[LHP] Why am I afraid?

[Kapalika]

All I'm asking is: 'where is this 'self' that is afraid? And who is it that is looking for it? Do you see the dllemma, or no?

Fear is common to everyone, not just those on the LHP.

Not if you are Aghori, which literally means "without fear".

 

[godnotgod]

Not if you are Aghori, which literally means "without fear".

But they also transcend the self, and if there is no self to be concerned about, where is the 'I' that is afraid?

"The ritual practices of the Aghori are symbols of their non-dualistic beliefs. The corpse upon which they meditate is a symbol of their own body and transcendence of the lower self and realization of the Supreme Self. "

AGHORI

 

[Infinitum]

I'm too incoherent and typing on my phone to boot in order to post a deep response, but the conversation is getting interesting so I wanted to chip in. I share @godnotgod's view that the self is a sort of collection of selves, most of them semi-independent from each other, and that knowledge is really the cornerstone for my spiritual practice. While others try to unveil the secret of God, I try to unveil the secret of myself (a form of autotheism and also were most of my leanings towards mysticism comes in). The way I usually think of it there's I the Observer, then there are all those other I's of various sophistication, one of which might be causing a unbalance by expressing fear or anger or anxiety and who then needs the appropriate attention (which usually is to be heard and accepted, i.e. "feeding the demon").

It's a really complicated concept to express so I don't know how good of a job I do with it, but I hope that made sense.

 

[Kapalika]

But they also transcend the self, and if there is no self to be concerned about, where is the 'I' that is afraid?

"The ritual practices of the Aghori are symbols of their non-dualistic beliefs. The corpse upon which they meditate is a symbol of their own body and transcendence of the lower self and realization of the Supreme Self. "

AGHORI

I share @godnotgod's view that the self is a sort of collection of selves, most of them semi-independent from each other,

It seemed as @godnotgod was implying process theory which is the Buddhist view, that of the anatta or "not self."

From my understanding the Aghori's self is still considered the entire being, not a portion that transcends another portion. Aghori have a direct route to the Kapalikas distinct from Trika but that lineage is shown in their beliefs and practices and they are likewise also nondual Shaivism.

=Speculation below=

In nondual Shaivism the lower self is regenerated and transformed into the higher self. We can consider these as states. Sure, the lower states are made of even lower states/selves but I think any potential lower selves would be covered in the traditional 36 tattva system (less specific to nondual) and those 'many selves' are Ashuddha. I guess the transcendence would consolidate the lower selves into a working whole.

I say this as I can extrapolate it from other parts of the system. The Shuddha Vidya tattva, which is an integration of Ishvara tattva (objectivity) and SadaShiva tattva (subjectivity). This is expressed as the Shiva-Shakti tattvas (transcended, divine self) that complete the Shuddha (highest) tattvas.

I think based on this speculation the Ashuddha (lowest) portion of the system would have a reflection of this, a fractal almost. So the non-transcended self would have distinct, dualistic selves who are semi-independent but the transcended self would consolidate these into harmony into the nondual being. In the same way when one becomes Shiva and yet individuated, the 'selves' in yourself would also be you and nondual yet still individuated.

They could be self contained, like the personalities of Shakti such as Laxshmi, Durga, Kali, Parvati, ect. Trika already informs me that the Triad of ParaShakti, ParaParaShakti and AparaShakti are one in the same. It isn't much to think that one that becomes Shiva through Shakti and has then their Shakti expression would have these smaller selves manifest as their various Shaktis.

I'm not sure though, how much of the Aghori belief would align with this but I think it's similar, they share a lot of beliefs with the sects of Trika that can only be practiced as Left Hand Path only, such as the lack of a belief in purity or impurity.

I've given a detailed explanation of this nondual yet individuated view earlier in this topic here.

=end speculation=

This might of been really wordy or somewhat technical but i wanted to be perfectly clear what my reasoning was and that it's partly speculation based on the "higher up" part of the system. Repeating geometry and patterns is part of my beliefs so I figured it something to perhaps address.

In short I don't agree with the main idea of what @godnotgod seems to be saying, but i can see potential common ground with @Infinitum but it's somewhat questionable, as her perspective seems to be coming from a different point of view.

I'm hoping @Infinitum can compare and contrast where she is coming from and what her religious system says about it. That's about as much as I can speculate at this point in time about the role of all the 'selves' our ego / limited / lower self contains in the process of Moksha.

