Kashmir Saivism

The expression “Kashmir Śaivism” is now commonly used to refer to a group of nondualistic or monistic, tantric Śaiva (Śiva worshipping) traditions, which originated and flourished in Kashmir from the latter centuries of the 1st millennium CE through the early centuries of the 2nd millennium. These traditions must be distinguished from dualistic Śaiva Siddhānta traditions, which also flourished in medieval Kashmir. Though almost disappearing among the Brahmans of Kashmir, the nondualistic (like the dualistic) Śaiva traditions spread in transformed expressions and extended their influence throughout South Asia. Moreover, since the early 20th century, there have been efforts to revive the nondualistic Śaiva traditions, both in India and globally.

The nondualistic Kashmiri Śaiva lineages are significant as the first of the nondualistic Hindu tantric movements to develop a scholastic philosophical tradition. The most salient philosophy of monistic Kashmiri Śaivism is the Pratyabhijñā (Recognition) system propounded in the writings of Utpaladeva (c. 925–975 CE) and Abhinavagupta(c. 975–1025 CE). Abhinavagupta, his disciple Kṣemarāja (c. 1000–1050), and other successors further elaborated that philosophy as defining retrospectively the significance of earlier Śaiva and Śākta (Goddess-worshipping) traditions. It is these synthetic efforts that delineate the range of texts, doctrines, symbolism, ritual, and ethics now referred to asKashmir Śaivism.

Nondualistic Śaivism and the Tantric Quest for Power

The classification of the nondualistic Śaiva traditions as “tantric” requires explanation. Asian and Western scholars have come to recognize that contemporary usages of the terms “Tantra,” “Tantrism,” and “tantric” do not agree in extension with those of any premodern South Asian traditions. In the Sanskritic context, an important premodern usage identifies Tantras as a group of scriptures of Hindu Śaivism, Hindu Śāktism, and Buddhist Vajrayāna. “Tantra” may likewise refer to the movements that adhere to those scriptures. However, other scriptures and movements with very similar characteristics have not been described as tantric. According to another traditional South Asian usage, “Tantra” refers to a variety of folk traditions of “sorcery” to attain worldly ends. As H. Urban (2003) has documented, since the 19th century, Western culture has largely identified Tantra by its real or imagined sexual rites, made the subject of numerous invectives as well as attempts to appropriate and commodify them. Such Western representations have interacted with and transformed Asian traditions (Urban, 2003).

In striving to overcome confusions, scholars have converged toward using the term “Tantra” to classify religious movements together on the basis of historical and thematic relations, regardless of their self-definitions. Among the movements in the cultural dynamism of medieval Kashmir, now classified as tantric, are the interweaving Śaiva and Śākta lineages known as the Kaula, Krama, Spanda, and Trika, as well as the Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra (an esoteric tradition centered around the worship of Viṣṇu) and Buddhist Vajrāyana traditions.

These various expressions of Tantra constellate a number of symbolic and practical themes from much older vedic and nonvedic, Sanskritic and non-Sanskritic, religious traditions (Samuel, 2008). Probably the most generic and distinctive feature of these and other traditions that contemporary scholars call Tantra is the pursuit of power (Woodroffe, 1981; Chakravarty, 1997; Lawrence, 1999, 53–65; White, 2000, 7–9; Flood, 2004, 95–103; Furlinger, 2009). Hindu traditions understand this power as in essence Śakti, the Great Goddess herself. Tantric practitioners variously endeavor to identify with the Great Goddess, to be ecstatically possessed by her, or to become her possessor (śaktiman; see śakti ) in identifying with her consort, for example, one of the forms of Śiva or Viṣṇu.

Much of the variety within Tantra derives from the particular modalities of Śakti that are pursued. Tantric powers range from the relatively limited yogic “proficiencies” (siddhi) of local “shamans,” through the sovereignty of kings (traditionally great sponsors of Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions; see Gupta & Gombrich, 1986; Davidson, 2002; White, 2003, 123–159), to the omnipotence of the person who has become liberated by completely identifying with the deity.

There are a number of other features of Hindu Tantra widely accepted by scholars, which may be understood as doctrinal and practical expressions of this quest for Śakti. These include cosmogonic myths of the sexual union of Śakti with a male deity, along with practices that recapitulate that union in contemplation or actual intercourse, circular diagrams of cosmogenesis and cosmocracy ( maṇḍala ), empowered speech formulas ( mantra ), theosophical schemes tracing homologies between the transcendent and immanent modalities of emanating Śakti, the divinization of the experience of embodiment, and the synthesis of embodied enjoyment (bhoga) with spiritual practice ( yoga ) and liberation (mokṣa).

In his classic studies, A. Sanderson (1995, 1988, 1985) has illuminated the ways in which the tantric pursuit of powers transgresses orthodox, upper-caste Hindu norms that delimit human agency for the sake of symbolic ritual purity (śuddhi). Many tantric rites were originally performed in cremation grounds, which are traditionally viewed in South Asia as extremely impure. Prescriptions for a sexual ritual commonly advocate adultery and caste mixing, and apparently sometimes even incest. D. White (2003) has recently argued that Tantra originated in ancient siddha practices that endeavored to gain benefits from yoginī s through the transgressive offering and ingestion of sexual fluids. In some traditions, there is the ingestion of urine, excrement, phlegm, and even, allegedly, human flesh.

Whereas in Śākta Tantra, Śakti as a goddess is herself the ultimate deity, in dualistic Śaiva Siddhānta as well as nondualistic Śaivism, she is encompassed within the essence of the god Śiva. Śiva is the śaktiman (possessor of Śakti), comprehending her within his androgynous nature as his integral power and consort. In dualistic Śaiva Siddhānta, Śiva, souls, and the world are eternally distinct; liberation, realized through the grace of Śiva, is to become omnipotent and omniscient, like Śiva. As may be gathered from its appellation, in nondualistic Śaivism, Śiva is identical with souls and the world. Liberation is to realize that one is in fact Śiva.

As A. Sanderson (1998) explains, tantric Śaiva scriptures have been divided into two orders – those presenting the Siddhānta and those presenting the cults of Bhairava, the horrific form of Śiva, along with the Great Goddess and Tumburu (a four-headed form of Śiva). (Other important classifications are not being considered here; see Sanderson, 1988; Dyczkowski, 1988.) Nondualistic Kashmiri Śaivism has sought to find a basis for its teachings in the latter group. Thus Abhinavagupta claims that the essence of all nondualistic teachings, and thereby the essence of all the Śaiva scriptures, is found in the Trika scripture, Mālinīvijayottaratantra. However, A. Sanderson (1992) has argued that that scripture, along with others favored by the nondualistic Śaivas, such as the Svacchandatantra and Picumata (also known asBrahmayāmala), actually presume a dualistic ontology. A. Sanderson contends that nondualism originally developed only in particular Trika scriptures, such as the Trikasāra andTriśirobhairava, and Krama scriptures, such as the Kālikākrama, Kālīkulapañcaśatika, Kālīkulakramasadbhāva, and Jayadrathayāmala. Nondualistic Śaiva academic works (Śāstras) further elaborated and interpretively projected this nondualism back into other scriptures, as discussed below.

