 |
| Khecarī means: one is established in the sky of Brahman, in non-difference, and from there one still moves, knows objects, acts, accepts, rejects, and remains in one’s own nature. |
What is firmly known shines by itself and is not something to be cultivated again
tathā viśeṣeṇa pratipattidārḍhyabandhena yat jñātaṃ tat
vibhātameva na punaḥ bhāvanīyaṃ sakṛdvibhātātmatvāt |
“And likewise: that which has been known through the binding force of firmness in precise recognition simply shines forth; it is not to be cultivated again, because its nature is to shine once and for all.”
This continues the previous point, but in a cleaner and more interior way.
Abhinava says that once something has been truly known through firm recognition, it does not remain a project. It shines by itself. So the issue is not repeated production, but the stability of recognition.
That is why he says it is not to be cultivated again. Not because bhāvanā is always useless, but because what truly shines does not need to be manufactured a second time. Otherwise one is treating recognition as if it were still absent.
The phrase sakṛd-vibhāta-ātmatvāt is the nerve here. What is really seen does not require re-creation. It may require non-forgetting, or steadiness, or non-betrayal — but not fresh fabrication.
So liberation is not a thing endlessly rebuilt by mental effort. Once the truth has genuinely dawned, the task is no longer to make it appear, but not to fall back into treating the self-luminous as though it still needed to be produced.
Pure knowing is neither one more object nor the side of the knower
tathā jñātamātraṃ
jñātameva jñeyaikarūpatvāt na tu kadācit jñātṛrūpaṃ ghaṭādi tathā jñātā
jñeyarūpā bhedamayī iyaṃ māyā tadubhayaṃ vigataṃ yatra tat vijñātamātraṃ
“And likewise, pure knowing is only the known, because it is of one nature with the knowable; it is never at any time of the form of the knower, as a pot and the like are. And the knower too, when of the form of the known, is this Māyā made of difference. Where both of these are absent — that is pure knowing.”
This is a dense sentence, but the main point is clear.
Abhinava is trying to indicate a level where the ordinary split between knower and known no longer holds. So he first excludes both sides.
On one side, vijñātamātra is not to be taken as an object like a pot. It is not one more thing standing over against a subject.
But on the other side, it is also not the ordinary knower as we usually understand that — because the ordinary knower is still caught in relation to the known, and that whole structured duality is already within Māyā, the field of difference.
So he is cutting away both mistakes:
pure knowing is not an object,
and it is not the empirical subject standing opposite objects.
That is why he ends: where both are gone, there is vijñātamātra.
A simple way to put it: he is not pointing to one side of the duality, but to what remains when the duality itself is no longer binding.
In pure knowing, objects shine as one with the knower, and Māyā has no force there
ghaṭādayo yatra jñātrekarūpatvena svaprakāśātmānaḥ yatra ca māyā na prabhavati
tena vijñātamātreṇa |
“In that pure knowing, pots and the like are of one nature with the knower, possessing a self-luminous nature; and there Māyā has no power — by that pure knowing.”
Now Abhinava makes the point more concrete.
He does not stop at saying that pure knowing is beyond the split of knower and known. He adds that, there, things like ghaṭa and other objects are seen as one with the knower and as self-luminous.
That is important. The object is not destroyed or denied. What disappears is its status as something standing over against consciousness as a second, independently fixed thing.
And that is exactly why he adds: there Māyā has no power. Māyā’s force lies in making the split seem final — knower here, object there, difference as hard fact. In vijñātamātra, that division no longer governs the appearance.
So the point is not “nothing appears.” The point is: what appears is no longer ruled by separative appearance.
A simple analogy is this: in a dream, many things appear as if separate, but on waking one sees that all of them were made of one mind. The dream objects were not outside the dreamer’s consciousness. Abhinava’s point is subtler and deeper than that, but the analogy helps: in pure knowing, objects no longer stand as foreign to the knower.
Established in the undivided sky of Brahman, one moves, knows, acts, and remains — this is Khecarī
khe brahmaṇi abhedarūpe sthitvā carati - viṣayamavagamayati
tathā hānādānādiceṣṭāṃ vidhatte svarūpe ca āste iti khecarī
“Having established oneself in the sky — in Brahman, whose nature is non-difference — one moves, that is, one apprehends objects; likewise one performs actions such as rejecting and taking up; and one abides in one’s own nature: this is Khecarī.”
This is a strong definition because it removes a common misunderstanding at once.
Khecarī is not being described here as trance, withdrawal, or suspension of life. One is established in the undivided Brahman, yes — but one still moves, knows objects, acts, and abides in one’s own nature.
So the point is not cessation of functioning. The point is functioning from non-difference.
Also, in many modern circles, “khecarī mudrā” is treated almost entirely as a bodily technique: a posture of the tongue, a yogic seal, a physiological trigger for altered states. Whatever place such practices may have in haṭha-oriented contexts, that is clearly not what Abhinava is defining here.
For him, Khecarī means: one is established in the sky of Brahman, in non-difference, and from there one still moves, knows objects, acts, accepts, rejects, and remains in one’s own nature. So Khecarī here is not a special bodily trick, nor a temporary yogic state, but a mode of consciousness.
That is why the word khe matters. The “sky” here is not physical space, but the open, unbounded expanse of Brahman. To move in that sky means to remain grounded in non-duality while cognition and action continue.
So Khecarī is not escape from the world or a bodily technique. It is the condition in which the world is no longer encountered from contraction. Apprehension still happens. Taking and leaving still happen. But they no longer dislodge one from one’s own nature.
The one Śakti appears in graded forms of manifestation
antarbahiṣkaraṇatadarthasukhādinīlādirūpā tathāhi vedyavedakabhāvānullāsipade
śūnye saṃvinmātradṛgullāse saṃvedyagatāntaraikyarūpadiśyamānabhedollāse
sphuṭabhedodreke ca krameṇa vyomacarī-gocarī-dikcarī-bhūcarībhūtā yāḥ śaktayaḥ
“For these powers take the forms of inner and outer instruments, their objects, pleasure, blue, and the like. Thus, in the stage where the relation of knower and known has not yet arisen — the void — there is the flashing forth of the vision of pure consciousness alone; then there is the flashing forth of difference as appearing in the form of an inner unity within what is known; and then there is the clear surge of explicit difference. In this sequence, the powers become vyomacarī, gocarī, dikcarī, and bhūcarī.”
Abhinava is now mapping stages in the appearance of manifestation.
He begins from a level where the split of knower and known has not yet emerged. Then there is pure consciousness alone. After that, difference begins to appear, but not yet in a fully hardened way — there is still a kind of inner unity within what appears. Finally, explicit difference stands out clearly.
So this is a graded unfolding of manifestation, from subtler to more articulated appearance.
And the important point is that the names vyomacarī, gocarī, dikcarī, bhūcarī are names for the one Śakti appearing across these levels. They are not separate substances. They describe how manifestation is appearing.
That is why Abhinava includes both very subtle and very ordinary things here: inner and outer instruments, their objects, pleasure, blue, and so on. He is not speaking only about mystical states. He is tracing how the whole field of lived experience unfolds.
So the point is simple:
the one power appears first in a more undivided way,
then in partially differentiated appearance,
then in clear difference.
All these powers are in truth one Khecarī-Śakti
tā vastuta uktanayena svabhāvacarakhecarīrūpaśaktyavibhaktā eva - ityekaiva sā [sā hi
parameśvarasya svarūpādabhinnā śaktirekaiva tāttvikī idamiti
parāmarśabhedamātrajanmanā nānārūpavibhaktabhāvabhedena avabhāsamānā satī
bahutvenāpi vyapadeśamarhatīti |]
“In reality, according to the teaching already given, those [powers] are not at all separate from the Śakti whose form is the innate, moving Khecarī; thus she is only one. [For she is a single ontological Śakti, non-different from the very nature of the Supreme Lord; and, though appearing as divided into many forms through nothing more than differences of reflexive apprehension — the various modes of the awareness ‘this’ — she is still fit to be designated in the plural.]”
This is the gathering-back of the whole passage.
Abhinava has just named several powers and several stages — vyomacarī, gocarī, dikcarī, bhūcarī. Now he prevents the obvious mistake: taking them as truly separate powers.
He says they are not separate from the one Śakti whose nature is svabhāva-cara-khecarī — the innate Khecarī that moves by its very nature. So multiplicity is admitted, but only at the level of appearance and designation. In reality, the power is one.
The gloss explains how the many arise: through parāmarśa-bheda-mātra — mere differences in modes of apprehension, especially the differentiated awareness of “this.” That is enough for plurality of appearance, naming, and function. But it does not amount to a break in the underlying Śakti.
So the point is:
many forms, one power;
many names, one Śakti;
many appearances, no real fragmentation.
That is a very typical Abhinavian move. He allows the full richness of manifestation, but then refuses to let richness harden into ontological separation.
No comments:
Post a Comment