PDA

View Full Version : How do you realise the Absolute ?



devotee
07 June 2008, 09:17 PM
Namaste,

How do you "realise" the Absolute, the Only Truth, the SELF ?

The question is & cannot be free from defects here & so will be the case of any "answer" coming forth. So, please don't worry about the lack of power of words to convey the exact thing that we want to say here otherwise no discussion would be possible.

It is said to be "the pathless Path". This is because if there is a path then I am not already at where I want to be. But there can't be a path which is separate from the Absolute otherwise Absolute will not remain Absolute & there would be duality.

If I am already there, then why do I see the "duality" all around me ? Even if I say, "OK. Everything is just ME & there is none except ME", does it really solve the problem ? If that is so, then why the person who hits me leaves me in pain when the person who hits doesn't feel it ? ( Ref : Atanu's question")

Some say, realise it by meditation. Some deny the efficacy of meditation alone. Some say that there is nothing to do except shedding the idea of being not-Absolute. Some say, by the grace of Guru/Teacher you may realise it effortlessly. Some say, we must have right action, right thinking etc. for attaining That. Some say that the essence lies in dropping all attachments.

What do you think ? Can we suggest a "step-by-step guide for realisation of the Absolute for dummies" ? :D

OM

yajvan
08 June 2008, 11:06 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste,

How do you "realise" the Absolute, the Only Truth, the SELF ?

What do you think ? Can we suggest a "step-by-step guide for realisation of the Absolute for dummies" ? :D



Namaste devotee,
Since you asked 'what do you think' let me respond in this manner. It has been my experience based upon my studies, teachings, & personal sādhana that one size does not fit all. For the native to move forward, it depends on the means, the upāya, to be applied, and this depends on where the sadhu is at in his/her development.

There are several methods defined on this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18299&postcount=2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18299&postcount=2) i.e. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya. From a grouping and categorization perspective this group approaches the subject nicely. Are there others? Sure.

Yet beyond these 3 there is the most desired 'approach' called anupāya - nothing need be done. The awakening comes about from anugraha or Divine Grace.

Another simple but profound point to consider is the SELF reveals itSELF to itSELF. Āchāra Śankara suggests that To him who makes an exclusive choice of the SELF, the SELF reveals its own body. Śrī Aurobindo offers that He chooses the SELF who is chosen by the SELF.

So what to do? IMHO and from my teachings, we need to prepare the soil for this to occur. I took a stab at discussing this resolve¹, kratu, on this post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2157&highlight=make+resolve (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2157&highlight=make+resolve) - perhaps one can extract some value from it.

Those are some of my views. I am sure others have a valued POV they may wish to offer.

pranams

1. kratu क्रतु - plan , design , intention , resolution , determination , purpose

yajvan
09 June 2008, 02:37 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Those are some of my views. I am sure others have a valued POV they may wish to offer.



Namaste,

Would one think no matter what approach for realizing Śivabhaṭṭāraka that the management and/or elimination of oscillating or random thoughts (vikapha) will be needed?

pranams



vikapha विकल्प - variation , combination , variety , diversity , manifoldness ;false notion
Śivabhaṭṭāraka -Śiva, the great Lord , venerable or worshipful; the one that nourishes (bhaṭ)

devotee
09 June 2008, 08:48 PM
Namaste yajvanji,


There are several methods defined on this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18299&postcount=2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18299&postcount=2) i.e. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇvopāya. From a grouping and categorization perspective this group approaches the subject nicely.

Thank you very much for the response. Shall we deliberate on every upaya in detail ? Let's see what are these Upayas (courtsey : Kashmir Shaivism) :

1. Sambhavopaya --->
Sambhavopaya is that path of which the Sadhaka must rid himself of the recitation of Mantras - of Sadhana based on breathing; meditation on particular deities; concentrating on some spiritual thought; and so on. He has only to develop his awareness of "I" - consciousness, and that, too, not in any particular place. By the constant awareness of this "I"- consciousness, individual "I" - consciousness quickly vanishes as it is united with His subjective energy and becomes Jivan-Mukta (released in life).
This path is meant for those seekers who reside at the highest level of ability.

2. Saktopaya -->

Saktopaya is the means in which the aspirant or seeker has to develop concentration upon God-consciousness by means of some particular spiritual thought bestowed by the Master. Here the Sadhaka has to concentrate on that particular thought of God-consciousness without the support of Pranayama; Mantra, and so on. He must develop God consciousness simply and only by meditating upon this thought. He has nothing to do with these discarded methods. That single thought of God consciousness will alone carry him to the Supreme State of Transcendental Being. Saktopaya is meant for those who have neither the highest nor the lowest power of meditating energy.

3. Anvopaya -->

Anavopaya is that means in which a Sadhaka who is endowed with an inferior capacity of mind and meditation must develop God-consciousness by resorting to meditation on the two breaths - inhalation and exhalation; to the practice of Pranayama; the recitation of Mantras. In this third inferior path a Sadhaka has, of course, to develop God-consciousness, but, as he is not gifted with higher meditating capacity, he has to seek the support of these inferior methods (Pranayama, etc.) so that finally he may be carried to God-consciousness.

( For details, please follow the link http://www.kashmirshaivism.org/ma95_kashmir_shaivism.html)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let's take each one of them one-by-one. First of all, the Sambhavopaya :

Sambhavopaya ==> No Deity, No Mantra, No meditation, No concentrating on any religious thoughts etc. !

So, what are we supposed to do here devoid of all those "instruments' ? Developing "Sambhava" ( Sam= same, Bhav=thought/bhavana/understanding) in everything & in all places (including the thinker or the witness) with "I"-Conciousness. Let's have this "bhavana" ( understanding/thought) --- "I" alone exist in all & at all time.

Am I right upto this point ?

It looks so easy. So, why has it been recommended only for the highest "Sadhaks" ? What are the hurdles & how to remove them ?

Regards

OM

MahaHrada
10 June 2008, 05:04 AM
N

It looks so easy. So, why has it been recommended only for the highest "Sadhaks" ? What are the hurdles & how to remove them ?



Namaste devotee

All these distinctions (into upayas) apply only to shisyas of a Kaula or Trika Guru who have received diksha and upadesha and mantra. The information about upayas cannot be generalised and applied to everybody, all the information is specific and applies only to tantric sadhana and such a sadhana must always involve a connection to a guru shisya parampara, before one starts with this sort of sadhana.

To approach this path on ones own, only with book knowledge, is dangerous. Even with the direction of a Guru it is not easy and without a Guru the danger is unlimited.

The same applies to the Kaula or Trika shastras, without tantric diksha and Guru they cannot be properly understood or correctly applied.

The Guru will decide what upaya will be used according to qualification of the shisya, if one has not met a Guru this means one has either no Qualification, or is not yet qualified for entering any of these paths, except for the exceedingly rare circumstance that somebody receives diksha from Shiva or Devi himself or herself, but even then meeting with a Guru will usually occur later to solidify the experience.

Thats why also the term highest sadhakas is applied to mean the highest amongst those that have already been received into a Trika Kaula Krama, or whatever tantric Guru-Shisya parampara, not highest amongst everybody.

Some Gurus nowadays teach parts of tantra shastras like vijnana bhairava or shiva sutras , out of context of tantra sadhana, and without any qualification, we need to apply some caution here when listening to discourses or reading books.

MahaHrada

yajvan
10 June 2008, 11:42 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste devotee,


What MahaHrada offers is relevant and good council. I ask for his continued contribution on this subject. Mahahrada repeats the same words I offered on several occasions i.e.
The information about upayas cannot be generalised and applied to everybody


My words were
It has been my experience based upon my studies, teachings, & personal sādhana that one size does not fit all.


My views on this matter evolve over time as I find the classifications of the upāya-s very helpful for discussion. Perhaps I am a bit myopic on this matter as I have been fortunate to receive initiation into several methods or dhāranā-s (meditations) over the years with the accompanying training i.e. I think I am beyond 'tinkering' :) .


As I have mentioned, there are multiple paths one can travel on, the ones I suggested allows one to talk about the methods without co-mingling several schools of thought and causing confusion.


I think we still can have fruitful conversations on this subject; We can talk of principles that are at the core of the dhāranā-s without harm.


If you care to look at the following posts, there are a few dhāranā-s mentioned there.


HDF Posts with regard to Vijñāna Bhairava - http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2323
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2342


ॐनमःिशवाय


pranams

Znanna
10 June 2008, 07:40 PM
I pray.


YMMV :)


Namaste,
ZN

devotee
10 June 2008, 08:08 PM
Namaste Maha,


To approach this path on ones own, only with book knowledge, is dangerous. Even with the direction of a Guru it is not easy and without a Guru the danger is unlimited.


My experience & POV doesn't agree with the above, if by "Guru" we mean only an enlightened human being in flesh & blood. Guru is necessary but the true Guru is within us & always available.

What is dangerous & what is not ? ==> There are some meditation techniques (towards awakening of kundalini by meditating on different chakras) which should be done only under guidance of an experienced teacher. Why ? Because the arising of Kundalini is difficult to control & can be physically & psychologically harmful if a Guru is not immediately available.

However, awakening of Kundalini is not necessary for realising the Absolute. There are many harmless meditation techniques like "watching the thoughts" / "watching the breath" etc. (basically for calming the thought-waves) which used with the techniques of vichara like "Thinking of what doesn't think" / "Who am I ?" give good results. This is my experience.

IMHO, thinking that everything is dangerous & wait for a Guru in flesh & blood is just wastage of this invaluable life-time which must be used to realise who we really are. Let's identify the Guru inside & surrender to him ready to embrace anything that comes on the way.

People can have different views on this issue. So, I leave it here. My idea of starting this thread was for exchange of experiences, views & for discussion which can help people who are stuck at some level on the road of self-realisation.

Regards

OM

devotee
10 June 2008, 08:21 PM
Namaste yajvanji,

I have gone through the posts you have provided links of. I have some doubts over the understanding of "Sambhavopaya".

You say that it is by the grace of Guru whereas my interpretation was as I have mentioned in my previous post. Why should the grace of Guru preserved only for the highest Sadhaks ? Why should Guru's grace need any qualification at all ? Let's see the description of this Upaya :

"He has only to develop his awareness of "I" - consciousness, and that, too, not in any particular place. By the constant awareness of this "I"- consciousness, individual "I" - consciousness quickly vanishes as it is united with His subjective energy and becomes Jivan-Mukta (released in life)."

The effort is required on Sadhak's side & is not granted free ( by grace), as I see it. And it looks logical because developing "sambhav" is not an easy proposition. It can be done only at the highest level.

Actually, all the three upayas are not different. They are essentially the same. The final aim is to develop "sambhav" which leads to the realisation of the Ultimate. Now, if it is not possible for the Sadhak to take this route directly the other instruments can be used & they are indicated as two other upayas.

I will like to have your opinion here.

Regards

OM

yajvan
10 June 2008, 11:07 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvanji,

I have gone through the posts you have provided links of. I have some doubts over the understanding of "Sambhavopaya".

You say that it is by the grace of Guru whereas my interpretation was as I have mentioned in my previous post. Why should the grace of Guru preserved only for the highest Sadhaks ? Why should Guru's grace need any qualification at all ? Let's see the description of this Upaya :



Namaste devotee,

We can consider the 3: sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya. The one above these 3 is anupāya - where nothing need be done.

Now before we go deeper and wider we need to be mindful that different sadhu's have different apparatus (for lack of a better word) that is operating. That is, certain dhāranā-s (meditations) may fit one sadhu better then another due to their advancement.

It is most highly desirable to be in this condition for anupāya-s application. I want to mention this as this position nothing need be done because the accumulation of ones practice (in this life or many pasts lives) brings the sadhu to a ripe status in this life, where no further upāya-s ( means) are needed. A most desirable state. In MHO this does not occur be happenstance.

For the others i.e. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya, various techniques upāya-s, are brought for their use and development and unfoldment, lakṣayet lakṣyam uttaman, for the Supreme to be realized.
So for each method I almost agree with the definitions provided, yet there are finer details that need to be discussed to bring out the hidden values.


Sāmbhavopāya is (for) the one who preserves thoughtlessness. The one that maintains this continuity and by the grace of the master¹, one enters into that transcendental state. This continuity is also called icchopāya by Svami Laksmanjoo because it originates in icchā śakti. Svamiji says the means (upāya) is meant - you must only reside in meant. It is up to sadhu to come to this state of 'meant' or continuity of thoughtlessness.

How does this happen? practice. This is why there are different dhāranā-s for different points in ones development. what does the wise suggest for this practice? Withdraw, then withdraw from the withdrawal. This cultures transcendental consciousness. This can be developed with various dhāranā-s.

This is also the wisdom given to Sri Devi in Vijñāna Bhairava. The upāya-s, to a wise-eye sees them grouped for different sādhaka's. And pending ones development ( this has been my experience) the upāya-s work for the level of consciousness of the sādhaka. It's a natural quality control system.

As mentioned by MahaHrada several posts ago, the upāya-s are not generalized for every one. IMHO trying one with no results one may achieve little results (or maybe a headache).
Just like with siddhi's - we know all of the siddhi-s, yet they are totally dormant to the inept person without the proper level of consciousness - this apparatus I mentioned. This apparatus is consciousness that is developed.

So pending ones level of progress, of pure awareness that is available, so comes the results. Entry level is āṇavopāya, next is śāktopaya then sāmbhavopāya. We can review what-goes-with-what i.e. uccāra ( breathing), karaṇa, dhyāna and the like for each. Its not a free-for-all bouncing from one to another.

More as we proceed; lets stop here for now ( long posts are not attractive to the mind). Let those that wish to contribute add to the conversation. I do not consider myself the final authority on this matter.


pranams
1. Master here can be the grace of the guru, or of the Divine. Yet in each case, guru or Divine, it is Divine. It is sāyuja or union with the Divine this is to occur. to this we say Jai guru dev and know that it is hailing the Divine in the Guru and the Guru in the Divine.

atanu
11 June 2008, 02:25 AM
I pray.
YMMV :)
Namaste,
ZN

Namaste All,

Great. I feel aligned with the above with my whole heart.

61. The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing all beings, by His illusive power, to revolve as if mounted on a machine!
62. Fly unto Him for refuge with all thy being, O Arjuna! By His Grace thou shalt obtain supreme peace and the eternal abode.
63. Thus has wisdom more secret than secrecy itself been declared unto thee by Me; having reflected over it fully, then act thou as thou wishest.
64. Hear thou again My supreme word, most secret of all; because thou art dearly beloved of Me, I will tell thee what is good.
65. Fix thy mind on Me, be devoted to Me, sacrifice to Me, bow down to Me. Thou shalt come even to Me; truly do I promise unto thee, (for) thou art dear to Me.
66. Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.

--------------------

A devotee can only endeavor to be stithipragnya -- to abide in the Pragnya (Sarvesvara), which is the revealed consciousness in the form of full awareness of I of the Self or God. Beyond that nothing is in the the power of Jiva. God's grace takes care of the rest. There are only two final ways: a) Hand over all burdens to Lord, or b) Know who you are?

Ramana Maharshi
--------------------

Though I agree with Mahahrada, in general, yet I wonder who was the Guru of the primeval purusha who came to know and declared "I am cipivishta". This is the song of Vasista for Vishnu, in Rig Veda.

Om

atanu
11 June 2008, 03:01 AM
Namaste,

How do you "realise" the Absolute, the Only Truth, the SELF ?


Namaste Devotee,

Thank you for bringing here the excellent auspicious questions.




If I am already there, then why do I see the "duality" all around me ? Even if I say, "OK. Everything is just ME & there is none except ME", does it really solve the problem ? If that is so, then why the person who hits me leaves me in pain when the person who hits doesn't feel it ? ( Ref : Atanu's question")
OM

Regarding all questions, Guru Ramana answers "FIND OUT WHO IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS?"

This particular question of pain being limited to this body and not to other bodies that I see around me, has bothered me for some time. I understand that the sense of touch (sparsha) concentrated as a function of skin, delineates the limit of ME within the boundary of the external skin.

I have wondered what the food will taste if one had no taste buds? Similarly what would be the limit of a person who had no sense of touch? The corollary that I draw is that THE SENSE OF TOUCH IS THE ULTIMATE SENSE WHICH NEEDS TRANSCENDING. Yoga Vasista has a nice knowledge on this. It says 'The basis of the sense of touch is pure consciousness'.

Regards

Om

MahaHrada
11 June 2008, 03:12 AM
Though I agree with Mahahrada, in general, yet I wonder who was the Guru of the primeval purusha who came to know and declared "I am cipivishta". This is the song of Vasista for Vishnu.

Om

Namaste Atanu,
The above posting of mine is concernend with the tantric path, in this case the trika Krama Kula or Kaula dharma also called kashmir shaivism nowadays, in most of the tantric path shiva adinatha in diverse guises is the primal guru, who has brought these teachings to us, in these teachings guru is of paramount importance.
Distinctions such as shambhavopaya etc make no sense without shaktipath. (mind to mind transmission of the energy and knowledge of the parampara)
Maybe other teaching like Taoism, or neo advaita, do not require a Guru the tantric most certainly does, and there simply are no two opinions on this matter it is clearly stated in all the tantra shastras and it is upheld in all Sampradayas that to proceed without a guru is not possible or even dangerous.
Maybe because there are a few translations available people think "kashmir shaivism" is not a part of tantric Kaula Dharma but it is.
MahaHrada

MahaHrada
11 June 2008, 03:34 AM
Namaste Maha,



My experience & POV doesn't agree with the above, if by "Guru" we mean only an enlightened human being in flesh & blood. Guru is necessary but the true Guru is within us & always available.


OM

Namaste devotee
All path differ.
Please read my posting again it is only concerned with the fact that the excerpts from text of kashmir shaivism cannot be applied outside the tantric tradition because then they make no sense, they where written as manuals for the tantric path. Here the guru must not necessarily be enlightened, he must be only able to transmit the energy of the sampradaya.

MahaHrada

atanu
11 June 2008, 05:36 AM
Namaste Atanu,
The above posting of mine is concernend with the tantric path, in this case the trika Krama Kula or Kaula dharma also called kashmir shaivism nowadays, in most of the tantric path shiva adinatha in diverse guises is the primal guru, who has brought these teachings to us, in these teachings guru is of paramount importance.


Namaste Mahahrada,

Yes, I agree. Paths are different but Guru is essential in all paths. Also, Shiva, the Self within is the Guru, in whatever form. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya are specific and will require a specific Guru. No doubt. Yet, the physical Guru will also teach "Know the Self" and will give a helping push to the mind to look within the mind.

Om

atanu
11 June 2008, 08:08 AM
Namaste All,

A devotee can only endeavor to be stithipragnya -- to abide in the Pragnya (Sarvesvara), which is the revealed consciousness in the form of full awareness of I of the Self or God. Beyond that nothing is in the the power of Jiva. God's grace takes care of the rest. There are only two final ways: a) Hand over all burdens to Lord, or b) Know who you are?

Ramana Maharshi
Om

One may cling and be carried (to wherever) like in case of a baby monkey or one may be carried (without a care) like in case of a kitten carried by its mom.

Om

MahaHrada
11 June 2008, 08:52 AM
Namaste Mahahrada,

Yes, I agree. Paths are different but Guru is essential in all paths. Also, Shiva, the Self within is the Guru, in whatever form. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya are specific and will require a specific Guru. No doubt. Yet, the physical Guru will also teach "Know the Self" and will give a helping push to the mind to look within the mind.

Om

Namaste Atanu,

That is all i wanted to say, that these upayas are only valid for one special unconventional darshana or sadhana.
If you follow bhakti or if you follow advaita vedanta, or any vedanta path if one is a samkhya yogi or a hatha yogi he needs no concept like the upayas this is also true of most other darshanas which are not based on shaktipath.
When asked "How do you realise the Absolute" the answer "by following the upayas" is not the complete information unless one mentions that being part of a specific sampradaya is a prerequisite for that.

Almost the only way to become part of such a tradition is by diksha and diksha requires a physical guru. Very simple this is rather a technical matter, nothing philosophical implied. Not even that everybody needs a Guru or some such idea. Just a statement like: if you always walk by foot no need you buy a railway ticket.
And it is really a very dangerous path, and teachers are rare, why recommend it, to those who are meant for it, it will appear by itself.

