 |
| The vortex structure naturally suggests both directions at once: emanation outward and return inward. That matches point that anuttara is both the source and the resting-place of manifestation. The dark center is the the non-objectifiable core while the surrounding circular motion conveys prasara without making it look like a flat linear “creation story” |
Abhinava now resumes the unfolding from the side of emanation itself. In the previous chunk he showed that the whole universe abides in one undivided Bhairava-consciousness, that its apparent severance does not touch the ultimate, and that the Kaulika vidhi reaches fulfillment when the entire thirty-sixfold universe comes to rest in its own source. But that now raises a further question. If all this is so, how are we to understand the actual movement of manifestation — the outflow, articulation, and expressive expansion of that very anuttara? And how can even concealment, obstruction, and discursivity still belong to Parameśvara rather than standing outside him?
This is the pressure point of the present movement. Abhinava now says that even what appears as covering or obstruction is still, in its own freedom to cover, nothing but Parameśvara, the luminous one whose nature is vision and action. From there he returns to the phrase marked by yad, clarifying that anuttara is both that from which the Kaulika creative expansion streams forth and that in which it abides as the heart-sky. Having established anuttara as the single locus of both emanation and repose, he then turns toward kathayāmi — “I shall tell” — and begins to show that the whole unfolding of speech, from Parābhaṭṭārikā downward into scriptural, worldly, and many other expressive forms, is itself the blossoming of the fixed station of anuttara. So the movement is from concealment as divine freedom, to anuttara as the source and resting-place of manifestation, to the actual radiant expansion of that source as speech and expressive sequence.
Even what is taken to be obstruction and concealment is, in its very power to cover, still Parameśvara himself as the luminous one whose nature is vision and action
āvarakatvena nirodhakābhimato'pi hi tadāvaraṇādisvātantryeṇa prakāśamāno
dṛkkriyātmaka eva parameśvaraḥ
“For even what is regarded as obstructive by virtue of being a covering is, through the freedom of that very covering and the rest, still none other than Parameśvara himself, shining forth as of the nature of vision and action.”
Abhinava begins with a very sharp reversal. Even that which is taken to be āvaraka, a covering, and therefore thought of as nirodhaka, obstructive or inhibiting, is not outside the divine. It is still Parameśvara himself, manifesting through the very freedom of covering, concealment, and contraction. This is a severe point, because the mind wants to divide reality too cleanly: revelation on one side, obstruction on the other; divine manifestation here, ignorance there. Abhinava refuses that split. Even concealment does not stand outside sovereignty.
That is why he says tad-āvaraṇādi-svātantryeṇa prakāśamānaḥ — he shines through the freedom of that very covering and the rest. Covering is not a second principle rivaling the divine. It is itself an expression of freedom. This does not make concealment unreal in the weak sense, nor does it romanticize bondage. It means that even contraction, limitation, and obscuration belong to the field of manifestation and therefore cannot be severed from the one who manifests. The same Parameśvara remains dṛk-kriyātmaka, of the nature of vision and action: luminous, aware, operative, even there.
Abhinava is about to unfold the emanative sequence itself, the passage from source into expression. So he first blocks the naïve idea that covering somehow lies outside the divine process. If even concealment is still a mode of Parameśvara’s freedom, then the whole subsequent expansion can be read without dualistic fracture. The hidden and the manifest, the covering and the revelation, belong to one continuum of sovereignty.
The particle yad is explained as functioning across case-senses, and here especially in the senses of the ablative and locative, according to contextual suitability
yadityayaṃ nipātaḥ sarvavibhaktyarthavṛttiḥ aparavākyīyasaṃbandhaucityāt viśeṣe
sthāsnuratra pañcamyarthe saptamyarthe ca vartate |
“This particle yad functions with the force of all the case-relations; but here, according to the fitness of the connection in the subsequent sentence, it stands especially in the sense of the ablative and the locative.”
