u/SnooCookies1159

Here I don’t mean to offend Trika or masters of Trika, I just want to deepen my understanding. For sure everyone understands.

Hello, I wonder, why does shiva allow so much suffering in the world?

I know that the answer is „shiva’s play” or „enjoyment of contraction” or „shiva is above morality”, but all these answers make sense only if you are not suffering.

It is simply impossible to say that it is shiva’s play when my child dies on my hands (don’t worry I don’t have a child I am just trying to ilustrator something). It is impossible to say that it is enjoyment of contraction when my family is murdered in some war, and it is impossible to say that shiva is above morality when I am tortured or soemthing.

You get what I am saying? In practise, if any of us faced such dificulties it is impossible to justify evil with „shiva’s play”. If murder, rape, pedophilia, cancer if all this is shiva’s play, then shiva must be very childlish.

Now, someone might say „but don’t you enjoy video games? Don’t you like horror movies? Don’t you enjoy movies about violence and video games with shooting etc? The same is the case for shiva - he is just playing the game and enjoying it, just like you are enjoying playing Elden Ring”.

But here is my objection: we enjoy video games, even the most brutal ones, we enjoy movies even the most drastic ones, and we read books even the most cruel ones, we enjoy such things only because WE KNOW IT IS A GAME.

Just see what happens when we forget that it is just a movie or just a video game. What happens then? During video game we begin to tilt and get irritated, when watching a movie we get seriously depressed. Some people forget that this is just tv, it is just a soccer match, and they jump of the window, or they fight and kill.

So analogically, if shiva really enjoyed this game called life, he would always remember that it is a game.

Now, someone could object in this way: “you are speaking just from limited ego point of view. From shiva’s point of view, there is no suffering and just his vibration. All this is his play from his point of view, even cancer and murder etc”.

But my counterargument is this: “according to trika, everything is shiva. Everything is real. Which means, the sensation of being limited ego is real. So this is not just play, it is real. If even imaginery things like milk of the bird are real, then for sure experience of intense suffering. So this means that shiva must be a childlish masochist, that enjoys being tortured and then liberated and like this for eternity. It simply sounds like a toxic relationship, with constant ups and downs. When you are in toxic relationships you get lots of fun, but also lots of suffering. Similiar it is in life. So this would mean that shiva has toxic relationship with himself”.

Now, someone might object this in this manner: “but you are speaking again from limited point of view. From the perspective of realised master, everything is bliss. You might not understand it, as you speak from your limited ego. But once pratyabhijna happens, everything is clear, and we assure you that shiva is not a psychopath. Shiva is absolutely free, he does everything, also bad things. From limited ego point of view it is not moral, but from realised master point of view, all this is just vibration of shiva. Once you realise your true nature, you realise that you have always had it. So you realise that you never actually were separate from shiva”.

My counterargument is this: “alright, but who decides whether you are enlightened or not? According to trika, the answer is: grace. Those who have grace of Lord shiva are enlightened, and those who not, are ignorant. Ok. But this is extremely unfair. Ofcourse this is just my limited point of view, but what else do I have? So this enlightened master is free and happy just because there is grace in him/her. Why everyone can’t be soaked in grace? Hm? Why not? Because shiva’s enjoyment would be lessened? If shiva’s enjoyment would lessened, then such shiva is no shiva, as he is dependant on suffering to experience bliss. This would mean that shiva isn’t independent.

What I am trying to say is this: some people are very fortunate, they have money, happiness and healthy bodies, other people are less fortunate, they live in war zones, they are sick and unhappy (for whatever reason). None of these are in their control, where is justice in this? Before anyone says “shiva doesn’t have to be just”, well, then if shiva doesn’t need to be just, if he doesn’t need to be good, if he doesn’t need to be compassionate, then he doesn’t deserve our worship. Then shiva is simply alive, but brutal and cold force of nature/consiosuness. He is divine, but is he full of love? In my view, no, he is not. If shiva was compassionate, then he would stop this mess ASAP. He wouldn’t allow a fly to suffer. But as we see, shiva doesn’t care much.

We hear stories about enlightened beings that have unlimited powers, that they can create and destroy galaxies etc. Well, in my view, there never was any being like that, because still most people are not liberated. If there was a one yogi who has such power, he would liberate the whole universe! For sure! Because, why not? What could he loose? He wouldn’t allow have nothing to loose, so he would do it, unless he would be scared of loosing his liberation or something. But your liberation for the liberation of the whole world is a small price to pay, don’t you think? Anyway, in the world where everyone is enlightened such a yogi would grow extremely fast, as presence of so many jivanmuktas would uplift him fast. So in my view there never was such a yogi.

But if really there were such yogis, then it is clear, that they loose compassion once they become realised or attain unlimited siddhis. In such case, I am not sure why liberation would be worth to achieve”.

Here some could object: “but you are speaking like shiva is separate from you. Understand that shiva is not some Christian god sitting in heaven he is literally you, and this letters and this place here etc. He is not doing suffering to innocent, no, he is doing the suffering, he is suffering, and he is innocent suffering creature! Grace of shiva is your own grace, you have to initiate yourself, don’t wait for some outside force to initiate you”.

But my objection is: “if this were the case, that I can initiate myself, that everyone is literally shiva, so it is their own grace that liberates them, then let’s be real: everyone would be liberated. Why on earth would someone choose to suffer? Now someone could object that we have no access to shiva point of view, but this makes no sense, as according to trika we are shiva right now, even if we are the most identified with ego, then still, we are shiva. Perpsepcive of shiva is not separate from our perspective, otherwise there would be dualism. So if all people were literally shiva, they would imitate themself immiediatly, but it doesn’t happen so they cannot be shiva in real sense, they can be shiva in pure philosophical sense, just like I am a Milky Way right now.

I am a Milky Way galaxy, am I not? I am. Milky Way is extremely vast and powerful, and techniqually I am Milky Way galaxy, just like my hair is my body. But what such knowledge changes in practise? It is pure philosophy, the internesting information that I am a milkyway gives me nothing at all.

Now someone might say “it shouldn’t be just intellectual knowledge, it should be real experience”, but I argue that no one ever had such experience without loosing empathy. If someone really had experience of being a Milky Way, they would immiediatly heal our planet of suffering and crime and sickness, provided that they have empathy still.

So these are my serious doubts about this philosophy. I would be happy if someone well versed in Trika could show me where I make logical mistakes, where my understanding is not correct etc. Please, someone show me where I am wrong!

Namaste fellow sehakas🙏🌸 May you be blessed by the divine!

I have a question about anupaya. I am listening to tantraloka right now, explained by swami Lakshmanjoo.

I learned about anupaya. And here, I find something which is not logical, I have some doubt.

So if anupaya is the supreme way, if anupaya is the nature of reality, then, how can anupaya be spoken about?

In short: „What is the need of even speaking about anupaya, if there is no way to not do anupaya. If there is way to not do anupaya, then it means that there is a way to DO anupaya, and if there is a way to DO anupaya, then it is no anupaya at all. Still simple effort is used”.

It will take some time to explain my doubt, so this will be quite a long post.

First of all, anupaya is defined as „no means”. If this is true then this must mean that we are already in anupaya. If this is true, then everyone is doing anupaya, because everyone is already shiva, and shiva is always in anupaya. Do you understand my doubt? If Anupaya really is no means, literally no means, then it is impossible NOT TO PRACTISE IT.

Example:

Some Trika master sees me doing puja for Ganesh, he concludes „you see, he is doing lower anavopaya type of practise”. Next time, the same master sees me doing some meditation where I try to perceive myself everywhere, then he says „you see, this is shaktopaya”. Then he sees me just going into state of god consiousness through the means of pure will then he concludes „this is shambhavopaya”.

Then, one day he just gazes at me and says: „there is nothing to be done, you are already shiva”, and because I am purified, I get entry into anupaya. According to lakshmanjoo, such initiation is lower anupaya, because sentence „there is nothing needed to be done” and gaze of the master was the subtle means.

But Swami Lakshmanjoo also explained that there is highest anupaya, and such anupaya is, well, it just is. As such anupaya is literally no means, it is there!

If highest anupaya just is, if it literally means that there is no means, not even subtle means, no means at all then, I conclude, that it is impossible not to do this anupaya. Right?

Because if anupaya literally means „no means” then there is no way to begin anupaya or end it. And if this is the case, then this means that everyone and everything is „pracrising” anupaya, as their basic and only function there is.

It might seem that I am going in circles, but I need to explain my doubt properly.

If this is correct (someone correct me please if I am wrong, I want to learn!), then there is no way to end such anupaya. If there is no way to end anupaya, then there is no way to begin it as well. Why? Because it is always, now is anupaya, how can it begin?

So how on earth initiation to anupaya is explained? If there is initiation, then this is no anupaya, as some means were adopted.

But this is not the end of my conclusion. It means that even when I am doing lowest kind of anavopaya, let’s say I do some puja in dualistic way and I pray for more money or something, then, still, this is anupaya. If doing puja isn’t anupaya, then, it means that anupaya has certain means, you understand?

If we can say: this is shaktopaya, and this is shambhavopaya, then we define these means as „not anupaya”. Why? Because there is some effort. There are some means, in shakti and shambhava upayas and anavopaya as well. You get what I am trying to say?

This means that anupaya is also a kind of means. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to define other upayas as „not anupaya”. If there exists „not-anupaya” then this means that anupaya is not literally „no means”, but it must be some subtle means, some subtle effort must be there, otherwise it makes no sense.

Analogy:

If I can say that „no, I am not enlightened yet, I am just a humble sadhak” this implies that I am actually enlightened. Why? Because, if I am able to say that I am not enlightened, this means that I must know how it feels to be enlightened. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to state that I am not enlightened.

