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

[s1va]

A friend pointed out with one word the difference between the non-dual in KS and Vedanta.  I thought it will be good to share this here.

 

The non-dual (Shiva) in KS is 'aware', but the Brahman from AV is unaware.

 

Quote

Pratyabhijna (Sanskrit: प्रत्यभिज्ञा, translit. pratyabhijñā, lit. 're-cognition') is an idealistic monistic and theistic school of philosophy in Kashmir Shaivism, originating in the 9th century CE. The term Trika was used by Abhinavagupta to represent the entire Kashmir Shaivism or to designate the Pratyabhijna system.^[1]

The name of the system is derived from its most famous work, Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikāby Utpaladeva.^[2]:254 

 

Etymologically, Pratyabhijna is formed from prati- ("re-") + abhi (preposition meaning "closely") + *jñā ("to know"). So, the meaning is direct knowledge of one's self, "recognition".^[3]:117

 

The central thesis of this philosophy is that everything is Śiva, absolute consciousness, and it is possible to re-cognize this fundamental reality and be freed from limitations, identified with Śiva and immersed in bliss.^[4] Thus, the slave (paśu - the human condition) shakes off the fetters (paśa) and becomes the master (pati- the divine condition).^[2]:254

 

[3bob]

who knows unless there 1st hand...

[neti neti]

12 hours ago, s1va said:

A friend pointed out with one word the difference between the non-dual in KS and Vedanta.  I thought it will be good to share this here.

 

The non-dual (Shiva) in KS is 'aware', but the Brahman from AV is unaware.

 

 

My understanding is that AV's Brahman is 'aware' of itself as Brahman, for it is itself 'awareness'; 'awareness' aware of itself as 'awareness'. Existence-consciousness-bliss, or Self, knows that it is. In AV, that objectless consciousness is Saguna Brahman, the sole subject that is Supreme "I", the I AM, and all that manifests therein.

 

(Para)Brahman is synonymous with Nirguna Brahman; the polar opposite of manifest name and form within the realm of duality. It is therefore considered 'prior' to Saguna Brahman, and described as 'unawareness', a not-knowing-ness that it is. As 'it', there is no 'it' to 'is'. Naturally, the appearance of difference or contrast between the unmanifest and manifest exist only in language, conceptually, much like the symbolically personified pair of Shiva and His Shakti.

An essential distinction to note is the following: This indication of 'unawareness', is not to say that (Para)Brahman is 'unaware', as if there were a knower there to make that self-observation, for it is(very metaphorically) unqualified 'unawareness' itself. Thus 'unawareness' merely points to the non-existence of an "I" to conceive of anything, or perceive itself as anything in particular. The ground of being-ness or awareness, in which the function of perceiving is made possible.

 

That self-knowledge which appears as the being-ness or 'recognition' that is Brahman in AV, is none other than that Shiva of KS distinguished in His manifest aspect of Shakti. There is only Shiva, or there is only (Para)Brahman, and the being-ness that is Brahman, or the being-ness that is Shakti, is available.

Edited November 7, 2018 by neti neti

[Jonesboy]

5 hours ago, neti neti said:

My understanding is that AV's Brahman is 'aware' of itself as Brahman, for it is itself 'awareness'; 'awareness' aware of itself as 'awareness'. Existence-consciousness-bliss, or Self, knows that it is. In AV, that objectless consciousness is Saguna Brahman, the sole subject that is Supreme "I", the I AM, and all that manifests therein.

 

(Para)Brahman is synonymous with Nirguna Brahman; the polar opposite of manifest name and form within the realm of duality. It is therefore considered 'prior' to Saguna Brahman, and described as 'unawareness', a not-knowing-ness that it is. As 'it', there is no 'it' to 'is'. Naturally, the appearance of difference or contrast between the unmanifest and manifest exist only in language, conceptually, much like the symbolically personified pair of Shiva and His Shakti.

An essential distinction to note is the following: This indication of 'unawareness', is not to say that (Para)Brahman is 'unaware', as if there were a knower there to make that self-observation, for it is(very metaphorically) unqualified 'unawareness' itself. Thus 'unawareness' merely points to the non-existence of an "I" to conceive of anything, or perceive itself as anything in particular. The ground of being-ness or awareness, in which the function of perceiving is made possible.

 

That self-knowledge which appears as the being-ness or 'recognition' that is Brahman in AV, is none other than that Shiva of KS distinguished in His manifest aspect of Shakti. There is only Shiva, or there is only (Para)Brahman, and the being-ness that is Brahman, or the being-ness that is Shakti, is available.

 

What is the being-ness of Shakti in AV if the world is an illusion?

 

What does is available mean?

 

If all there is, is Brahman and the world is an illusion, all others are an illusion what are you aware of?

[neti neti]

16 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

1) What is the being-ness of Shakti in AV if the world is an illusion?

