Svasya Dvedhāpādakaṃ Tadbrahmaikyaṃ Dhīmahi Param॥
Since the appearance of the divine Āgama-Nigamā and other vedic scriptures, till the present time, many thinkers from the philosophical point of view have contributed to the development of Indian philosophy by expressing their philosophical views in favor of Vedic principles, sometimes against them and also collectively by encompassing their personal views and vedic principles. Under this tradition, subject of discussion in the present context is the Svātantryavāda proposed by Pratyabhigyā school of philosophy or Trika school of philosophy, which emerged under the Kashmir Shaiva tradition and the Śuddhadwaita school of philosophy proposed by Mahāprabhu Śrī Vallabhācārya under the Vaishnava tradition. One of the characteristics of the Indian schools of philosophy has been that the ideas proposed by all the philosophers have not been independent or unprecedented ideas of a single person but based on the aggregate experiences of many individuals and the obvious example of this is – The Śuddhadwaita school of philosophy proposed by Śrī Vallabhācārya 550 years ago finds harmony & uniformity with Shivādvayavāda/Svātaṃtryavāda, many years ago before him, formed by Somānaṃda, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta in the valley of Kashmir as well as Pratyabhigyā school of philosophy proposed approximately 1200-1300 years ago from today.
Both of these above mentioned traditions appear to be very different from each other in terms of worship; one being devoted to Shiva worship and another devoted to Krishna worship. The idea of harmony between them seems very exciting, given the apparent differences in their origination periods & region as well as differences in methods of worship. Because the apparent uniformity in both philosophies, transcending all these secular limits, reinforces the sovereignty of the Indian intellectual tradition, fulfilling the ideology of the Vedas-pronounced “Ekaṃ Sadviprā Bahudhā Vadanti”!
The Upanishadic Brahmavāda – the cornerstone of the Indian philosophical tradition
In the literature of the āgama-nigamā, the designation Brahman under the term Brahmavāda or Brahmavādī, is considered to denote the Supreme Being. In the Samhita of the RigVeda, therefore when a serious philosophical question was presented for the discussion of the sages, that – “From which forest, from which tree, these worlds of heaven and earth have been carved and adorned? Hey, you wise men! Try asking yourself sometime, where these worlds were shaped by the artist?”1 And then, in order to answer this question, the Taitriya Brahman chapter, who theoretically declared that – “The forest was Brahman, the tree was also Brahman itself, by which these worlds of heaven and earth were carved and adorned. Wise men! I will tell you the mystery that has been in my mind that the Brahman who shaped them has shaped these worlds by standing on Himself.”2 This statement must be regarded as the primordial enunciation of Upanishadic Brahmavāda.
In clear terms, these statements from Vedas represent Brahman as the integral efficient as well as material cause of the creation. Therefore, part of Brahman to be the material in the effect, the acceptance of the only self-established Brahman as the basis of the creation as well as the creator, accepting the identicality or the sentiment of similarity in the form of difference-tolerant indifference between cause and effect, are the major points presented for discussion of Brahmavāda.
Although the choice between Dwaita or Adwaita or Dwaitadwaita may or may not seem so prominent when the multiplicity of philosophies is taken into account; but in Vedānta philosophy, the choice between Dwaita or Adwaita becomes very important. Because the identification of the various Prasthans of Vedānta philosophy becomes the inevitable touchstone for having different Prasthans based on the basic concept of Dwaita or Adwaita, all the Prasthans available thus, accordingly are known as Kevaladwaitavāda, Aupādhikadwaitadwaitavāda, Viśiṣṭadwaitavāda, Dwaitavāda, Avibhāgadwaitavāda, etc. The popularity of all these Vedāntic Prasthans can only be understood on the basis of their desired choices about Dwaita or Adwaita.
Historical and comparative discussion on the development of the three Prasthans in the form of Dwaita, Adwaita or Dwaitavāda manifested along with the major streams of these two philosophies:
If we were to look through the present context of Shaiva philosophy and Vaishnava philosophy – in both philosophies, the concepts of Dwaita, Adwaita and Dwaitavāda have been presented by the ācāryas. For example, when we look at some of the evidence available explaining the emergence of the Trika philosophy, we can see the tradition given by Somānanda; and it states that – When Lord Shiva was not satisfied with the dualistic interpretation of the āgamas, only if the same āgamas are given a non-dualistic interpretation, then Shiva’s self-reliance would remain intact. Thinking this, Shiva entrusted this responsibility to sage Durvāsā. Durvāsā had three Mānasa sons – Tryambaka, Āmardaka and Śrīnātha. He preached Adwaita to Tryambaka, Dwaita to Āmardaka and Dwaitavāda to Śrīnātha. Supporting this fact, Abhinavagupta says in the Tantraloka:
“Śrīmacchīkaṇṭha Nāthājñātraśāt Siddhā Avātaran।
Tryambakāmardakābhikhya Śrīnāthā Advaye Dvaye।
Dvayādvaye Ca Nipuṇāḥ Krameṇa Śivaśāsane|”3
Tryambaka established a monastery to propagate the Adwaita doctrine out of the above three traditions. Somānanda has not made any statement on the subject as to when and where this monastery was founded. It was probably first established at Kailasha, the abode of Shiva, which was later moved to Kashmir.
Dr. Kanti Chandra Pandey believes that the ancestors of the fourth generation of Somanand brought this monastery to Kashmir in the 8th century.4 The Trymbaka monastery eventually became divided into two schools of thought – Spandaśāstra and Pratyabhijñāśāstra. Both of these are non-dualistic schools of thought; but they are considered to be different because of differences in the tradition of practice. Both of these are considered the Trika school of thought essentially.
Vasugupta and Somānanda formally established this Adwaita branch introduced by Tryambakācārya, on the basis of logic, who consecutively established schools of Spandaśāstra and Pratyabhijñāśāstra. Later, Somānanda’s disciples Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta propagated it, adorning it with many texts. Somānanda’s tenure was 850 AD and the period of Vasugupta is considered to be 825 AD.5 Thus, this Adwaita Trika Darshan is very ancient. This philosophy has been further sanctified by the presence of thoughts and teachers in the scenic land of Kashmir. The Shaiva philosophy that was spread all over India, sometime later, was confined to Kashmir, symbolizing the holiness of Kashmir. The term Kashmir is therefore associated with Shaiva philosophy in such a way that it became better known as the “Shaiva tradition of Kashmir”. Other branches of philosophies that emerged in the Shaiva sects are – Pāśupata Darśana, Shaivasiddhānta, Vīra Shaiva, Raseśvara Darśana, Krama Darśana and Kaula Darśana. In all these branches, the Shaivasiddhānta is a dualistic philosophy. The philosophical doctrine of the Vīra Shaiva or doctrine of the Lingāyata sect is called ‘Shakti-viśiṣṭadwaita’ because the mutual union of Shakti-Viśiṣṭa Jīva and Shakti-Viśiṣṭa Shiva is called Shakti-Viśiṣṭadwaita. This Jīva, being a part of Shiva is both different from Shiva as well as integral to Shiva; like fire and the sparks of fire. There is both some difference as well as unison. – “Sthīyate līyate yatra jagadetaccarācaram। tad brahma sthalabhityuktaṃ sthalatatva viśāradaḥ।” This is the Shakti-viśiṣṭadwaita of Vīra Shaiva philosophy. Thus, in Shaiva philosophy there are branches of Dwaita, Adwaita as well as Dwaitavāda in the philosophical school tradition, which are rooted in the free will of Shiva.
In Vaishnava philosophy, the Dwaita proposed by Madhvācārya, the Vishishtadwaita proposed by Rāmānujācārya, the Aupādhikadwaitadwaitavāda proposed by Bhāskarācāryajī, the Svābhāvik Adwaitadwaita proposed by Nimbārkācārya and the Avibhāgadwaita proposed by Srikrishna Chaitanya are famous. Mahaprabhu Sri Vallabhacharya in his Subodhini commentary on Śrīmadbhāgavat states – ‘Thus, by proving the identicality of the fruits, He goes on depicting the different types of Bhakti such as Saguṇa and Nirguṇa. The difference being real, respecting the scriptures, there are three types of Bhakti Yoga. At present, those who describe such devotion, respectively with focus on Tamoguṇa, Rajoguṇa and Satvaguṇa, are the followers of Vishnuswami, Dwaita Tattvavadi and of Ramanuja, consecutively. The Bhakti Yoga I have taught is Nirguṇa Bhakti Yoga. Thus, there are four types of Bhakti Yoga introduced by the Lord Himself.”7
In the present context, with a bird’s eye view of the various interpretations by the respected scholars of various sects of Shaiva Vedānta and Vaishnava Vedānta with Vedas in the roots of their concepts, it is very clear that – amongst them, the differences with Brahman’s perspective are negligible compared to the differences of opinion regarding the relationship of the material world to that Brahman. Secondly, some sort of duality and some sort of non-duality is accepted in all the sects. So we can see that there is not much difference of opinions when the question on the table is “If there is Dwaita or Adwaita?” But major difference of opinion shows up when the inquiry is about the definition of Dwaita and the definition of the Adwaita. Thus differences have arisen because of the prefixes or adjectives added to the terms Dwaita or Adwaita. Even though Bhāskarācāryajī believes in Dwaitavāda, but still adds the formal adjective ‘Aupādhika’ to the term Dwaitavāda whereas Śrīpatibhagavatpādācārya wants to add Vishesh adjective to the term Adwaita. Similarly, Śuddhadwaita (pure dualism) differs from the neighboring concepts in the sense that Adwaita is natural here while Dwaita is at will. Therefore, the complete rejection of Dwaita is not available even in Śānkara Vedānta, which introduced KevalAdwaitavāda; because even there too, practical and apparent Dwaita subject to Māyā is accepted along with transcendental (real) non-subjective Adwaita. Therefore, in the sense of accepting the Brahman represented by the Upanishads, all the sects of Vedānta are Brahmavādī; but they cannot be titled as Śuddhadwaitavadi (purely non-dualistic).
Being a Vaishnava sect among the many starting points of Vedānta, the belief in Śrī Krishna as Parabrahmam is one of the most prominent principles as per Mahaprabhu Sri Vallabhācārya. But in Vedānta, as a result of the desire of the one and only Brahman to expand into various names, forms and actions, the same Supreme Being has also appeared in the forms of Śiva, Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Krishna, Rāma, Shakti, etc.; This truth is inevitable. Therefore, if even the philosophers of the Shaiva and Shakta sects regard Shiva or Shakti as the Supreme Being, their philosophy can also be interpreted as purely non-dualism; there is no doubt about it. Therefore, if the scholars of Shaiva or Shakti tradition consider Shiva or Shakti as the Supreme Being or ParaBrahman, then their philosophies can be defined in terms of Śuddhadwaita. Therefore, although the scholars who have expounded the philosophy of Pratyabhigyā have not named their philosophy Śuddhadwaita; however, this interpretation of the Shaiva philosophy, which is obtained from the texts composed by the ācaryas, can undoubtedly be concluded as per Śuddhadwaita philosophy. Similarly as Sri Ramanujacharya is a Vaishnava and Srikantha is a Shaiva; but both are ViśiṣṭAdwaitavādī. Therefore, the ShuddhAdwaita doctrines found in the philosophies proposed by Mahaprabhu Sri Vallabhacharya and Abhinavagupta will be discussed in a comparative manner in the present paper. Before embarking on a comparative discussion, it is necessary to consider the Vedic reference of the Śuddhadwaita’s nature as well as concluding systematic consideration of the proposed vāda.
Definition of the Śuddhadwaita view proposed on the basis of Brahmavāda
Under Brahma Mīmāṃsā, which analyzes the Brahman Tattva, which is accessible only to the Sruti, describes the nature of the Brahman as “Brahman is truth, knowledge and of infinite forms’8, and from causal perspective – “Brahman, from whom all these beings and objects are born, in whom they live after being created, to whom they go in liberation and in whom they are absorbed in doom, inquire about that Brahman, because that only has to be considered as the Brahman.” 9 – this definition is provided. The nature of Brahman is defined on the basis of its extraordinary characteristics and similarly the causality of Brahman is determined by describing its functions or effects. It is because of the discussion of these two interpretations that philosophical differences appear in all Brahmavādī sects, because if Brahman tattva is Upanishadic, then all Vedānta sects are Brahmavādī in this sense; but because of the philosophical differences evident in how they explain the Upanishadic statements regarding relationship between the Brahman, and the material – conscious beings who take birth out of this Brahman and stay and liberate into the Brahman, we can see lot many varieties of sects, each one with their unique opinion. Therefore, in the present context, it seems necessary to interpret the scriptural statements accepted under Śuddhadwaita and to decide on the doctrine in the form of conclusions arising from them.
ekamevādvitīyaṃ + tad aikṣata bahusyāṃ prajāyeya
Adwaita (identicality) in the form of Brahman + at-will Dwaita in terms of various names, forms, actions, beings
The at-will Dwaita in the inherent Adwaita = Śuddhadwaita
The above explanation implies that if the Brahman represented by the scriptures is one and unique, that is; devoid of homogeneous, heterogeneous and self-contained differences, then it cannot be the subject of dual knowledge in its original form. So when the scripture says about such Brahman, – “Everything visible was Brahman earlier. He thought to himself that I am Brahman. So he became everything”10. In such a situation, it becomes necessary that both the effect or part and the cause or the whole – both be Brahmic since the part-whole sentiment or cause-effect sentiment has emerged out of that Brahman only. Otherwise, there will be an objection to self-contained difference; even if there is no other matter, homogeneous or heterogeneous with the Brahman. In such a situation, which other is to be considered possible overruling Tattva by adding a pure adjective to the term Adwaita? This question arises. When we seek a solution to this question, we cannot find anything overruling according to Shruti or in our own opinion. Therefore, Sri Vallabhacharya says: “When considering Brahmavāda, no interpretation or characteristic (for the purpose of overruling the goal) can be presented. Because when everything is Brahman, there can be nothing overruling or different than Brahman. Neither one can show or prove existence of such overruling or extraordinary property in the Brahman. Therefore, conduct is possible only after the appearance of the different worlds due to voluntary will of the Brahman (of the characteristics and proofs determined by the Brahman-Mimansa)”11. Thus, describing the natural non-duality and voluntary duality manifested in the two states as expressed in the characteristics of form and function of Brahman, the scripture says: “He who denies the unbroken existence & consciousness of Brahman; who says I do not exist, becomes a liar. Because such a speaker, who is he when he leaves this world and goes elsewhere? When a Brahmajñānī renounces the world, does he attain any other state or form of Brahman or not? He attains the Brahman, because Brahman desired that I should become one and many!….He created everything and entered within His own creation….entering only, he became the direct and indirect world himself. Became uttered and un-uttered. Became dependent and independent. Became knowledge & ignorance. Became Truth and falsehood himself. So whatever it is, it should be called ‘Satya’. It appears that creation was not there before and seems to have been created after; this is not really the case because He executed Himself in the form of creation. So it is all his righteous deed. Everything in creation is his righteous deeds. That is what the ‘rasa’ is.”12
Here, in clear terms ignorance – even if it is to be kept unexpressed, is considered to be a form taken by Satyajñānānanta Brahman. On the basis of such acceptance, the identicality with Brahman with the form must be assumed even in this ignorance-like illusion manifested in the Jīvātmā. Therefore, Sri Vallabhacharya says: “Among the many powers manifested by the Lord, who is able to create each and every thing, there are also two powers, Vidya and Avidya. Because of these, the beings in the form of the Lord remain free in the world or bound in the world. They can never affect God Himself.”13 Therefore, even the creation of this world if it were to be considered to be non-Brahmic, it will be self-separation but not otherwise; that much is clear. In conclusion, it can be understood that even after creating these worlds, there is Adwaita of Brahman with the creation because the revealed duality is a voluntary duality which is contained within Adwaita; because in those substances with Brahman as material cause, only bliss is concealed but consciousness & existence is manifested, there also, the disappearance of bliss or consciousness is considered versus solitary absence. Therefore, due to the inherent existence of the cause in the effect as well as the whole in the part, the objection that the absence of difference within the self of Brahman is baseless – since the fact that Brahman is implicit is not perceived in the regular worldly encounters. The term disappearance or concealment means that even though an object exists, either its semantic functionality does not seem to appear or its perceptibility does not appear; or both. Therefore, in such a situation, the emerging objection of the self-difference between the cause & effect and Brahman and the effect jiva cannot actually stand.
