 |
| Kamalakar Mishra |
Kashmir Saivism accepts the existence of the self, evident as the doer (karta) and knower (jñātā). kartarijñātari svātmanyādisiddhe maheśvare. - Iswara Pratyabhijna Karika 1.1.2 It is further maintained that this self is in bondage [kintu mohavaśādasmin I. P. K 1.1.3] and so it is not able to enjoy its real nature. Before we can understand moksa, it is necessary to know the nature of bondage.
Bondage is ignorance (ajñāna) — ignorance of one’s real nature. This ignorance is of two types—bauddha and paurusa. The word ajñāna although literally meaning “absence of knowledge,” is used in the sense of “illusion,” not the absence of knowledge but wrong knowledge. Wrong knowledge means incomplete or imperfect knowledge (apūrna-jñāna, or apūrna-khyāti) — the incomplete knowledge of reality.
A question may be asked here, even if ignorance is understood as wrong knowledge, how does this ignorance bind a person? Is ignorance so powerful that it can work existential change in a person to the extent that one becomes a different — changes from Siva to paśu? The answer is YES. The power of ignorance to bring about change in the personality is evident in the dream state. When a king in a dream finds himself deprived of his kingdom and roaming as a beggar suffering from hunger and so on, no real physical change has occurred. What has happened is that there is something wrong in the king’s mind. He takes himself to be a suffering beggar, and he does suffer in the dream but when the king wakes up, and his mind is corrected, he changes back from the beggar to the king.
The wrong apprehension changes reality, for all practical purposes. The proverb “as we think so we are’’ can be understood all the more clearly in an idealistic system like Kashmir Saivism, where consciousness, or thought, itself is the reality. There is not much difference between imagination and reality. This is the dynamic at work when a yogin effects physical change with the power of thought (mantra).
We are a bound soul because we mistake ourselves for a bound soul. But of course, this is not an intellectual misapprehension (bauddha ajñāna), but an existential one (paurusa ajñāna) — as occurs in a dream. Dream ignorance is not mere intellectual ignorance. But at the same time, the change in the dream is not a physical change; it is just a change in the mental state or consciousness. So although there is a virtual change of personality in the dream, it is just due to ignorance, which is related to the mind, not matter.
It should also be noted that the bondage of consciousness cannot be of the material type; it can only be of the mental type. The nature of ignorance (illusion) is wrong thinking or wrong knowing. In this sense, the bondage of consciousness is not a “real” or “material” bondage; it is bondage in the form of wrong thinking. Of course, the language used to express bondage is the language of matter. “Bondage,” “covering,” “obstruction,” “dirt,” (mala) — these are all terms that apply to the material world, symbolically applied to Consciousness in order to denote spiritual impurity. And the spiritual impurity itself is merely wrong thinking, which is the characteristic of a deluded mind.
It is clear that bondage is ignorance or wrong knowledge, but what is the nature of this wrong knowledge? The answer is “duality” (dvaita-prathā) — the sense of duality or otherness — the sense that the people and objects of the world are different from or other than oneself. Abhinavagupta says that the sense of duality is the real ignorance, and it is this that really binds.[TA 1.30: dvaitaprathā tadajñānam tucchatvād bandha ucyate]. Non-duality is the awareness that all are oneself or belong to one; it is the sense of one’s unity with all, the state of universal love. What differentiates one from the totality is the ego, which is the sense of being limited to one particular individuality, which one calls “me.” Ego results in taking one’s own person alone to be oneself and seeing the rest of the world as “other.” This is another name for selfishness. This is the ignorance or illusion that binds. It is like the case of the mother who, by an unfortunate turn of events, was separated from her children. When her children are at last brought before her, she does not know that they are her own children and takes them to be “other” than her. The great discovery made by the Tantric and Upanisadic seers is that the entire universe is one with the Self, oneself, but ignorance keeps us unaware of this all-fulfilling truth.
THE CONCEPT OF MALA (“IMPURITY”)
It becomes clear from the above treatment of ignorance that ignorance is not a negative state but is something positive — a positive state of wrong knowledge. Wrong knowledge is itself really a state of spiritual impurity (aśuddhi). Since it is positive impurity, ignorance is called dirt (mala). [TA 1.23: malamajñānamicchanti samsārānkurakāranam]. Mala is a term of the physical world, literally meaning “dirt” or “filth.” Applied to consciousness, it means spiritual or mental impurity. It is the impurity with which consciousness, in its present state (the state of the bound individual) is tainted.
Since the impurity obscures Consciousness (the Self) from sight, it is called “darkness” ( timira or tamas). Since the impurity covers or veils Consciousness, it is called “covering" or “veil” (āvarana or ācchādana); [TA 9.66: svātmapracchādanecchaiva vastubhūtastathā malah] it is like a curtain or cloak (kañcuka) that veils the real nature of the Self. Since the impurity prevents the light of the Self from coming to the fore, it is called “obstruction” (avarodha). Since it binds consciousness, it is called “bondage”(bandham) [jñānam bandhah - Siva Sutra 1.2] or “fetters” (argalā).
At this point it would be relevant to consider the question. How is impurity (mala), which is bondage, related to Siva? From the point of view of Siva, bondage is the free sportive activity (krīdā or līlā) of Siva — the sport of limiting oneself. Siva’s very desire to freely limit or cover Himself is itself the impurity.[TA 9.65: svatantrasya śivasyecchā ghaṭarūpo yathā ghaṭaḥ |svātmapracchādanecchaiva vastubhūtastathā malaḥ ||]
In the Tantric tradition, impurity is of three types:
(a) ānava mala
(b) māyīya mala
(c) karma mala.
All three types of impurity are the products of māyā [māyāśaktyaiva tattrayam I.P.K. 3.2.5.] the limiting or covering principle. All three should thus be called māyīya malas. But the name māyīya is given to the one particular mala that consists of seeing difference or otherness from oneself. Abhinavagupta is aware of this linguistic discrepancy, and he writes “the name māyīya given to the impurity of seeing difference is just a name; all three malas are also māyīya by virtue of being the products of māyā.” [bhinnasya yatprathanam tasya māyīyam iti samjñāmātram, māyā-krtatvena māyīyatā malatrayasyāpi. I.P.V. 3.2.5]
Ānava mala means the identification of Consciousness with a limited individuality. Limited individuality is technically called “ego.” Ānava is thus the sense of ego. The word ānava is the adjective of anu, which means the limited soul. Anu also means “the small.” Here anu is taken not in the sense of being small in size, but in the sense of being limited or finite.
Since finitude or limitation means imperfection, ānava means the sense of being imperfect (apūrnam-manyatā). [anūnām lolikā nāma niskarmā yābhilāsitā/ apūrnam-manyatā-jñānam malam sāvacchidojjhitā// T.A. 9.62.] It should be noted here that Absolute Consciousness (Siva) has not really become limited, what has happened is that the individual soul (anu or paśu), mistakes itself for a limited or imperfect being. This is like what happens in a dream. A king, when he becomes a beggar in a dream, does not really become the beggar; he mistakenly thinks he has become a beggar, as his mind is under an illusion. But this misapprehension of his real nature is such that it brings about a virtual change in his existence, and he is a beggar for all practical purposes, as long as the dream persists. Similarly, the individual (anu) which is really the perfect Siva, mistakes itself for a limited person. [ata eva apūmam-manyatā, ata eva pūrnajñānātmakasvarūpākhyā- terajñānam — sañkucitajñānam, ata eva svarūpāpahānyā malam. T.A.V. 9.62] and this misapprehension turns it into a limited person for all practical purposes. This is the power of ignorance (ajñāna). The same is true of the other impurities (malas) also.
Furthermore, the individual (anu) takes itself to be imperfect because, although its real nature is the ubiquitous Self, it feels identified with an individuality that has its natural limitations. The individual becomes finite and therefore imperfect. As a result it feels lack or want in itself, which in turn creates hankering (lolikā) [anūnām lolikā nāma - T.A. 9.62.] in it for the desired but unacquired things.
In the Iśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikā, Utpaladeva says that the ānava can be understood in two ways:
(a) “There is no freedom of Consciousness,”
(b) “There is no consciousness of freedom.”
Both of these predicaments are due to the loss of one's real nature, which is Absolute Consciousness or Siva. [svātantryahānirbodhasya svātantryasyāpyabodhatā/ dvidhānavam malamidam svasvarūpāpahānitah// I.P.K. 3.2.4. - The two types of anava-mala, the impurity of finitude, are pure Consciousness losing its independent active power and an active entity identifying itself with some unconscious element.] Both proceed out of the loss of [awareness of] one’s real nature. Freedom (svātantrya), which means the absence of all limitation and therefore also means perfection, is the very nature of Pure Consciousness. This freedom of Consciousness is lost in the state of ānava — Consciousness becomes bound or limited. Ānava can thus be understood as the loss of the freedom of Consciousness. Second, in ānava, one is not aware of this freedom (perfection) that is one’s real nature. The freedom (perfection) already exists, but one does not recognize it. These two predicaments of the soul — namely the loss of the freedom of Consciousness and the non-cognition of this freedom — occur simultaneously and function in vicious reciprocity. It is like the case of the rope-snake illusion when one sees the snake because one does not see the rope, and one does not see the rope because one sees the snake in its place. In ānava, one is not aware of one’s real nature because one’s real nature is not at the fore, and one’s real nature is not at the fore because one is not aware of it. Reality and the awareness of reality are reciprocal.
Ānava is the principal mala, as it holds all the other malas within it. It is the primordial mala that gives rise to the other two malas. The first thing that māyā does is make the all-ubiquitous Consciousness a limited person (anu), which offers the necessary ground or cause for the creation of the ego sense. This ego sense is the main obstruction to the realization of the Self. To use an analogy, the wave is separated from the ocean because it has taken an individuality, otherwise it is nothing but water or the ocean. The wave cannot become the ocean as long as it maintains its individuality. It is only when the wave loses its individuality that it becomes completely one with the ocean. The water has taken a particular form (rūpa) and the name (nāma) “wave” is given to it. The nameless and formless water has taken a particular name and form (nāma-rūpa). But what is the status of this nāma-rūpa? It is not a reality, for the reality is water. The moment the wave subsides, it becomes what it really is — pure water. Similarly, the ego is a nāma-rūpa that the Self (Consciousness) has taken on, and the moment this condition subsides, the individual consciousness merges into the ocean of the universal Consciousness. Whether the renunciation of the ego should be considered a case of suicide or one of self-fulfillment will be determined later.
Even in practical life we find that ego is the root cause of all evil. Ego and selfishness are two sides of the same coin. Ego is like a post upon which all the evil qualities hang. When this post of ego falls, all the evil falls too. We also find in practical life that the more the ego of a person is thinned or dissolved, the more the peace, power, beauty, illumination, and joy of the Inner Self flows in him or her and the more self-fulfillment the person feels.
