highest Reality, according to the Trika, as we have already shown, contains all within. There is nothing apart from it which it can be represented to become. What takes place, when a thing is said to have been manifested, is simply this, that out of the unlimited mass of things, which lies within, it manifests certain things, at will, as separate from itself, much as we do our own ideas at the time of imagination or dream. At all times, i. e. before, after and at the time of manifestation, the Abhāsas are within the Absolute, as the waves are within the sea ; and just as nothing goes out of or comes in the sea in consequence of the rise of waves so there is no substantial loss or gain to the Universal Consciousness because of the manifestation of Abhāsas. Thus, the change, if we so prefer to call it, in the Absolute, according to Abhāsavādin, is simply a different arrangement of the ever existing material, much

I. P. V., I, 106.

Ś. Bh., 337. 3. I. P. V., 1, 108.

214

CHAPTER II

as that of atoms, according to the atomists, or, as that of entitative contents of the Brahman as the material cause of the universe, according to the Vedāntins. Therefore, just as the atomists and the Vedāntins maintain the eternality of their ultimate realities inspite of such a change so do the Ābhāsavādins.

MONISM EXPLAINED. As to the question “how can the Ultimate Reality be said to be one, if it contains within all the Abhāsas ?” the Trika replies that that alone can be said to be truly existent which exists independent of others. As all these Abhāsas shine only on the background of the Absolute, much in the same manner as do the reflections in a mirror, so they cannot be said to have independent existence. And as this common basis of all the knowables is the only being that exists perfectly independent of others, so, this alone can be said to be truly existent (Sat). The system is held to be monistic, because, according to it, the Anuttara alone really exists. The Abhāsas are mere transitory appearances.

ARE ABHĀSAS REAL ? No language is perfect. We cannot find a conventional expression for each shade of difference in our ideas, in any language. We have to depend upon approximations to convey the idea of subtle differences. We have, therefore, to clearly understand the implication of each word of a question regarding a philosophical problem. In fact, much of the confusion that we find in the writings of the later commentators on the ancient philosophical authorities is due to the fight over words. Let us, therefore, find out what is

I. P. V., 1, 42-3.

ABHÄSAVĀDA

215

meant when the question of reality is raised about Abhāsa, or rather, what do we mean when we ordinarily use the word “real”. A thing is ordinarily considered to be real if it bears verification, if the experience of it is uncontradicted. The appearances of a dream are unreal because our experiences of them are contradicted in the wakeful state and much more so is the appearance of silver at the sight of a mother-of-pearl ; for, while the dream silver does not disappear as soon as we approach it and can be used for all practical purposes so long as the dream lasts, the illusory silver does disappear at our approach. Thus, when we use the word “unreal” with regard to the things of the above instances, we do not mean that they are unreal exactly in the sense in which the sky-flower is unreal. What we mean is that they are not as lasting as those of the ordinary wakeful state : we, however, do not deny their existence and their having been the objects of cognition, because to say so would be a self-contradiction. In an illusion or a dream we do see a separate object and our experience also, concerning the sight of the object as such, remains uncontradicted ever afterwards ; for, nobody ever feels that he did not have such an experience. But still, if that object is called unreal it is because of its not conforming to the conventional standard of reality in the wakeful state.

It may be asked here what is it that we see in an illusion or a dream.? Why does it last for so short a time, and why is its knowledge called erroneous, or rather, where does the error lie ? Leaving aside for the present the explanation of dream, if we take up only the illusion of silver and look at it from the point of view of the Atmākhyātivādin, we get an explanation that it is nothing but a form that the limited self assumes at the sight of a mother-of-pearl because of the sudden and forceful revival of the Vāsanā: it is short lived, like & flash of lightning, because, there is nothing

216

CHAPTER II

behind it to support its existence, as in the case of the illustration of lightning-flash. The mistake lies in considering what is purely subjective to be essentially objective in the ordinary accepted sense of the word. This explains also why the silver of an illusion is not perceptible to all like lightning-flash, though both of them are equally momentary. What we mean to point out is that what is really meant by unreal is not that the thing has no existence, for, if it were not existent nothing would have been seen; but what is meant is that it is an individual subjective manifestation and as such it is of a different kind from the objective one on which all worldly transactions depend,

