– Frederick M Smith
Assuming the centrality of a statement in a Kāpālika text, representing a sect of cremation ground ritual (smaśāna sādhana) specialists in which possession must have been prominent, both the dualistic Shaiva Siddhānta (saiddhāntika) and non-dual (non-saiddhāntika) Kashmiri sectarian texts turn the concept of possession around, at least philosophically. The Atimārga Kāpālika śaivaparibhāṣā, by Shivāgrayōgin, states succinctly, ‘Kāpālikas attain equipoise (sāmyam or enlightenment), through samāvēśa. Just as spirits (grahāḥ) possess (āviśanti) people in ordinary life, in the same way, those with attributes of the Lord possess those who are liberated’.
This position is attacked by the saiddhāntika śaivas because of its dangerous resemblance to possession by evil spirits and the subject’s loss of identity and autonomy. As a correction to the Kāpālika view, the śaiva texts posit a multifaceted possession. Three facets may be identified here: first, āvēśa or samāvēśa as a spiritual practice, from unassisted meditation to ritually assisted initiation; second, as a kind of special knowledge; and third, as a state of enlightenment. Because the texts do not deal with these separately, and because they are readily evident from the discourse, it will not be necessary to separate them as if they were distinct categories.
With respect to practice, samāvēśa is identified by Abhinavagupta, in his Vimarśinī on Utpaladeva’s non-dualist īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā, as abhyāsa, yogic and spiritual practice. Through such discipline, the practitioner may realize his or her identity with the Supreme, even if this identity is qualified or limited by the human body, which has the capacity to realize the divine powers of the Supreme only partially. Samāvēśa is not only practice, however, it is also the goal. As Louise Finn says unambiguously, citing a commentary on the Vāmakēśvara Tantra, “in Kashmir Shaivism liberation is achieved not through samādhi but through samāvēśa.” This is consistent with the general tenor of non-saiddhāntika thought, in which mōkṣa is viewed as a state of possession or samāvēśa in that it is determined by levels of initiation, which are in turn verified by symptoms of śaktipāta, recognized as a variety of āvēśa. This śaktipāta is divine energy transmitted either by one’s guru or a siddha who, apparently, may not be necessarily one’s guru. Abhinavagupta presents a fourfold classification of siddhas: celibates (ūrdhvarētas), heroes (vīra) who are on the path of kula (kulavartman), non-celibates and non-physical siddhas who are non-physical gurus (Tantrālōka, 29.41-43). Jayaratha says that these disembodied gurus can enter (pravēśa) the bodies of practitioners during the kula rite. Shaktipāta causes the initiate to become possessed (āvēśa); symptoms are convulsions (ghūrṇi, kampa) and loss of consciousness (nidrā), the degree of possession revealed by their intensity (tīvra). Thence the objective was “immersion (samāvēśa) into the body of consciousness; to take possession, or the eradication of individuality, permanent”.
The texts recognize four means of realizing samāvēśa, from least effective to most:
1. āṇavōpāya, corresponding to kriyā yōga with a dependence on external rituals.
2. śāktōpāya, depending on the verbal practice of mantra śakti.
3. śāmbhavōpāya, requiring a highly concentrated mental practice in order to merge with the absolute supreme being.
4. Anupāya, requiring no practice at all, in which merging with the absolute is achieved spontaneously, effortlessly.
In Tantrālōka, Abhinavagupta offers a definition of āvēśa: “āvēśa is the submerging of the identity of the individual unenlightened mind and the consequent identification with the supreme Shambhu who is inseparable from the primordial śakti.” thus the Tāntric sense of āvēśa as possession must be nuanced as interpenetration, as suggested above. In this way, it represents a state of enlightenment. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this definition is that it is there at all; indeed, it may be the only definition of āvēśa found in Sanskrit literature.
Samāvēśa as abhyāsa or spiritual practice leads the practitioner to samāvēśa as ontological state, here regarded as the fourth state or turyā of the Upaniṣads. Then, through samāvēśa on that initial state of liberation, one enters a state “beyond the fourth” (turyātīta). Abinavagupta expresses this in several ways. He states in Vivr̥tivimarśinī that samāvēśa indicates a complete and perfect entry into one’s own true nature. Thus, Abhinavagupta “understands samāvēśa to mean not the act of being entered but that of entering (into one’s true nature).” The reversal mentioned above, the reification of possession, is that samāvēśa is no longer an externally induced phenomenon or experience but one that is recognized as a facet of recognition (pratyabhijñā) within a thoroughly divinized individuality. Acknowledging Abhinavagupta’s dual use of samāvēśa as epistemological process and ontological state, Kaw writes: “turyā and turyātītā are reached by yogins only when their samāvēśa becomes uninterrupted after some practice. Such yogins who attain the highest state of samāvēśa are known as jīvanmuktas, for even in their lifetime, they are said to be released.” This movement from samāvēśa as a process to samāvēśa as the state takes one further beyond mere jīvanmukti, however. Assuming a prior equation of samāvēśa with jīvanmukti, Abhinavagupta states that the highest state of contentment, a state of divine comportment, is to be achieved by samāvēśa or meditative immersion in jīvanmukti itself. In other words, the higher state of samāvēśa is a transformation from a state of spiritual realization, an adhyātmika state, to a divine state (vibhūtirūpā trptiḥ), an Adhidaivika state, “where the components of limitation, including samskāra, are totally dissolved and incorporated into the I.”
Finally, Abhinavagupta sums up his position and issues a warning: “When the body is filled with light and takes on the form of consciousness (samvidrūpa), then, as a result of further spiritual practice, all the relative projections of Shiva from the void to the corporeal body (śūnyādi dēhānta) become luminous with awareness and its aesthetic flavor. Then the qualities of consciousness (samviddharmāḥ), empowered by the requisite śakti, rise to a divine state (vibhūti). But in the absence of spiritual practice, this āvēśa is only a momentary experience. In this case, the physical characteristics may be arising of bliss, shaking, collapsing, whirling, etc.; but the state of jīvanmukti is not achieved.”
In Kṣēmarāja’s Pratyabhijñāhr̥daya, samāvēśa is elevated from a term that is used only occasionally by Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta to one that obtains the greatest importance. In his introduction to sūtra 19, Kṣēmarāja states that cidānanda, the primary characteristic of enlightenment, a state of immeasurable ecstatic bliss, is a samādhi also known by the names samāvēśa and samāpatti. Samādhi and samāpatti are, of course, the principal terms used in yoga for such transformational states of mind.
One of the prominent features of religious experience, as described in the Tantras, is the emphasis placed on the body, especially during initiation. The body is immortalized through the grace of the revelation of śakti in her jñāna aspect. One may be liberated not only while in the body but through the body as well. The deity manifests within the body; indeed, it manifests as the body. This requires śaktipāta upon the initiate, an immersion or possession of the initiate’s body and self by the śakti. The symptoms of śaktipāta resemble those of possession, for example, exhibitions of blissfulness, shaking, staggering, whirling, or falling on the ground unconscious. Diemberger reports that Tibetan female oracles have this sort of characteristic experience after having their energy channels opened by a Lama. She writes: “The god, in fact, is said to enter the body along the energy channels and if these are not purified, the person may be affected by a variety of mental and physical illnesses. Uncontrolled visions, voices, fainting, weakness, and the experience of a death-like state are the most common symptoms.”