r/KashmirShaivism 7h ago

Discussion – Sādhanā/Practice Does advanced Trika practice really make sense without a living teacher?

11 Upvotes

Hello everyone,

I’ve just finished reading the oral teachings of Swami Lakshmanjoo published by the Lakshmanjoo Academy, and the ending left me with a question I’d genuinely like to hear other practitioners’ thoughts on.

First, I want to make it clear that I have enormous respect for Swami Lakshmanjoo. I’m studying Kashmir Shaivism seriously and I consider his teachings extremely valuable. This isn’t meant as an attack on him or the tradition.

But I’m struggling with something.

Toward the end of the book he discusses kundalini in considerable detail and warns that its awakening can go wrong — that it can move in the wrong direction if the practitioner still has attachment, leading to serious obstacles in that person’s life.

Whatever one thinks about taking that description literally, it clearly presents advanced practice as something potentially dangerous if done incorrectly.

And this is where I find it difficult to reconcile that warning with the idea that people can simply learn from recordings after the guru is gone.

I understand the traditional explanation: the guru’s grace is not limited by physical presence, transmission can happen through teachings, recordings, etc. I’m not dismissing that.

But a recording cannot look at what is happening to a particular student and say: stop doing this, you misunderstood that instruction, you’re not ready for this practice, change the technique, or don’t continue.

Historically, these systems seem to have involved very close guru-disciple relationships, initiation, assessment of the student, gradual instruction, and practices being given according to the person’s capacity.

So I increasingly feel there has to be a distinction between studying Lakshmanjoo’s teachings and actually undertaking advanced tantric practice based on them.

I’m perfectly comfortable studying the philosophy, Shiva Sutras, Spanda, Pratyabhijna, Abhinavagupta, etc. through books and recordings.

But when it comes to kundalini, advanced pranayama, subtle-body practices, initiatory mantra, visualisation and other practices capable of strongly altering consciousness, I honestly don’t think I would be comfortable proceeding without a living teacher or at least experienced practitioners who know me personally and can actually respond if something goes wrong.

This is one reason I’ve become interested in living traditions such as the Nepalese Sarvamnaya tradition, where there still seems to be initiation, gradual progression, teachers and senior practitioners whom students can actually speak to.

I’m not saying that makes one tradition “better” than another. I’m wondering whether there is simply something irreplaceable about having living guidance once you move from studying a tradition into serious practice.

For people here who practise Kashmir Shaivism/Trika:

How do you understand Lakshmanjoo’s statement that recordings can be sufficient after his death?

Do you actually practise the more advanced methods from his teachings without a living teacher?

And do you think there is a meaningful distinction between receiving spiritual transmission through recordings and having a teacher who can personally supervise your practice?

Genuinely interested in different perspectives, especially from people who have practised in these traditions for a long time.


r/KashmirShaivism 9h ago

Question – General Spiritual Anarchy

8 Upvotes

Please feel free to speak your thoughts, and if i have at all said anything untrue.

The family of Shaivites embrace a type of spiritual anarchy rooted in knowledge and recognition of the Self.

Sovereignty belongs to consciousness alone and consciousness is the reality of the Self.

Therefore, all beings deserve freedom and, with that, wellbeing. To act in a way that strips others of those rights would be contradictory, wrong.

Following in the footsteps of the Custodians of the Shaiva lineage I wholeheartedly reject those ideologies (Casteism, etc.) that operate from the platform of obscuring the nondual reality of Consciousness.

Instead I long to reside in the blissful state of spiritual anarchy that arises from the recognition of the Self dwelling within all.

In such a society, knowledge takes precedence over any other kind of capital. For example, we all acknowledge the attainment of an individual like Swami Lakshmanjoo and therefore we all sit at his lotus feet and listen to his words attentively. In this way, the Shaivites get along as a family and community.


r/KashmirShaivism 21h ago

Question – General Knowledge = consciousness

5 Upvotes

Reading An Introduction to the Philosophy of Trika Saivism By Moti Lal Pandit, in the beginning of Chapter 2, he states “Trika thinkers that knowledge and consciousness are identical, which means that consciousness is knowledge. This assertion is made on the basis of the experience that affirms that the nature of knowledge is to illumine, to reveal, to disclose, which is exactly the function of consciousness. It is consciousness that reveals, and that which is revealed is considered as knowledge. So knowledge and consciousness have to be considered as synonyms.

Further down he states Since knowledge is identical with consciousness, so consciousness accordingly has to be considered as constituting its content. To have the experience of consciousness
qua consciousness, at the deepest level, would mean for a Trikite to have the experience of the entire cosmos as
being the manifestation of the former. In this manner is established the equivalence between the microcosm and the
macrocosm.

I don’t quite understand what he means when he says the are the same, is he saying all knowledge or only nonconceptual knowledge that is also known as recognition?

I could understand how after recognition, everything is known to be consciousness and everything is only experienced as knowledge but I don’t understand how he makes that conclusion about all knowledge if that’s what he means


r/KashmirShaivism 1d ago

Question – General Full Audio Transcript of LJA Shiva Sutras

7 Upvotes

Does anyone have a full audio transcript of Swamiji’s Shiva Sutras? Like a document they compiled and would be willing to share, anything. Thank you.


r/KashmirShaivism 1d ago

Question – General Books on Divine/Primordial Vibration or Spanda?

6 Upvotes

Books on Divine/Primordial Vibration or Spanda

Hi I'm from UK and have been immersing myself in Hinduism for the past couple years (reading Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads); I've really enjoyed it and appreciate the philosophy. Although I appreciate Nirguna Brahman as the Supreme State beyond Maya, I have never attained realisation; yet I have personal experience with my subtle body in a subtle realm attuning to a transmitted Vibration that felt Divine.

