महाभारते विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

By Professor K. Satchidananda Murty

About 800 A.D. Vasugupta of Kashmir wrote explanatory verses on the Sivasūtra which was claimed to be Siva’s revelation. Somānanda (850 A.D.) in his Sivadrsti and other works developed Vasugupta’s ideas, and Utpala (c. 900 A.D.) in his Īsvarapratyabhijñākārikā logically co-ordinated these ideas and created God-non-dualism (Isvarādvaya vāda). Abhinavagupta (950-1000 A.D.) through his explanatory (Vimarsini) work on Utpala’s and his independent works (Paramārthasāra, Tantraloka, etc.) systematised the doctrines of this school. His disciple Kṣemarāja (975-1025 A.D.) also wrote some important works. Utpala and Abhinavagupta are two of the great thinkers of India. śaivism, Sūnyavāda, Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta influenced this school. What Gaudapāda was to Savkara’s Advaita, Sankaranandana (author of Prajñālankāra), some scholars say, was to Abhinavagupta’s Pratyabhijñā. Sankaranandana, it is conjectured, was a Buddhist who later became a śaiva, and he especially influe Aced Abhinavagupta’s theory of knowledge.

Pratyabhijñā means recognition of one’s self as Śiva’, lord of the Universe (svātmāpi visveśvarah), through the teaching of the guru. Siva is the only Reality. He is completely free, and is capable of action. The world or nescience is His freely assu med form. Out of His free will and with himself as the sole basis He unfolds the universe. There is no material cause or other basis for the world. Consci. ousness, bliss (freedom, independence), will, know ledge and capacity (to assume all forms),- these are Siva’s five principal powers. Creation (srṣṭi), suste nance (sthiti), destruction (saṁhāra), obscuration (tirodhāna) and grace (anugraha) constitute His five fold activity (pañcakrtya). The world is a reflection in Him. Just as the reflections in a mirrror are not different from it but appear to be different, the world of multiplicity reflected in Siva, though not different, appears to be different. But, unlike the reflection in a mirror, the world-reflection has no original. Due to Siva’s power of freedom (complete independence) the world-reflection is projected with atout any original. So all conscious beings and unconscious things are mere reflections. The world, being a flash of Siva’s consciousness-power (cit śakti) is real. Liberation is attainment of one’s own cons ciousness and bliss (cidānandalabha) by piercing through the veils of ignorance, a state of divine har mony or equilibrium (sāmarasya), in which the self realises itself to be the supreme Self; and yet on the very basis of this advaita the former continues to have loving devotion for the latter as he did earlier on the basis of dvaita,

1. The Good, the Auspicious, personified.

The thinkers of this school point out that its diff erence from that of Vedānta consists in this: The Lord who is of the nature of Consciousness is const antly engaged in fivefold activity-Isvarādvayadar sanasya brahmavādibhyah ayam eva višeṣah - sadā pañcavidha-krtyakāritvam cidātmano bhagavataḥ (Kṣemarāja, Pratyabhijñāhrdaya). Siva is the substratum as well as the sole possessor of infinite powers (ananta Śaktiratnānām ekāsraya’), which constitute His very nature, (svabhāva); and so, He is unlike the insentient like, powerless and quiescent Brahman of Vedānta Na punaḥ śāntabrahmavādinām iva śaktivirahitam jadakalpam (Abhinavagupta, Paramarthasāra). The world is not at all different from Consciousness, for it is the pure and free Consciousness which flashes forth as the world of infinite multiplicity-Nanu jagad api Cito bhinnam naiva kiñcit–Cideva bhagavatī svaccha svatantrarūpă tattadanantajagadātmanā sphurati (Pratyabhijñāhrdaya). Power is the freedom (svātan trya) of Consciousness.

One’s own awareness, logic and scripture establish that the nature of the self is of the form of the supreme Lord. Svasamvedanopapatty-āgamasiddham maheśvararüpam ātmasvarūpam (Bhāskarī on I śvara pratyabhijñāvimarsini). Liberation is the manifestation of one’s own power through the destruction of the knot of ignorance, and the attainment of the Supreme Lordship through the removal of ego-sense (abhi māna)- Ajñanagranthibhidă svasaktyabhivyaktatā mokṣaḥ (Paramārthasāra). Parameśvaratalabho muktih (I śvarapratyabhijñāvimarsini).

