Chapter 28: The Circularity

The foundational instruction of nondual Shaiva Tantra is: begin by accepting your wholeness in order to realize your wholeness.

Stated plainly, this is a circle. The practice presupposes the very recognition it claims to produce. This chapter traces how the tradition's own canonical texts stage the circularity — not as a flaw to be explained away but as a structural feature that may be the tradition's deepest philosophical contribution.

The text that begins with "you are God" and then gives you homework

The Shiva Sutras opens with perhaps the most absolute declaration in Indian philosophy: Caitanyam ātmā — Consciousness is the Self. It then spends its remaining seventy-six aphorisms teaching you what to do about it.

The three sections of the text map, according to the commentarial tradition, onto three methods of liberation arranged in descending order of subtlety. Section One — the way of Śiva's will — is the "method" of no method. The spontaneous upsurge of awareness IS Bhairava himself. "In shambhavopaya, there are no means to travel upon. It is the meant. There is nowhere to go." Section Two — the way of Śakti's knowledge — suddenly introduces effort: "effort is the means." Section Three — the way of the individual — becomes frankly yogic: breath control, dissolution of subtle channels, concentration on body and senses. It contains more sutras than the other two sections combined.

The most dramatic evidence of the paradox lies in deliberate verbal echoes across sections. Sutra 1.1 declares "Consciousness is the Self." Sutra 3.1 opens with "the self is merely the mind." The same being described as infinite in Section One is described as contracted in Section Three. The identical phrase "knowledge is bondage" appears as both Sutra 1.2 and 3.2, yet the commentator Kshemaraja reads them at entirely different registers — the first diagnosing contracted knowledge from the absolute perspective, the second describing the lived condition of the limited individual. The text structurally enacts the very contraction it seeks to reverse.

Can a pot illumine the sun?

Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka — his six-thousand-verse masterwork — opens by declaring that liberation requires nothing. Then it spends thirty-three chapters meticulously prescribing everything.

Chapter 2, on anupāya (the non-method), contains the tradition's most radical statement: "This very Highest Divinity, the self-manifest Light of Consciousness, is what I am — when that is the case, what could any method of practice achieve? Not the attainment of my true nature, because that is eternally present; not making it known, because it is already illuminating itself; not the removal of obscurations, because no obscuration whatsoever exists; and not the entry into it, because nothing other than it exists to enter it."

The famous image: "The whole network of methods could not reveal God. Can a pot illumine the thousand-rayed sun?"

And then: "Having known this, there is nothing more to be done."

Abhinavagupta then proceeds to write the remaining thirty-one chapters. Understanding why requires grasping three arguments the tradition has developed.

Three reasons the tradition writes the book it says you don't need

First, spontaneous realization is rare. Anupāya corresponds to the most intense grade of grace — what Abhinavagupta classifies as the second of nine levels. Most people receive milder grades and therefore need graduated methods. The elaborate chapters exist because most consciousness is contracted enough to need them.

Second, two kinds of knowledge are required for liberation-in-life. Abhinavagupta argues that living liberation requires both pauruṣa-jñāna — nonconceptual direct insight, given by grace — and bauddha-jñāna — conceptual understanding that supports and stabilizes the insight. Without correcting what he calls "mental ignorance," liberation occurs only at death, not in life. The Tantraloka exists to provide the conceptual framework that stabilizes the flash of recognition. A single moment of anupāya insight, unsupported by understanding, may not hold.

This is the tradition's most precise answer to the axiom argument. Bauddha-jñāna (conceptual, intellectual — what Tillich would call the courage to name the axiom) alone is "useless, will not take you anywhere." Pauruṣa-jñāna (experiential, direct — what Tillich would call the lived experience of being grasped by the power of being) alone "may decrease day by day, slowly fading." Only both together make one a jīvanmukta — liberated while alive. The tradition needs both books AND practice, both axiom AND recognition.

Third, teaching is itself an act of grace. The master who dwells in anupāya, "through his State of Freedom, desires to bestow Grace to those whose consciousness is not pure, then he should resort to the method which is about to be explained." The composition of the Tantraloka is framed as a descent — the author moving from the silence of non-method into the elaboration of methods out of compassion.

The Spanda-karika and the circularity of noticing what is doing the noticing

The Spanda-karika faces an even more acute version of the paradox. Its subject — spanda, the dynamic pulsation of consciousness — is defined as never absent from any experience whatsoever. If spanda is the ground of all perceiving, using a method to perceive it involves a vicious circularity: the faculty you would use to notice it IS it.

The text's pivotal verse introduces three grades of experiencer. The suprabuddha (fully awakened) perceives spanda constantly. The prabuddha (partially awakened) perceives it only at the junctions between states — the gap between thoughts, the transition between waking and sleep. The abuddha (unawakened) does not perceive it at all, yet it operates as the invisible ground of their experience. The methods target the middle category — those alert enough to benefit from instruction.

