Sarvadarshanasangraha 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

Here, dissatisfied because the causality of unconscious things devoid of expectation is defective, seeking another doctrine, proclaiming that the emanation of the universe occurs solely by the will of the supreme Lord, asserting that the supreme Lord—whose identity with the inner self is established by one's own consciousness, reasoning, and scripture, who possesses difference and non-difference regarding various means of valid cognition, objects of valid cognition, and so forth, and who possesses freedom characterized by not depending on another's gaze—manifests entities in the mirror of His own self like reflections, and accepting mere recognition, which is accessible to all, novel, and free from the trouble and distress of external and internal conduct, breath-control, and the like, as the means to higher and lower attainments, other Māheśvaras study the Pratyabhijñā treatise.

8.2

Its extent also has been described by examiners:

8.3

"The basic aphorisms, the concise commentary, the detailed exposition, the two Vimarśinīs—the short and the long—

8.4

and the group of five topical explanations: this is the treatise of Recognition."

8.5

Here, this is the first aphorism:

8.6

"Having somehow attained Maheśvara's

8.7

servitude, desiring also the benefit of mankind,

8.8

the cause of the attainment of all prosperity,

8.9

I establish His recognition."

8.10

"Having somehow" means: solely through the propitiation of the pair of lotus feet of the guru, which are non-different from the supreme Lord, brought about by the supreme Lord Himself. "Having attained" means: having thoroughly, completely, brought [Him] into unhindered enjoyability by one's own self. By this, through being one who has known what is to be known, qualification for composing a treatise for the benefit of others is shown; otherwise, mere deceit would result. Those who have crossed beyond māyā and preside over the great māyā, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and others, who have become lords through a fraction of His sovereignty—He is the venerable Maheśvara, whose ultimate reality is unconditioned light, bliss, and freedom. His "servitude": a servant is so called because everything is given (dīyate) to him by the master according to his wish; the meaning is: a worthy recipient of the supreme Lord's nature and freedom. By the word "mankind" (jana), the absence of restriction regarding qualified aspirants is indicated. For to whomever this exposition of the true nature is given, to him it brings great fruit, because consciousness itself is the ultimate fruit. Thus it has been taught in the Śivadṛṣṭi by the supreme guru, the venerable master Somānanda:

8.11

"Once through a means of valid cognition, from scripture or from the guru's word,

8.12

when Śiva-nature present in everything is known through firm apprehension of the self,

8.13

there is no need anywhere for instrument or for contemplative cultivation;

8.14

once gold is recognized, one may abandon the instrument or contemplative cultivation."

8.15

By the word "also" (api), which reveals one's own self to be non-different from Him, any room for another purpose beyond the attainment of the benefit of others is dismissed because of fullness in one's own self. And the benefit of others is indeed a purpose, because it fits the definition thereof; for there is no divine curse that a purpose must only be for oneself and not for another. For this reason it has been stated by Akṣapāda: 'A purpose is that object aiming at which one acts.' The prefix "upa-" has the sense of proximity; by that, the fruit is merely bringing mankind into the proximity of the supreme Lord. Therefore he says: "all [prosperity]". For when the state of the supreme Lord is attained, all prosperous states, consisting of its overflow, are indeed attained, just as the treasures of jewels [are attained] when Mount Rohaṇa is gained. Thus, when the state of the supreme Lord is attained, what else is to be sought? That has been stated by the master Utpala:

8.16

"For those enriched with the fortune of devotion, what else is to be prayed for?

8.17

Or for those destitute of it, what else is to be prayed for?"

8.18

In this way, under the genitive-compound interpretation, the purpose is indicated; but under the bahuvrīhi-compound interpretation, the means [is indicated]. That recognition which is the cause of the complete attainment—that is, the realization, the illumination of that nature—of all prosperity, both external and internal, such as eternal bliss and so forth, is so described. The "recognition" (pratyabhijñā) of that Maheśvara is cognition oriented face-to-face towards [Him]. In the world, indeed, cognition regarding an object confronted face-to-face through synthesis, as 'this is that same Caitra', is referred to as recognition. Here too, when the supreme Lord, whose full powers are understood through the well-known Purāṇas, Siddhāntāgamas, inference, and so on, is confronted face-to-face in one's own self, a cognition arises through the synthesis of His powers: 'Surely, I am that very Lord.' "I establish" this recognition: establishment (upapatti) is possibility; the meaning is: 'I bring it about through the operation of a promoter, by performing what is capable of making it possible.'

8.19

If it is objected: 'If the self shines as the very nature of the Lord, then what is the use of this effort to demonstrate recognition?', here is the reply:

8.20

Even though the self constantly shines forth as self-luminous, because of māyā it shines forth only in part; therefore, for the sake of establishing the manifestation of fullness, recognition is demonstrated through the unveiling of the powers consisting of knowledge and action. And thus is the formal inference:

8.21

—This self is fit to be the supreme Lord;

8.22

—Because it possesses the powers of knowledge and action;

8.23

—Whoever is a knower and an agent with respect to anything is known to be a lord with respect to that much, like the Lord or like a king;

8.24

—And the self is the knower and agent of everything;

8.25

—Therefore, this [self] is the Lord.

8.26

Recourse to the five-membered syllogism is taken because the view of the Naiyāyika is adopted only within the sphere of māyā. That has been stated by the son of Udayākara:

8.27

"With respect to the agent, the knower, one's own self, the primevally established Maheśvara,

8.28

who that is not insentient could establish either negation or proof?

8.29

Yet because of delusion, though He is seen, He is not noticed;

8.30

this recognition is exhibited by unveiling His power."

8.31

For instance:

8.32

"The support of all beings here rests on living;

8.33

knowledge and action are considered the life of living beings.

8.34

Among these, knowledge is self-established, while action, resting on an effect,

8.35

may be noticed even by others; in the same way, knowledge of another is spoken of."

8.36

"And that intuitive flash of these [beings], which is differentiated by the sequence of various entities,

8.37

the knower [behind it], whose nature is consciousness and non-sequential bliss, is that Maheśvara." And also:

8.38

By the venerable Somānanda also:

8.39

"He knows as Sadāśiva; He always knows as myself," and so forth.

8.40

Also at the conclusion of the section on knowledge [it is said]:

8.41

"Without their unity, there is no worldly procedure of cognitions."

8.42

Because of the unity of light, their oneness [is established]; the settled conclusion is that the cogniser is one alone.

8.43

He alone, by virtue of his constant reflective awareness, is Maheśvara,

8.44

Because reflective awareness itself constitutes the Lord's pure [powers of] knowledge and action."

8.45

And it has been explained by the venerable teacher Abhinavagupta: on the authority of the Vedic passage, "When he shines, everything shines after him; by his light all this is illumined," it is accepted that by the greatness of the light that is the nature of consciousness, all existing entities are illuminated. And thus the light of the object appears differentiated—such as "the light of blue" or "the light of yellow"—due to the difference of objective coloration. In reality, however, because it lacks the contraction of space, time, and form, it is non-different indeed. That very light in the form of consciousness is called the cogniser. And likewise it is stated in the Śivasūtras: "Consciousness is the self." Its being the nature of consciousness, its being unbroken reflective awareness, its not being oriented towards anything else, its being a single mass of bliss, and supreme sovereignty are synonymous expressions. For that very reflective awareness, whose nature is the sense of "I", is pure, ultimate knowledge and action. In that regard, the state of being the nature of light is knowledge; creating the universe by one's own nature is action. And this has been expounded in the chapter on action [of the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā]:

8.46

"And this [Lord], because of his infinite power, causes these entities

8.47

to appear in this manner through the force of his will; this is his action, this is his agency as creator."

8.48

In the summary too [it is said]:

8.49

"Thus, of him who desires to exist in this way, / in the form of the universe having shapes such as pot and cloth,

8.50

the will itself, enacted as the efficient agent, is action."

8.51

"Even that cause-effect relationship which consists in 'when that exists, this exists,'

8.52

is not possible for insentient entities that are devoid of expectation."

8.53

By this reasoning, because an insentient entity has no causality, nor does an unsovereign conscious being, therefore the will alone of the independent, blessed Maheśvara—who desires to exist in the form of thousands of distinct activities, such as the modifications of being like origination and maintenance belonging to the universe—becoming progressively swollen in nature, is called action or universal agency.