The treatment of the ego that I have presented may suggest that since ego is the cause of evil and since it is Siva who has created the ego, it is Siva, and not the individual, who is responsible for the evil. But it would be a naive understanding of Absolutism to think that everything that we find on earth is a creation of God (Siva). Humanity can also create many things of its own accord, as humans are not robots but beings possessed of free will. The vanity or egoism that goes with selfishness is entirely the creation of the individual (paśu), and therefore egoism is the responsibility of humanity. The egoism that is the actual cause of evil is different from the natural ego that attends the limited individuality created by Siva through His power of ignorance. The natural ego is simply the knowledge of oneself as an individual different from others. This metaphysical or natural ego differs from the egoism (abhimāna) that is responsible for evil, which is the creation of the paśu, not of Siva. When, for example, one asks a person, “Who are you?” the person replies, “I am so and so.” What is at work here is the natural ego, which is really harmless and without which our behavior (vyavahāra) in the world is not possible. But when the person takes the credit for something, or imposes his or her will on others, this is the actual ego that causes evil. This natural ego, or the sense of limited individuality, may indirectly serve as a cause of the egoism in question. It may even be a necessary cause of it, for there can be no egoism without the sense of limited individuality, but it is not the sufficient cause, for it cannot itself create egoity. Egoism is the creation of our own free will. Śiva has created individuality, through the agency of ignorance, for the joyful pursuits of life. It is a sportive activity not only on the part of Śiva; it is meant for sport even on the part of the paśu, as is evident in the example of a child. Individuality becomes a cause for evil only when we add egoism to it. Egoism is perhaps the only thing that is entirely the creation of humanity — it further creates all the evil of the world.
Ego functions in two ways — the cognitive and the conative. When we take credit for the powers that are really not ours, as all powers belong to God or Nature, then this is a case of wrong understanding. This may be called the cognitive ego. When we try to impose ourselves on others or insist that our will be done, this too is ego. Since this ego involves willing or activity, this can be called the conative ego.
Māyīya mala means the sense of duality or difference — the false sense that one is different or separate from the rest of the world or that one’s fellow beings are “other” than oneself. [bhinnavedyaprathātraiva māyākhyam — I.P.K. 3.2.5] The word māyīya is the adjective form of māyā; it means the impurity pertaining to māyā. The chief characteristic of māyā is that it creates the sense of difference, or duality, and māyīya knowledge would thus be the knowledge of duality. [T.A. 1.30.] Since māyā mainly consists of the sense of duality, the impurity (mala) of seeing difference is termed māyīya.
Māyīya mala presupposes ānava mala, for there can be no apprehension of difference ( bheda) unless one is limited to a particular individuality. When one becomes limited to one individuality, that means one becomes separated or cut off from the rest of the world. Spinoza has said that determination means negation (determinatio est negatio). To determine a thing means to limit that thing to a particular characteristic — the characteristic determined — and therefore to isolate or separate it from others. For example, when we determine the word “this” by saying “this is a table,” we are actually limiting the word “this” to the table. This means that now “this” is the table alone; it is not the chair, not the stool, and so on. By determining or limiting “this” to the table, we are actually negating it from referring to the rest of the world. Similarly, when one is limited to one individuality, one is cut off from the totality; one cannot be all. The sense of difference is the result of the limitation to one individuality. Māyīya mala is a result of ānava mala.
It is not difficult to understand why the sense of difference is an impurity (mala). Whatever obstructs our real nature, or takes us away from our real nature, is impurity. Our real nature is pure and perfect, and whatever defiles it, or makes it impure, is mala (“impurity”). In our real nature we are one with all, which is a state of supreme bliss. But the sense each of us has that he or she is just a limited personality, and not all, obscures our nature and causes our purity and bliss to disappear.
The word kārma is the adjective of karma, and thus karma mala means the impurity pertaining to karma (“action”). Karma is voluntary action that we perform by exerting our will and that arises out of the sense of want or lack in us. This is in contrast to kriyā, which is the spontaneous, natural, or automatic flow of activity that naturally arises out of the fullness of bliss, not out of some want or lack. Since karma is voluntary action that we perform by exerting our will, it falls in the ethical realm of good and bad, or virtue and vice (punya and pāpa), involving the reaping of moral fruit generated by karma.
Karma thus has two important characteristics —
(a) it arises out of the sense of lack or want, and
(b) it is voluntary action performed by exerting the will.
It is obvious that karma is possible only when one is in the state of imperfection, which in turn is possible only when one is ignorant (ajñāna) of one’s real nature, which is the perfect Self. Thus karma is action done in the state of ignorance. In his Iśvarapratyabhijñā-kārikā, Utpaladeva describes kārma mala as the action done when the doer is ignorant of his real nature (kartari abodhe). [kartaryabbodhe kārmam tu I.P.K. 3.2.5.] Commenting on this in his Vimarśinī, Abhinavagupta says, “Kārma mala comes when the doer is in the state of ignorance and imperfection, has the sense of duality, and performs action in the form of virtue and vice (dharmādharma), which leads to birth and reaping the fruit of actions.” [tatra karturabodharūpasya dehāderbhinnavedya prathane sati dharmādharmarūparh kārmam malam, yato janma bhogaśca. I.P.V. 3.2.5,] Since one has to reap the fruits of one’s actions, according to the Law of Karma, one has to take a new birth, and thus karma is the cause of the changing world of birth and death (samsāra). [samsārakāranam karma samsārāñkura ucyate. T.A. 9.88.] The variety of existence is said to be due to karma.[caturdaśavidham bhūtavaicitryam karmajam yatah. T.A. 9.89]
It is obvious that, like māyīya mala, kārma mala arises out of the principal mala ānava. Ānava is the sense of imperfection. [apūrnam-manyatā-jñānam malam — T.A. 9.62] When due to ānava, one becomes limited and imperfect, one naturally feels want or lack in oneself, and in order to fulfill that lack or want, one performs action. If one is already full — that is, all one’s desires are fulfilled and one needs nothing — then what is the sense of performing action? One can perform action (karma) only in order to fulfill some lack; but if there is no lack or want, why should one perform action at all? Karma mala, which pertains to the performance of action (karma), originates from ānava mala; [kārma malam, tasyāpi kāranam ānavamiti. T.A.V. 9.88-89] in this sense ānava is again the principal mala.[evam kārmasyaiva malasya mukhyatayā samsārakāranatve’ pi etadeva hi prādhānyenoktam yattasyāpīdam kāranamiti. TA 9.62]
In the state of perfection, although karma, or voluntary effortful action, is not possible, kriyā, or spontaneous activity arising out of fullness as the free and natural overflow of bliss, is very much possible. Moreover kriyā, unlike karma, does not create bondage, as kriyā is a natural and spontaneous flow of activity that is beyond the ethical categories of “good” and “bad.”
Why should karma be bondage? All the systems of Indian philosophy consider karma to be bondage for the soul and detrimental to the attainment of moksa. If we understand the nature of karma and the nature of moksa, and also understand the distinction of karma from kriyā, we will see that karma and moksa are opposites, whereas kriyā and moksa go together. Karma becomes bondage for two reasons. First, karma takes us away from the inner Self. To express it allegorically, when one performs karma, one moves forward and does not relax in oneself. However, the Self is not forward, but backward as the inner ground of oneself; therefore, Self-realization is a matter of going back or withdrawing, not of moving forward. To use an analogy, suppose one is climbing up a rope hanging from the ceiling — this is action (karma), and this action will lead one toward the ceiling. But further suppose that one’s aim is not to go to the ceiling but to the ground, then what should one do? One should not make the effort of climbing, for it will take one further away from the ground; rather one should undo what one is already doing — one should loosen one’s grip on the rope so that one falls down to the ground automatically. Moksa, or Self-realization, is a matter of “falling down to the ground”; it is a question of withdrawing or receding, not moving forward or climbing up.
Action is primarily mental; it arises in the mind in the form of will and physical activity follows. When we perform action, the mind is not resting within ourselves but is moving outside of ourselves. In the language of yoga, action is tension, for the mind, while performing action, is not at rest but is exerting itself. But moksa is a state of relaxation, as opposed to action, which is a state of tension. Moksa is the state of being seated in or taking rest in Oneself (ātma-viśrānti). All the yogic forms of meditation consist of withdrawing into oneself by non-doing or non-thinking. When the mind is thinking or doing, it is switching outside; meditation is withdrawing inside — coming back to oneself.
Of course, when we withdraw or relax, automatic creative activity flows through us of its own accord, for spontaneous activity is the very nature of Consciousness (the Self). According to the Tantric tradition, this type of activity is called kriyā, not karma. This state of activity can be paradoxically described as the state of “actionless activity,” or “relaxed activity,” where one is a doer and yet not a doer. The activity is not performed by exerting the will; it flows automatically. The karma yoga of the Gītā is the same. It is not karma but kriyā. Karma is seen as bondage in the Gītā, too. [yajñārthātkarmanonyatra loko’yam karmabandhanah. BH.G. 3.9] Karma yoga lies in surrendering the will to the Lord (the Higher Self) and allowing the spontaneous activity of the Self to flow through oneself. This is the state of “actionless activity” or “activity in relaxation,” where one is a doer and yet not a doer. [karmanyabhipravrtto’pi naiva kiñcit karoti sah. BH.G. 4.20.]
Kriyā, although a form of activity, is a state of relaxation, because one does not do the action by exerting one’s will; one remains seated in the Self, and the action is automatically done. Or the action spontaneously flows while one is sitting silent, doing nothing. Thus karma, which takes us away from the Self, is bondage, while kriyā, which is action in a state of rest or relaxation, is not bondage.
The other reason why karma is bondage, is that we are bound to reap the moral fruit of our actions, good or bad. Karma is what we perform voluntarily, so we are responsible for it. It falls in the moral (ethical) category — it may be “good” or “bad.” [dharmādharmātmakam karma sukhaduhkhādilakSanaM. T.A. 9.121] This binds us, as we are obliged to reap its fruit, both good and bad. If it is morally right action (dharma), it will result in pleasure or happiness; if it is sin (adharma), it will result in pain or suffering. And in order to be able to reap the fruits, we are forced by the Law of Karma into rebirth; [yā tvasya karmanaścitraphaladatvena karmatā T.A. 9.99.] this is how we become bound in the world of birth and death (samsāra). [kārmamevaikam mukhyam samsārakāranam. Quoted in T.A.V. 9.62]
It is worth noting that both bad and good actions are binding to the soul. Even the good action, by virtue of being karma which takes us away from the Self, binds. That is why it is said that both good and bad actions are fetters that bind — bad action is an iron fetter, whereas good action is a fetter made of gold. Good action leads to heaven and bad action to hell, but both destinations are within our bound state. This is like living in a universal prison as a prisoner and being rewarded or punished for good or bad actions done within the prison life. Moksa however, is the attainment of our natural state of absolute freedom, which is also the state of freedom from the prison of birth and death. After attaining moksa one can still remain in the prison if one likes, not as a prisoner but as a free visitor or as an administrative officer of the prison. The prisoner, in order to be able to attain his or her freedom, must rise above both good and bad actions. That is why the Indian tradition maintains that one has to rise above both virtue and vice, truth and falsehood. tyaja dharmam adharmam ca ubhe satyānṛte tyaja |. ubhe satyānṛte tyaktvā yena tyajasi tat tyaja || - Mahabharata XII: 337, 40]
Needless to say, the state of kriyā is the state of freedom — freedom from prison. Kriyā does not bind one to the prison, as it does not fall within the ethical category of right and wrong (dharma and adharma). Although naturally good, it is itself beyond good and bad. It can be termed “spiritual” activity as opposed to the activity that binds, which falls in the ethical category of good and bad. Spirituality preserves in itself the merits of morality and is free from the demerits, as we shall see later.
