365bet娱乐

[Full title: Cosmology, Ontology and Soteriology in terms of 艢补办迟颈: The Hermeneutics of Categorization]

膧产丑腻蝉补 (manifestation), Pratibimba (reflection) and 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 (freedom) are the conceptions that represent the key metaphysical doctrines of 艢aivite monism. Each of these is added with the term 惫腻诲补 with it to explain the attributed theories and it is popularly indicated as synonym of the philosophical system of the 艢aivite monism. Monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 is termed as 膧产丑腻蝉补惫腻诲补, when it is perceived through the view of ultimate about the entire universe as its manifestation. That is because it is tried to posit this very theory as the 艢aivite cosmological hermeneutics. The next one is the Pratibimba惫腻诲补 (more idealistic in nature) is addressing the ontological state of the universe including itself, from the point of view of every sentient individual. It suggests that all the manifestations are the reflections of the supreme consciousness. 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补惫腻诲补 exposes the key theory named recognition鈥攖丑别 process through which the perfect goal is to be attained. Three of these theories altogether are firmly attributed to the principle of 艢补办迟颈.

The term 膩bh膩sa generally indicates the agency of 艢颈惫补 in the creation of the whole universe on account of his power of freedom. The entire multiplicity of the universe is categorized as 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 within which the reality of essence is situated. 

So the thirty six categories are called as 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 they being the elements of representation of the cosmology, as says the famous introductory verse of 莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻办腻谤颈办腻;

啶ㄠた啶班ぞ啶�啶距じ啶距い啷嵿お啷傕ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶距う啶灌ぎ啶苦い啶� 啶�啷佮ぐ啶� 啶�啶距じ啶�啶むた 啶�啶︵�� 啶︵�嵿さ啶苦ざ啶距�栢ぞ啶�啶距ざ啶距じ啷嵿い啷� 啶むう啶ㄠ�� 啶� 啶掂た啶�啶權�嵿�曕�嵿い啷佮�� 啶ㄠた啶溹�曕げ啶距ぎ啷� 啷�
啶膏�嵿さ啶班�傕お啶距う啷佮え啷嵿ぎ啷囙し啶�啷嵿ぐ啶膏ぐ啶｀え啶苦ぎ啷囙し啶膏�嵿ぅ啶苦い啶苦�溹�佮し啶膏�嵿い啶︵う啷嵿さ啷堗い啶� 啶掂え啷嵿う啷� 啶�啶班ぎ啶多た啶掂ざ啶曕�嵿い啷嵿く啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶ㄠた啶栢た啶侧ぎ啷� 啷�

nir膩bh膩s膩tp奴r峁嚹乨ahamiti pur膩 bh膩sayati yad dvi艣膩kh膩m膩艣膩ste tadanu ca vibha峁卥tu峁� nijakal膩m |
svar奴p膩dunme峁�aprasara峁嘺nime峁�asthitiju峁�astadadvaita峁� vande parama艣iva艣akty膩tmanikhilam ||

(I bow to that absolute, which is unity of 笔补谤补尘补艣颈惫补 and 艢补办迟颈; the unity, which from its ultimate state, first of all manifests the pure ego 鈥業鈥� and then, through its will, divides its power into two; the ultimate state which being without any manifestation, is self-contained and is responsible for creation and dissolution through the play and suspension respectively of its power.)^[1]

The whole entities in the manifested universe are indifferent from the supreme principle and therefore the former is termed as 腻产丑腻蝉颈迟补 and the latter as 腻产丑腻蝉补办补. Both the process of 腻产丑腻蝉补苍补 and the manifested objects are regarded as 艢补办迟颈 and it reflects the inevitable inclusion of such a feminine principle even in this intellectually developed phase.

According to Abhinavagupta, 膩bh膩sa is relatively ultimate within the sphere of the cognitive world, but they are sublatable by the consciousness as such, which in some sense transcends it. Everything which existing-i.e., subject, object and means鈥攊s 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉. 

