Vedantic non-dual vs. Abhinavagupta's non-dual

[s1va]

3 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

I'm no expert on views,  but the Upanishads point to only one Self, not trillions x trillions  expanding to multiple one Selfs, and the immanent you mentioned as I see it is an aspect of the Self not a multiplication to trillions x trillions of Selfs. 

 

Agree that Upanishads indicate only one Self as the supreme truth.  But Upanishads also talk about jivatma or the individual self.  In KS view also ultimate Shiva is only One, not many.  So, we are in agreement as to what you stated as per Hindu scriptures.

[s1va]

Only the KS holds the immanent to be equally true or valid.  As per Upanishads or AV this is not valid as explained above.  This is the entire difference I am trying to point out between KS and Advaita.  I am glad finally we agree on certain things.

[s1va]

7 minutes ago, 3bob said:

so in the earth, astral and causal realms there are trillions x trillions of relative beings, while in the Siva realm, if it can be called that, there is only Siva.

 

I doubt it can get simpler than this.

 

This is KS view: Countless jivas are real. One Shiva which is this entire reality making up all those jivas is also real.  They are both equally real at the same time.

 

AV view of Upanishads: Only Self is ultimate truth, countless jivas are just appearances or maya.  They don't have existence outside Self.

 

I am sure you would agree with this.

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I doubt it can get simpler than this.

 

This is KS view: Countless jivas are real. One Shiva which is this entire reality making up all those jivas is also real.  They are both equally real at the same time.

So Jivas are independently existent apart from Shiva?

Quote

 

AV view of Upanishads: Only Self is ultimate truth, countless jivas are just appearances or maya.  They don't have existence outside Self.

 

I am sure you would agree with this.

If you are using the term "reality" for AV and KS similarly, we should investigate whether it means the same thing in the two traditions.  AV says, "Unreal" means no independent self-existence, and not a denial of existence per se. So Jiva is dependent on Brahman -- whose independent veiling power (creativity) called Maya results in Brahman forgetting itself and appearing as Jivas.

• Does KS use of "veiling" mean the same as the veiling of AV? 
• Does KS use of "real" mean the same thing as AV? In that, is "real" in KS indicative of independent self-existence? 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by dwai

[s1va]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I doubt it can get simpler than this.

 

This is KS view: Countless jivas are real. One Shiva which is this entire reality making up all those jivas is also real.  They are both equally real at the same time.

So Jivas are independently existent apart from Shiva?

 

 

Check the part I highlighted above.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

Check the part I highlighted above.

That doesn't address my questions

[3bob]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I doubt it can get simpler than this.

 

This is KS view: Countless jivas are real. One Shiva which is this entire reality making up all those jivas is also real.  They are both equally real at the same time.

 

AV view of Upanishads: Only Self is ultimate truth, countless jivas are just appearances or maya.  They don't have existence outside Self.

 

I am sure you would agree with this.

 

Real is more like relatively real to me, for instance if we look at the Sri Yantra what do we see... and if we insist upon grasping onto it with concepts how far will we see?

 

Anyway I don't exactly claim or disclaim AV or KS, and as I have mentioned or implied a few times before my favorites are the Chandogya and Isa Upanishads, along with lots of other materials.  So what I would agree with and know of is ultimately and only of  my experiences. (with room on the shelf for lots more)

 

edit: I'd add that we cannot ever or at least normally be 100% sure about what someone else is 100% sure about -lol

Edited September 27, 2018 by 3bob

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

That doesn't address my questions

 

In my opinion it doesn't get simpler than what I said in the post.

 

If you think it doesn't answer your question (assuming you read all the recent posts I made on this topic), I doubt I can ever address your questions.  I am fine with this also, because I see no need to convince anyone.

 

I share the beauty of Abhinavagupta's teachings that I come across and describe them to those that are interested.  If you agree and appreciate what I share it is great.  If you disagree and state why this is also fine with me.  But if you keep coming back challenging with your fixed notions, repeating the same points again and again, as I have stated many times already, I see no point in such debates and arguments.  

 

After a certain point, such repetitive interferences clearly present themselves as attempts to annoy others that present different views -- or simply share their experiences.  This can further lead to extremes, like trying to determine who is qualified to discuss what and censor others activities in the forums.  I think you need to be mindful of this.

[s1va]

12 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

Real is more like relatively real to me, for instance if we look at the Sri Yantra what do we see... and if we insist upon grasping onto it with concepts how far will we see?

 

Anyway I don't exactly claim or disclaim AV or KS, and as I have mentioned or implied a few times before my favorites are the Chandogya and Isa Upanishads, along with lots of other materials.  So what I would agree with and know of is ultimately and only of  my experiences. (with room on the shelf for lots more)

 

edit: I'd add that we cannot ever or at least normally be 100% sure about what someone else is 100% sure about -lol

 

I think you have made your views clear.  I like those Upanishads and many ideas they present also.