Thus we see that ānava mala, māyīya mala, and kārma mala are the three forms of impurity (mala) that bind the Self (Consciousness). All three are impurity because all obscure the Self, our real nature, and keep us away from the Self. Freedom from impurity is equal to going back to our real nature, the freedom of the Self.
If we look at the thirty-six categories of Creation accepted in Kashmir Śaivism, we will find that the malas are not enumerated among them. The reason they are not placed within the categories is that they themselves are not the actual things (tattvas) that evolve from Reality; they are the results or consequences of the function of certain tattvas. Māyā, together with the five sheaths (pañca-kañcuka) which evolve from her, is the tattva that evolves from Reality (Śiva). Māyā, the matrix of the kañcukas, is also called kañcuka, and when added to the five kañcukas, it makes six sheaths (sad-kañcuka). It is the sad-kañcuka that causes the malas. When the sheath functions, the result is mala. Mala is a functional consequence of the kañcuka. This is the reason the malas are not enumerated in the tattvas.
THE MEANING OF MOKSHA
Moksha, or mukti, has two meanings — a negative meaning and a positive one. The negative meaning of moksa is the freedom from impurity (ajñāna or māyā). This is suggested by the literal meaning of the word mukti. The word mukti, or moksa, literally means “release,” “freeing,” or “unbinding.” As we have already seen, the soul is in bondage — the bondage of ignorance, or māyā — that obstructs the real nature of the soul. Moksa is the release or freedom from the bondage of ignorance. The soul is bound by limitations and moksa is freedom from limitations. It is not that one becomes free from some limitations for some time under some conditions; one becomes free from all limitations for all time under all conditions. [tasmānmukto’ pyavacchedādavacchedāntarasthiteh/ amukta eva, muktastu sarvāvacchedavarjitah// T.A. 1.34] Moksa is not relative freedom but absolute freedom.
Since moksa is understood as release from something — ignorance or impurity — it follows that moksa is a negative attainment. We lose something in moksa, but what do we gain? We gain our own real nature that was hitherto obstructed. [mokso hi nāma naivānyah svarūpaprathanam hi sah. T.A. 1.156]
Similarly, in moksa we become what we really are. Our real nature was obscured and now that the obstruction is cleared away, we attain our real nature. Moksa is thus also a positive attainment — the attainment of our real nature. Of course, this is not the attainment of a new thing; it is the “getting of the gotten’’ (prāptasya prāptih). [apravarititapūrvo’ tra kevalam mūdhatāvaśāt, śaktiprakāśaneśādivyavahārah pravartyate. I.P.K. 2.3.17] This paradoxical statement is not a tautology; it means that the Self that we attain in moksa is already there; it is not a new thing. In this sense moksa is the “getting of the gotten.’’ But the Self was previously obscured, and we have come to realize it only now; in this sense it is a new event. The Self, or Consciousness, was very much present, but its powers were blunted, just as in the case of a lion in a cage. So it is only when Consciousness is released from captivity that its powers are revealed, just as the powers of the lion come to the fore only when it comes out of the cage. The thing that is attained is thus already there, but the attainment itself is a new thing.
All the systems of Indian philosophy that accept moksa accept both the negative and positive meanings of moksa, namely
(a) moksa is freedom from bondage and
(b) moksa is the attainment of one’s own real nature.
All the systems are thus in agreement with regard to the meaning of moksa as the attainment of the real nature of the soul or self. But what is the real nature of the self or soul? It is here that the differences among the systems of philosophy start. The conception of moksa in a particular system depends upon the conception of the real nature of the soul accepted in that system. We find in the systems of Indian philosophy a hierarchical understanding of the real nature of the soul.
In Vaiśesika, the nature of the soul is only existence (sat); the soul exists but it has no knowledge, no activity, no pleasure, no pain. These are the accidental qualities of the soul. They naturally disappear in the state of moksa, as they are not part and parcel of the soul. In the state of moksa, as conceived by Vaiśesika, one virtually becomes like a stone, as one is devoid even of knowledge. The moksa of Vaiśesika is viewed by the other systems as a disvalue, and is also ridiculed by some of them. A Vaisnava bhakta, for example, says, “I would rather forego moksa, and accept being bom as a jackal in the forest of Vrindāvana (hallowed by the presense of Krsna) than pray for the mukti of Vaiśesika.
- varaṁ vṛndāvane ramye śṛgālatvaṁ vṛṇomy aham | vaiśeṣikokta-mokṣāt tu sukha-leśa-vivarjitāt ||
In Sāmkhya, however, we find an improvement upon the Vaiśesika position with regard to moksa. According to Sāmkhya, the nature of the soul (purusa) is both sat (being) and cit (knowledge), and thus the state of moksa is a state of knowledge. But here, too, the soul is devoid of joy (sukba or ānanda) and activity, as these are the qualities of matter (prakrti). In moksa (or kaivalya, as it is called in Sāmkhya) the soul (purusa) remains a seer or knower and not a doer; it is also devoid of bliss, as bliss goes with prakrti, from which the purusa is completely dissociated in moksa.
Vedānta moves a step further and declares that the real nature of the self (soul or purusa) is not only sat (“existence”) and cit (“knowledge” or “illumination”), but also ānanda (“joy” or “bliss”). Brahman, which is the real nature of the self, is sat-cit-ānanda. This idea is fully developed in Advaita Vedānta. According to Advaita Vedānta, one becomes sat-cit-ānanda in the state of mukti. But there, too, as in Sāmkhya, the liberated soul remains inactive (niskriyā). There is no activity in the real nature of the Self, activity being relegated to māyā, which is transcended in moksa.
Kashmiri Tantra , as we have seen, accepts as the nature of the Self not only sat-cit-ānanda but also activity (kriyā, vimarśa, spanda, śakti, or svātantrya). This is spontaneous activity freely arising out of the fullness of the Self. Since freedom or activity (svātantrya) is the very nature of the Self, the liberated person is vibrant with joyful activity.
Bondage is a state of the forgetfulness of our real nature. This forgetfulness did not begin at a particular point in time; it is beginninglessly present with the existence of the individual soul, as if the soul were bom blind. Since bondage is the forgetfulness of our real nature, moksa, naturally, is the state of remembrance of the same. Abhinavagupta says, “The enlightenment (prakāśa) that dawns in the state of moksa is like the remembering of a forgotten wealth, and the forgotten wealth is the state of one’s unity with all.” [sarvādvaitapadasya vismrtanidheh prāptih prakāśodayah. ANUTTARASTIKĀ 4.]
In the same vein it can be said that the joy (ānanda) that we obtain in moksa is the natural joy of the Self, which we realize by easing ourselves from the crushing load of ignorance we are carrying.
Abhinavagupta further says, “The joy of moksa is not like the acquired pleasure of material wealth, women, and wine; [ānando na hi vittamadyamadavan naivāñganāsañgavat. IBID. ] the joy of moksa is the joy of the freedom from the colossal sense of duality, like the joy of the unloading of a heavy weight.” [harṣaḥ saṁbhṛtabhedamuktisukhabhūr bhārāvatāropamaḥ. IBID.]
From the above treatment of moksa, two things become clear:
(a) moksa is not a physical acquisition but a realization, a remembrance, or a re-apprehension of the Self; and
(b) moksa is not a new acquisition; what we attain in moksa is already there — it is only a question of uncovering or discovering it. [ tadapararanameva hiparameśvaratālābho muktih - I.P.V. 2.3.17]
Since moksa is a process of going back to our original nature, not acquiring new things and undertaking new adventures, it sounds like retiring from life. It may appear that Kashmir Śaivism advocates a philosophy of life that leads to passivity and regression, undermining the activistic and progressive ideal of life. One may argue that it is not joy but social and scientific progress that is the ideal of life, and a progressive civilization should be the aim of our endeavors. In answer to this we may point out that work or scientific progress in itself cannot become the aim of life; life is ultimately meant for the welfare and happiness of mankind. The idea of work for the sake of work or progress for the sake of progress is absurd. The goal of life is finally happiness, or ānanda.
This understanding is not meant to denigrate the value of work and progress; it simply points out that progress is the means, not the end. Happiness, or ānanda is the end of all work and progress. Moreover, happiness is not only the end of all activity, but it is also the ground of activity and progress. Beautiful activity naturally emanates or flows from joy. If we are seated in happiness, the activity will flow not only in greater volume, but also in the proper direction so that the activity becomes both useful and enjoyable. In that state of mind, technological achievement becomes a thing of joy and beauty. What the present day scientific and technological atmosphere lacks is the spiritual sense, which alone can make scientific progress good and beautiful.
The value of activity, however, is by no means inferior. It is through activity that the joy of the individual self reaches its fullness or perfection. The Gītā advocates this idea in a systematic and detailed way. Just as a seed attains perfection through the process of the actualization of its potentialities in the form of a tree, the Self realizes its perfection through the process of activity, which is really a process of actualization of its potentialities. But in the process of the blossoming of a bud into flower, what is significant is not the process itself but the beauty that the flower exhibits through the process of blossoming. Similarly, what is important in the process of activity or growth is not the process of activity itself but the joy that is expressed through it.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE MUKTI OF KASHMIR SAIVISM
Since according to Kashmir Śaivism, Creation is a manifestation of the Self — a blissful dance of Siva — and since free and spontaneous activity is the very nature of the Self, moksa need not be a rejection of the world but may be a free acceptance of the world and worldly activity. The moksa of Kashmir Saivism is full, not only from the point of view of Śiva, but also from the point of view of the world. Moksa is aglow with both celestial and terrestrial beauty. Moksa is not opposed to bhoga (“enjoyment”). Even in enjoyment, what the Self-realized person enjoys is the bliss of the Self, not the joy of the object. A Self-realized person is far above the selfish and exploitative enjoyment of the ordinary person. Such a person is not bound by enjoyment. The KULĀRNAVA TANTRA 9.76 says,
sarvaśosīyathā sūryah sarvabhogī yathā’ nalah/
yogī bhuktvākhilān bhogān tathā pāpaima lipyate//
“The sun sucks up everything of the world; the fire consumes everything (and yet the sun and the fire ever remain pure); so also the yogi, although accepting all enjoyments, is never defiled by sin.”
