As has become clear through the other points of comparison, Vimar\u015ba and Soul are both immanent and transcendent principles. They refer both the individual and universal modes, or perhaps microcosmic and macrocosmic registers, of consciousness, within what Just calls \u201cmultilevelled subjectivity:\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c…the topic of multilevelled subjectivity was at the centre of philosophical attention in India for centuries before Plotinus. And it reached conclusions very similar to Plotinus, which were developed in notions of sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra <\/em>(the memory trace of experience) and v\u0101sana <\/em>(its contracted form, empowered by direct influence on the behavior of the mind) as tools for describing the determinative function of the unconscious mind, or notions of \u0101tman <\/em>(the Soul, in its highest most general form), buddhi <\/em>(intellect), aha\u1e43k\u0101ra <\/em>(the ego sense), manas <\/em>(mind), as tools for describing the cognitive structure of consciousness from sense perceptions right up to the “metaconsciousness” of the pure reflectivity of \u0101tman<\/em>. Param\u0101dvaita <\/em>authors merely took some part of this heritage, although in some instances with some doctrinal adjustments. […] the ego, was dichotomized into the artificial “I-ness” (k\u1e5btrim\u0101 aha\u1e43t\u0101<\/em>) and pure “I-ness” (p\u016br\u1e47\u0101ha\u1e43t\u0101<\/em>) […] the latter is, in fact, the subjective side of the absolute and therefore, in a way, the subjective top of the epistemico-ontological hierarchy.\u201d (Just 2013, 15)<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Plotinus individuals have an individual soul, and for Utpaladeva individuals have their own reflective awareness. For both authors, this does not contradict their conception of a higher register of Soul or Vimar\u015ba, respectively united with Nous or Prak\u0101\u015ba. Crucially, these multiple layers of subjectivity within a dynamic procession from a first principle allow both Plotinus and Utpaladeva to explain imperfection and error on the part of individuals without attributing such qualities or actions to a transcendent principle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Utpaladeva makes clear that Mahesvara has a perfect reflective awareness (\u012aPK I.8.4), but is willing to explore how other instances of Vimar\u015ba may be intermixed with erroneous cognition. Firstly, he preempts a Buddhist objection to the use of the term aham<\/em>, granting that one who uses the term \u201cI\u201d when reflecting on their body is, indeed, talking about an aggregate (vikalpa<\/em>) and not a substance (\u012aPK I.6.4-5). Secondly, he explains how the limited, sequential cognitions of an individual can lead to erroneous cognitions\u2013 which are nevertheless Vimar\u015ba \u2013 and which are replaced by subsequently correct cognitions. He uses the example of misapprehension of mother-of-pearl as silver (rajata<\/em>), saying that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “[e]ven if the cognitions as \u2018silver\u2019 of real silver and of mother-of-pearl are in themselves equally real, insofar as in them the reflective awareness \u2018silver\u2019 is the same (rajat\u0101 vamar\u015baikyena<\/em>), however the cognition \u2018this is silver\u2019 referring to mother-of-pearl is to be considered erroneous because of the impermanence (asthairy\u0101t<\/em>), since it is not congruent as regards the accessory quality \u2013 place […]\u201d (\u012aPK v\u1e5btti on II.3.13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reflective awareness of \u2018silver\u2019 is always real, insofar that \u201cthe Ancient One […] whose nature is perennially manifest [is] inherent in every cognition\u201d (\u012aPK II.3.15-16). Error concerns not the cognition of silver, but the quality of place implied in \u201cthis.\u201d Such a quality depends on impermanence (asthairya<\/em>); Maheshvara, not being subject to such impermanence, has perfect reflective awareness (sa eva vimar\u015battvena niyatena mahe\u015bvara<\/em> \u012aPK I.8.11).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plotinus\u2019 exploration of how Soul becomes involved in error is also an account of misapprehension, though explored in the context of aesthetics and ethics rather than epistemology. He explains that the Eros within the individual soul is directed towards beauty \u201cof some kind,\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9, En<\/em>. III.5.1.11) but admits that this one desire (\u1f21 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7, En<\/em>. III.5.1.12) appears differently in \u201cself-controlled people who have been made to have an affinity with beauty itself\u201d as opposed to one who \u201cseeks to find its consummation in the performance of some base act\u201d (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd En<\/em>. III.5.1.11-12). <\/p>\n\n\n\n This misidentification, rooted in \u201csee[ing] beauty in bodies […] but [not] realiz[ing] that they are images and traces and shadows […of that] of which they are images\u201d, (En. <\/em>I.6.8.6-8) is a cause of moral error (aiskhros<\/em> opposed to kalos<\/em>). Plotinus maintains a continuity between the activities of individual souls and the Soul proper without attributing the former\u2019s \u201cfall into evil\u201d (En.<\/em> III.5.1.64) to the latter. This coheres with the prior distinctions made concerning Plotinus\u2019 thealogy: Heavenly Aphrodite (the soul as hypostasis) has her own Eros, who is a God and who is always directed towards the Good, (En<\/em>. III.5.4.23-25) while the many Aphrodites (individual souls) each have their own daimonic Eros responsible for erotic affections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) (2018), The Enneads<\/em>. Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson, Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James (trs.). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (eds.) (1964-1983), Plotini Opera<\/em>. (Oxford: Oxford\u00a0University 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 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":" As has become clear through the other points of comparison, Vimar\u015ba and Soul are both immanent and transcendent principles. They refer both the individual and universal modes, or perhaps microcosmic and macrocosmic registers, of consciousness, within what Just calls \u201cmultilevelled subjectivity:\u201d \u201c…the topic of multilevelled subjectivity was at the centre of philosophical attention in India…<\/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":[22,17,26,27,23,3,18,21],"class_list":["post-59","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aesthetics","tag-comparative-philosophy","tag-epistemology","tag-eros","tag-kashmiri-shaivism","tag-plotinus","tag-tantra","tag-utpaladeva"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59","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=59"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59\/revisions\/60"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}