Abhinava now pauses over the small word yad, because the whole previous movement has made its force doctrinally important. He has just been speaking of anuttara as that from which the Kaulika sṛṣṭi-prasara, the Kaulika creative expansion, proceeds, and also as that in which it abides as mama hṛdvyoma, “my heart-sky.” So the issue is no longer only abstract grammar. The question is how one and the same reality can be spoken of both as source and as abiding-place.
That is why he says that yad can function across many case-senses, but here especially in the sense of the pañcamī, the ablative — “from which,” and the saptamī, the locative — “in which.” This is not pedantry. It is the grammar required by the metaphysics. The previous lines have already forced both senses together: anuttara is the reality from which manifestation streams forth and in which it remains and comes to rest.
So the little particle is carrying a great deal. Abhinava is showing that the language itself bends to the nondual truth already established. If one reads yad only as “from which,” one misses repose. If one reads it only as “in which,” one misses emergence. Here it must bear both, because the reality in question is both the origin and the locus. Grammar is following ontology, not the other way around.
Its plain meaning is: from which this Kaulika creative expansion proceeds, and in which it abides as my heart-sky — that alone is anuttara
ayaṃ hi āñjasyena [sūcamārthavivekaṃ vināpi |] arthaḥ - yadayaṃ [yat - yasmāt |]
kaulikaḥ sṛṣṭiprasaraḥ yacca mama hṛdvyomni avasthitaḥ tadevānuttaram |
“For this is the straightforward meaning [even without subtle grammatical discrimination]: that from which this Kaulika creative expansion proceeds, and in which it abides as my heart-sky — that alone is anuttara.”
Abhinava now gives the plain sense directly. After explaining that yad here carries both the force of “from which” and “in which,” he says that the meaning is actually simple, even without refined grammatical analysis. The reality in question is that from which this Kaulika sṛṣṭi-prasara, this Kaulika expansion of creation, streams forth, and that in which it abides as mama hṛdvyoma, “my heart-sky.” That alone is anuttara.
This is important because it gathers the whole previous movement into one formula. Anuttara is not only origin, and not only resting-place. It is both together. It is the source from which manifestation proceeds and the interior expanse in which that same manifestation remains held. So the many are neither self-standing nor exiled. They issue forth from one ground and abide in that same ground.
The phrase mama hṛdvyomni also keeps the point from becoming merely cosmological. This is not only a doctrine about the birth of the universe “out there.” The very same reality is the heart-sky, the inward expanse in which the whole Kaulika unfolding remains present. So Abhinava is binding emergence and inwardness together: the universe streams forth from anuttara and abides in it as the deepest interior field. That is why he can say so cleanly: tad eva anuttaram — that alone is anuttara.
Thus anuttara is established as the one locus of both emanation and repose
evaṃ tasyaiva prasaraviśrāntyubhayasthānatvaṃ nirūpya
“Thus, having established that it alone is the place of both emanation and repose…”
Abhinava now gathers the result of the previous clarification. Once yad has been read in both senses — from which and in which — the point becomes fixed: the one reality in question is the single locus of both prasara, outflow or emanation, and viśrānti, repose or resting. This is what has just been established.
That matters because it blocks a divided picture. The source is not one thing and the resting place another. Nor does manifestation proceed from one level only to end somewhere else. The same anuttara is both the point of emergence and the place of return. What comes forth does not truly leave its ground, and what comes to rest does not arrive in some second reality.
So this brief line functions as a seal on the preceding argument. Abhinava has clarified the grammar only in order to secure this metaphysical point: anuttara alone is the double ground of procession and repose. That prepares the next move, where he can now turn from this established fact to the actual sequence of emanation itself, beginning with kathayāmi.
Having established that, Abhinava now proceeds to explain the nature of the emanative sequence as the visarga of the spanda of kriyā-śakti, beginning with “kathayāmi…”
prasarakramasvarūpaṃ kriyāśaktispandavisargaṃ nirūpayati kathayāmi ityādi
“Having thus established its being the locus of both emanation and repose, he now sets forth the nature of the sequence of emanation — the emission which is the spanda of kriyā-śakti — beginning with ‘kathayāmi’ and the rest.”
