u/Swimming-Win-7363

In a commentary on the Tantraloka from Mark Dzikowski, in chapter

He explains,

“Abhinava is distinguishing here between two types of subjectivity. The first is the
supreme subjectivity. This is pure ‘I’ consciousness, which is independent of outer
objectivity, as it contains it within itself. Thus, it is completely free of its inherent
limitations, including the duality of relative distinctions, time and space etc. The other,
inferior subjectivity is within the domain of Maya, which the sphere of objectivity and
duality. This perceiver is ‘nothing at all’ in itself. It exists solely in relation to the object. It
is conceived as a mental construct by the supreme subject, which thus precedes it, to serve
as the means through which it knows the sphere of relative distinctions. The supreme
subject does not perceive any outer object. Delimiting itself by aspects of that objectivity,
that is, the body and mind, which it projects externally, its concomitant contracted state of
consciousness is fit to perceive outer objects as distinct from itself and distinguish them
from one another. The lower conditioned ‘contracted’ subject is thus an instrument, or
means of knowledge, of the higher subject, whose existence is independent and a priori.”
Tantraloka ch. 3 pg. 235

How is this not merely the doctrine of two truths?

Further up he also states that the supreme consciousness is no knower at all

In the third chapter of the Tantraloka, Abhinavagupta is expounding the theory of reflection and a question is sacked, what is the original object? Like for example there is an original face in a mirror from which the reflection arises.

But theory of reflection in Trika, the mirror is itself consciousness manifesting and reflecting itself.

But surprisingly, Abhinavagupta says there is no original object and shifts the conversation to the cause instead of the initiator of said cause, as to which the cause is his power of freedom but why would he not say that the original is Anuttara or ParamaŚiva?
To say none at all seems like he advocating Shunyata

How would this be in comparison to Shunyata of Buddhism?

There is the manifestation but there is nothing manifesting?

Here is the original excerpt from Marks Dyczkowski’s translation of the Tantraloka

“All things (are reflections) within the Light of the Supreme Lord,
just as (all) that manifests in this way is reflected (within its medium of reflection).

Surely (one may ask,) what could the original object here (in this case) be?
(To which we reply,) let there be none at all!

Surely (then, would that not mean that the
reflection) is without a cause?
Well then, the question (really essentially concerns) the cause (of the reflection), and so what is the use of reasoning concerning (the nature of) the
original object? The cause could only be the Supreme Lord’s power, otherwise called
‘freedom’.

I know that this hurdle is due to lots of study of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, but it’s a sticking point for me within Trika.

If Anuttara can never appear as an object, in what sense can the appearance reveal it?

For advaita and Buddhism it makes sense that objects are to an extent of manifestation an illusion, yet I know Trika is adamantly opposed to this view.

I can understand the analogy of appearance in a mirror and how it is “real” as a manifestation of the absolute, but what I can’t understand and don’t think can be logically tenable is that Anutarra appears AS things in opposition to things appear IN It.

I also see that if there was “illusion” and “real” that would create a duality so that too is untenable

In Buddhism as for as I understand, human beings are the coming together and falling apart of the 5 skandhas which are always in arising and passing away.
We are essentially patterns of ever changing movement
Impermanence is the essence of our life.

And yet how do we hold this fact while also holding lifelong vows and promises?

For example saying to someone “I will always love you” in a marriage is clearly a false hope, feelings change all the time and some days we may love someone and another not so much.

I don’t think vows are bad and I like to think that an aspect of good practice is holding true them, and yet struggle with believing in vows while also accepting that we are ever changing patterns, that have no permanent aspects

So is it a mistake to make them?
Or how should we make them while recognizing impermanence?

How would you respond to these questions when telling someone about Trika?
Especially if they have no knowledge of anything eastern such as Hinduism?

Can you believe in this philosophy and not in the Gods and Goddesses?

Why do all of these gods and goddesses look so terrible and more like demons?

Do you really believe there are all of these gods and goddess with all those heads and arms up in the sky somewhere?

Do you really worship those statues? If consciousness is everything why not worship a rock?
Why do these gods have to look like that?

According to Trika what exactly is samsara?

What is delusion?

It seems in many cases when people talk about Kashmir Shaivism, there is a subtle gaslighting going on that there is nothing wrong with the world, and from the perspective of the enlightened mind that is totally true, but if we had that enlightened mind the question would not even come up.

Trika is seen shown to be world affirming, but how do we affirm the world while simultaneously realizing that it is just a play? A stage? An act? That it is not truly real.