Ācarya Somananda of Trikaśāstra also refutes the duality in the form of Lord Shiva by saying that – is the ocean ever divided by thousands of waves? No. Similarly, the for rupam of Shiva cannot be contrasted by the contrasts in worlds of heaven and hell and by the bodies of the living beings in the world. He remains intact. The perception or illusion of division in the unbroken Param Shiva due to the created objects is also a form of Shiva because salvation is also a form of a Shiva and bondage is also a form of Shiva. (śivadṛṣṭi.3.68). Like Brahman in the form of truth, knowledge and bliss, not being divided even when possessing these three qualities as per the definition of ‘ānaṃdobrahmetivyajānāt’, and stays undivided, unified in its true nature. Similarly, according to Kashmir Shaiva philosophy, ParamShiva, while possessing the five powers of consciousness, bliss, desire, knowledge and action, remains undivided in him because these powers make him supreme. Param Shiva remains before the origin of creation, after the creation and even at the time of end of the world; for Shiva is the abode of all variables and immutable. They are located in both forms. Therefore, the Pratyabhigyā school of thought has accepted the distinction between doer and action and the distinction between enjoyer and enjoyable as a distinction of the discursive nature of the light of Lord Shiva, relaxing the distinction between doer and action and the enjoyer and enjoyable. The above consideration clarifies the aspect of at-will Dwaita within the Adwaita which is accepted in the Kashmir Shaiva tradition.
Even after being transformed into variety of name-form-karmic world, as in the Upanishads, Brahman is not considered to be completely fragmented, similarly in Kashmir Shaivism also – tasmāt etadeva parameśvarasya svātantryaṃ niratiśayaṃ yata pūrṇasvarūpatā parityāgena…. paśubhāvamāpanno’pi… svāmaṇi prasphuran cidānandaikaghanaḥ śiva eva। (paramarth.sārikā.17) – as presented in this verse, Lord Shiva is carrying on this primary divisive conduct just like how an actor changes characters, in this gratifying world created by his own free will, Shiva himself adorns the body of an enjoyer, while raising this couple of authority-proof with the characteristics of enjoyer-enjoyable like a toy. It has been rendered so. But in spite of manifesting such a dualistic state, Shiva attains the Pashu spirit only without giving up his perfection and his absolute freedom and remains only ‘cidānandaikaghana’ Shiva. This means that identicalism is not a sign of complete absence of difference or divisiveness; similarly difference is also not a term denoting pure contrast. Therefore, interpreting the above statements and taking both the aspects of natural non-duality and voluntary duality, Shiva plays with his freedom; This stand appears to be consistent with the Pratyabhigyā philosophy which they want to term as “Svātantryavāda”. – “prakāśavirmaśātmā saṃvitsvabhāvaḥ paramaśivo bhagavān svātantryāt eva rūdrādisthāvarāntapramātṛrūpatayā nīlasukhādiprameyatayā ca anatiriktayāpi atirikteva svarūpānācchādikayā saṃvitsvarūpanāntarīyakasvātantryamahimnā prakāśate. ityayaṃ svātantryavādaḥ pronmīlitaḥ॥” (īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛttivimarśinī.part-1, Page-9).
In the same perspective, if we look at Sri Vallabhacharya’s Śuddhadwaita, according to Vāllabha Vedānta neither duality/difference is the extreme absence of unity nor Adwaita/unison is the extreme absence of duality or difference. Therefore, “bhedasahiṣṇu abhedaḥ tādātmyam.”14 – This is the nature of Adwait as accepted in Śuddhadwaita. Brahmans’ (1) The original (primordial) state of being the one and only, the basic essence of Brahman, (2) In the middle, the optional name-form-action-atmic multi-attribute creation in form of cause-and-effect state, and (3) Finally, to describe the oneness and uniqueness of the Tattva again in the post-apocalyptic period; These respective depictions can be seen in the light of Upanishad’s statements –
(1) Sattveva, saumya! idam agre āsīd ekameva advitīyam. [chāndogya(6।2।2-3)]
(2) Tadetat trayaṃ sad ekam ayam ātmā, ātmā u ekam san etat trayam.[bṛhadāraṇyaka(1।6।3)]
(3) Pare avyaye sarvam ekībhavati. [muṇḍaka(37)]
Thus, after the explanation of the Adwaita mentioned in the Upanishads, which is meant by the term Śuddhadwaita is clear, a comparative discussion can be drawn between the philosophical view of Pratyabhigyā and the philosophical view proposed by Mahaprabhu Sri Vallabhacharya.
Primary elements of Śuddhadwaita philosophy:
A. Vedic Context
1. Desire to know in particular the One from whom all these beings have certainly arisen, by whose shelter they live when arisen, and in whom they are absorbed when they are ultimately destroyed; That is Brahman. (Tait. Up. 1.1)
2. In which forest, which tree has been carved to adorn these worlds of heaven and earth? Hey sages, ever ask your mind where the world’s maker stood and carved them! (Rig samhita.10.8.4)
3. That forest was Brahman, that tree was also Brahma itself, which was carved and these worlds of heaven and earth were decorated. Sages! I will tell you the mystery in my mind that the Brahman who shaped them has shaped these worlds by standing above Himself. (Tait.Brahma.126.96.36.199-7).
4. This whole world is certainly Brahman, it is arising from Him, absorbed in Him and striving in Him-thus worship calmly; Because puruṣa is certainly sacrificial-determined; The puruṣa is as determined in this world as he is when he dies. Therefore, that puruṣa should be the purpose. (Chandogya.Up.3.14.1)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
5. All these substances are forms of Brahman; This is stated in the 11th Canto. God is all-pervading, God creates and God Himself also gets created. God is the protector, the cosmic soul God Himself destroys His own form and God is the origin, position and destruction by the power of revealing and concealing. He who knows that everything is God is the greatest. Those who oppose this view, are supposed to be deluding beings. (tatvārtha.dīpa.nibandha .2.183-184)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
6. Just as the reflection falls on a mirror, so God expresses all the actions of the world in His own form, such as creation, position, destruction, etc., because all things, conscious and unconscious, are under God; No one is separate from Him. (But here, by the example of image-reflection, the worldly names and forms are not considered as illusory but as the manifestation of all things in God; hence this philosophy is called realistic idealism.) (Tantraloka.2.3-4).
7. The desire of the soul, which is undifferentiated in the thirty-six elements from Shiva to earth, is its cosmic form. (Para.Praveshika.p.3).
8. Creation, position, annihilation, disappearance and grace are His five forms of freedom and this is His wealth. He is fully capable of this game of sovereignty with his vibrational power. This entire universe, which is the expression of the joy-like vibration of the vibrating Lord Shiva, is just part of His divinity. I bow to such an Adwaita form of Param Shiva because everything is God and God is everything. (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1)
(2) Viruddhadharmāśrayatāvāda (Coincidentia Oppositorum):
A. Vedic Context
1. He is great, divine and inconceivable. He shines subtler than the subtle and is farther away and very near in this body. He is hidden in the intellectual cavity of conscious beings within this body. (Munda.Up.3.17).
2. That God wished that I should become many, that is, I should be born. So he did penance. He created whatever it is by doing penance. Having composed it, he entered inside of it. By entering into it, that God in the form of Satya became embodied as well as intangible, capable of being uttered and not uttered, shelter as well as non-shelter, conscious-unconscious and practical truth-lie. Whatever this is, the Brahmic scholars call it by this name of ‘Satya’….(Tait.Up.2.6)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
3. Brahman is the shelter to all the religions as well as imperceivable by logic. The main implication of Brahman being the Coincidentia Oppositorum is that we should not make any observations about what Brahman is like; On the contrary, accept the form of Brahman as described in the Sruti. If in the same sentence of the Sruti or in two different sentences we seem to be describing conflicting properties, according to the worldly intellect; so we must accept that according to the scriptures, Brahman has such conflicting qualities. Because Brahman is not accessible by any non-scriptural evidence. It is therefore possible that even the qualities which seem to be contradictory under the worldly evidence would have been relieved of the contradiction when they were attributed to Brahman.
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
4. The name of this (revealed for the renunciation of the universe) nature-form freedom power of Lord Shiva is vibration. This vibration is an excitement like a playfulness living in eternal and integral harmony within the unchanging and tranquil God, which is called the discussion form of the light form of God. (Spandanirnaya.p.3)
5. To say that there is any excitement like restlessness means that the realization of its essential nature is only a matter of inner self-perception of the self-contained Shaivas. Language is completely incapable of ultimately describing its nature. Like a wave rising from the blow of the wind in a calm sea, this vibration of Lord Shiva should not be understood as a disturbance, for everywhere Lord Shiva is Lord Shiva and nothing else, who can be a disturbance? And then the root cause of the disturbance is the desire for differences onto oneself. But God is absolutely perfect. If there is nothing other than that, how can there be a desire for something different in God? (Tantralokaviveka Part-3, p.-214)
6. God, by His vibratory form, perceives (exults) this form-forming world integrally within His perfect ego. The one light-form God Himself shines in various forms by His vibrational freedom, and yet He is actually unchanging and alone luminous. (Malinivijayavartika.kand.176)
7. Because of His unhindered freedom, Lord Shiva conceives His form in various forms such as pramātā-pramāṇa-prameyā and so on, and makes the inextricable appearance on His own wall. (īśvarapratyabhijñā.15।16)
(3) Abhinnanimittopānakāraṇatāvāda (Theory of one integral material & efficient cause)
A. Vedic Context
1. Just as the spider makes and swallows the web, just as the earthly medicines are produced and just as hair and wool are produced from the living man, so this world appears from that letter. By the austerities of knowledge, Brahman attains some accumulation (grossness), from which food is produced. Then food produces the nectar of life, mind, truth, world, karma and karma respectively. This Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), name, form and food arises from Akshara Brahman, who knows everything and is expert in everything and who has knowledgeable austerities. (Munda.Up.1.17-9)
2. Hey gentleman! In the beginning it was the only unique truth. Some have even said that it was the only unique untruth in the beginning. That untruth gives rise to truth. But O gentleman! How can this be so, how can the non-existent untruth be the origin of the truth or existence? So, In the beginning it was the only unique truth, said aruṇi. That truth/existence did desire – let me become many – be born in many ways. In this way he produced light. That light made me become a lot – be born in different ways. In this way, he created water by doing this. (Chando.Up.6.2.1-3)
3. Earlier this world was only asat (undeveloped form of Brahman). From that was the origin of Sat. That Asat himself created himself from the name-formal world. That’s why he is called Sukrit/sukṛta (self-created). That one which is well-known sukṛta is definitely rasa. The man becomes happy after getting this rasa….. When he perceives division in this, he becomes fearful. That Brahman is also frightening for the discerning scholar. (tait.sub.7.1)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
4. He, Brahman, is the material cause as well as efficient of the world. That Brahman sometimes enjoys Himself in His own form and sometimes enjoys happily in the world. For whom, by whom, in relation to whom, for whom and whatever, in whatever way, whenever happens—the controller of all these is God Himself. (tatvārtha.dīpa.nibandha.1.68-69)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
5. When a painter makes a picture, he expects two things – one is the base on which he creates the picture and the other is the material, such as colour, brush etc., with the help of which he gives the desired shape to the picture. But in the creation of the cosmic picture, Lord Shiva does not need any basis, no other material cause, no other efficient cause such as a paintbrush. The Lord, by own will, illuminates the various world-forms in its own light wall (shelter) from its own form (material) for its own pastimes. Param Shiva, in His light-like shelter, celebrates the world separate from Himself with light-like materials in a different way. (Pratyabhijnahradaya.Sutra.1-2)
6. This world, illuminated by the blissful transcendence of Lord Shiva, remains integrally situated in Lord Shiva in the same way that the object desired in our state of desire remains completely integral with us. (Spandakarikavivrtti.(by Ramakantha) p.-5)
A. Vedic Context
1. Where else can it have its origin except food? Similarly, O gentle! But seek the root of water by the horn of food, and, O gentle one, seek the root of light by the horn of water, and search for the root of goodness by the horn of light. O gentle! Thus this whole subject is the root and Sat is its refuge and Sat is its reputation. (Chando.Up.6.8.4)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
2. If Brahman is the one and only Sattva and He is the integral cause of this world, then the appearance of the world must suddenly be considered as the cause of Sattva. Real/Sat cause produces action, not unreal/asat cause. Unreal object cannot become the carrier of property of causality. (tatvārtha.dīpa.nibandha.Pr.1.23).
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
3. This light-form of God is inspired by His discussion-form. Like fire and its combustion, the difference between light and discussion is completely inconceivable. Discussion is the perception of the light-form of the consciousness. This discussion is its freedom, by which the soul becomes neutral and rests in the wholesome Self alone. (Shivadrishtivritti.p.1).
4. The perception of other-absolute self-perfection is his joy because other-absoluteness is ultimately joy. The worldly enjoyer expects a separate enjoyable from himself because he is imperfect. There is an expectation of the other. Therefore, his pleasure is in itself dependent on the expectation of others, and is pleasure-oriented. But there is nothing other than Lord Shiva. Therefore, he is completely independent from the expectation of the enjoyable other than himself. (Ishwarapratyabhijna.Vivrtti.Vimarshini Part-1.Pg.207) (Tantrasara.Page-6)
5. The complete discussion of the free is his freedom and this freedom is called the bliss or power of Lord Shiva. (Tantrasara.Page-6)
6. He is both cosmic and transcendental. That is his freedom and this freedom is his nature. This inherent freedom is the proof of the perfection of Lord Shiva. (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1।4)
A. Vedic Context
1. Hey gentleman! In the beginning it was the only unique truth. Some have even said that it was the only unique untruth in the beginning. That untruth gives rise to truth. But O gentle! How can this be, how can the true originate from the untrue? So Hey gentle! In the beginning it was the only unique truth, Aruni said. (Chando.Up.6.2.1-2)
2. He is perfect and this arising from Him is also perfect; Because the perfect is the origin of the perfect. and in the time of doom the perfect survives with the perfection of the perfect. (Isha.Up.1)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
3. The fact that the scriptures say that the untruth is in that way means that there is no existence of action before origin. If it is said thus, we answer that it is not, because it has been said thus by other religions. and in other sentences of the Sruti it is said that Brahman Himself is the form of action. All this was first untruth – (Tait. Up. 27) It is known from this scripture that before origin the work was untruth-avidyaman. If we say so, it is not so because the unmanifest name and form have not materialized in the sense that the term is said to be untrue. This is for this reason because there is another sentence of the Sruti-that Brahman Himself created Himself-(Tait.Up.27) since it is said that Brahman Himself creates-(Tait.Up.27) and this is-(Tait.Up.27) of such verses The same is proved by use. (BrahmaSu. Anu. Bha. 2.1.17)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
4. This light-form is the pure consciousness-form of Lord Shiva. It is by this light form that He shines everywhere and all the elements of the world are illuminated by this light form. The world of the light-forming soul is also the light-forming world. Because if the soul (God) is in the form of non-light, then no one will have any kind of light (knowledge) and blindness will prevail everywhere. Therefore, in essence, the light-form of the soul is indistinguishable everywhere, and there is no existence of non-light-form anywhere. (God Recognition.1.5.3)
5. By this doer nature he is constantly engaged in the five kinds of actions of creation, existence, destruction, disappearance and grace. (Bodhapanchadashika.4)
6. Even doing so for self-indulgence, he does not deviate from his perfect freedom (pure nature) in the slightest and always rests in the consultation of the perfect ego. (Swachchandatantratika. Part-3, p.-96)
7. He is both Visvottirna and Visvatmaka. Param Shiva manifests himself in various forms while remaining in his supreme form. (Shivadrishti.5.109)
8. Just as villages, cities, rivers, trees etc. reflected separately in a mirror are perceived as different even though they are integral with the mirror, so Lord Shiva perceives the world peculiarity within himself as integral by his freedom-greatness. (Tantroloka.Part-2.3.4) (It should be noted in this context that a mirror is not self-luminous. Therefore, to reflect an object within itself, it requires an external image along with light because the power of reflection in the world depends on the external image But since Param Shiva has the form of light as well as the form of discussion, he is completely independent; therefore he is other-absolute The above example of image-reflection is different from the divergence is accepted in Shankara Vedānta because the world perceived by reflection is considered false there and that of the mirror Maya in form is accepted as an independent power. While in Kashmir Shaiva philosophy, Shakti and Shiva are completely integral – Shaktiyo’sya jagatkritsnam shaktimaanstu maheshvarah ।। (Tantraloka.5.40) Therefore, without accepting the illusory image, the world is accepted as true in Kashmir Shaiva philosophy.) 9-This infinitely distinctive world is the eternal form of Shiva. Therefore, there is truth in diversity as well. (Shiva.Drishti.1.48)
(6) Āvirbhāva-Tirobhāvavāda (Revealment-Concealment)
A. Vedic Context
1. That this world was unmanifested at that time. He is expressed by the combination of name and form, that is, He is expressed as having that name and this form. (Brh. Up. 1.4.7).