Abhinava now changes gear. He has just established that anuttara alone is the single ground of both prasara, outflow, and viśrānti, repose. That point having been secured, he can now turn to the prasara-krama itself — the actual sequence of emanation. And he defines that sequence very precisely: it is kriyā-śakti-spanda-visarga, the emission or outpouring that is the pulsation of the power of action.
This is important, because the emanative movement is not being described as a dead mechanism or a mere logical sequence. It is spanda, living pulsation, and specifically the pulsation of kriyā-śakti. So what is about to unfold through kathayāmi is not merely speech in the ordinary sense, but the dynamic expressive side of reality itself. The universe, discourse, manifestation, and articulated revelation all belong to this one current of visarga.
So the point of the line is simple but weighty: now that the one ground has been identified as both source and resting-place, Abhinava begins to unfold how that ground actually expands. The next phrase, kathayāmi, will therefore not be a casual statement like “I will now explain.” It will belong to the emanative process itself.
That very form is the uninterrupted single ultimate reality appearing through the sequence of expansion beginning with paśyantī and consisting of parā, anuttara, parāpara, and the rest; “I shall tell” is therefore an appropriate designation
tadeva hi rūpam ahaṃ
parānuttarātmaparāparādimayapaśyantyādiprasaraparipāṭyā'vicchinnaikatāparamārthaḥ
kathayāmīti samucitavyapadeśaṃ
“For that very form — ‘I’ — is the uninterrupted one ultimate reality, unfolding in the sequence of expansion beginning with paśyantī and consisting of parā, anuttara, parāpara, and the rest. Therefore ‘I shall tell’ is an appropriate designation.”
Abhinava now makes kathayāmi much weightier than a simple promise to explain something. The speaker’s aham here is not the ordinary empirical “I.” It is that very form, the one uninterrupted ultimate reality — avicchinna-ikatā-paramārtha — which appears through the ordered unfolding of manifestation. That unfolding is named here through the sequence beginning with paśyantī and including parā, anuttara, parāpara, and the rest. So the “I” who speaks is not outside the emanative process, nor merely one participant within it. It is the very reality expressing itself through that process.
That is why kathayāmi becomes fitting — samucita-vyapadeśa. “I shall tell” is appropriate because the act of telling is itself one phase of the divine expansion of speech. Abhinava is not merely saying, “Now I, the commentator, will explain.” He is showing that the very possibility of utterance belongs to the same continuum that runs from the highest undivided level down into expression. The “I” of speech and the reality unfolded by speech are therefore not ultimately two.
This “I shall tell” means: I will manifest the connected sequence of speech, extending to the rise of Parābhaṭṭārikā and branching into scriptural, worldly, and many other forms
parābhaṭṭārikodayabhāgivaisvaryantaṃ vākyaprabandhaṃ śāstrīyalaukikādibahubhedaṃ vyaktayāmīti
“It means: ‘I shall make manifest the connected sequence of utterance, extending up to the rise and sovereignty of Parābhaṭṭārikā, and differentiated into many forms such as scriptural, worldly, and others.’”
Abhinava now unfolds what kathayāmi actually contains. It is not merely, “I am going to say something.” It means: I will manifest — vyaktayāmi — a whole vākyaprabandha, a connected sequence or woven continuum of utterance. So speech here is not treated as isolated sentences or detached sounds. It is an ordered unfolding, a living progression.
And this progression stretches up to the rise of Parābhaṭṭārikā — parābhaṭṭārikodaya — and into her lordly expansion or sovereignty. That is important. The speech-sequence is not only descending into outward expression; it also bears within it the whole arc of divine emergence. At the same time, this one current appears in many forms: śāstrīya, scriptural; laukika, worldly; and many others besides. So Abhinava is saying that the same ultimate expressive power runs through revealed teaching, ordinary discourse, and every other articulated mode of speech. Their levels differ, but the current is one.