K. C. Pandey comments;

The world of experience according to him, is not a creation of the god, who is simply an active agent and brings the 鈥榚xperienceables鈥� into being, with the help of some such material cause as atoms; nor is it an evolute of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 as the 蝉腻峁卥丑测补 conceives; nor a purely subjective experience, as the vij帽膩nav膩dins represents; nor even a mere illusion as the ved膩ntin believes it to be.^[2]

The all-inclusive universal consciousness is ideal; hence the theory of 笔谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻 is known as the theory of realistic idealism i.e., 膧产丑腻蝉补惫腻诲补. 膧产丑腻蝉补惫腻诲补 simultaneously is an ontological and an epistemological theory. Each 膩bhasa is a collection of 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 which exist independent each other. The world constituted of 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 is not illusory, and not a mere product of perceiver鈥檚 imagination. Here it is real and eternal unlike that of the philosophy of 痴别诲腻苍迟补. 

Utpaladeva explains how the different constituent 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 formulate the impression of unity;

啶�啷冟ぅ啶椸�嵿う啷�啶�啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶膏�嵿ぐ啷嬥い啶膏ぞ啶� 啶膏ぞ啶椸ぐ啷� 啶�啶ム�� 啷�
啶呧さ啶苦ぐ啷佮う啷嵿ぇ啶距さ啶�啶距じ啶距え啶距�� 啶忇�曕�曕ぞ啶班�嵿く啶� 啶むぅ啷堗�曕�嵿く啶о��啶� 啷�

p峁泃hagd墨paprak膩艣膩n膩峁� srotas膩峁� s膩gare 测补迟丑腻 |
aviruddh膩vabh膩s膩n膩峁� ekak膩ry膩 tathaikyadh墨岣� ||

(As in the case of distinct rays of light in a torch and of the currents in the sea, so in manifestations that are not in contrast with each other the notion of unity is produced by their appearing as unitary entities.)^[3]

The monistic philosophy of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 has many technical terminologies that represent its doctrine. The universe and everything within it have their own real existence according to their theory and all those individuals are termed as 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 (manifestations) of the one and only supreme reality. Eventually the question would arise that how this one reality becomes many. In order to answer this, 艢补颈惫补 theorists brought a new impression that all these manifestations are Pratibimbas (reflections) of the supreme.

The analogy of reflection, indicating the relation between supreme reality and the manifested world is found in almost all the Indian philosophical traditions^[4]. 

Even though there are previous attempts made by 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补 and Utpaladeva, as David Lawrence says, 

It is Abhinavagupta who may be credited with making the metaphor of reflection into a favored trope of monistic 艢补颈惫补 theological discourse.^[5]

He also stresses that this conception is a code mainly used for the mythical and ritual process of engrossment of 艢补办迟颈 directly connected with the body and egoity. 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补 clearly distinguishes its two modes of representation i.e., reflection 鈥榦f the 艢颈惫补鈥� and the reflection 鈥榠n the 艢颈惫补鈥� with the help of proper examples. The foremost multi-layered metaphor used is that of the images of a mirror to point out the relationship between universe and the absolute. 

This process has been explained in 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补 as, 

啶︵ぐ啷嵿お啶｀が啶苦ぎ啷嵿が啷� 啶�啶︵�嵿さ啶ㄠ�嵿え啶椸ぐ啶椸�嵿ぐ啶距ぎ啶距う啶� 啶氞た啶む�嵿ぐ啶�啶掂た啶�啶距�椸た 啷�
啶�啶距い啶� 啶掂た啶�啶距�椸�囙え啷堗�� 啶� 啶�啶班じ啷嵿お啶班�� 啶︵ぐ啷嵿お啶｀ぞ啶︵お啶� 啶� 啷�
啶掂た啶�啶侧い啶�啶�啶班ぎ啶�啷堗ぐ啶掂が啷嬥ぇ啶距い啷� 啶むぞ啶掂う啷嵿さ啶苦き啶距�椸ざ啷傕え啷嵿く啶�啶�啶� 啷�
啶呧え啷嵿く啷嬥え啷嵿く啶� 啶� 啶むい啷嬥そ啶�啶� 啶� 啶掂た啶�啶曕�嵿い啶�啶距き啶距い啶� 啶溹�椸う啷囙い啶む�� 啷�

darpa峁嘺bimbe yadvannagaragr膩m膩di citramavibh膩gi |
产丑腻迟颈 vibh膩genaiva ca 辫补谤补蝉辫补谤补峁� darpa峁嚹乨api ca ||
vimalatamaparamabhairavabodh膩t t膩vadvibh膩ga艣奴nyamapi |
补苍测辞苍测补峁� ca tato'pi ca vibhaktam膩产丑腻迟颈 jagadetat ||

(Just as the images of a town, a village, and other objects reflected in a mirror appear inseparable from the mirror yet appear distinct both from one another and from the mirror, in the same way, arising from the absolute consciousness of para bhairava, this universe, though inherently void of divisions, nevertheless appears internally apportioned and distinct [from Para Bhairava])^[6]

The objects, reflections and the mirror are the three important elements in this metaphor. In a primary view, the reflected images appear as different from the mirror and from one another.^[7]  

For is reason Abhinavagupta himself states that this sense is invalid in the level of absolute^[8], Jeffrey Lidke coming to the conclusion remarks that,

The true relation of the three is stated to be one of avibh膩gin (inseparability). Developing this theme of inseparability, Abhinavagupta goes on to equate the mirror with vimalatama-parama-bhairava-bodham (the absolute consciousness of highest Bhairava) who, both in terms of the metaphor and Trika cosmology, is the 辫谤补尘腻迟峁� (supreme knower).^[9]

David Lawrence in this regard argues that, 

艢颈惫补/the self is both the source and the locus of reflections. All reflections are of the self in the self 鈥� His basic point is that there is no bimba if that is conceived as something external to consciousness. However, he always makes it clear that there is a cause (hetu) for the Pratibimba, that is, an efficient cause (nimitta) rather than a material cause (耻辫腻诲腻苍补). That cause is none other than 艢补办迟颈 variously identified as Kaulik墨 艢补办迟颈, Supreme speech (par膩v膩k), semantic intuition (辫谤补迟颈产丑腻), the unsurpassed (补苍耻迟迟补谤腻) agential self-determination (sv膩tantrya) and the various modes of self-recognition (惫颈尘补谤艣补, 辫补谤腻尘补谤艣补 and so on).^[10]

In fact, the key point that should be noticed is that through this theory of reflection the preordained disclosure of 艢补办迟颈 takes place.

The concept of freedom in the philosophy of non-dual 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 holds an important role in the representation of the all-encompassing, and all-powerful character of the supreme consciousness. Scholars observe that the very concept has been emerged in the non-dualistic 艢aivite circumstances to demonstrate the existence of supreme consciousness with an essential dynamic character as opposed to the Buddhist theory of 鈥榥ot self鈥�.

Isabelle Ratie put forward an appropriate definition thus, 

This infinite plasticity of consciousness, or this capacity to manifest itself in innumerable forms while remaining itself (even though it shows itself in the form of objects, i.e., as what it is not) is precisely what the 艢补颈惫补s call 鈥渇reedom,鈥� and according to them, this freedom transcends the pure momentariness upheld by the Buddhists: contrary to insentient objects, consciousness is capable of changing without perishing.^[11]

Eric Bartel makes reference of two aspects of 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 viz., 鈥榝reedom from鈥� and 鈥榝reedom to鈥�. She describes the former as;

鈥� sv膩tantrya refers ultimately to the fact that 艢颈惫补 is not limited by any other thing. There are no obstacles to impede the sv膩tantrya of the Lord; He is not dependent on any other thing. Before getting into that, however, it needs to be pointed out that in discussing this aspect of sv膩tantrya, the language can be interpreted in a misleading fashion.

