 |
| Śiva Naṭarāja dancing within the circle of manifestation and dissolution — freedom beyond karmically compelled rebirth. |
Question: Does attaining mokṣa mean I get to decide my next incarnation? Like the Dalai Lama can? Or does that require a specialized practice?
Vira Chandra: If we ask this specifically from Abhinavagupta’s perspective, I think the first answer has to be: no—not quite in the sense implied by the question.
Mokṣa does not seem to mean, “Now that I am liberated, I have gained enough control to choose whether my next life will be in Tibet, Kashmir, London, or somewhere else.”
For Abhinavagupta, something much more radical has happened. The very machinery by which there could be “my next incarnation” has ceased.
But that is only the beginning of the answer. Because Trika also refuses to turn liberation into a kind of metaphysical paralysis. Śiva is svatantra—absolutely free. So once we follow Abhinava far enough, a rather beautiful paradox appears:
liberation ends rebirth, but it does not end manifestation.
And those two things are not quite the same.
The clearest place to begin is perhaps the Paramārthasāra. Abhinavagupta asks almost exactly what happens to future birth once knowledge has arisen:
jñānaprāptau kṛtam api na phalāya tato ’sya janma katham /
gatajanmabandhayogo bhāti śivārkaḥ svadīdhitibhiḥ // 56 //
“When knowledge has been attained, even action performed thereafter does not produce its fruit. How, then, could there be birth for him? Freed from connection with the bondage of birth, he shines as the sun of Śiva with his own rays.”
The phrase I would underline is simply:
tato ’sya janma katham — “How then could there be birth for him?”
That is remarkably unambiguous. Liberation is not presented as mastery over the reincarnation mechanism. It is presented as the ending of the mechanism.
A few verses later Abhinava gives the famous burnt-seed image:
agnyabhidagdhaṃ bījaṃ yathā prarohāsamarthatām eti /
jñānāgnidagdham evaṃ karma na janmapradaṃ bhavati // 62 //
“Just as a seed thoroughly burned by fire becomes incapable of sprouting, so karma burned by the fire of knowledge is no longer capable of producing birth.”
That already tells us something important. In ordinary reincarnation, karma is not merely a record of what happened in this life. It is the causal seed of another embodiment. Once that seed has been burned, there is no karmically generated next body waiting to be selected.
And immediately after this Abhinavagupta becomes even more precise about what produces a “future body” in the first place:
parimitabuddhitvena hi karmocitabhāvidehabhāvanayā /
saṅkucitā citir etad dehadhvaṃse tathā bhavati // 63 //
“For, through limited cognition, Consciousness becomes contracted by the conception of a future body appropriate to karma; when this body is destroyed, it accordingly becomes thus [embodied again].”
This is a very revealing verse for the question.
The orientation toward a bhāvi-deha—a “future body”—belongs, in Abhinava’s analysis, to saṅkucitā citi, contracted Consciousness.
The individual consciousness imagines itself as a finite trajectory: “I am this person now; afterwards I shall become another person; that future body will correspond to these karmas, these desires, these unfinished experiences.”
That is precisely how saṃsāra thinks.
So the highest sādhaka is not really cultivating a better future biography. The whole axis of practice is moving in the opposite direction: from saṅkoca, contraction into a particular embodied subject, toward the recognition of Consciousness as unlimited.
And this is why Abhinava’s definition of mokṣa in verse 60 is so important:
mokṣasya naiva kiñcid dhāmāsti na cāpi gamanam anyatra /
ajñānagranthibhidā svaśaktyabhivyaktatā mokṣaḥ // 60 //
“For liberation there is no particular abode whatsoever, nor is there any going elsewhere. Liberation is the breaking of the knot of ignorance and the manifestation of one’s own powers.”
There is no gamanam anyatra—no “going somewhere else.”
This already makes the question “Where will I reincarnate after mokṣa?” somewhat strange from inside Abhinava’s metaphysics. Mokṣa is precisely the discovery that liberation is not a journey of an entity from location A to location B, or body A to body B.
And then verses 64–66 carry that thought to its logical end:
yadi punar amalaṃ bodhaṃ sarvasamuttīrṇaboddhṛkartṛmayam /
vitatam anastamitoditabhārūpaṃ satyasaṅkalpam // 64 //
dikkālakalanavikalaṃ dhruvam avyayam īśvaraṃ suparipūrṇam /
bahutaraśaktivrātapralayodayaviracanaikakartāram // 65 //
sṛṣṭyādividhisuvedhasam ātmānaṃ śivamayaṃ vibudhyeta /
katham iva saṃsārī syād vitatasya kutaḥ kva vā saraṇam // 66 //
“But if one recognizes oneself as stainless Consciousness, transcending all, consisting of knowing and acting, all-pervasive, whose luminosity neither rises nor sets, whose resolve is effective; beyond the constructions of direction and time, immutable, imperishable, sovereign and completely full, the sole agent of the arising and dissolution of hosts of powers; if one awakens to oneself as Śiva, master of creation and the rest—how could such a one possibly be a transmigrating being? For the all-pervasive, from where, and to where, could there be movement?”
That last question is almost devastatingly simple:
vitatasya kutaḥ kva vā saraṇam — “For the all-pervasive, from where to where could there be movement?”
Reincarnation presupposes a point.
Here is Bob. He dies. Something belonging to Bob goes elsewhere. It enters another location, another womb, another biography.
Abhinava’s mokṣa dismantles precisely that point-like identity.
And the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī makes the same point in language that is almost startling.
Utpaladeva says in Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā 3.2.2:
eṣa pramātā māyāndhaḥ saṃsārī karmabandhanaḥ /
vidyābhijñāpitaiśvaryaś cidghano mukta ucyate //
“This knower, blinded by Māyā and bound by karma, is the transmigrating one; when his sovereignty is revealed through knowledge and he becomes a compact mass of Consciousness, he is called liberated.”
Abhinavagupta comments:
sa punarjanmabandhavirahād dehe ’pi sthite mukta iti vyapadeśayogyaḥ
“Because he is free from the bondage of rebirth, he is properly called liberated even while the body remains.”
And then:
patite tu śiva ekaghanaḥ iti kaḥ kuto muktaḥ
“But when [the body] has fallen, there is Śiva alone, one undivided mass—then who is liberated, and from what?”
Elsewhere in the same Vimarśinī, on 3.2.12, Abhinava puts it still more beautifully:
dehapāte tu parameśvara evaikarasaḥ, iti kaḥ kutra kathaṃ samāviśet
“But at the falling of the body, there is only Parameśvara, of one undivided essence. Who, then, could enter into what, where, and how?”
For me, this is probably the deepest answer to the original question.
After complete liberation, Abhinava does not leave us with a little liberated metaphysical person standing outside saṃsāra and inspecting a catalogue of possible future bodies.
At bodily death:
parameśvara evaikarasaḥ.
Only the Supreme Lord, one taste, one essence.
So who exactly would be doing the choosing?
This is why I would be very cautious about transferring the Tibetan tulku idea directly into Abhinavagupta’s vocabulary. Whatever one thinks about intentional incarnation in another tradition, Abhinava does not describe mokṣa as giving the surviving individual an upgraded ability to select another individual existence.
But here the story gets more subtle.
Because Abhinava absolutely does allow another embodiment before final Śivatva.
This appears very clearly in his doctrine of the degrees of śaktipāta. In Tantrasāra 11, when describing the middle degrees, he says:
tīvramadhyāt ... pratipattiparipākakrameṇa tu dehānte śiva eva
“With the stronger form of the middle descent [of power], through the gradual maturation of realization, at the end of the body he is simply Śiva.”
Then:
madhyamadhyāt tu śivatotsuko ’pi bhogaprepsur bhavati ... anenaiva dehena bhogaṃ bhuktvā dehānte śiva eva
“With the middle form of the middle descent, although he longs for Śivatva, he still desires experience; having experienced that enjoyment in this very body, at the end of the body he is simply Śiva.”
And finally:
nikṛṣṭamadhyāt tu dehāntareṇa bhogaṃ bhuktvā śivatvam eti
“But with the weaker form of the middle descent, having experienced the required enjoyment through another body, he attains Śivatva.”
The corresponding discussion appears in Tantrāloka 13.240–245. There Abhinava similarly says of the weaker middle descent:
dehānte tattvagaṃ bhogaṃ bhuktvā paścāc chivaṃ vrajet // 244 //
“After the end of the body, having experienced the enjoyment belonging to that tattva, afterwards he proceeds to Śiva.”
So yes: a further embodiment or postmortem field of experience can exist on the path opened by śaktipāta.
But notice the order.
It is not:
mokṣa --> chosen reincarnation.
It is:
śaktipāta --> remaining bhoga --> perhaps another embodiment --> Śivatva.
That distinction is essential.
The very reason another body remains necessary is that something remains to be experienced.
And Abhinava says something psychologically very revealing immediately afterwards in the Tantrasāra:
bhogotsukatā yadā pradhānabhūtā tadā mandatvam
“When eagerness for experience/enjoyment becomes predominant, then [the descent of power] is weak.”
That is perhaps the clearest indication of the sādhaka’s attitude.
Wanting more experience is not condemned. Abhinava is far too sophisticated for that. There are legitimate paths of bhoga, siddhi, yogic attainment, heavenly experience, and so on.
But they are not identical with the highest movement of mokṣa.
The desire “I would like another life—perhaps a more beautiful one, perhaps one in which I can continue my sādhana, perhaps one in which I can accomplish something” still contains bhogotsukatā: an appetite for further experience.
It may be noble. It may be extraordinarily refined. But it is still an orientation toward another field of manifestation.
Tantrāloka 16 makes the same distinction in the language of initiation and karma. For the bubhukṣu, the person oriented toward enjoyment, Abhinava explicitly says:
duṣṭānām eva sarveṣāṃ bhūtabhavyabhaviṣyatām /
karmaṇāṃ śodhanaṃ kāryaṃ bubhukṣor na śubhātmanām // 302–303 //
“For one desiring enjoyment, all harmful karmas—past, present and future—are to be purified, but not the auspicious ones.”
Why preserve auspicious karma? Because auspicious karma can still produce desirable bhoga. The section goes on to distinguish different schemes according to whether the goal is bhoga or apavarga, liberation.
Again, the logic is consistent: if I am planning the conditions of further experience, I am still operating inside the architecture of experience-production.
Now we come to the really interesting part—the place where the easy answer “mokṣa simply means you can never embody again” becomes insufficient.
The twenty-eighth āhnika of the Tantrāloka is extraordinary here.
Abhinava is discussing death and rebirth. He first describes ordinary embodiment very plainly: when the bodily mechanism collapses, consciousness assumes another body shaped by karma.
Then he draws a sharp boundary between this karmic machinery and anugraha, Grace:
anugrahas tu yaḥ so ’yaṃ svasvarūpe vikasvare /
jñaptyātmeti kathaṃ karmaniyatyādi pratīkṣate // 233–234 //
and:
karmakālaniyatyādi yataḥ saṅkocajīvitam /
saṅkocahānirūpe ’smin kathaṃ hetur anugrahe // 234–235 //
“But Grace consists in the revelation of one’s own radiant nature. How could it depend upon karma, niyati and the rest? For karma, time, necessity and the rest have their life in contraction. How could they be the cause of Grace, whose nature is the removal of contraction?”
That distinction matters enormously:
karma, time, niyati --> saṅkoca --> rebirth
whereas:
anugraha --> destruction of saṅkoca.
And then Abhinava says that the person whose bondage of contraction has been burned through initiation and Śiva-knowledge is:
dīkṣāśivajñānadagdhasaṅkocabandhanaḥ // 236 //
and therefore:
dehānte śiva eveti nāsya dehāntarasthitiḥ // 237 //
“At the end of the body he is Śiva alone; for him there is no existence in another body.”
That is probably the most direct possible answer.
nāsyā dehāntarasthitiḥ—“there is no abiding/existence of his in another body.”
If someone asks, “Does mokṣa itself give me a next incarnation?”, Abhinava’s literal answer seems to be: no. The opposite.
But almost immediately—and this is why the passage is so fascinating—Abhinava begins speaking about descent.
He speaks of beings connected with those who descend through the tattvas in accordance with Śaṅkara’s command, śaṅkarājñānuvartinām. He discusses svayambhūs devoted to anugraha.
Later in the same chapter he explicitly uses the vocabulary of avatāra:
tathā tathā vicitraḥ syād avatāras tad-aṃśataḥ // 266 //
“According to the particular portion/aspect, the descent may assume various forms.”
And:
tena śaktisamūhākhyāt tasmād rudrād yad aṃśataḥ ...
kṛtyaṃ taducitaṃ siddhyet so ’ṃśo ’vatarati sphuṭam // 268–269 //
“Therefore, from that Rudra who is a totality of powers, a particular aspect descends manifestly, so that the task appropriate to that aspect may be accomplished.”
Now, this needs to be handled carefully.
I would not take these verses and say: “There you go—Abhinavagupta teaches that every jīvanmukta personally chooses another incarnation.”
He does not say that.
This part of the twenty-eighth āhnika is discussing divine manifestations, sacred loci, Rudras, aṃśas, avatāras and functions of anugraha. It is not a manual for a liberated human being selecting his next parents.
But it proves something subtler and, I think, more interesting:
Abhinavagupta knows a category of embodiment or descent that is not simply karmically forced punarjanma.
That matters.
Because otherwise one might misunderstand his statement “there is no existence in another body” as meaning liberation makes manifestation metaphysically impossible.
But how could realization of Śiva—the very principle Abhinava defines through svātantrya, absolute freedom—produce a new cosmic incapacity?
The Paramārthasāra itself describes liberated Consciousness as:
satyasaṅkalpam — “whose resolve is effective / true”,
īśvaram — “sovereign”,
and:
bahutaraśaktivrātapralayodayaviracanaikakartāram — “the sole agent of the arising and dissolution of innumerable hosts of powers.”
So I think the most precise formulation is this:
The liberated individual does not reincarnate. Śiva remains free to manifest.
Those are not contradictory statements.
They only look contradictory so long as we imagine the liberated being as basically the same finite person, merely equipped with unlimited supernatural abilities.
That is precisely what Abhinava does not mean by mokṣa.
There is no little “me” surviving liberation and saying:
“I enjoyed being Bob. Next time perhaps I will be born in Kashmir.”
The punarjanmabandha—the bondage that makes this continuing autobiographical center move from embodiment to embodiment—has disappeared.
What remains is Śiva.
And Śiva can manifest.
If such manifestation has a body, Abhinava’s closest language for understanding it would no longer be ordinary karmically compelled punarjanma. The vocabulary begins shifting toward avatāra, aṃśa, anugraha, kṛtya—descent, manifestation of an aspect, Grace, a function to be accomplished.
That is why I would distinguish the two very strongly:
“I shall choose my next incarnation” still imagines an individual continuing his personal journey.
“Śiva may manifest wherever and however Śiva wills” belongs to a completely different metaphysical register.
And this also answers the question about whether a specialized practice is required.
I have not found Abhinavagupta teaching a special practice whose purpose is: “attain mokṣa, retain your individuality afterwards, then deliberately select your next incarnation.”
He certainly teaches practices producing yogic powers, particular experiences, movement through tattvic worlds, bhoga, and various fruits of initiation. And weaker grades of śaktipāta can explicitly entail another embodiment before final Śivatva.
But that is not what he calls the consummation of mokṣa.
In fact, the stronger the movement toward liberation becomes, the less central the question of “my future embodiment” becomes.
This is perhaps the part of Abhinavagupta that I find unexpectedly tender.
He is not really telling the sādhaka: “Make absolutely sure that this is your final life. Be terrified of existence. Escape manifestation forever.”
That would hardly fit Trika.
Nor is he saying: “Become spiritually powerful enough to control all your future lives.”
That still leaves the finite controller intact.
Instead he gradually removes the person around whom both fantasies revolve.
At first I think I am a body and fear losing it.
Then perhaps I think I am a soul travelling through many bodies.
Then perhaps I become a yogin who imagines gaining control over that journey.
But Abhinava keeps going.
Eventually the question becomes:
katham iva saṃsārī syād vitatasya kutaḥ kva vā saraṇam?
“How could the all-pervasive one be a transmigrating being? From where, and to where, could there be movement?”
And after the body falls:
parameśvara evaikarasaḥ.
“There is only Parameśvara, one undivided essence.”
So my answer would finally be:
No, mokṣa in Abhinavagupta does not mean that “I acquire the right to choose my next incarnation.” Strictly speaking, mokṣa means there is no karmically compelled next incarnation at all.
A further body can occur before complete liberation when bhoga remains; Abhinava says this explicitly in his gradation of śaktipāta.
And Trika also possesses another category altogether: descent or manifestation for a function, sometimes explicitly connected with anugraha and called avatāra. The twenty-eighth āhnika shows that clearly. But Abhinava does not simply identify this with the reincarnation of a liberated individual, and I would not force the Tibetan tulku model onto him.
The distinction I would keep is therefore:
rebirth belongs to unfinished contraction; manifestation can belong to freedom.
Before mokṣa, one may still ask, “What will my next birth be?”
At mokṣa, Abhinavagupta’s answer is stranger:
Who is left whose next birth it could be?
And yet the answer is not nothingness.
It is Śiva.
Not a person condemned never to appear again, but Consciousness no longer compelled to appear as any particular person.
No comments:
Post a Comment