Nondualistic Śaiva myths and rituals reflect the traditions’ historical appropriation of Śāktism. According to the predominant mytheme, Śiva, out of play, divides from Śakti and emanates and controls the universe through her. The basic pattern of nondualistic practice is the approach to Śiva through Śakti. As the Vijñānabhairava proclaims (VijBhai. 20; see Singh, 1979, 17), Śakti is Śiva’s “door” or “face.” The aspirant pursues identification with the omnipotent Lord Śiva by assuming his mythic agency as the śaktiman, through ritual practices that reenact his emanation and control of the universe through Śakti.

These practices range from Kaula sexual rituals, in which the male and female partners become Śiva and Śakti (Dupuche, 2003; White, 2003; Silburn, 1988; Chalier-Visuvalingam, 2010), through internalized contemplations of mantras (Alper, 1989; Muller-Ortega, 1992), maṇḍalas (Sanderson, 1986), and philosophical and theosophical speculations.

In Trika tantric formulations, the adept possesses Śakti in her modalities as supreme (parā), supreme-nonsupreme (parāparā), and nonsupreme (aparā) on the cosmic planes of nonduality (abheda), duality and nonduality (bhedābheda), and nonduality (bheda) – and in various other homologous cosmic triads.

In Krama Tantra, one contemplates one’s possession of wheels of Śakti (śakticakra), functioning in the sequence of epistemic and cosmic processes. According to Abhinavagupta’s interpretation of Krama, the encompassing Śakti is Kālasaṃkarṣiṇī (“The Contractor of Time”), who comprises 12 Kālīs – operating in the phases of the creation, persistence, destruction, and the indescribable (anākhyā) – of the cognizer (pramātṛ), instruments of cognition (pramāṇa), and object of cognition (prameya); the latter three are also identified, respectively, with fire, the sun, and the moon (see Rastogi, 1967, 1979).

In Spanda Tantra, one possesses Śakti conceived as “cosmic pulsation” (spanda). Within the historical elaboration of nondualistic Śaiva theology, and especially in the grand syntheses of Abhinavagupta, a great variety of additional codes were propounded for the same mythic and ritual pattern.

Historical Transformations of Kashmiri Tantra: The Philosophical Rationalization of Nondualistic Śaiva Traditions

A. Sanderson, D.G. White, M. Dyczkowski, R. Inden, and others have documented crucial historical trends in various early Kashmiri tantric traditions. One of these is the traditions’ continual appropriation and subordination – which A. Sanderson calls “overcoding” – of the symbolism and ritual of one another, as well as of more established traditions (Sanderson, 1985; 1988; 2007a; Inden, Walters & Ali, 2000, 29–98; Vasudeva, 2004, 11–17; Hanneder, 1998). While the hierarchizing aspects of culture have been a central concern throughout the contemporary humanities and social sciences, tantric traditions are remarkable for the baroque complexity and convolutedness of this hierarchization.

Another important development was the tantric traditions’ efforts to “domesticize” by assimilating to more established upper-caste Hindu orthopraxy (Sanderson, 1985; White, 2003, 219–257; Biernacki, 1999). Some of the more radical practices, such as those involving cremation grounds and sexual rituals, were toned down. The interpretations of all aspects of tantric symbolism and practice, including the sexual ritual, became increasingly internalized and gnoseological, oriented toward deeper religious and philosophical meanings. An aspect of this trend that has been emphasized by D.G. White (2003, 150) is the “dissimulation” by practitioners of their transgressive engagements under the guise of upper-caste, householder propriety. According to a frequently quoted maxim, one should be “a Kaula inwardly, a Śaiva [that is, a nontransgressive one] outwardly, and a Vaidika in the affairs of the world” (TĀVi. 3.643). Likewise, increasingly popular soteriologies aiming at identity with the omnipotent deity may be viewed as, in a sense, “sublimations” of pursuits of more concrete magical and political powers (see Sanderson, 1995; White, 2003; Torzsok, 2007).

A highly consequential expression of this process of domesticization was the enrichment and “philosophical rationalization” of nondualistic Śaivism through Sanskritic traditions of academic discourse and philosophical dialogue. Often candidly inspired with a sense of religious mission, monistic Śaiva writers began to consolidate their complex spiritual inheritance in increasingly systematic manuals (Śāstras) of doctrines and practices (Lawrence, 1999, 35–65; 2008b, 7–10).

Early milestones of this process of rationalization were Vasugupta’s transmission of the manualŚivasūtra – ostensibly revealed to him by Śiva himself – and the further systematization of its teachings by either Vasugupta or his disciple Kallaṭa in the Spandakārikā. These two works form the core texts of the Spanda system of nondualistic Śaivism, known for the latter text’s interpretation of Śakti as spanda (cosmic pulsation). The notion of spanda endeavors to describe the Śaiva vision of the paradoxical unity of the transcendent-eternal and immanent-changing aspects of reality. The commentaries on the Spanda works continued the project of systematization and justification (Śivaśutra, Sivasūtravimarśinī, and Spandakārikā; see Dyczkowski, 1987).

It was a tradition of nondualistic Śaivism, called Trika (Triadism, referring to its emphasis on various triads of modalities of Śakti and cosmic levels), that produced the first work of full-scale philosophical apologetics against rival schools of Hinduism and Buddhism. This was theŚivadṛṣṭi (Cognition of Śiva) by Somānanda (c. 900–950 CE). Utpaladeva, a student of Somānanda, wrote a commentary on the Śivadṛṣṭi, the Śivadṛṣṭivṛtti. He also further advanced the work of his teacher with much greater sophistication in creating the foundational works of the Pratyabhijñā system, which became the authoritative tradition of nondualistic Śaiva philosophy. The most comprehensive of these texts are the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā (Verses on the Recognition of the Lord) and two commentaries on the verses, the shortĪśvarapratyabhijñākārikāvṛtti and the more detailed Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti. (The latter text has been available to contemporary scholars only in fragments. See Torella, 1988; 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2007d.) Utpaladeva also wrote a trilogy of more specialized philosophical studies, theSiddhitrayī (Three Proofs) – Ajaḍapramātṛsiddhi (Proof of a Sentient Knower), Īśvarasiddhi(Proof of the Lord), and Sambandhasiddhi (Proof of Relation).

Abhinavagupta, a student of a student of Utpaladeva, further elaborated and augmented Utpaladeva’s arguments in long commentaries, the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī on the Īśvara-pratyabhijñākārikāvṛtti, and the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī on Utpaladeva’s now fragmentary Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti. While those commentaries are of paramount importance, this thinker’s greatest significance in the history of Tantra was his utilization of the Pratyabhijñā theories and categories to formulate a philosophical hermeneutics of tradition (āgama). In his monumental Tantrāloka and numerous other works (e.g. Tantrasāra, Parātrīśikāvivaraṇa, Mālinīvijayavārttika), Abhinavagupta utilized categories from the Pratyabhijñā philosophy to interpret and organize the diverse aspects of Trika symbolism, doctrine, and practice. And bringing to a sort of culmination the process of interpretive overcoding, he synthesized under the rubric of this philosophically rationalized Trika an enormous range of symbolism and practice from Kaula, Krama, and Spanda Tantra, as well as other Hindu and Buddhist schools.

Abhinavagupta’s disciple, Kṣemarāja, further developed his teacher’s philosophical hermeneutics in lengthy commentaries on tantric scriptures and Śāstras, and a simplified manual of nondualistic Śaiva doctrine and practice, the Pratyabhijñāhṛdaya (Heart of Recognition; Singh, 1980a, 1980b; Dyczkowski, 1992; Dvivedi, 1985a, 1985b; Arraj, 1988). The exegetical and synthetic agenda was again advanced by later thinkers, such as the Pratyabhijñā writer, Virūpākṣa in the Virūpākṣapañcāśikā (Kaviraj, 1970, 1–22; Lawrence, 2008b), and the Krama author, Maheśvarānanda in the Mahārthmañjarī and the autocommentary Parimala(Dvivedi, 1972). “Essentialistic” interpretations of what is now called Kashmir Śaivism have largely been founded on the normative status of these philosophically rationalized accounts. Historians such as A. Sanderson and D.G. White have rightly observed the changes that have thereby occurred in the meanings of tantric symbols, doctrines, and practices. One may, nevertheless, also observe that religious interpretations such as those of nondualistic Śaiva exegetics are not attempts at purely historical analysis. They are ostensibly justified on philosophical or theological grounds, and they should be engaged as such (Lawrence, 2008b, 8–10).

While Kashmiri Śaiva versions of Trika, Krama, and related traditions were transmitted directly to South India, they also greatly influenced other traditions throughout the subcontinent. InKashmir the philosophically rationalized Trika was a major influence on the development ofŚrīvidyā Śākta Tantra, which again spread to the south and throughout India. For example, the Śrīvidyā works of Bhāskararāya make extensive use of Pratyabhijñā concepts. The philosophical-exegetical categories developed by Abhinavagupta and his successors came to pervade later shastric traditions of what D.G. White (2003) has called “high Hindu Tantra.”

Abhinavagupta is also renowned for his works on Sanskrit poetry and drama. Developing ideas of thinkers such as Ānandavardhana and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, Abhinavagupta interpreted aesthetic experience as homologous to and practically approaching the monistic Śaiva spiritual realization. Kashmiri Śaivism thereby came to extend its influence on religious understandings of aesthetic experience throughout South Asia, and it was also an important resource for the aestheticized devotionalism of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism.

Teachings of Somānanda’s Śivadṛṣṭi

Somānanda’s broadest concern in his Śivadṛṣṭi is to explain how Śiva, through the various modalities of his Śakti, emanates a real universe that remains identical with himself. In establishing the Śaiva doctrine, he refutes a number of alternative views on ultimate reality, god, the self, and the metaphysical status of the world.

The Śaiva scholar devotes his greatest polemical efforts against the theories of the 4th- to 6th-century vaiyākaraṇa (grammarian) philosopher Bhartṛhari. According to Bhartṛhari, ultimate reality is the word absolute (śabdabrahman; see philosophy of language) – a superlinguistic plenum, which fragments and emanates into the multiplicity of forms of expressive speech and referents of that speech. Somānanda repudiates the view that a linguistic entity could be the ultimate reality, while at the same time identifying the true source of language as the sound (nāda) integral to Śiva’s creative power, or Śakti (Nemec, 2005).

Somānanda takes a less polemical approach toward Śāktism. He argues that there is ultimately no difference between Śakti and Śiva, who is the possessor of Śakti. He supports this contention with the analogy of the inseparability of heat from fire, which is the possessor of heat. Nevertheless, he asserts that it is more proper to refer to the ultimate reality as Śiva rather than Śakti. Other Hindu schools criticized by Somānanda include the Pāñcarātra, as well as theVedānta, Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, and Vaiśeṣika systems.

Somānanda briefly adduces some considerations against the Buddhist theory of momentariness, which were directly picked up and elaborated by Utpaladeva, who wrote the commentary Śivadṛṣṭivṛtti, and Abhinavagupta. The most important of these was his advertence to the experience of recognition (pratyabhijñā) as evidence, both for the continuity of entities from the past through the present, and of the self that connects the past and present experiences of those entities. It was originally the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school that adduced such considerations against the Buddhists, and the 9th-century Śaiva Siddhānta thinker Sadyojyotis in his Nareśvaraparīkṣā had also recently employed these arguments. Somānanda introduced them to nondualistic Śaiva philosophical reflection with great future consequences.

Somānanda’s claims that synthetic categories or universals are more primitive than particulars, and likewise his invocation of Sanskrit syntax to explain Śiva’s agency, had an important impact on Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta.

Also noteworthy is Somānanda’s advocacy of a “panpsychist” theory that all things, which emanate from the consciousness of Śiva, have their own consciousness and agency. Somānanda additionally reflects on the contemplations that lead to the realization of identity with Śiva.

Religious and Philosophical Project of the Pratyabhijñā System

Belying our Western dichotomies of religion (or mysticism) and reason, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta conceive the Pratyabhijñā simultaneously as a philosophical apologetics, structured according to Nyāya categories for publicly assessable discourse, and an internalized tantric ritual that may potentially lead “all humanity” to the soteriological recognition (pratyabhijñā) “I am Śiva.”

Before giving a positive description of their method, the Pratyabhijñā philosophers introduce considerations that dialectically negate its efficacy. As Śiva is a pure unity, there cannot ultimately be any dichotomy of the means (upāya) and the goal (upeya) of his recognition. The vedantic thinkers develop upanishadic and advaita vedantic conceptions of self-luminosity (svaprakāśatva) to explain his immediate, nondualistic evidence to himself. In the highest perspective, philosophy only removes the illusion that this is not the case. Furthermore, because Śiva is the sole, omnipotent cosmic actor, that removal through philosophy or any other means is ultimately accomplished by his grace.

