In this series, we have been comparing the thought of Plotinus and Utpaladeva, particularly through looking at structural similarities between their concepts of Vimar\u015ba and Soul. This third part will analyze a further structural similarity, one which is central for both thinkers’ metaphysical systems: both Vimar\u015ba and Soul play a crucial role in theories of causation in Plotinian thought and in Pratyabhij\u00f1\u0101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In explaining the purely actual status of the intelligible world, Plotinus addresses an objection concerning the soul: if the soul at one time not yet living, then living, it seems that the soul was potentially and then actually living. The same could be said about all the qualities and functions of the soul relative to a given body. Plotinus responds that \u201call these things [which come about from the soul] do not exist potentially; rather, soul is the potentiality of them.\u201d (En. <\/em>II.5.3.20-25, Gerson et al.). If we return to the original problem, concerning life, we can see how this distinction is important. Plotinus here argues that life has actual existence prior to a soul becoming present to a particular body and giving it life. He wants to deny that life at one point did not have actual existence, and when soul became present to matter (as a body), that life then actualized a merely potential existence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In their notes, Gerson et. al. connect this argument to a preceding passage: \u201cthere is another actuality which corresponds to the potentiality that brings about an actuality.\u201d (Gerson et al 187, footnote 4; En. <\/em>II.5.2.33-36). Putting this back into the terms of Soul and life, we can say that Soul is an actuality, in this actuality there is a potentiality (life) and this potentiality in the actuality Soul brings about another actuality, Life. In other words, Life does not have merely <\/em>potential existence prior to the beginning of any particular life, but a real, actual existence in the Soul. This account recalls the passage quoted in a previous post, V.1.3.7-9, concerning logos <\/em>in the soul and in utterance: Plotinus argues that Soul is a pure actuality, and is the potentiality of Soul\u2019s expressions (logoi<\/em>). In the exegesis of the Symposium <\/em>in III.5.9.35-55, he will identify the sum total of this potentiality as Poros (Plenty, the father of Eros), which makes the Soul (Aphrodite) abundant (euporia<\/em>).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The theory of causality which Plotinus here defends, in Sanskrit, is called satk\u0101ryav\u0101da<\/em>. It holds that the potentiality of an effect exists in an actuality, which is its cause. To use a classic Sanskrit example, the smoke exists in the fire potentially and unmanifest (avyakta<\/em>), prior to its manifestation (vyakta<\/em>). Utpaladeva provides a metaphysical explanation for satk\u0101ryav\u0101da <\/em>by discussing the relationship between effects and instruments of action. Firstly, he argues that conceptual frameworks such as action (\u012aPK<\/em> II.2.3), relation (\u012aPK<\/em> II.2.4), and universal and particular (\u012aPK<\/em> II.2.5) are brought about by consciousness. Then, he uses this to locate \u201c[a causal] connection existing between the factors of the action […] based on the awareness of the action [kriy\u0101vimar\u015bavi\u1e63aya<\/em>]\u201d (\u012aPK<\/em> II.2.6). This awareness of the action \u2013 kriy\u0101-vimar\u015ba<\/em> \u2013 ensures abstract categories or conceptualizations of \u2018action\u2019, \u2018relation\u2019, etc can be brought together in such a way that actor, what is acted upon, and the action can all, manifestly, exist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As he says later, \u201c[c]ausal efficiency [arthakriy\u0101<\/em>] is not intrinsic to things, since it is determined by the will of the Lord [\u012bsvarecchay\u0101]\u201d, (\u012aPK<\/em> II.3.12). Having established that will (icch\u0101<\/em>) is a form of vimar\u015ba in \u012aPK <\/em>I.5.10 (as discussed in a previous post), Utpaladeva defining the scope (vi\u1e63aya<\/em> in kriy\u0101vimar\u015bavi\u1e63aya) of such reflective awareness qua <\/em>volition to include reflective awareness qua <\/em>action (kriy\u0101). In doing so, Utpaladeva provides a necessary justification for satk\u0101ryav\u0101da<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Stay tuned for Part 4 on Multilevelled Subjectivity]<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) (2018), The Enneads<\/em>. Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson,\u00a0Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James (trs.). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Torella, Raffaele (2021) (tr.), The \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 of Utpaladeva with the Author\u2019s <\/em>V\u1e5btti: Critical Edition and Annotated Translation<\/em>. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this series, we have been comparing the thought of Plotinus and Utpaladeva, particularly through looking at structural similarities between their concepts of Vimar\u015ba and Soul. This third part will analyze a further structural similarity, one which is central for both thinkers’ metaphysical systems: both Vimar\u015ba and Soul play a crucial role in theories of…<\/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-50","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\/50","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=50"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50\/revisions\/51"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}