Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Reflection Real According to Abhinavagupta? Dynamic Realism Versus Naïve Realism

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay is one more attempt of understanding the non-dual philosophical position of Abhinavagupta viz-a-viz the problem of reflection. Since when my first essay on ‘Abhinavagupta on Reflection’ appeared in JIP, I have once again focused on the non-dual Śaiva theory of reflection (pratibimbavāda) (3.1-65) as discussed by Abhinavagupta (fl.c. 975-1025 CE) in the Tantrāloka and his commentator Jayaratha (fl.c. 1225-1275 CE). The present attempt is to understand their philosophical position in the context of Nyāya realism where a reflection is simply caused by an erroneous apprehension of an entity. For Naiyāyikas, according to both Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha, a reflection (pratibimba) does not have a real existence at all. There are only two ways of looking at a reflection: it can either simply be an original image (bimba) or an illusion (bhrānti). There is no scope for any third entity apart from something being an error or a non-error. In contrast to this, establishing a Śaiva theory of reflection, Abhinavagupta is corroborating a valid ontological status for the seemingly illusory objects of perception or imagined objects, such as, to use Abhinavagupta’s own language, ‘an elephant with five trunks and four tusks who is running in the sky’. In other words, he is pleading for the valid cognition of objects which are otherwise deemed to be an error or external to consciousness. While Abhinavagupta’s system has generally been referred to as ‘idealism’, I argue that by establishing the dynamism of reflective awareness that is deemed to be absolutely real, his system should be referred to as ‘dynamic realism’ i.e., the ‘dynamism’ that is common to both ‘real’ and ‘ideal’. This is why he uses the metaphor consciousness-as-mirror (ciddarpaṇa) in establishing a non-erroneous ontological status for otherwise illusive idea of reflection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Ratié (2017) and Kaul (2019).

  2. See Ratié (2010b) for more on Abhinavagupta’s use of this metaphor. In fact, I have used Ratié’s translation of Abhinavagupta’s phrase.

  3. Rastogi (2006: xvii).

  4. For a non-dualist Śaiva it is not the case that ‘upon the appearance of light, the luminosity appears’. This would be the Buddhist position of dependant causality (pratītyasamutpāta).

  5. For a very short discussion on Śaiva theory of causality in the Tantrāloka, see Kaul (2020).

  6. Shulman (2012).

  7. The complexity of the terms ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’ is a problematic. Ratié (2007, p. 316, fn 4) has also pointed out this complexity in the context of Śaiva idealism and Buddhist Vijñānavāda idealism. Whether Vijñānavāda is a type of idealism or not, is discussed by Lusthaus (2002, pp. 4-5) and he rejects Vijñānavāda being called idealism. However, I am using the term ‘idealism’ more in light of the interpretation of Ratié (2007, p. 316, fn 4).

  8. Ratié (2007, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2016) and Torella (2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2013, 2014).

  9. This verse is quoted by Jayaratha in TĀV 3.65ab and attributed to anupratyabhijñākāra. Both Rastogi (1979, p. 160) and Dwivedi (1983, p. 17) have raised doubts if this is either another work of Abhinavagupta that never came down to us or is it simply a reference to one of his existing commentaries. The former is certainly not the case since we are unable to locate the quoted verse in any of the Pratyabhijñā texts available to us today. Vasudeva (2014, p. 375) also discusses and translates the above verse but does not mention that the source of this verse is untraceable.

  10. TĀV 3.65ab: nātha tvayā vinā bimbaṃ svacche svātmani darśitam | prasenā darpaṇena iva [iva is an emendation suggested by Sanderson. Ked reads eva; Vasudeva (2014, p. 375) finds both readings plausible] prabhāvād bhāvamaṇḍalam || Dyczkowski (2023, p. 136, fn 147) accepts an alternate manuscript reading prasanna translating it as ‘bright’ and adds that prasenā has no meaning. As amply affirmed by Vasudeva (2014) we do find almost synonymous use of the terms like prasenā, prasīnā, prasannā, pratisenā or senikā in early Śaiva literature, but it would be misleading to claim that prasenā has no meaning.

  11. For more on Prasenā see Vasudeva (2014) and Orofino (1994).

  12. TĀV 3.12: evaṃ yathāpratīti pratibimbasatattvam upapādya keṣāṃcana naiyāyikānāṃ pratyāvṛttair nayanaraśmibhiḥ svasyaiva mukhasya grahaṇe 'pi darpaṇamukham iti bhrāntir iyaṃ na punaḥ satyatvabhrāntatvavyatirekeṇa tṛtīyasya rāśyantarasyābhāvāt pratibimbaṃ nāma kiṃcid astīti mataṃ nirākartum āha |

  13. It is clearly inferred that the sūtrakāra is Gautama, the author of the Nyāyasūtra and bhūṣaṇakāra is Bhāsarvajña, the author of the Nyāyabhūṣaṇa. Even though the expression vṛttikāra is dubious here, but it may be referring to Jayanta Bhaṭṭa. Jayanta has been named as vṛttikāra both as a Naiyāyika and as a Vaiyākaraṇa. Ratié (2017, fn. 75) has listed other references supporting why Jayanta is referred to as a vṛttikāra. Also, of interest is Raghavan (1960, pp.173–174) who establishes that the vṛtti in question was not on Nyāya but on grammar. Jayanta is also supposed to have written a commentary on the Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini which is lost.

  14. Thakur (1997b, p. xii) records that Uddyotakara besides being an erudite Naiyāyika himself gave rise to many controversies within the tradition of Nyāya by presenting new and alternate explanations of the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama thus disagreeing with the Nyāyabhāṣya of Vātsyāyana. This gave rise to two streams of scholars in the Nyāya tradition, viz. those who remained faithful to the Bhāṣyakāra, and the others who accepted Uddyotakara's new interpretations. Uddyotakara emerged in a period when Nyāya was encountering criticism from the Buddhist logicians like Dignāga (450-520 CE) and Dharmakīrti (635-650 CE). This was the time when two schools of Indian philosophy, viz. the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika were gradually moving towards developing a merger in future and Uddyotakara was championing this cause. In Kashmir, however, there manifested a new school of Nyāya represented by Bhāsarvajña (860-920 CE) whose Nyāyasāra was commented at least eighteen times. Thakur (1997b, p. xii) further records that the unique characteristics of the Kashmirian school of Nyāya were to adhere more towards the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama besides not agreeing with the Vaiśeṣika system and developing a rivalry with the Vijñānavādins. Abhinavagupta was certainly not untouched by such developments in the Kashmir of his time. As pointed out by Ratié he was aware of the works of both Vātsyāyana and Uddyotakara. See also Ratié (2017, p. 76).

  15. NSūBh 3.1.49: ādarśodakayoḥ prasādo rūpaviśeṣaḥ svo dharmo niyamadarśanāt, prasādasya vā svo dharmo rūpopalambhanam | yathā ādarśe pratihatasya parāvṛttasya nayanaraśmeḥ svena mukhena sannikarṣe sati svamukhopalambhanaṃ pratibimbagrahaṇākhyam ādarśarūpānugrahāt tannimittaṃ bhavati, ādarśarūpopaghāte tadabhāvāt, kuḍyādiṣu ca pratibimbagrahaṇaṃ na bhavati, dravyasvabhāvaniyamād, evaṃ kācābhrapaṭalādibhir avighātaś cakṣūraśmeḥ kuḍyādibhiś ca pratighāto dravyasvabhāvaniyamād iti |

  16. According to Naiyāyikas (NSū 3.1.49: ādarśodakayoḥ prasādasvābhāvyād rūpopalabdhivat tadupalabdhiḥ ||) (See also NSūBh and NSūV 3.1.49) prasāda lies only in mirror and water.

  17. See Thakur (1997a, pp. 351–363) (indriyabhautikatvaprakaraṇa) and Jha (1984, pp. 1180–1218).

  18. ĪPVV, Vol. 1, p 160: nanu svacchena dravyeṇa pratihatā nayanaraśmayaḥ parāvṛttya svameva mukhaṃ gṛhṇanti, darpaṇe mukham iti tu bhrāntir iyam | na tu satyatvabhrāntatvavyatirekeṇa anyo rāśiḥ pratibimbanāmadheyo 'asti tṛtīyaḥ | maivam | evaṃ hi sati mama etanmukhaṃ sparśavad ityapi bhāseta, paramukhasvahastādau ca bimbapratibimbadvayaṃ dṛśyate |

  19. TĀ 3.12-13: yas tv āha netratejāṃsi svacchātpratiphalanty alam | viparyasya svakaṃ vaktraṃ gṛhṇantīti sa pṛcchyate || dehād anyatra yattejas tadadhiṣṭhātur ātmanaḥ | tenaiva tejasā jñatve ko’arthaḥ syād darpaṇena tu ||

  20. TĀ 3.21-22: etac ca devadevena darśitaṃ bodhavṛddhaye | mūḍhānāṃ vastu bhavati tato’apyanyatra nāpy alam || pratīghāti svatantraṃ no na sthāyy asthāyi cāpi na | svacchasyaivaiṣa kasyāpi mahimeti kṛpālunā ||

  21. Reiterating Abhinavagupta, Jayaratha suggests that since Naiyāyikas have completely failed to offer a good argument that can actually negate their proposition, so they i.e., Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha, do not accept the reflection-theory of the Naiyāyikas.

  22. TĀV 3.13: yad vā darpaṇena pratiphalanasya vṛttatvād idānīṃ darpaṇaṃ vināpi svamukhagrahaṇaṃ syād iti tena kiṃ prayojanam |

  23. See NSūBh 3.1.41-42.

  24. TĀ 3.14: viparyastais tu tejobhir grāhakātmatvam āgataiḥ | rūpaṃ dṛśyeta vadane nije na makurāntare ||

  25. TĀV 3.14: svadeśāvasthitam eva hi grāhyaṃ grāhako gṛhṇātīti bhāvaḥ | na hi nīladeśaṃ parihṛtya nīlajñānaṃ nīlaṃ paricchindat kvacid dṛṣṭaṃ grāhakātmatvam iti grahītṛsambaddham eva caitaj jñeyam |

    ātmādhiṣṭhitānām eva hy eṣāṃ grāhakatvavyavahāraḥ |

  26. Here Jayaratha is quoting the NSūBh 1.1.9: tasya bhogāyatanaṃ śarīraṃ ||

  27. TĀ 3.15: svamukhe sparśavac caitad rūpaṃ bhāyān mamety alam | na tv asya spṛśyabhinnasya vedyaikāntasvarūpiṇaḥ ||

  28. TĀV 3.15: yadīdaṃ nijamukhādhikaraṇatvenātmano rūpam avabhāseta tan mamedaṃ rūpam ity ahaṃtāspadatvena paryastā pratipattiḥ syāt | na punar vedyaikātmano 'syedaṃ rūpam itīdaṃtāspadatvena | atra hy avyutpannānāṃ bālādīnām ayam ity evaikarasā pratipattir vyutpannas tu manmukham evedam atra pratibimbitam ity abhimanyatāṃ nāma ko doṣaḥ | bimbāt punar asya pratibimbatve bhedena pratipattir asty eva tatraivaṃrūpatvasyāpahnotum aśakyatvāt |

  29. cf. vs. TĀ 3.12cd.

  30. cf. introduction, vs. TĀ 3.12

  31. For a Śaiva, an error is simply only the manifestation of what is being superimposed which is bereft of manifestation of true reality. This is illustrated by Jayaratha with an example of silver in the conch-shell. The idea of manifestation is that a thing manifests in totality when it is made manifest together with its illusive form. That is to say, from empirical point of view, an entity that we perceive to be real (bimba) and an entity which is the reflection (pratibimba) of what we perceive to be real are both the manifested forms of true reality or absolute reality.

  32. For Abhinavagupta’s discussion related to the example of silver and sea-shell see ĪPV 1.7.12, 1.8.6-7 and 2.3.13.

  33. TĀ 3.17: nyagbhāvo grāhyatābhāvāt tadabhāvo 'pramāṇataḥ | sa cārthasaṃgamābhāvāt so 'py ādarśe 'navasthiteḥ ||

  34. TĀ 3.20: dīpacakṣurvibodhānāṃ kāṭhinyābhāvataḥ param | sarvataś cāpi nairmalyān na vibhādarśavat pṛthak ||

  35. TĀV 3.20: kaṭhine hi darpaṇādau pratisaṃkrāntaṃ mukhādy ādhārasya sthairyāt pṛthakpratibhāsate dīpāditejaḥ punaḥ kāṭhinyābhāvād ekavad iti | tatrāsthairyāt tat tathā na prakāśate yathā nirmale 'pi jalāśayādāv astimitatvāt pratisaṃkrāntam api mukhādi na lakṣyate tathehāpīti bhāvaḥ |

  36. From an empirical point of view reflection cannot take place in a wall for it is impure, but it can take place in a mirror because of the purity of its surface. Even a mirror or a lamp or a crystal has limitations because even if the latter is purest in relation to the previous two entities, yet it is not absolutely pure like prakāśa which has the two eternal qualities of svacchatva and svātantrya inherently present in it because of which only it able to manifest by itself (does not need any external light to become manifest), but it also makes everything else shine forth along with it.

  37. TĀV 3.20: kiṃ ca darpaṇādi purata eva svacchaṃ, na paścād iti tatra malinaṃ paścādbhāgaṃ bhittinyāyenāśritya svacche purobhāge pratibimbaṃ bhāsate | iha tu sarvataḥ svacchatvād ekena bhāgena pratisaṃkrāntam api mukhādi na lakṣyate | bhāgāntareṇāntata ālokādinā pratisaṃkrāntena tasyānāvṛtatvāt :em [Ked tasyāvṛtatvāt]| yad vā yathā kācasphaṭikaśakalādayaḥ sarvataḥ svacchatvāt tadvyavahitavastudarśanānyathānupapattyā nāyanānāṃ raśmīnāṃ na pratighātakās tathā dīpādayo 'pi kāṭhinyābhāve sati sarvataḥ svacchatvād bhāgāntareṇa nirgacchataḥ pratibimbasyeti na tatra tat praroham eti | malinasya tatpratighātakasya bhāgāntarasyābhāvāt |

  38. It is not very clear in what sense the expression chāyāpuruṣa is used by Jayaratha. Also mentioned later in TĀV - 3.5ab. chāyāpuruṣa occurs as a measurement, often related to the sundial. In my personal communication with Gérard Huet (October 2013), he said: “The word chāyāpuruṣa is used to designate the gnomon of a sundial, frequently represented as a man figure I presume. This would fit well for chāyāpuruṣalakṣaṇa “time indication of the sundial”. And chāyāpuruṣopadeśapariśīlanena [the expression used in the ĪPVV] could just denote a person skilled in reading the time given by a sundial.” This is a reference to ĪPVV p. 159 (vol.1) [1.2.8]. While I am not completely sure what is being said here, on the basis of TĀV 3.20 it seems to mean that by the power of mantras there is a sort of smoke-figure created in the ether. There is also a Yogic practice mentioned in the MVUT 23.8-12, which describes how a Yogī should do a certain practice with respect to his shadow. But I am not sure about the possible connections.

  39. TĀV 3.20: saṃvit punaḥ sarvato nairmalyāt svaprakāśeti na tasyā vedyatvagandho 'py astīti tatra kathaṃ pratibimbasya pṛthakprakāśaḥ | yat punaḥ prasarāvasare dīpe chāyāpuruṣajñāne vā nabhaḥsthe tejasi pratibimbaṃ lakṣyate tan mantrādimāhātmyāt | cakṣuṣy api vā yat pratibimbaṃ dṛśyate tan na taijase cakṣurindriye tasya nityaparokṣatvāt kiṃ tv āpye golaka iti |

  40. Cf. ĪPV Vol II, p. 113: apūrṇakhyātirūpā akhyātir eva bhrāntitattvam |

  41. See ĪPK 2.3.12

  42. I have used Torella’s translation. See Torella (2002, pp.164-166).

  43. For a discussion on this see Pandey (1963, pp. 303, 388).

  44. TĀ 3.41: ato’ ntikasthasvakatādṛgindriyaprayojanāntaḥkaraṇairyadā kṛtā | tadā tadāttaṃ pratibimbamindriye svakāṃ kriyāṃ sūyata eva tādṛśīm ||

  45. TĀV 3.41: tasya prayojanāntaḥkaraṇakartṛkā sparśādau viṣaye preraṇā yadā bhavet tadārthād bimbabhūtabāhyasparśādisaṃnikarṣāj jāta indriya indriyajñāne | gṛhītākārasyaiva jñānasya tattanniyataviṣayaparicchedopapatteḥ pūrvamuktatvāt sparśādyātma pratibimbam āttaṃ gṛhītaṃ sat tādṛśīm ānandādilakṣaṇāṃ svakāṃ bimbasaṃmatām arthakriyāṃ sūyate karotīty arthaḥ |

  46. TĀ 3.42: na tu smṛtān mānasagocarād ṛtā bhavet kriyā sā kila vartamānataḥ | ataḥ sthitaḥ sparśavaras tadindriye samāgataḥ sanviditas tathākriyaḥ ||

  47. TĀV 3.42: atra hetuḥ sā kila vartamānata iti | kileti hetau | yataḥ sārthakriyā vartamānato bahiḥ sambhavata evārthād bhavatīty arthaḥ |

  48. TĀ 3.5cd: tathā hi nirmale rūpe rūpam evāvabhāsate ||

  49. Rastogi (1986, p. 1)

  50. TĀ 3.49: pratibimbaṃ ca bimbena bāhyasthena samarpyate | tasyaiva pratibimbatve kiṃ bimbam avaśiṣyatām ||

  51. TĀ 3.64-65: ata evāntaraṃ kiñciddhīsaṃjñaṃ bhavatu sphuṭam | yatrāsya vicchidā bhānaṃ saṅkalpasvapnadarśane || itthaṃ viśvam idaṃ nāthe bhairavīyacidambare | pratibimbam alaṃ svacche na khalv anyaprasādataḥ ||

  52. I have used Torella’s translation. See Torella (2002, p. 179).

  53. Quoted in the TĀ 3.21-22: “[The practitioner] should worship the Goddesses like an image, [and] the rays in the form of senses.” (source untraceable) “Like the [still] water and the mirror, everything, movable and stationary, is pervaded by Him.” (Quoted also in TĀ 1.66 from the Kāmikāgama.) “He manifests real and unreal objects like reflected images in the mirror”. (source untraceable) “Just as [plural] entities (bhāva) opposing one another become manifest within an uncontaminated mirror, in the same way the various [dynamic] aspects of the universe (viśvavṛtti) [become manifest] within the Lord of consciousness individually.” (TĀ 3.4.) “The objects (artha) reflect within Him in the same way as in a pure gem.” (source untraceable) “I have neither bondage, nor do I have liberation. These [bondage, liberation and so on] cause fear to the jīva. [All] this is [nothing but] a reflected image of the intellect [in the jīva], like [the reflected image] of the sun [appears] in the water.” VBh 135.

  54. Epithets like ‘the horn of hare’ (śaśaśṛṅga / śaśaviṣāṇa) or ‘son of a barren women’ (vandyāsuta) or ‘a flow in the sky’ (khapuśpa) are used to suggest non-existence of something.

  55. TĀV 3.21-22: nanu yady evaṃ tad etena prasiddhatadvastujātīyena bhavituṃ yuktam | anyathā hy aniyataṃ vastutvaṃ bhavet | tena śaśasyārūpasparśādyātmakaṃ viṣānaṃ vastubhūtam astīty api syāt | na cāsya prasiddhavastvantarajātīyatvam astīti kathaṃ vastubhūtatvaṃ syāt | bāhyaṃ khalūtpannaṃ vastu deśād deśāntaram api vrajen, na caivam etat |

  56. At the mundane level this glory belongs to a mirror, but at the supra mundane level this glory belongs to the Lord alone.

