स्वातन्त्र्यfreedom · trika library
Argument

IPVV — V2-B ARGUMENT MAP (the jñānādhikāra caturtho vimarśa: memory and the yogin's perception, the self-cognition)

MACHINE_DRAFT · 3 premises
Question. Having established that memory is the Lord's un-broken power, Abhinavagupta now faces two further problems. First: how can the *past* be remembered, since the manifestation has no touch of time (the memory's "pastness")? Second: how can the *yogin* know another's cognition — the famous yogipratyakṣa — if the cognition is only self-cognition (svasaṃvitti)? And more fundamentally: what is the *nature* of cognition, such that memory and the yogin's knowledge are possible? The answer runs through the nature of the cognition as svasaṃvitti (the own-cognition), which is also self-luminous and manifests the other.
Issue. **The question:** Having established that memory is the Lord's un-broken power, Abhinavagupta now faces two further problems. First: how can the *past* be remembered, since the manifestation has no touch of time (the memory's "pastness")? Second: how can the *yogin* know another's cognition — the famous yogipratyakṣa — if the cognition is only self-cognition (svasaṃvitti)? And more fundamentally: what is the *nature* of cognition, such that memory and the yogin's knowledge are possible? The answer runs through the nature of the cognition as svasaṃvitti (the own-cognition), which is also self-luminous and manifests the other.

Premises

Memory's pastness
The objection: "the manifestation has no touch of time — how, then, is the past remembered?" Answer: the pastness is the *being-previously-manifested* (pūrvaprakāśitatva). The manifestation is cut (avacchidyate) by the limiting conditions (the upādhis — the place, the "yesterday," the thirst, the companion): "yesterday, thirsty, with that friend, I saw this jar as un-ripe" — the manifestation, contracted by the place and time, is the memory. In the māyā-word there is no memory-dealing; the māyā-word is precisely the contraction of the manifestation by the upādhis. The memory's object is the being-previously-manifested, re-recollected; the cognition of the object cut by the past experience is itself a fresh experience (abhinava eva anubhava).
The yogin's perception
The yogin (per the mā. vi. 4.4, "they desire the yoga-unity") is the param-essence knower; his objects, un-cut by time, are all in his own self as "I," or as "I-this." How, then, does one particular appearance arise for him, and with its past-time-specificity? Answer: the time is the appearing/not- appearing order (ābhāsānābhāsātmā krama eva kālaḥ). The body, flashing and not-flashing each moment, gives the endless time-difference. For those who take the body as the knower — bound by the time-chain — there is no fitness to see past/future. But when the yogin, by the teaching and the prasaṃkhyāna, thins the body, he sees [the other's cognition].
The cognition as svasaṃvitti
The cognition's own nature is self-cognition alone (svasaṃvinmātrarūpatva) — that which distinguishes it from the inert. The own-form (svabhāva) is that which never deviates, the un-pervasion/over-pervasion- empty marker. The cognition, self-luminous, manifests the other too (parāpi asya saṃvit) — for the inert cannot; only the cognition, in its freedom, manifests both the self and the other. The yoga- cognition of another is the own-cognition of the other, self-luminous, which the yogin, by the purity and the un-opposed spreading of his cognition, comes to know. Hence: the cognition is self-cognition; and by that self-cognition it also manifests the other — so the yogin's knowledge of another, and memory itself, are grounded in the one self-luminous awareness.
Unresolved. 1. The exact "yogijñāne vā avicāritāpātaśaṅkitapratibhānabalādeva vedyatā" (the yogin-cognition's object-ness by the un-investigated flash) — the crux; rendered per the text. 2. The "kākākṣivat" (the crow's-eye) joining of "bhānti" — the textual joining point; kept close.

Referenced by essays (2)

Strength: MACHINE_DRAFT · Status: MACHINE_DRAFT · packet JSON
Sources & corrections: edit source →. packet lives here.
{varjs}