It is not the world and the enjoyable objects of the world that create bondage; it is attachment (rāga) that is the real bondage. Attachment can be overcome not by an attitude of negation, but by a positive attitude — a positive negation, as it were. It is possible to have enjoyment of worldly objects without attachment. Real enjoyment of the world and a happy material life is possible only when one is, even to a small extent, unattached. The poor person who is too tied up with the world cannot derive real joy from the world. One who treads the path of liberation (mukti) fully enjoys the world unattached. The liberated person (jīvanmukta) does this out of freedom and joy. With his or her senses under perfect control, he or she has no compulsion to indulge in the world. The bound person indulges in the world out of compulsion, from the instinctive urge; the freed person does not. The Gītā says,
rāgadvesaviyuktaistu visayānindriyaiścaran/
ātma vaśyairvidheyātmā prasādamadhigacchati// BH.G. 2.46.
“One who enjoys the objects with senses that are free from attachment (rāga) and aversion (dvesa) and are under one’s full control, does the desirable thing and attains peace and happiness.”
Krsna is the perfect example of this. For Him everything is His own play (līlā-vilāsa). In this attitude one is in enjoyment yet at the same time transcends the enjoyment. It is said in the Paramarthasāra that just as the grain separated from the husk is not bound by the husk although living with it, the liberated person (jīvan- mukta), free from the traces of past actions, is not touched by them although living with them in the world. - tadvatkañcukapataliprthakkrtā samvidatra samskārāt/ tisthantyapi muktātmā tatsparśavivarjitā bhavati// P.S. 106.
Karma (“action”), which is generally taken to be bondage, becomes a means of liberation when it is performed in the same religious spirit. The Gītā is the champion of this idea. If the world, which consists of activity and enjoyment, were a hindrance to liberation, it would be a hindrance and bondage to the Creator also, which it is not. For the Creator the world is spontaneous activity (kriyā) and so it is for one who seeks to become one with the Creator.
One of the significant points in the Tantric philosophy and religion is that there is perfect compatibility and harmony between liberation (jīvanmukti) and socio-cultural activity. This becomes especially significant when compared with scholastic Advaitism, where socio-cultural activity is logically meaningless in the context of the attainment of liberation. In Advaitism, one who aspires to liberation tries to disassociate him- or herself from social activity, for all such activity detracts from one’s effort for moksa. Indulgence in the world and worldly activities is not only useless for such a person but is also an obstruction to Self-realization. The world is unreal and valueless (tuccha); it is a superimposition on the Real, created by ignorance, and it must therefore be discarded and renounced in order to reach the Real. The ideal of liberation (Jīvanmukti) can occur only with renunciation (sannyāsa) of the world. Renunciation of worldly activity (nivrtti), not involvement therein (pravrtti), is the Advaitic ideal.
Moreover, in scholastic Advaitism the person who attains liberation lives just to work out his or her leftover karma. He or she can do no positive work with regard to society; he or she must be inactive (niskrivā), for activity, according to the Advaitin, is due to ignorance (avidyā). Such a person is like one who has taken preparatory leave prior to retiring from one’s career, counting the days until final retirement Such a person loses all interest in the affairs he or she was previously involved in. Society cannot be benefitted by such a person for he or she has no incentive for doing good for society. All actions cease on his or her part and the worid becomes a non-entity. He or she is lost to the world, as it were, and the world, in turn, is lost to him or her. In the Advaitic pattern each historical case of the attainment of liberation is a virtual loss to society.
In the Agamic tradition we find a different picture of the ideal of liberation. Socio-cultural activity goes hand in hand with Self-realization both before and after the attainment of liberation. Before the attainment of liberation activity serves as a means to Self-realization; after attainment, activity naturally flows in a spontaneous way, since spontaneous activity (spanda or kriyā) is the very nature of the Self. Activity arises not out of ignorance, as the Advaitin thinks, but out of the freedom to act (svātantrya). [ kriyā ca kartrtārūpāt svātantryānna pumarmalāt. T.A. 9.99] We have already seen that indulgence in the world and performance of social and worldly activity is not a hindrance to Self-realization. Rather, activity (pravrttl) is, in the Tantric tradition, taken to be a potent means of Self-realization. The aspirant for Self-realization therefore does not renounce the world. He or she, on the contrary, participates in the worldly affairs and takes part in socio-cultural activity.
In the Tantric tradition, unlike classical Advaitism. the Real (Siva or Self) is not conceived of as inactive (niskriyā); spontaneous activity (kriyā) is seen as the very nature of the Self. The world is taken not as a superimposition on Siva but as His free and active creation. As kriyā is the very nature of the Self or Siva, the person who has attained Sivahood, like a Krsna, a Christ, or a Buddha, becomes the ideal of free activity. Universal love is his or her very nature. He or she feels one with all and does good to all. Abhinavagupta says that doing good to others out of grace (parānu-graha) is clearly manifest in the person who is in the state of Self- realization. [parānugrahakāritvam atrasthasya sphutam sthitam. T.A. 3.290] He or she spontaneously works for the cultural progress and betterment of society. The Self-realized person does not act to work out his or her leftover karma, this being already liquidated; he or she acts because spontaneous activity is his or her very nature. Such a person responds to every call; he or she takes an active interest in the affairs of the world. While the ordinary person (paśu) does this out of selfish interest and by straining his or her will, the liberated person does this out of universal love, in a free and relaxed way. While overflowing in external activity (unmesa), he or she always remains in the Self.
The liberated person, freed from the personal ego, actually identifies him or herself with all. The Advaitin may say that as long as one sees others — as long as one sees the world in terms of duality — there can be no liberation, for to see “others” is ignorance (avidyā). The Tantrist would point out that it is not the physical presence of “others” and the objective world that is ignorance, but the act of seeing them as others — knowing them as different from oneself — is ignorance. The physical presence of duality is not bondage, for the physical duality is just a free manifestation or extension (prasāra) of the Self Itself; it is only the “sense” of duality — the wrong understanding that something is different from oneself — that is the bondage, and it is this that is called māyīya mala (“the ignorance consisting of the sense of duality”). When one freely creates an imaginary world in one’s mind, one knows that the world is one’s own creation and that one is one with it; though one sees it objectively, yet one’s non-duality remains intact. But when the same imagination becomes a dream, one forgets the truth and takes the objective dream world to be different from oneself; it is then that one is bound. For the liberated person who has awakened from the dream of duality, the world does not cease to exist, but it is seen as the free expansion of his or her own Self. The presence of the world of duality does not hamper the liberated person’s non-dual Self-realization. Utpaladeva says, “One who is identified with the Universal Self and knows ‘all this is my own glory,’ remains in Sivahood even in the face of prevailing determinations (or duality).”[sarvo mamāyam vibhava ityevam parijānatah/ viśvātmaiio vikalpānām prasare’ pi maheśatā// I.P.K. 4.1.12.]
Thus we see that the world and secular activities are perfectly compatible with the attainment of Self-realization. Activity flows much more when the Self is attained. Energy, or activity, is natural to the Self; the ego is an obstruction to its flow; therefore the bound soul (paśu) is not that active. But when the ego is silenced or removed and the Self attained, the constrained energy is released
— hence the greater flow of energy. The more one is seated in the Self — that is, the more the ego is relaxed or silenced — the more the Self expresses Itself in the form of creative activity. And since Self-realization is the state of universal love, the creative activity is generally directed towards the welfare of society.
In the case of partial Self-realization this energy may, in spiritually untrained persons, take a destructive turn, but that is because the Self is now ignored and the ego takes charge of the released energy. The Indian mythology of demons (asuras) suggests this. Many of the famous asuras first performed tapasyā (“self-mortification‘ which is symbolic of the mortification of the ego) and did intense devotion to Lord Śiva. As a result the Lord, being pleased, granted them unusual power that they subsequently misused; they were then punished on that account. All energy, constructive or destructive, is from the Higher Self anyway. When one displays tremendous creativity and work in any field — secular or religious — one is, to a small degree at least, in unity with the Self.
Aesthetic creativity also ensues from the Self. The joy of the Self expresses itself in creativity in art. The Upanisads also maintain that the Self is of the nature of aesthetic joy.[raso vai sah rasam hyevāyam labdhvānandībhavati. TAITTIRlYA UPANISAD 2.7.1.] That is why all the esoteric and mystical language that flows from that state becomes poetic. The Vedas and the Upanisads themselves are examples of this.
The sublime creative activity is not a result of the straining of the will, but is a spontaneous expression of the Self. A real poet does not compose by forcing his or her will; poetry in the true sense of the term flows — and it flows from the Self. The poet is, to some extent, in communion with the Self, which is the fountainhead of all beauty and creativity. The rich artistic creativity that we find in the history of Indian culture can be explained on the basis of this Tantric theory. According to classical Advaitism, however, all such creative activity is due to ignorance and not due to the Self — a theory that leads to the absurdity of thinking that all the great and inspired works of art are the creation of ignorant minds, not of enlightened ones.
As for the origin of almost all the arts, it is traditionally believed and also expressly stated in the Hindu scriptures, that they have come from Lord Siva. All the arts — poetry, music, dance, architecture, and so on, are Āgamic. The origin of all the arts and aesthetic disciplines from Siva may be sheer mythology but it suggests a truism, namely, that the artistic creativity originates from the Self or Siva.
So the path of Self-realization, or Śiva-prāpti, is not devoid of earthly beauty; it is rich with creativity, fulfillment, and love for one’s fellow beings. The celestial and the terrestrial, the spiritual and the secular, the transcendent and the immanent go hand in hand. The two poles are not exclusive of each other; in fact, the immanent, or the secular, is the free expression of the transcendent, or the spiritual; in this sense the two are one.
It also follows that the nirvikalpa samādhi advocated by Sāmkhya and Pātañjala Yoga and also accepted by Advaita Vedanta, is not the highest realization. The highest or the ultimate is what is called sahaja samādhi. In the nirvikalpa stage all the modifications of the mind ( vikalpas) are silenced, and therefore, all activity ceases. This is, according to Tantrism, a stage prior to the attainment of the final one. The vikalpa aroused from motives and desires must cease before the attainment of the ultimate stage; but this does not mean that the natural vikalpas, or the vikalpas aroused out of the freedom of the Self, should also cease. The “natural” (sahaja) state of Consciousness is desireless and egoless, and therefore, there are no vikalpas (or activity) caused by desire or motive; but natural and free vikalpas flow automatically. Hence spontaneous activity occurs in the state of sahaja samādhi. Mystic saints have always mentioned the sahajāvasthā as the highest form of samādhi. [santoñ sahaja samādhi bhalī. KABIR]
MOKSA AS THE HIGHEST VALUE
In the Indian tradition we find a well developed theory of values called the theory of purusārtha. The word purusārtha means the “object (artha) to be achieved by man (purusa).” Hence purusārtha means the object or value desirable for man. There are four values accepted in the Indian scheme of purusārtha. These are wealth (artha), satisfaction of desires (kāma), morality (dharma), and liberation (moksa). In the history of Indian culture, some people have accepted the theory of trivarga — just three purusārthas consisting of artha, kāma, and dharma, but the majority accepted the theory of caturvarga—four purusārthas, including moksa.
