Book Review: Heidegger, Phenomenology and Indian Thought

This book is bold and courageous, and highly original in its perspective. A slim book at 101 pages, and divided into three parts with a preface, every page in it got me to pause and contemplate. It is a book that needs to be read slowly. It requires letting go of pre-conceived notions of existential-phenomenology itself and remain open. Significantly, it challenges some well established foundational assumptions within existential phenomenology.

The page before the preface sets the scene for what is to come.

Ordinary consciousness is intentional or focal awareness – awareness of something. Yet awareness as such ('pure awareness' in Indian terms) is essentially non-intentional – being that primordial spacious field or clearing (Lichtung) which is the pre-condition or 'field condition' for our awareness of things. Western phenomenology, noetic science and consciousness studies however, all still fail to acknowledge this non-intentional dimension of consciousness – that pure and spacious awareness – field which, like empty space itself, both embraces and transcends everything we are or could be aware of within it, all possible contents of consciousness

(Wilberg, 2008)

I was curious to read this book. It challenges both Heidegger's thinking in his seminal work Being and Time, with his focus on dasein as being-in-the-world and also challenges some central aspects of Husserlian phenomenology, such as consciousness is intentional. To read Wilberg's book, it required that I bracketed my own assumptions regarding existential-phenomenology.

In meeting Wilberg's horizon in this book, I came away with a 'both/and', rather than an 'either/or' perspective. Dasein for me is the recognition that we are contextual beings. That means I am already in a relational space. Even as I read this book, I am in relationship with the text, and as dasein or being-in-the-world with others, I inhabit the existential notion of time – i.e. my present relationship to this text contains my historical past, as it looks to the future. My relationship is in the process of becoming. It is open to possibilities. Self as being-in-the-world with others is not a static or rigid entity, it is always in the process of becoming in myriad ways.

This book touches me. Can I remain the same? I change. Yet as someone who is also familiar with meditation practices, the question worth asking is who or what knows of all the change? There is impermanence in every moment of the content of arising experience. Nothing remains the same. And everything arises and passes away. Yet the awareness in which the changing movement of content arises and subsides, changes and fluxes, is the background of quietness, the deep inner stillness.

Wilberg has tackled three very vast subjects (Heidegger's later writings, Husserl's phenomenology, and Kashmir Shaivism) in just 101 pages, and offered the reader a fresh perspective to extend the way in which European Existential-phenomenology is usually seen and understood. Wilberg has a way of harking back to the meanings of the original words, to the root of the words, and with it he brings forth fresh meaning in the way he asks the reader to look at language itself. For the reader to get a real flavour of this book, it needs to be read, so each reader can form their own relationship with this text, and see what comes up for them.

Wilberg's main thesis in Part 1 of this book, is in showing Heidegger's shift in thinking from the question of Being and its relationship to beings in Being and Time, to the question of Awareness in 'late' ' Heideggerian thinking in which he speaks of it as the 'clearing' or 'lichtung'.

Wilberg sees this shift in Heidegger's position as wholly congruent with the thinking of the 10th century Indian sage Abhinavagupta in the 'Shiva Sutras' within the non-dual tantric tradition of Kashmir Shaivism. Calling this shift 'Heidegger's tantric turn', Wilberg even refers to 'late' Heideggerian thinking as 'Heidegger's Yoga Sutras' dedicating a whole chapter to it. Wilberg shows that in his later writings, Heidegger sees human Da-sein not only as being-in-the-world, but as an opening into the unbounded primordial 'Openness' or 'Clearing' (Lichtung) as its other horizon.

He argues in line with Sheehan, a Heideggerian scholar and philosopher, to show this shift in Heidegger's thinking

'– what Sheehan calls (Heidegger's) 'Farewell to Being' and a shift towards a re-thinking the 'Da' itself, as the a primordial 'Openness' or 'Clearing' (Lichtung) that first 'gives' or 'grants' Being to beings'

(Wilberg, 2007: p 31)

Elaborating on this shift Wilberg argues that Heidegger's shift in his later writing is in re-thinking the Da in Da-Sein or 'being-there'. Pointing to Heidegger's way of thinking in the example of the hammer in Being and Time, where the hammer is not only there as a hammer, but it is there as a hammer to be picked up and used as a hammer. Wilberg contrasts it with Heidegger's later way of thinking highlighting the primacy of Lichtung or the clearing. He writes, it is

…rather a shift towards re-thinking the essence of their 'thereness' as such, the Da in Da-Sein. Rather than simply understanding it as things being 'there' for us, [Heidegger] recognized that the Da (a word that has a double meaning of both 'here' and 'there' in German) could not be posited except on the deeper ground of the openness of a 'spacious Clearing' that first 'makes room' for things to come to presence and come to view as here or there for us. Heidegger's definitive statement reads; 'Lichtung erbingt Anwesen' ('The Clearing brings forth Presence')

(Wilberg, 2007: p 32)

Drawing on Heidegger, Wilberg points out that Lichtung is primary, that without the clearing, things could not come to presence. In highlighting Heidegger's notion of Lichtung as 'clearing' in 'late' Heideggerian thinking, Wilberg sees its parallel within the Shiva Sutras of Kashmir Shaivism. Wilberg sees its parallel within the Shiva Sutras of Kashmir Shaivism. Quoting from both traditions, he points to the congruence he sees between the two traditions.

Heidegger in 'Conversation on a Country Path': 'meditative thinking' is that '…which allows content to emerge within awareness…'

(Wilberg, 2007: p 39)

And the similarities in Kashmir Shaivism:

Every appearance owes its existence to the light of awareness. Nothing can have its own being without the light of awareness – Kshemaraja (Abhinavagupta's student)

(Wilberg, 2007: p 39)

And in the words of Abhinavagupta (Kshemaraja's teacher): '…the being of all things that are recognized in awareness in turn depend on awareness.' (ibid.)

Wilberg sees Heidegger's tantric turn, not only as Sheehan's 'Farewell to Being', but also as 'hello to awareness'. In Heidegger's new way of meditative thinking, Wilberg points out that Heidegger did not conceive of awareness as individual awareness experienced as isolated individual subjectivity, but as an infinite clearing. He highlights that Heidegger recognised the primacy of awareness which in his own words '"begins" with the "field of awareness itself"'(Wilberg, 2007: pp 39-40). Wilberg argues that even in Being and Time, Heidegger's 'Question of Being' can be seen as a recognition of human beginning as a 'primordial awareness of being – one that is not reducible to any object, thing or "being", human or divine' (ibid. p 40).

In seeing the similarities between Heidegger's Lichtung and the 'Light of Awareness' emphasized in the tantric tradition of Kashmir Shaivism, Wilberg, however, laments of Heidegger's Eurocentric focus in his conversations with Boss in the Zollikon Seminars and that he does not even attempt to see Lichtung in the language offered by the tantras despite Boss bringing Heidegger's attention to the direct (rather than interpreted) meditative experience of Indian yogis. Yet, according to Wilberg, Heidegger hints at having deeper resonance with Indian thought than he is usually considered as having (Wilberg, 2007: pp 34-35).

Recognising these missed possibilities in Heidegger's non-acknowledgement of congruence between the two traditions, Wilberg turns the tables on Heidegger's linguistic 'House of Being' and translates Heidegger's 'tantric' thinking and language back into Indian tantric terms. In doing so Wilberg asks if we are not justified in doing so and asks us to read

– 'Lichtung… as the light of awareness (Prakasha)' (ibid., p.40).

– 'the Open as its infinite spatiality (Kha/Akasha)' (ibid., p.40).

– 'human Da-sein as the vibrating threshold between the human being as a limited or finite subjectivity (Jiva) and Shiva – that absolute pure or "clear" universal awareness field which first gives or grants Being to beings…' (ibid., p 40).

However, Wilberg's conception of the meaning of 'Prakasha' in the Shiva Sutras as the light of awareness and his equating it to Heidegger's 'Lichtung', does not explicitly encompass the full meaning of 'Prakasha' as given in the Shiva Sutras. The Shiva Sutras clarify that while 'Prakasha' or 'Shiva' 'is the Eternal Light without which nothing can appear' (Singh, 2008: p xix.), they also speak of the aspect of 'Vimarsha' present in 'Prakasha'. without which there can be no self-knowledge. 'Vimarsha' is the power of

action of 'Shiva' or 'Prakasha'. The Shiva Sutras are clear about this point

Mere prakasha cannot be the nature of Reality. Even diamond is prakasha. Vimarsha is that aspect of prakasha by which it knows itself. That self-knowledge is an activity.

Vimarsha betokens that activity. As Kshemaraja says … It is the non-relational immediate awareness of I… "If Ultimate Reality were merely prakasha, it would be entirely powerless and inert. It is this I-Consciousness of Ultimate Reality that is responsible for the manifestation, maintenance and re-absorption of the Universe

(Singh, 2008: pp xix-xx)

And again,

Ultimate Reality or Parama Shiva is prakasha-vimarsamaya… the 'I' and the 'This' are in an undivided unity. The 'I' is the prakasha aspect. 'This' or its consciousness of itself is the vimarsha aspect…

(Singh, 2008: p xx)

'Parama Shiva' as Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness is both transcendental and immanent. Consciousness itself becomes I and This subject and object. The Shiva Sutras recognise the process of becoming as the very nature of Consciousness – 'Creativity is the very essence of Divinity. If Ultimate Reality did not manifest, it would not be Self or consciousness…'(Singh, 2008: p xxi). It is both the changeless Eternal Light or foundational consciousness as Prakasha, as well as Vimarsha as the activity of the arising, maintenance and cessation of every manifestation.

Wilberg's focus is on the 'clearing' or 'Lichtung' as seen in later Heideggerian thinking. In positing The Awareness Principle in the latter part of this book, Wilberg sees awareness more akin to space which is inseparable and yet distinct in which every appearance arises. From the perspective of the Shiva Sutras', that is only one aspect of awareness.

It is interesting to see how Wilberg holds both traditions of Kashmir Shaivism and 'late' Heideggerian thinking, drawing them together, and seeing their differences as well. His use of language below shows the synthesis he is bringing about between the two traditions – to start with it is Heideggerian, and it ends with the language of Kashmir Shaivism.

As to the relation of the German Da to the Open and to Openness, the very essence of Da-sein's en-lightened liberation of its own essence can be understood as being Opened to the Open by and within the Open – not owning it as 'our' awareness but allowing ourselves to be 'enowned' and 'enknown' by awareness as such, an awareness not yours or mine but the essence of the Divine. In the tantric terms of Kashmir Shaivism this is liberation from the apparent finitude, mortality or need of reincarnation that is bestowed on individual beings as the grace of the universal awareness that is Shiva'

(ibid., pp 40-41)

While Heidegger sees awareness as not owned by an individual and therefore 'enowned', he does not see it as Divine. According to Wilberg, the difference between Heideggerian thinking and Kashmir Shaivism lies in:

Heidegger's questioning the essential mystery of Being in a way that takes as its starting point the human being's own awareness of existing. [whereas] the tradition of thinking expressed in the Shiva Sutras affirms the primordial reality of awareness itself, as that light in which all beings first arise and come to stand out and 'ex-ist'

(Wilberg, 2007: p 44)

The difference between Heideggerian 'lichtung' and the Shiva Sutras has a deeper element to it. The Shiva Sutras speak of Universal Consciousness as both immanent and transcendental, and speak of Universal Consciousness as spiritual energy. It can be seen as both the background as foundational consciousness, as Prakasha (clearing) transcendental consciousness, as well as the foreground of creativity and activity as Vimarsha as the process of manifestations of Universal Consciousness. To me it has the feel of the analogy of wave and water, which I recall from the Buddhist Zen tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh. Water becomes the myriad forms of waves, but every wave still remains water. In Kashmir Shaivism, every aspect of the diversity of the universe is a manifestation of the Universal Consciousness or Ultimate Reality.

The notion of Ultimate Reality is counter to existential thinking which focuses on the process of becoming. In terms of Kashmir Shaivism, the process of becoming and self-knowing can be seen as Vimarsha. However, the Shiva Sutras also speak of Prakasha the Eternal Light of foundational consciousness without which things cannot appear or become present.

In this book, Wilberg importantly draws our attention to Heidegger's notion of Lichtung in which he sees resonance with Prakasha in the Shiva Sutras. He writes,

The two traditions meet in Heidegger's notion of Being as a primordial clearing or Lichtung, for this is a term resonant with the Light of Awareness designated by the Sanskrit 'prakasha' in tantric. Yet whereas Heidegger implies that Being is essentially Aware Being or Awareness of Being – he does so without positing Awareness itself as the ultimate or divine reality

(Wilberg, 2007, p 44)

The Shiva Sutras, however, are a spiritual practice on the Yoga of the supreme identity of the Individual Self with the Divine (Singh, 2008) and have a richness of a spiritual tradition and a way of life of consistent with spiritual discipline. In my view Heidegger's meditative thinking is of a different genre, and has a qualitatively different feel to it from the direct experiencing that the Shiva Sutras point towards.

Part 2 of this book extends the debate to include Husserlian phenomenology, Advaita (Shiva Sutras/Kashmir Shaivism), and Wilberg puts forth what he calls 'The Awareness Principle' giving primacy to 'Awareness' over 'Being' and seeing Awareness

as a principle of inseparable distinction – understanding pure awareness as neither separate from the world of experience or its differentiated contents of consciousness, nor merged in indistinct unity with them'

(ibid., p 54)

Wilberg sees this space of awareness as constituting the essential subjective essence of space as a 'field condition'. He uses it synonymously with Universal Consciousness, and Universal Subjectivity (awareness, consciousness, subjectivity are used synonymously at different times). It is the ground of Being, a no-thing.

Wilberg shows his resonance with Husserl's phenomenology and also critiques it in that Husserl did not do full justice to the phenomenological method. Seeing consciousness only as being intentional, Wilberg points out, Husserl missed the non-intentional, non-local field condition of awareness or 'Lichtung', and that he saw subjectivity as being owned by an individual subject, rather than seeing it as 'enowned' as in 'late' Heideggerian thinking, and the Shiva Sutras.

Part 3 extends the debate on Universal Subjectivity, seen as Subjectivity without subjects. Wilberg's way of seeing challenges not only the 'objectivistic' stance of modern science that sees the universe of objects as being separate from the subject, but also challenges the stance in Husserlian phenomenology of treating subjectivity as being the possession of an individual subject.

In particular, Wilberg challenges the central assumption in Husserlian phenomenology that consciousness is an intentional activity of an individual self, I, or transcendental ego.

In seeing Subjectivity as Universal Subjectivity without a subject, he writes,

'Individualised subjectivity or 'consciousness'…is seen as [a part] of an unbounded, non-local and all pervasive space or field of pure awareness. Within this field, they are not seen as separate subjects or objects, but are all phenomenal elements of subjective experience – each both emerging from and forming part of the field of subjective awareness. Each such element is itself an awareness – bounding a distinctive field or world of awareness

(ibid., p 100)

In adopting a 'both/and' instead of an 'either/or' stance, I see consciousness as both intentional as well non-intentional. To see is to see something. Seeing requires the eye, attention, and that which is seen. In that sense 'subject' the see-er and 'object' – that which is seen are inseparable. To hear is to hear something, to taste is to taste something, to touch is to touch something. Consciousness is consciousness of something, and intentional.

Non-intentional awareness according to Wilberg is seen as the space or 'clearing' or 'Lichtung' or 'Prakasha' in which seeing arises. In his vision of Universal Subjectivity as field condition, Wilberg sees subjectivity as extending beyond individual subjectivity into the openness of the spatial field condition in which other things and beings are present. Like it is a 'no-thing' and inseparably embraces, yet is distinct from that which it embraces. In Kashmir Shaivism, Prakasha is seen as Prakasha–vimarsamaya giving rise to self-knowing which is both immanent and transcendent and is seen as the source of all manifestations – its arising, maintenance and cessation. The myriad diversity of this world and the Universe is seen as the play of consciousness itself. In Kashmir Shaivism, Consciousness has become everything. It is both no-thing and the process of manifestation.

While Heidegger's question in Being and Time was, Why is there something, rather than nothing, I see in the Shiva Sutras no-thing and something there together as Prakasha-vimarsamaya. I see no-thing and something within a 'both/and' stance. Creation, maintenance, and cessation is a constant aspect of the process of becoming of vimarsha and inseparable from Prakasha as the unchanging Eternal Light of foundational consciousness.

While I share some aspects of Wilberg's understanding of Kashmir Shaivism, for me there are significant differences as well, including my seeing Prakasha as Prakasha-vimarsamaya rather than as only Prakasha or Lichtung as Wilberg sees it. I also do not agree with Wilberg's critique of Kashmir Shaivism that

Advaita is unable to conceive of duality as anything but a state of separation and, conversely, has no language by which to conceive of non-duality as anything but an undifferentiated state of unity lacking all distinction

(Wilberg, 2007: p 64)

Indeed, duality is a necessary expression of the diversity of creation, and is seen as the creative power of manifestation of Vimarsha aspect of Prakasha, and inseparable from Prakasha. It is seen that everything arises and subsides not only in consciousness which embraces it, but that everything (that we call good, bad, evil; and all beings and non-beings) is an aspect of the play of consciousness itself. It is both a play of consciousness as activity as Vimarsha inseparable from Prakasha, while Prakasha is simultaneously that aspect which remains unchanged by the constant change and impermanence of movement and activity of Vimarsha.

The Shiva Sutras also speak of transformation of consciousness itself. While this may be of more interest to serious scholars and practitioners of the Shiva Sutras, it is worth mentioning if only to highlight the difference between Wilberg's 'The Awareness Principle', Heidegger's notion of Lichtung and the spiritual practices within the Shiva Sutras. The Shiva Sutras speak of different states of consciousness in waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and the rapturous experience of the state of Turya, or transcendental I-consciousness. Reality itself is experienced differently in each state of consciousness. Turya holds together all other states of consciousness – waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It is the ever present consciousness without which the other three states cannot be known. It is also known as 'rupātita' (meaning beyond form and duality')

because in this state, the common form of both the object and the subject is transcended…

(Singh, 2008: p 47)

When the state of Turiya becomes uninterrupted, it is called 'Turyatita'.

It is the state of fullest realisation … In it even the distinction between the transcendent and the immanent disappears. To one who has entered this state, everything is Shiva'

(Singh, 2008: p 47)

In the Shiva Sutras, everything is consciousness, both the manifestation of the process of becoming as Vimarsha, and the foundational consciousness which remains ever still and changeless as Prakasha. Consciousness transforms itself, and with its transformation our way of seeing, experiencing, and being is transformed.

It is therefore important to recognise the context of the Shiva Sutras. For someone who sees everything as Shiva or Universal Consciousness, there is no longer a distinction of duality and non-duality.

In my view, Wilberg's critique of Advaita as 'an undifferentiated state of unity lacking all distinction', does not bring an appreciation for the spiritual transformation of consciousness itself where it becomes possible to lose

distinction between duality and non-duality. To understand the depth of the Shiva Sutras requires not only meditative thinking in the style of Heidegger, but sustained practice of meditation or 'dhyana' through which consciousness itself transforms, and a letting go of thinking itself. The Shiva Sutras point towards a rigorous and disciplined spiritual practice as a way of life underlying which is profound non-violence. As Universal Consciousness, I- Consciousness or Self is seen in all in its myriad diverse forms. Diversity and duality is seen within an underlying recognition of non-duality. How can one harm even an insect if Self is seen in one and all? For to hurt an insect would mean hurting one's Self. The practice of the Shiva Sutras is an expression of immense humility, where the 'ego' itself dissolves, to recognise Universal Consciousness as I-Consciousness. The arising of deep compassion for all is the most natural outcome of such a practice, and from it emerges a deeply ethical stance of not harming others.

Nor do I agree with Wilberg, with regard to his understanding of Advaita and the distinction he makes in separating 'Sat' i.e. Being and 'Chit' i.e. Consciousness (Wilberg, 2007: p 54 & p 64) in giving primacy to Awareness (Chit) over Being (Sat). 'Sat-Chit-Anand' is a compound word made of three Sanskrit words. They arise together in the realisation of I-Consciousness or Self as Universal Consciousness and are seen as inseparable. Sat – as 'Existence which is Consciousness' (Singh, 2008: p 260). Chit – as '… foundational consciousness; the consciousness which is the unchanging principle of all changes' (Singh, 2008: p 243), and Ananda – as Bliss which is not dependent on pleasure, but an inner spontaneous arising as the nature of foundational consciousness.

Notwithstanding differences in our understanding of the Shiva Sutras, Wilberg's attempt at drawing our attention to Heidegger's notions of 'Lichtung' and 'enowning' in his later thinking is valuable. It will definitely challenge and provoke thinking beyond the well versed ideas in current existential thinking.

Jyoti Nanda

Notes

1. 'Late' Heideggerian thinking – especially Heidegger's thinking in 'Discourse on Thinking', 'Conversations on a Country Path' and 'Contributions to Philosophy'
2. Text of the commentary of Shiva Sutras – The Yoga of Supreme Identity of Individual Self with the Divine – by Kshemaraja. The commentary is also called Vimarshini of Kshemaraja. Tansalation into English with Introduction, Notes, Running Exposition by Jaidev Singh.
3. The terms Shiva Sutras and Kashmir Shaivism are used interchangeably for the purpose of this text.
4. My brackets
5. My brackets and translation