s1va

I don't think you get the part where I mentioned about your incessant interference and questioning starting to look more and more just as attempts to annoy other people with different views. I am going to say what I want to say very politely this time. In my view you are not really contributing to this discussion, asking questions sincerely to understand, but just attempting to derail the discussion with the repetitions of some fixed notions you subscribe to. Everyone has the right to question and present their views. But when there are some fundamental differences it is best to acknowledge the differences and just let go, and not engage in repetitive and meaningless questions. I will explain that with an example others can understand. Supposing if I say I believe in God and start a discussion about the beauty of God's creation. Some atheist can come and state his views in my thread. Even question my beliefs to a reasonable extent. But if he insists on proof to see God, or show the God to him/her, or accept there is no God, keeps coming back with same arguments and questions into the 6th page of the discussion. Every time I make a post about God, if that atheist comes back and questions/challenges me in my thread, (I keep telling him, I respect his views and to leave me alone in my own opinions and views), I would think it's nuisance and perhaps time to ask the person to leave or take other steps towards booting this person. Such views of a person would appear fanatical, wouldn't it? They would only show this person's deep attachment to the concept 'there is no God' universally for everyone, therefore everyone has to agree. In my view, you are starting to sound exactly like this and trying to annoy others. If I were you, I would just let go and not push my ideas on anyone. I take the good from several traditions and discard the not so good. I am not fanatical about any one tradition, engage in fights to uphold/defend all views of any one tradition, claim it is the only truth and other traditions are just a subset of mine. I have given up on having meaningful discussions with you as long as you engage in such line of arguments. You or anyone else can start any number of threads right here in TDB, criticizing KS or anything else, I wouldn't bother reading it or commenting (unless it is trying to dictate to me what I can and cannot do here in the forums like your other thread). Heck, there are concepts of KS, I don't agree with myself. I would happily criticize it myself. In my views all systems have plus and flaws. You start so many Advaita promotional sounding topics here in TDB Hindu section (hundreds of them in the past couple of years alone), many of them I am conceptually opposed to, I don't even read or comment on any of them. If someone were to challenge you incessantly on every single topic you create and engage in endless arguments, I don't think you would appreciate it. I hope you have enough wisdom to get the point by now and just let go without escalating this further needlessly.

Yes, Shaivism is so vast and there are numerous branches with varying philosophies, belief system and practices. I wrote very briefly about the 9 major Shaiva Tantra sects in this other thread in my PPD (with emphasis mainly on Trika 🙂). Not just Shaivism, several tantric traditions share some unique concepts among themselves, which distinguish them from Vedanta. As per the traditional Vedic belief, only Vedas (including Vedanta) are revelations from the Divine. The rest of the scriptures are not considered as revelations and considered as human thoughts and ideas shared in texts. Per Tantra traditions, their core Tantra text is also revelation from the divine. If we read the core works of Shaiva Tantra, they are dialogues between Shiva and Shakti.

I think you have made your views clear. I like those Upanishads and many ideas they present also. It is also the right attitude to know our experiences are limited, and there is always room for more. Thanks for sharing your ideas and thoughts on this subject.

In my opinion it doesn't get simpler than what I said in the post. If you think it doesn't answer your question (assuming you read all the recent posts I made on this topic), I doubt I can ever address your questions. I am fine with this also, because I see no need to convince anyone. I share the beauty of Abhinavagupta's teachings that I come across and describe them to those that are interested. If you agree and appreciate what I share it is great. If you disagree and state why this is also fine with me. But if you keep coming back challenging with your fixed notions, repeating the same points again and again, as I have stated many times already, I see no point in such debates and arguments. After a certain point, such repetitive interferences clearly present themselves as attempts to annoy others that present different views -- or simply share their experiences. This can further lead to extremes, like trying to determine who is qualified to discuss what and censor others activities in the forums. I think you need to be mindful of this.

So Jivas are independently existent apart from Shiva? Check the part I highlighted above.

I doubt it can get simpler than this. This is KS view: Countless jivas are real. One Shiva which is this entire reality making up all those jivas is also real. They are both equally real at the same time. AV view of Upanishads: Only Self is ultimate truth, countless jivas are just appearances or maya. They don't have existence outside Self. I am sure you would agree with this.

Only the KS holds the immanent to be equally true or valid. As per Upanishads or AV this is not valid as explained above. This is the entire difference I am trying to point out between KS and Advaita. I am glad finally we agree on certain things.

