365bet娱乐

After outlining the key aspects of the 艢颈惫补-centred philosophy in the first chapter, through the second chapter 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补 moves on to the comprehensive criticism of the philosophy of Sanskrit grammarians (especially of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈) for their conceptualization of the word supreme called 笔补艣测补苍迟墨^[1]. In fact, as noted by John Nemec, 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补鈥檚 refutations of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈鈥檚 theory is based on his conceptualization of the ultimate as word-having the nature of 艢补办迟颈鈥拢补尘别诲 Par膩 v膩c and the divergence is actually of an anti-艢腻办迟补 character. 

Nemec views it as, 

厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补鈥檚 argument against 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈鈥檚 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 and the commentary 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补v峁泃ti are linked to his repudiation of a 艢腻办迟补 Tantric school that invoked the grammarians to justify the view that the goddess, and not 艢颈惫补 is the supreme.^[2]

The third chapter, whereas, unambiguously presents the diverging thoughts related with the supremacy of the concept of 艢补办迟颈. This portion may be viewed as the foremost reference to the subordinated form of 艢补办迟颈.

Although he authored 艢腻办迟补vij帽膩n墨ya the pantheistic approach of 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补 is extremely centred the masculine principle, the 艢颈惫补. 

The real nature of 艢颈惫补d峁涐梗峁璱 according to Raffaele Torella is,

In this difficult, discordant but fascinating work, he alternates expositions of a non-dualist doctrine that is felt to be still very near to its scriptural sources-though these cannot be clearly distinguished-logical justifications, visionary tirades and summary dismissals of opposing doctrines; he presenting an exceedingly long and malevolent demolition of the theories of the grammarians.^[3]

But still he does not explain why these anti-grammarian theories are said to be malicious.

Indeed it is the approach against the prominence of feminine principle, which in many other contexts is commonly identified with 艢补办迟颈. See 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. 5.11:

啶氞た啶むた啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶掂ぎ啶班�嵿ざ啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶� 啶�啶班�� 啶掂ぞ啶曕�� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班じ啷嬥う啶苦い啶� 啷�
啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶�啷囙い啶ㄠ�嵿ぎ啷佮�栢�嵿く啶� 啶むう啷堗ざ啷嵿さ啶班�嵿く啶� 啶�啶班ぎ啷囙し啷嵿�犩た啶ㄠ�� 啷�

肠颈迟颈岣� 辫谤补迟测补惫补尘补谤艣腻迟尘腻 辫补谤腻 v膩k svarasodit膩 |
sv膩tantryametanmukhya峁� tadai艣varya峁� 辫补谤补尘别峁ａ弓丑颈苍补岣� ||

The argument suggests that the 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 situates in the third (of the 36) category from fundamental principle known as 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补 which neither can be considered as the level of mere 滨肠肠丑腻艣补办迟颈, nor as that of the initial moment called aunmukhya. Actually here the 笔补艣测补苍迟墨鈥檚 position is in the midst of the first and succeeding categories ie., 艢颈惫补 and 艢补办迟颈. Thus there arises a tendency to suspect duality in the concept of Brahman in 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈鈥檚 view.

厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补鈥檚 argument starts with an emphasis that the grammarian鈥檚 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 is insufficient to be considered as the Supreme as it is equivalent to the power of cognition to be found in the level of third principle, 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补 and ends with the identification of 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 (as an action having two parts) with that of the desire of a potter.^[4]

Further there is a direct refutation of his contemporary 艢腻办迟补 opponent Pradyumnabha峁�峁璦 which clearly states that the agent or 艢颈惫补 has to be considered as the Supreme rather than the 艢补办迟颈 who always comes under or within 艢颈惫补.

艢颈惫补d峁涐梗峁璱v峁泃ti discusses the same as follows;

啶膏ぞ啶權�嵿�栢�嵿く啶距う啶苦じ啶苦う啷嵿ぇ啶距え啷嵿い啷囙し啷� 啶班�氞え啶� 啶掂ぞ啶曕�嵿�曕ぐ啷嵿ぎ啷囙え啷嵿う啷嵿ぐ啶苦く啶�啶苦い啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶｀�囙い啷冟じ啶傕が啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶苦�曕げ啷嵿お啶ㄠぞ啶�啶距い啷嵿ぐ啶�啷囙い啶む��, 啶� 啶む�� 啶�啶班ぎ啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶膏�傕さ啶苦い啷嵿お啶班�嵿く啶距げ啷嬥�氞え啶膏�嵿お啶班�嵿ざ啷屶そ啶膏�嵿い啶苦�� 啶� 啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕�嵿ぐ啶苦く啶� 啶�啶班ぎ啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶掂た啶氞ぞ啶班�囙し啷� 啶膏�傕が啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶むぞ啶� 啶�啶距い啶� 啷� 啶むぅ啶� 啶灌た 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啷囙そ啶班�嵿ぅ啶距�� 啶膏�傕さ啶苦う啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩ぞ啶�啷佮お啶�啶距え啷嵿い啶� 啶呧じ啶傕さ啶苦う啶苦い啶� 啶呧じ啶ㄠ�嵿�� 啶忇さ 啷� 啶膏�傕さ啶苦�氞�嵿�� 啶掂た啶�啶班�嵿ざ啶多�傕え啷嵿く啶� 啶膏�傕さ啶苦う啷囙�� 啶� 啶�啶掂い啶苦�� 啶むい啶多�嵿�� 啶膏ぎ啶膏�嵿い啶むい啷嵿い啷嵿さ啶膏ぞ啶班ぐ啷傕お啷嬥そ啶�啶� 啶掂た啶�啶班�嵿ざ啷屶そ啶ㄠ�佮き啷傕く啶�啶距え啷嬥そ啶�啶苦げ啶距お啶�啶� 啶忇さ啷囙い啶� 啶掂ぞ啶氞ぞ 啶膏す 啶曕ぞ 啶膏�嵿お啶班�嵿ぇ啶� 啶�啶距ぃ啷嵿く啶距う啷�啶ㄠぞ啶�啶�... 啶�啶多�嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶むぞ啶掂い啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班�傕お啶距き啶苦ぇ啶距え啶距き啷嵿く啶距�� 啶掂た啶氞ぞ啶班�嵿く啶むぞ啶� 啶�啶ム�� 啶�啶多�嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶�啶多�嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷�啶む�嵿さ啷囙�� 啶�啷佮�曕�嵿い啷堗さ啷囙い啷嵿く啶班�嵿ぅ啶� 啷�

s膩峁卥hy膩disiddh膩nte峁�u racan膩 v膩kkarmendriyamiti pra峁噀t峁泂a峁僢andhikalpan膩m膩trametat, na tu param膩rthasa峁僾itpary膩locanaspar艣au'stii na ca prakriy膩 param膩rthavic膩re峁�u sa峁僢andhat膩峁� y膩ti | tath膩 hi sarve'rth膩岣� sa峁僾idi prati峁ａ弓h膩mupay膩nti asa峁僾idit膩 asanta eva | sa峁僾icca vimar艣a艣奴ny膩 sa峁僾ideva na bhavatii tata艣ca samastatattvas膩rar奴po'ya峁� vimar艣au'nubh奴yam膩no'bhil膩pamaya eveti 惫腻肠腻 saha 办腻 蝉辫补谤诲丑腻 p膩峁噛膩d墨n膩mi... pa艣yant墨 t膩vat svar奴p膩bhidh膩n膩bhy膩峁� 惫颈肠腻谤测补迟腻峁� 测补迟丑腻 pa艣yant墨 pa艣yant墨tvena yuktaivetyartha岣� ||

(That speech is an organ of action, is the characterisation found in the settled opinions of the 厂腻峁卥丑测补, etc. Hence it is merely an idea associated with those who promulgate it, but it has no bearing on the design of consciousness, the supreme reality; nor is this characterisation associated with the considerations of supreme reality. For instance all objects become established in consciousness, non-appearing entities simply do not exists鈥� therefore how hands etc. compete with speech? Indeed, objects first become real in the form of consciousness, and consciousness, the nature of which is reflective awareness, is first of all penetrated by speech alone, and not by hands, feet etc.)^[5]

The utmost aim of the formulation of 艢颈惫补d峁涐梗峁璱鈥攁s in the case of all other newly developed sources鈥攊s the presentation and establishment of the dynamic supreme reality鈥斉毦北共�. 艢颈惫补 is the all-pervasive consciousness and the entity as same as of the universe. 艢颈惫补, is both the supreme individual and all the entities found in the world. The universe known through the sensory experience is also real since it is nothing else the Supreme鈥檚 consciousness itself.

It should be noted that the kingship might have possessed a key role in the institution of the philosophical homogeneity that naturally fits in the main stream monistic philosophy proposed by Br膩hma峁噄sm鈥攚hich has assumed to satisfy the political interests. Thus tantric systems have undergone a vast range of domestication or internalisation processes as a matter of sustenance, for which they adopted major elements of orthodox systems. In Tantrism, the compound and unique ritualistic speculations had got homogenized and they were assimilated into the dominant model of Brahmanism, which according to Alexis Sanderson is having a duality in its religious life i.e., 鈥榙oing without knowing and knowing without doing鈥�^[6]. The necessity of such a characterisation of the pure gnostic philosophy by differentiating it from the ritualism may be viewed as a cause of propagation of the monistic philosophy鈥攊ndeed having a masculine supreme.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The initiatory verse of the second chapter of 艢颈惫补d峁涐梗峁璱 itself is capable of indicating the position of the author in this respect;
鈥�补迟丑腻蝉尘腻办补峁� 箩帽腻苍补艣补办迟颈岣� y膩 sad膩艣ivar奴pat膩 |
vaiy膩kara峁嘺s膩dh奴n膩峁� pa艣yant墨 s膩 辫补谤腻 蝉迟丑颈迟颈岣� ||鈥� See fn.12 of the present chapter.

[2]:

John Nemec, The Ubiquitous 艢颈惫补, p.9.

[3]:

Raffaele Torella (Ed. and Tr.), The 莫艣varatyabhij帽膩办腻ri办腻, pp.xiv-xv.

[4]:

Raffaele Torella summarises the entire content of this argument as, 

鈥淭he grammarians who think of themselves as so clever-says 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补, quoting passages from 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 and 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补v峁泃ti-claim that the supreme Brahman is to be identified with 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 V膩c, but the latter at the most is identifiable with the power of knowledge that corresponds to the plane of 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补-definitely not to the highest plane. In fact, as the word itself says, 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 鈥渟ees鈥� something. But what is the nature of its object? If we say that they are externalised images that it has produced, we must ask ourselves whether they are real or unreal. In the first case the distinctive feature of this philosophy is lacking, namely seeing the manifestation as illusory (vivarta). On the other hand the unreality of what it sees would have repercussions for it, rendering it asatya, which is inadmissible. If the cause of this perceiving of unreal things is nescience, it is the latter that must be established as being real or not. If it is real, then 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 is contaminated by it. If it is not real, it is not understood how there can be a relation between a real thing and an unreal one. The same is also true of its creation. Moreover this nescience cannot be seen as an attribute either of 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 (for the above mentioned reasons); or of something else, since nothing real exists apart from it. Nor is it to be considered as independent, because then it would be impossible to supress it. Nor can 补惫颈诲测腻 can imputed only to the middle level, because in any case it is 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 that is the cause of it. If 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 is to be identified with 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, we must ask ourselves how words, unreal as they are, can manifest it. Even the belief that pronouncing a correct word leads to heaven results in attributing, to the only reality that can be its subjects, characteristics which are contrary to its nature, such as the desire for particular fruitions, etc. it is not possible to posit as the highest reality that which because its very nature, always remains-however you put it-an instrument of action (v膩c). Not even identifying the 艢补产诲补迟补迟迟惫补 without beginning and end with Par膩 v膩c makes sense, since this means identifying the object (sound) with the instrument (voice). If then 笔补艣测补苍迟墨 is said to be only a proper noun and hence, to escape all the criticism concerning the fact of seeing etc., and that it is only the feminine ending that counts-which is intended to express its being the power of knowledge-the reply is that, if it has nothing to do with seeing, it is insentient and therefore cannot be the power of knowledge either.鈥� 

In Mrinal Kaul, Ashok Aklujkar (Eds.), 鈥淔rom an Adversary to the Main Ally: The Place of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 in the Kashmirian 艢补颈惫补 Advaita鈥�, The Linguistic Traditions of Kashmir, D. K. Printworld, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 509- 510.

[5]:

艢颈惫补d峁涐梗峁璱v峁泃ti, p.49; John Nemec, The Ubiquitous 艢颈惫补, p.161.

[6]:

Alexis Sanderson, 鈥溑毑咕北共� Exegesis of Kashmir,鈥� p.434.