The concept of unmeṣa — "opening," "creative flash" — serves as the bridge. At the cosmic level, it is Śiva's opening of eyes — the emergence of the universe. At the individual level, it is the micro-event when one thought gives way and another arises spontaneously. The instruction: attend not to the new thought but to its source — the gap from which it erupted. The commentators read this emergence as a flash of pure consciousness itself. Unmeṣa is simultaneously always happening and available for recognition. It is the same event at cosmic and individual scales.

Mark Dyczkowski provides the scholarly synthesis: "Spiritual ignorance consists essentially of our contracted state of consciousness and so can only be effectively countered by expanding it to reveal our own authentic nature as this expanded state itself." His crucial formulation: "Spanda practice is based solely on the processes inherent in the act of awareness." Practice doesn't introduce external operations. It attends to what awareness is already doing. The circularity is not a defect but the method itself.

Grace as the third term

The concept of śaktipāta — the descent of divine power — is the hinge on which the entire paradox turns. Abhinavagupta devotes major chapters to arguing that grace is the sole cause of spiritual awakening — not karma, not good works, not the ripening of impurity.

His radical move: mapping nine grades of grace onto the upāya hierarchy. The most intense causes immediate merger with Śiva. The second produces spontaneous liberation without initiation (anupāya). The third creates overwhelming desire to find a true guru (śāmbhavopāya). Medium intensities correspond to the practice-oriented methods. Mild intensities lead to gradual work over lifetimes.

Grace cannot be produced by practice. Yet practice orients the practitioner toward the conditions in which grace operates. Since the practitioner ultimately IS the consciousness bestowing grace upon itself — svātantrya, absolute freedom — the circle closes: effort is consciousness pretending it hasn't yet recognized itself, and grace is consciousness dropping the pretense.

Lakshmanjoo stated bluntly: "If you do effort, by your personal effort, śaktipāta won't take place. That effort becomes useless." Yet he also taught: "Go on meditating... we will see, if sometime grace may come from God."

The paradox is the teaching

The practice paradox in the canonical texts is not a logical inconsistency to be resolved. It is a pedagogical engine that generates awakening through the very friction it creates.

The tradition offers at least five interlocking resolutions — recognition versus attainment, Śiva's self-concealment and self-revelation, the "as it were" qualifier, anupāya as the transcendence of all method, and grace as spontaneous self-revealing. But none of these is the real resolution. The real resolution is existential: it occurs when the practitioner who has been using methods to find consciousness that was never lost suddenly sees that the one who was searching was the thing being sought.

What distinguishes Kashmir Shaivism's handling of this paradox from other traditions is its refusal to devalue the dynamic world. Because consciousness is spanda — inherently dynamic, creative, pulsing — practice is not an imposition on a static absolute but the absolute's own way of tasting itself. The methods are not ladders to a distant summit. They are the summit noticing that it has always been where it is.

Listen to Wallis in his own voice and the circularity becomes not softer but sharper. In his podcast, he defines consciousness with the precision of a phenomenologist rather than a theologian: consciousness "simply means the fact of subjective experience" — and then names five inherent capacities (shaktis) that consciousness possesses not as acquisitions but as its very nature: enjoyment (ananda), desire (iccha), cognition (jnana), action (kriya), and autonomy (swatantrya) — the meta-capacity by which consciousness operates all others "without constraints imposed from some other source." This is the strongest available articulation of inherent value as ontological fact. If these capacities are truly inherent — not constructed, not culturally mediated, not earned — then value is not distributed by any external authority. It is what consciousness IS. And Wallis holds this position not tentatively but with existential certainty — he states he would "bet my life on it" that consciousness is fundamental, comparing the confidence to the implicit bet every airplane passenger makes. The irony cuts both ways. Wallis's bet-your-life certainty about the ground of being is precisely what Tillich would recognize as absolute faith — the courage to affirm meaning despite the absence of guaranteed ground. Wallis just does not call it courage, because he calls it recognition. And recognition, by definition, cannot be circular — you do not construct what you re-cognize. But Tillich's question remains: must you not choose to look? Must you not hold the View before the View can reveal itself?

Tillich would ask: but must you not choose to begin the practice? Must you not hold the View before the View can reveal itself? And the tradition's honest answer — encoded in the very structure of its canonical texts, from the Shiva Sutras' opening declaration through the Tantraloka's thirty-three chapters of method — is: yes. The axiom comes first. And the axiom may become recognition. Or it may not. And the practice is what you do in the space between choosing and seeing.

CC BY-SA 4.0