MahaHrada

hthakar
11 June 2008, 11:36 AM
This is one loaded question. Realizing the "SELF" is akin to waking up. So the question really is "How do you wake up?". When we dream, Not one of us knows that we are dreaming. It is so real for us. Then we wake up and we have realized the "self" or we come to know that the dream was not real. In a similar fashion we have to wake up from this dream that "I am this Human body" to "I am the Soul" and then to "There is no I, It is all Brahman".

When we are dreaming, it is called "Swapnavastha" ( Swapna :- Dream, Vastha :- State ) . When we are awake, it is called "Jagrutavastha" ( Jagruth :- Awake ). We notice this transition almost every morning. This is the perfect example of what is means to become aware of the self. We have to graduate from this awake state to "Dnyaanavastha" ( Dyaan or Gyaan :- Knowledge ) where we become knowledgeable about our True Self.

As many people there are in the world, those many paths exist to reach the self realized state. But there are a few commonly practiced paths. Sustained efforts to reach the self realized state is called "Saadhana"
1.) Bhaktiyoga :- Pure devotion to God.
2.) Dhyaanyog :- Meditation
3.) Hathayoga :- Through exercises, pranayama, yoga etc.
4.) Dnyaanyoga :- The path of Knowledge.
5.) Karmayoga :- Path of performing duties without attachment to result.

But the best path is "Gurukrupayoga". I think a new thread can be started on this kind of yoga. It is the fastest path as the Guru himself takes your hand and guides you along the path. Something like, he shakes you till you are awake.

I have discussed this question more conceptually rather than going deeper into each yoga. Each point above is an endless discussion in itself.

Gratitude,
Harsh

yajvan
11 June 2008, 12:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste Devotee (et al.)

I see others are offering their POV on this ..the readings have been rewarding.
Lets continue the conversation. Why am I so interested in the groupings mentioned ie. sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya or the 3 upāya-s Beause they align with the Śiva sūtras¹.

The upāya-s we are discussing align with the Śiva sūtra knowledge. This is by design. We will also see this alignment within the Vijñāna Bhairava kārikā-s. This work (Vijñāna Bhairava) is of great import, as Abhinavagupta¹ has termed it Śiva-vijñāna Upaniṣad.

According to Ksemaraja, the commentator of the Śiva sūtra Vimarśinī¹, from which Svami Lakshmanjoo¹ takes his work, these 3 parts are sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya reflected in the 3 sections or niḥṣyanda-s.. That is...

According to Kṣemarāja, the main śiṣya of Abjinavagupata, the great kaśmir śaivism saint of the 10 century, the 3 sections of the Śiva sūtra-s align accordingly - to unfold/inform/guide individual consciousness to Unity/Universal Consciousness.

Well that is not so interesting ( or is it? ). The 3 upāya-s align by sections; the highest level comes first,sāmbhavopāya, followed by 2nd and 3rd levels śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya. Yet these approaches is to assist/guide the aspirant to go from limited or bound consciousness to unbounded consciousness, some call God or Unity Consciousness.


There is no doubt that a guru, or muni established in That, as a guide and jñātṛtva (being the knower) is a blessing in itself. Yet what to do in the interim? Prepare.


This has been at the core of all my posts. this is why we discusss this knowledge. Many suggest in good council a word of caution regarding ones practices in upāya-s , dhāranā-s and the like. The is fine, yet one needs to make hay while the sun shines. One needs to prepare. With this preparation we begin to set up the conditions for success. My teacher has always said what one puts their attention on grows stronger in their life. For me, and perhaps other sādhaka-s what more nobler attention given then that of sāyujya, the union with the Divine and its discussion?

According to Abjinavagupata-jī, he suggests the aspirant, depending his/her ability, should always try for the highest first. How can this highest 1st be comprehended or considered if one is not knowledgeable of it?

This is why I bring-up the Śiva sūtras in this conversation. If one wants to know more about sāmbhavopāya, śāktopaya, and āṇavopāya and is not just window shopping, then the sūtras are a must read, well let me say, a 'must study' work. This will compliment the conversation at hand. To have a fruitful conversation on the upāya-s mentioned, the Śiva sūtras will assist greatly.

pranams

Words and References

HDF post on Śiva sūtras http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2078&page=1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2078&page=1)
The Author of the Śiva sūtras is Vasugupta. The HDF post above reviews how these sūtras come to Vasugupta.
sāyujya सायुज्य intimate union , communion with Śivabhaṭṭāraka- the great Lord , venerable or worshipful
Svāmī Laksmanjoo's lineage (FYI)
Svāmī Lakmanjoo's guru was svāmī Mahatābakak and his was svāmī Rām… the lineage is traced back to Durvāsā ṛiṣi.
It is said durvāsā ṛiṣi received knowledge of bhairava tantra from śrikaṇṭhanathā (Śiiva) Himself. Accordingly Durvāsā ṛiṣi was instructed by śrikaṇṭhanathā to expand the thought of bhairava tantra in all the universe with no restriction to varna or jāti, male or female.
The first to receive his diksha (dIkSA) was Tryambakanātha… What is of special note this sisya (śiṣya) was mind born. He also created two more mind born son and a mind born daughter for the upliftment of thre family of man. Her name was Ardhatryambakā.
Why did Durvāsā ṛiṣi pursue this venue? He was a brahhmacārī and therefore ūrdhvaretah or one preserving ones sexual energy and no displacement of sukra.
From father to mind-born-son and daughter, some of the children also created mind born śiṣyas. It's said that 15 siddhas were created in this manner. It was this 15th siddha that was unsuccessful in creating mind born śiṣyas. For this he searched for a female with all sattvic qualities to produce his children and śiṣyas. Up to this point it was always fatther-to-son initiation.Yet starting with somānandanātha muni the dIkSA began from Master to disciple. It is from this lineage that Abhinavagupta came to be initiated into this great knowledge of kaśmir śaivism.The readings of kaśmir śaivism for me have been quite rewarding. I am blessed to have the opportnity to read and study this vidyā.

devotee
11 June 2008, 07:59 PM
Namaste,


Regarding all questions, Guru Ramana answers "FIND OUT WHO IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS?"

Thank you Atanu. Guru Ramana Maharishi puts lot of emphasis on holding on to this vichara : "Find out who is asking the question ?" which in fact is the basic question "Who am I ?", presented in another form. Holding on to this vichara finally breaks the heart-knot or "chit-jada granthi" or what we may simply it the "fall of ego" or "death of the Bhandasur". I will quote here his words on Grace, Guru & the SELF :

"Grace is within you. If it is external, it is useless. Grace is the Self. It is not something to be aquired from others. All that is necessary is to know its existence in you. You are never out of operation. Grace is ever there. It is not manifest because of ignorance prevailing. With "sraddha" devotion), it will manifest. Sraddha, Grace, Light, Spirit are all synonymous with the Self."


what would be the limit of a person who had no sense of touch? The corollary that I draw is that THE SENSE OF TOUCH IS THE ULTIMATE SENSE WHICH NEEDS TRANSCENDING. Yoga Vasista has a nice knowledge on this. It says 'The basis of the sense of touch is pure consciousness'.

That is an excellent vichara. Scientifically, YOU REALLY DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING ! It is space coming into viscinity of space --- the great mind converts it into sense of touch !

Kashmir Shaivism, Siva Sutras & the Upayas :

There are valuable inputs from yajvanji & Mahahrada on these. IMHO, if it is so dangerous, as Mahahrada says then there is no point discussing it here. However, till now, what I have been able to understand is that these Upayas are more or less similar to Raj-yoga. However, I have still doubts that if Sambhavopaya is gained through Nirvikalpa Samadhi then why in the begining it states that "One must leave meditation" ?

IMO, there is nothing wrong & there is no fear in knowing what a particular path is all about. Can we have further elaboration on this, "Sambhavopaya" ?

Actually, some enlightened beings don't consider meditation, samadhi, awakening of Kundalini etc. necessary for realisation of the SELF. It is basically to get rid of the "vAsanAs" (impressions due to past Karmas) which keep us tied to the false idea of "i"-thought.

Regards

OM

yajvan
11 June 2008, 09:02 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Kashmir Shaivism, Siva Sutras & the Upayas :

There are valuable inputs from yajvanji & Mahahrada on these. IMHO, if it is so dangerous, as Mahahrada says then there is no point discussing it here. However, till now, what I have been able to understand is that these Upayas are more or less similar to Raj-yoga. However, I have still doubts that if Sambhavopaya is gained through Nirvikalpa Samadhi then why in the begining it states that "One must leave meditation" ?


Namaste devotee,
a reasonable question... The notion of leaving meditation, it's no longer is a vehicle. Let me explain a bit. In meditation there can be ajapa or mental repetition within the mind or japa ( by voice and heared externally). This is the vehicle. So lets look at āṇavopāya upāya and the vehicles.

One can use the breath or uccāra. Let stay simple before we build up and get too much information, okay. In Vijñāna Bhairava,
the 24th kārikā, Sri Bhairava starts with the 1st upāya of breath. It is the vehicle. Because it uses a vehicle it is classified as āṇavopāya.

For the 3 upāya-s there are different means. As we go to śāktopaya then to sāmbhavopāya the methods change. So before we go to sāmbhavopāya & śāktopaya lets be comfortable with āṇavopāya okay?
Using āṇavopāya here are the vehicles:

uccāra - breath
karaṇa - our organs of sensation
dhyāna - meditation ~ contemplation
sthāna prakalpanā - concentration on a particular place.In Vijñāna Bhairava, these methods are offered in a simple manner, without much gymnastics needed. Simple IMHO has been the most profond and safe methods I have found. If breathing is not safe we are all in big trouble :) . This is the profund wisdom of śiva.


Now, lets do at least 1 śāktopaya kārikā, so you can compare and contrast. Kārikā 25, Bhairava suggests to Sri Devī , by focusing one's awareness on the two voids ( these are found at the end of breath called out in kārikā 24) the form of Bhairava is revealed through Bhairavī. This is perfect śāktopaya. How so?
By uninterrrupted awareness (that is, bhairavī) , only awareness is the means. Note there is no mantra, no japa or ajapa, just awareness. This makes it the candidate for śāktopaya.


Lets stop there ... but do you see the difference? We need to go slow, one-by-one and really understand with a firm foundation, otherwise we will be trying to boil the ocean and not get anywhere ( comfortably).


pranams

devotee
12 June 2008, 12:25 AM
Namaste yajvanji,


The notion of leaving meditation, it's no longer is a vehicle. Let me explain a bit. In meditation there can be ajapa or mental repetition within the mind or japa ( by voice and heared externally). This is the vehicle. So lets look at āṇavopāya upāya and the vehicles.

I think it is clear. Here, the Sadhak has reached at such a stage that he no longer needs the vehicle or the vehicle cannot take him any further & the rest of the journey can proceed only with grace. Am I right ?


Using āṇavopāya here are the vehicles:

uccāra - breath
karaṇa - our organs of sensation
dhyāna - meditation ~ contemplation
sthāna prakalpanā - concentration on a particular place.That is ok except one clarification ... what is the role of the "karanas" or say, how they are used as vehicle ?


Now, lets do at least 1 śāktopaya kārikā, so you can compare and contrast. Kārikā 25, Bhairava suggests to Sri Devī , by focusing one's awareness on the two voids ( these are found and the end of breath called out in kārikā 24) the form of Bhairava is revealed through Bhairavī. This is perfect śāktopaya. How so?
By uninterrrupted awareness (that is, bhairavī) , only awareness is the means. Note there is no mantra, no japa or ajapa, just awareness. This makes it the candidate for śāktopaya.

I think there is a spelling mistake, if I correctly understand ---> "these are found and the end of breath" ===> shouldn't it be "these are found at the end of breath" ?

What you haver wriiten makes perfect sense & yes, the difference too is clear. It tallies with my understanding perfectly well. So, the continued uninterrupted awareness without any other vehicle leads us to realisation here. Is it ok ?

Thanks for a beautiful explanation. If you think it proper then we may move ahead further.

Regards

OM

atanu
12 June 2008, 02:28 AM
Namaste Atanu,
That is all i wanted to say, that these upayas are only valid for one special unconventional darshana or sadhana.
MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,

I agree. IMO, the upayas are names of processes, targeted for a specific audience at specific time. (But the underlying principles can be understood in common way. The basic principles should still be within the ambits of ashtanga yoga and jnana). It is said that the teachings are not effective if not obtained from a Guru. I think that there is an element of ego cleansing involved in bowing down at the feet of a Guru that is most essential.

The goal is the Self, which though always most evident is yet not accessible through words or mind. But we try. hehe. One moment of mental silence is said to be more valuable than a ton of upayas. Finally, IMO, it is me who has to attain the certitude and experience that 'I am (OM)' is unpartitioned pure knowledge. Endeavors to theoretically teach this to so-called others may be retro. The unpartitioned Self is desire less and must be attained as such. IMO, sāmbhavopāya is in essence this only. The fearless sadhakas can persevere support less bot not immature sadhakas like me.

So the following is the common prescription:


Attention to movement of prana, to stabilise mind.
Attention to the cessation of the movement of prana to grasp the samana
Grasping the intelligence resident in the samanaThese are truly parts of ashtanga yoga/jnana told in different way.

Om

MahaHrada
12 June 2008, 05:50 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

The unpartitioned Self is desire less and must be attained as such. IMO, sāmbhavopāya is in essence this only. The fearless sadhakas can persevere support less bot not immature sadhakas like me.

So the following is the common prescription:


Attention to movement of prana, to stabilise mind.
Attention to the cessation of the movement of prana to grasp the samana
Grasping the intelligence resident in the samanaThese are truly parts of ashtanga yoga/jnana told in different way.

Om


Namaste Atanu,
That is entirely correct, of course the reason is, that trika is not unrelated to Yoga. We should be considering that these three points are just a tiny part of trika darshana and even there trika goes beyond Yoga, they promise much more than mind stabilisation and equality, and that for the reason of their concentration on the idea of guru shisya parampara and their diksha practice which they hope can cut through all obstacles, bondages and karma and also amplify the effect of common practices and beyond that allow a lot of uncommon practices.(which are partly condemmend by other shastras) which practices are said to grant both mukti and bhukti.(through enjoyment of the sense objects)
For the average person the promises in Vijnana Bhairava will not hold true and the upayas will not apply.

I will discuss why i think this is so now at length:

The distinction into upayas is part of the trika and krama schools of tantra, most certainly this tradition as a whole goes way beyond ashtanga/jnana yoga. Its practice also contain the transgressive elements which are a well known part of the tantric tradition.

The dharanas that are described in Vijnanabhairava do not constitute the central most important part of the sadhana and darshana of trika or krama kaula.
As in other tantric sampradayas the central part is the realisation of the unity of the self with the deity and the Guru. The main devata around which the diverse tradition center are different, in the case of krama it is kalasamkarshini Devi also known as Kali. In the case of trika it is Parashakti.

Even before diksha is granted the Guru will already look for certain signs to ascertain if the aspirant is able to profit from this association with these devatas and the tradition.
This will include bodily symptoms that occur when the spiritual force of the devi moves into the subtle body of the shisya and makes him behave in a strange way.
If the devi is not interested to move subtle energy into that person no symptoms will occur. If no symptoms occur the person will be dropped.

During diksha the guru will perform kriyas which differ depending on the shisya and the diksha, that if successful performend,will lead to other stronger symptoms of the descent of anugraha shakti, if these do not occur the shisya will be taught only simple tasks.

This descent of power is classified into stages of intensity, in very intense variety the person will either drop dead immediately or die a little later, because it is said all his prarabdha karma is exhausted at once, so he will die as a fully accomplished one.
My parama guru claimed that this has happened to several shisyas of his guru pagal baba of Ranchi, but maybe this is a fairy tale, he used to tell a lot of fairy tales.

With lesser intensity people may be established in the self immediately or if they cannot stay awake in that state, drop down unconcious, lesser symptoms of the descent of anugraha shakti are shaking of limbs, dizzyness muscular contraction and others.

Main thing here for the sake of our discussion is that the shisya has already experienced a massive or less massive descent of anugraha shakti and has already been established in a higher state if not the authentic self at least once, before he applies the dharanas

The effects of the diksha and of the descent of shakti may slowly wear off so that the disciple has to be reestablished again from time to time, or the expereince has to be deepenend if the descent was of mediocre or small intensity.

That is what the dharanas are good for they help reestablishing the disciple in the iniitial experience of the self. If one keeps this in mind the different degrees of upayas make more sense, when the disciple has been fully established by the first descent of shakti he needs no methods at all, not even meditation, and so on for the remaining other upayas they differ according to the force of descent of the devata expereienced during diksha.

Without the initial experience of the unity of the jiva with the devata or authentic self or the Guru the result of practicing these dharanas might not be satisfying or they show no result at all.

Practicing the higher upayas that need no activity or very little (because the iniitial shaktipath or descent of grace of the devata was very strong) make no sense at all for those that lack exactly this initial experience of the authentic self, simply because if one has never made that experience one cannot be reminded or reestablished by just a hint or an easy method.

Through the diksha the disciple ideally establishes a link with the teacher so that everything the teacher experiences may reflect into the mind of the disciples since both are experiencing one unitary conciousness.

If the dharana is not sufficent and does not cause the instant rememberance of the iniitial descent of grace during diksha, the Guru may practise the dharana himself and reflect his experience once into the shisyas mind. Later the disciple can remember his gurus experience, which has become his own mind, simply by assuming the same posture, because it has once been anchored in memory so he can reaccess the successive stages of the dharana, more easily, even without the presence of the Guru.

If one has already been established in the self by such a descent of anugraha devi, and prepared by the changes in the subtle body effected by the Guru during diksha, simple acts like watching the endpoints of breath can cause instant establishment in the authentic self. In the average person without diksha this will not happen.

In the normal person without diksha, without Guru and without doing archana and japa of the trika devatas this Pranayama will usually only cause a peaceful state of mind.

I do not want to discourage anyone but if the dharanas do not work as promised, and the theoretical principles described in their shastras makes no sense, don´t blame the trika or Kaula darshana it is because of a lack of the basic requirements.

My recommendation would be to look for general answers, like the one devotee had, about realising the absolute, in more easily available darshanas and do puja and japa to saumyam devatas, practice bhakti and do nama smarana and other well known meditations.

If krura agam devatas like Kalabhairava, Svacchanda Bhairava, Aghoresvari, Kulesvari, Kali, or Kalasamkarshini are part of your path things will work their way upto that, to start with practice at that level without a Guru is not what i would recommend. Of course academic intellectual knowledge and discusion about these darshanas is fine but maybe not very useful for our day to day spiritual life especially without a guide.

MahaHrada

atanu
12 June 2008, 08:31 AM
Namaste Atanu,
The distinction into upayas is part of the trika and krama schools of tantra, most certainly this tradition as a whole goes way beyond ashtanga/jnana yoga.

Namaste MahaHrada,

Thank you for giving your time to elaborate. I am not sure of what goes beyond what, because I do not have any experience. I am sure that the Self is not two and it is the goal, since the the highest of the highest cannot be devoid of a Self.

Regards,
Om

MahaHrada
12 June 2008, 09:13 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Thank you for giving your time to elaborate. I am not sure of what goes beyond what, because I do not have any experience. I am sure that the Self is not two and it is the goal, since the the highest of the highest cannot be devoid of a Self.

Regards,
Om
Namaste Atanu

Its not all about the self realisation it is also about what people do to reach it or do after having claimend to have reached it. Trika is very unconventional and thats what i meant when i say it goes way beyond, beyond what: beyond the boundaries of that which is ordainend and recommended in the Yoga shastras or by vedanta and advaita, and in my opinion also since it recommeds enjoyment of sense impressions for the Jnani after he has reached the state of self recognition, it goes beyond the approach of being solely established in the self with restrainment of sense pleasures, i tried unsucessfully to point that out in the discussion on the Gita slokas. Some would even classify trika as avaidic.

It also goes beyond in the sense of entering a complete different terrain of practise, which is neither contained in nor even sanctioned by Yoga or Vedanta. It is not too much different from Aghor panth or Kapalika it is some kind of a householder variation of those teachings, here also skulls and alcohol, ingestion of normally forbidden or unclean substances, stri puja etc. are used.

Please take a look at this discussion it centers around an evaluation and comparison of advaita, trika-spanda and buddhist approaches.
Buddha, Shankara & Abhinava? Is there a logic to the evolution of Indian Philosophy?

documented at::

http://www.svabhinava.org/EsotericPhilosophy/Dialogues/EvolutionIndianPhilo/HinduBuddhist.htm


MahaHrada

Excerpt from this discussion:
You asked, “to what are we referring when we refer to a ‘text’?” We are referring to a remedy. A remedy given at a certain place and time to a certain patient, a certain people. You also asked, “And, further, what sort of violence do we visit upon the history of the intellect when we favor certain ‘texts’ over others?” It is the violence of a doctor who finds that an old remedy no longer works and a new remedy must be applied. One prefers certain texts to others in order to change a prescription. And, at such times, one is not completely honest in what is said of the old remedy. Is it just for the physician of a culture to lie to the insane?

yajvan
12 June 2008, 12:29 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvanji,

I think it is clear. Here, the Sadhak has reached at such a stage that he no longer needs the vehicle or the vehicle cannot take him any further & the rest of the journey can proceed only with grace. Am I right ?

That is ok except one clarification ... what is the role of the "karanas" or say, how they are used as vehicle ?

I think there is a spelling mistake, if I correctly understand ---> "these are found and the end of breath" ===> shouldn't it be "these are found at the end of breath" ?

What you have written makes perfect sense & yes, the difference too is clear. It tallies with my understanding perfectly well. So, the continued uninterrupted awareness without any other vehicle leads us to realisation here. Is it ok ?

Thanks for a beautiful explanation. If you think it proper then we may move ahead further.


Namaste devotee,
Lets pursue a bit further, but first some house cleaning.
1. "these are found at the end of breath" - is correct and was a spelling error. I fixed the original post so others do not trip over this.
2. Here, the Sadhak has reached at such a stage that he no longer needs the vehicle or the vehicle cannot take him any further.
Yes, this is directionally correct, but there is a caveat. The vehicle may be no longer needed for the upāya being practiced. Feel confident this is correct understanding for this point and time, okay?
3. regarding karaṇa-s. We will discuss them in a bit. lets finish the foundation to build the house on, and we will look more into this and others.

The next layer
The last post gave a brief comparison of āṇavopāya & śāktopaya. We will revisit these again to go a bit deeper and wider, but it's time to add sāmbhavopāya as an example. With this example I ask to once more compare & contrast this to the two other upāya-s āṇavopāya & śāktopaya.

If we now go to Vijñāna Bhairava's 26th kārikā, Śrī Bhairava gives Śrī Devī another śloka. Before we review the śloka note the following:

the 24th kārikā was āṇavopāya
the 25th kārikā was śāktopaya
the 26th kārikā will be ?=>sāmbhavopāyaThis triad is most logical; The wisdom of Śrī Bhairava's insight is demonstrated. Each upāya prepares the sādhaka for the next upāya. Now how brilliant is that? Now the 'guidance' comes to stay within the grouping. Do not jump helter-skelter from one to another.
Śrī Bhairava says in kārikā 148 - If anyone is established in any of the upāya-s ( there are 112 of them) described here ( in the Vijñāna Bhairava) what he/she experiences is fulfilled day-by-day until his/her spiritual satisfaction reaches its utmost fullness (or pūrṇata).

Another śloka compliments this too , kārikā 140; I will not review it, but offer for those that wish to look up some of these verses. One only need to dedicate themselves to one of these methods i.e. atra ekatama yuktishte. The grace (anugraha) of Śiva's offer is found in the notion of what ever state the sādhaka is found in at the time of practicing dhyāna - there is a upāya that will compliment his practice to lead to pūrṇata, fullness.
That is why I have mentioned before in the post above, if one is window-shopping, the curiosity-seeker ( I am not inferring devotee you are of this persuasion) then it is best to not begin this method. Having a guru to guide one on this path is most certainly a boon.


Now, lets take a look at the 26th kārikā :
The energy of breath should neither move out nor enter; when the center (madhya) unfolds by the dissolution of thoughts then one attains the nature of Bhairava.

This is sāmbhavopāya - there is no mantra, there's no objectivity in consciousness, it requires no support. There is nirvikalpatāya madhye as the śloka reads.
This is a much more suble process then āṇavopāya & śāktopaya. There is a ton of ideas and supporting information we can discuss about this, but would not be considered general information , and other readers on HDF would perhaps find it too detailed.

Yet the point to be made is this triad āṇavopāya, śāktopaya & sāmbhavopāya and the brilliance of Śrī Bhairava's method of instruction.

Now with kārikā 27, Śrī Bhairava continues to use the breath as the theme, and talks of kumbhaka¹, using the energy of breath (prāṇa śakti) once more as the subject. When using kumbhaka it is āṇavopāya, as the vehicle used; yet when you reach the balanced state that accompanies the successful practice of this method it manifests to śāktopaya. I bring this up only to show there is this method of transformation where a upāya may transform without any intervention from the sādhu.

I also want to agree with MahaHrada that

(it goes) beyond the boundaries of that which is ordained and recommended in the Yoga shastras or by vedanta and advaita
The 'it' here is Trika. We have not compared or contrasted it to Vedanta, yet MahaHrada offers a site one can visit to compare to other schools and methods ( thank you). Much can be said here.

Yet from this trika system, from kaśmir Śaivism it is meant for any human being without restriction of caste, creed or color. How could it be as we are all extensions of Śivabhaṭṭāraka - why would he limit Himself to only a few?

Last , my teacher has always informed that on the path , it is composed of knowledge and experience. Both compliment and support each other. Vijñāna Bhairava is much about experience.
Śiva sūtras is much about knowledge. Yet there are many other āgamas for the sādhu to consider to help develop one's understanding and experience e.g. Spanda kārikās, Pratyabhijñāhrdayam (Self re-recognition), Parā-trīśikā-vivaraṇa (also known as thirty-seven verses of the Supreme or Parātriṃśikā), to name a few that are worthy of one's study.

This is without mentioning Abhinavagupta's praise for Mālini-vijaya tantra ( some call this Pūrva śastra, or the 1st doctrine). This is on my reading list, but has not been offered in english, nor has Netra tantra.
Why do I mention this? My studies are not complete and I do not consider myself a final authority on this matter. I also heed the instruction of my teacher daily, knowledge + experience. One without the other leaves the sādhaka less then complete.

this whole universe has come into existence just to carry you to God Consciousness. It is not meant to push you down. This universe is meant for your upliftment.'...Swami Laksmanjoo


pranams

1.kumbaka HDF Post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2323&highlight=kumbaka

MahaHrada
12 June 2008, 05:11 PM
This is without mentioning Abhinavagupta's praise for Mālini-vijaya tantra ( some call this Pūrva śastra, or the 1st doctrine). This is on my reading list, but has not been offered in english, nor has Netra tantra.
[/URL]

Namaste Yajvan,
I have to apologize and i hope posting the following links is within the hdf forum rules since self promotion is not allowed and these links are from the website of my teacher who has translated 2 chapters of the netra tantra and published an introduction and also an abstract of the Malinivijayottara Tantra on his website. But since these links are in the context of, and contribute to the current discussion and the website is private, non commercial, and no organization is behind it, i guess it is within the spirit of the rules.

Here are the related links

http://www.shivashakti.com/malini.htm (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2323&highlight=kumbaka)

Abstract of Malinivijayottara Tantra

[url]http://www.shivashakti.com/netra.htm

Translation of chapter 1 of netra tantra

http://www.shivashakti.com/bhairava.htm

Translation of chapter 10 of netra tantra

http://www.shivashakti.com/vijnan.htm

His summary of Vijnanabhairavatantra with commentary

http://www.shivashakti.com/sutras.htm

A translation and some notes on shiva sutras in the light of srividya.

Hope this helps

MahaHrada

yajvan
12 June 2008, 05:24 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste MahaHrada,

Thank you for the reference sites... greatly appreciated.

pranams

atanu
12 June 2008, 11:57 PM
Namaste Atanu

Its not all about the self realisation it is also about what people do to reach it or do after having claimend to have reached it. Trika is very unconventional and thats what i meant when i say it goes way beyond, beyond what: beyond the boundaries of that which is ordainend and recommended in the Yoga shastras or by vedanta and advaita, and in my opinion also since it recommeds enjoyment of sense impressions for the Jnani after he has reached the state of self recognition, it goes beyond the approach of being solely established in the self with restrainment of sense pleasures, i tried unsucessfully to point that out in the discussion on the Gita slokas. Some would even classify trika as avaidic.
--
Please take a look at this discussion it centers around an evaluation and comparison of advaita, trika-spanda and buddhist approaches.
Buddha, Shankara & Abhinava? Is there a logic to the evolution of Indian Philosophy?
documented at::
http://www.svabhinava.org/EsotericPhilosophy/Dialogues/EvolutionIndianPhilo/HinduBuddhist.htm

MahaHrada

Excerpt from this discussion:
You asked, “to what are we referring when we refer to a ‘text’?” We are referring to a remedy. A remedy given at a certain place and time to a certain patient, a certain people. -

Namaste MahaHrada,

Thank you for your inputs.

Regarding the excerpt in italics above: A remedy specific for a time is not sanatana, which IS.

I cannot pile opinion upon opinion. But there has been a few posts where we saw that there may be very little difference in vishista advaita and the form of philosophy that you are placing higher than advaita. You may wish to refer to those posts. We can create a separate post to discuss since this post is: How do you realise the Absolute ?


Its not all about the self realisation it is also about what people do to reach it or do after having claimend to have reached it. For this post, I wish to say only that Self Realised Being is ONE EKO but not the doer. The powers of EKO do.

Om

MahaHrada
13 June 2008, 04:26 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Thank you for your inputs.

Regarding the excerpt in italics above: A remedy specific for a time is not sanatana, which IS.

I cannot pile opinion upon opinion. But there has been a few posts where we saw that there may be very little difference in vishista advaita and the form of philosophy that you are placing higher than advaita. You may wish to refer to those posts. We can create a separate post to discuss since this post is: How do you realise the Absolute ?

For this post, I wish to say only that Self Realised Being is ONE EKO but not the doer. The powers of EKO do.

Om

Namaste Atanu,

I have the impression i was unsucessful in trying to fully express my ideas in these posting.

I did not want to compare any darshanas and i do not think any one darshana is higher than the other.
This opinion is i guess contrary to yours, as far as i know you think advaita is higer than all other darshanas.
I have equal respect and admiration for all. I only try to outline differences and similarities to enhance my understanding of all darshanas and their relationship (sambandha).
That was also my reason why i presented a link to the comparison of Advaita Bauddha Dharma and Trika.
The quote was meant to encourage us to find a new way of relating to the Vijnanabhairava and the methods outlined and also to encourage dialogue.
Not all of the trika dharma is shruti or apurusheya or sanatana, so we can discuss these parts and adapt them to fit other circumstances, adapting to new circumstances does not violate the sanatana principle, it must only be done properly.
To do that properly i thought it might be of advantage to look at the past where these teachings where solely practiced under the guidance of the Guru.
Here it helps to realise that also at that time there existed a dialogue and adaptions happened between different darshanas.
I think therefore the link to Vishuvalingams website was on topic.
MahaHrada

atanu
13 June 2008, 06:10 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I have the impression i was unsucessful in trying to fully express my ideas in these posting.

I did not want to compare any darshanas and i do not think any one darshana is higher than the other.
This opinion is i guess contrary to yours, as far as i know you think advaita is higer than all other darshanas.
I have equal respect and admiration for all. I only try to outline differences and similarities to enhance my understanding of all darshanas and their relationship (sambandha).
-
Not all of the trika dharma is shruti or apurusheya or sanatana, so we can discuss these parts and adapt them to fit other circumstances, adapting to new circumstances does not violate the sanatana principle, it must only be done properly.
To do that properly i thought it might be of advantage to look at the past where these teachings where solely practiced under the guidance of the Guru.
-
MahaHrada

Namaste MahHrada,

I agree to your above post, especially that specific teachings pertain to specific lineages and specific teacher. Similar to you, I also have equal respect for all darshanas, which I feel are useful at different consciousness levels. That is why I had highlighted a specific part from Viveka Chudamani, which you had posted (pertaining to relation of objects to a Self abiding muni).

I personally feel aligned to the Yoga Vashista teaching that whatever is true in one's consciousness is true, since consciousness is true. Some people say that this is advaitic and some say that it is Vishishtadvaita. A person who cannot see beyond the fleshy body as the self can hardly be benefited by advaitic teachings. Similarly, an advaitin who is certain that atman is spirit, advaita and untouched by works, will not be benefited by VA teachings that karma is without beginning and souls comprise parts of Brahman. I agree fully that it is Guru who aligns the sadhaka to the most efficient path.

Regards

Om

yajvan
13 June 2008, 10:20 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


I cannot pile opinion upon opinion. But there has been a few posts where we saw that there may be very little difference in vishista advaita and the form of philosophy that you are placing higher than advaita. You may wish to refer to those posts. We can create a separate post to discuss since this post is: How do you realise the Absolute ?
Om

Namaste atanu,
I hope it is okay to add to your conversation with MahaHrada. It is my opinion that the paths may be different (in this posting perhaps slight differences as you allude to) yet it is the end result - khecarī samatā , the identification with the Supreme, anuttara, or the principle Reality this is of great value, don't you think?

The end state of advaya and that found in trika, I see no difference. Yet it has been my experience that from a trika POV , this is thought about only, this unfoldment of sahāja (union) with the Divine. This way or path is so delightful to consider. Are there other ways? Sure there are.

As I get older more and more of my vision is attracted to sameness, to underlying unity. It is this restoration (re-cogntion) of diversity into unity once again that is the charactistic of moksha - sarvaṃ sarvātmakam - everything is related to everything else. This principle is found in the Parātrīśika Vivaraṇa tantra, yet how can one view this and not think of the Upaniśad-s and All this is indeed Brahman?

For me, I do not try and cancel out other paths, but to understand them and apprecaite them (I am not hinting or suggesting anyone in this conversation over the last several days is trying to do this); I look to see the methods and intent - if the approach is to qualify or disqualify candidates, to see if the path is vikalpa (~ dual) or nirvikalpa ( non-dual) or a combination of both. Some may wish to call this aparā, parā, parāparā.

Your conversation on this matter with MahaHrada has been worthy of reading. Thank you.

pranams,

atanu
13 June 2008, 02:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste atanu,

The end state of advaya and that found in trika, I see no difference. Yet it has been my experience that from a trika POV , this is thought about only, this unfoldment of sahāja (union) with the Divine. This way or path is so delightful to consider.

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Yes, I also see no difference in sahaja state (as taught by Ramana Maharshi) and the advaita experience. Yet, one must consider the fact that a sage like Ramana Maharshi did not (could not) grant diksha to anyone, since for him there was no second. There are other such cases and especially of Lord Dakshinamurti himself.

But then herein, Trika has been differentiated on the basis of a statement such as: "---- it recommeds enjoyment of sense impressions for the Jnani after he has reached the state of self recognition, it goes beyond the approach of being solely established in the self with restrainment of sense pleasures,---".

So, it was necessary to obtain a few clarifications. As I understand, a desire for personal-individual sense gratification is a barrier to identity with Turiya, which is surely advaita. Second, whether a jnani, on attaining the identity with Turiya, retains any individuality so as to enjoy sense gratifications in individual capacity?

As you know, the term 'union with the divine' is understood differently by different darshanas and then in as many different ways as there are jivas. As per advaita (which as per my POV is most acceptable to me as most logical, fitting to the jig-saw puzzle of whole mass of shruti) true realisation is possible in absolute union with advaita Turiya and the process must efface one's individual identity completely. YMMV.

Om

MahaHrada
13 June 2008, 05:47 PM
Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Yes, I also see no difference in sahaja state (as taught by Ramana Maharshi) and the advaita experience. Yet, one must consider the fact that a sage like Ramana Maharshi did not (could not) grant diksha to anyone, since for him there was no second. There are other such cases and especially of Lord Dakshinamurti himself.


Namste Atanu Namaste Yajvan
The only reason why diksha can be granted at all is because there is no second, if the three Guru and disciple and devata are not merged how could diksha have any effect? That is a central idea of tantra shastra that guru devata and shisya are one.
Shiva Dakshinamurti granted highest diksha he is the adi guru in which all of sri vidya lineages merge.



But then herein, Trika has been differentiated on the basis of a statement such as: "---- it recommeds enjoyment of sense impressions for the Jnani after he has reached the state of self recognition, it goes beyond the approach of being solely established in the self with restrainment of sense pleasures,---".

So, it was necessary to obtain a few clarifications. As I understand, a desire for personal-individual sense gratification is a barrier to identity with Turiya, which is surely advaita. Second, whether a jnani, on attaining the identity with Turiya, retains any individuality so as to enjoy sense gratifications in individual capacity?

Om

According to the opinion of the Trika Gurus the state of, what i have called, for lack of a better word "conventional samadhi" (in the thread about the Gita slokas) the moksha which can be achieved by advaita vedanta and other darshanas like the bauddha dharma or samkhya yoga etc. is situated just on the brink to and below what is called the state of Jnanasiddhas, which is only the first in a row of siddha states, connected with the so called Mudras (body, mind speech postures) which i already mentioned in the Gita thread.

The person in the state of the "conventional moksha" or "conventional samadhi" is called by trika gurus the apavedypralayakala or savedyapralayakala which are states considered by trika as intermediate states that have to be traversed to reach the first siddha state of mind the one that is causing the Karankinimudra, which is called death posture, an immobility, partly because it is not yet, or hardly alive to the full consciousness promised by trika.

Why is it dead or immobile ? Because the sense desires are cut off in the moment they arise. This cutting off or disattchment to sense impressions reminds one of the recommendations one can find in viveka chudamani for instance:

329. Therefore one should give up reflecting on the sense-objects, which is the root of all mischief. He who is completely aloof even while living, is alone aloof after the dissolution of the body.
334. The dwelling on external objects will only intensify its fruits, viz. furthering evil propensities, which grow worse and worse. Knowing this through discrimination, one should avoid external objects and constantly apply oneself to meditation on the Atman.
335. When the external world is shut out, the mind is cheerful, and cheerfulness of the mind brings on the vision of the Paramatman.

This is not the recommended path in the siddha states following Karankini, here sense enjoyment begins and its role becomes more pronounced in later stages.

Also in many dharanas in the Vijnanabhairava sense impressions are considered to be able to trigger the highest state, that is a view contrary to other more conventional darshanas.

Khechari is the highest of the states of trika but cannot be compared at all to the highest state of other darshanas these are situated in the 2 varieties of pralayakala according to Trika teachings.

Everybody who tries to understand trika should realise that trika masters do not accept that the state of a jivanmukti according to advaita vedanta or a Buddha according to bauddha dharma etc. is comparable to the state of the siddhas.

That is why i insisted in my postings already that to be able to form an opinion on trika or kaula darshana it is more important to look what happens after "conventional samadhi or moksha" is reached, because at that point major differences begin.
MahaHrada

list of mudras and Siddhas in ascending order one can see Khechari is topmost" conventional samadhi" would be before the siddha states appears

average Person

Pralayakala (" conventional samadhi")

then the siddha conciousness

Karankini the state of the Jnana siddhas internal samadhi experience
Krodhani the state of the Mantrasiddhas external world experience
Bhairavi the state of the Melapa siddhas experiencing both states (of external and internal samadhi)
Lelihani the state of the Shaktasiddhas dissolving the combinend state of external and internal samadhi
Khechari the state of the Shambhavasiddhas unifying the last two states of experience and dissolution.

devotee
13 June 2008, 08:27 PM
Namaste,

The discussion has led to throwing sufficient light on Trika, Kaula & various Upayas available on this particular path. Thanks to yajvan ji & MahaHrada for taking time to explain all that. Going any further on the actual procedure can be helpful & meaningful only when someone takes this path under the guidance of a Guru who is well versed on this path. Regarding yajvanji's use of the terms, "window shopping" / "curiousity seeker" --- I don't mind myself being labelled as such. However, I firmly believe that it is better to know than choose to stay ignorant. In fact, when I was doing my study of Christianity & was discussing the same with one of my friends, he strongly felt that I was a troubled soul & wanted conversion ! :D

What I am unable to understand as perhaps Atanu has similar question in mind that :

a) This path claims to take to Non-duality & yet is full of dualistic practices & there is an aim for both "Mukti" (liberation) & "Bhukti" (enjoyment of sense objects). If there is a desire left for "bhukti", where can be "Mukti" ? "Who" will enjoy "what" ?

b) Any phenomena of entering the "bhairavi" which is external to a sadhak through Guru's grace or otherwise can only be a mental projection as I see it from my Non-dualistic POV.

c) Any idea of " do after having claimed to have reached it" (Ref: MahaHrda's post), makes it Non-advaitic.

