Integral Monism (Oxford thesis)

Integral Monism

A Comparative Study of Kashmiri Śaivism and Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Philosophy

Section 1: Introduction

 

Summary of Argument

This essay will compare the ‘Integral Philosophy’ of Sri Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950), an Indian yogi, philosopher, poet and independence fighter, and the Pratyabhijñã  (Self-recognition) philosophy of the Trika school of Kashmiri Śaivism, a unique form of Tantric practice which was developed around a thousand years ago[1]. The essay will argue that despite the vast separation in time, scriptural bases and cultural contexts, both philosophies are intriguingly similar in their broad characteristics. First, both can be described as forms of ‘integral monism’; and second, both fuse normally antithetical elements of realist and idealist philosophies in their accounts of cosmogenesis.  Despite such similarities in their metaphysical worldviews, the two systems have dramatically divergent soteriological aims, recommendations and processes, i.e. in terms of what the ‘ultimately good state’ humans should aim at and how that is attained (Smart, 2005).    Kashmiri Śaivism teaches that the aim is to re-attain Self-recognition through divine grace accompanied by Tantric practices.[2]Aurobindo believes one should seek the descent of the ‘supramental consciousness’ and a divinised life on earth by collaborating with the divine will and grace through different methods of yoga. Such clear differences are surprising as there is normally a close link between the metaphysical view of a religion or philosophy, and its soteriological recommendations and processes. Or as Aurobindo puts it, ‘metaphysical truth’ on ‘fundamental realities’ should ideally guide ‘our own process of life, its aim and method’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.693).  In India, in particular, ‘metaphysics serves as a theoretical framework supporting a body of spiritual discipline; it is never merely abstract speculation’ (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.33). This essay will show that the surprisingly divergent soteriological ideas can in fact be traced to specific differences in the two broadly similar metaphysical systems—differences that are fundamentally due to how Aurobindo drew out the radical implications of divine freedom. It will then analyse why these distinctions have such soteriological impact.

Structure

The essay will set out its argument through five sections. This first section, Introduction, will lay out its argument, structure and comparative methodology. The second section, Monism, will first discuss the general nature of monistic philosophies using a scheme developed by Schaffer (2014). It will then show how Pratyabhijñã   and Integral Philosophy can be described as broadly similar forms of the integral monism of Brahman (absolute Reality). Both philosophies include every possible element into the absolute Reality which is pūrṇa (integral and all-embracing)—and whose categorical freedom (svātantrya) allows it to include and transcend the One and the many (Sharma 1972, p.9; Dyczkowski, 1987, p.38). This form of monism is often compared in the secondary literature on Kashmiri Śaivism and by Aurobindo himself with Śankara’s Advaita Vedānta, an influential form of monism that views the world as being neither real (sat) and unreal (asat) (Rangaswami, 2012, p.33-34). It thus serves as an important foil to both philosophies, and will be briefly reviewed in this section. 

The third section, Cosmogenesis and Realistic Idealism, will show how both philosophies combine idealistic and realistic elements in their account of cosmogenesis—the process through which an unchanging, monistic and transcendent Reality becomes the phenomenal existence. In both accounts, the Reality is envisaged as one Consciousness (cit) that becomes the many through exercising its freedom to contract its Self-awareness. Thus, there are many principles of the one Consciousness, with a key transition principle being māyā—which leads to the obscuration of Self-consciousness. The multiple levels of Reality imply that the monism of Brahman co-exists with property pluralism. This section will also show that even in the details describing the levels of Consciousness above māyā, there are some similarities between the accounts of Kashmiri Śaivism and Aurobindo. 

However, there are also crucial distinctions in their realistic idealisms. The two most important will be first, Aurobindo’s emphasis on the radical freedom of the Divine to embody the ‘individual Divine’, the jivātman; second, Aurobindo’s emphasis that Brahman’s purpose of manifestation is not only for the bliss (ānanda) of emanation and return (an account found in both philosophies)—but also for the unbounded freedom of the Divine to evolve (as the ‘psychic being’), through the adventure of achieving the birth of its divine Consciousness in the realms below māyā—despite enormous difficulties The corollary to this is a teleological re-interpretation of Darwinian evolution as a divinely driven process of ‘spiritual evolution’ that involves the progressive manifestation of the divine Consciousness through the mediums of matter, life, mind and eventually, Supermind. 

The fourth section, Soteriology, will draw on Ninian Smart’s discussion on soteriology to show that despite the broad similarities in the metaphysical worldviews of Kashmiri Śaivism and Aurobindo, the divergences outlined in Section Three support and imply dramatic differences in their soteriological ideas. Finally, the fifth section will summarise the comparative study of Pratyabhijñã and Integral Philosophy.

 

Methodology and Key Texts

The essay will focus on comparing the key conclusions and concepts of the metaphysical systems of KashmiriŚaivism and Aurobindo, and comparatively outline their soteriological aims, recommendations and processes based on representative texts.  For Pratyabhijñã, the focus will be on writings of  Abhinavagupta (c. 10th century).  His numerous works, including the Paramārthasāra and Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī which this essay will draw on, synthesise  most, if not all of the rituals and teachings of the Tantric schools  in Kashmir and  unite them with a Pratyabhijñã framework (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.4-12). The essay will also refer to the earlier work of Utpaladeva’s (c. 9^th century), Īsvarapratyabhijñā kārikā, a seminal work on Pratyabhijñã,  and the Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam of Kṣemarāja (c. 11^th century) and the commentary on Paramārthasāra by Yogarājā (c. 11^th century). While there are many other texts that outline Pratyabhijñã, for instance, Somānanda’s (c. 9^thcentury) Śiva-dṛṣṭi, the ‘first philosophical treatise on Kashmir   Śaivism’ (Pandit, 1991, p.xxix), or sections of Abhinavagupta’s masterwork, the Tantrāloka—it is believed that the texts cited are sufficiently representative to accurately describe Pratyabhijñã. The essay will also focus solely on the philosophical ideas of Pratyabhijñã, and not its esoteric associations (e.g. the process of cosmogenesis viewed as the phonemic emanation of the svātantryaśakti (power of absolute freedom), which is also parāvāc (supreme speech)).

Aurobindo’s philosophy writings, as found in the Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo (CWSA), span the gamut—including numerous letters to his disciples, a major metaphysical work (The Life Divine), works on political philosophy (e.g. The Ideal of Human Unity), exegetical writings on the Vedic Saṃhitās, the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Upaniṣads, and the longest poem in the English language, Savitri. This essay will focus on The Life Divine (CWSA, Vol.21-22) as it is the most complete and authoritative source of Aurobindo’s philosophy. It will further support the analysis with citations from Letters on Yoga (Vol.28-31) and Aurobindo’s exegesis on the Īśa Upaniṣad (Vol.17) and the Ṛg Veda (Vol.15). 

It is also important to note what this essay will not attempt to do. While both philosophies are based on certain hermeneutical principles of investigating their scriptural bases and philosophical arguments are used to justify the conclusions, this essay is not focused on surveying these. Nor will the essay critically evaluate the cogency of the arguments. Instead, it will selectively present philosophical arguments or briefly review scriptural sources, when they may increase our understanding of the concepts presented.  With regards to the soteriological recommendations, this essay will focus on general features that result from their respective metaphysical worldviews, and not explicate the intricate details of Tantric rituals or Aurobindo’s yogic processes.

Finally, investigating the cultural and intellectual influences on Aurobindo or Kashmiri Śaivism  will also not be the goal. It is indeed intriguing that Aurobindo propounded a system that has broadly similar features with Kashmiri  Śaivism, despite extensively drawing on an essentially Brahmanical and not āgamic scriptural base. Indeed, Aurobindo, despite knowing the broad teachings of the Tantric schools (such as the arousal of the kuṇḍalinī), did not write exegetical works on or refer to any specific Tantric scripture or school in his works. It is also interesting that the divergences between Aurobindo’s philosophy and Pratyabhijñã could stem at least in part to his exposure to Western ideas such as individualism, Darwinian evolution, the emphasis of modern society on material progress, or Hegel’s dialectic, such as the movement in love from ‘unity’ to ‘separated opposites’ and ‘reunion’ on a basis of the differentiated unity of opposites (Hegel, 1975, p.308).  Still, even though these issues are worthy of further study, the present analysis will focus solely on comparing the two intellectual systems as they stand. 

Section 2: Monism

Monism: A General Analysis

Monism is a polyvalent concept, but the historical ‘monistic’ philosophies in Europe and India all attribute oneness to reality in some fashion (Schaffer, 2014).  However, it is important to understand this ‘oneness’ as being domain specific, and that in a philosophical system, monism in one domain can co-exist with pluralism or nihilism in others. Applying Schaffer (2014)’s analytical scheme, all forms of ‘monism’ attribute oneness—but where they differ is in what they attribute oneness to (the target), and how they count the target (the unit).Analytically, monism for target t counted by unit u is the view that t counted by u is one. There is only monism relative to a target and unit, which then define different kinds of ‘monisms’. 

For instance, substance monism can be analysed as such:

Let the target t₁ = concrete objects (as contrasted to abstract objects, e.g. concepts)

Let the unit u₁ = type 

To be a monist for t₁ counted by u₁ is to hold that concrete objects fall under one type (t₁ counted by u₁= 1), either mental type (monistic idealism), material type (materialistic monism) or some transcendent type (spiritual monism).

Monism relative to one target can co-exist with pluralism or even nihilism in another:

Let the target  t₁ = concrete objects, t₂ = properties, u₁ = type 

The monist for t₁ counted by u₁ (the substance monist) might be a pluralist, with t₂ counted by u₁ (for properties counted by type) being more than one.

For instance: two highest types of property, physical and mental, inhering in one and the same type of substance, which is  property dualism co-existing with substance monism.

To rigorously compare ‘monisms’, such as Integral Philosophy and Pratyabhijñã, and show their similarities and differences, this essay will be employing the analytical scheme of Schaffer (2014) to show in what ways both be described as ‘monistic’ and in what ways ‘pluralistic’. 

The Monism of Advaita

Śankara’s Advaita Vedānta is a form of monism that is widely known in India and abroad, and it constitutes the chief philosophical foil in Aurobindo’s works and in the secondary literature on Kashmiri Śaivism.   This section will survey this philosophy. However, as Aurobindo points out, he has read ‘some scores of his [Śankara’s] exegetes and each followed his own line’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.391). There are certainly divergent interpretations of Śankara’s philosophy, and this section will employ the interpretation and translations of Rangaswami (2012), whose viewpoints are akin to those of Aurobindo (CWSA, Vol.29, p.391-2).