I am attempting in the following pages to show that while accepting kāma and dharma as ultimate values, the acceptance of moksa or at least the search for a principle like moksa, is warranted conceptually or at least semi-conceptually. I should also make it clear here that in making this attempt I have in mind a particular conception of moksa — the Tantric one — that may be quite different from some of the traditional conceptions.
It is obvious that there are two basic, ultimate, and absolute values — one is morality (dharma), which may also be called goodness, virtue, and so on; and the other is happiness, pleasure, or satisfaction of desires (kāma — artha being a means to kāma). In technical terms, the former is called śreya — “the good,” and the latter is called preya — “the pleasant.” In actual life we often find a conflict between “the good” (dharma) and “the pleasant” (kāma); at many times kāma appears to be anti-dharma, and if one chooses to follow the path of dharma, one has to subdue the kāma. Not only is there an empirical conflict between the two, but there is also, as may be argued, a conceptually inherent dichotomy between morality (dharma) and the attainment of pleasure (kāma). Following the strict line in the analysis of morality, it may be argued that the more we suffer in discharging our moral duties, the more credit for morality we achieve; that is, the more we sacrifice kāma for the sake of dharma, the greater merit we acquire. This is conveyed in the Mahābhārata by the story of King Yudhisthira and the jackal, which shows that Yudhisthira, even while giving a sumptuous feast to thousands of Brahmins, could not acquire the merit equal to that acquired by a poor Brahmin family who, having suffered pangs of hunger for a week, fed a hungry person with their own modest food, choosing to suffer greater pangs of hunger.
This dichotomy between the good (dharma) and the pleasant (kāma) warrants thinking of a possible situation where the two are synthesized and the dichotomy ceases to exist. The question naturally arises, is there a situation or a state of being that is both naturally good and pleasant and from which the activities that flow are naturally both good and pleasant? It is a question of finding a principle that synthesizes the good and the pleasant, truth and beauty, or one’s own good and the good of others. The ancient Indian thinkers faced this problem and saw a possible solution in what is called Self-realization or moksa.
If we analyze the nature of moksa as given in the Upanisads, the Tantras, and the Gītā, we will find that moksa (Self-realization) is said to fulfill the demands of both pleasure (kāma) and morality (dharma). In the beginning it appears that moksa is a means for the attainment of kāma and dharma, but a deeper analysis reveals that moksa is taken to be the underlying reality of kāma as well as of dharma. Moksa is envisaged as the ground of all the values, and therefore moksa, in this sense, can be said to be the value.
Not only do the Tantras, which advocate a highly positive approach to life, present moksa as the fulfillment of kāma and dharma, but the Upanisads and the Gītā do also. The Chāndogya Upanisad [3.7.1] says, sa sarvānśca lokānāpnoti sarvānśca kāmān yastamātmānamanuvidya vijānāti, “He who finds the Self (ātman) and knows it, attains all the worlds and all desires.” This statement resonates with the theory that all talent and all power to work efficiently and beautifully in every walk of life comes from the Self. All creativity, artistic or otherwise, springs forth from the Self. It is from the Self that the illumined understanding of anything comes to the mind as a spontaneous flash — a phenomenon technically called pratibhā. Therefore, the more we are in line with the Self, the more power flows. Thus a person of Self-realization makes a better teacher, philosopher, scientist, leader, businessperson, manager, and so on. Moksa is not an otherworldly or after-death value but is the ground of overall success in our life.
All the beauties of worldly life, including the pleasures of kāma, emanate from our inner Self Itself. This idea is clearly and explicitly presented in detail in the tenth chapter of the Gītā, and the concluding verse says that whatever beauty, prosperity, and power we find in the world comes from the light of the Self. [yadyad vibhūtimatsattvam śñmadūrjitameva vā/ tattadevāva gaccha tvaiii mama tejomsasambhavam// BH.G. 10.41]. This position is perfectly in line with the Upanisadic contention that everything of the world is illumined with the light of the Self. [tasya bhāsā sarvamidam vibhāti. MUNDAKA UPANISAD 2.2.10] The Upanisads and the Gītā, not to mention the Tantras, declare in unequivocal terms that even the pleasure of sex is nothing but the manifestation of the joy of Brahman (the Self) Itself. The Taittiñya Upanisad says, “Brahman is present in the sex organ as reproduction, immortality, and joy.’’ [prajātiramrtamānanda ityupasthe. TAITTIRlYA UPANISAD 10.2-3.] In the Gītā, Lord Krsna, who symbolizes the higher Self, declares “I am the libido which causes reproduction” [prajanaścāsmikandarpah. BH.G. 10.28] and “I am, in living beings, the feeling of sex unopposed to morality.” [dharmāviruddho bhūtesu kāmosmi bharatarsabha. BH.G. 7.11] The Bhāgavata Purāna also refers to the theory that sex is the manifestation of God. [pumsah kāmamutāpare - SB 4.11.22]
All the worldly pleasures, including the pleasure of sex, at all levels — physical, mental, and spiritual, are taken as manifestations of the Self. The theory is that the pleasure of the object does not come from the object itself but from the Self, just as the moon shines not by its own light but by the light of the sun. All the pleasure of the world comes from the Self, only indirectly. Thus if we are not seated in the Self, we are not able to enjoy the world; the pleasure we take from the world is proportionate to the degree of Self-realization we have achieved. The poet Coleridge, addressing Nature says, “O Lady, we receive but what we give,” meaning that we receive from Nature or the world the joy that we unconsciously project on it. If we observe life carefully we will find that even the enjoyment of worldly objects depends upon the subjective condition of the enjoyer. The situation and the object of enjoyment being constant, the degree and intensity, and also the quality of enjoyment varies with the variation in the subjective state of the enjoyer. This suggests that the above theory that Self-realization is the very ground of all enjoyment (kāma) is true.
I do not mean to argue in favor of the above-mentioned idealistic or spiritualistic theory of pleasure; I am simply suggesting that there is a strong possibility that this theory is true; and if the theory is true, then we are obliged to maintain conceptually that Self-realization or moksa is the very ground of enjoyment (kāma) or that moksa synthesizes kāma within itself. We can put forward the theory, as is maintained in the Indian tradition, that joy, or ānanda, is the very nature of the Self, just as illumination is the very nature of the sun, and each and every form of joy or pleasure in the world is a manifestation of the joy of the Self in varying degrees.
Self-realization (moksa) incorporates within itself not only pleasure (kāma) but also morality (dharma). Morality is said to be naturally present in moksa for two reasons. First, the Self that is attained in moksa is conceived of as naturally good. That is why it is called Siva (“the benign”). It is illogical to think that bad actions could spring forth from a naturally benign Self. As Ramakrsna Paramahañsa used to say, just as only honey can drop from a honeycomb, only good actions can spring from the Siva-state.
Second, in the state of moksa or self-realization, one feels one’s unity with all, [sarvabhūtātmabhūtātmā. BH.G. 5.7.] and it is quite natural for such a person to do good to all. [sarvabhūtahite ratah. BH.G. 5.25] What obstructs the Self is called māyā or ajñāna (ignorance), and ignorance is defined as the sense of duality (dvaita-prathā or bhedabuddhi), [T.A. 1.30.] that is, the sense that there are “others.” When this sense of duality is dispelled and one’s unity with all (advaita-bhāvanā or abheda buddhi) is realized — that is, universal love is attained — then one of the most essential characteristics of moksa, or Self-realization, is achieved.
It is obvious that selfishness or the sense of duality is the root of all immorality. One can exploit a person only when one considers him or her to be other than onself. But if one considers him or her to be one’s own self, how can one exploit him or her? A Self-realized person will not exploit or harm anyone, as Self-realization is a state of perfect universal love. On the contrary, he or she will help all. Thus, Self-realization is a state of natural or spontaneous morality.
Thus morality is logically connected with Self-realization. If one considers so-called “other” people to be one’s own, it logically follows that one will try to help them rather than harm them.
Moreover it is quite possible, as the advocate of the theory of Self-realization believes, that moral consciousness, or moral reason, is also a manifestation of the ultimate Consciousness or the Self. It may be argued that whatever is known, through any means of knowledge, is known by Consciousness. When we say that it is clear to us that morality is an ultimate value, a value in itself, this clarity comes from Consciousness. There is nothing illogical or irrational in maintaining, as a hypothesis, that this moral consciousness or reason is also a manifestation of the same higher Consciousness, the Self. It is not unreasonable to believe that we are conscious of morality because the natural reason of the Self is manifest in us. Animals have far less Self-realization than human beings, and that is why they do not seem to have moral consciousness. According to the theory of Self-realization, the more we advance towards Self-realization, the clearer the moral consciousness becomes. In the end morality just becomes natural. So Self-realization is the underlying principle in morality (dharma) and also the underlying principle in pleasure (kāma), as we have already seen.
Thus we see that Self-realization synthesizes within itself both pleasure (kāma) and morality (dharma) or the pleasant (preya) and the good (śreya). In Self-realization the good of oneself and the good of others become one; it is a state that is at once good and pleasant. In our empirical experience, too, we can find at least one phenomenon that is the example of this synthesis — the phenomenon of love. In love the good of the lover and the good of the beloved person become one. The mother, for example, feels her oneness with her child, and the mother herself feels happy in the happiness of the child. Love naturally prompts good action of the lover towards the beloved. Moreover, besides prompting beneficial activity towards the beloved person, love gives immense satisfaction and joy (ānanda) to the lover him- or herself. The rapture of love is so deep that only a true lover can fully understand it. So love benefits both the lover and the beloved. To use a phrase from Shakespeare, “it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
Needless to say, love is the very nature of the Self, and a person of Self-realization will be a true lover. Love is the chief characteristic of the saints and sages who have achieved some amount of Self- realization. The more we realize the Self, the greater is the natural flow of love in us.
According to the theory of Self-realization, joy and goodness are naturally present in the Self. In empirical life the joy of the Self manifests in the form of pleasure and the goodness of the Self manifests in the form of morality. In love the two—joy and goodness of the Self — are manifest in one. This is quite a plausible theory, and in this way pleasure (kāma) and morality (dharma) logically fit together in Self-realization (moksa).
The question may be asked here, if pleasure and morality are synthesized in Self-realization as is claimed, how can Self-realization (moksa) be called a deeper or higher value or even a value independent from pleasure and morality? Presented in the above manner, Self-realization seems to be just a combination of pleasure and morality. The answer is that a synthesis is not just a combination. The principle that synthesizes and incorporates others within itself is not one of them; it transcends them and stands at a higher or deeper level, like the thread that penetrates the flowers and weaves them into one garland. Similarly, moksa should be regarded as belonging to an order different from that of the other human values and yet incorporating them all within itself.