 

It is also the right attitude to know our experiences are limited, and there is always room for more. Thanks for sharing your ideas and thoughts on this subject.

[3bob]

btw, there are several other schools or branches of Shaivism that have not been visited here very much, so its not just an either or among just two schools for anyone taking a look-see.

[s1va]

Yes, Shaivism is so vast and there are numerous branches with varying philosophies, belief system and practices.  I wrote very briefly about the 9 major Shaiva Tantra sects in this other thread in my PPD (with emphasis mainly on Trika 🙂).

 

Not just Shaivism, several tantric traditions share some unique concepts among themselves, which distinguish them from Vedanta.  As per the traditional Vedic belief, only Vedas (including Vedanta) are revelations from the Divine.  The rest of the scriptures are not considered as revelations and considered as human thoughts and ideas shared in texts.  Per Tantra traditions, their core Tantra text is also revelation from the divine.  If we read the core works of Shaiva Tantra, they are dialogues between Shiva and Shakti.

 

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

In my opinion it doesn't get simpler than what I said in the post.

 

If you think it doesn't answer your question (assuming you read all the recent posts I made on this topic), I doubt I can ever address your questions.  I am fine with this also, because I see no need to convince anyone.

That's your prerogative  

That still leaves room for the questions I've raised (to the discerning mind). 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

I share the beauty of Abhinavagupta's teachings that I come across and describe them to those that are interested.  If you agree and appreciate what I share it is great.  If you disagree and state why this is also fine with me.  But if you keep coming back challenging with your fixed notions, repeating the same points again and again, as I have stated many times already, I see no point in such debates and arguments.  

It is wonderful and I think Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Shaivism as beautiful traditions. I don't have much difference from them given that for me, KS and AV are sister (almost twin sister) traditions  

 

I am genuinely trying to understand how and why you (and some others) interpret KS the way you do. We already saw that there aren't infinite number of non dual shivas but only One, and jivas are none other than Shiva himself. So then to keep insisting that Jivas are "real" but not defining what "real" means in this context seems a bit evasive to me. Yeah yeah....I know you'll respond that it's my interpretation and that you are free to do whatever you want ( i never contested that, nor did I ever insist that you should follow my view. I merely exercised my right to question what i consider erroneous presentation of AV).  Since we're so happy to tout the public nature of a discussion board, perhaps that option (to question) should be left available to prevent soliloquies being passed off as fact? 

 

 

[s1va]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That's your prerogative  

That still leaves room for the questions I've raised (to the discerning mind). 

It is wonderful and I think Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Shaivism as beautiful traditions. I don't have much difference from them given that for me, KS and AV are sister (almost twin sister) traditions  

 

I am genuinely trying to understand how and why you (and some others) interpret KS the way you do. We already saw that there aren't infinite number of non dual shivas but only One, and jivas are none other than Shiva himself. So then to keep insisting that Jivas are "real" but not defining what "real" means in this context seems a bit evasive to me. Yeah yeah....I know you'll respond that it's my interpretation and that you are free to do whatever you want ( i never contested that, nor did I ever insist that you should follow my view. I merely exercised my right to question what i consider erroneous presentation of AV).  Since we're so happy to tout the public nature of a discussion board, perhaps that option (to question) should be left available to prevent soliloquies being passed off as fact? 

 

 

 

I don't think you get the part where I mentioned about your incessant interference and questioning starting to look more and more just as attempts to annoy other people with different views.  I am going to say what I want to say very politely this time.

 

In my view you are not really contributing to this discussion, asking questions sincerely to understand, but just attempting to derail the discussion with the repetitions of some fixed notions you subscribe to.  Everyone has the right to question and present their views.  But when there are some fundamental differences it is best to acknowledge the differences and just let go, and not engage in repetitive and meaningless questions.  I will explain that with an example others can understand.

 

Supposing if I say I believe in God and start a discussion about the beauty of God's creation.  Some atheist can come and state his views in my thread.  Even question my beliefs to a reasonable extent.  But if he insists on proof to see God, or show the God to him/her, or accept there is no God, keeps coming back with same arguments and questions into the 6th page of the discussion.  Every time I make a post about God, if that atheist comes back and questions/challenges me in my thread, (I keep telling him, I respect his views and to leave me alone in my own opinions and views), I would think it's nuisance and perhaps time to ask the person to leave or take other steps towards booting this person.  Such views of a person would appear fanatical, wouldn't it?  They would only show this person's deep attachment to the concept 'there is no God' universally for everyone, therefore everyone has to agree.  