We have seen above that the word Abhāsa in this system is used in a very wide sense. It denotes all that appears in any way or form. Therefore, if the word “real” in the above question means “existent”, or in other words, if the question is “Have the Abhāsas got existentiality (Sattā) ?” the reply, of the Abhāsavāda would be “Yes”. But, on the other hand, if the question is “whether the Abhāsas have subjective or objective existence?”, the answer would be that this difference is purely conventional and is assumed for practical purposes; it is, therefore, of the same nature as we feel between the objects of a dream and those of a dream within another dream. It is a matter of common experience that at times, when we are dreaming, we dream a dream, and make exactly the same distinction between the objects of the continuous long dream and those of the shorter one, which ends within the longer, as we do in practical life between the objects of the wakeful and those of the dreaming state. The essential nature of the Abhāsa is the same in both the cases, so that if one is called real the other is also real. In fact, the question,

I. P. V., II, 114.

ABHĀSAVĀDA

217

whether an appearance is subjective or objective, is not of much value, because the object of philosophy is not so much to point out the difference between one phenomenon, which is responsible for a certain kind of cognition, and another, as to explain in general why there is this cognitive change at all in the self and what it is that causes such a change. To say that one change is like another or that one cause of change is like another, as the Vedāntins always say that the external world is an illusion like the appearance of silver at the sight of a mother-of-pearl, is to avoid the real philosophical issue. We find that there are things which are external to self, it is another matter whether they are subjective or objective or more lasting or less ; and that they seem to so affect the self as to cause a variety of cognitions. The question, that philosophy has to answer, is, what are these things? How have they come into being and how are they connected with the self which they seem to affect ? This leads us to the treatment of Maheśvara. We have not so far been able to find much about śiva in the available literature.

MAHEŚVARA. CL .307 *22, lod)

Maheśvara represents that state of the All-inclusive Universal Self in which, as said above, the Abhāsas have a distinct existence from the Self, though no less within the Self than in the state of unity, exactly as our thoughts have within ourselves at the time when we are about to deliver a thoughtful speech. As such the Universal Self is beginningless and endless, because the universe itself is such. It is omnipotent and perfectly independent in the use of its powers. It contains within all that is entitative’ and Glluminable’. It forms the permanent substratum of all

T.A., I, 98-9.

I. P. V., I, 32.

218

CHAPTER II

that is objective. The object can have no more existence apart from and independent of the Maheśvara than a reflec tion can from a mirror. I is beyond the limitation of time, place and form. It is a self-shining entity with which all the manifestations are connected exactly as the spreading rays are with a flame. It is perfectly free, because it does not require any prompting from without to set about and accomplish its work. It is perfectly independent of both the external material and the instruments. It is spoken of as “light;’ but it is neither the recipient of light from the ordinarily known source, the sun, nor even is identicals with him or any other that can be thought of. It is perfectly independent of them. It is the ultimate source of all the sources of all lights.

KNOWABILITY OF THE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

The Universal Consciousness is purely subjective. Objectivity cannot be attributed to it, because such an attribution presupposes the existence of another knower, as different from and independent of it, and therefore, is in consistent with the original hypothesis of the universality of the Universal Consciousness. Its existence cannot be denied, because the very act of denial presupposes a conscious being and that also similarly, in its turn, the Universal Consciousness to make the relation of the deniability possible. The in dividual selves are mere manifestations of it and their acts of knowledge are wholly dependent upon it. It is this very Universal Self, which sees and knows through the innumer

T. A., I, 98. 2. I. P. V., I. 118. 3. I. P. V., I, 277. 4. I. P. V., I, 29. 5. T. A., I, 95.6 6. I. P. V. 1., 111.ABHĀSAVĀDA

219

able bodies and as such is called the individual. It is the very life of the means of right knowledge through which the existence of the external objects as such is established. How can the sword cut itself ? On this point there is perfect agreement between the Trika and the Vedānta. Like Utpalācārya’s famous Kārikā:

“Kartari jñātari svātmanyādisiddhe maheśvare Ajadātmā niṣedham vā siddhim vā vidadhīta kah.”

P. V., I, 29.

the Vedānta also says:

“Vijñātāramare kena vijānīyāt.” Br. U., 2-5-19.

