articles
An Instance of Syncretism of the Spanda- and Pratyabhijñā-systems
1997 Volume 1 Pages 25-38
Details
1997 Volume 1 Pages 25-38
The doctrine of spanda is well known as a characteristic view of Kashmiri Śaivism as is the doctrine of pratyabhijñā, although the concept of spanda is established in the Jayadrathayāmalatantra and other texts linked to the Kālī cults1. For, in the tradition of Kashmiri Śaivism, the Spanda-kārikā is thought to have been composed in order to show clearly the esoteric instruction in the Śivasūtra of Vasugupta, the fundamental treatise of the school.
There are differences of opinion among modern scholars about the relation between the system of Spanda and that of Pratyabhijñā. For example, G. Bühler referred to the Spanda-śāstra and the Pratyabhijñā-śāstra as two classes of the transcendental doctrine or philosophy of the Śaivas in Kashmir2; J. C. Chatterji divided the treatises of the Trika into three groups, Āgama-, Spanda- and Pratyabhijñā-śāstra, but he did not think them different systems of philosophy3; K. C. Pandey thought that the Spanda is not an independent system but a branch of the Pratyabhijñā-system4; and recently M. S. G. Dyczkowski has suggested that the Spanda is clearly distinguishable from the Pratyabhijñā5. In short, there is disagreement concerning whether each of them is an independent system, or the former is a branch-system of the latter. The differences have probably been caused by these scholars' different ways of dealing with the texts, which were written in chronological order as follows:
[1] Spandakārikā (abbr. to SpK) and Spandakārikā-vṛtti (SpVK) called Spandasarvasva of Kallaṭa Bhaṭṭa6 (825-875 AD),
[2] Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā (IPK) and its Svavṛtti (IPKV) of Utpaladeva (900-950 A.D.);
[3] Spandakārikā-vivṛti (SpVR) of Rājānaka Rāmakaṇṭha (925-975 A.D.);
[4] Spandapradīpikā (SpP) of Bhagavad Utpala (Utpala Vaiṣṇava, 925-975 A.D.);
[5] Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī (IPV) of Abhinavagupta (950-1020 A.D.);
[6] Spandasaṃdoha (SpS) and Spandanirṇaya (SpN) of Kṣemarāja (975-1125 A.D.)
Needless to say, we must not rely entirely on a single commentary in our efforts to understand some text, even if the commentary, e. g. SpN, is extremely explanatory or detailed, but we must also pay attention to the developments of thought or the particularities of view and attitude among commentators.
In a recent voluminous work, M. Dyczkowski [1994] has translated and analyzed SpK and its commentaries exhaustively, taking notice of differences between the Spanda and other schools of Kashmiri Śaivism, modifications to the original doctrine by commentators, and so on. Having respect for his great work, I wish to add a brief note to it about the relation between the Spanda- and Pratyabhijñā-system. In the following, I will focus on the terms udaya and pralaya in the above-mentioned texts.
<1> In the first two verses of SpK, Śaṃkara (as a name of Śiva) is extolled as follows:
We praise that Śaṃkara by whose opening (unmeṣa) and closing (nimeṣa) [of eyes or will-power] there is production (udaya) and destruction (pralaya) of the world (jagat) and who is the source of the glorious powers of the wheel of energies (śakti-cakra). (SpK l)7
Because His essential nature cannot be covered [even in the state of transmigration], there is no obstruction (nirodha) to Him anywhere in whom all this result (kārya, i. e. the world) continues to exist (sthita) and from whom it arises (nirgata). (Spk 2)8
According to SpVK 1, the equivalents of udaya and pralaya are respectively utpatti and saṃhāra which mean literally 'occurring' and 'withdrawing'9. Kallaṭa explains that the point of SpK 2 is that any transmigrators (saṃsārin) are nothing but Śiva Himself10. This is one of the particular views emphasized by the monistic Śaivists. And yet here Kallaṭa seems to consider that Śiva causes the world to arise and continue in reality. We might assume that Kallaṭa was recollecting the three great functions (kṛtya) attributed to the Supreme God, which are commonly known by the terms of sṛṣṭi ('creation'), sthiti ('maintenance') and saṃhāra ('dissolution') respectively assigned to Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra in the general tradition of Hinduism11, even though he does not mention this idea in SpK or SpVK. Consequently, Kallaṭa seems to use the terms udaya and pralaya simply to mean 'production' and 'destruction' in an ontological context.
