Scriptural Vs

7/31/2019 Scriptural Vs

1/10

1

Scriptural vs. Spiritual Knowledge

By Boris Marjanovic

Among those interested in studying the various religions of South Asia that

nominally come under the name of Hinduism one can clearly identify two groups. On

the one side, there is a scholarly community that generally favors intellectual

knowledge over the knowledge generated through practice. On the other side are those

who believe that only through the practice of meditation or some other type of yogic

practice, can the true understanding of reality or enlightenmentbe attained. On both

sides there are those who want to bridge this divide, attempting to bring these two

types of knowledge closer by pointing at their mutual dependence. However, this group

is clearly in the minority and its voice remains unheard.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and understand how scholars/yogins

of the nondual Kashmir Shaiva School1, in particular Abhinavagupta, approached this

problem. In this context, the intellectual knowledge stands for the knowledge gained

through the study of stras or gamas, while spiritual knowledge stands for the

knowledge gained through yogic practices, which in this system are closely associated

with initiation (dk).In order to accomplish this, we will first have to understand the

particularities of two closely related theories the aiva theories of knowledge and Self-

recognition (pratyabhij). In this process I will use a number of sources but will rely

primarily on Abhinavaguptas Tantrlokaand Tantrasra.

Let us begin by understanding the nature of recognition, as taught in the

Pratyabhij system. The creative process can be described as an externalization of

consciousness which in its unfolding condenses and assumes ever grosser aspects ofexistence. Therefore, on account of the creative act, iva removes Himself further and

1 The expression nondual Kashmir Shaivism is used to differentiate it from the dualist aiva Siddhnta.Therefore, in this paper, I will use the expression nondual Kashmir Shaivism or simply aivism whenreferring to the nondual schools. When referring to the dualist aiva schools the expression aivaSiddhnta will be used.


2/10

2

further from the purity of His consciousness until He finally loses sight of His innermost

glory and power. In this process, by assuming the forms of different subjects and

objects, He hides His real nature. This hiding of His own Self in the process of

externalization is called obscuration (tirobhva). Somnanda in his ivadr iwrites:

Let iva, who has taken the form of our individual Selves offer His obeisance to

iva who through His aktisextends in the form of the universe for the purpose

of removal of the obstacles which are also iva. He who is the consciousness

resting in itself abandoning in bliss, whose flow of will ( icch) is unrestricted and

who possesses spontaneous flow of action and knowledge, shines forth in every

form of existence as the Self2.

As we can see from this verse, iva is everything that there is, as He remains

present in all the subjects and objects in spite of losing, at the grosser levels, the purity

of His consciousness, which is the result of His freedom. From this perspective, life in

general and spiritual practice in particular is nothing but the process of ivas

recognition (pratyabhij) of His own nature.

Therefore, while for the Vedntins the world is unreal, for the aivas it is real

because it is the manifestation of iva. Furthermore, according to the Vedntins, the

world ceases to exist at the time of realization of Brahman and according to the

Skhya and Yoga systems, prakr ti stops functioning in regard to purua who has

attained kaivalya. For the aivas, on the other hand, the world remains even when the

ultimate is realized. However, the world is realized for what it truly is. It is the stage on

which iva performs His cosmic play (ll) by hiding and revealing His own nature. In

the Stavacintmai, Nryaa Bhaa writes:

2asmadrpasamviasvtmantmanivraeivakarotu nijay namaakty tattmanetmaiva

sarvabhveu sphurannirvr tacidvibhuaniruddhecchprasaraprasaraddr kkriyaiva. Dr. 1: 1-2.


3/10

3

Hey Hara, which poet but you is capable of withdrawing the drama of the three

worlds that has been introduced and which possesses in its womb a multitude of

shining seeds3?

In the recognition of ones own Self, there is no negating the world or the stage

on which the play (ll) is performed. However, at the time of recognition, the world

gets new interpretation and this new interpretation is called recognition (pratyabhij).

The difference between recollection (smr ti) and recognition is that, while recollection

requires impressions of the past experience, recognition, in addition to the impressions,

requires the presence of the object whose real nature will be recognized. As

Abhinavagupta puts it:

Recognition consists in the unifications of what appeared once with what appears

now, as in the judgment: This is the same Caitra. It is the cognition which

refers to an object which is directly present. It is reached through the unification

of the experiences4.

Let us first consider the case of an ordinary recognition. For example, a young

child is for some reason taken away from her mother. Many years later, as a result of

circumstances, they again meet but the mother does not realize that this new person in

town is actually her daughter. Furthermore, the mother keeps on seeing that new

person everyday but still is unable to recognize her as her daughter. Now, as a result of

continuous work in trying to locate her long lost daughter the mother finally finds out

that the new person in town whom she has been seeing for a long time on the street is

actually her long-lost daughter.