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
2. When the world is true in its unmanifest state, that is, in its unmanifested state of cause and effect, and also in its manifested state of action by the name-form-karma-atma, according to the scriptures, Jayenge. The basis of the perception of the country-made, time-made and form-made separation, or, in the language of the Naiyakis, of the four kinds of absences, is the disappearance of a single object in the respective country, time and form. When and where an object has the same perception or functionality, it must be considered to have appeared in that form or else to have disappeared. (tatvārtha.dīpa.nibandha.2.141-142)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
3. The realization of this form-forming world as integral in its full ego is the game of its descending imagination. By the play of the imagination of ascension, he takes this idam (world) back into his ego in such a way that the name of idanta does not remain. This total rhythmization of the identity in the ego is called the unmesh of the light-form and the moment of the discussion-form of Lord Shiva in this philosophy. Similarly, the manifestation of the identity in the self-form is called the moment of its light-form and the unmesha of its discussion-form. (Spandanirnaya.p.-4).
4. The moment of discussion is synonymous with creation and the moment of discussion is synonymous with doom. (Spandakarika.1).
5. These creation and annihilation continue to vibrate integrally within God every moment. (Ishwarapratyabhijna-vimarshini.Part 1.p.-195)
6. This is the game of his descending imagination and then erases the imagination of finite being by completely closing the identical world perceived in the forms of grahyagrahaka (vedya-vedaka) etc. in its own form. (The manifestation of the being is the self-conceived form-disguise of Lord Shiva and the lamentation of the being is the manifestation of His form.) (Stavachintamanivrtti.p.-127)
7. He is also able to bind himself in his imaginary pramatrubhavam (jnatribhavam) and is also able to remove that bondage and free his imaginary bound form. (Tantraloka.A.13.104-105) (Thus by His will alone, Lord Shiva is also able to cover His uncovered form and is also able to melt the covering into His own form and reveal the pure form again.).
8. With his said freedom, he continues to act the game of descending and ascending in the three states of indifference, difference and difference, sometimes in order, sometimes in disorder and sometimes in triumph. (Paramarthasara. Abhinavaguptakritatika. Pg. 3-4)
9. This illusion of the world within itself and then the lamentation of that illuminated world within itself is its freedom-forming action. (Tantraloka.9.22)
(7) Kāryakāraṇatādātmyavāda & Anśānśitādātmyavāda (Identical Cause-Effect, and, Identical Part – Whole)
A. Vedic Context
1. These are the three names, forms and actions. Brahman holds all the names, Brahman holds these forms, Brahman holds all these actions. It is one though three, and this one soul takes three forms. (Brh.Up.1.6.3)
2. That which is this anima is this form of all this. He is Truth, He is Spirit and O! White Dog! That’s you. (Chhando.Up.6.9.4)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
3. The Upanishads describe two types of creation. Ghost and Physical. All this is one kind of creation arising from Brahman itself, from fire like straw, and the creation of the sky from Brahman, the air from the sky, thus the orderly creation is another kind of creation. The manifestation of Brahman without name and form with name and form is creation. These creations are dull, because dull is the work of Brahman and the living entity is a part of Brahman, therefore it has nothing to do with name and form. (Subo.2.6.1))-(Brahma.Su.2.3.1)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
4. The soul is undifferentiated everywhere from Shiva to the earth by its own free will. (Shivadrishti.2.2)
5. This free will of Lord Paramashiva, although itself undivided, illuminates the infinite forms of creation and destruction, etc., as distinct from itself by the law of the mirror city. This divine will, which simultaneously unmeshes (creates) and nimeshes (destroys) the world within itself, is called vibration in the Spandashastra. It is one, but it takes on many titles by difference of function and yet remains unique. (Spandanirnaya.p.3-4)
6. This is His characteristic of accidental freedom, by which God is eternally free-natured (spandavan). This vibrational energy of Lord Shiva itself becomes one and assumes multiplicity like Chintamani. (Malinivijayattar Tantra. Adhikara.3.6.9)
7. The process of knowledge requires two separate forms of that God, the knower-form and the knowable-form. The independent Chidatma, Param Shiva, manifests within Himself two knower-knowable forms integral with His light-form knowledge power (base); which are integral to the light-forming base but illuminate as different from each other. Thus the power which gives knowledge by perceiving the knower-knowable forms is called the power of knowledge. (Malinivijayottaratantra.Adhi.3.6-7)
8. When Shiva, who is under the control of the living entity by the pastime of his free nature, understands the transcendence he has understood as his transcendence by his free will of concealing his form, then that true perception of transcendence becomes his bondage. (This state of finite knowledge is called jiva.) (Vijnanabhairavavivrtti. p. 120)
9. He becomes a compressed knower-doer molecule due to ignorance of his consciousness. (Jivasanjna) (Swachchandatantratika, Part-5, p. 519)
10. Param Shiva manifests Himself in infinite living forms while playing with the imagination of bondage from His unanswerable freedom. (Ishwarapratyabhijnavimarshini.Part-2, p.253)
A. Vedic Context
1. Just as a lump of clay gives knowledge of all clay objects that disturbance is only a nominal underlying speech, truth is only clay. (Chando.Up.6.1.4)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