8.54

Regarding the proposition that the creation of the universe occurs by mere will, an example also has been clearly indicated:

8.55

"Even in the case of yogins, that which is produced without clay or seed / through the power of will alone—such as a pot—

8.56

performs stable causal efficacy."

8.57

If clay and the like were the ultimate cause with respect to a pot and the like, then how could the origination of a pot and the like occur by the mere will of a yogin? Now, if it should be said that the pots, sprouts, and so on produced from clay, seeds, and the like are of one kind, whereas those produced by a yogin's will are entirely different, on that point too you are enlightened: it is well known to everyone that difference in the totality of causes leads to difference in effect.

8.58

As for those who assert that there is no production of a pot and the like without a material cause, and that the yogin, activating atoms through his will, brings them together, they too are to be enlightened. If an inversion of the observed relation of cause and effect were not accepted, then for a pot, clay, stick, wheel, and the like, and for a body, union of female and male and the like, would all be required. And thus the occurrence of a pot, body, and the like arising immediately after a yogin's will would be utterly impossible to defend. On the view, however, that it is the conscious Lord himself—the great god of abundant fortune, whose supreme freedom is intensified by either conforming to or transcending natural order—who shines in that manner, there is no incoherence whatsoever. For this very reason it has been said by the venerable teacher Vasugupta:

8.59

"To him who paints the picture of the universe / without any store of material causes, on no wall at all,

8.60

to that Lord of the arts who bears the trident, homage!"

8.61

Objection: If the individual self is non-different from the Supreme Lord, how could there be an association with saṃsāra? If this is asked, it has been stated there, in the chapter on scripture:

8.62

"This cogniser, blinded by māyā, bound by karma, wanders in saṃsāra;

8.63

when his sovereignty has been revealed by knowledge and the like, being a solid mass of consciousness, he is said to be liberated."

8.64

Objection: If the knowable object is non-different from the cogniser, what distinction is there between the bound and the liberated with respect to the knowable object? In response to this as well, it has been said in the chapter summarizing the reality of principles:

8.65

"The liberated person regards the common knowable object as non-different from his own self,

8.66

just as Maheśvara does; the bound person, on the other hand, regards it as entirely different."

8.67

Objection: If the nature of the self as the Supreme Lord is natural, there is no need for seeking recognition. For a seed, even if unrecognised, does not fail to produce a sprout when the totality of auxiliary causes is present. Therefore, why this insistence on the recognition of the self? If this is asked, it is answered: listen now to this secret. Causal efficacy is indeed twofold: external, such as a sprout and the like, and that whose essence is the wonder of resting in the cogniser, having the nature of delight and so forth. Among these, the first does not require recognition. The second, however, certainly requires it. Here too, causal efficacy consists in the manifestation of the power of unity between the individual self and the Supreme Self, characterized by higher and lower supernatural accomplishments, whose essence is the wonder of 'I am the Lord'; thus recognition of one's own nature must be sought.

8.68

Objection: Where has causal efficacy whose essence is resting in the cogniser been seen to be unseen without recognition and seen when there is recognition? To this it is replied: A certain passionate woman, whose love has grown through repeatedly hearing the collection of the hero's virtues, being overwhelmed by desire and unable to bear the torment of separation, communicates her condition by resorting to love-letters. In that same way, even when he wanders near her with haste, and even when he is seen, seeing him does not win over her heart because he is taken as an ordinary person in the absence of a conscious appraisal of his virtues. When, however, through the words of a messenger-woman, she makes an appraisal of his virtues, then that very moment she attains full realization. In the same way, even though one's own self shines in the form of the Lord of the universe, that shining forth does not bring about full realization at a time when there is an absence of conscious appraisal of his virtues.

8.69

When, however, through the words of the guru and the like, there arises the conscious appraisal of the Supreme Lord's pre-eminence, characterized by omniscience, universal agency, and so on, then that very moment the attainment of full selfhood occurs. That has been stated in the fourth section [of the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā]:

Translations (1)

The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha, or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy — Edward Byles Cowell & Archibald Edward Gough 1882, English

Linked texts (1)

Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha — Mādhava, Sanskrit