Thus dialectically qualified, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s chief positive description of the Pratyabhijñā method follows the ritual pattern described above, that is, the “revealing of Śakti” (śaktyāviṣkaraṇa). However, they additionally frame Śakti as the reason of a classic Nyāya “inference for the sake of others” (parārthānumāna). According to the scholastic logic, the reason identifies a quality in the inferential subject, that is, “I,” known to be invariably concomitant with the predicate, “Śiva.” Thus “I am Śiva” because I have his quality, Śakti, the capacity of emanating and controlling the universe.

In technical philosophical discussions, Śakti is often divided into special modalities that designate Śiva’s emanatory power as operative in the respective spheres of explanation. The most encompassing of these are the jñānaśakti (knowledge śakti) and kriyāśakti (action śakti), invoked in fields roughly corresponding to epistemology and metaphysics/ontology.

The Pratyabhijñā thinkers also identify the insight gained by the revealing of Śakti with the experience comprehended in a nondualistic Śaiva cosmological principle, called “pure wisdom” (śuddhavidyā). According to them, pure wisdom is the awareness of oneself as the emanator of the universe, expressed “I am this.” Abhinavagupta further elaborates that this insight animates what he calls “good reasoning” (sattarka), which, counteracting ordinary deluded and dualistic thinking, leads to a “purification of conceptual constructions” (vikalpasaṃskāra). When one realizes that the world is one’s emanation, one realizes that one is Śiva (Lawrence, 1999, 35–65).

Idealistic Epistemology of Recognition

The philosophers explain this realization that they wish to convey as the recognition “I am Śiva” in order to address debates on epistemology that were current then. The specific problems the writers address had been formulated by the Buddhist logic school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. According to this school, knowledge has as its foundation a series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakṣana). There are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring entities as identified by linguistic or conceptual interpretation (savikalpakajñāna).

In debates over several centuries, the Buddhist logicians had propounded arguments attacking many concepts that seemed commonsensical and were religiously significant to the various Hindu philosophical schools – such as ideas of external objects, ordinary and ritual action, an enduring self, god, and revelation. As mentioned, the Kashmiri, 8th-century Śaiva Siddhāntin philosopher Sadyojyjotis and then Somānanda had each briefly taken up the challenge of Buddhist logic’s attacks on recognition (Lawrence, 1999, 67–84).

The Pratyabhijñā philosophers’ response to the problematic posed by Buddhist logic revolutionized earlier approaches of the Nyāya philosophers, the Śaiva Siddhāntin Sadyojyotis, and even Utpaladeva’s teacher Somānanda, and it may be characterized as a form of transcendental argumentation. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta interpret their central myth of Śiva’s emanation and control of the universe through Śakti as itself an act of self-recognition (ahampratyavamarśa; pratyabhijñā). Furthermore, abjuring the agonistic stance Somānanda had taken toward Bhartṛhari, they equate Śiva’s self-recognition with the principle of supreme speech (parāvāc), which they derive from Bhartṛhari; they thereby appropriate Bhartṛhari’s explanation of creation as linguistic in nature. Thus, the nondualistic Śaiva philosophers ascribe to recognition-speech a primordial status, and they affirm it to constitute the very facts that the Buddhists say preclude it. As ritual recapitulates myth, the Pratyabhijñā system endeavors to lead the student to participate in the recognition “I am Śiva” by demonstrating that all experiences and contents of experience are expressions of the recognition (and pure wisdom) that “I am Śiva.”

Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s epistemology may best be illustrated by its approach to perceptual cognition. The Pratyabhijñā arguments on this subject may be divided into those centered around two sets of terms, prakāśa and vimarśa, and cognates such as pratyavamarśaand parāmarśa.

Among the backgrounds of the concept of prakāśa are the aforementioned notion of self-luminosity and the Yogācāra Buddhist notion of self-consciousness (svasaṃvedana); it is an “illumination” or “bare subjective awareness” that validates each cognition, so that one knows that one knows. The thrust of the arguments about prakāśa is idealistic. The Śaivas contend that, as no object is known without validating awareness, this awareness actually constitutes all objects as its real but inseparable contents. There is no ground even for the inference of objects external to awareness that cause its diverse contents, because causality can be posited only between phenomena of which one has been aware. Furthermore, the Śaivas argue that there cannot be another subject outside of one’s own awareness. They conclude, however, not with solipsism as usually understood in the West, but a conception of a universal awareness. All sentient and insentient beings are essentially one awareness.

Vimarśa and its cognates have the significance of apprehension or judgment with a recognitive structure, as applying prepossessed linguistic interpretation to present items of experience, and may be glossed as “recognitive apprehension.” Utpaladeva’s and Abhinavagupta’s arguments centering on these terms develop earlier considerations of Bhartṛhari on the linguistic nature of experience. The philosophers refute the Buddhist contention that recognition is a contingent reaction to direct experience by claiming that it is integral or transcendental to all experience. Some of the considerations they adduce to support this claim are the following:

-: that children must build upon a subtle, innate form of linguistic apprehension in their learning of conventional language;
-: that there must be a recognitive ordering of our most basic experiences of situations and movements in order to account for our ability to perform rapid behaviors; and
-: that some form of subtle application of language in all experiences is necessary in order to account for our ability to remember them.

The two phases of argument operate together. The idealistic prakāśa arguments make the recognition shown by the vimarśa arguments to be integral to all epistemic processes, constitutive of them and their objects. Moreover, on the logic of the Kashmiri Śaiva idealism, the recognition generating all things belongs to one subject. It must therefore be his self-recognition. As it is through the monistic subject’s self-recognition that all phenomena are created, the Pratyabhijñā thinkers have ostensibly demonstrated their cosmogonic myth of Śiva’s emanation through Śakti in terms of self-recognition. The student, by coming to see this self-recognition as the inner reality of all that is experienced, is led to full participation in it. Because the recognition of an objective “this” (or this is yellow) is a recognition of myself – pure wisdom’s “I am this” – therefore “I am Śiva.”

Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta apply the same approach to explain other topics of epistemology, from memory to conceptual processes such as inference. Śiva’s synthetic self-recognition underlies all forms of cognitive experience. Even semantic exclusion (apoha), which Buddhists endeavored to make the basis of their theory of reference, according to the Pratyabhijñā depends upon the synthetic recognition of what does and does not fit into particular categories (Lawrence, 1999, 85–132).

