Being...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If I say Being, it is different from 'the being' and again different then 'being late'. Some use the term 'a spiritual being'. So, within the realm of ādhyātmika¹ and the study thereof (adhyātmavidyā) this is good to get a handle on this matter.


Why bring this up ? Because there are some great thinkers ( in the West) that are of the opinion ~being~ has relatively little value to consider. Why so ? Because they wish to compare the objects of existence from one thing to another. Yet being as the foundation of existence itself and nothingness are closely related.
This is an 'existential' view point. Some think this nothingness is totally śūnya¹ , others think nothingness is less then accurate and is filled with Being-ness, existence itself.

We will look at this in a few posts. The posts, if properly done, will have vast differences and slight differences. It is the slight differences that grooms discrimination and vast differences that help one correct their understandings.

Let's see if I can frame some ideas to start.

Being, as a noun, = the state of having existence, and in my opinion it is 'the state of existence itself'
Being as an adjective = present. This is like 'being present'
Being as a conjunction equals (=) 'since or because' ; used with 'as, as how, or that'
example: being that it was too early to rise, the boy slept 10 more minutes.
It will be the intent of the following posts to compare and contrast these ideas, yet the value will be to find the root of Being in the Supreme, in existence, in the verbiage used for the Supreme.


iti śivaṁ

words

ādhyātmika - from adhy-ātma , relating to Self or soul
adhyātmavidyā = adhy+ātma+vidyā = jñāna = higher knowledge, knowing
śūnya - empty , void ; say vājin-śūnya = 'a riderless horse'

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


So , we get a little more information when we use the present participle¹ of the term be, and that is being. We can get a ~feel~ of being, the mind can grasp the idea of being as a personal experience. Yet to call it present participle is misleading because present participle does not mark any time at all - past, present or future. It is without time.
So is this idea of Being. We as humans can get a feel for Being, it occurs while one thinks about it, then it fades away and another installment of the concept of Being needs to be considered again to freshen the idea, then this too fades.

To go a bit further - what can the mind do when we consider the auxiliary verb¹ form 'to be' ? Does the mind know how 'to be' ? It's a bit more fuzzier in the mind this notion 'to be'. It seems we need to add more to it e.g. 'to be' happy, 'to be' sad. But when asked just 'to be' we are some what stumped. Why so ? IMHO we are action oriented humans, so we expect some doing to go on vs. just being.

This whole notion helps us (perhaps just me :) ) frame this notion of Being which is so fundamental to adhyātmavidyā ( higher knowledge of Self understanding). It is my humble opinion when this intellectual query is too formidable for one to take on, then other avenues to develop this sense of Being is needed. One could then argue , all roads lead to Rome, so what is the difference ? Yes, I can see this point. But for some, it is the keen honing of the intellect that allows discrimination to occur. Hence the reason for the post on this subject.

We will go further in the up and coming posts.

iti śivaṁ

words

Present participle is formed by adding -ing to the base form of the verb. Example: rise > rising, fall > falling, jump > jumping.
A verb describes an action, or occurrence, or indicates a state of being. We find two types of verbs: main verbs and
auxiliary verbs ( some call helping verbs). I have offered the auxiliary verbs that fall into the class of be, have, and do.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


So , we get a little more information when we use the present participle¹ of the term be, and that is being. We can get a ~feel~ of being, the mind can grasp the idea of being as a personal experience. Yet to call it present participle is misleading because present participle does not mark any time at all - past, present or future. It is without time.


This present participle idea is quite inviting to consider...why so ?
Because it is without a time constraint. Being is not constrained by past, present or future. When one realizes one's own Self (ātman) it too is without constaints. It is Being. It perfectly aligns to the wisdom offered in chapter 2, 12th śloka of the bhāgavad gītā. Kṛṣṇa-jī informs us,
there never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers
of men. Nor will there ever be a time when all of us shall cease to be.

Being is without time, without birth and never ceases to be. This is why one could argue present participle could indeed make sense. It is ever present in 'now'. Now never leaves, it is always now and this is eternal. 'Now' will be here with or without creation being manifest or unmanifest. Hence Being takes on the quality of 'now' for all time.

When we come to know this Being intimately, then we live in 'now' all the time. Everything is fresh and new. There is no baggage. Each moment is the discovery of living in the eternal now.

iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Let's see if any of the words we find in sanātana dharma's saṃskṛtam that alludes to the notion of Being, in general or in specificity.

