– Dr. Navjivan Rastogi (from Sri Kaviraj-ji’s commemoration compendium)
Kaviraj-ji once remarked “in spite of the antiquity of śākta Culture and of its philosophical traditions, the reason why no serious attempt was made is said to have been that it was deemed improper to drag down for rational examination truths inaccessible to the experience of the ordinary man. This reason is not convincing enough, for if the Upaniṣads could be made the basis of a philosophical system, there is no reason why the śākta āgamas could not be similarly utilized. For the function of philosophy is, as Joad rightly remarks, to accept the data furnished by the specialists who have worked in the field and then to assess their meaning and significance”.
A comparative estimate of Advaita Vedānta and Kashmir Shaivism by Kaviraj is a classical example of philosophical insight and assumes enormous significance for proper appraisal of the Shaiva absolutism of Kashmir. This has in fact helped to bring about the distinctive character of the two excellent systems of thought. the main distinctions may be recounted as under Brahmavāda describes Māyā as different from both real and unreal, and indescribable. The Shaivas hold that this does not totally eliminate the impression of duality. It is admitted that Māyāis non-entity, unreal when viewed from the Absolute’s angle and also that the reality of empirical level has no bearing on the transcendental principle of Brahman. But the question is: why does duality appear at all if there is only one non-dual conscious principle? To the Vedāntin, pure Brahman is simply the substratum of the beginningless world-order whose appearance is rooted in the illusory transformation aka vivarta. To assert that the properties such as creativity etc., are superimposed upon Brahman, makes it all the more difficult to grasp as to how the Absolute becomes the finite being, world or God? There is no denying the fact that there too is ignorance, Māyā, in the Shaiva absolutism, but its appearance is not contingent. It represents an Absolute mode occasioned by voluntary exercise of Absolutic freedom. By fully exploiting the analogy of cloud and sun, Kaviraj emphasizes that there is no deviation from its unobscured nature even when it veils itself by its own power. The worldly variety is nothing but the reflection or awareness (vimarśa) of its own being. The manifestation of variety constitutes the nature i.e., self-being (svabhāva) of the Absolute.
Brahmavādins too admit that the Self has its own nature. In their view, however, the Self is a pure witness or constitutes locus consciousness (adhiṣṭhāna caitanyātmaka), while īśvaravādins subscribe to its nature as consisting of freedom, and as an agency. Here lies the major disagreement between the two – a feature proudly noted by Kṣēmarāja.
svatantraśabdō brahmavādavailakṣaṇyamācakṣāṇaścitō māhēśvaryasāratāṁ brūtē |
In fact, the description of the Absolute in both the systems admits of similar terminology except that Brahman is devoid of Kartr̥tva (agency), whereas Vimarśa or Kartr̥tva constitutes the Absolute essence of Paramashiva. The Shaiva absolutists never try to conceal their attitude towards Brahmavādins. The description of Vedāntin’s position as Nirvimarśabrahmavāda or Shāntabrahmavāda does not appear to be laudatory. Shaivas assign Sāmkhya’s Puruṣa and Vedānta’s Brahman to the lower state of aparāvasthā of the Self. They are not even prepared to accommodate them in the penultimate (parāparā) state, not to the talk of the ultimate state of the Self. According to Shaiva texts, such a state has never come up for discussion in the Vedānta texts. The absence of vigorous affirmation of freedom in the Vedāntic Absolute compels Kaviraj to conclude, hesitantly though, that appearance of duality is not actually eliminated from Shankara’s Vēdānta.
In the Shaiva monistic tradition, the term Advaita denotes the eternal synthesis of the two. In Shankara’s view, Advaita means negation of the two. Shankara describes Brahman as real and Māyā as indefinable. He cannot accept Mayā to be real or treat it at par with the Absolute. That is why the Vedāntic absolutism, according to Kaviraj, is exclusive and based on renunciation or elimination. Unlike the āgamas, it fails to become inclusive or all-embracing. In the āgamic view, the identity of the Absolute and Mayā is automatically established by showing Māyā as stemming from Brahman and also as real. If we adhere to the logic of Shankara’s Vedānta, we will have to concede that Brahman too is unreal and indefinable, because in the condition in which Māyā is stated to be unreal/indefinable, the knowledge of Brahman in that stage will be a byproduct of Māyā. Even while assuming the correctness of Shankara’s premise, ‘of the two opposed to another like darkness and light’, it may be stated that darkness arises from light by friction and it is darkness again that culminates in light by friction. Both are eternally united, both exist totally integrated into their being. This is what has been pronounced time and again as Sāmarasya of Shiva-Shakti or attainment of Cit-ananda which marks a unique feature of Kashmir Shaivism.
Jnāna-Bhakti Synthesis
Kaviraj goes on enlarging the equation of Cidānanda synthesis. According to him, the additional peculiarity of the Shaiva absolutism lies in the fact that it neither advocates the path of ‘dry’ knowledge nor the path of devotion bereft of knowledge, rather it lays down a path that integrates knowledge and devotion both. Logically Bhakti has no place in the ultimate stage of the absolutism propounded by Shankara. According to him, devotion is basically duality-centric, and as such does not exist in the Absolutic state on the attainment of knowledge. Needless to say, this devotion is ignorance-based and instrumental in character.
But, on the contrary, in the Trika philosophy Mōkṣa has been portrayed as Cidānanda lābha (attainment of Consciousness-Bliss) or Pūrṇāhaṁtācamatkāra (self-relish flowing from perfect I-hood). Now the aspect of consciousness (cidamśa) is knowledge and that of bliss (ānandāmśa) devotion. The perfect I-hood or self-relish which marks the limit of knowledge also marks the limit of love or devotion. It is why it offers congenial ground for synthesis. Here the element of consciousness i.e., Shiva-state, and that of bliss i.e., Shakti-state, stand fused together instantly turning it into a synthesis of devotion-knowledge or equipoise of Shiva-Shakti.
Synthesis of the efficient and material causes
By expounding the analogies of Yogin and Māyāvin employed in Tripurā and Pratyabhijñā, Kaviraj has drawn our attention of the creation of world as being rooted in the Absolutic will or as being totally independent of the material cause. Citing a kārikā from Utpala, he says creation means externalization of the inner content.
cidātmaiva hi dēvō’ntaḥsthitamicchāvaśādbahiḥ |
yōgīva nirupādānamarthajātaṁ prakāśayēt ||
The objective totality exists in the consciousness-Self (cidātmā), only part of it occasionally gets manifested due to its Will. In the creation of this kind, the material cause is rendered irrelevant. This independence from the material cause in the Shaiva absolutism is very well known in the form of the doctrine of the unity between efficient and material causes (abhinna nimittōpādānavāda) in Shankara’s Advaita. Indeed, belief in absolutism presupposes the rejection of the distinction between the efficient and the material. But, since Shankara’s Advaita hesitates to admit the real agency in the Absolute, the creation turns out to be an offspring of ignorance, instead of Self-will.