In this view of Śankara’s philosophy, the one existent is the nirguṇa  Brahman derived from the Upaniṣads:

            

Brahman without attributes [nirguṇa], ever pure, ever free, non-dual, homogenous like the ether, and of the nature of consciousness from which the object portion has been negated (on the authority of the śruti, “Not this, not this”). (Upadeśa Sāhasri., XII.1–3, 6–15, 19)

This description indicates that the nirguṇa  Brahman is clearly not a phenomenal thing.  Śankara  also does not attribute any action or dynamism to this Brahman (Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāsya, 2.3.4). All these imply that t₁ = concrete and abstract objects (i.e. all phenomena in the form of discrete objects as we know them), counted by u₁ = tokens (i.e. instances of), is actually zero. Only t₁ = Brahman, counted by u₁ = tokens, is one. Thus, the monism of Brahman co-exists with the nihilism of property and phenomenal existence. Differentiated things and their properties, the whole phenomenal world, are ‘superimposed like a snake on a rope’ (e.g. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad Kārikā, I.17). This superimposition (adhyāsa) is due to illusion (māyā). Thus, the non-dual Reality is mistaken as a world of diverse objects (jagat), or individualised souls (jīva), or as the God with qualities (Īśvaraor saguṇa Brahman)  (Rangaswami, 2012, pp. 84-85; 266).  

This view is qualified by how Śankara differentiates between ‘the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal world according to whether it is viewed from the relative or the absolute standpoints’(Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣadbhāṣya, III.v.1). From the absolute standpoint (pāramārthika), God, world and souls are unreal (asat)— the view propounded in the previous paragraph. From the relative standpoint (vyāvahārika), they are real (sat). Taking both views together, phenomenal existence is ambiguously neither real (sat) nor unreal (asat). It is ‘mithyā (false)’ and ‘anirvacanīya (indeterminable)’ (Rangaswami, 2012, p.33-34). This status of being both neither sat nor asat also applies to māyā (Rangaswami, 2012, p.33-34) – which, as some scholars such as Pandit (1991), interprets it, is then implicitly a force that somehow ‘exists’ independently of Brahman ­which is sat. In the classic Vēdantic formula: Brahma satyam, jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ--Brahman alone is true, the world is false and the individual self and the Absolute Self are essentially identical (Rangaswami, 2012, p.266)

The Integral Monism of  Kashmiri Śaivism

Like Advaita, Kashmiri Śaivism teaches a monism of Brahman: t₁ = Brahman, counted by u₁ = tokens, is one.However, while the Advaitin seeks to define the absolute reality by excluding elements which do not conform with the criterion of immutability, the Śaiva sought to include every element into the absolute Reality whose transcendent nature (para) means not ‘emptiness’, but being integral and full (pūrṇa) (Paramārthasāra, 1,Commentary; Dyczkowski, 1987, p.38). As Abhinavagupta states:

That Brahman, the transcendental, pure and tranquil reality, being of monistic nature, is evenly everything. (Paramārthasāra, 42-43)

The whole phenomenon, consisting of thirty-six tattvas, appears and shines in that transcendental reality which shines as the light of pure consciousness… (Paramārthasāra, 10)

There is thus a ‘coextensive unity’ (ekarasa) between manifestation and the One, and both are equal expressions of Brahman (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.37). Specifically, phenomena are a ‘reflectional manifestation’ of Brahman ‘shining’ (ābhāsa) in its own consciousness (prakāśa)—without the need for any external or inexplicable power such as māyā, like ‘the reflections of some multifarious types of objects…shining inside a mirror’ but not separate from it  (Paramārthasāra, 12-13; Pandit, 1991, p.27).

Indeed, the very act of phenomena ‘appearing’ or ‘shining’ implies ‘their oneness (abheda) with consciousness because consciousness is nothing but the fact of appearing’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 1).[3] A more complete argument by Utpaladeva in Iśvarapratyabhijñā Kārikā (1.5), as interpreted by B.N. Pandit, states that given that Consciousness is the only entity capable of ‘shining’ intrinsically (as evidenced for instance in dreams and thoughts)—how can phenomena appear if Consciousness is not their essence (Iśvarapratyabhijñā Kārikā, 1.5.1-2)? It is also unnecessary to posit a material field external to Consciousness, since all objective manifestations can be explained by Consciousness appearing as itself diversely (1.5.6)—nor can we infer something beyond Consciousness since that has never been ascertained (1.5.8). And should Consciousness and objects both ‘shine’ as distinct realities, it will lead to a saṃkara (intermixture) in one consciousness. Consciousness will shine as itself, and the object X as itself (but supposedly different from the former), and yet because object X can only shine in Consciousness, it is actually one with it—leading to a logical contradiction (1.5.3).  Therefore, the best explanation is that Consciousness can appear as varied forms which it already knows and contains within oneself without altering its essential nature through its svātantrya   (a key word in Kashmiri Śaivism connoting both freedom and the supreme Will of the Lord) (1.5.3; 1.5.7; 1.5.10). ` This account of Consciousness-Reality implies that, t₁ = concrete and abstract objects, counted by u₁ = tokens, is zero. Concrete and abstract objects as we know them (as entities discrete among themselves and separate from the observer) do not exist—but unlike Advaita, which ultimately gives an ambiguous real/unreal status to the world, Kashmiri Śaivism unhesitatingly affirms the existence of the phenomenal world as Brahman in the form of prakāśa. The world’s existence is thus not merely real—but absolutely real.  

Unlike the nirguṇa  Brahman of Advaita, this integral Consciousness has a personal aspect, the Īśvara who is Śiva, and who possesses ‘oneness of being (eka-sadbhāva) with prakāśa [as the conscious substratum of all manifestation]’ (Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 20, commentary). Linking key concepts found in Pratyabhijña to the Īśvara, Abihnavagupta writes:

 [The Reality] being great Lord consists in His eternal Self-consciousness [vimarśa], unrestrained freedom (svātantrya), perfect independence of others (kaivalya) and in being essentially pure bliss (ānanda).(Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, 2.8.10-11)

It is because of Śiva’s svātantrya that He (specifically as prakaśa) can shine as both One and the many (Paramārthasāra, 1, Commentary). By his svātantrya, the Divine can also take on any of the ultimate Forms of the Brahman, such as the material body, non-being, Vāsudeva, the Puruṣa  and so on that the different schools of philosophies and spirituality seek to realise (Dyczkowski, 1987, pp.43-46; Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 8)). The personal and the impersonal Divine are thus one. As Kṣemarāja explains:

Thus, of the one Divine whose essence is consciousness, all these roles are displayed by His Absolute Will, [and] the differences in the roles are due to the degree to which that absolute free will chooses to either reveal or conceal itself (Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 8, commentary).

One can therefore argue that the monism of Brahman is categorical in Pratyabhijñā. There is no real/unreal world or māyā. There is only Brahman—and the world, God, and souls too are Brahman. This conception of the Absolute with the freedom to be ‘evenly everything’, and yet which remains a ‘divinely perfect infinite Consciousness’ (Paramārthasāra, 10; 12; 42-43), implies that it cannot be defined by anything limited. Indeed, Abhinavagupta states that svātantrya implies that  the ‘distinctive feature of the universal self-consciousness is indeterminancy’, as determinability of Consciousness implies differentiation of what it is from what is not—and this is a contradiction of its svātantrya to be all that it wish (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 1.6.1).

Integral Monism in Aurobindo’s philosophy

            

Aurobindo’s philosophy is an integral monism that does not accept an illusory manifestation. He differentiates himself clearly from Śankara’s Advaita, stating that it is ‘incredible, however brilliantly ingenious it may be and however boldly and incisively reasoned; it does not satisfy my reason and it does not agree with my experience” (CWSA, Vol.29, p.392). In particular, he claims that it is unreasonable ‘that the eternal Reality allows the existence of an eternal illusion with which it has nothing to do…or that its only power is to create a universal falsehood, a cosmic lie — mithyā.’ Instead, he propounds a ‘realistic Adwaita’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.394):

The real Monism, the true Adwaita, is that which admits all things as the one Brahman and does not seek to bisect Its existence into two incompatible entities, an eternal Truth and an eternal Falsehood, Brahman and not-Brahman, Self and not-Self, a real Self and an unreal, yet perpetual Maya. If it be true that the Self alone exists, it must be also true that all is the Self.  (CWSA, Vol.21, p.35)

Instead, he postulates ‘an Absolute not limited by either oneness or multiplicity but simultaneously capable of both; for both are its aspects’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.393). As Aurobindo puts it in his commentary on the Īśa Upaniṣad: ‘The Many in the universe are sometimes called parts of the universal Brahman as the waves are parts of the sea…these waves are each of them that sea…each individual soul is all Brahman regarding Itself and world from a centre of cosmic consciousness.’ (CWSA, Vol.17, p.23). Thus, the individual soul, Brahman and the world, are all real. As in Kashmiri Śaivism, there is a monism of Brahman: t₁ = Brahman, counted by u₁ = tokens, is one. And similarly, if t₁ = concrete and abstract objects, counted by u₁ = tokens, is zero for objects as we know them do not exist, but they exist as Brahman (and not, as in Advaita, in some real/unreal fashion).  

In coherence with this, the Brahman, as Aurobindo understands it, is integral and all-embracing of all divine aspects—not unlike Kṣemarāja’s statement about how the Brahman can take on any ultimate Form it wishes based on its Will (Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 8, commentary). In particular, and in opposition to Śankara’s nirguṇa  Brahman as sole Reality, he states that in ‘a realistic Adwaita there is no need to regard the Saguna as a creation from the Nirguna or even secondary or subordinate to it: both are equal aspects of the one Reality’. Brahman is indeed Īśvara and saguṇa Brahman—akin to Kashmiri Śaivism’s ‘theistic absolutism of monistic character’ (Pandit, 1991, p.20). Aurobindo also believes that such an all-embracing Brahman is the conception put forward in the Īśa Upaniṣad: 

This is the transcendental, universal and individual Brahman, Lord, Continent and Indwelling Spirit, which is the object of all knowledge. Its realisation is the condition of perfection and the way of Immortality. (CWSA, Vol.17, p.30)

Thus, Aurobindo asserts that ‘the ensemble of these ideas [in the Upaniṣad] is consistent only with a synthetic or comprehensive as opposed to an illusionist or exclusive Monism [i.e. that of Śankara]’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.23). And drawing on a key idea of various Upaniṣads, Aurobindo consistently describes Brahman in his works as Sat-Cit-Ānanda—Existence-Consciousness-Bliss as the inalienably one Īśvara: 

We have started with the assertion of all existence as one Being whose essential nature is Consciousness, one Consciousness whose active nature is Force or Will; and this Being is Delight, this Consciousness is Delight, this Force or Will is Delight. Eternal and inalienable Bliss of Existence, Bliss of Consciousness, Bliss of Force or Will whether concentrated in itself and at rest or active and creative, this is God and this is ourselves in our essential, our non-phenomenal being. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.152)

Indeed, the One or many, the nirguṇa or saguṇa  Brahman, the personal or impersonal, Sat, Cit, Ānanda andso on are not only equally real aspects of the Absolute, but even when they are seemingly opposite, are actually complementary--‘all eternal aspects of the universe which could not exist if either of them were eliminated, and it is reasonable to suppose that they both came from the Reality which has manifested the universe and are both real’ (CWSA, Vol29, p.394). Thus, for example:

A silence of eternal rest and peace supports an eternal action and movement. The one Reality, the Divine Being is bound by neither since it is in no way limited…There is no incompatibility between the two. (CWSA, Vol.29, p.394)

And while ‘the oneness is fundamental’, ‘the multiplicity depends upon the oneness’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.393). While Aurobindo’s view of the integral Brahman, and the unity of phenomena and ultimate reality, is similar to that of Kashmiri Śaivism—this idea of the opposing aspects as complementary is not highlighted clearly in the Śaiva texts examined.

Aurobindo also believes that the ‘absolute freedom’ of the Absolute  necessarily entails its capacity to manifest or not manifest—and manifest in whatever way it pleases even if it contradicts our mental distinctions—a striking parallel to the key idea in Kashmiri Śaivism that it is the svātantrya (freedom) of Śiva that permits his integral manifestation:

Affirming, as we have done, the absolute absoluteness of That, not limited by our ideas of unity, not limited by our ideas of multiplicity, affirming the unity as a basis for the manifestation of the multiplicity and the multiplicity as the basis for the return to oneness and the enjoyment of unity in the divine manifestation, we need not burden our present statement with these discussions or undertake the vain labour of enslaving to our mental distinctions and definitions the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.160)

Elaborating on this, Aurobindo echoes Abhinavagupta’s linking of svātantrya to indeterminability by stating that it is ‘original freedom’ that ‘enables the Consciousness to create a world of determinations without being bound by it’. Brahman can only be the source and substance of all determinations because it has the freedom to be absolutely indeterminable. It is ‘not limitable or definable by any one determination or by any sum of determinations’, in other words, ‘it can be infinitely all things because it is no thing in particular and exceeds any definable totality’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.331-2).

 

Section 3: Cosmogenesis and Realistic Idealism

Cosmogenesis and the Realistic Idealism of Kashmiri Śaivism

The integral monism of Aurobindo’s philosophy and Kashmiri Śaivism  leads clearly to the question of cosmogenesis—of how an unchanging and transcendent Reality can become the phenomenal existence so seemingly different from it. The answer is related to the combination of realism and idealism found in the philosophy (e.g. Dyczkowski, 1989, p.51-52). To fully appreciate this, it is useful to review historically ‘realist’ and ‘idealist’ thought. 

There are two aspects to historically ‘realist’ thought (Miller, 2014) First, there is a claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and other concrete objects, all exist, as do their attributes (the moon being bright and so on). The second concerns independence.  The fact that rocks exist and are of a certain hardness is independent of what human minds happen to say or think. Properties and existence can be said to be independent of linguistic practices and conceptual schemes.

On idealism, there are historically two fundamental conceptions (Guyer, 2015):

1) Ontological idealism: Something conscious (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate substratum of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality,

2) Epistemological idealism: Existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative or constructive activities of the consciousness that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.

As discussed earlier, there is no doubt that for Kashmiri Śaivism, there is a Reality that is the phenomenal world, the absolute Brahman, whose nature is svatantra (self-subsistent) and of svātantrya, and is thus completely independent of human minds (Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 1-2; Dyckowski, 1987, p.38-9). There is also no doubt about the real existence of phenomena—though they do not actually exist in the discrete and objectified ways humans mentally conceive of them. Given this affirmation of the existence and independence of phenomena, Kashmiri Śaivism arguably takes a ‘realist’ view of the cosmos. 

This is married interestingly to ontological and epistemological idealism. On the first, all reality is composed of Consciousness (cit) that is Brahman – which as the conscious substratum of all is specifically called prakāśa(Dyczkowski, 1987, p.59)—and this is explicitly described as something that transcends mental consciousness and its duality (another reason why phenomena’s real existence and nature is independent of human minds). As Utpaladeva notes: 

The inner Self-awareness shining as ‘I’, though being conscious light (prakāśa) in its essence and having [subtle] speech as its form, is not any definite mental idea (vikalpa). This is because an idea…rejects all possible similar ideas, inviting duality [of ‘that’ and ‘not that’]. Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 1.6.1

To be Self-aware is the very essence of Consciousness. It is the supreme speech (parāvāc), rising out of its own ecstasy, and is itself the special [and absolute] Self-sufficiency of God as well as His extraordinary divine essence. (Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 1.5.13)

A ‘supramental’ ontological idealism is thus an additional basis for the independence and real existence of phenomena (which is Consciousness)—and therefore of realism. Epistemological idealism is evident how it is the creative activities of this one Consciousness that shape our ‘reality’—and how our ‘realities’ are fundamentally differentiated through different poises of Consciousness knowing Consciousness (as a form of self-knowledge). More precisely, how the one Consciousness becomes the many is through a process of ‘contraction of the undivided (abheda) awareness of its totality’ through an exercise of its freedom (svātantrya). The expansion of relative distinction  (bheda)  between the many is the contraction of the infinite consciousness—this contraction/expansion participating in the ‘embracing fullness (purnata) of the pulsation [spanda or Utpaladeva’s sphurattā] of the absolute in its different phases of being’ ((Dyckowski, 1987, p.40). This spanda is itself active Self-awareness, a dynamic Absolute that is ‘not conditioned by time and space, and as the very heart of the Supreme…the real essence [of all existence]’ (Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 1.5.14). This view of Reality as pulsation is in clear contrast to the inactive and Brahman of Advaita. 

The idea may seem to violate the immutability of the Absolute. First, despite the physical metaphor, the pulsation of spanda is not a spatial-temporal movement but a spiritual dynamism signifying the ‘throb of the ecstasy of vimarśa’ (Spanda Karikas, Introduction, xvii).  Additionally, Kashmiri Śaivism posits an account of causality in which the effect is ‘the cause appearing as the effect without [truly] changing in any way’ - or in other words, dharma-pariṇāma, which involves change occurring in qualities, and not as opposed to kāryapariṇāma - which involves a change of the cause into its effect, such as the burning of a log into ashes (Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 2.4.18; Dyczkowski, 1987, p.88).  This account of causality and the idea of the Absolute as spanda full of absolute svātantrya underlies the theory of the tattvas, translated as ‘thatness’,principles or categories, that progressively emerges from the most subjective states of Śiva consciousness to the most objective—from a position of pure and absolute self-awareness （with a complete focus on ‘I-ness’） to a progressively trenchant subject-object divide (with an increasingly clear sense of ‘thisness’)—a process characterised as a ‘descent’ or ‘shining out’ (ābhāsa) (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.88; Chatterji, 1914, p.54; Singh, 1990, p.9). These physical metaphors need to be complemented by the psychological - that the descent is really also an ‘experiencing out’ into greater objectivity and also a lapse into increasing unconsciousness (Chatterji, 1914, p.60). It is also possible to view the tattva generation from the viewpoint of Power, in which His ‘Power of Absolute Freedom (svātantryaśakti, also identified with the highest para-śakti), which is the Power of His I-consciousness (vimarśa) becomes Will (icchā) which assumes the power of cognition (jñāna) and action (kriya)’ (Spandanirṇaya, 3.13). And this dynamic triad of will, knowledge and action manifest the tattvas. 

The detailed descriptions of the tattvas, for instance, in the Āgamādhikāra section of the  Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī and Īsvarapratyabhijñā kārikā are based on the mystical insights encoded in the Āgamās. Abhinavagupta argues that since both sensual perception and inference cannot serve as  pramaṇasfor such states, only the Āgamās can provide such insight as it is ‘in essence the simply the ‘determinate thought’ (vimarśa) of the Highest Lord, who is unlimited pure light (of knowledge)’ and therefore ‘nothing is…beyond its view’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, III, 1).

Each principle in the hierarchy of experience/reality is a result of, and thus contains, all the preceding stage - and it, in turn, is a constituent cause of the stages that follow it. It also thus contains within itself and is indeed, ultimately, the supreme prakāsa.  This ‘Russian doll’ model of involution, which is aligned with the philosophy’s fundamental model of causation explained earlier, is thus explained by Abhinavagupta in his Parātriṃśikāvivaraṇa:

Thus, even though the final element is such as it is, it nonetheless contains within itself all the other countless aspects that, step by step, precede it and are encompassed by it in such a way that they are inseparable from its own nature. [Consciousness] thus illumines and contemplates itself as full and perfect. The members, which precedes [ any given phase] likewise have their being in the same reflective awareness and light of consciousness which, full and perfect, has already unfolded through the succeeding members.[4]

Running parallel to this tattva system is a conception of a hierarchy of 118 worlds (bhuvanas) that embody the different principles of reality (Singh, 1990, p.97). Thus, for instance, there are 18 bhuvanas corresponding to the first five tattvas that are considered the ‘pure’ principles or order of creation (śuddhādhvan). In the bhuvanas of these tattvas are found  the ideal states of pure knowledge where the svarūpa (true form) of the Divine is not hidden (Singh, 1990, p.13). The first five tattvas are characterised by a progression in terms of increasing subject-object duality and can be characterised as such (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, III;Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 3, commentary; Singh, 1990, p.9-15; Chatterji, 1914; Dyczkowski (1987), p.166):

Śiva-Śakti tattvas. These two tattvas encompass the first stage of consciousness in the manifestation. It is characterised by a pure ‘I’ consciousness without relation - without even an ‘I am’ which makes being implicit (I am ‘this’). The Śiva tattva by itself is the category of pure consciousness, the ‘prathama spanda’ (initial creative throb or movement from the Unmanifest), where subject and object are ineffably unified. The Śakti tattva is the category of pure negation (niṣedha-vyāpāra-rūpā) - negating all relations, objectivity and the sense of being, leaving only the ‘I’ consciousness. Thus, this state can be practically characterised as a ‘Void’ (Singh, 1990, p.9)—though one that is the seed of all further emanations of being. 

Sadāśiva tattva. This is the element where the sense of ‘I am’ (aham) makes its first appearance, with ‘am’ affirming ‘being’ (thus this tattva is also called Sādākhya tattva).  The sense of ‘I am’ is clear and preponderant over ‘this’– idam—the seed universe in the ideal Consciousness as object. There is this sense of oneself as ‘I am this’—but ‘this’ is only a vague and indistinct experience (asphuta) such as an artist have of his picture in his initial imagination. In this state, ‘This’ is still experienced as part of one’s Self, which is Consciousness and infinite Being—without a clear break in subject-object unity. Thus, the sense is of ‘I am that One Consciousness’, with the seed-world as a ‘vague’ accompaniment—like the ‘extremely dim outline of a picture’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśin, 1.3.2). 

Īśvara  tattva. This is the element where the sense of idam—‘this’ becomes more defined (sphụta) and predominates over the sense of ‘I am’. The ideal-universe blossoms and becomes distinct in Consciousness. There is a consciousness of the ideal seed universe in the Divine Consciousness, as Self,idam-aham vimarśa, ‘This am I’.  The subject-object duality is still ‘not developed’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 1.3.6).