The first one that comes to mind is bhū. It is the first utterance (vyāhṛti¹) we hear when one sings the gāyatrī mantra of viśvāmitra-ji.

How is bhū defined ? It's 2nd derivative is defined as becoming , being , existing , springing , arising. Its feminine gender is ' the place of being'. It's 1st derivative of bhū = 'be' , 'to become'. It makes perfect sense that it is the first word uttered for preparing to sing the gāyatrī mantra , as one needs to Be, become, come into being as one recognizes Being and existence as the foundation for all manifest and unmanifest to rest upon i.e. existence itself.

iti śivaṁ

1. vyāhṛti - utterance , speech , declaration; the mahavyāhṛti-s are considered bhūr , bhuvar (or bhuvaḥ) and svar

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If we look to another word, bhāva, it too is rooted in bhū , and this takes us back to the last post ( number 4).
So, then what can be interesting about this bhāva ? It is defined as 'continuity of the thread of existence through successive births'.
The key word for me is 'continuity'. Because Being is changeless, it therefore holds its continuity.

It (bhāva ) is also defined as the 'true condition or state , truth , reality' . Because Being does not fluctuate it is the basis for
reality or a true condition. It is a true condition today or a billion eons from today. Why so ? Because existence in and
of it-self is changeless.

iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

At times I have heard this noun Being take on the term ( using the definite article¹) 'the' Being.

Here is the pickle:
When we use the notion of a definite article with a noun it implies that the noun is specifically definable...that is,
the speaker and listener can identify this noun being used. If we agree that Being = Self = ātman, for most on this planet,
it is not definable.

What of the opposite indefinite article ? Then we would call out 'a' Being instead of 'the' Being. When we use it in this manner then the listener is not expected to readily identify the object or idea at hand. This may be true with the notion of Being.

So, is this not a curious human condition ? We are surrounded by existence itself (sattā¹) yet we cannot identify it clearly. We can intellectually conceive of its reality, yet we do not know it personally.

We can continue this line of thinking, but one needs to ask, does this Being have some quality other then existence ? Is it just inert existence itself, or does it take on some trait, property, some mark ?

This we can take up next...

iti śivaṁ
words

definite article = In English, the definite article the is a determiner, that is , it introduces a noun. In our example 'the' introduces 'Being'.
sattā; another word often used for Being is sattā. It is defined as existence , being.
within this word sattā we have sat + tā .
sat = being , existing , occurring , happening , being present ; it is defined also as that which really is , entity or existence ,
essence , the true being or really existent. At times it is written as satī, with the same definition. This sat is rooted in 'as' which once again means 'to be, exist, be present'.

[TrikonaBindu]

Namaskaram Yajvan-ji,

Will you soon find it tiresome to receive my repeated thanks for your far-ranging, in-depth contributions to HDF? In any case, the subject matter you are now elucidating, BEING—without specificity, non-objectifiable—is the intended meaning of the member ID “TrikonaBindu.” From that you may judge the importance of this subject to me.

At the center of Sri Chakra there is a Bindu (point) situated in the very midst of a Trikona (triangle). For me, the Trikona with its Bindu is the finest representation I have found of Paramashiva or Supreme Consciousness.

As I see it, Bindu is the aspect of Paramashiva that can never be objectified. It is that which you have so felicitously designated as satta. Trikona is the integrated triad of powers (traditionally specified as iccha-shakti,, kriya-shakti, and jnana-shakti—to discuss which would carry us off topic).

Suffice it to say, Trikona is expressively God Almighty; whereas Bindu is satta, i.e., absolute reality, unresearchable certitude, implicit in the Self-confidence of the Lord, and devoid of which Shiva would not be what He is—completely free and independent.

Om namah Shivaya.

[Necromancer]

Namaste and pranams.

No personal disrespect (more mental slowness on my part), but your threads are difficult to understand sometimes.

I think that being (existing) is like be-ing or if I want to try and remember my old French teacher here..

Etre means 'to be' and it is an irregular verb. It has many compound conjugations depending upon tense and participle (try this in French and you'll see).

Je Suis meaning 'I am' or 'I am be-ing' to Nous Fumes meaning 'We were/existed'.


To Be or Not To Be? That Is The Question. - William Shakespeare

The 'Being' is that which always has existed. Does it have any other quality than this? Just existing there, you also ask?

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that from it, everything is formed and yet it remains intact:


“OM – Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate.
Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate.”

If you want to talk about:

Is it just inert existence itself, or does it take on some trait, property, some mark ? That word is 'Lingam'.

