u/yoddleforavalanche

Few years ago I read The Doctrine of Vibration by Mark Dyczkowski and I remember reading a passage on the image of the dancing Shiva where every element was explained in light of Kashmir Shaivism. I remember going "woah" when it all clicked.

But years have passed. I cannot easily find that paragraph. I am reading the book again, but it will take time until I find it again for sure. Maybe I read it somewhere else entirely...

Can someone explain it to me in the same fashion please?

I am reading The Secret Supreme and I see that along with perfectly clear philosophy that I agree with there are things to be accepted based on faith.

For example, it says if someone has fullest possible realization the body cannot follow that and the person dies, but is still perceptible to students but not in worldly realm.

Or that some reincarnate in heaven then may or may not reincarnate back into a body.

These things seem like an unnecessary addition to a clear grounded philosophy.

Are these supposed to be accepted in order to be a Kashmir Shaivist, or are they optional?

How do you feel about these things? The miracles too.

sometimes when I am about to have a nap I simply observe the thoughts that appear in my mind. there is a particular moment where that which I am thinking about is no longer a thought but becomes other people, locations, etc. for example if I am thinking about some problem at work, there is a transition from thinking about it to seeing colleagues or reading email about the thing i am thinking about. it is like a proto-dream.

this transitional moment from thoughts to bodies/world is indicative to me. I believe what happens there is akin to what happens in this waking world. Siva's thoughts, which also sort of spontaneously appear but are not random, materialize into people, events, locations, etc. in other words, I believe in this transitional moment between thoughts and dreams I am experiencing the nature of the world and how it is manifested.

people, events, the world, the universe are mental activity of Siva which takes form, but never changes from what it actually is.

Even though I intellectually see the ego as false and want to live this understanding to the fullest, I find myself still sensitive to criticism, for example if I make a mistake at work.

I've been thinking that, if this is the last bastion of ego, perhaps exposing it to insults and criticism could dissolve it completely. If I were to not run away from situations in which I might be insulted, but instead even sort of seek it, it might shine light on the last dark corner of it.

Is there such a practice? Do you see what I mean? Anyone here does something like this?

Even though I intellectually see the ego as false and want to live this understanding to the fullest, I find myself still sensitive to criticism, for example if I make a mistake at work.

I've been thinking that, if this is the last bastion of ego, perhaps exposing it to insults and criticism could dissolve it completely. If I were to not run away from situations in which I might be insulted, but instead even sort of seek it, it might shine light on the last dark corner of it.

Is there such a practice? Do you see what I mean? Anyone here does something like this?

My initial encounter with this understanding was merely philosophical: I am everyone and everything. Philosophically speaking, throwing God into the mix is kind of unnecessary and frowned upon. But my initial understanding was not enough. Once I realized this, it was impossible to see what it is spiritually. God is consciousness. I am consciousness. I am God.

I hope I don't have to put a disclaimer on what that means and does not mean here.

But what I did not anticipate was this strong desire to worship God as God knowing that ultimately I am God and there is nothing else other than God. It's been growing lately, I cannot ignore it anymore. I want to embrace this fully and not hide behind philosophical gloves where it's embarrassing to talk about God. It seems paradoxical and ironic, but Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism fully encourage devotion, and I find that wonderful.

Simultaneously I have a Christian background and have spent a lot of time studying Christianity, historicity of Jesus, etc. I find the person of Jesus, as David Bentley Hart says, "infinitely compelling" and impossible to ignore.

But there is no place for Abrahamic God in this view and clearly Jesus preached Abrahamic God.

I want to somehow reconcile the two. It seems that I want to worship Abrahamic God through Jesus, while simultaneously knowing God is God in Vedantic sense.

While Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism is open to Jesus, it does not work vice versa.

I don't have any nondual temples/gatherings near me. There are just churches. I feel a sort of desire to attend church, but I do not subscribe to that view of God. And all this leaves Jesus on the side, unsure how to fit him anywhere.

I am rambling a bit, there is a lot to cover here, but basically

Do you worship God knowing full well that God is your essential nature?

If so, how and why?

and what of Jesus in all this?

My initial encounter with this understanding was merely philosophical: I am everyone and everything. Philosophically speaking, throwing God into the mix is kind of unnecessary and frowned upon. But my initial understanding was not enough. Once I realized this, it was impossible to see what it is spiritually. God is consciousness. I am consciousness. I am God.

I hope I don't have to put a disclaimer on what that means and does not mean here.

But what I did not anticipate was this strong desire to worship God as God knowing that ultimately I am God and there is nothing else other than God. It's been growing lately, I cannot ignore it anymore. I want to embrace this fully and not hide behind philosophical gloves where it's embarrassing to talk about God. It seems paradoxical and ironic, but Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism fully encourage devotion, and I find that wonderful.

Simultaneously I have a Christian background and have spent a lot of time studying Christianity, historicity of Jesus, etc. I find the person of Jesus, as David Bentley Hart says, "infinitely compelling" and impossible to ignore.

But there is no place for Abrahamic God in this view and clearly Jesus preached Abrahamic God.

I want to somehow reconcile the two. It seems that I want to worship Abrahamic God through Jesus, while simultaneously knowing God is God in Vedantic sense.

While Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism is open to Jesus, it does not work vice versa.

I don't have any nondual temples/gatherings near me. There are just churches. I feel a sort of desire to attend church, but I do not subscribe to that view of God. And all this leaves Jesus on the side, unsure how to fit him anywhere.

I am rambling a bit, there is a lot to cover here, but basically

Do you worship God knowing full well that God is your essential nature?

If so, how and why?

and what of Jesus in all this?

If I am Brahman, pure consciousness, and world and people are manifestations of my true Self, what is this notion of "no more rebirth for the one who realizes that"? Let's say every person realizes this fully. Is Lila over? Will Brahman never manifest the world and sentient beings again?

I do not see that. This teaching is sort of a thorn in my overall understanding and ability to accept the teaching. Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism both seem to break their own rules here.

"You have to realize you were never an individual entity but Siva/Brahman" and then they take this individual for real again and say the individual who realizes this will not be born again, while simultaneously saying the individual was never born in the first place.

This is giving giving the individual too much credit. If Brahman could have tired of it, that would have already been over. By never stopping this Lila, it means there will always be individuals to be born "as".

For example, Swami Vivenkanada's consciousness is this same consciousness that is now writing this post and that is reading this post. It does not matter at all he achieved enlightenment. The play did not end. I don't know what "no rebirth for him" would mean when there was no him to be reborn in the first place, it was Brahman all along. And look, Brahman is seemingly yoddleforavalanche now.

If I am Siva, pure consciousness, and world and people are manifestations of my true Self, and divine play I play, what is this notion of "no more rebirth for the one who realizes that"? Let's say every person realizes this fully. Is Lila over? Will Siva never manifest the world and sentient beings again?

I do not see that. This teaching is sort of a thorn in my overall understanding and ability to accept the teaching. Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism both seem to break their own rules here.

"You have to realize you were never an individual entity but Siva/Brahman" and then they take this individual for real again and say the individual who realizes this will not be born again, while simultaneously saying the individual was never born in the first place.

This is giving giving the individual too much credit and Siva too little. Siva obviously wants to play this. If Siva could have tired of it, that would have already been over. By never stopping this Lila, it means there will always be individuals to be born "as".

For example, Swami Lakshmanjoo's consciousness is this same consciousness that is now writing this post and that is reading this post. It does not matter at all he achieved enlightenment. The play did not end. I don't know what "no rebirth for him" would mean when there was no him to be reborn in the first place, it was Siva all along. And look, Siva is playing the role of yoddleforavalanche now.

Some posts have people come out of the woodwork to a degree I'm surprised to see. It makes me think there are a lot more proponents of this view than I imagine. But often when there is a discussion where this view is challenged, there is a silence. It's usually the same few people addressing the counter-arguments.

I wish more people got involved.

Why is it that a lot of you remain silent? Are you just tired of explaining the same thing? Do you feel the person countering the view is not able to comprehend what you would want to say? Are you disinterested in "winning" or pursuading anyone?

Those of you here who accept OI as truth, is there something that you could learn or something that could happen (scientific discovery, for example) that would make you abandon this view?

Join r/eminem_relapse for safe place to discuss this masterpiece.

The world was not ready and is still not ready for this masterpiece. The selected few deserve a safe place to discuss everything that makes this whole era otherworldly great.

Join this community if you are a cult-follower of this cult-classic era.

Those who are blind and deaf to Relapse will be cast out.

I believe a lot of confusion or kneejerk rejection of OI is due to a deeply ingrained need to, alongside qualia, assume an owner of that qualia and therefore distinguish one owner from the other.

For example, in a room with two people, if you ask one "how do you know you are this person A and not that other person B", person A will respond "well, obviously, I experience A, not B"

this "I experience A" is sneaking in an owner of qualia of A, and owner of qualia of B, and then saying owner of A is different from owner of B.

But investigate this deeper and you will see that there is no place for these owners of qualia.

There is qualia A and qualia B. There are appearances, but no real owner of them, or no distinguished owner of one versus the other.

If you forget about the need to be an owner of one set, you will see all appearances appear in the same way, all qualia is equally presented whenever it is presented.

Therefore, if qualia B is experienced, it does not matter if it was experienced with or independent of qualia A. All that matters is that there is qualia. Wherever there is qualia, there you are.

Or in another way, you are subjectivity itself. Wherever there is subjectivity, the first person experience, it is the same "thing" as the one you think you have. There is no unique, distinguished subject of subjectivity.

it is such a simple yet so powerful line.

to paraphrase, after just being struck, Jesus asks "if I said nothing wrong, why do you hit me?"

Jesus doesnt protest or react. He simply and patiently asks "why do you hit me"

Imagine being hit and you look your offender in the eye and just ask "why do you hit me"

this captures Jesus perfectly. he is not afraid of powerful people, he confronts violence assertively but peacefully.

As of recently there has been a bit of an influx of people who are interested in OI or claim to accept OI but maintain that they are one person at a time, a la The Egg.

I have to stress that this is not OI. This is Closed Individualism and/or solipsism with extra steps.

The claim of OI is that you are everyone and it implies there are simultaneously others that you are along with the usual you everyone thinks they are.

To claim that you are one person but will eventually be someone else, and so on until you jumped to everyone, in some weird time looping mechanism where currently you are one person and others are philosophical zombies until you are them but then your current you is a philosophical zombie is a convoluted theory of identity and does not belong with OI.

It has all the pitfalls of Closed Individualism, i.e., you still think you are one particular limited individual confined to a body. That is classic CI border which can be shown to be flawed from any angle you look at.

But at least CI accepts there are other instances of consciousness, other points of view simultaneously with your own.

This view does not allow that and it is frankly just a mess.

You have to posit that, for some reason that requires explanation, in say a group photo of you and a bunch of friends, looking at the picture only one individual actually experienced the event of that photo being captured while others are sort of dummy people, but eventually they will be live from within but at the expense of current you who will then not be.

This is based on arbitrary idea that for some reason consciousness cannot experience multitudes of experiences (different entities) simultaneously.

It is claimed that consciousness simultaneously experiencing multitude is not parsimonious, but with no backup to that claim. We know nothing about ease or complexity of consciousness experiencing to simply claim "one experience at a time is simpler".

At the same time, it is obviously not parsimonious that everyone you see now is a dummy placeholder of a person but reacting as if they are live, but then eventually will be.

And it seems to me that even if that were the case, that is redefining time in such a way that effectively we are still talking about simultaneousness of experience.

If not, this Egg view takes linearity of time as objective reality, and mixes it up with jumping to past and future arbitrarily (unless someone can explain the sequence). So it's linear while you are a single person and then stops being linear...

This whole view is so flawed and convoluted, I do not see why one should accept it over a lot simpler "everyone right now".

In any case, Egg is not OI and I am sorry it attracts people here. The author of The Egg himself does not believe it, he just thought it's an interesting idea. It is misleading to newcomers interested in OI.

I've heard criticism on OI that, even if true, you cannot do anything with it. You still experience the same way, you still relate to others as others, etc.

Basically that it reduces identity to something so trivial it is not worth discussing as identity.

What do you think?

1. If losing your loved ones eternally (annihiliationism) is also not in line with a loving God, does this mean Judaism (Yahweh without Jesus) is essentially teaching an unloving God? The only difference is acceptance of Jesus. If Jesus makes it or breaks it for God to be loving, everything prior to Jesus was an unloving God, and if you accept God without Jesus it is essentially an evil God? How do Jewish people have no problem with that theology?
2. If purification of the soul is painful, why wont God just wish it all away without any pain? Like boom, all forgiven. If eternal pain is evil, why is long but finite pain ok? Just because its corrective? Why does it hurt? Why not let everyone immediately into heaven? That would be even greater accomplishment of Jesus.
3. Isnt it possible that early christians or Jesus himself did not think this all through and stopped at annihilationism? Just because its lacking to us now, or even early christians in 2nd century, doesnt mean Jesus, Peter, James weren't all good with annihilationism.
4. if heaven is not heaven without loved ones, do pets get resurrected? all animals then? plants? where to draw the line because humans can miss people, animals, things and it all makes us who we are.