3 CATEGORIES OF ABHĀSAVĀDA

In the preceding chapter we have dealt with the Abhāsavādin’s concept of the Universal Consciousness as the manifestor. In this chapter, therefore, we propose to give & brief exposition of the Manifested.

The Abhāsavāda divides the manifested into thirtysix categories. This division, as Abhinava very clearly states, is based, neither wholly on the scientific observation, nor purely or exclusively on the logical inference. The authority of the Agamas? is its sole basis. This, however, does not mean that it has no support of the facts of experience and that it is simply a matter of belief. It means only this that it is not within the reach of the ordinary means of perceptional or inferential knowledge to fully reveal the essential nature and the full implication of each one of the tattvas. It does not deny that it is a result partly of long intuitive (yogic) experiments and partly of a careful study of mind and matter.

Of the thirty-six categories twenty-five i. e., from the puruṣa to the earth are taken from the Sankhya, with some slight modifications in some cases, as we shall point out, while dealing with them separately ; and one, namely, the māyā, is adopted from the Vedānta. The remaining ten are common to both the dualistic and the nondualistic schools of the Saivāgama. Of these ten, which represent the first ten of the thirty-six categories, the first five represent five powers or to be more accurate, five aspects of the Ultimate Reality. The remaining five, which are placed between the

I. P. V., II, 186.

230

CHAPTER III

māyā and the purusa in the order of manifestation, represent the limitations of an individual self.

These tattvas can be classed as pure or impure, accord ing as they belong to the pure or the impure creation. The first five are said to belong to the pure creation inasmuch as they are manifested by the śiva himself by the sheer force of his will, independently of any prompting cause, like karma, or material cause, like māyā). The rest, i. e., from the kala to the earth, are created by Aghora or Ananta, with the help of māyā. This is called impure creation because it is of limited nature. It is controlled by the law of karma, because its purpose is to supply the necessary stimuli for the varying experiences of the countless souls, the experiences which these souls must undergo according to their karmas. These categories can also broadly be divided into two groups, the self-luminous, consisting of the sentient categories constituted by various kinds of subject (Pramātr), and the illuminable,

consisting of the insentient categories such as the earth etc.

The categories are mere manifestations of the Ultimate, and as such are essentially the same as their source, and so are all the knowables, because they are mere collocations of some of the tattvas. A collocation is said to belong to one category or another, according as a particular tattva forms its basis by being the chief constituent of it. A jar, for instance, is said to be earthy, not because it is exclusively made up of earth, but because earth is its chief constituent.

PRALAYA AND MAHĀPRALAYA.

The universal dissolution (pralaya) is of two kinds, the ‘small and the ‘great’. In the former .every thing gets dissolved into its primordial substances and qualities. It is a state in which, according to the Sānkhya, the qualities

T. A., VI, 55.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHÄSAVÅDA

231

(guṇas), namely, sattva, rajas and tamas, are in a state of perfect equality; and, according to the Vaiśeṣika, every thing is reduced to atoms. The individual souls in this state are, as it were, in a deep sleep, though still in the bondage of their past individual karmas. Such a dissolution is referred to by the word “Pralaya”.

We have not so far discovered any thing which might give us the Trika idea of the condition of the tattvas in the state of small dissolution". There is, however, the following statement in the Tantrāloka :

“īśvarecchāvasa kṣubdha bhoga lolika cidganān

Samvibhanktum aghoreśah srjatīha sitetaram” which shows that in regard to the condition of the individual there is a complete agreement between the Sānkhya and the Vaiseṣika on the one hand and the Trika on the other. The Trika view, however, on the mahāpralaya is sufficiently clear in the existing literature. According to the available information, it is a state of perfect annihilation of all that is manifested. In this state the collocations and their consti tuents, the tattvas, suffer the same fate, and the individual selves, their bondages, āṇava, kārma and māyīya, having been snapped, lose their individuality and are completely merged in the Universal Self, the Ultimate Reality. The Trika believes in both kinds of dissolution. How this belief does not conflict with the theory of karma, and, how creation of all kinds of limited selves does not make the Parama śiva cruel or partial, we shall explain in the course of our treatment of the theory of Karma in the fifth chapter.

The creation of the physical universe is not wanton but purposeful. It is meant for supplying the necessary stimuli for varying experiences which the innumerable souls must enjoy or suffer according to their individual karmas. Hence it presupposes karma as its prompting cause. At the

232

CHAPTER III

time of “pralaya” the souls with their individual karmas, are, as it were, in a state of deep sleep. Therefore, when theyə wake up from the sleep of pralaya, the prompting cause, the karma, being there, the creation can begin. The case with the mahāpralaya, however, is different. In that the individual souls are not merely in deep sleep. On the contrary, they then completely lose their individuality and are perfectly one with the Ultimate. Their waking up, as after pralaya, is, therefore, out of question. The prompting cause being absent, how can the creation take place ? 1t is because of this that the Naiyāyikas and the Vedāntins? etc. do not admit the Mahapralaya.

The Trika, however, believes in the Mahāpralaya and reconciles this belief with its theory of dependence of the creation of the physical universe on the karmas of the individual selves by attributing a wider meaning to the word “karma” than that in which it is ordinarily used. In the non-Trika literature it means a certain effect that is produced on the limited self by the personal conviction of the potentiality of a particular action to lead to a certain ex perience at the time of maturation. But in the Trika literature it is used in another sense also, namely, the limited objectless desire, which, according to this system, arises in a newly manifested limited self, just before the creation of a new physical world which follows a mahā. pralaya. This desire is without any objective reference, because it precedes the creation of object. It may, therefore, be spoken of as a mere eagerness on the part of the limited self to use its limited power. When the distinction of one from the other is tried to be emphasised, the former is referred to as “karmasaṁskāra” and the latter as “kārmamala”. Ordinarily, however, the simple word “karma” is used for both.

V. S. S. Bh., 407,

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

233

To make the point clear let us add here that, according to this system, the creation, maintenance and destruction are governed by the law of karma ; but the obscuration and the grace (tirodhāna and anugraha) depend entirely upon the will of the Lord. The obscuration is nothing else than the Lord’s appearing in the form of the innumerable limited selves whose limitedness consists in their ignorance of their identity with the Universal Self, in mere consciousness of imperfection and in consequent limitation of their powers of knowledge and action. This limitation is technically called ānavamala. The powers of knowledge and action being limited, limitation in desire naturally follows. The above described assumption of the multifarious forms by the Universal Self precedes the new creation of the physical universe after a mahāpralaya. The desire, therefore, that arises in the limited self, is naturally without objective reference. It is a mere eagerness to use the powers of knowledge and action, and as they are limited so the desire also has naturally to be so. This desire is called kārmamala.

Therefore, when the Trika says that the karma is the prompting cause in the creation of the physical universe which follows mahāpralaya, by the word “karma” it means kārmamala. For, how can there be any karmasa īskāra before that creation which comes after a total universal dissolution (mahāpralayānantarā srsti) in which the souls having been made free from all kinds of bondages and limitations become one with the Universal Self? Thus, according to the Trika, the grace is responsible for the total universal dissolution and the obscuration for the ordered creation that follows mahāpralaya. The power of obscuration, comes into play after a mahāpralaya only, to supply the prompting cause for the new creation to proceed,

234

CHAPTER III

In the case of the physical creation which follows pralaya, the prompting cause in the form of karma, as associated with the innumerable individual selves, being already there, the use of the power of obscuration is unnecessary. Both, the Mahāpralaya and the creation that follows, are, therefore, not possible, according to those systems which hold the karma to be merely karmasamskāra, and do not believe in the two independent functions of the Maheśvara, the obscuration and the grace. For, according to them, one of the most essential antecedent conditions of the creation is the karmasaṇskāra, as the prompting cause. Therefore, if there be Mahāpralaya, i. e. if all were to completely merge in the Ultimate, if the individual souls were to lose their individuality and were to become free from karma, there being no prompting cause, the fresh creation would not take place. The Trika theory of karma receives more detailed treatment in the fifth chapter

TATTVA DEFINED.

A Tattva is that which lasts through the ‘small dissolution of the universe and is always present in its effects, in its collocations, or in the beings marked by certain characteristics peculiar to itself. It is pervasive in so far as it forms the basis of all the collocations belonging to that creation of which it is the chief constituent. This world, in which we live, move and have our being, is called earthly (pārthiva) not because it is made up of earth alone, but because earth is its chief constituent. The definition, however, seems to be a little complicated. It is not equally applicable in all its parts to all the tattvas. For, though all are pervasive in the above sense, yet because of the. difference in the essential nature of certain groups of the tattvas from others and so of the things belonging to them,

T. A.,, VI, 3.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

235

there is difference in the manner of pervasion. The earth, for instance, pervades what is earthly, as a material cause does its effects. Similarly the prakerti pervades its evolutes, according to the Sāukhya terminology, as qualities do their collocations, and the sentient tattvas, from puruṣa to śiva, pervade those which have common characteristics with them, as a genus does the individual things. It is this fact which the words “the effect,” “the collocation” and “the beings with common characteristics” are meant to indicate, as the following quotation shows:

“Svasmin kāryetha dharmaughe

Yadvāpi sva sadrg gune Aste sāmānya kalpena Tananād vyāptr bhāvatah Tattattvam kramaśah prthvi Pradhānam pum śivādayah.”