The inert form of Brahman is the Jyotirlingam. It is that without beginning, middle or end.

The inert form of Brahman is also the Omkara. It is the universal vibration forming the substratum of creation.

That is the mark it makes.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Namaste and pranams.

No personal disrespect (more mental slowness on my part), but your threads are difficult to understand sometimes.

No offense taken on my part.

One must be aware that knowledge is structured in consciousness... this is a key take-away of the upaniṣad-s. When consciousness grows, so does comprehension.

Please consider this post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3730

iti śivaṁ

[Necromancer]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



No offense taken on my part.

One must be aware that knowledge is structured in consciousness... this is a key take-away of the upaniṣad-s. When consciousness grows, so does comprehension.

Please consider this post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3730

iti śivaṁNamaste and thank you. That was also a very interesting read. I guess I am still getting used to your etymology.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[TrikonaBindu]

Namaskaram Yajvan-ji,

This is an addendum to my earlier note. You had asked: “Does this Being have some quality?” I had replied, in effect, “Absolute Being is unresearchable, yet it is reflected in the certitude and Self-confidence of Shiva.” In other words, the nature of absolute Being is implicit in the qualities of Shiva.

Kashmir Shaivam regards Consciousness as prakasha-vimarsha-maya, constituted as prakasha (shining forth) and vimarsha (reflective awareness). In this nature of Paramashiva, prakasha has no meaning apart from vimarsha, and vimarsha has no ultimate authority apart from prakasha. Thus the two cannot be separated—except artificially for teaching purposes.

Satta, absolute Being, is known by not-knowing; there is no other way.The term prakasha ("shining forth") is metaphorical, because Satta is seen by not-seeing. Whatever shines forth is not Satta as such, but rather the qualities and processes of vimarsha.

The Triad of Powers is vimarsha, implicitly evincing Satta, the Absolute Reality. Clearly the Triad is preeminently Self-aware and perfectly capable of objectifying reflection—otherwise this universe would not exist. However, with respect to Satta, there is no such objectifying vimarsha. Rather there is the non-objectifying vimarsha of immediate identity, Ahamta, whereby vimarsha is implicitly expressive of That.

Om namah Shivaya.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaskaram Yajvan-ji,

Satta, absolute Being, is known by not-knowing; there is no other way.The term prakasha ("shining forth") is metaphorical, because Satta is seen by not-seeing. Whatever shines forth is not Satta as such, but rather the qualities and processes of vimarsha.


Very well said...
For those that may read your words they may be a bit perplexed. For that let me offer this notion.

The notion offered by TrikonaBindu is the difference between differentiated and un-differentiated knowledge. With differentiated, it is fractional, pieces; with un-differentiated it is wholeness of knowledge, fullness of Being.
It is by knowing differentiated that one is caught up in the diversity of the world. It is by knowing the un-differentiated (wholeness) that one lives in fullness. So, the wise say it is by not knowing, that one knows. They mean, by not knowing the differentiated (fragmentation) that one comes to know wholeness
( or sattā¹).


iti śivaṁ


sattā; another word often used for Being is sattā. It is defined as existence , being.
within this word sattā we have sat + tā .
sat = being , existing , occurring , happening , being present ; it is defined also as that which really is , entity or existence ,
essence , the true being or really existent. At times it is written as satī, with the same definition. This sat is rooted in 'as' which once again means 'to be, exist, be present'.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Is it just inert existence itself, or does it take on some trait, property, some mark ?
If one thinks about it for a bit, is there anything that might surpass existence itself ? Let me frame it another way. Is there anything more fundamental then existence ?
If we look at an object say a red apple, there is a more fundamental level - that of all apples as a family. Yet what is more fundamental that that? The atoms that make up the apples. And of that ? The electrons and protons. And of that ? The particles. And of that - we keep going
deeper and more general in nature and we find those fundamental items that are not only shared with apples but with all things in creation until we get to space or ākāśa which has the quality of avakāśa 'to make room'; this ākāśa makes room for things to exist. But what is more fundamental then that ? It seems to me it must be existence itself. It in fact allows ākāśa to be relevant.

So, we can say Being is the highest reality of any or everything within the manifest or unmanifest... It is fundamental to any and all, it is most common, most fundamental and it cannot be surpassed.
What else can be more fundamental then existence/Being ? We then can call it anuttara.

This word anuttara¹ means chief, principal. Yet the beauty in this word is when we take it apart as an +uttara. One way to look at it is like this:


uttara = more, additional ; upper , higher , superior
an - is a substitute for 'a' which = not. ( we write 'an' as it appears before a vowel, in this case 'u')
This an +uttara = not higher. It means one cannot go any higher as one has reached the principal of chief/highest level possible.[/LIST]So, we can say Being = existence = anuttara and one can go no further then this. That is, there is nothing left. There is not another level or Higher Being that can have this anuttara as a subject of experience. It is the final.

Because Being is all inclusive it is also considered uninterrupted - there is no place it stops. So the term used is avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ. This means uninterrupted, without break or pause, present in everything, nor can it be escaped from.

The word I often bump into is satatoditam (satata + udita)

turyātīte bheda ekaḥ
satatodita ityam || tantrāloka 10.283
satatoditam = satata + udita
satata = perpetual , continual , uninterrupted
udita = being high above, elevated

So, we are starting to see some 'marks' of Being.

iti śivaṁ

1. within kaśmir śaivism anuttara is an epithet/descriptive term for paramaśiva.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Because Being is always there, never waivers, never on a holiday, is ubiquitous (uninterrupted, without break or pause); it has come to be known as the Absolute. It is absolutely there all the time , before time, without time, and without a substitute, it is boundless (amita). So, as we begin to give it names it then begs the question of more explanation to understand or define it.

Being is so full, so supreme it is uccārarahitam vastu - Reality that is devoid/deprived of utterance or pronunciation; it is beyond human speech to properly sound out some word that would capture its total fullness.
The wise say one could not stur up the proper speech to capture the wholeness of this Supreme Reality (paripūrṇānuttara¹). Yet we are told by the trustworthy¹ , ācārya-s, and the like that we may get a better feel for this Reality by some of its indications or marks (lakṣaṇārtha¹).
For me, this first indicator is of great import. This Reality is vyāvahātika + pāramārthika ( the manifest world of diversity + the transcendent). Reality is the amalgamation of both, and even dividing them in to 2 causes some separateness in the mind as if there is more then one.

This has caused great consternation in many a seeker (adhikārin¹). That is, its as if this Reality's viśvottīrṇa or 'of a transcendental nature'
is someplace else, seperate. It is not. It is just so subtle the person misses it. The mind is gross and pāramitā which = transcendentis
very subtle, is ~passed over~. It is the intent of the adhikārin to make this Reality an experience, to make it prakāś or prakāśa - to become visible , appear , shine , become evident or manifest. This is the intent of the dhyāyin-s ( meditators) of the world.

We too are informed that this Reality is apauruṣeya (not of human origin) and without beginning (anādi). Yet we can experience as a human. In fact it is my humble opinion that once we experince this Reality in full we really become human and graduate from the laukika - worldly , terrestrial , belonging to or occurring in ordinary life and become alaukika - not current in the world i.e. divine in our nature.

We are informed it is a arūpastha without form or shape but is the cause for all forms within and throughout creation. Hence it is formless that takes form, even in our own selves. We are informed it is akliṣṭa (untroubled, undisturbed) yet fully Self-aware of its-Self. We too take on this quality with the realization of Self.

We are told ( by my teacher) that Being is creative and intelligent. It is the reservoir of all that is or can be, perfect, and full potential. It is the home of all knowlege, it is pure intelligence, pure consciousness, pure Being.


iti śivaṁ


words

trustworthy = āptamanujaprokta - written or said by those that are trustworthy. Such as muni vaikhānasa-ji who passed his insights to bhṛgu, marīci and the like.
paripūrṇānuttara = pari+pūrṇa+anuttara or fully whole, Supreme and unsurpassable.
pari = fully , abundantly , richly +
pūrṇa = full, whole +
anuttara = unsurpassable, Supreme
adhikārin - fit for; possessing authority. This word is used for one that is 'fit' for kari or accomplishment.
indications or marks = lakṣaṇārtha = lakṣaṇa + ārtha


lakṣaṇa - indicating , expressing indirectly ; a mark , sign , symbol , characteristic
artha - meaning; having to do with

[TrikonaBindu]

To all Namaskaram.

While offline I had already composed a post, and now revisiting this Thread, I find that Yajvan-ji has meantime contributed another essay. Herein he introduces the term Anuttara, which he equates with BEING (and also with Paramashiva). Earlier Yajvan-ji had employed another term for BEING—Satta, which carries the connotation of Truth/Reality as well as BEING. I had no previous acquaintance with the term Satta, but I like it very much, whereas the term Anuttara causes mild consternation. Shaiva Shastra (the accepted understanding of the nature of Shiva) will, I expect, support Yajvan-ji. Whereas my own discomfort with the equation “Anuttara = BEING” may well put me at variance with Shastra. (Fact is, I sorely lack the learning to know if I'm in or out of line.) Still, due to fervor for Shiva, I cannot easily discard my previously established opinion. Now to begin:

If Anuttara means simply “One can go no further than this,” then I accept (albeit uneasily) that Anuttara can connote BEING. However, if the use of the term Anuttara implies that BEING is somehow superior to the Triad of Powers, if it implies that Anuttara is somehow at a higher level than the Triad of Powers, that is a sticking point for me. As I see it, Paramashiva or Supreme Consciousness is prakasha-vimarsha-maya. Herein, prakasha = BEING, while vimarsha = Triad of Powers. For me, Anuttara refers not exclusively to BEING but rather to That Integral Whole, which includes the Triad of Powers. After all, BEING, were it not shining forth as the Triad, would be devoid of any value or significance. (I would welcome Yajvan-ji's assessment as to whether this opinion is off course from Shastra.)

Meanwhile, to continue on what I believe is common ground: In yogic practice, one does reach Anuttara, the point where one can go no further. Both Veda and Vijnanavada agree on this. When the yogi is continuing on the path of profound meditation (i.e., keen, perspicacious inner research), there comes a moment described as Turning Back or Turning About. It happens when the faculty of gnostic grasping comes undone. Inevitably it comes undone, because at the very ground or inmost core of reflective awareness, there is no object. Simply, I AM. Veda declares that words fail utterly to describe that absolute reality which I AM.

So the yogi turns back, not in defeat, but rather in fulfillment. Turning Back is Recognition. And Recognition is a new beginning with fresh possibilities and expanded powers. Uh...can I now be God Almighty? Yes, in my essential identity. But not in my role and function as a character in God's theater. Within God's theater, due to the wish of Parameshwara and also due to my own ingrained tendencies, the intensity/persistence of Recognition may be more or less. In every case, Recognition will surely be occluded to some degree. Within this Creation, there is always some occlusion of consciousness—otherwise where's the fun of having the universe? Yajvan-ji has written about residual occlusion in his Uttara thread entitled “Lesavidya…remains….” (sorry for the lack of diacritics), dated 5 July 2010.

Yet for any soul who has enjoyed this Recognition, how to forget completely that unspeakable degree of REALITY in comparison to which all worldly objects, including a ton of bricks, are reduced almost to daydreams? Those who not only enjoy that Recognition but also communicate it to others are justly titled Guru, which means Heavy. Why Heavy? The adjective is a nearly helpless verbal gesture towards that Absolute Density of REALITY that is I mySelf.

In closing, to clarify and apologize: Let no one imagine I offer this essay from the confidence my own direct experience. This little soul is nowhere in yoga. Only there is some excitement for the topics of Shiva. In such a mood one may become excessively declarative. :)

Pranam.

[Necromancer]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If one thinks about it for a bit, is there anything that might surpass existence itself ? Let me frame it another way. Is there anything more fundamental then existence ?
If we look at an object say a red apple, there is a more fundamental level - that of all apples as a family. Yet what is more fundamental that that? The atoms that make up the apples. And of that ? The electrons and protons. And of that ? The particles. And of that - we keep going
deeper and more general in nature and we find those fundamental items that are not only shared with apples but with all things in creation until we get to space or ākāśa which has the quality of avakāśa 'to make room'; this ākāśa makes room for things to exist. But what is more fundamental then that ? It seems to me it must be existence itself. It in fact allows ākāśa to be relevant.

So, we can say Being is the highest reality of any or everything within the manifest or unmanifest... It is fundamental to any and all, it is most common, most fundamental and it cannot be surpassed.
What else can be more fundamental then existence/Being ? We then can call it anuttara.

This word anuttara¹ means chief, principal. Yet the beauty in this word is when we take it apart as an +uttara. One way to look at it is like this:


uttara = more, additional ; upper , higher , superior
an - is a substitute for 'a' which = not. ( we write 'an' as it appears before a vowel, in this case 'u')
This an +uttara = not higher. It means one cannot go any higher as one has reached the principal of chief/highest level possible.[/LIST]So, we can say Being = existence = anuttara and one can go no further then this. That is, there is nothing left. There is not another level or Higher Being that can have this anuttara as a subject of experience. It is the final.

Because Being is all inclusive it is also considered uninterrupted - there is no place it stops. So the term used is avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ. This means uninterrupted, without break or pause, present in everything, nor can it be escaped from.

The word I often bump into is satatoditam (satata + udita)

turyātīte bheda ekaḥ
satatodita ityam || tantrāloka 10.283
satatoditam = satata + udita
satata = perpetual , continual , uninterrupted
udita = being high above, elevated

So, we are starting to see some 'marks' of Being.

iti śivaṁ

1. within kaśmir śaivism anuttara is an epithet/descriptive term for paramaśiva.
Aum Swastiyastu

Back in my early years, I studied the Upanishads.

I got half way through reading the Chhandogya Upanishad and then I wasn't just 'reading' it anymore. The words had a much deeper meaning than what was printed on paper.

"By studying one atom of clay, all things made of clay shall be known".

Sometimes we can be like Svetaketu...confident (and arrogant) within our own limited knowledge and teachings, but miss the real purpose behind them all, until some sage like Uddalaka points that out.

We can go into apples, apple atoms, apple gluons and that almighty "Boson-Apple Particle"....we can travel down spirals of apple DNA and arrive in an apple universe populated by the nicest of apples...'pick of the crop'.

We can even 'become' an apple, if we really try hard enough...

What is more fundamental than that? Oranges!

....and who said we couldn't compare them? :p

Aum Namah Shivaya

[TrikonaBindu]

Namaskaram to all.

Yajvan-ji begins: Because Being is always there, never waivers, never on a holiday, is ubiquitous (uninterrupted, without break or pause); it has come to be known as the Absolute.

Now I begin to wonder if I have lost the track. Parties to a conversation may use the same word but with divergent meanings. At first they fail to recognize that, but then there comes the moment of doubt: Are we speaking at cross-purposes? Especially when the subject matter is so abstruse, this can happen. So to clarify what my focus has been, since first contributing my two cents:

The term Existence derives from the Latin existere, to emerge, to stand forth. Theologically, Existence pertains to transitory phenomena, entities that appear and disappear. When I contemplate BEING as opposed to Existence, whatever I have in mind relates to concepts of the Eternal. Hence, I don’t relate BEING to ubiquity, since that has a spatial connotation. Space is not eternal but derivative—unless we are speaking of chid-akasha, the space of Supreme Consciousness. If I were to select a symbol of BEING, it would be a dot, not an infinite expanse—because Parameshwara does not occupy space. Rather He produces space within chid-akasha, which is and always remains (in the material sense) non-spatial. We can understand this by the analog of the human mind, which somehow holds so many objects—elephants, mountains, trains—in non-material space.

Sadashivom.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Yajvan-ji begins: Because Being is always there, never waivers, never on a holiday, is ubiquitous (uninterrupted, without break or pause); it has come to be known as the Absolute.

The term Existence derives from the Latin existere, to emerge, to stand forth. Theologically, Existence pertains to transitory phenomena, entities that appear and disappear. When I contemplate BEING as opposed to Existence, whatever I have in mind relates to concepts of the Eternal. Hence, I don’t relate BEING to ubiquity, since that has a spatial connotation. Space is not eternal but derivative—unless we are speaking of chid-akasha, the space of Supreme Consciousness. If I were to select a symbol of BEING, it would be a dot, not an infinite expanse—because Parameshwara does not occupy space.
First let me say I am quite happy to discuss this with you. You have offered a balanced approach to your positions and have kept the dignity of this knowledge at a most noble level.

First, the pickle of using English for terms that are so vast, so profound, leaves many ideas lacking. This is why I have introduced satatoditam
and sattā in the above posts. They begin to give us a feel for the expansiveness we wish to discuss.

I took the approach of building the overall idea of Being in a sequential manner. To form some foundation so we can finally add the roof and coverings that allow the whole subject to be expanded upon.

This existence you and I speak of ... From the West's point of view it 'emerges' - yet too is it also 'to be' . This notion of 'emerges' is trying to define an object's condition of 'coming into being' and not the state of pure existence that has no birth. This is a key idea. Hence this is duly noted within the quality of sattā as it is existence, being without the notion for it to arise.

So, if we went further in this thought process, within kaśmir śaivism all of this 'coming into being' comes or originates in paramaśivā. Now this paramaśivā = absolute = Being = maha-sattā. And from here, the 36 tattva-s arise. Yet each and every tattva is filled with paramaśivā. How can this be ? Because of the quality of satatoditam - it is without break or pause.
And with anuttara - it too considered absolute = paramaśivā , as nothing can surpass it.
So how does this all come into the universe ? This is keenly explained via abhinavagupa-ji's work, his parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa¹. Within this work he outlines anuttara, the 3 corners ( trikona) which you have alluded to along with bindu; he also aligns this knowledge of 3 with triśūlābījamaṇḍala (triśūlā-bīja-maṇḍala) in a meaningful and useful manner.

Yet above all abhinavagupa-ji takes the time to teach and inform the aspirant of yoga about anuttara in no less then 16 different ways. Just reading this uplifts a person to a new understanding.
This anuttaraṃ is the very first word that comes out of śrī devī's mouth¹. She is none other then parāśakti and asks this question for the benefit of mankind... Yet to the wise they know that śrī devī is no-different then śiva, and we become the beneficiary of a conversation of the most high within him Self.

iti śivaṁ

words

parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa is considered the essence of the Rudrayāmala tantra
the very first word that comes out of śrī devī's mouth - see this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3758 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3758)

[TrikonaBindu]

Namaskaram Yajvan-ji,

I am so grateful for your encouragement and patience. As this tradition of sacred knowledge is communicated to people outside India, semantics will present obstacles, one after another. This is especially the case when, in both interfacing languages, a term such as Existence, or a term such as Atma, can have more than one connotation. Actually, you pointed to this difficulty in your initial post on Being.

There is also the challenge of engaging in discussion with readers, while simultaneously making a serialized presentation of an integral understanding. We readers have only partial views of the whole, meanwhile the conversation proceeds apace. The predictable result, especially when it comes to arcane, convoluted topics, is that sometimes we readers do not apprehend the intended context for a particular set of remarks. It can’t be helped, especially since all this is taking place in an internet forum, not in a classroom, nor in a gurukula, nor between the covers of a book. Anyway, despite all these challenges, when I survey HDF, I find it truly amazing to see the breadth and depth of knowledge, culture, and personal experience communicated here.

Checking Amazon, I find that Para-trisika-vivarana is available in the English translation by Jaideva Singh. Up till the present, I have avoided reading a single work of Abhinavagupta. Now at your suggestion, I will make a start. Hope I have adequate capacity and background to catch the drift. Also hope to maintain self-control in case I encounter certain features of Shakta thought that never fail to make me bristle. (Yes, I’m that childish! Might even throw the book... :po: ) It will be a challenge, but I want to do whatever I can to advance my contemplation of Parameshwara.

Thank you!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




Checking Amazon, I find that Para-trisika-vivarana is available in the English translation by Jaideva Singh. Up till the present, I have avoided reading a single work of Abhinavagupta. Now at your suggestion, I will make a start. .

I am happy you may find some interest in the parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa . Yet let me say this would be like starting to swim in the deep end of the pool. If I were asked to offer introductory knowledge that would prepare one for parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa it would be the following:

- kaśmir śaivism the secret supreme by svāmī lakṣman-jū
- śiva sutra-s by svāmī lakṣman-jū

I have been studying the parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa for some years now. I am ever amazed of the new knowledge that continues to arise from this great work.
Just 36 + 1 sutra-s that raises ones knowledge and insight to new heights. I am never tired of reviewing the great work again and again.
I also suggest reading the paramārthasāra ; in essence the work of śeṣa patañjali ( some call ādiśeṣa ) consisting of 85 śloka-s and is expanded upon by abhinavagupta within the framework of advitīya (~ non dual~, without a second) kaśmir śaivism.

One comes to the realization that there is a vast difference in reading vs. studying these great works.

iti śivaṁ

[TrikonaBindu]

Namaskaram Yajvan-ji,

Thank you for suggesting suitable prerequisites for optimal understanding of Para-trisika-vivarana. Honestly, it’s a checkered preparation I bring to the endeavor. Maybe it’s enough; I don’t know.

For years I have Shiva Sutras extensively underlined with handwritten notes and “questions to self” in the margins. Periodically I reread particular sections. Apart from its overarching significance, SS was also my very first encounter with “alphabetic mysticism” (the notion of matrikas). I happen to have a long-standing interest in the science of bija-mantras, so I read whatever I find on the subject. (BTW, any suggestions? I’m limited to English.)

In my personal library there's a modest collection of books specifically on Kashmir Shaivam. Some of these books are readily accessible to the motivated general reader, while others are more difficult—like Dyczkowski’s Doctine of Vibration and Muller-Ortega’s Triadic Heart of Shiva. These two books I do pick up from time to time, reading here and there. Certain passages are underlined and annotated by me, but on the whole, it’s not congenial to my mind and I don’t absorb it well. Again last night I picked up Triadic Heart, and found, to my surprise, that in my desultory readings I’d already scanned Para-trisika-laghu-vritti, though I had made no notes—probably because its significance was lost on me. Whatever I did underline was elsewhere in the book, especially anything explanatory of the bija SAUH.

As I’ve already mentioned to you elsewhere, Utpaladeva is the prime Acharya for me. With anyone else it’s like a mismatch of blood types, except the patient doesn’t die, simply the transfusion doesn’t help much. In contrast, when I read Utpaladeva, it's as if the blood type is a match for me. The transfusion is energizing and illuminating; I don’t experience any foreign-body reactions; and I can read his work without the restless skipping around.

In the case of Lakshman-ju, while I enjoy his meditations on Shivastotravali, I can't seem to settle into The Secret Supreme. I conclude from all the above that my inner compass has been pointing away from later developments in Kashmir Shaivam, developments that reached their pinnacle in Abhinavagupta. From general reading, it’s my impression that Abhinavagupta was a genius who could digest diverse traditions and assimilate them into an integral system. My own digestion is not like that. Rather, my orientation is that of a generic Shaiva, doing the ordinary devotions and having Utpaladeva as my essential philosopher.

Because it's the whole idea of satsang to receive the influence of insightful, well-wishing persons, I’ve taken your advice and ordered a copy of Para-trisika-vivarana. Once the book arrives, I’ll set my mind to read it calmly and respectfully. After all, it's hard to ignore such a ringing endorsement! For feedback, before the end of May I’ll send you a PM.

As for Paramarthasara, it does sound interesting—but it’s pricey from Amazon. I’ll be on the lookout for an inexpensive copy. If by a sudden transformation of consciousness I get some rapport with Para-trisika-vivarana, then I'll try for Paramarthasara as well. Thanks again! :)

Pranam.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

One must ask why then does this sattā (another word often used for Being is sattā) i.e. anuttara, paramaśivā, bring the universe into
view, into motion ? That is, the Supreme meters itself out into a measurable, yet vast , creation ?

One answer is the following. It is found in abhinanagupta-ji's work called bodhapañcadśikā or the 15 verses of wisdom.
He informs us of the following:
tasaivaiṣā parā devī
svarūpāmarṣantosukā |
pūrṅatvaṁ sarvabhāveṣu
yasya nālpaṁ na cādhikam ||

I will rely on svāmī lakṣman-jū for the proper translation of this śloka. This then says,
The collective state of the universe is His supreme energy (or śakti) which He created to recognize His own nature.
This śakti who is the embodiment of the collective state of the universe loves possessing the state of God Consciousness. She is in the state of ignorance remaining perfectly complete (pūrṅatvaṁ)
and full in each and every object.

Svāmī lakṣman-jū informs us, why has He ( śiva) created this supreme energy in His own nature ? For one reason - to recognize His own nature. This whole universe is nothing more then the means by which we can come to recognize śiva. You can come to recognize śiva through the universe, not by abandoning it.

Svāmī-ji further says, that is why this external universe is called śakti because it is the means to realize own's own nature. So if we look at this word śakti we know it is defined as power, , ability , strength , might , effort , energy , capability. If we look to the definition of śakta it is defined as able , competent for , equal to , capable of . Yet if we look a bit deeper we find the following:
śa+k+ ti

śa = śiva
śak = to be strong or powerful
ti is for íti and iti means 'thus', ' in this manner'Hence we can say thus (ti) śakti is the power (śak) of śiva (śa).

As you would expect there is another view (not opposed) on this :
ti = iti =itya ( from ityaí) to be gone to or ( to go) towards. Now we have to go towards (ti) śiva (śa) is in this manner (íti) via śakti ( śak ).

This is why it is said śaivīmukham ihocyate - śakti is the entrance, the suitable way to join with śiva. Or another way of viewing it is Śrī Devī (śakti) is the delightful (uc) entrance (mukha) to śiva.

Hence when svāmī lakṣman-jū informs us, this whole universe is nothing more then the means by which we can come to recognize śiva. You can come to recognize śiva through the universe, not by abandoning it. It resonates perfectly with the notion of śakti.


iti śivaṁ