 

[godnotgod]

It seemed as @godnotgod was implying process theory which is the Buddhist view, that of the anatta or "not self."

From my understanding the Aghori's self is still considered the entire being, not a portion that transcends another portion. Aghori have a direct route to the Kapalikas distinct from Trika but that lineage is shown in their beliefs and practices and they are likewise also nondual Shaivism.

=Speculation below=

In nondual Shaivism the lower self is regenerated and transformed into the higher self. We can consider these as states. Sure, the lower states are made of even lower states/selves but I think any potential lower selves would be covered in the traditional 36 tattva system (less specific to nondual) and those 'many selves' are Ashuddha. I guess the transcendence would consolidate the lower selves into a working whole.

I say this as I can extrapolate it from other parts of the system. The Shuddha Vidya tattva, which is an integration of Ishvara tattva (objectivity) and SadaShiva tattva (subjectivity). This is expressed as the Shiva-Shakti tattvas (transcended, divine self) that complete the Shuddha (highest) tattvas.

I think based on this speculation the Ashuddha (lowest) portion of the system would have a reflection of this, a fractal almost. So the non-transcended self would have distinct, dualistic selves who are semi-independent but the transcended self would consolidate these into harmony into the nondual being. In the same way when one becomes Shiva and yet individuated, the 'selves' in yourself would also be you and nondual yet still individuated.

They could be self contained, like the personalities of Shakti such as Laxshmi, Durga, Kali, Parvati, ect. Trika already informs me that the Triad of ParaShakti, ParaParaShakti and AparaShakti are one in the same. It isn't much to think that one that becomes Shiva through Shakti and has then their Shakti expression would have these smaller selves manifest as their various Shaktis.

I'm not sure though, how much of the Aghori belief would align with this but I think it's similar, they share a lot of beliefs with the sects of Trika that can only be practiced as Left Hand Path only, such as the lack of a belief in purity or impurity.

I've given a detailed explanation of this nondual yet individuated view earlier in this topic here.

=end speculation=

This might of been really wordy or somewhat technical but i wanted to be perfectly clear what my reasoning was and that it's partly speculation based on the "higher up" part of the system. Repeating geometry and patterns is part of my beliefs so I figured it something to perhaps address.

In short I don't agree with the main idea of what @godnotgod seems to be saying, but i can see potential common ground with @Infinitum but it's somewhat questionable, as her perspective seems to be coming from a different point of view.

I'm hoping @Infinitum can compare and contrast where she is coming from and what her religious system says about it. That's about as much as I can speculate at this point in time about the role of all the 'selves' our ego / limited / lower self contains in the process of Moksha.

What I want to know from you (not from some religious doctrine or practice) is what it is that constitutes a self, if you think self is something real.

 

[godnotgod]

I share @godnotgod's view that the self is a sort of collection of selves......there's I the Observer, then there are all those other I's of various sophistication...

No, what I said was that the self, or 'I', is a collection of past experiences, images, titles, feelings, etc. compounded into a singular frozen reality that is 'I'. This frozen 'I' is what is called Identification, or 'Waking Sleep', in which one thinks oneself to be the fictional character one is playing out in the dream of life. Once transcended, and one enters into the Fourth Level of Consciousness, that of Self-Transcendence, or Self-Remembering, (what you called 'The Observer'), the awakened mind now sees his fictional character(s)* playing out its drama on the Third Level, that of Identification. 'The Observer' doesn't do anything; he just watches. Having said that, there is also a collection of selves, as you stated, that carry out the various functions of the drama, all unreal, however. What is behind all of the masks is the Supreme Self, what some call Brahman, playing itself as these characters, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. This is maya and lila at play. Brahman does not become the world; Brahman is none other than the world. So in this sense, the fictional self is, in fact, the Supreme Self, playing itself as the fictional self, the fictional self not being real. When awakening occurs, the mask comes off and the character is no more. It never existed from the beginning. At all time, only the Supreme Self, Brahman, was real, just as the rope seen as a 'snake' is the only reality, the 'snake' never having existed from the very beginning.

*those other 'i's you mentioned

 

[Kapalika]

What I want to know from you (not from some religious doctrine or practice) is what it is that constitutes a self, if you think self is something real.

How obnoxious. I already told you.

Trika is my religion and I do believe in it, as written in the scriptures and as revealed to mystics and saints throughout nearly 2,000 years of which I am just one of many. Unless I qualify otherwise, I wholly accept whatever I've said about Trika without question.

