Parātrīṃśikā Vivaraṇa (Part 50): From Idam to Aham and the End of Separate “Mine”

Return of separated experience into vimarśa, aham, and the expansive fullness of awakened consciousness.

Abhinava now advances from the previous chunk’s culmination in aham into a more exact clarification of how the world of idam, “this,” is not outside that aham at all. He has just shown that the hidden secret, first gathered in the compact sign of the blissful a, is unfolded through speech and brought toward explicit self-revelation as aham. The natural next question is therefore unavoidable: if aham is the true center, what is the status of all that appears as “this”? Is idam something genuinely outside the Self, or does its very shining already depend on a deeper reflexive awareness? This is the problem the new chunk takes up. Abhinava now argues that the shining of “this” has no independent standing. Its truth lies only in vimarśa, and that vimarśa is of the essence of aham. So the movement of the chunk is from apparent objectivity back into self-awareness: from idam bhāsate to the recognition that its fulfillment is repose in the Self alone.

“This shines for me”: the shining of idam has its truth only in vimarśa, which is of the essence of aham

tathā hi mama [mamedaṃ bhāsate iti idaṃpadasya svātmani asatkalpatvāt
saṃhārakrameṇa madīyaṃ sphuraṇaṃ spandanarūpatāmāviṣṭam ityanena
ahaṃparāmarśaikasāra eva vyapadeśyaḥ na tu atra kaścit sṛṣṭikramo nāpi
saṃhārakrama ityavadhāryaṃ svayameva sūkṣmadarśibhiḥ |] idaṃ bhāsate iti yat
bhāsanaṃ tasya vimarśaḥ punarapi ahaṃbhāvaikasāraḥ sa punaḥ ahaṃbhāvo
bhāvapratyupasaṃharaṇamukhena iti maha a ityetadrūpa eva yathoktaṃ prāk |

“For thus: ‘this shines for me.’ [Since the word idam (“this”) has no real standing in the Self as something truly separate, by the sequence of reabsorption my own flashing enters into the nature of spanda; by this, what is to be designated is of the sole essence of the reflexive awareness “I,” and one should firmly understand for oneself, with subtle vision, that no sequence of creation or of reabsorption is really intended here.] The shining expressed in ‘this shines’ has as its truth vimarśa; and that vimarśa is again of the sole essence of aham-bhāva. And that aham-bhāva, through the movement of re-withdrawing the entities into itself, is precisely of the form of that maha-a, as said before.”

Abhinava now takes the decisive step. In the previous chunk, the hidden maha-a was brought toward explicit articulation as aham. Here he explains why that movement is necessary. The world appears as idam, as “this.” But “this” does not shine by itself. Its apparent objectivity is not self-grounded. The real issue is not the object as object, but the fact of its bhāsana, its shining or manifestation. And Abhinava says plainly: the truth of that shining is vimarśa.

This is the crucial move. A lesser account would say: first there is an object, then later a subject becomes aware of it. Abhinava cuts deeper. Even the shining of “this” is already impossible without reflexive awareness. What appears as objectivity is inwardly supported by self-aware manifestation. That is why he says the shining of idam has as its truth vimarśa. The object is not denied, but its truth is relocated. It does not stand on its own side.

Then he sharpens the point again: that vimarśa is itself of the sole essence of aham-bhāva. So the movement is exact:

idam-bhāsana --> vimarśa --> aham.

That is the logic of the passage. The “this” leads inward, not outward. If one follows the fact of its manifestation deeply enough, one arrives not at inert objecthood, but at the reflexive pulse of the “I.”

The bracketed clarification is important because it prevents a crude sequential reading. It says, in effect: when we say “this shines for me,” the “this” has no real status in the Self as something truly separate. What is really present is my own flashing entering the mode of spanda. Therefore what is to be named here is of the sole essence of aham-parāmarśa. And one should understand carefully that no literal sequence of creation or reabsorption is really the point here. That warning matters. Abhinava is not narrating a temporal process as though first objects arose and then were withdrawn. He is exposing an ontological structure that subtle vision must grasp at once.