 

In my view, you are starting to sound exactly like this and trying to annoy others.  If I were you, I would just let go and not push my ideas on anyone.  I take the good from several traditions and discard the not so good.  I am not fanatical about any one tradition, engage in fights to uphold/defend  all views of any one tradition, claim it is the only truth and other traditions are just a subset of mine.  I have given up on having meaningful discussions with you as long as you engage in such line of arguments. You or anyone else can start any number of threads right here in TDB, criticizing KS or anything else, I wouldn't bother reading it or commenting (unless it is trying to dictate to me what I can and cannot do here in the forums like your other thread).  Heck, there are concepts of KS, I don't agree with myself.  I would happily criticize it myself.  In my views all systems have plus and flaws.  You start so many Advaita promotional sounding topics here in TDB Hindu section (hundreds of them in the past couple of years alone), many of them I am conceptually opposed to, I don't even read or comment on any of them.  If someone were to challenge you incessantly on every single topic you create and engage in endless arguments, I don't think you would appreciate it.

 

I hope you have enough wisdom to get the point by now and just let go without escalating this further needlessly.

 

[neti neti]

8 hours ago, s1va said:

AV view of Upanishads: Only Self is ultimate truth, countless jivas are just appearances or maya.  They don't have existence outside Self.

 

I'll step back in here to say this is inaccurate overgeneralization. What's considered a more holistic understanding by masters of the tradition was reasoned out in the other thread where it was needful, here: 

 

 

If you would care to, please address it here now. If not, that is fine. I'm content in that the reference will be here for those inclined to dig a bit deeper. Peace.

[s1va]

2 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

I'll step back in here to say this is inaccurate overgeneralization. What's considered a more holistic understanding by masters of the tradition was reasoned out in the other thread where it was needful, here: 

 

 

If you would care to, please address it here now. If not, that is fine. I'm content in that the reference will be here for those inclined to dig a bit deeper. Peace.

 

I am not inclined to answer since I feel such questions are already answered.  Those who have the ability to see the answers do.  I don't mind the above staying as a reference this time, but I do consider it as nuisance I described earlier.  Everytime I make a post with my views, questioning and challenging my views obsessively shows you simply lack the ability to let go.

 

You cannot demand explanations that satisfies you, and complies to your opinion from others here, for someone to just express their views in forums.

 

I can substantiate what I stated directly from Vedanta and a dozen Upanishads right away, but I am not interested.  It is a generalization is your view.  I would suggest that you just give it a rest and may be take a break from this topic.   

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I am not inclined to answer since I feel such questions are already answered.  Those who have the ability to see the answers do.  I don't mind the above staying as a reference this time, but I do consider it as as nuisance that I described earlier.  Everytime I make a post with my views, questioning and challenging my every single view obsessively shows you simply lack the ability to let go.

 

You cannot demand explanations that satisfies you, and complies to your opinion from others here, inorder for them to just express their views in forums.

 

I can substantiate what I stated directly from Vedanta and a dozen Upanishads right away, but I am not interested.  It is a generalization is your view.  I would suggest that you just give it a rest and may be take a break from this topic.   

 

The victim suit is easy. One absolves themselves of any responsibility to be accountable for their words. This just isn't acceptable.

 

I've made no demands of you, but I suppose I may be guilty of a reasonable expectation that you, or anyone for that matter, would at the least assist me in my errors by actually proving such blanket statements aside from a casual quoting of this or that text (among the vast library of texts available.) I will happily stand corrected. I beg your forgiveness if this expectation has become a nuisance for you. I totally respect your decision to not engage, as I said above.

 

Perhaps it is you who should rest from stating what basically amounts to vagaries as if they were the end all regarding the tradition in question. Because they're not. And members highlighting this is not so much a demand for explanation, but a call for clarification from which we can all benefit. Rather than hash things out, it seems you would just simply brush them aside and continue. Which is perfectly OK.

 

But the fact remains, that no matter how much quoting you do from various texts, none of them will refute that the theory of Maya is but one aspect or approaching of the issue of creation as it relates to the self-inquiry of AV. May the reader judge wisely.

Edited September 28, 2018 by neti neti

[s1va]

18 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

The victim suit is easy. One absolves themselves of any responsibility to be accountable for their words. This just isn't acceptable.

 

I've made no demands of you, but I suppose I may be guilty of a reasonable expectation that you, or anyone for that matter, would at the least assist me in my errors by actually proving such blanket statements aside from a casual quoting of this or that text among the vast library of texts available. I will happily stand corrected. I beg your forgiveness if this expectation has become a nuisance for you. I totally respect your decision to not engage, as I said above.

 

But perhaps it is you who should rest from stating what basically amounts to vagaries as if they were the end all regarding the tradition in question. Because they're not. And member highlighting this is not so much a demand for explanation, but a call for clarification from which we can all benefit. Rather than hash things out, it seems you would just simply brush them aside and continue. Which is perfectly OK.