Similarly the Aghori, Trika / Kashmir Shaivism, and all of nondual Shaivism is all related and originates with the Kapalikas so we all share the same roots.

Maybe some people around here like to call themselves this or that but don't believe in any of the actual tenets. I'm not one of those people. I am consumed with fire for my religion. There is no "me" without Shiva, in more than one sense.

 

[godnotgod]

I

How obnoxious. I already told you.

Trika is my religion and I do believe in it, as written in the scriptures and as revealed to mystics and saints throughout nearly 2,000 years of which I am just one of many. Unless I qualify otherwise, I wholly accept whatever I've said about Trika without question.

Similarly the Aghori, Trika / Kashmir Shaivism, and all of nondual Shaivism is all related and originates with the Kapalikas so we all share the same roots.

Maybe some people around here like to call themselves this or that but don't believe in any of the actual tenets. I'm not one of those people. I am consumed with fire for my religion. There is no "me" without Shiva, in more than one sense.

Really, I had no intent to offend you in any way. It's just that I'm not interested in your beliefs in terms of the question at hand. I want to know the true nature of the self. If you only hold beliefs and speculation regarding self, that's nice, but they're just beliefs and speculation, even though such beliefs are true for you.

So is the nature of your 'self' different than that of everyone else because you hold particular religious beliefs? Or is the nature of self the same for everyone? Even though each snowflake form is unique, they are all composed of formless water.

Deidre did not say she was experiencing fear in terms of any sect or pertaining to any doctrine; she just made a generic statement about her fear in that she did not understand why she was having this experience. So I am just addressing her concerns without adding any religious residue. The point I am trying to make is that her experience can be known by anyone in her position.

I could be mistaken, but it really sounds to me like you are consumed by what is called 'Idolatrous Love:

THE EGOTISTICAL STATES

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being. The pretension to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalise his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

Hubert Benoit, Zen and the Psychology of Transformation

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Hubert-Benoit-The-Supreme-Doctrine.pdf

But you didn't really answer the question: what constitutes 'self'? Or is your 'self' only what exists in terms of Shiva? IOW, you don't really have such a 'self'.

 

[Kapalika]

Yep, confirmed to be Buddhist thought and anatta. My least favorite topic of discussion with, and largest point of contention, between me and Buddhists.

*cracks knuckles*

So is the nature of your 'self' different than that of everyone else because you hold particular religious beliefs?

Trika holds that we everything's and everyone's nature is of Shiva and expressed as Shakti, so no I'm not in some special status because of my beliefs.

Or is the nature of self the same for everyone? Even though each snowflake form is unique, they are all composed of formless water.

That's an interesting metaphor that basically sums up how we are individuated yet nondual in my religion. But, we keep our "patterns" even when we meld into the water.

Deidre did not say she was experiencing fear in terms of any sect or pertaining to any doctrine; she just made a generic statement about her fear in that she did not understand why she was having this experience.

I feel as if for better or worse that train not only came to the wrong station but flew off the rails and landed in a field then caught on fire. I've only answered and spoke of things as they've come up.

I've already given what input I could to her near the start of the thread. I think she needn't not worry about any perceived divisions and can have her cake and eat it too in this situation, so to speak.

She's a smart cookie though, I think she will do fine and figure out what the right answer is for her. She's gotten a diverse set of opinions here.

I could be mistaken, but it really sounds to me like you are consumed by what is called 'Idolatrous Love:

You say that as if something is wrong with idol worship. I didn't see "Abrahamic" hanging on the door outside. I'll keep my golden cows, thank you.

However, based on your repeated quote, you are mistaken. I'll break down parts of why.

This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being.

You could of just said Ishvara but then accused of it being just ego as opposed to atma and facets of the divine.

The pretension to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol

Well this doesn't really describe me or my relation with idols, Ishvaras or the divine and I'm not really sure where to start with it. It all seems like it's **** talking Hinduism and it doesn't seem like the dude really understood what he was being critical of.

As for things to be "opposed" is an interesting statement, in my case. At one time, Satan opposes his own nature to create Shakti, but then everything is of Shiva and not opposing. It is formed and unformed. The abstract and concrete, the destroyer, creator, perserver, creation, destruction and cycles of time and untime.

It is everything and nothing and all to exist. At any moment we think of something that "doesn't exist" we create it's existence in the abstract realm.

(I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalise his Ego).

Why do that when we can sacrifice priests and then eat them?:

"My charming ornaments are made from garlands of human skulls." says the Kāpālika, "I dwell in the cremation ground and eat my food from a human skull. I view the world alternately as separate from God and one with Him, through the eyes that are made clear with the ointment of yoga... We offer oblations of human flesh mixed with brains, entrails and marrow. We break our fast by drinking liquor from the skull of a Brahmin. At that time the god Mahābhairava should be worshiped with offerings of awe-inspiring human sacrifices from whose severed throats blood flows in currents."

- Krsna Misra's 11th century play Prabodhacandrodaya

Admittedly I pulled this quote from page 26 of Mark Dyczkowski's 1988 book, "The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika: Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition" and so whatever translation it used.

Okay, before anyone freaks out, no I don't advocate murdering or eating anyone. Well, at least not the former

As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol;

Too bad everything and yet nothing is hostile to the truth (Satan). In my beliefs, anyway.

If it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

Hubert Benoit, Zen and the Psychology of Transformation

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Hubert-Benoit-The-Supreme-Doctrine.pdf

See I told you! Darn Buddhism strikes again! At least talk about something interesting like charnel grounds and meditating with rotting corpses! Or the practice of cannibalism within some Vajrayana sects. Or on a lighter side Mandalas and stuff.

You know, about a year ago I hanged out with some Tibetan monks. Most were pretty cool. Shame that more of their history isn't known to their people.

But you didn't really answer the question: what constitutes 'self'?

Sure I did. Here's a chart though of the 36 tattva system. I don't believe in it 100% but it's "Close enough" for most applications and the tattva system is modular anyway. All the parts of the self are on there and constitute either like half or all of the chart depending on your interpretation.

If that isn't "me" enough I also have addressed the nature of the self and soul on my website, in my own system. If you can't gather what my beliefs is from my past posts in this thread even with all the extra help of that chart and my blog post, I can't help you. It's more than adequately clear, I think, even without the chart and that post.

As far as the 36 system versus mine, I can offer this as to why I reference the 36 tattva system:

“It is important to understand that, according to Kashmir Shaivism, this analysis of all phenomena into thirty six tattvas is not an absolute truth. It has been worked out by the authors of the philosophy as a tool of understanding for the ever-active and inquiring mind and as a form for contemplative meditation. Through further analysis, the number of tattvas can be increased to any level. Similarly, through synthesis, they can be decreased down to one tattva alone. In fact this has been done in the Tantraloka, where one can find doctrines of contemplation on fifteen, thirteen, eleven, nine, seven, five, and as few as three tattvas as well."

- B.N. Pandit's "Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism" (2008), page. 79

In other words they are all describing the same thing and it's just a matter of what best suits the Tantric's attempt to understand the nature of themselves and the divine.

 

[Kapalika]

Ran out of characters! Had to cut the post into two.

Or is your 'self' only what exists in terms of Shiva?

I believe that this has already been addressed by this post originally which was further referenced here just a few posts ago.

Specifically the lengthy quote comparing the nature of the self, particularly in relation to the divine in the Jaidev Commentaries of the Shiva Sutras:

The ultimate aim of both Samkhya-yoga and Vedanta is mukti (liberation). By mukti, both of them understand Kaivalya, perfect isolation or Soleness, the only difference being that Samkhya-yoga aims at isolation from Prakrti while Vedanta aims at isolation from Maya. There is, however, one difference between the two in the concept of Self. According to SamkhyaYoga, Self or Purusa is saccit (existence-consciousness) and there is nothing higher than Purusa. According to Vedanta, Self or Atma is Saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss) and is identical with Brahman.

The ultimate aim of Saivagama is not simply mukti or Self-realization but Sivatva-yojana acquiring the status of Siva. In the words of Saivagama, the ultimate ideal is not merely Atmavyapti but Siva-vyapti. In Atma-vyapti, there is Self-realization, but the concept of Self-realization in Saivagama is different from that of Vedanta. In Vedanta, Self is merely jnana devoid of any activity whatsoever. In Saivagama, Self is characterized by both jnana and kriya. But Atma-vyapti in Saivagama is a lower ideal. The highest ideal is Siva-vyapti. In Siva-vyapti, there is Siva-Sakti-samarasya, fusion and union of Siva-sakti. In Atma-vyapti, there is limited jnana-kriya (knowledge and activity); in Siva-vyapti, there is universal, all-pervasive jnanakriyd. This Siva-vyapti is the status of Parama Siva who is simultaneously transcendent to and immanent in the universe. This comes about only when unmana sakti is developed.

In Vedantic liberation, Maya disappears and along with it goes the wretched universe which was only a fiction conjured up by her. In Siva-vyapti, the universe appears as a magnificent expression of Siva's - one's own - Sakti.

The liberated Self in Samkhya-yoga is only Saccit (existenceconsciousness). The Self or Purusa is freed of all pain and suffering, but he has no positive bliss. In Vedanta, the characteristic of Self is saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). There is positive bliss in liberation. But it is only atmananda, the delight of Self. In Siva-vyapti, the entire universe gleams as the wondrous delight of I-consciousness.

Both in Samkhya-Yoga and Vedanta, the citta or mind reverts to its causal matrix, the Prakrti at the time of liberation. Patanjala yoga has a special word for this reversion, viz; pratiprasava which means reabsorption, remergence (into Prakrti). The defiling buddhi or citta has to withdraw into its primal cause. It is only then that Purusa can shine in his pristine, inherent glory. The citta can never be allowed to enter the sacred precincts of Purusa. It is an alien and has to be repatriated to its original home.

Saivagama which is undiluted advaita (non-dualism) has, however, a word of cheer even for the poor citta. According to it, the citta of the self-realized person becomes regenerated, transformed, transfigured into Cit (the Universal Divine Consciousness). Sutra 13 of Pratyabhijnahrdayam announces the reassuring tidings of its higher destiny in unmistakable terms

See, I can too quote what I've already quoted. However you need of just read my original post to see where I stand.

IOW, you don't really have such a 'self'.

You can try to twist what I've said any way you want, but my position is more than clear and grounded in the scriptures. There is a self and I've very thoroughly detailed the nature of it and added even more detail with the chart and blog post. There isn't any confusion; there really is a self in my religion.

You can try to convince me of Buddhism's anatta all you want by trying to convince me there is no self, but I'm not going to change. My religion might share a lot with some forms of Buddhism but my religion Hindu for a reason and I think those reasons are well supported by evidence, scripture, personal experience and well, reason.

Trika is different than most forms of Hinduism because it holds that the limited self (ego, whatever you want to call it) is real, just as Shakti herself is real and concrete. We are not idealists but we are not materialists either. The ego and limited mind is real, the physical world is real, and the ineffable is real. Everything exists, there isn't anything that can be said to not exist. The moment we make the statement we have spoken it into existence, if it already did not reside somewhere else. That includes our selves and our egos although in my beliefs they originate from the physical world, which both my theory on my website and the 36 tattva system show although the specifics differ.

 

[godnotgod]

Yep, confirmed to be Buddhist thought and anatta. My least favorite topic of discussion with, and largest point of contention, between me and Buddhists.

*cracks knuckles*



Trika holds that we everything's and everyone's nature is of Shiva and expressed as Shakti, so no I'm not in some special status because of my beliefs.



That's an interesting metaphor that basically sums up how we are individuated yet nondual in my religion. But, we keep our "patterns" even when we meld into the water.



I feel as if for better or worse that train not only came to the wrong station but flew off the rails and landed in a field then caught on fire. I've only answered and spoke of things as they've come up.

I've already given what input I could to her near the start of the thread. I think she needn't not worry about any perceived divisions and can have her cake and eat it too in this situation, so to speak.

She's a smart cookie though, I think she will do fine and figure out what the right answer is for her. She's gotten a diverse set of opinions here.



You say that as if something is wrong with idol worship. I didn't see "Abrahamic" hanging on the door outside. I'll keep my golden cows, thank you.

However, based on your repeated quote, you are mistaken. I'll break down parts of why.



You could of just said Ishvara but then accused of it being just ego as opposed to atma and facets of the divine.



Well this doesn't really describe me or my relation with idols, Ishvaras or the divine and I'm not really sure where to start with it. It all seems like it's **** talking Hinduism and it doesn't seem like the dude really understood what he was being critical of.

As for things to be "opposed" is an interesting statement, in my case. At one time, Satan opposes his own nature to create Shakti, but then everything is of Shiva and not opposing. It is formed and unformed. The abstract and concrete, the destroyer, creator, perserver, creation, destruction and cycles of time and untime.