This 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 is not limited by anything whereas the other beings are dependent on it. It is completely autonomous and the source of all other powers. Because of freedom 艢颈惫补-ultimately who is everything-is independent from all others. The process of manifestation is found to be frequently discussed as the freedom from the absolute. 

Abhinavagupta indicates,

啶� 啶曕�� 啶掂げ啶� 啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶距う啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶距え啶� 啶�啶о�嵿え啶距い啷嵿く啷囙さ 啶�啶距さ啶ㄠ�嵿ぎ啷嬥�氞く啶む�嵿く啶�啷�啶む�嵿く啶�, 啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶�啶灌た啶�啷堗さ啶距く啶� 啶︵�囙さ啶膏�嵿く 啶�啶︵じ啷� 啶�啷佮え啶� 啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶� 啶班�傕お啶� 啶�啶班た啶多�佮う啷嵿ぇ啶� 啶膏い啷嵿じ啶傕じ啷嵿お啷冟ざ啶む�嵿く啶｀�佮い啶距ぎ啶�啶� 啷�

na ke vala峁� sv膩tantry膩d膩tm膩na峁� badhn膩tyeva y膩vanmocayatyap墨tyaha, sv膩tantryamahimaiv膩ya峁� devasya yadasau puna岣� | sva峁� 谤奴辫补峁� pari艣uddha峁� satsa峁僺p峁浥沘tya峁噓t膩maya岣� ||^[12]

But the exploration of this aspect creates a dichotomy between sentient (those who have freedom) and insentient (those who do not have freedom). This dichotomy is erroneous in the context of 艢aivite monism.

The second aspect is 鈥榝reedom to鈥�, without which, the 鈥榝reedom from鈥� cannot be completed. Here the conception of 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 is emphasized as the process of unrevealing and recognition of the supreme 艢颈惫补 by the individuals who are none other than 艢颈惫补. Abhinavagupta believes that the freedom is the essence of any kind of action. All the sentient beings have a certain level of agency and hence a certain level of freedom. This freedom gradually develops and finally realizes the self, then become competent to reach the highest level of agency that is of 艢颈惫补.

By equating action and freedom, Abhinavagupta states, 

啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多じ啷嵿く啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶掂た啶多�嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶苦ぐ啶灌ぎ啷嵿き啶距さ啷� 啶灌た 啶曕��啶班�嵿い啶苦い啶� 啷�
啶夃�曕�嵿い啶� 啶� 啶膏�堗�� 啶掂た啶多�嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶苦�� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶距お啷囙�曕�嵿し啶距え啶苦ぐ啷嬥ぇ啶む�� 啷�
啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶�啶� 啶曕ぐ啷嵿い啷冟い啷嵿さ啶� 啶�啷佮�栢�嵿く啶�啷�啶多�嵿さ啶班い啶距お啶� 啶掂ぞ 啷�

prak膩艣asy膩tmavi艣r膩ntirahambh膩vo hi 办墨谤迟颈迟补岣� |
耻办迟腻 ca saiva 惫颈艣谤腻苍迟颈岣� 蝉补谤惫腻辫别办峁Ｄ乶颈谤辞诲丑补迟补岣� ||
蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补尘补迟丑补 办补谤迟峁泃惫补峁� mukhyam墨艣varat膩pi v膩 |

(础丑补尘产丑腻惫补 is indeed said to be the 痴颈艣谤腻苍迟颈 of the self of 笔谤补办腻艣补. And indeed this 痴颈艣谤腻苍迟颈 is said to be the confinement in regard to everything. Now the chief attribute of 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 is doership, and moreover it is the state of lordship.)^[13]

By considering 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 as 鈥榝reedom to鈥� 艢颈惫补, the entire manifestations in this universe can realize themselves as 艢颈惫补 and all their deeds as same as of the Supreme. This leads to the completion of a cycle that is 艢颈惫补 who manifests, manifestations which reflect and reflections again realize the 艢颈惫补. The concept of 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 would be the exact answer to the question that what is the limit of the supreme self鈥檚 power. 

