 |
| Many windows, one light — just as many knowers appear, while consciousness remains undivided. |
Paśyantī as the nondual consciousness of all knowers
saiva ca sakalapramātṛsaṃvidadvayamayī satatameva vartamānarūpā
“And she alone is the nondual consciousness of all knowers, abiding always as the form of the present.”
Abhinavagupta says something immense here in very few words. Paśyantī is not merely one level in a theory of speech. She is sakalapramātṛsaṃvidadvayamayī — the nondual consciousness of all knowers. There may be many knowers in appearance, many minds, many acts of cognition, many points of view. But the consciousness in and through them is not many. At its root it is one, undivided.
Like many windows may receive the same sunlight. Each frame differs, each angle differs, each reflection falls differently across the floor — but the light is not many because the openings are many. And that light is not something stored inside the room. It is real only in shining. In much the same way, many knowers appear, but the light of consciousness is not divided by the plurality of its apparent forms.
Then comes the second forceful phrase: satatam eva vartamānarūpā — she is always of the form of the present.
That cuts deeply. The ground is not hidden in the past, nor waiting in the future. It is present as presence itself.
And this is exactly why one must distinguish living recognition from stored knowledge. Ordinary knowledge, in the usual sense, depends on memory. It consists of what has already been grasped, fixed, retained, and can be recalled again. In that sense, it belongs to the past. However subtle or useful it may be, it is still mediated by retention.
Pratibhā, however, is something else. It is not recollection, not conceptual possession, not second-hand understanding. It is the direct flash in which meaning discloses itself at once. It is alive only in immediacy. One may carry vast learning in the mind and still not touch this. That is why the Upaniṣadic warning about entering darkness through a certain kind of knowledge has such force: not because truth is opposed to understanding, but because accumulated knowledge can thicken the mind instead of opening it.
Abhinava’s point here is not anti-intellectual. It is sharper than that. The real is not reached as an object preserved in memory. It is present only as living awareness. Paśyantī is not remembered presence. She is presence itself.
So the line works in two directions at once. It dissolves multiplicity at the level of consciousness, and it dissolves the illusion that truth can be held as mental possession. One consciousness. Always present.
Through the mere thread of awareness
tatastu paśyantī yadyad abhīpsitaṃ tattadeva samucitakāraṇaniyamaprabodhitaṃ bodhasūtramātreṇa vimṛśati
With the gloss:
kāraṇam — icchādi
“Then Paśyantī apprehends precisely whatever is intended, once the appropriate causal order has been awakened, by the mere thread of awareness.”
Gloss:
“Cause” means: will and the rest.
Paśyantī is not a vague undifferentiated mass. Nor is she already divided into gross discursiveness. She is subtler than that. From within her, precisely what is intended comes forward — yadyad abhīpsitaṃ tattadeva — once the proper causal sequence has been stirred into activity.
That matters. Manifestation is not random. It is not chaotic overflow. It unfolds according to a fitting inner order: samucita-kāraṇa-niyama. And the gloss makes clear that this includes icchā, will, and the rest. So the arising of a specific content is tied to an awakened configuration of powers.
Even at the level of modern science, the Universe does not appear as mere formless accident. Its structures arise under precise laws, constraints, and highly sensitive conditions. Discussions of cosmological fine-tuning exist precisely because small changes in certain parameters would lead to radically different outcomes. The same holds for cosmic structure more broadly: stars, heavier elements, and the ordered formation of galaxies do not arise under just any arrangement whatsoever.
Even the famous Pillars of Creation are not examples of pure chaos. NASA describes them as cold gas and dust in a star-forming region, shaped by radiation, gravity, and pressure. What looks visually wild is still ordered emergence under determinate conditions.
Abhinavagupta’s point is deeper than physics, of course. He is not speaking merely of numerical constants. But the direction is similar: manifestation is not random overflow. It comes forth according to samucita-kāraṇa-niyama — a fitting inner order. In his language, even icchā belongs to that causal articulation. The universe is not an amorphous spill of possibility. It is structured emergence.
Then comes the finest phrase in the sentence:
bodhasūtramātreṇa — “by the mere thread of awareness.”
This is the real jewel here.
Abhinava is pointing to a level where cognition has not yet become thick with verbal sequence, conceptual scaffolding, and articulated division. It is still thread-like: subtle, continuous, sufficient. Awareness does not yet need the machinery of discursive thought in order to bring forth what is intended.
That is why the line is so good. It describes a mode of manifestation that is exact without being verbal, ordered without being heavy, selective without needing explicit analysis.
You can feel a faint analogue in ordinary experience. Sometimes, before words arrive, the mind already knows exactly what it wants to say, what memory is coming, what gesture is forming, what response is ripening. The thing is not yet laid out in full discursiveness, yet it is already there in a finer, more compact mode. That is closer to what Abhinava is naming here.
So this line deepens the whole picture. The undivided ground is not inert. It contains the power of precise emergence. But that emergence begins in a mode far subtler than speech and thought as we ordinarily know them.
That is the force of bodhasūtramātreṇa. Before discourse thickens, awareness itself is enough.
The memory-seed analogy
“Just as, in a variegated mind shaped by saṃskāras of many cognitions of presences and absences, only some particular memory is apprehended when the appropriate seed of memory is awakened, so here too there is no such differentiation at the first moment of cognition.”
Now Abhinavagupta gives an analogy, and it is a very good one.
The mind carries many traces. Countless impressions, perceptions, absences, presences, associations — all of these remain as saṃskāras. But when memory actually arises, not everything appears at once. One particular memory comes forward when the right seed is stirred.
That is the point of smṛtibījaprabodhakaucityāt kiṃcideva smṛtir vimṛśati.
Because the appropriate memory-seed is awakened, only some specific memory is brought into living awareness. A smell, a tone of voice, a place, a patch of evening light — and suddenly one memory rises. Not all memories. Not a discursive inventory. One. It was there in latency, but the right trigger drew it out. That is the mechanism Abhinava is pointing to.
This explains the earlier point with real psychological precision. Paśyantī does not need gross division in order for something definite to emerge. Just as the mind does not have to unpack all its stored impressions in order for one memory to arise, so too at this subtler level awareness can bring forth what is intended without yet entering full discursiveness.
That is why the line matters. It shows that determinacy does not require verbal fragmentation. Specific emergence can happen from a denser and more inward field.
And then Abhinava adds the crucial point:
nahi prathamajñānakāle bhedo'tra
“At the first moment of cognition, there is no differentiation here.”
That seals the argument. Differentiation comes later. At the first flash, there is not yet the articulated split we are used to. And still something definite is there.
So thus the text has moved from undivided Śakti, to Paśyantī before division, to the nondual consciousness of all knowers, to the subtle thread of awareness, and now to memory as an analogy for selective emergence. The many remain gathered, but one thing comes forth when the proper seed is touched.
That is the insight here: specific manifestation does not prove prior separation. Something definite can emerge from an undivided field without that field having first broken into pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment