365bet娱乐

Utpaladeva introduced the Apohana and 厂尘峁泃颈 (exclusion and memory) along with 闯帽腻苍补艣补办迟颈 which altogether abide as the basis of the knowledge process in human mind. Nevertheless the present study allocates 闯帽腻苍补艣补办迟颈 as substratum, inclusive of all minor cognitive processes.^[1] 厂尘峁泃颈 is the m膩yic form of vikalpa, constituted of memory and ascertainment. The difference created by Apohana艣akti abides only on the level of pure subjectivity.

厂尘峁泃颈 is the common topic discussed by all the philosophical systems. In monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 it is exposed in the context of the cognitive process. The entire 艢aivite doctrine of memory is based on the general perspective that the cognition is self-luminous and cannot be the object of any another cognition. 

Utpaladeva provides a definition to memory, which is a manipulated version of definition given by 驰辞驳补蝉奴迟谤补 补蝉鈥�

啶呧え啷佮き啷傕い啶掂た啶粪く啶距じ啶傕お啷嵿ぐ啶�啷嬥し啶�

补苍耻产丑奴迟补惫颈峁�a测腻蝉补峁僷谤补尘辞峁�a岣�

鈥淢emory is the non-extinction of the object formerly perceived鈥�.^[2]

厂尘峁泃颈 is admitted as originating from the residual trace (sam峁僺k膩ra). Abhinavagupta clarifies that neither a residual trace which do not modify the self, nor a self that is not modified by the residual trace is able to explain the process of memory.^[3]

Memory, because of its nature, takes place in an imaginative plane and so is found to be connected with the 艢aktya峁囜笉a.

鈥溑歛ktya峁囜笉a represents the state of consciousness in which difference appears as a very dim presence, a first outline of what will actually take place in 惭腻测腻.鈥�^[4]

As this is belonging to the category of vikalpa, fails to assure the ontological requirement of objectivity as directed by the 艢aivite thought. According to 笔谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻, the reflection of the shining objects is possible. Memory has already shone in the past and there for it doesn鈥檛 have its object. But this problem could be solved with the ever illuminative and all-inclusive nature of supreme reality itself.^[5]

Apoha is basically a Buddhist concept which has been accepted by 艢补颈惫补蝉 (firstly by Utpaladeva in his IPK) and carried it as a type of power enclosed鈥攚ith the 闯帽腻苍补艣补办迟颈鈥攃alled Apohana艣akti. The term firstly was coined by 搁补迟苍补办墨谤迟颈, a 狈补颈测腻测颈办补 of Kashmir.

Since related to vikalpana, it is called Vikalpana艣akti also. 

啶�啶� 啶忇し 啶忇さ 啶�啶班た啶むざ啷嵿�涏�囙う啶ㄠぞ啶︵�佮�氞�嵿く啶む��, 啶むう啶掂き啶距じ啶ㄠじ啶距ぎ啶班�嵿ぅ啷嵿く啶�啶�啷嬥す啶ㄠざ啶曕�嵿い啶苦��

yata e峁�a eva parita艣chedan膩ducyate, 迟补诲补惫补产丑腻蝉补苍补蝉腻尘补谤迟丑测补尘补辫辞丑补苍补艣补办迟颈岣�^[6]

This particular 艢补办迟颈 can then be called as differentiation, which cuts off the differentiated from all the rest i. e., 鈥渢he lord鈥檚 essential of negating the essential plenitude鈥�^[7]  

The initial discussions on Apohana艣akti are found to be in 莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻惫颈惫峁泃颈惫颈尘补谤艣颈苍墨:

鈥淲e have the power of exclusion (Apohana艣akti) when a cognition in the form of conceptual elaboration is generated exclusively by the latent impression left by a particular manifestation, [a latent impression which is] awakened by the wonderful (vicitra) will [of the Lord] as devoid of any specific spatio-temporal delimitation. For these (i.e., 鈥渢his kind of鈥�) conceptual elaborations have as their [specific] function that the reply regarding this question by 顿丑补谤尘补办墨谤迟颈 was denied by Abhinavagupta and started to explain 艢补颈惫补 theory of exclusion.鈥�^[8]

The essence of 艢aivite theory of Apohana situates in the openness of object and subject, which is the very gound of the doubt about it. Buddhist theory is accepted inthis respect and 艢aivites figure this 艢补办迟颈 as the variant of 闯帽腻苍补艣补办迟颈.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

cf.叠丑补驳补惫补诲驳墨迟腻:鈥斺赌�... 尘补迟迟补岣� sm峁泃irj帽膩namapohana峁� ca |鈥濃�擱affaele Torella observes in this respect that these act as the proof of the coinciding of the individual self with universal consciousness.

[2]:

This indirectly suggests the dissatisfaction with the Buddhist definition. According to them, memory is an independent event which would be simply an effect of the impression of the former perception. Abhinavagupta summarises this position as 鈥�补苍耻产丑补惫补岣� 蝉补峁僺办腻谤补岣� sm峁泃iriti tu j帽膩nam膩laiva up膩d膩nop膩deyabh膩vena bhavi峁�yati鈥�

[3]:

Raffaele Torella, 鈥淲hat is Memory鈥�, p.13.

[4]:

Lyne Bansat Bouden, Op.cit., p. 80.

[5]:

莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻办腻谤颈办腻, I. 4. 7-8

[6]:

莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻惫颈尘补谤艣颈苍墨, I. 3. 7.

[7]:

叠丑腻蝉. Vol. 3, p.126. cf. 惭腻测腻艣akti.

[8]:

Raffaele Torella, Studies on Utpaladeva鈥檚 lost 痴颈惫峁泃颈: 鈥淎ccording to Abhinavagupta 莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻惫颈惫峁泃颈惫颈尘补谤艣颈苍墨, I, p.291,13ff, the peculiarity of apohana艣akti with respect to the mere j帽膩na艣akti lies precisely in this figuring out of possible alternatives and then excluding them. In 顿丑补谤尘补办墨谤迟颈鈥檚 formulation of the apoha theory, the alternatives to be rejected are in fact various erroneous superimpositions (补诲丑测腻谤辞辫补). However, Abhinavagupta replies (ibid., p.292,15-17), the object of the superimposition is already a mental construct, which in turn had to be established by way of the exclusion of other superimpositions, and so on; this entails that the simple ascertainment of a patch of blue colour could not be arrived at even in thousands of cosmic eras (vikalpasam膩ropapara峁僷ar膩navasthan膩t yugako峁璱bhirapi na n墨lani艣cayau).鈥