– B N Pandit
India has been the most ancient home of spiritual philosophy. Even the most antique pre-Aryan civilization of Western India must have been rich in such philosophy, because the remains of that civilization, unearthed in many places like Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Baluchistan, etc. reveal that the ancient people living there were indeed well versed in the practice of yoga, experiences in which have been the basic sources of philosophic revelations to Indian thinkers. The European philosophy has generally been the result of deep thinking by wise and intelligent seekers of truth who expressed it through convincing methods of logical argumentation. A scholar of western philosophy will count yoga in religion and take philosophy as something different from it. But the case has never been like that with most of the Indian philosophers. We, in India, have named philosophy as darśana. Our argumentative philosophy is simply Tarka which serves just as an aid to understand the implications of darśana and also to make others understand them. It is not the darśana itself. Our darśana is not logic but the direct intuitional realization of the truth. Basically, it is not even a mental concept about a true principle, but its intuitive realization, which reveals it directly without bringing in between the faculties of thinking and understanding. Such experiences have mostly been the results of practice in higher types of yoga.
The second step in the growth of darśana as an academic activity is the formation of proper mental conceptions of such realized principles and the third step is their verbal expression and scriptural documentation. But the truth brought down to the levels of understanding and expression is neither the first-hand truth nor the exact truth which can neither be perfectly understood nor correctly and exactly expressed. Such mental conceptions yield self-satisfaction and their expressions through speech or script serve as means to communicate them to such aspirants as may not have yet realized them through their own intuition. The seers of the truth try to form its conception and conduct its expression in accordance with its direct realization; but it does not generally become possible for all of them to do so quite correctly: because their mental and vocal capacities of various types and standards play a great role in such activities. That results in apparent differences in spoken and written darśana. Such fact accounts for the variousness in the basic principles of the schools of Indian philosophy.
Life functions in four states of waking, dreaming, sleeping, and the fourth one, the state of intuitional revelation called turyā or turīyā state. The nature of life shining in such four states is of different types. It is not necessary that all the revealers of the truth should have the intuitional experience of one and the same state of life. Therefore it is not necessary that all the discoverers of the truth should have a uniform realization of it. Even the intuitive realization of the occult mysteries of life is generally bound to be of various standards. That explains further the diverse variety in the philosophic views of Indian philosophers. The highest and the most exactly correct philosophy of life is the realization of its nature at the innermost and the highest state of animation called turyā, the fourth one, that is, the state of perfect spiritual revelation, The indescribable aspect of such turyā is known as turyātīta, the transcendental state of pure consciousness, the self-experiences of which leave some sort of impression on the person of an aspirant who has its realization.
Philosophies of the waking state are the physical sciences and other subjects containing human wisdom. These are based on heavens, hells, and all about gods, goddesses, etc. can be classed among darśanas of dreaming state. These include Jainism, Vaishnavism, Mīmāmsā, etc. The sleeping state of life is the state of absolute tranquillity, freed from all turbulence caused by pleasure, pain, disgust, anger, greed, sexual urge, hunger, thirst, etc. Different sub-states of such negative calmness are represented by Apavarga of Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika, Kaivalya of Sāmkhya-Yoga and Nirvāṇa of Buddhism. All such philosophies are the darśanas of the sleeping state. Brahma-nirvāṇa or mukti of Advaita Vēdānta, in general, is the same sleeping state having just a touch of turyā state. It is the threshold of turyā. The dualist and the mono-dualist schools of Shaivism lead to the intermediary steps of turyā. The most superior darśana of such a state is that of monistic Shaivism. The divine potency of one’s self shines clearly in these higher steps of turyā. The ancient Bhāgavata philosophy, as expressed in Bhagavadgītā, is also a philosophy of a higher step in turyā. But the sālōkya, etc. of the later Vaishnavism is a position in some divine abode of beings – with subtle forms and comes to be a step in dreaming state. The revelation of the sleeping state is negative in character, but that of turyā is positive in nature. There is a tasteful experience of self bliss in the turyā state which means something very higher than the negative tranquility of the sleeping state. All the schools of Indian philosophy can be seen and realized as different steps in such four states of life and can on such account be assigned to different steps in the ladder of spiritual elevation of beings marching towards the final turīyātīta position of theistic absolutism. That position is not a state by the absolute truth beyond all states.