That is why he ends by returning to maha-a. The aham-bhāva disclosed here, through the re-withdrawing of entities into itself, is exactly that same reality previously indicated under the compressed sign maha-a. So the text is not abandoning the earlier symbol. It is unpacking it. What was first named in compact source-form is now shown in its reflexive structure: the hidden maha-a is none other than the aham in which all apparent “thisness” finds its truth.

So the force of the whole passage is this: idam does not have independent ontological standing. Its shining is real, but the truth of that shining is vimarśa; and the truth of vimarśa is aham. The object is therefore fulfilled not in separateness, but in being drawn back into self-aware consciousness. That is why this point is so central. It shows how the world of “this” is inwardly rooted in the “I” without being crudely erased.

The fulfillment of idam is repose in its own source, and that is so’ham

yaduktam

idamityasya vicchinnavimarśasya kṛtārthatā |
yā svasvarūpe viśrāntirvimarśaḥ so'hamityayam ||

“As it has been said: ‘The fulfillment of this “idam,” whose vimarśa is severed, is that repose in its own true nature; that vimarśa is this: so’ham.’”

Abhinava now states in a more aphoristic and explicit form what the previous point had already established. There, the shining of idam was said not to stand on its own, but to have its truth only in vimarśa, and that vimarśa was shown to be of the essence of aham. Here the same movement is compressed into a single formula: the “this” reaches its fulfillment only when its broken or outwardly severed vimarśa comes to rest in its own source. And that repose is called so’ham.

The key word is vicchinna-vimarśa. “Idam” is not false simply because it appears as object. The problem is that its vimarśa is broken, outwardly severed from its root. Objectivity, taken as self-standing, is incomplete. It shines, but in a fragmented mode. So Abhinava is not attacking the world as such; he is diagnosing a split in the mode of its appearing. The “this” is estranged from its own source in self-awareness.

That is why he says its kṛtārthatā, its fulfillment or consummation, lies in sva-svarūpe viśrāntiḥ — repose in its own nature. This is a very exact continuation of the whole argument. The object does not reach truth by being annihilated, nor by remaining as external thingness. It reaches truth when its broken manifestation comes to rest in the very source from which it shines. The movement is not destruction but return.

Then Abhinava names that return: so’ham. This is important. He does not simply say “aham” here, but so’ham — “I am that.” The phrase preserves the polarity just enough to show its overcoming. What seemed to stand there as “that” or “this” is no longer treated as external. It is re-gathered into identity. So the severed “idam” finds its fulfillment when it is no longer merely “that there,” but recognized in the movement of so’ham.

This follows the previous point with full precision. There the route was:

idam-bhāsana --> vimarśa --> aham.

Here Abhinava restates the same in a more experiential and formulaic mode:

idam as severed vimarśa --> repose in its own source --> so’ham.

So this verse is not a new teaching. It is the same teaching tightened.

And it is important that the culmination is still described as vimarśa. The final truth is not a mute identity in which everything disappears into blankness. The repose is reflexive, self-aware, living. The object is fulfilled when its broken manifestation becomes self-recognition.

So the force of the verse is clean: the “this” is incomplete when cut off from its source. Its fulfillment lies in repose in its own true nature. And that repose is the living recognition: so’ham.

Even ordinary object-cognition is in truth the shining of Parameśa’s Śakti, not mere “this-ness”

iti | anyatrāpi

ghaṭo'yamityadhyavasā nāmarūpātirekiṇī |
pareśaśaktirātmeva bhāsate na tvidantayā ||

“And elsewhere too: ‘The determination “this is a pot” — transcending name and form — is in truth the power of the Supreme Lord, shining as the Self, and not merely as “this-ness.”’”

Abhinava now widens the previous point by taking the most ordinary kind of cognition possible: ghaṭo’yam, “this is a pot.” That is deliberate. He does not choose a mystical state or a rare contemplative event. He takes the plainest possible case of object-determination and shows that even here, if seen correctly, the truth of what shines is not mere objectivity.