A further question may be asked, if Self-realization is not one of the values or at par with them, how can it be called a value in the strict sense of the term? The answer is that it is true that Self-realization is not at par with the other values, but why should it not be called a value on that account? Rather, Self-realization can be called the highest value as it is the value underlying all values, as we have seen. Self-realization will lose its eligibility for being called a value only when it ceases to be a desirable thing. If it is a desirable thing, whether at par with pleasure and morality or different from them, it remains a value; and Self-realization is perhaps the most desirable thing, as it is the very ground of all the other values.
The contention that Self-realization is a value higher than even morality (dharma) raises an important question, namely, whether there can be a value higher than morality, for morality is absolutely binding on everyone. In this sense, morality is the highest value, which cannot be subsumed into any other value. But, if there is a value that incorporates within itself all the merits of morality and at the same time is free from its demerits, then that value can certainly be called higher than the moral value. Western thought in general takes morality to be the highest value, but the Indian thinkers have found some gaps in this concept, and therefore they seek a still higher value in which morality finds its perfection.
There are two difficulties in the moral consciousness. First, in moral consciousness there is a dichotomy between the good (śreya or dharma) and the pleasant (preya or kāma), and one has to undermine or even totally suppress the pleasant in favor of the good. Psychoanalytically speaking, this dichotomy may be a hindrance to the process of the integration of the personality. Second, moral consciousness may generate an ego sense that is not only morally undesirable but is also detrimental to mental and spiritual health. A person who egotistically sees him or herself as moral or righteous may harm him or herself and society as well.
Considering these difficulties of moral consciousness, there arises the need of a state of consciousness that, on the one hand, preserves the merits of moral consciousness, and on the other hand, is free from the demerits of same. Spiritual consciousness is the answer to this need. Here it should be made clear that spirituality is a very vague and ambiguous term. I use the term spirituality here in a technical sense that I believe is the true sense of the word. Spirituality is different from religiosity; one can be spiritual without accepting external forms of religious worship. Of course spirituality can be said to be the essence of religion; but just as morality, although an essential part of religion, is different from religion, spirituality, although being the essence of religion, is not religion itself. Spirituality is also different from theology, as one can be spiritual even without having any kind of theistic belief.
As a working definition of spirituality, we can understand spirituality as a state of egoless consciousness that is also a state of natural goodness and in which one’s own good and the good of others become one. In other words, awareness of one’s unity with “others,” that is, universal love, is the core of spirituality. Thus love in itself is a spiritual value, different from both the moral and religious values, for spirituality in itself is different from morality and religion. But in a secondary sense, love can also be considered to be both a moral and a religious value, as love, or spirituality, is the very essence of morality as well as of religion.
There should be no difficulty in understanding that spirituality preserves the merits of morality, as spirituality is a state of natural or spontaneous morality — a state of egoless morality. Spirituality not only preserves the merits of morality but also improves the quality of morality, for spiritual morality, that is, natural or egoless morality, is more satisfying to oneself and others than ethical morality. Moreover, spiritual morality appeals to our natural reason to be more sublime. Second, the difficulties of moral consciousness, namely (a) the dichotomy between the good and the pleasant and (b) the egotistic pride in being moral or of doing the moral act, are absent in spirituality. The moral ego is absent in spirituality because in spirituality we do not perform an act deliberately or effortfully as we do in morality; the activity flows in a natural and spontaneous way.
Moreover, in the state of spirituality the good done to others is felt to be done to oneself, just as happens in love. The mother, for example, does good to the child not out of thinking that it is moral to do so, as we do in the case of charity, but out of love in a natural and spontaneous way. Moreover, she feels that the good that she is doing to the child is her own good, as there is self-identification with the child. Love, which is a spiritual value, is the best example of the rectification of both the defects of morality. There is nothing as good and pure as love. Where there is love, there can be no immorality; on the contrary, love is the natural ground of all morality. Moreover, there is nothing more satisfying than the experience of love. Love is the most sublime thing in the world.
It can also be noticed that the degree as well as the quality of morality is raised in the naturally moral activity that is the characteristic of spirituality. We are inclined to do good to others more out of love, which is a spiritual phenomenon, than out of moral consideration. A Buddha, Christ, or any other spiritual person for that matter, is led to do good for society not out of the thought that it is moral to do so, but out of love or compassion for the masses. Activities of social service flow in great volumes from love, and not from the moral sense alone. A moral person may restrict him- or herself to doing good for society in a negative way, that is, he or she may refrain from causing anybody harm but he may not feel the strong incentive or inclination to do positive good for society. This incentive is present in the spiritual consciousness in abundance. As I have already mentioned, the good that one does to others in love is more satisfying to oneself as well as to others and is also much more desirable. Just as natural beauty is more precious than artificial beauty, so also the natural activity of goodness to others is more valuable. We would, for example, consider it to be more valuable, and therefore we would like it more, if someone helps us out of love than if someone helps us out of charity.
Thus we see that spirituality is a state of consciousness that has four relative advantages over morality, namely, (a) spirituality preserves the merits of morality, as it is the state of natural morality, (b) spirituality enhances the degree and quality of morality by making it natural and spontaneous, (c) there remains no egotistic pride in being moral, and (d) there is no dichotomy between the good and the pleasant, or between one’s own good and the good of others.
Therefore, spirituality can definitely be called a higher value than morality. Needless to say Self-realization, which is the state of complete spirituality, is therefore a value higher than morality.
There is a lot of wisdom in the fact that the incarnation of Rāma is taken to be inferior to Krsna. Rāma is seen as a not-so-perfect incarnation having only twelve ‘‘degrees” (kalās), and Krsna is the ‘‘complete incarnation” (pūrnāvatāra) having the full sixteen degrees. The reason for this is obvious. Rāma stands for the moral ideal that is absolutely necessary for the individual and social life; but in Rāma’s life there is a conflict between the good and the pleasant, and Rāma has to undergo mental suffering from glorifying the good by rejecting the pleasant. In Krsna, on the contrary, we find a perfect synthesis of the good and the pleasant; his life is a play of joy (līlā), which at the same time is naturally beneficial for others. The goodness that the life of Krsna exhibits is natural and spontaneous; Krsna is an egoless personality, a perfect example of egoless goodness. The goodness that is seen in the divine is really spiritual goodness that incorporates within itself, in a natural way, the moral goodness also.
Some scholars hold that Self-realization (moksa), unlike the values of pleasure (kāma), wealth (artha), and morality (dharma) of the trivarga scheme, is a personal value, as in moksa one is concerned with one’s own salvation or one’s own bliss, however deep or exalted that bliss may be, and this has nothing to do w ith others. Morality consists in one’s attitude towards others; in morality others are involved, that is, society is involved, thus morality is not a personal value; but there is no such thing in Self-realization.
If by saying that Self-realization is a personal pursuit what is meant is that Self-realization is attained and experienced by the individual, then Self-realization of course is personal, as it is a subjective experience of the individual. All experience is subjective and therefore all experience is personal in that sense. But this does not mean that Self-realization is restricted to the individual and others are not involved. The concept of Self-realization that I have put forth here necessarily involves consideration for others, for Self- realization. as we have already discussed, is by definition the state of universal love. If one does not love or feel one’s unity with “others,” one is not liberated or Self-realized. The Self of the Self-realized person is enlarged so much that it incorporates all within itself. Loving “others” and doing good to “others” is, as we have already seen, part of moksa-consciousness. In fact, in Self-realization, personal and impersonal, within and without, oneself and others, subjective and objective, become one.
Some people also maintain that Self-realization is not a functional value. Perhaps they think that, unlike morality (dharma), which performs the function of regulating wealth (artha) and pleasure (kama), Self-realization is merely a state or structure; it does not perform any function. However the type of Self-realization that we are discussing is a functional one. As we have already seen, Self- realization performs the function of synthesizing the good and the pleasant and providing the ground for all around success in every field of life and in every aspect of life — material, moral, and spiritual. Of course in the Indian tradition there are some schools — like Sāmkhya, scholastic Advaita Vedanta, or some schools of Buddhism — that define liberation (moksa, kaivalya, or nirvana) in a nonfunctional way; but the Śaiva and Vaisnava conceptions of liberation or Self-realization are quite different.
The Tantric concept of Self-realization in particular, which I consider to be perfectly in line with the original Upanisadic position but not the post-Shankarite scholastic Advaitism, is both structural and functional. It combines both freedom-from and freedom-to. The nature of the Self, or Consciousness, that is realized in the state of liberation is, according to Tantrism, dynamic; this dynamism — technically called spanda, kriyā, śakti, or vimarśa enables the state of Self-realization to perform the functions logically assigned to it. The Self-realized person, for example, pays positive attention to the redemption of the suffering of the masses or to the betterment of society and aptly responds to any demand of the situation. The dynamism or spanda of the Self leads the liberated person to naturally and spontaneously take part in socio-political activities, to engage in artistic creativity, to successfully and pleasantly discharge his or her duties, and so on. Creative activity is the natural effulgence, or spontaneous emanation of the Self. Self-realization performs the function of providing all these things. It also provides, as we have already seen, the very ground of morality in the form of love and natural goodness. All the above-mentioned things are necessary for a healthy life, both individual and social. Thus, Self-realization is a highly functional value.
The question may be asked, if Self-realization is such an important value, why do people not desire it or why are they not inclined towards it? In answer to this I will say three things. First, the eligibility of something as a value does not depend upon its actually being desired by people: a value means something that should be desired not necessrily what is desired. Second, if people knew that Self-realization is the fulfillment of all values, material and moral, they would certainly be inclined to pursue it. Third, people may not desire Self-realization in the technical and traditional sense, but they do desire it in a very general way, and what is more, everyone desires Self-realization in this way. It is obvious that everybody desires happiness and tries to avoid sorrow. We want complete happiness and complete freedom from undesirable things. But this does not happen; we find ourselves encountering limitations on all sides, and therefore we are not able to attain complete happiness. We see ourselves as a finite or imperfect being, bound by countless limitations. Consciously or unconsciously we desire that all our chains be broken and we become completely free from limitations, for we know that to be completely happy means to be completely free from limitations. It means to become infinite. We may not be able to find the way out of our finitude, but we do wish to become perfect or to enjoy happiness. This is what is technically called moksa (“liberation”), which lies in Self-realization. Thus we can very well say that everyone is seeking moksa without knowing it by this technical name. Whether such a state of perfection, or liberation exists or not is a different question, and we will take it up later on.
The Chāndogya Upanisad, while positing the existence of Self- realization, does not start with Brahman; it starts with an inquiry into the human predicament of limitation or finitude. The Upanisadic seer clearly envisages the logical truth that to be happy means to be free from limitation. That is why the Upanisad says, “In that which is infinite (bhūma), there lies happiness (sukha)\ there is no happiness in the finite (alpa).” [yo vai bhūmā tatsukham, nālpe sukhamasti. CHÀNDOGYA UPANISAD 7.23.1] Liberation is thus not an unknown or undesired value but the highest value; it is both desired and desirable.
Finally, there is the question of the validity of the spiritual experience called Self-realization or liberation (moksa). It is obvious that the concept of Self-realization is based on the acceptance of an ontological reality called the Self or Consciousness. Now the question arises, what is the logical proof for this alleged ontological reality? How can we be sure that such a thing does exist? Normally, we do not find such a thing in our experience; it is not known by the empirical mode that is normally the only mode of knowing available to us. So, can we not say that the concept of Self-realization is just the speculation of an imaginative mind and is based on faith, not on actual experience? It is obvious that along with our bodies there is a knowing or thinking principle that we call the “I” (the self) or “consciousness.” This “I” is postulated by the cogito ergo sum of Descartes, the ya eva hi nirākartā tasyaivātmatvāt (“One who denies the self, that denier itself is the self’)79 of Advaita Vedānta, and the kartari jñātari svātmanyādisiddhe maheśvare (“The self is present as the doer and the knower in the very beginning of all behavior”) [1SVARAPRATYABHUÑĀ-KĀRIKĀ 1.1.2.] of Kashmir Saivism. But it is also clear that these arguments do not succeed in proving the ontological self; all they prove is that there is an epistemological principle of knowing or thinking. It is beyond our ability to know whether this epistemological principle is just Kant’s “synthetic unity of pure apperception,” which is just a formal unity, or is also a metaphysical reality or entity. It is from this point that metaphysical speculations as well as scientific hypotheses about the Self or Consciousness start.
It is reasonable to believe, as the spiritualist maintains, that the phenomenon of consciousness which we call the self or the “I” that appears at the surface level, is just the tip of a bigger reality lying deeper in us, like the iceberg, only a tiny portion of which is visible above the surface, or like an artesian spring that is invisibly connected with a deeper and vaster underground water reserve. If we accept this it follows that we can reach the deeper levels of our reality step by step. Self-realization can be achieved in degrees. Even at present we have some degree of Self-realization, as the power of Consciousness, which is called kundalini in the symbolic language of Tantric yoga, is already working in us in the form of the mental phenomena. Obviously it is possible that in different people this Consciousness becomes manifest in varying degrees, either naturally or by the deliberate process of unfolding the beauties of Consciousness. We can logically stretch this process to the extent of achieving the fullest manifestation of Consciousness — Self-realization or spiritual attainment in the highest degree.
The theory of Self-realization is not speculation nor is it based on faith; it is actually based on experience. In the Tantric tradition, Self- realization is accepted on the basis of inductive experience (āgama), as opposed to the authority of scripture, which is deductive (nigama). Of course this inductive experience is higher than ordinary sensory (empirical) induction. There is nothing illogical in maintaining that there could be modes of experience other than the strictly empirical one. To stick to the position that the empirical is the only mode of knowing is nothing short of irrational, rigid dogmatism.
To conclude, I have in the foregoing pages tried to show that acceptance of the possibility of Self-realization is warranted in the consideration of the three-fold life values system and that it is the highest value, as it forms the very ground, or is the underlying reality, of all the values.
It is also clear from this treatment of Self-realization that it cannot be included in pleasure (kāma), as some people suggest. Some propose that if Self-realization is to be incorporated in the scheme of human values at all, it should be included in pleasure (kāma). But this proposal is not acceptable, as Self-realization is something basically different from pleasure. One may retort that the desire for perfection or freedom from limitations, that is, the desire for Self- realization, can by virtue of being a desire, be included within the realm of pleasure (kāma). In answer we might point out that the desire for perfection or complete freedom from limitations belongs to a different level, as it is the desire for the very ground or the underlying reality of all the values, including pleasure (kāma). The term kāma is used to denote a particular order of desires, namely, material or psycho-physical desires. All desires cannot be included in this realm. For example, in spiritually advanced people there is a natural desire for morality (dharma). Should the desire for morality be included in the category of pleasure (kāma) simply because it is a desire? Desires are not only of different types of the same order, but they are also of different orders or levels. The desire for Self-realization is certainly of a different order, and to include it within the realm of pleasure is an over-simplification.
To sum up the theory of human values (purusārtha), we can understand the values in a hierarchical order. Wealth (artha) is meant to represent the fulfillment of the gross physical or bodily needs like food, shelter, and so on. Gross physical or biological needs are certainly different from desires, which are more mental or psychological, and therefore, subtler and more refined. In this sense, pleasure (kāma) may be regarded as higher than wealth (artha) in the hierarchy of value. Morality (dharma) is still higher, for wealth and pleasure can be sacrificed in favor of morality.
If liberation is understood not in the negative sense of the absence of worldly life but in the positive sense of Self-realization — realizing and completely expressing the Consciousness that is present in every enjoyment and every activity of life, liberation will certainly be regarded as the highest value in life. Self-realization is the highest value, as it transcends all the other values and synthesizes them within itself. Since the synthesizing principle transcends the synthesized terms and stands at a deeper level, Self-realization should be regarded as belonging to an order different from that of the other life values and yet incorporating them all within itself.
STAGES OF THE SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOUL
Self-realization is not attained in one flash; it involves the gradual evolution of the soul. Self-realization is a question of self-purification; the more the consciousness is freed from impurity (mala), the more the light of the Self is revealed and the more the Self is realized. The removal of impurity is a negative process, and the positive side of the removal of impurity is Self-realization. Although there is really no difference in the nature of consciousness, a difference is seen because of the hierarchical state of freedom from impurity. [samvidrūpe na bhedo-sti vāstavoyadyapi dhruve/ tathāpyāvrtinirhrāsatāratamyāt sa laksyate// T.A. 1.138] We can understand this position with the help of the analogy of light. When a brilliant light passes through a curtain, it becomes dim; when the obstruction is removed, the light is restored to its original brilliance. The more the curtain is thinned or made more transparent, the brighter the light becomes.
Similarly, the more the impurity (mala) is removed from a person, the more the light of the Self comes to the fore, which means the greater is the Self-realization. Even in our present state of impurity we have some amount of Self-realization, for the light of the Self, or Consciousness, is already working in and through us. The amount and degree of the expression of the light of Consciousness varies from person to person.
Moreover, in the analogy of the light we can see that it is the thinning or purification of the curtain, or obstruction, and not of the light itself; the light is ever pure. We call the light impure because of the impurity of the curtain. Similarly, Consciousness, or the Self, is ever pure. It is called impure because when it passes through the impurities, its nature is dimmed or obstructed.
Thus we can see that the removal of impurity and the realization of the Self go together in equal proportion. Since there can be grades of self-purification, there can be grades of Self-realization also. This means, further, that there can be hierarchical variation among the different aspirants for Self-realization and also among those who have attained it.
The attainment of Self-realization is a gradual process — a development or growth of consciousness. It is not that one is in bondage and then all of a sudden one becomes liberated; there is no leap or jump from the stage of bondage to the stage of liberation. It is a gradual trek from one stage to the other.
This is not to suggest that there are degrees of Consciousness or degrees of Reality. There are actually no degrees in Consciousness or the Self. But we can still meaningfully use the term “degree” to suggest that there is a hierarchical variation in the removal of impurities from the heart, and subsequently, a hierarchical variation in the attainment of Self-realization.
Advaita Vedānta seems to suggest that there is no gradual attainment of Self-realization. According to Advaita, one is either bound or one is liberated, there is no such thing as half-bound or half-free. In the analogy of the rope-snake, either one sees the snake in ignorance, or one sees the rope in knowledge. In the dream analogy, either one is dreaming or one has awakened. There is a gap between the dream state and the waking state; the transition from the dream to the waking state is a single jump, not a gradual process.
What the Advaitin seems to forget is that this does not happen in the case of Self-realization. Self-realization is not a sudden jump from the state of bondage to the state of liberation. If someone seems to become liberated suddenly it is because he or she has been following the path of purification for a long time, maybe from previous births, and the veil, already thinned after a long process of purification, is finally removed. Of course if purification is sudden, Self-realization will also be sudden. But in actual life we find that purification is not sudden; it is not as easy and simple as the Advaitin thinks.
The reason why Advaita overlooks this fact of life is that it approaches the problem of Self-realization purely from the epistemic point of view; it sets aside the axiological consideration that is supreme in the Upanisads. The Advaitin would use the analogy of darkness and say that complete darkness can be set aside in a moment by just igniting a match and lighting a lamp; it does not take a long, arduous effort to demolish the darkness. Similarly he or she would argue bondage, which is ignorance, can be dispelled by a flash of knowledge; ignorance is not like a physical mountain that takes long years of effort to demolish. But again the Advaitin forgets that this ignorance is not mere intellectual ignorance (bauddha-ajñāna) but is paurusa-ajñāna, which captures the entire person in the form of spiritual impurity (mala). This cannot be removed simply by learning scriptures or hearing the teacher. Had it been so, all the great pandits of philosophy would have attained Self-realization. This type of ignorance can be removed only by doing the spiritual practice (sādhanā) of self-purification. The intellectual knowledge of Reality can help only when paurusa-jñāna is attained side by side with it.
Had the Advaitin also considered the issue from the axiological point of view, that is from the point of view of the actual attainment of Self-realization, he or she would have easily.realized the limitation of the rope-snake analogy. But the Advaitin becomes complacent with the epistemic consistency of the theory and forgets that when this philosophy is applied to actual life situations it becomes logically absurd.
Since there is a gradual evolution of the state of consciousness moving towards Self-realization, the Tantric tradition accepts hierarchical grades of souls. Seven grades of souls are noted. They are called the seven “knowers” or seven “subjects” (sapta-pramātā). The soul is called the “knower” or “subject” (pramātā) because it is different from the insentient matter that is the “known” or the “object” (prameya). The essential nature of soul (consciousness) that distinguishes it from matter is that it is the knowing subject. [jñānamālāyāh antahsūtra-kalpah svasamvedanātmā pramātā jīvitabhūtah. P.T.V. 2.2.3.] So, knower or pramātā may be taken as the synonym of soul or consciousness. The distinction among the seven knowers is based on considering in each how far limited individuality is undermined and Sivahood or divinity is manifest.[mātāramadharīkurvan svām vibhūtim pradarśayan/ āste hrdayanairmalyātiśaye tāratamyatā// T.A. 1.175.] This depends upon how far the soul is purified or freed from mala. The seven knowers are (a) pralayākala or layākala, (b) sakala, (c) vijñānākala or jñānākala, (d) mantra, (e) mantreśvara, (f) mantra- maheśvara, and (g) Siva (Śiva-pramātā). The first three, pralayākala, sakala, and vijñānākala, belong to the impure stage of bondage or mala (impurity), and the remaining four, mantra, mantreśvara, mantra-maheśvara, and Śiva-pramātā, belong to the pure state. The term sakala is also used to denote the bound soul in general in distinction with the freed soul, which is called niskala or akala.[tadāsau sakalahproktoniskalah śivayogatah. T.A. 3.218.] Kalā, with which the word for the bound soul is suffixed, denotes “impure kalā" or impure functioning of the soul (consciousness).