Agree that Upanishads indicate only one Self as the supreme truth. But Upanishads also talk about jivatma or the individual self. In KS view also ultimate Shiva is only One, not many. So, we are in agreement as to what you stated as per Hindu scriptures.

Tirodhana (concealing grace) is one of the 5 acts of Shiva, due to which jivas do not know readily, they are all part of and make up the one Shiva. It is the 5th act of Shiva (anugraha) which acts as divine grace and slowly unveils. None of this can change the ground reality of KS, that both bheda (multitudes of jivas) and abheda (non-dual) are equally valid at the same time. No point in quoting all the non-dual portions or teachings from KS. I get it. But, it is only one part of the Paramadvayavada that Abhinavagupta expounded.

Yes, jiva is appearance in Advaita. But in KS, it is not a meaningless super imposition. It is all reflection of Shiva. They are reflections, but jivas and the multitude is also a reality. Together they all make the 'Heart' that Abhinavagupta describes as the abode of Shiva.

You are describing the Advaidic view. In the views of KS, the apparent is also real. Both transcendent and immanent are true simultaneously at any point of time. Countless jivas, expansion, all of it are real just like Shiva. Not dream like appearances, which Abhinavagupta rejects as vivarta vada.

There are not multiple Shivas. As per the KS view, there is only one Shiva with those unlimited abilities. The jivas are just expanding to become like Shiva. Any talk about power, immediately ticks off some in the wrong way. One can immediately expect accusations about power seeking for personal purposes etc. This is not about that. Shiva is described with such great attributes and powers. When a jiva becomes like Shiva, slowly things start to unveil. This is the truth and how it works. Everyone is already part of the divine and it's just obscured. Whatever is obscuring, when it moves away, the jiva starts to shine. Wonder why this is so hard to believe.

The abilities or powers that unveil with Abhinavagupta's nondual realization:- I was going over the five veils as described in Kashmir Shaivism and the qualities of a person who has overcome all of these 5 veils. This illustrates once again the end result or the abilities that result because of the non-dual realization as described by Abhinavagupta. A person who has realized the Vedantic non-dual simply revels in the state of sat-chit-ananda everlasting bliss. However he may or may not have the abilities or powers listed below. We can always question what is the point of the abilities or the powers listed below, it is all maya etc. If our natural state is that of Shiva, and it is veiled by certain things, when that veils (kanchuka or cloak) are completely removed, we should also have the same exact abilities (like Shiva). So, this can also act as a reality check to see if a person has truly reached the goal as per Abhinavagupta's non-dual -- whether they have really become 'like Shiva' or just attained a state of bliss (sat-chit-ananda). The first veil is vidhya or knowledge. Someone that has reached the non-dual state as described by Abhinavagupta should directly know everything that there is to know. Jivas due to the veil of vidya/knowledge looks at each item or scene one by one. Compared to this Shiva, knows everything at the same time. Someone that has reached the state of Shiva will know everything. The second veil is the kalA or ability to perform certain actions. This is the veil that clouds jivas and makes them feel finite and do one thing at a time. This veil also limits the power to create things like Shiva. One who has overcome this veil will be able to will and with his will create things that do not exist like how Shiva does. The third veil is from rAga or attachment. This veil separates the person from the other things and creates desires and attachments. Someone who has overcome this veil can exist in higher planes of formless consciousness. The fourth is the niyathi that binds us to cause and effect and essentially with Space. Due to this viel the jivas perceive themselves in a particular place or fragment in the space. One who has overcome this veil, like Shiva is not bound by cause and effect and can be present everywhere or anywhere in the space. The fifth is the veil of kAla or time. The jivas are bound by the veil of time, the past, present and the future. One who has overcome this veil should be able to perceive the events from distant past or future as they are happening in the present moment, since they are not bound by time/kala.

Welcome interpaul! In my experience it is the struggles that invariably made me introspect and find the way ahead. Look forward to hearing more from you in the discussions!

The major argument that Ramanuja held on to support his philosophy of Vishishtadvaita was that the entire Vedas should be seen as a single unified corpus. The non-dual philosophers accept and quote Vedas as the source or their doctrine. However, if we look at the entire Vedic corpus, about 95% of it is dualistic, about rituals, worship of various deities, etc. The entire Vedanta would only constitute about 5% (approximately) of the whole Vedas. With the Advaita or non-dual, how do we explain the 95% that talks and encourages dualistic worship, rituals, etc.? It cannot be explained. Therefore such dualistic things are just termed as a (initial) stage in progression or evolution. In the early stages of evolution, a person sticks with the dualistic views, after a certain point they are ready, only in the final stages the Vedantic truth is revealed. But as per the non-dual schools only Vedanta is the ultimate truth. Ironically even Vedanta has portions that emphasize dwaita or dualistic view. Are we to assume that the 95% of the Vedas does not represent the ultimate truth, it is for people who are still caught up in duality. Just like a stepping stone, otherwise it has no inherent truth or value in and of itself. How can this be possible, if the entire Vedas are claimed to be revelations that were heard and shared by the Rishis/'seer'? If only 5% or the vedanta is ultimately true, then shall the 95% of the Vedas be held false from the standpoint of the ultimate truth? How can the followers of non-dual doctrine only claim they are followers of the (entire) Vedas? Unless the bheda (dwaita) and abheda (advaita) are both held to be true simultaneously, the Vedas cannot be seen as a unified corpus. From an entirely dualistic view also there are issues and the non-dual portions of the Vedas cannot be explained or held accountable. In my opinion, something like the paradvaita proposed by Abhinavagupta that holds both the transcendent and immanent to be true at the same time, can only accept the entire Veda as a unified corpus. Ramanuja's philosophy, while not exactly the same, takes a similar position and approach towards the dual and non-dual views in Veda.

Sounds similar to the divine grace in Tantra.

It's a typo. Just corrected it. I meant eternal (not external) listening as mentioned in your first post. No need to get upset over this and make assumptions on my intentions and actions. I am not interested in debating this or to engage in lengthy off topic discussions. Have a nice day!

Are you sure vichara is eternal listening? May be you are mixing it up with some other term. Vichara world be questioning or analysis rather than inference or listening.

Thanks for the reply even though I am not sure if you were stating those, or asking them as questions. I was just curious because your post explained Advaita very well except this one concept, in my view.

That is very good articulation of the Advaidic view. Just curious, how does Ishvara fit in this picture? Is Ishvara also a display of vanity in this view?

I never thought there was a point to this discussion from the start and said it so, with the exception that the premise of this thread to judge others as 'qualified' or 'not qualified' to engage in discussions as wrong. Thanks for award, but I am doing fine without it and would like to keep it that way. Just a suggestion though. Instead of seeing it as winning of someone, can it also be seen as inner resistence to concede on ideas from our side? I won't stand in the way of you discussing with others if you see no point in continuing the discussion with me. So, I will leave. Please continue the discussion with others. Much love

Those were your exact words (verbatim) and I did not put any of them there. You clearly seem to have an expanded view of your tradition as inclusive of all other traditions. I would hope at least you take responsibility for what you said instead of blaming that also as other's fault. No, none of this helps me clearly.

Thanks for sharing. It is indeed sad news. On the bright side, I am sure the Light from Norbu will keep shining, no matter what form he is in.

Well it was not. There's nothing I can share about Vedanta that is not already in the 10 principle upanishads. My answer is not very different from your answer to my request to post your understanding on KS. Since 2007 I have posted many such posts on Daobums. You say it's not. But readers can draw their own concussion. As to the part about your answer is not very different from some of my previous answer:. No way!!! I don't make assumptions that people have not read this or that text. I would never tell someone point-blank, just go read this or that, before they can ask me certain questions. Find one post where I did that and then you can claim they are similar. Until then, I have to dismiss that statement as absurd. As to the part about you have been doing this in TDB from 2007:. That hardly justifies the action in anyway. I don't even know why you bothered to point it out. That your seniority gives you the right to do so? Many people do things and get away with it for years, decades or lifetime, that hardly justifies those actions are right. I stand by what I said. The statement 'Read the 10 primary Upanishads', in response to what appeared like a sincere question, sounds patronizing to me.

Statements such as KS is Advaita tradition. Buddhism is also part of Advaita tradition and most Buddhists know this (I do not know a single Buddhist who thinks Buddhism is Advaita tradition). These statements are just baffling to say the least for me. I just find them plain wrong and insensitive in so many ways because they give zero thought to what others believe or cherish as their tradition. There was no insinuation in my words except expressing this bafflement in mildest terms. I have no interest to setup ground rules for anyone (or any tradition) to qualify or determine what is a genuine discussion in these topics. That was never my intent. I was arguing against that right from the start.