s1va

Vedantic non-dual vs. Abhinavagupta's non-dual

Recommended Posts

Here’s a beautiful expression of Advaita Vedanta (from jagat mithya to sarvaiva idam Brahman) — 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, s1va said:

The text that you quoted with the Swami of Sringeri is Sivananda Lahiri, which is part of the Soundarya Lahiri which I earlier quoted in one of my posts as a complete Tantric text.  The problem with many that mix anugraha or divine grace with Advaita is simply because they have personally bought into some of the concepts of Tantra.  Which is not wrong by any means, it simply does not prove it is part of Advaita Vedanta.

 

The “Swami” was the Shankaracharya  of the Sringeri math. He was not some confused seeker who personally bought into “Tantra”. 

 

I have a friend who was a protege to this swami (whom I quoted above). He is very clear about the “logic only” Advaita Vedanta that is taught in some Vedanta schools today - they are NOT representative of the tradition.  

 

I do rest my case here. I ( fwiw) am not convinced about the  “difference” of the two traditions - there are differences of approach and practice for sure, but the ends are not that different.

 

:) 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

What differentiation is there in silence, in the void? 

 

There is none besides the distinction between the void and the knower-of the void. Knowledge which can be known and the ignorance of the void have differentiation in appearance only.

 

In the ocean that is one's Self, the fullness of the void overflows with potentiality. Submerged in the centering of one's awareness, pearl clutched in hand, the Blazing Calm of one's bliss reveals both silence and sound alike as being of the same nature.

 

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dwai said:

The Shiva Sutras actually has three different parts and three approaches therein. Depending on the individual, one of the three approaches apply. 

 

Right, I was only pointing to how the emergence of creation is by sound through the 'hidden mother', according to KS's Matrikacakra. Was hoping that would hit home... since, according to Trika philosophy, the only way for "differences" to arise is through the creative matrix it claims is responsible for the birth of all things, which are made of words! :)

 

It seems that will be ignored though in favor of pointing out more differences. Oh Maya!

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

There is none besides the distinction between the void and the knower-of the void. Knowledge which can be known and the ignorance of the void have differentiation in appearance only.

 

In the ocean that is one's Self, the fullness of the void overflows with potentiality. Submerged in the centering of one's awareness, pearl clutched in hand, the Blazing Calm of one's bliss reveals both silence and sound alike as being of the same nature.

 

 

I think you are confusing things.

 

The void is motionless, like a dead sea. But then maybe we need to define void. Overflowing with potentiality sounds more like emptiness to me. So maybe we are talking about different things.

 

You quote of Siva Sutra 1.2

"Knowing differentiatedly is bondage and not knowing

undifferentiatedly is bondage."

 

Is not about the void.

 

What not knowing is bondage?

Not knowing your own undifferentiated self. So knowing

individual consciousness as one's own nature and not knowing

universal consciousness as one's own nature, are both bondage.

In the path of Saivism, there is nothing that exists or that does

not exist that is separated from citprakasa, the conscious self.

Impurity (mala), therefore, also does not exist. So how can impurity

(mala) come between you and the conscious self, creating

obstacles and bondage? It cannot.

 

The self is only a vacuum full of consciousness (akasakalpi).

And within that vacuum, that contraction or limitation, are

found the states from Anasrita Siva to limited jiva. The demonstration

of limitation is bondage. The contraction is in the

form of not knowing. It is ignorance, but ignorance of

what? Ignorance of the oneness of Siva.

 

No matter our usage of the word void, in KS Siva is much more than void alone.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dwai said:

 

 

The “Swami” was the Shankaracharya  of the Sringeri math. He was not some confused seeker who personally bought into “Tantra”. 

 

I have a friend who was a protege to this swami (whom I quoted above). He is very clear about the “logic only” Advaita Vedanta that is taught in some Vedanta schools today - they are NOT representative of the tradition.  

 

I do rest my case here. I ( fwiw) am not convinced about the  “difference” of the two traditions - there are differences of approach and practice for sure, but the ends are not that different.

 

:) 

 

 

 

The entire Vedic Hindu tradition in India has expanded and borrowed ideas from Tantra.  Even the rituals and the way of worship has changed and adapted tantrik practices.  Just because someone takes certain concepts from Tantra into their brief system, does not necessarily mean they are 'confused seekers'.

 

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

The entire Vedic Hindu tradition in India has expanded and borrowed ideas from Tantra.  Even the rituals and the way of worship has changed and adapted tantrik practices.  Just because someone takes certain concepts from Tantra into their brief system, does not necessarily mean they are 'confused seekers'.

 

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Quite right. Tantra is enmeshed with all Hindu darshanas. It is a myth that Tantra is a distinctly separate system within Hindu dharma (in that, one is either a tantric or something else). All top level Advaitins (from Adi Shankaracharya to Sri Ramkrishna Paramahamsa) I know of were tantriks of the highest order. I personally consider Tantra to be the practical aspect of the darshanas.

 

One person who seems to stand apart is Ramana Maharshi, but his favorite text was the Tripura Rahasya, which a tantric text. 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add: That does not necessarily also mean there are no difference between the systems and their end goals.  To me it is clear, the non-dual that Vedanta talks about and what Abhinavagupta describes are different.  

 

 

Abhinavagupta himself explains clearly that his ideas are different from Vedanta and goes to great extends to explain the difference.  What more do we need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Quite right. Tantra is enmeshed with all Hindu darshanas. It is a myth that Tantra is a distinctly separate system within Hindu dharma (in that, one is either a tantric or something else). All top level Advaitins (from Adi Shankaracharya to Sri Ramkrishna Paramahamsa) I know of were tantriks of the highest order. I personally consider Tantra to be the practical aspect of the darshanas.

 

One person who seems to stand apart is Ramana Maharshi, but his favorite text was the Tripura Rahasya, which a tantric text. 

 

Now you deviated from differences between Vedanta and Tantra and comparing with Hindu Dharma in general.  That is confusing and misleading in ways.  If this is important to you because of idealistic or religious stand point, I can understand that.  I never said Tantra is not part of Hindu tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I think you are confusing things.

 

The void is motionless, like a dead sea. But then maybe we need to define void. Overflowing with potentiality sounds more like emptiness to me. So maybe we are talking about different things.

 

You quote of Siva Sutra 1.2

"Knowing differentiatedly is bondage and not knowing

undifferentiatedly is bondage."

 

Is not about the void.

3

 

I never said it was. I referenced it as a reminder for you, since you insist on focusing on how the "endpoints differ." :)

 

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

No matter our usage of the word void, in KS Siva is much more than void alone.

 

I'm unsure if you misunderstood my response or are just willfully ignoring it. Either way, I shall just hold my peace.

Edited by neti neti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Now you deviated from differences between Vedanta and Tantra and comparing with Hindu Dharma in general.  That is confusing and misleading in ways.  If this is important to you because of idealistic or religious stand point, I can understand that.  I never said Tantra is not part of Hindu tradition.

I'm not saying that you did. I'm just pointing out that things are not silo'ed out into neat little columns in the Hindu landscape as most people (mainly outsiders) would like to believe. 

 

That said, I'm dropping out of the discussion as it seems to be causing you discomfort. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world made of words is rife with contradictions and misunderstanding. Without discernment and self-control, their very use constitutes enrollment into the bondage of duality's emergence, dragging us deeper and deeper into the energy illusion. One must become uninvolved in the images created by all these words, such that the mind's frantic movements can be stilled and remain steady. Then and only then, shall such a yogi qualify to be as the "Lord of the Wheel" which is synonymous with abiding as Parabrahman.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dwai said:

I'm not saying that you did. I'm just pointing out that things are not silo'ed out into neat little columns in the Hindu landscape as most people (mainly outsiders) would like to believe. 

 

That said, I'm dropping out of the discussion as it seems to be causing you discomfort. 

 

 

I  created the topic to discuss the philosophies and systems.  Any discussions and debates along these lines are fine and I consider them in scope with the topic.  If it is about someone's beliefs, I would not engage in a discussion about that.  It felt like some of the last posts were arguing from idealogical and religious positions. You are right,  I am not comfortable in engaging or debating people's belief systems in this topic.  This post is clearly not about what is Hindu and what is not.  It sits in the Hindu section because I considered both philosophies to be from different Hindu traditions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I  created the topic to discuss the philosophies and systems.  Any discussions and debates along these lines are fine and I consider them in scope with the topic.  If it is about someone's beliefs, I would not engage in a discussion about that.  It felt like some of the last posts were arguing from idealogical and religious positions. You are right,  I am not comfortable in engaging or debating people's belief systems in this topic.  This post is clearly not about what is Hindu and what is not.  It sits in the Hindu section because I considered both philosophies to be from different Hindu traditions.  

I only pointed out deficiencies in your OP (and subsequent ones) about the position of AV vis-a-vis the world. Also pointed out gaps in understanding of how the universal being and limited being interact (which are all well documented in the upanishads). 

 

It is not about my belief system, but rather a pointing out of the  inaccuracies and discrepancies in the way AV was positioned. Don't take it personally. I know you mean well. 

 

best,

 

dwai

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Right, I was only pointing to how the emergence of creation is by sound through the 'hidden mother', according to KS's Matrikacakra. Was hoping that would hit home... since, according to Trika philosophy, the only way for "differences" to arise is through the creative matrix it claims is responsible for the birth of all things, which are made of words! :)

 

It seems that will be ignored though in favor of pointing out more differences. Oh Maya!

This was the reason for my introducing the concept of Vak (and it's four states). All things that can be said or known fall into the domain of Vak. In fact, all knowledge arises from Vak (parā). But if we elaborate on that, it'll result in thousands of pages of commentary (which I'm sure are already out there).  It is a topic to be pondered and thought through, irrespective of the "This vs That" (whatever the this or that might be on any given day). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dwai said:

I only pointed out deficiencies in your OP (and subsequent ones) about the position of AV vis-a-vis the world. Also pointed out gaps in understanding of how the universal being and limited being interact (which are all well documented in the upanishads). 

 

It is not about my belief system, but rather a pointing out of the  inaccuracies and discrepancies in the way AV was positioned. Don't take it personally. I know you mean well. 

 

best,

 

dwai

 

 

 

Dwai - Those are your opinions in AV and not the actual AV as far as I know or how it is documented.  You seem to be passionate and attached to the concepts, all of these systems are same, they all express the one Advaita Vedanta.  I consider that as a person's belief system.

 

I have said all I can in this topic to you.  While I can respect your beliefs and opinions, you can't expect everyone to subscribe to the same ideas as you.  I am sure you are smart enough to understand there will always be difference of opinion and diversity in topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

I never said it was. I referenced it as a reminder for you, since you insist on focusing on how the "endpoints differ." :)

 

 

I'm unsure if you misunderstood my response or are just willfully ignoring it. Either way, I shall just hold my peace.

 

They do differ and I am not trying to willfully ignore what you are saying.

 

24 minutes ago, neti neti said:

The world made of words is rife with contradictions and misunderstanding. Without discernment and self-control, their very use constitutes enrollment into the bondage of duality's emergence, dragging us deeper and deeper into the energy illusion. One must become uninvolved in the images created by all these words, such that the mind's frantic movements can be stilled and remain steady. Then and only then, shall such a yogi qualify to be as the "Lord of the Wheel" of his Shakti.

 

Maybe this from the Doctrine of Vibration will help.

 

Quote

Consciousness is not a passive witness (saksin), but is full of the

conscious activity (citikriyd) through which it generates the universe68

and reabsorbs it into itself at the end of each cycle of creation. The

freedom (svdtantrya) of consciousness to do this is its sovereign power

(aiivarya) by virtue of which it is the one Cod Who governs the entire

universe. Absolute freedom to know and do all things is the primary

characteristic of Deity:

 

The governing power of the Supreme Lord Whose nature is

His own unique eternal nature as pure agency (kartrtd) whose essence

is the divine pulsing radiance (sphurattii) of the light of consciousness.h9

Both dynamic and creative, this divine power is Spanda-the

vibration of consciousness.

 

Its universal activity is the basis of Siva's

divine sovereign status. Indeed, Spanda is Siva's most essential nature

for without it He would not be God. As K~emaraja says:

 

Thus God (bhagavat) is always the Spanda principle with its

dependent categories-He is not motionless (aspanda) as those who

say, 'the supreme reality is perfectly inactive (aspanda): If that were so,

His nature would be a self-confined stasis (Sdntasvori2pa) and so He

would not be God at all.70

 

The supreme reality which is 'perfectly inactive'is like the Vedantin's

Brahman. Although the Vedantin says that 'God alone is the source of

all things'," Brahman cannot be a creator God (iivara) for His supposed

creation is unreal. A creator implies that His creation is a separate reality

and this would contravene the fundamental principles on which Advaita

Vedrinta bases its concept of nonduality.

 

Kashmiri Saivism, on the contrary, believes in a personal absolute

God Who is the one reality (iivarddvayavdda). The planes within the

absolute correspond to a hierarchy of deities which rule over them,

empowered to do so by the Supreme Deity: consciousness. Absolute

Deity is the highest level of consciousness which stands at the supreme

summit of Being @araksislhd). It is attained by a process of ascent

through higher levels or, in other words, through increasingly expanded

states of consciousness, until we reach the highest and most complete

state of expansion possible (piirnavikdsa). The Supreme Lord rests

at the end of the expansion or evolution of objectivity from the lowest

level to the supramental state (unmand) of pure conscio~sness.~~

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, neti neti said:

Oh Maya!

 

Exactly! It is all Maya.  But the very definition of Maya as illusion in Advaita Vedanta is different from the  definition of Maya and it's description in KS.

 

In AV, oh it's all Maya is used to dismiss the diversity and the differentiation.  While KS and other systems celebrate this diversity and differentiation.  There in lies the huge difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 11:51 AM, s1va said:

 

Exactly! It is all Maya.  But the very definition of Maya as illusion in Advaita Vedanta is different from the  definition of Maya and it's description in KS.

 

In AV, oh it's all Maya is used to dismiss the diversity and the differentiation.  While KS and other systems celebrate this diversity and differentiation.  There in lies the huge difference.

 

Correct in a sense. But that's only one doctrine of approach to creation theory dependent upon the aspirant's disposition. It is not the end all be all explanation for the energy of consciousness, so to single it out proves a lack of understanding. All these doctrines are abandoned and known to be fictions in that flash of spontaneous "'God-consciousness." The sage may relate the experience in relative terms, but they are not Absolute.

 

The apparently HUGE differerences are therefore ultimately meaningless. It's beyond me how one can single things out like this and not realize how the totality of Advaita philosophy does indeed celebrate diversity within the unity, and yet goes beyond both. Unless of course one has some type of agenda, or is simply uninterested in truly investigating the nuances of the teachings.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dwai said:

This was the reason for my introducing the concept of Vak (and it's four states). All things that can be said or known fall into the domain of Vak. In fact, all knowledge arises from Vak (parā). But if we elaborate on that, it'll result in thousands of pages of commentary (which I'm sure are already out there).  It is a topic to be pondered and thought through, irrespective of the "This vs That" (whatever the this or that might be on any given day). 

 

 

Yes indeed, you beat me to it... I guess. :)

 

The problem seems to be that some will only glaze over the surface of such explanations, evidenced by erroneous conclusions based on that incomplete understanding.

 

When genuine contributions to productive discussion are ignored or, what seems to be purposefully twisted in favor of argument at times, that's usually the point where I just try to gracefully bow out.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or do those who follow AV seem to be like what? AV says the same thing as KS, Oh yeah, AV say's the same thing as Buddhism.

 

AV seems to have turned in to a catch all for some.

 

So either they are saying that KS was just a misguided attempt by some teachers slandering AV to create there own little lineage or those saying it is the same thing are wrong.

 

Which is it?

Edited by Jonesboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

They do differ and I am not trying to willfully ignore what you are saying.

 

 

Maybe this from the Doctrine of Vibration will help.

 

 

 

Any experience of the Absolute is by definition, impossible. And I do not deny that may be the experience one cognizes in KS, however it is not proof positive that the nature of the realization differs in any major way.

Edited by neti neti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, neti neti said:

 

An experience of the Absolute is by definition, impossible. And I do not deny that may be the experience one cognizes in KS, however it is not proof positive that the nature of the realization differs in any major way.

 

I think the various teachings show the differences.

 

You are right it isn't about thinking, it is about being. When one has truly realized or gone beyond local mind they can share it which is what KS is all about.

 

On the other side of the debate just saying they are the same is not the same as proving they are the same. Texts have been put forth to show the differences, then quickly ignored to say.. no.. they are the same. For example your void is not the same as Siva as has been shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, neti neti said:

The problem seems to be that some will only glaze over the surface of such explanations, evidenced by erroneous conclusions based on that incomplete understanding.

 

Or, the problem could be that some are convinced that only their philosophy or the system is the only right and all encompassing system that they are simply unwilling to listen to anything else that points to the contrary.

 

Abhinavagupta has explained things in detail, for anyone that cares to read and understand.  He says they are different!  Ramanuja and other masters have done tremendous contributions, criticizing Advaita and  it's views on certain topics.  

 

You can reject all of it as doctrine.  I would call that your opinion.  But just because some ideas differ from yours, if you accuse them as insincere, narrow and having an agenda, I would think it just reflects how shallow your ideas and beliefs truly are.  Do you think all those masters whose ideas differed from AV, were insincere, narrow and had an agenda?   It is okay to discuss the merits of ideas and philosophies, but you are starting to question and accuse people's intent because they don't comply with your ideas.

 

9 minutes ago, neti neti said:

When genuine contributions to productive discussion are ignored or, what seems to be purposefully twisted in favor of argument at times, that's usually the point where I just try to gracefully bow out.

 

You are welcome to bow out anytime you want.  It is all entirely voluntary.   Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Dwai - Those are your opinions in AV and not the actual AV as far as I know or how it is documented.  You seem to be passionate and attached to the concepts, all of these systems are same, they all express the one Advaita Vedanta.  I consider that as a person's belief system.

Not my personal opinions. Just higher level knowledge of AV, taught to me by a bonafide master of AV. :)

Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it is not right. 

45 minutes ago, s1va said:

I have said all I can in this topic to you.  While I can respect your beliefs and opinions, you can't expect everyone to subscribe to the same ideas as you.  I am sure you are smart enough to understand there will always be difference of opinion and diversity in topics.

:) It is not about opinions, it is about being correct in representing positions that you are making "this vs that" type arguments about. It is called Purva Paksha.  If you don't care to be accurate, that's a different matter altogether. Then the comparison is just a farce. 

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites