365bet娱乐

Aesthetic and linguistic speculations in Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 are described in the same terms referring to 艢补办迟颈. It is observed that Abhinavagupta during the representation of 艢补办迟颈, tries to synthesize his non-dualistic 艢补颈惫补 tradition with some distinct and significant thought traditions. The linguistic philosophy of grammarians and the Sanskrit aesthetics are the two important systems among them.

Gerald James Larson in this regard remarks,

Abhinavagupta in his mystical theosophy draws extensively from these traditions gives one the impression that Abhinavagupta (at least with respect to his use of the term 艢补办迟颈) is relying heavily on what might be called a 鈥榣inguistic-aesthetic model鈥� in his religious thought.^[1]

Sanskrit aesthetics had explicitly made use of the traditional Indian philosophical theories and concepts. Although originated in a comparatively later period, the non-dual philosophy of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 is the most significant system of Indian philosophy which influenced the Sanskrit aesthetics in a larger perspective. This is evidently derived from the style of interpretations of Abhinavagupta. Scholars profoundly have discussed about the influence of 艢aivite doctrine in the commentaries on aesthetics in Sanskrit viz., Dhvany膩lokalocana, and 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨. David Peter Lawrence believes that the assimilation of aesthetics is nothing but the 鈥渆xpression of a historical domestication of Tantric transgressiveness by Br膩hmanical culture鈥�.^[2]

The scholars like Loriliai Biernaki and David Gordon White consider the process of assimilation of Tantra in aesthetics as a domestication technique. But it seems not only as a rationalization process but an attempt to habituate the aesthetic theories or concepts to the frame work of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 for the purpose of the establishment of its panentheistic philosophy with the help of interpreting the 鈥�experience鈥�. In fact, Abhinavagupta makes the theories and treatises of aesthetics as the tool for the disclosure of 艢补办迟颈 by which he can establish his monistic philosophy.^[3]

Loriliai Biernaki, while pointing out the limitation of the monistic thoughts, proposes a divergent view that through his works on aesthetics, Abhinavagupta paves a way to know about the mode through which monistic philosophy addresses the complexity of ethics in the human relations.^[4]

She remarks,

For Abhinavagupta, aesthetic appreciation of a poem or a play entails a non-linear and non-rational encounter with delight in the appreciation of Rasa or flavor of the art that lends itself ultimately to moral refinement through a process of universalization.^[5]

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� ||

Consciousness has as its essential nature reflective awareness (辫谤补迟测补惫补尘补谤艣补); it is the supreme Word (辫补谤腻v膩k) that arises freely. It is freedom in the absolute sense, the sovereignty (ai艣varyam) of the supreme Self.^[6]

艢补办迟颈 has been presented in manifold names and forms in a series of contexts in 艢补颈惫补ite philosophy. But it has never rejected or hidden its fundamental characters i.e., femininity, creativity etc., even in the linguistic and aesthetical domains. In the present situation where it is presented as an aesthetic category, 艢补办迟颈 appears to have its basic nature in a vague form in its unconscious.^[7]

K. C. Pandey in this regard says, 

There can be no self without at least potential consciousness, the capacity of the self, technically called 艢补办迟颈 is therefore admitted to be the second category. Abhinavagupta puts the aesthetic experience to this level (the category of 艢补办迟颈 consciousness) as 肠补尘补迟办腻谤补.^[8]

The philosophy of Abhinavagupta reflected in the aesthetic theories is the only thing noted by the scholarly world. They neither problematized the necessity of the use of aesthetic or poetic theories in the philosophical streams; nor addressed the questions like why the Tantrikas like Abhinavagupta considered poetics as an important 艣腻蝉迟谤补 and made discussions on it. The traditional scholars do not consider the poetics even as a discipline that deserves serious attention. As per the traditional view, aesthetic experience has a limitation that the experience lasts for a short time and hence is sidelined and thus a new approach needs to be formulated in its stead. An examination of Abhinavagupta鈥檚 references of the aesthetics in the Tantric texts leads to the assumption that he uses the aesthetics as a tool for the revelation of Sakti鈥搕he second category and the gate to 艢颈惫补.^[9]

One reason for accepting aesthetics as a topic of concern may be the inclusion of the popular discourses such as entertainment and arts which dwell perfectly within the real worldly philosophy of 艢aivites. The scholarly ancestors of Abhinavagupta started seeing the poetic or artistic works seriously. To be precise, although this tendency had started from Vasugupta himself, it was Abhinavagupta who made its appropriate and effective application.