 

But the fact remains, that no matter how much quoting you do from various texts, none of them will refute that the theory of Maya is but one aspect or approach to the issue of creation theory in relation to the self-inquiry of AV. May the reader judge wisely.

 

I have made it very clear I don't want to keep engaging in this line of dialogue and arguments with you and certain others here (about Maya or what you think of AV).  You simply are not getting it, are you?  You guys want to keep pushing the boundaries of what is considered civil, go ahead, and be ready to face any consequences of your actions.  I am stating that as a member and as the person who started this conversation at this point.

 

From this point onwards, I am directly requesting you to refrain from making posts along these lines in this thread.  You are welcome to start your own thread and discuss your ideas and list your criticisms.  

 

Any further posts from you along the same lines, playing the same tune, will be considered as spamming this thread.  Who cares about the greatness of your philosophy when it lacks basic civility, decency and courtesy?  Please show it in actions, not just in words, by keep stating, you will bow out gracefully (you said this on page 2 or 3), you will stop being a nuisance.  Just the sheer hypocrisy of these words and actions! Yes, let the readers judge for themselves.

[Jonesboy]

I thought this was interesting.

 

Comparison of Advaita Vedanta with Kashmir Shaivism

By admin on Oct 29, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana

- Dr. Jaidev Singh

The Advaita Vedānta philosophy is generally known as śāntabrahmavāda or Kevalādvaita. The philosophy of Kashmir is known as īśvarādvayavāda or Pratyabhijñā or Trika. 

The Nature of Absolute Reality

The most salient difference between the two is that according to Vedānta, the Absolute Reality is simply Prakāśa or jñāna, whereas according to īśvarādvayavāda, it is Prakāśa-vimarśamaya, i.e., it has both jñātṛtva and kartṛtva. Shankaracharya thinks that kriyā or activity belongs only to jīva or the empirical individual, and not to Brahman. Shankara takes kriyā in a very narrow sense. He takes it as synonymous with karma. Certainly, Paramaśiva does not act like a potter molding clay into pots. śaivāgama takes kriyā in a wider sense, in the sense of citśakti, in the sense of Spanda, throb or pulsation to manifest. 

Without activity, the Absolute would be simply inert, unable to bring about anything. 

Shankara says: “All activity belongs to Māyā.” But is Māyā simply a śakti of Brahman or is it something quite external? If Māyā is something quite external, then Advaita cannot be maintained. If Māyā is śakti of Brahman, then surely, it is an activity of Brahman. 

According to śaivāgama, svātantrya or autonomous Free Will is an important characteristic of Chaitanya. Kartṛtva is an important aspect of svātantrya. As Pāṇini puts it: svatantraḥ kartā, a free being alone is an agent. Svātantrya of śiva implies kartṛtva. 

According to Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is entirely inactive. Activity belongs to avidyā. When Brahman is associated with avidyā, it becomes īśvara who is endowed with the power to act. So the real activity belongs to avidyā. The activity of īśvara ceases when He is dissociated from avidyā. This is what Shankara says in his commentary on Brahmasūtra:

“Thus the potency of īśvara, His omniscience and omnipotence are contingent upon the limitation caused by the condition or association of avidyā (primal ignorance). In the highest sense, when all conditions are removed by vidyā (spiritual illumination) from the ātmā, the use of potency, omniscience etc., would become inappropriate for it.” (2.1.14)

On the other hand, jñātṛtva and kartṛtva are, according to īśvarādvayavāda, the very nature of the Supreme. Activity, according to this philosophy, is not an adjunct of īśvara, but His specific nature. His activity is summed up in the fivefold act of sṛṣṭi (manifestation), sthiti (maintenance), saṃhāra (withdrawal), vilaya (concealment of real nature) and anugraha (grace). He performs these five acts eternally even when He assumes the form of an empirical ego (jīva). 

Maheśvarānanda says in his Mahārthamañjarī that inactive Brahman is as good as unreal. 

“This is the specific nature of Parameśvara that He always performs the fivefold act of sṛṣṭi etc. If this is not accepted, ātmā as defined by Māyāvāda characterized by the want of the slightest trace of activity, would be as good as unreal.”

According to Shankara, Brahman is entirely inactive; all activity is due to Māyā. According to īśvarādvayavāda, activity belongs to śiva or īśvara; Māyā derives its activity only from Him. 

Secondly, Māyā according to Advaita Vedanta is anirvacanīya or indefinable, but according to īśvarādvayavāda, Māyā being the śakti of śiva is perfectly real and brings about multiplicity or difference. 

śvetāśvarata Upaniṣad equates Māyā with Prakṛti:

māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyānmāyinaṃ tu maheśvaram | 

The word Māyā is derived from the root ‘mā’ which means ‘to measure’. Māyā is that power of the Divine which measures out the phenomenon in definite forms. Māyā is the creative power of the Divine and not a power of illusion. 

