365bet娱乐

[Note: In the translation of 19th and 20th verses of 厂辫补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻, Dyczkowski uses the term 鈥榲ibration 辞蹿鈥� and it is what proliferated such a problem that whether Spanda is 鈥榁ibrating consciousness鈥� or 鈥榁ibration of Consciousness鈥�.]

The theory of Spanda was developed before the launch of the thought of I-consciousness as 艢颈惫补. As the commentaries on the fundamental Spanda scripture were composed after the pure monistic philosophical openings, there arises a problem that Spanda is whether the 鈥榲ibrating consciousness鈥� or the 鈥榲ibration of consciousness鈥� (i.e., if itself is consciousness or is the nature of consciousness). Understanding Spanda as vibrating consciousness will be antagonistic to the philosophy of Monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 which introduces the reality as having transcendental as well as immanent nature to the alteration in the traditional mode of representation of the 鈥�freedom 辞蹿鈥� supreme reality.^[1]

That is why it is induced to figure out the vibrating reality as the vibration of reality. For instance, the opening verse of 厂辫补苍诲补蝉补峁僤辞丑补 conceives this as;

啶呧�曕げ啶苦い啶�啶灌た啶�啶� 啶�啶� 啶曕�嵿し啷嵿ぎ啶距う啶苦じ啶距う啶距ざ啶苦さ啶距え啷嵿い啶� 啶曕げ啶�啶む�� 啶灌�冟う啶� 啶掂た啶多�嵿さ啶� 啶氞た啶む�嵿ぐ啶膏�傕く啷嬥�溹え啶距き啶苦�� 啷�
啶�啷嵿ぐ啶ムく啶む�� 啶� 啶掂た啶氞た啶む�嵿ぐ啶� 啶膏�冟し啷嵿�熰た啶膏�傕す啶距ぐ啶侧��啶侧ぞ 啶� 啶溹く啶むた 啶多た啶� 啶忇�曕�� 啶膏�嵿お啶ㄠ�嵿う啶掂ぞ啶ㄠ�嵿じ啷嵿さ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩�� 啷�

akalita尘补丑颈尘腻 ya岣� k峁�m膩dis膩d膩艣iv膩nta峁� kalayati h峁沝i 惫颈艣惫补峁� citrasa峁儁ojan膩bhi岣� |
prathayati ca 惫颈肠颈迟谤腻 s峁涐梗峁璱sa峁僪膩ral墨l膩 sa jayati 艣iva eka岣� spandav膩nsvaprati峁ａ弓ha岣� ||

(艢颈惫补 whose glory is unmeasured, measures out in his heart, the universe from earth to 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补 and variously conjoining (aspects of his nature), he emanates the wonderful play of emission and withdrawal. He the one pulsating and established in himself, is victorious.)^[2]

Explaining this benedictory verse, 碍峁�e尘补谤腻箩补 directly moves to glorify the freedom of supreme 艢颈惫补. It is nothing else than his sovereignty, which is the power of creative freedom (蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补) and hence is to be recognized with the ultimate reflective awareness (痴颈尘补谤艣补).^[3] Because the freedom is equated with the power of will, the impossibility to objectify 艢颈惫补 (for the process of manifestation) can certainly be equated with characteristics of the will. Then the freedom becomes constantly occurring entity and the supreme consciousness becomes indifferent from the vibration.

The verses 7, 10 and 11 also comprises the dispositions that intend the vibration of consciousness:

啶�啶む�� 啶膏�嵿さ啶むえ啷嵿い啷嵿ぐ啶む�� 啶むじ啷嵿く 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶む�嵿ぐ啷囙く啶�啶曕�冟い啷嵿ぐ啶苦ぎ啶� 啷�
啶むう啶膏�嵿く啶距�曕�冟い啷嵿ぐ啶苦ぎ啷� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啷� 啶溹�嵿�炧い啷嵿さ啶曕ぐ啷嵿い啷冟い啷嵿さ啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀�� 啷�
啶�啶むじ啷嵿い啶︵�囙お啷嵿じ啶苦い啶� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶� 啶溹ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶むた 啶� 啶曕ぐ啷嬥い啶� 啶� 啷�
啶むぎ啶оた啶粪�嵿�犩ぞ啶む�冟き啶距さ啷囙�� 啶膏�嵿さ啶�啶距さ啶�啶掂げ啷嬥�曕く啶ㄠ�� 啷�
啶膏�嵿ぎ啶�啶�啶距�� 啶囙さ啶距じ啷嵿い啷� 啶�啶膏�嵿い啶膏�嵿く啷囙く啶� 啶曕�佮じ啷冟い啶苦�� 啶曕�佮い啶� 啷�

yata岣� svatantrat膩 tasya sarvatreyamak峁泃rim膩 ||
tadasy膩k峁泃rimo dharmau j帽atvakart峁泃valak峁�a峁嘺岣� |
yatastadepsita峁� sarva峁� j膩n膩ti ca karoti ca ||
tamadhi峁ａ弓h膩t峁沚h膩vena svabh膩vamavalokayan |
smayam膩na iv膩ste yastasyeya峁� kus峁泃i岣� kuta岣� ||

鈥掷辫补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻, v. 7cd, 10 and 11.

The descriptions like 鈥榰ncreated freedom鈥� (蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补), the form of 鈥榰niversal agency and perceiving subjectivity鈥� (j帽膩t峁泃vakart峁泃valak峁�a峁嘺) and nature 鈥榯hat which sustains all things鈥� (adhi峁ａ弓h膩t峁泂vabh膩va) in the aforementioned verses find 艢颈惫补 as the transcendental consciousness that holds the power of vibration.

Similarly, explanation of the supreme as the abode of the two states called agent and the product of action clearly categorises power as inferior and its possessor as superior;

啶呧さ啶膏�嵿ぅ啶�啷佮�椸げ啶� 啶氞ぞ啶む�嵿�� 啶曕ぞ啶班�嵿く啶曕ぐ啷嵿い啷冟い啷嵿さ啶多が啷嵿う啶苦い啶�啷� 啷�
啶曕ぞ啶班�嵿く啶む�� 啶曕�嵿し啶�啶苦ぃ啷� 啶むい啷嵿ぐ 啶曕ぐ啷嵿い啷冟い啷嵿さ啶� 啶�啷佮え啶班�曕�嵿し啶�啶�啷� 啷�

avasthayugala峁� c膩tra k膩ryakart峁泃va艣abditam |
k膩ryat膩 k峁�ayi峁嚹� tatra kart峁泃va峁� punarak峁�ayam ||^[4]

The supreme state according to Spanda is that where neither pleasure nor pain exists. There is neither subject nor object and moreover no absence of consciousness. The principle having such a state is defined as nothing but mere illumination (prak膩艣aikaghana). Even though this is the form of 艢补办迟颈, it is recognised as 艢颈惫补.

碍峁�e尘补谤腻箩补 divides the 厂辫补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻 into three parts viz., svar奴paspanda (vibration of one鈥檚 own nature), sahajavidyodayaspanda (vibration of the arising innate knowledge), vibh奴tispanda (vibration of powers).^[5] Perhaps the similar classifications are very much illustrative of the sturdy concerns towards the determination of the expression-鈥榲ibration of consciousness鈥�.

In total, 厂辫补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻 as the fundamental scripture of new philosophical stream, which was strictly forced to follow the necessities created by the then circumstances, exclusively formulated the absolute masculine鈥斉毦北共�. On the contrary, Spanda espouses the 艢腻办迟补 nature in its inner core as acquired from the antecedent 艢补办迟颈-centred systems. Thus, if the real nature of Spanda is known, then the ultimate reality, relentlessly acting as a sentient supreme, could only be addressed as the 鈥榲ibrating consciousness鈥� rather than the 鈥榲ibration of consciousness鈥�. Hence the tools of earlier 艢补办迟颈-centred schools might had been used to reveal the actual features dormant in the system. But the commentators and modern interpreters vehemently used the metaphysical doctrines of 笔谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻 for their exegesis of Spanda.

The Trans-regional organisation and a consequent standardisation of its rituals and doctrines made 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 an indispensible part of the early medieval polity. Pan-Indian socio-religious order acted as the principal force behind the rise of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 over the 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫颈蝉尘, Jainism and Buddhism. The cause behind the rise of 艢颈惫补-centeredness of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 was its treatment by the Buddhists like 狈腻驳补产辞诲丑颈. Thus although Spanda was originated to explore a pure and advanced 艢aivite thought, the inherent nature of the idea of 艢补办迟颈 inhabits the tradition.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

See S. Rajendra, Op.cit., p.34. The modern scholars of Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 used to exhibit the freedom of 艢颈惫补 in a sentence that he has the capability to decide 鈥榯o be or not to be鈥�. This statement has been questioned in the discussion session of the Trika Workshop at Lukhnow in 2011, The problem arouse was if 艢颈惫补 himself decided to 鈥榥ot to be鈥�, then there will be the non-existence of himself; but it is impossible to have non-existence of the supreme with respect to the doctrine of Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘, the experts including D. B. Sensharma, K. D. Tripathi and Navjivan Rastogi elucidated the problem by clarifying the statement with a slight change as 鈥榯o become or not to become鈥�

[2]:

厂辫补苍诲补蝉补峁僤辞丑补, p.1; Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, Op.cit., p.61.

[3]:

akalita iti na 办补濒颈迟补岣� kalan膩vi峁�ay墨kartuma艣akya岣� svasvar奴p膩dbahi岣� idanteyatt膩y膩maprak峁�ipto v膩 尘补丑颈尘腻 vi艣v膩bhinnapar膩mar艣amaya蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补艣akty膩tma 补颈艣惫补谤测补峁� yasya | 厂辫补苍诲补蝉补峁僤辞丑补, p.1.

[4]:

厂辫补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻, v.14.

[5]:

The first section consists of twenty five verses (1- 25), second of seven (26- 32) and the third part consists of 19 verses (33- 51). cf. 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补鈥檚 way of classification of 艢颈惫补s奴tra R膩j膩nakar膩ma schematizes the same into four parts: Instruction Concerning the Tenability of (the Self's) vyatirekopapattinirde艣a (Independent Existence), vyatiriktasvabh膩vopalabdhi (Direct Perception of One's Own Independent Nature), vi艣vasvabh膩va艣aktyupapatti (Tenability of the Power of One's Own Universal Nature) and abhedopalabdhi (Perception of Unity).