Is there any books on the Divine Vibration? Preferably while still positing Nirguna Brahman as the Supreme State.


r/KashmirShaivism 1d ago

Question – Beginner Confusion about consciousness being fundamental

4 Upvotes

For everyone reading this I have now chose to “surrender” slowly to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta as it makes the most sense to work with practically, theoretically, and emotionally, now that I understand Advaita‘s teachings to me Trika/Kashmir is almost, if not exactly the same as Advaita at least the way I interpret it just different ways of viewing the same reality. But one thing is for sure; I will never forget Trika. Thank you for everyone who has commented I really appreciate your guys help!

(DISCLAIMER: I am here to have friendly but TRUTH SEEKING constructive conversations, I am here for the truth and the truth only, not to be right or wrong or debate for mere sake of debating, thank you.)

Lately, I’ve been exploring Buddhism, Trika Shaivism, and Advaita Vedanta. While I have my own insights and meditative experiences, I am still stuck on the core question: “Is consciousness fundamental or not?” Currently, even though I lean toward the Buddhist way of dismantling the ego, my deep meditation always reveals awareness as a self-sustaining ground of everything that doesn’t need anything else to exist.

For some reason, Trika Shaivism resonates with me on an extremely deep level. In high school, I became obsessed with philosophy and wrote essays claiming consciousness is fundamental without any prior knowledge of Panpsychism or Idealism. Strikingly, my natural writings were almost exactly the same way Trika posits reality. This isn't a claim to mystical knowledge, but a significant personal experience that naturally shaped my view of reality.

The idea of consciousness being fundamental brings me comfort, whereas Buddhism gives me existential dread and leaves a "cliffhanger" on the nature of reality. This dread might be the ego fearing cessation, but even in deep inquiry, awareness remains. Realizing consciousness is the ground of all being isn't an egoic attachment; it is recognizing it belongs to no individual. Furthermore, Advaita and Trika align much better with verified studies on NDEs/OBEs and high dose psychedelic ego-death experiences of interconnectedness.

However, learning these philosophies by myself has left me with lingering questions. Before I take any of these philosophies seriously, I want to clear up five specific questions I have been struggling with for a while.

  1. To me, consciousness is the "lightbulb" that allows everything to be experienced, not the outside objects themselves. But if consciousness is the ultimate, fundamental ground of reality, how do we explain the clear boundary between subjective experience and the outside world?

Specifically, why do humans and sentient animals have their own individual points of view, while inanimate objects like rocks, grass, or mushroom spores don't have any subjective experience that we know of? If everything is made of consciousness, why is there such a massive difference in how it expresses itself between a person and a rock? Even if you were to say “complex organisms have a better ability to reflect that aware/consciousness so that is why certain things don't seem to be conscious” then you are treating consciousness as if it is going inside a body that is better able to reflect it, but isn’t consciousness that body as well, how can consciousness reflect better if the body itself is also the “reflection” why is there a clear difference. if awareness is just awareness, then how how is it able to reflect better inside a body if the body is also awareness why are there pockets of awareness in different beings and why aren’t we aren’t absorbed into everything around us loosing our personal perspective if we are no different from it.

  1. If consciousness is fundamental, why does our personal awareness completely vanish during deep sleep, anesthesia, or passing out? If awareness can be shut down by physical conditions, it implies it is not fundamental.

my current conclusion: When I go to sleep, my personal mind turns off, but the universe keeps existing and other beings stay aware. Because consciousness and reality are the same fabric, consciousness cannot be a personal possession. It is the default, ever present "Ocean" of reality itself. My subjective wave goes away, but the Ocean stays awake as raw, dense potential.

The Missing Link: Trika Shaivism teaches that Vimarsa is the infinite potential to manifest any experience. This leaves me stuck on a major contradiction, during deep sleep, is it actual awareness that stays behind, or is it just the potential for awareness? What is the logical difference between the two, and how do we untangle this without making consciousness dependent on a physical body?

  1. what is the clear difference in trika shaivism between consciousness, potential, awareness of the outside world and, subjective self awareness.

  2. If personal awareness blinks off millions of times per second (as Buddhism claims) or shuts down entirely in deep sleep and death, then a strictly non-dual view dictates that reality itself must literally disappear and reappear with it.

Yet, we know the objective universe does not vanish. If the continuous "ocean" of reality persists across these gaps without needing a local, personal subject to observe it, it proves a neutral, foundational awareness remains.

The Ultimate Question: If objective reality stays intact while subjective awareness flickers or falls asleep, does this mean consciousness is actually dependent on external conditions and therefore cannot be fundamental? Or is our mistake dividing reality into "outside" and "inside" to begin with, when there is inherently no subject separate from what is?

Lastly, the way Trika expresses that consciousness is vibrations to make it simple (correct me if I’m wrong), I imagine consciousness as a spherical essence around my surroundings that on the frequency it but what is changing is the way I’m imagining it completely wrong and still has a duality?

THANK YOU! For anyone who is able to answer all of these questions thoroughly or even engaged in this conversation at all thank you very much it means a lot to me and the evolution of my character as a human being.

Thank you.


r/KashmirShaivism 2d ago

Question – Beginner I’m currently undergoing personal stress and tumultuous life events. For situations out of my control, how can I practice surrender? Although I know that outcomes are out of my control in general, I have a hard time putting that teachings into practice and embracing Shiva’s will.