T. A., VI, 4-5.

THE ORDER OF MANIFESTATION OF THE PURE CREATION

The pure creation is & supersensuous creation. Just as the Naiyāyikas believe in the earthly, the watery, the airy, the fiery and the etherial beings and classify them according as any one of the five elements is the chief constituent of their bodies, so the Trika believes in five kinds of the super-sensuous and super-natural beings, who are in no way connected with body, senses, vital airs, intellect or mind, and classifies them as Sambhava Saktija, Mantra maheśvara, Mantreśvara, and Mantra, according as any one of the five powers of the Universal Self (Parama śiva), being (Cit), consciousness (ānand), will iccha), knowledge (jñāna) and action (kriya) predominates in them. The predominance of any one of these powers, 2 in the

T. A., VI, 52. 2. T. A., VI, 49.

236

CHAPTER III

absence of all connections with the material world, results only in a certain state of consciousness or an affection of the purity of self. These states very closely correspond to the successive states through which a person rises to the ordinary consciousness of the wakeful state from that of perfect senselessness, in which even breathing stops. These states can also be spoken of as similar to those, through which a yogin descends from the transcendental state

(Turīyāvastha) to that of the ordinary worldly experience.

Leaving aside, for the present, the consideration of purely super-sensuous spiritual states, if we analyse the psychological movements which precede an ordinary action of daily occurrence we come to the following two conclusions : (I) that an individual, who is, after all, only an epitome of the Universal Self, possesses all the five powers attributed to the latter, and (II) that, in the former’s activity, these powers, because of the dependence of each of the following, in the above order on what immediately precedes, necessarily come into play in the same order in which they are supposed to be manifested in the pure creation Imagine, for instance, an artist, sitting bent over his canvas. At one time he picks up a brush, dips it in a paint and takes it so near the canvas that an on-looker feels sure that he would give some artistic strokes to it: but suddenly he stops his hand, thinks a little, and then places the brush back again in its place. What is it that controls his activity? Is it not an idea or mental image, which he is trying to produce, or rather, reproduce on the canvas, that does so ? And what is this idea after all? Is it not an affection of the self ? If it is, will it be wrong to call it knowledge ? If not, does it not prove that the production of a new thing presupposes its knowledge which controls the productive activity ?

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHÄSAVĀDA

237

Now the next thing to be found out is as to why does a particular idea control at a particular time, or rather, why does a particular idea arise at a certain time to the exclusion of all the rest ? Is it not because of the artist’s will? Is it not the power of will that gives rise to and maintains a certain idea for a certain time? Has it not often been found that, when the control of the will weakens, other ideas rush in and spoil the work ? Does it not often happen that after a long sitting without any appreciable progress in the work, when he loses his patience, he spoils his own work by giving some random strokes and then in sheer disgust, as if in a fit of madness, tears his canvas to pieces? Let it, however, be remembered that even these random strokes and the tearing of the canvas are not without a precedent idea for so doing ; nor is the idea without the prompting of the will. For, before these acts of madness are done, this will, often finds expression in such words as “It is a hopeless task.”

The invariable precedence of will to knowledge is thus undeniable." But is this will absolutely independent ? Can all the created will ? Or, can any limited creation always will ? If not, why? A log of wood can never will nor can a person in an utterly senseless condition. The will, there fore, apparently presupposes and depends upon consciousness.

This consciousness is inseparably connected with the being’, as the power of germination is with a seed. This being represents the ego, the entity, for which the word “self” stands in self-consciousness" or the word “aham” in Kaham asmi".

Thus a careful study of microcosm proves that both, the attribution of the five powers to Parama śiva, the manifestor, and the order of their manifestation, as conceived

T. A., VI, 48.

238

CHAPTER III

by the Trika, are based on the facts of experience and are not matters of purely religious belief.

The conception of these powers or aspects of the Universal Self and their coming into play in the same order as shown above, is not altogether foreign to the Upaniṣad literature. For instance, compare the following :

“Sadeva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam…… …tadaikṣata, bahu syām, prajāyeya, iti, tattejo asrjata.”

Ch. D. 6, 2, 1-3. This passage is quoted by Sankara to point out the distinction between the insentient creator, the Pradhana of the Sārkhya, and the sentient creator, the Brahman of the Vedānta. While discussing this passage, Saūkara admits that the

being" (sat) aspect is common to both, the Pradhāna and the Brahman, but it is the consciousness (īksatikarma) that constitutes the point of difference between them and that being" precedes “consciousness.”

