Contexto da discussão da qualidade

Even texts like SU and SL, whose overall tone is unques-tionably Samayacara-oriented, describe the nature of sakti from the viewpoints of Purva Kaula and Uttara Kaula. As mentioned earlier, most Sakta and Saiva texts begin by pointing to the supremacy of either siva or sakti or to the su-premacy of their union, but soon change their tone and in-volve themselves in general Saiva/Sakta issues, i.e., whether or not sakti and siva are inseparable, whether or not they refer to two aspects of the same absolute truth, whether they play equal roles in the manifestation of the universe, etc. For example, just as Laksmidhara uses the terms sadakhya and samaya for the transcendental reality, Abhinavagupta uses the terms yamala, sanghatta, and anuttara.71 However, at one point, Abhinavagupta becomes deeply involved in explain-ing the oneness of siva and sakti. In the course of his discus-sion, his description sometimes comes close to that of Purva Kaula's as described in LD 34.72 In other places, however, his description of sakti and siva is similar to the Uttara Kaula view as described in LD 35.73 The only discernible difference is that according to Laksmidhara, in Uttara Kaula doctrine, sakti alone is the existent reality and it is from her that siva and the rest of the world evolve, whereas in Abhinavagupta's TA, the situation is completely reversed: Abhinavagupta considers siva alone to be the nondual reality and it is from siva that sakti or a cluster of saktis and the rest of the world manifest.

Just as Laksmidhara identifies himself as a samayin,

Abinavagupta identifies himself as a kaula. But unlike Laksmidhara, Abhinavagupta does not connect his differing explanations of siva and sakti to particular schools. In the majority of the verses of TA, he adheres to the concept of ul-timate reality indicated by the terms yamala, sanghatta, or

anuttara, all of which refer to the union of siva and sakti. In spite of his firmly held view of the inseparability of siva and sakti, he still occasionally expresses the view that one or the other is supreme.

For example, in some instances Abhinavagupta seems to subordinate sakti to siva. As Larson observes:

Siva or the absolute is ultimately a mystery, transcending all ex-perience and all knowledge, but Siva or the absolute has within its nature the potency, power, or capacity of self-expression.

This potency or capacity is the svatantryasakti ("power of free-dom" or "autonomous power"), which is the origin or source for all other powers and capacities in the manifest world and which is synonymous with the vimarsa ("dynamic creativity") of Siva.

The svatantryasakti is also the creative capacity of Siva as the para-vak, the Supreme Speech, which unfolds itself

succes-sively through the pasyanti, the madhyama, and the vaikhari.74

In regard to sakti's position in relation to siva, Larson states:

By means of his sakti, therefore, Siva or Siva-tattva has within himself all the possibilities of the manifest and unmanifest world. He transcends his sakti, and yet sakti is inextricably a part of his own nature. As Siva comes to express his sakti or his creative power, the manifest world slowly emerges into actual-ity. First, sakti herself appears to become independent and holds within herself, within her womb, all manifest reality. . . .75

. . . [furthermore,] Abhinavagupta more clearly subordinates the sakti of Siva (the para-vak) to the notion of parama-siva, the Supreme absolute, which transcends sakti. . . .76

This conclusion is in conformity with Abhinavagupta's description of siva as found in Chapter 9 of TA. But else-where in the text, Abhinavagupta emphatically rejects the idea that siva and sakti are different, or that the former is superior.77 Furthermore, a critical analysis of TA shows that Abhinavagupta posits a state that transcends both sakti and siva. He employs several terms - yamala, anuttara, and san-ghatta - to refer to that state. Siva, sakti, and the remaining thirty-four tattvas evolve from, and ultimately merge into, yamala.78

As K. C. Pandey points out,79 Abhinavagupta's main con-cern is to expound Trika, the triad of siva, sakti, and their union (sanghatta or yamala). As there is nothing beyond this union, Abinavagupta calls it anuttara. Describing the nature of anuttara as held by Abhinavagupta, K. C. Pandey writes:

Anuttara is that (i) which is higher than and beyond the thirty_ six categories from siva to earth. The categories have their being in it, and therefore, it is superior to them. It is perfectly self-shin-ing and absolutely independent. . . .80

. . . . anuttara is that state in which the union of siva and sakti is fully realized and consequently, all duality disappears. It is a state about which no talk is possible. It is neither immanent nor transcendental. This is the highest state, attainable by the fol-lower of the Kula system. (Param Kaulam) Abhinavagupta holds this view in the highest regard. . . .81

It is important to note that just as suddhavidya unites her-self with sadasiva (according to Laksmidhara) and in that state of union is called sadakhyakala, similarly here, mahesvara, the great lord, unites himself with his own sakti and, in that state of union, is called sanghatta, yamala, anut-tara, and paratrika. This indicates that it is mahesvara's choice to be united with sakti and it is he who is now said to be anuttara. This description indicates that siva predominates

in the anuttara state, just as in Laksmidhara's system sud-dhavidya predominates in the sadakhya state.

However, we cannot find a clear and consistent answer to the question of whether siva predominates over sakti in the anuttara state, whether they are equal in their subordinance to anuttara, or whether they both completely lose their dis-tinct identities in anuttara. Different and often contradictory explanations of the nature of annuttara, siva, and sakti, which Abhinavagupta himself and later Kashmiri scholars offer, are perhaps attributable either to personal viewpoints or to their inability to connect specific interpretations with the sub-schools to which they belong.82