Abstract

This paper explores striking philosophical parallels between Karl Christian Friedrich Krause’s 19th-century articulation of panentheism and the much earlier non-dual ´ Saiva philosophy of the Pratyabhijñ¯a school in Kashmir. While Krause is widely credited with coining the term panentheism, models of divine immanence and transcendence akin to pa nentheism are already present in the Pratyabhijñ¯a tradition. Through comparative analysis, the study identifies key convergences between these two systems in their metaphysics of ultimate reality, their accounts of liberation through knowledge, the role of the teacher in the liberative process, their views on the purpose of creation and their respective treatments of evil. The paper concludes by examining significant points of divergence, shedding light on the distinctive trajectories and theological commitments of each tradition.

Keywords: Krause; panentheism; Pratyabhijñ¯ a; non-dual ´ Saivism

1. Introduction

Panentheism is an often-discussed alternative to classical theism, and almost any discussion of panentheism begins by acknowledging Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) as the philosopher who coined the term. However, although Krause intro duced the word panentheism, panentheistic models of God can already be found in ancient Indian traditions, particularly in the Pratyabhijñ¯a system, a school within the non-dual ´ Saivism of Kashmir.1 This article offers a comparative analysis of Krause’s panentheism and the Pratyabhijñ¯ a philosophy of non-dual ´ Saivism. The goal is not to establish a direct historical line of influence—although Krause’s known interest in Indian philosophy makes such influence plausible—but rather to draw attention to the remarkable philosophical parallels between these two traditions. Despite their distinct cultural and historical contexts, both systems articulate a vision of absolute reality as simultaneously immanent in, and transcendent of, the world. They converge strikingly in (1) their respective foundational metaphysics of ultimate ground, (2) their accounts of liberation as a process of knowledge andrecognition, (3) their corresponding accounts of the means of liberation and the need for a teacher, (4) their respective stance on the purpose of creation, and, finally, (5) their account of evil. By placing these systems in dialogue, we aim to illuminate the inner logic and distinct contours of each, while also contributing to broader philosophical debates about the nature of the Absolute, the world, and the human condition as part of a cross-cultural philosophy of religion. The comparison not only sheds light on neglected dimensions of Krause’s panentheism but also opens new interpretive pathways for understanding non-dual ´ Saivism beyond its usual doctrinal boundaries.

2. The Philosophy of Non-Dual ´ Saivism

The Pratyabhijñ¯a system articulates a monistic and panentheistic philosophy centred on the recognition (pratyabhijñ¯a) of one’s true nature as none other than ´ Siva, the Absolute and all-encompassing divine reality. This recognition is not acquiring something new but realising an eternal identity—the individual self (j¯ıva) has always been ´ Siva. However, due to ignorance (avidy¯a), this truth has been forgotten. Liberation (moks .a) is thus the direct knowledge of one’s inherent divinity, which alone is necessary and sufficient to break free from the cycle of suffering and transmigration (sam . s¯ara). The earliest articulation of this system can be traced to its founder, Som¯ananda (c. 900–950 CE), author of ´ Sivadr .s .t . i (Vision of ´ Siva). However, it was his disciple, Utpaladeva (c. 925–975 CE), who systematically developed its core doctrines in the ¯ I´svarapratyabhijn¯ak¯arik¯a (Stanzas on the Recognition of the Lord, ¯ IPK) along with a commentary (¯ I´svarapratyabhijñ¯ak¯arik¯avr . itti) and a longer auto-commentary (¯ I´svarapratyabhijñ¯ avivr . itti), now known only in fragments (Ratié 2016a, 2016b, 2020, 2021, 2022). Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025) further refined these doctrines through his commentaries (¯ I´svarapratyabhijn¯avimar´sin¯ı and ¯ I´svarapratyabhijn¯avivr .tivimar´sin¯ı) as well as in his magnum opus Tantr¯aloka (Light on the Tantras, T ¯ A). Abhinavagupta’s disciple, Ks .emar¯aja (c. 1000–1050 CE), also played a crucial role in distilling these teachings, particularly in his Pratyabhijn¯ahr .daya (The Heart of Recognition), a concise summary of the school’s key doctrines. This section explores the core philosophical tenets of Pratyabhijñ¯a, focusing on: (1) the metaphysical understanding of ´ Siva as both transcendent and immanent; (2) the system’s view of liberation (moks .a) and its relation to ignorance (ajñ¯ana); (3) the means of attaining knowledge of the Absoute, (4) the purpose of creation; and (5) the question of evil. These explorations position the Pratyabhijñ¯a system within the broader panentheistic thought, illustrating its unique perspective on the Absolute, the universe, and finite beings. 