The Status of the World

The world, according to Shankara, is mithyā or false. It is simply an adhyāropa or adhyāsa or false imposition on Brahman due to ajñāna or nescience just as a snake is a false imposition on a rope. 

In none of the Upaniṣads which form the original and real Vedānta, the rajju-sarpa or rope-snake analogy is to be found. Nor anywhere in the Upaniṣads has the world been designated as adhyāropa or adhyāsa. Shankara has borrowed it from Nāgārjuna. 

The problem for Advaita is: ‘How does the one Brahman become many’? Sri Aurobindo rightly says that Shankara cut the Gordian knot by dismissing the world as illusion. Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Gopinath Kaviraj says that according to adhyāsa, Shankara’s Advaita becomes exclusive advaita, an advaita by excluding the world. 

For Advaita śaivāgama, the world is an ābhāsa, but ābhāsa or appearance is real. The ābhāsas only prove the glory and richness of śiva. The world lies only as a potency in śiva, just as a banyan tree lies as potency or śakti in the seed. Manifestation only means making explicit what is implicit. Variety is not contradictory to unity. Advaita śaivāgama maintains that Pariṇāmavāda and Vivartavāda are not the exhaustive theories of manifestation. Manifestation is brought about by the svātantrya or the autonomy of śiva. 

The Role of Anugraha or Grace

According to śaivāgama, Anugraha or Grace is one of the eternal activities of śiva. 

The Upaniṣads which constitute the actual Vedānta also believe in Anugraha. Kaṭhopaniṣad explicitly states:

“This ātmā cannot be attained by instruction, not by intelligence, nor by learning. To him alone, It reveals Its subtle form whom It chooses.”

This stanza plainly speaks of Grace, but Shankara dismisses grace by a linguistic tour de force. He takes ‘eṣa’ as standing for ‘sādhaka’, though it is a pronoun standing for the noun ātmā. 

In another place, curiously enough, Shankara admits Grace. Commenting on the Brahmasūtra (3.2.5), he says:

“Just as when the power of sight withdrawn owing to cataract is restored with the potency of medicine, even so only to some rare being whose spiritual darkness has been removed by the discipline of meditation, and who has attained fulfillment through the grace of God is Realization restored. It does not come by itself.”

The word ‘īśvaraprasāda’ shows clearly that Shankara has admitted the grace of God in this context. 

ātmā in the Human Body

According to Shankara, ātmā in the human body is only sākṣi-caitanya or witnessing consciousness. Just as Brahman as no activity, even so, its reflection ātmā in the human body is niṣkriya - without activity. According to īśvarādvayavāda, however, ātmā in the human body also is spandamaya. It has always the characteristic of jñāna and kriyā. 

Difference in the Upāyas

śaivāgama has four upāyas: anupāya, śāmbhavopāya, śāktopāya and āṇavopāya. According to Vedānta, śravana, manana and nidhidhyāsana are the only means to liberation. This partially represents the śāktopāya of śaivāgama. There is nothing like śāmbhavopāya or āṇavopāya in Vedānta. 

Difference in the Conception of Ajñāna

According to Vedānta, avidyā or ajñāna is removed by vidyā or jñāna, and when this happens, there is mukti or liberation. 

According to śaivāgama, there are two kinds of ajñāna: bauddha and pauruṣa. Bauddha ajñāna is intellectual. By vidyā, only bauddha ajñāna can be removed, pauruṣa a~jnāna will still remain. Such a person will only be landed in blank abstraction. He will not realize śivatva. 

Pauruṣa ajñāna also has to be removed. This can be removed by śaktipāta which comes about either by dīkṣā by a Self-realized Guru or by direct divine grace. 

Difference in the Conception of Liberation

The idea of mukti in Vedānta is Kaivalya or isolation just as in Sāṃkhya-Yoga. The only difference is that in Sāṃkhya-Yoga, it is isolation from Prakṛti, in Vedānta, it is isolation from Māyā. The ideal of Mukti in śaivāgama is śivatva yojanā or being integrated to śiva. 

According to Vedānta, the world is annulled in Mukti. According to śaivāgama, the world appears to be a form of śiva-consciousness in liberation.

 

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1340&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[s1va]

@Jonesboy - Thanks for sharing the article.  It explains and summarizes the difference beautifully.  I find the definition of maya in particular to be very interesting, power of divine vs. the power of illusion.  There is a world of difference (literally 🙂) right there.

 

Great distinction in also pointing out clearly that divine grace is recognized in Vedanta or Upanishads, but rejected by Shankara in his philosophy of Advaita.  What I find even more interesting is the fact this article is from a reputable Vedantic source, the Kamakoti mandali, which is from the followers of acharyas and direct descendents of Adi Shankara.