It is everything and nothing and all to exist. At any moment we think of something that "doesn't exist" we create it's existence in the abstract realm.



Why do that when we can sacrifice priests and then eat them?:

"My charming ornaments are made from garlands of human skulls." says the Kāpālika, "I dwell in the cremation ground and eat my food from a human skull. I view the world alternately as separate from God and one with Him, through the eyes that are made clear with the ointment of yoga... We offer oblations of human flesh mixed with brains, entrails and marrow. We break our fast by drinking liquor from the skull of a Brahmin. At that time the god Mahābhairava should be worshiped with offerings of awe-inspiring human sacrifices from whose severed throats blood flows in currents."

- Krsna Misra's 11th century play Prabodhacandrodaya

Admittedly I pulled this quote from page 26 of Mark Dyczkowski's 1988 book, "The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika: Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition" and so whatever translation it used.

Okay, before anyone freaks out, no I don't advocate murdering or eating anyone. Well, at least not the former



Too bad everything and yet nothing is hostile to the truth (Satan). In my beliefs, anyway.



See I told you! Darn Buddhism strikes again! At least talk about something interesting like charnel grounds and meditating with rotting corpses! Or the practice of cannibalism within some Vajrayana sects. Or on a lighter side Mandalas and stuff.

You know, about a year ago I hanged out with some Tibetan monks. Most were pretty cool. Shame that more of their history isn't known to their people.



Sure I did. Here's a chart though of the 36 tattva system. I don't believe in it 100% but it's "Close enough" for most applications and the tattva system is modular anyway. All the parts of the self are on there and constitute either like half or all of the chart depending on your interpretation.

If that isn't "me" enough I also have addressed the nature of the self and soul on my website, in my own system. If you can't gather what my beliefs is from my past posts in this thread even with all the extra help of that chart and my blog post, I can't help you. It's more than adequately clear, I think, even without the chart and that post.

As far as the 36 system versus mine, I can offer this as to why I reference the 36 tattva system:

“It is important to understand that, according to Kashmir Shaivism, this analysis of all phenomena into thirty six tattvas is not an absolute truth. It has been worked out by the authors of the philosophy as a tool of understanding for the ever-active and inquiring mind and as a form for contemplative meditation. Through further analysis, the number of tattvas can be increased to any level. Similarly, through synthesis, they can be decreased down to one tattva alone. In fact this has been done in the Tantraloka, where one can find doctrines of contemplation on fifteen, thirteen, eleven, nine, seven, five, and as few as three tattvas as well."

- B.N. Pandit's "Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism" (2008), page. 79

In other words they are all describing the same thing and it's just a matter of what best suits the Tantric's attempt to understand the nature of themselves and the divine.

What I quoted to you re: Idolatrous Love is not from Buddhism; it is from psychology, which the author, Hubert Benoit about Zen psychology, is quoting. In his book, he outlines the Five Egotistical States of Apparent (ie 'not real') Love.

No one is saying idol worship is 'wrong'; but it is a projection of one's ego onto the imagined idol, whether it be Jesus, or Shiva, or Beelzebub.

Belief in the gods and devils you describe is otherwise known as anthropomorphism.

 

[godnotgod]

Ran out of characters! Had to cut the post into two.



I believe that this has already been addressed by this post originally which was further referenced here just a few posts ago.

Specifically the lengthy quote comparing the nature of the self, particularly in relation to the divine in the Jaidev Commentaries of the Shiva Sutras:



See, I can too quote what I've already quoted. However you need of just read my original post to see where I stand.



You can try to twist what I've said any way you want, but my position is more than clear and grounded in the scriptures. There is a self and I've very thoroughly detailed the nature of it and added even more detail with the chart and blog post. There isn't any confusion; there really is a self in my religion.

You can try to convince me of Buddhism's anatta all you want by trying to convince me there is no self, but I'm not going to change. My religion might share a lot with some forms of Buddhism but my religion Hindu for a reason and I think those reasons are well supported by evidence, scripture, personal experience and well, reason.

Trika is different than most forms of Hinduism because it holds that the limited self (ego, whatever you want to call it) is real, just as Shakti herself is real and concrete. We are not idealists but we are not materialists either. The ego and limited mind is real, the physical world is real, and the ineffable is real. Everything exists, there isn't anything that can be said to not exist. The moment we make the statement we have spoken it into existence, if it already did not reside somewhere else. That includes our selves and our egos although in my beliefs they originate from the physical world, which both my theory on my website and the 36 tattva system show although the specifics differ.