This makes the force of kathayāmi much stronger. To “tell” is already to participate in the expansion of that one power into its many expressive strata. The divine rise of Parābhaṭṭārikā and the diversity of speech in the world are not two disconnected domains. They belong to one and the same unfolding continuum.
This is linked back to the earlier phrase “sarvataśca yaḥ”
taduktam
sarvataśca yaḥ
iti |
“And this is what was said in the phrase: ‘and who is everywhere.’”
Abhinava now briefly links the present unfolding back to the earlier doctrinal verse. The whole discussion of kathayāmi, of emanative sequence, and of the one reality expressing itself through many levels of speech and manifestation is not a new departure. It is already contained in that earlier phrase: sarvataś ca yaḥ — “and who is everywhere.”
The force of the reference is clear. If the one truly shines everywhere, then its presence is not limited to silent transcendence alone. It must also be present in unfolding, in speech, in manifestation, in the differentiated sequence through which Parābhaṭṭārikā rises and expression branches into scriptural, worldly, and many other forms. So Abhinava is reminding the reader that the current analysis is already grounded in the prior claim of all-pervasion.
This small line therefore acts like a doctrinal hinge. What is now being said about expressive emanation is not separate from the earlier teaching that the one shines in all things. It is one of its consequences. If the one is truly everywhere, then even the articulated unfolding of speech must belong to its field.
On every level, in Parābhaṭṭārikā herself and in her unfolding as the body of the Parāpara goddess, this is said to be the blossoming-forth of the fixed station of anuttara
prathamaparyantabhuvi parābhaṭṭārikātmani tatprasarātmani ca
parāparādevatāvapuṣi anuttaradhruvapadavijṛmbhaiva
“On every level, in Parābhaṭṭārikā herself and in her very unfolding, in the body of the Parāpara goddess, this is nothing but the blossoming-forth of the fixed station of anuttara.”
Abhinava now states the inner identity of the whole process very plainly. Whether one looks at Parābhaṭṭārikā herself, or at her prasara, her unfolding, or at the embodied form of the Parāpara-devatā, what is really taking place is anuttara-dhruva-pada-vijṛmbhaṇa — the blossoming, expansion, or opening out of the fixed station of anuttara. So the emanative sequence is not a departure from the absolute. It is the absolute’s own flowering.
This is why the earlier points mattered so much. Abhinava has been insisting that anuttara is both the source and the resting-place of manifestation. Now he says more strongly: even the unfolding itself is not alien to that ground. It is anuttara showing itself in expansion. The “fixed station” does not cease to be fixed when it blossoms. Its expansion is still its own expansion. So Parābhaṭṭārikā, her unfolding, and the Parāpara goddess-body are not three different realities. They are three ways of speaking about one and the same opening-out of the stable anuttara.
This same point is said in their own exposition, with support also from Śivadṛṣṭi and from Utpaladeva
tadāhurnijavivṛtau [tathaiva śivadṛṣṭāvapi
yadā tu tasya ciddharmavibhavāmodajṛmbhayā |
ityādyuktam | śrīmadutpaladevaprabupādairapi
sphārayasyakhilamātmanā sphuran
viśvamāmṛśasi rūpamāmṛśan |
yatsvayaṃ nijarasena ghūrṇase
tatsamullasati bhāvamaṇḍalam || iti]
“They say this in their own exposition. [And likewise in the Śivadṛṣṭi it has been said, beginning ‘When by the blossoming delight of the splendor of his consciousness-nature…’; and also by the revered Utpaladeva:
‘Expanding as the whole through your own Self, flashing forth,
you apprehend the universe while apprehending your own form.
What whirls in its own intrinsic rasa —
from that the circle of beings shines forth.’]”