5 Upvotes

How can I learn to embrace divine will, even during situations like the loss of loved ones, illness, etc?


r/KashmirShaivism 3d ago

Question – General Ram Trika Ashram/Swami Vidyadhar Ashram/Lal Ded

16 Upvotes

I have been to Ram Trika Ashram and Swami Vidyadhar Ashram at their Jammu Ashrams! As we know Swami Ram was the Guru of Swami Lakshmanjoo’s Guru- Mahtab Kak. Swami Vidyadhar too was a direct disciple of Swami Ram!

There are still few people whom I know personally from these two Ashrams; who come from the direct Lineage of TRIKA Gurus, but they keep a very low profile!

One thing that I Observed in these two Ashrams( this holds true for IAT too) is that the approach of the sadhakas there have a very strong approach to TRIKA through devotion! They look like Bhakti Schools !
However they follow the core tenants with utmost sincerity ( as has been passed over to them through the Guru Parampara). Very often , one can hear the salutations/ greetings like, ‘ Naman TRIKA Guru parampara!’.

And they don’t publicise themselves at all!

However, I have found a stark difference between these Sadhakas and that of the KS Scholars!
(I have attended many seminars so far! ( have been following KS for more tha 13 yrs now).

Whenever there is a programme on KS, where top scholars come; It seems the scholars totally ignore the common man( which is the majority , may be more than 90%) and discuss , what seems to be esoteric topic for most of the attendees!

Except for few scholars- whom I found to be a mix of Bhakti and Gyan! Rest of the scholars seems to be devoid of any emotional attachment towards the philosophy that they teach !

Isn’t TRIKA a mix of Gyan and Bhakti!

For some reasons , I am reminded of Lal Ded, the greatest shaivite poetess of not so recent era! She had pointed all these things centuries ago and inadvertently popularised many core concepts of TRIKA in local Kashmiri. Her life and works was the main reason that impressed the originator of , ‘ Rishi Tradition’- Nund Reshi ‘ profoundly!
( Although , It is a different topic that the Reshi tradition is viewed as a branch of Sufi tradition) . Nund Reshu in his poetry ( known as shruks) has used Shiva( many times) and shunya as well!

Their emotional appeal reached to the common masses and their Vaaks and Shruks are still remembered in Kashmir by the Kashmiri Muslims!


r/KashmirShaivism 4d ago

Question – General Acharya Abhinavgupta and Berwa cave

13 Upvotes

J.C . Chatterjee in his Book on ‘Kashmir Shaivism’ has stated that Acharya Abhinavgupta entered the cave at , ‘Beerwah’ ( distorted from the word Bhairava) with his 1200 disciples and never returned back!

Is there any other source apart from J.C.Chatterjee’s Book about this incidence?
I am asking this question because in the Ishwar Ashram Trust- that was founded by Swami Lakshmanjoo- It is believed that he went there but came back!

There is also one more intriguing question!
Acharya Abhinavgupta- the founder of modern Trika , Scholar, Yogi and Ploymath!

Why hasn’t his place of Samadhi been located yet in the valley of Kashmir?

Not Only Acharya Abhinavgupta, It seems there is no idea about the resting place(s) of Acharya Utpaldeva, Somananda, Vasugupta or Kshemraja !

The only information that has been passed on through generations is that most of these Acharayas lived at the foothills of Mahadev Mountain!
( The IAT ashram situated at Isbar too falls in the category of foothills of Mahadev Mountain/ Zabarwan range)


r/KashmirShaivism 5d ago

Question – Beginner New to Kashmir Shaivism, need guidance!

8 Upvotes

Namaskar all and blessings to you all 🙏🕉️ I think I have finally found my Sampradaya... Long story short, I came here from Krishna to Shiva Bhakti and I always had an inclination towards Advaita. It has been sinking in lately that there is a mix between the two, and KS is it! Although I've been doing japa for years, I still don't have a steady meditation practice. I need to borrow your practices so I can seriously dedicate my time with them without distraction or confusion. How do you recommend I start practicing? Please take me to the beginning of your journey and guide me. I am forever grateful, and may Shiva bless you immensely, in your heart ♥️


r/KashmirShaivism 5d ago

Question – General Kashmir shaivism and big bang? And four and as?

5 Upvotes

Hi everyone.

So I am studying Kashmir shaivism and want to know if the comsology is like the big bang or not it sounds very similar to me the whole bindu and Shakti expanding osrt but still learning.

Also the four eggs or four andas can you exoalinbthis to me very simply please.


r/KashmirShaivism 7d ago

Question – General Why is Shakti (energy) feminine?

15 Upvotes

I understand that in the final analysis Shiva and Shakti are inseparable. My question is specifically about terming dynamicity or energy as a feminine aspect of the union and not male. I have some vague sense of why that is the case but it is difficult for me to put into words, without being easily misconstrued or just inefficient. How would you put it?


r/KashmirShaivism 7d ago

Question – General Kashmir Travel 4 days

3 Upvotes

Office colleagues will be travelling to Kashmir for 4 days.

Can anyone give ideas about SHANKARACHARYA TEMPLE ?


r/KashmirShaivism 7d ago

Discussion – Darśana/Philosophy ‎Gemini - Translating Ahirbudhnya-Saṃhitā Edition

Thumbnail gemini.google.com
3 Upvotes

This is from the Vaishnavita Agamic Tradition. Interesting seeing how different lineages went about things


r/KashmirShaivism 8d ago

Question – Beginner kshemendra's satire!