Just to sum up we can say as follows: Philosophies of the waking state are all physical sciences, social studies, and arts aimed at the material progress of mankind. The revelations of the laws of heavens, hells, gods, goddesses, etc. can be classed among the darśanas of dreaming state. The Mīmāmsā school, some schools of Vaishnavism and Shaivism, which aim at the attainment of sālōkya type of liberation, are the philosophies of the dreaming state of life. Jainism also can be counted in that group. The sleeping state of life consists of an absolute tranquillity free from all turbulence caused by pleasure, pain, attachment, disgust, hunger, thirst, etc. Different sub-states of such negative calmness are represented by Apavarga of Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika, Kaivalya of Sāmkhya-Yoga and Nirvāṇa of Buddhism. All such schools of philosophy are therefore the darśanas of suṣupti, the state of dreamless sleep. The Brahma-nirvāṇa or mukti of the Advaita Vēdānta, in general, is the same sleeping state having just a peep into the fourth state of self-revelation. It is on such account that some ancient Vedantic teachers have compared the state of liberation with suṣupti which has been explained in a Upaniṣad as entering into one’s real self. It is in fact the initial step in the state of turyā. It is a different thing that teachers like Gauḍapāda and Shankara must have had the experiences of some higher steps in turyā; how could they otherwise have thrown light on theistic monism in their philosophic lyrics like Subhagōdaya and Saundaryalaharī. But this also is a fact that their logical teachings, as contained in their works on pure philosophy, cannot lead an aspirant much beyond the position of Shūnya as depicted and explained by some prominent Buddhist philosophers like Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Ashvaghōṣa, and Nāgārjuna. The mono-dualist and the monistic schools of Shaivism are the superior darśanas of the turyā state. The teachings of the Shuddhādvaita school of Vaishnavism, confuse theistic absolutism with the monotheism of a pantheistic type, laying greater stress on the latter. It presents thus a confusion between the darśana of the turyā and svapna states. The ancient Bhāgavata darśana, as contained in Mahābhārata and as expressed there in detail in Bhagavadgītā, is indeed a darśana of the turyā state. The revelation of the sleeping state is negative in character, but that of the fourth state is a positive one. The absolute tranquillity of the sleeping state is a lack of all turbulence and is negative in character, but the blissfulness, shining in the fourth state called turyā, has a positive character.
Thus says Shankarācārya about the philosophic quest in his Aparōkṣānubhūti:
कोऽहं कथमिदं जातं को वै कर्तास्य विद्यते |
उपादानं किमस्यास्ति विचारः सोऽयमीदृशः ||
Vyāsa in Yogabhāṣya sums up metaphorically the main problems of philosophy as roga, the disease of worldly existence, rōgahētuḥ, the basic cause of such disease, ārōgyam, healthiness and bhaiṣajyam, the right treatment. Each school of Indian philosophy deals with such problems of philosophy from the viewpoint of its respective position in the particular step occupied by it in any of the four states of existence. The viewpoint of Kashmir Shaivism in this regard is the most convincing one as it sees reality from the topmost step in turyā, the state of revelation.
Unlike Vēdānta and Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism does not adopt an escapist view of taking the phenomenon as imaginary, false and non-existent. It does not advocate the theory of beginninglessness and inexplicability of the basic ignorance called avidyā, the basic cause of all misery. Besides, it does not prescribe a path that ignores one’s worldly needs and wants based on his psycho-physical setup. It neither prescribes any forcible suppression of one’s emotions and instincts, nor does it advise to leave one’s home and hearth and to become a monk for the purpose of the correct realization of the truth which can, according to it, be realized even by a householder living in his family and enjoying all pleasures available in a household. It accepts both bhukti – enjoyment and mukti – emancipation as the aims of life and prescribes a path through which an aspirant can pursue both of them side by side. It allows making one’s day-to-day life sweet and comfortable with the help of a household and all facilities that it can provide in accordance with the social law prevalent on the basis of scriptures and tradition. In addition, it teaches to go on practicing, side by side, some such particular type of Shaiva yoga which may suit one’s psycho-physical setup. All forcible suppression (nirodha) of the mind and such starvation of senses has been prohibited in Trika yoga on the plea that such attitude might create adverse reactions. Such Shaiva yoga leads an aspirant through a path of slow and steady sublimation of his emotions and instincts which fade away gradually as he proceeds on towards sweeter spiritual attainments through the practice of that yoga. Sufficient tasteful experiences of one’s self-bliss, attainable through the practice of that yoga, reduce the sensual enjoyments to a position of tastelessness with respect to the practitioner of that yoga. In such a situation he develops a spontaneous indifference, called anādara virakti, towards sensual enjoyments and worldly attainments and becomes entirely devoted to Shaiva yoga resulting in the tasteful experiences of self-bliss.