[Jonesboy]

Thank you. Here is another with smaller words  for people like me.

 

Kashmir Shaivism vs Advaita Vedanata: A Summary by Mahamahopadhyaya Gopinath Kaviraj

By admin on Apr 22, 2017 | In Srividya, Darshana, Bhakti, Yoga

- Dr. Navjivan Rastogi (from Sri Kaviraj-ji's commemoration compendium) 

Kaviraj-ji once remarked “in spite of the antiquity of śākta Culture and of its philosophical traditions, the reason why no serious attempt was made is said to have been that it was deemed improper to drag down for rational examination truths inaccessible to the experience of ordinary man. This reason is not convincing enough, for if the Upaniṣads could be made the basis of philosophical system, there is no reason why the śākta āgamas could not be similarly utilized. For the function of philosophy is, as Joad rightly remarks, to accept the data furnished by the specialists who have worked in the field and then to assess their meaning and significance”. 

A comparative estimate of Advaita Vedānta and Kashmir Shaivism by Kaviraj is a classical example of philosophical insight and assumes enormous significance for proper appraisal of the Shaiva absolutism of Kashmir. This has in fact helped to bring about distinctive character of the two excellent systems of thought. the main distinctions may be recounted as under: Brahmavāda describes Māyā as different from both real and unreal, and indescribable. The Shaivas hold that this does not totally eliminate the impression of duality. It is admitted that Māyāis non-entity, unreal when viewed from the Absolute’s angle and also that the reality of empirical level has no bearing on the transcendental principle of Brahman. But the question is: why does duality appear at all, if there is only one non-dual conscious principle? To the Vedāntin, pure Brahman is simply the substratum of the begginingless world-order whose appearance is rooted in the illusory transformation aka vivarta. To assert that the properties such as creativity etc., are superimposed upon Brahman, makes it all the more difficult to grasp as to how the Absolute becomes the finite being, world or God? There is no denying the fact that there too is ignorance, Māyā, in the Shaiva absolutism, but its appearance is not contingent. It represents an Absolute mode occasioned by voluntary exercise of the Absolutic freedom. By fully exploiting the analogy of cloud and sun, Kaviraj emphasizes that there is no deviation from its unobscured nature even when it veils itself by its own power. The worldly variety is nothing but the reflection or awareness (vimarśa) of its own being. The manifestation of variety constitutes the nature i.e., self-being (svabhāva) of the Absolute. 

Brahmavādins too admit that the Self has its own nature. In their view, however, the Self is pure witness or constitutes locus consciousness (adhiṣṭhāna caitanyātmaka), while īśvaravādins subscribe to its nature as consisting of freedom, and as agency. Here lies the major disagreement between the two - a feature proudly noted by Kṣēmarāja. 

svatantraśabdō brahmavādavailakṣaṇyamācakṣāṇaścitō māhēśvaryasāratāṁ brūtē |

In fact, the description of the Absolute in both the systems admits of similar terminology except that Brahman is devoid of Kartr̥tva (agency), whereas Vimarśa or Kartr̥tva constitutes the Absolute essence of Paramashiva. The Shaiva absolutists never try to conceal their attitude towards Brahmavādins. The description of Vedāntin’s position as Nirvimarśabrahmavāda or Shāntabrahmavāda does not appear to be laudatory. Shaivas assign Sāmkhya’s Puruṣa and Vedānta’s Brahman to the lower state of aparāvasthā of the Self. They are not even prepared to accommodate them in the penultimate (parāparā) state, not to the talk of the ultimate state of the Self. According to Shaiva texts, such state has never come up for discussion in the Vedānta texts. 
The absence of vigorous affirmation of freedom in the Vedāntic Absolute compels Kaviraj to conclude, hesitantly though, that appearance of duality is not actually eliminated from Shankara’s Vēdānta. 

In the Shaiva monistic tradition the term Advaita denotes eternal synthesis of the two. In Shankara’s view, Advaita means negation of the two. Shankara describes Brahman as real and Māyā as indefinable. He cannot accept Mayā to be real or treat it at par with the Absolute. That is why the Vedāntic absolutism, according to Kaviraj, is exclusive and based on renunciation or elimination. Unlike the āgamas, it fails to become inclusive or all-embracing. In the āgamic view, the identity of the Absolute and Mayā is automatically established by showing Māyā as stemming from Brahman and also as real. If we adhere to the logic of Shankara’s Vedānta, we will have to concede that Brahman too is unreal and indefinable, because in the condition in which Māyā is stated to be unreal/indefinable, the knowledge of Brahman in that stage will be a byproduct of Māyā. Even while assuming the correctness of Shankara’s premise, ‘of the two opposed to another like darkness and light’, it may be stated that darkness arises from light by friction and it is darkness again that culminates in light by friction. Both are eternally united, both exist totally integrated in their being. This is what has been pronounced time and again as Sāmarasya of Shiva-Shakti or attainment of Cit-ananda which marks a unique feature of Kashmir Shaivism. 

