s1va

The technical and physiological process of how and what is important to certain extent. But, I feel without the intervention of divine grace (anugraha) at some point, it is not possible to find the truth. I don't see the role of divine grace mentioned in that process.

That's where the silence resides. But truth is not just silence like pure awareness. It is much more, it is alive and vibrant.

The only way to find truth is by turning inwards. Rather the question can be, where can I find the truth? One place where it can be found consistently is in the interval between 2 thoughts or sensations.

Shaiva Siddhanta is considered as one of the oldest Shaiva traditions. It started out completely as a dualistic school of philosophy. I have Tirumular Tirumantiram and read parts of it. There is no doubt in my mind at the time it was written, the ideas were dualistic. Later this tradition adopted some of the non-dual concepts from Advaita and also Monistic concepts from Kashmir Shaivism. As per researchers, the Trika Kashmir Shaivism has also taken several concepts, mantras and rituals from the Shaiva Siddhanta. The songs/poems by the 4 greatest devotees of this tradition Appar, Sundarar, Sambandar and Manikkavacakar, called as Nalvar 'the 4' among the 63 Nayanmars are mostly dualistic praising and prayers of Lord Shiva. Nevertheless they are beautiful gems and a pleasure to read. I found the following also in Wikipedia about Shaiva Siddhanta which might explain what I have described above.

The arguments that Ramanuja makes can be classified broadly into two or three categories. One of them is the negatives or discrepancies, in other words the problems that Ramanuja sees with the non-dual advaitic and monistic (he also opposed the bhedabheda views of his time that simply emphasized the non-dual) interpretation of Vedanta. It is important to point out the negatives (incorrect/inconsistent observations and analysis) of the other systems, when a teacher/master is embarking on teaching a new philosophy or system, in order to differentiate and explain what is different or unique about their system. Majority of his arguments are positive, in other words explaining the entire Vedas including Vedanta as a single unified corpus that makes sense in its entirety with his system of Vishishtadvaita. Not to simply allude, the first portion (karma and rituals part or purva paksha of Vedas) is only true for certain people or stages, it is false or not applicable to those that are in advanced/later states. Once again, if Vedas are revelations or the universal truths that were revealed to the humanity by the 'seers' or Rishis, then it has to make sense in its entirety, every portion of it (dualistic/dvaita and non-dual/advaita) must be equally true for all levels of seekers. Such view is simply not possible with the Advaita interpretation of Vedanta. The third variety of Ramanuja's arguments is generally described is about the consistent interpretation of the scriptures.

The book 'Tantra Illuminated - The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a Timeless Tradition by Christopher D Wallis" is by far the best introduction to Tantra and Kashmir Shaivism that I have come across so far, in English. The title is a bit misleading, because it does not state clearly that the emphasis of the book is on Shaivism rather than Tantra in general. The book does provide ample generic introduction to Tantra, its history and practices, but the primary focus is on Shaivism and Kashmir Shaivism in particular. Some of the advantages of the books as I see them are, it communicates using very simple terms, that beginners can pick up without having any prior knowledge or familiarity with the technical terms used in Tantra and Shaivism. The author is knowledgeable and proficient in communicating even the complex ideas with some really good examples. Many other celebrated books in Kashmir Shaivism like 'Siva Sutras', 'The Triadic Heart of Siva', The Doctrine of Vibration or 'The Secret Supreme' can be intimidating to a beginner who is unfamiliar with the terms and concepts generally used in Kashmir Shaivism. Instead of trying to learn, many might give up after reading few chapters painfully in any of the books mentioned above. Not to discount any one of them, they are all clearly masterful works in explaining the higher concepts and truth of the Kashmir Shaivism philosophy. But their sophistication and use of higher terminologies right from the start would more than likely drive away the casual reader trying to understand what Tantra and Kashmir Shaivism is all about. In my opinion, a bridge is needed to cross over to those higher works. This book acts exactly as that in my opinion. First a person needs to learn to stay afloat in water, before going on to learn some advanced techniques and participating in competitions. I read some critical reviews of Wallis's books by some other experts or author's in Kashmir Shaivism in Amazon. They go on to point out some of the differences between Wallis's definition and that of others like Swami Lakshmanjoo, with respect to 'awareness/consciousness', etc, in few places. Even such critics have appreciated the effort by the author to put together the concepts in such simplistic way in this book. My answer to such criticism is, the author may perhaps be wrong about some of the higher concepts, assuming this is even true, it is fine by me, and this book is still by far the best introduction to Tantra and Kashmir Shaivism in English is my opinion. In order to learn swimming, one does not need an instructor who is the best, understands the highest concepts or won olympic swimming medals. Such people who may be the best swimmers may not necessarily be the best teachers or the people best suited to explain the basic concepts. They may write wonderful books about the higher techniques and nuances of swimming, a beginner who reads these might get overwhelmed and give up on wanting to learn swimming. I would rather go with a teacher, who uses appropriate techniques and tools and helps the beginners to understand and learn to swim. This book in my view is doing exactly this, teaching the concepts of Tantra to those that are beginners and not familiar with the topic. In this way, the claim this book makes in the 'Preface' stating it is an unique undertaking and first of it's kind to explain Tantra to the general audience, has some validity in my opinion (I would qualify that with 'General audience in English'). This also does not mean someone who is familiar with Tantra may not benefit from the book. The book does cover some complicated aspects of various philosophies such as advaita, monism, paradvaita, etc. Tantra Illuminated - The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a Timeless Tradition by Christopher D Wallis