Your use of the capital 'S' in the word 'Self' changes everything, if that is what you intend. This 'Self' is the Universal Self that is Brahman, while 'self' is the individual self, the one I am saying is a temporal illusion, because, as you well know, only Brahman is real.

Why do you make a distinction between the 'physical' world and the 'non-physical'? Doesn't that dualistic distinction exist only in your mind?

Actually, there is no conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism re: the individual self. In Buddhism, according to the Heart Sutra, all phenomena in the Universe is empty of inherent self-nature, due to the Law of Dependent Origination. In Hinduism, it is said that the jiva 'becomes' Brahman, but that is not so. The 'jiva' already IS Brahman, and always has been so. IOW, Brahman is the only true reality. The 'jiva' is simply a temporal self that Brahman pretends to be in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

Think of the 'patterns' that is the self, as a play of Brahman. You know. maya and lila. Illusion. No worries. It's really OK.

I'm with you. Oooooh! That 'Darn Buddhism', LOL

I still would like to know where this rascal you call the 'self' dwells. Perhaps when you find it, you can have a cup of tea with it. Then again, it is the self, is it not, that is seeking itself. Now we're really in trouble, LOL. Ha ha.

It is said that 'That which you are seeking is causing you to seek'.

You tenaciously cling to the notion of a 'self', but don't you see that it is what is keeping you from being free?

 

[Infinitum]

No, what I said was that the self, or 'I', is a collection of past experiences, images, titles, feelings, etc. compounded into a singular frozen reality that is 'I'. This frozen 'I' is what is called Identification, or 'Waking Sleep', in which one thinks oneself to be the fictional character one is playing out in the dream of life. Once transcended, and one enters into the Fourth Level of Consciousness, that of Self-Transcendence, or Self-Remembering, (what you called 'The Observer'), the awakened mind now sees his fictional character(s)* playing out its drama on the Third Level, that of Identification. 'The Observer' doesn't do anything; he just watches. Having said that, there is also a collection of selves, as you stated, that carry out the various functions of the drama, all unreal, however. What is behind all of the masks is the Supreme Self, what some call Brahman, playing itself as these characters, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. This is maya and lila at play. Brahman does not become the world; Brahman is none other than the world. So in this sense, the fictional self is, in fact, the Supreme Self, playing itself as the fictional self, the fictional self not being real. When awakening occurs, the mask comes off and the character is no more. It never existed from the beginning. At all time, only the Supreme Self, Brahman, was real, just as the rope seen as a 'snake' is the only reality, the 'snake' never having existed from the very beginning.

*those other 'i's you mentioned

Well... glad to see only one person's definition is the "true" one. To me Brahman, or Maya, or any of these other concepts aren't necessary as we're starting to learn more about the brain from a purely neuroscientific viewpoint. I was hoping we'd find some common ground here, but this really resembles preaching more than conversation at this point.

 

[Kapalika]

Look, I'm only responding and debating to make clear where I stand and what my religion says .I have no interest in arguing what religion is "right". If you are trying to say that my as a whole religion is wrong, just outright say that instead of trying to find some internal reason in it to contradict it. You won't because you keep showing a lack of fundamental understanding of the belief system, and that it also has ironclad of internally consistent theology that has been refined over thousands of years of sect lineage.

Your use of the capital 'S' in the word 'Self' changes everything, if that is what you intend.

For the record (and I just double checked) I never once in either post capitalized "self" or any compound word with "self". The commentaries on the Shiva Sutras did, but then it also in that quote didn't capitalize it at one point and in the book it doesn't at other points.

Really I think you are just being nit picky and using that as an argument proves you don't have much else to stand on.

This 'Self' is the Universal Self that is Brahman, while 'self' is the individual self, the one I am saying is a temporal illusion, because, as you well know, only Brahman is real.

No, It's from Shiva. Duh. That's why I'm a Shaivite. And not only is Shiva/Brahman/whatever-you-want-to-call-it real, the self and the entire physical universe is real according to Kashmir Shaivism.

Maybe you are unable to understand the quoted section or something, because that entire quote explicitly spelled out why it's FALSE in our religion that "only Brahman is real" and that it's TRUE there is a real "self" or "Self" or however you want to be about it.