All these questions are perhaps due to my conditioned way of thinking in Non-dualistic way !

Thanks every one, for this wonderful discussion so far. :)

Regards

OM

yajvan
13 June 2008, 10:53 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste devotee, MahaHrada, atanu (et al).
There is so much here in the last several posts that one email will not be sufficient to address the subject. In fact, IMHO this would be a perfect topic for a seminar. The using of a drawing board, etc etc would be ideal.


There are stages one passes though along the way to this anuttara (Ultimate). We can experience samādhi with eyes closed first. Then when this becomes stable in our live's we can experience this with eyes opened. We have talked about this early-on in this post and in others.

This when eyes are opened is turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya) and this brings brahmi chetana with time.
Yet as I have mentioned the nose continues to work , the eyes the ears, they still perform their duties ( while eyes are opened). One still uses the senses - this is fine. Yet there is no binding influence that comes from this, this is the difference when turiyatit chetana is sustained.
No vāsanā-s ( impressions) are born. There is no blemish for experiencing life. We know that the guna-s act within themselves, yes? The only issue ( before turiyatit chetana ) is each activity binds or captures the SELF and does not allow it to stand free, independent. One must ask who is the real enjoyer (bhoga) of activity? Who are the senses serving then?


As I have been taught, on the way to this total fullness of Brahman, of Śiva Consciousness, the first stage is parāparā or-nondual-dual is equal to turiyatit chetana. That is, one experiences perfect silence of the SELF (parā) inside and lives it 7x24x365. Yet on the outside there is activity out there (āparā). The knowledge offered from my teacher is the understanding that this is part of the scenery along the way, to total Unity.


As time goes on, this dual-non-dual unfolds into total Unity (other things are done to bring this along). Everything then is seen in terms of the SELF, as Śiva , there is no thing that He is not - we are then at anuttara ( Supreme, nothing higher).

Everything is experienced as an extension of one's SELF, there is delight found in every bit of creation. My teacher said that one experiences silence even on the level of the senses. Said another way it is the undivided unity of 'I' (Aham) and 'this' ; this is the sameness samatā we have reviewed in several posts.

Yet the question comes before this total sameness occurs; what to excperience in awareness, in actions in every part of ones Being? It is making sense of the whole level of knowlede in trika - parā, parāparā & āpara , or Śiva, Śakti and nara ( the person) in a simple way that does not overwhlem ones understanding. This I believe is the question to be answered.

It is my studies and teaching that that this unfoldment comes in stages to the sadhu to experience and to stablize. This is His grace (anugraha) that it does not fall like a ton of bricks on the individual. Now does this perhaps happen to a sadhu that total Unity is experieced in a flash and a whole new vision of life is then revealed and experienced without stages? I do not know. I go by what my teacher has told me and my practice, that it is 'throttled' from one level to another. For some reason this intuitively seems right - preparing the soil for growing and harvest as an example.

This is why āṇavopāya, śāktopaya & sāmbhavopāya is so attractive ( to me) as it allows the conversation based upon a particular stage to be discussed. It matches a technique to an experience to knowledge.


Perhaps we can talk more of this total subject...


pranams

atanu
14 June 2008, 01:50 AM
Namaste MahaHrada, Yajvan, Devotee,

Diksha is symbolic. Actually nothing discernible ever happens in true diksha, which is pure silence only. That is the highest state. And such Diksha is not volitional at all. There is in fact no need. There is no one ignorant and no one seeking Mukti, when Brahman alone is the sole truth. The statements that a Self Relaised muni plans to impart diksha to so and so by such and such method is in the realm of phenomena.

As per Vedanta, Turya is exceeded by nothing. Advaita Turya Self is Brahman. There is no separate Brahmi consciousness apart from Turya, which itself is Brahman and also the past, the present, the future, all that has been and all that will be. These misconceptions, which are repeated often are results of mixing thoughts of two different schools of 'Vishishta Advaita Trika' and 'Advaita'. Turya is merely a state among three others when it is known as a mere state. But when Turya atma is experienced as the sole truth, it is Turiyatita.



According to the opinion of the Trika Gurus the state of, what i have called, for lack of a better word "conventional samadhi" (in the thread about the Gita slokas) the moksha which can be achieved by advaita vedanta and other darshanas like the bauddha dharma or samkhya yoga etc. is situated just on the brink to and below what is called the state of Jnanasiddhas, which is only the first in a row of siddha states, connected with the so called Mudras (body, mind speech postures) which i already mentioned in the Gita thread.

This is not much different from how Dvaita, ISCKON, or Christian proponents argue. That is why I wished not to pile opinion upon opinion. The point is that Samadhi -- conventional or unconventional, does not happen with dualistic desire. Even shushupti does not take place when desire is there.

Most of us know that there are two paths and Vedanta consistently prescribes the path of the sun.

Svet. Upanishad

8
The wise man should hold his body steady, with the three upper parts erect, turn his senses, with the help of the mind, toward the heart and by means of the raft of Brahman cross the fearful torrents of the world.
9
The yogi of well regulated endeavours should control the pranas; when they are quieted he should breathe out through the nostrils. Then let him undistractedly restrain his mind, as a charioteer restrains his vicious horses.

The following warning is echoed by Ramana Maharshi several times.
6
If sacrifices are performed without first propitiating the Sun, then the mind becomes attached to sacrifices in which fire is kindled by the rubbing of the pieces of fire—wood, the oblations are offered to the deity Vayu and the soma juice is drunk excessively.
-----------------------------

The main teaching "Then let him undistractedly restrain his mind, as a charioteer restrains his vicious horses", from the Svet. Upanishad is the preferred path, IMO. There is no use of piling up opinion on opinion. One may follow shruti or one may follow one's guru.

I hope Yajvan Ji appreciates the differences. Dvaitins argue against Advaita saying that it leads to a dumb state. And Trika also seems to do so. They are wrong as per my understanding. Advaita, following Shruti and Vedanta, prescribes restraint. But it does not mean that Shankara was in a dumb state. Those who aver so are in ignorance. Sharpness of Shankara is not exceeded by anyone. I also hope that Yajvan Ji may realise that open eye samadhi is a very trivial thing, since for a sage in Samadhi there is no eyes and ears but only Brahman.

Om

MahaHrada
14 June 2008, 05:23 AM
Namaste,

The discussion has led to throwing sufficient light on Trika, Kaula & various Upayas available on this particular path. Thanks to yajvan ji & MahaHrada for taking time to explain all that. Going any further on the actual procedure can be helpful & meaningful only when someone takes this path under the guidance of a Guru who is well versed on this path. Regarding yajvanji's use of the terms, "window shopping" / "curiousity seeker" --- I don't mind myself being labelled as such. However, I firmly believe that it is better to know than choose to stay ignorant. In fact, when I was doing my study of Christianity & was discussing the same with one of my friends, he strongly felt that I was a troubled soul & wanted conversion ! :D

What I am unable to understand as perhaps Atanu has similar question in mind that :

a) This path claims to take to Non-duality & yet is full of dualistic practices & there is an aim for both "Mukti" (liberation) & "Bhukti" (enjoyment of sense objects). If there is a desire left for "bhukti", where can be "Mukti" ? "Who" will enjoy "what" ?

b) Any phenomena of entering the "bhairavi" which is external to a sadhak through Guru's grace or otherwise can only be a mental projection as I see it from my Non-dualistic POV.

c) Any idea of " do after having claimed to have reached it" (Ref: MahaHrda's post), makes it Non-advaitic.

All these questions are perhaps due to my conditioned way of thinking in Non-dualistic way !

Thanks every one, for this wonderful discussion so far. :)

Regards

OM

Namaste devotee,

Actually the cause for the difference is that advaita vedanta is of the opinion that the world is unreal, and by concentrating on the real and therefore by restraining the things that cause the enforcement and rising of the unreal, (which includes sense impressions) moksha is reached, while Kaula and also Trika which is a part of Kaula Dharma is of the opinion that the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it.
The problem that keeps us in pain, in other words our illusion , our Maya is just that we do not realise this unity of the world and brahman. Therefore it is only logical for Kaulas to use all kind of sense experiences to realise exactly this unity. Extreme kaulas like the aghoris try to show their mastery of the Realisation of that identity byeating part of corpses, here the corpse itself is also only brahman and bliss, its outer appeareance is only conventional and Maya, since the aghor has realised the unity of brahman or shiva with prakriti (shakti), he does not see the corpse meat but only brahman bliss.
If he feels disgust it is a sign that he has not overcome Maya the wrong concept. I am of course talking here not about the ghostlike Maya of neo advaita vedanta but the maya of Kaula which is only a wrong concept the concept that the world or anything in it is different from shiva and bliss.

Very important point for understanding the several darshanas is that there exist these two different definitions of Maya in Tantra and Vedanta.

Samkhya is also different it is called dualistic but similar to advaita vedanta it assumes that one has to shut oneself off from contact with prakriti to realise Kaivalya. here only prakriti is thought of as real or substantial.

In Kaula it is shakti who offers the substance of sense experience to the jiva that is shiva as a mirror to make self experience possible, because as the mother she fullfills his desires for creation, if every particluar thing in the world is a manifestation of shakti (or brahman) and as real as brahman, enyojment is the manifest form of brahman and samadhi the unmanifest. Kaulas enjoy both aspects of the divine-you go with the natural flow and create the world out of your own consciousenss and return it back over and over again. This is the pulsing movement the heartbeat of spanda, symbolised by the two points of the visarga.

There are some drawbacks in all darshanas the drawback in modern neo advaita vedanta is that you have to differentiate between the unreal Maya, and the unwanted Dualism, the "evil" that has to be abondend to reach moksha, and where you have to cut yourself off from, by repressing the sense impulses and the "good" brahman atman or advaitam, that only appeares if you have repressed and cut yourself off from all natural human impulses, this is in my opinion a form of practical applied dualism while theoretícal, philosophically remaining nondual.

The shankara sampradaya is well aware of this danger and possible misapplication of advaita vedanta and therefore they recommend the same course of sadhana as i do namely nama smarana bhakti, japa, archana etc. A lot of the great acharyas of shankara sampradaya have been and still are sri vidya upasakas.

People nowadays don´t look for sampradayika teachings they imagine things according to their own fancy and call that Advaita vedanta or Trika, this is very sad.

There is another drawback in modern neo advaita vedanta, that is it recommends atma vichara for everybody, which is the cause that there are constant thought processes going on, about what brahman is besides also quarrels with other darshanas, mainly about that advaita is the highest philosophy and so on, and constant concerns about what non dualism is and what dualism is, while true advaitam is a state that can only be experienced.

By talking and thinking about it and constantly producing complicated mind constructs on how this brahman/moksha should be and how it is reached, they risk that they would not even recognize it should it by chance ever happen to them because of the huge mass of vikalpas they have already developed by their philosophy, and by constantly thinking of moksha as something separete from their own state and separete from a ghostly maya, and therefore they are giving a definition to it and thereby already aborting its inception as an actual experience .

Thought constructs, bereft of practical experience, such as these offered by neo advaita vedanta methods of enquiry, would fit the Kaula definition of Maya, very few can profit from self enquiry most will only develop huge bloated egos.

Besides i think you are correct that there has been enough discussion of Trika already and i have the feeling that i have achieved what i wanted which was to help define the position Trika assumes in contrast with the different other darshanas, which only allows one to decide about ones own choice of involvement or non involvement.
MahaHrada

MahaHrada
14 June 2008, 06:46 AM
Namaste MahaHrada, Yajvan, Devotee,

Diksha is symbolic. Actually nothing discernible ever happens in true diksha, which is pure silence only. That is the highest state. And such Diksha is not volitional at all. There is in fact no need. There is no one ignorant and no one seeking Mukti, when Brahman alone is the sole truth. The statements that a Self Relaised muni plans to impart diksha to so and so by such and such method is in the realm of phenomena.

Namaste Yajvan, Devotee,Atanu
That is highest diksha, actually every diksha is highest diksha, because the Guru and shisya is always shiva, didn´t i write this? The graduations occur because of the limitation of the shisya. Kaula diksha is never volitional, this path is not advertised, and you cannot book dikshas. Of course there is no one ignorant, how could diksha happen at all when there is ignorance involved? Diksha means removal of ignorance.



As per Vedanta, Turya is exceeded by nothing. Advaita Turya Self is Brahman. There is no separate Brahmi consciousness apart from Turya, which itself is Brahman and also the past, the present, the future, all that has been and all that will be. These misconceptions, which are repeated often are results of mixing thoughts of two different schools of 'Vishishta Advaita Trika' and 'Advaita'. Turya is merely a state among three others when it is known as a mere state. But when Turya atma is experienced as the sole truth, it is Turiyatita.
This is not much different from how Dvaita, ISCKON, or Christian proponents argue. That is why I wished not to pile opinion upon opinion. The point is that Samadhi -- conventional or unconventional, does not happen with dualistic desire. Even shushupti does not take place when desire is there.


In tantra the world is real and the digit of desire the Kamakala is the embodiment of the highest truth, the core secret forever pulsing in the Heart of the Yogini, this Kamakala, continously creating and dissolving existence is identical to the Aham.



This is not much different from how Dvaita, ISCKON, or Christian proponents argue. That is why I wished not to pile opinion upon opinion.

This scale of experiences is quoted from swami Lakshman Joo. Where is this different from the way advaita-vedanta argues against dvaita and other darshanas?
But contrary to some others, that only have ego problems, he has a valid reason to argue like that, because the other darshanas are based on another basic premise, and thus reach differnt states of mind, no one can expect that he writes that his ideas are inferior, no one does that.
I think the equation "state of pralaya = "conventional moksha" (i apologize again for the awkward word) is justified, since conventional moksha is supposed to sort of "erase" indivdual existence, which is exactly what pralaya means.

This subject is extensively treated by Swami lakshman joo in the chapter "moksha in Kashmir shaivaism" published in his book Kashmir Shaivism the secret supreme, where he equates the states other darshanas conceive as moksha, with the pralaya mind.



Most of us know that there are two paths and Vedanta consistently prescribes the path of the sun.

Svet. Upanishad

8
The wise man should hold his body steady, with the three upper parts erect, turn his senses, with the help of the mind, toward the heart and by means of the raft of Brahman cross the fearful torrents of the world.
9
The yogi of well regulated endeavours should control the pranas; when they are quieted he should breathe out through the nostrils. Then let him undistractedly restrain his mind, as a charioteer restrains his vicious horses.

The following warning is echoed by Ramana Maharshi several times.
6
If sacrifices are performed without first propitiating the Sun, then the mind becomes attached to sacrifices in which fire is kindled by the rubbing of the pieces of fire—wood, the oblations are offered to the deity Vayu and the soma juice is drunk excessively.


Equating trika or kaula darshana with the evil smoky path that has to be avoided at all cost? :(

Are you shure that is what you wanted to express when you started writing this posting? Remember there is an edit button...

When it is actually that which you wanted to express than i have to ask you if this is not a bit of an exageration and could even be considered by some ignoramuses a little impolite towards, or disrespectful of, other paths?

Poor Swami Lakshman joo is suddenly conveyed to the status of some kind of asuric person who is preaching a path Ramana Maharishi always warned against.

Warning according to atanu this person
is preaching a dark path

http://www.koausa.org/Saints/LakshmanJoo/Lakshman1.jpg
Swami lakshman joo


What i said over and over again I think is sufficent, which is to remark that this path is not for everybody and should best be undertaken with expert guidance.

Because manuals formerly available only to shisyas are printed openly people think they can venture into difficcult terrain on their own and study subjects which are hard to understand without the blessing of a Guru, that is the problem, not some evil dark asuric threat, that will try to come from behind and cut off your balls, while you are not watching.
This problem exists also with other darshanas notably advaita vedanta which should best be studied under the guidance of acharyas from shankara sampradaya.

MahaHrada

yajvan
14 June 2008, 11:44 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~




As per Vedanta, Turya is exceeded by nothing. Advaita Turya Self is Brahman. There is no separate Brahmi consciousness apart from Turya, which itself is Brahman and also the past, the present, the future, all that has been and all that will be. These misconceptions, which are repeated often are results of mixing thoughts of two different schools of 'Vishishta Advaita Trika' and 'Advaita'. Turya is merely a state among three others when it is known as a mere state. But when Turya atma is experienced as the sole truth, it is Turiyatita.


Namaste atanu,
what you offer above is the truth...Turiyatita, once established is done, firm, Brahman. There is no confusion on this matter in my mind ( perhaps others have different POV's).

Turya ( some like to write turīya) a 'state' or the 4th is an underying foundation for the other 3 of wake, dream and sleep. I think we agree on this as we have reviewed this many times on many posts.

Yet, perhaps, were we may have a different POV is once Turīyatīt is a living reality, this can also expand to the senses. I am not infering Turīyatīta is different in consciousness nor is there another type of turīyatīt that can be found in another level of one's Being. I am suggesting that the senses can particpate. (This is how it was taught to me).
And from my view it makes lots of sense. Perhaps you have a different view. Maybe your view is once Turīyatīt is firm and unshakable, that is the final frontier. I will respect your view but let me ask, so I can better appreciate your POV.
Do you consider:

Regarding turīyatīt chetana (sustained turiya consciousness) - do you call this something different ? Does it go my another name in your sampradāya? If so , please advise so I may understand this.
Do you see turīyatīt chetana (sustained turiya consciousness) = bhagavat chetana (God consciousness) = brahmi chetana (Brahman Consciousness) - there is no difference?
OR do you think these levels of distinction do not exists?
OR do you think that with the arrival of turīyatīt chetana, that this is the arrival of brahmi chetana, in one fell-swoop and there is no more.This my friend will help me better understand you POV, teaching, etc.


pranams

yajvan
14 June 2008, 04:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
I was just thinking about this Turīyatīta discussed in the post above. I was thinking about it as anuttara , as the chief , principal, Ultimate.
I was looking at some of Abhinavagupta's words on this anuttara and he says na vidyate uttaram adhilam yataḥ¹ - or - that then which there is nothing more or additional.

Now the brilliance of Abhinavagupta is he explains this word 16 different ways. This 16 is key as it is another way of indicating the fullness (bhuma) of Turīyatīta. We have talked of this number 16 in the past. I will add the HDF Post in the footnotes.

He says this anuttara is made of an or not + uttara which is superior , chief , excellent , dominant , predominant. when you combine the two you get nothing (not) more superior, excellent. Or, that which does not exceed this level of superiority. For this Turīyatīt is anuttara.

It is considered the ocean of the Supreme ... unsurpassible.

pranams

words and references

uttara उत्तर - superior , chief , excellent , dominant , predominant; yet from a Jyotish view it is also known as the northen path. Since North is considered upper , higher and a direction, it works well when talking of the sun's transit into the North direction ( called uttarayana)
This śloka is from Parā-trīśikā Vivaraṇa . It is the first word that Śrī Devī utters in the first śloka - anuttaram.
The title of the book Parā-trīśikā Vivaraṇa means That (Śrī Devī) who transcends and is Idential with trika. It also means That which speaks out (kāyati) the three (tri) śakti-s (śa) of the Supreme (parā). Vivaraṇa means the act of uncovering, opening, or explaination. One can see how it then fits in with Parā-trīśikā, the explaination of the 3 śakti-s (rīśikā) of the Supreme (parā).
Parā-trīśikā Vivaraṇa is also known as Anuttarasūtra - as tradition to call it by the first word or concept that is addressed in the work
The number 16 significance a few ideas - HDF post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1075&highlight=16th+digit

TatTvamAsi
14 June 2008, 08:10 PM
Namaste All,

This is an interesting discussion.

From what I've read, tUrIya, the 4th state, merely refers to the expanded state of consciousness that is experienced. This is beyond the three (3) regular states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. However, tUrIya-atItA refers to consolidated state of unity consciousness. In other words, tUrIya = samAdhI and tUrIyA-atItA = sahaja samAdhI.

One may experience the Self briefly or occasionally. However, when one is deeply and fully in that state never to 'return' to the 'normal' states is what is referred to as tUrIyA-atItA.

Ramana Maharishi explains this pretty consistently and cogently. In fact, in terms of Kundalini, he refers to sahaja samAdhI as the Kundalini residing in the nAdI beside the heart (on the right side), not in the SahasrArA.

Subham.

atanu
14 June 2008, 11:14 PM
Namaste Yajvan, Devotee,Atanu
- how could diksha happen at all when there is ignorance involved? Diksha means removal of ignorance.

In tantra the world is real

while Kaula and also Trika which is a part of Kaula Dharma is of the opinion that the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it.

Namaskar MahaHrada,

Please check. If the world is identical to Brahman, then why is there need to remove ignorance? Shruti in fact says: "---the face of the truth is hidden by the golden plate"

Please be un emotional. I request a bit of patience. Swami Joo and Rishi Ramana are not two. I am a strong adherent of 'NOT TWO'.

Dicussions can be on mere opinions; Guru Vakyas; Logic; or Shruti. Discussions should not be based on mere opinions. OTOH, Guru Vakya is the ultimate. No Guru Vakya is beyond something else. Guru Vakya is the only truth for the devotee and not subject to doubt or comparison. Non-emotional debate can go on smoothly when cynicism is avoided and the parties agree to abide by logic or Shruti. It is common experience that dvaitins start or enter into discussions to establish superiority of Vishnu over Shiva or of some darshana over some other darshana.



This subject is extensively treated by Swami lakshman joo in the chapter "moksha in Kashmir shaivaism" published in his book Kashmir Shaivism the secret supreme, where he equates the states other darshanas conceive as moksha, with the pralaya mind.

Turya is the subject of several upanishads and of Mandukya Upanishad particularly. There is not much scope for speculation as below.



From Practical Advaita Post

Mandukya Upanishad
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).
It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entitities is ruled out.
It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

The Self has to be known. The world may be real or unreal. It does not matter. What matters is knowing the ONE who either believes the world to be real or believes the world to be unreal. It is about knowing the real one. The world is only known by the real one.



Equating trika or kaula darshana with the evil smoky path that has to be avoided at all cost? :(

Are you shure that is what you wanted to express when you started writing this posting? Remember there is an edit button...

Poor Swami Lakshman joo is suddenly conveyed to the status of some kind of asuric person who is preaching a path Ramana Maharishi always warned against.

I beg your pardon. There is no need to edit. Can you show me where I have said that some path is evil and dark? And where I have referred to Swami Joo. That is gross and most illogical. You can state (without logical or shruti support) what is beyond what and term something as akin to pralaya and I am not allowed to go logically?

I have only stated that there is a path of Moon and there is a path of Sun. If you are not emotional, you would take it just as stated and not add your own words.

Both these paths and another third path are paths led by no other by Shiva Himself.



http://www.koausa.org/Saints/LakshmanJoo/Lakshman1.jpg
Swami lakshman joo

May my pranams go to swamiji.



Guru, that is the problem, not some evil dark asuric threat, that will try to come from behind and cut off your balls, while you are not watching.

What are these sentences for?:o


Actually the cause for the difference is that advaita vedanta is of the opinion that the world is unreal, --------while Kaula and also Trika which is a part of Kaula Dharma is of the opinion that the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it.

First. Advaita does not say "World is unreal". Advaita says "Jagat Mithya Brahman Sat". Advaita does not say: "Jagat Asat". Mithya is wrong knowledge, illusory, appearing as something else, deceptive etc.

Shruti says:

Om ! That is full; this is full, (for) from the full the full (indeed) arises.
When the full is taken from the full, what remains is full indeed. Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!

So, Advaita has some premise in Shruti. OTOH, if (as per your understanding of Kaula) the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it, then what is the need for removal of ignorance? (If you take time to contemplate a bit you will see that the differences are in your understnding. Procedural details are different for different temperaments. Your inclination to establish beyondness of some darshana over some other does not help).
--------------
The Self has to be known. The world may be real or unreal. It does not matter. What matters is knowing the ONE who either believes the world to be real or believes the world to be unreal. It is about knowing the real one. The world is only known by the real one.



Om

atanu
14 June 2008, 11:31 PM
Namaste All,

This is an interesting discussion.

From what I've read, tUrIya, the 4th state, merely refers to the expanded state of consciousness that is experienced. This is beyond the three (3) regular states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. However, tUrIya-atItA refers to consolidated state of unity consciousness. In other words, tUrIya = samAdhI and tUrIyA-atItA = sahaja samAdhI.

One may experience the Self briefly or occasionally. However, when one is deeply and fully in that state never to 'return' to the 'normal' states is what is referred to as tUrIyA-atItA.

Ramana Maharishi explains this pretty consistently and cogently. In fact, in terms of Kundalini, he refers to sahaja samAdhI as the Kundalini residing in the nAdI beside the heart (on the right side), not in the SahasrArA.

Subham.

Namaste TTA,

The Fourth (Turiya or Turya) in itself is Advaita Shiva. Nothing is beyond this being. And remember that this being is the source of Pragnya Sarvesvara and is beyond Sarvesvara.


When it is experienced by a subject as a fourth state beyond the three states it is Turiya chetana. When Turiya or Turya is known as the sole reality, by a subject, it is Turiyatita chetana.

Om

devotee
15 June 2008, 01:44 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,


Actually the cause for the difference is that advaita vedanta is of the opinion that the world is unreal, and by concentrating on the real and therefore by restraining the things that cause the enforcement and rising of the unreal, (which includes sense impressions) moksha is reached, while Kaula and also Trika which is a part of Kaula Dharma is of the opinion that the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it.

By seeing the words used by you, I don't think your understanding of Advait Vedanta is correct. What do you mean by "unreal" or "real" ? Any concept of "real" or "unreal" is within mental realm. The word really used is "illusion"/Maya. Illusion doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that it is not what it appears. The illusion of snake cannot be without the existence of the substratum i.e. rope. The world & the Brahman are not different. The difference seen is the illusion.


There are some drawbacks in all darshanas the drawback in modern neo advaita vedanta is that you have to differentiate between the unreal Maya, and the unwanted Dualism, the "evil" that has to be abondend to reach moksha, and where you have to cut yourself off from, by repressing the sense impulses and the "good" brahman atman or advaitam, that only appeares if you have repressed and cut yourself off from all natural human impulses, this is in my opinion a form of practical applied dualism while theoretícal, philosophically remaining nondual.

To tell you the truth most humbly, you have got it all wrong. And IMHO, there is no need to use newly coined word, "Neo Advait Vedanta" ... I don't know what this means.

What is Unreal Maya, Unwanted Dualism or the "evil" which has to be abondaned ? "cutting yourself from, by repressing the sense impulses & the good brahman atman or advitam, that only appears if you have repressed & cut yourself ......" ====> they are completely meaningless from Advait point of view. There is nothing which is either real or unreal, there is nothing which is wanted or unwanted, there is neither evil nor good whatsoever, there can't be a good Brahman & a bad Brahman .....

There is just one without a second, the SELF or the Brahman & that has to be known ==> that is all.


People nowadays don´t look for sampradayika teachings they imagine things according to their own fancy and call that Advaita vedanta or Trika, this is very sad.

That is your opinion.


There is another drawback in modern neo advaita vedanta, that is it recommends atma vichara for everybody, which is the cause that there are constant thought processes going on, about what brahman is besides also quarrels with other darshanas, mainly about that advaita is the highest philosophy and so on, and constant concerns about what non dualism is and what dualism is, while true advaitam is a state that can only be experienced.

I am afraid you are giving your opinion on the subject which you are not well aware of. By the term "Atma Vichara" whatever you mean is recommended by Vedanta, Sri Ramana Maharishi & Zen Buddhism for every one whoever wants to realise the SELF/Absolute/Buddha state. This may not readily appeal to you because you are holding on to dvaitic understanding of sin, righteousness, gradual purification of individual soul in several life-times before being qualified for getting diksha/moksha, higher spiritual upliftment & perhaps liberation. All these concepts are within mental realm. There is no sin & there is no sinner ... as there is nothing but Brahman. The Brahman never was & can never be in bondage so there is no question of its liberation. The illusion of bondage has to be removed, the attachment to mental concepts & "I am this body/mind" has to be removed.

------------------------

It appears that you have got slightly offended by Atanu's post but I didn't find any text which could be termed offensive to either Trika/Kaula or Swami Lakhsman joo. How can an Advaitin show disrespect to anyone let alone a teacher ? Please re-read the post without getting emotional.

Regards

OM

sm78
15 June 2008, 07:16 AM
Though I have, with good intensions, not allowed myself to participate in this thread, I thank everybody in this thread particularly MahaHrada for a insightful discussion into philosophy and practice of Trika-Kaula. I have always found the ultimate claims of these schools difficult to digest and it remains so even now.

This might be because our conventional thought process and beliefs cannot easily make it square with the transgressions of the kaula mata. Bhukti and Mukti together becomes a puzzle as in the self there cannot be 2 and hence a solution bridging the 2 is quite unwarranted.

But I wanted to paste my views on, what does a person do after achieving moksha in Arya Dharma ? In my understanding, in shrauta-smarta dharma moksha cannot be taken in isolation from the full circle of Purushartha Chatushtaya ~ Dharma, Artha, Kama & Moksha. i.e Vedanta cannot be practiced in isolation from Veda. When Moksha is achieved, this cycle is wonderfully reversed and the Rsi reverts his attention to guidance on dharma to the society for just balance of Artha & Kama. For in Vedanta, there is no rest for the body till it drops dead, and relentless work is the only option before all who have taken the mortal frame. Moksha is the fruit of this labour. I believe Shrauta-Smarta dharma was concieved to benefit all beings to live in peace and prosperity. It is not a path for a chosen few, but the original and basic dharma for all those born in human form. Unlike Kaula Tantra, hence transgressions cannot be made a norm.

However I view Kaula, Trika and other heterodox traditions which are part of the larger bharat dharma as valid means / upayas to liberation ~ individual freedom from the cycle of birth and death. But shrauta-smarta dharma in its full significance (not just shankara’s advaita philosophy in isolation) is much more than an individual’s liberation.

MahaHrada
15 June 2008, 12:18 PM
Though I have, with good intensions, not allowed myself to participate in this thread, I thank everybody in this thread particularly MahaHrada for a insightful discussion into philosophy and practice of Trika-Kaula. I have always found the ultimate claims of these schools difficult to digest and it remains so even now.
Namaste Singhi Kaya
I am glad you enjoyed reading my postings. I feel very much like you about advaita-vedanta as it is practiced outside smarta sampradaya, or paradvaita as practised by trika. Both are just a little too fanatic, a bit over the top, so to say
Especially neo advaita. Neo-Advaita causes some followers to become insane, Just enter satsang into youtube.com as a searchword and you will find a lot of videos of western (and indian) neo advaita enlightened Jivanmuktis who actually seem to suffer from mental disorder or at least from a superiority complex, brought about by concepts they could not digest and integrate into their day to day life.

When commenting upon some posts it was not that i am subscribing to these schools. In fact i don´t follow any dogma at all except that i try to correct grave errors in understanding if i see them.
Reasoning about Kaula is anyways as good as useless, it is just that i sometimes feel misunderstandings are even more useless, On the other hand:
What is the use of a beggar offering a medicine when everybody feels just great :) One should be a doctor and offering medicine to the sick, that is how it should be, not like in this thread, which only ended as it must, in the usual and boring, insults against kaula that it pertains to the dakshinayana or pravritti marga.



This might be because our conventional thought process and beliefs cannot easily make it square with the transgressions of the kaula mata. Bhukti and Mukti together becomes a puzzle as in the self there cannot be 2 and hence a solution bridging the 2 is quite unwarranted.

Using mental reasoning Kaula or Agama will always remain inconclusive, simply because life and even physical laws (see quantum physics) do not conform to tarka.

A darshan first of all should help you and brighten up your life, and make you feel happy and make you all around a little better more satisfied person. Not some monster of reasoning. Thats why tarka should come last.

When all the world you see taste or hear, smell, touch or sense through sixth sense you perceive as devi and bliss and that devi is one with Shiva, the knower, you do not care whether you can offer some logical solution about whether this conforms to the fact that brahman is one two three or whether he wears a turban or a cap on sunday.


But I wanted to paste my views on, what does a person do after achieving moksha in Arya Dharma ? In my understanding, in shrauta-smarta dharma moksha cannot be taken in isolation from the full circle of Purushartha Chatushtaya ~ Dharma, Artha, Kama & Moksha. i.e Vedanta cannot be practiced in isolation from Veda. When Moksha is achieved, this cycle is wonderfully reversed and the Rsi reverts his attention to guidance on dharma to the society for just balance of Artha & Kama. For in Vedanta, there is no rest for the body till it drops dead, and relentless work is the only option before all who have taken the mortal frame. Moksha is the fruit of this labour. I believe Shrauta-Smarta dharma was concieved to benefit all beings to live in peace and prosperity. It is not a path for a chosen few, but the original and basic dharma for all those born in human form. Unlike Kaula Tantra, hence transgressions cannot be made a norm.

I have great respect towards shrauta and smarta sampradaya, in my last janma i was part of that sampradaya. Much of what i think today is actually influenced by smarta. My concept that moksha is just one and not the only state of mind, and the sage remains at the nave of the wheel with dharma artha kama and moksha at the periphery, therefore he is unattached even to the moksha, because it is only one of many aims, this is if i remember it correctly smarta teaching as well. Kaula is not incompatible with smarta



However I view Kaula, Trika and other heterodox traditions which are part of the larger bharat dharma as valid means / upayas to liberation ~ individual freedom from the cycle of birth and death. But shrauta-smarta dharma in its full significance (not just shankara’s advaita philosophy in isolation) is much more than an individual’s liberation.

Smarta sampradaya is most comprehensive since there is everything to be found from srautra to Kaula, but Kaula also cares about more than only liberation it just lost influence over time, in india but the whole nepalese society is still centered primarily around agama teaching, architecture, art, festivals, family life, everything.
MahaHrada

yajvan
15 June 2008, 12:29 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

When Moksha is achieved, this cycle is wonderfully reversed and the Rsi reverts his attention to guidance on dharma to the society for just balance of Artha & Kama. .

Namaste singhi,
Thank your for your post and your observations on this matter; as always your posts add value to the conversation.

We have talked much about a very profound subject that would take a few days to get all sorted out. We have co-mingled a few schools of thought no doubt. I take responsibility for much of the co-mingling if one had to point a finger to find a culprit.

Yet I do know a few things. Having an intellectual conversation on this subject without complimenting it with personal experience , that of experiencing turīya, or restful alertness, or stillness beyond the senses, minimizes the clarity that can come from such a discussion. I am not suggesting any of our readers or authors do not have this experience, but wanted to state the obvious.

We can talk of the banana, know its color, shape, its chemical composition, but this all comes to further benefit when a bite is taken. Like that , so is the notion of a turīya-s conversation. I am certain the experience of mokṣa is much-much different and more profound. Yet having experienced turīya, or various flavors of samādhi, assists one's understanding of what the various ślokas, sūtras and kārikā-s say. I thought that was worth mentioning.

Regarding what a person may do when established in anuttara, or mokṣa, kevala, etc. First and foremost we are informed that this state of Being is established in svātantrya, or freedom, as the SELF is resting in itSELF. We find this supported in the 10th kārakā of the Spanda kārakā-s, Chapter 1. My teacher has told me many times, one acts in freedom. I have read this many times, one then does HIS work , you become an exponent of Reality. Yet let me offer an additional POV.

Pending one's desires (prior to mokṣa) what does a person do as the SELF becomes a reality during his/her life? You mention one consideration - guidance back to others , to society, on dharma which makes sense. There are multiple views on this matter. I find Svami Laksmanjoo's descriptions interesting as we stay within the trika family of thought.

Let me briefly outline what Svami Laksmanjoo's offers in his book¹ as he connects how kuṇḍalinī śakti rises and manifests in the experient; He calls out 6+1 based upon the desires of the experient. I have many questions on this and continue to study these 6 +1.

The 6

mantravedha - full realization of the Supreme and noting more.
nādavedha - for the upliftment of mankind
binduvedha - for ease, comfort and joy; piece of mind.
sāktavedha - for the embodiment of energy; maintain oneself in perfect condition
bhujangavedha - Svami Laksanjoo only talks of how the kuṇḍalinī rises - that the form and reality of this śakti is actually serpent power, yet does not discuss the actions that unfold from this experience.
bhramaravedha - for the ability to perform dīksā for his cela-s in a discreet (secret) mannerAnd the +1

Yet the one that is of great interest is that experient that only desires spirituality and nothing more. With this cit kuṇḍalinī , says Svami Laksmanjoo, it manifests to unfold the jīvanmukti we have talked about on HDF so often. He says you experience ecstasy in action i.e. when you eat, talk, walk, etc. you are consumed (<- my word here) in bliss. He says this establishing cit kuṇḍalinī can take place ( by the krama mudrā approach) in a day, a life, or one hundred lifetimes... the qualifications is how much, and to what one is attached.

Just some thoughts to extend the conversation. Perhaps this helped a bit and others may comment as they see fit.

pranams



1. Kaśmir Śaivism - The Secret Supreme. First print 1985, revised 2003.

MahaHrada
15 June 2008, 01:07 PM
Please be un emotional.

I have only stated that there is a path of Moon and there is a path of Sun. If you are not emotional, you would take it just as stated and not add your own words.


I know what the dhumamarga or pitriyana is and what it stands for and i am not the only one who knows that, i guess, so what you think you are going to achieve with this posting?

MahaHrada

MahaHrada
15 June 2008, 03:07 PM
Namaste MahaHrada,

By seeing the words used by you, I don't think your understanding of Advait Vedanta is correct. What do you mean by "unreal" or "real"

The real is the self according to advaita vedanta the unreal the non self including your sense impressions your subtle body etc, so all this unreal has to be eliminated, discrimination means to discriminate between the self and the non self and exterminate the non self. Agama path is opposite everything is divine, nothing filthy, your body, the subtle body, the pranaetc, all are only devi and bliss.

adi shankara in viveka chudamani:

17. The man who discriminates between the Real and the unreal, whose mind is turned away from the unreal, who possesses calmness and the allied virtues, and who is longing for Liberation, is alone considered qualified to enquire after Brahman.
20. A firm conviction of the mind to the effect that Brahman is real and the universe unreal, is designated as discrimination (Viveka) between the Real and the unreal.
137. Identifying the Self with this non-Self – this is the bondage of man, which is due to his ignorance, and brings in its train the miseries of birth and death. It is through this that one considers this evanescent body as real, and identifying oneself with it, nourishes, bathes, and preserves it by means of (agreeable) sense-objects, by which he becomes bound as the caterpillar by the threads of its cocoon.
140. When his own Self, endowed with the purest splendour, is hidden from view, a man through ignorance falsely identifies himself with this body, which is the non-Self. And then the great power of rajas called the projecting power sorely afflicts him through the binding fetters of lust, anger, etc.,
141. The man of perverted intellect, having his Self-knowledge swallowed up by the shark of utter ignorance, himself imitates the various states of the intellect (Buddhi), as that is Its superimposed attribute, and drifts up and down in this boundless ocean of Samsara which is full of the poison of sense-enjoyment, now sinking, now rising – a miserable fate indeed!
144. It is from these two powers that man’s bondage has proceeded – beguiled by which he mistakes the body for the Self and wanders (from body to body).
151. When all the five sheaths have been eliminated, the Self of man appears – pure, of the essence of everlasting and unalloyed bliss, indwelling, supreme and self-effulgent.
152. To remove his bondage the wise man should discriminate between the Self and the non-Self. By that alone he comes to know his own Self as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute and becomes happy.
153. He indeed is free who discriminates between all sense-objects and the indwelling, unattached and inactive Self – as one separates a stalk of grass from its enveloping sheath – and merging everything in It, remains in a state of identity with That.
154. This body of ours is the product of food and comprises the material sheath; it lives on food and dies without it; it is a mass of skin, flesh, blood, bones and filth, and can never be the eternally pure, self-existent Atman.
358. The man who is attached to the Real becomes Real, through his one-pointed devotion. Just as the cockroach thinking intently on the Bhramara is transformed into a Bhramara.
359. Just as the cockroach, giving up the attachment to all other actions, thinks intently on the Bhramara and becomes transformed into that worm, exactly in the same manner the Yogi, meditating on the truth of the Paramatman, attains to It through his one-pointed devotion to that.


[quote=devotee;23355
Any concept of "real" or "unreal" is within mental realm.
[/quote]

adi shankara seems to like the word real and unreal.

The logic of advaita vedanta is non dual the sadhana is dualistic, the practice is dualistic you have to mortify yourself and repress the "unreal" which of course doesn&#180;t really exists , because there cannot be two ;) so the theory remains non dual your experience in sadhana what you have to actually practice is very dvaita. you have to destroy a lot of "evil " mindstuff which of course, intellectually is not evil because brahman is not two.... etc:
For example:
adi shankara in viveka chudami
395. (First) destroy the hopes raised by egoism in this filthy gross body, then do the same forcibly with the air-like subtle body; and realising Brahman, the embodiment of eternal Bliss – whose glories the Scriptures proclaim – as thy own Self, live as Brahman.
396. So long as man has any regard for this corpse-like body, he is impure, and suffers from his enemies as also from birth, death and disease; but when he thinks of himself as pure, as the essence of good and immovable, he assuredly becomes free from them; the Shrutis also say this.
397. By the elimination of all apparent existences superimposed on the soul, the supreme Brahman, Infinite, the One without a second and beyond action, remains as Itself.
413. After the body has once been cast off to a distance like a corpse, the sage never more attaches himself to it, though it is visible as an appearance, like the shadow of a man, owing to the experience of the effects of past deeds.

You see you have to constantly negate parts of yourself and destroy parts of yourself because the are not "real" or "good" of course in the logic there is no good and evil becausae brahman is not two ... dualism only in the sadhana. :) But isn&#180;t the sadhana that what makes you either feel happy or unhappy? The sadhana free of dualism is not that cruel.


To tell you the truth most humbly, you have got it all wrong. And IMHO, there is no need to use newly coined word, "Neo Advaita Vedanta" ... I don't know what this means.
Of course i got it humbly all wrong. Neo advaita is very incorrect understanding of self recognition by modern persons without a sense of what ? yes of humility! You do a google seearch on neo advaita.


What is Unreal Maya, Unwanted Dualism or the "evil" which has to be abondaned ?

You can have some more unreal vs real, ijmpure vs pure if the former was not enough:
Adi shankara in viveka chudamana
361. As gold purified by thorough heating on the fire gives up its impurities and attains to its own lustre, so the mind, through meditation, gives up its impurities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, and attains to the reality of Brahman.


"cutting yourself from, by repressing the sense impulses & the good brahman atman or advitam, that only appears if you have repressed & cut yourself ......" ====>
they are completely meaningless from Advait point of view. There is nothing which is either real or unreal, there is nothing which is wanted or unwanted, there is neither evil nor good whatsoever, there can't be a good Brahman & a bad Brahman .....
There is just one without a second, the SELF or the Brahman & that has to be known ==> that is all.

I forgot you had not heard enough of impurity,filth bodys, repression of sense organs, unreality of subtle body and so forth, need more? here we go:
158. How can the body, being a pack of bones, covered with flesh, full of filth and highly impure, be the self-existent Atman, the Knower, which is ever distinct from it ?
162. As long as the book-learned man does not give up his mistaken identification with the body, organs, etc., which are unreal, there is no talk of emancipation for him, even if he be ever so erudite in the Vedanta philosophy.

179. Man’s transmigration is due to the evil of superimposition, and the bondage of superimposition is created by the mind alone. It is this that causes the misery of birth etc.

82. If indeed thou hast a craving for Liberation, shun sense-objects from a good distance as thou wouldst do poison,



I am afraid you are giving your opinion on the subject which you are not well aware of.


Verily verily that seems so maybe i should apologize.

MahaHrada

devotee
15 June 2008, 09:33 PM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Thanks for taking pains to elaborate your point in detail. I see that we have very little differences but they are important. Let me quote some verses first to make my points clear :

1. Since the souls are, from the very beginning tranquil, unborn & by their very nature, completely unattached, equal & non-different & since Reality is thus birthless, uniform & holy (therefore, there no need for any aquisition etc.) ---> (Ref : Alatasanti Prakarana, Mandukya Upanishad)

2. No soul ever came under any veil. They are by nature pure as well as illumined & free from the very beginning. Thus being endowed with the power ( of knowledge), they are said to know. --- (Ref :A. P., Mandukaya Upanishad)

3. You should know that Purusha who is worthy to be known. ( Ref :Prasna Upanishad)

4. Because of the passion for any object, whatever it be, that Lord becomes ever covered up easily, & He is at all times uncovered with difficulty. (AP, Mandukya Upanishad)

5. There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self & is unborn & it becomes homogeneous. (Ad. P, Mandukya Upanishad)

6. This world, when ascertained from the standpoint of its essential nature, doesn't exist as different. Nor does it exist in its own right. Nor do phenomenal things exist as different or non-different (from one another or from the Self). This is what the knowers of the Truth understood. (VA. P., Mandukya Upanishad)

7. This Self that is beyond all imagination, free from the diversity of this phenomenal world & non-dual, has been seen by the contemplative people, versed in Vedas & unafflicted by desire, fear & anger. (Va. P., Mandukya Up.)

8. They consider the Fourth to be that which is not concious of the internal world, nor concious of external world, nor concious of both the worlds, nor a mass of conciousness, nor concious, nor unconcious, which is unseen beyond empirical dealings, beyond the grasp of the organ of action unininferable, unthinkable, undescribable, whose valid proof consists in the single belief in the Self, in which all phenomena cease & which is unchanging, auspicious & non-dual. That is the Self & that is to be known. ( Mundaka Upanishad, Agam Prakaran)

9. This Self is not attained through study, nor through the intellect not through much hearing. This very Self which this one seeks is attainable through that fact of seeking, this Self of his reveals Its own nature. ( Mundaka Upanishad)

10. It is not comprehended through the eye, nor through speeh, nor through other senses, nor is It attained through austerity or (righteous) Karma. Since one becomes purified in mind through the vafourableness of the intellect, therefore can one see that indivisible Self through meditation. (Mundaka Upanishad)

11. When the seer sees the Purusha - the golden hued creator, lord & the source of the inferior Brahman - then the illumined one completely shakes off both merit & demerit, becomes taintless & attains absolute equality. (Mundaka Up.)

12. Nachiketa, having first become free from virtue& vice as also desire & ignorance, by aquiring this knowledge imparted by Death, as also the process of Yoga in totality, attained Brahman. Anyone else, too, who becomes knower thus of the indwellinf Self ( attains Brahman). ( Katha Upanishad)
----------------------------------------------------------
What I wanted to say by posting above verses is that both virtue & vices, desire & ignorance are cause of bondage. We must withdraw from both. Let's see the quote from Viveka Chudamani that you have quoted :

"As gold purified by thorough heating on the fire gives up its impurities and attains to its own lustre, so the mind, through meditation, gives up its impurities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, and attains to the reality of Brahman."

Please notice here that all Sattva, Rajasa & Tamasa are declared impurities. It is not that Sattva is considered worth accumulating & Rajasa & Tamasa only considered fit to be rejected. There is no evil to be destroyed & no righteousness to be accumulated. We have to withdraw from both, not because they are good or bad but because of the "attachment" which throws a veil on the Self -- "Because of the passion for any object, whatever it be, that Lord becomes ever covered up easily". Non-attachment is the key.

Second thing that I wanted to impress upon was that use of term "by repression of sense organs" is not correct. Repression doesn't & cannot annihilate the desires which are the cause of attachment. By constantly meditating on the Self the desire is annihilated with ease. There is no need of repression. The difference to be noticed here is between "absence of desires" & "forcible repression of desires". The former is what is desired & the latter is of little value. The repressed desire are hidden bombs waiting to explode whenever favourable conditions surface.

Absence of desire is better than winning over the desires. How ? The state of a child who is free from sexual urges is better than a person who tries to win over the senses by keeping them artificially away from sense objects. It is also better than satisfaction of desires by indulging in enjoying the sensual objects. Which condition is better ? Getting food when feeling hungry or not feeling the pangs of hunger at all ? The child who doesn't feel the desire for sex or the man who feels sex hungry & gets readily available sexual object to satisfy his hunger for sex ? The former is certainly better & that condition is not attained by repression of sense organs.

I hope I am able to clarify the differences between my understanding & what I feel is yours by your posts.

Regards

OM

atanu
16 June 2008, 01:22 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste singhi,
-
Yet I do know a few things. Having an intellectual conversation on this subject without complimenting it with personal experience , that of experiencing turīya, or restful alertness, or stillness beyond the senses, minimizes the clarity that can come from such a discussion. I am not suggesting any of our readers or authors do not have this experience, but wanted to state the obvious.

1. Kaśmir Śaivism - The Secret Supreme. First print 1985, revised 2003.


Namaste Yajvan Ji,

I am afraid that Turya is not just restful alertness. IT IS INDESCRIBABLE AND WITHOUT A SECOND. I AM SUGGESTING THAT NO ONE HERE HAS EXPERIENCED THE HIGHEST STATE OF VISHNU. AS OF TODAY, WE CAN GO AS FAR AS LOGIC AND WORDS GO.

THE FOURTH IS SIMPLY BEYOND EXPERIENCE.

OM

atanu
16 June 2008, 01:41 AM
I know what the dhumamarga or pitriyana is and what it stands for and i am not the only one who knows that, i guess, so what you think you are going to achieve with this posting?



Equating trika or kaula darshana with the evil smoky path that has to be avoided at all cost?
MahaHrada


Namaste MahaHrada,

It is excellent that you know. But IMO, no path is evil path. There is no scope for animosity and veiled references such as your unwarranted references to Neo Advaita, when no one here has claimed to be Neo Advaitin and it is not the subject of discussion. What are your intentions? While discussing Shankara and His teachings, why you are attacking Neo Advaitins?


Actually the cause for the difference is that advaita vedanta is of the opinion that the world is unreal, --------while Kaula and also Trika which is a part of Kaula Dharma is of the opinion that the world, or prakriti is substantial and as real as "brahman" and identical to it.

Simply stated, your understanding of Advaita is clouded. And if the world is just identical to Brahman, then there is no need for any Guru or any practice. Just Be (If you can be). Advaitins very well know the Universe as Devi, as Girija -- the mother, the consciousness of the Lord. But Mother and Father are finally the Atman:

Aitareya Upanishad

I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. He thought, “Let Me create the worlds.”


Om

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 02:49 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

It is excellent that you know. But IMO, no path is evil path.

Because that way it is easier for you to insult others?

Give me a break would you?

MahaHrada

atanu
16 June 2008, 03:07 AM
Because that way it is easier for you to insult others?

Give me a break would you?

MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,

I thought you said that everything was Devi? Wherefrom the sense of insult?

Regards

Om

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 03:19 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

I thought you said that everything was Devi? Wherefrom the sense of insult?

Regards

Om

Because i am only a western poser who drinks his own piss and i have no face to loose and am bereft of good manners.
But because all is only atman that is as good as anything else i could be.
Besides i call it neo advaita because real advaitans are busy because they practice bhakti nama smarana, puja and japa and do not contribute to global warming by talking hot air.
MahaHrada

atanu
16 June 2008, 03:47 AM
Because i am only a western poser who drinks his own piss and i have no face to loose and am bereft of good manners.
But because all is only atman that is as good as anything else i could be.
Besides i call it neo advaita because real advaitans are busy because they practice bhakti nama smarana, puja and japa and do not contribute to global warming by talking hot air.
MahaHrada

Namaste mahaHrada,

The good manners? :) So, who is not doing bhakti nama smarana, puja and japa?

Om

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 04:44 AM
Namaste mahaHrada,

The good manners? :) So, who is not doing bhakti nama smarana, puja and japa?

Om

I told you i am the lowlife I have to bear the disadvantages and of course i enjoythe advantages that come with that position. You should do likewise, and simply enjoy being the good guy....as long as you still can, because all is only atman remember? That means as an advaitan you are as much me than I myself am me.
So whatever i do, you are doing that same thing also, since there is only one doer there cannot be two So who is in control of your actions? you are right! Me If you want to avoid doing all the lowlife things i do all you have to do is renounce that advaitam moksha immediately, i tell you, you can belive me you will not regret that decision, life is so much easier without being a jivanmukti , especially when you are a grihasta.
MahaHrada

atanu
16 June 2008, 06:58 AM
I told you i am the lowlife ----


Namaste MahaHrada,

OK.


That means as an advaitan you are as much me than I myself am me.

That sounds good and would be welcome.

But No. As an advaitan this ego believes in one Real Being. Dvaitin ego, OTOH, believes itself to be real and gets perturbed with little opposition. An advaitan does not attempt to obtain light from a table as he expects it from a table lamp (just as a dvaitin does). But an advaitin believes that the singular knowledge is beneath the experiences.


I hope that we can go to the subject, if you wish.

Om

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 07:43 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

Thanks for taking pains to elaborate your point in detail. I see that we have very little differences but they are important. Let me quote some verses first to make my points clear :

1. Since the souls are, from the very beginning tranquil, unborn & by their very nature, completely unattached, equal & non-different & since Reality is thus birthless, uniform & holy (therefore, there no need for any aquisition etc.) ---> (Ref : Alatasanti Prakarana, Mandukya Upanishad)

2. No soul ever came under any veil. They are by nature pure as well as illumined & free from the very beginning. Thus being endowed with the power ( of knowledge), they are said to know. --- (Ref :A. P., Mandukaya Upanishad)

3. You should know that Purusha who is worthy to be known. ( Ref :Prasna Upanishad)

4. Because of the passion for any object, whatever it be, that Lord becomes ever covered up easily, & He is at all times uncovered with difficulty. (AP, Mandukya Upanishad)

5. There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self & is unborn & it becomes homogeneous. (Ad. P, Mandukya Upanishad)

6. This world, when ascertained from the standpoint of its essential nature, doesn't exist as different. Nor does it exist in its own right. Nor do phenomenal things exist as different or non-different (from one another or from the Self). This is what the knowers of the Truth understood. (VA. P., Mandukya Upanishad)

7. This Self that is beyond all imagination, free from the diversity of this phenomenal world & non-dual, has been seen by the contemplative people, versed in Vedas & unafflicted by desire, fear & anger. (Va. P., Mandukya Up.)

8. They consider the Fourth to be that which is not concious of the internal world, nor concious of external world, nor concious of both the worlds, nor a mass of conciousness, nor concious, nor unconcious, which is unseen beyond empirical dealings, beyond the grasp of the organ of action unininferable, unthinkable, undescribable, whose valid proof consists in the single belief in the Self, in which all phenomena cease & which is unchanging, auspicious & non-dual. That is the Self & that is to be known. ( Mundaka Upanishad, Agam Prakaran)

9. This Self is not attained through study, nor through the intellect not through much hearing. This very Self which this one seeks is attainable through that fact of seeking, this Self of his reveals Its own nature. ( Mundaka Upanishad)

10. It is not comprehended through the eye, nor through speeh, nor through other senses, nor is It attained through austerity or (righteous) Karma. Since one becomes purified in mind through the vafourableness of the intellect, therefore can one see that indivisible Self through meditation. (Mundaka Upanishad)

11. When the seer sees the Purusha - the golden hued creator, lord & the source of the inferior Brahman - then the illumined one completely shakes off both merit & demerit, becomes taintless & attains absolute equality. (Mundaka Up.)

12. Nachiketa, having first become free from virtue& vice as also desire & ignorance, by aquiring this knowledge imparted by Death, as also the process of Yoga in totality, attained Brahman. Anyone else, too, who becomes knower thus of the indwellinf Self ( attains Brahman). ( Katha Upanishad)
----------------------------------------------------------
What I wanted to say by posting above verses is that both virtue & vices, desire & ignorance are cause of bondage. We must withdraw from both. Let's see the quote from Viveka Chudamani that you have quoted :

"As gold purified by thorough heating on the fire gives up its impurities and attains to its own lustre, so the mind, through meditation, gives up its impurities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, and attains to the reality of Brahman."

Please notice here that all Sattva, Rajasa & Tamasa are declared impurities. It is not that Sattva is considered worth accumulating & Rajasa & Tamasa only considered fit to be rejected. There is no evil to be destroyed & no righteousness to be accumulated. We have to withdraw from both, not because they are good or bad but because of the "attachment" which throws a veil on the Self -- "Because of the passion for any object, whatever it be, that Lord becomes ever covered up easily". Non-attachment is the key.

Second thing that I wanted to impress upon was that use of term "by repression of sense organs" is not correct. Repression doesn't & cannot annihilate the desires which are the cause of attachment. By constantly meditating on the Self the desire is annihilated with ease. There is no need of repression. The difference to be noticed here is between "absence of desires" & "forcible repression of desires". The former is what is desired & the latter is of little value. The repressed desire are hidden bombs waiting to explode whenever favourable conditions surface.

Absence of desire is better than winning over the desires. How ? The state of a child who is free from sexual urges is better than a person who tries to win over the senses by keeping them artificially away from sense objects. It is also better than satisfaction of desires by indulging in enjoying the sensual objects. Which condition is better ? Getting food when feeling hungry or not feeling the pangs of hunger at all ? The child who doesn't feel the desire for sex or the man who feels sex hungry & gets readily available sexual object to satisfy his hunger for sex ? The former is certainly better & that condition is not attained by repression of sense organs.

I hope I am able to clarify the differences between my understanding & what I feel is yours by your posts.

Regards

OM

Namaste devotee,
The main thrust of may postings is to point to the differences between Agamic methods and Vedanta methods of self recognition.

You decide yourself how strong adi shankara is opposed to the following trika ideas, call it absence, winnig over ,non attachment, whatever suits you, all only minor details, this never was my point. viveka chudamani has clearly pointed in the general direction which is without any trace of doubt: sense enjoyments are poison for the seeker.

I am not qualified to go into more details about the advaita darshana all i want is to point to the fact that advaita vedanta does not use five sense enjoyments to reach what they consider the ultimate state.

Advaita vedanta does not recommed indulgence in the aesthetic experience of beauty to realise brahman.

Advaita vedanta does not recommend the erotic experience to realise brahman.

It does not recommend the use of intoxicants to deepen the experience of the bliss of brahman.

Secondly advaita vedanta is not of the opinion that the accomplished Jivan mukti moves through diverse stages of bliss of brahman while experiencing sense enjoyments.

Trika does all this. so i only request people to watch out what they are doing when ingesting tantra shastra.
I recommend that if you wish to understand and practice advaita vedanta you begin the study under the guidance of an experieced acharya of shankara sampradaya.

From the beginning of this thread and also in my involvement in the gita thread all i wish to achieve is to prevent mixing up of terms and methods between vedanta paths and the kaula or agamic path, you might end up nowhere.
Imagine a sadhak following a path of vedanta who should try to restrain his sense organs, begins using some of the dharanas of the vijnanabhairava , because they are recommended here in HDF forum, but which are based on the oppositte idea that indulgence in sense experiences will cause self recognition. This would not be helpful for his sadhana.

We have also to check the terms, trika very often has a different meaning, for instance a brahmacharya is a sexual active person, Maya is something else , Moksha is something else and so on and so forth

Comparison is therefore difficult, one darshana understands something completly different while using the same term.

MahaHrada

sm78
16 June 2008, 07:59 AM
Namaste Singhi Kaya
Especially neo advaita. Neo-Advaita causes some followers to become insane, Just enter satsang into youtube.com as a searchword and you will find a lot of videos of western (and indian) neo advaita enlightened Jivanmuktis who actually seem to suffer from mental disorder or at least from a superiority complex, brought about by concepts they could not digest and integrate into their day to day life.

Did click a search with "Satsang". I must say, a bit surprised by the volume of search results. But since discovering shaktivAda i have little patience for gyans, so didn't listen to any ;p.

ShaktivAda gave me the perfect tool to understand the world around me and the science to act in this world. As far as moskha vidya is concerned, it was this scientific approach that has drawn me to the smarta sampradaya. According to them atma vichara is pretty useless without chitta suddhi, and only nitya vedic and tantric karmas are the ancient proven way to obtain this.

Reading "I Am That" and such work and reflecting on the "I" is often quite exhilarating, but I am all too aware of the danger of doing so without being faithful to basic karma and swa-dharma. I have no doubt that tarka about the self without nitya karma and deep understanding and practice of one’s duty according to arya dharma (which now a days is at best feeding the poor or shudra dharma for all), tarka on atma and vocal atma vichara make the already hazy perceptions of dharmaAdharma in this dark age even hazier.

I think it is far more fruitful to talk (if at all one has to talk) about society and our duties to it a.k.a samanya dharma/dharma/dharmaAdharma etc than to blabber about nature of turya which should be the object of personal sadhana.

atanu
16 June 2008, 08:28 AM
Namaste devotee,
-
I am not qualified to go into more details about the advaita darshana all i want is to point to the fact that advaita vedanta does not use five sense enjoyments to reach what they consider the ultimate state.
MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,

Please bear with me. I agreed earlier that one should not mix up things (cocktail like), if one is not a master. I further agree that Kaula ways are different from Vedantic Advaita ways. I do not wish to put forth opinions on efficacy of any path.

I wish to impress upon the readers only one thing. Advaita Vedanta and whole meditative religious paths do use all the sense inputs and the mind 100% during meditation. Without being 100% aware of the sensual and the mental movements, one goes to Pralaya (sleep). By remaining 100% aware only, one is able to transcend shushupti.

The ways are to suit different temperaments but (I hope) that the goal is accepted as same.

Om

devotee
16 June 2008, 08:48 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,



The main thrust of may postings is to point to the differences between Agamic methods and Vedanta methods of self recognition.

You decide yourself how strong adi shankara is opposed to the following trika ideas, call it absence, winnig over ,non attachment, whatever suits you, all only minor details, this never was my point. viveka chudamani has clearly pointed in the general direction which is without any trace of doubt: sense enjoyments are poison for the seeker


There is no problem until we start passing judgments on other paths. The problem started when you started seeing drawbacks in Advait Vedanta. Moreover, the words are not adequate to state what an advaitin truly means. Like, "Sense enjoyments are poison for the seeker" ---> You have to see it differently from the usual measuring scale of "good"/"bad", or "white"/"black" ... as I have tried to explain in my previous post.


i want is to point to the fact that advaita vedanta does not use five sense enjoyments to reach what they consider the ultimate state.

Advaita vedanta does not recommed indulgence in the aesthetic experience of beauty to realise brahman.

Advaita vedanta does not recommend the erotic experience to realise brahman.

It does not recommend the use of intoxicants to deepen the experience of the bliss of brahman.

Agreed. However, you have to see all these from the angle that these are not seen by an advaitin as "deprivation" or "loss" because getting rid of attachment & the idea of individual "self" offers the Ultimate which is certainly a better option. You seek happiness in sense-enjoyment because you really don't know what real happiness is. ( You seek sexual gratification feeling that it is the best source of enjoyment because you don't know how blissful the person is who doesn't suffer from the fire of sexual urges in the first place. ) When you see it as "drawback" then problem starts.

{Note : The word "you" doesn't mean anyone in particular in this post.}


I recommend that if you wish to understand and practice advaita vedanta you begin the study under the guidance of an experieced acharya of shankara sampradaya.

Thanks for the recommendation. BTW, I think I know what I need. Thanks again, anyway.

One last thing, we lost the real discussion unnecessarily. Let me remind, the thread was, " How do you realise the Absolute". It didn't ask which path was better or worse ?

Regards

OM

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 09:06 AM
Did click a search with "Satsang". I must say, a bit surprised by the volume of search results. But since discovering shaktivAda i have little patience for gyans, so didn't listen to any ;p.

It is like a live feed from the nuthouse. Unbeliveable. And all this poison is being reimported in the form of videos and books into bharathavarsha.



ShaktivAda gave me the perfect tool to understand the world around me and the science to act in this world. As far as moskha vidya is concerned, it was this scientific approach that has drawn me to the smarta sampradaya. According to them atma vichara is pretty useless without chitta suddhi, and only nitya vedic and tantric karmas are the ancient proven way to obtain this.

That is nice that you found a teacher from smarta sampradya, i only can say and remember good things about that path.
30 years ago i met and talked to a very nice person a smarta acharya in nepal, he was the one who was doing the daily sri chakra puja in Pashupatinath Temple , a sri cakra is painted on top of the swayambhu lingam,and then navavarana puja is done, i donīt know if he is still living there, i havenīt been to India or nepal after that.
About Atma vichara even if sucessful it has drawbacks much more when unsucessful.



Reading "I Am That" and such work and reflecting on the "I" is often quite exhilarating, but I am all too aware of the danger of doing so without being faithful to basic karma and swa-dharma. I have no doubt that tarka about the self without nitya karma and deep understanding and practice of one’s duty according to arya dharma (which now a days is at best feeding the poor or shudra dharma for all), tarka on atma and vocal atma vichara make the already hazy perceptions of dharmaAdharma in this dark age even hazier.

I guess you are right.



I think it is far more fruitful to talk (if at all one has to talk) about society and our duties to it a.k.a samanya dharma/dharma/dharmaAdharma etc than to blabber about nature of turya which should be the object of personal sadhana.

I wish i knew what is fruitful to talk about or do in these times, it would be great i knew.

MahaHrada

atanu
16 June 2008, 09:17 AM
To Shri Yajvan

I have same view as you that the highest attainment should be to attain one's own divine nature and not bother about other paths being lower or higher.

Kashmir Shaivism has no opposition to the teachings of Atma Vichara, as taught by South Indian sage Ramana. Kashmir Shaivism does teach as the highest the following (as already discussed above by Shri Yajvan and Devotee). Though, Kashmir Shaivism also has dualistic modes, but the SAMBHAVOPAYA as taught below, is same as holding on to the I consciousness (to be established in Pragnya -Devi, Girija) as taught by Ramana Maharshi, who has also taught other methods in appropriate cases.



SAMBHAVOPAYA

Sambhavopaya is that path of which the Sadhaka must rid himself of the recitation of Mantras - of Sadhana based on breathing; meditation on particular deities; concentrating on some spiritual thought; and so on. He has only to develop his awareness of "I" - consciousness, and that, too, not in any particular place. By the constant awareness of this "I"- consciousness, individual "I" - consciousness quickly vanishes as it is united with His subjective energy and becomes Jivan-Mukta (released in life).

This path is meant for those seekers who reside at the highest level of ability.

----------------------
Kashmir Shaivism was taught by four great Masters in four great Schools Pratyabhijna School, Krama School, Kula School and Spanda School. The first School is really not much different from the meditative Vedantic school. The following is short summary of the four ways:



Pratyabhijna means recognition. The realization of what one has always been in one's essential timeless nature. This system was expounded in Kashmir by Somananda.

The Krama School is grounded in space, time and form. Its purpose is to develop such strength of awareness that one transcends the circle of time, space and form and thus becomes timeless, spaceless and formless. This thought of the Krama School of Shaivism was taught by Sri Erakanatha.

The third School of Kashmir Shaivism called the Kula system. The purpose of this School is to discard individual energy and to enter into blissful energy of the totality. This thought was re-originated and taught by Sumatinatha in Kashmir.

The fourth, the Spanda School of this system was re-originated in Kashmir by Vasuguptanatha. Spanda means "Vibration" and the system which goes by its name directs the aspirant to concentrate on each and every movement in this world. Even the movement of a blade of grass will carry you to God-consciousness.

In fact these four Schools are not separate from each other. All the four carry the Sadhaka to the throne of Universal God-consciousness.


Pratyabhijna method is same as the method of knowing/holding on to one's spirit knowledge nature (method details may vary). If one reads Swami Lakshman Joo's writing on Turya and Turiyatita, one will find exactly the words of Ramana echoed, as below:

Turiyatita is nothing but the fourth state very firmly established ----

Shri Ramana says:

When Turya is known as the sole reality it is Turyatita. When the sole reality is known as a state called fourth, it is Turiya.

------------------
IMO, great sages as Ramana and Lakshman Joo have shown that the Agamic methods have same goal as the Vedanta and that the methods are also same at the highest level.


Om

yajvan
16 June 2008, 10:21 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste atanu,

thank you for your post...
you mention
IMO, great sages as Ramana and Lakshman Joo have shown that the Agamic methods have same goal as the Vedanta and that the methods are also same at the highest level.

Yes, I see this to be true... If there is variation (vikalpa) it may be only in the method, yet all roads lead to Rome as they say.
The difference that may arise in the sadhu (studying) may come from the blemish (mala) of ignorance or moha ( to delude).

I am in hopes on HDF we can discuss the variation yet applaud and comprehend that anuttara is the final outcome - this we know as Turīyatīta.

You also mention

Shri Ramana says:
When Turya is known as the sole reality it is Turyatita. When the sole reality is known as a state called fourth, it is Turiya.

Just perfect! I must remember this wisdom. Thank you.

pranams

atanu
16 June 2008, 12:19 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste atanu,

I am in hopes on HDF we can discuss the variation yet applaud and comprehend that anuttara is the final outcome - this we know as Turīyatīta.



Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

I agree with my full heart. I am sure that Devotee (and hope that others also) will concur.

Regards

Om

MahaHrada
16 June 2008, 01:37 PM
Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

I agree with my full heart. I am sure that Devotee (and hope that others also) will concur.

Regards

Om

Others may concur but not swami lakshman joo,
after describing advaita vedanta vijananavada buddhism and vaibhAsika tradition on page 100 and 101 of his book Kashmir shaivaism the secret supreme he writes the following:

"From the Shaivaite point of view these philosophical traditions remain either in apavedhyapralayAkala where there is no objectivity or in savedyapralayakala. They do not go beyond these states. Savedhyapralayakala is that state of pralayakala where there is some impression of objectivity."

My underlining.
Whether you like it or not that is the Guru vakya concerning this topic. THis is very clear there are no ifs and buts and cunning counter arguments are impossible. One cannot interpret the shastras according to ones own fancy but has to rely on the masters of that specific Tradition. Why you keep ignoring the Tradition? This is not how it is done in bharatha dharma, only in new age style where everybody imagines things according to his own ideas.

MahaHrada

atanu
16 June 2008, 02:35 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste atanu,

thank you for your post...you mention
The difference that may arise in the sadhu (studying) may come from the blemish (mala) of ignorance or moha ( to delude).
I am in hopes on HDF we can discuss the variation yet applaud and comprehend that anuttara is the final outcome - this we know as Turīyatīta.
pranams



Namaste Yajvan Ji,

Jivas can only try till SAMBHAVOPAYA. AnupAya has to be effortless, as beyond SAMBHAVOPAYA, there is no ego to exert a will -- the personal consciousness is not different from the Universal Soma. The same was explained in slightly different form



A devotee can only endeavor to be stithipragnya -- to abide in the Pragnya (Sarvesvara), which is the revealed consciousness in the form of full awareness of I of the Self or God. Beyond that nothing is in the power of Jiva. God's grace takes care of the rest.

Ramana Maharshi


Regarding the final experience there cannot be any argument since that is indescribable, beyond mind and words. Only one thing is certain. Turiya being Advaita Atma, the knower of the Advaita Atma cannot be a Second Atman. That is Advaita.

This much only for mental speculation. Regarding the experience of knowing Brahman:

Kena Upanishad

1. The Teacher says: 'If thou thinkest I know it well, then thou knowest surely but little, what is that form of Brahman known, it may be, to thee?'

2. The Pupil says: 'I do not think I know it well, nor do I know that I do not know it. He among us who knows this, he knows it, nor does he know that he does not know it.

3. 'He by whom it (Brahman) is not thought, by him it is thought; he by whom it is thought, knows it not. It is not understood by those who understand it, it is understood by those who do not understand it.
-------------

Simply put, the Self is not an object of understanding but the subject itself. How can one know the one who knows? One can only BE.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
16 June 2008, 08:15 PM
Namaste yajvanji, Atanu, MahaHrada & all,

I am in hopes on HDF we can discuss the variation yet applaud and comprehend that anuttara is the final outcome - this we know as Turīyatīta.


Exactly ! As Atanu has expressed,
I agree with my full heart. I am sure that Devotee (and hope that others also) will concur. :)



Self is not an object of understanding but the subject itself. How can one know the one who knows? One can only BE.

I am tempted to quote Sri Ramana on this :

1. What is Realisation ? Is it to see God with four hands, bearing conch-shell, wheel, club etc. ? Even if God should appear in that form, how is the disciple's ignorance wiped out ? Such appearance is phenomenal & illusory. All perceptions are indirect or secondary knowledge. The Truth Must Be Eternal Realisation. The direct perception is ever present Experience. The present superimposition of the body as "i" is so deep rooted that the vision before the eyes is considered "Pratyaksha" but not the seer himself. The seer alone is real & eternal. Abiding in the SELF & BEing the SELF & not seeing the SELF is Realisation.

2. For one who has realised that state of Perfect Being which is really inherent indescribable Bliss of the Absolute SELF, nothing else remains yet to accomplish. The Self is one & Self-knowledge is unique in that knowing Self is itself the known self. It can never become a known or unknown object.

Regards

OM

atanu
17 June 2008, 01:50 AM
I am tempted to quote Sri Ramana on this :

1. What is Realisation ? Is it to see God with four hands, bearing conch-shell, wheel, club etc. ? Even if God should appear in that form, how is the disciple's ignorance wiped out ? Such appearance is phenomenal & illusory. All perceptions are indirect or secondary knowledge. The Truth Must Be Eternal Realisation. The direct perception is ever present Experience. The present superimposition of the body as "i" is so deep rooted that the vision before the eyes is considered "Pratyaksha" but not the seer himself. The seer alone is real & eternal. Abiding in the SELF & BEing the SELF & not seeing the SELF is Realisation.

2. For one who has realised that state of Perfect Being which is really inherent indescribable Bliss of the Absolute SELF, nothing else remains yet to accomplish. The Self is one & Self-knowledge is unique in that knowing Self is itself the known self. It can never become a known or unknown object.

Regards

OM

Namaste Devotee,

:hug:

:grouphug:

Nothing more is needed. But ego wants to recapitulate a few aspects.



What Swami Joo terms Pralaya samadhi, Shri Ramana terms Laya Samadhi, some others Yoga Nidra. It is volitional shushupti. Ramana says that 1000 years of laya samadhi (blissful sleep) is not going to help Self Realisation, if one does not know the ever awake Self in the midst of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. That is Turya.

In Kashmir Shaivism, anupAya is the highest state, beyond sambhAvopAyA. anupAya is effortless since the effort of the personal will is impossible. This is same as the teaching of Advaita teachers. It is partial knowledge of Kashmir Shaivism to state that it is differentiated from Advaita in what a Self Realised muni does after Self Realization, since Kashmir Shaivism holds effortless anupAya as the highest. It matches with Gita teaching: Arjuna know that you are not the doer.

Turya/Turiyatita being considered the highest attainment by Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, and Swami Joo, makes the following logic an inevitablity. Turiya being Advaita Atma, the knower of the Advaita Atma cannot be a Second Atman. That is Advaita.

If the world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then there is no need for Diksha and that is contrary to the experience.

OTOH, if Brahman, which is without a Second, is the truth of the world beneath the experience but is not known in such a way, then there is actually no one under bondage yet this is not known with clarity due to phenomena being mistaken as reality. The ring shape of a rotating piece of fire is taken as real instead of the fire itself. That is Ajativada.




The Self is one and Self-knowledge is unique in that knowing Self is itself the known self. It can never become a known or unknown object.

Regards to all.

Om

MahaHrada
17 June 2008, 02:11 PM
Nothing more is needed. But ego wants to recapitulate a few aspects.


If the world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then there is no need for Diksha and that is contrary to the experience.Excerpt from Articel of John Hughes disciple of Swami Lakshman joo on Kashmir shaivism which summarises some important differences that i have already mentioned, that one needs to know to understand this darshana.

Whether these ideas are ultimately true or false, is completly irrelevant for our understanding of trika, when we try to understand this darshana we hav to take into account what this darshana teaches and cannot exchange important parts with their counterparts from advaita vedanta, just because one likes them better, the result of mixing a darshana that considers the external world as real, as shiva itself, divine and of the nature of bliss, with a darshana that considers it as a fleeting illusion that has to be abondend, will lead nowhere.

trika is trika and vedanta is vedanta.


The Shaiva also holds that the objective world, although experienced as separate from one's self, does not have a separate existence. It is the energy (Shakti) of Shiva. Although one might conclude that the world is separate from his energy, thinking that his energy is the separate formal cause of the objective world. It is not. The objective world, comprised of the collection of objects, cognition's, and limited subjects, is nothing more than the expansion of the divine Shakti. It is not separate from Shiva's energy. Lord Shiva is the energy holder (Shaktiman) and the objective universe is his energy, his Shakti.

Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta both teach nondualism, the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from that of Advaita Vedanta. Essential to this difference is Advaita Vedanta's proposition that this universe is untrue and unreal, that it is a false projection of maya. This theory is completely opposed to the Kashmir Shaiva theory of reality. To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that, if Shiva is real, how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real? If Shiva, the ultimate essence of existence, is real, his creation must also be real. For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.

Another point will shed additional light on our topic. In creating this world Shiva conceals his real nature. How does he do this? The Shaiva says that he conceals it with particularity. His Maya, his magic, brought about by his power of absolute freedom (Svatantrya Shakti), is to hide himself in the particularity of the world. As a particular individual, Shiva loses the real undifferentiated knowledge of his real Self and possesses only differentiated knowledge of particularity. Through this maya or ajnana (ignorance), he veils himself. This is stated very succinctly in the first two verses of the Shiva Sutras: "Awareness is the reality of everything. Having differentiated knowledge and not having undifferentiated knowledge is bondage."

Ignorance, for Kashmir Shaivism, is not the absence of knowledge, rather it is said to be non-fullness of knowledge.

One might ask whether sambhava-samavesa, the mystical absorption in the state of Shiva, is equivalent to Moksha, liberation. In fact, it is not. It certainly must exist if moksha is to occur but it is not its defining characteristic. Abhinavagupta tells us in the Tantraloka "Moksha only exists when your being becomes absolutely independent (svatantratmaka)," What is this "independence" that Abhinavagupta specifies as the necessary condition of Moksha? We have seen above that it is repeatedly declared that an essential characteristic of Lord Shiva is his independence. It is explained that Lord Shiva created this universe by means of his independence. Shiva's independence means complete unbridled freedom, freedom to will, freedom to know, freedom to do. According to Abhinavagupta, a yogi can only be said to be liberated when he/she possesses this absolutely independence. For a yogi to be independent, nothing must be able to limit him/her or overshadow his/her universal consciousness. This means that this yogi must experience the same state of universal Consciousness, the same independence, in the external world as he/she does in the mystical absorption of the sambhava state. From the Trika Shaiva point of view, until he/she attains this state he/she can not be said to be absolutely independent or to have attained moksha (liberation).

Moksa and the means of its attainment in Kashmir Shaivism
By John Hughes

MahaHrada

yajvan
17 June 2008, 04:46 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Ignorance, for Kashmir Shaivism, is not the absence of knowledge, rather it is said to be non-fullness of knowledge.



Namaste,

Let me perhaps just extend this notion an inch or two if I may.

First what is j&#241;āna? A reasonable question to ask before asking what is ignorance. When blossomed (fullness or bhuma) of j&#241;āna one knows their own nature of Being (sat), consciousness or blossomed awareness (cit) and that of joy, and happiness, bliss (ānanda) . It is these without limitation that one then appreciates anuttara or that Supreme state. This then can be called as mentioned in MahaHrada's post the fullness of knowledge.


What of this ignorance, aj&#241;āna? It comes in a few flavors that is:


pauruṣa aj&#241;āna

bauddha aj&#241;ānaWith pauruṣa aj&#241;āna one is unaware of realizing ones own nature in samādhi. This is removed by grace (anugraha). This grace may be that of the guru, anugrahātmikā, or from HIS blessings.

With bauddha aj&#241;āna - this ignorance is a bit thicker. Also known as a-bauddha or absolute unawareness. One is fully given into the world of objectivity. There is no sense of the SELF. One does not know, that they do not know, there may be something more to their nature. That is why it is called bauddha aj&#241;āna or the ignorance of bauddha, intelligence or intellect (budha, intellect, awakening).


As one moves along and begins to understand the possibilities of ones own nature, then the conversation may switch to the blemishes or mala-s. Mala-s have been reviewed in the following HDF posts if there is interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2342&highlight=malas



Yet IMHO the biggest blunder of ignorance, aj&#241;āna, is missing that aṅgāḥ (the limb or part) is connected to aṅgi ( the whole). This ignorance cannot be outside of this wholeness. So what's the deal? It's the notion that one feels this incomplete-ness , this is the mala or impurity of ignorance we experience.

So not knowing the whole-undifferentiated Consciousness is the blemish. But this 'knowing' is not the notion of book learning, its on the experiential level of life. To really know, is to be IT. Do books help? Of this there is no doubt as it works to overcome bauddha aj&#241;āna.

We have this blemish and this is what fills us with differentiated (aṅgāḥ) experiences AND we know it, because we live it daily - we experience it, life in fractions, in parts. This is my assessment.

perhaps others can extend the insight.

नमः शिवाय च शिवतराय च
namah śivāya ca śivatarāya ca


pranams

devotee
17 June 2008, 08:35 PM
Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta both teach nondualism, the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from that of Advaita Vedanta. Essential to this difference is Advaita Vedanta's proposition that this universe is untrue and unreal, that it is a false projection of maya. This theory is completely opposed to the Kashmir Shaiva theory of reality. To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that, if Shiva is real, how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real? If Shiva, the ultimate essence of existence, is real, his creation must also be real. For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.


