PHILO = Apreço + SOPHIA = Compreensão

Version imprimable de cet article Version imprimable

Accueil > Oriente > Dyczkowski : absoluteness of the absolute

Dyczkowski : absoluteness of the absolute

vendredi 9 mars 2018

The Śaiva absolutist rejects any theory that maintains that the universe is less than real. From his point of view a doctrine of two truths, one absolute? and the other relative, endangers the very foundation of monism. The Kashmiri Śaiva approach is integral : everything is given a place in the economy of the whole. It is equally wrong to say that reality is either one or diverse. Those who do so fail to grasp the true nature? of things which is neither as well as both.

“We, do not” says Abhinavagupta Abhinavagupta
Abhinavagupta (950-1020), maître du shivaïsme du Cachemire, aussi maître en yoga, tantra, poétique, dramaturgie.
, “base our contention that [reality] is one because of the contradictions inherent in saying that it is dual. It is your approach (pakşa) that accepts this [method]. [While], if [duality and oneness] were in fact [to contradict each other], they would clearly be two [distinct realities].”

The Vedāntin, who maintains that non-duality is the true nature of the absolute by rejecting duality as only provisionally real, is ultimately landed in a dualism between the real and illusory by the foolishness of his own excessive sophistry (vācāfadurvidyā). Oneness is better understood as the coextensive unity (ekarasa) of both duality and unity. They are equally expressions of the absolute. As Gopinath Kaviraj says :

According to Śankara Shankara
, Brahman? is truth and Māyā is inexplicable (anirvacanīyā). Hence the [Advaitin’s] endeavour to demonstrate the superiority of Advaita? philosophy is turned against his own system. It tarnishes the picture of its philosophical perfection and profundity. He cannot accept Māyā to be a reality, therefore his non-dualism is exclusive. The whole system is based on renunciation and elimination and thus is not all-embracing .... By accepting Māyā to be Brahman (brahmamayī), eternal (nityā) and real (satyarūpa), Brahman and Māyā [in the Tantra] become one and coextensive.

[38] The Vedāntin seeks to preserve the integrity of the absolute by safeguarding it from all possible predication. The Śaiva defends the absolute status of the absolute by ensuring that it is in every way self-subsistent (svatantra) and all-embracing (pūrna). The integral nature of the absolute allows for the existence? of the world? of objectively perceivable phenomena? along with the pure subjectivity of consciousness. The two represent opposite polarities of a single reality. Of these two, objectivity is insignificant (tuccha) with respect to the ultimacy (paramārthatva) of the subject. It is the sphere of negation, in which objectivity presents itself as a void? (sūnya) in relation to the fullness of the subject. Thus it appears in some Kashmiri Śaiva works that objectivity is said to be false with respect to the ultimate reality of absolute consciousness. What is meant, however, is that nothing can exist apart from the absolute ; not merely in the sense that only the absolute exists, but also that nothing exists separated from it. All things are as if nothing in themselves apart from the absolute in this sense alone—it does not mean that they do not exist. The world, in other words, represents a level of manifestation within the absolute which in the process of its emanation must, at a certain stage, radically contrast one aspect of its nature with another to appear as the duality and multiplicity of manifestation. The One is not any one thing because it is all things ; excluding nothing from its omniformity, it cannot be defined in any other way than as the Supremely Real (paramārtha).

The Real is, from this point of view, the All (nikhila). It is the pure absolute because nothing stands outside it which can in any way qualify its absoluteness ; on this point at least, Śaiva and Vedāntin are in agreement. It is the Śaiva’s approach to establishing the absoluteness of the absolute which differs from the Vedānta. The Śaiva method is one of an ever widening inclusion of phenomena mistakenly thought to be outside the absolute. The Vedāntin, on the other hand, seeks to understand the nature of the absolute by excluding (niseciha) every element of experience which does not conform to the criterion of absoluteness, until all that remains is the unqualified Brahman. The Śaiva’s approach is one of affirmation and the Vedāntin’s one of negation. They arrive at the absolute from opposite directions.

Voir en ligne : MARK DYCZKOWSKI