It is identified with various forms of 艢补办迟颈 such as the consciousness, the unrestricted will, the sum total of illuminative and reflective awareness, internal Pratibh膩, play and vibration of the supreme self:鈥�

...啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶� 啶氞た啶む�嵿い啶む�嵿い啷嵿さ啶� 啶囙い啶� 啷�

...蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补峁� 肠颈迟迟补迟迟惫补峁� iti | 鈥�(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, Vol. 1, p.51;)

啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶� 啶� 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶�啶ム�囙�氞�嵿�涏�� 啶むい啷嵿ぐ 啶囙�氞�嵿�涏ぞ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶膏ぐ啶膏�嵿�� 啶呧さ啶苦�樴ぞ啶む�� 啶む�囙�� 啶膏�嵿さ啶�啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多い啷� 啷� 啶�啶班ぞ啶む�嵿ぎ啶ㄠぞ 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多�� 啶囙い啶� 啶呧え啶掂�氞�嵿�涏�囙う啶むく啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多ぎ啶距え啶む�� 啶むう啷囙さ 啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶� 啶�啶班ぞ啶む�嵿ぎ啶ㄠぞ 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多い啷� 啶囙い啶� 啷�

蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补峁� ca 苍腻尘补 yatheccha峁� tatra icch膩prasarasya avigh膩ta岣� tena 蝉惫补测补峁� 辫谤补办腻艣补迟别 | par膩tman膩 prak膩艣ata iti anavacchedatay膩 prak膩艣am膩nat膩 tadeva 蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补峁� par膩tman膩 辫谤补办腻艣补迟别 iti |鈥�(Ibid., p. 37;) 

啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶�啶苦�氞�嵿�涏ぞ啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀ぎ啷囙さ 啷�

蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补尘颈肠肠丑腻濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘别惫补 |鈥�(Ibid., Vol. 2, p.13.)

啶呧え啷嵿く啶ㄠた啶班お啷囙�曕�嵿し啶む�堗�� 啶�啶班ぎ啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶む�� 啶嗋え啶ㄠ�嵿う啶�, 啶愢ざ啶掂ぐ啷嵿く啶�, 啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷嵿く啶�, 啶氞�堗い啶ㄠ�嵿く啶�啷� 啷�

anyanirapek峁�ataiva param膩rthata岣� 腻苍补苍诲补岣�, ai艣avarya峁�, 蝉惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补峁�, caitanyam 触触鈥�(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, Vol. 1, p.255.)

It is not because of any peculiar rule that the Supreme makes such and such reflections as part of the process of the creation of the universe, but is because of the all-encompassing 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补 (freedom) of the lord. So in the angle of variegated universal objects, the 艢补颈惫补 theory of cosmology is known as 膧产丑腻蝉补惫腻诲补. If the individual object is taken, then the theory of ontology may be termed as Pratibimba惫腻诲补. The same could be evaluated as a soteriology and then the theory would turn to be as 厂惫腻迟补苍迟谤测补惫腻诲补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

叠丑腻蝉, Vol. 3, p. 1. The editors, K. A. S. Iyer and K. C. Pandey mention that the first five verses are not found in the manuscript used and had been copied from a fragment of work, consisting of introductory portion in the possession of Maheshwar Razdan of Srinagar. But the first verse under discussion has been quoted by Jayaratha with a different 辫腻峁环补 as 鈥榥ir膩艣a峁僺膩t鈥� which commits a distict meaning. Thus the non-manifested primordial state of 艢颈惫补 is seems to be an ambiguous postulation, but however Abhinavagupta manages it. There is also an accepted conception that 腻产丑腻蝉补蝉 are divided into s膩m膩ny膩bh膩sa and svalak峁�a峁嚹乥h膩sa (universal and particular manifestations). Buddhists accept particular as the reality while universal is fundamentally more real according to 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘. For details, see. Isabelle Ratie, 鈥淩emarks on Compassion and Altruism in the 笔谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻 Philosophy鈥�, Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol.37, 2009, pp.349-366.

[2]:

K. C. Pandey, Abhinavagupta: An Historical and Philosophical Study, p.320. cf. Gavin. D. Flood鈥檚 assumption that the 艢aivite 膧产丑腻蝉补惫腻诲补 comes under the broader category of Satk膩rya惫腻诲补. Further he concludes the discussion with a remarkable juxtaposition as, 鈥淥ne could suspect that 艢aivites manage to make this leap between the epistemic and the metaphysical aspects of the problem simply by inferring the non existence of the external object from the fact that it is not perceptible. As a matter of fact, they repeatedly equate existence with manifestation and they call their own system (as well as Vij帽膩na惫腻诲补) a 鈥渢heory of manifestation鈥� (膩bh膩sa惫腻诲补) i.e., a theory according to which reality belongs (only) to manifestations (膩bh膩savastutva惫腻诲补).鈥� Gavin. D. Flood, Op.cit., p.67. The very statement-whether the author intended or not, conveys the inevitability of 艢补办迟颈 in the theory of 膧产丑腻蝉补.

[3]:

莫艣惫补谤补辫谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻办腻谤颈办腻 II. 3. 7; Raffaele Torella, The 莫艣vapratyabhij帽膩k膩rik膩, pp.166-167.

[4]:

The history of such a thought may be traced back to 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测辞辫补苍颈峁�a诲 and succeeds through the traditions like 厂腻苍办丑测补, Yoga and 痴别诲腻苍迟补.

[5]:

Lawrence, D. P, 鈥淩emarks on Abhinavagupta鈥檚 Use of Analogy of Reflection鈥�, Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol.33, 2005, p.586.

[6]:

笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补, vv. 12- 13; Tr: Jeffrey. S. Lidke, Quintessence of The Highest Purpose: A Translation, Introduction And Analysis of 艢r墨 Abhinavagupta鈥檚 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补, Unpublished thesis of MA, University of California, 1996, p.16. In spite of these, Abhinavagupta also discusses about the reflection of elephants, mountains etc.

[7]:

Swami Lakshman Joo addresses this conventional mode of understanding as the 鈥�grammar of reflection鈥�, www.youtube.com/swamilakshmanjoopratimimbavada.

[8]:

鈥�vij帽膩n膩ntary膩mipr膩峁嘺vir膩岣� dehaj膩tipi峁囜笉膩nta岣� | vyavah膩ram膩trametat param膩rthena tu na santyeva ||鈥濃��(the various philosophies-Yog膩c膩ra, 痴别诲腻苍迟补, 厂腻峁卥丑测补-驰辞驳补, 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, 狈测腻测补, 厂尘腻谤迟补 are confined to conventional reality. They have no existence in the higher truth.), 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补, v. 27.

[9]:

Jeffrey. S. Lidke, 鈥淨uinessence of the Highest Purpose: A Translation, Introduction and Analysis of 艢r墨 Abhinavagupta鈥檚 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补蝉腻谤补鈥�, Unpublished MA Thesis Submitted to the University of California, 1996, p.10.

[10]:

Lawrence, D. P, Op.cit., p.591. This statement seems to be contradictory to the previous one, which runs as 鈥�Abhinava generally prefers the metaphor of reflection in the Self/艢颈惫补鈥�. See Ibid., p. 590.

[11]:

Isabelle Ratie, 鈥淯tpaladeva and Abhinavagupta on the Freedom of Consciousness鈥�, Jonardon Ganeri (Ed.), The oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy, 2016, p.6.

[12]:

罢补苍迟谤腻濒辞办补, XIII.105.

[13]:

叠丑腻蝉, Vol. 1, p.35; Eric Bartel, Op.cit, p.42.