{"id":42,"date":"2026-06-02T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=42"},"modified":"2026-05-29T07:52:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T07:52:08","slug":"soul-and-vimarsa-between-plotinus-and-utpaladeva-part-1-procession-and-reflection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/06\/02\/soul-and-vimarsa-between-plotinus-and-utpaladeva-part-1-procession-and-reflection\/","title":{"rendered":"Soul and Vimar\u015ba between Plotinus and Utpaladeva (Part 1: Procession and Reflection)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In this first part of this series, I will be comparing the how the concepts of Soul and Vimar\u015ba in, respectively, Plotinus\u2019 Enneads <\/em>and Utpaladeva\u2019s \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 <\/em>(\u201cVerses on the Recognition of the Lord\u201d, hence abbreviated \u012aPK<\/em>) both (1) proceed from and (2) reflect a prior principle, understood as a kind of universal consciousness. Notably, in both instances, this principle, from which Soul or Vimar\u015ba proceeds, is identified with a masculine deity (Kronos and \u015aiva, respectively). I am specifically interested in a \u2018structural\u2019 comparison, where \u201cthe question of historical influence is […] set aside in favour of seeking structural or doctrinal parallels of the two systems\u201d (Just 2013, 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 1: Procession<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both Vimar\u015ba and Soul proceed from a metaphysically prior intellective principle. I am consciously using this word, \u2018proceed\u2019, to distinguish from a kind of creation of an entity or being which is separate from its creator. For both Plotinus and Utpaladeva, this prior principle encompasses both individual cognition and a transcendent intellect (Nous, Prak\u0101\u015ba).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utpaladeva introduces Vimar\u015ba when defining memory, arguing it must be a form of the reflective awareness of the \u201cFree One\u201d (vim\u1e5b\u015bansa iti svair\u012b smarat\u012btyapadi\u015byate, \u012aPK <\/em>I.4.1). The argument from memory against a Buddhist teaching of no-self is, by Utpaladeva\u2019s time, not original. However, Utpaladeva grounds memory not in an atomized, individual soul but in the persistent self which is identical to the \u201cFree One,\u201d who is explained in his commentary to be \u015aiva (tasyaikasya vibho\u1e25 kartu\u1e25 sa ityatra p\u016brv\u0101nubh\u016btatvena pratyavamar\u015ba\u1e25 sm\u1e5btirn\u0101m vy\u0101p\u0101ra\u1e25, \u012aPK v\u1e5btti<\/em> on I.4.1; note the qualities ascribed to the possessor of this memory-as-Vimar\u015ba : this possessor is one [eka<\/em>] omnipresent [vibhu<\/em>] agent [kart\u1e5b<\/em>]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, Utpaladeva \u201cindissolubly link[s] consciousness, reflective awareness and the supreme word\u201d (Torella 2021, xxvi) by asserting that \u201c[c]onsciousness has as its essential nature reflective awareness (pratyavamar<\/em>\u015ba<\/em>); it is the supreme Word (par\u0101v\u0101k<\/em>) that arises freely\u201d (\u012aPK <\/em>I.5.13). In his commentary on this verse, he explains that \u201c[t]his is the First Word, in which the expressible is undifferentiated\u201d (\u012aPK v\u1e5btti<\/em> on I.5.13). Differentiation, then, is part of the \u2018free arising\u2019 of the Supreme Word from consciousness. This \u2018free arising\u2019 is intimately connected to Vimar\u015ba, or reflective awareness, and I am considering it as a kind of procession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utpaladeva\u2019s connection of Vimar\u015ba to Word (v\u0101k<\/em>) as the \u201cessential nature\u201d of consciousness offers an interesting entryway to comparison with Plotinus\u2019 account of the procession of the hypostatic Soul from Nous. Plotinus describes Soul as the image (eikon<\/em>) of Intellect (\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, En. <\/em>V.1.3.7). While this may appear to make Soul derivative, as a kind of external reflection of the Intellect, he immediately qualifies this iconic relationship with an important comparison to speech:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“…[a]s a word (logos<\/em>) in utterance is an expression of the word (logou<\/em>) in soul, so too soul is the expression (logos<\/em>) of intellect and its whole activity (he pasa energeia<\/em>) and the life which it sends forth for the existence of another.” (En. <\/em>V.1.3.7-9; Perl 2015, 36).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because he emphasizes the continuity between the inner word (logos<\/em>) and its outer expression, Plotinus\u2019s word eikon<\/em> must be read as an elevated use of the term (cf. Lamberton 1986, 87-88; Butler 2005, 89; Vassilopoulou 2014, 487-488), not simply a mimetic relationship but as an image which has within it the presence of that of which it is an image. Plotinus also finds this emergence of Soul from Intellect in his mythical exegeses, where he traces the emergence of the Heavenly Aphrodite to Kronos \u201cwho is Intellect.\u201d (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd<\/strong> \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/strong> \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, En. <\/em>III.5.2.19-20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 2: Reflection<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vimar\u015ba and Soul retain a necessarily reflexive relationship to the principle from which they proceed. This reflexivity takes on soteriological importance for both Utpaladeva and Plotinus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While in some respects this reflectivity is built into Utpaladeva\u2019s vocabulary by using \u2018Vimar\u015ba\u2019 and related terms, he further develops this reflexivity with his concept of \u201csavoring\u201d (camatk\u0101ra<\/em>; following Torella 2023, 63 rather than Gnoli 1968, who understands this term to mean \u2018wonder\u2019). Prak\u0101\u015ba is a sentient reality for Utpaladeva because it \u2018savors.