It is popularly believed that the experience of aesthetic relish (谤补蝉腻蝉惫腻诲补) doesn鈥檛 reach the level of experience of the ultimate (brahm膩sv膩da). The capacity to create such an aesthetic experience and the capacity of the artist to enjoy such an experience i.e., the appreciative or responsive reader, is discussed usually with the notion of 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻. It is also termed 艢补办迟颈. Here it is proposed to argue that the representation of Prathibh膩 as 艢补办迟颈 is its philosophical implication. 艢补办迟颈 rather is the capacity to evoke or receive a resonating suggestiveness achieved by means of the word, yet transcending the word leads to an experience of universal joy or wonder.

Though it is familiar as an aesthetic concept, origin of 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻 moves back to earliest thoughts about knowledge. 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻 is a flash of light that provides an extra ordinary perception to the writer. Kavi艣akti is nothing else than this creative imagination.

笔谤补迟测补产丑颈箩帽腻 identifies 艢腻尘产丑补惫辞辫腻测补 with pratibh膩.^[10] According to the system, as the water inherently possesses the capability of flowing every individual inherently holds the power of 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻.

罢补苍迟谤腻濒辞办补惫颈惫别办补 declares this as, 

啶�啶ㄠ�嵿ぎ啷傕げ啶� 啶多ぞ啶膏え啶� 啶む�囙�� 啶� 啶班た啶曕�嵿い啶� 啶曕�嬥そ啶�啶� 啶溹え啷嵿い啷佮�曕�� 啷�

测补苍尘奴濒补峁� 艣腻蝉补苍补峁� tena na 谤颈办迟补岣� ko'pi 箩补苍迟耻办补岣� 触鈥�罢补苍迟谤腻濒辞办补, XIII. 89.

Note: 罢补苍迟谤腻濒辞办补惫颈惫别办补 on this verse says: 

啶掂�嵿く啷佮い啷嵿お啶む�嵿い啷囙ぐ啷嵿す啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距い啶苦き啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶� 啶曕ざ啷嵿�氞た啶溹�嵿�溹え啷嵿い啷佮�� 啶膏�嵿さ啷嬥�氞た啶むさ啷嵿く啶距お啶距ぐ啶ㄠ�堗お啷佮ぃ啷嵿く啷� 啶班た啶曕�嵿い啶� 啷�

vyutpatterhi pr膩tibh膩tm膩 ka艣cijjantu岣� svocitavy膩p膩ranaipu峁噛o 谤颈办迟补岣� |

笔谤补迟颈产丑腻 is of two types鈥攍ower and higher. First is worldly like telepathy etc. second one is the supreme consciousness in 膧gamic literature. According to Abhinavagupta, 笔补谤腻惫腻肠 is another name of 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻, seated on poet鈥檚 own heart. It is alaukika (non-worldly) according to Bha峁�峁璦tauta. For early 艢补颈惫补 Tantric thinkers, meaning of the word 鈥�辫腻迟补鈥� is 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻.

笔谤补迟颈产丑腻 is equated with 艢补办迟颈 as it is the 蝉补峁僾颈诲 of the pr膩mat峁�. Sa峁僾id is constituted of various orders and disorders. Sarv膩vabh膩sanas膩marthya (the all-illuminating potential) of 笔谤补尘腻迟峁� (the knower) is identical with the 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻. It holds the entire possibilities for all that are going to happen and what is happening. It is beyond the sense organs and buddhi, where sv膩vabh膩sana and sv膩vabodhana take place. 笔补谤腻惫腻肠 has sarvasarv膩tmat膩 and it is the first 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻. The concept of 艢补办迟颈 acts as the predominant content of all these formulations of aesthetic and linguistic theories.

Indian contexts generally relate the principle of word with the creative power. This view can be supported with the earliest written references containing in the Vedic literature which associates the word principle with female deity. Then the major scholars of the theory of word are grammarians including 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 and 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 whom Abhinavagupta and other 艢aivite scholars followed closely. 

Sthaneswar Timalsina precisely explains how 艢aivites related it to 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 as;

Linguistic expression in 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈鈥檚 philosophy does not merely discribes the phenomenal reality: his 艢补产诲补 is identical to Brahman and is also means to reveal the highest truth. This self-revealing aspect of language is what particularly links 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 with subsequent Trika philosophers.

In Tantra Many followers are there to 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 for the identification of sound with Pratyavamar艣a. Here the Pratyavamar艣a completely shows the meaning of touch of 艢补办迟颈. 艢补产诲补 is 辫谤补迟测补惫补尘补谤艣补pratyaya. The important meanings of the words are twofold: 1) understanding, and 2) determinate or definitive comprehension. This influenced the 艢补颈惫补 non-dualistic theory of word. Three phases in the process of cognition are sm峁泃inir奴pa峁嘺 (remembering an object in the form made out of the word after perceiving it), abhijalpanir奴pa峁嘺, and 膩k膩ranir奴pa峁嘺.

In Kashmir 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘, a shift from 艣abda (subsuming artha) to reality as constituted by 笔谤补办腻艣补 and 痴颈尘补谤艣补 can be found. Although this shift is a direct outcome of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈鈥檚 impact on 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘, it also marks the subtle line of departure from Bhartrhari鈥檚 notion of philosophy itself. 厂辞尘腻苍补苍诲补 had considered 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 just as a 痴补颈测腻办补谤补峁嘺, whereas Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta gave prominent place to him as a philosopher.

They accepted Pratyavamar艣a as recognition cum identification to refute Buddhist thoughts. The Pratyavamar艣a is 艢颈惫补鈥檚 agential freedom which is also V膩c. It has two dimensions as sacred (mantra) and linguistic (艣补产诲补苍补). 艢补产诲补na appears both in its culminated and in a separated form while it is supporting each other in the latter. Harvey P.

Alper while explaining this aspect states that, 

Each human being is fundamentally deluded because he is a linguistic creature and the mantric utterance is one form of speaking that [allows] a human being to overcome the evils of linguisticality, because in its very utterance and [discloses] the roots of language itself.^[11]

The mantra is considered empowered entity as it possesses V膩c which is nothing but 艢补办迟颈. This was understood by Abhinavagupta as 痴颈尘补谤艣补-the creative, pulsating, and self-aware consciousness of 艢颈惫补.So both the self-realization and its merging with the supreme consciousness are possible through the understanding of mantra.^[12]

To conclude, the socially and philosophically popular doctrines of monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 are intensely associated with the modified forms of principle of 艢补办迟颈. The complex nature and obscurantist structures of Tantric tradition are elevated here into the terrain capable to compete even with the main stream sophisticated philosophy and religion. In brief, the distinct ways of the disclosure of 艢补办迟颈 fortified the demonstration of unique theory of liberation in the monistic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Gerald James Larson, 鈥淭he Sources for 艢补办迟颈 in Abhinavagupta's K膩sm墨r 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘: A Linguistic and Aesthetic Category鈥� p.45. In the same, the three fold foundation proposed by him is not carried out here for discussion.

[2]:

See David Peter Lawrence, Op.cit., p. 93. He also assumes that the symbiosis of Tantra with aesthetics is as similar as its conjoining with other philosophies including that of grammarians, and this tendency predates Abhinavagupta. But the references in the texts like 艢颈惫补s奴tra could only be evaluated as the substratum for Abhinavagupta and not as the evidences for the earlier attempt of symbiosis.

[3]:

There is a common understanding that Abhinavagupta used the theories of 艢补颈惫补 philosophy for the interpretation of aesthetics. But, the present attempt is to postulate a distinct assumption that he in fact used the aesthetics for the popularisation and establishment of monistic religious philosophy developed by him.

[4]:

This observation directly proclaims the relationship of 艢aivite aesthetics-centered on 艢补办迟颈-to the society. But may be because of the inclination towards a conservative deliberations on the boundaries of good and bad in the society, she is not in agreement with Abhinavagupta for violating the 鈥榰biquitous social taboo鈥檚. Loriliai Biernaki, 鈥淭owards a Tantric Nondualist Ethics through Abhinavagupta鈥檚 Notion of Rasa鈥�, p.1.

[5]:

Idem.

[6]:

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. 13, Tr. Raffaele Torella, Op.cit, p.119. Also 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, II. 3. 8.

[7]:

The only exemption is the direct identification of 艢补办迟颈 with the V膩c-which is feminine in nature.

[8]:

K. C. Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics, Vol. 2, p.103.

[9]:

The aesthetic relish is of the form of 艢补办迟测腻惫颈峁�k补谤补峁嘺.

[10]:

罢补苍迟谤腻濒辞办补惫颈惫别办补, Vo.1, p.100.

[11]:

Harvey. P. Alper, Mantra, p.279.

[12]:

Patton. E. Burchett, 鈥淭he Magical Language of Mantra鈥�, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, No. 4, December 2008, p.826.