 |
| A dark Tantric image of the sādhaka as the vessel of descending levels of consciousness, shown as luminous forms aligned along a central inner axis. |
The previous movement brought us into the subtle upper structure of inner worship: the Mahāpreta-seat, the rising Śakti-trident, the levels of Śakti, Vyāpinī, Samanā, the pure lotuses, Paśyantī, Nāda, and the station of the Goddesses. But once this inner ascent has been described, a more difficult question appears: what exactly is happening in consciousness at each of these levels? It is not enough to say that one level is “higher” and another is “lower.” Abhinava now has to clarify how speech, knowledge, action, manifestation, “I,” and “this” are actually experienced in these divine states.
This is why Īśvara and Sadāśiva become central here. Sadāśiva is the state where the divine I predominates and the emerging this is still held inside it, almost swallowed by it: “I am this,” but with the stress on I. Īśvara is the state where the this becomes more clearly displayed before consciousness: the universe begins to shine as something knowable, not yet in crude separation, but with more explicit manifestation. In Sadāśiva, the object is still deeply absorbed in the subject. In Īśvara, the object begins to stand forth in the light of the subject. These are not mythological locations. They are modes of awareness.
So when Abhinava speaks of Vaikharī, Madhyamā, Paśyantī, Parā, Vidyā, Māyā, and Parāparā, he is not arranging dead concepts. He is distinguishing how consciousness moves from pure self-presence into expression, cognition, manifestation, and finally into the apparent split between knower and known. Speech itself is part of this descent. Vaikharī is already outward articulation; Madhyamā is more inward speech; Paśyantī is subtler still, where speech is not yet broken into ordinary expression. But above Paśyantī stands Bhagavatī as Parā, the supreme ground where everything shines without division and is known as non-different.
The pressure of this chunk is subtle and important: non-difference is present everywhere, but it is not reflected everywhere in the same way. Even in Vidyā and Māyā, nothing can appear outside consciousness. Everything still shines in the light of awareness. But the vimarśa — the reflective self-grasp — changes. At one level, “this” is known as absorbed into “I.” At another, “I” and “this” are reflected in one common consciousness-substratum. At another, difference begins to harden. So Abhinava is not asking whether consciousness is present or absent. It is always present. He is asking: how does consciousness recognize what appears? As itself? As “this”? As “I am this”? As a field of knower and known? As non-difference covered by subtle distinction?
This makes the discussion of Parā, Parāparā, and Aparā much more alive. These are not decorative goddess-names placed on a chart. They name actual modes of manifestation. Parā is the supreme non-different ground. Parāparā is the middle condition where “I” and “this” are both present but still shine in one consciousness. Aparā is the lower field where manifestation is treated through the path of differentiation. And because these names depend on standpoint, the same Īśvara-state can be called Parāparā in one context and Aparā in another, without contradiction. Abhinava is teaching the reader how to see the level, the standpoint, and the mode of vimarśa all at once.
So this chunk should be read not as a theoretical classification, but as a fine dissection of divine experience. The question is: at what point does the universe appear as “this”? At what point is that “this” still absorbed in “I”? At what point do both shine in one consciousness? And at what point does the lower path begin to speak of the same reality as Aparā? Abhinava is making the reader’s intelligence subtle enough to distinguish these degrees without tearing apart the one consciousness that underlies them all.
Simplified core logic of the chunk
The whole chunk turns on one question: When the universe appears, how is it experienced by consciousness?
Not “does consciousness exist?” — yes, always. Not “is everything non-different from consciousness?” — yes, ultimately. The real question is subtler: How clearly is that non-difference recognized?
A very simple example:
When you dream, everything in the dream is made of your own mind. The street, the people, the danger, the sky, the body you have in the dream — all of it is not separate from your mind. But inside the dream, you may still experience things as “outside me.” So non-difference is true ontologically, but it is not fully recognized experientially.
Abhinava is doing something similar, but on a much higher and more precise level.
At the level of Parā, everything shines as non-different and is known as non-different. There is no split between “I” and “this.”
At the level of Sadāśiva, the stress is on I. The universe is present, but it is absorbed into the divine I: “I am this.” The “this” has appeared, but it has not yet gained strong standing.
At the level of Īśvara, the stress moves toward this. The universe shines more clearly as knowable manifestation. It is still not crude separation, but objectivity becomes more visible.
At the level of Vidyā, “I” and “this” are held together in one consciousness, but the unity is already more articulated. Non-difference remains, but it is not the naked non-difference of Parā.
At the level of Māyā, difference becomes more strongly emphasized. Things appear as separate: knower here, known there, world outside, self inside.
So Abhinava’s point is not simply: “Everything is one.” That would be too crude.
His point is: Everything is consciousness, but consciousness can experience its own manifestation in different degrees of self-recognition and concealment.
That is why the same Īśvara-state can be called Parāparā in one context and Aparā in another. From one angle, it is Parāparā because “I” and “this” still shine in one consciousness-field. From another angle, when placed inside the Māyā-path and compared to what is above it, it can be treated as Aparā.
A human example may help. Suppose a painful emotion arises in you.
At the lowest level, you think:
“This thing is attacking me. I am trapped in it.”
That is like Māyā: strong separation, little recognition.
At a subtler level, you think:
“This emotion is appearing in me.”
The “this” is still there, but it is no longer fully outside.
At a deeper level:
“This is my own consciousness taking this form.”
Now “I” and “this” are held in one field.
At the deepest level, before even naming it as “emotion,” there is only the self-luminous fact of awareness. The wave has not yet become a separate object.
This is the type of discrimination Abhinava is making — not psychologically, but metaphysically and ritually. He is showing how the universe appears at different depths of divine self-recognition.
Vaikharī and Madhyamā are established in the Īśvara–Sadāśiva level of Kriyāśakti
vaikharīmadhyamāpade patyorīśasadāśivakriyāśaktipadameva [īśvaratattvasyaiva sadāśive |] parā pratiṣṭhābhūḥ iti tāvat āgamasiddhaṃ svasaṃvedanabṛṃhitaṃ ca
“First, it is established by the āgamas, and confirmed by one’s own awareness, that Vaikharī and Madhyamā have their station in the level of Kriyāśakti belonging to the lords Īśvara and Sadāśiva; and Parā is their ground of establishment.”
Abhinava begins by fixing the placement of speech-levels within the hierarchy already unfolded. Vaikharī and Madhyamā are not treated as loose linguistic categories. They are placed in a precise divine field: the level of Kriyāśakti associated with Īśvara and Sadāśiva. This matters because the discussion has just been moving through the inner seat, Mahāpreta, Nāda, Paśyantī, and the higher Goddess-ground. Now the structure of speech must be anchored inside that same ascent.
Vaikharī is articulated speech, speech as outward utterance. Madhyamā is more inward, subtler, not yet fully externalized. But Abhinava does not define them merely psychologically, as “spoken word” and “inner word.” He places them in the divine operation of Kriyāśakti. Speech is action. It is the power by which consciousness expresses, articulates, projects, differentiates, and makes itself communicable. Therefore Vaikharī and Madhyamā belong to the field where divine action has already begun to move into manifestation.
The gloss sharpens this by saying: “of Īśvaratattva itself in Sadāśiva.” This shows that the placement is delicate. Īśvara and Sadāśiva are not being treated as crudely separate blocks. The movement passes through their mutual relation. Sadāśiva is the level where “I” predominates and “this” is still held within it; Īśvara is the level where “this” becomes more clearly displayed before the divine “I.” Kriyāśakti works across this field because speech is already the movement of manifestation, yet still rooted in the higher divine awareness.
Then comes the crucial phrase: parā pratiṣṭhābhūḥ — Parā is the ground of establishment. Vaikharī and Madhyamā may function in Kriyāśakti, in the Īśvara–Sadāśiva field, but they do not stand by themselves. Their foundation is Parā. This prevents the lower levels of speech from becoming independent or merely mechanical. Even articulated speech and inner speech rest on the supreme speech-ground.
Abhinava adds that this is both āgama-siddha and svasaṃvedana-bṛṃhita: established by scripture and strengthened by direct self-awareness. That pairing is important. He is not relying only on textual authority, nor only on private experience. The āgama gives the structure; one’s own awareness confirms it from within. In true recognition, doctrine and self-awareness do not compete. The śāstra names what consciousness can verify when it becomes subtle enough.
So this opening point prepares the distinction that will follow. Vaikharī and Madhyamā belong to the manifesting action-power of speech. Parā is their foundation. But Paśyantī and what lies above it must now be discriminated more carefully, because the ascent is not merely from gross to subtle speech. It is from articulated manifestation back toward the supreme ground in which all speech, all cognition, and all differentiation are held before they become divided.
Above Paśyantī is Bhagavatī, the supreme ground where everything shines in non-difference
tat paśyantyupari parābhūmiḥ bhagavatī - yatra sarvamabhedenaiva bhāti ca [sūkṣmabuddhivivecyo'tra kramaḥ |] vimṛśyate ca
“Above Paśyantī is the supreme ground, Bhagavatī, where everything shines only in non-difference and is also reflected upon as such. The order here is to be discerned by subtle intelligence.”
Having placed Vaikharī and Madhyamā in the field of Kriyāśakti connected with Īśvara and Sadāśiva, Abhinava now turns upward. The movement does not stop at Paśyantī. Above Paśyantī is parābhūmiḥ bhagavatī — Bhagavatī as the supreme ground. This is the higher station that the earlier ritual anatomy was already preparing us to see: beyond the subtle level of speech as Paśyantī, beyond even the threshold of Nāda, there is the Goddess as the ground in which the whole structure rests.
The key is that in this ground sarvam abhedenaiva bhāti — everything shines only in non-difference. The many levels, letters, tattvas, speech-stages, divine states, and ritual placements do not disappear into blankness. They shine, but they shine without separation. This is not the absence of manifestation; it is manifestation without division. The world is not negated, but its separative appearance has not yet hardened.
Abhinava adds vimṛśyate ca — it is also reflected upon, apprehended, self-aware in that same non-difference. This is essential. The supreme ground is not mere undifferentiated luminosity without self-recognition. It shines and it knows itself. In Abhinava’s vision, the highest is never inert light. It is prakāśa with vimarśa: luminous appearing together with self-aware grasp. Everything appears there, but nothing appears as alien to consciousness.
The gloss warns: sūkṣmabuddhivivecyo ’tra kramaḥ — the sequence here must be discerned by subtle intelligence. This is not a crude vertical ladder. If one thinks mechanically — Vaikharī below, Madhyamā above, Paśyantī above, Parā above — one will miss the delicacy. The “above” here is not spatial. It means greater interiority, greater non-difference, greater self-recognitive fullness. The distinction between Paśyantī and Bhagavatī-Parā is subtle because both are already beyond ordinary external speech. But Paśyantī still belongs to a determinate level of knowledge-power; Bhagavatī is the supreme ground in which even that level rests.
So this point continues the ascent but also refines it. Abhinava is not merely ranking speech-stages. He is asking the reader to distinguish modes of manifestation: where things shine, how they shine, and whether they are grasped as separate or as non-different from the Self. Above Paśyantī, everything shines in Bhagavatī without division, and consciousness reflects upon it as its own body.
Non-difference also appears in Vidyā and Māyā, but the vimarśa is different
yadyapi hi vidyāpade māyāpade'pi abhedena bhāsanā sthitāpi tatra vimarśo'nyathā
“Although, indeed, in the Vidyā-level and even in the Māyā-level, manifestation in non-difference is also present, the reflective awareness there is different.”
Abhinava now prevents a misunderstanding. After saying that in Bhagavatī above Paśyantī everything shines in non-difference and is reflected upon as non-different, one might think that non-difference belongs only to that supreme level. But he says no: even in Vidyāpada, and even in Māyāpada, some form of non-different manifestation is present.
This is important because Abhinava does not imagine reality as if the lower levels were cut off from the supreme. Even Māyā is not outside consciousness. Even differentiation shines only because consciousness is present there. Nothing can appear outside the light of awareness. So, in that sense, abhedena bhāsanā — manifestation in non-difference — is never completely absent.
But the decisive distinction is vimarśo ’nyathā — the reflective awareness is different. This is the whole pressure of the passage. Mere appearing in consciousness is not the same as full recognition. A thing may shine in consciousness, and yet be grasped under limitation, concealment, or partial self-awareness. The difference between levels is not that consciousness is present in one and absent in another. The difference lies in how consciousness reflects upon what appears.
This is subtle but crucial. At the supreme ground, everything shines as non-different and is also knowingly held as non-different. In lower levels, non-difference is still the real basis, but the vimarśa does not fully match that truth. There is appearance within consciousness, but the reflective grasp may still bend toward distinction, concealment, “thisness,” or the divided relation between knower and known.
So Abhinava is sharpening the doctrine. Non-difference alone is not enough as a phrase. One must ask: in what mode is non-difference present? Is it fully recognized? Is it covered? Is it refracted through Vidyā? Is it bound through Māyā? This is why the sequence has to be discerned by subtle intelligence. The same truth appears differently according to the form of vimarśa operating there.
In Vidyāpada, “this” is drawn into the I-principle, but the awareness remains covered
vidyāpade hi idamiti [īśvarabhaṭṭārake |] pramātṛprameyajātamekato'hamātmani [sadāśivabhaṭṭārake |] saṃkrāmet tadācchāditaṃ vimṛśyate - ahamidam iti
“For in the Vidyā-level, the whole class of knower and known, appearing as ‘this’ in Īśvara Bhaṭṭāraka, is in one way transferred into the I-principle in Sadāśiva Bhaṭṭāraka; yet it is reflected upon as covered: ‘I am this.’”
Abhinava now explains what he meant by saying that the vimarśa is different in Vidyā and Māyā. In the Vidyā-level, the field of idam — “this” — is not absent. The whole range of pramātṛ and prameya, knower and known, is present. But it is not yet experienced in the crude dualistic way of ordinary Māyā. It is drawn, as it were, into the ahamātman, the I-principle.
The gloss helps us place the movement. The “this” belongs to Īśvara Bhaṭṭāraka, where manifestation is displayed more clearly as objectivity. The “I-principle” belongs to Sadāśiva Bhaṭṭāraka, where the divine “I” predominates and the “this” is held within it. So Vidyāpada involves a movement between these two: the world of “this” does not stand fully outside; it is gathered into the divine “I.”
But Abhinava adds the crucial limitation: tadācchāditaṃ vimṛśyate — it is reflected upon as covered. The awareness is not the pure, open non-difference of Bhagavatī above Paśyantī. It is still veiled in a specific way. The form of recognition is aham idam — “I am this.”
This formula is subtle. It is not the ordinary dualism of “I here, this there.” The “this” has been internalized into “I.” But neither is it the supreme non-difference where all shines simply as the self-luminous body of consciousness. There remains a marked structure: “I” and “this” are joined, but still articulated. The unity is real, yet it is covered by the very form through which it is grasped.
That is why Abhinava is being so careful. Vidyā is not ignorance in the crude sense. It is already a purified field compared to ordinary Māyā. But it is not Parā. The “this” has entered the “I,” yet it is still recognized through a formula that preserves the trace of distinction. The covering is not gross separation; it is a subtle articulation within unity.
In Jñānaśakti-Śiva, “I” and “this” are reflected in one consciousness-substratum
tat etat samāne cidātmani adhikaraṇe [jñānaśaktiśive |] ubhayaṃ pratibimbitamabhedenaiva avabhāsamānaṃ sāmānādhikaraṇyamuktam
“This very pair, reflected in the same substratum whose nature is consciousness — in Jñānaśakti-Śiva — shines only in non-difference; and this is called common co-reference.”
Abhinava now moves from the covered form of aham idam to a more refined explanation of how “I” and “this” can be held together without ordinary separation. The two are not simply fused by force, nor are they left standing apart. They are reflected in one and the same cidātman adhikaraṇa — one substratum whose nature is consciousness.
This is why he uses the language of sāmānādhikaraṇya, common co-reference. In grammar, this is when two terms refer to the same underlying reality, as in “this person is Devadatta.” The words differ, but the referent is one. Abhinava takes that structure into the highest field of consciousness. “I” and “this” may be spoken as distinguishable terms, but their real ground is one consciousness.
The gloss identifies this as Jñānaśakti-Śiva. That is important. We are not yet speaking of gross objectivity, nor of ordinary mental recognition. This is Śiva as knowledge-power, where manifestation is known as resting in consciousness. The “I” and “this” are both reflected there, like two aspects appearing in one mirror. They are distinguishable in expression, but not divided in being.
The phrase abhedenaiva avabhāsamānam must be held carefully. They shine only in non-difference. This does not erase their articulation. The point is not that “this” vanishes. The point is that even when “I” and “this” are both present, they are present as non-separate within the same conscious ground. The difference is not denied; its independent status is denied.
So Abhinava is refining the earlier formula aham idam. In the covered mode, “I am this” still carries a subtle veil, because the relation is grasped through an articulated conjunction. Here, the same pair is understood through common consciousness-substratum: both terms refer back into one cidātman. This prepares the next move, where beings in the Īśvara-state enter the Parāparā condition. The bridge is now clear: where “I” and “this” shine in one consciousness-field without separation, the state is neither purely lower differentiation nor the absolute silence of Parā. It is the middle power, Parāparā.
In the Īśvara-state, beings enter the Parāparā condition
ata eva īśvarāvasthāyāṃ [jñānarūpaśivāvasthāyām |] parāparātmikāṃ daśāṃ bhāvā bhajante
“Therefore, in the state of Īśvara — that is, in the Śiva-state whose form is knowledge — beings enter a condition whose nature is Parāparā.”
Abhinava now draws the consequence from the previous point. Since “I” and “this” are reflected in one consciousness-substratum and shine there in non-difference, the beings present in the Īśvara-state enter a Parāparātmikā daśā — a condition whose nature is Parāparā.
This follows exactly from the structure he has just established. The state is not purely Aparā, because objectivity is not standing as fully separated. The “this” is not hardened into the ordinary field of external difference. But it is also not simply Parā in the highest sense, because there is still articulation, still the presence of “I” and “this,” still the luminous display of manifestation. The state is therefore Parāparā: the middle condition where unity and manifestation are both present without collapsing into either extreme.
The gloss identifies this as jñānarūpa-śivāvasthā — the Śiva-state whose form is knowledge. That is precise. This is not action-power in its more externalized movement, nor the gross level of speech and objectivity. It is Śiva as knowledge, the field where what appears is known within consciousness. This is why the state can carry Parāparā-character: manifestation is there, but manifestation is transparent to its conscious ground.
The word bhāvāḥ is also important. The beings, the entities, the manifest realities, do not vanish. They bhajante — they partake of, enter, or assume this condition. Their status changes according to the level of awareness in which they are held. In ordinary Māyā, beings appear as divided and separate. In the Īśvara-state, they are held in a knowledge-form where their difference is not independent. They become Parāparā in mode.
So the movement remains exact. Abhinava is not assigning Parāparā as a decorative title. He has shown the basis: where “I” and “this” are both present, yet reflected in one consciousness-substratum, the condition is neither purely supreme non-articulation nor lower differentiation. It is the luminous middle, the Parāparā state.
In the Māyā-path, the same Īśvara-state is treated as Aparā
yathaiva māyādhvani [śuddhavidyārūpaṃ mahāmāyāṃ ca tyaktvā saiva - īśvarāvasthaiva |] aparāṃ na tu saiva parāparāśaktiḥ aparā veti
“Just as, in the path of Māyā — leaving aside Mahāmāyā in the form of Śuddhavidyā — that same state, the Īśvara-state itself, is Aparā; but that does not mean that Parāparāśakti herself is Aparā.”
Abhinava now makes the classification more delicate. The same Īśvara-state that was just described as Parāparā from one standpoint can, in the Māyā-adhvan, be treated as Aparā. This is not contradiction. It is contextual precision.
The gloss clarifies the restriction: śuddhavidyārūpaṃ mahāmāyāṃ ca tyaktvā — leaving aside Mahāmāyā in the form of Śuddhavidyā. In other words, when the text speaks from the Māyā-path, it is not including the purified Śuddhavidyā-level in the same way. Once that refined level is set aside, the Īśvara-state, seen from the standpoint of the Māyā-adhvan, can be grouped under Aparā.
But Abhinava immediately blocks a crude misunderstanding: na tu saiva parāparāśaktiḥ aparā vā. This does not mean that Parāparāśakti herself has become Aparā. The label belongs to the state as viewed in a specific adhvan, not to the intrinsic nature of the Śakti. This is the kind of distinction that must not be blurred. Otherwise the whole hierarchy becomes confused.
The point is subtle but necessary. A state can receive different designations depending on the frame in which it is being discussed. In the earlier frame, Īśvara-state was Parāparā because “I” and “this” shone in one consciousness-substratum. In the Māyā-path, once Śuddhavidyā/Mahāmāyā is excluded, that same state may be counted as Aparā relative to the higher powers. The name shifts because the standpoint shifts.
This is not arbitrary naming. It is śāstric precision. Abhinava is showing that tantric categories are relational and functional. Parā, Parāparā, and Aparā are not dead labels pasted onto fixed objects. They indicate the mode in which consciousness, manifestation, and self-recognition are being treated in a particular doctrinal or ritual context.
So the movement remains coherent. The Īśvara-state can be Parāparā when its non-different reflection of “I” and “this” is emphasized. It can be Aparā when considered within the Māyā-path after setting aside Śuddhavidyā/Mahāmāyā. But Parāparāśakti herself is not thereby reduced to Aparā. Abhinava is protecting both sides: contextual classification and the integrity of the Śakti.
Parāparā-ness was stated with respect to Īśvaratattva
yat [paratvasaṃbhave karaṇamāha yaditi yasmādīśvaratatve parāparatvaṃ tatra darśitaṃ tenāyātamīśvarāvasthāyāṃ paratvam |] īśvaratatvaṃ prati abhihitaṃ [abhihitamiti - parāpararūpatvena ceti yojyam |]
“For what was stated was with respect to Īśvaratattva. The gloss explains: since Parāparā-ness was shown there in Īśvaratattva, from that follows the relative supremacy of the Īśvara-state. And ‘stated’ should be understood as: stated in the form of Parāparā.”
Abhinava now gives the reason for the previous distinction. The same Īśvara-state can be treated differently depending on the doctrinal frame, but this does not make the classification arbitrary. The key is that the earlier statement of Parāparā was made with respect to Īśvaratattva.
The gloss makes this explicit. Parāparā-ness was shown in Īśvaratattva; therefore, in that context, the Īśvara-state has paratva, a relative superiority or higher status. This is not Parā in the absolute sense, but a form of “higherness” within the specific field being discussed. The text is guarding the reader from flattening all these terms into one rigid hierarchy.
This resolves the apparent contradiction. When Īśvara is considered as the state in which “I” and “this” are reflected in one consciousness-substratum, it is rightly called Parāparā. There, it stands above crude differentiation because manifestation has not become an independently separated “this.” But when considered within the Māyā-path, after excluding Śuddhavidyā/Mahāmāyā, that same state may be spoken of as Aparā relative to what lies above it.
So the classification depends on the point of reference. Abhinava is not playing with words. He is preserving precision. Parā, Parāparā, and Aparā are not merely fixed nouns; they function according to the level, adhvan, and mode of awareness under discussion. If the reference is Īśvaratattva as the luminous field where “I” and “this” are held in one consciousness, Parāparā is appropriate. If the reference is the Māyā-path with Śuddhavidyā set aside, Aparā becomes appropriate.
The gloss’s final note — that “abhihitam” should be understood as “stated in the form of Parāparā” — tightens this reading. The previous designation was not vague. It specifically concerned Īśvara in its Parāparā-form. Therefore the higher status belongs to that contextual presentation, not to every possible use of the term Īśvara-state.
This closes the chunk by showing why Abhinava’s distinctions must be read dynamically. A level is not understood only by its name. It must be understood through the relation in which it is being placed. Īśvara can be Parāparā in one doctrinal alignment and Aparā in another, without contradiction, because the Śakti is being viewed through different adhvas and different functions of vimarśa.
No comments:
Post a Comment