/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20314524]

>>20314038
>To speak of shiva being conscious of anything without shakti then is impossible because shakti IS that awareness, shakti IS that conscious, conscious as in being conscious of a thing is what shakti is.
Okay, I get it. I guess I assumed that since Shakti is said to be shiva's partner that forms the world that the phenomena of sound, form etc are made of Shakti instead of Shakti referring one's the awareness of them. I maintain that colors and sounds etc are not self-aware and that the awareness, even the 'intentional' awareness or Shakti that knows them is itself partless, colorless, soundless and non-identical with the perceived mental sound and colors. I think the Buddhist doctrine which says they are identical (sahopalambhaniyama) was refuted by Shankara and the same was done more extensively by later Advaitins like Vimuktātman. I known KS is supposedly influenced by Dharmakirti but I'm not sure if they accept that doctrine. And I'm not sure if they did how this would even be squared with Shiva being the luminous light aspect of consciousness, since it would involve the contradiction of saying the Shakti (directed awareness of phenomena appearing as that object) being aware of itself (which is supposed to be the non-intentional 'I' or subjectivity of shiva)

>>What does KS say happens in dreamless sleep
>Complex question but the tldr is that the three, waking, dreaming and sleeping, reflect the trinity of shiva shakti and empirically created identity, with dreamless sleep being akin to shiva as shiva without shakti, thus shakti/conscious is indrawn and hidden as nirguna.
Advaita says that even in deep sleep without duality and the mind (not-self) being present, that the reflexive self-disclosure of pure awareness continues without any object, like an eye in a room with no light on. The reason why this is consider different from the ever-liberated Brahman-Atman after final liberation is because of the presence of ignorance or the indeterminate maya even in dreamless sleep as that very state of sleep, since the Atman is it's non-duality is free from waking, dream and deep sleep, those 3 states being superimposed onto Atman by the Buddhi. The presence of ignorance even in dreamless sleep conceals the real nature of the Atman from the jiva-composite and makes the relative bliss of sleep interior to the ultimate bliss of the Absolute. Is it a similar kind of idea being posited when you say Shiva remains but with shakti made unmanifest?

[Anonymous No.20314529]

>>20314524

>>What justification is offered by KS to call Shiva and Shakti co-dependent
>We do insofar as, we only know of the unity of conscious from being conscious of it, consciousness as a dynamic process (shakti) reveals shiva(that unified within the conscious ) and the unified would not be itself if not revealed by the multiplicity of consciousness, to be aware of the unity of consciousness the moving existence of consciousness is essential, thus they are co-dependent.
By "knowing of the unity of conscious", do you mean
1) knowing unity in a discursive sense using the mind, which involves one's mind reflecting on non-discursive awareness?
or
2) having first hand immediate non-discursive access to it as the basic condition characterizing all consciousness that consciousness has immediate etc access to?

In either of these cases, I don't see how what you said actually shows that the Shiva (partless non-intentional self-revealing awareness) is dependent on the Shakti unless I'm misunderstanding Shiva. In the first case if you mean "knowing unity in a discursive sense using the mind", then just because we encounter the discursive notion of the mind in the waking or dream state, that in itself doesn't suffice to show that Shiva's nature as partless self-directed awareness depends on the Shakti, since the discursive thinking doesn't generate or produce the nature of Shiva as united etc, since that's already true of Shiva regardless. So the nature of Shiva as united in itself cannot be dependent upon it being produced by thinking, which seems to rule out the first option.

[Anonymous No.20314535]

>>20314529

And if you mean the latter, as in Shiva needs Shakti to have firsthand immediate access to his own basic condition of partless united self-directed awareness or self-knowledge, the simple fact that we experience them alongside one another (in the sense of we have both at once) in embodied samsaric waking experience I don't think is any sort of sufficient epistemic or logical grounds to conclude that the Shiva is dependent on Shakti. If you have an eternally existing unconditioned Shiva existing completely independently, and jivas have a beginningless series of transmigrations that were all fundamentally contingent on Shiva (along with the Shakti-knowledge in those lives), then the Jiva would have both Shiva and Shakti present in each life and have them be alongside each-other all the time (except in dreamless sleep, where Shiva apparently continues independently without Shakti present), having them appear alongside each-other in waking experience and dream is not sufficient to prove they are actually dependent in that scenario, because it would just involve one independent thing being associated with a contingent thing in various circumstances. Moreover, unless Shiva becomes not himself or not a partless unity in deep sleep, his unity in this latter sense (#2) cannot be dependent on Shakti being present, since she isn't present in dreamless sleep for Shiva to be contingent upon, so that seems to rule out option #2.

Is the argument for them being mutually-dependent one of the above or something different that I missed? In that same post where you spoke of the tattvas you said Shiva causes Shakti and not vice versa, which seems to argue against mutual dependence

[Anonymous No.20314537]

>>20314535
>>can you please elaborate further on whether Parashiva's consciousness is different in mode or behavior or nature from Shiva?
>To speak of them in this manner is impossible, for the moment we speak of conscious we bind it to shakti, to summarize they are absolutely identical save that Parashiva is totally without revelation, totally without shakti, without conscious, no mode can be spoken of, shiva tattva is when IS revealed by the light of conscious as the very light of conscious, that is to say, the transcendental ego, thus they are the same simply with differing levels of revelation.
Wouldn't it only bind Parashiva/consciousness to shakti if you assume that the sentence and implied grammatical meaning refers to something discursive, instead of the language that functions on the level of the discursive acting as a kind of symbol denoting something non-discursive, Parashiva's immediate non-dual knowledge of himself, beyond even a subject united with an object, where there is just a partless united self-disclosing presence without subject or object? Like when people say "non-duality" or "non-dual awareness" generally it generally implies something non-discursive and it's normal to interpret it in this manner, couldn't we speak about Parashiva in the same way as long as you don't make the same mistake?
>>Is Parashiva both of their natures combined in a unity or something different?
>They’re unified at every tattva, thus why the tantriks do not shill a nirguna ending but rather an embrace of maya-as-shakti.
If they are 'unified at every tattva', how you explain Shiva being alone present in dreamless while Shakti is absent/withdrawn? If one of these is sometimes absent, that seems to be disunited with him. Also, what would you say to the notion that the happyness or bliss found in specific maya-instances and objects is going to vary in intensities and quality and duration according to the objects and situations its derived from and that this changing pleasure and the related less-good moments one would encounter in an embrace of maya-as-shakti is inferior to the undecaying bliss of the attainment of non-duality with the unembodied unconditioned Infinite?

[Anonymous No.20314538]

>>20314537
>>Or is Shiva's the luminous self-awareness of the Parashiva and that way non-different from Parashiva as it's nature like how an entity and the nature constituting it can be spoken of as different figuratively despite being one?
>This is the closest, Parashiva is the God, Shiva is the light of that, shakti is the experience of that light, and that light is the light of revelation, thus the God the revelation and the experience are one thing.
It seems like you are saying "without Shiva, Parashiva wouldn't be Shiva", in the same sense that if you remove the nature of an entity from it, then it's not an "entity remaining but without its nature" (which is absurd), but rather it's no longer that entity at all anymore. This seems to be the same in practice as saying that an entity is non-different from its nature, that Parashiva and Shiva are really wholly one, which would call into question why they are being distinguished. Similarly Advaita says that Brahman is non-different from His nature of pure self-luminous consciousness (that is inherently blissful), and that He is not a separate entity who possesses this like how an attribute might sometimes be considered as separate from entity-hood.

What I don't understand though is that as I see it is that you've also posited Shakti to be included within Parashiva's nature as well. So, in trying to make sense of what you are saying, I see some answers that place Shiva as being closer to the real nature of Parashiva (e.g. Shiva is the very non-alienable nature of Parashiva, always characterizing it immutably, while Shakti is sometimes absent, Shiva is the essence of Shakti and no Shakti occurs without Shiva but the contrary isn't true etc), but if Shiva has this sort of primacy, I don't see how both Shiva and Shakti can both be or comprise Parashiva's nature in the same way. Does Parashiva have a primary nature and a secondary nature or an independent nature and a contingent nature?

[Anonymous No.20314559]

>>20314538
>The shiva, the transcendental ego, is unconscious insofar as it is the unity, whereas shakti is the light reflected upon the light, which is to say, the conscious awareness
Wouldn't you agree though that the transcendental ego always had immediate and reflexive access to itself or self-disclosure even without the intentional 'conscious-awareness' of the Shakti? This is why it never has to be inferred, because the occurrence of all intentional-knowledge of objects already presupposes a self-disclosing transcendental ego already which is what one would be supposed to be inferring. I consider this disclosure of the transcendental ego to itself to be the very nature of consciousness (and hence the opposite of 'unconscious') and the most fundamental and irreducible kind of self-knowledge, discursive self-knowledge in the intellect being a kind of secondary reflected self-knowledge and not true conscious self-knowledge.

>> where does that leave Parashiva
>The one who is the I of I, who is conscious and one is conscious of, and all of the tattvas his opulence, para shiva is not a category to correspond to like the tattvas can be constituted, it is instead the totality of the categories and contents. To speak of Para shiva as lacking the powers and attributes of any of the tattvas would make it no longer shiva, for Parashiva must be both the fully revealed (thus bhairava, who is the Jivan who has realized/recognized his own heart as the revelation.) and necessarily he must be the one revealed thus the hidden, thus the absolutely concealed.
What about when there is no revealing or disclosure of Shakti in sleep, is Parashiva not Parashiva then?

> do you mean the fact of consciousness being intrinsically self-disclosing or self-revealing being a fact that is disclosed to consciousness itself as the specific unchanging passive nature of consciousness and which is always found in all instantiations of consciousness as the very essence/nature constituting it and qualitatively characterizing it.
>Close but you need to divide the conscious from the transcendental ego insofar as it is the transcendental ego which is being disclosed and IS the conscious, this revelation of transcendental ego is dependent on shakti because it is a revelation, this is why secretly the highest shakti is the shiva tattva, in account that all of the tattvas are shaktis, which is to say, conscious reflection in this manner.
What do you mean by "divide the conscious from the transcendental ego", isn't the transcendental ego conscious in an immediate, reflexive, non-discursive, unmediated manner by virtue of self-disclosure of itself to itself? I don't see how the very self-disclosure of the transcendental ego to itself can be made a part of Shakti or reliant upon Shakti without denying the the transcendental ego its own nature such that it's rendered totally insentient, non-luminous and without 'I' and without even a non-dual presence without 'I'

[Anonymous No.20314643]

>goodnight frater, I hope to see your answers in the morning.... t. guenonfag

[Anonymous No.20315669]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20316024]

this a lotta shit

I ain't reading that

[Anonymous No.20316030]

>guenonfag makes the millionth poster trying to convince himself and others that inconsistent Buddhism makes sense

your every post reeks of desperation and insecurity, if Advaita was all you claim it to be you'd have a life by now

[Anonymous No.20316039]

>guenonfag makes the millionth post trying to convince himself and others that inconsistent Buddhism makes sense

your every post reeks of desperation and insecurity, if Advaita was all you claim it to be you'd have a life by now

[Anonymous No.20316041]

these are the most based threads on /lit/

[Anonymous No.20316068]

>>20316041
keep telling yourself that loser

[Anonymous No.20316129]

>>20316068
run along back to your "waldun" threads, little one
this thread is for adults

[Anonymous No.20316156]

>>20314643
why don't you also study some other tradition?

[Anonymous No.20316164]

>>20316039
>your every post reeks of desperation and insecurity, if Advaita was all you claim it to be you'd have a life by now
And yet here you are, seething to yourself like a distraught female in the middle of a conversation between me and Frater Asemlen on metaphysics that I was trying to continue.... how delightfully amusing

[Anonymous No.20316317]

>>20316156
>why don't you also study some other tradition?
I plan to and I would have done so more extensively already if I had more free time. All of my self-studying of Advaita and reading through all of Shankara has been accomplished despite me working full-time in a career that has absolutely nothing to do with Indian philosophy. And not only have I had to do so in my limited free time, but I also have other hobbies/interests that I value almost as much as studying eastern thought, so in my limited free time I have to balance Indian philosophy, my other hobbies, and my active social life; thus not leaving me a lot of additional time to read through all of Ramanuja or Abhinavagupta as well (though I would like to and I plan to do so eventually).

There is also the point that I find Advaita more compelling than any of the other schools of thought, so I feel just as compelled to read post-Shankara Advaita thinkers like Suresvara and Madhusudana Saraswati as I feel compelled to study some other kind of Hindu thought. I find other types of Hindu thought and non-Hindu eastern philosophy intriguing and I already know a good deal of information about non-Advaita schools, but all of the non-Advaita schools contain teachings which it seems self-evident to me are not correct, even if they do get a lot of other stuff correct; which means they don't have the same allure for me that Advaita does.

[Anonymous No.20316549]

>>20314524
wait wait wait! there's alot of things not making sense here
>20312966
>The unfolding of the illusion of maya involves the arising of minds within maya, and when these maya-minds receive the light of the unaffected luminous Atman-Brahman, that light illuminates their mind and thereby allows it to do things, experience things, be deluded etc
if the illusion is prior to the "maya-mind" then who's being "victim" of this illusion then? certainly can't be the maya-mind since is somethign that happens after the casting of this first movement of the illusion

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20316871]

>>20314524
> I maintain that colors and sounds etc are not self-aware and that the awareness, even the 'intentional' awareness or Shakti that knows them is itself partless, colorless, soundless and non-identical with the perceived mental sound and colors.

Shakti is the source of them and from which they arise and is the perception of them, they cannot be said to have any existence beyond the perception of them.

> Is it a similar kind of idea being posited when you say Shiva remains but with shakti made unmanifest?


More or less since the perception is just shakti, the self/transcendental ego remains it’s just not perceiving anything.

> Shiva (partless non-intentional self-revealing awareness) is dependent on the Shakti unless I'm misunderstanding Shiva.

You are, you must see shakti as awareness and shiva as that which the shakti is aware of, which in the shiva tattva are an identical thing but are divided into the shiva and shakti tattva due to one being the perceived I and one being the perception of it, the perception of I (shiva) requires the perception (shakti) in order to be perceived, the perception (shakti) requires the I who is received (shiva) in order to perceive. Thus we can say shiva has primacy but also that they are identical yet also two.

> Parashiva's immediate non-dual knowledge of himself, beyond even a subject united with an object,


Once more, higher/abstraction is not considered more divine but rather, the object and subject already exist within Para shiva but hidden, thus the tattvas in their nuanced relationships are revealed, so ultimately the object and subject unity is the revealed essence of the parashiva.

> Shiva being alone present in dreamless while Shakti is absent/withdrawn?

For she still exists, being simply hidden, for she is nothing but his awareness. His awareness seeing nothing does not mean shiva is without awareness, thus in dreamless sleep the totality of the awareness is of Shiva without the revealing aspects of shakti, though again the nuance is that even shiva is itself a kind of shakti.

> why they are being distinguished

This distinction is done by consciousness and recognizing their unity is key, the distinction is simply one of Para shiva being that which is made aware and use realized as being shiva.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20316876]

>>20316871
> What do you mean by "divide the conscious from the transcendental ego", isn't the transcendental ego conscious in an immediate, reflexive, non-discursive, unmediated manner by virtue of self-disclosure of itself to itself? I don't see how the very self-disclosure of the transcendental ego to itself can be made a part of Shakti or reliant upon Shakti without denying the the transcendental ego its own nature such that it's rendered totally insentient, non-luminous and without 'I' and without even a non-dual presence without 'I'


That immediate conscious and self conscious nature IS shakti, that unity IS shiva, to give an allegory, the number 1 as it is would be Parashiva, the referent to when I refer to the number one, that thing referred to by me would be shiva, that perception and act of referring it, of knowing the One, that is shakti;

Thus this is actually a nondual analysis, for the One is never not the question, we simply are speaking of the One, the One we know and the self-conscious of the One.

>>20316549
I explain the tantrik perception on this here.

https://pastebin.com/AjzfzFTk

[Anonymous No.20316921]

>>20316549
>if the illusion is prior to the "maya-mind" then who's being "victim" of this illusion then? certainly can't be the maya-mind since is somethign that happens after the casting of this first movement of the illusion
There is no "first"

The maya-minds and the greater maya they are all a part of both have beginningless relative-existence as the ontological category of the indeterminate ajnana/falsity/maya. There is no beginning to maya and there is no beginning to the ignorance and transmigration of the jiva. Hence, there is no "first casting" of the maya illusion, if you seek for its origin in time you will just go back into a beginningless past of circular time that's all located within maya still, and no matter how far you go there is no past limit. Temporality is an illusionary distinction that only ""exists"" relatively within the mental framework imposed on maya-minds by the illusionary maya, Brahman is atemporal.

Maya is not dependent on individual jivas, it continues for the collective of jivas when one jiva is liberated from maya. Things that are parts of maya depend on maya being what it is for those consequences or parts to take place within maya as a part of maya, even though both are beginningless. If the totality of maya vanished, all maya-minds would vanish in the same instant.

Thoughts, perceptions and beliefs don't inhere in awareness according to both Advaita and classical Sankhya-Yoga, they are material structures comprised of the tanmatras (subtle elements) and inhere in the insentient manas/buddhi (both in subtle body). When the material structure of the components of the subtle body receives the illumination of the light of the Atman, it allows these translucent material structures to glow with the light imparted by awareness and thereby seem as if they themselves are conscious. The "victim" of the illusion of maya is just this material structure existing in a sort of beginningless complex with ignorance, and so the experience of being a transmigrating being in maya, the experience of ignorance etc is just this beginningless material structure being perpetually invested with the light of unaffected unconditioned Atman in a beginningless manner, thereby having the beginningless false notion that the Buddhi itself is conscious instead of it being an unconscious thing illumined by unaffected luminous self-awareness. The Atman remains independent and unaffected while providing it's light to all these beginningless jivas.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20316938]

>>20316549
>>20316921

Maya is fundamentally the knowledge-ignorance paradox, the atoms, which is to say, the principles which constitute Maya are simply a further folding in on itself done by the first 5 pure tattvas, obscuring themselves to reveal themselves.

In this regard Maya can be constituted as evil (as the ignorance origin.)
In this regard maya can be constituted as good (as the knowledge origin)
And on account these two, the proper position towards it is anutara, there being no river to cross, no inherent problem, neither benefit nor malefic beyond the further richness of the original five principles.

[Anonymous No.20317309]

>>20316871
>Shakti is the source of them and from which they arise and is the perception of them, they cannot be said to have any existence beyond the perception of them.
When blue is seen, do you recognize and agree that the awareness which knows the blue itself as awareness lacks color and that the awareness is instead revealing that color as something different from itself?

If yes, then how can it justifiably be said that they lack existence apart from that awareness which doesn't share their quality of having a color? KS is a realist system as far as I understand that has a two-way ontology of being/non-being, so I don't see any leeway here for positing the color as neither the awareness, nor a separate existing thing, but which somehow despite this still has different attributes from the awareness (color vs colorless, observer vs observed, arising and falling vs constantly present etc)

If not, that is if you disagree and say that the subjective knowledge of blue is identical with the objective qualia of 'blueness', then how can you possibly explain the unity of the conscious witness if all sensory phenomena are self-knowing? This would mean that at any given moment, the sounds you hear are a self-knowing awareness that knows its own qualia of a specific sound, the colors you see are also a self-knowing awareness, and the touch of the clothes on your skin is also a self-knowing awareness etc. But we only have the experience of having a singular undivided center of awareness, we dont feel like there are 6 or 7 different centers of sentience or conscious Selves all competing with one another which is what this would entail. Moreover, witnessing the transition between one sensory phenomena and another could only be witnessed by an awareness that wasn't identical with that phenomena, because when the self-awareness of 'blue' has vanished when blue is no longer perceived, the self-awareness of the 'blue' cannot still be present to watch itself be replaced with 'red', nor can that red be already present to be the observer before its arisen in order to witness the transition.

[Anonymous No.20317313]

>>20316871
>>unless I'm misunderstanding Shiva.
>You are, you must see shakti as awareness and shiva as that which the shakti is aware of, which in the shiva tattva are an identical thing but are divided into the shiva and shakti tattva due to one being the perceived I and one being the perception of it, the perception of I (shiva) requires the perception (shakti) in order to be perceived, the perception (shakti) requires the I who is received (shiva) in order to perceive. Thus we can say shiva has primacy but also that they are identical yet also two.
How can Shiva be the object of awareness (as in what the Shakti is aware of) if Shiva is supposed to be the transcendental ego? The transcendental ego as the most fundamental and irreducible luminous subjectivity can never become the object of anything else since that implies a division of the transcendental ego (which is partless and irreducible) with one part of it becoming estranged from itself to observe the other, original half of itself. And since all knowledge of an object requires and presupposes self-knowledge/self-awareness in the form of firsthand access of consciousness to that presentation of the awareness of other (sight occurring with no firsthand access of consciousness to that sight isn't practically different from there being no knowledge of sight at all), wouldn't having Shakti be aware of Shiva as her object require Shakti to both have Shiva as the necessary "I" subjective pole presupposed by that 'knowledge of other', while at the same time forming the objective content that is known as Shiva/"I"? At this point Shiva seems to become both the subject and object and Shakti is their relation, but when awareness meets awareness where do you even draw the line between subject and object if both are identically awareness? Doesn't any distinction just become arbitrary like pointing to undivided space and saying "here, space meets space"?

