neti neti

I suppose one could just say, why not? I like wiggling my toes. Lol. Which is of course fair enough. Though I would suggest one intimately acquaints themselves with 'God' first as a priority. Only then will one truly be 'qualified' to spot that shifty devil in all of those lovely details.

Why this fixation on wiggling my toes if the whole universe can be donned as if it were a suit?

I, me and mine... Me, myself and I. When do vain infatuations come to an end? Under the assumption these supposed separate experiences have any meaningful reality, how can a practitioner isolating himself from the practice not have varying views of outcomes and versions of differences? So all the layers are divine and supreme. Ok... so what? Where is the substance in this observation when the great Swami Lakshmanjoo himself essentially said all these concepts are totally useless? Whose curiosity is being satisfied if we are knowledge itself? Please identify the substantial merit to be had in this endeavor besides bearing witness to the apparent beauty of a tradition's richness. What is the goal when you yourself are the goal?

There is only one view, with many perspectives. The differences only appear to oneself as other than. All words contradict themselves. If you practiced the teachings, I'm sure you would see the futility of this intellectual back and forth over nonexistent layers of access, bondage, or knowing. None of this stands, as That.

Thoughts are of the nature of desire under the delusion there is something other than oneself. Transcending thoughts, our natural bliss or self-love, is itself the Self which we are. By the very power of Self, that self-love assumes the form of thoughts once apparent objects seem separate from Self. Unified samadhi appears as divided samadhi. However, there is only samadhi.

Agreed, and, I can relate. However, it should be clear that this identified impression of 'direct knowing' is misleading as conveyed in language. It is non-different from my true nature as pure being, else the aspects of my true nature forsake themselves and spring forth as a rising thought of "I know." The pure luminosity that is "I am" is without diffraction(s) of objective knowledge, the knower and knowing triad. It is only "knowingness", or, the power to know. The very moment sat-chit-ananda objectivizes or imagines itself as other than self-abiding(as it is), it becomes non-existence ignorance and misery(duality). To say I contain both pairs of opposites in all their manifestations is accurate to a degree, but really, I am "prior" to them. Indeed, to be Siva is to be pure knowledge, thoughtless, prior to the arising of the knowledge and ignorance dyad. But Parama Siva is beyond ideation, being all there is, it is beyond thought or thoughtlessness, beyond is and is not. Knowing and not-knowing do not apply, for therein lies an implication that there can be something other than to know or not know about. Hence, also beyond the impression, sense or feeling, of being or not being. Besides that subtilty, KS seems to point well to this paradox... which in reality is no paradox at all.

Please enlighten me how being anything at all is not at its root anything more than a feeling. Similar to how you felt the need to assume my motive was to insult. Just a feeling. The use of the word mere was, merely in contrast. Apologies if my attempts at sarcasm are not immediately apparent, and that the sharing of my experience comes across as arrogance. If you've actually followed the discussion you would know that the words you've bolded above were directed towards myself from the member you're defending. My how the trickster that is ego so cleverly distorts our perceptions. Much of what seems to be contention here amounts to that trickster pretending to protect itself. In the end, what suffers is our ability to truly engage in satsang.

I thanked for everything. Rejection is also key, so have at it. "Have it as you wish", meaning, there is acceptance of you're unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. I'm quite content in your freedom of beliefs, and wouldn't dream of encroaching upon them. That you've become so defensive once having to consider alternatives speaks volumes of their nature. Someone challenging them does not equate to someone compelling you to change them. There having never been an argument points to the reality in which apparent similarities and differences are known to be of one and the same substance. They are non-different from that consciousness which goes by so many names, and non-different from the one who believes he identifies them. As the rising of similarities or differences are like waves on the ocean of consciousness, consciousness is like mist on the ocean of Parabrahman. That which the mere feeling of being Shiva has appeared upon. Contrary to how the ocean appears on its surface, there lies below depths unimaginable. A direct experience expansive in nature quite contrary to the waves of narrow-mindedness or the mist of shallowness, and yet, it contains all waves and all mist simultaneously.

I sleep like a baby. A baby Shiva. Lol With all these strawmen, one could prop up their own scarecrow. Have it as you wish though. Thank you for everything. It's a shame we couldn't have a reasonable discussion due to unreasonableness. Really, there's never been any argument here. Hari Om Tat Sat.

Again, simply insisting on the differences without addressing what was provided to discuss in any way whatsoever is all that is seen here. A willful ignorance of what's been offered in a noncompulsory fashion, might I add. No one has said you were flat out wrong as far as I can tell, there have only been clarifications of ambiguity which you've made no attempt to refute but by providing more quotes. You call it sticking to your opinion, but it's at the expense of blatantly ignoring a proposed refinement to it. You then ironically have the audacity to project that very same attitude you're guilty of upon others. I call that sheer hypocrisy. It seems the lack of tolerance for any meaningful discussion once the inaccuracies of your argument are exposed, is on your end. What it shows is a willful disregard for attempts to explain and rectify the misunderstanding between apparent opinions. You insist there is no misunderstanding, but have been unwilling to explain yourself. I believe you've said enough, indeed.

Since I was the only other member of the AV camp involved in the recent thread that got a bit heated, I'll address this and try to keep it short and to the point. My intent is not to fan the flames of contention, but I feel obligated to bring as much of this into light as possible so as to avoid confusion. One could argue it was ridiculous there before it ever got to the point dwai felt it necessary to voice his opinion here in this way. A great example from the OP: Now, I believe most here are more than capable of understanding that what's being conveyed is the "world is false" in light of Absolute Reality, Brahman. Meaning, there is no world independent of Brahman, therefore, there is no world, there is only Brahman. The world is real as Brahman only. One would know this concept with just a passing knowledge of AV. Now with this in view, putting aside your opinion that AV's non-dual Brahman ultimately differs from Abhinavagupta's apparent monistic view, (we can leave that for the original thread)... You should realize how it comes across like picking of out-of-context straws and raises suspicions of your commentary being biased. It's obvious Abhinavagupta refutes the assertion of Maya to use it as a launchpad of sorts to directly state what AV ultimately concludes, the same "final reality". In fact the direct approach, ajata vada in AV, parallels Abhinavagupta's and is synonymous with the Shiva Sutra's "first awakening." Of course it seems to be about subject-object, because, in this particular approach, consciousness identifies with a limited subject and takes objects to be different from itself. This declaration of illusory Maya is however not the singular approach available for the aspirant in AV. It is but one approach... as I'm quite positive you're aware of. The approaches across traditions may appear to differ and the analogies may seem world's apart, but that which is being pointed to, is one. Therefore we conclude the apparent differences are obviously moot. To misconstrue this as someone trying to come off as having higher knowledge in some contrived condescending way is nonsense. It's like a flashing of a victim card where there has been no perpetrator, hence the stawman allegations. Naturally, for someone such as yourself claiming to have had a somewhat extensive experience in the AV tradition, it's difficult to accept you're surprised to hear some of us question whether or not your arguments come from a place of sincerity. To continue quoting volumes of Abhinavagupta after having this pointed out, and not addressing it, only to insist on the validity of the differences, I'm sorry to say seems at best childish and at worst disingenuous. If you truly just cannot see it, then please do accept my apologies. I am not qualified to assert anything as law, and I laugh at the ludicrous suggestion that anyone has laid claim to a monopoly on knowledge here. However, I am more than qualified to discern when one is simply unwilling to entertain a more holistic view of what the texts are ultimately speaking to. Which is perfectly fine of course, but I'm not afraid to challenge them on it. And if that sounds "unloving", then I guess I'll just have to appear loveless in the spirit of maintaining a semblance of sanity here in the Hindu section. Yeah, I know Marblehead, I can hear you now, "Good luck with that." Lol. That is all. May the reader judge wisely.

I don't remember. I don't forget either.

Maybe the burden isn't quite as literal as it seems. Maybe the renouncing is of one's love for the kind of wealth which doesn't last. The beggar is rich beyond his wildest dreams.

Sounds like you can a lot more than you can't. Can's and cant's, ants in my pants, I chant and prance with fancy dance. I write songs too.

Then just dance like no one's watching.

“Can you be as light as the wind? Can you be nothing? Empty yourself of yourself. You don’t know, but you’ll never feel fuller than when you’re completely empty. It’s like a feather dancing in a soft breeze. It dances like no one is watching. It’s like a falling leaf. It didn’t fall by its own will. It’s like a bird singing near your window. Is it singing to you? It simply sings. Life is beautiful. Just let it live itself. Let the ecstatic dance of the Universe flow through your body. Let the euphoric song of the Universe flow through your mind. Let the rhapsodic life of the Universe live you.” ~Avahtara

Renunciation of wealth, feeling of detachment and respect for a saint is the result of former merit and good fortune. He alone starts thinking of a sadhu. It is extraordinary to have such an intellect in the dream within a dream. To be conscious, to be fully on senses in spite of taking a doze of brandy shows that though money can bring demonic pride, he still is on his senses. This is his (true) good fortune. He is in a dream within a dream. But on account of his virtuous intellect, he went to a Guru and discriminated between the true and untrue. He got the experience that everything else is false and `I am Brahman [final reality]'. This means that he has woken up from one dream. When in this dream he deliberated again he came to the further conclusion that even saying `I am Brahman' is false -- the whole world and words are illusion. As a result he became tranquil by staying in his own blissful state. Truth was revealed. He fully realised `I am Brahman'. This condition means `I am fully awake'. Not only the delusion but also `I have experienced' vanished. For if one says that he has experienced the self it means that he has taken himself to be different from the self. The real test is when the self has no sense of self `I'. If the mango says, "I found myself sweet", then it is not a mango. If you say `you got an experience', that means your `I', ego is still there. The idea `I got an experience' is a delusion. The `I' in `I have become knowledgeable' or `I have become Brahman' is ego. The former `I' should disappear. Whatever was before naturally is Brahman. The thorn `I' has to be extracted; then you are through. When you become all pervading, you become Brahman. `I am Brahman', this ego comes, but it also disappears afterwards. It is `One' only and there is nothing else than that. To go beyond nothing is to be in Thoughtless Reality, Parabrahman. ~Siddharameshwar Maharaj

I'd be honored, although I'm sure you're aware I'm not quite as well versed in the appropriate terminology dwai. While I may be graced in coming to intuitively arrive at what's believed to be a fairly accurate degree of understanding, I do not fancy myself as much of a teacher. In fact, I'm of the opinion that AV is essentially position-less aside from its inherent not-twoness. I'd be willing to take your lead on it and we can see what springs forth. Regards.

Potential death by wall of text was a false alarm! I made it! A great reference, with plenty of rabbit holes to explore. Thanks for sharing.

Keep on performing, or, bow out? Meh. Same Difference!

Oh trust that there is no battle. Lol. I'm just acutely aware of how unprofitable entertaining the notion of differentiation between expressions without end can ultimately be. But of course, to each their own. And with this I respectfully bow out. A subtle nuance for you to consider; seeing not the beauty of many different expressions, rather, the seeing of that beauty as but One expression, amidst a myriad of its appearances. Regards.

Actually, when the felt need to respond arises not much effort is required, if any at all. I appreciate your best wishes though. What can be daunting is how the degrees of error in understanding manifest, the complexity of subtle nuances which must be navigated in order to shed light upon the truth of a matter... only to then be ignored.

Seriously, I fear loss of sleep if some of the atrocious wrongs aren't righted sometimes. Lol. But when you try, you're automatically labeled the bad guy for denying this or that text with hardly any attempt to acknowledge what was said. Go figure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I agree we disagree that they are two opinions.