To say „this doesn’t taste like apple” I must know how apple tastes like. Similarly, if I state that I am not enlightened, it means that I am perfectly aware what enligthenment isn’t, and this means that I know what it is.

So similarly, if anupaya is literally no means, it means that means are there implied, but negatively. Why? Because if I would proudly make some post „I did 1000 malas of om namah shivaya today” then you could say „oh, cool, but this is low upaya, these are lower means. This isn’t shaktopaya, nor shambhavopaya and for sure this isn’t anupaya”. But by saying „this isn’t anupaya” we are giving definition to what anupaya is, and if we give definition to what anupaya means, it is no longer anupaya, because there is some method applied there, from which one can fall.

Do you understand my doubt? I hope I managed to explain it. Could someone please enlighten me and elaborate on this?

In short: „What is the need of even speaking about anupaya, if there is no way to not do anupaya. If there is way to not do anupaya, then it means that there is a way to DO anupaya, and if there is a way to DO anupaya, then it is no anupaya at all. Still simple effort is used”.

Hello, I wonder, why swami lakshmanjoo spends quite some time to explain the theory of sanscrit alphabet? What is the practical use of this knowledge, that this letter is produced in the throat and that letter is produced in the stomach etc? I know that in tantric practises there is matrika nyasa, but I didn’t hear yet that Swamiji spoke how to do nyasa in a trika way.

Could someone please elaborate on that? Or this is just pure academic knowledge?

Does anybody have audio of swami lakshmanjoo explaining the text? Could someone provide or direct me to the place to find it? Thank you 🙏❤️🥰

Hello, I am not that new to Trika, but still I am propably a beginner. I read/listened to few books by lakshmanjoo academy, and I had my own share of experiences.

I have strange feeling about swami lakshmanjoo. From one point of view, I see his immense wisdom, his insights his grace, his laughter. I have immense respect for him, and this post is not to critise him. Please, someone help me understand this great man better,

But few things are alarming for me. For example, on his talks on divine discipline (Yamas and niyamas in “self realisation in Kashmir shaivism book”) when he spoke about vegetarianism, suddenly he started to resemble some angry priest in church. He keeps saying that if you eat meat you are impure sinner, and that if you eat meat, the animal you consumed will hunt you for as many lifetimes as many hairs on his body there were. This is very abrahamic vibes preaching in my view, and a source of another fear based belief system.

This is just one example, most of his talks are pure wisdom. But once in a while, he will drop a statement like that, and it is very strange for me. How a person of such wisdom make people scared of eating meat?

I understand that maybe he was just speaking to general public, to limit meat eating, but I think we all know that creating fear in devotees is not the way for today’s world, it often leads to the opposite outcome, because some people are “rebellious”. Some people will be very drown off by his talks about meat eating, some people will end their journey with Trika because of that.

For those that will say that it is a way to test devotees, or a way to teach something, ok, but “testing devotees” is a ticket for a teacher to do basically everything. Everything can be justified with words “I was just testing you”. I have no idea what Swamiji could test in his devotees by such talks.

To limit meat eating, he could say it in a much more gentle manner and more rational manner. There are so many rational and moral and even scientific reasons to not eat meat, why he couldn’t argument it logically? He has such a beautiful mind, he was capable of giving clear logical reasons why not to eat animals, instead he decided to instill guilt and fear in his devotees. For what reason I ask?

It would be much more effective to just stay calm and rational. I don’t think that creating guilt in people leads to anything good long term (Catholic Church is best example for this).

Another example is that he said that meditating after 50 years of age is much less effective if not a waste of time (source spanda karikas quote: “If you meditate after 50 years [of age], if you meditate–this is a
secret–if you meditate after 50 years, you will meditate [but] nothing will happen after. [Even] if you
meditate for 24 hours, nothing will happen. Because the one-pointed, the strength of one-pointedness,
fades.”).

This is another belief which well, tbh I doubt that this is true, but such statements can make people after 50 just drop meditation altogether. Even if meditation after 50 is of less strength (in which I can believe) for sure it is not a waste of time, like Swamiji suggest. So such statements I don’t understand, why he would say such things. I believe that such things are harmful to some people. I am 25 years old and I meditate since 19, but this is unfair for my older fellow sadhaks.

So can anyone help me understand this better? Maybe I don’t see something here. Or maybe I should learn to accept that no Master will ever be free from his human side? What do you think?

I recognise Swami Lakshmanjoo as a great being and incarnation of Shiva. So I humbly bow down to his feet. I just don’t want to follow anybody blindly. I believe my doubts, will be source of my growth, as shiva doesn’t want his devotees to just follow without asking questions. If I offended him or anyone else by this post, I am deeply sorry, it wasn’t my intention. My intention was to broaden my understanding of Kashmir shaivism and swami lakshmanjoo. I am well aware that Swamiji spoke in certain context (I know that in Kashmir eating meat was acceptable and popular), still, I don’t think that instilling fear in meat eaters is a healthy way to make them quit meat.