This post presents a translation of Chapter Eleven of Abhinavagupta's Tantrasāra (“The Essence of the Tantras”), titled “The Descent of Power”. This chapter focuses on śaktipāta, the initial awakening that brings one to the spiritual path in a real sense. It is a summary of the teachings set forth in Tantrāloka Chapter 13. I include supplementary material from the latter source in my indented comments.
TRANSLATION:
Now some may attain liberation directly through following all that has been taught up to this point. For others, it comes about due to grasping the utility of initiation. Thus initiation and what follows it must be explained. On this point, we must ask who is qualified (adhikārī) for initiation? In order to ascertain the answer to this question, we will investigate the topic of śaktipāta, the Descent of Power.
In this matter, some say that the cycle of worldly suffering (saṃsāra), which has ignorance as its root, exists [solely] due to a lack of insight. When that ignorance is removed because of the burgeoning of insight, it is termed śaktipāta. For people who argue thus, śaktipāta is simply the arising of accurate insight [into the nature of reality]. We object that what ought to be addressed is, how is that accomplished?
[The consideration of various views:]
If śaktipāta is produced by action (karma), like the ordinary result of an action, then we have the unacceptable conclusion of [śaktipāta remaining within] the domain of ordinary experience [as opposed to being an act of grace]. And further, we would have the entirely unwarranted conclusion of accepting that śaktipāta is applicable to an ordinary experiencer, [a bhogin, caught up in the world of sense-experience].
On the other hand, if the cause [of śaktipāta] is the Will of the Lord, then the arising of insight is both purposeless and logically mutually dependent. Furthermore, partiality on the part of the Lord is an unacceptable consequence [of this view].
‘Equality of karmas’ is the theory that when two opposing karmas of equal strength block one another, śaktipāta occurs. If this [theory is proposed], we deny it. If karmas are successive, [then it is untenable] due to the impossibility of their opposition. Even if such a ‘karmic blockage’ were possible, [it could not be the cause of śaktipāta] because of the logical problem that another, unopposed karma could [equally well] grant [the re-commencement of] experience. In the absence of an unopposed karma to re-initiate experience, then your theory is unworkable due to the unacceptable consequence of the falling away of the body [i.e., death, because experience is no longer possible].
“Karma as the bestower of type of birth and life-span cannot be blocked in this way, but only as the bestower of experience can it be blocked”—if this is argued, we say “Why?” If Power can descend in spite of the existence of those (types of) karma, then why would She be worried about bestowing experience?
In the corresponding passage in Tantrāloka, Abhinava clarifies this by adding, “When Śiva manifests within a particular individual soul in his true form, he does not thereby depend on impurity (mala) or karma. How could they, which are part of the nature of the individual soul alone, become causes with regard to him? Thus he brings it about totally independently of māyā (and its correlates).” (13.115-6ab)
Now we will address the theory of śaktipāta occurring when there is a ‘ripening of Impurity’ (mala-paripāka). What is the nature of that ripening? And what is its cause? In answer to this, it is said to occur through one or more of these: renunciation; special religious practices; discrimination; devoted service to holy people; attaining the company of holy people; worship of God; and so on. These are (variously) answered as being the cause [of the ripening of Impurity and the subsequent Descent of Power]—but all this is the nonsensical prattling of the dualists.
Here Abhinava gives an amusing dismissal to this theory, but in the Tantrāloka he argues against it much more carefully:
“‘But surely, [an objectioner might say,] those who attain the state of mantra-beings and so on, do so through worship (pūjā), mantra repetition (japa), meditation, zealous service of God (śaṅkarāsevanā), and so on. How then can their attainment be independent of actions?’ Not so, (we say). Let us begin first by investigating why they (engage) in mantra repetition, meditation on transcendent Śiva, and things of that nature. (All the arguments for) the (theory of the) equality of karmas, growing disgusted with the world (vairāgya), the ripening of impurity, and so on (as causes) have been found faulty. If you say the cause is the Lord’s will, then the one and only (form of that) cause is the Descent of Power.” (13.259cd-262ab)
Thus Abhinava makes the interesting argument that rather than ‘good works’ drawing God’s grace, it is only through grace in the form of śaktipāta that one can have any real capacity for, or sustained interest in, such spiritual practices. This accords with his idea that śaktipāta, taking place as it does when the Lord decides to reveal his divine nature through the vehicle of an apparent individual, marks the beginning of the committed spiritual path, not some point of merit reached along it. Further, all activities on that path are an expression of divine power, and thus are not part of the karmic set-up, as their purpose is, according to him, to effect a temporary (and eventually permanent) identification with one’s true nature, and not to produce change within the matrix of ordinary reality as actions are generally intended to do. He comments, “Thus mantra repetition and so on are [expressions of the divine] Power of Action (kriyā-śakti), not karma. For ‘karma’ in general usage is that which grants lower forms of experience and obscures the true nature of the experiencer.” (TĀ 13.262-3c)
All the divine Powers, by virtue of their intrinsic quality of total freedom, operate outside the normal boundaries of the circumscribed realm of differentiated reality. Further, as in all coherent nondual philosophies, Abhinava argues that the state of liberation is accessed through an epistemological shift, not an ontological one. Thus, for him, even ritual is a form of mystical knowing, and can have no other valid purpose but the revelation of the eternally and singularly existent transindividual Consciousness that has ever been both subject and objects of one’s experience. Now that he has refuted the opponent’s views, he goes on to state that of his own tradition.
By contrast, in our tradition that teaches the nonduality of the independent & free Highest Divinity (svatantra-parameśādvaya-vāda), it occurs in this way. The Highest Divinity, as a play of hiding his/her/its true nature, becomes a bound soul (paśu), an individual (pudgala), an individuated consciousness (aṇu), and yet there is no contradiction to his true nature in manifesting within the divisions of space, time, and particularity.
In the same way (i.e., as an independent play), when ready to end the concealment of his true nature, and experience the return to that true nature instantly or gradually, then He is called an individual soul that is a fit vessel for śaktipāta. And He is Supreme Śiva [throughout this process], whose essence is simply his radical autonomy: the One who causes Power to ‘descend’.
In this beautifully written passage, Abhinava argues that ‘the Highest Divinity and ‘the contracted individual soul’ are just different names for one Consciousness in two different states or phases. Thus, though śaktipāta remains here an act of grace, it is in fact an act of gracing oneself. This is stated in the last phrase, which hinges on the fact that the Sanskrit word śaktipāta is grammatically causative and thus suggests an agent. In nondual ontology, there is of course only one agent, whether in an expanded or contracted phase.
Thus the Descent of Power is entirely independent, and results in the manifestation of one’s true nature. But for one who [still] desires enjoyment, it depends on karma. Now, the Descent of Power received by one desiring enjoyment in a supernatural form [in another world] takes place through [the agency of other divine powers]: Rudra, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and so on, beings who hold office within the realm of differentiated reality (māyā), [and who are] directed by the Will of the Highest Divinity. [Such a ‘lower grade’ śaktipāta], granting [various] other fruits—e.g., discrimination between the soul (puruṣa) and the faculty of discernment (buddhi), between the soul and materiality (prakṛti), between the soul and the limited power of action (kalā), between māyā and the soul, [culminating in] existence in the form of a Mantra-being or [as a Lord of Mantras or Great Lord of Mantras]—binds one to experience (bhoga) in a Level of Reality (tattva) below That [of Śiva-Śakti].
Here Abhinavagupta enumerates the levels of attainment reached by those who want to enjoy existence as a superhuman entity in a higher dimension of reality. He alludes to the attainment that is the pinnacle for the Sāṅkhya system, kaivalya or ‘isolation’, then to the higher states of being called Pralayākala and Vijñānākala. The former are those free of karma, existing in dimensions (bhuvanas) above the kalā-tattva, but still within māyā. The latter are free of both karma and māyā, and exist just below the Pure Universe, where everything that exists does so as a phase of divine awareness. Mantras are (in their true form) conscious entities that exist in the Pure Universe on the level of Pure Wisdom (śuddhavidyā), while Mantreśvaras and Mantra-maheśvaras are higher phases that exist on the Īśvara and Sadāśiva levels of the Pure Universe respectively. The latter then are the highest phase of reality other than Śiva-Śakti. Abhinava stresses here that all these levels of divine enjoyment stop short of that ultimate transcendent reality, suggesting to the reader that the latter is the only worthwhile goal. (For more information on these categories, see The Recognition Sutras, Chapter 3; Vasudeva 2004; also TĀ 13.271cd-76ab and 9.184-189.)
[The śaktipāta which takes place] for one desiring both enjoyment and liberation is dependent on karma with reference to the enjoyment [part], but with reference to liberation, it is independent of karma. Thus śaktipāta can be both dependent and independent.
Abhinava adds in the Tantrāloka, “The Descent of Power and devotion to God of those who do not desire fruits (of worldly enjoyment) are independent of family, caste, body, actions, age, religious practices, and wealth, while the devotion of those who do desire fruits depends on actions and so on. Therefore there is a variation in the kinds of fruits attained, but it is not so regarding liberation.” (13.117c-119b)
Why śaktipāta occurs to some particular person [and not another] need not be discussed. He [the individual who receives it and the one who does not] himself is the Highest Divinity appearing as that (i.e., in the form of one who is a vessel for śaktipāta and one who is not). When this is the reality, who indeed is that person with reference to whom this objection is made an issue?
The Nine Types of Śaktipāta
Now this śaktipāta is of nine types, because the three types of ‘intense’, ‘medium’, and ‘gentle’ are again [multiplied] by [the three variants of] ‘amplified,’ ‘middling,’ and ‘reduced’. [1.] First, ‘amplified intense’ (śaktipāta) immediately causes the falling away of the body, [and the attainment of] the state of the Highest Divinity.
[2.] ‘Middling intense’ (śaktipāta) causes a spontaneous arising of intuitive insight in one whose conviction is thus based [only] on himself, without any need for scriptures or teachers. When this intuitive insight arises, he is said to be—without any external qualification rite—a prātibha-guru or ‘intuitive master,’ a giver of both enjoyment (bhoga) and liberation (mokṣa).
The second variety of śaktipāt results in living liberation (jīvanmukti) after a brief sādhanā, because the unfailing divine insight (pratibhā) guides the recipient from within. He or she needs no evidence (pratyaya) for this attainment other than the clear insight it bestows. Such a person needs no formal rite of initiation or consecration, because s/he already possesses what that would bestow. In TĀ, Abhinava comments, “For one on the path of divine intuition, there is no (necessity) for the procedure of the several initiations, no (formal) consecration (as a guru), no succession to a lineage, and no (ritual) vow of mantras, since s/he is directed (adhiṣṭhita) by the Primal Sage, the great Divinity (Śiva). It is for the attainment of such inner power that all the rites are offered; but it is (already) his own nature.” (13.140-1) All the practices referred to here are consecrating rituals generally thought necessary to qualify one to perform certain practices or hold office as a guru.
The idea of an authoritative guru not formally consecrated must have been controversial in AG’s time, and certainly would not have been admitted by many groups. In Indian religious culture generally, rites of passage (saṃskāra) were considered necessary to grant the qualification (adhikāra) to teach or undertake esoteric practices. Therefore Abhinava argues that this type of recipient of śaktipāta is in fact initiated, through the goddesses that embody the potencies of his own consciousness rather than through an external intermediary (see below). This esotericizing exegesis does more than validate such a person; it elevates him beyond the level of those who require formal initiation. (TĀ 4.78-79 and Niśisañcāra 4.41 also mention this category of master.)
Nor does he need any rites whatsoever, such as the basic form of initiation or [higher initiations]. Even here, though, there are relative gradations, due to variations in the Will [of the Absolute]. Though spontaneous intuition (pratibhā) is present, there may also be a necessity for scripture and teachers for the sake of corroborating it. Many divisions, such as ‘without support’ and ‘with support’ are described in the scriptures with regard to the intuitive master. (Even) a portion of true pratibhā is stronger [than textual study] in all cases, because, in its presence, no other form of knowledge has authority, just as in the dualist philosophy [of the Saiddhāntikas], the ‘Śivas by liberation’ have no authority in the acts of creation, dissolution, and so on, in the presence of the Eternal Śiva.
Abhinava writes in Tantrāloka, “Therefore such a devotee of the teachings of Śiva [who receives this level of śaktipāta] is initiated (directly) by the Goddesses [of his own Awareness]. Depending on the steadiness or shakiness [of his intuition] he too should perform self-refinement (svasaṃskāra), through discipline, mantra repetition, and so on, in accordance with sacred observance (vrata), either by himself or directed by a Guru.” (13.142-3ab)
[3.] From a ‘reduced intense’ Descent of Power, there arises the desire to approach a true teacher (sadguru). [The desire to approach] a false guru, on the other hand, is nothing but the divine power of Obscuration (tirodhāna). Leaving a false guru and going to a true Guru itself only occurs because of śaktipāta.
A true teacher (sadguru), perfectly full of the insights into reality [taught] in all these scriptures, is none other than the revered Lord Bhairava incarnate. Even a Yogin liberates others only by means of his well-practiced insight; with regard to that capacity of liberating others, his status as a yogin (per se), like his other intrinsic qualities, such as wealth, good looks, and so on, is useless. But all others [who do not have such liberating knowledge] are false gurus [despite any attractive qualities they may possess].
He adds succinctly in Tantrāloka, “One thing alone marks one a Guru: wisdom that is expertly put into practice.” (13.333ab) And, “The variation in capacity for (true) knowledge (seen in various gurus) is due solely to the strength of their śaktipāta.” (13.326cd)
Thus one who desires to approach [such a teacher as a result of his śaktipāta] obtains the initiation characterized by insight from the guru, by which he is liberated quite quickly, while living [in this body]. In this matter, the different ways [the disciple may receive this initiation are]: through a look [from the guru]; through [his] discourse; through [his] explanation of scripture; through demonstrating his conduct; through giving the oblation; and so on.
In the first sentence above, Abhinava may be thinking of the definition of initiation given in the Niśvāsa-naya, “Initiation through the descent of Śiva’s Power bestows insight.” Here and in the corresponding Tantrāloka passage, he argues for the validity of non-ritual forms of initiation that happen spontaneously through the agency of a charismatic Guru who has realized his or her oneness with Śiva. From the context, we know that this higher form of initiation applies to those who have experience a śaktipāta of the third degree. We receive more detail from this interesting passage in the TĀ:
“‘What is the Truth? Who knows that Truth?’ Due to having these thoughts, through intuition or the company of [spiritually-inclined] friends, one conceives a desire to approach a teacher. Thus, because he possesses that desire, he finds a teacher. And [the teacher], by the specific gradation [of śaktipāta with which he himself is] endowed, is [either] self-perfected or liberated through spiritual practice (lit., ‘refined’).” (13. 222cd-224ab)
“These are the varieties of initiation: from (the guru’s) discourse; from being in company (with him); from a compassionate glance; from a scripture; through a transference (of śakti); from him showing the basic religious practice; from the oblation; from the mystic power of mantra or sacred mudrā; by one of these or all of them.” (13.227cd-28)
Or (one who has received this ‘reduced-intense’ śaktipāta) may obtain an initiation, from one practiced in it, of ‘deprivation of the vital force’ that occurs immediately. However, that initiation may be done only at the moment of death. We will discuss this later. This ends the [discussion of the] three kinds of intense śaktipāta.
The category of sadyo-nirvāṇa-dīkṣā, which ejects the soul from the body and grants instant liberation, is also taught in the Śaiva Siddhānta. As this topic really belongs under the topic of Initiation, Abhinava takes it up there (chapter 15 of the Tantrasāra). Now he turns to the medium grades of śaktipāta, which result in liberation at death as opposed to in this very life.
[4.] When one receives an ‘amplified medium’ Descent of Power, though he takes initiation, his realization of the divinity of his Self is not firm to the same degree [as those who receive intense śaktipātas]. However, through the gradual ripening of his realization, he certainly becomes Śiva when the body dies.
[5.] Now, one who receives ‘middling medium’ (śaktipāta), though possessing a desire for divinity, [still] has a desire for enjoyment. Thus he is worthy of (being granted) knowledge, in his initiation, of that very kind [i.e., that leads to enjoyment then liberation]. Having experienced enjoyment obtained through the practice of yoga, in this very body, s/he certainly becomes Śiva when the body dies.
[6.] From ‘reduced medium’ (śaktipāta), having experienced enjoyment in another body [in one’s subsequent incarnation], he becomes divine (in that next life). Such are the three varieties of medium (śaktipāta).
Clearly, Abhinava is much less interested in discussing the paths of those who desire enjoyments (bhoga) and powers (siddhi). He repeatedly privileges the longing for liberation (mumukṣā) over the desire for enjoyment, though his scriptural texts make no such judgment, regarding siddhi as a perfectly acceptable goal. Abhinava argues in the Tantrāloka that it is only when a yogin becomes indifferent to the exercise of power over others that he is finally liberated and can then liberate others. (13.185cd)
[7.-9.] When desire for enjoyment is predominant, then (śaktipāta) is ‘gentle’. Because the desire for it is (fulfilled) by means of the mantras and yoga of the Supreme Lord, and because the mantras, yoga, and (other practices) of the Supreme Lord (necessarily eventually) culminate in liberation, it (still) has the nature of a śaktipāta. Regarding that (type of śaktipāta also), because it has gradations, there are three varieties. Thus the Descent of Power is most important (even for one desiring enjoyments).
The (‘śaktipāta’) of the Vaiṣṇavas and others, on the other hand, is like the favor (anugraha) of a king, and does not result in liberation. Thus it has not been considered here. However, the influence of the Power of Śiva is universal, as has been said (in the scriptures); but She does not become the Eldress (Jyeṣṭhā) (for the Vaiṣṇavas and others), on the contrary (she is for them only either) Ghorā or Ghoratarā.
Here Abhinava refers to the aspects of Śakti that operate to grant different types of beings the destiny they knowingly or unknowingly pursue. Jyeṣṭhā, the Eldress, also known as Aghorā, ‘the Not-terrible Goddess,’ is the aspect of Śakti who continuously uplifts those on the path of awakening. Ghorā, ‘the Terrible Goddess,’ also known as Raudrī, is that Power who keeps those who desire enjoyment on the wheel of transmigration, content with the higher pleasures of existence on Earth or in the higher planes of the impure universe. Ghoratarā, ‘the Most Terrible Goddess,’ also known as Vāmā (because she ‘vomits forth’ saṃsāra), is she who drags those who are addicted to the lower pleasures into lower and lower hell realms. (See TĀ 6.52-57)
This śaktipāta, though varied (in its nature) is (further) divided in accordance with the variety of grades (of aspirants). Someone established in (traditions) such as the Vaiṣṇavas, (who enters our path) through the basic initiation and what follows, and becomes (spiritually) ripe in the Five Streams (of our scriptures), then becomes supremely qualified through (the study of) the scriptures of the Trika, (authored) by the Blessed Lord and (having the power of) rescuing all.
Another (aspirant may attain this status) by passing over (some of the usual stages) in (any one of) countless ways. Someone (else may attain the highest immediately,) without any stages. For that very reason, those established in one or another of the lower teachings, even if they are gurus, are not qualified even to see our maṇḍala.
To see the maṇḍala refers to the basic initiation ceremony, where the initiand is shown the secret initiation maṇḍala at the appropriate time (for the Trika, this is the triśūlābja-maṇḍala or maṇḍala of Śiva’s trident surmounted by 3+1 symbolic lotuses). Abhinava seems to be saying here that each person who comes to the Trika passes through their own unique set of stages of development, under the influence of Śiva’s Power, and therefore it is not appropriate to give even the basic initiation to those of other traditions who are simply curious but not yet ready to leave behind their former practice and move on to the next stage. Speaking in the Tantrāloka of this kind of person who slowly realizes the value of higher and yet higher philosophies, he writes, “A gradual Descent of Power (is one where) a person in the Siddhānta school then enters the Vāma school, (then) the Dakṣiṇā, the Mata, Kula, and Kaula, then (reaches) the Kaula Trika, the Heart (of Śaivism). Or, by skipping over, (one may reach the Trika) without following (all the steps in) this order or even immediately.” (13.300cd-301)
On the other hand, a guru who is established in the higher teachings breathes life into the lower teachings, due to his perfection. Thus he is qualified with respect to all (the scriptures). He is (called) a guide, a guru, a master, an initiator, a ‘kisser,’ and he is the best of all, as his knowledge is entirely perfect and complete: without it, he could not perform initiations and so on.
A ‘kisser’ (cumbaka) is simply a name for a guru, perhaps one that emphasizes oral transmission of knowledge. It seems the designation was in origin a Kaula one, in which oral transmission was often held to be higher than textual transmission.[3]
Now, a [professional] yogin is appropriate (as a teacher) for one desiring (worldly or supernatural) fruits only if (the former) is capable, by teaching the (correct) means, to grant the fruits (of yogic practice) immediately. But he is appropriate with regard to that (specific kind of) knowledge alone, by teaching those means. One who desires (to attain) perfection in his knowledge with regard to liberation as well, through (the appropriate) means, may approach many teachers.
Here a yogin refers to one who has mastered supernatural attainments (siddhi) as opposed to a jñānin, one who teaches the path of liberating knowledge. Abhinava seems to be rhetorically saying that a yogin is not appropriate as a teacher for one who desires liberation, because he can only teach the means, not grant the fruit. This becomes apparent when considering this passage in the light of Tantrāloka 13.340: “In contrast to a yogin, who cannot grant the fruits of practice but only teach the means (to attain them), the superior Guru of knowledge is one who can point out the means and further can liberate one.” Regarding the assertion of the validity of approaching many teachers for knowledge, we know that Abhinava himself did this (“like a bee wandering from flower to flower in search of fragrance” 13.335) and learned much from a variety of gurus, yet he also revered his Guru Śambhunātha, presumably his last, above all others as the one whose knowledge was perfect and complete.
He may attend on those teachers, with the hope (of attaining) various kinds of higher and higher knowledge. But when one leaves a guru of perfect and complete knowledge, (it is a transgression, for which) a penance is definitely (required). [Objection:] ‘Surely, should not even such a guru be abandoned if he does not speak or speaks contradictions?’ Not at all, we say. For precisely because of his perfect knowledge, he lacks attachment and aversion. His not speaking or (speaking contradictions) may be due to some cause in the disciple, such as unfitness (for knowledge), untrustworthiness or unreliability, and so on. The disciple ought to make an effort in his service, not in his abandonment.
Thus śaktipāta is caused by grace (anugraha), and entirely independent, because it does not depend on binding fate, karma and so on.
The five independent acts of God (pañca-kṛtya) in Śaivism are creation (sṛṣṭi), maintenance (sthiti), dissolution (saṃhāra), obscuration (tirobhāva), and grace (anugraha). All five are performed in microcosm by each individual instantiation of the Lord (i.e. you). The last two are complementary opposites, thus Abhinava briefly treats obscuration next, as it is the inverse of the act of grace that manifests as śaktipāta. Obscuration is the power in operation within one who turns away from the spiritual path, whether through apostasy or through continuing to practice outwardly but despising it within. Even such a person eventually attains liberation, after a period of self-created suffering, as divine grace cannot go to waste.
(Now to address) the topic of ‘obscuration’ (tirodhāna). For obscuration (is a power of the Lord that) has as its fruit a share in delusion and intense misery; it is not based on karma and (binding fate, [but rather, from the highest perspective, it is the free exercise of one’s capacity for self-concealment]). Just as a person, though an awakened being (prabuddha), may behave like a fool out of the freedom of the Light of Awareness, yet scorn the foolish behavior in his heart, similarly another person, though a fool, may behave like an awakened one, propitiating his mantra-deity and so on, and (yet) he may scorn (such behavior in his heart).
And just as, though he practices the behavior of a fool, (such action) is destroyed for an awakened one [i.e., it generates no karmic result], similarly the behavior of an awakened one (bears no fruit for a fool). Despising this (Tantrik practice), because it has the form of prohibited [i.e. non-Vedic] action, and because he himself doubts it and feels inhibited regarding it, it drags him down into the mud of misery and delusion.
These doubt and inhibitions (śaṅka) may arise, especially for a brāhmin, because of brāhminical criticisms of the Śaiva path as non-Vedic and its ritual as transgressing Vedic norms (and because that individual’s weak level of śaktipāta does not give him sufficient faith to ignore such criticisms).
But (this power of) obscuration does not exist for one in whom the Descent of Power has occurred. In this case as well, dependence on karma and (binding fate) is disallowed as before. And even in the case (of those referred to above, initiated but inhibited), due to the variations in the will (of the Lord), the fruition of suffering is to be experienced only in this body [and not subsequently]; as in the case of those who are inclined simultaneously to reverence and criticism regarding (the central tenets of Śaivism, such as) initiation, the basic prescribed discipline [samaya-caryā], the guru, the deity, the (sacred) fire, and so on. And similarly for those who were previously established in the teaching of Śiva and then renounced it.
The doctrine that such obscuration is temporary and the confused practitioner will nonetheless eventually attain liberation is expounded also by Śaiva Siddhānta authority Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, in his commentary on the Kiraṇatantra. He argues that even for one who has fallen from and rejected the path to such an extent that he is born as a flesh-eating demon in a hell realm, the subtle trace (vāsanā) of his initiation will bear fruit and he will return to the spiritual path and attain liberation after a period of time (the Pauṣkara suggests it is a hundred years). Thus he defends the doctrine that śaktipāta is always a successful act of grace, and the initiation that follows always liberates, with which Abhinava also agreed. However, Abhinava suggests that the soul returns to the spiritual path as a result of a second śaktipāta, triggered through a ceremony performed by the guru even after his death.
Even in that case, due (once again) to the variations in the will (of the Lord), though a person has become ‘obscured’, he is endowed with the Descent of Power either by himself, or if he is dead, through the compassion of a guru or a relative (of the deceased who importunes a guru on their behalf).
Thus, considering in himself his participation in the five Divine Acts [of creation, maintenance, dissolution, obscuration, and grace], he is nothing other than the Highest Divinity (parameśvara). Thus let him not see himself as broken [i.e. limited and separate from the Divine].
Summary verse for the chapter:
Just as the Highest Divinity, through the unrestrained freedom of its own Being, may conceal its glory, in the same way it will [inevitably] be revealed as well. ||
~~~
Join me at Tantra Illuminated for more teachings!