THE POWERS OF THE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

The Trika conception of power is different from that of the Naiyāyikas. According to the latter, it is a quality which cannot exist without a substratum and, therefore, presupposes a possessor. The knower, therefore, according to them, is different from the power of knowledge. But the former holds that the power is the very being of the possessor. The distinction between them is imaginary. It is just like giving a name to a collocation of a certain number of things and calling each constituent a possession of what is indicated by the said name. Take, for instance, a chair. It is a collocation of a certain number of pieces of wood arranged in a certain way. Each piece is called by a separate name, indicative of its peculiar function, and all these taken together are given a different name “chair”. We speak of the leg, the arm and the back of a chair, as if chair had a separate existence from the legs etc. The difference between the Universal Consciousness and its powers is, therefore, according to the Abhāsavādin, not real but purely imaginary and conventional.

T. A., 1, 109.

220

CHAPTER II

Similar is the case with the difference between one power and another. It is assumed because of the variety of its effects. It is of the same kind as is imagined between the fire’s power of burning and that of baking. In reality, how ever, all the powers, as we have already pointed out above, which are attributed to Maheśvara, are mere aspects of the one all-inclusive power, the Vimarsa, or the Svātantrya Sakti.

THE KARTRTVA AND THE TÑĀTRTVA SAKTIS AND THEIR

FUNCTIONS. The Trika speaks of two kinds of manifestation, the external and the internal. For a clear understanding of the idea of internality and externality of ābhāsas let us suppose that each ābhāsa is constituted by a separate current in the sea of the Universal Self. These currents always flow throughout the state of creation underneath the surface of the sea, and as such represent internal ābhāsas. To bring about their internal separate manifestation and to maintain them in the state of the internal separateness, is the work of Kartrtva Sakti, omnipotence. At times, however, these currents are, for a moment, brought over the surface, as waves, and are put in such a position that that wave, which is capable of receiving reflection, can be affected by those which cast reflections. This is the work of the omniscience or power of knower (jñātrtva sakti) and the affection of that wave which is capable of receiving reflection is the pheno menon of knowledge.

THE ASPECTS OF THE JNATRTVA SAKTI.

The Jñātṇtva Sakti has the following three aspects :

The power of knowledge Jñāna Sakti) 2. The power of remembrance (Smrti Sakti) and 3. The power of differentiation (Apohana Sakti).

T. A., I, 110.

ABHĀSAVĀDA

221

THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE.

The first is that aspect of the power of the Univer sal Consciousness by virtue of which it takes out for sepa rate manifestation only certain things from the unlimited mass which lies merged in it (svarūpād unmagnam ābhāsayati). The difference between the phenomenon of knowledge and the power thereof is, that the former is the eflect and the latter is the cause.

According to this system, the subject is no less a manifestation than the object and both are momentary collocations of a certain number of abhāsas or manifestations. A phenomenon of knowledge is, therefore, like the rise of two waves in the sea of the Universal Consciousness. One of these has nairmalya, the capacity to receive reflection, and the other is without it. The former is called Jivābhāsa (limited sentient manifestation) and the latter, Jadābhāsa (insentient manifestation). When the rising sentient wave is affected by the insentient which rises simultaneously with the former, as a mirror is by the objects, placed before, the phenomenon of knowledge is said to have taken place. Thus, knowledge is simply the affected sentient wave of consciousness; but the power of knowledge is that capacity of the Universal Consciousness which is responsible for the rise of both the waves necessary for the phenomenon of knowledge. This problem we propose to take up for a detailed discussion in the section, dealing with the Trika theory of perception.

THE POWER OF REMEMBRANCE,

But if both the sentient and the insentient ābhāsas are momentary so must be the knowledge also ; and if so, even

I. P. V., 1, 108. 2. I. P. V., I, 215.

222

the postulate of the power of knowledge fails to explain the “why” of all the worldly transactions. Our experience tells us that our decision to try to gain or shun an object is reached after a sufficiently elaborate psychological process. The first thing that we do is to place, as it were, the experience of the present object by the side of that of a similar one in the past. Then we compare the two, draw a sort of inference as to the useful or harmful nature of what is present before us and accordingly decide to try to gain or shun it. The knowledge is momentary. It is destroyed in the very next moment after its production, but the comparison of experiences, necessary for motor response, requires its continued existence in some form till the comparison is done. The theory of momentary knowledge, therefore, cannot satisfactorily account for the togetherness of experiences of different times on which all worldly transactions depend. Therefore, in order to explain the psychological phenomenon of the above description, the ābhāsavādins postulate another aspect of the omniscience, ’the power of remembrance’.