The pralayākala, or layākala, as the very name suggests, is the soul that is in the state of laya or pralaya(“dissolution”). In the state of the dissolution of the world, the souls lie in a stupor. This is a state of deep, unconscious rest, as in deep sleep. Pralayākala is the primordial state of individual consciousness where consciousness is not functioning — this is the state of sleeping consciousness. The impurities exist, but since the soul is sleeping the impurities are also lying in a potential state, they have not arisen or awakened. Pralayākala is the initial state of the bound soul — its primordial state.
Pralayākala is not there only when the world is dissolved. Actually pralayākala denotes the initial stage of consciousness where the consciousness is sleeping in an embryonic state, as it were; [etatkārmamalam proktam yena sākarh layākalāh/ syurguhāgahanāntasthāh suptā iva sarisrpāh// T.A. 9.138.] the world, even if it is there, for all practical purposes has not yet arisen for the soul. Thus pralayākala stands for the initial stage from which the development of the soul starts. In this stage the soul does not do or know anything, but the potential capacity for the same is very much there.
The second stage is that of sakala. This is the state of the soul awakened from the dissolution (pralaya). In this state the soul is fully conscious, although tainted with all three impurities (malas). In the pralayākala stage the impurities are not active, for the soul is sleeping, but in the sakala stage, since the soul is fully awake all the impurities become manifest and are at work. Sakala is the stage in which the people of the world normally are.
The samskāras, which were dormant during the state of pralayākala, are aroused in the state of sakala and bound souls (sakalas) move in the cycle of birth and death taking bodies merited by their karma. In the process of the evolution of the soul it is necessary that the potential dispositions (samskāras), or seed desires, be actualized in order that they can be eliminated finally. Although the pralayākala state is free from the tumult of the world, as the soul is sleeping in ignorance, it is inferior to sakala in the hierarchy, for the samskāras are yet to be actualized. The sleeping soul, in order to achieve its freedom in the Siva-stage, must pass though the sakala stage so that the soul works out its karma and exhausts its potentialities.
The third stage of the bound soul is vijñānākala. The special feature of vijñānākala is that it is free of kārma-mala and māyīya-mala and only ānava-mala, which is responsible for limited individuality, exists there.[kevalam pārimityena śivābhedamasamsprśan/ vijñānakevali proktah śuddhacinmātrasamsthitah// T.A. 9.91 -92] Ānava is the last to go, for it was first to come. Ānava generates the māyīya and kārma malas. In the sakala state all the malas are present, but when the soul moves upward, the last two malas (māyīya and kārma) take leave. This is a highly purified state, but since ānava, sense of individuality, is still there, the soul at the vijñānākala stage is still bound. That soul stands at the threshhold of liberation; it has crossed the main stages of māyic bondage and is looking forward to entering into the state of pure knowledge, śuddhavidyā. That is why the vijñānākala soul is said to be above māyā and below śuddhavidyā; [māyordhve śuddhavidyādhah santi vijñānakevalāh. T.A. V. 9.91] the soul has reached the final exit gate of māyā, but has yet to enter into the realm of the pure categories (śuddhādhvā). In this state, impurity (mala) is in the final process of being destroyed, [malah karotu tenāyam dhvamsamānatvamaśnute. T.A. 9.118.] but is yet to have all traces completely removed. That is why the soul in vijnānākala does not fully realize its unity with Siva. [... śivābhedamasamsprśan. Ibid. 9.91.]
Vijñānākala is so called because it is a fairly high stage of knowledge ( vijñāna or jñāna), but it is knowledge alone, the divine dynamism (kriyā, or śakti) has not yet become manifest. [vijn ānakevalīproktah śuddhacinmātrasamsthitah. T.A. 9.91 -92.] A soul at the level of vijñānākala is at the door of divinity; it has not yet attained divinity and is still awaiting the divine powers to manifest within it. The saints, devotees, good and pure hearted people, and so on, can be classified under the category of vijñānākala. Such persons have a fair degree of spiritual advancement by virtue of freedom from impurity but are yet to be liberated.
If we view the categories of pralayākala, sakala, and vijñānākala from the angle of the three qualities or gunas ( tamas, rajas, and sattva), we find that pralayākala is pure tamas, for one in that state is sleeping. Sakala is the state of rajas, as one in that state is active. In vijñānākala one reaches the stage of pure sattva, as one is highly purified and consequently knowledge manifests in one. Sattva is the state of purity. It is also non-obstructive to knowledge or illumination of the Self. A person of sattva will have inner illumination, knowledge, or awareness, as sattva allows the illumination of Consciousness (Self) to shine forth, just as a thin white curtain does not impede the light but allows it to pass. The quality of tamas is like a heavy black curtain that fully obstructs the light; rajas is like a red curtain that allows some light to pass through. The color of tamoguna is seen as black, that of rajoguna as red, and that of sattvaguna as white. This is very significant and relates to the degree to which they obstruct light.
The model of the three gunas (sattva, rajas, and tamas) set forth by the Sāmkhya system and accepted by almost all the systems of Indian philosophy, is a very good model for understanding the personality differences and the different stages of the evolution of people. This model can easily be applied to the pralayākala, sakala, and vijñānākala stages. If we look to the characteristics of the three knowers (pramātās) and compare them to the gunas, it will appear that the distinction between the three knowers is based on the consideration of the distinction of the three gunas, although this is not explicitly mentioned. The chief characteristic of the pralayākala is his or her long stupor or sleep, which is nothing but the product of tamoguna. In rajoguna the person is awake and active, for activity karma is the characteristic of rajoguna. The sakala state is exactly this; the sakala is awake, performing action, and moving in different bodies. The chief characteristic of sattvaguna is jñāna (“knowledge”), which is also the chief characteristic of the vijñānākala. It is also comparable that sattva, although a high state of purification, is not the state of freedom or liberation; the sāttvika is still within bondage, although knocking at the door of freedom. This is also the case with vijñānākala. The point is that the model of the three gunas can be applied to the three pramātās so perfectly that it leaves little doubt about the distinction of the pramātās being based on the consideration of the three gunas. However, it is a puzzle why this is not explicitly mentioned.
The next four knowers (pramātās) — mantra, mantreśvara, mantra-maheśvara, and Siva (Siva-pramāta) — belong to the realm of pure categories (śuddhādhvā). The first three are the correlates, respectively, of sadvidyā, īśvara, and sadāśiva, which are the stages of pure Creation (śuddhādhvā). The reason why they are called by the name mantra is that they ideate the Creation within themselves. The word mantra is formed from manana (mananānmantrah), which means “thinking” or “ideating.” Creation is nothing but the thinking or ideating of Siva, who is Consciousness or the Self. According to Kashmir Saivism and Tantrism in general, Consciousness is the only Reality and Creation is within Consciousness; it is a projection of Consciousness and not a material creation, for there is no matter at all. So Creation is an ideation (manana or mantrana) of Siva-Consciousness. Hence, while doing the activity of Creation, Siva becomes the mantra (“one who ideates”). Mantra-maheśvara, mantreśvara, and mantra are the different hierarchical stages of Siva’s ideating activity of Creation.
Thus the three mantra-categories, which are the stages of pure Creation, are the free manifestations of Siva himself. [tathāhi svasvatantratvaparipūrnatayā vibhuh/ nihsamkhyairbahubhī rūpairbhātyavacchedavarjanāt// T.A. 9.53-54] When Siva “wishes to create the world and enjoy Creation, He becomes mantra- maheśvara, who creates the world by mobilizing His māyā-śakti.” [bhogecchorupakārārtham ādyo mantramaheśvarah/ māyām viksobhya samsāram nirmimīte vicitrakam// IBID. 9.148-49]
Here a question may be asked, why does Siva descend three stages to create the world, why does one stage not suffice? The answer is that there are naturally three stages in every creation. The first is the will to create (icchā, the Sadāśiva stage); in the second stage the world becomes an idea in the mind (jnāna, the Iśvara stage); finally, in the third stage, the world is projected externally (kriyā, the sadvidyā stage). All three stages are necessary in every creation. The division of Siva into the three creational forms is based upon the prominence of the different aspects or śaktis needed for Creation. [ekaikatrāpi tattve’ smin sarvasaktisunirbhare/ tattatprādhānyayogena sa sa bhedo nirūpyate// T.A. 9.51 -52.]
When the vijñānākala soul by shaking off its only remaining impurity, ānava-mala, becomes free and enters into the realm of pure categories (śuddhādhvā), it first becomes or identifies itself with sadvidyā. At this stage it ideates the world as “I am and this is” (aham ca idam ca). This is the mantra stage. Then it moves upward and identifies itself with Iśvara (jñāna-śakti) and ideates the world as “this I am’’ (idamaham). This is the mantreśvara stage. Then it reaches the initial stage of Creation and identifies with Sadāśiva (icchā-śakti), and ideates the world as “I am this’’ (ahamidam). This is the mantra-maheśvara stage. Thus the knower (pramātā), “realizing his unity with Siva, gradually rises through mantra and mantreśvara to mantramaheśvara and finally reaches the Siva-state by the grace of Siva.” [sa punah śāmbha vecchātah śivābhedam parāmrśan/ kramānmantreśa-tannetri-rūpoyāti śivātmatām// T.A. 9.92-93.]
The reason the mantra categories — mantra, mantreśvara, and mantra-maheśvara — are called “pure” (śuddha) even when there is the duality of the object at their stage, is that although the knower sees the object, it does not take the object to be different from or other than itself but takes the object to be its own projection and therefore one with it. In Kashmir Śaivism, the presence of the duality of the object is not itself impurity; what is impurity is the taking of the object to be different from oneself or other than oneself. This is the sense of duality (dvaita-prathā).
Mantra-maheśvara, or Sadāśiva, who is the sixth knower (pramātā), is the highest or the first stage of Creation, and mantra, or Sadvidyā, is the last stage of (pure) Creation. The seventh and highest knower is Śiva (Śiva-pramātā), which is not itself a category of Creation. Siva, or the Śiva-pramāfā, is beyond Creation, it is the matrix of all Creation.
There is no separate knower category for Śakti (no Sakti- pramātā), because although at the highest stage of the pure categories there are two principles — Siva and Śakti — yet the two form one and the same state of Consciousness, called para (“the transcendent”). Siva is also Śakti or Śiva-Śakti. The Śiva-pramātā may also be called the Śakti -pramātā or the Śiva-Śakti -pramātā. This is because Śiva and Śakti, which form the transcendent state, are not two but one.
No comments:
Post a Comment