2. According to this statement, the origin of the world produced by Brahma is supernatural, this is proof, however, the Sutrakars are giving logic to give knowledge-by being the result. Brahman transforms into the form of the working world. Just as gold is transformed without any deformation, so all matter produced from gold is also undeformed. Since growth is supernatural, it is proved that Brahman is the combined cause of the universe. Here the premise is that if the action in the form of multiple buildings is sometimes distorted, how can it be called an undistorted result? To resolve this doubt, it is said that the change in the previous state of Brahman, such as the disturbance in yogurt produced from milk, should not be considered as the disturbance of form, smell, etc Should be accepted, not other disorders. (Brahma. Su. Anu. Bha. 1.4.26)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
3. Vimarsha is the power of Lord Shiva and the expanse of His power is this multifaceted world. (Ishwarapratyabhijnavimarshini. Part 2, p. 42)
4. The world is the Shaktisanghana of Lord Shiva. (Shiva Sutra.3.30)
5. Because of the expansion of God’s power, all things visible in various forms are light-forms and are integral with God. The one and only Param Shiva is vibrating with cosmic feeling with various peculiarities. Even by revealing his discussion in the form of the universe, Lord Shiva does not deviate from his transcendental form in the slightest. (Tantraloka.1.54)
6. The water exulting in the form of Vichimalas appears to be different in wave forms even though it is completely integral with its base water body. Similarly, the light shining in the cosmic form, though completely integral with its form, i.e., the basic great light, appears as different from each other in the forms of the proof, the proof and the theorem. Even if we assume a difference for behavior between water specific to vichitvajal and water specific to stillness, there is no difference in terms of waterness as in fact; Similarly, there is no difference between cosmic consciousness and transcendental consciousness. (Shivadrishti.3.37-38)
A. Vedic Context
1. He was not enjoying. This is why a lonely man is not happy. He wished from afar. He became the size of a man and woman embracing each other. He divided his body into two parts, and he became a husband and wife. (Briha.Up.1.4.3)
B. Vāllabha Conclusion:
2. I salute that wonderful worker Sri Krishna who is playing in the world by the distinction of name, form and action. Brahman, being the form of infinite bliss, does not create for any purpose. He reveals creation as the spontaneous expression of his own bliss as a completely purposeless pastime. The Sutrakar also therefore says – Lokavattu Lilakaivalyam.(T.Di.Ni.1.1)
C. Pratyabhigyā Philosophy:
3. He is the Supreme Cause and His being is self-evident, because when all is His pastime and He is the illuminator of all, how can one imagine His existence-illuminator? (Ishwarpratyabhijna.1.1.2)
4. The freedom-nature of Lord Shiva, resting in self-bliss (miracle in the form of form consultation), is not oriented towards the creation of the universe, even though it is oriented towards the creation of the universe is. (Shivadrishti.17-8)
5. Explaining the very subtle nature of this aunmukhya, the self-knowing Shaivas have written that just as there is a very subtle vibration before it when it is oriented towards the superwavy state of calm still water, so it is very subtle towards the creation of the world Only desire is awakened. The joy of the consciousness for this subtle desire is nothing but the play of the jumpy nature. The beginning of this subtle desire is called the orientation. To explain, this aunmukhya is called the first part of desire. By the way, there is no difference between the Aunmukhya and the Anandashakti, since everything is ultimately the form of the same Shakti. (Shivadrishti.Vritti.p.-16)
6. Always absorbed in this self-bliss, Param Shiva remains vibrating (spilling-like) with the excess of bliss and that vibration of bliss (spilling) of Him becomes the world. (Shivastotravali,13. Stotra-15)
7. Shiva is called the dancer soul by being a voluntary performer of his pastimes.(Shiva Sutra 3.9)
8. Even though he is independent of the means, he walks, plays the game of walking, in the free play of his uncontrolled and completely satisfied nature. (What could be the purpose of his walk other than self-entertainment?) Similarly, God vibrates in His own joy because of the freedom of self-perfection and within Himself in various forms, Plays the game. (Shivadrishti.1.37-38)
As a result of the above discussion, it is proved that; that sole unique entity, whether titled as Krishna or titled as Shiva; But the heart full of knowledge and devotion, knowing it’s identicality with the Supreme Being, as well as utilizing the division/difference for purpose of devotion, becomes devoted to the practice of knowledge-based devotion in the manner accepted by the ācharyas of Shaiva philosophy and Vaishnava philosophy for attaining the Supreme Being. Even amidst the many differences seen in this diverse creation revealed by that Supreme Being, the devotee/Gyāni’s vision on his Lord/Whole results from the sentiment inspired by that Supreme Being, makes him capable of the journey. This is the desire to cultivate the vision of harmony under God’s will for multiple beings, which is accepted in both philosophies as the gracious inspiration of God. This translates into Aatmarati (love towards the supreme Soul) in the heart of the devotee!
Na Dhyāyato Na Japataḥ Syādyasyāvidhipūrvakam।
Evameva Śivābhāsastaṃ Namo Bhaktiśālinam।
He who does not meditate or chant without prescribed rituals. Thus, O Shiva-brightness, I offer my obeisance to Him who is full of devotion. (Shiva Stotravali.1.1)
Brahmaśaktyā Hi Brahmātmanāmarūpavimohitaḥ।
For by the power of the Brahman, he is deluded by the form of the name of the Brahman-self. Even unrestrained by devotion to the name and form of Krishna, he is of foolish mind.
Original scripture reference from where quotation is made.
- Abhinavgupt – Pg.83 by- Dr.Kantichandra Pandey
- Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha – śrīumāśaṃkara ṛṣi, pṛ.350
- Iddhānta śikhāmaṇi