That is by far the best explanation I have seen so far that makes sense to me about Paradvaita is, and also in comparison with the Buddhist and Advaita philosophies. It also made me understand why and how this differs from Ramanuja's vishishtadvaita philosophy. Apparently Ramanuja has seen this as very similar to the Buddhist philosophy. Thanks for sharing the article. The following part also made sense to me. I agree with the author of this article, no reconciliation between Vedanta and KS is even necessary. Why engage in such futile actions. Finally this last paragraph helped me understand why I used to think Advaita Vedanta and the Trika Kashmir Shaivism are essentially one and the same. It is just a stage of journey I went through and can understand it is possible to get struck in this view. Many of the modern commentaries I read initially were indeed written by commentators who are Advaita Vedanta masters. Obviously, in their views and therefore in their presentation they go on to emphasize it is one and the same. Only when I started reading Trika commentaries explained by those who truly understand it, or from that tradition I started to understand the differences.

This forum generously affords the members personal practice area (PPD). You can set your rules and enforce them there right away and no one here would say a thing. Those who agree with you can participate there in enforcing these rules. It becomes an issue only when someone tries to impose their ideas and rules with other members in the general areas of the forum. As Karen and I keep pointing out, this is against the spirit of the forum rules as we understand and interpret them.

For the "we" to make sense, everyone or the majority should be in agreement with your rules.

Civil agreements with each person's subjective view of which discussions fall under jalpa and vitanda? Is it practical or possible?

So, you agree there is more to this post, it resulted from a chain of events! If I recall right Karen and I made those post after you started attacking here and as the result of several other actions. Your actions do not seem to correspond with your words in general. Anyway, I am not going to engage in fueling this further with you. I know that you will come back with rebuttal for everything that is stated and justify your actions. So, I will leave it here.

No, they don't. Buddhism and Jainism are considered to fall under Nastika (Atheist systems since they oppose Vedas). They are not part of Hindu philosophy and they don't subscribe to the beliefs listed in the original topic of this post. That is why it is listed as other Indian philosophy and not as Hindu philosophy in wikipedia. I don't have to prove this, anyone familiar with the sad darshanas will know these other systems are Nastika and fall outside Hindu belief systems.

Staff move things from one part of the forums to other from time to time to arrange the topics and to make sure the topic falls under the right category. There are other posts that have been moved before. We rarely ever get attacked for this. Typically if there are any concerns, the person sends an inquiry asking why the topic moved to a different section. If their intentions were noble and they just wanted a discussion.

Well, I will try to expand a little bit more on why I thought this is a Hindu discussion. There are multiple orthodox or traditional Hindu schools/systems or philosophies that are taught even today as part of Vedanta curriculum in traditional schools. They are the saddarshanas listed below. The six systems comprising of Sankhya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. The topics of discourses listed in this topic is part of the Nyaya school of thought which would fall entirely under the domain of Hindu philosophy and thoughts. Moreover, there is additional background to these terms. Advaitins over the centuries have used the last two as a derogatory term against anyone that proposed any arguments against their system. Even today in India, the vitanda-vada is colloquially used even by common man in many places to put down the other person's arguments as pointless and confrontational. This is why I referred to the some of the recent actions as despicable. @Dwai - If your intentions were truly good in creating this topic and to discuss the 'discourses', you also state your intentions are noble, you like everyone here, and you never argue to win. I would like to ask some questions. When the topic was moved, you could have sent a PM to me or other staffs asking for the reason and request to move it back, before blaming on the post about the intention of misuse of moderation, etc. Did you take any such steps? As a next step, you could have reported the post and requested it moved back. But you decided to come all out and attack in the thread. Also, you write more things like 'People like you.....' naming me and Karen. Not really sure what such characterizations mean. I am not convinced with the arguments you make so far. They are all in attacking style and not really sound like an effort to resolve the issue.

Very interesting! The entire article. Especially, the quoted text above tries to capture the gist of this thread/topic (Vedantic non-dual vs. Abhinavagupta's non-dual) and conveys it in a much better way than I could have ever articulated.

@Jonesboy - Thanks for sharing the article. It explains and summarizes the difference beautifully. I find the definition of maya in particular to be very interesting, power of divine vs. the power of illusion. There is a world of difference (literally 🙂) right there. Great distinction in also pointing out clearly that divine grace is recognized in Vedanta or Upanishads, but rejected by Shankara in his philosophy of Advaita. What I find even more interesting is the fact this article is from a reputable Vedantic source, the Kamakoti mandali, which is from the followers of acharyas and direct descendents of Adi Shankara.

I have made it very clear I don't want to keep engaging in this line of dialogue and arguments with you and certain others here (about Maya or what you think of AV). You simply are not getting it, are you? You guys want to keep pushing the boundaries of what is considered civil, go ahead, and be ready to face any consequences of your actions. I am stating that as a member and as the person who started this conversation at this point. From this point onwards, I am directly requesting you to refrain from making posts along these lines in this thread. You are welcome to start your own thread and discuss your ideas and list your criticisms. Any further posts from you along the same lines, playing the same tune, will be considered as spamming this thread. Who cares about the greatness of your philosophy when it lacks basic civility, decency and courtesy? Please show it in actions, not just in words, by keep stating, you will bow out gracefully (you said this on page 2 or 3), you will stop being a nuisance. Just the sheer hypocrisy of these words and actions! Yes, let the readers judge for themselves.

Whatever I say is just fueling your obsession more and more and resulting as retaliation here. Therefore, I won't continue answering you and keep fueling this. Good luck in getting to the center and come out of this obsession. Good night fellow bums

I understand and appreciate it. Yes, I try to not get involved in them either. But, when one is forced in my face, I don't back off without a say also!

This topic is more than what it appears to be. Some attempts were initially made in a certain thread first to tell others what they can and cannot discuss here. When that did not go well, a topic was started along the lines, 'you are NOT qualified.....'. It did not end there. Further efforts were made along the same lines in another thread of mine earlier today. When I spelt out clearly that demands on other members won't be tolerated in my thread, immediately as a retaliation this thread was started. It needs to be seen in it's context. Unfortunately many may not see it in context and jump to conclusions. This is fine with me.

As a member, I can happily ignore your "discourses" as needed. But as a staff, I won't sit by and let you dictate your distorted hierarchy and qualifications on other members here.

I appreciate you spelling this out very clearly. That is exactly what is going on, some trying to establish an hierarchy over other members here. It's just despicable and they just don't seem to give up, and just keep at it obsessively!

Call it what you want. There is a reason for the different sections of the forum. Personally, I could (and would) spare myself of your lecture/discourse on Dharma. Good luck with the discussion!

I am not inclined to answer since I feel such questions are already answered. Those who have the ability to see the answers do. I don't mind the above staying as a reference this time, but I do consider it as nuisance I described earlier. Everytime I make a post with my views, questioning and challenging my views obsessively shows you simply lack the ability to let go. You cannot demand explanations that satisfies you, and complies to your opinion from others here, for someone to just express their views in forums. I can substantiate what I stated directly from Vedanta and a dozen Upanishads right away, but I am not interested. It is a generalization is your view. I would suggest that you just give it a rest and may be take a break from this topic.

This topic should clearly go under 'Hindu' discussion and not in General section, if it is about some Hindu methods of discourse. If there is concern once again on what other members can discuss or not discuss, then it should go under the 'Forum and Tech Support' section. I don't see this as a General topic of spiritual discussion. I think it should be moved to the appropriate section of the forum.