Kashmir Śaiva Philosophy: An Introductory Overview*

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion, 2021

If we look at full-fledgedŚaiva nondualism of Kashmir (in contrast to Saiddhāntiká Saiva dualism of which it appears to be a later development) as expressed in the works of the four great masters somānanda (c. 900-950), Utpaladeva (c. 925-975), Abhinavagupta (c. 975-1025), and Ks. emarāja (c. 1000-1050), we find that the individual soul fully coincides withŚiva; the material world is the free manifestation ofŚiva himself; māyā is not an autonomous reality, but a power ofŚiva; the stains (mala), which are responsible for the arising of the limited subject, are by no means substantial realities, but erroneous attitudes of the subject themself based on their lack of knowledge (see below); the opposition knower-knowable is only provisional; and finally everything shines as dynamic I-ness. Somānanda laid the foundation for the philosophy of nondualŚaivism (later called Pratyabhijñā "Recognition") with hisŚivadr. s. t. i (ŚD), an unflinching criticism of opposing doctrines with an emotionally aggressive overtone, deeply rooted in theŚaiva scriptures. Although theŚD was a powerful source of inspiration for Utpaladeva (Torella and Bäumer 2016), it is only with hisĪśvarapratyabhijñā-kārikā (ĪPK) that the Pratyabhijñā becomes a very original and elaborate philosophical system. TheĪPK and the author's Vr. tti ("short commentary"), composed at the same time, were commented upon in a long and complex Vivr. ti ("elaborate commentary"), which has come down to us only in fragments: the Siddhitrayī, three terse treatises on specific subjects and a Vr. tti on theŚivadr. s. t. i. Besides authoring philosophical works, Utpaladeva was also a mystical poet, as expressed in his splendid hymn collection,Śivastotrāvalī. The Pratyabhijñā philosophy was continued by Utpaladeva's disciple Laks. man. agupta (of whom nothing has come down to us) and by the latter's disciple, the great Abhinavagupta, who composed two extensive commentaries on the Pratyabhijñā, and took it as the theoretical frame for his Trika system in the Tantrāloka (TĀ), meant as a synthesis of the entire tantricŚaiva tradition; this synthesis was built around a single text, the Mālinīvijayottara-tantra (MVU), but at the same time included the teachings of many lineages ofŚaiva tantras, organized according to a Trika-Krama model (Sanderson 2009). Abhinava's work covers an astonishingly vast array of subjects, ranging from the exegesis of tantric scriptures to epistemology, to aesthetic speculation, this latter probably forming the very basis on which the whole edifice of his worldview rests. His most illustrious disciple, Ks. emarāja, was essentially the author of commentaries-a literary genre that in India was the actual seat of knowledge, much more than the few "original" sutra and kārikā texts-among which theŚivasūtra-vimarśinī, Spanda-nirn. aya, Netra-uddyota, and Svacchanda-uddyota stand out. While the

The paper aims at showing that exclusively Saivist interpretation of Abhinavagupta may be erroneous and we need to emphasize traditionalist roots of Abhinavagupt’s approach to diversity of revelations/traditions. By virtue of being a nondualist and a metaphysician as distinguished from being a theologian/philosopher in the sense perennialists use these terms, Abhinava transcends all sectarian or exclusivist theological or philosophical positions. He is best described as a sage, a traditional metaphysician who happens to use the idiom of Saivites. There is little Saivist (if understood in exclusivist exoteric theological terms) about him. Analyzing his view of scripture and plurality of salvific paths, the paper concludes by comparing Abhinavagupta’s foregrounding the case for certain finality of Trika Saivism with Schuon’s defense of claims of finality of Islam.

Kunal Publishers, New Delhi, 2019

In India Saivism was popular religion which is considered as earlier than that of Vaishnavism. It may be said that both were referred to by Megasthenes in the 4th century B.C. It is believed that Saivism in some form was current among the non-Aryans. Vedic Rudra was known as the Siva-Saivism, with whom he was merged. According to Syetasvatara Uponishad, Siva was the great God (Mahadeva) and similar position is accorded to his spouse Uma in the Keno Uponishad.1 Saivism was a separate religious sect with its own philosophy and organisation; it may be traced to the Pasupata form which is mentioned in the Mahabharata, along with the systems of Sankhya, Yoga, Pancharatra and Veda.2 In India the earliest sect of Saivism is the Pasupata and it was mentioned in the Mahabharata. It may be saying that the earliest stages of Saivism with the lord of cattle on the lord pati whose main duty was to help his creature in achieving freedom from bondage.3The main principles of the Saivism were theistic in character and divinities associated with the cults alike in grandeur as well as multiplicity. On the other hand, Kashmir Saivism was based on monism or non-dualism, it is known variously as the Trika, Spanda and Pratyabhijna. There are three principles like Siva-Sakti-Anu or patipasu, is accepted in other forms of the Saivism.

New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2009.

Abstract Identifying ‘Philosophy’ in Indian tradition -Pradeep Gokhale Central University of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath In this paper the author addresses the question of identifying philosophy in Indian intellectual tradition with special reference to the views presented by W. Halbfass in his book India and Europe. He discusses the possibility of identifying Kauṭilya’s concept of ānvīkṣikī with ‘philosophy’ in its western sense. He also discusses the terms such as darśana, tattvjñāna and tattvaśāstra vis-a vis the concept of philosophy. The author’s approach here is more constructive or re-constructive than historical. It is more an approach of an insider to Indian culture than that of an outsider. It is an attempt to enter a dialogue with a historian by trying to identify ‘philosophy’ in the Indian tradition.