\u2019 He demonstrates this through a counterfactual, saying that \u201c[i]n the absence of reflective awareness, light, though objects make it assume different forms, would merely be \u2018limpid\u2019, but not sentient, since there is no \u2018savouring\u2019 (camatk\u1e5bte\u1e25<\/em>)\u201d (\u012aPK v\u1e5btti<\/em> on I.5.11). Because it engages in the activity (\u012aPK v\u1e5btti <\/em>on I.5.12) as a result of its reflective awareness, it must be considered sentient. Sthaneshwar Timalsina summarizes this point well when he writes that “[i]t is now evident that Vimar\u015ba is not one among the modes of consciousness but an essential aspect embedded in every mode of conscious experience<\/em>” (Timalsina 2021, 103).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utpaladeva connects this \u2018savoring\u2019 to the reflection of consciousness on itself. When summarizing his teachings, he says that \u201c[t]he one, full of savouring (camatk\u0101ra<\/em>) of the undivided perceiving subject, of the undivided perceptible object and the fusion of the two […] the Self common to all beings, is Mahe\u015bvara\u201d (\u012aPK v\u1e5btti<\/em> on IV.1.1). Mahe\u015bvara\u2019s savoring is of the unitary reflective awareness (akha\u1e47\u1e0d\u0101mar\u015bam, \u2018partless awareness\u2019, \u012aPK <\/em>VI.1.1; cf. Torella 2021, 210, footnotes 1-2) whose contents are \u201cI\u201d (aham<\/em>), which is \u201cthe undivided perceiving subject\u201d, \u201cthis\u201d (idam<\/em>), which is the \u201cundivided perceptible object\u201d, and \u201cI-this\u201d (ahamidam<\/em>) (\u012aPK <\/em>VI.1.1). The reflective awareness \u201cI-this\u201d proves to be an essential aspect of Utpaladeva\u2019s soteriological aim of \u2018recognition of the Lord\u2019 (the title of his work): \u201c[t]he liberated soul looks at \u2018common\u2019, cognizable reality [i.e., the idam<\/em> of ahamidam<\/em>] as being undifferentiated from himself [i.e., the aham<\/em> of ahamidam<\/em>]\u201d (\u012aPK <\/em>VI.1.13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the reflectivity of Soul is not transparent in the term, it is clearly developed through Plotinus\u2019 erotics. The Soul (as Aphrodite) reverts to Nous (as Kronos) in a pivotal moment in Plotinus\u2019 account of the birth of Eros:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“In fact, directed towards Kronos, or if you wish, towards Ouranos, the father of Kronos, she is in action [energese<\/em>] towards him and is at home with him; in desiring him, she gives birth to Eros. And with Eros she is looking towards him. Her own activity makes a hypostasis and a being, both looking towards the intelligible. Both she who gives birth and the beautiful Eros who is born are eternally ranged towards another beauty.” (En. <\/em>III.5.2.33-38, my translation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This activity of the Soul \u2013 reversion to Intellect, which produces Eros \u2013 plays a central role in Plotinian soteriology. This is because Eros does not only direct the Soul towards Intellect, but beyond it, as Eros is \u201cthe activity of Soul which strives for the Good\u201d (En. <\/em>III.5.4.21-23, my translation). In achieving the ascent to that Good which every soul desires (cf. En<\/em>. I.6.7.1), the distinction between the one who looks, the looking and that which is looked at dissolves (En. <\/em>I.6.9.15-30). This dissolution is the perfection of the activity of Soul (Eros) because it has attained the Good; as such, it is at peace and, in true eudaimonia<\/em>, desires nothing else (cf. En. <\/em>I.4.4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Stay tuned for part II, concerning the immateriality of Vimar\u015ba and Soul).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gnoli, Raniero (1968). The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta<\/em>. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies LXII. (Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office). Second Edition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (eds.) (1964-1983), Plotini Opera<\/em>. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Vol. I-III.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just, Michal. (2013) \u201cNeoplatonism and Param\u0101dvaita\u201d, Comparative Philosophy<\/em> 4.2. 1-28. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perl, Eric D (tr.) (2015), Plotinus <\/em>Ennead V.1 On the Three Primary Levels of Reality: Translation with an Introduction and Commentary<\/em>. Dillon, John M. and Smith, Andrew (eds.) (Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timalsina, Sthaneshwar (2021), “Vimar\u015ba: The Concept of Reflexivity in the Philosophy of Utpala and Abhinavagupta”, Acta Orientalia<\/em> 80:98-121.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torella, Raffaele (2021) (Tr.), The \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 of Utpaladeva with the Author\u2019s V\u1e5btti: Critical Edition and Annotated Translation<\/em>. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torella, Raffaele. (2023), \u201cCamatk\u0101ra.\u201d Journal of Indological Studies<\/em> (34-35), March. pp. 39-72.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this first part of this series, I will be comparing the how the concepts of Soul and Vimar\u015ba in, respectively, Plotinus\u2019 Enneads and Utpaladeva\u2019s \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 (\u201cVerses on the Recognition of the Lord\u201d, hence abbreviated \u012aPK) both (1) proceed from and (2) reflect a prior principle, understood as a kind of universal consciousness. Notably, in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[22,17,23,3,18,21],"class_list":["post-42","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aesthetics","tag-comparative-philosophy","tag-kashmiri-shaivism","tag-plotinus","tag-tantra","tag-utpaladeva"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42\/revisions\/45"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}