The following verses (SpK3 f.) deal with various phases of spanda (so-called 'vibration') concerning the way to obtain liberating realization. At the conclusion of the instruction, the words in question occur again as follows:
But when he (= the fettered soul) is firmly established in one place (=the highest principle), then controlling the emerging (udaya) and merging (laya) of it (= puryaṣṭaka) he achieves the state of the enjoyer (bhoktṛtā); therefore he is the lord of the wheel [of energies]. (SpK 51)12
SpVK 51 presents the equivalents of udaya, namely udbhava ('arising') and prādurbhāva ('becoming visible'), and that of laya (= pralaya), namely dhvaṃsa ('vanishing'). In this context, what arises or vanishes is puryaṣṭaka that consists of buddhi, ahaṃkāra, manas and five tanmātras. In other words, here udaya and laya (= pralaya) suggest a pair of opposite directions of the transition along the principles or categories (tattva) corresponding to each stage of the yogin. We often find the terms udaya and pralaya in such a soteriological sense in Śaivāgama and similar treatises. Sometimes we find these words compounded with the adjectives mahā or parama, forming mahodaya, paramodaya and mahāpralaya13.
Thus, Kallaṭa uses the terms udaya and pralaya in two different contexts, that of ontology and that of soteriology. And he thinks that each phenomenon of udaya and pralaya is real as it occurs, in other words, he believes that the world is produced and destroyed in reality.
<2> Utpaladeva is practically the founder of the Pratyabhijñā-system, although he says that his work (IPK) is mostly indebted to the Śivadṛṣṭi of Somānanda (875-925 A.D.)14. A basic idea of the Pratyabhijñā-system is the doctrine of ābhāsa that every thing is a manifestation of real existence within the Supreme Subject of Consciousness and is real as it manifests. This particular view is distinguished from the monistic idealism (Advaita) of the Vedānta school and others. Therefore it is called 'Realistic Idealism' or 'Pratyabhijñā Phenomenology' by some modern scholars15. It is expressed in IPKV, for instance:
The whole world (viśva) having its own nature is manifested (ābhāsyate) with diversity (bheda) by the power of limitation (māyā-śakti) of the Supreme Lord (parameśvara) consisting of luminosity (prakāśātma). (IPKV 1, 5, 18)16
At the moment of the primal emanation (ādi-sarga) or even in daily experience, by the power of limitation the Great Lord (maheśvara) entering the body etc. conceived of as self and making the [limited] subject of knowing He manifests (bhāsayati) in order each of the shining objects within Him as external [objects] by the power of the actor (kartṛ-śakti). Producing [something is realized] exactly as manifesting [it]. (IPKV 1, 6, 7)17
In this passage, ādi-sarga seems to mean 'the very first emanation' commonly known as 'the creation of the world' in the Hindu tradition.
Utpaladeva attempts to connect the views of the Pratyabhijñā-system with the descriptions of the Śaivagama in the third chapter of IPK/IPKV, Āgamādhikāra. In the first instance, he explains that īśvara and sadāśiva, the fourth and the third principles (tattva) of 36, are respectively the outward 'opening' (unmeṣa) and the inward 'closing' (nimeṣa)18. Secondly, he refers to Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra as the rulers over 'emanation' (sarga or sṛṣṭi), 'maintenance' (sthiti) and 'absorption' (upasaṃhāra), while he insists that these functions of the gods belong to the lower sphere of 'manifestation' (ābhāsa) with diversity of objects19.
In addition, he intents to connect his views with the doctrine of spanda as follows:
The act of knowing (citi) whose nature is the intentional act of consciousness (pratyavamarśa, lit. 'reflective awareness') is the Supreme Speech (parāvāk). It is the principal free will (svātantrya), namely the omnipotence (aiśvarya) of the Supreme Self (paramātman). (IPK 1, 5, 13)20
It is the luminous vibrating (sphurattā), the universal existing (mahāsattā) unspecified by space and time, and it is said [in various Āgamas] to be the heart of the Supreme Lord as its essence. (IPK 1, 5, 14)21
We have seen above how Utpaladeva explains the doctrine of ābhāsa and connects views of the Pratyabhijñā-system with the earlier literature belonging to Śaivism.