 

2) What does is available mean?

 

3) If all there is, is Brahman and the world is an illusion, all others are an illusion what are you aware of?

 

1) I didn't say the beingness Of Shakti. Shakti IS beingness or the manifest aspect of Shiva, as it relates to the beingness which is that creative or generative principle/force known as Brahman which is the consciousness I AM.

 

The world is only illusory in its appearance as something separate or different from Shiva. Supreme consciousness is the reality of everything. With that ultimate sense in view, realize the Maya of AV as a teaching tool used to describe that which is not. There is only illusion for the jiva imagining the world as other than himself.

 

2) Beingness is available to non-being. Awareness is available to unawareness. Shiva is identity in non-existence, and Shakti is His beingness.

 

3) Brahman is the world also. The world is illusion once perceived as other than Brahman. There is nothing to be aware of other than Brahman, as there is no aware-er apart from Brahman. There is only Brahman.

Edited November 8, 2018 by neti neti

[s1va]

7 hours ago, neti neti said:

An essential distinction to note is the following: This indication of 'unawareness', is not to say that (Para)Brahman is 'unaware', as if there were a knower there to make that self-observation, for it is(very metaphorically) unqualified 'unawareness' itself. 

 

I feel it's the other way around.  To be aware there needs to be a knower, therefore Brahman can't be aware.  If it's aware it could also become tangible (immanent aspect) which is part of Shiva who is both transcendent and immanent at the same time.

[neti neti]

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

I feel it's the other way around.  To be aware there needs to be a knower, therefore Brahman can't be aware.  If it's aware it could also become tangible (immanent aspect) which is part of Shiva who is both transcendent and immanent at the same time.

 

Whether in its nirguna or saguna aspect, Brahman is still Brahman. Otherwise, one would be suggesting that the knower of Brahman is other than Brahman. There is no separation. Just as there is only Shiva, there is likewise only Brahman.

[s1va]

3 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Whether in its nirguna or saguna aspect, Brahman is still Brahman. Otherwise, one would be suggesting that the knower of Brahman is other than Brahman. There is no separation. Just as there is only Shiva, there is likewise only Brahman.

 

Agree. But, with the definition given for Shiva, all these are aspects basically.  It is not so with Brahman. To classify as saguna, nirguna vs. para Brahman itself is duality in certain ways.  By definition given in Upanishads (with AV interpretation), Brahman can't be this and that at the same time.  It is either this or that entirely.

[neti neti]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Agree. But, with the definition given for Shiva, all these are aspects basically.  It is not so with Brahman. To classify as saguna, nirguna vs. para Brahman itself is duality in certain ways.  By definition given in Upanishads (with AV interpretation), Brahman can't be this and that at the same time.  It is either this or that entirely.

 

The conceptualized factor of personifying itself is duality, else aspects could not be described.

 

There has been no pitting of one against another, nor has any weight been given toward certainty of similarity between two descriptors. Parabrahman, where words and mind cannot reach, is all there is, and indeed even that is to overspeak.

 

As consciousness, there is only Brahman. There is no question of whether Brahman is either this or that, or both this and that.

 

"Truth is one. Sages call it by many names." ~Rig Veda

[dwai]

On 11/6/2018 at 4:20 PM, s1va said:

A friend pointed out with one word the difference between the non-dual in KS and Vedanta.  I thought it will be good to share this here.

 

The non-dual (Shiva) in KS is 'aware', but the Brahman from AV is unaware.

 

 

pratyabhijña is also talked about in great detail in Mandukya Karikas and associated commentary. Read my post on ekātmapratyayasāram.

[s1va]

On 11/8/2018 at 9:40 AM, dwai said:

pratyabhijña is also talked about in great detail in Mandukya Karikas and associated commentary. Read my post on ekātmapratyayasāram.

 

I already shared my thoughts about Mandukya Upanishad in this context in another thread.  Mandukya is short and precise, has no concept of pratyabhijñā or anything even relatively close.

 

Of course, commentaries later can add what they liked from other systems such as KS.  This has happened over the past and nothing wrong in Advaita taking over good stuff from other traditions and adapting, as long as the due credit is given to those systems.  Also to have the clear understanding of what Advaita Vedanta is, from the real Upanishads themselves and direct works of Shankara is very important.  One will not find KS concepts in these.

[neti neti]

On 11/9/2018 at 1:26 PM, s1va said:

 

I already shared my thoughts about Mandukya Upanishad in this context in another thread.  Mandukya is short and precise, has no concept of pratyabhijñā or anything even relatively close.

 

It actually does capture it quite eloquently so in its poetic exposition of that primordial sound, A-U-M, in which the universe appears and disappears. Each letter corresponding with the waking, dream and sleep states, respectively.

 

 

 

[3bob]

shall we dissect this also?    