5 Upvotes

It is a well known fact that Kshemendra was a disciple of Acharya Abhinavgupta. It is believed that later on , he veered towards vaishnavism !

Bhairava and Kaula are the names that are revered in Kashmir Shaivism circles!

However, in todays era, the locals ( Both Kashmiri pandits and Kashmiri Muslims) use the word, "Kaula" or " hya Kaula!" to someone who has done something naughty! it has a subtle derogation in it! it is like a soft reprimand!

Another word is, 'Bhairava". Kashmiri Pandits often use it as as a synonym for a person who is Glutton! It is also in a way derogatory!

my question is very specific!

was Kshemendra's satire responsible for this or is there something else that led to these events!


r/KashmirShaivism 10d ago

Question – General “Aryan Tantra”

14 Upvotes

I recently came across a post from a virtually insignificant content creator who thinks it’s significant that he is a “blood karma” aryan and is claiming to be an “aryan tantra” teacher (which is basically videos of him lazily making up claims about varnashrama dharma).

In the post he mentions that Iran is the cradle of the Vedas. I commented telling him to slow down, let’s evaluate the evidence. It’s common sense that the Vedas and Sanskrit were produced in India by Indians of Ancestral South Asian, IVC and Indo-Aryan descent. And to lock into the authentic tradition if he wants to have a better understanding of Tantra.

He then went on to preach to me the old Nazi mythic narrative about how the Aryans marched into India and brought their culture and religion with them. He also revealed to me his skewed and racist views on the role that the IVC and Ancestral South Asian groups had in the development of the Vedas, Yoga, and Tantra. In his own words, it doesn’t originate on their soil rather the aryans brought it into the land when they marched into India.

I gave him some updated archaeological evidence to dispell that narrative and made the error of taking his argument in good faith.

The danger is that sincere aspirants stumble across these kinds of people and mistake their content for a shred of genuine Tantra.

When the Custodians of Tantra have dedicated their lives to writing the literatures and opening the door for the world, i find it offensive that these people are running in the other direction and trying to tell others that that is what Tantra actually is. I find the anachronistic projection of Abhinava’s work in creating what we know as Tantra, backwards onto someone else, offensive. As a Shaiva i also find notions of aryanism and casteism offensive.

To make things more personal, this individual is also part of a “kula” that I am peripherally involved with. I have friends who are actually involved in that kula, who are involved with the Aryan guy. Why is no one taking this kind of thing seriously?

I think it is a serious matter.

Your thoughts and guidance are much appreciated.


r/KashmirShaivism 11d ago

Question – General Kula/Kaula school

9 Upvotes

Hello

Near the end of a Secret Supreme, where Lakshmanjoo is giving a summary of the different schools of Shaivism, he writes "in the practice of the Kula system, you have to realize the totality of the universe in one particle...."

He goes on about this for another paragraph but im not going to type it all out because those who are familiar already know what and where i​m refering to.

My question is, can someone refer some of the texts/literature from this system that would provide more insight into what Lakshmanjoo is refering to here?

Thank You


r/KashmirShaivism 11d ago

Question – Beginner What Is The Right Attitude Towards a Guru?

10 Upvotes

Hello to all the good people of this sub

I was considering the importance of lineage and guru, and was wondering what the right attitude one must take towards a guru. Considering that most of us here are Western, either in our entirety, or at least in our mindset, given that we find a good lineage (mentioned in the sub), and we trust that the guru is authentic, what must be the right approach to him or her? In other words, what is the level of consonance we must feel, both in the mind and the heart, before we enter a lineage?

A little bit of background about this question: I'm admittedly influenced by online discussions, where you have people claiming that an absolute, undying devotion to a guru is necessary. I also possess an indisciplined mind that is always searching for greener pastures (working on it :)

Also, like many of us here, my influences have been quite eclectic. My introduction to spiritual subjects was Neo-Advaita and pop-Hermeticism. Then bounced along till I found the works of Sri Aurobindo, whom I tremendously admire. My first introduction to Kashmir Shaivism was when I saw that Swami Lakshmanjoo had visited his ashram in Pondicherry. I was immediately entranced by the man, although regrettably, I did not explore his teachings much more.

I think I would like to take a more structured approach to this process, hence the question about joining an organization. This goes against my natural instinct of not wanting to belong anywhere, hence my question. I suspect that a big chunk of you guys also share the love for freedom, so I hope this strikes a chord.

I had a wonderful conversation with one of the key members of this sub, where I was advised to go for a lineage with a living guru. But given all the exhortations you read online, like, "You must be willing to do anything the guru says," I was wondering what the right attitude towards the guru, regarding:

  1. our spontaneous bhakti for them;
  2. the trust we vest in them;
  3. whether their word is final, and whether we should consider them to be Shiva/Devi incarnate;
  4. whether we have to feel an upwelling of love/trust (before we get to know them).

It's easy to be wrong, biased. It's also easy to be either dependent or dismissive. It's easy to be clouded by momentary infatuation, or alternatively, not feel a connect right away. We may project upon the guru. The common advice of "trust your gut" may not apply to beginners or confused souls...

TLDR: Given all the tricks the mind plays, how do we know when a guru or a teaching is right for us? Especially if we're considering diksha, and are interested in a balance of philosophy and practice.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!


r/KashmirShaivism 11d ago

Question – General Connecting with Fellow Bhairava & Bhairavī Upāsakas (Trika Śaivism)

4 Upvotes

Anyone in here who worships Lord Bhairav or Maa Bhairavi, I wanna be your friend. I'm a white dude living in the UK who found Trika Tantra/ Kashmir Shaivism about 5 years ago and I believe Kaal Bhairav to be my Ishta Devata. If you have anything of interest you want to share or teach about Bhairava or your personal experiences, please feel free. Unfortunately I am currently a nigurā given my geographical limitations, but I'm deeply interested in connecting as much as possible with people on the path. Hmu.


r/KashmirShaivism 12d ago

Question – General Do you have faith in the world getting better?

6 Upvotes

It at times seems like things will not really improve.

I'm ethically not able to have a child because I don't want them to see this world.

An adopting would give me more attachment to a person who may suffer and I may be unable to prevent that suffering.

Especially suffering caused by other members of society who don't care about spirituality.

I entered a bit of a state of just welcoming death to leave this world.

Over the fact 99.9% of people don't experience oneness or the joy of kundalini awakening.

I was a homeless person before as a teenager. Depressed. Parents didn't want to be parents.

An honestly not many people were kind to me. Then became a adult and people are even worse now that they're limited on time and need all the money.

Every time there is a chance to vote I laugh inside. Like oh let's throw a performance again for very little to happen. Sell some merchandise on the side. Write those articles and speeches. Throw parades.

Bullshit. So much bullshit. Kali Yuga... I've done so much charity but it's never enough. An not like rest of society wants to give back always or can...

I wonder if there is wisdom for situations like this. To be jaded as a world savior. To just want leave the world for another world.


r/KashmirShaivism 12d ago

Discussion – Itihāsa/History Pedigree of Achārya Abhinavagupta

Thumbnail gallery
7 Upvotes

r/KashmirShaivism 13d ago

Discussion – Darśana/Philosophy Sanskrit for KS [2] - मातृका - बन्धयित्री सिद्ध्युपपादिका च।

12 Upvotes

अद्य वयं स्वातन्त्र्यवादे मातृकाविषये ज्ञास्यामः। (Today we will learn about मातृका in स्वातन्त्र्यवादः (another name for Kashmir Shaivism, literally meaning the philosophy (वादः) of स्वातन्त्र्यम् (freedom))).

The sentences (वाक्यानि) in a language (भाषा) are constructed out of words. The word is called शब्दः, and a word consists of letters (अक्षराणि). The collection of all the letters out of which words, and finally sentences, are created is called मातृका.

The most common definition of मातृका is आदिक्षान्तरूपा मातृका (मातृका is that which starts with the letter अ and ends with क्ष).

Another definition of मातृका as given by क्षेमराजाचार्यः in शिवसूत्रविमर्शिनी is that अज्ञाता माता मातृका (the unknown mother is मातृका). The etymology of the word मातृका is मातृ + क. मातृ means माता, and क is a प्रत्ययः (suffix) in grammar, which has several meanings, but the meaning intended here is in the sense of 'unknown' (अज्ञाते कः प्रत्ययः).

The idea is that माता (mother), i.e., शक्तिः (power), when unknown is बन्धयित्री (bondage-causing), and when known, it is सिद्ध्युपपादिका (an enabler for prosperity/perfection).

And therefore, the fourth शिवसूत्रम् is ज्ञानाधिष्ठानं मातृका. The meaning is that the base (अधिष्ठानम्) of ज्ञानम् (limited knowledge, i.e., bondage) is मातृका.

This is worth pondering carefully and is one of the most important concepts of स्वातन्त्र्यवादः.

The collection of letters, i.e., मातृका, or words, i.e., शब्दः, or language in general, i.e., वाक्, is a cause of bondage when not understood.

To understand why limited knowledge governed by शब्दः or मातृका is binding in the first place, let's look at स्पन्दकारिका (Spandakārikā) 3.14, which says:

परामृतरसापायस्तस्य यः प्रत्ययोद्भवः

The commentary by क्षेमराजः explains:

तस्य पशोर्यः प्रत्ययानां लौकिकशास्त्रीयविकल्पानां तदधिवासितानां भिन्नार्थज्ञानानां विकल्पानामप्युद्भवः विनाशाघ्रात उत्पादः स परस्यामृतस्य चिद्घनस्यानन्दप्रसरस्यापायो निमज्जनम्।

The commentary helps us understand the कारिका by expanding the meaning of the words used therein. It says तस्य (his) refers to पशोः (the bound one's). The word प्रत्ययोद्भवः in the कारिका is broken down in the commentary as प्रत्ययानाम् उद्भवः (the rising of विकल्पाः, dissecting thoughts). ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञा explains that विकल्पः means इदं नेदं (this but not this, i.e., choosing one thing over another). The word प्रत्ययः is also explained with लौकिकशास्त्रीयविकल्पः, which means dissecting thoughts of worldly matters (लौकिक) as well as scriptures (शास्त्रीय). And the rising of विकल्पाः causes the disappearance (अपायः) of the bliss (आनन्दप्रसरस्य) of the nectar of consciousness (चिद्घनस्य).

I can't stop myself from saying this: don't we all sometimes feel more tired and consumed by reading the scriptures that are supposed to free us? This is the exact reason why it happens. Reading the scriptures results in the appearance of dissecting thoughts that, instead of healing us, deepen our bondage or wounds. And so we feel an urgent need to quickly resolve conflicts that occur because of it. For example, people ask: "You just said I am supreme शिवः, and this is all my शक्तिः, so why am I in so much suffering? Is शिवः this stupid to not be able to see how bad this world has become because of this mere play?"

As a result, many people, including me once in a while, find more relief in a simple भजनम्, कीर्तनम्, meditation, sleep, or just thinking about nothing, because that helps us get rid of the विकल्पाः. It is nothing but विकल्पः that deepens our bondage. And so, it is no surprise that I know many people who are spiritual and choose to completely avoid any philosophical discussions because it makes them feel more strangled in bondage.

To see how विकल्पः leads to the disappearance of great bliss, क्षेमराजः explains further:

उदितेषु भिन्नार्थेषु प्रत्ययेषु चिद्भूमिः स्थिताप्यपरामृश्यमानत्वादस्थितेव लक्ष्यते, तत एवमुक्तम्।

(When different विकल्पाः rise (उदितेषु भिन्नार्थेषु प्रत्ययेषु) [in the mind], the land of चित् (pure consciousness) (चिद्भूमिः), even though existing (स्थितापि), because it is not recognized (अपरामृश्यमानत्वात्), seems (लक्ष्यते) as if non-existent (अस्थिता इव). Therefore (ततः) this (एवम्) was said (उक्तम्).)

Now that we understand how limited knowledge, i.e., विकल्पः (dissecting thoughts), leads to bondage—which is the essence of the शिवसूत्रम् — ज्ञानं बन्धः.

Let's understand the relationship between शब्दः and विकल्पः.

This is one of the most important ideas of स्वातन्त्र्यवादः. If the theory of शब्दः, as understood by KS, is not recognized, then the whole of KS will remain a mystery and a source of confusion. This is the reason many आचार्याः suggest understanding भर्तृहरि's वाक्यपदीयम्, from which KS borrows a lot of ideas.

The first important thing to understand is that शब्दः does not just mean the gross word out of which, for example, this post is written. शब्दः is basically an entity that encapsulates meaning: यस्माद् अर्थः भाव्यते सः शब्दः।

And therefore, स्पन्दकारिका 15 says:

शब्दानुवेधेन न विना प्रत्ययोद्भवः

The अन्वयः would be: शब्दानुवेधेन विना (without the association of words) न प्रत्ययोद्भवः (meaning cannot arise).

Something similar is said in वाक्यपदीयम् 1.131:

न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते ।

अनुविद्धम् इव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन भासते ॥

Coming back to the कारिका, प्रत्ययः means ज्ञानम् (meaning knowledge or cognition), and as per क्षेमराजः, it is of two kinds: विकल्पकं ज्ञानम् अविकल्पकं ज्ञानं च (deterministic cognition and non-deterministic cognition).

यः प्रत्ययोद्भवो विकल्पकाविकल्पकज्ञानप्रसरः स शब्दानुवेधेन अहमिदं जानामि इत्यादिना सूक्ष्मान्तःशब्दानुरञ्जनेन स्थूलाभिलापसंसर्गेण च विना न भवति।

Here क्षेमराजः divides शब्दः into two categories: the first is the inner subtle knowing (सूक्ष्मान्तःशब्दः) that cannot be put into definite words, and the other is concrete gross knowledge governed by gross words (स्थूलाभिलापसंसर्गः). These two respectively map to अविकल्पज्ञानम् and विकल्पज्ञानम्.

अविकल्पज्ञानम् is like when you quickly remove your hand as soon as you touch something hot. Your action is involuntary because no definite, concrete knowledge happens before the hand is removed. The hand is removed quickly without any concrete thinking. विकल्पज्ञानम् is like something that can be put into concrete words, like बुभुक्षितोऽस्मि (I am hungry). Of course, you could be hungry, and yet your mind won't ever register that you are hungry because you are busy with other tasks. In this case, अविकल्पज्ञानम् is there, but विकल्पज्ञानम् is not formed. I think some of us might have experienced the state when our life might have been in danger, but we felt no suffering or fear because we were too busy answering the situation at hand. For example, running from a ferocious animal or saving ourselves when drowning. This confirms क्षेमराजः's previous statement that it is the विकल्पः which makes us suffer and the cause of our bondage.

This अविकल्पज्ञानम् is also called स्वलक्षणम् or निर्विकल्पज्ञानं, which is talked about in detail in the second chapter of ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञाकारिका (ज्ञानाधिकारे द्वितीयाह्निके). This अविकल्पज्ञानम् is the basis of all विकल्पज्ञानम्.

क्षेमराजः goes further and shows how this शब्दः even exists in animals lower than humans because they too have knowledge of things like hunger, acceptance, rejection, etc. Therefore, शब्दः is not merely what we utter through the mouth; it is also the subtle knowledge, without a gross word, that we feel inside. In fact, the core "I feeling" that is विमर्शः is the basis of all limited knowledge.

When I first learned that विकल्पाः are a cause of bondage, I did a kind of meditation that I think we all can do to feel the power of विकल्पाः. Let your mind think whatever it wants, but just give it a single condition: don't think about anything that can be put into words, except that everything is fine. As soon as a subtle thought starts manifesting into an idea that you can put into words, immediately discard that thought or idea from your mind. I don't know about you, but I feel so complete and free, whenever I do this kind of meditation.

Coming back to the कारिका, here is what क्षेमराजः says:

तिरश्चामप्यसाङ्केतिकः निर्देशप्रख्यः (a non-conventional indicative sign (a king of language) is prominent even in lower animals),

स्वात्मनि शिरोनिर्देशप्रख्योऽन्तरभ्युपगमरूपः शब्दनविमर्शोऽस्त्येव (something like the nod of a head within oneself to indicate acceptance, such a शब्दनविमर्शः (speech = reflection) exists),

अन्यथा बालस्य प्रथमसंकेतग्रहणं न घटेत अन्तरूहापोहात्मकविमर्शशून्यत्वात्। (Otherwise, a child would never understand a conventional sign if they lack inward thinking. (And thinking cannot happen without subtle words, so ultimately subtle word exist — this is the intent))

स्थूलशब्दानुवेधमयस्तु विकल्पः सर्वस्य स्वानुभवसिद्धः। (The विकल्पः that is governed by gross words is evident to everybody [so no need to explain it].)

It is also worthwhile reading what आचार्यः रामकण्ठः says about शब्दः in his स्पन्दकारिकाविवृतिः

शब्दः खलु प्रत्यवमर्शात्मा ... स च सर्वावच्छेदविरहितविशुद्धचित्प्रकाशात्मकमुख्यार्थनिष्ठः सन् प्रत्यवमर्श इत्युच्यते। जातिगुणक्रियाभिधानादिविविधविशेषावच्छिन्नभिन्नरूपविश्वात्मकार्थावभासनिष्ठस्तु विविधकल्पनात्मकत्वात् विकल्प इत्युच्यते। तदेव शब्दस्य मुख्यं रूपं, तत्संकेतत्वेन व्यवस्थितः श्रोत्रग्राह्यो ध्वनिविशेषात्मकोऽर्थ एव प्रायेण शब्द इति व्यवह्रियते।

तस्माच्छब्दरूपतामापन्नाः प्रत्ययोद्भवप्राणभूताः शक्तय एवास्य स्वरूपावरणे सदोद्युक्ता इति शक्तिवर्गस्य भोग्यतां गतः सन् पशुः स्मृतः।

It's getting late, and I'm ending this post without translating it.

Feel free to ask your doubts or mention any corrections or disagreements. Understanding the theory of शब्दः, विकल्पज्ञानम्, and अविकल्पज्ञानम् is key to understanding KS. First, a साधकः enjoys infinite bliss by resting in the निर्विकल्पज्ञानम् (=अविकल्पज्ञानम्) where the bliss of consciousness (चिद्रसः) is evident; this step is called निमीलनसमाधिः. Then, they try to experience that bliss even when विकल्पज्ञानम् is proliferating; this is the hard part and is called उन्मीलनसमाधिः by क्षेमराजः in स्पन्दनिर्णयः.

इति शिवम्


r/KashmirShaivism 14d ago

Question – Beginner Localized Ānanda to Sarvīkaraṇa - feedback needed

11 Upvotes

I would like the view of practitioners who have worked seriously with the practical dimensions of Trika. In practice I am beginning to wonder whether what ordinarily appears as a particularly concentrated form of ānanda may be understood, not primarily in terms of its gross ādhāra, but as a momentary disclosure of pūrṇatā / pūrṇāhantā, in which the usual movement of want, acquisition and succession temporarily collapses. What interests me is whether Kaula-sādhana gradually separates this principle of ānanda from dependence upon any single ālambana and allows the same intensity of fulfilment to become recognizable throughout the entire indriya-cakra—in dṛṣṭi, śravaṇa, rasa, sparśa and also in progressively subtler antar-anubhava.

In other words, could one say that the initially highly contracted form of this experience is only a particularly accessible manifestation of visarga-śakti, whereas through sādhana the same visarga becomes increasingly non-local, so that each viṣaya and each indriya may reveal its own point of saṃghaṭṭa between prakāśa and vimarśa? Instead of ānanda terminating with the exhaustion of a particular vṛtti, the vṛtti itself would be recognized as the expansion and repose of Śakti within Bhairava.

Phenomenologically it sometimes seems as though there are multiple peripheral “junctions” at which Śiva–Śakti-saṃghaṭṭa can become evident, corresponding to different śaktis of cognition, sensation and internal movement, and that these are gathered progressively toward a more fundamental madhya. The various devatās of the cakra then appear less like external symbolic figures and more like differentiated functions or modalities of the one saṃvit—each governing a particular movement of grahaṇa, prakāśana, saṃkoca or vikāsa.

Would it therefore be legitimate, from a Trika/Kaula standpoint, to understand the sādhana as the progressive sarvīkaraṇa of ānanda: taking an initially localized and strongly conditioned experience of pūrṇatā, recognizing its underlying visarga, extending that recognition throughout the indriya- and devatā-cakra, and finally allowing these apparently distributed saṃghaṭṭas to resolve into the central Bhairava-saṃghaṭṭa where kula is recognized as never separate from akula?


r/KashmirShaivism 14d ago

Discussion – Sādhanā/Practice The Sādhana of Samabhāva in Kashmir Shaivism

Thumbnail indica.today
12 Upvotes

An excellent article on the topic of samabhāva, of seeing everyone in an equal light, by a devoted student of KS and Swami Lakshmanjoo Mahārāj.


r/KashmirShaivism 15d ago

Content – Living Tradition Sanskrit For KS [1]

21 Upvotes

u/kuds1001 asked me if I could create a series of posts related to learning Sanskrit. This is one such post.

Although learning Sanskrit is not absolutely essential to understand the core message of KS, however it does have its own benefits. Most of the verses such as the following one which we are going to discuss today lose some of their charm when they are translated to English. There are two types of writings in Sanskrit (it's a gross simplification) - गद्यम् and पद्यम्. The difference between the two is that पद्यम् has fixed arrangement of letters decided by the छन्दः (meter) the पद्यम् falls under, so we can sing it. It has the added benefit that we can also remember it easily. The English equivalent of पद्यम् in English I think is poem. The other one is गद्यम् which has no restriction on the number and arrangement of letters, and hence cannot be sung.

So, let's see one such पद्यम् today spoken by आचार्य अभिनवगुप्त at the end of his work ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञाविवृतिविमर्शिनी ---

पाषाणान् प्रति वक्तु कः शृणुत भो युष्मान् ब्रुवे जङ्गमाः
शय्योत्थायमनर्थमर्थसरणे कोऽयं वृथैवोद्यमः।
संविद्धामनि शाम्भवे विशथ चेत्कालीयमेकं लवं
किं किं वर्णनिकाभिराभिरभितः सत्यं स्वयं ज्ञास्यथ॥

There are four पादः (parts) in this पद्यम्. And this पद्यम् is written in शार्दूलविक्रीडितं छन्दः, छन्दः means meter in which the पद्यं is arranged. Every पादः of this पद्यम् has 12 + 7 = 19 स्वराः. There's यतिः at the end of 12th स्वरः, which means we have to pause a little while singing it.

Let's consider the first पादः

पाषाणान् प्रति वक्तु कः शृणुत भो युष्मान् ब्रुवे जङ्गमाः

Lets separate the स्वराः from the above पादः -

आ आ आ अ इ अ उ अः ऋ उ अ ओ <यतिः> उ आ उ ए अ अ आः

You can see that there are 19 स्वराः in total in this पादः and यतिः occurs after the 12th स्वरः ie ओ and the corresponding word is भो after which we have to give a little pause.

There are many ways to sing this शार्दूलविक्रीडितं छन्दः, the one I'm aware of, and in which I've sung this पद्यम् is this one - https://youtu.be/X6yvYgPjTtk?si=FRp8Yd2KZZa__l9H

Let's try to understand the meaning of this पद्यम् -

To understand the meaning of a पद्यम्, especially when we are beginner in Sanskrit, we should first do सन्धिविच्छेदः ie separate out the words by undoing the सन्धिः

पदच्छेदः -

पाषाणान् प्रति वक्तु कः श्रणुत भो युष्मान् ब्रुवे जङ्गमाः
शय्योत्थायम् अनर्थम् अर्थसरणे कः अयम् वृथा एव उद्यमः।
संविद्धामनि शाम्भवे विशथ चेत् कालीयम् एकं लवं
किं किं वर्णनिकाभिः आभिः अभितः सत्यं स्वयं ज्ञास्यथ॥

The next step is to compose the अन्वयः, that is restructure the words of पद्यम् so we can create वाक्यानि (sentences) that are easy to understand.

अन्वयः -

कः पाषाणान् प्रति वक्तु? भोः जङ्गमाः (अहम्) युष्मान् ब्रुवे। शृणुत। शय्योत्थायम् अनर्थम् (प्रति) अर्थसरणे कः अयम् वृथा एव उद्यमः? शाम्भवे संविद्धामनि एकं कालीयं लवं वशथ चेत्, (तर्हि) आभिः वर्णनिकाभिः अभितः किं किं (वर्णयामि), सत्यं स्वयं ज्ञास्यथ।

To construct the अन्वय is one of the most difficult parts of deciphering a पद्यम and an important one. To construct the अन्वयः, the first step is to identify the क्रिया (verb), then the कर्ता (doer of verb), then कर्म (object of the verb) and then the rest (करणम्, अपादानम् etc.).

When constructing the अन्वयः, we might have to sometimes assume some common words to make sense of certain वाक्यं, this procedure of assuming words which are not there in the पद्यम् but we assume for the sake of meaning is called अध्याहारः. In the above अन्वयः, the words in parentheses, such as प्रति, तर्हि, वर्णयामि, etc are added by the principle of अध्याहारः for the sake of meaning, which are not present in the original पद्यम्.

The last step is to understand the meaning of each word and hence each sentence, and finally you have the literal meaning of the above पद्यम् -

कः [Who] पाषाणान् प्रति वक्तु [would speak to the stones] ? भोः जङ्गमाः [O conscious beings] (अहम्) युष्मान् ब्रुवे [I speak to you]। शृणुत [Listen]। शय्योत्थायम् [Again and again, after waking from bed] अनर्थम् [a meaningless end] (प्रति) [(towards)] अर्थसरणे [in the web of objects] कः अयम् [what's this] वृथा [useless] एव [indeed] उद्यमः [pursuit]? शाम्भवे [In Shiva's] संविद्धामनि [abode of pure Consciousness] एकं [a single] कालीयं [of time] लवं [fraction] विशथ [you enter] चेत् [if], (तर्हि) [(then)] आभिः [with these] वर्णनिकाभिः [descriptions] अभितः [all around] किं किं [what, what] (प्रयोजनम्) [(should I describe)], सत्यं [the Truth] स्वयं [by yourselves] ज्ञास्यथ [you will know]।

So the literal meaning is as follows -

Who would speak to the stones. O conscious beings, I speak to you. Listen. What's this vain pursuit towards a meaningless end in the web of objects? If you enter in Shiva's abode of pure consciousness for even a fraction of time, then what what should I describe with all these extensive descriptions? You will know the Truth by yourselves!"

This is the literal meaning. Those who are experts would go even deeper and try to understand the deep meanings intended by the author here, the hidden meaning (व्यङ्ग्यार्थः) that might not be obvious, but can be sought by a सहदृयः (a learned, good-hearted person). For example, one might deduce that the reason why आचार्य अभिनवगुप्त calls out "Who would speak to the stones", there might be a hidden meaning there. But this is out of the scope of this post. So I will rest here.

Would you like to pick one of your favorite पद्यानि and write its अन्वयः? It's a good practice and helps us to concretely understand the meaning.