As can be seen from this example, recognition is a type of cognition in whichpast experience and present awareness merge together. The important thing is that the

3visr nekasadbjagarbhatrailokyanakamprastvya hara sahartum tvattakonyakavi

kamaSt. Cin. v. 59.4PVcomm. 1:1:1.


4/10

4

object, although constantly present before the perceiver, is not known for what it really

is. However, the perceiver cannot claim that he does not know the object. The problem

is that the perceiver possesses partial or limited knowledge of that particular object.

This is exactly how knowledge is defined in the ivastras1: 2: The limited knowledge

is the cause of bondage (jnnam bandha). We have seen in the example given above

that mother does not know the new person in town to be her daughter but that doesnt

mean that that person does not exist. She exists; it is only that the mother does not

recognize her real identity.

In postulating bhsa theory5 the aivas emphasize that everything including

imagination, dreams or the perception of the snake in the rope 6 is real inasmuch as it

appears. The illusion that arises as a result of perception of the snake in the rope is the

result of ignorance. However, this ignorance is not complete absence of knowledge but

the result, as we have seen above, of limited knowledge. In the Tantrloka,

Abhinavagupta explains:

By the word ignorance one does not mean total absence of knowledge, for in

such a case one would fall into the error of overextension ( atiprasagata),

5The aiva scholars reject both the unreal transformation, that is vivartavdaof Advaita Vednta and thereal transformation of the Skhyas, that is parimavdaand postulate their own theory known asbhsavda. According to this theory, the ultimate cause is ivas svtantrya akti; and the process ofcreation is described in terms of appearance, shining or manifesting (bhsa) of everything that alreadyexists in the supreme consciousness. Thus all that which appears whether subject, object, idea, action,

etc. is nothing but bhsaand everything appears as a reflection in the mirror of consciousness.6Advaita Vednta explains wrong knowledge by postulating the super-imposition or adhysa. The resultof which is neither existent (sat) nor non-existent (asat). The experience of the snake in rope is unreal

but it appears, therefore, it is described as anirvacanyakhyti. The eternal and unborn Brahman becomesmanifest only through mythat projects the universe like a magician. However, during that projectionthe Brahman remains inactive, uninvolved and untouched by the change. Then the unreal is

superimposed (adhysa) on the real like a perception of a snake on a rope which is not a snake(Vedntasra, p.20) and this superimposition is the apparent presentation to the consciousness throughremembrance of something already experienced. This kind of super-imposition is called avidy. Thenature of this avidywhen analyzed from the empirical perspective (vyvahrika) is described asanirvacanya.Avidyis described as something positive though intangible, which cannot be describedeither as existence or non-existence, which is made of three qualities and is antagonistic to knowledge

(Vedntasra, p.22). Myis said to be not real because it disappears at the dawn of knowledge and it isnot unreal because her effects persist as long as it is not destroyed.


5/10

5

which would mean that the stones and the like are also subject to

transmigration. Ignorance then as it has been said in the ivastras is nothing

else but a knowledge which does not illumine understandable reality in its

entirety7.

Jayaratha in his commentary clarifies that the word jnna in the verse stands for the

incomplete knowledge (tadyuktamuktamajnnaabdasya apra-jnnamartha iti). This

ignorance or limited knowledge is the result of impurity (mala) and in particular of

avamala.avamala is inherent or inborn ignorance, existing in the limited knowing

subject (pauor au), which is the result of contraction of the powers of knowledge

and action. While explaining the nature and origin ofmala, Abhinavagupta writes:

The cause of both karma and mala8 is the desire of the Lord to obscure Himself

and therefore their existence is beginningless. The obscuring of the totality

consists in becoming not full, and this nonfullness is a desire to fill oneself by

means of limited reality. This is the reason why mala is called desire (lolik).

Without iva, who is pure and of the nature of autonomous light, nothing can

exist. Therefore, the cause of mala is Mahevara9.

It should be mentioned here in passing that the understanding of the nature of

mala and its removal is one of the major points of difference between the nondual

Kashmir Shaiva School and the dualist aiva Siddhnta. According to the aiva

Siddhnta, mala is a substance (dravya) and as such it cannot be removed by

knowledge but only by action, i.e. the performance of rituals. In contrast, according to

7ajnnamiti na jnnbhavactiprasaatasa hi lodike 'pyasti na ca tasysti sasr tiato jnepasya

tattvasya smastyenprathtmakamjnnameva tadannam ivastreu bhiamT 1: 25- 26.8 Words karmaand malastand here for krma malaand ava mala.9varasya ca y svtmatirodhits nimittatmsbhyeti karmamalayoratondivyavasthititirodhi

prarpasyprtvatacca praamprati bhinnena bhvena spr hto lolok mala

viuddhasvapraktmaivarpatay vinna kincityujyate tena heturatra mahevaraT:13: 110b -

113a.


6/10

6

nondual aivism, the ignorance can only be removed or eliminated by the attainment of

the totality of knowledge (prhant) In the Tantrasra, Abhinavagupta explains that

knowledge10 is the cause of liberation (moka) because it opposes or contradicts

ignorance, which is the cause of bondage.11.

Abhinavagupta further explains the nature of knowledge and ignorance by

dividing them into groups of two, i.e. one that abides in the self, or spiritual ignorance

(paurujna), and the other that abides in the intellect, or intellectual ignorance

(baudhjna). The baudhjna is the ignorance of the very nature of reality

(tattvikasvbhvasyjnamanicaya) and is the wrong concept of the Self as the non-

self (vipartanicaya). This is to say that the limited knowing subject wrongly conceives

the Self as being body, intellect, praor nya. On the other hand, paurujna, is

the ignorance called avamala, which we have described earlier. Abhinavagupta

explains:

Paurujna is called mala. It is born from it but it is of the nature of

obstruction of the real nature of iva which consists of total freedom of knowing

and doing and is inversely characterized by the contracted knowing and acting.

Such ignorance of the limited self does not belong to the domain of

differentiated knowledge and is not part of the intellect (buddhi), because of the

absence of determination (adhyavasya), etc12.

Paurujnaand baudhjnanourish each other. When the determinate notion

(adhyavasya) I know this in this wayarises as a result of the reflection of the light of

the Self in the bonded soul, veiled by the five kacukas (Limited Action, Limited

Knowledge, Desire, Time, Causality,) then that knowledge that arises is ignorance

10 The knowledge here is defined as being in the form of manifestation or unfolding of fullness of

consciousness (praprathrupam). (See TS. p. 2).11 Ibid., TS. p. 2.

12Tatra pusoyadalnnam malkhyam tajjamapyayasvapracitkriyrpaivatvaratmakam

sakocidr kkriyrpam tatpaoravikalpitamtadajnnam na buddhyao 'dhyavasydyabhvataT 1:

37-8.


7/10

7

abiding in the intellect13. According to Abhinavagupta, the paurujna can be

eliminated through initiation (dk), while baudhjnacannot. Initiation in regard to

baudhjna is not possible, as this type of ignorance is characterized by indecisive

knowledge (anadhyavasya). Initiation, on the other hand, is the result of the decisive

conviction which scripture is to be accepted and which is to be avoided (heyopadeya).

Like ignorance, knowledge is of two types and they bear the same names, i.e.

spiritual knowledge (pauruajna) and intellectual knowledge (baudhajna14). In this

case pauruajnaand baudhajnaalso nourish each other. Spiritual knowledge is a

type of knowledge in which vikalpa has merged into the state free from vikalpa

(nirvikalpa) and the fullness of I-consciousness shines in its totality. This type of

knowledge provides the right understanding of all things in every respect and can only

be attained by the study ofstras15. The importance of scriptural study accompanied

by the practice based on dk, as understood by Abhinavagupta, will further be

ascertained from the following verses ofT1:41-5116:

13T 1: 39-40.14 14 TS p. 3.15 TS. p. 3.gamais said to be contained within the pure I-consciousness and therefore is an innateaspect of consciousness. In PV 2:3: 1-2, Abhinavagupta defines gamaas the inner activity of the great

Lord, who is nothing but consciousness alone (cit). It is the inner voice on the level ofpar, which is thenexpressed by one who attains that state when he descends to the level ofvaikhar. Thus,gamaisnothing but the firm determinate thought of the experience ofpar. And the collection of wordscomprising it is secondarily called gamabecause it is instrumental in arousing suchthoughts.Furthermore, gamais said to be contained within undifferentiated consciousness, itexternalizes into multiple forms on the level ofvaikharand helps lead the mind of a practitioner back toits source. In his commentary on the Bhagavadgt 17: 1-2, Abhinavagupta describes straas the verynature of supreme Brahman existing in His essential nature as par vkwhich is the state of purevimara. Then because of its freedom (svtantrya), par vkexternalizes itself from within, beginningwith the subtlest aspect ofpraavaand gradually assuming the form of gross speech, such as variouspopular teaching, etc.16kie tupausaskre pusah prptaparasthite| vikasvaratadvijna pauruanirvikalpakam||vikasvarvikalptmjnaucityena yvas|tadbauddhayasya tatpausnaprgvatpoyaca po||tatra dkdinpausnaajnadhvasi yadyapi|tathpi taccharrnte tajjnayajyate sphuam||bauddhajnena tu yad bauddhajnajmbhitam| vilyate tad jvanmukhti karatale sthit|| dkpibauddhavijnaprv satya vimocik ten tatrpi baudhasya jnasysti pradhnat||jnjnagata caitaddvitva svyambhuve rurau| matagdau kta rimatkheapldidaiikai||tathvidhvasytmabauddhavijnasampade| strameva pradhna yajjeyatattvapradarakam||dky galitepyantarajne pauruatmani| dhgatasynivttatvdvikalpopi hi sabhveta||


8/10

8

41. The spiritual knowledge (pauruajna) devoid of thought constructs is the

complete knowledge (parhant vimartmaka jnam) that develops after

the impressions of the limited condition (pausaskra) have been attenuated

and the limited self recovers its original state (prptaparamacidaik-

tmyasya).

42. This illuminating insight that develops in harmony with complete knowledge,

devoid ofvikalpa, is intellectual knowledge. As mentioned above these two types

of knowledge nourish each other.

43. Although spiritual ignorance can be removed by initiation, yet spiritual

knowledge manifests clearly only after the body is dropped.

44. When, on the other hand, the expansion of intellectual ignorance ceases as aresult of the intellectual knowledge, then liberation remains, so to speak, in the

palm of ones hand.

Jayaratha in his commentary explains that the intellectual knowledge (baudhajna) stands for

the scriptural knowledge (stras) of non-dual aivism.

45. Initiation, for its part, becomes liberating only if it is preceded by the clear

understanding ofstras. Thus even in this instance the intellectual knowledge isthe dominant element.

46. These two types of baudha and paurua, knowledge and ignorance, have

been discussed by many teachers. Among them, the first was Kheapla [who

discussed these subjects] in his commentaries on Svyambhuvgama,

Rauravgama, Matagatantraand other texts.

47. The principal element by which one attains the wealth of intellectual

understanding that possesses liberating insight are the scriptures (stras),

which illuminate reality of all that is to be known.

dehasadbhvaparyantamtmabhvo yato dhiyi| dehntepi na moka sytpaurujnahnita||bauddhjnanivtau tu vakalponmlantdhruvam| tadaiva moka ityukta dhtr rmanniane||vikalpayuktacittastu piaptcchivavrajet|itastu tadaiveti strasytra pradhnata||


9/10

9

48. Even when, on account of initiation, the inherent spiritual type of ignorance

is removed, yet the notion of duality (vikalpa), abiding in the intellect may still

persist.

49. As long as the body remains, one is accustomed to attribute to the intellect

the qualities of the Self, but no longer after body ceases to exist. Therefore, [it is

said that] one is liberated when spiritual ignorance is removed.

50/1. On the other hand, liberation immediately follows as soon as the

intellectual ignorance ceases because the notion of duality has been fully

uprooted. It has been stated by the creator himself in the glorious

Nianatantra: One whose mind (citta) is dominated by the notion of

duality (vikalpa) attains mokaonly after he drops his body. On the other

hand, one who is free from that notion of duality[attains moka] evenwhile still in the body. Thus the stras even in this instance are of

paramount importance.

Thus Abhinavagupta clearly states that in the process of Self-recognition there is

a mutual interdependence between spiritual and intellectual knowledge. He explains

that incomplete knowledge (apra jnna) is the cause of ignorance, which in turn is

the root cause of worldly existence. Spiritual ignorance disappears after one receives

initiation but on account of the continuous existence in the body the notion of duality

persists. The main cause of this is krma malawhich stands for the impressions of the

past deeds that have begun operating with the body. Scriptural knowledge is important

before and after the initiation. Abhinavagupta explains in verse 1:45 that initiation has

liberating power only if it is based on the knowledge of scriptures. However, in this

instant, this is a type of discriminative knowledge based on which one recognizes the

superiority of the aiva strasover the other scriptures. After initiation, one attains thecompetency to study the aiva texts, which in turn remove the thought constructs, the

root cause of worldly existence.


10/10

10

References

Abhinavaguptas Commentary on the Bhagavad Gt. Boris Marjanovic, trans. Varanasi:Indica Books, 2002.

varapratyabhijnvimarini of Abhinavagupta. K.C. Pandey, trans. Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1954.

Tantrloka of Abhinavagupta with Rjnaka Jayarathas commentary. 12 vols. Srinagarand Bombay: 1918-1938. KSTS.

Tantrasraof Abhinavagupta Bombay: 1918. KSTS No. 17.

ivastraof Vasugupta. Jaideva Singh, trans. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.

ivadr iof Somnanda with Utpaladevas Vr tti. Srinagar: 1934. KSTS No. 54.

Stavacintmai of Nryaabhaa with the commentary by Kemarja. M.R. Shastri,ed. KSTS Nos. 10, 1918.

Documents

Scriptural Vs