dwai

Since you observe that your mind is tight, then you can stay with the sense of being (awareness) that senses the tightness of the mind. It gets progressively easier to do, when you remain with the awareness (of being tight, being relaxed, etc etc) and let go of focus on tightness, relaxation, etc.

That's your prerogative That still leaves room for the questions I've raised (to the discerning mind). It is wonderful and I think Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Shaivism as beautiful traditions. I don't have much difference from them given that for me, KS and AV are sister (almost twin sister) traditions I am genuinely trying to understand how and why you (and some others) interpret KS the way you do. We already saw that there aren't infinite number of non dual shivas but only One, and jivas are none other than Shiva himself. So then to keep insisting that Jivas are "real" but not defining what "real" means in this context seems a bit evasive to me. Yeah yeah....I know you'll respond that it's my interpretation and that you are free to do whatever you want ( i never contested that, nor did I ever insist that you should follow my view. I merely exercised my right to question what i consider erroneous presentation of AV). Since we're so happy to tout the public nature of a discussion board, perhaps that option (to question) should be left available to prevent soliloquies being passed off as fact?

That doesn't address my questions

So Jivas are independently existent apart from Shiva? If you are using the term "reality" for AV and KS similarly, we should investigate whether it means the same thing in the two traditions. AV says, "Unreal" means no independent self-existence, and not a denial of existence per se. So Jiva is dependent on Brahman -- whose independent veiling power (creativity) called Maya results in Brahman forgetting itself and appearing as Jivas. Does KS use of "veiling" mean the same as the veiling of AV? Does KS use of "real" mean the same thing as AV? In that, is "real" in KS indicative of independent self-existence?

Further more

The jiva itself is an appearance alone. Adhyasa (super-imposition) of limitations by Shiva on himself. From the Shiva Sutras - A supreme awakening, First Awakening section --

A more well thought through article on this topic (and associated discussions that have ensued recently) -- https://www.medhajournal.com/the-unbroken-samadhi-underlying-thoughts/

Yes I believe that to be accurate. My Master knows what is on our minds before we articulate them. In Advaita Vedanta the following qualifications are required to be a formal teacher -- A traditional teacher who is well versed in the Vedas and is abiding in Brahman (“stotriya brahmanishtha”) . However, there are avadhutas who fall outside the realm of stotriya brahmanishtha category. They teach on their own authority and their attainment is evident with their presence. However, what they teach is congruent with the Vedas and established tradition.

Before one criticizes another tradition or tries to posit comparative analyses, the following questions should be taken into consideration. Why are you interested in the differences? You will know, deep in your heart why. Is it to prove X is better than Y? Do you think having a transactional (mercantile) attitude towards spirituality is going to serve you well in the long run? Have you actually learnt in their entirety, the systems that you are comparing? I'll take Advaita Vedanta for instance. Many a sharpshooter has tried to do these type of comparative studies of AV (AV vs This or That). Hold on a second...are you actually qualified to do so? If you want to do justice to your intellect and your spiritual path, you need to first qualify as a student. In Ancient India, there was a healthy tradition of debates between different schools of thought/sprituality. But that required a deep understanding of both positions (that which you are speaking for, and that which you are critiquing). If AV vs "X, Y or Z" is your topic of choice, you need to qualify as a serious student first, before you get the right to criticize it. In order to be considered a serious Advaita Vedantin, the following conditions need apply -- Sādhanā chatustāya - The Four Means What are they? The four means are -- Viveka - The ability to discriminate real from unreal (Real here means that which has independent Self-nature - aka the Self). This at least needs to manifest in the ability to discern what doesn't have independent self-nature (aka phenomena). vairagya - Non-attachment Shadsampat - The six virtues -- Shama - Tranquility of the mind (reducing the modifications of the mind) Dama - Control of the senses uparati - cessation of the need for sensory activities (not craving experiences), implying a sense of contentment titikshā - Fortitude - The ability to persevere with the inquiry/practice. Come what may, I WILL NOT give up until I have full understanding shraddhā - Respect for the tradition, the teachings and it's preceptors. samādhāna - Focus that will allow one to pursue the inquiry Mumukshutva - Burning Thirst for Liberation If you don't have these, then you are not a serious student of Advaita Vedanta. These are the qualities that qualify one to be an Advaita Vedantin (adhikāri). If you haven't done your homework, your comparisons are going to be in vain. Some of the shoddy comparisons I find pertaining to Advaita Vedanta prompted me to write this post. Somethings we should avoid doing is setting up straw man arguments. This is 101 in debates. Otherwise the comparisons/debates become farcical. What constitute straw man arguments? Attributing cherry-picked/out of context, or incomplete facts towards one party of the comparison/debate, or, worse still, half-truths (or half-lies). For instance - "Advaita Vedanta says World is False/illusory". Yes, but when taken in context of the second part of the statement - The World is none other than Brahman who is Absolute Reality, it doesn't seem as shocking or dramatic anymore. Or take for instance the statement - "Advaita Vedanta says that the limited being cannot experience the Universal Being". No where in any upanishads or commentaries of the various Advaita Vedanta masters is that said. Instead, when we study deeper, we find that Advaita Vedanta says the Universal Being (Brahman) appears to the individual being in different forms depending on the state he/she is in (waking, dreaming, deep-sleep). The list can go on and on...but I'll stop here. Hari Om Tat Sat

It could be with the teacher asking the student questions and evaluating their answers; or based on the type of questions the student might be asking. Also teachers can use the inner-eye to see the students' level.

That the methodology differs is perfectly understandable. Traditional teachers typically ask the individual to do what is called a purascharana before any transmission is done. The individual is again re-evaluated after the purascharana is completed to see if they are ready for advanced transmission (could be energetic or jnana). The purascharana is what triggers antahkarana shuddhi (purification of the mental components).

Okay. By that do you mean in one case it seems like a passive thing (seeker comes in proximity of the sage and gets enlightened by induction) whereas in the other, an active thing (seeker is given active transmission by the sage)? In case of the AV masters, they just point to the truth that is already in the seeker. The Seeker is already Brahman. Just a removal of the veil is needed to point to the truth. I'm adding a video of satsangs with Papaji. NOTE: I've selected Papaji as he is from the old guard (Direct disciple of Ramana Maharshi) whose method has been captured on video. I don't think its been lost. "Agent of God" or "Instrument of God" only happens when one's personal identity is known to be as just a role. It depends on the temperament of the jiva (predicated on prarabdha karma) as to how they view this. Some simply identify with and as God themselves, while others choose to view themselves as bhaktas. My Master's perspective is that of a bhakta (devotee). Similar was the perspective many sages (such as Sri Ramakrishna). One question that arises is as follows -- If the seeker is not ready (ie they've not done sufficient work in purifying), such as someone who's at level 3 or lower (per your method), would it be possible to do a transmission to them, and will it result in their attaining self-realization (awakening)? It seems, that the individuals seem to have work to do (effort to turn their minds inward and away from body-mind-world identification) before a transmission like that can have an effect.

I think this is true for many other traditions too. For instance, when my Master initiated me, it was the same way. He is not a Kashmir Shaivism practitioner (albeit he is a great devotee of Lord Shiva). He was transmitting his daoist lineage in the way his master transmitted to him. It unfolded in exactly the same way for me. But that is what I would consider sharing presence. All it takes is "lighting" the fire. Ramana Maharshi described it like this (quoting inexactly) --

http://www.inannareturns.com/articles/shivasutras/sutra001-19-21.htm it seems like it is SLJ’s perspective Isn’t it the same way as how when people would go to Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj or Papaji, their presence induced the presence in the seekers? Having directly experienced what you are writing about I have no doubt about the transmission or it’s efficacy. So it’s not about that. But it’s a common understanding that siddhis are side effects of sadhana and not the objective. Even in Yoga, siddhis are considered signs of progress but not the end in itself. I know you are not espousing siddhis as an end, and as I understand your perspective is that when we have them we should use them for benefit of others. I don’t have a problem with that. My master uses his siddhis too, but he always does it via prayer (acting as the agent of God). He consciously and willingly gives up doership. In terms of power (ie ability to manipulate the ‘matrix’), he is one of the most powerful people I’ve met.

Found some very interesting perspectives, which are congruent with AV coming from the KS discipline.

I don’t get it. Where is the concept of blob here? Blob makes me think of it as a passive homogenized thing. Whereas here it is active in the sense there is from the causal body (ishwara) an universal mind and then an universal body manifests. All of this is happening in awareness. How is the happening static or passive? Also would using the terms active or passive actually apply to awareness itself? I don’t think so. The realization is that one IS Brahman, not a component of Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta. Per other schools of vedanta, not so. So they are not Advaita pure, but qualified Advaita or dvaita

That is called Hiranyagarbha in the Vedantic tradition and is associated with the subtle body (sukshma sharira). At the causal level, Brahman is called Ishwara (or God) and is corresponding to the causal body (kārana sharira). These are still appearances in Brahman. In the Vedantic tradition, beyond the causal level there is only Brahman (aka Turiya or Atman). However, at the manifestation level, there are three aspects corresponding to the physical, subtle and causal bodies/planes. The Physical body of Brahman is the Universe. The subtle body of the Brahman is Hiranyagarbha (Universal Mind) and the causal body of the Brahman is Ishwara (God).

Wrt Brahman, there is no “ more than one” or “one”. One and many only exist in duality.

Okay it’s got to a point where there’s no use of this discussion with you anymore. Not because I’m being dismissive, but because it seems you are intent on “winning” an argument. Fwiw, you ARE a winner, already being Brahman. 🤗

The entire thread on Tripura Rahasya specially refutes cessation of knowing (nirvikalpa samadhi). I agree that there is no concept of spanda in AV. That said, spanda could be the collective of rising and falling (some of which is experienced as gain/loss, pleasure/pain by the sentient beings in the transactional world) which appears in Brahman. However the statement “Brahman is a static blob” is incorrect and is a strawman. Brahman is the only activity - awareness, that makes everything else known Energy is the creative power of Brahman - maya. It is called shakti in shaiva traditions. The same Brahman is called shakti (awareness and energy) in the shakta traditions.

Advaita doesn’t mean Advaita Vedanta alone. Advaita is nonduality. Why can’t two more traditions be Advaita (not Vedanta, as the method and theory is different across these traditions). But being nondual, they are essentially reaching the same end. It seems that you are purposely being presumptuous here (putting words into my mouth). If that helps you in some way, so be it.

you are conveniently ignoring what I said about what constitutes “unreal” in Indic traditions. Yes. One doesn’t need to become Brahman, one already is Brahman.

I answered two. One I said you have to read up yourself. I’m not sure what is unanswered Okay repeating my answers again — Q. Is the world real or unreal? A. World is existent. But considered unreal in AV. Why unreal? Because it doesn’t have independent self existence, but is rather dependent on a subject/awareness. Q. Is there only one Brahman and can every one become Brahman A. Everyone is always and already Brahman but the knowledge is obscured by ignorance. What is ignorance? Fixation on objects and identification with the body and mind. Q. Can you give me scriptural evidence of the above answers? A. Read the 10 primary Upanishads did you not find my answers satisfactory?

Help me understand what specifically you are looking for AV as you know is a huge body of work and the primary Upanishads contain all the important teachings. If you want the deep end of the pool, I’d recommend reading Yoga Vashishtha or Tripura Rahasya. Understanding develops with time, with contemplation and meditation. You are an advanced practitioner, so if you stop looking for flaws and differences in the teachings and give it a fair shot, you will definitely come to the same conclusions I have, of this I’m sure.