<3> Rājānaka Rāmakaṇṭha interprets SpK in line with Kallaṭa's SpVK for the most part. In his own Vivṛti (SpVR), synonymous words such as utpatti, udbhava, utpāda and prādurbhāva substitute for udaya, as do vināśa, vyaya, kṣaya and astamaya for pralaya22. Their meanings do not deviate far from Kallaṭa's ideas.
However, we should not overlook the fact that Rāmakaṇṭha was a direct disciple of Utpaladeva in spite of the colophon of SpVR23 and other evidence. It is likely that Rāmakaṇṭha produced his commentary on SpK under some influence of the Pratyabhijñā-view. There is an instance in SpVR on k. 1 as follows:
The Supreme Lord causes production (udaya) and destruction (pralaya) of the world (jagat) by His [powers of] will (icchā) alone, and [in the same way He causes] in addition the stability of the world that he has obtained, although the greatness of His power (śakti-vibhūti) is unique, [He] manifests (avabhāsate) [the world] variously owing to the power of limitation (māyā). (SpVR 1)24
In this way, he applies the doctrine of ābhāsa to his interpretation of SpK.
<4> Bhagavad Utpala attempts to validate the doctrine of spanda by quoting from Vaiṣṇava scriptures along with Śaiva sources, and tries to show their compatibility. He was either a contemporary of Utpaladeva or lived after him because he quotes IPK; he probably lived before Abhinavagupta25.
In SpP, udaya is expressed through other terms such as prabhava (= samudeti), jagat-sṛṣṭi, jagat-sarga, udbhava (= prādurbhāva), abhivyakti; similarly pralaya (or laya) is expressed through terms such as apayaya (= astaṃyāti), pradhvaṃsa, [jagat-] saṃhāra, jagat-laya26. It is probable that Bhagavad Utpala was influenced by the doctrine of ābhāsa especially because of his use of the particular term abhivyakti ('manifestation').
On the other hand, Bhagavad Utpala seems to admit the real creation and destruction of the world because he uses the word jagat-sṛṣṭi-saṃhāra, etc. He also accepts the three great functions (kṛtya) of the Supreme God, namely 'creation' (sṛṣṭi), 'maintenance' (sthiti) and 'dissolution' (laya) of the world, and quotes from an old Vaiṣṇava text named Jābālisūtra27.
Moreover, he seems to regard udaya and pralaya as a pair of soteriological courses to be realized by the Tantric yogin who aims at both enjoyment (bhukti, bhoga) and liberation (mukti, mokṣa). His explanation in SpP (ad k.1) is simply shown by the following chart:
unmeṣa > [udaya] > jagat-sṛṣṭi > bhukti / bhoga
nimeṣa > [pralaya] > jagat-saṃhāra > mukti / mokṣa 28
Thus, Bhagavad Utpala attempts not only to connect the Vaiṣṇava tradition with the Śaiva but also the doctrine of ābhāsa adopted by Utpaladeva with the doctrine of spanda declared by Kallaṭa. More noteworthy is that he interprets udaya and pralaya in two different contexts regarding ontology and soteriology in the same way as does Kallaṭa. However, it seems that his effort to synthesize these systems leads his work (SpP) to become unsystematic.
We must recall Bhagabad Utpala's basic viewpoint on Vaiṣṇavism. It is likely that he was not inspired by the Pratyabhijñā idealism but by the monistic Vaiṣṇava idealism, as Dyczkowski suggests29.
<5> Abhinavagupta did not write an independent work on spanda, although he was a prolific writer. He quotes from SpK (kk. 22, 21, 19) in his IPV 1, 5, 14 to explain the concept of 'the luminous vibrating' (sphurattā) in IPK, and he identifies spanda or spandana with his key term vimarśa30 ('reflective awareness', 'the intentional act of consciousness'), being equivalent to svātantrya ('free will'). He regards spanda broadly as a dynamic principle ruling various phases of the universe such as physical movements, mental functions, transcendental divinity, and so on31. But he emphasizes the concept of vimarśa or svātantrya rather than that of spanda, making efforts to systematize unsettled views on pratyabhijñā into a consistent philosophy. In other words, the doctrine of spanda is not important for Abhinavagupta, and consequently it is replaced by the doctrine of vimarśa or svātantrya.
Abhinavagupta also attempts to connect the Pratyabhijñā-view with the Śaivāgamas in Āgamādhikāra in his IPV as well as Utpaladeva. In IPV 3, 1, 3, partially quoting SpK 1 ab, he explains that īśvara-tattva and sadāśiva-tattva are respectively unmeṣa and nimeṣa causing the udaya and pralaya of the universe, and he calls both of them śuddha ('pure' or 'unconditional') spanda32. Here udaya and pralaya probably mean 'becoming distinct' and 'being indistinct', because he also insists on the doctrine of ābhāsa ('manifestation'). And referring to the lower deities, namely Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra, Abhinavagupta's ideas about their great functions (kṛtya) are similar to those of Utpaladeva33. However, Abhinavagupta counts five functions including 'concealment' (tirodhāna) and 'grace' (anugraha)34.
In IPV, Abhinavagupta generally follows Utpaladeva's innovative views, while he elaborates the Pratyabhijñā-system discreetly compromising with other systems or traditions such as the doctrine of spanda, sacred testimonies in the Śaivāgama, the Yoga-system, and so on.
<6> Kṣemarāja, a pupil and cousin of Abhinavagupta, was eminent for his extensive and profound knowledge in expounding various texts. It has been pointed that he seems to have been influenced by Krama Tantrism, a śakti-oriented system, so much so that he interprets even the Spanda philosophy in terms of the Krama35. While we must carefully distinguish original terminology in the Krama-system from the adapted one in the Pratyabhijñā, we shall not make further inquiry into this point here36. Instead, we will look at his interpretation of spanda in SpS and SpN below.
Kṣemarāja defines spanda as the power (śakti) of manifestation (ābhāsa) which causes 'contraction' (saṃkoca) and 'expansion' (vikāsa) leading to subjectivity and objectivity in every phase of both pure (śuddha) and impure (aśuddha) categories (tattva), and as the power that simultaneously has a pair of relative aspects namely 'opening' (unmeṣa) and 'closing' (nimeṣa)37.
According to Kṣemarāja's SpN on SpK 1 ab, it is to be expounded that the udaya of the world is 'emanation' (sarga) with diversity caused by the merging of essential unity, and that pralaya is 'absorption' (saṃhāra) of externality and appearance of essential nature38. In addition, however, he says that in reality nothing arises (udeti) or perishes (vyayate) but it is only the power of spanda that effects each 'manifestation' (ābhāsa) in the Supreme Being, as if it arose or perished39; consequently, the five great functions (kṛtya) of the Supreme Lord are reduced to udaya and pralaya in pairs40. And he thinks that udaya and pralaya are relative situations and mutually exchangeable by different viewpoints41.
Thus, Kṣemarāja expounds the Spanda text by full use of the doctrine of ābhāsa, or in other words, he reforms the Spanda-system so as to adjust it to the Pratyabhijñā-system.
<7> So far, we have caught a glimpse of the gradual development of the Spanda-system, focussing on the terms udaya, pralaya, and the like. We have noticed differences of view on this point between Kallaṭa and other commentators such as Rāmakaṇṭha, Bhagavad Utpala and Kṣemarāja, namely, between the original Spanda advocator and post-Pratyabhijñā thinkers. Kallaṭa regards udaya and pralaya as production and destruction in reality. Rāmakaṇṭha and Bhagavad Utpala are influenced by the doctrine of ābhāsa (manifestation), while they admit the production and destruction or the great functions (kṛtya) of the Supreme God in reality. On the other hand, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta, the Pratyabhijñā thinkers, have their own conceptions of ābhāsa and vimarśa, and approach the Spanda-system in order to compromise with it. Finally, Kṣemarāja emphasizes the doctrine of ābhāsa and successfully syncretizes the Spanda-system and the Pratyabhijñā-system. It seems that Kṣemarāja stands at the terminal point on the line of the Spanda-system where it links with the Pratyabhijñā, far from the original idea of spanda. If we were to depend only on Kṣemarāja's expositions in SpS and SpN, we would be led to his own philosophy, which is very different from original idea of spanda.
This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
Sanderson [1988], p. 695.
Bühler [1877], pp. 77-79.
Chatterji [1914], p. 7, fn. 1.
Pandey [1963], pp. 293-294.
Dyczkowski [1987], p. 231.
Kṣemarāja attributes the authorship of the Spandakārikā to Vasugupta and Maheśvar ānanda supports his reference. This is admitted by K. C. Pandey ([1963], p. 155) and Jaideva Singh ([1980], p. xiv). But we must be careful to accept Kṣemarāja's reference.
SpK 1: yasyonmeṣanimeṣābhyāṃ jagataḥ pralayodayau/ taṃ śakticakravibhava-prabhavaṃ śaṃkaraṃ stumaḥ//
SpK 2: yatra sthitam idaṃ sarvaṃ kāryaṃ yasmāc ca nirgatam/ tasyānāvṛtarūpatvān na nirodho 'sti kutracit//
SpVK 1: anena svasvabhāvasyaiva śivātmakasya saṃkalpamātreṇa jagadutpatti-saṃhārayoḥ kāraṇatvaṃ…/
SpVK 2: svasvabhāvasyaiva saṃsāriṇaḥ śivatvena nirdeśaḥ.../
The Hindu triad (trimūrti), namely the united form of Brahman, Viṣṇu and Maheśa, appears first in the Kumārasaṃbhava of Kālidāsa (II, 4; VII, 44).
SpK 51: yadā tv ekatra saṃrūḍhas tadā tasya layodayau/ niyacchan bhoktṛtām eti tataś cakreśvaro bhavet//
For example, in Svacchanda-tantra, 11, 302-303; Vijñānabhairava (Śivavijñāno-paniṣad), 57; 63; 81; 117; 147; 149.
IPK / IPKV 4, 16. Torella [1994], p. 80; p. 218.
"Realistic Idealism" (Pandey [1963], p. 319); "Pratyabhijñā Phenomenology" (Dyczkowski [1994], p. 38).
IPKV 1, 5, 18: prakāśātmanaḥ parameśvarasya māyāśaktyā svātmarūpaṃ viśvaṃ bhedenābhāsyate/ (Torella [1994], p. 25)
IPKV 1, 6, 7: ādisarge vā vyavahāre 'pi vā maheśvaro māyāśaktyā dehādim ātmatvena abhiniviśya pramātāraṃ kurvann antaḥsthitaṃ vibhāntam eva taṃ tam arthaṃ krameṇa bahīrūpaṃ kartṛśaktyā bhāsayati/ tathābhāsanam evotpādanam/ (Torella [1994], p. 29)
IPKV 3, 1, 3: unmeṣanimeṣo bahirantaḥsthitī eveśvarasadāśivau, bāhyāntarayor vedyavedakayor ekacinmātraviśrānter abhedāt sāmānādhikaraṇyenedaṃ viśvam aham iti viśvātmano matiḥ śuddhavidyā/ (Torella [1994], p. 62) Cf. Torella [1994], p. 191.
IPKV 3, 2, 1: śūnye puryaṣṭakātmake 'tyantasūkṣmadeha eva vā pramātṛmātre sthitāv anyaprameyopasaṃhāre rudro 'dhiṣṭhātā, bhinnaprameyābhāse sargasthitihetū brahma-viṣṇū/ (Torella [1994], pp.65-66)
IPK 1, 5, 13: citiḥ pratyavamarśātmā parā vāk svarasoditā/ svātantryam etan mukhyaṃ tad aiśvaryaṃ parātmanaḥ//
IPK 1, 5, 14: sā sphurattā mahāsattā deśakālāviśeṣinī/ saiṣā sāratayā proktā hṛdayaṃ parameṣṭhinaḥ//
SpVR l (p. 3, p. 7); 9 (p. 39); 14 (p. 50); 24 (p. 79); 26-27 (p. 81, p. 83); 41 (p. 116); 49-50 (p. 155); 51 (p. 160).
SpVR, colophon (p. 168): saṃpūṃā iyaṃ vṛttyanusāriṇī spandavivṛtiḥ/ kṛtis tatrabhavato mahāmāheśvarācāryaśiromaṇirājānaka-śrīmadutpaladevapādapadmā-nujīvino rājānakaśrīrāmakaṇṭhasya iti śivam//
SpVR 1 (p. 11): parameśvaraḥ icchāmātreṇa jagataḥ pralayodayau vidadhāti, labdhasthitikam api jagat tacchaktivibhūtir ekaiva māyāvaśāt tu nānātvena avabhāsate, iti/
Dyczkowski [1994], pp. 28-29.
SpP 1 (p. 8, p. 9); 41 (p. 40); 49-50 (p. 45); 51 (p. 45).
SpP 28-29 (p. 34): jābālisūtreṣv api "draṣṭā spaṣṭā śrotā ghrātā rasayitā mantā boddhā 'pariluptacaitanyasvabhāvo jagadutpattisthitilayaikahetur bhagavān vāsudeva ātmeti" iti/ Cf. Dyczkowski [1994], p. 290.
SpP 1 (p. 9): ābhyām asya jagatsṛṣṭisaṃhārayoḥ kāraṇabhāvaḥ prokto bhuktimuktī ca/ tatromeṣād bhogo nānāvidhaḥ/ nimeṣān mokṣo nistaraṅgarūpatā/
Dyczkowski [1994], p. 42.
Various translations for vimarśa are listed in Torella [1994], p. xxiv, fin. 32. I would like to add 'the intentional act of consciousness' to them. Toda [1994].
IPV 1, 5, 14 (vol. 1, p. 258): loke 'pi vividhavaicitryayogena spandatattvam/
IPV 3, 1, 3 (vol. 2, pp. 221-222): śuddho 'yaṃ spandaḥ parameśvarasyācalasyāpy aprarūḍharūpāntarāpattilakṣaṇaḥ kiṃciccalanātmatayā sphuradrūpatvāt/
IPV 1, 3, 7 (vol. 1, p. 144); 3, 2, 1 (vol. 2, pp. 244-245).
IPV 1, 6, 7 (vol. 1, pp. 331-332); 2, 3, 14 (vol. 2, p. 132); 2, 4, 10 (vol. 2, p. 73).
Rastogi [1979], vol. 1, p. 4; pp. 166-167.
We may leave the details to Dyczkowski [1994], pp. 49-58.
SpN 1 (p. 3, l. 23 – p. 4, l. 3): sā caiṣā spandaśaktir garbhīkṛtānantasarga-
saṃhāraikaghanāhantācamatkārānandarūpā niḥśeṣaśuddhāśuddharūpa*mātṛmeya- saṃkocavikāsābhāsanasatattvā sarvopaniṣadupāsyāyugapad evonmeṣanimeṣamayī/ [* For the text's rūpū I read rūpa.]
SpN 1 (p. 5, ll. 14-21): tataś ca yasya saṃbandhinyāḥ svarūpanimeṣātmanaḥ kāryonmeṣapradhānāyāḥ śakter hetor jagato viśvasya śivāder dharaṇyantasyodayo 'bhedasāratānimajjanasatattvo nānāvaicitryaśālī bhedarūpaḥ sargaḥ svarūponmeṣā-tmanaś ca bāhyatānimeṣapradhānāyāḥ śakter jagataḥ pralayo 'bhedamayatodayātmā vicitrabhedarūpatāsaṃhāra iti pralayo 'py udayarūpa udayo 'pi ca pralayarūpa iti vyākhyeyam/
SpN 1 (p. 5, ll. 21-23): vastutas tu na kiṃcid udeti vyayate vā, kevalaṃ spandaśaktir eva bhagavaty akramāpi tathātathābhāsarūpatayā sphuranty udetīva vyayata iva ceti darśayiṣyāmaḥ/
SpN 1 (p. 5, l. 23 - p. 6, l. 1): sthitivilayānugrahāṇāṃ viśiṣṭapralayodayarūpatvān nādhikyam iti pralayodayābhyām eva pañcavidhaṃ pārameśvaryaṃ kṛtyaṃ saṃgṛhītam/; SpS 1 (p. 10, l. 9 - p. 11, l. 7).
SpS 1 (p. 9, ll. 14-17): tathā hi nīlādeḥ yo bahīrūpatāyā udayaḥ sa eva ahantārūpatāyāḥ pralayaḥ, evaṃ yo bahīrūpatāyāḥ pralayaḥ sa eva ahantārūpatāyā udaya iti pralayo 'pi udayarūpaḥ, udayo 'pi pralayaparamārthaḥ/
