INFLUENCE OF SPANDASASTRA ON ABHINAVAGUPTA’S PHILOSOPHY
Kashmir Saivism in its most recognized sense denotes the monistic philosophy
originated and developed in Kashmir. The system itself is a later development of the Siva-
centered religious cult which comes under the realm of enormous Tantric tradition. Many
branches and sub- systems were commenced within the wide area of Tantric Saiva Philosophy.
Among the streams of Kashmir Saivism, Spanda- the doctrine which expounds the dynamic
nature of reality- has a significant role. Since it trails an independent nature, most of the
scholars considered Spandasastra as a separate branch1 of Saiva philosophy. Spandakarika is
the fundamental treatise of this particular school and is generally attributed to Vasugupta. The
four commentaries viz., vrtti by Kallata; vivrti by Ramakantha; spandapradipika by Bhttotpala;
spandasandoha and spandanirnaya by Ksemaraja made the theory of spanda more popular and
established. In the workshop on Trika Philosophy, 2011, Dr Navjivan Rastogi‟s comment on
spanda could be viewed as an extended version of his anxiety expressed in his Introduction to
Tantraloka in 1987.2This depiction indicates that the very topic is discussed hardly yet. Though
the mutual relationship of different streams of the same area is uncommon, the influence of
spandasastra in the later developments of Kashmir saivism should be treated seriously and this
paper focuses especially in its influences on Abhinavagupta, the eleventh century synthesizer of
the monistic saiva philosophy.
Abhinavagupta‟s inevitable contributions were the milestones in the history of
Kashmir Saiva philosophy. His foremost uniqueness is the thorough and deep knowledge in
different streams simultaneously with which he produced such an irreplaceable work-
Tantraloka, which actually is a source book of the new insights in Indian philosophy and the
history of Kashmir. Apart from this magnum opus Abhinavagupta propounded his novel ideas
through the commentaries of post- scriptural saivite sources as well as various independent
works. Like other thought systems3, spanda theory also contributed much to the development of
his new amalgamated philosophy. Although Abhinava never wrote a commentary on spanda
and he nevertheless used to develop this concept.
In particular situations, Abhinava used to define the term Spanda based upon
its technical nature. For eg, in Tantraloka the term is defined as: “This is a slight movement,
sphurana, scintillating, not dependent on any other. It is a wave in the ocean of consciousness
and consciousness cannot be without waves.”4 While in Paratrisikavivarana, he frequently uses
the notion as well as the idea of spanda. According to the monistic saivism, whole universe is
the manifestation of the supreme realty and habitually this is used to define as the creative
power which situates in the same, omnipotent reality, Siva. So the universal nature of
everything is clear from this. To establish the same, Abhinavagupta seeks the help of spanda
theory: “All this universe consisting of 36 categories, though created by Siva who being of
supreme Sakti, is of the nature of universal creative pulsation ( samanya spanda) rests in that
consciousness itself in its own form which is predominantly sakti, ie., characterized by
particular creative pulsation (visesa spanda).”5 The same thing is discussed in the interpretation
of Isvarapratyabhijnakarika 1-14 where spanda is identified with the imperceptible eternal stir-
sphuratta, being the essence of all beyond the limitations of time and space.6
Cognition has an important role in the philosophy of saivite monism. In the
system the cogniser, the cognized and the cognition are same as well as supreme reality ie.
Siva. As the process of creation, realization also related with the dynamic force which known
through various terms and basically with the nature of spanda. Abhinava technically call this as
Vimarsa and find similarities with spanda. Bettina Baumer says that: “If we deny self-shining
nature to subject, there remains no room for question and answer. In the cognitive experience
such as “I Know” there is consciousness (not only of self-luminous self but) of association with
a stir (spanda) also. It is self because of this stir that self is admitted to be of sentient nature…”7
The creativity and cognition in case of poetry is also considered as spanda
Discussing the crux of a text in its very opening part is the uniqueness of
Abhinavagupta‟s style of interpretation. Almost such discussions also reflect the essence of his
philosophical outlook. In Vimarsini, the commentary of Isvarapratyabhijnakarika, Siva (who is
omnipotent as well as omniscient) is prayed who in the form of „I‟ consciousness, changes
himself to the consciousness of „this‟ with the help of an external pulsation connotated as
spandana: “anantabhavasambhavabhasane spandanam param/
upodghatayate yasya tam stumah sarvada sivam//”8
The notion of „Svasvabhava‟ is another term which is very common in spanda
texts and to be connectected with Abhinava‟s principle of „Ahambhava‟. Apart from the usage
of technical terms, sometimes he compares the idea of Visarga of kula tradition with spanda
and makes his Agamic exegesis easier9.
In sum, Abhinavaagupta manipulate the theory of Spanda in different manners
though he admirably avoided the question about the independent nature of Spandasastra.
Conversely he tries to incorporate this concept within his highly philosophical school of
Kashmir Saivim- Trika. The causes of this predilection may be viewed as:
1. The lack of establishment of spandasastra, as a cult like krama or kula.
2. Abhinavagupta was not ready to consider spanda doctrine- explicated very
recently- as a well-organized philosophy, and
3. Since the concept basically encompasses some openings, it couldn‟t be denied
completely.
*****
NOTES
1. Spanda is considered as an individual system by some scholars while others
make an utterly distinct opinion about its seperate existence.
2. “ ….There was an acute controvercy with regard to the exact status of spanda
system i.e., wether it was a separate system or a part of Trika system.”
3. Rastogi says, “His references to some Naiyayikas (Kesamcana Naiyayikanam T.A. 2.12-
44), Vairinca Brahmavadins (T.A.V., III, p. 25), Nastika philosophers subscribing to the
negation of soul and not to the denial of the authority of the Veda (T.A. 6.19-20) invite
us to explore this unexplored area. Similarly his presentation of the Kaumarila view on
Vedyata and its lengthy masterly refutation (T.A. 10.21-57) adds new dimensions to our
understanding of Kumarila. Abhinava's presentation of Siddhanta Saivism in the 4th
Ahnika in contrast to the sister systemsopens a new vista of information throwing new
light on the evolution of the dualistic Saivism in Kashmir. He is an invaluable sourceof
information on Buddhism. He practically refers to all sects of Buddhism so much so
that he remains the only source of many exclusive theories of Buddhists.”
4. Tantraloka 4.184-186. See Samanya and Visesa spandas in Mark
Dyckscowski, The Doctrine of Vibration, p.107-109.
5. Isvarapratyabhijnakarika, 1-2.
6. Bettina Baumer, Abhinavagupta‟s hermeneutics of the Absolute, p. 87.
7. ibid, p. 17.
8. Bhaskari vol.1, p.47
9. See Jaideva Singh, Abhinavagupta- The trident of wisdom, p.37.
Nirmala. V, Research Scholar, SSUS, Kalady, Kerala.