Conceptions of Identity and Egoity

In Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s Pratyabhijñā works, and in Abhinavagupta’s writings on tantric symbolism and ritual as well as aesthetics, they have articulated what may be described as a philosophical psychology of identity. The Kashmiri Śaiva philosophers describe the empowered Śiva identity recognized by the practitioner as a higher sense of “I” (aham) or, more abstractly, “I-hood” (ahambhāva), which also came to be called “perfect I-hood” (pūrṇāhaṁtā). Sometimes, Abhinavagupta dialectically qualifies this conception in relation to a more apophatic statement of the status of the supreme lord; for example, he sometimes suggests that what he calls anuttara (the unsurpassed) is above the perfect I-hood. On other occasions, Abhinavagupta, like Utpaladeva, treats the higher I-hood as another schema of the ultimate.

M. Hulin (1978) and M. Dyczkowski (1992) have demonstrated the historical innovativeness of this Kashmir Śaiva conception of “egoity” and its great influence on later tantric traditions. Dyczkwoski explains,

"This concept of Self as pure, absolute ego-consciousness is quite unique in the history of Indian thought. It is found only in monistic Kashmiri Śaiva schools and those traditions (like the Śākta Śrīvidyā) that have been directly influenced by them" (Dyczkowski, 1992, 39).

A sense of egoity precursory to the Pratybhijñā theory may be found in earlier tantric and even some upanishadic realizations of empowerment. Nevertheless, M.S.G. Dyczkowski’s contention is valid with regard to the Pratyabhijñā philosophical psychological understanding of egoity.

Contrary to earlier Hindu and Buddhist thought, the Pratyabhijñā system and Pratyabhijñā-inspired Tantra do not advocate the surrender of ordinary egoistic identity, referred to by such terms as “I-concept” (ahaṁkāra), “pride” or “self-conception” (abhimāna), “I-am-ness” (asmitā), and “I-hood” (ahaṃtā). For this mode of thinking, the human ego is an immanent expression of god’s identity that must be universalized and transfigured into its essential nature as perfect I-hood. Abhinavagupta further elaborates that integral to the perfect egoity of god is a state of satiety he variously describes as “rest in the self ” (svātmaviśrānti), “self-enjoyment” (svātmopabhoga), and “self-relishing” (svātmacamatkara; svaviṣayāsvāda). Through practices ranging from the Kaula sexual ritual through aesthetic appreciation and philosophical and theosophical contemplations, ordinary selfish pleasures are transfigured into that divine satiety (Lawrence, 2008b).

Linguistic Speculations on the Metaphysics of Empowered Identity

On the basis of the equation of Śakti with supreme speech, Kashmir Śaiva writers engage in a variety of philosophical and “theosophical” speculations on the linguistic aspects of their conception of egoity. Abhinavagupta thus formulates a kind of theosophical contemplation of the nature of perfect I-hood as encompassing all speech and referents, in terms of an occult etymology of the word aham (I), itself. He asserts that the word aham is derived from a grammatical procedure of abbreviation (pratyāhāra) as encompassing all the phonemes – meaningful speech sounds – from the first a to the last ha. Combined with the final graphemicbindu, ṃ, the sounds of aham correspond to the entire cosmic cycle of emission and reabsorption. This explanation also justifies the choice of aham as a favorite Kashmir Śaivamantra.

An overlapping scheme prescribes contemplations on the tantric self as possessing six “courses” (adhvans) of the emanation of supreme speech, also designated collectively as the sixfold course. The six courses are analyzed into two triads according to the root bifurcation of supreme speech into expressive speech (vācaka) and the referents of that speech (vācya). The triad of expressive speech comprises, in descending order, the increasingly concrete phonemes (varṇa), mantra s, and words (pāda). The three corresponding courses of referents are cosmic segments (kāla), cosmic principles (tattva), and cosmic realms (bhuvana). This scheme is utilized as a map of the cosmic-linguistic totality. The student contemplates all the courses as emanating from his or her own I-hood (Padoux, 1990, 330–371).

Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta also develop more straightforwardly philosophical accounts of the mythico-ritual drama of empowered identity. Following Bhartṛhari’s grammarian school, they interpret being or existence (sattā), the generic referent of language, as action (kriyā). Bhartṛhari’s view itself originated in Brahmanic interpretations of the Vedas as expressing injunctions for sacrifice. The Kashmiri Śaivas further agree with much of vedic exegetics in conceiving the action that is being as both narrative and recapitulatory ritual action.

Following the Pratyabhijñā epistemology, it is Śiva’s mythic action through Śakti as self-recognition that linguistically constitutes all experience and objects of experience. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta analyze how Śiva’s action generates a multiplicity of relations (sambandha) or universals (sāmānya) as the referents of discrete instances of recognitive-linguistic apprehension, and further combines these to generate complex phenomena. Again, mythic action is reenacted in being interpreted in scholastic philosophical discourse.

The Pratyabhijñā philosophers further utilize theories of Sanskrit syntax to explain Śiva’s action. Again reflecting the vedic roots of South Asian philosophies, many schools of Hinduism and Buddhism – even those that do not view all existence as action – frequently advert to considerations of action syntax in treating ontological or metaphysical topics. The relevant considerations pertain to how verbs articulating action relate to declined nouns indicating the concomitants of action (kārakas) – in English, roughly, the agent, object, instrument, purpose, source, and location.

Most Sanskritic philosophies, Hindu as well as Buddhist, have tended to delimit the syntactic role of the agent (kartṛkāraka) – to different degrees, but sometimes quite strongly. At one level, this explanatory tendency evidently reflects the orthodox Brahmanic norms that subordinate the individual’s agency to the order of objective ritual behavior – pertaining to sacrifice, caste, life cycle, and so on. It also seems more broadly to reflect both Hindu and Buddhist concepts of the agent’s bondage to the process of action and result ( karman ) extending across rebirths (Gerow, 1982). The mainstream Buddhist philosophies completely deny the existence of a self in the dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) of karman.

Developing suggestions of Somānanda, the Pratyabhijñā philosophers expound a distinctive theory of agency to rationalize their tantric mythic and ritual drama of omnipotence. In their theory they take up and radicalize several earlier understandings of the positive, albeit delimited, role of the agent, particularly from the vyākaraṇa (grammar) and Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika traditions. According to the Kashmir Śaivas, all causal processes and things constituting the universe are synthesized and impelled by the agency of Śiva/the self in his cosmic acts. The self is svatantra (self-determined), rather than paratantra (other-determined), like all other things. The Śaivas ultimately reduce the entire action of existence to agency. As Abhinavagupta explains, "Being is the agency of the act of becoming, that is, the freedom characteristic of an agent regarding all actions" (ĪśPraVim. 1.5.14).

This theory of omnificent syntactic agency is ritually axiomatic as well as mythical. Utpaladeva describes the method of the Pratyabhijñā philosophy, in a manner homologous to the epistemology of recognition, as leading to salvation through the contemplation of one’s status as the agent of the universe. Abhinavagupta likewise, in his explanation of the preliminary ceremonies of the tantric ritual, identifies various components of the ritual – such as the location, ritual implements, and objects of sacrifice, for example, flowers and oblations – with the Sanskrit grammatical cases. He explains that the aspirant’s goal in the ritual action is identification with Śiva as agent of all the cases (Lawrence, 1998).

