PDA

View Full Version : great (profound) questions...



yajvan
26 September 2014, 06:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Often I admire questions that are posed within our śāstra-s that are so poignant & profound it gives me pause and delight. I thought I would list a few of them out.

I have written them in this folder ( uttara¹) due to their weight. They are not casual conversational questions. Some have answers ( that are digestible) and others do not.

Let me start with one of my favorites…

The student within the vivekacūḍāmaṇi¹ is being instructed on the SELF. The master talks of the 5 sheaths or coverings ( pañcānṁ kośānāṁ) and that the SELF is distinct from these. He informs the student that when all 5 covers have been eliminated by reasoning ( and perhaps by being transcending) what remains is the witness of all, the substratum of all, the Self ( in this case called bodharūpa¹).

So the astute student (śiṣya) says , after these 5 coverings have been eliminated as not real, I am nothing but absolute void; by which entity then should the wise realize their identity with the Self ?

This is a brilliant question … it says all the organs of perception of knowledge have been eliminated as they reside in various 5 covers (this is without getting too specific) ; now what is left then ? What tool remains for me to recognize this Self if all have been eliminated ?

iti śivaṁ
words

uttara - lofty, excellent; northern; adhikaraṇa within the mīmāṁsā school; this adhikaraṇa is the act of placing at the head or supremacy. It is the fourth member of an adhikaraṇa or case
vivekacūḍāmaṇi or the Crown jewel of Discrimination ( some say crest jewel) ; the author and master is ādi śaṅkara-ji.
bodharūpa = bodha+ rūpa = knowledge, intelligence + mark, sign, known absolute

yajvan
27 September 2014, 05:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Naciketas ( from the kaṭha¹ upaniṣad) asks yama a great question.

Now ( for me) knowing the meaning of naciketas adds to the greatness of the question. We can look at naciketas as naciketa, which means ‘of a man’. And we can look at it as na + ci + keta = not + to collect , gather together , accumulate + desire, wish.
This means he (naciketas) has no desire to collect or gather for himself. If you read the story he is doing things for the benefit of his father.

Now the alternative meaning of this na +ci + keta is revealed by the term ci. The term ci also means ‘to make inquiries’ and when we look at it from this point of view na + ci + keta also can suggest he (naciketas) does not know ( na) the inquiry ( ci) he wishes ( keta) to have answered. This can mean two things:

His question is quite profound even he (naciketas) cannot comprehend the gravity of the question, or;
he is so innocent he also misses the gravity of the question he wishes to have answered.So, what is this question ? There’s 3 , but the one I think with the gravity aligned to the definition I offered above of na +ci + keta is the following:
Uncertainty remains among men concerning the departed. Some say they continue to exist, others say they do not. Taught by you (yama) I would like to know the truth ( on this matter).

Yama addresses naciketas and says don’t press me for an answer on this… even the devatā-s have doubts about this matter. Chose something else! Give this up for my sake (says yama).

Naciketas says if the devatā-s are confused on this matter, then I have chosen no better teacher to explain it to me. Please proceed to grant my boon ( question put forth).

I will let the interested reader pursue the answer offered by yama found in this upaniṣad.

iti śivaṁ

words

kaṭha has several meanings…

Distress when used in the neuter grammatical gender
A pupil or follower of kaṭha , the pupil of vaiśampāyana and founder of a branch of the yajur-veda , called after him
If we end it with a long ā or kathā it is a conversation , speech , talking together; this applies as naciketas converses with yama.

silence_speaks
27 September 2014, 11:26 PM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:)

Very nice thread. Thanks for the nachiketas meaning and explanation.

A small comment:



5 covers have been eliminated by reasoning ( and perhaps by being transcending)


Its not transcending. Who transcends ? The mind cannot transcend.
Wrong perception being of mind can be negated at the level of mind alone.
And Self is ever beyond ! untouched.

Thus reasoning is the right word. Sruthi - Yukti - Anubhavah
Anubhavam = anu-Consequent, following. Bhav, to Be.
Following what? Following Sravanam of Sruthi and proper mananam, Yukthi.

Thus reasoning is indeed the word.

Modern day sadhus have made reasoning into a ghost! Tarka is good ku-tarka can be a problem.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
28 September 2014, 11:25 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Dear Yajvan ji,
:)

Very nice thread. Thanks for the nachiketas meaning and explanation.

A small comment:
Its not transcending. Who transcends ? The mind cannot transcend.
Wrong perception being of mind can be negated at the level of mind alone.
And Self is ever beyond ! untouched.

Thus reasoning is the right word. Sruthi - Yukti - Anubhavah
Anubhavam = anu-Consequent, following. Bhav, to Be.
Following what? Following Sravanam of Sruthi and proper mananam, Yukthi.

Thus reasoning is indeed the word.

Modern day sadhus have made reasoning into a ghost! Tarka is good ku-tarka can be a problem.

Love!
Silence

I see it differently. Transcending is the ~relative~ experience of what occurs. It is the term used in association with 'seedless' samādhi albeit not samādhi itself but a vehicle.

One needs to come to grips ( sooner or later) on the notion of the mind. It is not one thing, but a collection, grouping. So as one goes on the inward march though the 5 covers (pañcānṁ kośānāṁ) the final cover is then transcended.

You ask who transcends ? Properly asked is 'what' transcends ? It is awareness. Now one asks is this awareness part-and-parcel of the mind ? That would deter the whole conversation at this point.
Upon direct personal experience, a person will akin this movement ( even though staying in one place) as a transcending experience¹. Said another way, when this awareness is co-mingled with ego there are thoughts, feelings, etc. , the waves of the mind. Yet when one goes from this co-mingling to that of awareness resting in itself there is this expansion experience. This is the ~relative~ experience of transcending. The purity of awareness in and of itself. Another name for seedless samādhi.

iti śivaṁ

1. within patañjali’s yogadarśana you will find this called out in chapter 2 verse 10. The term used is pratiprasava. It is called returning to the original state or original cause; some call it reversing the process of giving birth ( in our case the birth of thoughts); you will find this pratiprasava also within the chāndogya upaniṣad, 6th chapter, where the notion of returning to sat, or the original state is reviewed.

yajvan
28 September 2014, 12:14 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
namasté


Within the praśna upaniṣad there are 6 śiṣya-s with 6 questions. In fact the name of the upaniṣad, praśna, means inquiry or examination, question. I will offer 1 of the 6 , but each are worthy of one’s time and study.

Here is the 6th one. The way the 6th question is offered suggests its subtly and gravity. The śiṣya named sukeśa¹ asks the question but in a very modest way.
He says he was asked this question by a prince ( the country of kosala) and could not respond i.e. he did not know the answer. He asks, now I ask you the same question: do you know the puruśa of 16 kalā –s ? Wherein is that puruśa ?

One must ask why did sukeśa offer this question in this manner ? Sukeśa was introduced first to the Teacher, then he was the last to ask his question. This infers the weightiness of the question.
Asking from the once-removed position suggests its subtly i.e. asking from another question that was not answered suggests this as it is considered the indirect way.

The question itself speaks of wholeness and diversity. How is there wholeness in this diversity of 16 kalā-s. We know a kalā is single part or portion of a whole; it is also 1/16th of the moon’s diameter. This 16 is another symbol for wholeness. So it is suggesting, even in diversity of portions, of seemingly divided things there is wholeness.

The master ( pippalāda) goes on to answer this question in the 6th chapter. It is worth the read.

iti śivaṁ


1. sukeśa – for those that love word roots, consider looking up the meaning of sukeśa and su+ keśa.

silence_speaks
28 September 2014, 10:29 PM
Der Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!



Upon direct personal experience, a person will akin this movement ( even though staying in one place) as a transcending experience¹. Said another way, when this awareness is co-mingled with ego there are thoughts, feelings, etc. , the waves of the mind. Yet when one goes from this co-mingling to that of awareness resting in itself there is this expansion experience. This is the ~relative~ experience of transcending.


:) Humm, we seem to be saying the same thing - but differently verbalized.

Your posts, as usual are very beautiful.

A small suggestion. If you can pick up a small text .... and together if we can study it carefully :fully analyzing , carefully questioning and deeply meditating on its teaching --- That can be a wonderful thing to do.

I would suggest a small upanishad like "amrtabindu Upanishad" or even a prakarana grantha like Hastamalaka Stotram or Ramana Maharshi's Upadesha Saram.

In Buddhist tradition they have the concept of a "Sangha"... a community. A community is where the Sadhakas respect each other, respect each other's views and practice together. The whole thing is absolutely beautiful. If you can take up a topic like this and we could all study that together ... it would become a sort of online Sangha for us all! Very beautiful.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
28 September 2014, 11:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
namasté



silence speaks offers the following:


In Buddhist tradition they have the concept of a "Sangha"... a community. A community is where the Sadhakas respect each other, respect each other's views and practice together. The whole thing is absolutely beautiful. If you can take up a topic like this and we could all study that together ... it would become a sort of online Sangha for us all! Very beautiful


I have commented on this in the past...

Within this forum and within sanātana dharma ( some call ārṣa¹ dharma) there is plenty of entry level materials for one to pursue and keep one busy for quite some time. But as one grows and develops the materials change, the insights change, as do the conversations. One's questions are different as new doors are opened by knowledge and direct personal experience. It is my opinion that this ( small) group does not get the care & feeding that is due.

So, one may say , yajvan, there are very few if any of these people wihin the HDF community. Yes , I know , but even if there is one or two that is enough. Their needs are different and what they have to offer will be great, so the nurturing should be there.


I have been waiting for some time to participate with a small group of vinaya-s¹ and form a small-small satsang group on HDF. Where the conversation of uttara ( higher notions) are discussed as a matter of course ; that the celebration of Self is the daily activity, that one's knowledge continues to unfold and the ego is on the decline.
This has been a goal for some 5 years and it has not come to be as yet. So, I continue to wait, and keep the conversations I offer ( as often as reasonable ) for these vinaya-s¹ to sense there is more to HDF then the entry level ( but no less important) questions on our most profound ārṣa¹ dharma.

We will know these people as those that do not bicker on whose Supreme is more supreme; where there is little debate on whose behaviors are more virtuious or those with vice. Who are not stuck in self ( small 's') of 'me-ness' and are able to raise their self with their SELF.
This has been an area of interest and my resort for some time, to work with and nurture this type of small group ...

iti śivaṁ

words

ārṣa -belonging to or derived from our ṛṣi-s or seers, some also call kavi meaning gifted with insight , intelligent .
'I don't get it' HDF post : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3730
vinaya - the one with subdued senses

silence_speaks
29 September 2014, 01:38 AM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

Buddha was walking when Angulimala came there in a forest. And Angulimala was not a "vinaya". However that encounter transformed him into one.

Our duty as spiritual sadhakas is never to judge other person as "vinaya" or not. Our due is to spread the love ... Be that Compassion ... that Realization... Everyone who comes in contact will eventually align with you.
I have great reverence for Awareness and Aware-full living since that is the Presence - the God. In that Presence , even an Angulimala can become a vinaya.

So my suggestion, lets not bother about who is vinaya and who is not. Let us start a nice thread where we learn about a particular scripture in greater detail. And as we study that, we can place some rules so that no one should get into heated debates there.... one may give their views and continue ... that would help avoid heated debates. And then with the blessing of God it would turn out to be a great blessing for many!!

Lets Revel as Self... every one shall appear as Self, God.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
29 September 2014, 12:16 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
namasté



Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

Buddha was walking when Angulimala came there in a forest. And Angulimala was not a "vinaya". However that encounter transformed him into one.

Our duty as spiritual sadhakas is never to judge other person as "vinaya" or not. Our due is to spread the love ... Be that Compassion ... that Realization... Everyone who comes in contact will eventually align with you.
I have great reverence for Awareness and Aware-full living since that is the Presence - the God. In that Presence , even an Angulimala can become a vinaya.

So my suggestion, lets not bother about who is vinaya and who is not. Let us start a nice thread where we learn about a particular scripture in greater detail. And as we study that, we can place some rules so that no one should get into heated debates there.... one may give their views and continue ... that would help avoid heated debates. And then with the blessing of God it would turn out to be a great blessing for many!!

Lets Revel as Self... every one shall appear as Self, God.

Love!
Silence

It seems you have missed the point. The suggestion of starting a thread and learning about a particular scripture is what HDF has been doing for some time. People come and go and this has been the experience on HDF.
The vinaya is the one that stays the course, the committed ones. It has little to do with judgment. And as I have said over and over again, there is plenty for the entry level aspirant to read, ponder and practice.

That said, you are welcomed to start threads as you see fit.

iti śivaṁ

yajvan
29 September 2014, 12:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
namasté

Another upaniṣad that, by its own name asks a question. It is the kena upaniṣad. Kena means ‘ by what ?’ or ‘ by whom ?’ . We get ‘who’ due to kena being derived from ‘ka’ and that too means ‘who’.

The very 1st śloka begins with keneṣitam or ‘joined by whom ?’ ; it also uses the term preṣitaṁ -‘ command, order, set in motion’ in
the 1st śloka. It is asking by whose (kena) preṣitaṁ ( order, command, will) does the mind ( mana is used and this = manas) or mental powers fall on its objects? Conjoined (keneṣitam ) by whom (kena) does prāṇa ( vital breath or life) move, as it were the first ? At whose will do people utter speech? Which deva ( divine being) is it that urges the eyes and ears on ( to function ) ?

This question is quite intriguing. We know today how the eye works, or the stomach digests, how sense perception functions in general. We get our information from modern biology , chemistry and psychology. These things , all great in themselves, Provide useful info, but the ultimate question is how does all this function as a whole, and is able to bring all these millions of interactions into a being with consciousness and producing the consciousness in some way. Who compels this to happen and how is it orchestrated ?

iti śivaṁ

Ganeshprasad
29 September 2014, 03:27 PM
Pranam





This question is quite intriguing. We know today how the eye works, or the stomach digests, how sense perception functions in general. We get our information from modern biology , chemistry and psychology. These things , all great in themselves, Provide useful info, but the ultimate question is how does all this function as a whole, and is able to bring all these millions of interactions into a being with consciousness and producing the consciousness in some way. Who compels this to happen and how is it orchestrated ?

iti śivaṁ

I find this answer while doing Nyasam, invoking different adhistaDeva for different part of the body. For instance Jathare Agni thistatu etc.

then again reading Gita one may get this answer;

Becoming the digestive fire, I remain in the body of all living beings; uniting with vital breaths, the Prana and Apana, I digest all four varieties of food; and (15.14)


Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
29 September 2014, 04:54 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


One question I think is interesting: Within the 1st verse of the brahmasūtra–s¹ the author states;

athāto brahma jijñāsā – now then, the inquiry into (or of) brahman.

The style or the approach of the brahmasūtra-s is that of terse words; the simplest and most profound at the same time. It is all about economy and value – the least number of words (sūtra=stitch) with the highest level of meaning.


If this is so, why did the author begin with now then ( some say therefore) ? Could he simply had said, the inquiry into brahman ?
The author does not even need to say 'the start' of the inquiry because we know its the first sutra and it must be the start. What then is the significance of applying ‘now then’ (athāto) ?


iti śivaṁ

1. the brahmasūtra-s , written by bādarāyana ( some write is vādarāyaṇa) . There are plenty of views of who this author was; many a vaiṣṇava believe him to be none other than veda vyāsa. Others think that veda vyāsa as a ‘compiler’ arranged the work of bādarāyana into the form of the brahmasūtra-s.
Composed of 4 chapters containing 555 sūtra-s and 223 topics (adhikaraṇa-s) yet people contest these numbers but not the 4 divisions; its intent is to ~digest~ the wisdom found within the upaniṣad-s.

silence_speaks
30 September 2014, 10:44 AM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

Traditionally I think "now then" is used to mean that "after having gained the required qualifications"...

After gaining the required mental purity to be able to appreciate the Self Knowledge that is going to be presented in the text. That is the meaning, I presume.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
30 September 2014, 03:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

There is a great question we find within the commentary of the paramārthasāra¹ . The approach used is that of stating an opponent's opposition to a particular view, then answering the question to remove the dispute.

This is associated with the 9th śloka found in the paramārthasāra. Without adding all the devanāgarī words, let me state the argument offered:

If there is no difference between a person ( which in this school is often called the experient) and the supreme (parama) lord (īśvara)
why are they not all the same ? Either all knowers of the SELF in total, or all non-knowers of the SELF ? Why do we find a mixture? How can this be if the Supreme is homogenous, whole, and everywhere the same which gives this unity to all beings ?

Within this school (kaśmir śaivism) in general there are 3 types of humans ( even though on further review there is a refinement to a few more). Those that are liberated, those that are not, and those that are mixed i.e. liberation may only occur briefly while eyes are closed.
As the argument goes, how can there be this ad-mixture or diversity of experients if in-fact all and everything is the supreme ?

iti śivaṁ

1. paramārthasāra is 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

exquisitus
04 October 2014, 12:15 AM
Namaste
Great respect to Yajvan-ji.
This thread inspires me to look deeper into the Yama's answer. I just need to find the most faithful translation. And finding the best translations is not always trivial.
I admit my sanskrit is not good. So I prefer translations in either English, French or Russian (and some other less used minor languages). So I notices that translations of one single work wildly diverge. Take for example VBT, so many translations, the best is by Lilian Silburn, simply awesome, nobody else commented on the visible dynamic interplay between the slokas, she did. Another example, Ashtavakra Gita, so many diverging translations. Now my favorite translation of Paramarthasara is the following
http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Tantric-Philosophy-Paramarthasara-Abhinavagupta/dp/041534669X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1412399150&sr=8-4&keywords=paramarthasara
Worth every single penny. That's my humble opinion. Yajvan-ji what would be your opinion about that book?

markandeya 108 dasa
13 October 2014, 04:59 AM
Pranams

Silence speaks



In Buddhist tradition they have the concept of a "Sangha"... a community. A community is where the Sadhakas respect each other, respect each other's views and practice together.

Thank you for bringing the true meaning of Sangha up, I have been to many places where different schools have different sadhanas and practices and within those schools many times, but not always, there is a tendency among humans to think there path is the exclusive one, or the only one. This I find the most frustrating thing about religion.

Again thank you for the true purport of Sangha.

Ys

Md

yajvan
20 October 2014, 01:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

In the 2nd chapter of the śiva sūtra-s¹, we find the following:
cittaṁ mantraṁ || 2.1

This says, mind is mantra.

Have we not been told that mantra is a formula, a ~secret sound form~ ? Yet this sūtra say mind is mantra . How can this be ?

iti śivaṁ

1. the śivasūtra-s were revealed to vasugupta-ji. The most authoritive writing/commentary on this book/revelation is offered by kṣemarāja and is called śivasūtravimarśinī-hṛdaya. This says the examination, knowledge discussion (vimarśa) of the śiva sutra-s. The notion of hṛdaya means 'heart', suggesting the core, the inner most. Hence
it now says, the inner most knowledge being discussed on the śiva sutra-s.

Mana
21 October 2014, 12:44 AM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,


... Have we not been told that mantra is a formula, a ~secret sound form~ ? Yet this sūtra say mind is mantra . How can this be ?

Might I offer the thought that the sea of thought with which we interact, citta, is a construct of notions upon which we have placed words as containers; in Sanskrit even the sounds of which the words are constructed are themselves containers holding notion.
Our thoughts arise and are then expressed through 4 levels of sound, this is key to Vedic thought, the form of which thus is its self mantra, constructed from these containers or forms in rhythmic patterns.

It can be said even that often the rhythm and intonation is more expressive than the words them selves; changing the expressed meaning of a sentence by way of more subtle sakti.

Thank you for your consideration.

silence_speaks
21 October 2014, 01:02 AM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

I'll give it my try. :)

A mantra, is defined as "Mananat trayathe iti mantrah",
mananat: upon reflection, upon contemplation.
Trayathe: protects, saves, leads out of the samsara ocean... leads to Self.

So every mantra, has one Lakshyartha [implied meaning] : Self. [Otherwise it cannot lead one out of the samsara ocean].

And Mind is "as if born" from Self. Mind is Self alone. Hence Mantra's lakshyartha is Self and mind is Self alone :) --- mind is like a snake imagined on the rope , Self. Hence mind is Self. Thus Mantra is automatically the Mind !!



Love!
Silence

yajvan
23 October 2014, 11:26 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namaste



In the 2nd chapter of the śiva sūtra-s, we find the following:
cittaṁ mantraṁ || 2.1

This says, mind is mantra.
How can this be ?

Kṣemarāja, within his śivasūtravimarśinī-hṛdaya¹ explains this sūtra two ways. I will only offer the reader the one approach and encourage those that are interested to read the 2nd approach directly.

He informs us that the mind of the yogī that is fit, is always śuddha ( clear, clean, pure, bright) and his/her thoughts are without blemish (mala). Therefore his/her thoughts are directed to the divine, to god consciousness. What ever thoughts come to this native are divine and hence all thoughts can be considered mantra. Mantra is divinity in the mind, not that which comes from the lips.

Now the 2nd way ( which I will not expand upon) considers prāsāda mantra, praṇava mantra, and mind. This should be read by the interested HDF reader.

iti śivaṁ

1. the śivasūtra-s were revealed to vasugupta-ji. The most authoritive writing/commentary on this book/revelation is offered by kṣemarāja and is called śivasūtravimarśinī-hṛdaya. This says the examination, knowledge discussion (vimarśa) of the śiva sutra-s. The notion of hṛdaya means 'heart', suggesting the core, the inner most. Hence
it now says, the inner most knowledge being discussed on the śiva sūtra-s.

yajvan
23 October 2014, 11:34 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Another question I have heard 'on the street' is the following...

Why did the Supreme ~create~ this universe and what do I have to do with it ? Or the more mundane question is, why (then) am I here?

iti śivaṁ

Mana
24 October 2014, 05:29 AM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,

If I might reply with some thoughts that your questions have inspired in me.

Perhaps we are quite simply stitches in the manifold nature of space and time, Her neatly woven tapestry depicting Him; thus we unwittingly hold pārvatī & śiva's embrace ...
Were it not for our own self delusion; we might complain at the sheer audacity of that, but then again, with out the delusion of self we might also relax and enjoy the love.

Thus I will conclude that we are here to hold and to bind the fabric of time. If this is so, what then is time? Perhaps, quite simply, a biological allusion to self; as a container or kunda for ones own self knowledge.

yajvan
25 October 2014, 06:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




Another question I have heard 'on the street' is the following...

Why did the Supreme ~create~ this universe and what do I have to do with it ? Or the more mundane question is, why (then) am I here?


There are several answers to the 1st question mentioned above. We can find support for this in our upaniṣad-s no doubt; yet one place I wish go 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 than 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 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.

The 2nd question:


what do I have to do with it ? Or the more mundane question is, why (then) am I here?


Simply put, you are śiva. And why are you here dear śiva ? As mentioned above, to recognize your own fullness, your own nature. It is you that wished to throttle your Self down into this human condition. Now you are here to recollect your fullness once again. Something you really never lost - as you have co-mingled your Self into the diversity of the 31 tattva-s that are seemingly in duality. The other 5 tattva-s are perfectly pure. So , it is to once again recall those other 5 tattva-s; this allows one to be in the mist of diversity ( the 31 tattva-s) and never forget the purity of one's essential stainless Being ( the other 5 tattva-s).


iti śivaṁ

silence_speaks
25 October 2014, 10:17 PM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

This being a Uttara forum : Creation is a Myth :)!!
It is like the horns of a hare!!

Please listen to this secret , with great alertness: Ribhu Gita, chapter 8

इदँ प्रपञ्चँ यत् किञ्चित् यः शृणोति च पश्यति।
दृश्यरूपँ च दृग्रूपँ सर्वँ शशविषाणवत्॥

Whatever traces of this world one hears or one sees of it, the form that is seen and the form of seer are all like horns of a hare

Love!
Silence

yajvan
27 October 2014, 11:53 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Creation is a Myth !! It is like the horns of a hare!!

Please listen to this secret , with great alertness: Ribhu Gita, chapter 8

इदँ प्रपञ्चँ यत् किञ्चित् यः शृणोति च पश्यति।
दृश्यरूपँ च दृग्रूपँ सर्वँ शशविषाणवत्॥

Whatever traces of this world one hears or one sees of it, the form that is seen and the form of seer are all like horns of a hare

This view is quite in vogue with many advaita vedāntins. Just as popular is the whole notion of māyā. Many hear this notion as their first teaching within sanātana dharma and add it to their knowledge base. Yet this is not the full story.


I encourage the reader to consider the vivekacūḍāmaṇi ( or the Crown jewel of Discrimination ) and see the words offered by ādi śaṅkara¹, one of the key anchors of śāntabrahmavāda ( another name for advaita vedānta).
If his words are a bit recondite (obscure) then let me suggest ramaṅa mahaṛṣi and his discussion in chapter 17 of Be As You Are, edited by David Godman. Ramaṅa mahaṛṣi’s intellect, explanation and brilliance is outstanding on this matter.

Last, the knowledge I offered in post 23 above is from the trika (tṛka) non-dual point of view. The seers of this knowledge where quite aware of the other schools’ view regarding ‘illusion and myth’ (a.k.a. advaita vedānta). Yet these muni-s did not see ( or experience) Reality in this manner. Their simple premise is this:
If all this is a myth, then the source of all this is also myth (śiva), and this is rejected. From here their insights on Reality and the discussion thereof takes place. I find their knowledge valid, but do not suggest it usurps that of advaita vedānta, because both at their core has the firm conviction of wholeness pūrṇapātrapratibhaṭa ( fullness or a full vessel i.e. overflowing , supreme).

So, the finer point that I have conveniently left out is the notion of ~creation~. We , as humans, think of it as a construction job of raw
materials assembled into something new. That is, there is the materials and there is the maker, like clay and the potter that forms the clay.
The tṛka view and many other schools discuss this in length. That is how many schools views are exercised and developed. For now
it is not the time to do this as multiple points of view can be offered.

But yajvan, why all this views? Why all these schools ? Simply put – people can accept and comprehend knowledge at different levels of
consciousness. For some, one school resonates best, and for others a different school is best suited. So, fluidity of thinking is an asset
if one wishes to discuss these matters. A sense of ferreting out the truth is a good tool. But if it causes one consternation, then
one knows it is time to take a rest and wait a bit for beginning again. Knowledge is structured in consciousness . When consciousness
expands then comprehension will be available to ‘get’ some of the deeper conventions that several schools offer.

iti śivaṁ

words

ādi śaṅkara
ādi = first, beginning
śaṅkara = śaṃkara = causing prosperity , auspicious , beneficent. This is another name for śiva or rudra
bhagavatpāda = bhagavat+pāda bhagavat is glorious , illustrious , divine + pāda or pādāḥ is added to proper names or titles in token of respect.
With this case pāda it is then a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body).

silence_speaks
27 October 2014, 09:22 PM
Dear yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!

I am not denying that there are different views.
All I am saying is that the different views are "Lower" ... for people who have not matured to the level to be able to accept "Ajata Vada".

And since this is "Uttara" ... I proposed that "Ajata Vada" alone stands !!

Ramana was time and again propounding Ajata Vada as you might be aware! Many times he would say "Find out if you are born at all" ! "Find out of the world is there now" etc!!

Love!
Silence

silence_speaks
27 October 2014, 10:24 PM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:)

I would like to suggest a reference Alatashanti prakaranam of Mandukya upanishad where Gaudapadacharya clearly states that the ideas of creation are only suggested for people who cannot "Accept" the non-creation. Esp, Alatashanti verse 42:

"Instructions about creation has been imparted by the wise for the sake of those who from the facts of experience and adequate behaviour , vouch for the existence of substantiality , and who are ever afraid of the birth-less entity."

verse 43:

"For those who , being afraid of the unborn , deviate from the true path by relying on their experience of duality, the faults arising from the acceptance of creation will not bear fruit; and the fault too will be insignificant"


So stories of creation ... are only for people not ready to accept.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
27 October 2014, 11:01 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


I am not denying that there are different views.
All I am saying is that the different views are "Lower" ... for people who have not matured to the level to be able to accept "Ajata Vada".

And since this is "Uttara" ... I proposed that "Ajata Vada" alone stands !!


I am happy to hear of your resolve on ajātavada¹ within its true meaning. Yet ajātavada is different from what you offered in post 24 above. Which do you wish to profess? There are no horns on the hare, or that this universe has no beginning or end ?


If you suggest the horns on the hare, then the conversation deposits us within the field of māyā which I differ from the view found in
sāntabrahmavāda. Yet if the conversation is that of ajātavada I find little ( to very slight) difference ( in wording) between advaita vedānta and trika.

I have used the term 'created' in my posts above to keep the conversation simple and without consternation for the reader. But if specificity was the soup of the day then the proper word to be applied is sṛṣṭi - letting go, emission. For the human condition people may think , oh creation... ; this is not the case, but I wanted to mention it if we need to get technical.
Within the infinite, there is no beginning or ending, there is only fullness. What then can be created ? The only thing the ~seems~ to be done is the letting go again and again of the inexhaustible Being within itSELF. Where then can be a start or stop ? The wise try and 'throttle it down' to our level of comprehension via the tattva-s. And trika even goes further then the tattva-s and their orientation, but that too is a completely new conversation.


iti śivaṁ

words

· ajātavada is speaking sensibly about the notion that the universe has neither a beginning or end.

silence_speaks
27 October 2014, 11:12 PM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Namasthe!!

:) Where do you classify this statement of Ribhu Gita :



Please listen to this secret , with great alertness: Ribhu Gita, chapter 8

इदँ प्रपञ्चँ यत् किञ्चित् यः शृणोति च पश्यति।
दृश्यरूपँ च दृग्रूपँ सर्वँ शशविषाणवत्॥

Whatever traces of this world one hears or one sees of it, the form that is seen and the form of seer are all like horns of a hare



and here is one more:



verse 31 from vaitathya prakarana:

svapnamaaye yathaa dR^iShte gandharvanagara.N yathaa|
tathaa vishvamida.N dR^iShta.N vedaanteShu vicaxanauH||

स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्ते गन्धर्वनगरँ यथा।
तथा विश्वमिदँ दृष्तँ वेदान्तेषु विचक्षनौः॥

just as dream and magic are seen to be unreal, or as is a city in the sky, so also is this whole universe known to be unreal from the upanishads by the wise.

:)

Love!
Silence

silence_speaks
27 October 2014, 11:35 PM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:) I would like to further quote Alatashanti prakaranam itself :

verses 68, 69:

as creatures seen in a dream undergoes birth and death so also do all these creatures appear and disappear.

as a creature conjured up by magic undergoes birth and death, so also do all these creatures appear and disappear.


so the entire creation is a myth.

Source of myth is neither myth nor reality!! myth is not there like a gandharvanagari.

Awareness ALONE IS! It is Changeless, Motionless. Presence.

From time immemorial.

Love!
Silence

yajvan
28 October 2014, 07:36 AM
namaste,

perhaps with time I will address the questions you pose in a more exhaustible manner.
So, within the last few posts we have ventured from a birthless and deathless universe, to notion of the a hare with horns, and now we are deposited into the conversation of awareness.
Yet, there never has been any disposition to suggest awareness is or is not. While many use awareness, others use the term consciousness and still others say there is something quite before the two. But for now let's use the term 'pure awareness' as a broad brush stoke to include all 3 items.
So here is my position: Everything that I see , including the process of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, thinking, feeling, walking, and any other form of perception or motive force is none other then this pure awarenss. This is not a unique position and I give no grand insight here. Yet the notion is this: if I say that the univese is not, which is the expression of awareness, I am saying awareness is not, and as said before that is to be rejected. All and everything is an expression of this. So, my position has been consistent from post to post.

The jeweler when looking at a ring does not see the design but peers into the gold that makes the ring. Hence all rings, and jewels have a common thread of the gold. The wise do the same. They do not pay much attention to all the differences the universe has to offer, but sees the unity of the core quality of awarenss that permeates it all. They see pure awareness. They also see the universe as an extention of their own Being, pure awareness. There is no-thing that it is not.What could be more simpler ? Yet for the human condition we deal in differerntiated consciousness and the answer lies in undiffererntiated consciousness. Herein resides the pickle of one's direct experience vs. what the wise tell us.

To suggest that this pure awareness is motionless - my retort would be ' who then just said this ? '. If it is motionless yet I am able to voice it, think it, there is the vibration of sound or thought forms coming from this perfect awareness. If all is this pure awareness but yet I am able to reflect upon it, reverse the thinking process and go to subtler levels of it, can I really contend that it is motionless? Are my vibrations outside of this pure awareness ? This is not possible.

There is much more that can be said but I will not pursue it as it seems it will just stimulate another conversation and take the overall post of 'great questions' off the mark.

iti sivam

yajvan
13 November 2014, 07:14 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

There is a very interesting passage (śloka) found in the tantrālokaḥ¹. This passage ties in the knowledge found in haṭhayoga, patañjali’s yogadarśana, bhāgavad gītā, and the upāya-s ( methods) found within the vijñana-bhairava kārikā-s of kaśmir śaivism. It says:

na divā pūjayeddevaṁ
rātra naiva ca naiva ca |
arcayeddevadeveśaṁ
dinarātriparikṣaye ||

What does this śloka say ( in general) ?
do not (na) worship (pūja) the divine (devaṁ) by day (divā) or by night (rātri) ; the divine is to be worshiped at the meeting point of day (dina) and night (dinarātriparikṣaye) ||

Now this causes many people great pause ( as it did me some time ago). What are you telling me ? I am not to give praise to the divine during the day or night ? How can this be? Only give one’s worship during this meeting point ( dina = cut in half, and means ‘day’) ?

There must be more to this, no ? I will offer my view co-mingled with the wisdom of svāmī lakṣman-jū and perhaps we can find value in this offering.


iti śivaṁ
words

tantrālokaḥ – this is a work by abhinavagupta-ji and is a ‘big deal’ within tṛka and non dual kaśmir śaivism.
It is the ~cream~ of 64 ( non dual ) bhairava āgamas ; it contains 37 chapters or āhnika-s, containing 5,838 and ½ śloka-s; From this work, abhinavagupta-ji boiled it down to an offering called the tantrasāraḥ or the essence (sāraḥ) of the tantrālokaḥ.
I have several books , yet I am not in possession of all 37 chapters; that is I am a novice on this overall work. As time goes on I am blessed here-and-there with other chapters, translations, and śloka-s from this fine work.

markandeya 108 dasa
14 November 2014, 10:45 AM
Pranams Yajvan ji,

I also read this part and considered the meaning


What does this śloka say ( in general) ?
do not (na) worship (pūja) the divine (devaṁ) by day (divā) or by night (rātri) ; the divine is to be worshiped at the meeting point of day (dina) and night (dinarātriparikṣaye)

Could it perhaps be symbolic language that it is pointing to the middle way, the non dual mind, is this where real worship starts, no asking or thanking based on material relative forms of worship which is only dealing with conditioned self preservation, but just being in the middle the state of transcendence.

Ys

Md

yajvan
14 November 2014, 11:29 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


What does this śloka say ( in general) ?
do not (na) worship (pūja) the divine (devaṁ) by day (divā) or by night (rātri) ; the divine is to be worshiped at the meeting point of day (dina) and night (dinarātriparikṣaye) ||

As many know the wise speak to us indirectly (praṇāḍikayā), though hints and symbols (lakṣaṇā). They do this for a few reasons but will leave this for another time.

The hint in the śloka above is day, night and the period in between (madhya as middle and dina as cut – as in the full day cut in between).
Now who owns this day and night ? None other than the sun and the moon. Within haṭhayoga¹ this is the sun and moon and is another way of suggesting balancing the breath. This too is offered within patañjali’s yogadarśana and within vijñana-bhairava kārikā-s.

When we’re talking sun and moon we are alluding to the notion of the following:

piṅgalā – the right side or solar nāḍi
iḍā - the left side or lunar nāḍi ; not to be confused with idā meaning ‘now, at this moment’So, we are talking of the inward breath and the outward breath in which each and every human utilizes every minute of every day ( the notion of ‘continuous’ will be used in the next post for the information coming from the bhāgavad gītā).

The inward breath and outward breath within the vijñana-bhairava kārikā-s go by the name of jīva and prāṇa; both together are considered two points or visarga¹ (:) or the breath cycles throughout the day and night. To the ‘purest’ who may say the 2 breaths are also called prāṇa and apāna I say yes, you are correct.

Here’s the śloka decoded. It informs us not to worship ( give one’s awareness, one-pointedness) to the inward or outward breath as a technique, but to place one’s awareness where the breath neither rises or falls.
That is, the in-between breath or madhya, where no breath occurs. It is neither in or out but at a gap, a pause. This gap, this space or void the ‘in between’ condition is where one puts their one-pointed attention, uninterrupted awareness (puja). The native’s worship in this practice grooms wholeness, fullness and bhairava¹ is revealed.

But yajvan why did you mention piṅgalā and iḍā ? These channels nāḍi-s¹ we know are purified via attentive breath (prāṇayam) , yet in-between these two what do we have ? The central channel or suṣumnā ( used here as the term madhya) is groomed. When one’s undivided attention ( called nirvikalpatayā¹) remains there without effort of strain, then pure awareness blossoms.

But where does the bhāgavad gītā fit into this line of thinking ? We will look in the next post.

iti śivaṁ
words

haṭha = persistence; by force. Yet when we look at it like this ha+ṭha :
ha = sky, heaven; śiva and therefore the sun by association
ṭha is the moon's disk
visarga - more on visarga at this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=121709#post121709 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=121709#post121709)
bhirava = bha + ra + va

bha is bharaṇa भरण - maintaining , supporting , nourishing
ra र is acquiring or possessing ; this is the only word (IMO) then that may apply for an approximation of ~withdrawal~ as it is rooted in rā which = acquiring , possessing ;
rava is roaring, yelling; it is rooted in ru रु- to make any noise or sound i.e. to roar , bellow , howl , yelp , cry , sing, bee's buzzing, etc.
vaṇa वण a sound , noise
va is vamana वमन emitting , emission
nirvikalpatayā = nir+vikalpa+tayā

nir = nis = niḥ = within
vikalpa – between two kapla-s ; the distinction of perception between the two
tayā = ta+yā = crossing and attaining ( or 'of the way')
nāḍi = tube, pipe, channel

yajvan
14 November 2014, 01:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




What does this śloka say ( in general) ?
do not (na) worship (pūja) the divine (devaṁ) by day (divā) or by night (rātri) ; the divine is to be worshiped at the meeting point of day (dina) and night (dinarātriparikṣaye) ||
Before we pursue the bhāgavad gītā implications I mentioned, I thought the following would also interest the reader.

The post above offered one view that aligns to a more deeper significance of one’s worship.
Yet too , there is another view that many practice today that is not opposed to what was offered in the last post
but more on timing … Let me explain.

The junction point of day and night is considered saṁdhi – the junction point. We know of 4. Dawn, dusk, noon and mid-night.
It has been a standard practice for one to pursue their worship, their sādhana during these periods.


Many have heard of these times and the most popular is brahmā-muhūrta¹ which occurs just before dawn – let’s call sunrise 6 A.M. for this example.
Brahmā-muhūrta consists of 2 muhūrta-s ( 48 min x 2 = 96 min) before sunrise ; some count it as 4 ghaṭīkā, yet the overall time still = 96 min.
Note this period of brahmā-muhūrta is made of 2 muhūrta-s . One is brahmā and the other is samudram ( or samudraḥ pending its grammatical use). This word means ocean, the aerial waters ( the ~ocean~ of the sky).

Mid-day is is vidhi (insight) muhūrta. We then proceed to sun-set ( 6 P.M.) and the auspicious muhūrta-s at that junction point is varuna and aryaman. The bhaga muhūrta that occurs right at this 6 P.M. sunset is considered inauspicious, yet I have not found it to be the case.
The mid-night muhūrta is considered vidhātṛ muhūrta. This is another name for brahma. Some say it is the name of one of His sons. The reader is welcomed to look up all 30 muhūrta-s on the web for their review.

These junction points (saṁdhi) are considered auspicious for one’s practice, sādhana.


iti śivaṁ

words

1 muhūrta = 48 minutes ; it is 1/15th of a day period ( 12 hours) or 1/30th of the total day+night or 24 hours
Each of the 30 muhūrta-s have a name.

silence_speaks
15 November 2014, 05:22 AM
Dear Yajvan ji,
:)

Can this also be interpreted as : the moment between waking and sleep ?
waking : Jaagrat.
Sleep : Sushupti
Jaagrat Sushupti : The wakeful Deep Sleep State... Ramana Maharshi used this to mean Abiding as Self !

When one just wakes up ... there is alertness ... but the world has not fully arisen ... at that moment ... one is naturally Abiding as Self !!

Do you understand what i mean ?

Love!
Silence

yajvan
15 November 2014, 12:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



But where does the bhāgavad gītā fit into this line of thinking ?

To set the stage one needs to be aware ( or reminded) of a few things.
Arjuna (guḍākeśa) asks, how shall I know (vidyām) you ? (bhāgavad gītā 10.17); kṛṣṇa-jī responds , I am the Self, seated in the heart of all living beings (bhāgavad gītā 10.20)

So, the Supreme is no further then one’s own Self (ātmān). We are reminded again and again on how to come to this realization ( this remembrance )…

Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, worshiping Me. Being completely absorbed in ātmānam ( Self or Me), surely you will come to Me. (bhāgavad gītā 9.34)
Therefore you should always think of Me ( and fight) . When your mind and intellect area absorbed in Me, to Me alone you will undoubtedly come. (bhāgavad gītā 8.7)From the post above, I wrote:

So, we are talking of the inward breath and the outward breath in which each and every human utilizes every minute of every day ( the notion of ‘continuous’ will be used in the next post for the information coming from the bhāgavad gītā).


With the gap, saṁdhi – the junction point, between each breath one is setting the conditions for pure awareness ( Self/ ātmān/Being) to be experienced.
This is how one can always be attentive to kṛṣṇa-jī . Why ? The Self is within us and the Self ( so says kṛṣṇa-jī) is Him. With this we can find Being/Self/pure awareness between each breath, within saṁdhi ( the gap).

We are informed that we breath 21,600¹ times per day on average. This saṁdhi occurs between each breath – between the inward and outward breath. It is in the gap that we can groom pure awareness. Then this continuity of awareness begins to grow which = constantly engaged in pure awareness (kṛṣṇa-jī). This fulfills arjuna’s question , how shall I know (vidyām) you ? We will know Him by our Self ( which is none other then Him) and comes to us by pure awareness that is groomed between each breath when done with uninterrupted awareness (pūja).
This connects all the points that were mentioned in post 32 above.

iti śivaṁ

21,600 = 15 breaths per min = 900 breaths per hour X 24 hrs. = 21,600 times in a total cycle of one day.

yajvan
15 November 2014, 02:06 PM
I wrote,



… by pure awareness that is groomed between each breath when done with uninterrupted awareness (pūja).

One may ask, how does uninterrupted awareness = pūja ?

Let’s look at this term pūja like this: pū+ja

pū = to sift , discriminate , discern. It is our awareness when actively engaged that discriminates between this and that.
The term use in post 34 was nirvikalpatayā¹ ;the central term within this word was vikalpa - the distinction of perception between the two.
So, with this ‘pū” it is our awareness that is attentive, being engaged in the perception of distinction.
Yet this ‘pū’ has a second definition: to flow off clearly. It is the flow ( typically said of soma) , to flow off.
ja = produced or caused by; born . Yet this term is rooted in ‘jan’ ; jan = ‘to become , be’ . It ( being) is a continuous state of existence .From these terms we can see that pūja is where one’s awareness is flowing and discriminating; engaged in perception within our continuous condition of existence. Just as one ‘worships’ one’s mind is actively alert with awareness, feelings, admiration, devotion , to that which is being honored or adored.

Like that, we are engaged in uninterrupted awareness – flowing (pū) and this awareness is ever refreshed or born again and again ( ja)

iti śivaṁ


words

nirvikalpatayā = nir+vikalpa+tayā
nir = nis = niḥ = within
vikalpa – between two kapla-s ; the distinction of perception between the two
tayā = ta+yā = crossing and attaining ( or 'of the way')

yajvan
16 September 2016, 08:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

A a simple but profound question was posed to rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi: If the Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even ( right) now ?

Before I offer what rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji offered, let me rewrite the question with just one word ('the') removed:
If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?

This helps (or really, pushes) our mind from the notion of SELF as being an object. That is, if I say ' the Being' then the mind latches on to the notion of looking for an entity or some entity by saying 'the'. 'The' is a determiner . That is , it is used especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect ( localized and specific) as opposed to the indefinite, infinite, and unbounded.

Examples: the book you gave to me, or come into the house. it can be used to used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon i.e. the King, the mountain, the ship, the building, the dog, cat, place, bird, house , car, etc. All these things are finite in nature and it triggers the mind to look for something, some entity that is localized, bound with time, space, size, location. See the point ?

So if I say 'Being' I am no longer talking of an entity. If I say Self I am not talking of the Self of someone. If that is understood then rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji's answer will be better comprehended. Of which I will offer in the next post and wait a bit to see if anyone wishes to probe a bit more on the notion of 'the' when applied in grammar and its affects of doing its job ( localizing something albeit a person , place or thing )

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

yajvan
18 September 2016, 12:03 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


let me rewrite the question with just one word ('the') removed: If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?

It seems I left out a point that the reader may find useful... that is, I am expecting the HDF reader to have a ~handle~ on the definition of ‘Self’ and therefore would understand the question posited to rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji.

The term ‘Self’ gives many consternation. It is used often yet many have somewhat of a farraginous¹ understanding of the term. Let me stay with rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s point-of-view offered by David Godman¹. He says ( and I agree to the elegance of the terms used here) Self , or the real ‘I’, is contrary to perceptible experience, not an experience of individuality but of non-personal all-inclusive awareness.

I find this quite compact and filled with additional information that can help us (me) understand Self much better. How so ? It is not to be confused with individual self we know as ego (ahaṁkāra), that changes ( happy, sad, angry, delighted) that comes and goes ( wake-dream-sleep), expands and contracts and likes to be fed on a regular basis ( oh look at me! I am important, I am brilliant, I am nothing).

But one asks, what is it? Because of being human ( the city of eight¹) we want something we can literally grasp, observe, see i.e. things within a boundary so the intellect can grasp it, clutch it. Yet based upon the definition offered above Self is ‘all inclusive awareness’. That means it is the awareness that is used for all of one’s perceptions ( seeing, smelling, touch, taste, smell, cognition, intellectual grasp, etc) and you ( human being) are asking to look at the thing that ‘looks’ and makes things aware.

The wise say it (Self) is the eye behind the eye, the ear behind the ear. What does that mean ? It is the awareness that allows the senses to function. Kind-a-like electricity . It is electricity that powers everything, yet it is not the light, nor mix-master, nor the electric car, or vacuum cleaner , but it is that power that enables all these devices to function. It is consciousness that enables the senses and intellect, etc. to function. They in and of themselves are a mass of flesh or a bundle of neurons. That is why the definition ‘non-personal all-inclusive awareness’ is accurate.

It (Self) is no one-thing, it has no boundaries. Saying it is non-personal suggests it cannot be cornered to be any one thing. So, now the additional argument.
The human observer says, hey wait one minute, I see bodies ( humans and animals ) everywhere – they’re innumerable, how can the Self be considered non-personal when there are so many bodies walking and talking on this earth ?
Well, rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji informs us that ‘if’ you are stuck in the idea that ‘I am the body’ and it is accepted to be fact, then there are multiple selves. This idea vanishes when the Self reveals itSelf to itSelf ( this is from the kaṭhopaniṣat and muṇḍakopaniṣat)¹ because when this occurs there is only Self, there is no two (advaita – having no duplicate). If there is no-two how can there be multiple selves? How can there be multiple bodies of humans ?

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

terms used

farraginous – mixed; miscellaneous
David Godman – more on David here : http://davidgodman.org/
city of 8 = puryaṣṭaka is the 8 parts/components. The 8 are the tanmātra-s, buddhi (intellect), ahaṁkāra (ego) , and manas (mind).
kaṭhopaniṣat = kaṭha upaniṣad 1.2.23 ; muṇḍaka upaniṣad 3.2.2

kaṭha - this can mean ~ distress~ ; if one reads the story of naciketus (naciketaḥ) one can see the application.
The term also means the pupil or follower of kaṭhah, a brahmin. This applies because the kaṭha upaniṣad is aligned to kāṭhaka saṃhitā found within the kṛṣṇa yajurveda; The composer was kaṭhah a pupil of vaiśampāyana who was a narrator of the mahābhārata and therefore a pupil of vyāsa-ji .
Note that kathā is conversation , speech , talking together and applies as naciketaḥ and yamaḥ is the core conversation of this upaniṣad ( upa-ni-ṣad – come sit close to the truth)


muṇḍaka – means ‘shaved (as in shaved head) or shorn’ – this can mean a few things; this upaniṣad is for the shaved-ones the sādhu.

The term also means ‘lopping-off’ , as in lopping off the top of a tree. In this case the idea is ‘lopping off’ ignorance.
Now some say when you cut off the hair ( on the head) or you lop-off branches of a tree, then energy/ śakti is directed there. It is as if śakti goes into ‘replacement’ mode or growth mode to get that area aligned back to ‘whole’. It is directing śakti up to the head. Some do this on śiva-rātri ( this occurs monthly) or mahā-śivarātri ( next one is the 24th – 25th February 2017)

yajvan
19 September 2016, 12:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté vādhai¹

One last part needs to be put in place before offering rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to this question:

If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?
That is, what did rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji say that stimulated this question ? Well , a previous question was asked: what is this awareness ( you talk of) and can one obtain and cultivate it ?
Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji was talking of Reality (brahma-svarupa or the nature of Being, pure consciousness) which is abundant Self-awareness, radiant pure consciousness without the least bit of ignorance ( code for diversity or duality). He answers this person and says, you are awareness - there is no need to attain it or cultivate it.

(My note here) We know this ourselves... think about it. You do not have to plug anything in, turn on any switch ( neuron, organ, etc.) for awareness to be there. For one to smell or see or touch it all occurs on its own. This is ‘awareness in use’. No one had to go to the store to get more of it for you. It is there.

Now Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji continues and says, all that you have to do is give-up being aware of other things that is all of the not-Self and what remains ? Self.

For many of us this is called ‘practice’ or upāya ( approach or one’s aim), or ābhāsa ( purpose, intent), abhyāsa (repeated discipline). This ‘practice’ is giving up differentiated awareness ( fractured thoughts and feelings of all different things) for one-pointed awareness. This too is at the core of bhakti (devotion). Giving up all things for the one thing ( devotion to the Lord). In both cases one is trading in fractured and diverse thinking for one-pointed thinking.

Now we are ready to offer rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to the original question posed – we will take it up in the next post.

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

1. vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject of the last few posts.
How did I get to this term grammatically? I put this into the singular voice ( eka-vacana)and dative (sampradāna) case as it is ‘to or for you’, it becomes vādhai; if this was plural (bahu-vacana)it would be vādhūbhyaḥ ( if I aligned all the rules correctly).

yajvan
20 September 2016, 01:03 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté vādhai¹

Now we are ready to offer rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to the original question posed: If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?

I’d like to sew a few ideas and answers offered rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji that, in my estimation, brings multiple insights overall. Some are his, others come from my teacher, and still others on a very small scale come from my studies, practice and the like.

Part 1
Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji first answers the question by telling the aspirant the following: your present knowledge and is due to the ego (ahaṁkāra)¹ and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object; yet awareness of Self is absolute and requires no object.

This needs a bit more explanation. Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji is first telling us ( and the questioner) that the person’s present knowledge-set is based upon something that changes on a regular basis ( the ego) and works within the relative world... that of objects and things that also come and go. It is the ego that wishes to grasp on to things to know or own and possess. Said another way, for this to occur the model is a subject ( the ego) and an object ( a thing to grasp – either physical, emotional , etc.).

Because of this model of subject & object the ego has come to believe it is the body ( the city of eight¹ ) as the reality of it all. It ( the ego) is part of the city of 8 and right at home. It sees things ( all things) from this reference point. You tell the ego you are not the body ( and the bundle of feelings, experiences within space and time) it says, okay show me then what really is ‘me’ . It is looking for another thing it can grasp and say oh this is who you say I am ... this ‘thing’. Yet Self is not an object and that has been the pickle for eons. Looking for a container that holds Self that the ego can inspect.

Part 2 - the model of two
The Self does not have this model of two (dvaya), it is the fabric of only one. Now we have to watch the words that was used in the question ‘why am I not aware of it’ clearly shows this two (dvaya) condition ‘ I aware of it ’ – see the two of ‘I’ and ‘it’ ? Our ego wants to approach Self as an object of some type. This has been its orientation for years.
Now when I say ego¹ I am not certain how the reader views this... Some automatically think of it as ‘inflated’ or ‘negative’ in some way. That could be. Yet it also can be un-inflated, humble , etc. and still be ego. Ego is ( for this conversation) the sense one has of their individuality; who has an opinion of who they are by race, size, shape, income, value, location, weight, height, male, female, etc. We can mention a zillion things ( manager, student, wife, husband, uncle, prime minister, senator, criminal, trolley driver, astronaut, welder, plumber, housekeeper, coolie, warrior, businessman, etc.) yet at the end of the day it is the frame of mind that you are the collection of body+mind+feelings+ideas+intellect.
This bundle comes and goes... the Self does not because it is boundless, timeless awareness, Being. It is not empty Being like a vacuum, but perhaps a vacuum
filled with consciousness itself. It’s ~form~ is silence and that is why perhaps some think oh, it is nothing then. It is existence itself (sat some write satī). Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says the luster of that satī is consciousness and its nature is ananda (joy). Well we as humans have consciousness and on occasion we have joy. So we have a flavor of it. We have experienced a ray of it, not the total sunshine of the mid-day sun of it, but a ray of it.

Part 3 - Back to ‘I aware of it’
This part is a bit more revealing. The ‘I’ being talked about here ( in ‘I aware of it’) is the ego. It is saying ‘me’ as being individual and localized; why am ‘i’ ( we will use small ‘i’ for ego) not aware of ‘it’ (Self). It is for this reason: the conditioned (i) of limitations cannot grasp the unconditioned (Self); the finite (i) cannot grasp the infinite (Self).

Remind me again...
Remind me what Self is again ? Self is ‘all inclusive awareness’ per rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s direct personal experience. If Self is infinite, timeless, boundless, endless that means we reside within it now – we are an expression of it now, we cannot be anything other than It. Where then can it be grasped? Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says one can only become It (again) in full. Well how ?
It seems the issue resides in the ego that wishes to remain localized, individual, ‘me’. Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says if something comes and goes it is not real. This ego comes and goes ( wake, dream, sleep it rises and falls), so he says look for this ego and it (ego) vanishes. This requires some introspection to look for it. And it requires awareness. It just so happens that this ‘awareness’ that you are using is no less a ray of Self (itSelf). We are using awareness to find ego that really can’t be pinned down ( but you have to prove it to yourself).

Inward looking
This whole ‘inward-looking’ is the march of the mind inward taking you from a diverse field of thoughts to a more refined field of going inward. This ‘march’ of the mind inward is called pratiprasava or ‘returning to the original state’. This notion is found in our upaniṣads, āgama-s , tantra’s, yoga-sūtras and the yoga-vāsiṣṭha.
In one tantra (the parātriṃśikāvivaraṇa) this inward march is called out as parivṛtya and comes from parivṛt defined as turning around. The ‘ya’ suffix for those interested means ‘ pertaining to’ . This parivṛt also means ‘to invert’ , ‘put in reverse’ . It connects to the first term I offered (pratiprasava) by another definition of parivṛt as ‘ to be reborn in’ which no doubt is ‘returning to the original state’ from which one comes.
Yet too here is the beauty of this term... parivṛta = ‘filled by, or full of’. Now what is the connection? By going in reverse one returns to the original state and is filled, becomes full of... but of what ? Self. But what of this ~mind~ that took ‘me’ there? Well, Self is whole, full, and completely independent. It is not dependent on the mind, but the mind is dependent on Self; it cannot exist without Self. So, in this inward march when Self becomes resides in itSelf, mind is left at the door and does not enter. One is filled ( parivṛta ) with Self ( some like to call pure consciousness, stainless, without a spot or mala i.e. blemish).

Part 4
Think of it this way. Every day you rise and fall in wake-dream-sleep, every day this occurs. But when you go from day-to-day you always wake-up or fall asleep the same person. You do not wake up as a different personality. What provides the continuity? What is the common thread for this to occur? It is Self. The wise say it is the thread on which a string of pearls reside and are held together buy this common thread.

​http://www.catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads/string-of-pearls.jpg

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

terms used


vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject of the last few posts. How did I get to this term grammatically? I put this into the singular voice ( eka-vacana)and dative (sampradāna) case as it is ‘to or for you’, it becomes vādhai; if this was plural (bahu-vacana)it would be vādhūbhyaḥ ( if I aligned all the rules correctly).
ahaṁkāra - in saṃskṛta ( sanscrit) ahaṁkāra = ahaṁ+kāra = I + doer = the making of self (or individuality). The English version comes from the Latin term ‘ego’ or ‘egō’ defined as ‘I’ - again we are using small ‘i’ to indicate it. And like many words this ‘i’ has a plural form called ‘we’ (nōs in Latin); and if something has an affect on a group of “i’s” it is in the form of ‘us’ e.g. let ‘us’ go to the store.

yajvan
21 September 2016, 11:28 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

In post 42 above there is a brief conversation of 'ego' or small 'i'. If the reader is wondering what then is the 'ego' or this small 'i' , the small self ( unbounded Self within boundaries) ?
we may better answer the question in this manner : who or what assumes the role of this small self ? The following post looks to address it:

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?14214-A-bit-more-light-on-yoga&highlight=intellect , post 4 starts the conversation on this matter.

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

rakovsky
26 September 2016, 03:35 PM
Namaste yajvan! (http://hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?159-yajvan)

I love how you write at such lengths with educated replies!

yajvan
03 February 2017, 10:13 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté vādhai¹

the position of dualism ( or argument of non-duality).

If SELF ( Being, pure awareness) were single, unified & whole, then when a person becomes liberated (realized, pūrṇam, whole) it suggests that all human beings must also become liberated at the same time. Yet we know this not to be so. From this conclusion advaita ( or non- duality) is an aberration and therefore incorrect.

How is this to be addressed?

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ


1. vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject here.

yajvan
05 February 2017, 12:24 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


The question posed above,

If SELF ( Being, pure awareness) were single, unified & whole, then when a person becomes liberated (realized, pūrṇam, whole) it suggests that all human beings must also become liberated at the same time. Yet we know this not to be so. From this conclusion advaita ( or non- duality) is an aberration and therefore incorrect.
The answer to this can be long or short... Let me offer the short answer and then expand upon it later. The answer is provided by gauḍapādacharya1 in his gauḍapādiyakārikā2. I look to the 17th verse:

प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः ।
मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७
prapañco yadi vidyeta nivarteta na saṃśayaḥ |
māyāmātramidaṃ dvaitamadvaitaṃ paramārthataḥ || 17

If the perceived manifold ( world) were real then certainly it would disappear. This duality (that is cognized) is māyā.
Non-duality is paramārthataḥ ( primary, highest reality, substance,)

This is telling us that Self/Reality is the only thing that exists. If there were something other than this, then surely duality would dis-appear upon its realization for one person and occur for all. But if that is all there is to begin with, what then can fade away ?
Said another way, there is not Reality for duality ( which is the benchmark for ignorance) and Reality for the non-dual wholeness of Supreme Reality. How can there be two realities? That does not pass one’s common sense test.

Said from another point of view, that of rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi, if Being, wholeness, Reality was something that was ~gained~ or acquired, then it too can be lost. This Being is ever present. That means it is here for the jñānī (realized) and the ajñānī ( yet to realize).

Our śāstra-s inform us all this is indeed brahman. There is no additional footnote that informs us of any restriction e.g. brahman does not exist or make-up this seemingly mis-apprehended view of duality. From brahman’s point of view ( code for the jñānī status) there is no such thing as duality.
How does one get their mind wrapped around this ? A simple example is in order. Let me personify the ocean just for a moment. The ocean does not think a wave as different from itself. To the ocean there is no wave. It is just himself rising up or down. It is no different than you. Does the body take its hand to be different from itself?

Now to go deeper and wider into this whole discussion requires us to visit wake-dream-sleep and turīya ( the 4th). It is where one experiences the world and helps us come to conclusions about the apparent reality one takes to be true (yet comes and goes), to that which never vacillates at all. It is like the ocean. The changes of wake-dream-sleep are the waves that occur within the ocean itself (turīya). More on this can be said in another post.

The verse calls out, This duality (that is cognized) is māyā. Many are conditioned to read this ~māyā~ as something bad and take it as illusion. They leave it there without going deeper and wider into the the subject, and for this they miss its true nature. With this mis-understanding the possibility of a cloudy understanding is at hand (I see it all the time). Enough has been written on this matter here on HDF that to revisit it would be overdoing it. Yet one would do themselves an injustice by not understanding this ~appreratus~ of māyā in full or at least to the best they can comprehend it. Leaving it as 'illusion' is confusing a rope to be a snake.


इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

terms
1. Gauḍapāda-ji was the guru of govinda bhagavatpāda who, in turn was the guru of ādi śaṅkara (śaṅkara bhagavatpāda); hence gauḍapāda-ji is the teacher’s teacher of ādi śaṅkara, sometimes referred to as one’s grand-master. It is these masters that formed and shaped the knowledge of advaita ( non-dual) vedānta
2. gauḍapādiyakārikā is also known as māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā (māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad-kārikā) done in 215 verses , 4 chapters of which is his commentary on the māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad.

yajvan
11 February 2017, 06:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Here is a question posited by śaṅkara-ji as an objection , that he will answer himself in due course. I found it most apropos for one that reads/studies the śāstra-s & āgama-s.

objection: how can scriptures (śāstra-s, āgama-s, etc), if it cannot make us understand the true nature of Self (ātman, Being, pure awareness) which is , in essence non-dual by nature, free our mind(s) from the idea of duality ?
reply: forthcoming.

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

yajvan
21 May 2017, 06:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Within the śrīmad bhāgavad gītā, kṛṣṇaḥ -jī says the following:
vedānāṃ sāmavedo’smi devānām asmi vāsavaḥ |
indriyāṇāṃ manaś cāsmi bhūtānām asmi cetanā ||10.22

this says,
Of the veda-s (vedānāṃ) I am (asmi) sāma-veda... ( I will leave the other sections for another time)

Now, why sāma-veda ? Would not one suspect ṛg (rig) veda?


इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

yajvan
22 May 2017, 07:09 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

his says,
Of the veda-s (vedānāṃ) I am (asmi) sāma-veda... ( I will leave the other sections for another time)
Now, why sāma-veda ? Would not one suspect ṛg (rig) veda?

Note that sāma-veda is ~ 95% ṛg veda verses ( sūkta1), yet are set to a specific chant. Most of these verses come from ṛg veda’s 8th and 9th mandala.
Sāma-veda produces sāman . Here’s 4 definitions:


sāman - metrical hymn; praise
sāman - possession , property , wealth , abundance
sāman - calming
sāman – rooted in √ so ( connected to sā) destroying sin


So, we have a metrical hymn (suggesting chandas or meter) ; in fact it is a flowing hymn (niḥṣyanda = flow), with the abundance of calm , that no less destroys sin.
Kṛṣṇaḥ -jī says, I am (asmi) sāma-veda, because it delivers one to this calmness , it destroys sin ( code for ignorance) and brings one to pure awareness, that is none other than Being, Self, or kṛṣṇaḥ himself.

Yet there is more and it centers around 'sā'. I will leave this for another time.

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

1. sūkta –; well recited ; speaking well

yajvan
24 June 2017, 05:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
From post 39 above,

If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?
Even śrī devī asks the same thing to śivaḥ ( this is found in the parātrīśikāvivaraṇa1 tantra)
etadguhyaṁ mahāguhyaṁ kathayasva mama prabho| 1½ (found between the 1st and 2nd śloka, so we name it 1½ )

This says,
tell me this greatest secret (mahāguhyaṁ) O lord ( or O my lord prabhu) who is my own Self (sva mama)
~ or ~
tell me (kathaya) O my lord (mama prabhu) this truth though largely unhidden (mahā aguhyaṁ) yet remains secret (guhyaṁ) |

Śrī devī is asking, this Self ( Being, pure awareness) which is essential to all yet remains a mystery, it is not evident. Why so? Tell me this O Lord, how can this be?

Abhinavagupa-ji2 says though it shines in everyone’s heart (code for awareness/consciousness) it is not intimately assimilated by the heart as existent. So, though present it is ~ as if ~ not present, just as grass and leaves are overlooked by one speedily moving in a coach from one place to another.

http://www.darcynorman.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/blur-4.jpg


इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ
1. parātrīśikāvivaraṇa -

parātrīśikā is also known as the trikasūtra-s; others call it anuttarasūtra.
still others call it the 30 verses of the Supreme, yet there’s 36 (oops).

So, what does this say? Abhihavnavagupta informs us it is ‘the supreme śrī devī of the three’. But what three? Parā, parāparā and aparā – the total, nothing resides outside these 3 (śiva, śakti, and nara).
This parātrīśikāvivaraṇa is considered part of the rudrayāmala tantra. It is considered ( too ) in 3 ways: parātrīśikāvivaraṇa , parātriṁśakavivaraṇa , and parātriṁśikāvivaraṇa of which we will not go into . Yet this book is considered the ‘index to the entire subject matter of (the) trika system’ – ref. page xiii of the this parātrīśikāvivaraṇa commentary by jaideva singh; hence my great interest in this śastra.

2. abhinavaguta-ji is addressed as mahāmaheśvarācharya śrīmad abhinavaguptanatha

yajvan
12 November 2017, 05:17 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


why does going inward even occur - i.e. why does transcending happen ?

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

markandeya 108 dasa
14 November 2017, 03:42 AM
Namaste,

I am sure that you have a trajectory of thought.

As of now I see the two main factors are dukkha as the cause of going inward and anugraha as the source of transcending.

yajvan
16 November 2017, 05:24 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


why does going inward even occur - i.e. why does transcending happen ?

From the tantralokā of abhinavagupa-ji1

vastu mātrātilālāsā | 203a.
(vastu mātra-ati-lālasā)


vastu - any really existing or abiding substance or essence , ; subject , subject-matter , contents
mātra - the full or simple measure of anything
ati – excessively (usually prefixed to nouns and adjectives)
lālasā - delighting or absorbed in , devoted or totally given up to

this essence is excessively fond/delighted of that essence or state | 203a

using svāmī lakṣman-jū ‘s words, he says ‘He is very fond of Himself only!’

What is being said is, one’s awareness is directed inwardly and it goes in that direction because He (śivaḥ) in the form of consciousness is fond of that state of his own Being/essence ( vastu); He enjoys Himself; He is self-sufficient and quite happy in and being bathed/immersed (niṣnātaḥ2) in Himself ( Being, pure awareness).

So, one goes inward with limited awareness into limitless awareness. Both are śivaḥ

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

1.abhinavaguta-ji is addressed as mahāmaheśvarācharya śrīmad abhinavaguptanatha
2. niṣnātaḥ = ni ( into) + snā (to soak in, to steep) or ṣṇā (bathing, immersed)

Kristine
16 April 2018, 01:27 AM
A small suggestion. If you can pick up a small text .... and together if we can study it carefully :fully analyzing , carefully questioning and deeply meditating on its teaching --- That can be a wonderful thing to do.

handy guy
14 December 2018, 06:09 AM
Our time is limited and so is our memory of all the scriptures and their interpretations and comparisons, anyone tired of being an expert and just wants peace?