This follows the previous verse exactly. There, the “this” was said to be a vicchinna-vimarśa, a severed or broken form of reflexive awareness, whose fulfillment lies in repose in its own source as so’ham. Here Abhinava presses the same point into epistemology: even in the judgment “this is a pot,” what really shines is not a flat external object. The verse says it is nāma-rūpātirekiṇī pareśaśaktiḥ — the power of the Supreme Lord transcending name and form.

That phrase matters. The cognition does take the form of name and form at the surface level. It names the pot, it identifies the object, it articulates a determinate “this.” But its truth exceeds that articulation. What shines there is not exhausted by nominal designation or visible form. The apparent object-cognition is inwardly sustained by Pareśa’s Śakti.

And the verse goes still further: that Śakti shines ātmā eva — as the Self itself, na tu idantayā — not merely as “this-ness.” This is the key reversal. Abhinava is not denying that the cognition appears as “this.” He is denying that “this-ness” is its final truth. The real shining is Self-shining. Objectivity is the mode of appearance; Śakti-as-Self is the ontological reality.

So this verse strengthens the whole movement. The previous point argued that idam does not have self-standing validity, because its shining has its truth only in vimarśa, and that vimarśa is of the essence of aham. Then another verse said that the fulfillment of severed “this-ness” lies in repose in its own source as so’ham. Now Abhinava makes the same claim at the level of a simple object-judgment: even “this is a pot” is not merely objectivity. It is the Self-power of the Lord shining there.

This is one of Abhinava’s most characteristic moves. He does not reserve truth for rare states and abandon ordinary cognition to illusion. He says the truth is already there, even in the simplest cognition, but misread. The problem is not that the pot appears. The problem is that the appearance is taken as mere “this-ness” and not recognized as Śakti.

So the force of the verse is this: even the most ordinary object-cognition is already divine in its ground. It appears as “this,” but what truly shines there is Pareśa’s own Śakti as the Self.

Somānanda too confirms this: the ground is the seedless pure Śiva-form

iti | taduktaṃ śrīsomānandapādaiḥ nijavivṛtau |

abījaṃ śuddhaśivarūpam

ityādi | tadeva asmābhiḥ vipañcitamiti |

“And this has been said by Śrī Somānandapāda in his own exposition: ‘seedless, of the nature of pure Śiva,’ and so on. And that very thing has been unfolded by us.”

Abhinava now briefly strengthens the previous point by appealing to Somānanda. The move is important, even though the citation is short. He has just argued that even ordinary object-cognition is not, in truth, mere “thisness,” but the shining of Pareśa’s Śakti as the Self. That could sound radical or even excessive if left standing alone. So he now shows that this line of thought is not his alone. Somānanda too had spoken of the ground as abīja, seedless, and as śuddha-śiva-rūpa, of the nature of pure Śiva.

That word abīja matters. It means the ultimate ground is not dependent on some prior generative seed standing outside itself. It is not produced from something else, nor is it grounded in a secondary causal support. This fits the whole flow of the chunk: what appears as idam does not have its truth in itself as external object, but only in reflexive awareness, which in turn resolves into aham. Somānanda’s phrase confirms that the final source is beyond dependent objecthood and beyond derivative causality. It is pure Śiva.

That is why Abhinava immediately adds: tadeva asmābhiḥ vipañcitam — “that very thing has been unfolded by us.” He is not introducing a different doctrine. He is expanding, elaborating, drawing out in fuller detail what was already present in seed-form in Somānanda’s statement. So the line serves both as confirmation and as self-positioning within the lineage of thought.

Its function in the present flow is therefore clear. After showing that the “this” has no independent standing and that even the simplest object-cognition is in truth the shining of Śakti as Self, Abhinava now briefly points back to Somānanda to confirm that the ultimate ground is indeed seedless pure Śiva. That makes the direction of the argument unmistakable: all objectivity, when followed to its truth, resolves not into thing-ness but into pure, self-luminous Śiva-consciousness.

