Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DOI 10.1007/s10781-005-2827-4
The glorious Lord of Gauri manifests on the extended and clear mirror of his own
Self the supreme river of Creative Action [kriya] – which is splendorous with the
fluid-relish [rasa] of his own Śakti and is the locus of numerous, ever–arising waves
between the two banks of the subjective aspects that are [limited] cognizers, and the
objects of cognition. May he reveal to us the Supreme Truth!
svarapratyabhij~
Abhinavagupta, I sini 2.1, benediction
navimar
w
This paper presents some findings of an ongoing research project on the monistic
Kashmiri Śaiva philosophy of personal and soteriological identity. An earlier version
was presented at the conference, Language, Consciousness and Culture: East–West
Perspectives, Calcutta, January 2004. I wish to thank Pt. Hemendra Nath Chakra-
varty of Varanasi and Dr. Navjivan Rastogi, Prof. Emeritus of Lucknow University,
for their helpful suggestions.
1
Here I will use the terms ‘‘analogy,’’ ‘‘metaphor’’ and ‘‘model’’ as roughly
equivalent in meaning. Abhinavagupta and the other thinkers discussed themselves
alternate freely between explicitly comparative and metaphorical discussions of
reflection.
2
Chandogya
Upanis: ad, in Jagadisha Shastri, ed., Upanis: atsangraha
_ (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1970), 8.7–12, 80–83.
584 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
3
On the latter, see Ian Whicher, ‘‘Theory of Reflected Consciousness in Yoga,’’ in
The Integrity of the Yoga Darsana (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1998), 135–142.
4
See Karl H. Potter, ed., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, Advaita
Vedanta mkara
up to Sa _ and His Pupils (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981), 84–85.
The linguistic philosopher, Bhartr: hari had used the analogy of the reflection of
colors in a crystal to describe how the meaning of an individual word is affected by
the meanings of other words in a sentence. Vakyapad iya of Bhartr: hari with the
Commentary of Helar aja,
kan : d: a 3, ed. K.A. Subramania Iyer (Pune: Deccan College,
1963–1973), part 1, 3.3.40–41, 151–153. I also note that the sixteenth century com-
mentator on the Yoga S utra, Vijñ anabhiks: u, propounds a ‘‘double reflection theo-
ry.’’ According to this theory, there is first the reflection of purus: a in buddhi, and then
the reflection of buddhi in purus: a. See T.S. Rukmani, ‘‘Vijñ anabhiks: u’s Double
Reflection Theory of Knowledge in the Yoga System,’’ Journal of Indian Philosophy
16, 367–375.
5
Potter, 86–88.
6
It is not possible here to consider the complexity of later Advaita discussions of
reflection vis-à-vis sagun: a and nirgun: a Brahman.
ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 585
On one level a reflection is distinguished from the object reflected and the perception
of a reflection as the reflecting object is an error. The moon on the surface of the
water is not the moon in the sky; it is not a real moon at all. On another level, in
discussions of the nature of image making and the nature of God’s body, the
reflected body is considered to be the purest body conceivable; it is the true body of
God. . .. Indeed some poetic passages on the reflected self suggest that it is only in
reflection that the true, non-corporeal self may in fact be captured. . .. In the
discourse about God’s body as reflection, the object of art, the image of the deity, as
image, ‘‘pratibimba’’ or ‘‘pratim a,’’ all terms that designate reflection as well as
likeness, captures the very essence of God’s nature.7
7
Phyllis Granoff, ‘‘Portraits, Likenesses and Looking Glasses: Some Literary and
Philosophical Reflections on Representation and Art in Medieval India,’’ in Jan
Assmann and Albert L. Baumgarten, eds., Representation in Religion: Studies in
Honor of Moshe Barasch (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 101–102. See also her discussion,
centering on the Gan: d: avy uha, regarding the magical power of reflective jewels, and
their employment as a metaphor for the perfected body in ‘‘Maitreya’s Jewelled
World: Some Remarks on Gems and Visions in Buddhist Texts,’’ Journal of Indian
Philosophy 26 (1998), 360–361. Cf. the remarks on reflections and shadows in Wendy
Doniger, Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 70–74.
8
Vij~nanabhairava
or Divine Consciousness: A Treasury of 112 Types of Yoga, ed.
and trans. Jaideva Singh (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979), 135, 124.
9
The Sivadr: :st:i of Srisomanandan
atha
with the Vritti by Utpaladeva, ed. Madhu-
sudan Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 54 (Pune:
Aryabhushan Press, 1934), 6.11, 197.
10
Utpaladeva, The I svarapratyabhij~
nak
arik
a of Utpaladeva with the Author’s Vr: tti,
corrected edition, ed. and trans. Raffaele Torella (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002),
1.2.8, 8. This refutation is stated by the Buddhist logician p urvapaks: in. (Henceforth
the Isvarapratyabhij~ a and Vr: tti will, respectively, be abbreviated IPK and
arik
nak
IPKV. I will refer to this edition when citing either the latter or both together. When
referring only to the IPK, I will indicate the page numbers in the edition of Abhi-
nava’s commentary cited in the following note.)
586 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
as the Kaula, the Krama, the Trika and the Spanda, we may proceed
from broader patterns. Probably the most generic and distinctive fea-
ture of the broad range of phenomena that contemporary scholars call
tantrism is the pursuit of power. The common theological designation
for the essence of such power is Śakti. Its expressions vary widely from
relatively limited ‘‘magical proficiencies’’ (siddhis or vibhutis), through
political power, to the omnipotence of the liberated person performing
the divine cosmic acts.16 In his classic study, ‘‘Purity and Power among
the Brahmans of Kashmir,’’ Alexis Sanderson emphasized how the
tantric pursuit of such power transgresses orthodox, mainstream
Hindu norms that delimit human agency for the sake of symbolic–ritual
purity (suddhi).17 David Gordon White in The Kiss of the Yogini has
propounded an argument recently that is already controversial, that
this quest for power originated in ancient siddha practices aimed at
gaining benefits from yogins through offerings of sexual fluids.18
Be that as it may, as the appellation ‘‘monistic Śaivism’’ suggests,
in this stream of tantrism Śakti is encompassed by or overcoded
within the metaphysical essence of the God Śiva. According to the
central monistic Śaiva myth, Śiva performs emanation and the other
cosmic acts that control the universe – through Śakti as his
self-identical power and consort. The basic pattern of praxis, which
Sanderson has also suggested reflects the appropriation of Śaktism by
Śaivism, is the approach to Siva
through Sakti. As the Vij~
nana
Bhairava says, Śakti is Śiva’s ‘‘door’’ or ‘‘face’’ (mukha).19
One pursues identification with Śiva as the Śaktiman by reenacting
and thus assuming his mythic agency in emanating and controlling the
universe through Śakti. Thus in the Kaula sexual ritual a man realizes
himself as the possessor of Śakti immanent within his partner. In
Krama tantrism one contemplates oneself as the possessor of
sakticakras, circles of Śaktis. The Spanda Karik
as pursue the engross-
ment of sakticakras understood as Spanda, ‘‘Creative Vibration.’’
16
The typical list of five cosmic acts comprises: (1) Creation of the universe (2)
Preservation of the universe (3) Destruction of the universe (4) Bringing about the
delusion of creatures that leads them to suffer in sams (5) Graciously liberating
_ ara
creatures from delusion and suffering.
17
Alexis Sanderson, ‘‘Purity and Power Among the Brahmans of Kashmir,’’ in
The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, ed. Michael Car-
rithers, Steven Collins and Steven Lukes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985), 190–216.
18
David Gordon White, Kiss of the Yogini (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2003).
19
Vij~ Bhairava 20, 17.
nana
588 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
_
Vais: n: ava manual. Here we find typical Samkhya as well as Advaita
Ved antin illustrations of reflection. Thus Abhinava says that there is
the reflection of the Self/Śiva in diverse bodies, organs and worlds like
the moon in moving water.27 Likewise, there is the reflection of it in
the intelligence (dhi) like a face in a mirror, and like Rahu’s shadow
eclipsing the moon.28 Conversely, he says that the universe is reflected
in the consciousness of the Self/Bhairava like a village or city in a
mirror, or colors in a crystal.29
When focusing specifically on the reconciliation of unity and
multiplicity in his Pratyabhijña commentaries and other writings on
Tantra, it seems that Abhinava generally prefers the metaphor of
reflection in the Self/Śiva. As he puts it in an epitome of the Śaiva
debate with the Buddhist logicians:
In all of the opponent’s view, this is the crux: How can what is unitary be a multi-
plicity? To this it has been replied: He who has the essential nature of consciousness
is like a mirror. [In this way] there is the possibility of a diversity of appearances
without contradicting his unity. What is the contradiction? Therefore, the Essential
Nature of things,30 though unitary through the force of recognition [pratyabhij~
na],
accommodates within himself contrary divisions of his essential nature.31
_
Whereas Śankara alternates between ideas of reflections of and in
because he uses the metaphor in an ad hoc manner, this is not the case
with Abhinavagupta. For Abhinavagupta there is a conceptual
linkage between the alternative kinds of reflection as interpretations
of the myth of Śiva’s emanation and control of the universe through
Śakti. Śiva/the Self is both the source and the locus of reflections. All
reflections are of the Self in the Self.33
This leads to a question regarding which Abhinavagupta does give
inconsistent answers in his texts – whether or not there is a prototype
object (bimba) for the reflection (pratibimba) that is the universe.
Sometimes Abhinava indicates that there is a bimba and sometimes
that there is not. His basic point is that there is no bimba if that is
conceived as something external to consciousness. However, he always
makes it clear that there is a cause (hetu) for the pratibimba, that is, an
efficient cause (nimitta) rather than a material cause (upad 34 That
ana).
cause is none other than Śakti, variously identified as the Kaulik Śakti,
Supreme Speech (parav ak),
semantic intuition (pratibha),
the Un-
surpassed (anuttara), 35 agential self-determination (svatantrya),
36
and
the various modes of self-recognition (vimar
sa, paramar sa, and so on).
Again elaborating Utpaladeva’s earlier view, Abhinava explains
that what makes the Self/Śiva different from other reflecting media
such as a mirror, water or a crystal is its recognitive apprehension of
33
Thus Abhinava’s systematic correlation between the two kinds of reflection
anabhiks: u. Whereas for Vijñ
diverges from that of the later Vijñ anabhiks: u reflections
of and in the purus: a represent two stages of the process of knowledge, for Abhinava
they are two ways of describing the same fact of emanation.
34
See The Tantraloka
of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary of Jayaratha, 8 vols.,
ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri and Mukunda Rama Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts
and Studies, republication, ed. R.C. Dwivedi and Navjivan Rastogi (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1987), 3.60–61, 2:420–421. (Abhinavagupta’s work will henceforth be
referred to as TA, and Jayaratha’s commentary on it, the Tantralokaviveka,
will be
referred to as TAV.) This denial of an upadana : a must still be reconciled with
karan
Abhinava’s defense of a version of satkaryav
in his Pratyabhijñ
ada a commentaries.
See IPV 2.4.18–20, 2:194–206; and the analysis in Lawrence, 148–149.
35
TA and TAV 3.65–67, 2:425–427.
36
of Abhinavagupta, ed. Mukunda Ram Sastri, Kashmir Series of
The Tantrasara
Texts and Studies, no. 17 (Reprint, Delhi: Bani Prakashan, 1982), 4, 11. (This text
will henceforth be referred to as TS.) The 20th century monistic Śaiva holy man,
Lakshman Joo, explains in ‘‘The Theory of Reflection,’’ in Kashmir Śaivism: The
Secret Supreme (Srinagar: Universal Shaiva Trust, 1985), 30–31:
In consciousness. . .you see only the reflected thing and not anything that is
reflected. That which is reflected (bimba) is in fact svatantrya.
This whole universe is
reflection in god Consciousness of svatantrya.
. .. It is svatantrya,
the absolutely
independent will of God which is the mirror and which is the cause of this effect
which is the reflection.
592 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
itself (ahamparamar
sa). This is the cause of the externalization of
what is internal (antarbahis: karan: a). When this self-recognition gen-
erates the apprehension (vimar sa) that ‘‘I who have the nature of
awareness am aware’’ (aham. . .praka satm se), there then arise
a praka
the structures of ordinary multiplistic experience in the triad of
pramatr : a and prameya.37
: , praman
The monistic Śaivas’ systematic reduction of things to emanative
manifestations of the Śakti or self-recognition of universal con-
sciousness does not except the apparent agency of limited individuals.
Śiva is the true agent of all human actions.38 Applying the reflection
model to this point, Abhinava compares the manifestation of a potter
creating a pot to the reflection in a mirror of a potter creating a pot.39
37
IPV 1.5.11, 1:242–243.
38
See above, n. 32.
39
See IPV 2.4.4, 2:158. (Here he also mentions the analogy of perception within a
dream.) For other examples of Abhinava’s basic metaphysical uses of the analogy of
reflection, see IPV 1.6.3, 1:309; IPV 2.1 benediction, 2:1; IPV 2.1.8, 2:26–27; IPV
2.4.10, 2:173; IPV 3.1.1–2, 2:216–220; Bodhapa~ ncada in Jagaddhar Zadoo, ed.,
sika,
Bodhapa~ sika and Paramarthacarc
ncada a (Srinagar: Krishna Printing Press, 1947),
4, 5; and Paramarthacarc
idem., 4–5, 9–11.
a,
40
IPV 1.7.14, 1:390–391.
ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 593
41
See Lawrence, 57–65. Abhinavagupta consolidated earlier efforts of systematization
into a typology of four increasingly internal and unitive sets of spiritual practices: (1) the
an
: ava upaya, ‘‘individual means,’’ that is, the most concrete rituals; (2) the sakta
up aya,
‘‘means of Śakti,’’ involving study, philosophy and discursive meditations; (3) the
sambhava
upaya, ‘‘means of Śambhu’’ higher and progressively more intuitive con-
templations; and (4) the anup aya, ‘‘nonmeans,’’ the direct absorption into the Ultimate
with little or no practice, the realization that the Ultimate has always been realized. While
the term sakta
up aya emphasizes the importance of the process of Śakti-engrossment to
this category, one should understand that such engrossment actually occurs in all the
spiritual means.
42
IPV 1.6.4–5, 1:313. To explain this passage more fully, Abhinava states that the
pure egoity belongs either to a ‘‘pure consciousness undifferentiated from the universe’’
(samvinm
_ atre
vi svabhinne)
or one ‘‘having a pure nature that is inlaid with the reflections
of the universe’’ (vi svacchay
acchurit
acch atmani). The commentator, Bh askara specifies
the two qualifications as pertaining respectively to the tattvas Śiva and Sad aśiva. BIPV
1.6.4–5, 1:313. Madhusudan Kaul, in his notes to his Kashmir Series edition, The
svarapratyabhij~
I na of Utpaladeva with the Vimar sini of Abhinavagupta, 2 vols. (Reprint,
Delhi: Butala & Company, 1984), 1:247, correlates them with the states of the Supreme
Śiva and Sadaśiva. (These notes are believed to have some basis in Śaiva interpretive
traditions.) Despite the minor disagreement, it is significant that both scholars ascribe
the realization of the universe as reflection to Sad aśiva. Sad
aśiva is known to possess
the Pure Wisdom ( of the fact of emanation, which animates the
suddhavidya)
Pratyabhijña sastra
and Abhinavagupta’s sakta
upaya.
