Part 12 - Philosophical ideas depicted (found in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita)

Maṅkhaka possessed depth of knowledge in Indian philosophical systems. It is evident from his references to different schools of Indian philosophy as well as their doctrines. Along with these, his usage of the technical terms of different systems also testifies the profundity of knowledge of Maṅkhaka regarding Indian philosophy. In his Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, Maṅkhaka refers to almost all the schools of Indian philosophical systems such as Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Nyāya & Vaiśeṣika, Vedānta, Baudha, Jaina and Cārvāka.

Sāṃkhya system

Maṅkhaka mentions the pañcaviṃśatitattvas i.e. the twenty-five elements starting from Mahat.^[1] Maṅkhaka opines that it is not proper to designate the Mahat etc. as the tattvas or elements, because the Supreme Soul only is free from limiting adjuncts. He also refers to the three guṇas viz. Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.^[2] The Sāṃkhya doctrine runs as that the creation begins from the Prakṛti or primordial cause or matter, when the sāmayāvasthā i.e. the equilibrium of the three essential qualities, constituting it, are disturbed. They also believe that the individual souls are indifferent in the matter of creation. Maṅkhaka refers to this doctrine in his Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. Nevertheless, he criticises the Sāṃkhya doctrine of creation, propounding Prakṛti to be the cause of creation.

Maṅkhaka is of the opinion that Prakṛti needs the co-operation of the Supreme Soul in the matter of creation.^[3] According to him, Śiva is the creator and He is the Lord of the three worlds. Prakṛti, being insensible has no power of herself, hence she gets her power from Puruṣa, Maṅkhaka is of the view that Śiva Himself is the Puruṣa, as He is immanent in every being and things of the world.^[4] Further, he states that the attributes of Mahat (intellect) etc. as tattvas by the Sāṃkhyas is not correct. He opines that only Śiva, devoid of any limiting attribute is the real tattva.^[5]

It may be inferred that in the present context, Maṅkhaka applies the term tattva to mean the ‘Ultimate Reality’, not in the sense of ‘category’ or ‘principle’ of the Sāṃkhyas. It may be noted here that Maṅkhaka’s description of Śiva as the only tattva is concerned with the transcendent form of the Ultimate Reality or Brahman which is known from the appellation nirupādhirūpabhṛt i.e. ‘possessing no limiting adjuncts.’

Yoga system

Maṅkhaka gives reference to a technical term of Yoga philosophy called parikrama^[6] i.e. purification of the mind, brought about by concentration. There are six divisions of parikrama. They are viz. i) cittaprasāda i.e. the peace of mind, ii) viṣayavatīpravṛttiḥ i.e. the objective cognition, iii) viśokā jyotiṣmatī i.e. the joyous bright cognition, iv) viraktacittacintanam i.e. the contemplation of beings with dispassionate minds, v) svapnanidrānyaturajñānacintanaṃ i.e. contemplation of the cognition either of dream or of deep sleep, vi) yathābhimatadhyānaṃ or desirable cognition.

Maṅkhaka refers to yama and niyama also.^[7] These are two, among the Astāṅgayogas i.e. eight stages of Yoga.

Nyāya &Vaiśeṣika system

Maṅkhaka refers to these two systems of orthodox schools in many places of his poem. He calls the Vaiśeṣikas by the name Kāṇāda.^[8] He mentions the principle of the antecedence of the cause to the effect in negative terms.^[9] The non-existence before origination or antecedent negation i.e. prāgabhāva is referred.^[10] He refers to some technical terms of these systems such as pakṣa, hetu and māna^[11] and saṃvit^[12] also. The well known principle of the effect, inheriting the attributes of the cause is, also mentioned.^[13]

The poet mentions the three varieties of causes viz. Samavāyī i.e. intimate or inherent, Asamavāyī i.e. non-intimate or non-inherent, and Nimitta i.e. instrumental.^[14] Moreover, the correlation between the thing and its attribute is referred.^[15] Maṅkhaka contradicts the Nyāyā-Vaiśeṣika view on God to be the creator of the world; rather he identifies God with Śiva. He argues that as Śiva is all-pervading in the world (XVII. 23), the all pervading ether (antarīkṣa) is none but the form of Śiva. Maṅkhaka negates the Vaiśeṣika view regarding soul to be inert. He nullifies this view of inertia since Śiva is the soul.