The yoga of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from the yoga taught by Patanjali. It consists of some very easy, harmless, practicable, and more or less spontaneous psychic practices not causing any torture to one’s body or inner organs. It does not prescribe any monkish practices like yamas, niyamas, and forcible breathing practices. The torturing practices prevalent in Haṭhayōga of Gōrakṣanātha do not find any place in the yoga of Kashmir Shaivism. That yoga teaches to see the phenomenon and one’s own self in the correct perspective, that is, to see them as these really are and not as these appear to ignorant beings of the world. It is generally a constant practice in knowing the exact reality of everything. At the highest level, it attains the position of correct being and not any sort of becoming, as there it is a practice in staying steady in one’s real spiritual nature of pure and limitless absolute I-consciousness, aware of itself and its basic nature of infinite divine potency. Such yoga does not involve any practice in the forcible concentration of the mind on any exterior or interior object but teaches to see such objects in their original basic character. Such yoga can be practiced by any worthy practitioner. It can be practiced by both a householder and a monk.
The philosophic principles of the theory and practice of Kashmir Shaivism have been laid down in Shaiva āgamas in a mystic style. Sōmānanda, the author of Shivadr̥ṣṭi, the first philosophic treatise on Shaivism, was the foremost philosopher to extract such principles and doctrines from such Shaiva scriptures, to arrange them in proper order and to express them correctly through the logical method laid down in Nyāya-darśana. Utpaladeva, his successor in the field, depicted the same philosophy in an easier, refined, and polished method in his lśvarapratyabhijña, Siddhitrayī, and some other works. Abhinavagupta, the grand disciple of Utpaladeva explained the works of these two philosophers and gave the correct final interpretation to all the philosophic principles of Kashmir Shaivism. He further took up the practical side of that philosophy and composed a marvelous work on it under the name Tantrālōka, the gist of which was drawn by him in his Tantrasāra. All the occult principles and esoteric practices of Shaiva yoga of the Trika system of practical Shaivism were collected, arranged, expressed, and interpreted by Abhinavagupta in these two works of great importance. His is the final word on Kashmir Shaivisrn on both sides of theory and practice. His Tantrālōka is such a unique work on theology to which no other work in the whole world can be compared. It throws sufficient light on the Shaiva ritual and gives it a wonderful theological interpretation. Two great philosophers appeared before this trinity of authors. Vasugupta discovered Shivasūtra, a short and refined scriptural work on Shaiva yoga of the Trika system. He pondered on it, practiced the yoga taught by it, and discovered the most important principle of Kashmir Shaivism, the Spanda principle. His chief disciple Bhaṭṭa Kallaṭa earned the highest popularity on account of his spiritual attainments. He is the only teacher of Shaiva philosophy who has been praised by Kalhana in his Rājataraṅgiṇī. He developed in full the Spanda principle discovered by Vasugupta and wrote a treatise named Spandakārikā on it. Kṣēmarāja, being rather prejudiced against Bhaṭṭa Kallaṭa, wrote that Vasugupta composed the Kārikā himself and some later authors followed him. Many modern scholars also are of the same opinion. But Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara, a teacher in the line of Vasugupta and Kallaṭa, says in clear terms that Kallaṭa is the author of the Kārikā. Rāmakaṇṭha, a younger contemporary of Kallaṭa, says that Vasugupta was the teacher of the author of Spandakārikā and not the author. This has been said by him while commenting on the word gurubhāratīm. He says that the author of the Kārikā pays tribute and offers salutation to the teachings of his teacher Vasugupta and thus he takes Vasugupta and the author of the Kārikā as two different teachers, one the preceptor and the other his disciple and that proves the incorrectness of the statement of Kṣēmarāja about the matter. Kallaṭa wrote several other works most of which have been lost.
All the five authors mentioned above were great scholars well-read in all the prevalent subjects of study, as well as successful practitioners of Shaiva yoga. They possessed thus an actual experience of the principles and doctrines of Shaivism, on one hand, and a clear understanding of the principles of all the śāstras, on the other hand. Other authors wrote commentaries and some works of minor importance. The most important among them are Rāmakaṇṭha, the commentator of Bhaṭṭa Kallaṭa’s work, Jayaratha the writer of a detailed commentary on Tantrālōka and Kṣēmarāja who explained Shivasūtra, Spandakārikā, and some Tantric texts. Abhinavagupta wrote many other works, the most important among which is his Vārtika on Mālinīvijayōttara, a scriptural work and his detailed commentary on Parātriśikā, another important Shaiva scripture. His Paramārthasāra is a very good textbook of Shaiva philosophy, suited for beginners. Many of his highly valuable works have been lost.
