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 enlightenment be 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 Selfrecognition (pratyabhij). In this process I will use a number of sources but will rely primarily on Abhinavaguptas Tantrloka and 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 of existence. 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 when referring to the nondual schools. When referring to the dualist aiva schools the expression aiva Siddhnta will be used.

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 ivadri writes:
Let iva, who has taken the form of our individual Selves offer His obeisance to iva who through His aktis extends 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, prakrti 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:

asmadrpasamvia svtmantmanivrae iva karotu nijay nama akty tattmane tmaiva

sarvabhveu sphurannirvrtacidvibhu aniruddhecchprasara prasaraddrkkriya iva . Dr. 1: 1-2.

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 (smrti) 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 which past experience and present awareness merge together. The important thing is that the

visrnekasadbjagarbha trailokyanakam prastvya hara sahartum tvatta konya kavi PV comm. 1:1:1.

kama St. Cin. v. 59.

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 ivastras 1: 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 rope6 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),
5

The aiva scholars reject both the unreal transformation, that is vivartavda of Advaita Vednta and the real transformation of the Skhyas, that is parimavda and postulate their own theory known as bhsavda. According to this theory, the ultimate cause is ivas svtantrya akti; and the process of creation is described in terms of appearance, shining or manifesting (bhsa) of everything that already exists in the supreme consciousness. Thus all that which appears whether subject, object, idea, action, etc. is nothing but bhsa and everything appears as a reflection in the mirror of consciousness. 6 Advaita Vednta explains wrong knowledge by postulating the super-imposition or adhysa. The result of 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 becomes manifest only through my that projects the universe like a magician. However, during that projection the 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 through remembrance of something already experienced. This kind of super-imposition is called avidy. The nature of this avidy when analyzed from the empirical perspective (vyvahrika) is described as anirvacanya. Avidy is described as something positive though intangible, which cannot be described either as existence or non-existence, which is made of three qualities and is antagonistic to knowledge (Vedntasra, p.22). My is said to be not real because it disappears at the dawn of knowledge and it is not unreal because her effects persist as long as it is not destroyed.

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 (pau or au), which is the result of contraction of the powers of knowledge and action. While explaining the nature and origin of mala, 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
ajnnamiti na jnnbhavactiprasaata sa hi lodike 'pyasti na ca tasysti sasrti ato jnepasya
Words karma and mala stand here for krma mala and ava mala.

tattvasya smastyenprathtmakam jnnameva tadannam ivastreu bhiam T 1: 25- 26.

8 9

varasya ca y svtmatirodhits nimittatm sbhyeti karmamalayoratondivyavasthiti tirodhi

prarpasyprtva tacca praam prati bhinnena bhvena sprhto lolok mala viuddhasvapraktmaivarpatay vin na kincityujyate tena heturatra mahevara T:13: 110b 113a.

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 nonself (vipartanicaya). This is to say that the limited knowing subject wrongly conceives the Self as being body, intellect, pra or 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.

Paurujna and baudhjna nourish each other. When the determinate notion
(adhyavasya) I know this in this way arises 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.
12

Tatra puso yadalnnam malkhyam tajjamapyaya svapracitkriyrpaivatvaratmakam

sakocidrkkriyrpam tatpaoravikalpitam tadajnnam na buddhyao 'dhyavasydyabhvata T 1:

37-8.

abiding in the intellect13. According to Abhinavagupta, the paurujna can be eliminated through initiation (dk), while baudhjna cannot. 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 pauruajna and baudhajna also 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 of stras15. The importance of scriptural study accompanied by the practice based on dk, as understood by Abhinavagupta, will further be ascertained from the following verses of T 1:41-5116:
13 14

T 1: 39-40. 14 TS p. 3. 15 TS. p. 3. gama is said to be contained within the pure I-consciousness and therefore is an innate aspect of consciousness. In PV 2:3: 1-2, Abhinavagupta defines gama as the inner activity of the great Lord, who is nothing but consciousness alone (cit). It is the inner voice on the level of par, which is then expressed by one who attains that state when he descends to the level of vaikhar. Thus,gama is nothing but the firm determinate thought of the experience of par. And the collection of words comprising it is secondarily called gama because it is instrumental in arousing such thoughts.Furthermore, gama is said to be contained within undifferentiated consciousness, it externalizes into multiple forms on the level of vaikhar and helps lead the mind of a practitioner back to its source. In his commentary on the Bhagavadgt 17: 1-2, Abhinavagupta describes stra as the very nature of supreme Brahman existing in His essential nature as par vk which is the state of pure vimara. Then because of its freedom (svtantrya), par vk externalizes itself from within, beginning with the subtlest aspect of praava and gradually assuming the form of gross speech, such as various popular teaching, etc.

kie tu pausaskre pusah prptaparasthite| vikasvara tadvijna paurua nirvikalpakam|| vikasvarvikalptmjnaucityena yvas| tadbauddha yasya tatpausna prgvatpoya ca po|| tatra dkdin pausnaajna dhvasi yadyapi| tathpi taccharrnte tajjna yajyate sphuam|| bauddhajnena tu yad bauddhajnajmbhitam| vilyate tad jvanmukhti karatale sthit|| dkpi bauddhavijnaprv satya vimocik ten tatrpi baudhasya jnasysti pradhnat|| jnjnagata caitaddvitva svyambhuve rurau| matagdau kta rimatkheapldidaiikai|| tathvidhvasytmabauddhavijnasampade| strameva pradhna yajjeyatattvapradarakam|| dky galitepyantarajne pauruatmani| dhgatasynivttatvdvikalpopi hi sabhveta||
16

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 of vikalpa, 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 a result 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 of stras. Thus even in this instance the intellectual knowledge is the 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, Matagatantra and 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 piaptcchiva vrajet| itastu tadaiveti strasytra pradhnata||

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 moka only after he drops his body. On the other hand, one who is free from that notion of duality [attains moka] even while 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 mala which 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 stras over the other scriptures. After initiation, one attains the competency to study the aiva texts, which in turn remove the thought constructs, the root cause of worldly existence.

References

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

Indica Books, 2002.

varapratyabhijnvimarini of Abhinavagupta. K.C. Pandey, trans. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass, 1954.

Tantrloka of Abhinavagupta with Rjnaka Jayarathas commentary . 12 vols. Srinagar

and Bombay: 1918-1938. KSTS.

Tantrasra of Abhinavagupta Bombay: 1918. KSTS No. 17. ivastra of Vasugupta. Jaideva Singh, trans. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979. ivadri of Somnanda with Utpaladevas Vrtti. Srinagar: 1934. KSTS No. 54. Stavacintmai of Nryaabhaa with the commentary by Kemarja. M.R. Shastri,
ed. KSTS Nos. 10, 1918.

10