The power of remembrance is that power of the Universal Consciousness by virtue of which it manifests itself in the form of such an individual self as can retain the effects of the external stimuli, received at the time of perception, and is able to revive them at that of a subsequent perception of a similar thing so as to make the unification of the experiences of both the present and the past times possible. The fact is that the sentient wave is like a momentary wave of light emanating from a permanent source. It is this source that retains in a sub-conscious state the idea of having sent out a wave towards a certain object and that of having received a stimulus of a certain

I. P. V., 1, 109.

ABHĀSAVĀDA

223

kind therefrom. The point in question will become clear if in this case also, as we did in that of knowledge, we draw a distinction between the power and the phenomenon of remembrance. The former is that power which is the cause of such a limited perceiver as is the immediate permanent source of the emanating sentient wave and the latter is the effect thereof?. We take up the problem of remembrance for an exhaustive treatment in the 4th chapter.

APOHANA SAKTI

THE POWER OF DIFFERENTIATION.

It has been stated above that all that is, i. e., all that can be said to exist in any way or form, is within the Universal Self. For, consistently with the idea of its perfection we cannot admit the existence of any thing out side it. But both the psychic phenomena, the perception and the remembrance, presuppose the existence of both the cognisor and the cognised not only as separate from the Universal Self but also as separate) from each other. In fact, in our daily life we do not feel, as described above, that the subject and the object are like waves On the contrary our experience is that they have independent and mutually exclusive existence. The Trika accounts for this fact by postulating the third aspect of the omniscience, the Apohana Sakti. It is that aspect of the omniscience which manifests each ābhāsa, whether subjective (jīva) or objective (jada), as apparently completely cut off both from the Universal Consciousness and from one another, though in reality even at the time of such a manifestation they are one with their common substratum. Thus, it is that

I. P. V., I, 111.

I. P. V., 1, 109 F. N. I. P. V., I, 110 F. N.

224

CHAPTER II

power which is the cause of all the determinate knowledge of the limited self. This Trika concept of the Universal Consciousness as the cause of all the psychological phenomena is in complete accord with the one, contained in the following line of the Bhagavadgītā,

“Mattah smrtirjñānamapohanafica.”

Bh. G., XV, 15.

KARTRTVA SAKTI.

It may be stated at the very outset that the word Kartrtva sakti is used in more than one sense. It is used in the sense of the creative power or power of manifestation in general: as such it means the same thing as Svātantrya sakti. Therefore, if we take Kartrtva sakti in this wider sense the omniscience or jñātrtva sakti will be simply an aspect of it. Abhinava has made this point very clear in the following words :

“Sa cāyam svatantrah………

……..tadevāsya pārameśvaryam mukhyamānandamayam rūpam iti pūrvamupāttar ‘kartari’ iti. Tadeva svātantryam vibhajya vakturh ‘jñatari’ iti paścānnirdiṣtam”

I. P. V., I, 31-2.

It is also used to denote that aspect of the Svātantrya sakti which is responsible for the innumerable varieties of the internal limited manifestation. These varieties, as the Jñātrtva sakti reveals them, are manifested in two ways, viz., (1) by a simultaneous manifestation of many forms, each of which is substantially different and apparently separate from the rest, for instance, when we see a beautiful landscape with all its trees and creepers ; and (II) by successive manifestation of a large number of forms which so resemble one another that they are recognised to be the various forms of the same thing, as when we see a fawn

ÄBHÄSAVĀDA

225

frisking about. The former is called? Deśakramābhāsa due to Mūrtivaicitrya and the latter Kālakramābhāsa caused by Kriyāvaicitrya. Thus “Kartstva Śakti” in its limited sense, the sense in which we are using the expression here, means that aspect of the Svātantrya sakti which is responsible for the innumerable varieties of the internal limited manifesta tion. It has two aspects, the Kriyā sakti and the Kāla sakti,