Ṥuddhavidyā tattva. This is the element where the sense of ‘I am’ and ‘this’ are held in equilibrium, like two parts of an even scale (samadhṛtatulāpuṭanyāyena). Unlike the previous two states, where either idam or aham predominates, in this tattva, both are distinctly clear in consciousness  (ahamidam-idamaham, an experience of ‘diversity-in-unity-and-identity’-bhedābhedavimarśanātmaka). One is equally aware of ‘I’-consciousness and ‘seed-universe’ consciousness—and both are held in one unified Consciousness. Abhibnavagupta emphasises that for sentient beings in the bhuvanas associated with this principle, there is the first distinct appearance of the sense of ‘difference’, and perceiving the ‘objective world as different from themselves’—likening this to how dualists believe in an Iśvara different from themselves—but keeping the true knowledge of themselves as Cit (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 1.3.6). Also, unlike the focus on self in the Sadāśiva (where icchā or Will is predominant given the ‘hazy’ nature of the manifestation), and the contemplative ‘gaze’ of the  Īśvara  tattva  (where jñana or knowledge power is predominant), dynamism, kriyā, the creative power aspect  of being able to assume any form (Singh, 1990, p.9) is preponderant in Ṥuddhavidyā tattva.

After this point, māyā, the crucial sixth tattva is reached. Consciousness imposes on itself the principle of division (bheda), severing ‘This’ from ‘I’, and ‘I’ from the one Cit, and thus leading to ignorance. As Dyzcowski (1987) summarises from Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 1, the Consciousness as vimarśa has the power of negating its nature and identifying ‘with the psychophysical organism and denies its true nature as consciousness’ (p.74). This is indeed an ‘impossible' feat since it involves the negation of absolute Consciousness—it is only an absolute freedom and power that can accomplish it (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.111).  From here, there is aśuddhādhvan, or the impure order. Thus are found the gods and individual selves ‘who are different from everything and limited’, and whose ‘field of experience is as limited and different as themselves’ (Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 3, commentary). This is caused by the five kañcukas (coverings) that are the result of Consciousness exclusive self-identification with the ‘not-Self’: Kalā  limits the agency and omnipotence of the Divine Consciousness. As Abinavagupta puts it, ‘It is responsible for the rise of limited power of action’ and that ‘I do something’ is a form of judgement made possible by Kalā’; Vidyā reduces the omniscience of Consciousness and limits knowledge; Rāha reduces total satisfaction and brings about desire—Abinavagupta defines this as ‘the choice of something to the exclusion of other things’; Kāla reduces the eternity of the Universal and brings about the sense of time, i.e. the demarcation of past, present and future; finally, Nityati limits the pervasiveness and freedom of Consciousness and brings about cause and effect, and space (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, 1.3.9; Singh, 1990, p.13).  

The effects of the five kañcukas brings about the first two tattvas of Puruṣa (the experient) and Prakṛiti (the primordial objectivity)—the  primordial separated subject and object. Below them lie the three tattvas of mental operation, followed by the fifteen tattvas of sensible experience, before the final five bhūtas of materiality. In the material world, the ‘processes of self-limitation or coagulation (rodhana) of consciousness’ reaches its peak (Dyczkowski, 1987, p.89), separation between subject and object, and the distinction between objects reaches the maximum. Yet, even the final tattvas are the spanda of unitary Consciousness, and this indicates that the monism of Brahman in Kashmiri Śaivism is accompanied by property pluralism where there are many types of properties (t₂ = properties, counted by u₁ = type, is more than 1), special to each tattva or each group of tattvas (e.g. the properties of materiality versus the properties of the śuddhādhvan). 

Given the non-dualism of Kashmiri Śaiva philosophy, the ultimate cause for the kañcukas and the resulting ignorance, with all its consequences of suffering and so on—can only be the free Will of the Divine. As examined earlier, there cannot be any other agent or cause for māyā but Ṥiva. This is unlike in Advaita where māyā has a real/unreal ‘existence’ seemingly apart from Brahman. The ‘theodical’ explanation is that the absolute consciousness is blissful by its svabhava (self-nature) makes it actively playful. This bliss is identified with the aspect of absolute freedom and will (svātantrya) which enables Śiva to do all without external assistance (e.g. the ‘svātantryam ānandaśaktiḥ’ of Tantrasāra, 1).[5] And Śiva’s divine playfulness/all-powerful Will ‘urges it to be active in outward manifestation of its divine powers’—and in this way, Ṥiva plays at being bound by his own powers (Pandit, 1991, p.17). Thus, it is Bliss that enjoins bondage—and it will be bliss that causes Śiva to give the grace to himself to become freed—as discussed in greater detail in the Section on soteriology. 

Cosmogenesis and the Realistic Idealism of Aurobindo

Aurobindo’s conception of the Absolute and the world is clearly a version of realistic idealism—and the idealistic elements are both ontological and epistemological. There is a Reality that is the world, and being the absolute Sat-Cit-Ānanda, is completely independent of human minds. There is also no doubt about the real existence of phenomena. Given that both existence and independence of phenomena are affirmed, Aurobindo’s Advaita takes a ‘realist’ view of the cosmos.

And commenting on the first three verses of the Īśa Upaniṣad, Aurobindo states that Cit is the ‘the free Absolute regarding itself variously, infinitely, innumerably and formulating what it regards’—similar to Kashmiri Śaivism’s idea of vimarṥa characterised by svātantrya. And echoing its conception of a cit that is illimitable śakti, Aurobindo adds that cit ‘is a power not only of knowledge, but of expressive will, not only of receptive vision, but of formative representation; the two are indeed one power’. It is ‘an action of Being (sat), not of the Void. What it sees, that becomes’ (CWSA, Vol.17, p.24). And like Utpaladeva, Aurobindo also clearly differentiates this supreme Consciousness from mental consciousness that is tied to duality and division:

The term above is the unitarian or indivisible consciousness of pure Sachchidananda in which there are no separating distinctions; the term below is the analytic or dividing consciousness of Mind which can only know by separation and distinction and has at the most a vague and secondary apprehension of unity and infinity. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.133)

Thus, just as in Kashmiri Śaivism, a ‘supramental’ ontological idealism is thus an additional basis for the independence and real existence of phenomena, and therefore of realism. 

And this one Consciousness is indisputably a dynamic Absolute, though its dynamism co-exists with its Silence. First, the manifestation is an expansion of the ‘Real-Idea’ of the self-consciousness of the Absolute, which

 ‘creates or releases…forms and powers of itself and not things other than itself’ and ‘possesses in its own being the vision of the truth and law that governs each potentiality, and along with that an intrinsic awareness of its relation to other potentialities and the harmonies that are possible between them’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.142)..

 And this Knowledge is also a Will that holds within Itself the ‘general determining harmony which the whole rhythmic Idea of a universe’ which is the ‘self-nature’ that determine by ‘the compelling truth of the real idea that each thing is in its inception’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.142). The Absolute is therefore a Knowledge-Will that knows and determines the universe which is itself. 

In its self-determination, it puts forth the universe in a process of ‘involution’ similar to Kashmiri Śaivism’s expansion/contraction of consciousness (spanda) and echoing its element of epistemological idealism, in which a creative one Consciousness shapes our ‘reality’—especially how ‘realities’ are fundamentally differentiated through different poises of Consciousness knowing Consciousness (as self-knowledge). More precisely, he postulates differing grades of consciousness, envisaged as worlds, through a process of self-limitation of the non-dual and integral Consciousness, which in turn represents an expansion of relative distinction—which, past a point, becomes the obscurity of ignorance, and ending in the total darkness of ‘inconscience’ which is the basis of matter. One moves from the ‘eternity of essence’ to the ‘durability of form’ to the, from ‘the highest divine poise in the infinity, unity and indivisibility of spirit’ to the ‘persistent separation and resistance of physical Matter’. Between these two poles, there is ‘the possibility of an infinite gradation’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.267-8), which is marked by greater and greater bondage to the form, less and less power of interfusion and transformation, as one descends the scale (CWSA, Vol.21, p.267).

While the principle of cosmogenesis through self-limitation is similar to Kashmiri Śaivism, Aurobindo does not attempt to give a full and systematic account of the different stages of manifestation (though he evokes many of these worlds in a poetic fashion in his epic Savitri)—choosing  to broadly delineate the ‘grades’ of consciousness emanating  from the One as Supermind, Mind, Life and Matter. This is unlike Śaivism’s detailed promulgation of its thirty-six tattvas. This fundamental scheme is based on various sources. Besides his mystical experiences,  among the most important is Aurobindo’s reading of Taittiriya Upaniṣad (II, 1-5), which he translates as:

There is a self that is of the essence of Matter — there is another inner self of Life that fills the other — there is another inner self of Mind—there is another inner self of Truth- Knowledge — there is another inner self of Bliss. 

He combines this knowledge with the cosmic scheme he finds in the Ṛg Veda:

Principle	Vedic Names
The Supreme Sat-Cit-Ānanda	The triple divine worlds
The Link-world Supermind	The Truth, the Right, the Vast manifested in Swar, with its three luminous heavens
The triple lower world Pure Mind  Life-force  Matter	Heaven (Dyaus, the three heavens) The mid region (Antariksha) Earth (the three earths)

(CWSA, Vol.15, p.373)

All these grades are in essence the One Consciousness, but it takes different forms and formulas at different levels of the involution. At the two poles: 

In Matter Chit or Conscious-Force masses itself more and more to resist and stand out against other masses of the same Conscious-Force; in substance of Spirit pure consciousness images itself freely in its sense of itself with an essential indivisibility and a constant unifying interchange as the basic formula even of the most diversifying play of its own Force. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.267-8)

Thus, all the worlds are the result of the one Consciousness that transforms itself without real change in essence. Aurobindo’s theory of involution and causation is thus  similar  to the ‘Russian doll’ system of Kashmiri Saivism:

In the material world we inhabit, Mind is involved and subconscious in Life, just as Supermind is involved and subconscious in Mind, and this Life instinct with an involved subconscious Mind is again itself involved in Matter (CWSA, Vol.21, p.200). 

Given this scheme of causation, Aurobindo’s monism of Brahman appears to be accompanied by property pluralism where there are many types of properties (t₂ = properties, counted by u₁ = type, is more than 1), special to each category of consciousness (e.g. the properties of mind, life, matter, Supermind)—a philosophical stance similar to that of Kashmiri Saivism.

Besides these similarities, it is striking that while the number, names and scriptural bases of Aurobindo’s cosmic grades clearly differ from the tattvas of Kashmiri Saivism, yet there are some affinities between the Sat-Cit-Ānanda consciousness and the ‘supermind’ poises—and the ‘pure’ creation (śuddhādhvan) of KashmiriSaivism, the Ideal states of manifestation where the svarūpa of the Divine is not hidden (Singh, 1990, p.13). However, crucial divergences with important soteriological consequences also exist.

For Aurobindo, the highest and originative Sat-Cit-Ānanda consciousness  is the unitarian state of self-concentration of Brahman on Himself. This is the transcendent mode of the Īśvara/Brahman where he turns completely away from the manifestation. This is a state where the sense of ‘being’ does not seem to be obviously present,  a state which ‘we cannot describe even as the One, even when we say that nothing but That is’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.136). Indeed it can even be described as a Void even though it is at the same time an ineffable Existence (sat):

                                                            

….an original self-concentration in which all is contained but in another manner than in this temporal and spatial manifestation. That which has thus concentrated itself, is the utterly ineffable and inconceivable Existence which the Nihilist images to his mind as the negative Void of all that we know and are but the Transcendentalist with equal reason may image to his mind as the positive but indistinguishable Reality of all that we know and are (CWSA, Vol.21, p.136)

Based on this description, there is a clear similarity between this plenum Void and the Śiva-Śakti tattvas -  the mysterious state where manifestation and being itself is completely negated by the power of Śakti and where ‘I’ consciousness alone is present. 