At this point, why wouldn't you just say that self-disclosure is the very nature of consciousness or the transcendental ego? Also, doesn't saying that Shiva and Shakti are identical yet also two and possess different natures violate the law of non-contradiction? If they were really identical then they should fully share every single predicate or property, as Leibniz points out with his 'identity of indiscernibles'

[Anonymous No.20317317]

>>20316871
>thus in dreamless sleep the totality of the awareness is of Shiva without the revealing aspects of shakti, though again the nuance is that even shiva is itself a kind of shakti.
So all shaktis aside from the shiva-that-is-a-shakti are hidden? Does 'revealing' mean something different from disclosure or self-disclosure to you? Because awareness without disclosure (of either itself *as* awareness to itself or of an other) sounds like a meaningless concept to me, but you say that the disclosure of awareness is apparently Shakti; so I guess what I'm asking is does the removal of all shaktis aside from shiva-as-shakti also include the removal of the self-disclosure of Shiva to Shiva as the transcendental ego during sleep, or does it not remove this and it's left intact. If it's left intact and Shiva-as-a-shakti discloses to himself even in sleep then saying that disclosure depends on the other Shaktis seems to become superfluous and it becomes a position like Advaita where consciousness is identical with self-luminosity or self-disclosure without any other parts required, but if this disclosure of Shiva to himself is removed then I don't see how Shiva without self-disclosure can even be remotely considered as 'conscious' or 'aware' or even as an 'transcendental ego' or 'Self' anymore.

[Anonymous No.20317322]

>>20316876
>That immediate conscious and self conscious nature IS shakti, that unity IS shiva, to give an allegory, the number 1 as it is would be Parashiva, the referent to when I refer to the number one, that thing referred to by me would be shiva, that perception and act of referring it, of knowing the One, that is shakti;
I have several questions about this part:

How do you distinguish Parashiva as it is and when you say 'as the referred' it is Shiva? Isn't the Parashiva, as it is, the thing that is being referred to in that allegory?

You also say that "the immediate conscious and self conscious nature IS Shakti", and the "unity is Shiva", by which I assume you mean "the unity of that nature as Shakti WITH the "I" that is Shiva, as that very unity is Shiva". But doesn't saying "the union of A and B, as that very unity forms B", lead to a regress, since one cannot talk about B and A forming a union if B already requires and presupposes A to be united with it, before that nature of B(including A) and A (on its own) can then be considered as being in a union? It seems to involve A being both identical with and different from itself at the same time before the A that is identical with itself and the A that is the combined with something else (and hence different from A that is identical with itself) are then combined, but doesn't sound very logical. This may have been a misunderstanding on my behalf though.

More to the point, on what basis can that immediate conscious and self-conscious nature that you are calling Shakti be distinguished from the transcendental ego or foundational consciousness? If that immediate self-disclosure is the very nature of consciousness, isn't then the nature of consciousness and the entity-hood or entity-ness of consciousness distinguishable only in name but not in reality? You've said that the Shakti is the awareness of other, but since in the self-disclosure and immediate intuitive knowledge of "I" to "I" there is no 'other' involved', wouldn't saying that this disclosure of "I" to itself *is itself* Shakti contradict the premise that Shakti is always awareness of other?

[Anonymous No.20317697]

>>20316921
>The maya-minds and the greater maya they are all a part of both have beginningless relative-existence as the ontological category of the indeterminate ajnana/falsity/maya. There is no beginning to maya and there is no beginning to the ignorance and transmigration of the jiva
that really doesn't solve the problem, since you're using a temporal category to a problem of cause and effect
the problem is not"what is first, maya or the maya-mind?" the problem is how brahma can cast an illusion if there's nothing that can be a victim of that illusion? thus, how can brahma cast the illusion to anything other than himself since he's everything that can exist?

[Anonymous No.20317777]

Buddhism won. Cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.20317942]

>>20317697
>the problem is not"what is first, maya or the maya-mind?" the problem is how brahma can cast an illusion if there's nothing that can be a victim of that illusion?
the victim and its mental experience of the illusion are both identical with the illusion by being a part of it, but this isn't saying everything is an illusion all the way down because the actually real Atman illuminates the material structure of the metaphysically false subtle body and this receiving of light by the subtle body produces the experience for that subtle body of being a victim of illusion. So, by saying "maya is casted", the victim is already defacto included by that statement and no other parts or steps are needed since it means both the totality of maya and its parts are present already.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20318029]

>>20317309
> When blue is seen, do you recognize and agree that the awareness which knows the blue itself as awareness lacks color and that the awareness is instead revealing that color as something different from itself?

This is simply the distinction of perception and perceived, the tantriks and Kabbalists both agree with these being distinct (thus the perception being clear) but the fabric of the perceived color arising from the perception itself (thus these being nondual.)

> then how can it justifiably be said that they lack existence apart from that awareness which doesn't share their quality of having a color?

Simply a further revelation of what perception is, perception as the shakti tattva has no color, perception as perceived existent (as revealed via the whole complex family of relations) is colored with the experience, thus shakti is maya, the key to tantrik realization is to hold to both that maya has its colors and arises from colorless shakti, but that colorless shakti reveals its opulence in many-colored maya.

> But we only have the experience of having a singular undivided center of awareness, we dont feel like there are 6 or 7 different centers of sentience or conscious Selves all competing with one another which is what this would entail.

Wrong! We actually do, this is where the nuances of the purity of tamas come into play, I will try to have some brevity in my explanation on this.

Shiva is the I in perception,
Shakti is the arising of object in perception being perception itself,

Sattva is when the subjectivity, the light of shiva is seen in the thing and nothing else,
Tamas is when shiva is not seen but rather the perception is simply perception, wherein shiva is veiled, this is object perception.


Cont

[Anonymous No.20318034]

>>20314524
Friendly reminder that Hindu gods are demons.

>For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20318055]

>>20318029
Rajas is the interaction of perception of self with other, the oscillation between the two. And in this is the great secret of double negation and the positive nature of lack; by this I mean to say.

I/shiva has primacy, perception of objects is simply a modification of perception of shiva, to perceive “not i” you must consider it as NOT+I, there is never a void or lack or otherness that truly lacks in shiva, for negation of shiva requires shiva, the Tamas then is just a form of sattva that has, like Shiva hid as the Jivan, revealed itself in the object world. Thus you DO have endless part perception, this is why Kala (parts) is bound in the mundane mind but perfectly reconciles the three paras in the mind of the adept, for at once he is perceived as being in time and himself the singular, God is manifest as him, and he is all the true God, all reconciled at once. I will use an allegory.

To breathe in is Para, the infinite God,
To breathe out is Apara, the finite and the tamasic, for one may breathe in endlessly without ending but is limited in the amount of air he may exhale, but just as the amount of exhaled breath is dependent on and is simply a form of the infinitely breathed in breath, so Also is tamas but a revelation of sattva.

> How can Shiva be the object of awareness (as in what the Shakti is aware of) if Shiva is supposed to be the transcendental ego? The transcendental ego as the most fundamental and irreducible luminous subjectivity can never become the object of anything else since that implies a division of the transcendental ego (which is partless and irreducible) with one part of it becoming estranged from itself to observe the other, original half of itself.

For the tattvas are not emanations but revelations and the process is simply the

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20318060]

>>20318055
light of the transcendental ego with itself, the Light of Ego is simply lightening itself, and the revelation of parts is a GOOD thing, for in tantra we argue that the infinity if it is infinite must contain all numbers, it must contain all that is countable, and as such since it contains the totality and is truly infinite it must contain both the infinite as a group (para) and must also continue the individual elements, chiefly the Many (parapara) and the Individual part (apara) each of these being revelations of the opulence and nature of Godhead, which having infinite attributes manifests these.

Another problem with your shiva disclosure question is that you are now dividing shiva and shakti too much, for they are always in perichoresis, there is never a point where they can be said to be without each other, this awareness of shiva as shiva tattva(thus shakti) is the self disclosure of the light and shakti tattva is the awareness of that light, but the light and illuminating aspect of the light cannot ever be said to be apart from each other.

> Shakti WITH the "I" that is Shiva,

Not so, shiva is the unified one and not the conscious that is conscious of, for in the role of conscious of-, it is a shakti.


Finally on the topic of non-contradiction, perichoresis is absolutely the core of the ontology, I personally am a meinongian thus do not have the limit of the law of non-contradiction but that’s neither here nor there, it’s no different from the perichoresis arguments of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20318549]

guenonfag gets destroyed in his own threads yet again

[Anonymous No.20318561]

>>20318034
Daily reminder that God made the demons, and as products of God's work, demons must be good, or at least better than the most morally perfect human beings.

[Anonymous No.20318651]

>>20317942
>the victim and its mental experience of the illusion are both identical with the illusion by being a part of it,
but that defeats the purpouse of an illusion, if an illusion is meant to cast a "false" reality onto someone who could perceive "real" reality, that is the illusion is an ofuscation, some sort of veil onto someone's eyes, if that same person is also an illusion, then there's no one being the victim of the illusion to begging with, it's like saying "the music listens to itself"

[Anonymous No.20318688]

>>20318029
>but the fabric of the perceived color arising from the perception itself (thus these being nondual.)
What do you mean exactly by non-dual? You said that one arises from the other, but this seems more like a relation of causation or contingency than a denial of duality (separateness or difference), something arising from something else would seem to presuppose a duality of what-has-arisen vs arisen-from
>Simply a further revelation of what perception is, perception as the shakti tattva has no color, perception as perceived existent (as revealed via the whole complex family of relations) is colored with the experience, thus shakti is maya, the key to tantrik realization is to hold to both that maya has its colors and arises from colorless shakti, but that colorless shakti reveals its opulence in many-colored maya.
Is maya sentient or insentient in your understanding of KS? and if its the latter is that colored maya as blue the same or different awareness from the colorless shakti apprehending it? Admitting the colored maya making up the blue to be insentient seems to be the same thing in practice as saying the perceiving awareness is different from the insentient sensation of color. But if the colored maya is itself sentient, why do we only ever experience being aware from the perspective of the colorless Shakti seeing the colored, apparently-sentient maya color? If that color was equally sentient, then it would seem to follow from this that color would occasionally observe our self or color would observe sound, however we don't find that to be the case in our experience which makes that sound counterintuitive to me.

>I/shiva has primacy, perception of objects is simply a modification of perception of shiva
So, are you saying that seeing the awareness in something is akin to sattva and the perceiving of phenomena as ordinary objects of perception of tamas, and that since both gunas are shiva the difference between tamas and shiva is a matter of the changing perception causing one guna to change into or be replaced by another guna like tamas to sattva, with the rajas forming the moment in-between or some sort of other intermediary mechanism?
>I/shiva has primacy, perception of objects is simply a modification of perception of shiva, to perceive “not i” you must consider it as NOT+I,
Here, you say both 'perception' and 'consider', which have two different meanings; this leads me to wonder, what about the point that raw sense data from objects is non-conceptual? If having the mental attitude or understanding, "all appearing phenomena are awareness" imbues every moment of your existence all day every day, that doesn't change the fact that one is still receiving a constant stream of sense-data from the sense organs, and this sense-data in its non-conceptual form presents itself to awareness as something different from it, which is why the witness of the presentation abides as the same while the presentation changes.

[Anonymous No.20318690]

>>20318055
Even in the absence of or prior to concepts imposed upon the raw sense-data by the mind, the phenomena reveals itself to be different from awareness of its own accord; since, the phenomenal qualities change while the luminous self-awareness of the transcendental ego is a steady always-present light and insofar as that forms the subjective pole and essence of the shakti is also continually present throughout waking experience as the Shakti well, according to you yourself. So, even if you assume as the default mental attitude "all this is awareness", that would seem to be imposing a film of concepts over the raw visual or audio sensations, but underneath this film they still retain their character of presenting themselves as the changing phenomena opposed to the steady light of awareness. If seeing perception as Shiva turned that guna from tamas to sattva or replaced one with the other, then it would make sense that phenomena would cease to behave and present themselves in a way that's different from the witnessing awareness, but they don't do this even when you imposed the mental mode of "this is a unity" over them.

For example, in talking about the Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita understanding of mind or manas, one article says:

Manas is viewed essentially as an organ, the special organ of cognition, just as the eyes are the special organs of sight. Indeed, manas is held to be intimately connected with perception, since the raw data supplied by the senses must be ordered and categorized with respect to a conceptual/linguistic scheme before various objects can be perceived as members of their respective categories, and as inhabiting a world characterized by the systematic and distinguishable attributes with which sense experience is normally imbued. This imposition of conceptual/linguistic structure on the field of raw sensation is one of the basal activities of manas, and forms the distinction between brute sensation (nirvikalpaka) as opposed to differentiated perception (savikalpaka).

[Anonymous No.20318697]

>>20318055

Do you agree with the above or reject it for something else entirely? Because in this sort of understanding imposed a mental framework over the nirvikalpaka sensations wouldn't change the fact that even after assuming that framework, they retain their nature of behaving differently from awareness. However, if perceiving them as shiva, which seems to really mean for you "mentally regarding them and all phenomena as shiva", actually involves the transition of the substance of that perception from tamas to sattva, then I don't understand why the brute sensation under the conceptual imposition or attitude would still behave as though non-aware, even if you imposed that mental mode on all experienced phenomena, a ball throw into your vision from out of sight will nevertheless not fail to distinguish itself from the observing presence by its sudden appearance in contrast to the observer which doesn't just suddenly appear.

This would seem to get back to the "why don't we have 6 or 7 centers of sentience" question, when you replied that we do, it seems like your answer is that by "seeing them as shiva", but this is not seeing another kind of raw sense data but is basically a way of thinking about the sense data that we still continue to see *as sense* regardless of the fact that we may be now viewing them *under the mental mode or attitude of regarding them as shiva*, but I don't see that as cutting the knot of this issue, because even if you impose conceptual attitude of regarding the sense of hearing as non-different from Shiva or luminous awareness or "I", they still behave differently from the "I" or the transcendental ego by suddenly imposing themselves in experience as that which is not the transcendental ego but as that which is nevertheless still known. If imposing the mental attitude of regarding them as shiva actually made them into sattva and not tamas anymore, wouldn't it be inexplicable that nirvikalpaka sensations would still take place in the same way?

>I/shiva has primacy, perception of objects is simply a modification of perception of shiva, to perceive “not i” you must consider it as NOT+I, there is never a void or lack or otherness that truly lacks in shiva, for negation of shiva requires shiva, the Tamas then is just a form of sattva that has, like Shiva hid as the Jivan, ...Thus you DO have endless part perception
Do you mean so say that we have awareness of all particular things and objects and all individual instantiations of colors, sounds etc everywhere in the universe all at once but that some are hidden from us?
>this is why Kala (parts) is bound in the mundane mind but perfectly reconciles the three paras in the mind of the adept, for at once he is perceived as being in time and himself the singular, God is manifest as him, and he is all the true God, all reconciled at once. I will use an allegory.
What are the three paras? Is that the three iterations of shiva-as-gunas or something different?

[Anonymous No.20318700]

>>20318055
>>20318060
>> How can Shiva be the object of awareness
>For the tattvas are not emanations but revelations and the process is simply the light of the transcendental ego with itself, the Light of Ego is simply lightening itself, and the revelation of parts is a GOOD thing, for in tantra we argue that the infinity if it is infinite must contain all numbers, it must contain all that is countable, and as such since it contains the totality and is truly infinite it must contain both the infinite as a group (para) and must also continue the individual elements, chiefly the Many (parapara) and the Individual part (apara) each of these being revelations of the opulence and nature of Godhead, which having infinite attributes manifests these.
If Shiva is being known by awareness or the disclosure of Shiva to awareness is just the light of the transcendental ego with itself, and if that light in inalienable from that transcendental ego, then how is that different in practice from saying self-disclosure is the very intrinsic nature of Shiva or that self-disclosure is the very nature of awareness? In this case it would seem completely unnecessary to assign disclosure a separate existence as Shakti, when you can just say "the intrinsic nature of consciousness i.e. the self or transcendental ego, is self-disclosure" and express the very same idea?

And how do you square the claim that Shakti (apparently) invariably involves *knowledge of other*, if in the immediate and reflexive disclosure of I to I, Self to Self, there is no 'otherness' involved? If you try to say that the disclosure of the Self (shiva) itself to itself isn't self-contained in the nature of Shiva but involves Shakti-as-knowledge-of-other, that seems incompatible with the point that the disclosure of our "I" to itself is immediate, spontaneous, effortless and uninterrupted and doesn't involve otherness, otherness comes in later as something different from this disclosure of I to I, and knowing otherness presupposes an I already being disclosed to I in order that I may know that I is knowing otherness..

> for in tantra we argue that the infinity if it is infinite must contain all numbers, it must contain all that is countable,
Finitude is a determination, if the in-(non)-finite etymologically means the negation of the determination of finitude, it leaves the infinite as that which is not bound by the determination of finitude, and indeed not bound by any determinations. Does it make sense logically to you to say that which is free from, not bound by, or above all determinations, itself as the non-determined, emerges from the multiplication or addition of various determined things until you get the totality of them? To me that makes about as much sense as saying that if you sit around and multiply 0 by 0 enough times that '1' will eventually spontaneously emerge, or that sentience will eventually magically emerge as a property of a mixture of insentient matter.

[Anonymous No.20318705]

>>20318055
>>20318060

>Another problem with your shiva disclosure question is that you are now dividing shiva and shakti too much, for they are always in perichoresis, there is never a point where they can be said to be without each other, this awareness of shiva as shiva tattva(thus shakti) is the self disclosure of the light and shakti tattva is the awareness of that light, but the light and illuminating aspect of the light cannot ever be said to be apart from each other.
In the Christian understanding of perichoresis though they have a set rule of one substance (ousia) and three persons (hypostaseis), in the metaphysical and epistemic distinctions you are making there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, but sometimes in some of the distinctions it's necessary to emphasize one (shakti) over the other (shiva), as in e.g. dreamless sleep vs waking perceptual knowledge, but if they were equally interpenetrating each other like the trinity, then that would seem to be inconsistent with the necessity of one sometimes being emphasized in combination with the downplaying of the other according tot he specific subtype of various epistemological category or stage of metaphysical realization or psychophysical state. Then it starts to look less like any consistent perichoresis but more like a nebulous middle ground that can remain undefined and undetermined until one different side of it is emphasized according to the demands of the present situation, but without any overarching principle providing a consistent guideline for this like one substance in three persons, unless there's something I'm missing.

>Finally on the topic of non-contradiction, perichoresis is absolutely the core of the ontology, I personally am a meinongian thus do not have the limit of the law of non-contradiction but that’s neither here nor there, it’s no different from the perichoresis arguments of Christianity.
KS is a realist ontology that doesn't admit anything besides being or non-being though, I thought that they accordingly consider as valid and don't reject the LNC as well. Does your interpretation here differ from Abhinavagupta's? Does he ever directly address the topic of shiva and shakti being the same but different violating the LNC or the indiscernibility of identicals in his writing or does he ignore it and you differ from him by not considering the LNC as an issue? How much do you differ in your interpretation of KS from him, aside from your perennialism that mixes Christianity, Kabbalah, etc? Also, I thought that mainstream Christian theology holds that the perichoresis of the trinity doesn't violate the LNC and that they endeavor to explain why. But now it seems like you are saying that not accepting or being limited by the LNC is the same as what is implied by the trinity, was I wrong to think that mainstream Christian theology doesn't reject the LNC and that they consider the perichoresis of the trinity as not incompatible with accepting the LNC fully?

[Anonymous No.20318770]

>>20318651
>but that defeats the purpouse of an illusion, if an illusion is meant to cast a "false" reality onto someone who could perceive "real" reality, that is the illusion is an ofuscation, some sort of veil onto someone's eyes
The illusion *isn't* an obfuscation of something able to perceive reality, since the jiva doesn't ever perceive reality (reality is ever self-knowing and not known by anyone or anything else), both when the jiva is laboring under delusion and when it is no longer laboring under illusion in both cases reality is known to itself and the jivas doesn't know reality, the difference between the former and the latter is that the tanmatras of its subtle body are not arranged into the configuration of 'superimposition' anymore and when this superimpositon is no longer present, the jiva stops superimposing non-self, agentship, bondage etc onto the Atman, which is ever known to itself. Both before and after this superimposition there is no change in the Atman and its unaffected by the superimposition. And since all living beings have the Atman as their real Self that is ever known to itself, enlightenment/liberation is just this Self continuing on being known to Itself just like It always is immutably, but without the jiva superimposing other things on it, the jiva doesn't directly know the Atman which is impossible.
>if that same person is also an illusion, then there's no one being the victim of the illusion to begging with, it's like saying "the music listens to itself"
That has already been answered, being the victim entails having experiences, all experiences that have distinct qualities and differences like the subjective experience of seeming to be embodied within maya and all the particular elements comprising this *as subjective experiences* are just different configurations of tanmatras in the subtle body. All these different configurations of the tanmatras receive the light of the Atman like a stained-glass window in a church receiving the light of the sun, and just like the stained-glass window thereby glows with light and seems, maybe to a stupid person or an unintelligent animal, to be the actual source of illumination (instead of the real source of illumination being the sun) the tanmatras in the subtle body illumined with the light of the Atman is perceived by the minds of indiscriminating jivas as being the self, and as the real consciousness, when it's not. And this 'perceiving' of that is just a further part of the tanmatras that are illuminated by the light of the Atman. When the pure light of consciousness which is non-dual and hence beyond subject and object distinctions is present as the illuminating impartite presence, the mental configuration of the indiscriminating mind takes that light and wrongly interprets it as being the witness, the subject, and intentional, when all these designations are completely incidental to how the mind interprets it and they don't actually characterize its real nature.

[Anonymous No.20318940]

I know this is a bit offtopic but what are the most relevant vajrayana buddhism texts?

[Anonymous No.20318987]

maybe he should just let her get on on top once in a while
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7GeSKw9TsU

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319039]

>>20318688
> What do you mean exactly by non-dual? You said that one arises from the other, but this seems more like a relation of causation or contingency than a denial of duality (separateness or difference), something arising from something else would seem to presuppose a duality of what-has-arisen vs arisen-from

Perhaps another traditional allegory is helpful here, Shiva is akin to a dancer, shakti akin to the movements of him, maya is the Dance, there is no separation between the movement and the dance, though the causal origin and totality of nature of the dance is the movement, and in actuality the dance is simply an aggregation of movement.

> Is maya sentient or insentient in your understanding of KS?