Supplementing the Pratyabhijñā philosophy of action is theorization on the semantics and syntax of grammatical persons, gender, number, and verbal tenses. To briefly recount Abhinavagupta’s approach to the first of these, the grammatical persons are the familiar triad – he/she/it/they (Skt. “first person,” Eng. “third person”), you (Skt. “middle person,” Eng. “second person”), and I/we (Skt. “final person,” Eng. “first person”). Though his agenda is different, Abhinavagupta’s views about grammatical persons are remarkable for ways in which they anticipate contemporary philosophy and linguistics.

Abhinavagupta acknowledges that in ordinary discourse the three persons are defined by their mutual distinctions and are arbitrary in their reference. However, he also ranks them hierarchically. He affirms the privilege of I/we as indicating the enunciator of discourse, over the addressee you and the noninterlocutory “he/she/it,” on the basis of their degrees of extension. That is, “you” can include he/she/it/they, and I/we can include “you” as well as he/she/it/they.

According to Abhinavagupta, the ranking of the three persons reflects the structure of emanation in a Trika Śaiva cosmological triad. That is, “I” as the enunciator of discourse corresponds to the omnipotent self as Śiva, as the whole universe is ultimately my supreme speech. The addressee, you, is identified with Śakti according to the model of Śiva’s self-revelatory dialogues with Śakti in the tantric scriptures. The noninterlocutory he/she/it represents the unenlightened human (nara) reduced to the condition of inert objects. The self’s foundational agency-cum-act of speech, with, as, and through Śakti constitutes all limited circumstances of discourse, including all interlocutors and objects.

Abhinavagupta again prescribes a contemplation of return in which all forms of he/she/it are personalized as absorbed into “you,” Śakti. And “I” as cosmic discursive agent realize “you” to be my integral power and consort. The philosopher indicates in both his Pratyabhijñā and aesthetic writings that the same contemplative agenda should inform the hermeneutic reception of philosophy, as well as poetry and drama. That is, “I” should identify with both what is stated in the philosophy and the universalized representations of the emotions of literary characters (Lawrence, 2008a).

Universalization of the Body and Reflected Identity

Like other tantric traditions, nondualistic Kashmir Śaivism correlates empowered identity with a transformed sense of one’s body (Flood, 1993; 2006). Developing themes from earlier Tantra, as well as the Vedas, Upaniṣads, and the Bhagavadgītā (and perhaps also concepts of the all-inclusive body of kings), Kashmiri Śaiva writers equate the body of the realized being with Śakti in all her cosmic transformations. The Śivasūtra thus proclaims that all that is observable (dṛśya), that is, the universe, is one’s body (ŚiS. 1.14). The transformation of the sense of the body may be described equally as the “universalization” of the human body and the “corporification” of the universe.

This equation of the cosmic emanation through Śakti with the body is also explained linguistically on the basis of the Śaiva appropriations of Bhartṛhari’s linguistic idealism, as well as Mīmāṃsā conceptions of the eternal cosmic status of mantras and their constituent phonemes. Abhinavagupta, in his accounts of “phonematic emanation,” thus correlates various aspects of cosmic embodiment with idealized speech sounds (Padoux, 1990).

Kashmir Śaiva traditions utilize a number of practices to realize the higher form of embodiment. For example, the divinizing projection of mantric syllables (nyāsa) on the body and ritual implements and the purification of the elements (bhūtaśuddhi) are performed as preliminaries to worship. Through these practices, the adept resolves the gross elements of his or her physical body into their subtle essences. He or she symbolically burns away the limitations of the physical body and through the contemplative infusion of divine nectar manifests his or her divinized body.

A variety of tantric practices are conceived to awaken Śakti as kuṇḍalinī, often symbolized in the form of a serpent, dormant in the energy center (cakra) at the base of the spine. As she ascends through higher energy centers, she divinizes the subtle physiology of the human body (Silburn, 1988). In the sexual ritual, the male and female partners physically become Śiva and Śakti and realize their primordial unity in their very genitalia and sexual fluids (Dupuche, 2003; White, 2003; Silburn, 1988; Chalier-Visuvalingam, 2010). The Pratyabhijñā textVirūpākṣapañciśikā, from around the 12th century, advocates the pursuit of liberation directly through the contemplation that the universe is one’s own body. One empowered by that conviction is ostensibly able to move mountains like one moves his or her own hands (Lawrence, 2008b).

Closely related to the Kashmir Śaiva approaches to the transformation of embodiment is Abhinavagupta’s advancement of theory and practices focused on the model of the reflection (pratibimba). Building upon earlier Śaiva and other South Asian religious and philosophical ideas, Abhinavagupta interprets the entire process of emanation through Śakti/speech/self-recognition as the reflection of one’s true identity. He explains various modes of practice, including contemplations of the phonemic symbolism of mantras, the sexual ritual, aesthetic experience, and the Pratyabhijñā philosophy itself, as means for identification with Śiva through the realization that everything is one’s reflection. In Abhinavagupta’s account, themantra aham, “I,” itself is reflected as mahā, “great” (Lawrence, 2005).

**Classification of Means Types (Upāya)**

In his Tantrāloka and Tantrasāra, Abhinavagupta propounds a typology of religious practices into four “means types” (upāya). Abhinavagupta’s classification is built upon an earlier analysis of three types of mystical submersion (samāveśa) in his favored scripture, theMālinīvijayottaratantra (MāViT. 2.21–23; TĀ. & TĀVi. 1.167–170). Abhinavagupta says that he learned the classification of means types specifically from his teacher, Śambhunātha (Dyczkowski, 1987, 171). As with other formulations of Abhinavagupta, this classification was subsequently read back to organize practices presented in earlier texts, such as the Śivasūtraand Spandakārikā.

Abhinavagupta defines the first means type on the basis of its being above the scheme of means proper. He calls this the “non-means” (anupāya), referring to the direct experience of ultimate reality with little or no effort. Abhinavagupta’s non-means captures some of the same significance as the doctrine of the self-luminosity (svaprakāśatva). The highest level of practice is realizing that one is already self-realized as Śiva. One might compare the non-means with teachings of sudden enlightenment in Zen Buddhism, according to which one must realize that one is already the enlightened Buddha.