 

Chandogya Upanishad, Part 8

Chapter I - Brahman in the Heart

1
Om. There is in this city of Brahman an abode, the small lotus of the heart; within it is a small akasa. Now what exists within that small akasa, that is to be sought after, that is what one should desire to understand.

2-3
If they should say to him: "Now, with regard to the abode, the small lotus, in this city of Brahman and the small akasa within it-what is there in it that is to be sought after and what is there that one should desire to understand?"
Then he (the teacher) should say: "As far as, verily, this great akasa extends, so far extends the akasa within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever belongs to him (i.e. the embodied creature) in this world and whatever does not, all that is contained within it (i.e. the akasa in the heart)."

4
If they (the pupils) should say: "If everything that exists-all beings and all desires-is contained in this city of Brahman, then what is left of it when old age overcomes it or when it perishes?"

5
Then he (the teacher) should say: "With the old age of the body, That (i.e. Brahman, described as the akasa in the heart) does not age; with the death of the body, That does not die. That Brahman and not the body is the real city of Brahman. In It all desires are contained. It is the Self-free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from grief free from hunger, free from thirst; Its desires come true, Its thoughts come true. Just as, here on earth, people follow as they are commanded by a leader and depend upon whatever objects they desire, be it a country or a piece of land so also those who are ignorant of the Self depend upon other objects and experience the result of their good and evil deeds.

6
"And just as, here on earth, whatever is earned through work perishes, so does the next world, won by virtuous deeds, perish. Those who depart hence without having realized the Self and these true desires-for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart hence after having realized the Self and these true desires-for them there is freedom in all the worlds....

[mrpasserby]

I am posting this with thanks to whoever led me to this web sit where after reading the following I finally understand the difference between dual and non dual.

Dual consciousness

'An occultist learns through self-control and discipline to work on two planes at once: to be partly out of his body even as he is working on the physical plane, so that while he is writing or speaking, he may be doing other things with his astral body. When such is the case with an occultist, little need be said of a full-blown jnani who is resting in his own swarupa, essential nature. A jnani has dual consciousness. He has consciousness of Brahman as well as of the world. He sees the world as a dream within himself. A jnani is always in samadhi. There is no ‘in samadhi’ and ‘out of samadhi’ for a jnani like that for a raja yogi.' http://www.yogamag.net/archives/2009/bfeb09/jivan.shtml 

[mrpasserby]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:05 PM, s1va said:

There is a distinction -- in my view -- between the non dual Brahman that Vedanta talks about and the nondual that Abhinavagupta describes in Monism of the Kashmir Shaivism.  The first one states that Brahman alone is real and everything else is unreal.  This seems to be about subject and object.  It concludes that Brahman is the only real thing and all else is mithya, false or unreal.  Whereas the Abhinavagupta's nondual seems to be stating consciousness and energy are not two separate phenomenon, but they are one.

#s1va, thanks for this information, it is clear to me that Brahman is the only permanent unchanging source of the universe, while all other energies are Not permanent  and constantly changing. this is with the caveat that this changing can in some cases last billions of years like our earth or even the pyramids that have lasted many thousands of years.

[s1va]

On 7/6/2019 at 1:27 PM, mrpasserby said:

#s1va, thanks for this information, it is clear to me that Brahman is the only permanent unchanging source of the universe, while all other energies are Not permanent  and constantly changing. this is with the caveat that this changing can in some cases last billions of years like our earth or even the pyramids that have lasted many thousands of years.

 

Glad you liked the topic and posts.  I have a different take on the source more in line with Dao or Emptiness and the Oneness emerging from that.

 

Time is irrelevant after a stage or layer because it is a perceived limitation arising out of the self imposed veil that results in maya tattva.  Subsequently the pure light/consciousness that is 'One' (In KS this would be Shiva) turns into the multitudes through the 36 tattvas or principles.  Oneness is beyond maya, beyond the time, space or any of the other 5 limiting factors described in KS.  The billions of years are valid within the confines of mind which is the byproduct of maya.  Above the layer of maya, with the pure tattvas there are no such limitations as the time and space.  Each one of us trace our way back through these layers until we reach the state where we started off.

 

Checkout the 36 tattvas (principles) and the 4 layers of KS in this thread from my PPD.  These are the ingredients with which the universe is made off.  IMO, the KS and other tantric systems (including Buddhist tantra and systems like Dzogchen) explain the makings of the universe (starting from One/Shiva or from the light/consciousness layer and the transformation into mind, individual local 'I' perception, duality and into the multitudes) better compared to other systems.  

 

 

The non dual Shiva and other principles described in KS are different from the Brahman, maya and other concepts of the Vedanta.  Some of them may sound similar in name, but masters from the KS tradition such as Abhinava Gupta and Kshemaraja have gone  to great lengths to explain the differences.  I have described some of the key differences in the concepts in 4 parts starting with the post below.