- Uktānāṃ Bhaktibhedānāṃ saguṇanirguṇabhedapratipādanārthaṃ cāturvidhyam āha prāvocam iti…..bhedaḥ pāramārthikaḥ iti śāstraṃ puraskṛtya trividho BhaktiYogaḥ uktaḥ. te ca sāmprataṃ viṣṇusvāmyanusāriṇaḥ, tattvavādinaḥ rāmānujāśca iti tamo-rajaḥ-satvaiḥ bhinnāḥ. asmatpratipāditaśca nairguṇyaḥ. eva caturvidho’pi bhagavatā pratipāditaḥ. (bhāga.purā.subo.3।32॥37)
- Yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante…tad brahma (taitta.upa.1।1)
- iṃsvid vanaṃ ka u sa vṛkṣa āsa…? (ṛksaṃhitā.10।8।4)
- Brahma vanaṃ vakṣa sa vṛkṣa āsa…! (taitta.brāhma.2।8।9।1-7)
- Sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma (chāndo.upa.3।14।1)
- Ātmaiva tadidaṃ sarvaṃ sṛjyeta sṛjati prabhuḥ trāyate trāti viśvātmā hriyate haratīśvaraḥ, ātmaiva tadidaṃ sarvaṃ brahmaiva tadidaṃ tathā iti śrutyarthamādāya sādhyaṃ sarvaiḥ yathāmatiḥ, ayameva brahmavādaḥ śiṣṭaṃ mohāya kalpitam। (ta.dī.ni.2।183-184)
- Ato’sau parameśānaḥ svātmavyomanyanargalaḥ। iyataḥ sṛṣṭisaṃhārāḍambarasya prakāśakaḥ। nirmale mukure yadvad bhānti bhūmijalādayaḥ। amiśrāstadvadekasmiṃścinnāthe viśvavṛttayaḥ।। (tantrāloka.2।3-4)
- Svayaṃprakāśarūpaḥ parameśvaraḥ pārameśvaryā śaktyā śivādi dharaṇyanta jagadātmanā sphurati prakāśate ca। (parā.prāveśikā.pṛṣṭha.3)
- Nirāśaṃsātpūrṇādahamiti purā bhāsayati yad। dviśākhāmāśāste tadanu ca vibhaktuṃ nijakalām। svarūpādunmeṣaprasaraṇanimeṣasthijuṣa। stadAdwaitaṃ vande paramaśivaśaktyātmanikhilam।। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1)
- Bṛhacca tad divyam acintyarūpaṃ…dūrāt sadūre tad iha antike ca….. (muṇḍa.upa.3।17)
- Yadidaṃ kiñca tat sṛṣṭrā tadeva anuprāviśat…sacca tyacca abhavat niruktañca anirūktañca nilayaśca anilayaśca vijñānañca avijñānaśca satyañca anṛtañca satyam abhavat..(taitta.upa.26)
- Viruddhasarvadharmāṇām āśrayaṃ yuktyagocaram (śāstrārtha-71)
- Srībhagavataḥ svātaṃtryaShaktiḥ kiṃciccalattātmakadhātvarthānugamātspanda ityabhihitā। (spandanirṇaya.pṛṣṭha.3)
- Kiñciccalanaṃ hi nāmaitaducyate yadbodhanasyānanyāpekṣaṃ sphuraṇaṃ prakāśanaṃ, parato’sya na prakāśaḥ apitu svaprakāśa evetyarthaḥ।। (taṃtrālokaviveka bhāga-3, pṛṣṭha-214)
- Ekaḥ prakāśaḥ svātantryāccitrarūpaḥ prakāśate। vastutaśca na citro’sau nācitro bhedadūṣaṇāt।। (mālinīvijayavārttika.kāṇḍa.176)
- Svātantryāmuktamātmanaṃ svātantryādadvayātmanaḥ। prabhurīśādisaṃkalpairnirmāya vyavahārayet।। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1।5।16)
- Yathā urṇanābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhyate ca yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti, yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśalomāni sambhavanti tathā akṣarāt sambhavati iha viśvam… (muṇḍa.upa.1।17-9)
- Sattveva saumya idamagra āsīd ekameva advitīyaṃ tad aikṣata bahusyāṃ prajāyeya iti. (chāndo.upa.6।2।1-3)
- Tad ātmānaṃ svayam akuruta….. (taitta.upa.7।1)
- Jagata: samavāyi syāt tadeva ca nimittakaṃ kadācid ramate svasmin prapañce’pi kvacit sukhaṃ, yatra yena yato yasya yasmai yad yathā yadā syād idaṃ bhagavān sākṣāt pradhānapuruṣeśvaraḥ। (ta.dī.ni.1।68-69)
- Citiḥ svataṃtrā viśvasidaddhahetuḥ। svecchayā svābhittau viśvunmalīyati। (pratyabhijñāhradaya.sūtra.1-2)
- Yathā hi puruṣasya icchāvasthāyāṃ iṣyamāṇaḥ padārtha svarūpāvyatirekeṇaiva avatiṣṭhate, tathā bhagavataḥ śaktau anantāvabhāsaviśeṣacitraṃ jagat manāgapi anupajātaviśeṣāt svarūpāt avyatirekeṇaiva avatiṣṭhate।। (spandakārikāvivṛtti. (rāmakaṇṭhakṛta) pṛṣṭha-5)
- Sanmūlam anviccha sanmūlā: saumya! imāḥ prajāḥ sadāyatanā: satpratiṣṭhāḥ। (chāndo.upa.6।8।4)
- Ayaṃ prapañco…nāpi asata: sattārūpa:। (ta.dī.ni.pra.1।23)
- Sa eva parānapekṣaḥ pūrṇatvādānandarūpo। (śivadṛṣṭivṛtti.pṛṣṭha.1)
- Anyanirapekṣataiva paramārthata ānandaḥ। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.vivṛtti.vimarśinī bhāga-1.pṛṣṭha.207)
- Svātantryam ānandaShaktiḥ। (tantrasāra.pṛṣṭha-6)
- Tathāhi jaḍabhūtānāṃ pratiṣṭhā jīvadāśrayā। jñānaṃ kriyā ca bhūtānāṃ jīvatāṃ jīvanaṃ matam।। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1।4)
- Sadeva saumya idam agra āsīt ekameva advitīyaṃ. katham asata: sad jāyeta? (chāndo.upa.6।2।1-2)
- Oṃ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate। pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate।। (iśā.upa.1)
- Asada vā idama agra āsīda iti śrutyā prāga utpatteḥ kāryasya asattvaṃ bodhyate iti ceta na, avyākatatvena dharmāntareṇa tathā vyapadeśa:. kato vākyaśeṣatvāt, tad ātmānameva svayam akuruta iti svasyaiva kriyamāṇatvāt āsīt padapraYogat ca. (brahma.sū.aṇu.bhā.2।1।17)
- Prakāśātmā prakāśyā’rtho। nāprakāśaśca siddhyati। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1।5।3)
- (ka) Eṣā devo’nayā devyā nityaṃ krīḍārasotsukaḥ। vicitrānsṛṣṭisaṃhārānvidhate yugapadvibhuḥ।। (bodhapaṃcadaśikā.4) (kha) śivādikṣitiparyantaṃ viśvaṃ vapurudaṃcayan। paṃcakṛtyamahānāṭyarasikaḥ krīḍati prabhuḥ।
- Nigṛhītānugṛhītatattatpramātūṃstattatprameyajātaṃ ca svabhittau darpaṇanagaravat sa evoṭṭaṃkayan paṃcakṛtyakāritāṃ nirbhāsayannapi na manāgapi atiricyate। (svacchandataṃtraṭīkā.bhāga-3, pṛṣṭha-96)
- Nānābhāvaiḥ svamātmānaṃ jānanāste svayaṃ śivaḥ। cidvyaktirūpakaṃ nānābhedabhinnamanantakam।। (śivadṛṣṭi.5।109)
- Nirmale mukure yadvad bhānti bhūmijalādayaḥ। amiśrāstadvadekasmiṃścinnāthe viśvavṛttayaḥ।। (taṃtroloka.bhāga-2.3।4)
- Evaṃ bhedātmakaṃ nityaṃ śivatatvamanantakam। tathā tasya vyavasthānānnānānā rūpe’pi satyatā।। (śiva.dṛṣṭi.1।48)
- Taddhedaṃ tarhi avyākṛtam āsīt tat nāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyata asau nāmāyam-idaṃ rūpam iti. (bṛha.upa.1।4।7)
- Āvirbhāvatirobhāvau Shakti vai muravairiṇaḥ….sarvakārasvarūpeṇa bhaviṣyāmīti yā hare: vīkṣā yathā yato yena tathā prādurbhavatyajaḥ, mṛdādi bhagavadrapaṃ ghaṭādyākārasaṃyutaṃ mūlecchātastathā tasmin prādurbhāvo harestathā, tirobhāvastathaiva syād rūpāntaravibhedataḥ। (ta.dī.ni.2।141-142)
- Śrīmānmaheśvaro hi svātantryaśaktyā śivamaṃtramaheśvaramaṃtreśvaramaṃtravijñānākalapralayākalasakalāntāṃ pramātṛbhūmikāṃ tadvedyabhūmikāṃ ca gṛhṇānaḥ pūrvapūrvarūpatāṃbhittibhūtatayā sthitāmapyantaḥsvarūpāvacchādanakrīḍayā nimeṣavanannevonmeṣayati uttarottararūpatāmavarohakrameṇa, ārohakrameṇa tūttarottararūpatāṃ nimeṣayanneva jñānayogināmunmeṣayati pūrvapūrvarūpatāmataevottaramuttaraṃ pūrvatra pūrvatra saṃkocātmatāṃ jahadvikasitatvenābhāsayati।। (spandanirṇaya.pṛṣṭha-4)
- Yasyonmeṣanimeṣābhyāṃ jagataḥ pralayodayau। (spandakārikā.1)
- Ataeva pratikṣaṇaṃ pramātṛsaṃyojanāviyojanāvaicitryeṇa parameśvaro viśvaṃ sṛṣṭisaṃhārādinā prapaṃcayati। (īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī.bhāga-1.pṛṣṭha-195)
- CitiShaktireva bhagavatī svātantryāt gṛhītasaṃkocā cittabhūmiṃ saṃsāryātmarūpāṃ bahuśākhāmābhāsva, punaḥ svecchayaiva kvacit saṃkocaṃ praśamayya, pūrṇatayā sphurati ityeva tatparaṃ padam। (stavacintāmaṇivivṛtti.pṛṣṭha-127)
- Sa svayaṃ kalpitākāravikalpātmakakarmabhiḥ। badhnātyātmānameveha svātantryāditi varṇitam। svātantryamahimaivāyaṃ devasya yadasau punaḥ। svaṃrūpaṃ pariśuddhaṃ satspṛśatyapyaṇutāmayaḥ।। (taṃtrāloka.ā.13।104-105)
- Svasvātantryeṇa caitanyarūpo’pi svayaṃ jaḍājaḍātmatāmābhāsya naṭavat nānāpramātṛtayā sthitaḥ। (paramārthasāra.abhinavaguptakṛtaṭīkā. pṛṣṭha-3-4)
- Katṛtvaṃ caitadaitasya tathāmātrāvabhāsanam। (taṃtrāloka.9।22)
- Kāryakāraṇatādātmyavāda tathā aṃśāṃśitādātmyavāda
- Trayaṃ vā idaṃ nāma rūpa karma…brahma etaddhi sarvāṇi nāmāni bibharti…brahma etaddhi sarvāṇi rūpāṇi bibharti…brahma etaddhi sarvāṇi karmāṇi bibharti. tadetat trayaṃ sad ekam ayam ātmā. ātmo ekaḥ san etat trayam. (bṛha.upa.1।6।3)
- Sa ya eṣo aṇimā aitadātmyam idaṃ sarvam. tat satyam, sa ātmā. tat tvam asi. (chāndo.upa.6।9।4)
- Dvividhā hi vedānte sṛṣṭiḥ bhūtabhautikaṃ sarva Brahmanaeva visphulliṃganyāyena ekā। aparā viyadādikrameṇa, sā ca anāmarūpātmanaḥ nāmarūpatvena abhivyaktiḥ, sa jaḍasyaiva kāryatvāt tasya jīvasyatu aṃśatvenaiva na nāmarūpasaṃbaṃdhaḥ। anitye (jaḍe) jananaṃ nitye paricchinne (jīvātmani) samāgamaḥ, nityāparicchinnatanau (bhagavatsvarūpe) prākaṭyaṃ ceti sā (sṛṣṭi:) tridhā। (subo.2।6।1))-(brahma.sū.2।3।1)
- Ātmaiva sarvabhāveṣu sphuranirvṛtacidvapuḥ। aniruddhecchāprasaraḥ prasaradṛkriyaḥ śivaḥ।। (śivadṛṣṭi.2।2)
- Śrībhagavataḥ svātaṃtryaShaktirabhiktāpyaśeṣasargasaṃhārādiparamparāṃ darpaṇanagaravatsvabhittāveva bhāviyuktyānadhikāmapyadhikāmiva darśayantī spanda ityabhihitā। sā caiṣā spandaShakti yugapadevonmeṣānimeṣamayī। (spandanirṇaya.pṛṣṭha.3-4)
- Saikā’pi satyanekatvaṃ yathā gacchati tacchṛṇu। arthopādhivaśādyāti cintāmaṇiriveśvarī। (mālinīvijayīttara taṃtra. adhikāra.3।6।9)
- Evametaditi jñeyaṃ nānyatheti suniścitam। jñāpayantī jagatyatra jñānaShaktirnigadyate।। (mālinīvijayottarataṃtra.adhi.3।6-7)
- Kevalaṃ etāḥ bandhamokṣādikalpanā māyāShaktivaśāt। aparāmṛṣṭasvarūpasyaiva na tu cidAdwaitaparāmarśaśīlasya। (vijñānabhairavavivṛtti. pṛṣṭha-120)
- Saṃkoca eva hi puṃsāmāṇavamalamityuktaprāyam।। (svacchaṃdataṃtraṭīkā, bhāga-5, pṛṣṭha-519)
- Vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttikā ityeva satyam। (chāndo.upa.6।1।4)
- Ātmakṛteḥ pariṇāmāt। tad ātmānaṃ svayam akuruta iti svasyaiva karmakartṛbhāvāt…tathāpi jñānārtham upapattim āha pariṇāmād iti, pariṇamate kāryākāreṇeti avikṛtameva suvarṇaṃ, sarvāṇi ca taijasāni. vṛddheśca alaukikatvād brahmakāraṇatvaeva ghaṭate. pūrvasya anyathābhāvastu kāryaśrutyanurodhād aṅgīkartavyaḥ. vakṣyati ca śrutestu śabdamūlatvād iti. (brahma.sū.aṇu.bhā.1।4।26)
- Kriyāśaktareva (svātaṃtryāmarśarūpāyāḥ) ayaṃ sarvo visphāraḥ। (īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī.bhāga-2, pṛṣṭha-42)
- SvaShaktipracayo’sya viśvam। (śivasūtra.3।30)
- Prakāśo nāma yaścāyaṃ sarvatraiva prakāśate। eka eva hi svataṃtro bodhastathā tathā prasphuret। viśvamayatve’pyasya svasvarūpānna pracyāvaḥ। (taṃtrāloka.1।54)
- (ka) athavāmbudhivīcivat। tatra vīcitvamāpannaṃ na jalaṃ jalamucyate। na ca tatrāmburūpasya vīcikāle vināśitā। (śivadṛṣṭi.3।37-38) (kha) yathāmbudhestaraṃgāṇāṃ caikye’pi vyavahārabhedaḥ tathā śivasya viśvasya ca। (śivadṛṣṭivṛtti.pṛṣṭha-113)
- Sa vai naiva reme tasmād ekākī na ramate. sa dvitīyam aicchat. saha etāvān āsa. yathā strīpumāṃsau sampariṣvaktau sa imameva ātmānaṃ dvedhāpātayat. tataḥ patiśca patnī ca abhavatām. (bṛha.upa.1।4।3)
- Namo bhagavate Tasmai Kṛṣṇāyādbhutakarmaṇe। rūpanāmavibhedena jagatkrīḍati yo yataḥ।। (ta.dī.ni.1।1)
- Kartari jñātari svātmanyādisiddhe maheśvare। ajaḍātmā niṣedhaṃ vā siddhiṃ vā vidadhīta kaḥ। (īśvarapratyabhijñā.1।1।2)
- Yadā tu tasya ciddharmavibhavāmodajṛmbhayā। vicitraracanānānākāryasṛṣṭipravartane। bhavatyunmukhitā cittā secchāyāḥ prathamā tuṭiḥ।। (śivadṛṣṭi.17-8)
- Yathājalasya pūrvaṃ nistaraṃgasyātitaraṃgitāṃ gacchataḥ sūkṣmaḥ pūrvaḥ kampa aunmukhyarūpaḥ dṛśyate, tathā bodhasya svasvarūpasthasya pūrṇasya viśvaracanāṃ prati abhilāṣāmātraracanāyogyatāyā yaḥ prathamo vikāsaḥ pravṛttyārambhastadaunmukhyaṃ pracakṣate।। sā tuṭiḥ (unmukhitā) icchāprathamabhāgaḥ। sā ca (tuṭi) sūkṣmaunmukhyaShaktirūpā। tasyaunmukhyasyecchā kāryā। tasya hi yo’sau uttaro bhāgaḥ secchā vyavasthitā। karmāvacchinnā nirvṛtironmukhyam, anavacchinnā nirvṛtimātramānandaShaktiriti yāvat।(śivadṛṣṭi.vṛtti.pṛṣṭha-16)
- Sphārasyakhilamātmanā sphuran viśvamāmṛśati rūpamāmṛśan। yatsvayaṃnijarasena ghūrṇase tatsamullasati bhāvamaṇḍalam।। (śivastotrāvalī,13. stotra15)
- Nartaka ātmā। (śiva.sū.3।9)
- Yathā nṛpaḥ sārvabhaumaḥ prabhāvāmodabhāvitaḥ। krīḍankaroti pādātadharmāṃstaddharmadharmataḥ। tathā prabhuḥ pramodātmā krīḍatyevaṃ tathā tathā।। (śivadṛṣṭi.1।37-38)
Related to Kāśmīra-Shaivadarśana
(1) Taṃtrāloka – Abhinavagupta, Jayarathakṛta ṭīkā sahita
(2) Iśvarapratyabhijñā Abhinavaguptakṛta vimarśinī sahita
(3) Srīsvacchandataṃtra – Kṣemarājakṛta uddyotaṭīkā sahita
(4) Sivasūtra – Kṣemarājakṛta vimarśinī sahita
(5) Spandakārikā – Kallaṭakṛta vṛtti sahita
(6) Siddhitrayī – Utpaladevakṛta
(7) Tantrasāra – Abhinavaguptakṛta
(8) Sivastotrāvalī – Utpaladevakṛta
(9) Trikadarśanam: Praṇetā – ḍaॉ.rāmacandra dvivedī
(10) Trikadarśanakā Samīkṣātmaka Tattvamīmāṃsīya adhyayana – ḍr..vijayapāla śāstrī
(11) Kāśmīra Shaivadarśana aura kāmāyanī – dr..bhaṃvaralāla jośī
(12) Abhinavaguptakā Taṃtrāgamīya darśana – dr..navajīvana rastogī
(13) Kashmir Shaivism – Kamalakar Mishra
*Related to Vāllabhavedānta
(1) Tattvārthadīpanibandha – śrīvallabhācāryakṛta; prakāśaka – śrīvallabhācārya ṭrasṭa, māṇḍavī-kaccha
(2) Brahmasūtrāṇubhāṣya – śrīvallabhācāryakṛta ; sampādaka – go.śrīśyāmamanoharajī
(3) Brāhmika yāthārthya aura brahmavādakī nānāvādānurodhitā – go.śrīśyāmamanoharajī
(4) Vāllabha-vedānta (nibaṃdhasaṃgraha) – go.śrīśyāmamanoharajī
(1) Chāndogya upaniṣad
(3) Iśādi nau upaniṣad
(4) Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha – Mādhavācāryakṛta; Sampādaka: dr.umāśaṃkara śarmā (ṛṣi)
Feature Image Credits: flicker.com
Watch video presentation of the above paper here:
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.