Namaste MahaHrada,

I feel the problem arises not because the difference actually exists but because the words create an illusion of the difference within our limitation of understanding.

I told you in one of my previous posts : "There is nothing as real or unreal in absolute sense. These words are meaningless from Advait point of view."

On this you posted a number of quotes from Vivek Chudamani etc. that these words are used & so they are as meaningful as you think. It is not like that. These words are both meaningful & yet meaningless in absolute sense.

Let's ask this question : What is real ? How can we say that something is real or unreal ?

Let's take a flower. A flower is nothing but a mental construct which has following "attributes" --> It has colour, soft petals, fragrance etc. But these attributes what we perceive are within mental realm i.e. within our limited sense of knowing things. If we see the flower with the eyes which use X-rays instead of visible range of light spectrum, can we see the soft petals or the structure that makes our vision of the flower ? No. If we smell the flower with the sense organs of a dog or a pig, will it still have the same attractive smell ? No again. If I see the flower with an insect's eyes which can't see colours, will the colours still be visible to me ? No, not at all ! ====> The flower's existence cease to be real once we start going out of our mental realm. We also cannot say that the flower is unreal because there is certainly something real substratum though we can't exactly know or say what it is. The perception of snake is false but at the same time there is some substratum for sure, otherwise, there can't be the false perception either.

It is true that the words real & unreal are still used in discussion by the Vedantins .... but that is because there is no alternative for us but to use the words what we have. Remember that we cannot have words for anything which is beyond our mental perception. How can you express what cannot be expressed ? That is why the SELF has been described in negation in the Vedas - "neti-neti". But unless you express, how can you talk all ?

So, mere use of some words by Advait Vedanta & some different words by Trika don't make them really different at the end. The Truth can't be two. The Ultimate has to be only ONE. Let me mention here that Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans proved it once for all that All Paths lead to One & the same Reality.

Regards

OM

atanu
18 June 2008, 02:33 AM
--
Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta both teach nondualism, the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from that of Advaita Vedanta. Essential to this difference is Advaita Vedanta's proposition that this universe is untrue and unreal, that it is a false projection of maya. ---- To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that, if Shiva is real, how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real? If Shiva, the ultimate essence of existence, is real, his creation must also be real. For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.


Namaste,

This is just the dvaita part and nothing else. Please consider this: If you are real, then should your dream be real also?:) Not understanding the Turya as the sole reality brings in all these confusions. Pragnya, the revealed consciousness is Sarvesvara but it is not svatantra -- only the Turya is Svatantra. Pragnya is Turya's revealed consciousness and has no svatantra existence or power.


Turya is Shivo Advaita Atma. It must be known. How Advaita Atma (self) can be known as another svatantra? How can you know another as Self? And how can you know Shiva (advaita) and still remain in Dvaita? :( Simply put, Advaita atma can only be known as Advaita Atma. Svatantra is ONE. There cannot be many Svatantra Atmas.

My earlier question stands:


If the world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then there is no need for Diksha and that is contrary to the experience.

There is actually no need to debate, if one agrees that the Shivo Advaita Atman must be known.

Om

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 02:41 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

I feel the problem arises not because the difference actually exists but because the words create an illusion of the difference within our limitation of understanding.

I told you in one of my previous posts : "There is nothing as real or unreal in absolute sense. These words are meaningless from Advait point of view."

On this you posted a number of quotes from Vivek Chudamani etc. that these words are used & so they are as meaningful as you think. It is not like that. These words are both meaningful & yet meaningless in absolute sense.

Let's ask this question : What is real ? How can we say that something is real or unreal ?

Let's take a flower. A flower is nothing but a mental construct which has following "attributes" --> It has colour, soft petals, fragrance etc. But these attributes what we perceive are within mental realm i.e. within our limited sense of knowing things. If we see the flower with the eyes which use X-rays instead of visible range of light spectrum, can we see the soft petals or the structure that makes our vision of the flower ? No. If we smell the flower with the sense organs of a dog or a pig, will it still have the same attractive smell ? No again. If I see the flower with an insect's eyes which can't see colours, will the colours still be visible to me ? No, not at all ! ====> The flower's existence cease to be real once we start going out of our mental realm. We also cannot say that the flower is unreal because there is certainly something real substratum though we can't exactly know or say what it is. The perception of snake is false but at the same time there is some substratum for sure, otherwise, there can't be the false perception either.

It is true that the words real & unreal are still used in discussion by the Vedantins .... but that is because there is no alternative for us but to use the words what we have. Remember that we cannot have words for anything which is beyond our mental perception. How can you express what cannot be expressed ? That is why the SELF has been described in negation in the Vedas - "neti-neti". But unless you express, how can you talk all ?

So, mere use of some words by Advait Vedanta & some different words by Trika don't make them really different at the end. The Truth can't be two. The Ultimate has to be only ONE. Let me mention here that Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans proved it once for all that All Paths lead to One & the same Reality.

Regards

OM

Namaste devotee
This difference is not small it decides about the whole sadhana. Why do you think tantra shastras are usually condemmend by the conventional darshanas? Exactly because of this difference and the way it is applied. On this difference hinges the whole of the sadhana of both traditions,
Please understand if you can, i am not concerened as i already posted about whethers this is true or not or both aims are one or not and all the other completly irrelevant and meaning less topics (menaingless for the average person,who is not yet a jivanmukti)you people brought up in this thread.
what i say is:
It is stupid to mix sadhanas of these traditions, the one seeks Shiva/Brahman inside the sense enjoyments and the body and all the sadhana is geared towards only that goal, the other is convinced that it is exactly the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance and the sadhana is geared towards that goal.
This is so obvious i am wondering that anybody should even try to unify these darshanas, but nowadays anything is possible i guess.
MahaHrada

atanu
18 June 2008, 02:46 AM
--
It is stupid to mix sadhanas of these traditions, the one seeks Shiva/Brahman inside the sense enjoyments and the body and all the sadhana is geared towards only that goal, the other is convinced that it is exactly the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance and the sadhana is geared towards that goal.
This is so obvious i am wondering that anybody should even try to unify these darshanas, but nowadays anything is possible i guess.
MahaHrada

Does this view consider the meditative Sambhavopaya and 'karma free' AnupAya?

Om

atanu
18 June 2008, 02:52 AM
Namaste devotee
It is stupid to mix sadhanas of these traditions, the one seeks Shiva/Brahman inside the sense enjoyments and the body and all the sadhana is geared towards only that goal, the other is convinced that it is exactly the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance and the sadhana is geared towards that goal.
--
MahaHrada

Half knowledge is indeed to be feared. Advaita is not convinced that 'the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance'

Om

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 02:58 AM
Half knowledge is indeed to be feared. Advaita is not convinced that 'the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance'

Om

Splitting hairs again?

split hairs to argue about whether details that are not important are exactly correct. 'She earns three time what I earn.' 'Actually, it's more like two and a half.' 'Oh stop splitting hairs!'

split hairs to argue about very small differences or unimportant details. It's splitting hairs to tell people that they cannot lie but it is all right if they exaggerate.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/split+hairs+# (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/split+hairs)


Viveka chudamani again:


331. He who identifies himself with the objective universe which has been denied by hundreds of Shrutis, Smritis and reasonings, experiences misery after misery, like a thief, for he does something forbidden.
334. The dwelling on external objects will only intensify its fruits, viz. furthering evil propensities, which grow worse and worse. Knowing this through discrimination, one should avoid external objects and constantly apply oneself to meditation on the Atman.


Approach of K.S again John Hughes:
And furthermore, the Kashmir Shaiva understands that this objective universe, a manifestation of Lord Shiva's Svatantrya Shakti, is a means, a tool, to be used to realize the universal reality of Shiva.As Abhinavagupta tells it, when Lord Shiva is completely alone, bereft of his creation, he exists in the full splendor of his God Consciousness. He does not need to recognize his own nature, because it is already there. Nevertheless, he wants his own nature to be recognized. This recognition gives him great joy. But, because it is already there, there is nothing to recognize. So, in order to recognize his nature, Shiva must become ignorant of his nature. He must seemingly separate himself from his nature. It is only then that he can experience the joy of recognizing it.
This, Kashmir Shaiva's say, is the play of the universe. Because of Lord Shiva's freedom, his Svatantrya, this universe is created solely for the fun and joy of this realization. It is Shiva's play to seemingly leave his own nature so that he can find it and enjoy it again. This is the dance of Shiva, the joyous game in which he is continuously creating this universe--to lose himself and then find himself.

devotee
18 June 2008, 03:21 AM
314. For the sake of breaking the chain of transmigration, the Sannyasin should burn to ashes those two; for thinking of the sense-objects and doing selfish acts lead to an increase of desires.
315-316. Augmented by these two, desires produce one’s transmigration. The way to destroy these three, however, lies in looking upon everything, under all circumstances, always, everywhere and in all respects, as Brahman and Brahman alone. Through the strengthening of the longing to be one with Brahman, those three are annihilated.

Namaste MahaHrada,

But where is it written that "it is exactly the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance" ?

The sense enjoyment are not the causes of ignorance. The ignorance is due to SELF acting outwardly as mind. It is its Nature. There is no reason for it. Yes, the path of sense enjoyment may lead to more of attachment & may not allow the Reality to be uncovered. However, if sense "enjoyment" is without any attachment (if sadhak can practise that way), it won't be an obstacle. In fact, there is no one which can stay alive without activities of the senses ( hearing, eating, smelling etc.), so it is impossible & unnecessary for a sadhak to avoid them completely. The renunciation is not at physical level but at mental level.

Regards

OM

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 03:38 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

But where is it written that "it is exactly the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance" ?

The sense enjoyment are not the causes of ignorance. The ignorance is due to SELF acting outwardly as mind. It is its Nature. There is no reason for it. Yes, the path of sense enjoyment may lead to more of attachment & may not allow the Reality to be uncovered. However, if sense "enjoyment" is without any attachment (if sadhak can practise that way), it won't be an obstacle. In fact, there is no one which can stay alive without activities of the senses ( hearing, eating, smelling etc.), so it is impossible & unnecessary for a sadhak to avoid them completely. The renunciation is not at physical level but at mental level.

Regards

OM
Namaste devotee, please realise that you need all this tarka as much as a third leg on top of your head to understand what i am talking about.
Please donīt be splittting hairs, whatever sense enjoyments are suppossed to do in your specail variety of advaita vedanta or any vaerity as the case maybe, they are not suppossed to be helpful for your sadhana when indulged in correct?
MahaHrada

devotee
18 June 2008, 03:45 AM
Namaste devotee, please realise that you need all this tarka as much as a third leg on top of your head to understand what i am talking about.
Please donīt be splittting hairs, whatever sense enjoyments are suppossed to do in your specail variety of advaita vedanta or any vaerity as the case maybe, they are not suppossed to be helpful for your sadhana when indulged in correct?
MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,

Your patience is very much limited for any fruitful discussion. Can you eschew using offending language in discussion, please ? Do you think I can't use it more effectively than you ?

This is not splitting hair. Advait Vedanta is not just any path to be easily understood. You must go through all those reasoning that I have told you to understand what it really is. Just picking up a line or two from just one scripture or two doesn't help you here.

What I am saying is correct. Please try to understand & ask specific questions, if something is not yet clear.

Regards

OM

atanu
18 June 2008, 03:52 AM
Splitting hairs again?


Namaste maha

Please do not grudge the preciseness, which is required since your assumptions do not take into account the sambavopAya (meditation on universal I) and anupAya (effortless) ways of Kashmir Shaivism on one hand and states the premise of Advaita wrongly, on the other hand. It is not any advaitin but you who came here to show Advaita darshana as faulty and lower than your understanding. So, please do not grudge the preciseness. You are just exposing the irritations resident within you to the world.

Nowhere the following verses of Vivekachudamani indicate your assertion that as per Advaita 'the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance'




Viveka Chudamani

331. He who identifies himself with the objective universe which has been denied by hundreds of Shrutis, Smritis and reasonings, experiences misery after misery, like a thief, for he does something forbidden.

334. The dwelling on external objects will only intensify its fruits, viz. furthering evil propensities, which grow worse and worse. Knowing this through discrimination, one should avoid external objects and constantly apply oneself to meditation on the Atman.



Brahman is the greatest commonality running uniformly through the apparently diverse phenomena. Shiva is common existence, intelligence, love, and life -- Precisely why God is Vishnu - all pervading. You say: It is stupid to mix sadhanas of these traditions. Now, I understand why south indian sages lovingly have given an epithet of Madman to Shiva, because He is so -- the common ONE desireless being in the center of mad mad desires.

One who understands Turya Self as the common goal of all religion will indeed be called mad by those who are still stuck in procedural details, which are so designed because God will not force feed Barley to everyone. God will rather dispense Barley and Wine respectively to those who desire so. Procedural details suit different temperaments, which are infinite facets of God, but the knowledge of Self is ONE.



Isha Upanishad
6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.

7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?




From MahaHrada
To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that, if Shiva is real, how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real? If Shiva, the ultimate essence of existence, is real, his creation must also be real. For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.

IMO, this is exactly the half baked idea of Shaivism through the pens of a westerner without taking sambhvopAya and anupAya into account. I ask: If I am real then will my dreams be also real?

Please also answer:



From Atanu
If the world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then where is the need for Diksha?


Om

atanu
18 June 2008, 04:30 AM
Approach of K.S again John Hughes:
And furthermore, the Kashmir Shaiva understands that this objective universe, a manifestation of Lord Shiva's Svatantrya Shakti, is a means, a tool, to be used to realize the universal reality of Shiva.




Well every school does that only. It is not possible to worship or meditate Avayakta.

Om

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 04:32 AM
Namaste maha

Please do not grudge the preciseness, which is required since your assumptions do not take into account the sambavopAya (meditative on universal I) and anupAya (effortless) ways of Kashmir Shaivism on one hand and states the premise of Advaita wrongly, on the other hand. It is not any advaitin but you who came here to show Advaita darshana as faulty and lower than your understanding. So, please do not grudge the preciseness. You are just exposing the irritations resident within you to the world.


You misunderstand my intentions, i am neither adhering to the trika darshana nor to advaita vedanta, i am just commenting on the incompatability of the two path and that on one hand regarding their practical methods of sadhana and partly also because of different aims.



Nowhere the following verses of Vivekachudamani indicate your assertion that as per Advaita 'the sense enjoyments and the body that are one of the causes of ignorance'


Of course indulging in sense objects contribute to your personal state of ignorance as a jiva as per advaita vedanta, and so such acts could be termed "one of the causes of ignorance". That is what it is said in these slokas. I have given ample shastra pramana for my statements while you provided none for your idea that indulging in sense enjoyments,as recommend by trika darshana, is perfectly o.k. and can be practiced by a follower of advaita-vedanta.



Brahman is the greatest commonality running uniformly through the apparently diverse phenomena. Shiva is common existence, intelligence, love, and life -- Precisely why God is Vishnu - all pervading. You say: It is stupid to mix sadhanas of these traditions. Now, I understand why south indian sages lovingly have given an epithet of Madman to Shiva, because He is so -- the common ONE desireless being in the center of mad mad desires.

One who understands Turya Self as the common goal of all religion will indeed be called mad by those who are still stuck in procedural details, which are so designed because God will not force feed Barley to everyone. God will rather dispense Barley and Wine respectively to those who desire so. Procedural details suit different temperaments, which are infinite facets of God, but the knowledge of Self is ONE.

Isha Upanishad

6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.

7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?


This is all very well and nicely put and correct for the accomplished person, but here in HDF we are not dealing with the already accomplished person, such a person does not need the posting of atanu to tell him what he already knows, we are giving recommendations for the average person.
And i ask you do you sincerely think the average person can profit from mixing two oppositte paths according to his liking?

Before i am posting i only ask myself one question will this action be a cause of merit or demerit for the world? Not whether it is correct what i am writing or incorrect, but i ask myself primarily what will actually happen in the real life to the person reading it.
If this requires acting like a lowlife so be it, what do i have to loose?
I am not interested in declaring what is true and what is untrue, i am not the pope, or something, i am more interested whether it is helpful or not. what i am doing not whether i look good while doing it.


Please answer:
If the world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then where is the need for Diksha?


Whod id say ther is a need for diksha? Must ahve been someone else, It shurely wasn&#180;t me.
MahaHrada

atanu
18 June 2008, 04:38 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,



Originally Posted by MahaHrada http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=23423#post23423)
You misunderstand my intentions, i am neither adhering to the trika darshana nor to advaita vedanta, i am just commenting on the incompatability of the two path and that on one hand regarding their practical methods of sadhana and partly also because of different aims.


True. You are dealing with incompleteness.




Originally Posted by MahaHrada http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=23423#post23423)
We are giving the instructions for the average person

Surprised. If this world of experience is exactly identical with Brahman, then who this average person is?



-
Whod id say ther is a need for diksha? Must ahve been someone else, It shurely wasn&#180;t me.
MahaHrada

So simple. So, you mistook yourself for someone else? Ha. Ha. Did ouy ercogsesi the world and its objects correcly? Ha. Ha. :D The goal is knowing the Self. That is All.


Om

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 04:42 AM
So simple. So, you mistook yourself for someone else? Ha. Ha. Did ouy ercogsesi the world and its objects correcly? Ha. Ha. :D

The goal is knowing the Self. That is All.


Om

I told you watch out in the end it is only you that is me, or is it me that is you?

The average person is the one in pain because he follows your advice and mixes theses paths, If you look more closely with your divya drishti you might see him , or not.
If Advaita vedanta causes us to not differentiate anymore between dharma and adharma, pure or impure, our throats will, be cut by dacoits following the evil dharma, who of course are only one with "brahman", thats is why Sm78 posting is right to the point.
If even such a lowlife like me is brahman what about those who cry allahu akbar and bomb you dead?
But of course i forgot a neo advaitan is not the body so he will welcome the blade. Or at least watch it disattached to his emotions.
This is not a path for the grihasta. It is not.

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 05:11 AM
IMO, this is exactly the half baked idea of Shaivism through the pens of a westerner without taking sambhvopAya and anupAya into account. I ask: If I am real then will my dreams be also real?

Please also answer:



Om

For Your Information John Hughes was a very close personal disciple of swami lakshman joo, who stayed with for ages what he says is identical to what swami taught. wheter he was a nigger or no nigger does not matter.


I ask: If I am real then will my dreams be also real?

Please must i say this 1 million times until you realise that i do not adhere to this kashmir shaiva darshana, i don&#180;t discuss wheter it is correct what they say- plainly i don&#180;t give a damm whether it is logical or not right or wrong, i am just here to avoid pain and keep others from suffering by the encouragement to mix stuff and by reading undigested information obtained without correct guidance from trika sampradaya.
I do not even have the intention of presenting my own darshana or my own ideas on HDF.
Mahahrada

MahaHrada
18 June 2008, 05:44 AM
Approach of K.S again John Hughes:
And furthermore, the Kashmir Shaiva understands that this objective universe, a manifestation of Lord Shiva's Svatantrya Shakti, is a means, a tool, to be used to realize the universal reality of Shiva.
This is the dance of Shiva, the joyous game in which he is continuously creating this universe--to lose himself and then find himself.


Well every school does that only. It is not possible to worship or meditate Avayakta.

Om

Every school says that the objective universe is the body or manifestation of god and therefore sense objects have to be enyojed to achieve Brahma bliss and wine is the embodiment of bhairava on earth etc. etc.?

If you say so it shurely must be right, you are the expert indian, and i am only a westerner and on top of that one with the typical bad manners. But let us stop this discussion here, please, at this moment, it is becoming useless and getting ridiculous, all has been said that needed to be said and everybody can make up his own mind based on that information and that without going over all of it again rehearsing the same arguments. I hope no one feels uncomfortable if i do not continue the discussion at this point even if i leave some questions unanswered. With all due respect. Goodbye for now. As devotee has remarked corectly i am running out of the required patience.
MahaHrada

satay
18 June 2008, 09:06 AM
Admin Note

namaskar,

What started out with a great intellectual question and a good discussion has derailed into some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding between a few members. Quality of posts has gone down with this derailment.
I regrettably close this thread. I also request the active members on this thread to reflect for a few days on what they and others have posted in this thread before moving on to other discussions so as not to carry on the bleeding elsewhere on HDF.
your co-operation is much appreciated.