But Sankara’s object in quoting and discussing the passage in question was simply to interpret the text of Bādarāyaṇa and to refute the Sāūkhya theory of creation. He has, therefore, not discussed other points connected with the remaining two clauses. A careful study of the passage as a whole, however, shows that the Upaniṣad states all the five aspects of the Universal Self in which the Trika believes, and that there is perfect agreement between the two in regard to the order of their manifestation. Even Sankara admits that the being’ is the first and the action is the last of the five aspects and that consciousness follows being. We have, therefore, got to consider only the remaining two, indicated by the two clauses “banu syām” and “prajāyeya’ (may I be many, may I grow forth). It will be apparent even to a superficial reader that they express desire ; for,THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHĀSAVĀDA S239

the finite verbs of both the clauses are put in the potential mood. But the question is as to whether there is any distinctive implication of each of the two. In our humble opinion the first simply states the rise of will (desire) to become many, but the second the rise of an idea which controls the activity whereby the desire is to be realised, exactly as the mental image in the case of an artist, described in a preceding paragraph, controls his productive activities. One can become many in at least two ways, by dividing one’s self into many, as a flame does into rays, or by growing itself into many, as a seed does through successive stages. The control of the idea of growth over the activity wherewith the desire to become many is realised consists in its directing the activity of the Universal Self into the channel of creation as opposed to that of self-division. It would, therefore, not be wrong to say that “prajāyeya” indicates the rise of the controlling idea (knowledge) precedent to the act of creation. Thus the Vedānta and the Trika appear to agree on the number, the nature and the order of manifestation of the five aspects of the Universal Self,

śiva TATTVA. Like the Sankhya, which believes that in every evolute of the prakrti all the three qualities are present and that the distinction of one evolute from another depends upon the difference in the proportion of the constituent qualities of an individual evolute, the Trika also holds that in every manifestation of the pure creation all the five powers of the Universal Self are essentially present and that the difference of one manifestation from another is due to the predominance of one of the powers in a particular manifestation. śiva tattva is the first manifestation and the power of being” (Cit) predominates in it. It is purely subjective, and has no objective or predicative reference. It is free not only

240

CHAPTER III

atit

Cerim

from the impurities of karma and māyā but also from that impurity which is technically called anavamala. The experience of this state, if the use of such a word be permissible, is pure “I”. This experience may be compared to that of nirvikalpa-samādhi. It is wrong to use even such a predicate as sam" in reference to it; because “am” also implies some kind of relation of identity, which presupposes both the self-consciousness and the consciousness, howsoever vague or indefinite, of something apart from the self. Both the self-consciousness and the object are, however, later manifestations. How can, therefore, any talk of them in reference to śiva be justifiable? It may be said to represent that entity the idea of which is conveyed by the word “self” in the compound “self-consciousness”, when it is not used to refer to body, vital air, mind

or Buddhi.

SAKTI. The next category, the manifestation of which follows that of the śiva, is the Sakti. This can scarcely be called the second tattva. Its manifestation takes place almost simultaneously with the first, for, unless there be consciousness of what is manifested how can it be said to have been manifested at all? It is, however, spoken of as the second, because the consciousness presupposes the “being” as the rays do a flame. Just as there can be no rays without a flame so there can be no consciousness without being". But still just as in the succesive manifestations of the light energy, flame undeniably precedes the rays, so, in those of the Universal Self, being” precedes consciousness. Though the experience of the beings belonging to this state, like that of the preceding, is without any objective reference, yet it is not altogether without predicative reference. The experience

I. P. V., I, 1.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHĀSAVĀDA

241

of the Saktijas is marked by the additional element of Wam" to the “I” as “I am” In this the Ananda Sakti

predominates.

SADĀśIVA. This is the third category and the power of will predominates in it. The will, as our experience tells us, is not altogether without any objective reference, nor is its object so distinct as that of knowledge. W) This tattva, therefore, represents a very faintly affected state of the Self. It is a transitional stage between the unaffected state of the śiva and the Sakti and the distinctly affected state of the Isvara tattva. The affection of the Universal Self at this stage may be compared to that of the limited self of an artist when the desire to produce a master-piece first arises within him. It may also be compared to the extre mely faint outline of an intended artistic production on a canvas.

The experience of the beings of this tattva may be represented as “I am this”. It has, however, to be remem bered that the “this” which represents the universe, the cause of affection, is so indistinct that it can be said to affect the universal beings of this tattva as little as a picture does a canvas when it is represented by extremely faint outlining dots only.

The experiencing entities belonging to this category are called Mantramaheśas. They are universal beings and because they are not perfectly free from the impurity, called āṇavamala, their experience, therefore, is not without any objective reference. The object, however, is not of limited nature as in the case of the ordinary mortals. The whole universe constitutes their object and is conceived by them as identical with themselves (sarvasya avyatirekeṇa, I. P. V., I. 36).

I. P.IV., II, 192-3.

242

CHAPTER III

IśVARA TATTVA. This is the fourth category. The power of knowledge predominates in it. It is marked by the rise into prominence of the “this” element of the Universal Self which had but very faintly begun affecting the Self in the Sadāśiva state. It is but natural, that the objective element should predomi nate in it, because knowledge is nothing but an affection of the self due to internal or external causes, and the distinction of the state of volition from that of knowledge is only this that the affection of the self in the former case is very faint but in the latter it is so very clear that the element of the self which predominates in the former case is thrown into the back-ground in the latter. The difference between these two states of the Universal Self may be compared to those of a canvas; the former to the one in which the intended picture is faintly outlined in hardly perceptible dots; and the latter to the other in which the picture is fully drawn and the canvas is thrown so much in the back ground that ordinary people instead of calling it canvas call it picture.

The idea of the predominance of the objective element in the experience of the Isvara state is conveyed in the Trika literature by giving the first position not to “I” as in the case of the experience of the Sadaśiva state “I am this” but to “this” as “this I am”. It is perhaps to imply the idea of predominance of the objective element that this category is called “iśvara tattva”, because lordliness of a lord consists in his holding what constitutes his lordliness, to be more important than his self.

SADVIDYA. It is the fifth category and is marked by the predomi Dance of the power of action. In this the objective element

I. P. V., II, 191.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHÄSAVÄDA

243

is neither so obscure as in the Sadaśiva nor so predominant as in the Isvara, but it is, like the two pans of an evenly held balance, (samadhrta tulā puta nyāyena), in a state of perfect (1) equality with the subjective. The experience of this state may be expressed as “I am this”.

The Sadvidyā tattva is a distinct tattva from the Vidyā tattva, which represents one of the limited powers of a limited self. Although the experience of the Universal Self in the state of the Sadvidyā is to be expressed in the same words “I am this" as those required to state that of a limited individual self under the influence of the vidyā, yet the implication in each case is fundamentally different. In the former, both, “I” and “this”, refer to the same thing i. e. both have sāmānādhikaranya; there is no consciousness of the subject as quite distinct from that of the object; but in the latter case “I” refers to the limited subject and this” to the limited object

The order, in which the Tattvas of the pure creation are given here, represents the one in which they rise from the Universal Self. The order of merging of these tattvas back into the Universal Self, is the reverse of it. The self recognition (ātma pratyabhijñāna) is nothing but merging of individual self in the universal. It is, therefore, held by the Trika that an individual self, in order that it may get com pletely merged in the Universal Selfs, has to pass through the successive states represented by the universal beings belonging to the (I) sadvidyā, (II) īśvara, (IIIsadāśiva and (IV) śiva-sakti tattvas, which are classed as (I) mantra, (II) mantreśa, (III) mantramaheśa, and (IV) śiva. The chief

I. P. V., II, 196. 2. I. P. V., II, 196-7. 3. T. A., VI, 78.

244

CHAPTER III

point of distinction of one class from another is constituted by the association of each with one of the four states of āṇavamala in the course of its destruction i. e. (I) kincit dhvasyamāna, (II) dhvasyamāna. (III) kinciddhvasta, and (IV) dhvasta, respectively.

In the above manifestations of the Universal Self the objective universe is purely ideal and is realised as it is in reality. Their experier cing entities realise themselves as universal beings, which they really are, and their experiences also are free from all kinds of limitation. They, therefore, represent the sphere of true knowledge and are spoken of as pure creation which is characterised by freedom from limitation as opposed to the impure which is the work of the Māyā and as such is distinctively limited.

MĀYA. We have just pointed out the distinction of the ex perience of the beings belonging to the Sadvidyā from that of a limited individual under the influence of the Vidyā. In the former case “I” and “this” refer to the same entity, but in the latter to two separate things, i. e. in the former case the subject and the object are identical but in the latter they are different. In the former the idea of unity predominates, but in the latter that of duality or plurality preponderates. This may be considered to be a typical point of distinction between the pure and the impure creations. The first manifestation of the impure creation is Māyā. It is this Tattva, the manifestation of which, first of all, apparently breaks the unity of the Universal Self. It is the most distinctive power of the Universal Self in its creative aspect. It manifests diversity independently of any external helper or prompter. It is conceived both as

T. A., VI, 80-1. 2. T. A., VI, 116.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHÄSAVĀDA

the power of obscuration and as the primary cause of all the limited manifestations. In its former aspect it is often referred to as “Moha”! and in the latter as “parānisa” 2. Its effect also, by transference of epithet, (upacāra) is spoken of as “māyā”. As such, Māyā is limited; for, whatever is manifested as apparently separate from the Universal Self is essentially so. It is pervasive, because it is the cause of the universe. It is subtle, because it passes ordinary comprehen sion. As an aspect of the Universal Self it is eternals.

The impure creation consists of two kinds of limited manifestations, the sentient and the insentient. The māyā, as the force of obscuration, is responsible for the appearance of the one Universal Self as innumerable individual selves, whose distinguishing feature is the ignorance of their real nature (svarūpākhyāti) and consequent imperfection of their powers of knowledge and action :

“Mohayati anena sakti viśeṣeṇa iti moho māyā saktih tasyāḥ vaśah sāmarthyam mohana kāryam prati avirāmah yathoktam “Māyā vimohinī nāma’……….”.

I. P. V., I, 35. But Māyā Tattva as the primary cause of all the insentient limited manifestations i. e. as parāniśā, contains all the manifestables within :

“Kāryam cāsyām sadevahi kalādi dharaṇī prāntam”

T. A., VIII, 4. Its manifestative activities are controlled by the Maheśvara’s will.

The supposition of Māyā as a principle of obscuration is both necessary and logical. For, if the Ultimate Reality is possessed of all the five powers, cit, ānanda, icchā,

I. P. V., I, 35. 2. T. A., VI, 116. 3. T. A., VI, 117.

246

CHAPTER III

jñāna and kriyā, and so is perfect in every way, and the universe is identical with it, it has to be explained: where does the plurality of selves with all their limitations come from ; and what is the cause of the limited creation which forms the object of experience of the limited beings ? To account for these facts, or rather, to answer these questions it is that the māyā is supposed to be the force of obscuration. As such, Māyā Tattva hides the true nature of the Self so that not only all its five powers are obscured but the universe also, which was in relation of identity with it, disappears. Thus there arises the occasion for the other aspect of māyā, viz, as the cause of the limited universe, to come into play and produce the limited universe in all its parts almost simultaneously much as emblic myrobalan (āmalaki), being forcefully struck with a staff, lets fall its fruits. Different authorities, however, have differently fixed the order of precedence and succession of the manifestations of māyā and have accordingly represented them to be related by the relation of cause and effect to one another. Abhinava follows the authority of the Mālini Vijaya Tantra in his statement of the order of manifestation of the things belonging to the limited creation”.

KALĀ. This is the first product of māyā. The obscuration by ināyā of the Universal Self leads to the affection of the latter by the impurity, called āṇavamala, in an innumerable variety of forms and so to the appearance of the Universal Self in the form of multifarious limited selves.

“Māyā svīkāra pāratantryāt sarvajñatva sarvakatrt vamayopi bodhah sarvajñatvādi guṇāpahastanena akhyāti rūpam anavam malam īpannah yena 1. T. A., VI, 128. 2. T. A., VI, 129.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ĀBHĀSAVĀDA

247

ghatākāśavat pārṇa rūpāt cidākāśāt avacchedya parimitīkṣtah san tadeva puṁstvam ucyate."

P. S., Comm. 45-6. Kalā, therefore, is that Tattva, which, being associated with the self, whose powers of knowledge and action have been obscured, partly restores? to it the power of action. It is related to a limited self not as an instrument to an agent, as the vidyā and other limited powers are, but as its causal agent. It is the knowledge of this tattva, and not of the prakrti as distinct from the Puruṣa, that brings about the freedom from the bondage of karma and places an individual in the higher category of beings, called the Vijñānākala, who are beyond the sphere of Māyā). The knowledge of the distinction between prakrti and puruṣa, as got through following the teachings of the Sānkhya, saves a soul only from going lower than the pradhāna". The kalā is admitted to be an independent Tattva because of its independent function of bringing limited power of action to a subject, a function which is quite distinct from, nay, opposite to that of obscuration which is the characteristic function of the māyā.

But here it may be objected that action, in order that it may lead to a tangible result, presupposes knowledge of the object which is intended to be accomplished and towards which the agent’s activity has to be directed. The power of knowledge having been obscured by the obscuring māyā, how can the limited power of action, restored to the limited self by the kalā, function? The Trika, therefore, believes in another tattva.

T. A., VI, 136. 2. T. A., VI, 142. 3. T. A., VI, 143. 4. T. A., VI, 144-5.

248

CHAPTER III

VIDYĀ. It is a tattva the association of which with the subject brings to the latter a limited power of knowledge. This may, more correctly, be spoken of as the power of discrimi nation, because its distinctive function is to know the various objects, reflected on the Buddhi, as distinct from one another. The assumption of the vidyā as a different tattva from the Buddhi is necessary; for, although the latter, being predominantly made up of sattva, can receive reflection, yet, being simply a product of guṇas and, therefore, insentient, it cannot know either itself or that which is reflected on it. - Another question may be raised here, namely, that if the limited powers of knowledge and action are common to all the subjects, what is it that is responsible for the choice by each individual of different objects of his respective activities? The Trika postulates the following tattva to answer this question.