Abhinava now shows that this vision is not his private construction. What he has just said — that the unfolding of speech and manifestation is the blossoming of the fixed station of anuttara — is already affirmed in the lineage itself. First he says, tad āhuḥ nijavivṛtau: “they say this in their own exposition.” So this is inherited insight, not decorative speculation.
He then strengthens the point by invoking both the Śivadṛṣṭi and Utpaladeva. Utpaladeva citation is from the Śivastotrāvalī 13.15. The verse is important because it says exactly what Abhinava is trying to preserve: the universe is not something external that consciousness merely comes into contact with from outside. Rather, in apprehending the universe, consciousness is apprehending its own form. The force of āmṛśasi is closer to apprehending, embracing in awareness, taking up as one’s own form.
So the point of the citation is not merely that the world comes forth from consciousness, but that manifestation is consciousness turning upon, relishing, and expressing itself. The bhāva-maṇḍala, the circle of beings, shines forth from that self-tasting movement. This fits Abhinava’s argument perfectly: the blossoming of anuttara into Parābhaṭṭārikā, speech, and the world is not exile from the source, but the source’s own expansion in its intrinsic rasa.
Somānanda explains “kathayāmi” as “I utter forth out of eager stirring,” and also as “I myself speak as the inner consciousness of all”
śrīsomānandapādāḥ -
kathayāmi iti uccārayāmi utkalikāta iti tathāhameva sarvasya antaścidrūpeṇa
kathayāmīti
“Śrī Somānandapāda says: ‘kathayāmi’ means ‘I utter forth, out of eager stirring’; and also, ‘I myself speak as the inner consciousness of all.’”
Abhinava now brings in Somānanda to sharpen the force of kathayāmi even more. It does not mean merely “I explain” in a flat instructional sense. Somānanda glosses it first as uccārayāmi utkalikātaḥ — “I utter forth out of eager stirring,” out of an upsurge, a pressure of manifestation, almost a bursting desire to express. So speech here is not dead report. It is emergence.
Then he gives the still deeper sense: ahaṃ eva sarvasya antaś-cid-rūpeṇa kathayāmi — “I myself speak as the inner consciousness of all.” This is very strong. The speaker is not an individual ego standing over against the world and describing it from outside. The “I” who speaks is the inner consciousness of all beings. So kathayāmi here means that reality itself, from within all things, is voicing itself.
That fits the whole chunk perfectly. Abhinava has been showing that anuttara is both the source and the resting-place of manifestation, and that the emanative sequence of speech is not outside that ground. Somānanda now makes the point explicit: the act of telling is itself the uprising of that one inner consciousness into articulation. So “I shall tell” is not just pedagogical language; it is a disclosure of who the true speaker is.
And that very meaning has been purified by us through reasoning, instruction, and contemplative saṃskāra, and made to enter the heart
Abhinava now closes the movement in a very characteristic way. The point is not merely that Somānanda has given a powerful gloss on kathayāmi, nor merely that the doctrine is intellectually available. He says: that very meaning has been nirmalayya, purified or clarified, by yukti, reasoning; upadeśa, instruction; and saṃskāra, the deepening impress or contemplative refinement born of repeated assimilation. Only then has it been made hṛdayaṅgamīkṛta — brought into the heart, made inwardly realized rather than merely stated.
That is important because it states very plainly what this whole kind of exegesis is for. The aim is not verbal brilliance, nor only doctrinal correctness. It is to make the meaning enter the heart. Reasoning removes confusion, instruction gives right orientation, and saṃskāra ripens the insight until it becomes inwardly lived. So Abhinava ends not with a flourish, but with a criterion: has this been made heart-entering or not?
Abhinava began by saying that even concealment is still Parameśvara’s freedom, then established anuttara as the locus of both emanation and repose, then unfolded kathayāmi as the expressive outflow of the one reality through many levels of speech. Now he ends by saying that the whole point of this unfolding is inner assimilation. The doctrine has done its work only when it is no longer merely heard, but becomes hṛdayaṅgama.
No comments:
Post a Comment