Also of interest is Abhinavagupta’s brief advertence to reflection in his explanation
of the qualified student’s reception of the meaning of Utpaladeva’s introductory verse
to the Isvarapratyabhij~ arik
nak a. Abhinavagupta exegetically unpacks a summary of
the context, purpose and method of the entire
sastra from this verse. Focusing on
Utpaladeva’s assertion that ‘‘desiring the benefit [upakara] of humanity, I am estab-
lishing the recognition [pratyabhij~ of him [that is, the Great Lord, Śiva]’’ (IPK
na]
1.1.1, 1:6) – Abhinava explains that one who is qualified will interpret the reference to
humanity as applying to oneself. That is, as with the determination of individual
actions from injunctions, one will resolve what is in Western grammar called the
‘‘third person’’ (in Sanskrit the ‘‘first person’’) into the first person (Sanskrit ‘‘final
person’’). Such a qualified student will from Utpaladeva’s pronouncement receive the
transmission of the meaning of the sastra
like the reflection of an original image
(bimbapratibimbavat), and realize himself or herself to have attained the recognition
of the Great Lord. IPV 1.1.1, 1:44–46.
594 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
43
TA 3.268, 2:598. Cf. Lakshman Jee, 32:
The theory of reflection (pratibimbavada) is meant for advanced yogins. This
theory teaches them how to be aware in their daily activities, while talking, while
walking, while tasting, while touching, while hearing, while smelling. While they are
doing all of these various actions they see that all of these actions move in their
Supreme Consciousness. Their vision, their perception, heretofore limited becomes
unlimited. The mode of their actions becomes absolutely unique. They see each and
every action in their God Consciousness. They exist in the state of Sada siva. Each
and every action of their life becomes glorious. This is awareness that comes from the
practice of pratibimba.
44
TA 3.283–285, 2:608.
45
Krama tantrism, appropriated by the late Kashmiri Trika, identifies emission
(sr: st:i), persistence (sthiti), and withdrawal (samh
_ ara)
as three phases of cognition.
Persistence is also identified with embodiment (avatara). Alexis Sanderson,
‘‘Meaning in Tantric Ritual,’’ in Essais sur le Rituel, III, ed. Anne-Marie Blondeau
and Kristofer Schipper (Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 1995), 63. In the generic fivefold
scheme of divine acts, delusion and grace are the homologues in the experience of
limited subjects of cosmic creation and destruction.
ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 595
46
See Abhinavagupta, A Trident of Wisdom: Translation of the Paratr isika-
Vivaran: a, trans. with notes by Jaideva Singh (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1989), passim, including the tables at 106–107; and Andre Padoux, Vac: The
Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras, trans. Jacques Gontier (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1990), 306–316. The Para level also includes the
bimbas of the subsequent stages of emanating speech, viz., para-pa syanti, para-
madhyama and para-vaikhar
i. Also notable is Abhinavagupta’s theory that the Para
level’s eternal present is the bimba of future and past times respectively at the
Intermediate and Lower levels.
596 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
47
TS 3, 10–11.
48
See The I svarapratyabhij~
navivr sini by Abhinavagupta, 3 vols., ed.
: tivimar
Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies (Reprint, Delhi:
Akay Book Corporation, 1987), 1.5.11, 2:177–179. Sanderson and White emphasize
how Abhinavagupta’s philosophical rationalization and aestheticization of the
sexual ritual domesticized tantrism for a brahmanical audience.
49
TA 28.373b–375a, 7:3264–3265.
50
urn: ananda.
p
51
TA 28.375b–378a, 7:3265–3266. To mention one more example of these ritual
applications of the reflection model, Abhinavagupta at TA 32.1–2, 7:3593–3594
interprets the mudra as a pratibimba, citing the authority of the Devyay amala-
tantra.
ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 597
CONCLUSION
52
Pun: yananda and Nat:anandan atha, Kamak
alavil with Commentary Cidvalli,
asa
ed. Svamiji Maharaja Vanakhandeshvara (Datia: Pitambarapith Sanskrit Parishad,
1979), 2, 10.
53
See IPV 1.1.3, 1:67–68 on the king as illustrative example (dr: :st:anta)
in the
Pratyabhijña inference of the individual’s Lordship. One infers and recognizes that
one is Lord of the universe like the king over his domain. This passage is discussed in
Lawrence, 55. As already mentioned, sovereignty is also an important practical
expression of the engrossment of Śakti. For historical perspectives see Senjukta
Gupta and Richard Gombrich, ‘‘Kings, Power and the Goddess,’’ South Asia
Research 6 (1986), 123–138; and White, ‘‘The Power of the Yogin: Tantric Actors in
South Asia,’’ in Kiss of the Yogini, 123–159.
598 DAVID PETER LAWRENCE
54
Pun: yananda and Nat:anandan atha, 2, 13. This passage is discussed in Gopi-
nath Kaviraj, Bharat
iya Samskr _ : ti aur Sadhan
2 vols. (Patna: Bihar Rastrabhasa
a,
Parisad, 1977–1979), 1:20. In fact, Nat:an andanatha frequently refers to the
Chandogya
Upanis: ad, as he does to the Pratyabhijñ a philosophy. Note that in
speaking of a transvaluation of the Chandogya Upanis: ad’s stance on reflected
identity, I am not addressing the broader complex of relations of tantrism with the
Vedas and Upanis: ads in myth, metaphysics, sacrifice, mantra, and so on. Tantric
as well as bhakti traditions often highlight themes in the Upanis: ads in particular
that are exegetically downplayed by other traditions, for example, in their valua-
tions of agency and immanence. In the 19th century Paul Deussen, The Philosophy
of the Upanishads (Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1966), echoed the
former traditions in his argument that a ‘‘pantheistic’’ identification of Atman/
Brahman with the world is the dominant viewpoint of the Upanis: ads. The dis-
embodied and non-imaginary witness Self with which Indra learns to identify in
Chandogya
Upanis: ad, 8.7–12, 80–83, is paradoxically described in a manner of
which the monistic Śaivas would approve – as one upon the realization of which a
person ‘‘obtains all worlds and all desires’’ (sarvam _ sca lokan
apnoti
sarvam
_ sca
an).
kam
55
Madhuraja, Gurunathapar
amar
sa, ed. V. Raghavan, in Abhinavagupta and His
Works (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia, 1981), 29, 10.
ABHINAVAGUPTA’S USE OF THE ANALOGY OF REFLECTION 599
56
Ibid., 44, 15. In future publications, I plan to engage comparatively the monistic
Śaivas’ usage of the model of reflection with Western discussions of reflection and
‘‘narcissism’’ in metaphysics and philosophical psychology. Western philosophy and
theology since the Hellenistic period, including Platonism, Hermeticism, Gnosticism
and Judeo-Christian thought, have frequently described God as creating the world
and creatures in his own image. In Neoplatonism, for example, the hypostases
constitute a series of reflections emanating from the One. I mention that Julia
Kristeva has made some interesting and germane observations on Plotinus’ inter-
pretation of the myth of Narcissus. Plotinus compares one who does not immediately
trace the beauty immanent in the world to its transcendent source – to Narcissus who
perished gazing at his image in the pool. However, while Plotinus thus deplores
Narcissism, Kristeva observes that the ascent to and identification with the One that
he advocates is itself ‘‘Narcissan,’’ as he describes the experience of one who is ‘‘alone
with him who is alone’’ in terms of gaze and reflection. Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love,
trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 103–121. Also
see the rich study of A.H. Armstrong, ‘‘Platonic Mirrors,’’ in Hellenic and Christian
Studies (Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum, 1990), 147–181. As with monistic
Śaivism along with many expressions of the broader range of South Asian traditions
examined by Granoff, Neoplatonists use the concept of reflection to describe the
immanence of the transcendent, by which one may trace one’s way back to the
Ultimate Reality. For Abhinavagupta – as for Plotinus as well as Indra and Virocana
in the Chandogya
Upanis: ad – the spiritual error is believing in the independent and
substantial existence of what is only a reflection. However, the Platonic–Neoplatonic
conception of the participation (methexis) or imitation (mimesis) of the ideal in
matter or nonbeing differs ‘‘qualitatively’’ from Śaiva and other South Asian
understandings of emanation. It may likewise be said that the ancient Neoplatonists
placed ‘‘quantitatively’’ less value on the approach to the transcendent through the
immanent than the tantric traditions. Renaissance Neoplatonism and later idealism
and Romanticism increased the valuation of the immanent reflection of the trans-
cendent.