Maya is shakti is shiva, the consciousness of Blue is the consciousness of perception is me, and to say we only experience the colorless shakti, this is not true to the realities of experience and dhyana, no rather whatever we focus in one, our perception is married to that object being one thing with it, Sloterdijk's allegory of the bubble is perfect here, it is alike to a child seeing a bubble and then sum of his intentionality and perception being one with the object of the bubble, his perception having such a perfect inter mixture that the sphere of his perception and the sphere of the bubble are identical in the sphere of sensation/perception, such that when the bubble pops the entirety of the perception faculty momentarily dissolves also.

This I believe is a good allegory for the tantrik conception.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319043]

>>20319039
> So, are you saying that seeing the awareness in something is akin to sattva and the perceiving of phenomena as ordinary objects of perception of tamas, and that since both gunas are shiva

It’s more seeing the Ego/shiva in awareness is shiva/sattva and not seeing this ego is tamas, and the relation of self and other in perception is rajas, consider the allegory of the taiji, the self and other’s interrelation causes the “spin” of the yin yang, likewise the relation of perception of self and other is the drumming of shakti, thus Rajas deified is Brahma the creative deity. But yes fundamentally both are shiva, to say “not I, ignorant” you must first negate i, meaning the essential nature of I still pervades it, the I nature is simply turned inwards.

> that doesn't change the fact that one is still receiving a constant stream of sense-data from the sense organs, and this sense-data in its non-conceptual form presents itself to awareness as something different from it,

The objects of the senses derive as further tattvas (thus are fundamentally identical, being a folding of, the higher tattvas of the senses themselves.) the nuance is they must be perceived as both identical (shiva) and different (shakti) and the marriage of both (The heart, bhairava.) for this is the doctrine of the paras.

On the manas question, do please read my pastebin I treat the subject in some depth there.

> What are the three paras? Is that the three iterations of shiva-as-gunas or something different?

Different yet same, the Gunas are a further enfoldmet/development/revelation of which the original is the paras, The three paras arise in the shakti tattva, their allegory is that the three points of the trident of shiva are they, whereas the shaft is shiva. To summarize the paras are

Shakti (perception of) as Infinite/ultimate (Thus God the vast, as Brahman.)
Shakti as Infinite-in-finite, (thus the great multiplicity, the Avatar deities before you, the perception of God within man.)
AND THIS IS KEY,
Shakti as Apara(God as the particular finite thing, this is to perceive the rock, the seed, the fruit, the flower, the hand, the empirical ego self, the individual and them momentary as the Godhead.)

The Tantric argument is that the Vedanta practitioner seeks the upper two paras (with parapara fulfilled by a personal deity such as Krishna, and the para fulfilled by Brahman.) while denying the inherent divinity, goodness and essential nature of the Apara as itself the divinity being revealed, the interaction of these three perceptions of godhead are the original cause that results in the Maya being formed, Maya being a matrix where these three can interact freely.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319046]

>>20319043
> separate existence as Shakti,

They are essentially one God, they are not separate, in the same way that the ego and consciousness can be constituted as one thing and for further nuance and elaboration explained as “ego and conscious.”

> Finitude is a determination

Once more, tantra does not fear the manifest, it sees the finite as a codependent arising with the infinite, to say something is without limitation is to say something can have limitation, this codependency means both are modes shakti may reveal shiva as, and on account of this, the infinite (having no bondage or limitation.) necessarily has the ground by which bondage and limitation can arise, thus the infinite results in the finite, both equalized and inter penetrating in the body of God.

> Then it starts to look less like any consistent perichoresis but more like a nebulous middle ground

Not so, for essentially they are all just the revelation of Parashiva and are only distinct as conscious has divided them in order to partake of apara, shiva in dreamless sleep is not without shakti, shakti is simply viewing only shiva for shiva itself is a shakti, there is no real time they are ever away from each other, only veiled and the parts modified.

Gold melted into a multitude of forms is essentially still Gold, the presence of Gold may dissolve as a perception of gold if melted, and it may take on the form of a statue, a brick, a sword, but in all of these it remains Gold and remains a presence of gold.

> KS is a realist ontology that doesn't admit anything besides being or non-being though,

Nah tantra is trika all the way down, the synthesis of both in the Heart/Jivan is well attested and this is again just the same question as the paras.

>I thought that they accordingly consider as valid and don't reject the LNC as well.

Within the world of Apara they see the law of non-contradiction as the case, within the world of Parapara this is not so, the reconciliation of time and timeless, part and partless etc is the entire key to “recognition” for this recognition maintains both.

>Does your interpretation here differ from Abhinavagupta's?

I have arguments and positions different from his but all that I’ve argued concerning tantra can be found with enough study of the Tantraloka and related literature.

>Does he ever directly address the topic of shiva and shakti being the same but different violating the LNC or the indiscernibility of identicals in his writing or does he ignore it and you differ from him by not considering the LNC as an issue?

It’s just the problem of recognition of the nature of the heart.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319068]

>>20318940
Depends on what you want, in general first you should study the normative Mahayana canon then you should study the concealed essence of the hevajra tantra, the various treasury texts of longchenpa, the various vajrakila tantras,I would also recommend the text of the The Twenty-One Nails, and while I don’t recommend getting involved with them, NKD has actually leaked various secret Tibetan tantrik doctrines and methodologies If you actually put some time and investigate the books their people put out, I could name some names but I’d have to check my books for the titles, do some footwork!

On an unrelated note I would recommend the lankavatara sutra for though it’s not explicitly relevant it is very relevant in terms of insight and doctrine.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319072]

Imma hop off for the night, I actually wrote a poem today very relevant to the topics we discussed here, here’s the poem.

Bask: a meditation

I bask in Bosky brooks of green,
That ever seem,
To stream and bask the morning sun,
In water’s run,
That running basks the dewy leaves,
That light receives,
To bask itself in selfsame gleam,
The rounding beam,
That basks the sprig and basks the rays
In ever Grace.
Gift from God the going growth,
Trice to trice from mo to mo,
Velum mouth to throat-inwit,
There I drink and there I sit,
Where the grigs that crick the sound,
And the grigs that drift abound,
There I’m found where windring gale,
Mutinous hail and snows pale
Do not harm the vale and comb,
Hushing not the soft sea foam,
Hushing not the thrush’s hum,
All at once the sounds become,
As one echoing and yet,
Count I still my ev’ry breath.
Dulcet gaud, meander’d letters,
Troding ‘fore and past hereafter,
Sweet is laughter laughed sans mew,
Soaring through the spangled hues
Of the sphery flames of eyne,
To the oes far more divine,
Where my lode’s design was wrought,
There the lodestars flame with ought.
Great God! these the leaves are lines
First forged from before all time!
Lief to achromatic life,
Loathe to leave this honyed hive,
But without the many hues,
All became an oozy slew,
Slaty lights environed all,
But then strangely silver brawled.
Grazing grass I gazed the vast,
With my galleon I passed,
An illimitable pale
Marked by margents made to veil,
So i sailed the gullies bright,
Trailing “I” the selfsame’s light.
Once I was the traveler,
Once I was the reveler,
Now revealed I transverse earth,
Place and planes of dimmer dirt.
Walking past the earthly lanes,
In the dusky fell demesnes,
Fell on causy foot in fall,
Fell on verdant grasses all,
Why I asked am I to pass
Streets of verdigris stained brass?
What to find and what to seek,
Asking what? i could not speak,
Who to speak then, i should ask,
Yet I could not face that task.
For a mo with woe i went,
Woe to know what all things meant,
There I dreamt my shadow me,
There I dreamt by sorcery,
Forms of thronging shadows cast,
Four by four and both ways fast,
For my four were fast to leave,
and my four to fasten cleaved,
I believe the meaning this,
For I felt a kind of bliss,
I was this and yet was not,
Shadows being naught I thought
were the paramount of lack,
Why then in there colly black
Was my body’s form and trace
Marching past and yet in chase
Of my self to self attend,
Dwelling darkling swerve to bend,
Without end my friends would walk,
“These be they? then let us talk”
Thronging self in nothing drest,
Where “I” lacks there I’m impressed!
Blessed be this epiphany,
Void is the epitome
Of my self as much as I,
For by “not” I know me by,

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20319078]

>>20319072
All things God has given shade,
Twinning shadows in their play,
Ever turning shade of time,
Ever lurking shade sublime,
Sweeter than the many lights
Is to know this sweet delight,
Mingled multitudes of forms
In monadic flame and storm,
Are reborn more than the one,
Not as single not as none,
Massy, mazy, many, my,
God is both, beyond confine,
Search the mind until you find,
God in kind and undefined;
From inverted heights of night,
Innermost shines ego’s light,
From the checkered streaks of night,
The ineffably still light,
Checkers self with other’s hint,
Checkers other with the dint
Of the mark of marks bereft,
Weaving’s whorl the webbing’s weft,
Warp and woof the wefting kedge,
Warping folds from edge to edge,
From stern head to straightened bow,
Bending trunk and staying bough,
Flaming font and kelson soft,
Swelling skies and oceans waft,
Lofty lightning leaps the land,
What of sand? can god fold sand?
Am I soft sift sands adrift?
Am I dolent grains in shift?
Lone to come, again to pass?
And alas are you the glass
Of some hourglass of years,
Coldly ordering the spheres?
God oh God I am the Cold!
You are warm to touch and hold,
You are fold and rose and hook,
You are gold and gross and book,
You are quincunx’d crisscrossed Christ,
Fourfold letters with one geist,
Good and evil, more and less
Trellis trellised in one breast.
Double shadows sweine the brine,
Shine from murk and murk from shine,
Circles words with all and naught,
Clothing God with God for cloth,
God the Flag of God I droop,
Most high and the nether loops,
Symbolized and broken sign,
Signified ensigns assigned,
God has strung and God is wad,
Shadows cast the colored God.
Peacock, peacock, peacock light,
Wherewith rainbow colors dight,
Burst the abrasaxon egg,
Stting still leg over leg,
Perichoresis ablaze
All eidolon idols slain,
Phantasmagoria dreamed,
Fresh eyed by the flowing stream,
God the bosky brooks unmasked!
All in all things always basks.

[Anonymous No.20319274]

>>20319068
Who is NKD? Could you elaborate on this a bit further, and why do you not recommend getting involved with them?

[Anonymous No.20319285]

>>20319274
Could it be "New Kadampa Tradition?"

[Anonymous No.20319418]

>>20318940
Depends on the school because Vajrayana isn't an unified whole but consists of different schools (which used to fight for territorial control in the so-called Tibetan Dark Age)
Some principle texts are
Guhyasamaja (one of the oldest and most influential tantras. Alex Wayman translation and Wedemeyer's translation of Aryadeva's Caryamelapakapradipa - an important commentary on the root text)
Hevajra tantra (read both the Snellgrove and Menon's translations)
Chakrasamvara tantra (Gray translation)
Kalachakra tantra (no full translation is available at the moment, but you can read the translation of a commentary - The Ornament of The Stainless Light
Other important areas a beginner must know about in Vajryana are
The Six Yogas of Naropa
Mahamudra
Dzogchen
But I can't recommend any books because I didn't study them properly, and can't say nothing outside of general knowledge.
For a better understanding it's necessary to know the foundational principles of Buddhism - the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the doctrine of no self and the skandha theory - and major Mahayana developments and philosophies - the bodhisattva ideal, Madhuamika, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha.
Some good general literature
David Snellgrove. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.
Ronald Davidson. Indian Esoteric Buddhism.
Ronald Davidson. The Tibetan Renaissance.
Geoffrey and Samuel. Origins of Yoga and Tantra.
Don't go with the Vajrakila tantras, translated by Martin Boord, since they're essentially a Tibetan Buddhist version of the voodoo doll cursing magic: nothing but low sorcery given Buddhist form.
And I don't recommend following the Frater here since he makes obvious rookie mistakes.
The most obvious is that he treats Abhinavagupta's system - which was a marginal, niche thing in 9th - 10th century Kashmir that couldn't outcompete either the Shaiva Siddhanta or the Svaccahandrabhairava cult - as a stand-in for the whole Hindu tantra, itself a motley crew of doctrines running from the dualist to the non-dual, and featuring cults outside of Shakti and Shiva (there is tantric Vishnu, tantric Surya, even tantric Ganesha), which shows that his knowledge of the tantric world is limited and biased. For example Shaiva siddhanta, a dualist system that wouldn't agree with Abhinavagupta's Trika system, is considered a part of the tantric world, too.

[Anonymous No.20319446]

>>20319418
Interesting thanks for the information does it come from Guénonfag himself?

[Anonymous No.20319451]

>>20319418
I have another question have you looked into Yamantaka tantra, any opinions on it?

[Anonymous No.20319897]

It's over for guenonfag. It's OVER.

[Anonymous No.20320057]

>>20319418
>For example Shaiva siddhanta, a dualist system that wouldn't agree with Abhinavagupta's Trika system, is considered a part of the tantric world, too.
Starting in the early-modern and later-medieval era and continuing up to the present day, southern Indian Shaiva Siddhanta has largely switch to a monist/non-dual theology and they now downplay the earlier dualist writings

[Anonymous No.20320063]

>>20318940
the vedas, the upanishads

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20320121]

>>20319418
It is not that I am ignorant of these existing, it is that I am bias, for this is what I am initiated into and what I consider the best. When asked about Christianity I will shill the modes of Christianity I agree with, when asked about Taoism I will do the same, etc.

[Anonymous No.20320206]

>>20320057
I've read in a publication by the Himalayan Academy (southern Shaiva Siddhanta) that there are currently both dualist and non-dualist sects.

[Anonymous No.20320237]

>>20320206
The dualist ones still exist, I didn't mean to imply there was a complete 100% switch, just that at least in southern India the new monist iteration seems to have become increasingly predominant as time went on. Elaine Fisher's article: 'Remaking South Indian Śaivism: Greater Śaiva Advaita and the Legacy of the Śaktiviśiṣṭādvaita Vīraśaiva Tradition' discusses this as part of the greater phenomenon of different types of southern Shaivism being influenced by Advaita

>Logically speaking, then, Saiddhantika theology would seem a rather poor fit with the nondualist precepts of Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Nevertheless, by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Saiddhantika exegetes had so thoroughly assimilated the conventions of an Advaita-inflected theology that their treatises in both Sanskrit and Tamil—and even redactions of Saiddhantika scriptures—were reimagined in the idiom of classical Vedanta. One particularly striking example of this trend is the commentary of a certain Kumarasvamin (circa fifteenth century) on the Tattvaprakāśa of Bhojadeva, a succinct encapsulation on Saiva Siddhanta theology. Unlike previous commentators such as Aghorasiva, who scrupulously adhere to the canon of Saiddhantika doctrine, Kumarasvamin repeatedly launches into lengthy digressions about the Vedic roots of the Saiva Agamas and Tantras, never hesitating to intersperse his discourses with
references to Mımamsa categories of ritual, even going so far as to assert that Siva himself consists of the Vedas.

[Anonymous No.20320501]

>>20316317
>I plan to
What traditions do you plan to?
You’re American right?
Catholicism?
Freemasonry?

[Anonymous No.20320651]

>>20319039
Thank you for replying to most of my questions with detailed answers. I understand how different parts of KS doctrine relate to each other more now. Some parts of it seem unnecessarily convoluted to me, almost Byzantine, and I don't see the necessity of or basis for separating disclosure as Shakti from Shiva/transcendental Ego/prakasha/the light of consciousness, as I see it, self-disclosure *IS* this very light. Taking away the disclosure removes any connection with luminosity and vice-versa. Sometimes you seem close to agreeing with this when you say the disclosure is just the light of the Self with itself, but to me the most reasonable thing and the thing most in accordance with my experience in this situation is to just say that self-disclosure *IS* the prakasha or the self-luminous Shiva instead of saying "the self-disclosure is both identical to and different from the transcendental Self", and this move seems to additionally contradict the premise that you've articulated that shakti is the 'conscious of other' or 'intentional consciousness'.

I understand the immediate, effortless, constant and spontaneous self-disclosure of "I" to "I" to occur without any differences, without parts and without any distinction of "being conscious of" vs "what I am conscious of", it's just one completely seamless primordial unity instead, like space. To say that the disclosure of "I" to "I" involves something else that is both identical to and different from the I at the same time seems to me to proceed from a place of dogma and it doesn't seem to be something that can be substantiated either logically or from a phenomenological analysis of the experience of how consciousness actually discloses to itself as a perfectly seamless unity.

If I say that some of the things you say sound contradictory, it's not because I am trying to engage in cheap 'gotchas', but it's because I accept the LNC as valid, as does most of classical Indian philosophy. Most of the arguments in classical Indian philosophy assume it and so from reading the classical non-Tantric philosophy, I am just used to thinking about things this way. When the Shaiva tantrists argued against other schools like Buddhism or dualists or Advaitins, don't some of their arguments presume to expose errors in their opponents by ostensibly demonstrating a contradiction? If they reject the LNC to resolve paradoxes in their own system, it seems kind of hypocritical to point to what they call contradictions elsewhere, thereby implicating assuming the LNC as valid when arguing against others but then consistently adhering to it themselves.

On a semi-unrelated note, if you reject contradiction as a test of what is true and what is false, what is your standard or method for determining what is true and what is not true?

[Anonymous No.20320657]

>>20319039
>Perhaps another traditional allegory is helpful here, Shiva is akin to a dancer, shakti akin to the movements of him, maya is the Dance, there is no separation between the movement and the dance, though the causal origin and totality of nature of the dance is the movement, and in actuality the dance is simply an aggregation of movement.
How is this not just another iteration of Bhedabheda, or 'difference-and-nondifference', like Vishishtadvaita is as well? To even speak of the unity of two things that each have their own separate natures involves the preservation of both difference and non-difference. Difference (bheda) is being laminated with a film of unity or non-difference (abheda), but never fully erased, for if it was there would not even be separate natures/qualities and one would not be even speaking of a dancer and a dance to conceive as united in the first place.

>Maya is shakti is shiva, the consciousness of Blue is the consciousness of perception is me, and to say we only experience the colorless shakti, this is not true to the realities of experience and dhyana, no rather whatever we focus in one, our perception is married to that object being one thing with it,
Of course we experience the color in perception, but we never experience color being aware of our Self, or color being aware of sounds, or color being aware of tastes, which is what one would expect if colors were equally luminous awareness, since we do find luminous awareness disclosing itself in all moments as our self, and we find it to reveal phenomenal qualities in experience as well.
>Sloterdijk's allegory of the bubble is perfect here, it is alike to a child seeing a bubble and then sum of his intentionality and perception being one with the object of the bubble, his perception having such a perfect inter mixture that the sphere of his perception and the sphere of the bubble are identical in the sphere of sensation/perception, such that when the bubble pops the entirety of the perception faculty momentarily dissolves also.
But when the bubble pops, one's vision remains intact and the vision of the bubble is just replaced with the vision of the objects/scenery behind it, even if the mind has to quickly impose a conceptual/linguistic scheme on that new vision

[Anonymous No.20320661]

>>20319039
>>20319043

>The objects of the senses derive as further tattvas (thus are fundamentally identical, being a folding of, the higher tattvas of the senses themselves.) the nuance is they must be perceived as both identical (shiva) and different (shakti) and the marriage of both (The heart, bhairava.) for this is the doctrine of the paras.
Consciousness doesn't have to perceive itself as both identical and different to itself though, it's just disclosed to itself non-conceptually and non-discursively as prakasha, to even speak about that we should impose a conceptual framework on something seems to be a hint to me that what you are talking about isn't consciousness, since the prakasha constituting the transcendental ego doesn't have to do this to know itself, the knowing or disclosing of itself to itself in fact occurs non-discursively, without the involvement of any conceptual overlay.

>The Tantric argument is that the Vedanta practitioner seeks the upper two paras (with parapara fulfilled by a personal deity such as Krishna, and the para fulfilled by Brahman.) while denying the inherent divinity, goodness and essential nature of the Apara as itself the divinity being revealed
Even in Advaita maya is regarded as the energy of Brahman, and Brahman understood to constitute all phenomena as in being the invisible reality that is within and without all forms, sound, phenomenal qualities etc as the non-phenomenal reality that provides for them. The realized aspirant is left perceiving everything as the Brahman shining through the auspices of form, while at the same time transcending them, which is why Brahman isn't shining *as* them.

[Anonymous No.20320664]

>>20319046
>> Finitude is a determination
>Once more, tantra does not fear the manifest,
Saying the metaphysical position of Advaita proceeds from a "fear" of the manifest seems like a cheap and unfair attempt at psychopathologizing that ignores their actual reasons for holding that position
>it sees the finite as a codependent arising with the infinite, to say something is without limitation is to say something can have limitation, this codependency means both are modes shakti may reveal shiva as, and on account of this, the infinite (having no bondage or limitation.) necessarily has the ground by which bondage and limitation can arise, thus the infinite results in the finite, both equalized and inter penetrating in the body of God.
I'm not a big fan of arguing over semantics, but I disagree fundamentally with the statement that "saying something is without limitation is to say something can have limitation", the contrary is true, by establishing X as non-determined and not delimited, it leaves X remaining in that mode unless something else later changes via some circumstance changing, in which case you wouldn't be talking about the same non-determined X anymore, but something else that has a contrary nature to X. X that is without determination isn't the same non-determined X if it accepts determinations. Having the nature of being above all determinations precludes something from being determined unless it's very nature changes, which makes it not the same thing anymore. The infinite being the basis or adisthana of determinations doesn't necessarily involve the infinite being determined since X being the basis of Y presupposes that there are different, otherwise speaking of one being a "basis" would have no purpose. Have you read Guenon's arguments in his book on calculus on why it's illogical to conceive of infinity as being comprised of the finite and do you have any thoughts on them?

