The one that looks like a sort of branch or root, with eight points. I have searched everything I could think of, and this is the only picture I can find of Shiva holding this item (or at least the item as presented in this manner).
If there were some material cause for bondage, then liberation could be earned through accumulation of meritorious purifying actions or through some step-by-step technique of breath retention (kumbhaka), physical locks (bandhas), and so on. But there is no such cause of bondage, because our own nature is that of Śiva: always-already liberated. It is not enough, though, to recite experientially-empty slogans that "There is nothing to do! For everything is already perfect, all is already liberated." It very well may be so, but until you recognize that for yourself, in your own direct experience, then surely there is something to do. And that something is to recognize.
We are never outside of recognition. When in debate, we put forth our thesis to prove to others (parārthānumāna), but this five-stage proof is the exact same truth we must recognize for ourselves to attain liberation: “because I possess Śakti, which is the very quality of Śiva, then I am Śiva.” It's the same very structure in our foundational text, the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā of Utpaladeva, which offers this thesis in the first verse and returns to it in the final verse, having proven it. It's in the arguments we make with our interlocutors. We ask them how recognition, even everyday recognition that "this is the pot that used to be over there" is possible if consciousness is just a string of self-aware moments or a passive witness to them. Consciousness must stretch across moments and have the power to synthesize them, if it is to achieve recognition of the past in what's present. Our arguments about recognition are a call toward recognition: "Look! Recognize how your very own consciousness has the power, the śakti, of synthesis. You possess that śakti, and so you are Śiva!"
Recognition is a subtle thing. Utpaladeva tells us he gained his recognition somehow (kathaṃcid), not of his own actions, nor from inaction, but from grace. And having received this grace, he writes and teaches out of compassion: to benefit (upakāram) all the living beings (janasya). As it is through grace, a śakti of Śiva, that one recognizes, the recipient of grace feels nothing but compassion to help the world share in this recognition. As Abhinavagupta explains in Tantrāloka (2:39–40): most people go about their daily tasks with only a concern for themselves, but those who attain recognition and are full of the state of Śivahood (bhairavī-bhāva-pūrṇaḥ) have only one task left to do: to act for the benefit of the world (loka-kartavya). Kṣemarāja too wrote his Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam out of compassion: to benefit those who are still young and tender of understanding (sukumāra-matayaḥ), who are graced, but not yet ready for the hardship of studying the philosophical texts. Knowing that recognition is difficult to attain, he acts further out of compassion, offering even more methods from the tradition that are not pure Pratyabhijñā, but still part of the Śaiva tradition. He does so because if more methods are given, the likelihood increases that at least one will work for a person.
The methods of Pratyabhijñā are indeed subtle. We come to recognize that even in our constrained dimension, our limited scale and scope of space and time, we continue to enact the śaktis of Śiva, we continue to perform his great Five Acts (pañca-kṛtyāni). We illuminate objects in our consciousness (ābhāsanam) and relish them for some time (raktiḥ), until we withdraw them back into ourselves (vimarśanam), which can generate doubts that constitute the seeds for saṃsāra (bījāvasthāpanam) or can resolve fully into a state of oneness with consciousness, such that one enters the state of grace (anugraha). Saṃsāra is the condition of ignorant doubt of our own powers. Liberation is the recognition that we constantly enact the five powers. Other methods, known from the Vijñānabhairava or Svabodhāyamañjarī aim for the expansion of the center (madhya-vikāsa). It is dualistic thought (vikalpa) that gives objects the sense of being external to consciousness, impinging upon it. Such methods identify the center in an object, like the gap between two thoughts or two breaths, which provides a space in which that center can expand into the center-of-all: re-encompassing the totality of all objects back within the sphere of consciousness. That gap is the space within which Śakti operates as grace.
No matter which method we select, we return to grace. In this tradition, we see that grace is not bestowed by some external deity, but is a śakti of Śiva which one also participates in, even as a limited being. So even with the question of grace, the recognitive structure re-emerges: in the end, the Śiva whose grace was needed for liberation turns out to also be one’s own inner nature. Upon receiving such grace, one feels only compassion that the rest of the world might share in this recognition. Recognition is the ground truth of our Śivahood, the method for realizing that truth, and the experience of having realized it. We are thus never outside of recognition. This is the grace. May it give us compassion.
Hey everyone,
I’m currently working on my PhD focusing on the Tantrāloka and I’m looking to pull together a small study group to work through Volume 1.
The text is dense, and I think it’d be a lot more productive—and enjoyable—to dive into the arguments with a group of people who are also serious about the material.
If you’re interested in working through it together, please drop a comment. Let me know if you’d prefer a weekly or bi-weekly schedule, and what your background with the text is so far.
Just seeing if there’s a group of us who want to take a crack at this.
If our real identity is Shiva then is there nothing unique about our current identity that makes me = me? So, when Shiva absorbs the entire universe back into himself, then there will be no "me" ?
Logically it makes no sense that a separate individual identity be maintained when Shiva absorbs the universe back into himself like it makes no sense that the identity of a drop of water be maintained when it merges with the ocean. However, somehow I feel that individual identity is maintained even when Shiva absorbs everything back into himself.
Is this my ignorance or is there some pulp in my fiction?
Does anyone know if there are active lineages transmitting the mantra, diksha, cakra, nyāsa,nitya, naimittika and kāmya kriyā of Amritesvara based on the Netra Tantra?
In KS, since phenomenal experience is considered an ontologically-real expression of Śiva's play, do Jīva and one's sense of self/identity (small-s self) have this same ontological status?
I'm transgender, and have spent a long time thinking about the strange phenomena we call "gender" and "identity," which in my opinion we have very flawed and limited language for, especially for English speakers in the modern West. I think about how, when someone's ability to express this sense of selfhood in the world is systemically denied, it pretty consistently results in profound depression and often self-annihilation. I no longer experience this personally, as I'm now lucky enough to be able to express myself in the way as feels right to me and am at peace with my place in the world in this regard.
However, I sometimes get the sense that there is something that people like myself in the modern West are not accounting for when it comes to the sense of self, or at least I have not yet found the language that feels right. I have no problem with the idea that Śiva's play manifests in countless ways including what we call "suffering," "good," "evil," etc. But I can't shake the question, "Why would Śiva commit to the play of His own sense of selfhood so intensely that He would rather dis-incarnate, closing off an entire universe of play and experience, than express a selfhood that feels untrue or inauthentic? And what exactly accounts for the sheer power of this dynamic of authenticity and inauthenticity? It feels to me like it's not just the body or social/cultural contingencies, but that there's something more metaphysically fundamental going on.
This, of course, applies to anyone, not just transgender people. Many people who experience depression to a fatal extent do so as a result of being unable to live in a way that is faithful to their sense of self. And yet the world is full of so many things to experience and play within, why would a master actor like Śiva be contracted so acutely as to self-destroy rather than slightly rewrite His character? Perhaps that is just a how masterful an actor He can be? Is He "committing to the bit" even if means death?
I'm not sure if this is defensible scripturally, but perhaps it makes sense to regard Jīva as a bit like an incredibly powerful force of nature, like an ocean or a nebula, in the sense that it is a contraction of Śiva's absolute freedom and yet still contains an immense amount of power relative to the other contracted phenomena it is embedded within. But unlike an ocean or a nebula, "identity" writ large as a principle or concept or phenomenon feels so elusive and intangible, so I suppose I'm baffled that it can have so much power and am wondering what KS might make of this.
Namaskaram,
First of all, let me say I have immense respect for Ācāryaji and his sādhakas. It is a LEGIT place. Based on what I have seen about Vimarsha Foundation, it's a very disciplined school with deep scholarship. Secondly, I have been a long-time practitioner of some basic sādhana, and I will say that most of my questions are probably committing the grave error of trying to categorize things. I come from a traditional background so I broadly understand the concepts, but not the particulars, which in itself can be dangerous. One thing I've learned about our traditions is that nobody agrees entirely on the models of categorization, so if I'm mis-organizing something, correct me!
What I want to understand more broadly is where Ācāryaji's paramparā of Sarvāmnāya fits into the broader Sanātana tradition. My current understanding is that the Nepalese Sarvāmnāya tradition integrates multiple Tantric (or Kaula?) streams—including Trika, Śrīvidyā, Kālīkrama, Kubjikā, and related Śaiva-Śākta traditions—into a single living system. It broadly seems to draw its authority from the Āgamas. At the same time, Ācāryaji also teaches traditional Vedic learning, Vedānta, and other interrelated Tantric traditions, alongside modern academic scholarship. As such, the curriculum is both highly organized and very wide-ranging, and I appreciate it because I'm a big fan of Vendanta and Swami Sarvapriyananda even if he thinks everything is false! Haha. So, first of all, is my understanding broadly correct? What is the correct ontology for the "systems" derived from the Agamas? Moreover, is Ācāryaji primarily transmitting the traditional Sarvāmnāya lineage as he received it, or is he also presenting his own synthesis or interpretation of that tradition? And, what Agamas does Sarvamnaya draw its authority from?
As a point of comparison, when I look at many Śrīvidyā traditions, I can usually understand the lineage fairly simply: this guru belongs to this sampradāya, which descends from these teachers and they accept the authority of X texts. Is there an analogous way to understand the Sarvāmnāya lineage, or is it fundamentally different because it integrates multiple streams?
Second, I want to understand this specific paramparā's view on the classic non-dualism versus dualism discussion. My understanding is that, separate from the traditional Advaitic presentation in which the world is māyā (including Devatas) and Brahman alone is ultimately real, this tradition understands ultimate reality as Śiva, with the universe as His immanent expression, and Śiva and Śakti as inseparable. That's my current religious-philosophical understanding. Is that broadly correct?
Third, I want to understand the irreducible teachings. What are the essential principles of this tradition, and where does it ultimately understand its revelation/scriptual authority to come from? How does it understand its relationship between those and the Vedas?
The reason I ask is that I deeply respect the Tantric tradition's emphasis on inward practice and direct realization, and its willingness to move beyond certain interpretations of Vedic injunctions. At the same time, because of my upbringing, I am going to have a hard time accepting a tradition that does not also affirm the authority of the Vedas. I'm interested in understanding how this paramparā reconciles those two commitments.
So those are my questions. Thank you!
How do you choose it?
So I have some things I would like to talk about, first is:
I do believe in an ATMAN, like Hindus. Buddhists believe in Annata or non-self.
I also do believe in a ultimate God or creator like the Hindus does, Buddhists don't believe in such.
I believe that deities are real, buddhists seems to vary from believing in them to not believing at all in gods. Hindus do see them as real.
I like the idea o bodhicitta and compassion in every practice of Vajrayana buddhism, Hindu tantra does not seem to include that.
So in this topic I seem to tend towards Hinduism.
In the practice there also seems to be some differences of view:
Material benefits =
Hindus seem to be much more open on this aspect of their tantric practice, they don't hide that their practice brings these, in fact, they even sometimes practice for reaching these worldly benefits. If you look at the hindu subreddit everyday someone shows up asking for help with x, y or z mundane problem and dozens of people will try to help with something.
Buddhists seem to be much more secretive about these, if you ask for these in their subreddit they will blame you and make you quit with the famous "Vajrayana is not for you" phrase. For some reason they(or at least most of them) have a hard time to talk about their practices and worldly benefits, maybe because of the difference in view from Hinduism. It's interesting to note that I attend a 6 day retreat past month in the Vajrayana tradition where the lama taught a practice which brings worldly benefits and he even said "If we want to make other people lives better, first we need to have the conditions for that, be it money, etc..."
So after this retreat I understand that Vajrayana practices also do benefit us materially, but most of the people on their reddit will judge you the moment you ask for "worldly benefits".
Spiritual benefits =
Hindu practice does bring Moksha at the end, which is the last stage(I know some of you will disagree with me on that). So it takes you from start to finish.
Buddhist practice will also bring you to what they call Nirvana which is their last stage(I know some of you will disagree with me on that), taking you from start to finish, but here with the intention to benefit all beings and not just yourself, which I find amazing and is only a buddhist thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for a tantric path that gives both Bhoga(worldly benefits) and liberation.
I'm looking for a tantric path where the Gods protect the practitioner from external harm.
Namaste everyone,
I am looking for some solid information regarding a highly esoteric and rare text: the Kala Sankarshana Tantra (associated with the Krama / Kalinaya school of Kashmir Shaivism and the supreme deity Kālasaṅkarṣiṇī).
Internet searches on this text are extremely dry, and it’s almost impossible to find a standardized printed book or a clean PDF copy. This led me to a few questions for the scholars, manuscript collectors, and practitioners here:
If anyone has any leads, catalog numbers, or insights into how to access even the raw Sanskrit manuscript of this text, please share. Thank you!
>
I shall reveal the deepest meaning of the seed sauḥ, by whose realization one becomes Śiva. Among all scriptures, no seed is held to be higher. To understand it, every notion of method must be abandoned. Sauḥ is the method beyond method, the Anupāya, transcending initiation, stages, progression, and gradual realization.
The Lord presiding over this seed is the Ineffable Śiva, the One, the One-within-One, the Two-in-One, and the Two. He is neither male nor female yet both, neither unity nor duality yet the source of both.
There are two contemplations of sauḥ. Contemplating its letters and sound reveals Parābhaṭṭārikā, Goddess of the Fourth Kūṭa of the Kādi Pañcadaśī, known as Mahā Saptadaśī or Turīyāmbā, the Seventeenth Kalā of the Moon. Contemplating the luminous Silence from which sauḥ arises and into which it dissolves reveals the Supreme Śiva, the Light of Being hidden within the Light of Consciousness. This realization is Tīvra-tīvra-śaktipāta, wherein ignorance is shattered and one's identity with Śiva is recognized without dependence upon gradual practice.
Oṃ is the Śabdabrahman, Lord Śiva before His manifestation as Bhairava. Within it resides the Pañcapraṇava: śrīṃ hrīṃ klīṃ aiṃ sauḥ, the five opening seeds of Mahāṣoḍaśī. They are the five exalted powers of Śiva and the subtle forms of the five elements: śrīṃ (Jñāna, Ākāśa), hrīṃ (Ānanda, Apas), klīṃ (Tapas, Agni), aiṃ (Cit, Vāyu), and sauḥ (Sat, Pṛthvī). Though hrīṃ is the innermost as Ānanda, sauḥ alone integrates all five powers.
Beyond the Pañcapraṇava lies the Bhairava State, where oṃ becomes ūoṃ, the first seed of the secret seventeen-syllable mantra of Chinnamastā. Rising from the heart to the forehead, ūoṃ carries awareness beyond Praṇava into Supermind. The syllable ū is the hidden pillar of incorruptible unity that enables ascent beyond the void.
The characteristic seed of the Bhairava State is hūṃ, Infinite Space, within which resides sauḥ, the Infinite beyond Space. There abide the primordial Five Praṇavas and Five Elements: sauḥ hūṃ hāṃ sūṃ kṣīṃ, which are none other than Svacchanda Bhairava Himself. Yet beyond even Bhairava remains the Ineffable and Integral Śiva. Bhairava appears only during the ascent; upon realization, only that Supreme Śiva remains as All.
Now I shall explain the practice of the seed sauḥ belonging to this transcendent Lord Śiva.
Sit comfortably and close your eyes. Bring your awareness to the center of the forehead. Visualize a white spark emitting golden sparks, radiant like infinite suns and moons. This spark is you. There is no god, no goddess, no other, only you.
Surround this spark with an Infinite Space of Crystalline Light, clear as a diamond. This Space is the Original Sat, the Absolute Mind, and it is also you. Let the spark dissolve until only this Infinite Conscious Space remains. Recognize that everything can arise from this Mind. Create a mountain within it and know that it is yourself, for it is formed from your own consciousness.
Let the spark reappear and become your body. See every particle of your being shining with the same white and golden flame. Realize that, as the Infinite Mind, you have chosen one among infinite sparks to become a Divine Center, a soul inseparable from the Supreme. The white flame represents the vision of the Absolute Mind of Sat, while the golden sparks represent the soul retaining that vision within individuality.
You may mentally recite sauḥ, but once you become the mantra itself, recitation is unnecessary. Maintain this awareness throughout daily life. See all beings and all things as existing within you and made from your own Consciousness. This is the Consciousness of the Mantra. When it becomes continuous in waking and sleep, Tīvra-tīvra-śaktipāta arises spontaneously, destroying the veils of ignorance at their root.
The seed sauḥ may also be understood symbolically. S is the Infinite Space of Crystalline Light, Sat, the shaft of Śiva's trident and the Absolute Ground of Being. Au is the threefold point of the trident, the Soul as the white flame with golden sparks, representing Cit, Tapas, and Ānanda. Ḥ signifies all universes projected within the Absolute Mind and their recognition within the awakened soul as inseparable from God.
These explanations are only pointers. What matters is the living Consciousness of sauḥ. During meditation, create worlds, beings, and experiences within your awareness, recognizing them as manifestations of your own Consciousness. Then extend the same recognition to the world itself. As this awareness becomes natural and unbroken, the veils of separation dissolve, and the Tīvra-tīvra-śaktipāta of the Ineffable Śiva arises of itself. Realization is then revealed as what has always been present.
I am still not initiated, so I am sure I'll get to it when I get to it but just out of interest: are there any special practices that tackle the fear of death specifically? Or the fear goes away with other practices that don't deal with the fear specifically. Of course intellectually one can quickly see how death is a non-issue from an ontological point of view but fear is often an irrational thing. Plus there is an attachment to the little I, which does cease with death, i.e. life experiences, relationships, attachments, etc. Letting go is difficult.
We sacrifice to Tryambaka the fragrant, increaser of prosperity.
Like a cucumber from its stem, might I be freed from death, not from deathlessness.
So like as we have some primary texts and commentaries to understand any vedanta or though of school
Same way if i have to learn KS which of these three is best for a beginner
And pls authentic provide a link to buy🙏
Thanks🙏
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
Kashmir Shaivism (KS) claims that consciousness is absolute: it is not, as the Buddhists argue, a dependently arisen phenomenon or, as materialists argue, generated by the brain, but is always already present. Whilst similar to Advaita Vedanta (AV), it is not making the same claim: AV considers Atman (the individual Self) to be identical with Brahman (the Absolute); KS instead considers the individual Self to be a (temporary) contraction of Shiva (the Absolute).
However, like AV, KS is vulnerable to the empirical case of general anaesthesia (all idealist philosophies - using the term 'idealist' broadly here - are vulnerable): if consciousness is really absolute, then why does general anaesthesia, a material phenomenon, appear to interrupt it? I don't think this problem can simply be brushed away but needs to be addressed carefully by the idealist. I include below my attempted response - I don't believe that my response 'proves' KS and eliminates the anaesthesia critique - instead, I think it simply makes the critique claim less than it appears to. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Full disclosure: the arguments below are mine, but I used AI to polish them. You can skip to the end for a summary of my defence if you’re short on time:
1. Contentless awareness — absence of content during anaesthesia isn't absence of consciousness itself; just because there was no content to experience, it does not follow that consciousness itself was absent (to say otherwise would be to equate consciousness with its contents – a Buddhist move). Problem: consciousness becomes indistinguishable from nothing and it becomes unclear how we can continue to use the term ‘consciousness’ meaningfully.
2. Locus vs. ground — anaesthesia affects the contracted individual locus (jiva), not Shiva/the Absolute itself, since KS (unlike AV) doesn't posit strict identity between the two (this is why I think anaesthesia is more problematic for AV to address than for KS). According to KS, consciousness is not limited to one specific location in space; anaesthesia involves a temporary interference with one particular locus of contracted consciousness; it does not affect consciousness as a whole. In other words, the individual mind which anaesthesia affects is not the entirety of consciousness; it is a contracted manifestation of universal consciousness. Problem: doesn't address why awareness, if truly absolute, shouldn't persist regardless.
3. Continuity — even if we grant that anaesthesia (somehow) interferes with consciousness as such, note that consciousness returns following the procedure (as opposed to being eliminated altogether). The materialist needs to explain how this return is possible since ‘something cannot come from nothing’. Since consciousness does return, and something cannot come from nothing, the idealist can argue that consciousness must have been present ‘in the background’, as it were, and never wholly absent. Problem: same problem as above (see point 1): it’s unclear how to make sense of a ‘contentless consciousness’ since it is indistinguishable from nothing.
4. Yogic precedent — advanced meditators reportedly maintain awareness through deep sleep, so plausibly through anaesthesia too. Problem: this is speculative, plus, sleep and general anaesthesia may not be analogous cases at all. As far as I’m aware, there have been no empirical studies testing yogis’ awareness under general anaesthesia and, by definition, there would be no objective means of verifying whether their awareness was maintained under these conditions; you’d have to rely on testimony alone.
5. Filter/transmission model — the brain doesn't produce consciousness but filters or receives it, like a mirror and its reflection or a radio and sound waves; anaesthesia disrupts the filter, not the source. Problem: speculative, and doesn't explain what happens to "you" during the gap.
6. Memory ≠ consciousness — absence of memory (as with most dreams) doesn't entail absence of experience, so the lack of recall after anaesthesia doesn't prove nothing was experienced. Problem: this is correct but cuts both ways — it shows the data is neutral, not that consciousness positively persisted.
7. Fundamentality vs. continuity — even granting total cessation of experience under anaesthesia, this only threatens the claim that consciousness is unbroken, not the claim that consciousness is ontologically fundamental rather than produced by matter. The hard problem of how matter generates subjectivity remains regardless of how the anaesthesia case is settled. Problem: It’s not clear how consciousness can really be regarded as ‘fundamental’ if it is discontinuous.
8. Idealist counter-example — whilst anaesthesia can be used by the materialist as an empirical case undermining idealism, the idealist can refer to empirical arguments too: for example, despite being in a coma, with little if any registered brain activity, some patients have reported subjective experiences, suggesting that consciousness is not generated by the brain. Problem: such cases remain speculative and controversial.
9. The Hard Problem — even if we were to grant that anaesthesia (somehow) directly interferes with consciousness as such, the materialist would still be left with the hard problem of consciousness; the problem of explaining how consciousness is derived from matter; the idealist argument is that no combination of unconscious elements can possibly give rise to subjectivity. Problem: doesn’t address why anaesthesia (appears to) affect consciousness.
Summary: The anaesthesia objection demonstrates a close correlation between brain function and conscious experience, but it does not establish that the brain produces consciousness. Kashmir Shaivism can consistently interpret anaesthesia as a temporary disruption of the individual, contracted manifestation of consciousness (jīva), rather than of universal consciousness (Shiva) itself. Appeals to contentless awareness, the distinction between memory and consciousness, the continuity of consciousness following anaesthesia, yogic reports, and filter or transmission models all suggest that alternative idealist interpretations remain possible, even if none is conclusive. Moreover, even if anaesthesia were shown to interrupt consciousness itself, the materialist would still face the Hard Problem of explaining how subjective experience arises from matter. Thus, anaesthesia presents a challenge to Kashmir Shaivism's claim of uninterrupted awareness, but it does not by itself refute its central claim that consciousness is ontologically fundamental rather than produced by the brain.
Same as the title
On the day of birth of Ācārya Abhinavagupta, let's hear some of the quotes and insights he's shared that have resonated most with you and changed your outlook on art, life, sādhanā, and more.
Can anyone recommend direct textual sources and/or secondary scholarship, and offer personal insights into the role of ethics/morality/worldly dharma in their study and practice of KS? For context, as a householder immersed in "worldly" existence, where do you derive inspiration to do good for others, pass along values to the next generation, and strive for making the world a better place, especially given the nature of samsara?
Namaskara,
In Bodhapanchadasika verse 4, it is said:
"He is the God Bhairava. He creates, protects, destroys, conceals and reveals his nature through the cycle of this world. The whole Universe is created by God in his own nature, just as one finds the reflection of the world in a mirror"
Question: Protects from what? What is the meaning of the word "protects" in this context?
The three of the acts of Shiva are - Sristhi, sthiti, samhara. Sthiti in my understanding means maintenance or establishment. How does Sthiti relate with "protects" ?
Thank you.
I am beginner to KS so sorry for my wrong usage of words or ideas🙏🙇♂️
I love kalabhairava (ik there r many forms of bhairavas but specifically kalabhairava form i like)
Hes my isth , and i just have perception that KS sees bhairava not only as ugr diety but also as the consciousness itself
So i wanna know whats kalabhairava is KS and how can i approach him from KS perspective
So wanted to know where to start and what sadhana of kalabhairava in his tantric roop
And pls explain me the diff of advaita and KS
And acc to KS there r four paths for liberation and i like the mantra one they have (as i want to become a tantric)
Thanks 🙏
While Kashmiri Shaivism offers detailed explanations of how reality manifests from Para Shiva and how consciousness unfolds into the universe, does it answer the deeper existential question of why manifestation occurs at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the purpose of the cosmic play (Lila)? Are we simply meant to experience the cycles of existence, or is there an ultimate goal toward which all beings are moving? Where does this process begin, and where does it finally end?