Aurobindo  also postulates another mode of Brahman in which, He, who is and remains indivisible Reality and Being, turns towards the creative manifestation in extension - but this too is a play of His own Being, a ‘divine Prakriti of Sachchidananda with its manifesting power of Supermind [vijñāna], always aware of the Divine and free from Ignorance and its consequences’ (CWSA, Vol.28, p.44). It is important to note that there is no distinction at this point like that comparable to the  Sāṃkhya differentiation between puruṣa and prakṛti.  The Divine Nature or Divine Māyā is the Lord—it is the Supermind, a dynamic Absolute and Knowledge-Will that determines and manifests the cosmos through the Real-idea mentioned earlier. It is this Force that is the ultimate originator of differentiation and dynamic movement, of the Many from the One. 

To comprehend this fully, it is necessary to appreciate Aurobindo’s unique concept of the ‘Supermind’, which is drawn from his spiritual experiences and from his interpretation of the Ṛg Veda, which contains, ‘though concealed, the gospel of the divine and immortal Supermind and through the veil some illumining flashes come to us’ (CWSA, vol.21, p.132). These verses describe ‘a vastness [bṛhat] in which truth of being [satyam] is luminously one with all that expresses it and assures inevitably truth [ṛtam] of vision, formulation, arrangement, word, act and movement and therefore truth also of result of movement, result of action and expression, infallible ordinance or law’. Truth of action [ṛtam] expressing a truth of being [satyam] in vastness [bṛhat] are the ‘essential terms of the Vedic description’ (CWSA, vol.21, p.132). The Vedic Gods (devas) are powers of this satyam-ṛtam-bṛhat—and in ‘their knowledge ‘truth-conscious’ and in their action possessed of the ‘seer-will’ (CWSA, vol.21, p.132). Their works are  ‘guided by a perfect and direct knowledge of the thing to be done and its essence and its law’, a Real-idea ‘which determines a wholly effective will-power that…expresses and fulfils spontaneously and inevitably in the act that which has been seen in the vision’. Light is here unified with Force. Thus, in summary, the ‘divine Nature’ of Supermind ‘has a double power, a spontaneous self-formulation and self-arrangement which wells naturally out of the essence of the thing manifested…and a self-force of light inherent in the thing itself and the source of its spontaneous and inevitable self-arrangement’ (CWSA, vol.21, p.133).

This Supermind takes three ultimate ‘poises’ of Consciousness. These poises have been successively identified by Aurobindo with four great formulations (mahāvākya) of the Upaniṣads, which he translates as:  ‘I am He’ (aham brahmāsmi), ‘Thou art That, O Swetaketu’ (tat tvam asi), ‘All this is the Brahman; this Self is the Brahman’ (sarvam khalvidam brahma; ayam ātmā brahma—Aurobindo merges two of the mahāvākyas into one here). The first poise of the Supermind of ‘I am He’,  is ‘an equal self-extension of Sachchidananda all-comprehending, all-possessing, all-constituting’. All is kept in oneness, where ‘all is developed in unity and as one; all is held by this Divine Consciousness as forms of its existence, not as in any degree separate existences.’ Thus, individualisation and differentiation is impossible—subject and object are inalienably One Consciousness, and the sense of ‘I’ is totally identified with the All-Consciousness, with ‘no concentration of consciousness there to support an individual development’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.156). This poise resembles the Sadāśiva tattva, where ‘I’ and Consciousness are identified, and where there is no distinction between subject and object. Both are also the first steps of manifestation from an ineffable unitarian consciousness. It is unclear whether the seed-universe (this) is ‘hazy’ in this poise of the Supermind—though that is presumably possible since its consciousness is undoubtedly founded on a predominant ‘I’-consciousness—the ‘inalienable unity of things’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.156)—and does not permit even the slightest differentiation in unity that is first step towards the manifestation of the Many.

The second poise of the Supermind of ‘Thou art That’ is where ‘the Divine Consciousness stands back in the idea from the movement which it contains, realising it by a sort of apprehending consciousness’. Differentiation begins, and the Consciousness will inhabit and distribute itself in its works. In each name and form, it will realise itself as ‘the stable Conscious-Self, the same in all; but also it would realise itself as a concentration of Conscious-Self following and supporting the individual play of movement and upholding its differentiation from other play of movement, — the same everywhere in soul-essence, but varying in soul-form’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.157). Thus, in this poise, the ‘Individual Divine’, the individualised jivātman will stand behind each name and form and uphold it, and establish relationships with each other and with the Universal Divine. But the underlying unity will be part of the consciousness of all. The poise permits a form of ‘qualified dualism’ between the Divine and its individual Soul Forms. 

In some ways, this second poise of the Supermind corresponds to the Īśvara  tattva. In so far as the sense of the ‘This’ (in terms of a differentiated seed-universe) first appears clearly in Īśvara  tattva—the two states are similar. The second poise of the Supermind is after all the poise where differentiation first appears, and where a differentiated Real-idea of a universe (in so far as this can be identified with the mutual play of the individualised divine Selves) becomes distinct in the divine Consciousness. However, in this poise of the Supermind, Aurobindo’s focus on the eternal and real status of the individualised consciousness is evident in a way that is not found in the descriptions of the Īśvara  tattva. The ‘qualified’ non-dualistic relation between individual Selves and the Divine, and the play of the different jivātmans, are distinctive features of this poise—and they constitute a permanent feature of the divine play in the supramental plane—they are not mere temporary phenomena that will be abolished when ignorance cease.

The third poise of the Supermind, ‘All this is the Brahman; this Self is the Brahman’, is where differentiation is carried further. It is as ‘if the supporting concentration were no longer to stand at the back, as it were, of the movement, inhabiting it with a certain superiority to it and so following and enjoying, but were to project itself into the movement and to be in a way involved in it.’ Here there is a greater prominence of the play of relations of the Individual Divine with the universal and with its other forms - such that the ‘realisation of utter unity with them would be only a supreme accompaniment and constant culmination of all experience’. This is differentiated from the second poise where  ‘unity would be the dominant and fundamental experience and variation would be only a play of the unity’. Thus, there is a ‘fundamental blissful dualism in unity — no longer unity qualified by a subordinate dualism — between the individual Divine and its universal source’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.157-8). There is thus an equal awareness of the individual oneness with Brahman, and of the differentiated Others (and their play) as Brahman. There is some similarity between this poise of the Supermind and the Ṥuddhavidyā tattva in that both appear to be experiences of ‘diversity-in-unity-and-identity’, with neither the sense of ‘I’ nor diversity (in the sense of the ‘ideal universe’ of the play of individualised Selves) predominating over each other. It is also striking that Aurobindo and Abhinavagupta both use a dualistic worldview as a metaphor to describe the third poise and the Ṥuddhavidyā respectively.

Again, however, the idea of a divine individuality, and its play with other individualities is much more prominent in Aurobindo than in Kashmiri Śaivism. It is important to note that such ideas are not necessarily antithetical to the Kashmiri Ṥaiva philosophy. There are in fact beings inhabiting the planes corresponding to the different tattvas above māyā, with their special realities created by the poise of consciousness in each plane (e.g. ‘I am This’, ‘This I am ‘ etc.). For example, the mantra-maheśvaras inhabit the worlds of the Sadāśiva tattva; themantreśvaras inhabit the  Īśvara  tattva bhuvanas (worlds), and the mantra beings live in the Ṥuddhavidyātattva bhuvanas (Pandit, 1991, appendix). These beings are clearly individualised in some sense (or else it will be better to speak only of Ṥiva as the sole being in these planes). And since these beings are not affected by ignorance, they know their own true Selves, yet keep their individualities. Such a state can plausibly be described as a ‘divine’ or ‘true’ individuality.  Thus, some idea of a ‘true’ individuality is found implicitly. But, such hints cannot be compared to the clear and central emphasis on individuality in the description of the supramental planes in Aurobindo’s philosophy. As will be elaborated in the next section, this focus on the individual will have tremendous soteriological consequences.

Below this point in the Supermind, the Consciousness takes the poise of ‘Overmind Maya’. The Overmind māyā remains a grade of consciousness where Spirit is still unveiled, and it is aware of ‘the essential Truth of things; it embraces the totality’ (p.293). However, it is also the Power which has made the Ignorance possible. This is because it makes possible a process of ‘exclusive concentration’ (where the Consciousness focuses, like a person totally involved in an activity, solely on the separated form and its activity, ‘forgetting’ the totality behind it) (p.300). At this point, avidyā begins, and the different grades of Mind-consciousness is no longer ‘aware of its own source and foundation in the Spirit or can only comprehend it by the intelligence, not in any enduring experience’ (p.300). And from this ignorant Mind, is then born Life energy and its grades, and finally Material energy and its grades, before a final plunge into Nescience.

Comparing this Overmind with the māyā tattva, the similarity is that both are ultimately responsible for the cutting off the individualised centres of consciousness from their source. Their descriptions imply a form of epistemological idealism that attribute the ‘realities’ of ignorance to the activities of consciousness. The exact mechanism of ‘exclusive concentration’ is also akin to the conception of Kashmiri Śaivism’s view of how Consciousness has the absolute freedom to obscure itself from view, concentrating itself on diverse phenomena only. And this is exactly what it does at the level of the māyā tattva.

An important distinction though, especially for soteriology, is the purpose of the Divine in  manifesting the Overmind māyā, and thus precipitating the world of ignorance and nescience with all its negative consequences. Unlike Kashmiri Śaivism, this purpose goes beyond the Delight or bliss of diverse manifestation and the play of realised possibilities (though it includes this)—it also refers to the Delight that results from ‘the concealment of Sachchidananda in that which seems to be its own opposite and its self-finding even amid the terms of that opposite’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.118). The main ‘point’ of manifestation is the game and divine quest of self-loss and self-finding by Sat-Cit-Ānanda despite all the resistance and nescience that it has imposed on itself. And this ‘self-finding’ is not only a gnostic Self-recognition like that found in Kashmiri Śaivism—but a full manifestation of Sat-Cit-Ānanda within the terms of the manifestation by an integral change of human nature:

In this creation the real Sachchidananda has to emerge. Man, the individual, has to become and to live as a universal being…his whole nature has to reproduce in the individual the unity, the harmony, the oneness-in-all of the supreme Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.119)

Such a view of the purpose of creation, in which ‘an integral transformation is the integral aim of the Being in Nature’ implies as its corollary a teleological re-interpretation of the theory of evolution, which in Darwin’s original formulation implies that the complexity and ‘apparent design’ of biological organisms do not require a divine hand or any ‘intent’, but can be explained by random mutation and natural selection (Dawkins, 1990). In alignment with his view of the Divine, Aurobindo states there is ‘a secret Consciousness in or behind the apparently inconscient Energy in Matter’ which produces ‘an urge of inherent necessity producing the evolution of forms and in the forms a developing Consciousness’. And this urge ‘is the evolutionary will of a secret Conscious Being’ seeking its ‘progressive manifestation’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.866). Thus, the physical phenomena of Darwinian evolution, such as the greater complexification of forms, is seen as the result of a guiding Will, to produce biological forms of sufficient complexity to house higher potencies of consciousness (p.868). 

Physical evolution is thus a support for spiritual evolution. This is a process in which Aurobindo describes as an ‘ascent’ followed by an ‘integration’. In terms of ascent, evolution is ‘a heightening of the force of consciousness in the manifest being so that it may be raised into the greater intensity of what is still unmanifest, from matter into life, from life into mind, from the mind into the spirit’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.755). Thus, the heightening involves the evolution and manifestation of the higher ‘involved’ principles in the world of Matter, such as the various powers of Life and Mind in the individual. However, evolution  ‘is not confined to an utmost possible largeness in the essential play of the new principle’. Instead, it includes a ‘taking up of that which is lower into the higher values’, of mind taking up the previously evolved life or matter, or of the Supermind assuming ‘into itself the mental, vital, physical life transformed and spiritualised, but it will give them a much wider and fuller play than was open to them so long as they were living on their own level’ (CWSA, Vol.22, 755-6). While, Kashmiri Śaivism does indicate the possibility of an ascension of consciousness (as the next Section will show), it has nothing like Aurobindo’s focus on an integral manifestation on earth, through the descent of higher grades of consciousness and the integration of already evolved instruments. Such a view of the divine ‘decree’  for manifestation will have dramatic soteriological consequences (CWSA, Vol.34, p.653).

Section 4: Soteriology

Metaphysics and Soteriological Recommendations in Kashmiri Ṥaivism

Ninian Smart has discussed the general category of ‘soteriology’ in different religions—stating how it implies  ‘that human beings are in some kind of unfortunate condition and may achieve an ultimately good state either by their own efforts or through the intervention of some divine power’ (Smart, 2005). The metaphysical view of a religion or philosophy, and its soteriological recommendations and aims, are closely related. There are three points in a metaphysics especially important for the what (the ultimate aim in question) and how (the process and recommended practices through which this is achieved) of soteriology. The nature of ‘the religious ultimate’ determine the nature of highest ‘value or being’ that is humans’ soteriological aim, whether nirvāṇa, God, Brahman, heaven and so on (Smart, 2005)—and illuminate in what way our defective condition is indeed defective (since it is typically the lack of some value represented by that final state that renders ordinary life deficient).  Also, the metaphysical cosmology describes the nature of the ‘levels of superior social or ontological status’ that share to differing extents in the ultimate value (Smart, 2005). Third, the theodical explanations on the cause of humanity’s defective condition, such as ignorance (avidyā) and original sin (Smart, 2005), will impact the ‘solution’ for the defect, and thus, the soteriological process and recommendations. 

The religious ultimate that is in Kashmiri Ṥaivism is the integral Brahman which is our actual Self. A key defect of the impoverished state of avidyā is that a being is cut off from one’s Self, and therefore from the Ṥiva-consciousness that is full ‘of the great power and full of perfect bliss’—of svātantrya (freedom).  In a charming simile, Utpaladeva puts it as such:

Just as a very lovable man, earnestly desired by a beautiful maiden as her lover, being urged on by her profusely eager yearnings, comes to her and stands by her side, but is not recognised and consequently appears [to her] just like any ordinary person, [and so] does not provide her with the immensely desired taste of mutual union, [just] so, the Self of a person, even though being Almighty God Himself, is not able to taste his own divine grandeur, just because he does not recognise [himself]. (Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 4.1.17)

What humans should fundamentally aim at is  Pratyabhijñā, recovering our Self through recognition. This attainment of Ṥiva-consciousness causes one to transform from an unhappy and weak paśu (animal) to a pati (lord) and jīvanmukti (liberated one) of unbounded freedom, consciousness and bliss (Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, 4.1.16; Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, 20, commentary).  This state can, and indeed should be realised in this life, and since Śiva is a dynamic Absolute that can undertake all actions in svātantrya without incurring the bondage of karma and further rebirth, so can the jīvanmukti (Paramārthasāra, 70, commentary). Still, it is envisaged that eventually the yogin ceases his bodily actions, drops his body at death, and given that Ṥiva is the Self of all, the universe continues as the ‘own body’ of the siddha (Paramārthasāra, 74 and 88, commentary)—though this ‘cosmic identification’ would have taken place at the point of liberation.

Kashmiri Ṥaivism’s metaphysical cosmology is the second relevant factor to its soteriology. As described earlier, Kashmiri Ṥaivism believes in a graded manifestation of the supreme Consciousness—as manifested in the worlds (bhuvanas) associated with the 36 tattvas. Also, any of the tattvas above the māyā tattva represent different levels of liberated consciousness, where the true Self is unveiled. The soteriological transition may then not necessarily be from ignorance to the highest Consciousness of paramaśiva. Instead, a bound being may attain any of the numerous gradations of consciousness above the māyā principle whether in this life or (in some other bhuvana) after death.

The justification for such intermediate transitions become clear when we consider the theodical explanations for our defective condition, and the corresponding solutions. For Kashmiri Ṥaivism, the five kañcukas of māyā lead to the limitation of consciousness and thus the loss of the inherent bliss and freedom of the true Self through the mistaken identification with the working of prāna, body and so on as ‘Self’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini, 3.2.18). As examined earlier, given the non-dual view of absolute Reality, the ultimate cause for the kañcukas  is the free Will of Śiva. It is therefore logical that it is ultimately only Ṥiva who can liberate. Just as he is the one who bound Himself in the first place, out of divine bliss and play, so out of the same playfulness, he can endow the aspirant through a guru (usually) with the ‘grace’, or literally, the descent of power (śaktipātaḥ), to be liberated (Pandit, 1991, p.67). This grace represents the action caused by the Lord directly, and in the deepest sense, Abhinavagupta emphasises that liberation is ‘due to that [grace] alone’ and even (in some cases) that the ‘Consciousness is spontaneously realised by him, on whom the higher Grace of God has fallen, and personal effort plays no part in it’ (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, 1). 

Ultimately, grace requires ‘nothing [as a precondition]’, not even a guru, or initiation and other rituals, precisely because of Śiva’s svātantrya (Paramārthasāra, 9, commentary; Sanderson, 1995, p.45).  Thus, while Kashmiri Ṥaivism is a school of Tantra, with a formidable set of rituals and yogic techniques  (e.g. the śambhava-upāya, śakta-upāya and āṇava-upāya categories of techniques), the one necessary and sufficient power for liberation is grace (Pandit, 2004, p.200-202; Sanderson 1986, p.173; Sanderson, 1995, p.47). All recommended soteriological practices are but aids and accompaniments of grace that are designed, performed and interpreted to evoke an awareness of non-duality—for instance, through the constant awareness of the non-duality of all factors of ritualistic actions (kārakaḥ), whether humans, instruments, deities and so on, or giving esoteric meanings to stages of rituals, turning them into ‘modes of self-realisation’ (e.g. turning the action of bathing into an act of being cleansed from the contraction of consciousness) (Sanderson, 1995). 

Fundamentally, what śaktipātaḥ awakens is samāveśa—sudden flashes of Self—realisation (Pandit, 2004, p.181). However, there are differing degrees of grace—leading to different levels of samāveśa, as Abinavagupta details in Paramārthasāra 96-103 and Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśini,  3.2.11-2. For he whoreceives ‘a speedy and highly forceful (tīvra) grace of the Lord’, he ‘gets quickly an initiation in such path leading to the Absolute Reality, he becomes quickly one with Śiva without any hindrance (Paramārthasāra, 96). Presumably, he attains the highest paramaśiva (or turyātīta (beyond the fourth) consciousness. Such a being is clearly liberated from rebirth:

Deeds committed by a person after the development of correct knowledge cannot in any way bear him any fruit. How can there be any rebirth for him? Sun-like Śiva, having annihilated the very relation with the bondage of rebirth shines eternally through his divine rays. (Paramārthasāra, 56)

However, when grace is not as complete, there is the possibility of the aspirant ‘heading towards the transcendental position through the successive steps of a ladder, attains unity with Śiva when finally the impression of his being the transcendental Truth becomes firmly deep’ (Paramārthasāra, 97). This may mean the successive ascension through the principles of consciousness above māyā (collectively also called the state of turya or turiya—the fourth state of illumined consciousness as opposed to the ignorant states of deep sleep, dreaming sleep and waking (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, III, 19-20; Pandit, 1991, p.68) through yogic practice within one life. Or it, as Yogarājā reads it, may refer to the increasing sublimation of consciousness caused by a rising kuṇḍalinī (Paramārthasāra, 97, commentary) Attaining such states of consciousness involve changes in subtle physiology,  in which the life-principle (prāṇvaṛtti) takes the form of fiery and rising udāna up the central channel (suṣumnā). And when the aspirant rises eventually to turyātīta consciousness, udāna becomes a transcendental life-energy pervading all the tattvas of the universe (which is now realised as one’s ‘body’), called Vyāna (Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, 3.2.19-20). If the grace is even milder (madhya-śaktipāta), then ‘such a yogin, though desirous to attain the highest position, may rest at some intermediary step and die before reaching the highest one in the series’ (Paramārthasāra, 98). Such a person will die before presumably reaching the highest turyātīta consciousness—and attain some intermediary consciousness (whether above māyā or otherwise). He will then have to reborn first in a divine bhuvana and later in a human form, but his previous efforts will conduce to help him attain final liberation quickly (Paramārthasāra, 99). Given this scheme of grace, the intermediary bhuvanas of the higher tattvas of the ‘pure order’ are alternative soteriological statuses (albeit temporary)—though the highest Consciousness remains the goal. 

Metaphysics and Soteriological Recommendations in Aurobindo’s Philosophy

Given the broad similarities between the Aurobindo’s metaphysics and that of Kashmiri Śaivism, one would expect strong affinities between their soteriological aim, process and recommendations. However, this is surprisingly not the case. There is no doubt some similarities between their soteriologies. As examined earlier, Aurobindo’s ‘religious ultimate’ is of an integral Brahman—a dynamic Sat-Cit-Ānanda whose absoluteness excludes nothing. Thus, just as in Kashmiri Ṥaivism, the fundamental defect of our condition is that we are excluded from our real Selves, and thus from the infinity of Consciousness, Bliss, Freedom and Being that is our soteriological aim. In terms of theodical explanations, Aurobindo traces the defects of suffering (CWSA, Vol.21, p.98), ‘death, desire and incapacity’ (CWSA, Vol.21, p.200), and ‘evil’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.618) to the self-imposed limitation of consciousness of Brahman through māyā that eventually gave birth to ignorance and eventually, even falsehood and evil—the very contradiction of the divine Truth. In essence, this is similar to the Kashmiri Ṥaiva account—where the limitation of consciousness is the root of our unsatisfactory existence. Thus, the eradication of ignorance and re-attainment of identity with the Supreme Consciousness is an important soteriological recommendation and process in both systems.

But where this is the ‘final state’ of Kashmiri Ṥaivism—the soteriological process of Aurobindo does not end there. The return is only the base for a new beginning. As Aurobindo puts it succinctly:

The aim of this Yoga is, first, to enter into the divine consciousness by merging into it the separative ego—incidentally, in doing so one finds one’s true individual self which is not the limited, vain and selfish human ego but a portion of the Divine—and, secondly, to bring down the supramental consciousness on earth to transform mind, life and body. All else can be only a result of these two aims, not the primary object of the Yoga. (CWSA, Vol.29, p.21)

The finding of ‘the divine consciousness’ in Aurobindo is similar to the conception of Kashmiri Ṥaivism. But even here, there is a distinctive emphasis on finding one’s ‘true individual self’. On the second element on bringing down the Supermind to transform first the individual and then the global nature—this is certainly not an element found in Ṥaiva soteriology.

It is arguable that this stark divergence of soteriological process and aim is traceable to the divergences in metaphysical worldviews  outlined in the previous Section. These differences are ultimately centred on the nature of the religious ‘ultimate’, Brahman. First, there is that clear emphasis on the presence of individuality even in the divine consciousness of the Supermind—which is the dynamic Brahman. Next, there is posited a divine imperative by the Absolute to achieve this-worldly manifestation through a process of spiritual evolution.

Examining the first element: As noted earlier, there are mantra, mantreśvaras and other beings in bhuvanas above the māyā principle. However, the ultimate goal in Kashmiri Ṥaivism is attaining the highest paramaśiva. Being a denizen of even the highest bhuvanas is only a stepping stone to that (in the event of insufficient grace and/or attachment to enjoyments). And in that ultimate state, individuality, as opposed to the One divine perspective, does not appear to be emphasised:

Putting thus playfully the machine of the circle of divine powers in motion, I am myself the Lord, with purity as my nature, working at the highest post as the master hero of the infinite wheel of Śaktis or divine powers.(Paramārthasāra, 47)

By contrast, in Aurobindo’s philosophy, while its account of the three poises of the Supermind share definite affinities with the description of the tattvas above māyā, there is a much clearer emphasis on the ‘individual Divine’, the jivātman, in the second and third poises of the Supermind.  Elaborating on this concept, Aurobindo states that the consciousness of the ‘individual Divine’ can take two poises, either it can ‘live in the essence and can merge itself in identity with the Divine’ or, at the moment ‘it presides over the dynamics of the manifestation [presumably, from the second poise of the Supermind onwards] knows itself as one centre of the multiple Divine, not as the Parameshwara [the supreme Lord]’ (CWSA, Vol.28, p.61). Thus, Aurobindo does not envisage a transition from the defective condition of ignorance to a monistic consciousness without any sense of individuality, but the soteriological aim is an integral consciousness that includes the Consciousness of the one Supreme, but also the consciousness of the individual as a centre of this one Cit. The individualised consciousness has an eternal value in the ultimate state, for Aurobindo emphasises that this is ‘an eternal portion of the Divine’ (CWSA,Vol.28, p.56), a permanent state in the second and third poise of the Supermind—while this is ambiguous in the case of Kashmiri Ṥaivism. 

When this focus on the individual is combined together with the second major divergence between Aurobindo and Kashimir Śaivism—the metaphysical idea of a divine Will and imperative to find bliss through a difficult and evolutionary process of divine manifestation within the cosmos—the implication is a soteriological process in which the growth and manifestation of the individual spark through active human collaboration is envisaged. Aurobindo actually does not envisage the jivātman to change or progress in the evolution—it is its external instruments (mind, life and body, and eventually Supermind) that are developed progressively over a  long series of lives. 

But in a conception with no parallel in Kashmiri Ṥaivism, and arguably drawing out the full radical implications of divine svātantrya, Aurobindo postulates that the jivātman puts forth an emanation of itself into the evolving nature itself. He thus argues for an evolving Divine—a paradoxical possibility only justifiable by absolute freedom. In this form, the jivātman appears as ‘a spark of the Divine Fire, supporting the individual evolution, supporting the mental, vital and physical being’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.397). This is what Aurobindo refers to as the psychic – a term he derives from the Greek word, psyche (soul). He also calls it antarātman (CWSA, Col.28, p.110). It is this entity ‘charged’ by the divine imperative and ‘decree’ to carry out the divine labour of integral manifestation (CWSA, Vol.34, p.653).

The psychic is paradoxically one at the same time a spark or portion of the Divine, and yet differentiated from it: 

The psychic being is the soul evolving in the course of birth and rebirth and the soul is a portion of the Divine — but with the soul there is always the veiled Divine. (CWSA, Vol.28, p.118)

It [the psychic] is constantly in contact with the immanent Divine — the Divine secret in the individual. (CWSA, Vol.28, p.102)

The differentiation of the psychic from the inherently complete Brahman allows it to be an evolutionaryprinciple that progresses along with the growth of its instruments—unlike the emanating jivātman. At the beginning, it is only a seed containing ‘all essential possibilities of our manifestation’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.924). However, over time, the psychic entity increases in its individuation and formation, eventually putting forward and developing ‘a soul personality, a distinct psychic being to represent it’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.926). Still, for the longest time,  ‘its figure of being may be at first indistinct and may afterwards remain for a long time weak and undeveloped, not impure but imperfect’. However, forming itself dynamically through putting forth the power of soul ‘against the resistance of the Ignorance and Inconscience’ (especially in spiritual practice), in countless lives and organic forms, it gradually grows towards becoming a full-fledged ‘psychic personality’ that ‘reaches its full stature’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.928; p.941). 

This particular labour of the psychic being in line with the divine imperative leads to certain soteriological recommendations and aims. To speed up the evolution of the psychic, there is a need of human beings to actively collaborate with the Divine. In essence, this is what Aurobindo means by ‘yoga’—a collaboration with the evolutionary divine Will. Fundamentally, there must be a ‘a direct contact in the surface being with the spiritual Reality’ of which the psychic is a spark (CWSA, Vol.22, p.935). This contact can be achieved through the silencing, concentration and ascension of the mind, the devotion of the heart, or the surrender and obedience of the will (CWSA, Vol.22, p.934-6). Behind all these methods should ideally be the triple support of aspiration, rejection and surrender—aspiration for the psychic emergence and being open to the divine consciousness alone, rejection of all that obstructs this, and surrender and self-giving to the Divine alone (CWSA, Vol.22, p.929 and 940; CWSA, Vol.32, p.6). All these efforts work together with a constant call for divine grace to transform the nature and speed the journey (CWSA, Vol.29, p.20). After this labour, at a key soteriological transition, the psychic becomes fully individualised and formed—it then breaks out from the veil of ignorant mind, life and body, and ‘manifests itself as the central being which upholds mind and life and body and supports all the other powers and functions of the Spirit; it takes up its greater function as the guide and ruler of the nature’ (CWSA, Vol. 22, p.941). 

It is striking that Aurobindo envisages that the psychic evolves in the direction of individualised formation—again reinforcing the eternal value of the individual in his final soteriological state. Indeed, that full individuality is the soteriological aim of the process. The psychic emergence also does not result in an ascension and disappearance to the highest levels of Consciousness beyond māyā—or the end of rebirth.[6] Instead, the psychic speeds up enormously  the inner and outer alchemy of its mental, vital and physical instruments—which has always been its labour for countless ages. This is the culminating phase of what Aurobindo describes as the ‘psychic transformation’:

A guidance, a governance begins from within which exposes every movement to the light of Truth, repels what is false…even the most concealed [movement]…is lighted up with the unerring psychic light, their confusions dissipated, their tangles disentangled… all is purified, set right, the whole nature harmonised, modulated in the psychic key’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.941).

When this transformation is complete, ‘the whole conscious being is made perfectly apt for spiritual experience of every kind’ (p.941). Additionally, the psychic unveils a divine love that guides the being. As  Aurobindo writes, ‘the most intimate character of the psychic is its pressure towards the Divine through a sacred love, joy and oneness…it is the love of the Divine that is its spur, its goal, its star of Truth’ (CWSA, Vol.23, p.155). 

This foundation of love and purity then serves as a basis for a further transformation, the ‘spiritual transformation’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.942) where the psychic and its transformed instruments ascend the ladder of consciousness (through the grades of what Aurobindo calls the ‘higher mind’, ‘illumined mind’ and ‘intuitive mind’) towards the Overmind, and eventually the Supermind. The same Yogic methods are recommended—but with an increasing reliance on the Grace. But this ascension of consciousness is accompanied and fully made possible at each step by the descent of the given grade of consciousness into the outer instruments of life, mind and body to widen, illumine and transform them (CWSA, Vol.22, p.964). The centres of the ‘inner being’ mentioned by the Tantras must also be activated and one’s being widened to embrace the wide cosmic consciousness (p.965). Indeed, before the ‘ultimate’ step of the descent of the Supermind and the supramental transformation of the instruments, the outer nature must first be prepared by the descent of the Overmind and previous grades of consciousness:

…the supramental change does not admit of any premature descent of the highest Light; for it can only commence when the supramental Force begins to act directly, and this it does not do if the nature is not ready. For there is too great a disparity between the power of the supreme Force and the capacity of the ordinary nature (p.966)

This process of transformation, while it represents an ascension towards the transcendent Consciousness of the One, and into the wide cosmic consciousness, is also interestingly towards the recovery of the jivātman, the individual Divine:

In the transition towards the supermind this centralising action tends towards the discovery of a true individual replacing the dead ego, a being who is in his essence one with the supreme Self, one with the universe in extension and yet a cosmic centre and circumference of the specialised action of the Infinite. (p.986)

Paradoxically, as the surrender of one’s nature ‘to the Supreme Being and the Supreme Nature’ becomes more and more complete, as ‘every part and every movement’ is abandoned ‘to the working of the higher Truth in the nature’ (p.964), one increasingly becomes aware of one’s true individuality, which becomes ‘more and more powerful and effective in proportion as it realised itself as a centre and formation of the universal and transcendent Being and Nature’ (p.961). The psychic consciousness eventually rejoins the jivātman consciousness, which is its source ((CWSA, Vol.28, p.57). 

The culmination of this soteriological process of psychic and spiritual change is the beginning of the supramental descent to create the supramentalised being. At this point, the working of the Yoga, is taken up fully by the supramental energy. This being will have an increasingly integral consciousness, with the three poises of the Supermind having a full play—with his consciousness merging the transcendent Divine consciousness above the Overmind māyā, cosmic oneness with the manifestation, and thus, achieving the fullest individual consciousness. He will attain the complete development of his transcendent, cosmic and individual consciousness. It is indeed only the ‘perfect freedom’ of the Absolute that allows It to ‘repeat Its transcendence and universality in the scheme of the individual Brahman’. (CWSA, Vol.21, p.44). The supramental being will be ‘fulfilled in the satisfaction of his growth and self-expression; for all his elements would be carried to a highest degree and integrated in some kind of comprehensive largeness’ (p.1009). 