“Suṣṭhu mama”: for the one established in full ahantā, nothing stands apart as a separate “mine”

tathā svamama - suṣṭhu avidyamānaṃ mama iti yasya ahantābharaikarūpatvāt viśvaṃ na kiṃcit yasya
vyatirikanirdeśaprāṇaṣaṣṭyarthayogi bhavati |

“And likewise, ‘properly mine’: for the one in whom the notion ‘mine’ as something well-established apart does not exist, because of being of the single nature of the fullness of ahantā, the universe is not anything that can be connected with the sixfold meanings dependent on designation as separate.”

Abhinava now takes the previous movement one step further. He has already said that the shining of idam has no independent truth apart from vimarśa, that the severed “this” finds fulfillment in repose in its own source as so’ham, and that even ordinary object-cognition is really the shining of Pareśa’s Śakti as the Self. Now he turns to the language of mama, “mine,” and shows how radically it must be transformed.

The central point is not simply that the realized one stops using the word “mine.” That would be shallow. What Abhinava says is deeper: for the one whose nature is ahantā-bhara-eka-rūpa — of the single form of the fullness of I-consciousness — the universe no longer stands apart in such a way that it can be designated as something separately possessed. In other words, “mine” in the ordinary separative sense collapses.

That is why the phrase suṣṭhu avidyamānaṃ mama matters. It does not mean merely “there is no mine at all” in a nihilistic or emotionally flattened sense. Rather, it means that there is no well-established “mine” as something over against the Self, no external domain that can be set up as a separate possession. The one who rests in full aham does not confront a world of detachable objects and then claim them. The world is already suffused by ahantā itself.

The technical phrase about the “six meanings dependent on designation as separate” underlines the same thing. Abhinava is saying that the universe no longer enters the domain of articulated separative predication in the ordinary way. Once the world is not standing outside, the usual logic of “this is other than me and therefore mine / not mine / this kind of thing” loses its footing.

This follows the previous point very tightly. If even “this is a pot” is in truth the shining of Śakti as Self, then the next consequence is obvious: the world cannot finally be handled as a set of external objects standing apart from the “I.” Therefore “mine” in its usual possessive sense becomes false. The true “mine,” if the word is still used at all, would have to belong to the non-separate fullness of aham, not to acquisitive difference.

So the force of the passage is not ascetic negation for its own sake. It is a radical internal correction of possessiveness. The world does not become “mine” because the ego expands to cosmic ownership. Nor does it become “not mine” through dull renunciation. Rather, the whole separative basis of possession dissolves because the universe is no longer outside the fullness of self-aware consciousness.

Even for Vijñānākalas and Pralayakevalins there is no external “mine,” yet a subtle capacity for difference can remain

śāstrāntaradīkṣitānāṃ
vijñānākalānāṃ pralayakevalināṃ ca yadyapi mameti vyatiriktaṃ nāsti tathāpi yat
bhedayogyatāvasānā syādeva prabodhasamaye tadvikāsāt ahaṃbhāvarūḍhiḥ
tadapākṛtyai suṣṭhuśabdārthe suḥ |

“And even in the case of those initiated in other scriptures, of the Vijñānākalas and of the Pralayakevalins, although there is no separate ‘mine,’ nevertheless there may still remain a residual capacity for difference; and at the time of awakening, from its unfolding, there is a settling into aham-bhāva. In order to remove that, the force of the word suṣṭhu is intended.”

Abhinava now becomes more discriminating. In the previous point he said that for the one established in the fullness of ahantā, the world no longer stands apart as something externally possessable, and so “mine” in the ordinary separative sense collapses. Here he immediately prevents a crude simplification. The mere absence of a coarse external “mine” is not yet the final state.

That is why he names Vijñānākalas and Pralayakevalins. These are already subtle states, far beyond ordinary gross possessiveness. For them, there is indeed no obvious separate “mine.” But Abhinava says that even there bhedayogyatāvasānā may remain — a residual aptitude or latent capacity for difference. This is a very sharp point. One may transcend coarse externalization and still not be fully free of the root-capacity for differentiated emergence.

