Chapter 27: Consciousness as Ground

Book One diagnosed the dilemmas. Book Two does not wait for the diagnosis to resolve before acting — that would be the trap of solving in its purest form. Instead, it asks: what does one tradition look like when taken seriously on its own terms? These five chapters (27-31) take Kashmir Shaivism not as the answer but as the most rigorous example of a tradition that has held the axiom question for a thousand years — and practiced through it. The practice chapters that follow (32-37) are what everyone can do, regardless of tradition. Both movements are acts of courage: the courage to go deep, and the courage to begin.

Kashmir Shaivism begins where Tillich ends — with the assertion that there is a ground, and that the ground is consciousness.

Not consciousness in the ordinary sense — not the stream of thoughts, perceptions, and emotions that fills a waking day. Consciousness in the technical sense of cit or saṃvit: the aware capacity that is present in every experience, including the experience of having no experience. The field in which everything arises. The light by which everything is seen — including the seeing itself.

But the moment we ask what kind of claim this is, we step into the most contested territory in the Western study of mystical experience. And Christopher Wallis, the most visible contemporary interpreter of this tradition, embodies the contestation in his own published work.

The scholar who can't decide if he's describing God or constructing one

In his epistemological writings — blog posts, the Near Enemies book, his treatment of first- and second-order reality — Wallis is a pragmatist. "Any verbal proposition in spiritual philosophy can only approach the truth," he writes, "because subjective conscious experience by its very nature is nonverbal." All teachings are hypotheses to be verified in experience. "There's no such thing as a thought or a verbal statement that is totally true." He instructs readers to evaluate thoughts "solely in terms of their efficacy."

In his books and academic papers, the same author writes as a metaphysical realist. "NST holds that one thing alone exists: the Divine, in various permutations." Consciousness is "the singular Light of Awareness that makes possible all manifestation" — stated not as hypothesis but as ontological fact. "Every human being is lacking nothing but the recognition of their Divine essence-nature."

The contradiction becomes sharpest in his treatment of mental constructs. He writes: "The same powers of awareness that allow us to construct mental models of reality also allow us to see that they are mental models, and not reality itself." This sentence simultaneously makes a constructivist move (we build models) and a realist claim (there IS a reality beyond the models). His epistemological framework would logically require treating the entire nondual Shaiva metaphysical system as a model — a useful narrative, not a description of ultimate reality. But his books consistently present it as the latter.

The most revealing moment: in Tantra Illuminated, he describes his project as "a self-conscious experiment in well-grounded constructive theology" — admitting the work is an engaged theological enterprise, not neutral scholarship. Yet even this acknowledgment stops short of the deeper question: if all verbal propositions only "approach" the truth, on what basis does one assert that "one thing alone exists: the Divine"?

Five frameworks walk into a tantric temple

The Western academic study of mystical experience has produced five major positions, each of which challenges the recognition claim in distinct ways.

Steven Katz's constructivism argues that there are no unmediated experiences. All mystical states are pre-formed by the practitioner's framework. The tradition's elaborate architecture — thirty-six tattvas, four upāyas, nine grades of grace — would, on Katz's account, construct rather than reveal the experience of recognition. The Pratyabhijñā philosophers themselves were aware of this challenge — they debated Buddhist epistemologists on precisely the question of whether conceptual frameworks shape knowledge. The tradition's own sophistication makes a naive dismissal of constructivism impossible.

Robert Forman's perennialism offers the counter through the "pure consciousness event" — contentless wakefulness that has no content for cultural frameworks to construct. This maps onto anupāya, the non-method where recognition occurs spontaneously. If anupāya is genuine, it directly supports Forman: an experience with no method cannot be culturally constructed. But Kashmir Shaivism's concept of vimarśa — reflexive self-awareness — means even its highest state is never truly contentless. The tradition's "pure consciousness" always pulses with self-recognition. This places it in an intermediate space that neither Katz nor Forman captures.

Robert Sharf delivers the most radical challenge: "mystical experience" as a category is a modern Western invention. First-person reports of meditative states are unreliable retrospective reconstructions. The medieval Pratyabhijñā philosophers were engaged in philosophical argumentation, not writing phenomenological reports. The contemporary presentation of Kashmir Shaivism as a tradition "about" recognition experiences may constitute what Sharf would call "Shaiva modernism."

Jorge Ferrer's participatory framework offers the most structurally resonant lens. His "participatory enaction" — spiritual knowledge is neither discovered nor constructed but co-created through the interaction of practitioner and the Real — maps onto Kashmir Shaivism's claim that consciousness recognizes itself through the practitioner. Both reject the subject-object divide in spiritual epistemology. Yet the tension is sharp: Ferrer's radical pluralism holds that different traditions access genuinely different dimensions of the Real, while Kashmir Shaivism explicitly ranks all traditions with Trika at the apex. Kashmir Shaivism would insist it is not one shore of Ferrer's ocean — it is the ocean itself.

The five properties of consciousness-as-ground

Setting aside the epistemological debate, the tradition specifies what consciousness-as-ground means in practice.

First, it is simultaneously transcendent and immanent — beyond all forms and present in every form. The two experiences are the enstatic (turning within to the quiescent ground) and the ecstatic (expressing divine nature in creative, embodied action). Both are necessary. A tradition offering only transcendence is incomplete. A tradition offering only immanence is incomplete. The nondual claim is that both movements are expressions of a single consciousness.

Second, the ground is self-aware. It possesses vimarśa — the capacity for self-reflection. "When consciousness contemplates itself, it catalyzes thoughts and behaviors that otherwise do not occur." This self-reflective capacity is what makes recognition possible. The mirror recognizes itself in its own reflection.

Third, creation is play — krīḍā. The universe is "a free and joyous act of self-expression, done entirely for its own sake." There is nothing to achieve. The 112 practices of the Vijñāna-bhairava-tantra are not means to an end. They are ways of recognizing the completeness that is already the case.

Fourth, suffering arises from contraction — from misidentifying with a limited part rather than recognizing oneself as the whole. "The primary purpose of spiritual practice is to destabilize deep-seated, skewed mental constructs about yourself."

Fifth, the ground cannot be lost. Even in the deepest contraction, consciousness remains. The person in the void has not lost the ground. They have contracted so thoroughly that they cannot recognize it. But the contraction itself is an act of consciousness.

What this means for the axiom argument

If the tradition is right — if consciousness is the ground, and recognition is the method — then inherent value is not an axiom. It is a truth. The ground was always there.

But the five-framework analysis reveals that the claim "the tradition is right" is itself contested at every level. Constructivists say the experience is built by the framework. Perennialists say there is a contentless core but KS doesn't match it. Sharf says the entire category of "mystical experience" may be anachronistic. Ferrer says participation is real but KS's claim to supremacy is suspect. And Wallis himself oscillates between pragmatist and realist modes without resolving the tension.

The question this book insists on asking remains: how do you distinguish between recognizing a ground that was always there and constructing a felt sense of groundedness through sustained practice? The tradition says: the distinction dissolves in recognition. This book says: that dissolution is either the answer or the most sophisticated form of the circularity.

The circularity is the subject of the next chapter.

CC BY-SA 4.0