Parātrīṃśikā Vivaraṇa (Part 129): Bhairava’s Freedom — Full, Empty, Both, and Beyond Both

 

Devī enthroned upon Bhairava, evoking Śakti as the living freedom through which the supreme is full, empty, and beyond both. Fullness and emptiness, sequence and simultaneity, difference and non-difference are all held inside the living Śiva-Śakti reality.

The previous part established that Akula is not blank transcendence. The supreme does not become truly turyātīta by merely dissolving sun and moon, thought and object, speech and difference into a sleep-like silence. Without Vimarśa-Śakti, even Akula would risk becoming indistinguishable from a refined blank. Therefore the supreme light must be śakti-garbha, pregnant with Śakti. Difference is not a defect when Vimarśa reveals identity within it.

Now Abhinava pushes this into an even more delicate point.

If Bhairava’s supreme freedom includes Śakti, kalana, Soma and Sūrya, creation and dissolution, then how are we to describe that freedom? Is it full? Is it empty? Does it contain everything? Does it contain nothing? Does it involve sequence? Does it involve simultaneity? Does something arise there?

Abhinava’s answer is paradoxical but exact: Bhairava’s freedom abides as full, empty, both, and beyond both. It is full because everything is embraced within the Self. It is empty because nothing heavy, external, or separate exists outside its own nature. It is both because fullness and emptiness can both be meaningfully applied from different angles. It is beyond both because neither category can finally limit Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid.

This continues the same refusal of crude categories. If one says only “full,” the mind may imagine the supreme as packed with things. If one says only “empty,” the mind may fall toward blankness. If one says “both,” the mind may still hold two conceptual poles. Abhinava lets each term work, then removes its final authority.

Then he turns to sequence and simultaneity. After the previous debate, one might think the correct conclusion is simply: “everything is simultaneous in consciousness.” But Abhinava is sharper. Even simultaneity is not final. Sequence and simultaneity both belong to the field where creation, manifestation, and differentiation are being discussed. In Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid itself, there is no stain of sequence, no stain of simultaneity, no stain of arising.

This is extremely subtle. Abhinava is not denying that sequence and simultaneity function in their proper domains. He is saying they cannot define the supreme. Creation, dissolution, coming, going, before, after, together — these are all modes of Vimarśa within consciousness. The supreme is not trapped by any of them.

So this chunk protects the conclusion from becoming another doctrine to cling to. First Abhinava defended simultaneity against the objection of hidden sequence. Now he shows that even simultaneity must not be absolutized. Bhairava is full, empty, both, beyond both; sequential, simultaneous, neither, and beyond the categories through which the mind tries to grasp Him.

Bhairava’s freedom abides as full, empty, both, and beyond both

bhairavabhaṭṭārakasya niratiśayasvātaṃtryātmikā pūrṇakṛśatadubhayātmatadubhayarahitatvenāvatiṣṭhate

“The unsurpassed freedom of Bhairava Bhaṭṭāraka abides as full, as empty, as both, and as free from both.”

Abhinava now states one of the central paradoxes of the whole text. The subject is Bhairava’s niratiśaya-svātantrya, His unsurpassed freedom. The Sanskrit uses the feminine form svātantryātmikā, because freedom as power is grammatically and conceptually Śakti-like; but the point here is not to introduce a separate “She” standing apart from Bhairava. It is Bhairava’s own freedom, the very power by which He is not a static absolute but living, sovereign consciousness.

She is pūrṇā, full, because nothing is outside Her. All worlds, tattvas, letters, mantras, śaktis, conventions, purifiers, purified things, speech-levels, bodies, minds, gods, bonds, and liberations are held within Bhairava’s own freedom. There is no second place where something could stand apart from Her. Nothing has to be imported into consciousness from outside. In that sense, the supreme is total inclusion.

But She is also kṛśā, empty, lean, without burden. Why? Because what is included is not a heavy second substance. The universe does not sit inside Bhairava like stones in a sack. Manifestation is not an external weight pressing on consciousness. There is no alien object-mass outside the Self that must be carried. So She is empty of otherness, empty of anything that could stand apart as a second reality.

This is the paradox: She is full because nothing is missing; She is empty because nothing is other. Fullness without crowding. Emptiness without lack.

Then Abhinava goes further: She is tadubhayātmikā, of the nature of both. From one angle, fullness is true. From another, emptiness is true. But even “both” can become a conceptual trap, as if Bhairava’s freedom were a balance between two categories. So She is also tadubhayarahitā, free from both. She allows the categories, uses them, shines through them, and then refuses to be contained by them.

This is why the line is so powerful. Abhinava is not playing with paradox for ornament. He is protecting the supreme from every distortion. If we say only “full,” we risk imagining a cosmic container filled with things. If we say only “empty,” we risk falling into a sterile blank. If we say “both,” we may still hold fullness and emptiness as two poles. So he lets the mind climb each step and then removes the step.

Bhairava’s freedom is not a thing with contents, and not an absence without content. It is the living freedom in which everything appears as non-other, and therefore neither fullness nor emptiness can finally dominate. This is not a doctrine to memorize. It is a way of preventing the Real from being mutilated by one-sided insight.

Bhairava is full because everything is embraced within Him, and empty because nothing exists outside Him

[sarvasya svātmāntaḥkroḍīkṛtya vartamānatvāt pūrṇā svasvarūpavyatiriktasya bhārī bhūtasya kasyacidapi sattābhāvāt kṛśapūrṇatvaṃ vyatirikteṇopapadyate kṛśatvaṃ cetyatastadubhayātmakatvaṃ tadubhayarāhitvaṃ ca |]

“The gloss explains: She is full because everything exists embraced within Her own Self. She is empty because there is no existence whatsoever of any heavy, substantial thing apart from Her own nature. Fullness and emptiness are intelligible only in relation to something distinct; therefore She is of the nature of both fullness and emptiness, and also free from both.”

The gloss now unfolds the paradox with precision. 

She is pūrṇā, full, because sarvasya svātmāntaḥkroḍīkṛtya vartamānatvāt — everything exists embraced in the lap of Her own Self. Nothing is outside Her. All tattvas, all worlds, all powers, all speech-levels, all conventions, all forms of bondage and purification, all sequence and simultaneity, all Soma and Sūrya — everything is inwardly held in Her own consciousness. This is fullness not as accumulation, but as total inclusion without exterior.

She is kṛśā, empty or lean, because svasvarūpa-vyatiriktasya bhārī bhūtasya kasyacid api sattā-abhāvāt — there is no heavy substantial thing existing apart from Her own nature. This phrase is excellent. The world is not a weight pressing upon consciousness from outside. Manifestation is not some massive second reality that burdens the supreme. There is no object, no universe, no impurity, no power standing apart as “other.” Therefore She is empty of alien substance.

So Her fullness and emptiness are not opposites in the usual sense. She is full because nothing is missing. She is empty because nothing is other. Fullness without burden. Emptiness without lack.

Then the gloss goes further. Pūrṇatva and kṛśatva are meaningful only vyatiriktena, in relation to something distinct. We call something full when something could be added to it. We call something empty when something could be absent from it. But in Parābhaṭṭārikā there is no truly separate “something else.” Therefore She can be called full, empty, both, and beyond both.

This is Abhinava’s precision. If we say only “full,” the mind may imagine a cosmic container packed with objects. If we say only “empty,” the mind may fall into sterile blankness. If we say “both,” the mind may still hold two conceptual poles. So the gloss lets all four stand: full, empty, both, beyond both. Bhairava’s freedom can use these categories, but She cannot be captured by them.

There is no stain of sequence, simultaneity, or arising in Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid

tatra yadyapi na kaścidatra kramayaugapadyodayakalaṅkaḥ

“There, indeed, there is no stain whatsoever of sequence, simultaneity, or arising.”

Abhinava now pushes beyond even the categories he has just used. Earlier, he defended simultaneity against the objection that it is only hidden rapid sequence. But now he goes further: in Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid, there is not even the stain of simultaneity. There is no krama, no sequence; no yaugapadya, no simultaneity; no udaya, no arising.

This is subtle and important. The mind may think: “If sequence is not ultimate, then simultaneity must be ultimate.” Abhinava refuses that too. Simultaneity is still a concept related to time. It means “together at the same time.” But in the supreme consciousness, even that does not truly apply. There is no temporal framework in which things are either successive or simultaneous.

So the word kalaṅka, stain, matters. Sequence, simultaneity, and arising are not evil, but they would stain the supreme if taken as final categories. They belong to the level where manifestation is being described. They are useful for explaining the appearance of speech, tattvas, purification, and experience. But Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid is not bound by the descriptive tools needed below.

This is Abhinava’s precision again. He first protects simultaneity from being reduced to sequence. Then he protects the supreme from being reduced to simultaneity. The highest is not “everything happening at once” in a temporal sense. It is prior to the whole opposition between “one after another” and “all at once.”

Sequence and simultaneity depend on creation, which is self-nature’s own Vimarśa

[kramayaugapadyodayo hi sṛṣṭyādyadhīnaḥ sṛṣṭyādayaśca svasvabhāvāvimarśaṃ eveti tātparyam | etāvatyā iti pūrṇakṛśetyādiparimāṇāyāḥ | svātantryaṃ cāsyaitadeva - yatsṛṣṭyādibhedābhāse'pi aitadātmyamiti tatra hetuḥ - paripūrṇa iti bhedasyāpi prakāśānanyatvāditi bhāvaḥ |]

“The gloss explains: sequence, simultaneity, and arising depend on creation and the like; and creation and the like are nothing but the Vimarśa of one’s own nature. This is the intended meaning. ‘So much’ refers to the measure expressed by fullness, emptiness, and the rest. And this is precisely Her freedom: that even when differences such as creation appear, they have this very identity. The reason is that She is complete — because even difference is not other than Prakāśa.”

The gloss now explains why sequence, simultaneity, and arising cannot stain Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid. Krama, sequence, yaugapadya, simultaneity, and udaya, arising, belong to the level of sṛṣṭi, creation and manifestation. They make sense only where something is being spoken of as appearing, unfolding, arising, or being arranged.

But sṛṣṭi itself is not something outside consciousness. The gloss says that creation and the rest are sva-svabhāva-vimarśa — the Vimarśa of Her own nature. Creation is consciousness reflecting upon, articulating, and displaying its own nature. Therefore sequence and simultaneity are not external laws imposed on the supreme. They are modes within Her own self-apprehension.

This is the key. If creation were a second thing outside Parāsaṃvid, then sequence, simultaneity, and arising could become real limitations. But if creation is Her own Vimarśa, then these categories remain internal to Her freedom. She can appear as sequence, as simultaneity, as arising, as dissolution, as fullness, as emptiness — yet none of these defines or confines Her.

The gloss then says that this is precisely Her svātantrya: even when differences such as creation appear, they remain identical with Her. Difference appears, but it is not outside Prakāśa. This is why She is paripūrṇā, complete. Difference does not damage fullness because difference too is illumined as non-other than consciousness.

So Abhinava is not denying creation. He is refusing to let creation become a second principle. Sequence, simultaneity, and arising function in manifestation, but manifestation itself is only the self-reflective power of Parābhaṭṭārikā. The categories are real as Her play; they are false only when imagined as limiting Her from outside.

Bhairava illumines everything in the stainless mirror of His own Self

svatantraḥ paripūrṇo'yaṃ bhagavānbhairavo vibhuḥ |
tannāsti yanna vimale bhāsayetsvātmadarpaṇe ||

“This Bhagavān Bhairava is free, complete, and all-pervading.
There is nothing that He does not illumine in the stainless mirror of His own Self.”

Abhinava now gives the positive blaze after the subtle negations. Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid is not stained by sequence, simultaneity, or arising. But this does not mean the supreme is a pale emptiness beyond the world. Bhairava is svatantra — free; paripūrṇa — complete; vibhu — all-pervading. He is not outside manifestation, and manifestation is not outside Him.

The verse says: there is nothing that He does not illumine in the stainless mirror of His own Self. Not only pure states. Not only mantra. Not only the refined levels of speech. Not only Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, and the subtle tattvas. Everything that appears — sequence, simultaneity, creation, dissolution, difference, bondage, purification, sun, moon, world, body, word, thought, memory, desire, fear, gods, beings, atoms, galaxies — if it appears at all, it appears in His own mirror.

And the mirror is vimala, stainless. This is crucial. The mirror does not become stained by what appears in it. A terrifying form, a beautiful form, a pure form, an impure form, a subtle form, a dense form — none of these contaminate the mirror. Bhairava’s Self is not burdened by manifestation. He illumines all because all is His own self-appearance.

This image also corrects the danger of both fullness and emptiness. He is full because nothing is excluded from the mirror. He is empty because nothing exists outside the mirror as a second heavy object. The world is not another substance placed against Him. It is His own self-luminous appearing. Therefore His fullness does not become crowded, and His emptiness does not become blank.

So this is not “Bhairava watches the universe.” That is still too dualistic. The universe shines in svātma-darpaṇa, the mirror of His own Self. The seer, the seen, the shining, and the mirror are not finally separate. Bhairava is the light, the mirror, the appearing, and the freedom by which appearing does not bind Him.

This is why sequence and simultaneity cannot stain Him. They are only patterns appearing in His mirror. Arising and dissolution cannot limit Him. They are movements in His own light. Difference cannot finally wound Him when Vimarśa-Śakti reveals its identity. There is nothing outside Him that could oppose Him, and nothing inside Him that could diminish Him.

The verse is almost unbearable in its scope: tannāsti — “there is not that.” There is no thing, no state, no world, no experience, no category that He does not illumine. If it can be spoken, known, feared, loved, purified, abandoned, or realized, it is already shining in the stainless mirror of Bhairava’s own Self.

Her own nature does not tolerate sequence or simultaneity as limiting categories

iti nītyā kramayaugapadyāsahiṣṇusvātmarūpamadhya

“According to this reasoning, Her own nature does not tolerate sequence or simultaneity.”

Abhinava now draws the conclusion from the Bhairava-mirror verse. If there is nothing that Bhairava does not illumine in the stainless mirror of His own Self, then sequence and simultaneity cannot stand as final categories over Him. They are illumined in Him; they do not measure Him.

This is a very subtle movement. In the previous debate, Abhinava defended simultaneity against the claim that it was only rapid sequence. But now he refuses to absolutize simultaneity. The supreme is not “all things happening at once” in some cosmic moment. That is still temporal thinking. “At once” makes sense only against “one after another.” It is still tied to the field of time.

So Parābhaṭṭārikā’s own nature is krama-yaugapadya-asahiṣṇu — it does not tolerate being confined by either sequence or simultaneity. Not because these categories are false at their own level, but because they belong to manifestation. In the supreme, they are appearances within the mirror, not the frame of the mirror itself.

This is Abhinava’s precision. He first uses sequence where sequence helps. He uses simultaneity where simultaneity must be defended. Then he burns both when they try to claim ultimate status. Bhairava’s freedom is not sequential, not simultaneous, not the mixture of both, not the absence of both as a blank. It is the stainless self-mirror in which all these categories can appear without binding the one who illumines them.

Simultaneity is not an independent alternative to sequence

[na caitanmantavyaṃ - krame hi svātantryakhaṇḍanā yaugapadyaṃ kathaṃ na syāt iti kramāpekṣatayaiva yaugapadyamityadoṣaḥ |]

“The gloss says: One should not think, ‘If sequence breaks freedom, why should simultaneity not be accepted?’ There is no fault here, because simultaneity itself is understood only in dependence on sequence.”

The gloss now blocks a subtle misunderstanding. After hearing that sequence cannot apply to the supreme, one might think: then let us say everything is simultaneous. If krama, sequence, fractures freedom by making one thing come after another, then perhaps yaugapadya, simultaneity, preserves freedom by allowing everything to be present together.

But Abhinava does not allow that as the final answer. Simultaneity is still defined against sequence. “Together” makes sense only where “one after another” is also possible. It is still a temporal category. It still belongs to the mind trying to place the supreme inside a structure of time — either sequential time or simultaneous time.

So the gloss says kramāpekṣatayā eva yaugapadyam — simultaneity depends on sequence. It is not an independent ultimate category. It is only the negation or counter-form of sequence. Therefore it cannot define Bhairava’s supreme freedom.

This is the refinement of the previous debate. Abhinava first defended simultaneity against the objector who reduced it to hidden rapid sequence. But now, having defended it at its proper level, he refuses to absolutize it. The supreme is not “everything at once” if “at once” still means a temporal togetherness. Bhairava is prior to the opposition between sequence and simultaneity.

So the conclusion is exact: sequence does not bind Him; simultaneity does not define Him. Both are appearances in His stainless self-mirror. He can manifest as ordered unfolding, as simultaneous fullness, as arising, as dissolution — but none of these categories reaches His own nature.

As long as sequence and non-sequence appear, the order must be examined accordingly

eva yāvat kramākramāvabhāsaḥ tāvat tadanusāreṇāyaṃ kramo vicāraṇīyaḥ

“As long as there is the appearance of sequence and non-sequence, this order must be examined according to that.”

Abhinava now returns from the supreme level — where even sequence and simultaneity cannot finally stain Parābhaṭṭārikā-saṃvid — to the practical necessity of explanation. The highest is beyond krama and akrama, beyond sequence and non-sequence. But as long as these appear, as long as the teaching is being unfolded in speech, the order must still be examined according to their appearance.

This is the crucial discipline. One cannot prematurely say, “The supreme is beyond sequence, therefore no order matters.” That would be lazy nonduality. The śāstra speaks, and speech unfolds. The teacher explains, and explanation requires before and after. The Tantra says a, then speaks of vowels, bindu, kalā, Soma, Sūrya. As long as the teaching appears in articulated form, its sequence must be respected.

But Abhinava also refuses the opposite mistake: taking the sequence as ultimate. The order is examined tadanusāreṇa — according to the way sequence and non-sequence appear. It is a valid mode of teaching, not the final nature of consciousness. The śāstra uses sequence to reveal what is not bound by sequence.

So this line sets the method for the next movement. We will follow the order of letters, beginning with a, but without forgetting that inwardly the reality being taught is akrama, non-sequential. Speech must move step by step; consciousness is not broken into steps. The path uses order without being imprisoned by order.

Non-sequence too must be accounted for

akramasya [yadi ca kramo vicāraṇīyaḥ tarhi akramo'pyevaṃ vicāraṇīya ityato'krametyādi |]

“And as for non-sequence — the gloss explains: if sequence is to be examined, then non-sequence too must be examined in this way; therefore the text says ‘of non-sequence’ and so on.”

Abhinava now adds the other side. If the order of the teaching must be examined because sequence appears, then akrama, non-sequence, must also be understood. One cannot simply follow the sequence and forget what the sequence is meant to reveal. The śāstra moves through order, but its object is not finally bound by order.

This is the double discipline of the passage. If one rejects sequence too early, the teaching becomes vague. The letters, vowels, kalā, Soma, Sūrya, and the emergence of a must be followed carefully. But if one clings to sequence as final, the teaching becomes mechanical. The order is a ladder, not the sky.

So Abhinava is holding both: krama must be examined because speech unfolds; akrama must be examined because consciousness is not cut into the steps through which speech speaks. The word appears in sequence, but the recognition it points toward is whole.

This is why the next point will say that even non-sequence is taught through consciousness preceded by sequence. The śāstra cannot speak non-sequence without using sequence. That is not a defect. It is the nature of instruction. The timeless is indicated through time; the non-sequential through ordered speech; the whole through the unfolding of parts.

Non-sequence is taught through consciousness, even though teaching itself uses sequence

tu tatpūrvakeṇa saṃvidyeva bhāvātpratipādanāya [kathaṃ tarhi kramākrama ityatrākramoccāraṇamityucyate - pratipādane tyādi |] astu

“But let non-sequence be taught through consciousness preceded by sequence, for the sake of making its nature understood. The gloss asks: ‘If so, why is non-sequence mentioned in the expression “sequence and non-sequence”?’ The answer is: because it is for the sake of teaching.”

Abhinava now clarifies the paradox of teaching akrama, non-sequence. The supreme is non-sequential, but the act of teaching cannot avoid sequence. One word comes after another. One idea is introduced, then another is clarified, then an objection is answered. Even the word akrama has to be spoken in a sequence of sounds. So non-sequence is taught through a sequential vehicle.

This does not weaken the teaching. It only shows the nature of instruction. The teacher uses krama to point toward akrama. The śāstra moves step by step, but what it reveals is not cut into steps. The path of explanation is sequential; the consciousness being indicated is whole.

This also protects the reader from a stupid shortcut. One cannot say, “Since the truth is non-sequential, there is no need to follow the order of the text.” That is laziness pretending to be transcendence. The order must be followed because the teaching appears as speech. But one also cannot mistake the order for the final reality. That is scholastic literalism. Abhinava holds both: the sequence is necessary as upadeśa, but non-sequence is the inward truth being taught.

So the śāstra speaks in time to reveal what is not bound by time. It unfolds in letters to reveal the indivisible field of Vāk. It begins with a, moves through explanation, and yet points to the Akula-ground where the whole is already present.

Every speech-form is sequential, but inwardly as consciousness it is non-sequential

sarvathaiva sakramatvāt tathā ca sarva evāyaṃ vāgrūpaḥ parāmarśaḥ kramika eva antaḥsaṃvitmayastvakrama eva

“Because, in every way, it has sequence. Thus this entire reflective awareness in the form of speech is indeed sequential; but inwardly, insofar as it is made of consciousness, it is non-sequential.”

Abhinava now gives the clear formulation of the paradox. As vāk-rūpa parāmarśa, as reflective awareness taking the form of speech, it is kramika — sequential. Speech cannot appear without some order. Sound follows sound. Letter follows letter. Word follows word. Even a teaching about the non-sequential must be spoken through sequence.

But inwardly, as antaḥ-saṃvit-maya, as made of inner consciousness, it is akrama — non-sequential. The consciousness that knows the sequence is not itself chopped into the sequence it knows. The word unfolds step by step, but the awareness in which the word unfolds is not itself a chain of syllables.

This is the exact balance. If one clings only to sequence, the śāstra becomes mechanical: first this letter, then that letter, first this stage, then that stage. If one rejects sequence completely, the śāstra becomes vague and unusable. Abhinava holds both: speech is sequential in expression, non-sequential in its conscious essence.

This is also how the text itself works. Abhinava unfolds the doctrine point by point, sometimes through vast detours, objections, citations, and refinements. On the surface, this is sequence. But the current he is revealing is one consciousness, already whole. The teaching moves in time because we need to be led. The truth it reveals is not born in time.

Parābhaṭṭārikā is always this variegated form

iti sadaiveyamevaṃvidhaiva evameva vicitrā pārameśvarī parābhaṭṭārikā

“Thus, this Parābhaṭṭārikā, the supreme Goddess of Parameśvara, is always exactly of this nature — variegated in just this way.”

Abhinava now gives the result of the sequence/non-sequence discussion. Speech appears sequential; inwardly, as consciousness, it is non-sequential. The teaching moves through letters, but the reality it reveals is whole. Therefore Parābhaṭṭārikā is sadaiva evamvidhā — always of this very nature.

The word vicitrā matters. She is variegated, manifold, richly patterned. But this variegation does not contradict her non-sequential consciousness-nature. She is not first blank and then later made diverse. Nor is she first divided and then somehow unified afterward. She is always exactly this paradox: speech-like and sequential in expression, consciousness-natured and non-sequential inwardly.

This is a major point. Parābhaṭṭārikā’s multiplicity is not a fall from herself. Her letters, powers, modes of speech, and forms of manifestation are not foreign additions. Her variety belongs to her own nature as Parameśvarī. The Goddess is not less supreme because she is manifold; she is supreme as the one who can be manifold without losing unity.

So the sequence of teaching is not imposed on her from outside. It mirrors the way she appears as Vāk while remaining saṃvid. She is the living unity in which order and non-order, articulation and wholeness, letter and consciousness, all stand together without contradiction.