Is there quantitative difference between subject (प्रमाता) and Īśvara (ईश्वर)?

[लोकेश]

While reading Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī 1.2, I came across a passage that raises the objection: how can the limited subject (pramātṛ) be identified with Īśvara, given that it lacks omniscience and omnipotence, even though it does possess the powers of knowing and acting?

ननु सर्वकर्तृत्वसर्वज्ञत्वे प्रमातुर्न स्तः ।

The reply follows: the term “sarva” (omni) does not imply any difference in the essential nature (svarūpa) of the powers of knowledge and action.

न खलु सर्वशब्दार्थो ज्ञातृकर्तृत्वयोः स्वरूपं भिनत्ति ।

In light of this, is it correct to say that Kashmir Śaivism differentiates the limited individual being from Īśvara only in terms of the extent (quantity) of the powers of knowledge and action, while maintaining that they are qualitatively identical? Wouldn’t this interpretation place Kashmir Śaivism closer to Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta where identity with Īśvara is accepted in terms of identical nature but not in terms of quantity (a drop vs an ocean simile)?

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

Dear Lokesh Ji,

It is my pleasure to clarify your doubts regarding the nature of Jīva with respect to Trika Śaivism and other Śaiva schools of thought such as Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita (Sivadvaita), Sakti Viśiṣṭādvaita, or Śaiva Siddhānta etc.

A.  As per the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Śrīkaṇṭācārya (the earliest  Viśiṣṭādvaita school), the essential nature of  Jīva  with Paraśiva is identical only in terms of svajātīyatva and vijātīyatva, except in terms of svagata-bheda. The anuttva-bhāva of Brahman is considered svabhāvika in Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita or Śakti Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta schools of Śaivism. It is due to the presence of anādi āṇava-mala, as well as māyīya-mala and kārma-mala. So, the anuttva-bhāva  in Jīva is true and has been since the beginning.  

But in the Pratyabhijñā system, the anuttva-bhāva is tāṭastha and not absolute. Parameswara by his own will (absolute freedom/Svātantrya) limits his 6 fold quality -

i. Sarvakartṛtvatā/Ananta-śaktimayatā, 

ii. Sarvajñatva, 

iii. Nitya-tṛpti-bodhatva, 

iv. Nityatva/Alupta-bodhatva, 

v.Svātantrya, and 

vi. Sarvavyāpakatva / Anādi-bodhatva

Just as a teacher, out of playful self-delight, imagines himself to be a student and sits beside another pupil, experiencing the life of a learner for the sake of joy in the very same way, the Supreme Śiva, through the play (līlā) of His own Svātantrya-śakti (Power of Absolute Freedom), binds, limits, and contracts Himself.  At this stage, that very Svātantrya-śakti assumes the designation Māyā, for it is through her that Śiva conceals and veils His own essential nature. The 5 fold layers of maya (māyīya-mala): Kalā, Vidyā, Rāga, Kāla & Niyati limit the above 6 fold qualities of Siva. By means of this power, the Infinite Consciousness restricts itself and appears as the finite jīva (individual soul), though in truth he never ceases to be the Infinite.

Also supported by Paraśurāma Kalpasūtram:

“Śarīraḥ kañcukitaḥ jīvaḥ, niṣkañcukitaḥ Paraśivaḥ” 

B.  Mahāmahōpādhyāya Śivaśrī Muḍigonda Nāgaliṅga Śāstrigal, an eminent Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedāntin, clearly stated in his commentary on Brahma-sūtra Śrīkaṇṭa-bhāṣya that after final liberation (sāyujya), Jīva attains the state of Śiva, but does not become Śiva itself. Being like Brahman and becoming Brahman itself are different.

But in the Pratyabhijñā system after final liberation (nirvāṇa) Jīva itself becomes Śiva/Brahman. In Śaiva or Śakti Viśiṣṭādvaita schools of Śaivism, not only jñāna, but also karma and bhakti are considered paths to liberation. However, in the Pratyabhijñā system, it is ātma-jñāna (self-realisation/recognition) due to Parameśvara’s śaktipāta, which alone is the cause of liberation by digesting the āṇava-mala (मलपरिपाक). 

C. Jagatjanmādi-kāraṇatva (“Janmādyasya yataḥ” - Brahma Sutra commentary of Śrīkaṇṭācārya) is tāṭastha lakṣaṇa incase of Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Vedānta whereas it is considered to be a svabhāvika lakṣaṇa of Brahma/Parasiva due to his own Svātantrya sakti in Trika philosophy. This Svātantrya sakti can act in 3 fold manner - Icchā, Jñāna, and Kriyā at 3 different levels. So, Trikacarya Swami Lakshman Joo stated that Sat+Cit+Ānanda+Icchā+Jñāna+Kriyā - is the Svarūpa-lakṣaṇa of Parasiva. 

etc.......

In this manner, we can distinguish the fundamental philosophical standpoints concerning the triad of Pāśu–Pati–Pāśa that as interpreted in the Trika–Pratyabhijñā system from that in the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta system.

With best regards,

--

Rohit Kumar Choudhury, 

Ph.D. Scholar, Soil Science, NET,

Researcher, Blogger, Practitioner,

Trika - Pratyavijna, Agamic Saivism, 

Admin, International Shiva Shakti Gyan Tirtha (ISSGT), West Bengal, India

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tantrollAsaH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tantrollasah...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tantrollasah/6d6d64fc-42a1-4d40-97ff-6230cca08d92n%40googlegroups.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025, 00:23 Rohit kumar Choudhury, <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lokesh Ji,

It is my pleasure to clarify your doubts regarding the nature of Jīva with respect to Trika Śaivism and other Śaiva schools of thought such as Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita (Sivadvaita), Sakti Viśiṣṭādvaita, or Śaiva Siddhānta etc.

A.  As per the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Śrīkaṇṭācārya (the earliest  Viśiṣṭādvaita school),

an academic point - the paranthesized claim is false. vedAnta-sUtras are already heavily pro VA. as such, commentators like Tanka and dramiDAchArya commented appropriately before rAmAnuja. The philosophy is clearly expressed in the divya-prabandhas and writings of yAmuna (all of whom precede shrIkaNTha). Further, I hear that shrIkaNTha's original text is not fully available and has many sections plagiarised from elsewhere?

the essential nature of  Jīva  with Paraśiva is identical only in terms of svajātīyatva and vijātīyatva, except in terms of svagata-bheda. The anuttva-bhāva of Brahman is considered svabhāvika in Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita or Śakti Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta schools of Śaivism. It is due to the presence of anādi āṇava-mala, as well as māyīya-mala and kārma-mala. So, the anuttva-bhāva  in Jīva is true and has been since the beginning.  

But in the Pratyabhijñā system, the anuttva-bhāva is tāṭastha and not absolute. Parameswara by his own will (absolute freedom/Svātantrya) limits his 6 fold quality -

i. Sarvakartṛtvatā/Ananta-śaktimayatā, 

ii. Sarvajñatva, 

iii. Nitya-tṛpti-bodhatva, 

iv. Nityatva/Alupta-bodhatva, 

v.Svātantrya, and 

vi. Sarvavyāpakatva / Anādi-bodhatva

Just as a teacher, out of playful self-delight, imagines himself to be a student and sits beside another pupil, experiencing the life of a learner for the sake of joy in the very same way, the Supreme Śiva, through the play (līlā) of His own Svātantrya-śakti (Power of Absolute Freedom), binds, limits, and contracts Himself.  At this stage, that very Svātantrya-śakti assumes the designation Māyā, for it is through her that Śiva conceals and veils His own essential nature.

for the teacher to enjoy being a pretend student, he should not forget who he really is - otherwise he will suffer exactly like a real student. this is antithetical to the nature of brahman and so is the major objection to such bhedAbheda (svarUpaikya)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tantrollasah/CACtPaxuGWu9mM%2BdLP1WHxsOV2LTFmZEiZK-szCPo4G%3DUw8XJzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025, 06:29 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki), <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025, 00:23 Rohit kumar Choudhury, <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lokesh Ji,

 

B.  Mahāmahōpādhyāya Śivaśrī Muḍigonda Nāgaliṅga Śāstrigal, an eminent Śaiva Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedāntin, clearly stated in his commentary on Brahma-sūtra Śrīkaṇṭa-bhāṣya that after final liberation (sāyujya), Jīva attains the state of Śiva, but does not become Śiva itself. Being like Brahman and becoming Brahman itself are different.

where is the advaita here? sounds pure dvaita.

C. Jagatjanmādi-kāraṇatva (“Janmādyasya yataḥ” - Brahma Sutra commentary of Śrīkaṇṭācārya) is tāṭastha lakṣaṇa incase of Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Vedānta whereas it is considered to be a svabhāvika lakṣaṇa of Brahma/Parasiva due to his own Svātantrya sakti in Trika philosophy.

svAbhAvika in case of rAmAnujAdi system too.

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

Not dvaita. Because in Śrīkaṇṭa’s school of thought, after liberation, jīva becomes aṃśa of Śiva, it is inseparable (jale jalamiva nyāyena). That’s why the absolute reality is considered only one without any second entity, hence qualified monism (viśiṣṭādvaita).

In Dvaita Śaivism, jīva is always different from Śiva due to the presence of anādi-mala, even after liberation. The souls remain distinct, though they are in harmony with Śiva with respect to omniscience (sarvajñatva) and bliss (ānanda).

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

1. What I stated above is as per the information provided from the lineage and described in Śrīkaṇṭa Vijayam, also supported by eminent Vedāntins and Ācāryas like Hālāsyanātha Śāstrī, Śrī Śrīnivāsa Śāstrigaḷ, and Mahāmahopādhyāya Nāgaliṅga Śāstrī also. Śrīkaṇṭa’s school was actually evolved from Mahāpāśupata (Vaidika Pāśupata), and his guru was the first Pāśupatācārya Śveta, whose name was clearly mentioned by Śrīkaṇṭācārya himself at the very beginning of his Bhāṣyam.- "नमश्श्वेताभिधानाय नानागमविधायिने.......कल्याणगुरवे नमः ||" 

Śrīmad Appayya Dīkṣita also stated Śvetācārya (Śivāvatāra) as the vidyāguru of Śrīkaṇṭācārya ("विद्यागुरुं नमस्करोति नम इति" )in his Śivakarmanīdīpikā.  As per Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya ṭīkā Śivacintāmaṇiprabhā, it was Śvetācārya who gave Pāśupata-dīkṣā to Śrīkaṇṭa. 

Hence, the evidence is clear.

Moreover, Śrīmad Appayya Dīkṣita is said to have listed the Brahmasūtra-commentaries in chronological order as: Śrīkaṇṭhīya, Bhāgavatapādīya, Rāmānujīya, and Ānandatīrthīya  in his Caturmataleśasaṃgraha. Additionally, in Siddhānta Dīpikā (Editor N. Pillai, Vol. 9, No. 2), it is clearly mentioned that Nīlakaṇṭha/Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary on the Brahmasūtras was the earliest after the Bodhāyaṇīya, which is also supported by Mahāmahopādhyāya Nāgaliṅga Śāstrī.

Furthermore, the allegation of “being a plagiarist” found in Śuddhādvaita-mārtaṇḍa is only a result of sectarian prejudice and therefore invalid, as stated by S. S. Sūryanārāyaṇa Śāstrī. And the fully available text as palm leaf manuscript was safely preserved by the tradition. 

2. Parasiva don't forget his true nature but acting like that. It is just like a play, clarified in Anuttaraprakāśapañcāśikā, stated "शिवादिक्षितिपर्यन्तं विश्वं वपुर उदञ्चयन् |पञ्चकृत्यमहानाट्यरसिकः क्रीडति प्रभुः || २ ||"

Darpaṇa-bimba nyāya flushes all the antithesis.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 16:43, Rohit kumar Choudhury <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not dvaita. Because in Śrīkaṇṭa’s school of thought, after liberation, jīva becomes aṃśa of Śiva, it is inseparable (jale jalamiva nyāyena). That’s why the absolute reality is considered only one without any second entity, hence qualified monism (viśiṣṭādvaita).

This is what one would call bhedAbheda (like bhAskara's school), rather than vishiShTAdvaita. 

--

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

The Bhedābheda perspective is quite different. The Śrīpati’s school of thought (Vīraśaiva) is actually based on the Bhedābheda viewpoint. In the Śrīkara-bhāṣya, he also criticizes the Viśiṣṭādvaita perspective of Śrīkaṇṭa, will be discussed later on.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 21:16, Rohit kumar Choudhury <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. What I stated above is as per the information provided from the lineage and described in Śrīkaṇṭa Vijayam,

Hagiographies are notoriously unreliable (vide mutually inconsistent shankara-vijaya-s).

 

Śrīkaṇṭa’s school was actually evolved from Mahāpāśupata (Vaidika Pāśupata), and his guru was the first Pāśupatācārya Śveta, whose name was clearly mentioned by Śrīkaṇṭācārya himself at the very beginning of his Bhāṣyam.- "नमश्श्वेताभिधानाय नानागमविधायिने.......कल्याणगुरवे नमः ||" 

I don't see why this is relevant. 

Śrīmad Appayya Dīkṣita also stated Śvetācārya (Śivāvatāra) as the vidyāguru of Śrīkaṇṭācārya ("विद्यागुरुं नमस्करोति नम इति" )in his Śivakarmanīdīpikā.  As per Śrīkaṇṭhabhāṣya ṭīkā Śivacintāmaṇiprabhā, it was Śvetācārya who gave Pāśupata-dīkṣā to Śrīkaṇṭa. 

Hence, the evidence is clear. 

Moreover, Śrīmad Appayya Dīkṣita is said to have listed the Brahmasūtra-commentaries in chronological order as: Śrīkaṇṭhīya, Bhāgavatapādīya, Rāmānujīya, and Ānandatīrthīya  in his Caturmataleśasaṃgraha.

Why is 16th century appayya's supposed opinion on chronology "evidence" of any sort for works composed centuries earlier? Medieval commentators thought pANini preceded vAlmIki.

Also, where do Tanka and dramiDAchArya figure in this list? If so, can it be considered complete or comprehensive so as to be able to deduce priority?
Furthermore, why should vishiShTAdvaita philosophy be only expressed as a brahmasUtra commentary?

 

Additionally, in Siddhānta Dīpikā (Editor N. Pillai, Vol. 9, No. 2), it is clearly mentioned that Nīlakaṇṭha/Śrīkaṇṭha’s commentary on the Brahmasūtras was the earliest after the Bodhāyaṇīya, which is also supported by Mahāmahopādhyāya Nāgaliṅga Śāstrī.

You mean this magazine - https://archive.org/details/SiddhantaDeepika-Complete14Volumes ? Just dropping names is not convincing - could you link to the exact page so that one may check the arguments used?

 

Furthermore, the allegation of “being a plagiarist” found in Śuddhādvaita-mārtaṇḍa is only a result of sectarian prejudice and therefore invalid, as stated by S. S. Sūryanārāyaṇa Śāstrī. And the fully available text as palm leaf manuscript was safely preserved by the tradition. 

2. Parasiva don't forget his true nature but acting like that. It is just like a play, clarified in Anuttaraprakāśapañcāśikā, stated "शिवादिक्षितिपर्यन्तं विश्वं वपुर उदञ्चयन् |पञ्चकृत्यमहानाट्यरसिकः क्रीडति प्रभुः || २ ||"

One can't find any issue with this particular verse taken in isolation (sharIra-Atma-bhAva effecting clear separation between the prabhu and his creations.)

However, if you go beyond it and say that _you_ are para-shiva in svarUpa (and not as a mere vapuSh/ body)  - then I must question - Why do you suffer? Why don't you remember creating the universe and continually lording over it?

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 21:40, Rohit kumar Choudhury <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Bhedābheda perspective is quite different.

How exactly? Same ghaTAkAsha = mahAkAsha logic as in "jīva becomes aṃśa of Śiva".

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

🚩Hagiographies are notoriously unreliable (vide mutually inconsistent shankara-vijaya-s). 

I don't see why this is relevant. 

🍀--- You believe or don't believe depends upon you. It is a years long common phenomena due to sectarian conflict. But Srouta Siva Vishistadvaita tradition needn't be depended upon individual opinions. If anyone belonging to any other tradition neither belives in hagiographies nor in acaryas'/commentators' opinions, then he himself should go to the past to collect evidences 😂. I have informed here which I had gathered from their traditions and texts.

🍀 That is relavant because there the commentator clearly stated about his lineage and guru and that guru's name also found in Purana sastras, which suggests the existence of Srikanthacarya at that era. And I think this needn't anyone's validation when a number of acaryas validated that.

As a suppliment, I just have mentioned several opinions by several scholars/acaryas. 

🚩Why is 16th century appayya's supposed opinion on chronology "evidence" of any sort for works composed centuries earlier? Medieval commentators thought pANini preceded vAlmIki.

Also, where do Tanka and dramiDAchArya figure in this list? If so, can it be considered complete or comprehensive so as to be able to deduce priority?

Furthermore, why should vishiShTAdvaita philosophy be only expressed as a brahmasUtra commentary?

🍀--- Why not? A son does always follow his father not the neighbours. Appayya Dikshitendra was an authoritative figure in Saiva Vedanta school. Who cares whatever others think. 

Tanka and dramiDAchArya's names aren't enlisted this doesn't mean that the list is not authentic. Saivas can also claim where is the names of Sveta, Renuka etc. Appayya listed only BS commemtators' names chronologically. I mean to say there in the parenthesized portion who wrote commentaries on BS, i.e. Srikanta, the earliest brahmasutra commentator of Vishistadwaita school.

🍀vishiShTAdvaita philosophy or advaita philosophy can never be only expressed as a brahmasUtra commentary.  It is well know to all that the philosophies exist prior to the era of  composing BS. 

🚩You mean this magazine - https://archive.org/details/SiddhantaDeepika-Complete14Volumes ? Just dropping names is not convincing - could you link to the exact page so that one may check the arguments used?

🍀--- I am not convincing anyone here. I am just showing what scholars opined in several texts. The conflict between thesis and antithesis is a years long cycle. As much as can I remember, mentioned above already. It's given the end portion of the Vol 2, No.9.

🚩 One can't find any issue with this particular verse taken in isolation (sharIra-Atma-bhAva effecting clear separation between the prabhu and his creations.)

However, if you go beyond it and say that _you_ are para-shiva in svarUpa (and not as a mere vapuSh/ body) - then I must question - Why do you suffer? Why don't you remember creating the universe and continually lording over it?

🍀--- The seperation is not real in Trika. Explanation I gave already above.

We suffer and can't feel Sivoham state due to the action of Apara_Sakti as well as Siva's Tirodhan sakti. To understand this concepts, you have to thoroughly read about the 7 levels of Saktipata. The pramata drenched with Tivra-Tivra level of Saktipata, never do suffer and itself becomes Siva. 

[Rohit kumar Choudhury]

If you really want to learn or know what are the difference between Saiva Visistadwaita and Bhed-abheda, I think it will be better to learn from a Saiva vedantin, a saiva master practically being his disciple. 

[लोकेश]

Thank you everyone for answering. However, my original question still remains unanswered. I want to ask it again - Is there quantitative difference between individual subject and Īśvara in Pratyabhijñā school? 

In other words, does Īśvara knows everything? If he knows everything then how can a limited subject be ever equated to Īśvara who knows everything?

Kind regards

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 23:24, Rohit kumar Choudhury <choudh...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you really want to learn or know what are the difference between Saiva Visistadwaita and Bhed-abheda, I think it will be better to learn from a Saiva vedantin, a saiva master practically being his disciple. 

Or just talking to someone articulate who clearly understands both concepts should suffice.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 at 11:46, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you everyone for answering. However, my original question still remains unanswered. I want to ask it again - Is there quantitative difference between individual subject and Īśvara in Pratyabhijñā school? 

In other words, does Īśvara knows everything? If he knows everything then how can a limited subject be ever equated to Īśvara who knows everything?

अवस्थाभेदेन - कस्याञ्चनावस्थायां बन्धो ऽभ्युपगतः। (वैदिकदृष्ट्या त्व् अनिष्टम् एतत्।)

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 21:44, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

2. Parasiva don't forget his true nature but acting like that. It is just like a play, clarified in Anuttaraprakāśapañcāśikā, stated "शिवादिक्षितिपर्यन्तं विश्वं वपुर उदञ्चयन् |पञ्चकृत्यमहानाट्यरसिकः क्रीडति प्रभुः || २ ||"

One can't find any issue with this particular verse taken in isolation (sharIra-Atma-bhAva effecting clear separation between the prabhu and his creations.)

However, if you go beyond it and say that _you_ are para-shiva in svarUpa (and not as a mere vapuSh/ body)  - then I must question - Why do you suffer? Why don't you remember creating the universe and continually lording over it?

An appreciable level of incarnation by use of svAtantrya would be that of rudras described in https://www.youtube.com/shorts/psb4bT7WVdI as being above mAyA in shuddhAdhvan, and not anything below it.