Vedānta system

Maṅkhaka refers to the technical terms of Uttaramīmāṃsā or Vedānta viz. avidyā (III. 37). He states that at the time of disappearance of avidyā i.e. ignorance, the appearance of sense of duality vanishes and appears the sense of non-duality. He also mentions the term kuṭastha^[16], also sāyujya type of liberation or mukti is referred.^[17] He refers to kaivalya or the state of oneness.^[18] That the Supreme Soul alone is devoid of all limiting adjuncts is mentioned.^[19]

Maṅkhaka cites that the Supreme Soul is immanent in every being and thing of the universe.^[20] The omniscience of the Supreme Soul is also stated here.^[21] The poet refers to the artificiality of difference and ultimately the unreality of difference.^[22] He refers to vivarta.^[23] The incapability of Māyā i.e. illusion to approach the Supreme Soul has been described with negative terms in the Upaniṣads. It is stated that though irresistible, Māyā cannot approach Śiva who is enumerated as ‘not this, not this’ (neti neti) by the good and who is referred as their purport by the Upaniṣads.^[24] That Śiva is omnipotent and being of the nature of light.^[25]

Therein the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, it is stated that deliberation exhibits unity in diversity and does not proclaim the fault of difference in respect of the Supreme Soul. The doctrine of grace is mentioned.^[26] He refers to the term Advaita^[27] or non-duality, by name. There is an expressed mention of Advayavāda i.e. Monism. Maṅkhaka opines that Śiva, in His transcendent form is to be identified with the Nirguṇabrahman of the Vedāntins. Thus, according to him, the Vedāntins accepted Śiva, in an indirect manner.

Bauddha system

Maṅkhaka had deep knowledge of Buddhist religious practices. This was well reflected by his references of Baudha system in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. That Gautama Buddha was the 9^th incarnation of Hari.^[28] Bodhisattva’s supreme sacrifice of giving his own body as alms is referred.^[29] The poet mentions by name, Amitābha, Tārā and Mañjughoṣa^[30] and refers to the behaviour pertaining to a follower of Buddha^[31] or Sugata. He refers to Bhikṣu.^[32] The Buddhist doctrine of momentariness i.e. Kṣanikatvavāda is referred.^[33] The doctrine of nihilism i.e. Śūnyavāda is referred.^[34] There is a reference to the theory of Śūnyavāda or Mādhyamika school that Ultimate Reality is incomprehensible by any of the four modes of predication (koṭis) and thus, it is very minute that is called śuṇya or void, though not actually void in itself.

It may be added here that according to the Mādhyamikas, nothing is existent, nor is anything non-existent, nothing comes into being, nor does anything disappear, nothing is eternal, nor has anything an end, nothing is identical nor differentiated, nothing moves hither, nor moves thither.^[35] They further comment about it.^[36] Regarding this, Maṅkhaka opines that the Śunyavādins did not mean ‘void’ (tuccha) by the term śūnya, but they meant by ‘it’ the form, not to understood by the ‘ignorant’ (mādṛkṣānadhigamanīyavṛtti rūpaṃ). He states that since the form of Śiva is of such nature (tadṛkṣa) i.e. incomprehensible (and hence śūnya), the Śūnyavādins also have accepted Śiva as the Ultimate Reality.^[37]

There is a reference to the theory of Yogācāras or the Vijñānavādins that there is nothing external in this world except consciousness and that of external objects are only a creation of consciousness (XVII. 24). The Vijñanavādins are of the opinion that vijñāna is the sole reality; the object in its form as substance… and modes or attributes is a false superimposition (upacāra) on the states of consciousness, which alone are real.^[38] On this Maṅkhaka remarks that Śiva or the supreme being is of the nature of consciousness, His role as the creator has been accepted by the Baudhas also.^[39]

Jaina system

Maṅkhaka refers to the theory of arhat. He also mentions the Jaina theory that the dimension of the individual soul is of the same size as that of the body of the individual. He cites that by this doctrine actually the allpervading nature of Śiva is accepted by the Jainas.^[40] Because He is soul and the three worlds are His body, in which He is immanent.

