Parātrīṃśikā Vivaraṇa (Part 127): Infinite Convention Without Arbitrariness

the Goddess’s body radiating many eye-like powers from a central womb-axis, evoking the Yoginīs arising from the limbs of Parāparā.

The previous part ended in the Bhairava-fire, where purifier, purification, and purified all entered the same fullness. Now Abhinava takes one more step before returning to the original verse: he secures the status of sacred convention itself.

This is necessary because the whole discussion has involved many possible arrangements: different deities, different śaktis, different letter-orders, different mantra-fields, different relations of purifier and purified. If one is careless, this plurality can look unstable. If there are countless past and future conventions, does the system fall into arbitrariness? Does every arrangement become equally valid? Does sacred convention become merely human invention?

Abhinava’s answer is no.

Because Parāparā and the other deities are one with Parāsaṃvid, they are sarvātmakāḥ, all-formed. Their bodies can include infinite forms of signifier and signified — worldly, scriptural, and beyond both. The relation of purifier and purified is therefore capacious enough to contain not only conventions already established, but also those yet to be established.

But this is not a license for random invention. The infinite conventions are real only because they are held in Parāsaṃvid. A mantra, letter-arrangement, or purificatory relation is not valid merely because someone invents it or makes it sound sacred. It must arise from the living current of consciousness, with proper placement, vīrya, śāstric force, and recognition. Otherwise it belongs not to revelation but to fantasy under concealment.

So this chunk protects both sides. Against rigid traditionalism, it says that future sacred conventions are possible. Against reckless invention, it says that convention must be grounded in ultimate reality. Against skepticism, it says that convention is not merely arbitrary. Against vagueness, it says that each convention must have its proper field and function.

The result is precise: there is no infinite regress, no uncontrolled overextension, no over-inclusion, and no unreality of sacred convention. The field is vast, but not chaotic. Infinite, but not lawless. Conventional, but not unreal.

Abhinava prepares the next scriptural citation

yadvakṣyati evaṃ yo vetti tattvena ityādi |

“As he will say: ‘Thus, whoever knows this in truth…’ and so on.”

Abhinava now prepares the next scriptural support. After the whole movement through purifier, purified, purification, Bhairava-fire, and fullness, he signals that the Tantra itself will soon confirm the point: “evaṃ yo vetti tattvena” — “whoever knows this in truth.”

The phrase matters because the issue is no longer merely whether the doctrine can be argued. It must be known tattvena — in its real nature, according to truth, not as a conceptual arrangement only. The teaching has passed through enormous analysis: speech, mantra, tattva, Mālinī, purification, mala, time, simultaneity. But the result must become direct knowledge of the principle.

So this short point acts as a hinge. Abhinava has resolved the prior objections and now turns back toward the Tantra’s own words. The śāstra will not merely add another quotation; it will seal the movement by showing that true knowledge of this structure is itself liberating and complete.

The commentary now begins to return from the huge arc back into the original verse-flow. But it does not return empty-handed. Everything that has been unfolded — the all-formed nature of the deities, the reality of convention, the śodhya-śodhaka relation, the role of kalā, Soma and Sūrya, and the necessity of Vimarśa-śakti — is now being gathered back into the Tantra’s own statement.

Because the deities such as Parāparā are one with Parāsaṃvid, they are all-formed

tat parasaṃvidekamayaparāparādidevatānāṃ sarvātmakatvāt

“Because the deities such as Parāparā are made of one essence with Parāsaṃvid, they are all-formed.”

Abhinava now gives the reason why the previous discussions do not collapse into fragmentation. Parāparā, Aparā, the Yoginīs, the Śaktis, the structures of purifier and purified, the worlds of signifier and signified — none of these stand outside supreme consciousness. They are parasaṃvid-ekamaya, made of one essence with Parāsaṃvid.

This is why they are sarvātmakāḥ, all-formed. Each of these deities is not a narrow local power sealed inside one function. Because they are one with supreme consciousness, they can contain the whole in their own mode. Parāparā can hold the Śaktis. Aparā can function as purifier. The Yoginīs can arise from Parāparā’s limbs. The relations of mantra, speech, convention, and purification can all be gathered into one field because their basis is not separate.

This point continues the logic of sarvasarvātmakatva that has been unfolding for many parts. Each tattva contains all tattvas. Each letter can contain many powers. Each level of speech contains the others in its own way. Now the same principle is applied to the deities themselves. They are all-formed because they are not other than Parāsaṃvid.

