I asked my friend Keith, who introduced me to Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Saivism, and who has remained my primary mentor in this tradition, to examine my replies in this thread to see if I misrepresented anything here. Here is his electronic message in response to me (shared here with his explicit permission), which I find very interesting and informative, and which explicates this religion much more fully and insightfully than I am able:
Dear Scott
I found your comments insightful and largely misunderstood by those who took issue with them. I will concede that it is very difficult to get out of the monotheistic perspective in which a fatherly deity is held to sit in judgment over all creation. We’re entirely too accustomed to a universe of right and wrong, with reward for virtue and punishments for vice distributed by an almighty overlord. Of course, we all assume that the actions for which we are being rewarded or punished are those that we see as virtues and vices, respectively. The gods help us if we’re wrong!
There are two things I would note about your comments on Kashmir Shaivism.
The first of these is your characterization of the tradition as “Hindu.” This isn’t really a mistake. I just want to point out that the term is modern and doesn’t reflect any concept in pre-modern India. It has, of course, been accepted by modern Indians, however, and use of the term can be helpful for people to locate the tradition.
The second thing is the idea that we each have a soul. For one thing, I hate to use the term “soul” for anything in ancient Indian religions (modern Indian religions aren’t so much a problem). If we’re talking about a self, however, there isn’t a multiplicity of selves. There’s just one self.
I’m afraid I probably won’t really be able to explain this clearly in just a few words, but I will try. The ultimate reality is simply consciousness, so we can look at things as working on the ultimate level in much the same way that our own cognitions work. Now, within a given cognition you can see two aspects, the seer and the seen (the subject (the producer of the cognition) and the object). Our perception of the ordinary world occurs when the seer deliberately identifies itself with particular objects (namely, the mental faculties), and sees everything else as other than itself. In other words, although all objects exist within the universal self, this ultimate self limits itself by identifying itself with particular objects, by thinking that it is these objects only, and by, conversely, coming to think that all other objects are other than its self. The universe so becomes divided into “me” and “not-me.” What we ordinarily call the self is, thus, just an agglomeration of those objects the self has chosen to identify with. For example, by identifying with a certain mind, certain sensory faculties, a certain body, etc., and by thinking that all other objects are not itself, the ultimate self becomes “Scott.”
How about this? Imagine a man. Imagine the man walking. This imaginary man is an object, a thing you’ve just created, but it is not something different from yourself. Now, spend some time developing this man. Picture his life and his adventures. If you concentrate on them enough you can get so wrapped up in them that they seem real. You can, briefly, forget who you are and think that you’re the imaginary creation you’ve conjured up. That’s something like what’s going on. The only difference is that the one self is portraying every role in the universe simultaneously, from the humblest ant to the wisest sage.
As for morality, look at it this way: In a play, there are actors and the characters they portray. You can see the characters behaving immorally without thinking that the actors are doing anything wrong. The actors choose to be in the play, even when portraying those who suffer or cause others to suffer. If we are just the characters, however, we don’t generally realize we’re in the play. We’re stuck in the universe of duality. Then, in that case, there is morality.
I’ll admit Abhinavagupta doesn’t have much to say about morality, but morality isn’t really a topic of his philosophy. I’m inclined to say that, were he asked about morality, he’d refer his questioner to a book by a Mimamsaka (Kumarila, for example). In the same way, I might refer you to something by Mill.
From the ultimate perspective, morality is meaningless. It’s just a mental construction, a work of the imagination. In the world we live in, it’s not. There cannot be a question of morality without two people being involved. In reality, there is only one self, so there cannot be morality. In the world we live in, however, there are a multiplicity of selves, so, on this level, there can be morality. Of course, this morality is just something we make up.
That said, transcending morality doesn’t mean becoming immoral. This isn’t Christianity. There is no separate god in heaven looking down and proclaiming some code that must be followed and torturing those that don’t comply. The god above is just yourself, and that self is the same self that is every other person’s self. If anything, this perspective should incline one towards compassion, not cruelty.
There is only the Goddess who plays at being us all. So, if Kashmir Shaivism inclines us towards any position, it is not being cruel to others, but a realization that every other person is just yourself. You are the Goddess, and so is the person you hate, the man who cut you off on the road, the woman who insulted you in the office, the dog who barked at you, etc. Instead of hating them as enemies, you should realize that they are the same person you are. It’s only your forgetfulness, your amnesia, if you will, that keeps you from knowing your identity with them. If you realize this, you CANNOT hate them. After all, you can only despise them as enemies when you think that they are other than yourself.
The ultimate reality transcends divisions and is pure joy.
Sincerely,
Keith
PS I hope this has been helpful.
