s1va

Sorry for the repetition. This was part of the large text quoted before. I wanted to separate and post only the following. A lot may ignore that long post with all the differences. I feel following is the essence of the difference. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The third area of difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the essence, the substance, the basis of this universe. Vedānta holds that this universe is untrue, unreal. It does not really exist. It is only the creation of illusion (māyā). Concerning this point, Kashmir Śaivism argues that if Lord Śiva is real, then how could an unreal substance come out from something that is real? If Lord Śiva is real, then His creation is also real. Why should it be said that Lord Śiva is real and His creation is an illusion (māyā)? Kashmir Śaivism explains that the existence of this universe is just as real as the existence of Lord Śiva. As such, it is true, real, pure, and solid. There is nothing at all about it which is unreal."

I should have expected that on a topic that discusses Advaita

I can wholeheartedly agree with this. They are all different modalities working towards the object of liberation. And I believe all sincere seekers will sooner or later reach liberation. But methods and understanding are also important. In liberation, I see multiple endpoints, not just one Moksha. This may explain to the difference in our views. Here is some article that I found on Swami Lakshmanjoo academy site, that explains the difference between Vedanta and KS in general. http://www.lakshmanjooacademy.org/podcast/difference-kashmir-saivism-advaita-vedanta/

What if I say everything is part of a vibration and it is all exchange of incoming and outgoing energy flows?

What is with this need to control others? There are no others separate from you. When this is realized, the need for seeking control over others might be replaced with compassion. Then the power might start flowing into you.

I am curious. I think what I stated in the OP accurately describes the view of Advaita Vedanta. Why do you think it's not correctly posited. The Braham alone is real and the jagat is mithya is the basic concept of Advaita. Perhaps in your view of Advaita, you feel there is more to it, and it is inclusive of some other philosophies or systems. What I stated were documented differences between Advaita and Monism, which is accepted as different by various masters from both sides of the aisle. At least, the KS masters never engaged in criticizing the views of Advaita that were different. They just pointed it out. Whereas the Vaishnava schools that follow this type of Monism or qualified non-dual philosophies, engage in outright rejection and criticism of the way the Brahman and how the reality is described in Advaita. They have gone to great lengths to explain the difference. After learning what I have learned, there is no way I can agree Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, or for that matter any other Tantric system, describe the same thing as the final goal or Realization. This is simply not the case.

Those that think there is 'other' to control, know nothing about power or for that matter anything else.

That is a brilliant exposition. Thanks for sharing that. Though we hold different views on this, I am glad I started this topic. It is not tangential at all, the different angles add to the beauty of the discussion.

Adi Shankara did say "Sivoham" in his work Nirvana Shatakam. However, there is so much attributed to Shankra and also we need to take them in the context in which they are given. He had primarily the view of Advaita, which does not accept this becoming into Shiva, or becoming into anything else other than Brahman. Even when he said Sivoham, it's from the standpoint of Aham Brahmasmi, and not anything else. If the manifested world is a mistake of perception, such as the rope being perceived as snake, the only thing that matters is this mistaken perception and there is no need to become like Shiva to dispel this wrong perception. The Shiva can be entirely taken out of the equation. Such is not the case with Shaivism which centers on Shiva and Vaishnavism that centers on Vishnu. Also, on quoting that Shankara said this also, can once again lead to many different ends and to justify many different philosophies because of the diverse and extraordinary amount of works attributed to Shankara. Shankara is also the author of 'Bhaja Govindam' that sings the praise of 'Govinda' / Krishna / Vishnu. There are few devotees of Hare Krishna, who routinely quote this and say Sankara ultimately accepted that Krishna is the only God. We all know that is not the meaning or purport of Bhaja Govindam, I think the same may be the case with Nirvana Shatakam. Though he says Sivoham, I am sure he did not mean the same as what Abhinavagupta meant in transforming into Shiva. There is also another issue or concern regarding the actual authorship of Shankara. For instance some verses in the Bhaja Govindam are attributed to Shankara's disciples who held slightly different view on some subjects. The very popular tantric poems on the beauty of the Goddess, The Soundarya Lahari (a complete Tantric work) is attributed to Adi Shankra and Sage Pushpadanta. I have no doubt that Shankara authored some part of this work as observed in the wikipedia article. But which part or verses is something that is very hard to determine. Going by his core works, we have to assume that Adi Shankara primarily explained the Vedanta from the Advaita standpoint, and we need to interpret his words in this context. I hope you would agree

Difference is difference. The degree is just a perception that cannot alter the fact they are different.

Depends on who you ask the question! If you ask me, I might say, It's me Jokes aside, can you please define power?

I take exception to the part where you state, God made sure that someone somewhere always suffered. While I can agree that someone somewhere is possibly suffering always -- in the way suffering is defined in Buddhism -- what has this got to do with the intention of God? And who is this God per your definition?

I meant it in the way, if everyone is ready and sincerely applies Buddha's teachings, all of them would be liberated and therefore the end of humanity as we know. Sentient beings still live. Only a fraction -- comparing the entire population of Earth from Buddha's time to now -- actually followed and applied the teachings. Out of that only a very small fraction was able to truly break the wheel of karma.

I agree with this assessment. Though what Buddha taught was relevant for everyone, only a fraction of humanity at any given point of time is truly ready for his teachings, to apply them and to break the wheel.

Inorder to solve a problem, it helps to know what the problem is, that is to be solved. The task that Buddha undertook was enormous. He set out to explain the malady or problem that afflicts all sentient beings. To explain in such a way that can be understood easily by the layman to the expert in pursuit of liberation. It is relatively easier to describe a (any) problem, to one set of audience who follow certain framework. But it is very hard to generally summarize the problem for everyone. It may be easy to call it all as illusion or false and just reject. But to explain or communicate in a way that not only makes sense to everyone, but also describe a clear path out of it with steps, is just a monumental task beyond imagination. Such a task can only be undertaken by a Buddha. Sakyamuni Buddha's teachings are one of the most direct that gets to the core of the problem or malady that causes suffering. I consider the 4 noble truths to be the best possible description that also defines a clear path out of suffering. We need to be also in the right place in our evolution to understand and apply his teachings entirely. It is a teaching that seemed to have arisen from a deep clarity which is extremely rare. May be one person reaches such level of clarity in several centuries. The culture and the background from which Buddha came at that time in India may also partly explain why the samsara was seen and described from the problem and suffering angle. Similar views werevthere in the Hindu religion in which Buddha was born. Moksha or the liberation was supposed to be the goal. Personally, I feel it would be very hard to describe the problem and the solution any better than how Buddha did thousands of years back. It is the best possible summary or narrative that describes accurately the problem faced by all sentient beings.

I guess the difference lies right there in what you stated. Self/Brahman is the truth and if all else (illusion/maya) doesn't have self nature seperate from Brahman, they don't have real existence. Though I like Abhinavagupta's ideas and they make sense to me, I am not arguing one is right and other is wrong here. Merely observing the difference. As Jeff points out, the result or outcome is also different in these systems. All Tantric systems, even the Vaishnava systems and their Agamas seem to have a different result from the Vedanta and Brahman. In Vaishnava systems, one reaches vaikunta and becomes like or in the image of Vishnu.

Lot of texts were written about chakra openings, the corresponding experiences and the changes that come along with the opening of these chakras. Once a chakra is open, is the work done? Can the opened chakra get obstructed or closed again? Some texts state that things such chakra openings can go back, close again or get obstructed, at least until the person reaches a certain level. Some masters from the past have stated that the heart opening is the key point, after which the consciousness cannot drop to lower levels. Like a point after which there is no going backwards. That makes sense in some ways. The heart opening is just not a physiological change, it seems to be a sort of realization. Supposing the heart chakra can close again -- which seems to be a possibility in my observation -- does it mean that the person who had some sort of realization or awakening is unrealized now with respect to that particular realization or awakening? This unrealizing part is the challenging one. I feel that once there is a realization, a person may forget what they realized, but can not unrealize it ever. There is also a lot of debate on the point after which there is no going (falling) back. Some state it is the heart opening and some others say it is after the central channel (sushumna) opens and Kundalini is able to flow through it. Looks like most great masters from the past agreed on that except Buddha, who said it is possible to fall down even after the opening of the central channel. Just curious what others feel about the closing of chakras or falling back! Also the point after which there is no going back and the person or the entity just keeps moving forward. Something like Earth's escape velocity. If we throw an object in the sky it falls back due to the gravity of the earth. If someone throws an object above a certain speed called escape velocity, it is going to travel out of earth's atmosphere and keep going. What is the escape velocity in spiritual progress

I wanted to point out this one distinction or correction to what I stated in the OP. I described the first view as Vedantic nondual. While this is true, the Vaishnava and other schools give different interpretation of their own to the non-dual Brahman. As something that is unique and 'one without a second', but not as relating to the subject and object entirely. Therefore, the nondual state I described here is more Advaita Vedanta nondual vs. Abhinavagupta's nondual.

Not only is that entire thing described so beautifully, this last part seems to act as a milestone or reality check also. If someone has reached or become one with Shiva, they must be feeling in the midst of the ambrosial ocean of consciousness as described here.

Perhaps it is time for you to read some works of Abhinavagupta, or some books from Kashmir Shaivism. You will find lot of fascinating things right along the lines of the thoughts and ideas you expressed in your post. Possibly answers to questions like what lies beyond awareness? I thought I have read a lot about the awareness/conciousness, etc., the concept is similar and it is just expressed in different terms with different traditions. They are all almost the same conceptually. Until, I came across the Monism as explained by Abhinavagupta. The following quote is just a sample. You can check out titles like, 'The Siva Sutras', 'The Triadic Heart of Śiva', 'The Secret Supreme', etc. Some of Christopher Wallis's recent books provide a solid introduction to the subject. I have learned that this is not a user friendly subject to learn for some reason. So, I like starting with simpler books such as Wallis's that first gives a solid introduction to Tantra. I find the underlying ideas of Tibetan Buddhism, Dzogchen, Buddhist Tantras and Vaishnava Tantras to have many similarities with the fundamentals of KS. https://yogainternational.com/article/view/tantra-and-the-teachings-of-abhinavagupta

I mentioned I am in total agreement with exercising caution in presenting things to a minor. My point and question was about something else. The seeming determination as to who is qualified for advanced and end stage practices and who are ready only for fundamentals. Not sure how that link from psychology today is relevant to what is discussed here!

Yama and Niyamas are the basic tenets of Yoga. The very first principle of Yama that is generally taught is Ahimsa or non-violence. Here is what Swami Sivananda one of the foremost teachers of Vedanta has to say on that... Here is the entire article from The Divine Life Society: http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/ahimsa.htm

While I am in total agreement with exercising caution when presenting things to minors, I am curious about the first part of your post. Are you saying all minors (below the legal age, 18, 21 or whatever), perhaps don't have the fundamentals and are not ready for “high level" "completion type" practices/exercises? Or just in this case, it is your conclusion that perhaps this particular minor does not have the fundamentals and is not ready for such practices? If so, how did you arrive at the conclusion about this minor? Is it based on reading some of his posts in the forum?

You have already reported this thread with all your concerns and your report is under review by staff. It is just a friendly suggestion to leave it and move on. You are welcome to push and see where it takes you.

I think you have voiced your concern and it was answered. If I were you, I would move off. This is just getting repetitive and meaningless.