So the multiplicity of deities does not threaten non-difference. It expresses it. Parāparā and the others are not competitors with Parā. They are Parāsaṃvid’s own modes, each capable of bearing the whole according to its own function.

Eight mighty Yoginīs arise from the limbs of Parāparā

parāparāṅgasaṃbhūtā yoginyo'ṣṭau mahābalāḥ |

“The eight mighty Yoginīs arise from the limbs of Parāparā.”

Abhinava now gives scriptural support for the all-formed nature of Parāparā and the other deities. The cited line says that eight powerful Yoginīs arise from the aṅgas, the limbs, of Parāparā. The likely background is the Mālinīvijayottara, where the eight Śaktis are named as Māheśī, Brāhmaṇī, Kaumārī, Vaiṣṇavī, Aindrī, Yāmyā, Cāmuṇḍā, and Yogīśī. The exact names are less important here than the structure: the powers arise from Parāparā’s own body.

This is the real force of the verse. Multiplicity is not imported from outside. The Yoginīs are not separate goddesses standing beside Parāparā as independent powers. They arise from her limbs. Difference appears as articulation of her own body. The Goddess does not become less one by generating eight powers; her unity is shown precisely by being fertile enough to unfold them.

The word mahābalāḥ matters. These Yoginīs are “great in power.” They are not decorative attendants. They are operative Śaktis, capable of functioning in mantra, purification, elevation, and transformation. In the larger movement of this section, Parāparā is the field where higher Śaktis abide and from which beings may be lifted into mantraic or divine states. This verse gives the scriptural basis: Parāparā’s own body generates mighty powers.

So the point is not simply “there are eight Yoginīs.” The point is: Parāparā is sarvātmakā, all-formed. Her limbs can become a circle of Śaktis. Her body is not a finite body, but a Śākta matrix from which many powers arise while remaining within one consciousness. This supports Abhinava’s larger claim that infinite signifiers, signifieds, conventions, and purificatory relations can be included in Parāsaṃvid without contradiction.

This also prevents a common flattening. If one hears “all is one,” one may imagine a blank unity where differentiated powers become secondary or unreal. Abhinava’s vision is richer. The one Goddess unfolds as limbs, powers, Yoginīs, mantra-fields, and purifying functions. The many are real as her own articulation; they are not outside her. Parāparā’s body is one, but her limbs are powerful enough to become worlds of Śakti.

Therefore the infinity of worldly, scriptural, signified, and signifier forms is included

ityādivacanāt laukikaśāstrāntarīyādivācyavācakānantyamapi saṃgṛhītam |

“By statements such as this, even the infinity of worldly, scriptural, and other forms of signified and signifier is included.”

Abhinava now draws the implication from the verse about the eight mighty Yoginīs arising from Parāparā’s limbs. If Parāparā is one with Parāsaṃvid and therefore all-formed, then the powers arising from her do not exhaust themselves in one narrow ritual category. They include the endless field of vācya and vācaka — signified and signifier — in worldly, scriptural, and other domains.

This matters because the discussion has repeatedly moved between sacred and ordinary speech. There are śāstric mantras, letters, nyāsas, and revealed arrangements. But there are also worldly words, ordinary meanings, human speech, everyday naming, and practical communication. Abhinava does not let these become two unrelated universes. Because the deities are all-formed and rooted in Parāsaṃvid, the infinity of signifier and signified is included everywhere.

So a mantra and an ordinary word do not function at the same level, but both belong to the larger field of Vāk. A śāstric designation and a worldly designation are not equal in force, but both are possible only because consciousness can become word and meaning. The Goddess’s power does not stop at temple, mantra, or ritual. It also underlies the whole structure by which anything can be named, meant, indicated, understood, or transmitted.

This point quietly gathers much of the previous argument. Convention is not unreal when rooted in Parameśvara’s will. Speech is not merely external sound. Signifier and signified interpenetrate. The deities are all-formed. Therefore the infinity of worlds, scriptures, meanings, and words can be included without breaking the unity of Parāsaṃvid.

The śodhya-śodhaka relation contains infinite past and future conventions

tat evaṃ kṛtakariṣyamāṇādyanantasaṃketagarbhīkāreṇaiva ayaṃ śodhyaśodhakabhāvaḥ

“Thus, this relation of purified and purifier exists precisely by containing within itself infinite conventions — those already made, those yet to be made, and so on.”

Abhinava now returns to the question of sacred convention. The relation of purifier and purified is not limited to one fixed historical arrangement. It contains ananta-saṃketa — infinite conventions, including those already established and those yet to be established. This is a vast statement. It means the śāstric field is not dead. Consciousness can generate new arrangements, new designations, new relations of mantra, purifier, and purified.

But this statement is dangerous if taken carelessly.

Abhinava is not saying that anyone may invent mantras, mix concepts, generate sacred-sounding syllables, and call it revelation. Infinite convention does not mean reckless invention. The conventions are real because they are held in Parāsaṃvid, grounded in the living power of consciousness, and unfolded through proper adhikāra, vīrya, niveśa, and recognition. Without that, “new sacred convention” is not revelation. It is imagination under the power of concealment.

This is very relevant now. In the modern world, people can generate “new mantras,” “new tantric systems,” and hybrid ritual formulas instantly, even with artificial intelligence. But a sacred-looking sequence is not automatically mantra. A mantra is not just phonetics. A convention is not real merely because it sounds esoteric. If the person creating it has not entered the current, if there is no direct recognition, no transmission, no śāstric ground, no awakened vīrya, then what is being produced may be only conceptual collage. It may be spiritually decorative, but not liberating.

In Abhinava’s terms, such invention would belong more to tirodhāna-śakti, the concealing power, than to revelation. It creates forms, yes. It may even create impressive forms. But impressive form is not the same as living mantra. Without the awakening current, the result may strengthen fantasy, identity, and spiritual vanity rather than purification.

So this line must be read with discipline. Infinite conventions are possible because Parāsaṃvid is infinite. Future sacred arrangements are possible because consciousness is not exhausted by past forms. But only one established in the current of recognition can unfold such conventions truthfully. Otherwise the infinite fertility of Śakti is imitated by the restless inventiveness of the ego.

This also protects Abhinava from both extremes. He is not a rigid traditionalist saying only old forms can ever be valid. He explicitly allows kariṣyamāṇa-saṃketa, future conventions. But he is also not a modern relativist saying all invented forms are valid. The future convention must arise from consciousness, not from fantasy; from Śakti’s awakened power, not from the mind’s hunger to create something “unique.”

So the purifier-purified relation is vast enough to include infinite past and future sacred forms. But that vastness belongs to Parāsaṃvid. It is not a license for spiritual manufacture. Freedom is real; therefore new unfoldings are possible. But precisely because freedom is real, the counterfeit must be named clearly. A mantra born from recognition can purify. A mantra born from confusion may only decorate the cage.

There is no infinite regress because all conventions are one with Parāsaṃvid

na cānavasthā nātiprasaṅgo nātivyāptirna saṃkeṃtitasyāpāramārthikatā - iti sthitam

“And so it is established: there is no infinite regress, no over-extension, no over-inclusion, and no lack of ultimate reality in what is conventionally designated.”

Abhinava now seals the argument about infinite sacred conventions. If the purifier-purified relation contains countless past and future conventions, one might object that the whole system becomes unstable. If there can be infinite designations, do we not fall into endless regress? Does every convention require another convention behind it? Does the field become overextended? Does everything start meaning everything? Does convention become unreal because it shifts?

Abhinava says no.

There is no anavasthā, no infinite regress, because these conventions do not hang in the air independently. They are grounded in Parāsaṃvid. There is no atiprasaṅga, no uncontrolled overextension, because not every invented form becomes valid merely by being imagined. There is no ativyāpti, no over-inclusion, because each convention has its proper field, vīrya, placement, and function. And there is no apāramārthikatā of convention — no lack of ultimate reality — because true convention is rooted in Parameśvara’s will and the all-formed power of consciousness.

This is the exact balance. Sacred convention is not arbitrary. But it is also not frozen into one historical form. It can be infinite because Parāsaṃvid is infinite. It can be real because it arises from consciousness. It can be precise because Śakti operates through definite fields. It can be future because the supreme is not exhausted by the past.

So Abhinava protects the doctrine from both modern and traditional errors. Against rigid formalism, he says: future conventions are possible. Against reckless invention, he says: convention must be grounded in the real power of consciousness. Against skeptical reduction, he says: sacred designation is not merely human agreement. Against mystical vagueness, he says: each convention must have proper placement and function.

The result is clear: the universe of mantra, letters, purifier, purified, signifier, signified, and śāstric arrangement is vast, but not chaotic. Infinite, but not lawless. Conventional, but not unreal.