KRIYĂ SAKTI. Kriyā or action, according to this system, is nothing but an appearance of a long series of closely similar physical forms in so quick a succession as to produce a persistence of vision. Let us take, for instance, the hero of a drama represented in a cinematographic film, and suppose that we are seeing that part of the film in which he is represented alone in a solitary place in a fit of anger, tearing his hair, grinding his teeth, rushing forward with a jerk, stopping suddenly and looking round wildly. At such a sight we use different expressions “tearing” etc., expressive of different kinds of the so called action, with reference to the hero. But let us ask why?” Is it not simply because of the appearance of a series of pictures, each of which, though different from the rest of the series, has yet enough common element to be identified with both the preceding and the the following; and does not each one of the expressions expressive of an action stand for the established convention which calls a certain number of similar successive pictures by one word ? For instance, when we say “the hero is rushing”, does not the word “rushing” denote a set of pictures beginning with the one that represents the hero’s first movement to raise one of his feet : and do we not use that word simply because of production of persistence of

I. P. V., II, 13.

I. P. V., II, 14.

226

CHAPTER II

vision and consequent consciousness that the same figure is doing all the movements indicated by the particular word ?

To make the idea clear let us state here briefly that, just like the Bauddha, the Trika also holds that the Abhāsas are momentary and that the apparent continuity of a thing is due to the proportionately long series of similar ābhāsas, which follow one another in so quick a succession that we think that the same is having continuous existence. In the case of the fame of an oil lamp, for instance, the flame, as the scientists tell us, is changing every moment. But as the old flame disappears the fresh energy comes in its place and is transformed into a new one with such quickness that we feel that the same flame is having continuous existence. The Trika, therefore, holds that an action is noting but an appearance of the Universal Consciousness in those multi farious forms, a group of which is conventionally referred to by a single expression, much as the word “running” in the above illustration of the cinematographic film, is used for a large number of pictures beginning with the one showing the first attempt at lifting of the foot and ending with that which immediately precedes the first of the next group to be expressed by a similar word.

To make the point a little clearer let us take, for ins tance, a dream in which we see a person running and try to explain it psychologically. We know that a dream is nothing but a certain arrangement of the residual traces (samskāras) now revived owing to some unknown cause. Now the question is “does the running man of the dream represent one revived impression or more ?” The natural answer to this is “more” i. e. as many as there are pictures required to represent this movement in a cinema-show. According to the Trika, the universe is simply a manifestation of the

ABHĀSAVĀDA

227

Universal Consciousness very much similar to the individual manifestation of dream or the common lasting creation of a Yogin. Therefore, just as a running person is represented by a series of revived impressions in a dream and by a series of pictures in a cinema show, so in ordinary worldly life each activity is represented by a series of ābhāsas. Kriya sakti, therefore, is that aspect of the Kartrtva sakti, which is responsible for such internal ābhāsas as, being externally manifested by the power of knowledge (jñāna sakti) give rise to the idea of action. These ābhāsas are connected or disconnected with one another exactly as are the mental impressions in the case of a dream or the various pictures in the case of a cinema show. This very power is responsible for such manifestations also as give rise to concepts of conjunction (Sambandha), generality (Sāmānya), place (deśa), space (Dik) and time etc.4

KĀLA SAKTI.

Kāla sakti is another aspect of the Kartstva sakti, which is responsible for the manifestation of each constituent of the series of ābhāsas, on which the concept of action is based, as cut off from the rest, exactly as the Apohana aspect of the Jñātrtva sakti manifests each constituent of the block of images formed on the mirror of Buddhi as separate from the rest.

We may add here that the Universal Consciousness with the powers described in the foregoing pages is called Mahe śvara on the analogy of a king. A person is called Isa, Isvara or lord because of his having control over a part of

I. P. V., II, 174-5. 2. I. P. V., II, 12. 3. I. P. V., II, 24. 4. I. P. V., II, 42.

228

CHAPTER III the world. The Universal Consciousness is called Maheśvara because it controls, in every way, not only all that we can conceive but also all that which is beyond the conception of our limited power.

I. P. V., 1, 44.