| Summary: | <p>Much has been written on the connections between philosophy and religion in ancient India. Most has been written on the connection between orthodox Hindu religion and orthodox Hindu philosophy, or Buddhist religious practice and Buddhist philosophy.</p> <p>But the religious tradition of which Utpaladeva was a member was not orthodox and its sacred scriptures, the non—dualist &Sacute;aivite Tantras, were taught only in secret initiatory sects. And Utpaladeva is one of the very few Tantric philosophers who does not propound his views in the form of a commentary upon one of the Tantras themselves.</p> <p>Utpaladeva's philosophy is not intended solely for members of his own esoteric cult, it is written "for the benefit of mankind", to convince those of differing religions and philosophical persuasion that the world view expounded in the non—dualist &Sacute;aivite Tantras is the only correct one. Thus although Utpaladeva quotes from the Tantras in his Ῑ&sacute;varapratyabhij&ncaron;&amacr;k&amacr;rik&amacr;s, he attempts to establish the identity of the self with &Sacute;iva by independent philosophical argument (tarka).</p> <p>The principal philosophical view which Utpaladeva is concerned with refuting is that of the Buddhist Dharmakīrti. Dharmakīrti's views were expounded in Kashmir c.800 A.D. by Dharmottara, who founded the "Kashmir School" of Buddhist commentary. Even the orthodox brahmin Ānanandavardhana, author of the Dhvanyāloka treatise on poetics, wrote a commentary on Dharmottara's Pram&amacr;ṇavini&sacute;cayaṭīka.</p> <p>The other important expositor of Dharmakīrti's views in Kashmir was &Sacute;aṅkaranandana, also a brahmin, who is said (by the Buddhists) to have been converted to Buddhism by Dharmakīrti's brilliant logic. Abhinavagupta refers to &Sacute;aṅkaranandana several times in his commentaries on Utpaladeva's work, accepting &Sacute;aṅkaranandana's refutation of the philosophical views of the other schools.</p> <p>From Introduction - continued in thesis ...</p>
|
|---|