1. Abhinavagupta, I svarapratyabhijnavimarsini, ‘intro, Gita-2श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता गीतार्थसंग्रहोपेता The Pratyabhijñā or Isvarādvaya system is one of the most impressive religio-philosophical systems of India. It is also a fine example of a Tāntrika system. Abhinavagupta exercised considerable influ ence on the Advaita Vedānta dialectician Srī Harsa. II Abhinavagupta in his commentary Gītārthasan graha sums up what he thinks is the meaning of the Gītā. According to him, the Mahābhārata shows that the principal Value (pradhāna-phala) is liberation, which is well-nurtured (pariposita) by others like virtue (or righteousness). Liberation is the dissolution (laya) of oneself in the Supreme Bliss ful Lord, Who by his very nature is auspicious, omni scient and omnipotent, and not different from any thing. Liberation is nothing but the recognition of one’s non-difference (abheda) with the Lord through the contemplation of His oneness. While in other contexts also the Mahābhārata explains what liberation is, the Gīta, he declares, is the text where its nature is very well explained. (See intro. verses 1 to 4, Gitārthasangraha). He ends his commentary thus: One attains Viṣṇu (the Omnipresent) beyond all alter natives (vikalpātiga) through clear awareness (vibodha) of one’s own self; thereafter, while the sense organs function due to their own momentum, whatever one does spontaneously (helātaḥ)’ makes him attain Sankara (the Beneficent, the cause of pro sperity). (See Sangraha-sloka at the end of chapter xviii).
1. Hela – unrestrained behaviour, ease. Helaya – with ease, without trouble (Macdonell’s A Practical Sanskrit Dictionntry).

In his introduction Abhinavagupta indicates the purport of the Gītā thus : While knowledge is what is important, actions should not be abandoned. Performance of actions, while based on knowledge, does not bind-Karmaṇām jñānaniṣthatayā Kriyā māṇānāmapi na bandhakatvam. While knowledge is the main thing and knowledge and action are not equally important, the latter is inevitably connected with the former as both together constitute cons ciousness. - JñanaKriyāmayatvāt samvittattvasya (GS, ch. iii, 3).

Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Gitā was published with others from Bombay in 1912 and 1936 and from Delhi in 1978. It was published separately from Śrīnagar in 1933, R. Gnoli’s Italian transla tion of it was published from Torino in 1976. I am not aware of any other translation of it.

In the present work, Professor Dr S. Sankara narayanan has edited it on the basis of the above editions and Mss. from the BORI, Poona, and has for the first time translated it into English and provided it with Notes based on his extensive reading of Pratyabhijñā literature. This editor translator learnt the Krsnayajurveda, Kramanta, for ten years in the traditional way, then studied Nyāya and became a Siromani in it with a I class 1st from Annamalai University, and finally became a M.A. in History and Politics also from the same and a Ph.D in History with a thesis on the Viṣṇukuṇdis. He worked in the Epigraphy branch of the Archaeological Survey of India from 1956 to 1977, in which he was the Dy. Superintending Epigraphist (I Class Gazetted) from 1959. From 1977 he has been Director of the Oriental Research Institute, Śrī Venkateswara University, Tirupati. He also studied Vedānta in the traditional way under reputed Pandits. He has to his credit a number of papers, has edited the Bhojacaritra and two commentaries on the Tarkasangraha and the Dipikāprakāśa with his own Tippaṇis. During 1983-84 the Juniormost Sankarācārya of Kāmakoti Pītha was taught Nyāya Šāstra by him; and in 1984 the Senior most Sankarācārya of that Pītha conferred on him the title of “Vedaśāstra Ratnakara”. It is clear that it would be very difficult to find a more erudite savant than him for editing and translating this work, Professor Sankaranarayanan began this work, on my suggestion, soon after he came to Tirupati. He equipped himself for this task by studying the source books of Kashmir śaivism in their originals and acquainting himself with modern works in this field. His translation while being faithful to the original is lucid, while his Notes testify to his deep scholarship of Indian Philosophy and are the result of his research on this type of non-dualism. This transla tion with its Notes throws a flood of light on a great Indian thinker’s understanding of one of the greatest religio-philosophical classics of the world.

K. S. Murty
Andhra Cottage, Andhra University, Waltair, 25th April, 1985,