2.1. Metaphysics of the Absolute in Pratyabhijñ¯a In the Pratyabhijñ¯a school, ´ Siva is the singular (eka), infinite (ananta), all-encompassing (p¯urn .a), autonomous (svatantra) consciousness (cit), the substratum of all reality and the source of all phenomena. Pratyabhijñ¯a advances a form of philosophical idealism, af firming that ´ Siva is the sole reality and nothing exists outside this singular consciousness. Som¯ananda, regarded as the school’s founder, initially articulated a pantheistic framework wherein ´ Siva is fully identified with the universe. As Nemec observes, “´ Siva is never a passive, transcendent, and inaccessible deity, but rather is ever fully engaged in manifest ing all the appearances and activities that constitute the very existence of the universe” (Nemec 2011, p. 25). However, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta refined this vision into a panentheistic framework, positing that the universe is a manifestation or appearance (¯abh¯asa) of ´ Siva, yet neither ontologically identical to nor reducible to Him. ´ Siva pervades all creation while simultaneously transcending it, establishing His nature as both immanent (vi´svamaya) and transcendent (vi´svott¯ ırn .a). This relationship between the Absolute and the world forms the foundation of Pratyabhijñ¯a’s panentheism, wherein creation unfolds as a free manifestation of ´ Siva’s will (icch¯a´sakti), giving rise to all multiplicity without compromising His inherent unity and absolute freedom. Despite this cosmic play, ´ Siva remains utterly free and unaffected by His own manifestation. Central to Pratyabhijñ¯a metaphysics is ´ Siva as an autonomous (svatantra), self-aware consciousness characterised by two inseparable aspects: prak¯a´sa (luminosity) and vimar´sa (reflective awareness).2 Prak¯a´sa denotes the illuminating aspect—the pure light of consciousness that reveals all phenomena while remaining their unchanging ground. Vimar´sa is the reflexive awareness that enables ´ Siva to be self-aware. As Utpaladeva states: “The essential nature of light is reflective awareness (vimar´sa); otherwise, light, though ‘coloured’ by objects, would be similar to an insentient reality, such as crystal and so on” (¯ IPK3 1.5.11, 118).4 Without vimar´sa, consciousness would passively reflect objects like an inert crystal, whereas vimar´sa ensures that ´ Siva’s light illuminates while remaining aware of itself as the source. This capacity for self-awareness distinguishes sentient consciousness from insentient matter (jad .a), a concept Pratyabhijñ¯a develops in response to Buddhist logico-epistemological accounts of self-awareness (svasam . vedana) while reinterpreting it with a ´ Saiva ontological framework. The Pratyabhijñ¯a tradition employs the metaphor of a mirror to illustrate ´ Siva’s re lationship to His manifestations (¯abh¯asa-s). Abhinavagupta’s Param¯arthas¯ara (Essence of Ultimate Reality) likens the world’s appearance within consciousness to images reflected in a mirror—distinct in form yet ultimately inseparable from it (Bansat-Boudon and Tripathi 2011, p. 112).5 The world appears differentiated both internally and in relation to conscious ness but remains, in truth, non-different from consciousness. The world is thus not external to ´ Siva but a reflection within His consciousness. Because this reflection is contained within the Absolute, Pratyabhijñ¯a thinkers regard it as fully real. Moreover, the mirror analogy highlights the tradition’s panentheism: just as a mirror reflects images without changing its essential nature, ´ Siva manifests the universe within Himself while remaining unaltered. Thus, His transcendent nature and oneness remain intact. ´ Siva manifests the universe through His power (´sakti), which is synonymous with vimar´sa. This creative power is neither external nor necessitated but a free, spontaneous play (kr¯ ıd . ¯a) within consciousness. According to sv¯atantryav¯ada, the doctrine of absolute freedom, ´ Siva’s will (icch¯a) alone is sufficient to generate the cosmos. As Utpaladeva states: “Indeed, the Conscious Being, God, like the yogin, independently of material causes, in virtue of His volition alone, renders externally manifest the multitude of objects that reside within Him (¯ IPK 1.5.7, 116).6 Creation is thus not an act of compulsion or fragmentation but an autonomous, joyous self-expression of ´ Siva. As the sole cause of manifestation, He requires no external medium; the universe emerges spontaneously from His sovereign will. Unlike a sequential process of cause and effect, creation is direct, unmediated self-revelation. Though manifesting as the universe, ´ Siva remains transcendent, beyond limitation, and eternally free—His non-dual nature untouched by creation. Creation in Pratyabhijñ¯a follows a top-down model where absolute consciousness contracts (sam . koca) from pure subjectivity into empirical multiplicity through the successive manifestation of thirty-six tattvas (ontological categories). At the highest level, ´ Siva exists as an undifferentiated, self-luminous consciousness. Through His ´sakti, this consciousness progressively assumes differentiated forms, culminating in the material universe. A key moment in this process is the emergence of m¯ay¯a, the principle of limitation that introduces differentiation. Unlike Advaita Ved¯anta, which treats m¯ay¯a as an illusory appearance (vivarta), Pratyabhijñ¯a understands it as ´ Siva’s power—His freedom to assume finite forms in a play of self-concealment. As Ratié explains, m¯ay¯a is not a deceptive appearance distinct from reality but an aspect of consciousness itself, enabling the manifestation of variety (Ratié 2016c, p. 16). Through m¯ay¯a, ´ Siva veils his infinite nature, giving rise to the illusion of separation and the experience of bondage (pa´sutva). This apparent limitation is not an ontological fall but a cognitive contraction—a tem porary obscuration of self-recognition (pratyabhijñ¯a). Liberation (moks .a) is the dissolution of this ignorance, the realisation that subject and object, self and world, are expressions of the same consciousness. As Abhinavagupta describes, ´ Siva’s self-concealment is an act of absolute freedom (sv¯atantrya), a cosmic game (kr¯ıd . ¯a) in which He appears fragmented while remaining fully aware of His unity: “Because this Highest Lord [that is consciousness] accomplishes the most difficult deeds, due to its pure freedom, it is skillful in the game (kr¯ ıd . ¯a) of self-concealment. Concealing oneself whereas one’s nature remains unveiled— this is precisely the Omnipresent Lord’s m¯ ay¯ a from which comes all this variety found in the universe” (Abhinavagupta in (Ratié 2016c, p. 16)). Even bondage, then, is nothing but the free play of consciousness. Furthermore, the process of manifestation is cyclical, characterised by creation (sr .s .t .i), maintenance (sthiti), and dissolution (pralaya). ´ Siva withdraws and recreates the universe as an expression of His will, demonstrating His transcendence and immanence. This eternal cycle highlights ´ Siva’s dynamic engagement with the cosmos, wherein the universe is continuously reabsorbed into and reemerges from consciousness. Thus, the Pratyabhijñ¯a of Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta articulates a distinctly panentheistic vision: the universe is ´ Siva’s self-expression, wholly pervaded by Him, yet He remains beyond it. Unlike panthe ism, which equates God with the universe, or classical theism, which separates God from creation, Pratyabhijñ¯a asserts that ´ Siva is simultaneously immanent and transcendent. He manifests as all things, yet no finite entity exhausts His being. The world is neither separate from Him nor entirely identical to Him, but rather, it is the reflection of consciousness itself, which reveals itself in infinite ways. 2.2. Bondage and Liberation In Pratyabhijñ¯a, bondage (bandha) arises from ´ Siva’s self-imposed limitation and apparent forgetfulness of His true nature.7 As the absolute subject, ´ Siva identifies with the body-mind apparatus, leading to a limited and incomplete understanding (ap¯ urn .a-jñ¯ ana) of reality (T ¯ A8 1.26).9 As Abhinavagupta explains, ignorance (ajñ¯ ana) is the root cause of transmigration, and only through knowledge can liberation (moks .a) be attained: “Here [in our tradition] all the scriptures unanimously declare that ignorance is the cause of transmigration and knowledge alone that of freedom” (T ¯ A 1.22).10 M¯ ay¯ a’s veiling power manifests through five coverings (kañcukas): limited action (kal¯a), limited knowledge (vidy¯a), attachment or desire (r¯aga), necessity (niyati), and time (k¯ala), which together create the illusion of finite existence. This self-limitation causes ´ Siva, who is inherently limitless, to perceive Himself as constrained by time and causality. A central concept in understanding bondage is the ´ Saiva doctrine of impurities (mala), which obscure the self’s true nature. The dualist ´ Saiva Siddh¯anta school holds that the self is veiled by three impurities: individuality (¯an .avamala), differentiation (m¯ay¯ıyamala), and action (k¯armamala). While the dualist tradition regards these impurities as real substances (dravya) that can only be removed through ritual (karma), and especially the initiation ritual (d¯ıks . ¯a), Pratyabhijñ¯a reinterprets them as forms of ignorance or erroneous attitudes of the individual subject (Torella 2017, p. 183). Therefore, knowledge is necessary and sufficient for liberation (moks .a), as it removes the veils of ignorance. Liberation, or recognition (pratyabhijn¯a), is the realisation that one is ´ Siva and that the universe is an expression of one’s infinite consciousness. Once this truth is recognised, the individual