|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ramponnet
USA
2 Posts |
 Posted - May 28 2010 : 02:22:42 AM
|
Dear Kirtanman, Thanks for the clearing my doubts and questions on 36 tattvas etc.
Mahesvaranath, Thank you for your dazzling commentary on the 12 Kalis - I can only appreciate how exalted and profound the thinking of ancient masters had been.
---
I still have one doubt on 36 Tattvas re. following point
quote:
And so, a given Maya-veiled pseudo-self perceives the wholeness of the element/tattva of Earth/Prithivi very differently than another pseudo-self.
If indeed the bhutas (aka the material world that we experience minus the other tattvas upto Maya) are "perceived" differently by different pseudo-selves, aren't we saying that the material world is unique to each limited-perceiver (i.e. perceiver under the spell of maya)? If so, what is the source of the seeming commonality and concomitant experience. (dummy example: i experience a rose or a jar more-or-less in similar way as the person next to me). How does KS explain the objective commonality of phenomenally individuated subject?
I roughly remember the propositions from buddhist vijnanavadins of how even material objects are just part of a large stream of consciousness (of course they claim this without any subject) - is KS explanation similar to this plus the supreme subject?
Please feel free to instruct me to "go read the basics" if im just confused - definitely respect your time.
Thanks and Pranams,
Ram
---
Yes, I'm definitely holding onto my towel  |
 |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - May 28 2010 : 7:07:00 PM
|
Hi Ram,
No worries; happy to answer questions, and I enjoy discussing this. It seems Maheshvaranath does do, and I certainly invite him to add to anything I say here, as well.
quote:
Originally posted by ramponnet
---
I still have one doubt on 36 Tattvas re. following point
quote:
And so, a given Maya-veiled pseudo-self perceives the wholeness of the element/tattva of Earth/Prithivi very differently than another pseudo-self.
If indeed the bhutas (aka the material world that we experience minus the other tattvas upto Maya) are "perceived" differently by different pseudo-selves, aren't we saying that the material world is unique to each limited-perceiver (i.e. perceiver under the spell of maya)? If so, what is the source of the seeming commonality and concomitant experience. (dummy example: i experience a rose or a jar more-or-less in similar way as the person next to me). How does KS explain the objective commonality of phenomenally individuated subject?
I roughly remember the propositions from buddhist vijnanavadins of how even material objects are just part of a large stream of consciousness (of course they claim this without any subject) - is KS explanation similar to this plus the supreme subject?
Please feel free to instruct me to "go read the basics" if im just confused - definitely respect your time.
Thanks and Pranams,
Ram
---
Yes, I'm definitely holding onto my towel
Regarding what I wrote about Prthivi, please simply consider what I wrote about Maya and the Kancukas (the specific coverings of limitation).
Unbound Awareness, the supreme subject, Shiva, plays the game of self-limitation via the veils - Unbound Awareness becomes, it thinks, an Anu; an individual, thus creating the primary illusion, Anavamala; the illusion of partiality.
From this fundamental illusion, which arises in 1:1 correspondence to the learning of language by a given body-mind, everything below Maya, Purusha, Prakriti and outward ... Buddhih (Intellect), Ahamkara (ego; "I-maker"), Manas (thinking), and so on ... is colored with a specificity of perception based on the specific kancukas conditioned into that body-mind.
For instance, it's said that Native Alaskans (aka Eskimos) have at least several dozen words for snow. And so, let's say a traveler from Africa, who has never seen snow, visits Alaska; his experience and perception of snow will be different than the experience and perception of snow on the part of an Eskimo body-mind who has dealt with snow, and its many nuances, for his or her entire life.
And so, while both parties agree there's snow there (the commonality that you speak of), the specific experience of snow will be quite different.
Even your example of a rose is pertinent; five people sitting around a rose and looking at it, may generally see something that they agree should be called "rose", but that's just the lowest common denominator; dream-agreement by committee, if you will.
The exact, individual nuances of perception, based on everything from color clarity in one body-mind's vision, to sentimentality associated with roses in another, to disinterest in roses on the part of another ... causes the unique nuances of illusion to be quite different).
However, that's not really the main point of the teaching. The main point of the teaching is: the specificity of the kancukas is illusory; it is distortion.
Our experience of a rose in the wholeness of thoughtless awareness is far different that our experience of a rose when it is filter throught the lenses of the five senses, thinking, ego and intellect (Puryastaka; the "city of eight" which transmigrates from life to life; the very faux-self that is dissolved in liberation).
As Kashmir Shaivism teaches simply yet elegantly: caitanyamatma ... experiencing self as liberated awareness, is our original, non-distorted essence .... always here, just not consciously experienced by all of us.
A great quote I read recently on enlightenment, spoken by an enlightened teacher (Jed McKenna), to someone who had not yet opened into enlightenment:
"I don't have anything you don't have; you just believe something that I don't."
That's the essence of Kashmir Shaivism, and every other non-dual, practices-centric system: to shed distorting beliefs by the most efficacious means possible, and so, to, as Abhinavagupta so eloquently said, release the idea that "the luminous one shines not."
In releasing the distortions of conditioning, we return to our original awareness, where we can consciously live in-as the utter freedom of Shivo'ham (I Am Shiva).
Shiva is the "beneficient One" ... the "One Who Blesses" (that's what the name Shiva means). Original Awareness blesses; as Yogani has said, the natural state is one of outpouring divine love; all form is body/receptacle; when we let go of the false idea that we are only form (be it thought, emotion, body, etc.), we relax into the fullness of our original wholeness, and are thus, liberated while living, as Kashmir Shaivism says.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on May 28 2010 7:10:14 PM |
|
|
|
Maheshvaranath
India
7 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2010 : 12:39:44 AM
|
Hi Ram, Kirtanman...
Don't have anything to add to what has been said by Kirtanman.
The main thing to understand while on the path of Kashmir Shaivism is that there is always more to understand. By virtue of 'Shiva's grace' a subtle shift continually draws Shiva (as the limited jiva), along the pathway of Shakti, and eventually back into his original state of Shiva, where he always was.
Understanding and practice go hand in hand, the subtle truth being:
"the awareness one uses to look for awareness, is the awareness one is looking for."
As work gives me little time for play, you will have to excuse my infrequent postings.
May the grace of Lord Shiva shine upon you.
Maheshvaranath
|
|
|
|
princefari
Israel
2 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2010 : 7:48:26 PM
|
Hi Maheshvaranath
im doing a research using the Vijnanabhairava as my starting point.i wanted to ask u if "Vijnana Bhairava by Betina Baumer, February 6, 2008
By Maheshvaranath "(amazon) review was written by yourself,if so,just wanted to thank you and if you dont mind wish to know how can i get
swamis lakshmanjoo original script?
also,i have the jaideva singh comentary,is it a good one in your eyes?
and how is the "Swami Saraswati Satyasangananda – Sri Vijnana Bhairava Tantra: The Ascent" 2003 comentary? im about to order a copy of this one and will be happy to hear your opinion on bihars schools comentary on the text
anyways,thanks a lot,hope to hear from u soon
eyal |
|
|
|
Maheshvaranath
India
7 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 07:15:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by princefari
Hi Maheshvaranath
im doing a research using the Vijnanabhairava as my starting point.i wanted to ask u if "Vijnana Bhairava by Betina Baumer, February 6, 2008
By Maheshvaranath "(amazon) review was written by yourself,if so,just wanted to thank you and if you dont mind wish to know how can i get
swamis lakshmanjoo original script?
also,i have the jaideva singh comentary,is it a good one in your eyes?
and how is the "Swami Saraswati Satyasangananda � Sri Vijnana Bhairava Tantra: The Ascent" 2003 comentary? im about to order a copy of this one and will be happy to hear your opinion on bihars schools comentary on the text
anyways,thanks a lot,hope to hear from u soon
eyal
Hi princefari,
Yes, the review on Betina Baumer's "Vijnana Bhairava - Centering of Awareness" on Amazon was written by myself.
The original transcript and audio of "Vijnana Bhairava - A Manual for Self Realization," is available through Amazon.com, or the Universal Shaiva Fellowship website http://www.universalshaivafellowshi...&productId=5
The Jaideva Singh copy of Vijnana Bhairava is good, but also quiet technical. Singh added a lot of end notes for many of the verses which some readers find useful. Singh studied this text with Swami Lakshmanjoo at his ashram in Kashmir. Though he was taught in Hindi, Singh did his final editing and translation into English in Delhi and Varanasi. Naturally, there are a number of discrepancies between Singh's book and Swami Lakshmanjoo's later version in English. Still, since you are studying the text I would suggest that Singh's book would be helpful.
The Bihar School of Yoga teaches traditional yoga from Vedanta, Upanishads, Tantra, Samkhya & other philosophies that contain yoga, but they have no direct link with the tradition of Kashmir Shaivism, which would explain why their translation of Vijnana Bhairava is quite different from both Singh and Swami Lakshmanjoo. From memory there is no mention of the upayas, i.e. the various means that relate to each of the 112 practices, something that could only be adjusted by a master connected with the oral tradition of Kashmir Shaivism.
If you are interested in practice, which is the only way to really embrace the Vijnana Bhairava, then hearing the original audio translation by Swami Lakshmanjoo is a must. Keep in mind that Swami Lakshmanjoo personally taught this text to Lilian Silburn (1950s), Paul Reps (Zen Flesh, Zen Bones - 1957), Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1968), Jaidev Singh (1979), and John Hughes (1980).
I believe the Lilian Silburn Vijnana Bhairava (in French) is still available in Paris: Lilian Silburn, trans., Le Vijana Bhairava, Publications de I’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, (fasc. 15 [Editions, E. de Boccard, 1961], 3).
Betina Baumer never studied the Vijnana Bhairava with Swami Lakshmanjoo. Her book is based on an unedited, uncorrected, and misappropriated transcript of John Hughes' original audio recordings.
Hope that is helpful.
Maheshvaranath |
Edited by - Maheshvaranath on Jun 28 2010 03:57:18 AM |
|
|
|
princefari
Israel
2 Posts |
Posted - Jul 02 2010 : 3:49:48 PM
|
hi Maheshvaranath
thank you for your detailed and most helpfull answer.
i will order swamis lakshmanjoos audio and script on the book and study
it in india where im heading for the next 2 monthes:).
as for embracing by practice,im fully agree with you and my research
focus on practice which is why i choose the vijnanabhairava as my
starting point.personaly,my form of practice is within the family of
the Anavopaya,so ive just at the begining of the way:)
anyways,thanks a lot again
Bless
Eyal |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Swami Lakshmanjoo