[Anonymous No.20320668]

>>20319046
>>Then it starts to look less like any consistent perichoresis but more like a nebulous middle ground
>Not so, for essentially they are all just the revelation of Parashiva and are only distinct as conscious has divided them in order to partake of apara, shiva in dreamless sleep is not without shakti, shakti is simply viewing only shiva for shiva itself is a shakti, there is no real time they are ever away from each other, only veiled and the parts modified.
Is there any consistent principle or rule guiding this that determines why, when and how one is emphasized over the other, similar to how "one substance in three persons" is the guiding principle of the Christian trinity?
>Gold melted into a multitude of forms is essentially still Gold, the presence of Gold may dissolve as a perception of gold if melted, and it may take on the form of a statue, a brick, a sword, but in all of these it remains Gold and remains a presence of gold.
But when Gold is dissolved, it becomes a unity without distinguishable parts, but when you adopt the mental attitude of seeing everything as Shiva, phenomena continue to behave in an opposite manner to the prakasha revealing them, allowing themselves to be distinguished from it
>Does he ever directly address the topic of shiva and shakti being the same but different violating the LNC or the indiscernibility of identicals in his writing or does he ignore it and you differ from him by not considering the LNC as an issue?
>It’s just the problem of recognition of the nature of the heart.
Okay, so does he attempt to explain this in a way that preserves the law of non-contradiction intact, or does he basically say on the level of parapara it doesn't matter anymore?

[Anonymous No.20321336]

bump

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322088]

Bumping, I’ve not read the replies yet but after I unwind I’ll read and reply.

[Anonymous No.20322539]

Frater and guenonfag, could you guys both suggest a reading list? My interest in Indian religion comes from Schopenhauer. I guess there is the Upanishads and then the Gita, but what to read after that?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322560]

>Thank you for replying to most of my questions with detailed answers.


Not a problem, I’ve skipped over questions when I’ve felt my answers have already clarified.

>as I see it, self-disclosure *IS* this very light. Taking away the disclosure removes any connection with luminosity and vice-versa.

Jacob boehme (whose ontology is terrifically akin to tantra, so much so it may as well be a Christian tantrik tradition.) gives us a good allegory to explain this exact trinity as being both nondual and separate.


Imagine if you would, a flame, and this flame produces light, and this light produces the experience of light.

This is to say, the flame (shiva, the ego) gives forth light and is light, but is primary flame and light, which is to say, awareness, illumination, in the sense of the light of the one, that light is revealing the one and is the one, yet the nature as the one is primary in same way that flame is primarily flame and light the awareness of flame, and the particular sight of the light which is to say, the dasein of it, the Apara form of it, that is likewise nondual to the shakti yet divisible in the same way you divide perception of color from color.
>is to just say that self-disclosure *IS* the prakasha or the self-luminous Shiva instead of saying "the self-disclosure is both identical to and different from the transcendental Self",


To not notate the difference would be incorrect to conscious experience, meditation and the ontology, just as flame and the light of flame are one yet distinct.


>

>I understand the immediate, effortless, constant and spontaneous self-disclosure of "I" to "I" to occur without any differences, without parts and without any distinction of "being conscious of" vs "what I am conscious of", it's just one completely seamless primordial unity instead, like space. To say that the disclosure of "I" to "I" involves something else that is both identical to and different from the I at the same time seems to me to proceed from a place of dogma and it doesn't seem to be something that can be substantiated either logically or from a phenomenological analysis.

I again disagree for you are dividing them too harshly, if desired I can post my personal phenomenological analysis which would substantiate it but it would be significantly not in tantrik language and based on my own modeling, though imo it would back this nondual unity.
>If I say that some of the things you say sound contradictory, it's not because I am trying to engage in cheap 'gotchas', but it's because I accept the LNC as valid, as does most of classical Indian philosophy.

I completely understand and that’s why I’ve not called you out, I don’t think this a debate simply a discussion on the nuances of a system you’ve not studied in depth yet.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322565]

>>20322560
>I am just used to thinking about things this way. When the Shaiva tantrists argued against other schools like Buddhism or dualists or Advaitins, don't some of their arguments presume to expose errors in their opponents by ostensibly demonstrating a contradiction?

Such contradictions would be in the world of apara and misunderstanding the relation of para to the others, not a question of nonduality or recognition or the like, different type. Logical errors still exist.
>On a semi-unrelated note, if you reject contradiction as a test of what is true and what is false, what is your standard or method for determining what is true and what is not true?


What is true and not true is based fundamentally first and foremost on conscious experience, the question of contradictions and paradox is relevant in Apara, thus logic lines are still useable as can locating contradicting points and beliefs, however the contradictory paradoxical nature of the heart of Shiva, which is to say, the individual as both the shiva and the shakti in all ways, that is the heart of it.

Now concerning difference and non-difference, fundamentally a nondual position is held.

Of all the forms of change, Only Vikara truly has existence, what is Vikara? It is modification akin to how Gold is shaped or clay is molded, the shape/form might be changed but the intrinsic functions on the lowest level remain the same, and because this is the case the form (which is only transient and bound to time thus will change according to vikara) will always return to its original shape of shiva given enough time, the popular allegory is a world like a sea of light and the multitude of forms and differences being only a difference like waves in the ocean, they are only different in form not in actual substance/essence.

> Of course we experience the color in perception, but we never experience color being aware of our Self, or color being aware of sounds, or color being aware of tastes,

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322571]

>>20322565
We do, for immediately the perception says “not I” and our desires or hate of it is our perception of it, which is really a form of our own conscious which we either deny or accept, thus the grotesque and kali fixation of so many tantriks, the horrid alienating object world is the mother perception, all objects are marriages of self and perception that simply reveal these both in a new form. When I see the thing outside of me, I must negate my conception of self by saying “this negates me, not being me.” Thus I am present as nirguna within the object I do not perceive myself with, but immediately seeing myself revealed in the object I enter samadhi with it, for the ego perception and object perception are truly one perception.

> one's vision remains intact and the vision of the bubble is just replaced with the vision of the objects/scenery behind it,


This is because all objects are equally parts and partless, seamless and seamed in experience, the dissolution of the object is just the rhythm/vibration of shakti taking its next phase.


> Consciousness doesn't have to perceive itself as both identical and different to itself though, it's just disclosed to itself non-conceptually and non-discursively as prakasha, to even speak about that we should etc
The tantrik polemic argument here would be that this is precisely the reason the practitioner of Vedanta who denies tantra and denies shakti only ever reaches up to recognition of purusha and no higher, for this lack of differentiation is a limitation and weakness placed upon shiva, the same which is experienced by purusha as nirguna prior to prakrti producing the gunas, for again to lack the differentiation means it is not the fullness of Godhead but a limited divided thing only partaking of a singular nature, that nature being characterized by the lack of prakrti and nothing else here.

> etc as the non-phenomenal reality that provides for them. The realized aspirant is left perceiving everything as the Brahman shining through the auspices of form,

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322575]

>>20322571
The nuance here is, while both parties deny the exterior as anything but the energies (conscious modulations ) of shiva, the difference is the objects shine Brahman, they reveal Brahman, they are the opulence by which his infinity of attributes is unveiled, thus the superiority of resting in shiva as Qualitied.

> Saying the metaphysical position of Advaita proceeds from a "fear" of the manifest seems like a cheap and unfair attempt at psychopathologizing that ignores their actual reasons for holding that position

I’m more saying that tantra has an incredibly material and manifest embracing aspect to such points that Advaita simply doesn’t hold, seeing it as necessarily good.

As for the topic of the determinations, I would argue to say “this is not determined “ is itself a determination, even the double negated sunyata can be constituted a type of determination on account that when analyzed you could point to it being so or not so, thus it must have the quality/characteristic/determination of this, in the same way that a lack is ghostly visible so also is the lack of determination itself a determination, thus by Placing God as the indeterminate you have divided God in half and bound him to partialism of a sort. Now I have autistic essays on the topic of reconciling the determinant and non-determined in a kind of aussersein model but I’m sure you do not desire me to rant about the nuances of my model considering determinations.

> Have you read Guenon's arguments in his book on calcus


Nope, I’ve read a few books but not extensively from guenon, mostly on account of disagreeing due to his (not his fault but time) lack of resources and due in particular to his failures in interpretation of Dante and a few other key topics, but fundamentally I disagree on the infinity question, the infinite as we understand it must contain the One, if it hasn’t all valuations and determination values in it, you rob it of the wealth and depth of infinity, such is both to me illogical and doesn’t jive with the various rites and meditations I’ve performed.

> Is there any consistent principle or rule guiding this that determines why, when and how one is emphasized over the other, similar to how "one substance in three persons" is the guiding principle of the Christian trinity?

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322580]

>>20322575
It’s pretty much the same principle, Trika is trinitarian in conception fundamentally.

> Okay, so does he attempt to explain this in a way that preserves the law of non-contradiction intact, or does he basically say on the level of parapara it doesn't matter anymore?


Kinda both, insofar as Anutara and thus the goal and heart are beyond the problem, contradiction only existing as a result of Maya perceived as only apara, thus when concerning note things of apara we may speak of contradiction but when we speak of things on more unified or grand or totality levels contradiction becomes a law of realization. For elaboration on this topic in depth see the Pratibimbavada explanation in chapter three of the tantraloka.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322583]

>>20322539
My tantrik reading list is

Shiva Sutras
Shiva Samhita
(Optional=abhinavagupta commentary of the gita)
Bhairava tantra (112 meditations )
The secret supreme:Kashmir shivaism (very simplified but still good.)
Kali Kaula(skip if you don’t want Neo-tantra+ historical analysis of tantra and its relations to stuff like Taoism and the general arising of Vedanta and Buddhism from the Upanishads and other such )
Tantra Illuminated (Skip if you don’t want modern lit)
Kaulajnananirnaya
Kularnava Tantra
Anandalahare
Matrikabheda Tantra
Spandakarikas
Paratrisikavivirana
Tantraloka (You can also read when you feel up to it the Tantrasara which is a condensed normie friendly version of the tantraloka written by abhinavagupta to give people a tldr)

The lower on the list it is, the harder it is.

There are endless texts but i find the above is quick enough to get a reader up to speed and give him enough material he can even self initiate.

[Anonymous No.20322587]

>>20322539
>but what to read after that?
pic related is for Advaita Vedanta / Shankara

[Anonymous No.20322598]

>>20322583
Thanks. By the way, I recently saw the posts of another Frater who also happened to be an esotericist on some forum, Frater Ahadun, whose posts I found just as educational as yours. Is he one of your friends?
>>20322587
Thank you.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20322624]

>>20322598
Nope, Frater is used as a common title for western occultists, usually associated with GD/Thelema in some manner, I don’t use it for that reason, I use it on account of back in I want to say, 2012ish? I had a number of Irc friends who were thelemites and we all tripfagged with frater names, while we’ve fallen out I like to keep the name as a kind of keepsake, there’s also the recording benefit due to so much of 4chan being archived.

So no, no relation.

[Anonymous No.20322705]

So who won? Should I purse Buddhism, AV, or KS?

[Anonymous No.20322789]

>>20322705
All of them. In the time we live in, when we have easy access to all these books on the internet, it makes sense to study all forms of religion, philosophy, mysticism, esotericism, and science, and synthesize them all together. Maybe we can create the religion of the future, if Christianity alone doesn't make a resurgence in the collapse era.

[Anonymous No.20322888]

>>20322789
At some point down the line you have to choose a tradition and stick to it to make any progress towards realisation.

[Anonymous No.20322910]

I had a dream conversation about vaishnavism and how I shouldn't worship vishnu
I'm sure there wasn't any substance to what I was being told but I wish I remebmered

[Anonymous No.20323029]

>>20318770
>The illusion *isn't* an obfuscation of something able to perceive reality,
then is not an illusion, that's like saying you're composing music without sound

[Anonymous No.20323045]

>>20322705
just find the one who works better for you

[Anonymous No.20323071]

>>20323045
how?

[Anonymous No.20323741]

>>20322560
>Imagine if you would, a flame, and this flame produces light, and this light produces the experience of light.
>This is to say, the flame (shiva, the ego) gives forth light and is light, but is primary flame and light, which is to say, awareness, illumination, in the sense of the light of the one, that light is revealing the one and is the one, yet the nature as the one is primary in same way that flame is primarily flame and light the awareness of flame, and the particular sight of the light which is to say, the dasein of it, the Apara form of it, that is likewise nondual to the shakti yet divisible in the same way you divide perception of color from color.
In this allegory, what difference in awareness is the flame and the light supposes to represent? Because you've said shiva is the flame and both gives forth light and is light, that is awareness, but then you say the light is awareness of the flame, which turns out to be awareness, so it's awareness being aware of awareness. What is the difference between awareness and awareness? Is awareness being aware of awareness (1 x 1 x 1) different from awareness (1)?

>I again disagree for you are dividing them too harshly, if desired I can post my personal phenomenological analysis which would substantiate it but it would be significantly not in tantrik language and based on my own modeling, though imo it would back this nondual unity.
I think I tried looking at it once before. I find you easier to understand when just talking to you than reading the writings that I've seen you post here, I would honestly prefer rather you just try to describe plainly why in a straightforward way like you were speaking to someone in real life and trying to point it out to them like you were talking about their own consciousness. For example I can try to do the same for how I see reflexive awareness or prakasha, here spoken of as experienced as 'witness-consciousness' or sākṣī-chaitanya. Sākṣī-chaitanya is how jiva's mind interprets the presence of non-dual Awareness animating and illuminating it, while without the jiva or the 3 bodies (Karana sarira, Sukshma sarira, Sthula sarira) present anymore, such as after Videha mukti (moksha after bodily death), It just remains as the infinite non-dual Brahman-Atman alone.

[Anonymous No.20323744]

>>20323741

Awareness is effortlessly present, it takes no willpower or use of mentation to be aware, you just are. You don't have to think about it or examine anything, you are just there. Awareness in itself is an expansive, space-like totally free presence, it doesn't have any self-established limits, the conception of limitation only makes sense as a referent to things appearing to awareness. Saying "but I know my awareness is inside the body looking out because I see the world through the organs, it's therefore limited by that" doesn't establish that awareness is limited by the body because the sensation of knowing the world occurring through the body and mind is itself presented to awareness as a witnessed object, like seeing a tree. What's going on with awareness itself, and where it's limits are, and whether it's finite or infinite cannot be established using that witnessed object, because it doesn't show you what's going on 'behind awareness'. You would need to stand outside awareness to examine and measure it and find out where it ends, but we can't do this. In the unity of the always completely free and spotless presence of awareness, all the bodily and mental sensations are taking place inside one self-knowing presence which never fails to know itself while also continually and smoothly revealing everything occurring within its presence. The intellect can focus on or lose track of individual components of the multifarious psycho-physical experience that is being presented to awareness, but as a precondition that the intellect does so, both the intellect and that thing have to both be illuminated and thereby revealed by awareness already.

Like space, awareness is continuous and doesn't parts, the very concept of parts only makes sense if one uses it in reference to one part of the phenomena being presented to awareness, in relation to another part of the that phenomenal experience. The inability of awareness is take itself as it's own object through being the subject and object of itself at the same time is related to it's lack of parts, something that's partless doesn't have one part that can observe the other and detect phenomenal qualities in the other half at the same time. Being the subject and object of itself at the same time isn't necessary for it to know itself however, because it's reflexive by nature. In the pristine and shining indivisible unity of awareness, the differences between knower, knowing and known are not even erased, because they don't even exist in awareness begin with, they only occur as concepts and distinctions in the phenomenal content that is again, presented to awareness as something different in nature.

[Anonymous No.20323751]

>>20323744

Within that non-discursive seamless space-like presence, the self-disclosure of that presence to itself is same as the self-awareness of awareness. Self-awareness/disclosure is not something different from awareness, they are two ways of referring to the same thing, Awareness's firsthand, immediate, non-discursive and non-mediated access to (or disclosure) the fact of being aware is the same thing as awareness, when you isolate awareness aside from everything that's appearing to it and trace the radiance back, that's all it is, pure uninterrupted light without any distinction of illuminated and illuminator left in it. This firsthand, reflexive access of awareness to itself is totally indistinguishable from what that access is supposed to be giving access to. That firsthand, self-directed access is not applied awareness, or reflected awareness, it's awareness itself, they are not the general concept of awareness and a particular example, they are the same thing. When you try to grab ahold of awareness, and find parts, volition, will, or anything else aside from this spontaneously present yet uninterrupted space-like self-disclosing presence your search comes crashing through to the other side like someone trying to grab their reflection in a pond's surface, and you are now talking about the phenomenal content being presented to awareness.

The psychological I, the I-concept that one has about the psycho-physical aggregate and its relation to the world and its actions, is just as much a part of the phenomenal content presented to awareness as trees and rocks are. The transcendental I is the luminous space that is beyond all phenomena. To the world of phenomena, it is 0, to itself, it is infinity. When I try to find any other I aside from these two, there are none. There is just the phenomenal I, which is revealed to me and not vice versa, and on the other hand the real I that is the continuous all-encompassing presence that every single of my mental actions and distinctions presupposes, and which they cannot occur without. Aside from this luminous presence being intrinsically self-disclosing, I don't find any other disclosure of awareness or self. What is aware? awareness-as-presence. How is it aware? self-disclosure. How is it disclosed? through being aware of was is disclosed. So disclosure is just being aware? Yes. What do awareness itself do? It's also just aware. Can you establish that the self-disclosure of awareness is something not completely and utterly identical with awareness? Attempting to do so would require one to stand outside awareness and its disclosure and examine them like an object and have that examination reveal cracks and divisions in them, but this is exactly what awareness by nature can only do to other things, namely, phenomena. Attempting to use observation and phenomenal analysis to establish the difference of the self-disclosure of awareness from awareness is like trying to grab your reflection in a pond.

[Anonymous No.20323758]

>>20323751
>What is true and not true is based fundamentally first and foremost on conscious experience, the question of contradictions and paradox is relevant in Apara, thus logic lines are still useable as can locating contradicting points and beliefs, however the contradictory paradoxical nature of the heart of Shiva, which is to say, the individual as both the shiva and the shakti in all ways, that is the heart of it.
So, are you saying that there is an underlying perichoresis of 1 as both A and B at the level of absolute truth, and that the laws of logic like LNC are only valid on the level of the different particulars of maya being related to each-other, but that none of them fully delimit how reality works at the level of ultimate truth or level where 1 both is A and B? But you've also said that Shiva has primary over shakti, so the rules of logic and thinking are at least valid enough to tell us that 1 is really A more than it is B at this ineffable level, while still having both be not wrong?

>Of all the forms of change, Only Vikara truly has existence, what is Vikara? It is modification akin to how Gold is shaped or clay is molded, the shape/form might be changed but the intrinsic functions on the lowest level remain the same, and because this is the case the form (which is only transient and bound to time thus will change according to vikara) will always return to its original shape of shiva given enough time, the popular allegory is a world like a sea of light and the multitude of forms and differences being only a difference like waves in the ocean, they are only different in form not in actual substance/essence.
In this example the modifications of an entity are being distinguished from the totality of the entity. But this still involves a distinction between two things, the negation of duality is carried.... just until it arrives at the distinction between the entity and a modification inhering in it. Like how 'nothing' is an all-encompassing negation that doesn't leave a room for different degrees of nothingness, these being distinctions which are categorially ruled out by 'nothingness', 'non-duality' is derivatively an all-encompassing negation of all difference and duality. If there are even identifiable differences structuring or patterning what's left, like a difference between it's essential nature or its entityhood, vs a temporary modification, then the negation of all duality has stopped short, it's not all-encompassing, like how talking about degrees of nothingness is not the real all-encompassing nothingness. If the negation isn't all-encompassing it ends up being a kind of bhedabheda, like Vishishtadvaita, Shuddadvaita, Dvaitadvaita etc

[Anonymous No.20323760]

>>20323758
And when you say "of all the forms of change, only Vikara has existence", does KS say the remaining kinds of change either 1) both don't happen ever and don't even appear to, or that, 2) despite lacking existence they still appear, like the maya of Advaita which is neither (absolute) existence nor nothingness?

>> Of course we experience the color in perception, but we never experience color being aware of our Self, or color aware of sounds
>We do, for immediately the perception says “not I” and our desires or hate of it is our perception of it, which is really a form of our own conscious which we either deny or accept, thus the grotesque and kali fixation of so many tantriks, the horrid alienating object world is the mother perception, all objects are marriages of self and perception that simply reveal these both in a new form.
Our desires or hate of the object is conceptual/emotionally and downstream of the raw perceptual content, we need access to the raw perceptual content to recognize it and react with the related conceptual/emotional responses, at the level of pre-conceptuality there is no identification of oneself/one's awareness with the phenomena but they are just revealed to awareness as disclosed phenomena and not vice-versa. That something (as in the raw perceptual content) is revealed to awareness doesn't automatically establish the identify of the two but their different and completely one-way relation of one revealing the other indicates they have different natures.

It seems like this answer actually involves the conflation or confusion of the psychological/phenomenal self and the transcendental self, a piece of evidence based on one is cited in an attempt to prove something about the other. It's the phenomenal self that reacts with pleasure and displeasure and which considers and values itself in relation to other parts of multiplicity, the transcendental self is totally uninvolved in that since it's non-discursive. It seems like you are conflating the fact of the phenomenal self usually having some emotional response to the content as indicating that our real I of awareness or Shiva is actually present in that object, but that seems to fail on account of Shiva being the transcendent self and not the psychological/phenomenal self that actually commits that response. Shiva is what that phenomenal self presupposes, but this doesn't presuppose that Shiva is already in what the phenomenal self is reacting to. And if you go down to the level of analysis of the phenomenal self, you could dispute that even that phenomenal self was in the observed object, since one can maintain that the phenomenal self's value-judgements about things in relation to its identify is downstream of the simple perceiving of the object by it and that the simple perception doesn't either contain or negate the notion of the phenomenal self, and then the phenomenal self applies a conceptual overlay that involves considering itself vs the object

[Anonymous No.20323765]

>>20323760
>When I see the thing outside of me, I must negate my conception of self by saying “this negates me, not being me.”
The thinking, phenomenal self that relies on discursivity and which is closely bound with egoism/ahamkara is what does that. The actual you of all-pervading radiant awareness, the shiva, doesn't itself do that, it's what reveals that as phenomenal content, which is what allows you to describe the phenomenal self doing so like the events of the movie that you are recounting, he was like an actor whose performance you witnessed. That the transcendental ego (shiva) revealed the phenomenal self doing so is not proof that shiva himself did.