RĀGA. Rāga (attachment ?) is that power which is responsible for an individual’s choice of a certain thing as an object of a particular activity, to the exclusion of all the rest that he knows. It is not a mere absence of indifference (avairāgya) which is conceived to be a quality of the buddhi by the Sankhya. It is rather that power which is responsible for the indifference (vairāgya) itself. What is vairāgya after all ? Is it not indifference ? And as such has it not got an object of its own ? How then can it take place without the assistance of the Rāga as conceived by the Trika ?

KĀLA. The Kāla tattva (time) forms another limiting condition of the limited self.

T. A., VI, 151-2. 2. T. A. VI, 157THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHÄSAVĀDA

249

NIYATI.

It is that power which limits the causal efficiency of every thing. It is because of this that fire only burns and the sesame sprout comes out of the sesame seed only. This also is one of the limiting conditions of an individual, because he is controlled in his activities by this power1.

The last mentioned four, vidyā, rāga, kāla and niyati are the effects of kalā tattvaa.

PURUṣA.

We have stated above how the Universal Self under the influence of its power, called māyā, assumes the innumerable forms of limited selves whose limitation consists in ignorance of their essential nature and consequent deprivation of the powers of knowledge and action. Such a sentient limited manifestation, when possessed of the five attributes kalā etc., is spoken of as puruṣa. The above five attributes together with māyā, which is the cause of self-forgetfulness, as it were, of the Self, are at times spoken of as six covers. The deprivation of the Self of its powers of knowledge and action consequent upon the obscuration of its real nature is spoken of as “āṇavamala”. And the objectless desire to use the limited powers is called “kārma mala” to which its future associations with insentient objects are due. The puruṣa, therefore, is often described briefly as the Self affected by two impurities, the anava and the kārma malas, but free from the third, the māyīya mala. It represents purely the subjective element in the midst of the body, the senses, the vital airs, the mind and the Buddhi. It constitutes the 25th category. It is often referred to

T. A., VI, 161.

T. A., VI, 160. T. A., VI, 164-5.

250

CHAPTER III

as pumān pudgala or aṇu. It represents the permanent aspect of the individual, retains residual traces (saṁskāras) and passes through innumerable births and deaths. There is a marked similarity between the Trika and the Sankhya concepts of puruṣa. The former also like the latter believes that there is no limit to the number of the puruṣas and that the creation of the prakrti is for supplying the necessary stimuli for the varying experiences which these puruṣas must enjoy or suffer according to their individual karma. The conception of malas and six covers, however, is peculiar to the Trika.

This very puruṣa, when it momentarily identifies itself with body etc., is spoken of as the dehapramātā and so on. Further, being entirely free from all kinds of association with the gross world at the time of the dissolution and lying in a state of deep sleep as it were, it is called pralayākala. And when it is freed from the kārma mala and consequently from the limited experiences, which are peculiar to souls in the bondage of karma, it is called Vijñānākala. As such it represents the transitional stage through which an individual self has to pass before reaching the state of the universal experiencer of the S’uddha vidyā tattva which is also called Mahāmāyā.)

Two points have to be specially noted in this connection viz., the word “karma” in the above statement does not stand for the sum total of the effects, produced on an individual by his personal conviction that the deeds done by him would, at the time of maturation, lead to a certain result; it means simply an objectless desire, which is responsible for the association of the Self with the effects of māyā, as we shall explain in the course of our treatment of

I. P. V., II, 200.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHASAVADA

251

the Trika theory of karma in the fifth chapter. Similarly the word (māyīya" stands for the gross body with all its gross constituents and associations (sarīra-bhuyanākāro māyīyah parikīrtitah). In our above statement we are following the authority of Abhinava. Yogarāja holds a slightly different view.

THE SANKHYA AND THE TRIKA CONCEPTS OF PURUSA

COMPARED.

According to the Sānkhya, the innumerable puruṣas are independent entities ; but, according to the Trika, they are the manifestations of the same Ultimate Reality. Further, Puruṣa, according to the former, remains always unaffected : it is a pure sentient entity (Puruṣastu puṣkara palāśavat nirlepah kintu cetanah). But, according to the latter, Puruṣa, though equally sentient, yet it does not remain entirely unaffected under all circumstances.

PRAKŘTI OR PRADHĀNA.

In the order of manifestation, the Prakrti is the first objective manifestation. According to the Trika concept of causality, it is the first purely objective (vedyamātra) effect of the kala’. It represents the state of perfect equilibrium of the three qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas. Taking the variety of its future effects into consideration (bhāvi vedya viśeṣāpekṣayā), it is spoken of as the generic object (vedya sāmānyātmakam). It is as countless as the puruṣa, because each puruṣa has a separate pradhāna, (tacca prati pum niyatatvāt anekam T. A., Comm., VI, 172). It is stirred to productive activity for the sake of puruṣa by the Svatan treśa or Ananta.”

