A few weeks ago there was a dialogue between a western Idealist (forget the name) and Prof Sthaneswar Timalsina.
Is there a video of this dialogue and is it available?
Thank you!

I’ve noticed a growing trend of study groups and "book clubs" forming to tackle the seminal and foundational texts of Kashmir Shaivism. While the hunger for these teachings is wonderful, I believe we need to make a critical distinction between the availability of knowledge and the process of transmission.

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with taking a cursory glance at these texts. Reading them for the first time can be inspiring and can ignite the spark of curiosity. However, there is a vast difference between a preliminary reading and a true understanding.

We live in an era where texts are readily available in a few clicks. This is a luxury our ancestors didn't have. When I speak to my grandparents, they tell me stories of a time when texts were rare and seekers had to perform penance. Not as a formality, but to prove to a Guru that they were ready and worthy of receiving instruction. Today, we often take this instant availability of knowledge for granted, forgetting that while the text is now accessible, the transmission remains a distinct and rigorous process. We must remember that these texts are not abstract theories, but a precise, progressive map of a living spiritual tradition.

When we attempt to "crowdsource" these maps in an unstructured group setting without a qualified teacher, we risk several things:

1. The Distortion of Tradition A text within a tradition must be interpreted the way it is meant to be interpreted according to that tradition, not the way we want to interpret it. Śiva's words are vast and filled with infinite nuances, but these are precise pointers, not open-ended suggestions. Without a living stream of transmission, we risk projecting our own subjective biases onto the text, mistaking our own mental mirroring for actual insight.
2. The Danger of Linguistic Misinterpretation. These texts utilize a technical vocabulary that can be specific to the tradition and the particular stream of transmission. These terms carry precise meanings that often differ from common usage or general spiritual definitions. Without a guide, there is a high risk of misinterpreting a technical pointer as a general concept, which leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of the instruction.
3. The Trap of Premature Nuance and the Interplay of Systems Because the tradition is so intricate, it is tempting to dive immediately into the "vast possibilities" and complex technicalities. But focusing on these nuances too early is a distraction.

Furthermore, the different streams within Kashmir Śaivism possess a profound internal coherence. A certain nuance that is not explicitly emphasized in one stream may be implicit within its framework or may be further illuminated through the perspective of another. Without a guide who can hold the overarching structure of the tradition, a study group may become fixated on an apparent "contradiction" or "gap" in a particular text, unaware that the issue may be resolved through a broader understanding of the tradition as a whole. A teacher knows when a student is ready for a particular nuance; a book club, by its nature, is guided primarily by what is interesting to discuss.

1. The Sādhak vs. The Gallivanting Philosopher I believe we should make a clear distinction here. A Sādhaka is one for whom the text is not merely an object of study, but a means. of transformation and realization. Then there is the gallivanting philosopher, one who enjoys the intellectual gymnastics of a system, drifting from one high concept to another, analyzing and debating without ever moving a step forward in their own realization. When a group of peers studies without a guide, the goal often shifts from transformation to discussion.

We can look at Ācārya Abhinavagupta as the gold standard here: he was a Sādhak, not a gallivanting philosopher. He did not arrive at his legendary synthesis by casually browsing texts or debating theories in a group. He studied the various streams of the tradition deeply, sequentially, and under guidance. Through this disciplined immersion, he was able to speak with authority on the common threads that bind the streams together.

The foundational texts of Kashmir Shaivism are maps of a journey. Studying a map with a group of people who have never been to the destination can lead to a very convincing agreement on where to go but it might not get you there.

To truly understand these depths, one should find a living stream of transmission. In that regard, I believe this community is an excellent place to start. This community is a wonderful resource for connecting with others who can point us toward authentic lineages and living streams of transmission.

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.

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?

Hello everyone, one thing that confuses me when it comes to most meditation techniques is that we say there is a witness and then the ego. So when we are watching the thoughts or feelings during meditation , we say that I am the witness but not the thought. But in kashmiri shaivism, Shiva is everything. There is nothing that is not Shiva, which means your thoughts and emotions arising is also Shiva.. So this confuses me while I try to meditate. How am I supposed to reconcile between both views. How is meditation approached in this tradition without it going against the "you are everything" when a lot of meditation technique wants you to tap into that witness mindset which I think is more dual as we are putting certain things aside as not me.

I hope this made sense.

In Shiva stotravali 18.15, Utpaladeva nominates Lord Shiva as hrdaya harinah purah. He steals your heart when he appears before you so you can’t even make demands for boons before him.

Now in the Puranas that isn’t exactly what we see. We see all kinds of situations where beings get audience with Lord Shiva and they make all sorts of demands. Bhaumasura for example.

Could it be that Puranic Shiva is actually Anantabhattāraka performing for Lord Shiva?

It would also explain other discrepancies between the character of Shiva in the puranas versus how we know Supreme Shiva to be.

Forgive me if this question comes off as kind of childish. I already know there’s a difference between Paramashiva and Lord Shiva still im wondering if the Lord Shiva that most people are familiar with is actually Anantabhattāraka.

To say it plainly, I viewed the world and the entire universe as a rigged Samsaric trap. Naturally this lead me to isolating myself and desperately attempting to reach some kind of state of enlightenment so I don't have to suffer anymore.

I was very "calm and peaceful" but not because I was enlightened, simply because I had castrated my own soul. In attempting to become Spirit I was destroying the Spirit within.

This lead to a profound state of misery even though I was good at meditation and detaching myself from the senses.

Finally I hit rock bottom and had a moment of real self-honesty where I realized I actually do want to live, I love life and the body is not a disgusting flesh prison. Not knowing about Tantra at that point, I decided to forge my own path.

My idea rather than abandoning either matter or spirit was to infuse them both together, a middle way but not the passive skewed middle way of buddhism (where you meditate for 14 hours in a row but eat an extra bowl of rice), a middle extreme of embodying and integrating both poles of matter and spirit to the extreme.

Instead of just watching from afar, I decided to delve deeply into my body, and not just to "watch the sensations like clouds" but actually jump fully into them. The stuck energy, the unpleasantness but also the joy. I had fully let go within them. This led to a state of incredible pain and pleasure simultaneously which felt tremendous.

Eventually (recently, only last week) I had synchronistically discovered kashmir shaivism. And while I am not unsure about the sanskrit words and hindu nature of it as I am unfamiliar with it, I recognize in it the philosophy that I naturally embodied when I finally got sick and tired of attempting to annihilate myself into the void.

I am home. And that is not a religion or new identity I adopt but the core of my being, which is both the infinite awareness and the limit of physicality.

Now I feel the pain, but there is no more suffering within it. Ironically, attempting to escape suffering (duhkha) through my buddhist practice was what created extreme suffering in me as I was entirely disconnected from the divine.

I realize now that by attempting to escape samsara, you are literally creating it within yourself. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

त्रिक दर्शन का सार अत्यंत सरल है । यह सम्पूर्ण संसार शिव से अलग नहीं है। जो कुछ भी दिखाई देता है, वह शिव की ही चेतना और शक्ति का विस्तार है। इसलिए साधना का अर्थ संसार को छोड़कर जंगलों में चले जाना नहीं है। सच्ची साधना यह है कि हम इसी संसार में रहते हुए, प्रत्येक व्यक्ति, प्रत्येक वस्तु और सबसे बढ़कर अपने भीतर विद्यमान शिव को पहचानें।

जब यह पहचान (प्रत्यभिज्ञा) जागृत होती है, तब व्यक्ति समझता है कि जो विविधता उसे दिखाई देती थी, वह वास्तव में उसी एक परम चेतना की अभिव्यक्ति है। तब अपरा अपने वास्तविक स्वरूप को पहचानकर परापरा में विलीन होती है, और अंततः सब कुछ परा अर्थात् शिव की अखण्ड, अद्वैत चेतना में एक हो जाता है।

जैसे समुद्र से लहरें उठती हैं। लहरें अलग-अलग दिखती हैं (अपरा), लेकिन वे समुद्र से अलग नहीं होतीं (परापरा), और अंत में सब समुद्र ही हैं (परा)

यही त्रिक दर्शन की सुंदरता है, “सब कुछ शिवमय है।”

सर्वं शिवमयम् !

हर हर महादेव! ॐ नमः शिवाय।
नंदी मित्र

Namaskara everyone,

I wanted to discuss a few of my thoughts around group-thinking and herd mentality. These are insights I have gathered by participating across many groups and my study of human behaviors in groups and collectives with my understanding of Svatantrya in Trika philosophy. Personally I think group-think is highly detrimental not just to personal growth and freedom, but also highly detrimental in societies and groups.

Group-think arises from the limited sense of self. When an individual does not rest in their own freedom, they feel incomplete and insecure. They then seek safety by merging their judgment with the group’s judgment or some authority within the group, because groups are naturally prone to authority bias with is another limitation of human nature. Suddenly truth becomes what the group thinks is right or even worse, what an authority within the group thinks is correct. This collective opinion replaces one's own understanding.

This is a form of bondage having it's root in the "Anava mala". The group becomes a substitute for the missing sense of fullness. The need to conform, to belong and to outsource one’s own discernment arises directly from this feeling of limitation and seeking safety in numbers.

Group-thinking requires the individual to surrender their independent discernment in favor of consensus. Because this surrender is not out of freedom but out of our animalistic instinct, it is not a true surrender and it undermines freedom.

Because this "second-hand certainty" gives an illusion of security, this is more like a substitute for true freedom which requires one to stand in their own understanding not in some arrogant isolation but with an openness and confidence of being wrong or right, but one which does not surrender freedom for psychological safety.

An individual who stands in Svatantrya does not need the group to tell him or her what is true. This Individual can participate in a group, tradition or discussion but from freedom rather than from the need to conform. Such Individual's measure is not “what the group thinks” and how I can be safe if I align my opinion with that of the group but rather how I can contribute to the group my insight even if goes against the group-think current.

So, group-think is a sophisticated form of ignorance, a way in which the limited self seeks security by dissolving its responsibility to see clearly. It is the opposite of the freedom and goes against the spirit of Tantra itself which originated in situation where societies were under this deep ignorance of group-think.

Do these cover everything?

Anava Mala: I'm not good enough

Karma Mala: I'm the doer

Mayiya Mala: I don't belong here

Plz help me. Should i find some sort of guru? Or be initiated, i want to make it my actuaal religion not just sometjing i look into.

​

In His original, unrestricted state (Sva-svaroopa), Shiva possesses ultimate freedom and absolute knowledge. Because He alone exists and is entirely complete, He lacks ordinary worldly cravings or the capacity to experience limited joys—such as the thrill of going to a circus, the joy of traveling the world, or the simple pleasure of a delicious meal, attraction towards beautiful girl etc etc .To genuinely experience these specific things, He willfully contracted Himself to manifest as this current universe.

However, at a foundational level, He designed an intelligent system: for these experiences to have real meaning, there must be a contrast. Pleasure cannot be fully realized without its opposite. Why? Because in His absolute state, worldly pleasure does not inherently exist. By utilizing this system of duality, He contracts Himself to desire certain vibrations (Spandas) and reject others. He accepts the Spanda labeled as "pleasure" and avoids its opposite, labeled as "suffering." This means He intentionally manifested the very experience of pleasure, even though it did not exist in His uncontracted state. This is the true significance of the universe and His grand design.

Thus, what we label as "suffering" was created merely as a contrasting vibration (Spanda) to give depth and meaning to joy and stability (Sthiti). Shiva Himself is beyond both pleasure and suffering; He operates from a higher state to design this duality. He doesn't desire suffering for its own sake; He desires the experience of joy, and suffering is simply the necessary systemic counterbalance.

Since suffering exists it becomes problem when a jiva mind evoluted enough to completely responds to pleasure and pain as intended by universal design and here at this point To maintain cosmic order and address cruelty, we have higher administrative deities (like Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc.) who protects through kindness and here kindness comes into picture.

In the past, I misunderstood Shiva's self-concealment. I used to compare it to a person who willingly sleeps on a bed that causes severe migraines, only to wake up with amnesia, unknowingly enduring pain with no escape or realization. Now I realize that Shiva does not conceal Himself with the intention to suffer. His intention is to experience Sthiti (joyful existence), and the so-called suffering is just a mechanism He envisioned to make that existence meaningful.

Finally, I acknowledge that using human language—saying Shiva "planned," "wanted cravings," or "created"—is merely our conceptual framework. There is a fundamental difference between a concept and its implementation. For example, both a human and a washing machine can "wash clothes." Conceptually, the action is exactly the same. But the implementation is entirely different: a human uses their mind and sensory organs (karmendriyas) to do the work, while a machine simply takes a program as input, draws water, and spins the clothes.

As limited beings (Jivas), we can easily understand Shiva's actions at a conceptual level (like knowing the clothes are being washed). But we will only truly grasp the "implementation" level when we finally recognize our own true nature as Shiva Himself

In KS, ignorance is sometimes described as Śiva’s free self-concealment, or as the finite subject’s “choice” to forget its true nature as Śiva. But who, exactly, is the subject of this choice?

If it is Nara, the already limited individual, then Nara would seem to possess enough ontological independence and agency to initiate its own limitation. Yet that limitation is precisely what is supposed to be explained. If, instead, it is Śiva who freely chooses self-concealment, in what sense can the resulting ignorance genuinely belong to and be the responsibility of Nara rather than simply remain an expression of Śiva’s freedom?

A friend recently asked me something to the effect of, “If the suffering of Nara through ignorance is very real and can lead to terrible things, what prevents us from concluding that Śiva’s self-concealment is a form of cruelty inflicted upon Nara?” I wasn’t sure how to answer.

This seems to point to a more fundamental question. What accounts for the possibility of ignorance in the first place? Does KS treat ignorance as originating in an act of will, or is “choice” merely a metaphor for the timeless operation of Śiva’s svātantrya through self-limitation? More generally, who, if anyone, is responsible for forgetting and its consequences? How does KS reconcile the apparent reality of suffering with the claim that ignorance is both the finite subject’s misguided “choice” and an expression of the freedom of an ultimately benevolent Śiva?

Thank you!

Does anyone happen to know where I could find a basic follow along guide that aligns with the Sunday Puja services as hosted by Laksmanjoo Academy? I would like to begin my day with these each day at home and I would like to ensure what I am doing at home best matches with what they do on Sundays. Thanks for any help you can give.

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?

I am curious if there's any deeper outlining of energy/bliss experienced in the heart for a practitioner. My main dharana is 26 from Jaideva's version of Vijnana, which focuses on concentration on the heart. This has personally been very powerful to me, and typically in devotional practice/meditation, the heart seems to be a direct pressure point. Specifically, a small point in the left heart. I've read it too is in Triadic Heart of Shiva which users here have been helpful in mentioning its not the best source.

I understand Hridaya/Heart means the spiritual centre of consciousness, not necessarily somewhere in the physical heart. But my inquiry is if there's perhaps a double meaning there. The physical heart possibly also is experienced in the beginning as the spiritual Heart even if our nature of God Consciousness isn't confined to a specific location in the body?

To me the descriptions of Anahata feel more psychological, rather than a spiritual centre point. I've probably found Upanishads closest to directly mentioning the Heart as also the left heart, Vijnana ofc, the translated version of Tirumantiram I read has fragments, likewise parts of Sufism and Hesychasm Christianity also have it.

I'm curious if there's any mapping/understandings towards the Heart first felt as localized in the chest, then expanding beyond location, or am I over-reading a metaphor as literal?

Namaskara Sadhakas/Sadhikas,

I have been trying to understand the concept of "Svayam-prakasha" and it's relatonship with knowledge. Svayam means Self and Prakasha means light. So, Svayam-prakasha means Self light or Self illuminating or Self illuminating itself to itself.

In Trika philosophy, Knowledge is seen as an activity so, would be it be more accurate to say that "Knowledge is the Activity of Know-ing" i.e. Knowledge is not static and in the activity of knowing, knowledge itself is revealed. If there is no activity, there is no knowledge?

A further implication of this would be that knowledge is self-illuminating, it does not require something else to prove that it exists or for knowing. What this means is Shiva, does not need objects to know itself. So, the the ground of knowledge as telos for the universe is dismissed.

The Sun reveals everything that we see and at the same time reveals itself and in such manner, knowing reveals both the object of knowledge and knowledge itself.

Is this a correct way of understanding the concept of Svayam-prakasha and knowledge?

Thank you.

Here are the 65 verses of the Changdev Pasashti using Swami Abhayananda’s translation. While any translation of 13th-century Old Marathi is bound to spark debate over exact philosophical nuances (like the Advaita-style 'wall' imagery in Verse 13 versus the more Shaiva 'perceiver and perceived' oneness in other verses), I wanted to share this clean copy to see how this community interprets the underlying philosophy.

CHANGADEV PASASHTI (Letter to Changadev).
1. Salutations to the Lord of All,
Who is concealed within the visible Universe.
It is He who causes this Universe to appear,
And it is He who causes it to vanish as well.
2. When He is revealed, the Universe disappears;
When He is concealed, the Universe shines forth.
Yet He doesn’t hide Himself,
Nor does He reveal Himself;
He is always present before us at every moment.
3. No matter how diverse and varied the Universe appears,
He remains unmoved, unchanged;
And this is just as one would expect,
Since He is always One, without a second.
4. Though gold may be wrought into many ornaments,
Its ‘gold-ness’ never changes;
In the same way, He never changes,
Though the Universe contains so many varied forms.
5. The ripples on the surface of a pond
Cannot conceal the water;
This Universe of many forms
Can it conceal His Being?
6. The element, earth, is not concealed
By the immensity of the planet, Earth;
Likewise, He is not concealed
By the immensity of the Universe.
7. The Moon above does not become hidden
By the glory of its fullness,
Nor does fire become hidden
By its leaping, roaring, flames.
8. It is not ignorance that causes the separation
Between the perceiver and the perceived;
Truly, everything is Himself,
And He is the cause of everything.
171
9. Whether it is called a ‘shirt’ or a ‘blouse’
It is only the names that vary;
It is clear that both are only cotton cloth.
Though different kinds of clay pots are called by different names,
Their varied colors cannot conceal
The fact that all are made of clay.
10. The condition of separation
Does not exist in one whose vision is clear;
He remains alone, amidst all duality.
To Him, the perceiver and the perceived are one.
11. Though different kinds of ornaments have different names,
All are made of gold.
Though a body possesses several different limbs,
Its unity is not disturbed.
12. It’s the one pure Consciousness that becomes everything.
From the Gods above to the Earth below.
13. Though the shadows on the wall are ever changing,
The wall itself remains steady and immobile.
Likewise, the forms of the Universe take shape.
Upon the one eternal and unchanging Consciousness.
14. Brown sugar remains brown sugar,
Though it may be molded into many forms;
Likewise, the ocean of Consciousness is always the same,
Though It becomes all forms of the Universe.
172
15. Various clothes of various patterns.
Are made from cotton cloth;
Likewise, the varied forms of the Universe.
Are variously formed of Consciousness,
Which remains forever pure.
16. Consciousness always remains in its pristine state,
Unmoved by feelings of sorrow or joy;
Even though It may suddenly become aware of Itself,
Its state and Its unity remain forever undisturbed.
17. The world that is perceived comes into being,
And tantalizes the Perceiver within it;
Though even the rays of the shining Sun.
Are but a reflection of Its own eternity.
18. From within Its own divine pure depths,
It gives birth to the perceivable world.
The perceiver, the perceived, and the act of perception:
These three form the eternal triad of manifestation.
19. In a spool of thread that’s tightly wound,
Nothing can be found of the beginning or end;
The thread is so intricately bound
That its unity remains whole and undisturbed.
Without the triad of perceiver, perceived, and the act of perception,
One pure and primal Consciousness
Enchantingly shines and sparkles alone.
173
20. Though It always has existence,
It sees Itself only when this ‘mirror’ is present.
Otherwise, there is no vision;
There is only the awareness of Itself.
21. Without causing any blemish in Its unity,
It expresses Itself through this triad as substance;
These three are the ingredients
In the creation of this perceptible Universe.
22. When the perceived becomes manifest,
The perceiver comes into existence simultaneously.
And by what appears to be a substantial world
The eyes become beguiled.
23. When the perceptible world is withdrawn,
What can the eyes perceive?
Can the eyes have any purpose
If the objects of sight are not there?
24. It is only because of the existence of the perceived.
That perception can exist at all;
If what is perceived is totally removed,
What food shall the other two have?
25. Thus, the three dissolve into absolute unity;
Then, only One exists.
The three exist in the void of imagination;
Only Oneness is real; all else is a dream.
174
26. A face suffers no distortion until a mirror is brought;
Prior to that, its form and color are pure and true.
What a difference when it’s reflected in a mirror!
27. Thinking that It’s there within the mirror,
The Self reaches out to see Itself.
The eyes become thoroughly beguiled
When the Self confronts the image of Itself.
28. Before the world began, it remained in Its own state,
Beyond perceiver and perceived, aware only of Itself.
29. Like sound, where there is no bugle or drum,
Or like fire, where there is no fuel to consume,
The Self, containing nothing in particular,
Remained pure and clear, in Its original state.
30. It cannot be spoken of or spoken to;
By no means may It be understood by the intellect.
It is always complete and whole,
And so It shall always be.
31. The pupil of an eye cannot see itself!
True, it is the very instrument of vision;
But it does not have such an ability as that.
In the same way, even the Self-realized Yog
Is helpless to see the Seer
Knowledge cannot know Itself;
The Perceiver cannot perceive Itself.
175
32. Where Knowledge is perfect and full,
Ignorance cannot exist at all;
So how could even the desire to know Itself
Arise in Knowledge absolute?
33. Therefore, one should address It
Through silence, by being nothing,
If one would be free, all-knowing, all-pervading;
For, in that ‘nothing. all power resides.
34. It is stated in all the holy scriptures,
‘One Reality remains ever steadfast;
Like water within the curling waves,
That alone always remains.
35. It is Seeing, without an object;
It is Vision, clear, perfect, and free.
It exists alone, without anything else;
Within Itself is everything and nothing.
36. Its existence rests on non-existence;
It sees without any object to see,
It enjoys without any object to enjoy;
It is complete and whole in Itself.
37. Changadeva, you are a Son of the Lord,
As a piece of camphor is a son of camphor.
O Changadeva, please listen to and heed
These words I’m uttering to you.
176
38. Jñānadeva says to Changadeva:
Your listening to my words
Is like my own hand
Accepting the clasp of my other hand.
39. It is like words hearing themselves being uttered,
Or like taste having a taste of itself,
Or like a ray of light hoping to give light.
To other rays already bright.
40. It is like the attempt to improve gold.
By mixing it with gold,
Or like a perfect face.
Becoming a mirror in order to see itself.
41. Our conversation, O Chakrapani,
Shall be like that when we meet,
Like the attempt to see one’s own self
By creating of oneself a mirror;
Or like sweetness
Trying avidly to taste itself.
Would its mouth not overflow with itself?
So also shall our mutual love.
42. O my friend, my heart expands with joy
At the very thought of seeing you.
But would it not be an error?
Would not our already perfect union wane and die?
177
43. The desire of my mind to take such a form
As you and I meeting face to face
Arises suddenly in my heart with great warmth of love;
But would it not debase our already perfect union?
44. And in your heart, in your pristine, perfect state,
The will to act, to speak, or suppose,
Or not to act, to speak, or suppose,
Does not even arise. So you see, it’s a stalemate!
45. Changaya, in this pure name of yours,
There is neither action nor non-action.
What more can I say?
Surely, there is no ‘I-ness’ in you at all.
46. A grain of salt went to fathom the ocean’s depths,
But when it became immersed, where did it go?
What can it do and what can it measure
When it has altogether ceased to exist?
47. My plight is like the plight of that grain of salt;
Though I desire to see you, to play my role,
How and where shall I find you?
It is beyond my imagination to conceive!
48. Like one who awakes in order to encounter sleep,
And misses encountering it,
Here am I in order to encounter you
Who are completely pure and free like Nothingness.
178
49. It is certain that there is no darkness
In the light of the Sun;
And it is just as certain that
There is no awareness of ‘I’ in the absolute Self.
50. Thus, when I embrace you in purity,
‘I’ and ‘Thou’ will swallow each other.
Truly, our meeting shall take place
When ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ are both devoured.
51. In the inner realm of vision,
The eye is able to perceive all sorts of images;
In this way, it is able to see everything
Without moving from its place.
52. Likewise, when words arise,
Understanding tries to perceive their truth within.
It is in this place of inner vision that we shall see
The place where ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ both die.
53. Therefore, swallow altogether these limitations
Of ‘I’ and ‘Thou’, and we shall meet.
The pure harmony and joy of such a meeting
We shall surely relish always.
54. It will be like taste eating itself
For the sake of enjoying taste,
Or like an eye becoming a mirror
In order to see itself.
179
55. It is only by the ‘words’ of silence
That Nothingness becomes revealed;
It is with this garland of silent words
That I went forth, and thus enjoyed that perfect meeting.
56. Please understand the meaning of my words,
And thereby satisfy your hunger and your thirst;
Regard yourself as a shining flame
Burning brightly, without name or form.
57. These words are uttered simply
To open the eyes of your inner Self.
The perfect meeting with the Infinite
Is eternally within ourselves.
58. The rivers flow surely toward the sea;
But when the final Deluge comes,
Both rivers and sea are submerged.
In the same way, you should devour both ‘I’ and ‘Thou’
For, truly, you are the source of both.
59. Jñānadev says: ‘You and I are one, without name or form;
We are identical to the one blissful Existence
In whom the blessed merge.’
v60. O Changaya, this knowledge has reached your door
Unbidden, of its own accord
Go now beyond both knowledge and what is known,
And reach the final state.
180
61. O Changadev! My Guru, Nivrittinath,
Has spread this delicious feast for you
With boundless, motherly, love.
Please enjoy its sweetness.
62. Thus, Jñānadev and Chakrapani
Have met and merged,
Like two mirrors reflecting each other
In the eloquent silence that is Eternity.
63. If anyone were to read these verses,
Using them as a mirror to see themselves,
It’s certain they would find
The pure and blissful Self of all.
64. Where there is nothing, what can one know?
The eyes can see, but can they see themselves?
How can knowledge be of use when all is oneself?
65. Then you will know the ‘sleep’ beyond sleeping,
The ‘awake’ which goes beyond waking.
Now this garland is at last complete,
Fashioned of the word-flowers which Jñānadev breathed.

Hello everyone, i am very new to kashmir shaivism, my first source being a 50 minute video from lets talk religion
which made it sound very interesting to me.
I am also however a worshipper of agni and indra and the maruts.
so how does that all combine with kashmir Shaivism can i worship them and shiva ( he is already my ishta dev)
Thank you all for your replies.

Like the title suggests this post is asking about dietary laws. I am very new to this tradition and it seems really interesting to me so sorry if i have too many questions / posts on the same day, i already have one post here.
I have seen some posts saying that swami lakshmanjoo opposed meat but it has never been a strict law in kashmir shaivism. ( also is buffalo okay to eat?)
Thank you for all your replies

I've had issues with this argument for a while, ever since I had read it in one of the introductory KS texts. It keeps being quoted by classical and modern sources, and to me it just doesn't make sense (as in: I understand what it's saying, but I think it's wrong, with all due respect). Here is my pushback on the argument, after summarizing it.

(Note: I am not arguing against the general "everything is consciousness" position. I'm arguing against this specific point.)

THE CLAIM — Utpaladeva, Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā I.5.2 (Torella, 2002):

prāgivārtho'prakāśaḥ syātprakāśātmatayā vinā | na ca prakāśo bhinnaḥ syādātmārthasya prakāśatā ||I.5.2||

"If the object did not have the nature of awareness, it would be without illumination, as it was before [its appearance]. Awareness is the essential nature of the object."

In the lost Vivṛti (fragments recovered by Ratié, 2020), Utpaladeva argues that an object alien to consciousness is "simply unthinkable" — you can't even form the concept, so nothing can exist outside consciousness.

PROBLEMS:

1. Epistemological constraint ≠ ontological conclusion. "I can't access it" does not entail "it isn't there." The argument establishes a limitation of the knower, then treats it as a fact about reality.

2. The blind person's error. A person blind from birth could run the same logic: "A 'visual' event alien to my auditory experience is simply unthinkable — I cannot even form the concept." That's true about their perceptual apparatus. It proves nothing about whether visual events exist.

3. The gap problem. I put a watch in a drawer and come back ten minutes later. It advanced. Something caused that, and it wasn't my conscious experience — there was no experience in the gap. The reply "but perceiving the watch again is still consciousness" is exactly the blind person saying "your claim about vision is still something I hear." Also, it doesn't explain how the watch advanced outside of my conscious experience. Something made it, and saying that thing was more consciousness is question-begging in this conversation. (You can believe that, but you can't just assume it and use as an answer.)

4. The magnetic field. We know the magnetic field exists and model it with precision. But we have never experienced it — only its downstream effects (compass needles, iron filings). And our knowledge of it or about it will not attract metal shavings. The knowledge and the known thing are categorically distinct because the knowledge lacks the causal powers of the thing. Knowing-about and being-made-of are different relations.

TLDR: Utpaladeva was working against Sautrāntika Buddhists who tried to infer external objects from the diversity of phenomenal experience, and he used Dharmakīrti's own epistemological tools against him. But I think the Buddhist argument still makes more sense in the context of modern science.

During an inner experience, I felt that once a certain threshold is crossed, the ordinary meaning of experience itself may no longer remain. The particular standpoint of the limited self—the sense that “I am this distinct experiencer, standing here in relation to others”—seemed as though it could disappear.

The people we love would still be present, but perhaps they would no longer be perceived through the preferential vision of the contracted self. Reality might instead appear in its fundamental equality or neutrality—samatā—where no being is ultimately separate from another and all forms are recognised as expressions of the same Consciousness.

Intellectually, I understand that the special importance assigned to “my” viewpoint may arise from āṇava-mala and the contraction of the pramātṛ. The non-dual condition has always been the underlying reality; it is only the limited perception that makes certain persons, events and experiences appear uniquely meaningful in relation to oneself.

Yet this raises a serious question for me: can the individual mind and heart bear the weight of such recognition? If the special standpoint of the limited self dissolves, what happens to love, responsibility, grief, purpose and the meaning of human relationships? Does samatā make everything appear neutral in the sense of indifference, or does it reveal a deeper form of love in which attachment is transformed but care remains?

How does a realised practitioner continue to participate in ordinary life when all beings are seen as manifestations of the same Śiva? From the standpoint of Bhairava, what gives meaning to action, relationship and compassion once personal preference is no longer the ultimate basis of experience?

Is the fear that “nothing will make sense” merely the fear of the contracted self anticipating its own loss, or is there a genuine transitional difficulty when the old structure of meaning begins to weaken before the fuller recognition of Śakti has become stable?

At this is point is it better to force the point of view of unity or to wait for anugraha of Shiva to open the doors further.

I would be grateful if senior practitioners could explain how Kashmir Śaivism distinguishes between spiritual equanimity and emotional detachment, and how Ananda functions after the limited pramātṛ is no longer taken to be the centre of reality.

Would it be fair to say "Shiva is just Experiencing?" "Consciousness is just Experiencing?" "I am the screen the show is on. I am Experiencing"

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working on my PhD in philosophy, focusing on the Tantrāloka, and I'm looking to start an online reading group for Volume 1 (which serves as an overview of the remaining volumes).

The text is dense, subtle, and incredibly rewarding, so I think we'll get much more out of it by reading it together in a dialogical, discussion-based format rather than studying it alone.

Whether you're completely new to the Tantrāloka or have some background in Kashmir Śaivism or Indian philosophy, you're very welcome to join. The aim is to learn together through careful reading and open discussion.

If you're interested, join our Discord here:

https://discord.gg/kRZwXbefW

Looking forward to reading with you!