Jnāna-Bhakti Synthesis

Kaviraj goes on enlarging the equation of Cidānanda synthesis. According to him, the additional peculiarity of the Shaiva absolutism lies in the fact that it neither advocates the path of ‘dry’ knowledge, nor the path of devotion bereft of knowledge, rather it lays down a path that integrates knowledge and devotion both. Logically Bhakti has no place in the ultimate stage of the absolutism propounded by Shankara. According to him, devotion is basically duality-centric, and as such does not exist in the Absolutic state on attainment of knowledge. Needless to say, this devotion is ignorance-based and instrumental in character. 

But, on the contrary, in the Trika philosophy Mōkṣa has been portrayed as Cidānanda lābha (attainment of Consciousness-Bliss) or Pūrṇāhaṁtācamatkāra (self-relish flowing from perfect I-hood). Now the aspect of consciousness (cidamśa) is knowledge and that of bliss (ānandāmśa) devotion. The perfect I-hood or self-relish which marks the limit of knowledge, also marks the limit of love or devotion. It is why it offers congenial ground for synthesis. Here the element of consciousness i.e., Shiva-state, and that of bliss i.e., Shakti-state, stand fused together instantly turning it into synthesis of devotion-knowledge or equipoise of Shiva-Shakti. 

Synthesis of the efficient and material causes

By expounding the analogies of Yogin and Māyāvin employed in Tripurā and Pratyabhijñā, Kaviraj has drawn our attention of the creation of world as being rooted in the Absolutic will or as being totally independent of the material cause. Citing a kārikā from Utpala, he says creation means externalization of the inner content. 

cidātmaiva hi dēvō’ntaḥsthitamicchāvaśādbahiḥ |
yōgīva nirupādānamarthajātaṁ prakāśayēt ||

The objective totality exists in the consciousness-Self (cidātmā), only part of it occasionally gets manifested due to its Will. In the creation of this kind, the material cause is rendered irrelevant. This independence from the material cause in the Shaiva absolutism is very well known in the form of the doctrine of the unity between efficient and material causes (abhinna nimittōpādānavāda) in Shankara’s Advaita. Indeed, belief in absolutism presupposes the rejection of distinction between the efficient and the material. But, since Shankara’s Advaita hesitates to admit the real agency in the Absolute, the creation turns out to be an offspring of ignorance, instead of Self-will.

 

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1520&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

[s1va]

4 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

In the Shaiva monistic tradition the term Advaita denotes eternal synthesis of the two. In Shankara’s view, Advaita means negation of the two.

 

Very interesting! The entire article.  Especially, the quoted text above tries to capture the gist of this thread/topic (Vedantic non-dual vs. Abhinavagupta's non-dual) and conveys it in a much better way than I could have ever articulated.

[Jonesboy]

I found this very important as well but I think your two quotes sum things up nicely.

 

Quote

 Shaivas assign Sāmkhya’s Puruṣa and Vedānta’s Brahman to the lower state of aparāvasthā of the Self. They are not even prepared to accommodate them in the penultimate (parāparā) state, not to the talk of the ultimate state of the Self. According to Shaiva texts, such state has never come up for discussion in the Vedānta texts. 
The absence of vigorous affirmation of freedom in the Vedāntic Absolute compels Kaviraj to conclude, hesitantly though, that appearance of duality is not actually eliminated from Shankara’s Vēdānta.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Jonesboy

[Jonesboy]

Adding to the discussion.

 

ParAtrimshikAvivaraNa that the Brahman of Advaita vedAnta is not the same as that of ParAdvaita, but is instead very similar to the ultimate nihilistic principle of the Bauddhas (a charge leveled by others such as Yamunacharya and Ramanuja as well). He further elaborates by criticizing both the Bauddhas and Advaita vedAntins thus: “Both the Bauddhas and Vedantins were unable to satisfactorily explain unity and diversity and hence deceived themselves and the world by terming the apparent diversity as indescribable because of its being avidyA (this is the criticism against Advaita VedAntins) and by calling it false because it was simply due to mental ideation (as in the case of Buddhists)". The very fact that Abhinavagupta coined a term ‘parAdvaita’ to distinguish his version of monism from Advaita VedAnta – illustrates the theological difference between the two schools.

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1168&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[s1va]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Adding to the discussion.

 

That is by far the best explanation I have seen so far that makes sense to me about Paradvaita is, and also in comparison with the Buddhist and Advaita  philosophies.  It also made me understand why and how this differs from Ramanuja's vishishtadvaita philosophy.  Apparently Ramanuja has seen this as very similar to the Buddhist philosophy.  Thanks for sharing the article.