T. A., VI, 171. 2. T. A. VI, 180

252

CHAPTER III

COMPARISON OF THE SANKHYA AND THE TRIKA

CONCEPTS OF THE PRADHĀNA. While both agree on the question of the Pradhāna being a state of equilibrium of all the three qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas, and on that of its working for the sake of puruṣa, they fundamentally differ on the following points :

I. It is independent in its action according to the Sankhya ; but, according to the Trika, it works only when it is stirred to activity by Ananta.

II. It is one according to the former, but many according to the latter.

We shall state Abhinava’s arguments in support of the Trika theory of Pradhāna as well as those which he advances in refutation of that of the Sankhya, in the 5th chapter.

BUDDHI.

It is a product of the qualities. It is capable of receiving reflection from all sides so that it receives the reflection of the light of the self from within as well as that of the external objects from without. The objects, which cast their reflection on buddhi, are of two kinds: (I) the external, such as a gross object like jar, the reflection of which is received through the eyes, as at the time of perception; and (II) the internal, i. e., the images built out of the revived residual traces (samskāras) the reflections of which are not got through the eyes, but which affect the buddhi no less, as at the time of free imagination, rememb rance and dream. The apparent change of the mirror-like buddhi, due to a reflection, is technically called buddhiurtti, or simply vrtti or jñāna. We shall dwell at some length on the important part that Buddhi plays in perception, in the next chapter.

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHĀSAVĀDA

253

THE SANKHYA AND THE TRIKA CONCEPTS OF

BUDDHI COMPARED.

Thus, there is an agreement between the Sārkhya and the Trika on the conception of Buddhi so far as it is a common meeting place of both, the light of the puruṣa from one side and the reflection of the external object from the other. They, however, fundamentally differ on the nature of the source of internal light. According to the former, it is the pure self, śuddha puruṣa) that casts its light on buddhi; but, according to the latter, it is one that is affected by two impurities, āṇava and kārma malas. Further, according to the former, it is not objective (asamvedya), but, according to the latter, being an instrument of knowledge, it is knowable, like any other instrument such as the mind.

AHANKĀRA. It is a product of the buddhi. It is nothing but the identification of the limited self with the buddhi and consequent attribution of the latter’s activity to itself. Its distinctive function is to control the five vital airs within the system and so the life itself. It is distinct from self consciousness (ahambhāva), because while the latter is purely subjective (svātma matra visrānti satattvah) and, therefore, without any objective reference; the former is due to superimposition of the self on the buddhi’.

MANAS. The manas or mind is a product of ahankāra (egoity). The element of sattva predominates in it. How, without its cooperation with senses, no sensation of any kind is possible, how it carves images out of the blocks of sensations

T. A., VI, 185.

T. A., VI, 192. 3. T. A., Comm., VI, 185.

254

CHAPTER III

and what other important parts it plays in perception we shall show, while dealing with the Trika theory of knowledge in the next chapter.

THE REMAINING TWENTY TATTVAS.

The remaining twenty tattvas are as follows: (1) The five senses or powers of perception, called

Buddhīndriyas or jñānendriyas, namely, the

powers of (a) smelling (ghrāṇendriya) (b) tasting (rasanendriya) (C) seeing (cakṣurindriya) (d) feeling-by-touch (sparśanendriya) and

(e) hearing (śravaṇendriya.) (II) The five capacities of activity, called the karmen

driyas, (organs of action ?) namely, the capacities of (a) resting and enjoying passively (upasthendriya) (b) rejecting or discarding (pāyvindriya) (c) locomotion (pādendriya) (d) handling (hastendriya) and (e) voicing (Vāgindriya)

III. The five subtle elements (tanmā tras) of

(a) smell (gandha tanmātra) (b) taste (rasa tanmätra) (c) form or colour (rūpa tanmātra) (d) touch (sparsa tanmātra) and (e) sound (sabda tanmātra)

IV. The five gross elements of

(a) earth (b) water (c) light

THE CATEGORIES OF THE ABHĀSAVĀDA

255

(d) air, and (e) ether.

The first three groups originate from ahankāra with the predominance of sattva, rajas and tamas respectively. And the five of the last group, namely, the gross elements, are the effects of the five of the preceding group of tanmātras respectively.

Indriyas, according to the Trika, are not mere physical organs of smelling and handling etc. They are rather the powers of the individual self which operate through these physical organs. Leaving aside the mind and the intellect, there are ten Indriyas. Five are responsible for the perceptual activities of smelling, tasting, seeing, touching and hearing and as such are mere manifestations of the vidyā, the limited power of knowledge. The remaining five are similarly responsible for the five kinds of the physical activities of handling, locomoting, voicing, rejecting and resting or enjoying passively and as such are simply different forms of kalā, the limited power of action?.

T. A., VI, 199.