  57. It is important to keep in mind here that even in mundane reflection i.e., reflection in a mirror takes place owing to the glory of the Lord.

  58. TĀ 3.23: na deśo no rūpaṃ na ca samayayogo na parimā | na cānyonyāsaṅgo na ca tadapahānir na ghanatā || na cāvastutvaṃ syān na ca kim api sāraṃ nijam iti | dhruvaṃ mohaḥ śāmyed iti niradiśad darpaṇavidhiḥ || By the means of this verse Abhinavagupta is putting forth ‘Teaching of Mirror’ which is his strong message to the externalists. See Ratié (2017, p. 215).

  59. Jayaratha repeats this expression here from TĀV 3.21-22.

  60. bāhyārthavādin should be understood as externalists i.e., those who believe in the entities existing outside the Consciousness.

Abbreviations

ĪPK:

Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā -> TORELLA, 2002

ĪPV:

Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī

ĪPVV:

Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī

Ked:

Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies

MVUT:

Mālinīvijayottaratantra

NSū:

Nyāyasūtra -> THAKUR 1997b

NSūBh:

Nyāyasūtrabhāṣya -> THAKUR 1997b

NSūV:

Nyāyasūtravārtika -> THAKUR 1997a

TĀ:

Tantrāloka

TĀV:

Tantrālokaviveka

VBh:

Vijñānabhairava

References

Primary Sources

  • Gautamīyanyāyadarśana with Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana edited by Anantalal Thakur, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi, 1997.

  • Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikāvṛtti of Utpaladeva. See Torella 2002.

  • Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī of Abhinavagupta, edited by Paṇḍit Mukunda Rama Shāstrī and Paṇḍit Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, KSTS 22, 33, Bombay 1918, 1921.

  • Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī of Abhinavagupta, edited by Paṇḍit Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, KSTS 60 Bombay 1938.

  • Mālinīvijayottaratantra, edited by Paṇḍit Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, KSTS 37, Bombay 1922.

  • Nyāyabhāṣyavārttika of Bhāradvāja Uddyotakara edited by Anantalal Thakur, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi, 1997.

  • Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, edited by Paṇḍit Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, Vol. II, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 28, Srinagar 1921.

  • Tantrālokaviveka of Jayaratha, See under Tantrāloka.

  • Vijñānabhairava with the commentary partly by Kṣemarāja and partly by Śivopādhyāya, edited by Paṇḍit Mukunda Rama Shāstrī, KSTS 8, Bombay 1918.

Secondary Sources

  • Dwivedi, V. (1983). Luptāgamasamgraha, Part II, collected and edited, Yogatantra-Ratnamala 10. Varanasi

  • Dyczkowski, M. S. G. (2023). Tantrāloka The Light on and of the Tantras with the Commentary called Viveka by Jayaratha translated with explanatory notes, Volume Two (Chapter Two and Three) (published privately). Varanasi

  • Jha, G. (1984). The Nyāya-Sūtras of Gautama with the Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana and the Vārtika of Uddyotakara, translated into English with notes from Vācaspati Mishra’s ‘Nyāya-Vārtika- Tātparyaṭīkā, Udayana’s ‘Parishuddhi’ and Raghūttama’s Bhāṣyachandra, Vol. III, MLBS, Delhi (First published in Indian Thought between, 1912-1919)

  • Kaul, M. (2019). Abhinavagupta on reflection (Pratibimba) in the Tantrāloka. Journal of Indian Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-019-09414-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, M. (2020). Causal reasoning in the Trika philosophy of Abhinavagupta. In S. Sarrukai & M. Chakraborty (Eds.), Handbook of logical thought in India. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusthaus, D. (2002). Buddhist phenomenology: A philosophical investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the C H’Eng Wei-Shih Lun. Routledgecurzon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orofino, G. (1994). Divination with mirrors. Observations on a Smilie in the Kālacakra literature. Oslo. In the Tibetan studies, proceedings of the 6th seminar of the international for Tibetan studies, Figurines, 1992