transcends the illusion of limitations and regains their true identity with ´ Siva, which paradoxically, was never lost in the first place. As Ks .emar¯aja notes, even in bondage, the individual is ´ Siva, albeit in a contracted form: “The individual experient also, in whom citi or consciousness is contracted, has the universe [as his body] in a contracted form” (Ks .emar¯ aja in (Singh 1963, p. 43)).11 In this contracted state, the individual engages in the divine acts—creation, maintenance, dissolution, concealment, and grace—but with limited awareness. Liberation is not an escape from the world but an awakening to the divine within it. The goal is unity-consciousness, where the entire universe is perceived as ´ Siva, and the individual experiences the bliss of absolute I-consciousness (par¯amar´sa). Notably, Pratyabhijñ¯a emphasises j¯ıvanmukti, liberation while alive. Once ignorance is removed, the individual lives fully aware of their identity with ´ Siva, experiencing the world as a divine play of consciousness. This contrasts with the dualist ´ Saiva Siddh¯anta, which holds that liberation is only possible after death (videhamukti). 2.3. The Means of Liberation and the Role of the Teacher While the recognition of one’s true nature depends on individual effort, it also requires ´ Siva’s grace (anugraha), which facilitates this insight. ´ Saktip¯ata, or the “descent of power”, is central to spiritual maturity and readiness for liberation. Although ´saktip¯ata is indispensable, it does not negate the need for knowledge; instead, it accelerates the recognition process by making the aspirant more receptive to realising their ´ Siva-nature. Abhinavagupta explains that the intensity of ´saktip¯ata varies, corresponding to different means (up¯aya-s) of liberation: “Thus, while the Lord reveals Himself in all His fullness to one person (pram¯atr .), [He does so] to another part by part, progressively” (T ¯ A 1.140).12 The more intense the grace, the more direct the path. Aspirants with the deepest desire for liberation (mumuks .u) receive the most intense form of grace, leading them swiftly toward freedom, while those who still desire worldly enjoyment (bhoga) or supernatural powers (siddhi-s) experience a milder form of grace, resulting in a more gradual path. Pratyabhijn¯a outlines four distinct means (up¯aya-s) of liberation, arranged in hierarchi cal order: “the non-means” (anup¯aya), “the divine means” (´s¯am . bhavop¯aya), “the empowered means” (´s¯aktop¯aya) and “the individual means” (¯an .avop¯aya). Anup¯aya is the most direct, where recognition occurs spontaneously without effort, accessible only to those receiv ing the highest degree of grace. As the Tantr¯aloka states, “For some [elevated souls], ´ Siva Himself manifests in an instant, just as an entity manifests clearly to one whose senses are fully functional, without having to apply the mind to determine its nature” (T ¯ A 1.147).13 ´ S¯am . bhavop¯aya emphasises direct, non-conceptual awareness (nirvikalpa) of one’s identity with ´ Siva, transcending mental constructs and focusing purely on con sciousness. ´ S¯aktop¯aya employs reasoning (¯uhah . ) and contemplation (bh¯avan¯a) as the means to realisation, relying on correct reasoning (sattarka), aided by scriptures (¯agama) and a teacher’s guidance. Finally, ¯ an .avop¯ aya, the most accessible means, involves external prac tices such as mantra utterance (ucc¯ara), bodily postures (karan .a), and meditation (dhy¯ana), which purify the mind and prepare the aspirant for higher states of awareness (T ¯ A 1.170).14 Each up¯aya builds on the one below it, gradually leading the aspirant to the highest means, anup¯aya, which is paradoxically a “no-means” because it is spontaneous and requires no method. The guru (teacher) holds immense importance in this tradition as the embodiment of ´ Siva and a conduit for ´ Siva’s grace. The guru guides the disciple through the various means of liberation. However, although the role of the teacher is critical in transmitting the teachings and bestowing grace, Pratyabhijñ¯a emphasises that liberation ultimately comes through knowledge. The guru helps the disciple overcome ignorance, but the disciple’s recognition of their true nature as ´ Siva brings liberation. Thus, the varying degrees of ´saktip¯ata shape the aspirant’s journey, with divine grace as the primary catalyst for recognition, working in tandem with knowledge as the essential condition for liberation. The structured nature of the up¯aya-s reflects a systematic approach to spiritual development, where knowledge and grace converge to facilitate spiritual transformation.
2.4. Purpose of Creation In Pratyabhijñ¯a, liberation is recognising oneself as ´ Siva, the infinite, omnipotent consciousness manifesting as the universe. The goal of life is to realise this unity with the Absolute, leading to unity-consciousness. But why does ´ Siva create the world, leading to