And that is why he says that at the time of awakening, from the unfolding of that latent remainder, there is ahaṃbhāvarūḍhiḥ — a settling, ripening, or establishment in aham-bhāva. The line is subtle. He is not saying that these states are simply false. He is saying they are still incomplete. Something remains to be cleared so that true aham can stand in full firmness.

This is precisely the function of suṣṭhu here. The word is not ornamental. It intensifies the point: not merely “mine,” but “properly mine,” “fully mine,” “well-established.” Abhinava is excluding the residual possibility that a subtle separate relation might still survive in seed form. What is being sought is not the mere weakening of object-ownership, but the complete removal of even the latent structure of externality.

This follows the previous point exactly. There, the world could no longer stand apart for the one established in full ahantā. Now Abhinava says: yes, but do not mistake partial transcendence for completion. The disappearance of coarse separateness is not enough if the seed-capacity for difference still remains. True aham-bhāva requires the removal of that remainder too.

So the force of the passage is severe and exact. Abhinava is not satisfied with a state in which one no longer clings outwardly. He wants even the subtle possibility of separative re-emergence to be seen through. Only then does aham stand in its full, stable sense.

The true culmination is not the poverty of “nothing is mine,” but the vast bearing of “I am all”

yaduktaṃ mayaiva stotre

yanna kiṃcana mameti dīnatāṃ prāpnuvanti jaḍajantavo'niśam |
tanna [tanneti teṣāṃ niṣedharūpam ata āha sarvamasmīti |] kiṃcana mamāsmi
sarvamityuddhurāṃ dhuramupeyivānaham ||

“As I myself have said in a hymn:

‘Because of the thought “nothing is mine,” dull creatures constantly fall into poverty.
Not that. Rather: “I am all, and all is mine” — thus have I taken up the lofty burden.’”

Abhinava now closes the movement with a deliberately sharp contrast. In the previous point, he had already said that even the absence of a coarse separate “mine” is not enough if some subtle capacity for difference still remains. Here he makes the same point in a more existential and almost polemical way: merely negating “mine” can itself become a form of impoverishment.

That is the force of dīnatā. The problem is not only metaphysical error, but a kind of inner poverty, a thinning-out of being. If one says only “nothing is mine,” one may indeed weaken gross possessiveness, but one may also collapse into negation, contraction, and a joyless refusal of relation. Abhinava calls that the condition of jaḍa-jantavaḥ, dull creatures. He is being severe on purpose. A merely privative spirituality that empties everything without recovering the positive fullness of the Self remains below the mark.

That is why the gloss says plainly: not that. The correction is not toward ordinary egoic appropriation, as though the individual now inflates himself and claims ownership of the universe. That would be a vulgar misreading. The statement sarvam asmi — “I am all” — only becomes possible because the whole preceding chunk has dismantled the independent standing of idam, shown that all shining has its truth in vimarśa, and brought that vimarśa back into aham. So when Abhinava says “all is mine,” this is not acquisitive possession. It is non-separate identity.

That is why the phrase uddhurāṃ dhuram upeyivān aham matters so much. He speaks of taking up the lofty burden, the high yoke, the elevated weight of this realization. The line is not triumphant in a cheap way. There is gravity in it. To say “I am all” is not sentimental expansion. It is the heaviest claim, because it means bearing the totality within aham without fleeing into negation.

This follows the previous point exactly. There Abhinava said that even subtle states may still retain the latent possibility of difference, and that this remainder must be removed for stable aham-bhāva. Here he shows what the positive side of that removal is. The culmination is not a sterilized “nothing is mine.” It is the vast, nondual recognition that nothing stands outside the Self. Therefore “all is mine” means: nothing is alien, nothing is external to aham.

So the closing force of the chunk is very strong. It ends not in ascetic poverty, nor in possessive egoism, but in an expansive nondual fullness. The false “mine” is destroyed, but the true “mine” — which is really the non-separate allness of aham — is affirmed. That is Abhinava’s final correction: not negation alone, but plenitude.