>This is because all objects are equally parts and partless, seamless and seamed in experience, the dissolution of the object is just the rhythm/vibration of shakti taking its next phase.
How are objects partless? I can understand how someone can say that awareness, space and time are partless, that is if alleged distinctions in them can only be posited on the basis of additional things other than themselves, leaving open the possibility that those things as they really are in themselves are partless, but I don't see how objects can be considered partless.

>>Consciousness doesn't have to perceive itself as both identical and different to itself though (in order to know itself), it's just disclosed to itself non-conceptually and non-discursively as prakasha
>The tantrik polemic argument here would be that this is precisely the reason the practitioner of Vedanta who denies tantra and denies shakti only ever reaches up to recognition of purusha and no higher, for this lack of differentiation is a limitation and weakness placed upon shiva, the same which is experienced by purusha as nirguna prior to prakrti producing the gunas, for again to lack the differentiation means it is not the fullness of Godhead but a limited divided thing only partaking of a singular nature, that nature being characterized by the lack of prakrti and nothing else here.
1) It's nature is not characterized simply by a lack of prakrit and nothing else, that's simply false, a lack of something isn't aware of itself or self-disclosing, so if it was just a lack of prakriti and nothing more it wouldn't be a self-disclosing presence, but it is. Moreover Advaita was say that this intrinsically self-disclosing presence is inherently blissful. Bliss isnt just a lack of prakriti.

2) This is not an argument rooted in an phenomenological analysis of experience though, nor is it one rooted talking about what's actually logically-rigorous metaphysics, it's a rhetorical attack that implies a true phenomenological analysis of experience has the value judgement of being bad because one of its implications may be that the Godhead doesn't fully correspond to popular notions of how God should be "powerful" or "strong".

3) If those other things aren't it, then it's not "divided", it's actually abiding in itself in perfect unity.

[Anonymous No.20323770]

>>20323765

>are the opulence by which his infinity of attributes is unveiled, thus the superiority of resting in shiva as Qualitied.
Saying "X has opulent riches, we should like and enjoy them" seems like it's really just an argument for the superiority of a certain kind of sentiment or sentimental attitude

>As for the topic of the determinations, I would argue to say “this is not determined “ is itself a determination,
I think that the negation of all determinations can only be considered a determination in a symbolic, figurative sense, serving to denote the negation of them all. It's not a concrete determinate. A determination marks one thing as separate out from another thing, but when you say 'it has no determination', no determination has actually been given yet and nothing has been identified as being a unique thing that is separate from other things by virtue of that determination. That's why when people say "the answer is undetermined" when speaking about the answer to an unsolved math puzzle or a murder mystery, in both cases it means that there are numerous possible answers that could turn out to be true, not one has been determined, the infinite is above quantity.
>thus by Placing God as the indeterminate you have divided God in half
This would be true only if there was no difference between the figurative and the non-figurative

>> Have you read Guenon's arguments in his book on calcus
>Nope, I’ve read a few books but not extensively from guenon
Well, I strongly recommend it, he actually makes some very good arguments, and it's a short book. The notion may sound counter-intuitive just hearing about it, but I would encourage you to check it out because you may be surprised, and it's often good to force yourself to challenge beliefs that you consider fundamental and to look at the arguments for the other side. I have yet to see a single person here take apart or refute the exact arguments he makes. Also, Wolfgang Smith, the (math professor at MIT and UCLA) and Traditionalist, has said that what Guenon writes about math and infinity in that book is correct.
>the infinite as we understand it must contain the One, if it hasn’t all valuations and determination values in it, you rob it of the wealth and depth of infinity, such is both to me illogical
How much depth of infinity and wealth something has are subjective aesthetic judgements, I can understand why someone would hold that opinion about aesthetics, but when I look at the logical arguments he makes on the level of metaphysics and then I look at the appeals to aesthetic appeal or sentiment, to me the answer is clear.
>For elaboration on this topic in depth see the Pratibimbavada explanation in chapter three of the tantraloka.
Thanks for the textual source, I think the question I asked above earlier about the 1 as shiva/shakti is about the same thing so the answer to that should be the answer to this.

[Anonymous No.20323804]

>>20323029
>>The illusion *isn't* an obfuscation of something able to perceive reality,
>then is not an illusion, that's like saying you're composing music without sound
It's just meant in the general sense of "what is not true, appearing as though it is true" and not in the specific meaning that optical illusions have, saying it is false conveys the same idea.

[Anonymous No.20324763]

bump

[Anonymous No.20324844]

isn't there any form of buddhism that is like advaita?

[Anonymous No.20324929]

>>20324844
>isn't there any form of buddhism that is like advaita?

Dolpopa's explication of Shentong in works such as Ocean of Definitive Meaning: Final Unique Quintessential Instructions (translated by Hopkins as 'The Mountain Doctrine') is very close to Advaita Vedanta. He refers to the Absolute as a 'self-cognizing wisdom' or gnosis, but you when you pay closer attention what he is talking about turns out to be a luminous and non-conceptual self-intuiting presence with no distinction between knower and known, and which is free of all defilements and it's not a discursive understanding of wisdom that 'understands itself'.

Some strains of Ch'an also recognizes an innate unborn pristine nature within everyone that is identical with Buddhanature and the Dharmadhatu, and they see it as the unconditioned radiance inside everyone lighting up their mind from within and not just as a embryo of a future potential understanding of sunyata that needs to be actualized. Chinul (Korean Ch'an) is the best example of this I can think of, you can read this selection from Chinul posted in this thread and it's practically the same thing as Advaita

https://i.warosu.org/lit/thread/S20273066

[Anonymous No.20326466]

bump

[Anonymous No.20326707]

Advaita leads to transgenderism
Buddhism leads to transgenderism
All Eastern philosophies eventually (but unfailingly) lead to transgenderism

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20326836]

bumping, just got home, I’ll reply in a bit.

[Anonymous No.20326885]

>>20326707
but Christianity led to liberalism, which led to the most transgenderism of all

[Anonymous No.20327205]

reminder that guenonfag posted his body once and is a twink (built for BBC)

[Anonymous No.20327352]

>>20326836
NTA but what do you think of this? >>20327241
>>20327205
link?

[Anonymous No.20327361]

>>20327352

[Anonymous No.20327409]

>>20327361
>twink
He is /fitlit/. Show your abs

[Anonymous No.20327450]

>>20327361
he looks like he's 5' 4"

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327480]

>>20327352
Point three is incorrect on Gnosticism, Gnosticism was never so unified, it’s an umbrella term. The usage of darshana is also very limited, darshana can even mean evocation of a spirit.

I would say the failure of him is missing that the core of Gnosticism (by which this board refers to, not the umbrella term) is a radicalized form of apophaticism that desires destruction of the phenomenal spheres and shills (again not all since it’s not a monolith) a very harsh dualism between nature and God, phenomenal and ultimate reality. Now this is not to say Gnosticism and Vedanta don’t share much, but they also will frequently oppose if one studies both earnestly.

[Anonymous No.20327522]

>>20327480
Thanks for the answer. IIRC you're a proponent of Kashmir Shaivism. How do you practise this? What kind of meditations do you do?

[dago !XvLR0tbIro No.20327524]

>>20322587
redpill me on Upadesasahasri
>>20327361
kek I remember that pic from last summer

[Anonymous No.20327601]

>>20327524
Have you read all those? Favorite one?

[dago !XvLR0tbIro No.20327683]

>>20327601
tis is in fact my /trad/ book collection - I made a b8 thread last year saying something like "Kneel before your master" kek
>Have you read all those?
All except Guenon's book on calculus and Evola's intro to magic
There are some that I kinda just skimmed bc I wasn't that interested or got filtered. Evola can be boring at times and Schuon can be tough.
>Favorite one?
If i could only pick one it would be Martin Lings' Muhammad book but that's kind of cheating because it's unlike the other books
favs:
Evola's Metaphysics of War (t. soon to be armyfag)
Reign of Quantity + System of the Antichrist (absolutely based combo)
Path of Cinnabar

Would also recommend reading Ossendowski's 'Beasts, Men And Gods" then reading Guenon's 'King of the World'

[dago !XvLR0tbIro No.20327713]

>>20327683
I feel pretty inadequate after reading this thread though...
I was ready to read Shankara over the coming months and then return to the TradCath path, but now I feel like I have to spend the next 5-10 years studying Eastern Traditions at a much deeper level.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327736]

>>20327522
> IIRC you're a proponent of Kashmir Shaivism.

Among other things, I consider myself first and foremost a Christian, though I have initiation into Hindu tantra, vajrayana, Taoism, and have studied and practiced a ton of western esoterica.

>How do you practise this?

This doesn’t apply because my model being so syncretic performs rituals and meditations rooted in all manner of personal developed and traditional modes, but I will say I am a ritualist and have performed even the wrathful rites such as corpse meditation/shava sadhana.

>What kind of meditations do you do?

The Vijnana Bhairava tantra is a text which has over 100 meditation methods which you may perform, that’s a good place to start in terms of practice.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327743]

> what difference in awareness is the flame and the light supposes to represent? Because you've said shiva is the flame and both gives forth light and is light, that is awareness,


That awareness is shakti, thus the transcendental ego is the flame, the luminous disclosing/awareness is the light.
>but then you say the light is awareness of the flame, which turns out to be awareness, so it's awareness being aware of awareness. What is the difference between awareness and awareness? Is awareness being aware of awareness (1 x 1 x 1) different from awarenes


Your error is in conception of shiva as awareness and not as the one who has awareness, shiva is not simply conscious or awareness but he who is (possesses) conscious, and that conscious awareness is shakti, thus the difference is between one who is conscious and the conscious itself, which can be constituted as both one and two.

> I think I tried looking at it once before. I find you easier to understand when just talking to you than reading the writings that I've seen you post here, I would honestly prefer rather you just try to describe plainly why in a straightforward way like you were speaking to someone in real life


If it were real life I would have them performing rituals and reading the essays, in my opinion the systematic study is superior to these modes of dialogue, but that’s a personal preference.
>your description of awareness.

To give my (in simplistic terms) analysis of conscious would be to post at minimum one long essay of which I shall not do if you do not have interest.

> So, are you saying that there is an underlying perichoresis of 1 as both A and B at the level of absolute truth, and that the laws of logic like LNC are only valid on the level of the different particulars of maya being related to each-other, but that none of them fully delimit how reality works at the level of ultimate truth or level where 1 both is A and B? But you've also said that Shiva has primary over shakti, so the rules of logic and thinking are at least valid enough to tell us that 1 is really A more than it is B at this ineffable level, while still having both be not wrong?

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327749]

>>20327743
Primacy still exists in the height due to Apara existing fully, the limited and parts fully pre-maya, it’s simply recognized as reconciled with desu other aspects of nature, thus the perichoresis yet superiority of shiva.

> 1) both don't happen ever and don't even appear to, or that, 2) despite lacking existence they still appear, like the maya of Advaita which is neither (absolute) existence nor nothingness?

Neither insofar as the other forms of change if analyzed are just Vikara.

> Our desires or hate of the object is conceptual/emotionally and downstream of the raw perceptual content, we need access to the raw perceptual content to recognize it and react with the related conceptual/emotional responses, at the level of pre-conceptuality there is no identification of oneself/one's awareness with the phenomena but they are just revealed to awareness as disclosed phenomena and not vice-versa.

There is no such thing as downstream for emotion is simply a revelation of shakti, it’s nothing more than shakti’s opulence revealed in a certain manner, the phenomenal and the awareness are truly identical and to not recognize this is to deny the reality of the perceived, to deny that it is shakti, the divisions of the tattva are no divisions whatsoever in the one who has attained to bhairava, the awareness is not empty disclosure but rather is absolutely full with its qualities of all aspects of perception of which it is. There is a remarkably similar model held in the Tibetan Kulayarāja Tantra, in which the supreme monarch is the clear mind, who is not empty but rather is the flowing rainbow lights of perception, each of them being the dynamic characteristic of Mind/Brahman, such is the same doctrine here.
>That something (as in the raw perceptual content) is revealed to awareness doesn't automatically establish the identify of the two but their different and completely one-way relation of one revealing the other indicates they have different natures.

Awareness, perception and the contents of these all occur at once, you claim that objects if analyzed will only reveal the awareness and not vice versa, but I along with the tantriks here and (imo many) taoists would disagree, for By the meditation upon the pure awareness the world of objects and particular rasas is revealed and deified, just as meditation upon maya produces gnosis of shakti, so also does meditation upon shakti reveal maya, for these are fundamentally one existent, the difference being that the content of perception is the apara (and in their flow, parapara) aspect of awareness, whereas the ground of awareness is itself the Para, this does not divide the three, meditation demonstrates the codependency of these upon each other in the higher modes.

> Shiva is actually present in that object, but that seems to fail on account of Shiva being the transcendent self and not the psychological/phenomenal self that actually commits that response.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327753]

>>20327749
This is the core as to why you do not grasp the Vamachari and maya-positive forms of mysticism imo, the formula of them can be condensed into this, “I am i” and “i am I” by this I mean to say, the empirical ego IS the transcendental ego, that is the grand mystery of them. This is on account of the transcendental ego being veiled in the illusion, the negation of Shakti/maya, which negates itself/creates yet another illusion, negating itself, this double negation, maya becoming maya, illusion revealing illusion, transmutes the illusionary mode into truth, for if illusion discloses illusion, it discloses truth, in the manner that “not not”= yes, and in this manner, the unknown I is emptied via the revelation of awareness as the multiplicity of para forms, these para forms then empty themselves into the center of the perception, the empirical ego, which at once IS the transcendental ego (just as all other things are.) IS the awareness and perception, the perceived, and IS the one who says I within perception, thus at once the empirical ego is the heart of God which reconciles within all zones the entirety of the tattvas, and to recognize this is to become bhairava. The ultimate affirmation of “I” and “i”’s unity is the great key, for to use an allegory, it is like a man (transcendental ego) who sees a mirror (perception) and sees the man in the mirror (empirical ego) and affirms that he is himself the man, he is the perception of the mirror, and he is the one projected within the mirror.

> It's nature is not characterized simply by a lack of prakrit and nothing else, that's simply false, a lack of something isn't aware of itself or self-disclosing, so if it was just a lack of prakriti and nothing more it wouldn't be a self-disclosing presence, but it is. Moreover Advaita was say that this intrinsically self-disclosing presence is inherently blissful. Bliss isnt just a lack of prakriti.


This gets into us arguing for again this is an established polemic of tantra against Vedanta, The tantrik argument would be here that prakrt is relatively later in terms of revealed aspects of Godhead, thus bliss can exist as do the higher forms of awareness, for purusha is itself a shakti in this model thus a perception/awareness. Thus your argument holds no weight.

> This is not an argument rooted in an phenomenological analysis of experience though, nor is it one rooted talking about what's actually logically-rigorous metaphysics

Nah it’s rooted in the structure of the upper tattvas.

> Saying "X has opulent riches, we should like and enjoy them" seems like it's really just an argument for the superiority of a certain kind of sentiment or sentimental attitude

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327760]

>>20327753
Not so, by stressing the opulence I mean to say that the Parashiva at once reveals as the transcendental ego as the still changeless one but also at once as the absolute dynamism of awareness and phenomena, they being codependent on account of shiva tattva itself being an awareness which necessarily has a dynamism inherent to it on account of the dynamism being the freedom inherent to the openness of Shiva (quoting the spandakarikas.)


She, who is ever conscious of the vitality of mantra,1 who is the endless flash of the perfect and complete I-consciousness whose essence consists in a multitude of letters,2 who is the goddess embodying jfiana3 (knowledge), ever knows the totality of categories from the earth upto Siva, which is one in substance with Her own Self and is portrayed out of Her own nature on the canvas of Her own free, clear Self just as a city is reflected in a mirror (from which it is non-distinct). Hail to that Energy of creative pulsation (spandasakti) of Siva (Saipkari) that exults in
glory all over the world.
Though the ambrosia of spanda has been relished in a small
degree from my work Spandasandoha,4 I am now making an effort for providing complete enjoyment of that (spanda).
If you want to know the exact inter-connexion of the sutras (i.e. of the karikas or verses of this text), the most excellent ascertainment of the highest Reality, pointed and subtle state- ment of reasoning, the right application of means, exquisite
exposition through clear sense and the secret doctrine of Saivagama, then, O intelligent people, apply your mind to this gloss of the Spandasastra and obtain the wealth of spanda.

NOTES
1. The mantra referred to is the I-consciousness or ahani paramarsa of the Absolute.
2. This I-consciousness or aham contains all the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet from 'a' (ar) to <ha' (|)
3. Dfgdevi as the goddess embodying jfiana or knowledge.
Actually there is only one Sakti, viz., Svatantrya sakti, the Absolute Freedom of the Divine. The initial appearance of svatantrya is known as Iccha-sakti or the power of Will. Its final appearance is known as Kriya-sakti or the power of action. Its expansion is known as jnana-sakti or power of knowledge. As Spandasakti refers to the svatantrya or Freedom of Siva in the form of the expansion of the universe, she is referred to as drgdevl. Drk means insight, vision, divine vision. Here it means
jfiana. By the rule of Sandhi, drk has become drg.
that entrance in Him i.e. identification with Him is the (real) reward of liberation in life, (jivan-mukti). The plural in stumah (we laud) is meant to convey the idea of our identity with all those who are worthy of His grace and who are regarded by Him with favourable glance.
The word 'tam' (Him) fully establishes His uniqueness which is suggested by the first half of the verse, viz., 'By whose mere opening of the eye-lids, etc'.
Now the great lord who is the great God of the nature of Light,

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327762]

>>20327760
has absolute Freedom (svatantrya), of the nature of Parasakti (the Highest Power) that displays Herself in the two poles of arani (I) and visarga (creation or idam i.e. the objective world) and is always full of the flash of a compact mass of bliss and whose essence consists in Full I-consciousness which is the supreme import of the multitude of letters.1
Therefore the Svatantrya Sakti (the Power of Absolute Free- dom) of the Lord is called spanda. This power though non- distinct from the Lord goes on presenting the entire cycle of manifestation and withdrawal on its own background like the reflection of a city in a mirror. It will be shown by apt arguments, further (in the book) that though she is not anything extra
(<anadhikamapi) she goes on showing herself as if supernumerary (adhikamiva). This sakti of the lord who is non-moving, being of the nature of consciousness (Citsvabhavyad acalasyapi bhaga- vatali) is known as spanda in accordance with the rootmeaning of the word signifying slight movement {kincit calattaf. Thus the essential nature of the Lord is perpetual spanda (creative
pulsation). He is never without spanda. Some3 hold that the Highest Reality is without any activity whatsoever. But in such a case the Highest Reality being devoid of activity, all this (i.e. the universe) will be without a lord or Creative Power. The great teacher has written this sastra (sacred book) in order to explain the fact that our nature is identical with that of Sahkara who is full of spanda sakti, the essence of which consists in quivering light. Thus this sastra has been appropriately named spanda.”


For further elaboration read the spandakarikas.

> I think that the negation of all determinations can only be considered a determination in a symbolic, figurative sense, serving to denote the negation of them all.

I disagree for by the negation of all determinations we know and mystically experience it as lacking this or having that or undergoing the mystical double negation as common to the mystical state of sunyata being perceived in the higher jhanas.


>It's not a concrete determinate. A determination marks one thing as separate out from another thing, but when you say 'it has no determination', no determination has actually been given yet

Except you by this make it the most determined insofar as, you have denied it the concrete nature of all other determinations thus have given it designation of difference in perception, logic and so forth.


Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327770]

>>20327762
> "the answer is undetermined" when speaking about the answer to an unsolved math puzzle or a murder mystery, in both cases it means that there are numerous possible answers that could turn out to be true, not one has been determined, the infinite is above quantity.


In my eye by saying the answer is undetermined you have still given it an answer, that answer is simply nirguna, simply epoche, in terms of perception you have denied it the concrete existence of all things, the potential is still there but the moment it moves from potential its determination necessarily changes and can no longer be said nothing, undetermined, etc. thus it is itself an option.


Sorry for the late reply, once more while I know it sounds memey, the poem I posted more or less gives the core doctrine.

[Anonymous No.20327789]

>>20327736
Thanks. I read your pastebin on the 36 tattvas and I must say it was brilliantly written. What sort of Christian are you? Do you belong to any church? Also how do you feel about the late Swami Lakshmanjoo? I’ve been listening to some of his talks and he seems pretty good.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20327863]

>>20327789
>What sort of Christian are you? Do you belong to any church?

I consider myself a Pentecostal, I do not deny any of the exoteric doctrines of Christianity but rather use the early church arguments for the study and integration of these non Christian models, likewise the hebrews and early church authorities such as Jerome had very different opinions of Neoplatonic magic and so forth which I agree with on account of my study of the Hebrew and Greek texts concerning these being banned or not in the Bible.

>Also how do you feel about the late Swami Lakshmanjoo?

I like him, I also like Mark Dyczkowski.

[Anonymous No.20329002]

>>20327522
>shava sadhana
Damn, how did you even acquire a corpse to sit upon? Would you like to share the ritual procedure and the aim of it all?
Who is your ishta-devata?

[Anonymous No.20329389]

>>20327736
>I have performed corpse meditation
Umm explain? You meditated ontop of a corpse ?

[Anonymous No.20329393]

>>20327736
VBT is incredibly cryptic, do you have a recommended good translation commentary or edition etc. On it? Has been subjected to New agers like Osho etc. I'm not going to lie you seem like a peak LARPer but there is nothing wrong with that, its interesting.

[Anonymous No.20329544]

>>20327753
This is pseudo-metaphysics, a priori moralism and mysticism
Some indications of this:
>"empirical" ego
??
>transcendental ego
>double negation is illusion revealing illusion transmuting the illusionary mode into truth?
Even by delimiting the Infinity by double negation equalling a metaphysical positive, it is never pretended to be "truth" as ultimately it is still a limitation, however, you're pretending illusion disclosing illusion = truth; when even then the "delimited limited" - is still a determination or limitation. What you're saying here is just relativisation, albeit with some unnecessary complexity.
>why you don't grasp the Vamachara and maya-positive,
All larp there is neither left nor right hand, there is neither maya-positive nor maya-negative. These are all artificial distinctions and dualisms, Relative afterall.
>"not not" = yes in this manner the unknown is emptied by the revelation of awareness as the Para forms
So by understanding Apophasis, the "Neti Neti" or ultimately Non-Being, (by the revelation of the Para forms do you mean the 3 forms specifically here, or just the super forms, as in parabrahman) you experience an emptiness, a kenosis and freedom which leads you to the Transcendental Ego, Pure-Being, of course there is nothing ultimately wrong with any of these things as they are ultimately say just means to the ends which is the identification with Transcendental Ego; a Non-Dual state which negates all this talk about Relative "Empirical ego" so yes it is ultimately just a more practical path.
>Shakti as the reason of a publicly assessable inference, or “inference for the sake of others” (parārthānumāna). According to the scholastic logic, the reason identifies a quality in the inferential subject “I” known to be invariably concomitant with the predicate, “Shiva.” Thus I am Shiva because I have his quality, that is, Shakti, the capacity of emanating and controlling the universe.
So Shakti is essentialy just an empirical externalisation of Shiva, but ultimately just a relative one, as it is defined by its association with the "empirical ego"
To say the "empirical" is the same as the "Transcendental" is like conflating relative and absolute, which makes no sense to me, as what is relative in this way is neither Being nor non-being unless you want to say that you the Transcendental ego interpenetrate the body, and therefore you are the body, even as Relative "Empirical Ego" which is just a non-supreme relativisation, all things considered an uneccesary modalisation of the Transcendent and in all honesty confused.
the Relative Being (Maya or Shakti) as "empirical ego" and the Pure Being as "Transcendental ego" is Shiva, and you're saying the Two are the same and coessebtial so why make distinctions here between Relative and Absolute, they're the same in Relative "self-disclosure" double negation which is ultimately yet another limitation.

[Anonymous No.20329560]

>>20329544
In conclusion the issue here is the unfounded coessentiality of "Relative" Empirical Shakti; and Absolute Transcendental Shiva, and you're right this very much reminds me of what some Christians; will say with respects to the inter-triniterian union of hypostases somehow maintaining an absolute-relative continuation; but with respects to the essence in Christianity Church fathers like dionysios will admit, the essence is still yet beyond "Trinity" and "Unity" all together; however up until death I would say the Trinity is held to be absolute, eternal; etc. So I would say then that Kashmir Shaivism and Christianity together are "Non-Supreme" paths from the outset compared to "Advaita,"
Also I am not the person you've been having an ongoing conversation with.

[Anonymous No.20329565]

>>20329560
And when both Christians and Kashmir Shaivites exceed themselves they are doing so in accordance with the Advaitic conception

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20329596]

>>20329002
> Damn, how did you even acquire a corpse to sit upon? Would you like to share the ritual procedure and the aim of it all?

You can use an animal or if you have the connections a corpse, the fundamental aim is recognition of kali and in particular bagalamukti/dhumavati as identical to shakti, these latter two being the sum and totality of natural and human evil/suffering and also decay/entropy.


>Who is your ishta-devata?

Via the astrological method it is kali, via actual practice it is none other than Christ.

>>20329389
See above, if you have a local woods or wild area or if you like hunting you can easily acquire something to sit on. I won’t elaborate on the mantras, mudras and other such.

>>20329393
I understand completely, I would say that the theological ramifications and so forth of the book need not be understood to gleam the various practices and you need only find one or two that are effective at induction of samadhi.

>>20329544
> and mysticism

Of course it is, Bhakti and mystical attainment are considered absolutely holy and essential here as is ritualism.

>empirical ego

The I, I know in phenomena is still an I, I see no reason to deny it.

> Even by delimiting the Infinity by double negation equalling a metaphysical positive, it is never pretended to be "truth" as ultimately it is still a limitation,

Nah, this idea isn’t even unique to tantra, we see the same exact arguments in Kabbalah with the interpretation of the name AHYH, and in Neoplatonism that takes on from iamblichus for his justification of idol worship, insofar as it is understood absolutely the illusion of illusion is truth.

>however, you're pretending illusion disclosing illusion = truth; when even then the "delimited limited" - is still a determination or limitation.

Determination and so forth is not feared here, it is at once absolutely determined and absolutely undetermined, this is the triune nature of it and why I’ve at length explained that Maya is seen as revelatory, for the undifferentiated determinationless is not the end, but rather it, plus all of the determinations it could have in actuality reconciled in the actual determination nature of the empirical ego is the core.

> All larp there is neither left nor right hand, there is neither maya-positive nor maya-negative. These are all artificial distinctions and dualisms, Relative afterall.

Of course there is practically, maya positive in this sense means to deny the ultimate difference of maya but glorify the dynamism and determinant nature of maya as the attributes of Godhead.

> So by understanding Apophasis, the "Neti Neti" or ultimately Non-Being, (by the revelation of the Para forms do you mean the 3 forms specifically here, or just the super forms, as in parabrahman)

Three para shakti and this is not apophasis, it’s basically Identical to the Hegelian aufheben, it is a denial via Kenosis but one that results in revelation and dynamism and not void.
Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20329599]

>>20329596
you experience an emptiness, a kenosis and freedom which leads you to the Transcendental Ego, Pure-Being, of course there is nothing ultimately wrong with any of these things as they are ultimately say just means to the ends which is the identification with Transcendental Ego; a Non-Dual state which negates all this talk about Relative "Empirical ego" so yes it is ultimately just a more practical path.

> a Non-Dual state which negates all this talk about Relative "Empirical ego" so yes it is ultimately just a more practical path.

Not so, the experienced ego is the ultimate end and fruit of the entire goal, the identification of these and the recognition, the empirical ego is not abandoned, lost, sublimated or the like, it is simply recognized as God.

> To say the "empirical" is the same as the "Transcendental" is like conflating relative and absolute,

If it is absolute and ultimate it must partake of the relative, the relative as the supreme is the key.

>which makes no sense to me, as what is relative in this way is neither Being nor non-being

It is perfectly both.

>unless you want to say that you the Transcendental ego interpenetrate the body, and therefore you are the body,

And vice versa, Shingon’s catchy “this very body” is relevant here, for the body itself is the transcendental ego in totality.

>even as Relative "Empirical Ego" which is just a non-supreme relativisation,

The relational entity of shakti being poured out and negated into the empirical ego means it is both the absolutely relational existent (the dweller in time.) but also the I which is beyond time, it is both.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20329608]

>>20329560
>but with respects to the essence in Christianity Church fathers like dionysios will admit, the essence is still yet beyond "Trinity" and "Unity" all together; however up until death I would say the Trinity is held to be absolute, eternal; etc.

I disagree with Dionysius’s devaluation of the persons due to my perichoresis fixation, I am much more in line with boehme.

>So I would say then that Kashmir Shaivism and Christianity together are "Non-Supreme" paths from the outset compared to "Advaita,"

Whereas we would argue by removing the determinant and relative aspects of deity you limit god and in effect do not partake of the limitless God, having divided him in half. The mystery of the persons in their most immanent form being the most absolute form is a shared mystery between shivaism and Christianity.
Also I am not the person you've been having an ongoing conversation with.

[Anonymous No.20329677]

>>20329599
Okay I think I understand better, so the "experienced ego" subsumes both the empirical and transcendental is your point, are you trying to say that that Empirical and "Transcendental" are simply parts let's say of this "Experienced Ego" parts of a partless absolute?
>perfectly both
In the sense that they are both "neither"
>shingon's catchy "this very body"
I will look into it.
>poured out
So you mean it is like an unfolding, but as I think Guénonfag said before, "self-disclosure" is admitted even here, personally I agree a bit the more I think about it.
The whole general question which you are trying to reason about is essentialy "how does God reveal himself" in creation.
>determination is not feared
As it shouldn't be, as it's admittedly unavoidable, the delimitation of a delimitation of a limitation, is still yet a determination of the "undetermination."
>at once absolutely determined and absolutely undetermined
This seems like a "middle path" essentialy the deification of the Maya which is at once neither determined and nor undetermined, belonging to Falsity.
>Para shakti
Right the trident shakti of Shiva

>One with Chit Akasha - the lInfinite Void of Transcendental Consciousness, this entire universe resides etched in God Consciousness as the very limbs of it's Own body. I All of these wondrous states of existence have arisen in this way as one with the supreme void of universal God Consciousness. I bow down to Lord Shiva who has frightening eyes.

>Universal God Consciousness is the only essential nature of all beings and states of existence. Chit Vibhu (Maheshvara, Lord Shiva), the all Pervading Lord of God Consciousness, shines vibrating with the supreme ecstasy ( ParamAnanda ) of Spanda - Para Shakti. I He flows as irresistible supreme free will, lccha Shakti. He flows as all knowledge, Drikvision, Jnana Shakti and as all action, Kriya Shakti.

>Thus the reality of Lord Shiva is Chit Shakti, Ananda Shakti, lccha Shakti, Jnana Shakti and Kriya Shakti inherent as His own supreme nature which is a solid mass of Bliss Consciousness. |2|

In my opinion the Universe is the Mirror reflecting the Supreme God as it says in the Ashtavakra gita, the reflection is and is not God, at some level, or otherwise is OR is not God, I am guessing this is the root of the questioning here,

>Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its reflected images, so the Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body. 1.19

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20329729]

>>20329677
> Okay I think I understand better, so the "experienced ego" subsumes both the empirical and transcendental is your point, are you trying to say that that Empirical and "Transcendental" are simply parts let's say of this "Experienced Ego" parts of a partless absolute?

This experienced ego is the empirical ego, but yes they are fundamentally one. The tattvas are akin to further and further revelation on what the transcendental ego (shiva tattva) is, with the experienced ego being the most revealed level, thus they are simultaneously one and yet not so.

> This seems like a "middle path" essentialy the deification of the Maya which is at once neither determined and nor undetermined, belonging to Falsity.

Or to us, Truth, the Truth of Aham.

> In my opinion the Universe is the Mirror reflecting the Supreme God

Since you’re not the other anon I’ll repost the section of the spandakarikas I posted to him for you.

She, who is ever conscious of the vitality of mantra,1 who is the endless flash of the perfect and complete I-consciousness whose essence consists in a multitude of letters,2 who is the goddess embodying jfiana3 (knowledge), ever knows the totality of categories from the earth upto Siva, which is one in substance with Her own Self and is portrayed out of Her own nature on the canvas of Her own free, clear Self just as a city is reflected in a mirror (from which it is non-distinct). Hail to that Energy of creative pulsation (spandasakti) of Siva (Saipkari) that exults in
glory all over the world.
Though the ambrosia of spanda has been relished in a small
degree from my work Spandasandoha,4 I am now making an effort for providing complete enjoyment of that (spanda).
If you want to know the exact inter-connexion of the sutras (i.e. of the karikas or verses of this text), the most excellent ascertainment of the highest Reality, pointed and subtle state- ment of reasoning, the right application of means, exquisite
exposition through clear sense and the secret doctrine of Saivagama, then, O intelligent people, apply your mind to this gloss of the Spandasastra and obtain the wealth of spanda.

NOTES
1. The mantra referred to is the I-consciousness or ahani paramarsa of the Absolute.
2. This I-consciousness or aham contains all the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet from 'a' (ar) to <ha' (|)
3. Dfgdevi as the goddess embodying jfiana or knowledge.
Actually there is only one Sakti, viz., Svatantrya sakti, the Absolute Freedom of the Divine. The initial appearance of svatantrya is known as Iccha-sakti or the power of Will.
But yeah anon, this world constituted as a nondual-mirror is the key. Check out kukai if you want elaboration on “this very body.”

[Anonymous No.20329797]

Any thoughts on Drikung Kagyu?

[Anonymous No.20329799]

>>20329729
This is just too telluric for me, Maya (Svatantrya) is the Absolute Freedom of the Divine? How is manifestation or corporeality "Absolute Freedom" I don't agree with that, this must be a bad translation or I am yet to understand this position.
From what I understand I don't agree.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20329813]

>>20329799
> How is manifestation or corporeality "Absolute Freedom" I don't agree with that, this must be a bad translation or I am yet to understand this position.


The translation is correct, once more as I’ve said tantra is pro-maya, in this view the dynamism of the arisings of conscious, multitude objects and aspects of sense and perception, the existence of the particular things and individuals, these are the freedom of the divine due to them being the attributes and aspects and play of the divine, thus his revelation. They are his freedom for he is free to be determined as every determination while also being undetermined pervading all things.

Imo it is a very different position from the Vedanta position.

[Anonymous No.20329817]

>>20327743
I don't have the time in these next few days to write the same lengthy and detailed replied that I have been, but I enjoyed exploring with you the subtleties of how the two systems understand things differently
>That awareness is shakti, thus the transcendental ego is the flame, the luminous disclosing/awareness is the light.
You've said though that the flame both consists of and emits awareness, does the flame have any other nature about it other than the nature of awareness in that case? How does one practically distinguish it in any manner whatsoever from awareness? If someone asked you in the street to directly point out to them in a few sentences how their awareness is different from the disclosure of that awareness to itself, do you think you could do so? And how would one even do it?
>Your error is in conception of shiva as awareness and not as the one who has awareness, shiva is not simply conscious or awareness but he who is (possesses) conscious, and that conscious awareness is shakti, thus the difference is between one who is conscious and the conscious itself, which can be constituted as both one and two.
If Shiva is not himself awareness/sentience, that is, if you are positing another category of entity above awareness that lacks awareness despite possessing awareness as an accessory or something otherwise distinguished from itself, I don't see how that doesn't amount to saying that an insentient or unaware thing possess awareness. Trying to say that something that is not awareness itself possesses awareness, but yet that this thing is not insentient despite not being aware itself, seems to me to be like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Why not just say awareness possess its own nature of being aware, like all things possess their own nature that distinguishes them from other things?
> in my opinion the systematic study is superior to these modes of dialogue, but that’s a personal preference.
Texts sometimes have a tendency to ignore and not always directly confront the natural questions that a someone has when confronted with apparent discrepancies. Someone who is knowledgeable in the system can draw upon their knowledge to supply the answers to these questions that the text won't always anticipate.
>There is no such thing as downstream for emotion is simply a revelation of shakti, it’s nothing more than shakti’s opulence revealed in a certain manner,
How are emotions not downstream if we require knowledge of what we are reacting emotionally to in order to have the appropiate emotional response, so that we are not feeling grief at a wedding, or joy at a funeral?

[Anonymous No.20329819]

>>20329813
This is not for me, Matter IS not literally ontological equal to God as such, if it were so simple; then just say absolutely everything is God and move on with it, there must be a more
nuanced position which I am missing here, or is this literally the case here? Forget "I-Conciousness" the literally material "brain" is equal in terms of Shakti, and even though it will eventually be decaying rotting flesh; has conditions and qualities is ontologically Equal to Nirguna Brahman. I can't accept this, it's not in my disposition, I mean I don't care or demonise matter it's just an illusion and it is not real; with this sort of position you are putting forward not only is it Real it is Absolute It is God, and so on.

Or am I just totally mistaken here, and reading too much into it?

[Anonymous No.20329822]

>>20329817
>the phenomenal and the awareness are truly identical
Saying they are truly identical when they demonstrably behave in a totally different manner, and even continue to behave differently even after you adopt the mental mode of constantly viewing them as being the same in essence or otherwise, sounds to me like a misuse of the term 'truly identical'.
>Awareness, perception and the contents of these all occur at once
Formless space and objects with form also occur at the same time while remaining different from each other by virtue of having different natures, sizes, locations etc
>meditation demonstrates the codependency of these upon each other in the higher modes.
I disagree that prakasha can be demonstrated or shown to be dependent on anything, I asked for clarification of how this might be so earlier and I didn't see any conclusive answer provided to that question in your replies.
>The tantrik argument would be here that prakrt is relatively later in terms of revealed aspects of Godhead, thus bliss can exist as do the higher forms of awareness, for purusha is itself a shakti in this model thus a perception/awareness. Thus your argument holds no weight.
I don't understand how that's relevant, you originally claimed (or seemed to) that purusha or Atman alone without prakriti would be nothing other than the absence of prakriti, but I pointed out that this isn't true if the purusha/Atman is intrinsically self-disclosing to itself as self-luminous awareness that is inherently blissful, because then it has its own nature instead of simply being the negation of something else and thus the claim that its simply absence of prakriti and nothing more is falsified. Wherever tantrists place the prakriti as before or after in the chain of emanations doesn't do anything to contradict this simple point. You never actually substantiated the claim that Purusha alone without prakriti would HAVE TO be nothing more than the absence of prakriti, and its not even true just according to the meaning of how these terms are understood in Indian philosophy, since Purusha is traditionally considered to have its own distinct nature of being pristine pure consciousness.
>Except you by this make it the most determined insofar as, you have denied it the concrete nature of all other determinations thus have given it designation of difference in perception, logic and so forth.
Denying it the concrete nature of of all other determinations isn't saying it has one, just like saying "X is not dead" isn't saying actually saying "X is dead". It's only being designated that way because the way that language works requires us to make nominal and figurative statements in these sorts of cases.

[Anonymous No.20329823]

>>20329822
>but that seems to fail on account of Shiva being the transcendent self and not the psychological/phenomenal self that actually commits that response.
>the empirical ego IS the transcendental ego, that is the grand mystery of them
The problem with this response though is that you originally were contesting my statement that "we never experience color being aware of our Self, or color being aware of sounds, or color being aware of tastes", your response to this was that "we actually do, because in the determining of the phenomenal appearance as non-self or opposed to us, that involves the idea or perception of Self being present in/as that thing already". However, this is not actually citing empirical evidence of colors being aware of ourselves or of colors being aware of sounds, you example still involves us having some idea of self/non-self with regard to the *phenomenal* object which is implicitly assumed in the example to be not the prakasha in order for the example to even make sense, and so it's not actually an empirical example of the object or phenomenal quality being directly aware of us or of something else. Furthermore, saying that the phenomenal self and the transcendental Self are the same is not a demonstrable empirical claim, it's a highly contestable statement involving the claim that two things that having different properties/natures (only 1 is fully non-discursive for example) are the same thing, as you yourself say it is 'a mystery', so when your answer to the question "why does prakasha reveal colors instead of colors having awareness of prakasha or ourselves or sounds etc?" involves a claim that itself presupposes the non-empirical mysterious claim that the phenomenal self and the transcendental Self, it's essentially circular. It's basically saying "if you adopt all the propositions of a system (KS) simultaneously, then these propositions can be substantiated via referencing one another in a circular manner" Even though on their own the claims don't stand up to analysis, because of them contradicting classical logic and/or experience, until one makes a highly idiosyncratic claim about how experience itself takes place in order to say "it actually doesn't contradict experience", but this defense which is supposed to rescue it from the charge of contradicting empirical experience upon analysis turns out to actually be just another non-empirical axiom that is held by KS. But the things is, anybody can devise these sorts of fantastical ways of interpreting things that makes sense in relation to other parts of the system in a circular manner, even if none of the system is actually grounded in anything.

[Anonymous No.20329830]

>>20329813
>Freedom of the divine the is particular objects, things, individuals
This is inversive these things are all constraints, in actuality, and the supra-individuality is freedom, this is a very very different position than what I am used to.

[Anonymous No.20329847]

>>20329819
>>20329830
From my understanding here I am feeling greatly disturbed, "Kashmir Shaivism" seems like a wolf in sheep's clothing, there may be some traditional elements but by literally divinising Objects, forget about Subject its actuallyabout the Eternal Object ("coexisting" with the eternal subject) the "I" is as much the "body" as it is the "I" ???? the multiplicity of matter, this is degenerate, particularisms, this is totally anti-universal, the larping allegorisms are just decorations to entice a person, a doctrine revolving around sensuousness, I talked to a "Kashmir Shaivite" once and he would tell me how he said he would interact with "Shakti" and would have very sexual experiences etc. Big surprise this guy was also totally anti-traditional.
If the dogma real is as I've said it, then it is a corrupted and confused degenerate philosophy. And in fact rejects "Nirguna" etc. Which I'm pretty sure is true, as I've seen people say there is a "Nirguna" Shakti (Maya)?

[Anonymous No.20329882]

>>20329823
>saying the "phenomenal self" ==== transcendental self
WTF. such a claim makes me genuinely feel sick.

[Anonymous No.20329921]

>>20329847
Okay I take back what I said here, these concepts are not "metaphysical" claims in the least correctly understood, that much is certain they are simply practical and ritualistic methods which help a person in metaphysical realisation, e.g wrathful deities in Tibetan tantra, when you realise your mind as the tantric deity, these deities are not "real" beyond being personal and immanent paths to the impersonal Godhead which is non-dual and unconditioned, which is the true Deity, the rest is relativisation, and still true nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.20329925]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLi_ugqA00Y

[Anonymous No.20330433]

>>20329847
>>20329921
For what it's worth I'm mentally struggling with the exact same thing you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.20330496]

>>20330433
How so? I think I know what you mean actually, what is the solution for people like us with the "impersonalist" solar disposition? Have you chosen a tradition, or something like that yet?

[Anonymous No.20331086]

>>20330496
>"impersonalist" solar disposition
I'm not sure what you mean by this
>Have you chosen a tradition, or something like that yet?
Well I am primarily a Christian but I'm drawn to Eastern metaphysics because I find it to be a more complete, natural, and elegant philosophical tradition than the Western. But in it I found two opposing poles (although some argue they are the same), of all-self and no-self, each of which I struggle to accept. And I don't see how anything that falls between these two ways can be legitimate. My thoughts are nowhere near as developed as of some of the people in this thread though.

[Anonymous No.20331089]

>>20329925
This is amazing, thank you

[Dago No.20331117]

>>20331089
ur welcome
it actually came up on accident via 'autoplay next' and thought, "wow this is highly relevant to the Guenonfag/Frater Asemlen thread"

[Anonymous No.20331189]

>>20329847
Why are you "greatly disturbed" by what I wrote, stop being so serious and exaggerative.
>>20331086
I am the anon this anon replied to and personally he seems pretty unhinged, so I'd personally dismiss him.

[Anonymous No.20331196]

>>20329925
>Buddhism and Crypto Buddhism
Remarkable similarities :)

[Anonymous No.20331201]

>>20329596
>you can use an animal or if you have the connections a corpse
I can just imagine frater sitting on a corpse, what a disturbing mental picture, take your meds schizo.

[Anonymous No.20331217]

>>20331196
>Buddhism and Crypto Buddhism
>Remarkable similarities :)
>The Status of the World

>The world, according to Shankara, is mithyā or false. It is simply an adhyāropa or adhyāsa or false imposition on Brahman due to ajñāna or nescience just as a snake is a false imposition on a rope.

>In none of the Upaniṣads which form the original and real Vedānta, the rajju-sarpa or rope-snake analogy is to be found. Nor anywhere in the Upaniṣads has the world been designated as adhyāropa or adhyāsa. Shankara has borrowed it from NĀGĀRJUNA.

>The problem for Advaita is: ‘How does the one Brahman become many” Sri Aurobindo rightly says that Shankara cut the Gordian knot by dismissing the world as illusion. Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Gopinath Kaviraj says that according to adhyāsa, Shankara’s Advaita becomes exclusive advaita, an advaita by excluding the world.

>For Advaita śaivāgama, the world is an ābhāsa, but ābhāsa or appearance is real. The ābhāsas only prove the glory and richness of śiva. The world lies only as a potency in śiva, just as a banyan tree lies as potency or śakti in the seed. Manifestation only means making explicit what is implicit. Variety is not contradictory to unity. Advaita śaivāgama maintains that Pariṇāmavāda and Vivartavāda are not the exhaustive theories of manifestation. Manifestation is brought about by the svātantrya or the autonomy of śiva.


GuénonFag seething and BTFO

[Anonymous No.20331232]

>>20331217
Oh no no no
Advaita bros, not like this

[Dago No.20331299]

>>20322587
Katha commentary very good btw
I thoroughly enjoyed it

[Anonymous No.20331411]

is there a true difference between advaita's brahma and mahayana's dharmakaya?
they both look the same to me

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20331429]

>>20331411
When I get the chance a bit later I can clarify

[Anonymous No.20331623]

>>20331429
Have you ever read Philip K. Dick’s VALIS? Do you think poor PKD’s ajna (third eye chakra, direct relationship to Brahman) was like traumatically and spontaneously pried open, a spontaneous ripening brought about from prior incarnations in which he had pondered the Divine Wisdom, probably as a Kabbalistic or Hasidic or Neoplatonic scholar or something in the Renaissance era, or a Gnostic disciple of Christ’s original esoteric teachings from thousands of years ago, further growing in him in the 20th-century throughout his haphazard life of drug abuse, reading obscure theologians like Moses Maimonides, writing dozens of sci-fi novels while on amphetamine and in poverty, for money, and these sci-fi novels about constructed realities, their characters living in realities-inside-realities, false manufactured dream-like realities and waking up to the greater meta-reality encompassing it, as a sort of unconscious reincarnational playing out of former memories of life-long contemplation of this world as a spurious one created by Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, after being initiated into Gnosticism?

Why did he have visions of cyclops-like or three-eyed alien beings and analogize this to the ancient tribe of the Dogon people who claimed to have been contacted by three-eyed people and had especial astronomical knowledge of the Sirius B star system, something they couldn’t have known then back then apparently with the equipment historically supposed to be available to them?

Who are what are the dakinis (which apparently translates to something like/has connotations of “sky-going mother”, “space-goer,” “cloud fairy,” of Buddhist folklore and mythology, such as in Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism especially)? Have you read Robert Anton Wilson’s works, such as “Cosmic Trigger I” and “Prometheus Rising”? What’s up with the Sirius Connection and allusions he also makes to the Dogon people in Cosmic Trigger I?

Did you read PKD’s experiences about feeling like he had been retroactively reincarnated back into Ancient Rome and felt himself with some type of divine joy of knowing “the Savior, the Christ has come”? Have you read Whitley Strieber’s works like “Communion” and “Transformation”? What do you think about the descriptions in “Transformation” of himself being taken to another planet and being taught to do some type of dance there and in this ecstatic dance getting into an altered state of consciousness and feeling himself in a past life also in Ancient Rome?

[Anonymous No.20331686]

>>20331429
>>20331623
Do you think PKD’s experiences of being suddenly illuminated by a pink beam of light straight into his forehead which he analogized to Pistis Sophia, and which give him an ecstatic OBE experience as well as an apparent miraculous seeing through space and time, such as accurately diagnosing his son’s life-threatening medical condition and rushing him to a hospital when he had no rational way of knowing this, has any links to things like Gopi Krishna’s recountings of kundalini awakening through mantric meditation in books like “Kundalini: the Evolutionary Energy in Man” (1970)?

Have you ever received kundalini shaktipat? Do you think powerful hallucinogenic drug experiences as well as primal sex can awaken the kundalini energy? Does this have any link to Aleister Crowley? Who is this “Lam” person Crowley talked to? Can I talk to Lam, too?

Have you ever practiced dream yoga like the Tibetan Buddhists apparently do, learning to become conscious and meditate even in their dreams?

Does this have any links to Kashmir Shaivism?

Is the universe like some type of holographic fractal self-aware living biological entity with the rocks, plants, oceans, trees, animals, and then supposedly intelligent human beings, as well as the planets themselves, stars, galaxies and so forth, and the geological and astronomical and electromagnetic and chemical phenomena in general all as its body — as if it were one vast interlinked cell — that’s sort of meta-terraforming the planets, including the planet Earth we find ourselves on, into a greater expression of its own divine awareness, and figures like Gopi Krishna and PKD are just these different aspects of Nataraja, Shiva as the divine cosmic dancer, learning to manifest himself more fully and do the dance in even more intricate and beautiful aspects — like the corny Carl Sagan bit about us all being stardust except with even more soul than Sagan had in him? Why do the shamans described in the Castaneda books do the same dream yoga in a formulated way like the Tibetans do, and you can even take the precepts in the Castaneda books and learn to do “dreaming,” self-aware lucid dreaming like they do, and it somehow works even though Castaneda was supposed to be a fraud and a hack anthropologist? And why does death supposedly give the warrior a chance to do his last dance before he dies, a special dance being the culminating and final expression of his life, and which death pauses and gives the warrior time to do due to the impeccable life the warrior has lived? Like the dance Whitley Strieber claimed to have done on another planet and which gave him an ecstatic sense of being a man in Ancient Rome in a past life? Like the dances that groups like the whirling dervishes of the Mevlevi Order do? Ever read Olaf Stapledon’s “Star Maker”? And most importantly, can you tell me why it hurts when I pee sometimes?

Pls respond

[dago No.20331700]

>>20331686
I want to hear this bit too
>Who is this “Lam” person Crowley talked to? Can I talk to Lam, too?

[Anonymous No.20331729]

>>20331686

>powerful hallucinogenic drug experiences as well as primal sex

So it seems. So it seems.

[Anonymous No.20331741]

what's with all the ruckus in here?

heard you guys liek Lum?

[Anonymous No.20331744]

>>20326707

[Anonymous No.20331798]

>>20322624
you forgot to tell him that it means "brother" in latin

why does the dagonigger claim i have to read your posts?

[dago No.20331812]

>>20331798
>why does the dagonigger claim i have to read your posts?
to learn from him and raise your game so you can actually debate me instead of getting refuted day in day out

[Anonymous No.20331826]

>>20331812
you'd actually have to start reading for that
did you read Introduction to Magic? Liber AL and Magick in Theory and Practice?

well, at least you read 8 Lectures on Yoga, good for you

[Anonymous No.20331859]

how do you protect yourself from scary gods and demons while taking this path? what if they try to hurt you or drive you insane?

[dago No.20331867]

>>20331826
>did you read Introduction to Magic?
got bored of it t b h
working slowly through Shankara's commentaries on the 8 Upanishads rn

[Anonymous No.20331879]

>>20331867
terminal case of zoomerbrain

[Anonymous No.20331909]

>>20331859

>drown yet live

Srsly, if you are afraid of what might lurk in your mind you should perhaps not make the next step. Scary gods will be your least issue. :D

[Anonymous No.20331913]

>>20331859
Spreading salt around your space of practice will nail out malevolent astral beings. Ritual and earnest belief in your ritual will keep wrathful beings away from you.
A ritual could involve reciting certain mantras, spreading different minerals or herbs around the place where you are practicing and invoking certain deities.
Always invoke and give your praises to Ganesha, your ancestors and your guru before partaking in any ritual.

[Anonymous No.20331916]

>>20331909
>ngmi
exactly my thought

[Anonymous No.20331990]

>>20331916

Yeah, and it gets only worse from there ...

>Spreading salt around your space of practice will nail out malevolent astral beings. Ritual and earnest belief in your ritual will keep wrathful beings away from you. A ritual could involve reciting certain mantras, spreading different minerals or herbs around the place where you are practicing and invoking certain deities. Always invoke and give your praises to Ganesha, your ancestors and your guru before partaking in any ritual.

Yeah hold mein Bier ... :DD
No plan, no guidlines, just thrown in the cold water. I should be dead by now, srsly in hindsight. Intuition and wrangling.

[Anonymous No.20331997]

>>20331990
everything is, as it should be

[Anonymous No.20332053]

>>20331867
Please stop being such a fanboy of guenonfag and study different systems of philosophy, find your own belief and reality. Please stop tripfagging too, you are only doing yourself a disservice.

[Anonymous No.20332066]

>>20331997

So it seems. :)

>>20332053

Just experiencing that role if you ask me. Deep dive.

[Anonymous No.20332082]

>>20332066
Everything is her play.

[dago !XvLR0tbIro No.20332095]

>>20332053
>stop being such a fanboy of guenonfag
hell no, guenonfag got me into guenon and I will be eternally thankful. if it weren't for his spicy memes I would likely be shilling cringe shit on this board.
now after some years of /trad/ studies, I have finally come around to studying Shankara and guenonfag is the most knowledgeable man on the subject. naturally im going to pay attention to his Shankara related threads.

[Anonymous No.20332101]

>>20317309
It addresses your questions
https://www.academia.edu/12663014/Otherness_in_the_Pratyabhijna_Philosophy

[Anonymous No.20332106]

>>20332082

:D

[Anonymous No.20332109]

>>20332095
>5 years of work annoying /lit/
>finally guenonfag's efforts pay off
>with a cringeposting tripfag who says "spicy memes" in 2022
you reap what you sow

[dago !XvLR0tbIro No.20332114]

>>20332109
>finally guenonfag's efforts pay off
Yes.

[Anonymous No.20332134]

>>20322583
Frater, is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (I am that I am) identical to the first verse of Shiva Sutras?

[Anonymous No.20332193]

Who is guenonfag, you schizos? Is guenonfag in the room right now? Nobody is using that trip. Let me guess, you can tell from someone's posts and writing style that they're "le guenonfag". Yeah right. Get a grip.

[Anonymous No.20332208]

>>20332193
newfag

[Anonymous No.20332212]

>>20332095
what does any of this have to do with dakshinacara?

[Anonymous No.20332216]

>>20322583
Do you have daily practices, like meditation, for example? What are they?

[Anonymous No.20332233]

>>20332212
*Vamamarga

i'm already too tired
tantric texts, i see, riveting

[Anonymous No.20332385]

>>20331217
>>In none of the Upaniṣads which form the original and real Vedānta, the rajju-sarpa or rope-snake analogy is to be found. Nor anywhere in the Upaniṣads has the world been designated as adhyāropa or adhyāsa. Shankara has borrowed it from NĀGĀRJUNA.

That’s wrong, the rope-snake analogy is found in the Katharudra Upanishad in the Krishna-Yajur-Veda, and Shankara cites verses from this same Katharudra Upanishad in his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, so it dates before his time and he had read it.

>From this Self which is one with Brahman and which is possessed of power (i.e. maya) arose the unmanifest ether (Akasa) like a rope-serpent. Then from the ether emerged the unmanifest touch which is named ‘air’ (Vayu). Then from air emerged fire; from fire, water; and from water, the earth.
- Katharudra Upanishad

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333090]

>>20329817
>You've said though that the flame both consists of and emits awareness, does the flame have any other nature about it other than the nature of awareness in that case?

Even less, for it has no nature other than being flame, the quality of emission of light is the principle of shakti.

>How does one practically distinguish it in any manner whatsoever from awareness?

The same way I can divide the sun as a body and the sun as a nuclear formula, for example.

>If someone asked you in the street to directly point out to them in a few sentences how their awareness is different from the disclosure of that awareness to itself,

In the shiva tattva the nature of who is disclosed and awareness/disclosure are absolutely identical however the result of this is the shakti tattva as dynamism which would differentiate it like this.

I experience a multiplicity and have an awareness of a multiplicity, that is shakti, I am the one who has it, that is shiva.

>do you think you could do so? And how would one even do it?

I would put them to do meditation or ritual, it is a core tantrik doctrine that the normie cannot grasp it but rather tantra has three divisions of capacity, the lowest of which corresponding to tamas and the average person, and constitutes the requirement of all the normal sattvic rituals and meditations and regulations for them to even have a chance of recognizing the truth, whereas the next stage is correspondent to rajas and is considered heroic, for though you assume the dark and telluric aspects implies a lack of solar fixation, it’s actually the opposite, they believing that the truly heroic and solar adept is as a light in the darkness and can purify the darkness via awareness, thus his method of attainment is wrathful and terrible rituals, such as corpse meditation, cemetery meditations, the orgy-feasts of the five M’s, the various elixirs and so forth.

It is only the highest adept who is able to recognize the tantrik position of the identification of I and i as bhairava by simply meditating upon the ego itself. Such is considered incredibly small in amount however. These three paths are saktopaya, sambhavopaya and anupaya.


> I don't see how that doesn't amount to saying that an insentient or unaware thing possess awareness.

For once more, tantra is not emanationist, the quality of having awareness is simply a further revelation of that absolute ego, of which in the state of bhairava the entirety of the tattvas are seen as simply the heart of shiva.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333104]

>>20333090
> Texts sometimes have a tendency to ignore and not always directly confront the natural questions that a someone has when confronted with apparent discrepancies. Someone who is knowledgeable in the system can draw upon their knowledge to supply the answers to these questions that the text won't always anticipate.

Perhaps it’s the blood in me, by this I mean to say, as a gypo my people were shiva/kali worshippers, to the point in France we still worship kali, and our word for the cross is trishul, so perhaps my preference of systemization in this manner is a carry over from the general Indian mode itself.

> How are emotions not downstream if we require knowledge of what we are reacting emotionally to in order to have the appropiate emotional response, so that we are not feeling grief at a wedding, or joy at a funeral?

For part and division are apara, are the maya bound form of kala tattva, you create a distinction between the conscious, perception and perceived that does not actually In conscious, in reality they all occur at once. This is the mystery associated with the various depictions of the mahavidyas for each of their images reveal this.


>>20329819


> This is not for me, Matter IS not literally ontological equal to God as such,

Haha, it is in tantra, matter is identical to shakti and shakti to shiva. Here is a beautiful hymn by Abhinavagupta concerning the recognition of Bhairava.

व्याप्तचराचरभावविशेषंचिन्मयमेकमनन्तमनादिम् |भैरवनाथमनाथशरण्यंत्वन्मयचित्ततया हृदि वन्दे || १ ||


with one pointed devotion, I am praying to that supreme all pervading Lord Siva, who is himself presentin each and everything that exists, and who through realization reveáls himself as the one limitless Bhairavanatha, the protector of the helpless.

त्वन्मयमेतदशेषमिदानीं भाति मम त्वदनुग्रहशक्त्या |त्वं च महेश सदैव ममात्मास्वात्ममयं मम तेन समस्तम् || २ ||
By the energy of your grace it has been revealed to me that this vibratinguniverse is your own existence. Thus, O Lord Siva, this realization has come to me that you are my own soul and as such this universe is my own expression and existence.
स्वात्मनि विश्वग(ये )ते त्वयि नाथेतेन न संसृतिभीतिकथास्ति |सत्स्वपि दुर्धरदुःखविमोह-त्रासविधायिषु कर्मगणेषु || ३ ||


Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333106]

>>20333104
O possessor of everything, though your devotees, bound by karma and conditioning of mind, are caught in the net of destiny that arouses troubles and bondage, still they are not afraid of the fret and fever of this world.
Having realized this universe as your own existente, they are not afraid of worldly difficulties, because fear exists only when there is some one else to inflict it.But when there is none other than you, how can fear arise.
अन्तक मां प्रति मा दृशमेनांक्रोधकरालतमां विनिधेहि |शङ्करसेवनचिन्तनधीरोभीषण भैरव शक्तिमयोऽस्मि || ४ ||
O ángel of death, do not look towards me with wrathful and frightening eyes as Iam always absorbed in the worship of Lord Shiva.

Through constant devotion, meditation and reflection I have become steadfast and courageous, one with the energy of the terrifying Bhairava. Thus, your dreadful and frightening looks can do me no harm.
इत्थमुपोढभवन्मयसंवि-द्दीधितिदारितभूरितमिस्रः |मृत्युयमान्तककर्मपिशाचै-र्नाथ नमोऽस्तु न जातु बिभेमि || ५ ||
O Lord Bhairava I offer salutations to you, who has awakened me to the realization that everything in existence is you alone. As a result of this awakening, the darkness of my mind has been destroyed and I am neither frightened of the evil family of demons, nor am I afraid of Yama, the fearful Lord of death
प्रोदितसत्यविबोधमरीचि-प्रेक्षितविश्वपदार्थसतत्त्वः |भावपरामृतनिर्भरपूर्णेत्वय्यहमात्मनि निर्वृतिमेमि || ६ ||
O Lord Shiva, it is through your existence, revealed to me by real knowledge thatI realize, all attachments and all thatexists in this universe is activated by you.It is bythis awakening, that my mind becomes saturated with immortaldevotion and I experience supreme bliss.
मानसगोचरमेति यदैवक्लेशदशाऽतनुतापविधात्री |नाथ तदैव मम त्वदभेद-स्तोत्रपरामृतवृष्टिरुदेति || ७ ||
O Lord, sometimes I feel misery which arouses torment in my mind, but at that same moment, blessed by a shower of your grace, a clean and clear visión of my oneness with you arises,the impact of which my mind feels appeased.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333110]

>>20333106
शङ्कर सत्यमिदं व्रतदान-स्नानतपो भवतापविदारि |तावकशास्त्रपरामृतचिन्तास्यन्दति चेतसि निर्वृतिधाराम् || ८ ||
O Lord Siva, it is said that through charity, ritual bath and the practices of penance the troubles of worldly existence subside, but even more than this, by remembranceof the sacred shastras and your wordsalone, the current of immortality like a stream of peace enters my heart.

नृत्यति गायति हृष्यति गाढंसंविदियं मम भैरवनाथ |त्वां प्रियमाप्य सुदर्शनमेकंदुर्लभमन्यजनैः समयज्ञम् || ९ ||
O Lord Bhairava, through my utmost faith I have perceived you in the unique sacrifíce of oneness, which otherwise is not possible though performing mountains of rituals.Being filled with your presence my consciousness intensely dances and sings, enjoying its own ecstacy.
वसुरसपौषे कृष्णदशम्यांअभिनवगुप्तः स्तवमिममकरोत् |येन विभुर्भवमरुसन्तापंशमयति झटिति जनस्य दयालुः || १० ||
O compassionate Lord, under the influence of your glory and for thebenefit of your worshipers.I Abhinavagupta have composed this hymn On the Dasami of the dark fortnight in the month of Pausha in year eighty six.
By meditation and recitation of this hymn, within a moment, that merciful Lord Bhairava destroys the torments and sufferings, springing from this wilderness of samsara.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333127]

>>20329819
>nuanced position which I am missing here, or is this literally the case here? Forget "I-Conciousness" the literally material "brain" is equal in terms of Shakti, and even though it will eventually be decaying rotting flesh; has conditions and qualities is ontologically Equal to Nirguna Brahman.

Yes. This is literally the meaning of kali and dhumavati, that transience and multiplicity and the unchanging and qualitiless are identical. If you want an explanation for this, think of nirguna as akin to the non-computated, the hidden aspects of Godhead, for Nirguna Brahman contains all of the aspects and gunas they’re just not rationalized/actualized, but since all time and timeless eternity is he, the utterly rationally actualized/computated and the nirguna are actually identical.
> I can't accept this, it's not in my disposition, I mean I don't care or demonise matter it's just an illusion and it is not real;

To call it illusion is true and false, false because God who is truth has created it and how can falsehood arise from truth? It cannot be, for that would be to call truth a liar, and yet tantra holds illusion is illusion, for illusion is the dance, the play, the arisings of the truth in all of its aspects, and on account of producing the heart of shakti, which is bhairava, denies itself and is thus mother of truth, this lore of God creating to be created is a great mystery.

>with this sort of position you are putting forward not only is it Real it is Absolute It is God, and so on.

Yes.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333151]

>>20329822
> Saying they are truly identical when they demonstrably behave in a totally different manner, and even continue to behave differently even after you adopt the mental mode of constantly viewing them as being the same in essence or otherwise, sounds to me like a misuse of the term 'truly identical'.


Not so, for the transcendental ego is the totality of what is experienced and all particular objects arise as the synthesis of all else, in this regard we read in the letter analysis of a abhinavagupta’s Paratrisikavivarana a doctrine identical to the Pratītyasamutpāda doctrine of Mahayana and the dhamma theories of the Theravada Abhidhamma, for any object to exist so must all else and vice versa, and if transcendental ego was lacking any quality its nature would no longer be itself, for if we can say “transcendental ego is the origin of perception” then perception arising from transcendental ego is a requirement of the ego’s nature when this aspect is revealed to be the case, thus the entirety of the tattvas are likewise codependent, the final revelation being this same codependency and identification with the empirical ego and transcendental, for they are required of each other, are each other, reveal each other and have both division and no division within experience.

> Formless space and objects with form also occur at the same time while remaining different from each other by virtue of having different natures, sizes, locations etc

Their differences do not constitute an actual essential division, for empty space and objects are likewise tattvas and counted as in the recognizing of bhairava identical, while maintaining their distinction.

> I disagree that prakasha can be demonstrated or shown to be dependent on anything, I asked for clarification of how this might be so earlier and I didn't see any conclusive answer provided to that question in your replies.

See above, if the light that is self reveals, then its nature as revelation puts it in a codependent relationship with revelation. If it was not, then prakasa would reveal nothing thus we could not name it light.


> I don't understand how that's relevant, you originally claimed (or seemed to) that purusha or Atman alone without prakriti

This is your ignorance of the tattva model coming through, purusha isn’t atman here, and purusha has a multitude of higher tattvas prior to it, prakrti being the direct next development which reflects the shiva and shakti tattva relationship, see my tattva write up.

>would be nothing other than the absence of prakriti,

Not so, I am speaking of purusha being absent of the three gunas prior to prakrti but having the various higher tattvas still as portion of it, we tantriks believe Vedanta only experiences purusha because the gunas of prakrti being ascended produces the nirguna experience, while maintaining the other higher tattvas, thus why tantra considers Vedanta to be lesser adepts.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333178]

>>20329822
> Denying it the concrete nature of of all other determinations isn't saying it has one, just like saying "X is not dead" isn't saying actually saying "X is dead". It's only being designated that way because the way that language works requires us to make nominal and figurative statements in these sorts of cases.

Once more, we disagree for to say “not dead” is to say alive, to say not having qualities is itself a quality, we argue this because the nuances of perception of such is different, because the existence in the mind of these are different, since the phenomenal disclosure of lack of determinations is a distinct determinations in meditation and conscious experience it is fundamentally a determination.

As for your argument on color, once more tantra is not emanationist, all of the tattvas are each other at once, their distinctions are simply our realizations of further qualities of each, if the transcendental ego is the essential nature of the maya then the maya is the transcendental ego, all of the aspects of phenomena being expressions of the ego.

>>20329830
We hold the exact opposite, for God produces nature by the act of his freedom, the various arisings are not bondages of God, but simply his dynamic expressions. God is not a prisoner.

>>20329847
Once more, tantra is FOR maya and believes fixation on just the nirguna aspect is lowly and degenerative due to slicing god in half. Not partaking of God as both.

>>20331086
The Christian answer which is shared by tantra is perichoresis

John 14:20-21

20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

2 Corinthians 3:18


And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Colossians 1:15


The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation


Etc. the same nondual unity of persons that the trinity partakes of, so also shall we.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333186]

>>20331411
Here is a lovely description of the three bodies by Linji

“If you want to be no different from the buddhas and patri archs, just don t seek outside yourself. A moment of your mind’s pure light is the Dharmakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light without discrimination is the Sambhogakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light with no distinctions is the Nirmanakaya Buddha within your own house.

Thus by Dharmakaya is understood the pure light of conscious.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333228]

>>20331623
>Have you ever read Philip K. Dick’s VALIS?

I have years ago, but was profoundly unimpressed, I do not fall for aesthetic manipulations and do not have any shade of Gnosticism with me. I have a multitude of poems in deification to the demiurge concept for example.
I don’t believe his experiences or model to be particularly mighty or revelatory, if you want to see someone’s ajna ripped open, look into Jacob boehme who had a ball of light enter his skull and resulted in the mystical model which is basically the origin of hegelianism, that’s the ajna being ripped open.

>Why did he have visions of cyclops-like or three-eyed alien beings and analogize this to the ancient tribe of the Dogon people who claimed to have been contacted by three-eyed people and had especial astronomical knowledge of the Sirius B star system,

Not impressed here either, all people have visions of multi or mono eyed and limbed people and spirits, also if you look into the dogon claims there’s a lot of manipulation and lies around it.

>Who are what are the dakinis (which apparently translates to something like/has connotations of “sky-going mother”, “space-goer,” “cloud fairy,”

Sky-dancer is the best translation. What Dakini are, are understood perfectly well in the tantrik perception, they are, like the mahavidyas, both spirits but also the embodiments of the awareness of certain phenomenon, and all phenomenon have shakti/Dakini which can be accessed via the right methodologies, the Dakini are wrathful shakti and correspond to the perception of terrible aspects of life, such as suffering, death, loss and so forth, their worship and ritual work with them is for the purpose of seeing the ultimate truth through these most intense forms of conscious.

< Have you read Robert Anton Wilson’s works, such as “Cosmic Trigger I” and “Prometheus Rising”? What’s up with the Sirius Connection and allusions he also makes to the Dogon people in Cosmic Trigger I?

I have, I don’t care for him, he’s doing schizo ranting for the aesthetic and propaganda purpose of it, I don’t respect him as an occultist.

> has any links to things like Gopi Krishna’s recountings of kundalini awakening through mantric meditation in books like “Kundalini: the Evolutionary Energy in Man”

Nope. You’re doing the dangerous Practice of conflating all spiritual paths, methods and experiences, kundalini is a very particular thing and hasn’t relation to this.

> Have you ever received kundalini shaktipat?

Yes.


>Do you think powerful hallucinogenic drug experiences as well as primal sex can awaken the kundalini energy?


Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333233]

>>20333228
Calm yourself and study the material, such aren’t needed at all to induce kundalini, except perhaps by the lowest quality of adepts. Pure meditation on the kundalini and purely mental means is the preferred method and is mightier, while I’ve not done drugs, my initiators have, such as datura and so forth, and they uniformly agree devotion/Bhakti/worship is superior a means of raising the kundalini.

>Does this have any link to Aleister Crowley?

I mean, Crowley had some small time initiation into the most basic aspects of tantra, of which is revealed via a series of letters between him, grant and a fellow with proper tantrik initiation whose name I forget. So yes, this is related but Crowley’s sexual magic formulae and kundalini material is very basic bitch.

>Who is this “Lam” person Crowley talked to? Can I talk to Lam, too?

This is a complex topic, lam to Crowley was just an astral magician or even a yetziratic/astral form of himself, however Kenneth grant who developed much work with it, believes lam to be the kundalini but also the empirical ego more or less Choronzon conjoint with the aspirant, and thus works as a kind of vessel by which daat can be penetrated and the mauve zone gained, the mauve zone being the worlds of contradiction, where non existence and existence are harmonized, where the most alien forms of conscious and knowledge derive. If you want further information you can either read the works of Kenneth grant (far superior to PKD and RAW) or the related star fire magazine publications which are basically little texts his group put out focused on essays and short amount of practices and experiences and so forth.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333244]

>>20333233
>Have you ever practiced dream yoga like the Tibetan Buddhists apparently do, learning to become conscious and meditate even in their dreams?

Yes and you can do the same, the book Tibetan yogas of dream and sleep is very accessible.

>Does this have any links to Kashmir Shaivism?

Shivaism is a big field with a lot of practices, one doctrine and form of practice argues that just as we when consciously up have a body, we when in dream likewise have a body, and when in dreamless sleep there also is a body, and via certain rituals and meditations these can be used in a way akin to the Tibetan usages or even when awake samadhi with these can be achieved snd thus superior knowledge gained, turiya being the level superior to these three.

>Is the universe like some type of holographic fractal self-aware living biological entity with the rocks, plants, oceans, trees, animals, and then supposedly intelligent human beings, as well as the planets themselves, stars, galaxies and so forth, and the geological and astronomical and electromagnetic and chemical phenomena in general all as its body — as if it were one vast interlinked cell — that’s sort of meta-terraforming the planets, including the planet Earth we find ourselves on, into a greater expression of its own divine awareness,

While I hate the language, tantra and boehme agrees.

>learning to manifest himself more fully

From the perspective of God, all time occurs at once, so yes time is a gradual process of revelation of who god is, but God as God is not subject to the process of change because it’s simply him being revealed not changed.

>Why do the shamans described in the Castaneda books do the same dream yoga in a formulated way like the Tibetans do, and you can even take the precepts in the Castaneda books and learn to do “dreaming,” self-aware lucid dreaming like they do, and it somehow works even though Castaneda was supposed to be a fraud and a hack anthropologist?

Methodology is methodology, doesn’t matter if you mix in lies and propaganda, method still operates. Example Scientology is absolutely a lying cult which began and is for the purpose of stealing money and making cultists, Hubbard still placed in actual methodologies he learned from the Oto And other such. Cults giving bits of actual practice is a pretty common tactic.

>And most importantly, can you tell me why it hurts when I pee sometimes?

Oh no no no no no no no! Go check the doctor!

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333271]

>>20331741
>>20331744
Based Lum appreciators.

>>20331798
Rip.

>>20331859
>protect yourself

you won’t get far if this is how you approach things, this path requires you to see in the horrible and ghastly the holy and good, if you cannot see God and love and so forth in the horrible things of nature and in the horrid creatures, then you are not performing vamachara proper but are simply a lowly black sorcerer, whereas the purification of the fire of knowledge, of knowing the symbolic essence of these and knowing they expressions of shakti, this immediately pacifies and purifies them.

If you cannot overcome the fear you have no business working with them.

>>20332134
There is a beautiful analysis by David chaim smith on this topic, I will post it.


Wisdom is encoded in the phrase “I am that I am” which poses the divine name of keter as a reflexive equation. It is given in the Torah as Moses inquires before the burning bush not consumed by its enveloping flame. The most common translation is not exactly accurate. AHYH AshR AHYH is better understood as 'I will be that by which I will be', thereby stressing the meeting point of potentiality with its capacity to manifest anything.

The phrase pinpoints the precise intersection of the mirror of mind as it reflects itself. The first AHYH represents an open capacity to reflect. The second represents reflected variation. They are a true unity, thus posit wholeness in the aspect of 'front' and 'back'. The phrases poses a continuum in which beginning and end are equalized by the balance point at their heart. This is the nexus of the fire of self-consumption, which is a thrust beyond coming into being or passing away, thus 'the bush was not consumed'.
AshR has a value of 501. Its gematria equates with the word TMVNH (Ex. 20:4), which means 'in a manner of likeness'. This poses the magical continuum again, like a mirror. The manner of likeness the worlds assume is a result of how their motion display is apprehended. If one inquires to penetrate the automaton reflex of the status quo, artificial constructs begin to melt away.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20333275]

>>20333271
More hidden layers can be unfolded letter by letter. Alef is absolute wholeness set within the paradox of unity. This is illustrated by the letter's graphic form, in which two yuds (above and below) are poised with a vav between them. This alludes to the structure of BeYeA (Briah, yetzirah, assiah), which pose the upper and lower aspects of Sechinah (correpsonding to the two hehs, or binah and malkut). In the standard tree diagram, they balance above and below the middle six sefirot (vav). All of these arrangements suggest a mirror. When alef is esoterically converted into the coded sequence YVY, the implication is that the seeds of Atik the father (yud/Y) equalizes 'before' and 'after' the expression of its energetic motion, which is Zer Anpin (the Son). As “The Fountain of Wisdom” states: Alef is never less than two.

Thus, the scales rest in balance.

Alef as YVY equals 26, which is the gematria of YHVH. Keter is called Alef, because it is the first sefirah. Thus, through that number, keter (alef as 26) connects to tifaret (YHVH). In this connection, the king passes down the crown to his son without diminishment. This represents the pure cognizance (yechida/chaya) extending as the perceptual motion of variation (ruach).AHYH is a set of scales in balance. Both formulas of HYH and YVY reflect and balance each other, as a reflection reflecting itself. This mirror presents as its reflection from any point of view, like a hand that shapes itself, and a seed that displays its own womb. Thus, within AHYH, the secret pivot can be recognized, and binding to it allows 'that by which' to return phenomena to the single root from which both trees grow. Through this unified root, all things bask in the question 'what is meaning in itself?'. The space of the question exudes fathomless beatuy, regardless of the aesthetic or moral implications to which it becomes appended. This is a reflection of 'that by which' En Sof opens.


Thus anom I would argue the kabbalistic interpretation of AHYH, And the plain meaning of AHYH, as being I in its omni-temporal capacity revealing itself by relating to itself is fundamentally an identical doctrine to the tantrik one.
Alright guys I hope my replies were satisfactory.

[Anonymous No.20333330]

Since this seems like a Q&A now, I'd to ask - Frater, what do you think of succubi and spirit sex, like what people talk about on /x/? Is it a real phenomenon? If it is, would it be considered lowly or dangerous to seek it out?

[Anonymous No.20333364]

>>20332385
Here is the source feel free to look into it.
https://www.kamakotimandali.com/2021/03/28/comparison-of-advaita-vedanta-with-kashmir-shaivism/
>According to Shankara, ātmā in the human body is only sākṣi-caitanya or witnessing consciousness. Just as Brahman as no activity, even so, its reflection ātmā in the human body is niṣkriya – without activity. According to īśvarādvayavāda, however, ātmā in the human body also is spandamaya. It has always the characteristic of jñāna and kriyā.

>According to Vedānta, avidyā or ajñāna is removed by vidyā or jñāna, and when this happens, there is mukti or liberation.

>According to śaivāgama, there are two kinds of ajñāna: bauddha and pauruṣa. Bauddha ajñāna is intellectual. By vidyā, only bauddha ajñāna can be removed, pauruṣa a~jnāna will still remain. Such a person will only be landed in blank abstraction. He will not realize śivatva.

>Pauruṣa ajñāna also has to be removed. This can be removed by śaktipāta which comes about either by dīkṣā by a Self-realized Guru or by direct divine grace.

>The idea of mukti in Vedānta is Kaivalya or isolation just as in Sāṃkhya-Yoga. The only difference is that in Sāṃkhya-Yoga, it is isolation from Prakṛti, in Vedānta, it is isolation from Māyā. The ideal of Mukti in śaivāgama is śivatva yojanā or being integrated to śiva.

>According to Vedānta, the world is annulled in Mukti. According to śaivāgama, the world appears to be a form of śiva-consciousness in liberation.

[Anonymous No.20333827]

>>20333233
>Kenneth Grant
checked
what do you think about his work on the tunnels of Set? would you recommend him to someone who hasn't read Therion and can't into Gematria?

Are you aware of the similarities between doctrines of the left-hand-path and Vedanta? Is vamacara naturally superior to dakshinacara in the age of Kali Yuga?

can you recommend any tantric texts on the issue of Golata, Lalana and Lalata?

>>20333271
(pic rel.)

[Anonymous No.20334219]

>Crowley
>Kenneth Grant
counter-initiation

[Anonymous No.20334771]

>>20333090
>Even less, for it has no nature other than being flame, the quality of emission of light is the principle of shakti.
So, considered in itself it is insentient? That’s not that different really from a materialist conception of awareness being *emergent* from insentient matter. Why do we not feel ourselves to have an insentient Self then? I dont feel like or detect that I have a insentient non-aware Self that has awareness as an adjunct or contingent power, my Self *is* aware, the “I” at the core of my being *is* a pristine self-luminous awareness-presence. Being aware of one’s own power is already presupposing that the one aware of his own power is intrinsically aware already.
>>How does one practically distinguish it in any manner whatsoever from awareness?
>The same way I can divide the sun as a body and the sun as a nuclear formula, for example.
That’s not a practical example of how one can actually distinguish this difference *in one’s own experience or consciousness*, it’s an abstract analogy
>In the shiva tattva the nature of who is disclosed and awareness/disclosure are absolutely identical however the result of this is the shakti tattva as dynamism which would differentiate it like this.
Saying the “the nature of who is disclosed and awareness/disclosure are absolutely identical” contradicts your statement that shiva just emits awareness and itself intrinsically lacks it, unless Shiva is something over and above his nature, which is absurd because then an additional “non-nature nature” is needed to explain what Shiva is over and above the first nature
>I experience a multiplicity and have an awareness of a multiplicity, that is shakti, I am the one who has it, that is shiva.
That’s just contrasting the subject and the phenomenal object, it’s not pointing out any difference between awareness and the non-discursive non-objective disclosure of awareness to itself
>For once more, tantra is not emanationist, the quality of having awareness is simply a further revelation of that absolute ego
Something insentient doesn’t have revelations though, that’s like describing a complicated decision-making process and then tracing it back to emerging from a rock

>>20333104
>For part and division are apara, are the maya bound form of kala tattva, you create a distinction between the conscious, perception and perceived that does not actually In conscious, in reality they all occur at once
Empirical experience contradicts this though, where emotional experiences are experienced as reactions *to things*. If we really create the distinction between the conscious, perception and perceived then we should be able to erase it, but even after projecting the conceptual overlay on everything of viewing it all as awareness, phenomenal content still behaves differently from the presence revealing them, i.e. its non-erasable.

[Anonymous No.20334773]

What's the difference between Visishadvaita and Kashmir Shaivism?

[Anonymous No.20334775]

>>20334771
>>20333127
>To call it illusion is true and false, false because God who is truth has created it and how can falsehood arise from truth?
It’s its the nature of the true reality to project it that way, KS also holds that ultimate reality presents itself in a false aspect to people via the maya-shakti, which has to be corrected to erase misery, fear etc which is hardly different
>It cannot be, for that would be to call truth a liar,
And yet you dont think twice about reconciling and positing the identity of mutually contradictory things in other instances (non-discursive self vs discursive “self”, subjectivity vs objectivity), very interesting

>>20333151
>Not so, for the transcendental ego is the totality of what is experienced and all particular objects arise as the synthesis of all else,
That’s the opposite of what it is, the experienced phenomenal objective content is neither our self nor is it transcendent, what you described is the ‘immanent object’. The transcendent self is the experiencer and not the experienced, the self doesn’t experience itself in a subject-object distinction, that only *empirically* structures its relations to other things. As Citsukha says in Tattva-Pradipika, the self-luminosity of the self is “the capability of being called immediate in empirical usage while remaining at the same time a non-object of knowledge”. It makes no sense logically to say that the self or subject can only know things (including itself) as objects such that it cannot have immediate access or awareness of itself in a way that doesn’t involve subject-object distinctions (i.e. saying the self can only have access to itself via subject-object distinctions), because then this leads to an infinite regress, since if the subject has no intrinsic reflexive access to its own knowledge of itself observing the objective content, then another witness is required to take that as its content so its finally made aware to something, and if this doesn’t have reflexive access then another is required and another to no end, leading to a regress. It doesn’t work to say another subject-object distinction gives the subject access to its own knowledge of itself knowing the object, because then you have another regress in the opposite direction and because of the subjects non-reflexivity further subject-object distinctions are requires to give it access to knowledge of that one, and so on and so on. The transcendental self is transcendent by virtue of being transcendent to all phenomenal content, by not being a (phenomenal) object of itself but nevertheless being known. The sentient center which knows the phenomenal content cannot be located in the phenomenal content, that’s not how our experience of things takes place but the contrary is true viz. in empirical experience we always find our self to reveal phenomenal content like a flashlight illuminating objects and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.20334779]

>>20334775
>for any object to exist so must all else and vice versa
There’s literally no basis whatsoever to say that, we never experience the conscious subject arising from a state of being non-arisen via dependence on anything else, because to experience that would require one already be conscious and observing that process. In the absence of confirmation of its dependence on anything else, stating that it requires anything else is a statement of faith in a dogma and nothing more.
>and if transcendental ego was lacking any quality its nature would no longer be itself,
Experience objects are not a part of the transcendental self, that’s a “pseudo-self” that erroneously conflates the transcendent self and the immanent object, despite this violating the LNC, violating experience, they have mutually exclusive natures and behave differently. It can only be defended via recourse to other KS doctrines in a circular manner but its that claim that cant be grounded in anything.
>for if we can say “transcendental ego is the origin of perception” then perception arising from transcendental ego is a requirement of the ego’s nature when this aspect is revealed to be the case
Wrong, because this is completely incidental to what the transcendent self does, namely, remain with self-luminous reflexive access to itself. It does this both in the absence and presence of phenomenal content, whether any phenomenal content is being illuminated is irrelevant to what the transcendental self itself intrinsically does in its own right. You yourself admit that the transcendental self remains present in sleep, even when the phenomenal objective content is being presented, saying that shakti is unmanifested but still present doens’t show how its actually still reliant on shakti for anything in this stage since that’s practically indistinguishable from there temporarily being no shakti at all.

[Anonymous No.20334781]

>>20334779
>identification with the empirical ego and transcendental, for they are required of each other, are each other, reveal each other
the phenomenal self never reveals the transcendental self because its non-luminous, that’s like saying the object knows the subject
>Their differences do not constitute an actual essential division, for empty space and objects are likewise tattvas and counted as in the recognizing of bhairava identical, while maintaining their distinction.
They can be empirically observed to be different via having different properties. Something outside of further dogma should be cited when trying to substantiate other dogmas

>This is your ignorance of the tattva model coming through, purusha isn’t atman here, and purusha has a multitude of higher tattvas prior to it,
Not in the original Samkhya model that KS took it from. You are just speaking about the KS modification of this scheme likes its normative when its actually not, thats not actually a real critique of Advaita that shows any issue, its just arbitrarily trying to fit the Advaita purusha into a non-Advaita cosmology, like when buddhists say “this whole school of thought is wrong because it has partial and superficial resemblance to something in the Pali Canon that Buddha said was an intermediary stage”

[Anonymous No.20334823]

>>20334779
*You yourself admit that the transcendental self remains present in sleep, even when the phenomenal objective content is NOT being presented

[Anonymous No.20335473]

>>20333244
and while we're at it, do you know which texts within Vajrayana are particularly concerned with the veneration of Bhairava?

[Anonymous No.20336328]