The Shaivism of Kashmir, being an absolutely monistic philosophy, is sufficiently different in character from the other schools of Shaivism. Pāśupata is more or less barbaric in character and establishes pluralism as its metaphysical theory of philosophy. Shaiva Siddhānta of Tamils also establishes pluralism and devotional linga-worship occupies a predominant position in its practice, Vīraśaivism of Karnataka establishes monism, but advocates linga-worship as the main religio-philosophic practice. Besides, its present form has been adopting a rebellious attitude, right from the twelfth century, against the Vedic set up of the religio-social system of Hinduism. Neither of these two schools of Shaivism has adopted any typical Tantric ways of sādhanā, while the whole system of the yoga of Shaivism is of Tantric origin and character. Pāśupata bears some Tantric influence, but is highly ridiculous in character, while Kashmir Shaivism advocates such an extremely sophisticated Tantric sādhanā which is highly developed in aesthetics. It holds up the Vedic system of society and prescribes the Vedic way of life so far as the general masses are concerned. Even a Shivayogin has to adhere to the Vedic setup while he lives in society. Shaiva Siddhānta also works out a compromise with Vedic religion but does not advocate any typical Tantric practices which are very popular with the practitioners of Kashmir Shaivism. The Shaivism of Gorakṣanātha gives prominence to Haṭhayōga while Kashmir Shaivism prescribes sophisticated and pleasant Trika yoga and takes Haṭhayōga to be harmful as there is the apprehension of its creating adverse reaction in the psycho-physical set up of a practitioner. Shākta mata is an integral part and parcel of Kashmir Shaivism while it is absent from the schools of the Shaivism of the south. The Tantric system that enjoys the highest popularity with the practitioners of Kashmir Shaivism is known as Trikācāra.
Though Kashmir Shaivism is a monistic philosophy, it is sufficiently different from the Advaita Vēdānta. The Vēdāntic monism takes all psycho-physical phenomena as false and compares them with the son of a barren woman, or with ideas like the horns of a hare. It establishes Brahman as the only existent reality and takes it to be absolutely ineffective and unaffected. It does not accept any divinity in the Brahman and explains all divine activities like phenomenal creation, dissolution, etc. as merely apparent activities manifested by māyā, the universal ignorance. The Vēdānta of Gauḍapāda and Sankara bestows all divine powers of Godhead to māyā and reduces poor Brahman to a position that comes very close to the śūnya of Buddhism, as discussed in the works of Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna. In fact, these two teachers of Vēdānta have preached absolute theism as the fundamental ontological principle of their philosophy in their religious lyrics and Tantric works, but unfortunately, such works did not find popularity with most of the teachers and authors in the line of their disciples and that brought them to the position of crypto-Buddhists, as pointed out later by Rāmānuja.
The schools of Vaishnavism establish the theistic nature of the highest reality but do not rise sufficiently above the theory of monotheism. Vallabhācārya’s Viśuddhādvaita establishes a kind of pantheism, but pushes absolutism to the background, as it gives the highest position to God living in His divine abode in a divine form and playing a constant folk-dance along with his devotees. The pantheism of West sees God only in the form of the phenomenal manifestation and does not accept His existence as the transcendental reality. Shaivism of Kashmir establishes God as the transcendental pure consciousness endowed with all divine potency and playing the show of five divine activities of Creation, preservation, dissolution, obscuration, and revelation. Such divine activities have been seen by the Shaiva philosophers of Kashmir as the essence of the Godhead of God. Abhinavagupta says in clear terms that God, shorn of such divinely playful nature, would cease to be God and would come down to the position of śūnya, which is unconscious in nature. God, while manifesting creation etc. does not undergo any change in His character. He remains eternally the transcendental pure consciousness and the show of all phenomena and their creation etc. happens in the manner of a reflection. The divine powers of God, becoming exteriorly reflected in the psychic light of His pure consciousness, appear as all phenomena and their creation, etc. Manifestation of such reflectional phenomena is the essential nature of the absolute reality and that is its Godhead. Advanced Shivayogins see God and God alone in all the apparent phenomena. Since all phenomena are the reflections of the divine powers of God and since His powers are not different from Him, all apparent phenomena should be taken to be real. Besides, these are to be taken as real because of their utilitarian value. To call them unreal amounts to self-deceit in the view of Kashmir Shaivism. That is a special type of realism propounded in Kashmir Shaivism. It is quite different from the material realism of Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika and Sāmkhya. Pure consciousness has been accepted as the only absolute reality. All phenomena have been said to be mere reflections of the divine powers of pure consciousness and that is a special type of idealism propounded in Kashmir Shaivism. That idealism or ābhāsavāda is quite different from the idealism of Advaita Vēdānta and Buddhism, both of which take all phenomena as creations of the mind, while Shaivism takes them as creations of infinite, eternal and divinely potent pure consciousness which, being playful in nature, manifests them in the manner of reflections appearing in a mirror. Shankara’s Vēdānta is an Advaita system as it maintains that Brahman alone is really existent and everything else is false like a dream. But Kashmir Shaivism is termed as Parādvaita, that is, the supreme monism which maintains that Paramaśiva, the absolute reality, appears itself as Dvaita, Advaita, and Dvaitādvaita by virtue of His divine powers and on account of His playful nature.