 

The following part also made sense to me.  I agree with the author of this article, no reconciliation between Vedanta and KS is even necessary.  Why engage in such futile actions.

 

Quote

Some questions that caught my eyes were of some friends who pointed out that Brahman of Kashmir Shaivism (or Paramashiva as it is referred to there) is not all that different from the Brahman of Advaita VedAnta. And the inference, according to our friend, is that ParAdvaita (of the Agamic Shaivism propagated by Abhinavagupta) is not all that different from KevalAdvaita (as propagated by Shankara) and reconciliation between the two is not only possible, but easy enough to accomplish. This question probably stems from a discussion we had last month at my place.

First of all, is reconciliation between the two even necessary? We have been ourselves guilty in the past of some such attempts and have realized the futility and gross uselessness of such unnecessary intellectual masturbation. As far as ParAdvaita of Abhinavagupta is concerned, there are some key differences.

 

 

Finally this last paragraph helped me understand why I used to think Advaita Vedanta and the Trika Kashmir Shaivism are essentially one and the same.  It is just a stage of journey I went through and can understand it is possible to get struck in this view.  Many of the modern commentaries I read initially were indeed written by commentators who are Advaita Vedanta masters.  Obviously, in their views and therefore in their presentation they go on to emphasize it is one and the same.  Only when I started reading Trika commentaries explained by those who truly understand it, or from that tradition I started to understand the differences.

 

Quote

As MahAmahopAdhyAya ShrI GopInAth KavirAj states in one of his papers, a lot of misunderstanding regarding Trika SiddhAnta arises from the fact that many of its modern day writers and commentators are from traditional Advaita VedAnta background. And their interpretation of Trika SiddhAnta is heavily colored. So, yes, there are similarities, and there are some very obvious differences.

 

[s1va]

Ajnana or ignorance in Kashmir Shaivism:-  As per Vedanta removal of ajnana or ignorance leads to moksha or liberation.  As per Kashmir Shaivism, the ignorance is divided into 2 categories.  The Paurusa ajnana (ignorance about one's nature as different from Shiva) and the Bauddha ajnana (intellectual ignorance).  Self inquiry or  other types of intellectual questioning and study of scriptures, could end up in the removal of Bauddha ajnana, but not in the removal of the Paurusa ajnana, which is removed only by the grace of a Guru or Divinity.  One can reach silence and states of very high samadhi's such as nirvikalpa samadhi, etc., but this will not remove the Paurusa ajnana as stated below and therefore not result in liberation as per Kashmir Shaivism.

 

From 'The Secret Supreme' by Swami Lakshmanjoo

 

Kashmir Saivism explains that ignorance (ajnana) is of two 
kinds: paurusa ajnana and bauddha ajnana. Paurusa ajnana is 
that kind of ignorance wherein one is unaware of realizing 
one’s own nature in samadhi. This kind of ignorance is 
removed by the grace of masters and by meditating upon one’s 
own Self. And when this ignorance is removed, you find your¬ 
self in the real knowledge of Saivism, which is all being, all 
consciousness, all bliss. This kind of knowledge is called pau¬ 
rusa jnana. When you possess paurusa jnana, you realize your 
nature of Self perfectly. 

Bauddha ajnana (intellectual ignorance) occurs only when 
you are completely ignorant of the philosophical truth of the 
monistic idea of Saivism. And bauddha ajnana is removed by 
studying those monistic Saiva texts which explain the reality of 
the Self. Therefore, these texts are the cause of your being car¬ 
ried from bauddha ajnana to bauddha jnana. Bauddha jnana 
is thought-based and is developed through the intellect. 
Paurusa jnana , on the other hand, is practical and is developed 
through practice. Paurusa jnana is predominant over bauddha 
jnana because when you possess only paurusa jnana, even 
then you are liberated in the real sense. In this case, however, 
liberation is attained only after leaving your body. When, how¬ 
ever, at the same time, you attach bauddha jnana to paurusa 
jnana, which means that, on the one hand, you practice on your 
own Being and, on the other hand, you go into the philosophi¬ 
cal thought of the monistic Saiva texts and elevate your intel- 
lectual being, then you become a jivanmukta, one who is liber¬ 
ated while living. If, however, you possess only bauddhajhana 
and not paurusa jhana, then you will not attain liberation either 
while living in the body or at the time of death. Bauddha jhana 
without paurusa jhana is useless and will not take you any¬ 
where. The study of texts shines perfectly only when there is 
practical knowledge at the same time. Without practical knowl¬ 
edge, philosophical study is useless. Bauddha jhana will bear 
fruit only when paurusa jhana is present and not otherwise.