Cārvāka system

Maṅkhaka refers to Cārvāka by the term Lokāyata.^[41] He also refers to svabhāva or nature as the principle of creation.^[42] According to the Cārvākas the world is full of diversity and throbbing of creatures proceed from svabhāva or nature. Though, the Cārvākas hold the svabhāva as the guiding principle or the factor responsible for the creation of the world, Maṅkhaka identifies this nature or svabhāva with the power of Śiva. Moreover, svabhāva being the power of Śiva, the Cārvākas indirectly admit Śiva as the creator of the universe.

Apart from these, Maṅkhaka is found to have aquaintated with the Sphoṭavāda of the grammarians, the Bhairava cult, a religious sect and the Kashmir Śaivism. A brief note on those, has been incorporated below.

Sphoṭavāda

The grammarians are of the opinion that the eternal and partless sound (niravayavo nityaḥ śabdaḥ) is called the Sphoṭa. According to them, Sphoṭa is the cause of the world.^[43] They designate it by the term Śabdabrahman. Maṅkhaka accepts the doctrine of Sphoṭa of the grammarians. However, he says that Śiva reveals the eternal word (sound) without parts and the three words are the manifestation (vivarta) of Himself, the Śabdabrahman. Maṅkhaka, identifies Śabdabrahman with Śiva and thereby reconciles the doctrine of Sphoṭa with that of Kashmir Śaivism.

Bhairava cult

The Bhairava cult has also been referred by Maṅkhaka. Alongwith this, there is the mention of the practice of devouring living beings.^[44] Again, there is also the reference of Śiva’s wearing the garland of human skulls.^[45]

Kashmir Śaivism

Maṅkhaka shows his inclination towards Kashmir Śaivism. It is no denying the fact that he refers to different traditional schools of Indian philosophy, however he criticizes modifies and reconciles those systems and finally tries to see them in the light of Kashmir Śaivism. In fact, Kashmir Śaivism is the foundation as well as the guiding principle of his Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. According to it, Śiva is the Ultimate Reality.^[46] He is identified with Ātman or self^[47], the caitanya, the parameśvara etc. Again, He is all pervading^[48], omniscient^[49], devoid of all limiting adjuncts or all transcending^[50], the three worlds are His body, though one, He manifests Himself as many, with artificial differences^[51], He is the creator, lord and destroyer of the three worlds^[52]. In this system, Śiva is identified with prakāśa and Śakti with vimarśa.^[53]

The ardhanārīśvara^[54] i.e. the amalgamated form of Śiva and Śakti is referred.^[55] Maṅkhaka conforming to the norms of Kashmir Śaivism, also refers that He (Śiva) reveals Himself in eight forms.^[56] Śiva removes inertia of all kinds.^[57] His devotion leads to apavarga^[58], His devotee earns veneration from others^[59], one who acts as per his guru’s directives, get freed from the bondage of ignorance; with vision purified, he, ultimately acquires, the knowledge of Śiva’s advaita form^[60], the soul being liberated, at the end becomes united with Him.^[61]

As a true follower of Kashmir Śaivism, Maṅkhaka synthesises and reconciles all the philosophical doctrines and systems. Actually, he interprets and explains everything through the lenses of Kashmir Śaivism. Indeed, in doing so, he gets success. It may be mentioned here that not only his philosophical deliberations, even his employment of some figures of speech such as Samāsokti^[62], Utprekṣā, Smaraṇa, Pariṇāma, his concept of rasa etc. are based on and influenced a lot by Kashmir Śaivism, which are very much conspicuously noticed. He sees everywhere and on everything Śiva and why not, he himself declares that his main purpose of composing the poem is to eulogise Śiva, not a king. Therefore, a true reflection of Kashmir Śaivism and its tenets are found in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. The Trika system of philosophy, propounding the idealistic monism (advaita-tattva), in other words Kashmir Śaivism, is thus the back bone or spinal cord of Maṇkhaka’s Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.

This way, Maṅkhaka, besides his poetic capabilities, presents himself as an erudite philosopher as well. These philosophical sketches have enriched his poem. These were for the betterment of his poetry. It would have been a menace if, his poetry becomes overburdened with them. But it is to his credit, he is successful in keeping a perfect balance between philosophy and poetry. This harmony is noticed when Maṅkhaka gives reference to the philosophical doctrines and systems only occasionally, in suitable places, which is simple as well as concise.

Thus, his philosophy never mars the beauty and grandeur of his poem, rather it is quite suitable and befitting to the very subject-matter with a magnanimous and divine hero like Lord Śiva. The genius of the poet is well exemplified through the successful portraiture of Kashmir Śaivism throughout the poem.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid., XVII. 21

[2]:

Ibid., XVI. 51

[3]:

Ibid., XVII. 20

[4]:

Ibid., XVII. 18

[5]:

Ibid., XVII. 21

[6]:

Ibid., XX. 37

[7]:

Ibid., XVII. 48

[8]:

Ibid., XVII. 31

[9]:

Ibid., I. 2; VI. 29

[10]:

Ibid., I. 38; IV. 52

[11]:

Ibid., VI. 16

[12]:

Ibid., XVI. 32

[13]:

Ibid., XI. 70; XVIII. 7, 48

[14]:

Ibid., XVII. 19

[15]:

Ibid., XVII. 23

[16]:

Ibid., III. 18

[17]:

Ibid., I. 28; IX. 47

[18]:

Ibid., XVII. 20

[19]:

Ibid., XVII. 21

[20]:

Ibid., XVII. 18

[21]:

Ibid., XVII. 18, 29

[22]:

Ibid., XVII. 19

[23]:

Ibid., XVII. 22

[24]:

Ibid., XVII. 28

[25]:

Ibid., XVII. 29

[26]:

Ibid., XVII. 32

[27]:

Ibid., XX. 13

[28]:

Ibid., V. 22

[29]:

Ibid., I. 13; XIV. 8

[30]:

Ibid., III. 54

[31]:

Ibid., III. 55

[32]:

Ibid., VI. 18, 54

[33]:

Ibid., III. 55

[34]:

Ibid., VI. 18

[35]:

Radhakrishnan, S., History of Philosophy., vol. I, page 184

[36]:

‘The absolute is devoid (śūnya) of every kind of thought-determination.’ Ibid., page 207

[37]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVII. 25

[38]:

Radhakrishnan, S., History of Philosophy., vol. I, page 210

[39]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVII. 24

[40]:

Ibid., XVII. 26

[41]:

Ibid., III. 59; Jonarāja comments ….lokāyatasya cārvākasya vṛttiryena/ page 41

[42]:

Ibid., XVII. 27

[43]:

Ibid., XVII. 22

[44]:

Ibid., XVIII. 36; XX. 54

[45]:

Ibid., IV. 48; V.27; XII. 17

[46]:

Ibid., XVII. 21

[47]:

Ibid., XVII. 26

[48]:

Ibid., XVII. 18, 29

[49]:

Ibid., XVII. 18

[50]:

Ibid., XVII. 21

[51]:

Ibid., III. 37, XVII. 19, 29, 32; XX. 50

[52]:

Ibid., XVII. 27, 29, 30

[53]:

Ibid., XVII. 29

[54]:

In the Raghuvaṃśa (I. 1), Kālidāsa, at the very outset, eulogises the combined form of Śiva and Śakti as follows:— vāgārthāviva saṃpṛktau vāgarthapratipattaye/
jagataḥ pitarau vande pārvatīparameśvarau//

[55]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I. 48; III. 45; V. 20, 31; XI. 65

[56]:

Ibid., XVII. 32

[57]:

Ibid., XVII. 31

[58]:

Ibid., I. 44

[59]:

Ibid., XVII. 15

[60]:

Ibid., III. 37

[61]:

Ibid., III. 68

[62]:

Ibid., I. 8