  • Pandey, K. C. (1963). Abhinavagupta. An historical and philosophical study. Second edition revised and enlarged, Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Vol. I. Second Edition. Revised and Enlarged (First edition 1936, Revised 1951, reprint 2003)

  • Raghavan, V. (1960). Why was Jayanta Bhaṭṭa known as Vṛttikāra? In Professor P.K. Gode commemoration volume, edited by the late Dr H.L. Hariyappa and Dr. M.M. Patkar (Poona Series - 93), Poona: Oriental Book Agency, Part III

  • Rastogi, N. (1979). The Krama Tantricism of Kashmir. Historical and general sources, Vol. 1, Delhi et al.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979. Reprint 1996.

  • Rastogi, N. (1986). Theory of error according to Abhinavagupta. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 14, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2007). Otherness in the Pratyabhijña philosophy. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35(4), 313–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2010a). The dreamer and the Yogin: On the relationship between Buddhist and Śaiva idealisms. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 73(3), 437–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2010b). A five-trunked, four-tusked elephant is running in the sky—How free is imagination according to Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta? Études Asiatiques/asiatische Studien, 64, 341–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2011a). Le Soi et l’Autre. Identité, différence et altérité dans la philosophie de la Pratyabhijñā, Brill, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 13, Boston-Leiden

  • Ratié, I. (2011b). Can one prove that something exists beyond consciousness? A Śaiva criticism of the Sautrāntika inference of external objects. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39(4–5), 479–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2013). On the distinction between epistemic and metaphysical Buddhist idealism: A Śaiva perspective. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 42(2), 353–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratié, I. (2016). In search of Utpaladeva’s lost Vivṛti on the Pratyabhijñā treatise: A report on the latest discoveries (with the Vivṛti on the End of Chapter 1.8). Journal of Indian Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-016-9302-2

  • Ratié, I. (2017). An Indian debate on optical reflections and its metaphysical implications: Śaiva nondualism and the mirror of consciousness. In J. Tuske (Ed.), Indian epistemology and metaphysics (pp. 207–240). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, D. (2012). More than real, a history of the imagination in South India. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, A. (Ed.). (1997a). Nyāyabhāṣyavārttika of Bhāradvāja Uddyotakara. Indian Council of Philosophical Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, A. (Ed.). (1997b). Gautamīyanyāyadarśana with Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana. Indian Council of Philosophical Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Torella, R. (2002). The Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vṛtti, Critical edition and annotated translation. Motilal Banarsidass. (1st ed. appeared as Serie Orientale Roma 71, Rome: IsMEO, 1994.)

  • Torella, R. (2007a). Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivrṛti. Part I: anupalabdhi and apoha in a Śaiva Garb. In K. Preisendanz (Ed.), Expanding and merging horizons. Contributions to South Asian and cross-cultural studies in commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass (pp. 473–490). Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torella, R. (2007b). Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti. Part II: What is memory? In K. Klaus and J.-U. Hartmann (Eds.), Indica et Tibetica. Festschrift für Michael Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 66, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, Wien (pp. 539-563)

  • Torella, R. (2007c). Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti. Part III. Can a cognition become the object of another cognition? In D. Goodall, & A. Padoux (Eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, Institut Français de Pondichéry/École Française d’Extrême-Orient, Collection Indologie 106, Pondichéry (pp. 475–484)

  • Torella, R. (2007d). Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti. Part IV. Light of the subject, light of the object. In B. Kellner, & H. Krasser (Eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.2, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, Wien (pp. 925–940)

  • Torella, R. (2014). Utpaladeva’s lost Vivṛti on the Īśvarapratyabhijñā-kārikā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 42, 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasudeva, S. (2014). Prasenā, Prasīnā & Prasannā: The Evidence of the Niśvāsaguhya and the Tantrasadbhāva’. Cracow Indological Studies, XVI, 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay (IIT-B), Powai, Mumbai, 400076, India

    Mrinal Kaul

Authors
  1. Mrinal Kaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mrinal Kaul.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaul, M. Is Reflection Real According to Abhinavagupta? Dynamic Realism Versus Naïve Realism. J Indian Philos (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09562-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09562-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation