Mrinal Kaul

Indian Perspectives on Consciousness, Language and Self by Marco Ferrante explores theories of consciousness by examining the non-dual philosophy of Recognition mainly represented by the two philosophers Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta, and also carefully concludes that the trajectory of their ideas have compelling influence from Bhartṛhari and his commentator Helārāja. No philosophy ever evolves and develops in a void. No philosophical tradition or theory functions in oblivion. In the history of philosophy in South Asia, this is also true of the traditions that have staunchly stood up and rigorously argued for the ubiquity of consciousness. The dynamism of...

This essay is one more attempt of understanding the non-dual philosophical position of Abhinavagupta viz-a-viz the problem of reflection. Since when my first essay on ‘Abhinavagupta on Reflection’ appeared in JIP, I have once again focused on the non-dual Śaiva theory of reflection (_pratibimbavāda_) (3.1-65) as discussed by Abhinavagupta (_fl.c._ 975-1025 CE) in the _Tantrāloka_ and his commentator Jayaratha (_fl.c._ 1225-1275 CE). The present attempt is to understand their philosophical position in the context of Nyāya realism where a reflection is simply caused by an erroneous apprehension of an entity. For Naiyāyikas, according to both Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha, a reflection (_pratibimba_) does not have a real existence at all. There are only two ways of looking at a reflection: it can either simply be an original image (_bimba_) or an illusion (_bhrānti_). There is no scope for any third entity apart from something being an error or a non-error. In contrast to this, establishing a Śaiva theory of reflection, Abhinavagupta is corroborating a valid ontological status for the seemingly illusory objects of perception or imagined objects, such as, to use Abhinavagupta’s own language, ‘an elephant with five trunks and four tusks who is running in the sky’. In other words, he is pleading for the valid cognition of objects which are otherwise deemed to be an error or external to consciousness. While Abhinavagupta’s system has generally been referred to as ‘idealism’, I argue that by establishing the dynamism of reflective awareness that is deemed to be absolutely real, his system should be referred to as ‘dynamic realism’ i.e., the ‘dynamism’ that is common to both ‘real’ and ‘ideal’. This is why he uses the metaphor _consciousness-as-mirror_ (_ciddarpaṇa_) in establishing a non-erroneous ontological status for otherwise illusive idea of reflection.

In the celebrated tantric manual, the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta and his commentator Jayaratha establish a non-dual Śaiva theory of reflection using the key metaphors of light and reflective awareness. This paper attempts to explain the philosophical problem of reflection from the standpoint of these non-dual Śaivas. It also evaluates the problem in its hermeneutical context, analysing multiple layers of meaning and interpretation. Is the metaphor of reflection only a way of explaining the particular currents of the Śaiva phenomenology represented by the concepts of prakāśa and vimarśa? What philosophical problem does Abhinavagupta seek to solve by complicating the category of reflection and giving it a quasi-paradoxical status? Why does he use the model of the subtle elements to explain the theory of reflection? What does the ‘untaintedness of the mirror of consciousness’ mean for his system? These questions form the focus of this paper.

This essay is an attempt to evaluate the concept of non-duality (_advaita_) in the philosophy of Abhinavagupta (_fl. c._ 975–1025 CE), one of the leading exponents of Trika Śaivism, who argues for ‘absolute non-duality’ (_paramādvaita_) as a fundamental principle of everything. According to him, this fundamental meta-category subsumes within itself both ‘duality’ (_dvaita_ or _bheda_) and ‘non-duality’ (_advaita_ or _abheda_) in a resolution that, on the surface, appears to be nothing more than an oxymoron. How can two mutually opposing categories be one? However, for Abhinavagupta, both ‘duality’ and ‘non-duality’ are the basic building blocks of an all-encompassing singular meta-category called ‘absolute non-duality’ (_paramādvaita_). This version of non-duality argues for inclusivism, i.e., for any idea of binary to manifest, someone fundamentally recognises the distinction between, for instance, a ‘pot’ (_ghaṭa_) and a ‘non-pot’ (_aghaṭa_) and it is this distinction (_dvaita_ or _bheda_) that unitarily brings a pot and a non-pot together (_advaita_ or _abheda_). By saying this, Abhinavagupta is not suggesting that a pot is a non-pot and a non-pot is a pot. But they are singular manifestations in a plural form _of_ and _in_ a singular principle, i.e., non-dual consciousness (_advaitasamvit_). Using a more contemporary terminology, this form of non-duality may be called ‘pluralistic non-dualism’ or ‘subjective pluralism’, understood in the sense that even two mutually opposing labels, such as ‘pluralistic idealism’ or ‘idealistic realism’, can be used.