In particular, and this is where Aurobindo’s radical ‘transhuman’ vision becomes particularly clear, he envisaged a complete transformation of the human body through the working of the supramental consciousness. This involves, at a minimum, a soteriological recommendation to achieve the greater perfection of all existing instruments of the human body : ‘They must be still further perfected, their limitations of range and use removed, their liability to defect and malady and impairment eliminated, their capacities of cognition and dynamic action carried beyond the present limits’ (CWSA, Vol.13, p.556). Going further:

New powers have to be acquired by the body which our present humanity could not hope to realise, could not even dream of or could only imagine. Much that can now only be known, worked out or created by the use of invented tools and machinery might be achieved by the new body in its own power or by the inhabitant spirit through its own direct spiritual force (CWSA, Vol.13, p.556)

A by-product of this ongoing divisination is that death itself will no longer be necessary. Aurobindo’s argument is that death ‘is necessary in the evolution’, because the body reaches a point through aging where ‘it can progress no longer’. Through the supramental change, the body can be made so ‘plastic’ an instrument for the soul that ‘death is no longer necessary’ (CWSA, Vol.28, p.310). The culmination of this divinisation of the body and the conquest of death is that the community of supramental beings will constitute a new transhuman species distinct from humanity. 

Thus, the soteriological aim envisaged in the Aurobindo’s philosophy is a this-worldly culmination of the divine perfection of earthly life, where the Spirit in the form of the Supermind achieves its fullest manifestation through the divinely individualised members and society of the Supermind species—a stark difference from Kashmiri Ṥaivism where the ascension out of the world into the highest paramaśiva consciousness and the end of rebirth is the final status.[7] Even where there is an adjustment of subtle physiology in the Tantric process, they are means to the final end. For Aurobindo, the transfiguration of the instruments (which is equivalent to the full manifestation of the Spirit) is itself the end. As Aurobindo puts it, one of the unique features of his yoga is that:

It aims not at a departure out of world and life into a Heaven or a Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence, not as something subordinate or incidental, but as a distinct and central object. If there is a descent in other Yogas, yet it is only an incident on the way or resulting from the ascent — the ascent is the real thing. Here the ascent is indispensable, but what is decisive, what is finally aimed at is the resulting descent…Even Tantra and Vaishnavism end in the release from life; here the object is the divine fulfilment of life. (CWSA, Vol.29, p.400)

And the this-worldly soteriological consequence extends beyond the supramental collective. For the birth of the supramental species, implies the full organisation and active power of the Supermind consciousness on earth. Just as the appearance of the mental species, humanity, has tremendous consequences for the earth—the appearance of the new supramental species will also fundamentally change the world—in particular, from being a defective realm where evolution is in the ignorance to ‘an evolution in the knowledge’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.1001). This is where ‘the evolution at every step will move in the power of the truth-consciousness and its progressive determinations will be made by a conscious Knowledge and not in the forms of an Ignorance or Inconscience’ (p.1002). A tremendous effect is this will be that:

A dominant principle of harmony would impose itself on the life of the Ignorance; the discord, the blind seeking, the clash of struggle…would feel the influence and yield place to a more orderly pace and harmonic steps of the development of being, a more revealing arrangement of progressing life and consciousness (p.1004) 

In essence, the organised Supermind will ‘to a great extent hedonise the difficult and afflicted process of the evolutionary emergence’ (p.1005). All these effects are based on  ‘the nature of supermind itself’, which is ‘in its foundation a unitarian and integralising and harmonic consciousness, and in its descent and evolutionary working out of the diversity of the Infinite it would not lose its unitarian trend, its push towards integralisation or its harmonic influence’ (p.1005). Thus, the final soteriological vision is of the world of ignorance being transformed decisively—and a greater, more harmonic order replacing it forever. 

Section 5: Conclusion

Svātantrya, freedom, is a key word describing both the Brahman of Kashimiri Śaivism and of Aurobindo. It is due to its absolute freedom that the one Divine can be integrally one and the many—and it is due to freedom that this Consciousness-Reality can become the phenomenal existence through progressive self-limitation while remaining always Itself.  Svātantrya is thus the ultimate basis of the integral monism and realistic idealism of both Aurobindo’s philosophy and Pratyabhijñã —two philosophies that this essay has shown to be similar in their broad characteristics despite their vast separation in time, scriptural bases and cultural contexts. 

However, it is arguable that it is Aurobindo who drew out most radically the implications of divine svātantrya.  For unlike Kashmiri Śaivism, he accepts a Divine, the jivātman, who not only has the freedom to be eternally individual, but also in the form of the psychic, grows in individualisation through a process of evolution. Next, he accepts a Divine who freely accepts bondage and unconsciousness to not only recognise Himself again, but also to achieve an integral manifestation where he affirms Himself against enormous resistance as a simultaneously cosmic and transcendent Consciousness in the individual. Combining these ideas, Aurobindo writes in his epic poem Savitri:

A charge he gave to his high spirit in man 

And wrote a hidden decree on Nature’s tops. 

Freedom is this with ever seated soul, 

Large in life’s limits, strong in Matter’s knots,


Building great stuff of action from the worlds


To make fine wisdom from coarse, scattered strands


And love and beauty out of war and night,


The wager wonderful, the game divine.
(Book X, Canto IV)

Ultimately it is Aurobindo’s conception of a transcendent Divine charging his individual Self with the impossible but freely chosen game of forging love and beauty out of war and night that underlies his soteriological aim, so different from that of Kashmiri Śaivism’s ascension, of changing the world order from one of evolving in painful bondage, conflict and darkness, to one of which grows infinitely on a basis of freedom, love and harmony. To Aurobindo, the divine svātantrya implies not only the same eternal game—but the possibility of changing the game itself, when, with humanity’s free collaboration:

Nature shall live to manifest secret God,


The Spirit shall take up the human play,


This earthly life become the life divine. (Book XI, Canto 1)

It is therefore divine svātantrya that unites both Aurobindo’s philosophy and Kashimiri Śaivism—and it is in the full development of its radical possibilities that Aurobindo fundamentally distinguishes himself from Kashimiri Śaivism. 

Bibliography

Abhinavagupta, Rājānaka. 1986. Abhinavaguptapraṇītā Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī: Bhāskarīsaṃvalitā. Translated by Kanti Chandra Pandey. Dillī: Motīlāla Banārasīdāsa.

———. 1991. Essence of the exact reality, or, Paramārthasāra of Abhinavagupta. Translated by Balajinnātha Paṇḍita. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

———. 2011. An Introduction to Tantric Philosophy: The Paramārthasāra of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary of Yogarāja. Translated by Lyne Bansat-Boudon. Routledge Studies in Tantric Traditions. London: Routledge.

Aurobindo, Ghose. 1997a. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 15. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997b. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 17. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997c. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 21. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997d. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 22. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997e. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 28. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997f. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 29. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997g. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 30. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997h. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 31. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

———. 1997i. The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Vol. 34. 37 vols. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.

Banerjee, Aparna. 2012. Integral Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. Centre for Sri Aurobindo Studies, Jadavpur University, in Association with Decent Books, New Delhi.

Broad, C. D. (Charlie Dunbar). 2000. The Mind and Its Place in Nature. International Library of Philosophy. Philosophy of Mind and Language ; 3. London: Routledge.

Chatterji, Jagadish Chandra. 1914. Kashmir Shaivism: Being a Brief Introduction to the History, Literature and Doctrines of the Advaita Shaiva Philosophy of Kashmir, Specifically Called the Trika System. Kaśmīrasaṃskr̥tagranthāvaliḥ ; v. 2. Srinagar: Research Department, Jammu & Kashmir State.

Chaudhuri, Haridas. 1960. The Integral Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo; a Commemorative Symposium. London: Allen & Unwin.

Dyczkowski, Mark S. G. 1987. The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of the Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism. SUNY Series in the Shaiva Traditions of Kashmir. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Grimes, John A. 1996. A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English. New and rev. ed. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Guyer, Paul, and Rolf-Peter Horstmann. 2015. “Idealism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2015. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/idealism/.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1975. Early Theological Writings [Electronic Resource]. Works in Continental Philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.action?docID=3442007.

Kallaṭa. 1980. Spanda-Kārikās: The Divine Creative Pulsation, the Kārikās and the Spanda-Nirṇaya Translation into English. Translated by Jaideva Singh. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kṣemarāja, active 11th century. 1990. The Doctrine of Recognition: A Translation of Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam. Translated by Jaideva Singh. SUNY Series in Tantric Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miller, Alexander. 2016. “Realism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2016. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/realism/.

Sanderson, Alexis. 1986. “Mandala and Āgamic Identity in the Trika of Kashmir.” In Mantras et Diagrammes Rituelles Dans l’Hindouisme, edited by Andre Padoux, 169–214. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

———. 1995. “Meaning in Tantric Ritual.” In Essais Sur Le Rituel III: Colloque Du Centenaire de La Section Des Sciences Religieuses de l’École Pratique Des Hautes Étude, edited by A.M. Blondeau and K. Schipper. Vol. CII. Bibliothèque de l’École Des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.

Śaṅkarācārya. 2012. The Roots of Vedānta: Selections from Śaṅkara’s Writings. Penguin Classics. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Schaffer, Jonathan. 2016. “Monism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2016. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/monism/.

Sharma, Lakshmi Nidhi. 1996. Kashmir Śaivism. 2nd rev. ed. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.

Smart, Ninian. 2005. “Soteriology.”

Utpala. 1994. The Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vr̥tti: Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Translated by Raffaele Torella. Serie Orientale Roma ; 71. Roma: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

———. 2004. Iśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā of Utpaladeva: Verses on the Recognition of the Lord. Translated by Balajinnātha Paṇḍita. 1st ed. Muktabodha Indological Research Series. New Delhi: Muktabodha Indological Research Institute in association with Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

---

[1] Aurobindo described his spiritual discipline as ‘Integral Yoga’ (CWSA, Vol.29, p.207). However, he did not appear to have called his metaphysical system ‘Integral Philosophy’, describing it instead as a ‘theory of integral knowledge’ (CWSA, Vol.22, p.684). Still, this term is often used by later scholars (e.g. Banarjee (2012) and Chaudhuri (1960)) to characterise his thinking.

[2] Unless otherwise stated, ‘Kashmir Saivism’ will refer to the Trika school, and not other Śaiva sects present at different times in Kashmir, such as the dualistic Siddhāntas.

[3] Quoted translation from Dyczkowski (1987), p.47.

[4] Quoted and translated in Dyczkowski (1987), p.88.

[5] Translation and interpretation from Singh (1990), p.8.

[6] Although Aurobindo accepts the possibility of a psychic withdrawing from manifestation after its emergence, he does not recommend it as a goal for his Yoga.

[7] Technically, the supramental manifestation on earth prepares the manifestation of yet higher forms of the Divine Consciousness, i.e. the Sat-Cit-Ānanda consciousness (CWSA, Vol.22, p.1026). However, the supramental manifestation is the soteriological goal in the practical sense—in that firstly, it removes all the defects of the consciousness below the Overmind māyā; and secondly,  the manifestation of Sat-Cit-Ānanda on earth is for all intents and purpose impossible at this current stage of earth evolution.