Abhinavagupta frames the three means proper as operating on the three levels of the Trika tradition’s cosmic triads. In descending order, these are the means of Śambhu (i.e. Śiva; theśāmbhava upāya), the means of Śakti (śākta upāya), and the “individual means” (āṇava upāya) – named after the triad of Śiva, Śakti, and human (nara, aṇu). These types are similarly correlated with the homologous triads of goddesses Parā (“Supreme”), Parāparā (“Supreme-Nonsupreme” or “Intermediate”), and Aparā (“Nonsupreme” or “Lower”); the conditions of unity (abheda), unity-and-diversity (bhedābheda), and diversity (bheda); and icchāśakti (will śakti),jñānaśakti (cognition śakti), and kriyāśakti (action śakti).

As should be evident from some of the terms just given, the means descend from the most unitive and intuitive non-means and means of Śambhu to the most concrete practices of the individual means. The intermediate means of Śakti focuses more on mental practices involving the pursuit of pure wisdom (śuddhavidyā) of one’s status as Śakti possessor, through good reasoning (sattarka) and the purification of conceptualization (vikalpasaṁskāra), as described above. The indications are that Abhinavagupta places the Pratyabhijñā philosophy proper within this means type (Lawrence, 1999, 57–65; Rastogi, 1967, 388).

Kashmir Śaiva Impact on Aesthetics

This is not an appropriate place to enter into a full discussion on the relation of Kashmiri Śaivism to aesthetics; so only a few observations will be made. It should primarily be noted that the aesthetics of Abhinavagupta and those following him may be linked, in crucial ways, to the broader nondualistic Śaiva agenda of the approach to the divine Śiva-self through the immanent activity of his Śakti (see the Abhinavabhāratī [Abhinavagupta’s commentary on theNāṭyaśāstra], Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī, and Dhvanyālokalocana [Abhinavagupta’s commentary on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka]). K.C. Pandey (1972) notes the importance of Śakti to Abhinavagupta’s aesthetics. G. Larson (1974) likewise acknowledges the Tantra and Āgama as a background, but he primarily discusses the Vedas, vyākaraṇa, and poetics.

To mention some examples, the 9th-century Kashmiri Śaiva aesthetician Ānandavardhana developed a theory of the suggestion (dhvani) of aesthetic sentiments ( rasa ) by the formal structures of literature. This theory itself was an elaboration, for the specific case of literary discourse, of Bhartṛhari’s semantics of sphoṭa (manifestation), and pratibhā (intuition). Abhinavagupta in turn situates Ānandavardhana’s theory within the Pratyabhijñā system’s reformulation in its conceptions of Śiva’s Śakti as his self-recognition (ahampratyavamarśa), supreme speech (parāvāc), and semantic intuition (pratibhā).

Abhinavagupta affirms linkages between the theory he appropriates from Bhaṭṭanāyaka (whose religious affiliation is difficult to determine) regarding rasas as universalizations (sādhāraṇīkaraṇa) of ordinary emotions – and the Spanda tradition’s program of contemplatively absorbing particular expressions of cosmic pulsation (viśeṣaspanda) into the universal cosmic pulsation (sāmānyaspanda). Likewise, Abhinavagupta invokes the Pratyabhijñā rationalizations of Śakti as self-recognition in his frequent explanation of processes of recognitive synthesis (anusaṃdhāna) and apperception (anuvyavasāya) in synthesizing the expressions of emotions by literary characters (Kuanpoonpol, 1991).

Abhinavagupta also explains the experience of rasas analogously to śaktyāviṣkaraṇa in philosophy and tantric sex, as a comprehension of emotions in their perfection or completeness (pūrṇatā) and an absorption into the self (ātmaviśrānti;ĪśPraViVim. 1.5.11). Abhinavagupta affirms that a mutual reflection (pratibimba) of identity occurs among the participants in tantric rites as well as the audience of singing and dancing (TĀ. & TĀVi. 28.373–378). He also describes aesthetic experience and the ethical lessons one draws from it, like tantric experience, as an absorption into the experience of the first person (NāṭŚā. & AbhiBhā. 1.35; Lawrence, 2008a).

Mention may further be made of Abhinavagupta’s theorization on the peaceful aesthetic sentiment (śāntarasa) as the ultimate telos of the aesthetic experience (Masson & Patwardhan, 1969.) Although it is not clear how close Abhinavagupta believed aesthetic experience could take one to liberation, it is clear that he situates, or overcodes, key features of his aesthetics within basic structures of nondualistic Śaiva symbolism, doctrine, and practice. This was highly consequential for predominant later Hindu understandings of the affinity between aesthetic experience and spirituality.

Kashmir Śaiva Ethics

Throughout the history of contemporary religious studies, a number of Western scholars have made allegations regarding the amorality or immorality of Asian nondualistic or monistic “mysticism” (Kripal, 2002). Such allegations might seem especially pertinent in the case ofKashmir Śaivism, because these traditions not only are nondualistic but also pursue powers culminating in omnipotence through practices that are in some respects antinomian. Specialists such as G. Samuel (1993, 242–243) and D.G. White (2000, 13) have likewise suggested that the ethical parameter of the Buddhist bodhisattva ideal is largely absent in Hindu Tantra.

Nevertheless, belying such viewpoints, the Kashmiri Śaivas affirm strong concerns for the well-being of others. In his Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta explains that, ordinarily, people are occupied with their own activities and do not make any effort for others. However, those who have destroyed all taints of worldly existence and are perfect in their identification with Śiva are occupied only with the benefit of humanity (TĀ. & TĀVi. 2.39; see also TĀVi. 2.46). In this vein, at the beginning of the Pratyabhijñā corpus, Utpaladeva proclaims that he created the philosophical system for the benefit of humanity. Ashamed that he alone was fortunate, he aimed to attain complete satisfaction by leading others to recognition (ĪśPraK. & ĪśPraKVṛ. 1–2.). Abhinavagupta in his Īśvarapratyabhijñavimarśinī on Utpaladeva’s benedictory verse emphasizes that the designation of humanity as object of compassion includes all afflicted by birth and death, without any restrictions based on caste or anything else.

In his Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta – following tantric precedents – expounds a series of practical rules (samaya) for Śaiva initiates, many of which bear upon ethics. To mention some examples, what should not be said includes that which is untrue and harmful. That from which one should refrain includes the injurious, touching another’s wife, arrogance, deceit, and cursing others with evil sprits, poison, and sickness. The class of those to be venerated includes the guru , the guru’s family, and women. Beings for which there should be satisfaction include the destitute, the afflicted, one’s parents, the multitudes of living beings, and birds. What one should strike includes passion, aversion, displeasure, timidity, envy, and conceitedness. Those who should be confounded include the cruel, those full of enmity, the treacherous, the evil, and those who create obstructions (TĀ. & TĀVi. 15.521–611; Lawrence, 2008b, 53–55).