No nation can make progress without a philosophy. It is the philosophy of a nation that inspires it towards its desired progress. A nation should have a philosophy which can inspire it to attain both material and spiritual progress, because, as has been accepted by our ancient r̥ṣis, the seers of the Upaniṣadic philosophy, both avidyā and vidyā are jointly the aims of human life. Such truth has been further strengthened by our ancient religious teachers like Manu who prescribed the path of four āśramas or stages of human life. Our great religio-philosophic teacher, Lord Kr̥ṣṇa also has taught us to give equal importance to our worldly and spiritual needs, problems, and aims. He has taught it both through his verbal teachings and through his practical life. He gave primary importance to the political problems of the nation and did not ignore the physical, mental, emotional, and sentimental needs of people devoted to him throughout his whole life. That was the ancient Hindu view on the philosophy of life.
But, with the advance of the age of Kali, Buddhism and Jainism appeared in our country and taught our people to shut their eyes towards the immediate problems of life and to pursue only its spiritual aims. It was so unfortunate that the patronage of great emperors like Ashoka and Kaniska brought such escapist message, which may originally have been meant for just a few saints and monks, to the common man, with the result that the whole Indian nation became sentimentally devoted to such a mere theoretical view on life which it could not at all convert into practice. It was still more unfortunate that the Hindu revivalists also could not shake off such escapist attitude and therefore included it in the six Vedic darśanas of Hinduism. Shankarācārya expressed in clear terms that his Advaita Vēdānta was meant only for a selected few saintly persons possessing fourfold merits called sādhana catuṣṭaya. But the holy orders of monks, who propagated his philosophy, preached such escapist doctrines to common people not possessing the fourfold merits. In such respect, they copied the holy orders of the Buddhist monks. Such wide propagation of such spiritual doctrines, which could never be converted into practice by common people, did sufficient harm to our nation. There appeared, no doubt, some realistic philosophers like Samartha Rāmadāsa, but they did not succeed in establishing sufficient impact on masses throughout the whole country with the result that we are still in need of such a practicable philosophy which could inspire us, on the one hand, to gain material progress and, on the other hand, to proceed to our cherished spiritual aims of life. We have still so many theorists that we could not adopt such a political system that would have suited us. We copied the charming political theories of France and Britain, but could not convert them into practice, with the result that we do not actually have any government in any state or center for the people, but only for individuals and their own circles. Such an unsuited political system has practically become an easy and lucrative profession for clever persons jumping into active politics. Most of such politicians exploit our big capitalists and they, in turn, exploit the whole administrative machinery of our country, with the result that most of our governments belong to a few persons, look after the interests of a few persons, and are directed by a few persons. The political situation has come to such a juncture in which one wonders if any chief minister or even a prime minister can succeed in liberating himself from the invisible clutches of such groups of exploiters. It is now a wonder if any good and noble person can win an election without their support. The influence of monkish inclination was so strong on the way of the thinking of our philosophers that even the ancient authors of Kashmir Shaivism, not taking sufficient lesson from the teachings of Lord Kr̥ṣṇa, kept themselves aloof from thinking on proper politics and devoted their talents only to spiritual philosophy and theology. But their philosophy has sufficient scope to include into its field some political thinking as well because it has both bhukti and mukti as its aims. If it is presented to the public against the background of the present-day socio-political situations and conditions of industrial society, it can serve us even now as a very useful national philosophy leading to the attainment of both material and spiritual aims of life.