Approach to Diversity

At the time of the development of nondualistic Śaiva traditions, Kashmir was characterized by a remarkable ferment of cultural, religious, and philosophical diversity (Naudou, 1980). The Pratyabhijñā philosophers did not experience the same dilemma over cultural confrontations as is associated with contemporary globalization. Nevertheless, they did propound a number of sophisticated theories on problems of epistemic divergence. Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s approach to epistemic diversity can be seen as providing a critical underpinning to much of the synthetic “overcoding” in the latter’s exegetics and in that of his successors.

Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta demonstrate an acute awareness of the plurality of claims of knowledge (recognitive-linguistic apprehensions) and their contingency upon a variety of contextual factors. Anticipating contemporary hermeneutics, they view perceptual and inferential claims as contingent upon traditions (prasiddhi,āgama). According to them, traditions likewise are diversified according to the various purposes and eligibilities of their adherents in different places and times. Cognitive claims are also affected by the emotional proclivities (ruci) of those who make them.

Nevertheless, as would be precluded by their overarching agendas, the Pratyabhijñā thinkers do not espouse a kind of relativism, but rather propound criteria for the evaluation of claims. As the Pratyabhijñā epistemology explains all experience and objects of experience to be idealistically generated by Śiva’s self-recognition or supreme speech, there is no question of assessing correspondence with an independent objective reality. The Śaiva criteriology in effect combines elements of coherentism and pragmatism. Each claim must be tested as to noncontradiction or coherence (abādha or sthairya) in the realization of practical values (arthakriyā).

Philosophers relying on coherentism often posit a higher metaphysical condition in which coherence is fully realized. Abhinavagupta thus ranks cognitive claims according to their comparative “completeness” or “perfection” (pūrṇatva). He explains subordinated claims not as simply wrong, but rather “imperfect” or “incomplete cognition” (apūrṇakhyāti). For him, competing Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain traditions all have some truth, because their followers do achieve their goals, that is, various worldly objectives and sorts of spiritual liberation. However, the Śaiva liberation is perfect and includes the fruits of all other traditions. From this point of view, the Śaiva applications of the inference for the sake of others reveal facts once grasped only partially to be constituted in Śiva’s self-recognition or supreme speech.

Although subscribing to a variety of what is now called religious inclusivism, Abhinavagupta acknowledges that other traditions will inevitably view themselves as superior. The Śaiva hermeneutic and dialogical sensitivity and rigorously nonobjectivist criteriology have provided the tradition with a procedural openness and amenability to new intellectual engagements (Lawrence, 2000, forthcoming ).

Contemporary Revivals

As most of Kashmir became Muslim, nondualistic Śaiva traditions have survived in that region until the present only in a greatly attenuated form. Much of the knowledge of the technical philosophical discussions was lost, as also of the complexities of ritual practice. However, there has been a great increase in practical interest in Kashmiri Śaiva traditions in the contemporary period, in both India and the West. This has paralleled, and often advanced in reciprocal support with, a great increase in scholarly interest in Kashmiri and related tantric traditions.

An important early development of scholarly and practical interest was the publication of a number of core Kashmiri Śaiva texts in the “Kashmiri Series of Texts and Studies.” With the contemporary precedent of works such as J.C. Chatterjee’s Kashmir Shaivism (1914), practical religious interest has largely subscribed to an essentialized interpretation of nondualistic Śaivism grounded in the hermeneutical syntheses of Abhinavagupta.

The 20th-century Kashmir Śaiva holy man Swami Lakshman Joo (1907–1991) may be ascribed responsibility for inspiring a great deal of fascination with the traditions both in India and abroad. Initiated into the Kashmiri lineages at a young age and achieving a reputation as a realized saint, Lakshman Joo attracted many seekers from India and abroad to his āśrama in Srinagar. He had a very profound knowledge of many aspects of the Śaiva traditions and was also frequently consulted by scholars from India and other countries (Lakshman Jee [Joo], 1985; Lakshman Joo, 1994; Sanderson, 2007b). The Ishwar Ashram Trust in India and the affiliated Universal Shaiva Fellowship in the United States are continuing to promulgate Lakshman Joo’s teachings.

Another large portion of the credit for the contemporary interest in Kashmir Śaivism may be ascribed to the Bengali scholar and holy man Gopinath Kaviraj . Librarian of the Sarasvati Bhavan Library of the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi, Gopinath Kaviraj was expert in many areas of Hindu philosophy and Tantra. He was a disciple of both Swami Vishuddhananda and Anandamayi Ma, and a friend of Lakshman Joo. Somewhat like earlier thinkers such as Abhinavagupta, Gopinath Kaviraj propounded in his writings his own sophisticated personal synthesis of tantric and related Hindu religious traditions. In Gopinath Kaviraj’s synthesis, a prominent role was given to his own understandings of the essential teachings of Kashmiri Śaivism (Kaviraj, 1977–1979; Rastogi, 1987). A number of Indian spiritual searchers have been greatly inspired by Gopinath Kaviraj’s writings, as well as his personal teachings.

Another important factor in the efforts to revive Kashmir Śaivism has been the teachings of the South Indian guru Swami Muktananda (1908–1982), and his chief successor, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. Muktananda and his Siddha Yoga movement have interpreted their experiences and practices in terms of Kashmir Śaivism. This movement has been highly popular around the world, and a number of contemporary scholars of Kashmir Śaivism have been affiliated with it (see Brooks et al., 2000). Likewise, the Siddha Yoga Dham Associates foundation has sponsored various scholarly activities and publications. The foundation’s Muktabodha Indological Research Institute now organizes these. Similar support for KashmirŚaivism has come from other groups that trace their lineage back to Muktananda’s South Indianguru, Swami Nityananda, such as the Nityananda Institute, now called the Movement Center, led by Swami Chetananda. With the passage of time, the number of other teachers in the globalizing spirituality movement affirming their connection with Kashmir Śaivism has continued to increase in India, Europe, and the United States.

It may be observed that many contemporary philosophical and spiritual advocates of KashmirŚaivism follow one of the common global strategies for the reconciliation of the ostensibly “otherworldly” axiology of much traditional religion and contemporary “this-worldly” concerns: the retrieval of metaphysics that conceive the simultaneous transcendence and immanence of the ultimate reality. Similar efforts are found in process thought, religious hermeneutics from M. Eliade through P. Ricoeur and D. Tracy, and Neo-Confucianism. Interpretations of the value of Kashmiri Śaivism and related tantric traditions have typically stressed the relevance of their emanationist metaphysics of transcendence and immanence. This is evinced in works of Gopinath Kaviraj, Swami Lakshman Joo, B.N. Pandit, and K.C. Pandey – K.C. Pandey describes the metaphysics as a “realistic idealism” (Lawrence, 2001).

Search This Blog

Philosophy