I don't have enough time to look through the Commentaries myself, find a good section and then transcribe onto the computer to explain how it goes into great detail about how Shakti (physical universe) is just as real as Shiva and the self, but trust me it's in there, and it's laid out pretty well within the first 70 pages or so IIRC.

What I quoted to you re: Idolatrous Love is not from Buddhism; it is from psychology, which the author, Hubert Benoit about Zen psychology, is quoting. In his book, he outlines the Five Egotistical States of Apparent (ie 'not real') Love.

It has "Zen" in the title, so it's obviously Buddhist. I know Buddhists like to claim that their beliefs are psychology but i don't buy it. I don't give a crap what he believes since he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about in regards to idol worship.

No one is saying idol worship is 'wrong'; but it is a projection of one's ego onto the imagined idol, whether it be Jesus, or Shiva, or Beelzebub.

Belief in the gods and devils you describe is otherwise known as anthropomorphism.

I don't think you really understand what I believe about deities or even the general concept of an Ishvara in Hindu Yoga or Tantra. I'm a nontheist so I don't believe in any kind of literal anthropomorphic deity. The human aspects of a deity are metaphor only.

Why do you make a distinction between the 'physical' world and the 'non-physical'? Doesn't that dualistic distinction exist only in your mind?

My religion is nondual but it reconciles dualism and monism so yes and no. The dualism is emergently real but the nondual source is the most real. The Krama sect explores this the most fully. A fuller explanation is a whole discussion unto it's own.

Actually, there is no conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism re: the individual self.

There literally is, the atma and anatta. I know you won't believe me, even if i tell you that a Tibetan monk himself told me, or that every Buddhist I've talked to on the subject tells me you can't have an atma view and be Buddhist. How can anatta, literally "not self" be reconciled with atmam, a "self"?

In Kashmir Shaivism, we call this Anu, which is part of the triad of Shiva, Shakti and Anu. We also call this Aham or the "heart". To say there is no Anu or Aham is to do away with one of the most fundamental aspects of our religion. Kaula takes the Aham to the furthest extreme, fully integrating a worldly life into a Left Hand Path of Shivagama.

In Buddhism, according to the Heart Sutra,

Don't care....

all phenomena in the Universe is empty of inherent self-nature, due to the Law of Dependent Origination.

... because this is contradictory to Hinduism and I'm not a Buddhist. Sure, we can debate "what does X say?" but I won't debate which one is right, if that makes sense.

In Hinduism, it is said that the jiva 'becomes' Brahman, but that is not so. The 'jiva' already IS Brahman, and always has been so.

Everyone knows what "becoming" means in this situation (realizing). But in fairness in Trika the self, the ego, limited self ect DOES become Shiva because it is regenerated into Cit, and it integrates with the Shiva part of itself that was always it's inner most nature.

IOW, Brahman is the only true reality. The 'jiva' is simply a temporal self that Brahman pretends to be in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

The quote of the Commentaries I gave addresses that while this is the view of Samkhya and Vedanta, it is not of Kashmir Shaivism.

Think of the 'patterns' that is the self, as a play of Brahman. You know. maya and lila. Illusion. No worries. It's really OK.

No, my religion and the scriptures and commentaries in very clear terms spells out that this is NOT so. I don't know how many times i Have to repeat this!

It's insufferable to see people conflate Trika with other belief systems. But I guess this is to be expected since it's an obscure sect. It's very fashionable with people these days to paint broad strokes of all of Hinduism and act as if it's all the same beliefs. Never mind we got 4 main religions and 6 orthodox schools of thought. In Shaivism alone there is like five main sects and I'm in one of the few nondual ones.

If I said I practiced Shaiva Siddhanta, would you say that only Brahman is real? They believe in dualism and that they will become distinct and yet equal Shivas. Trika says that we supersede it as the next logical step. I don't think you can reconcile our belief system with a lack of belief in a self.

Likewise, there are many Shakta sects, Viashnava sects that are dualistic and believe that more than just Brahman/their preferred personality is that which exists, namely they have a very distinct self.

I still would like to know where this rascal you call the 'self' dwells.

I already told you. Do you need me to read it back to you for the billionth time?

You tenaciously cling to the notion of a 'self', but don't you see that it is what is keeping you from being free?

Not according to Trika. See, I actually believe in my religion, not Vedanta, and not this eclectic concoction you've painted as "Hinduism" as a whole.

That is why in my religion we say "Aham!" and "Anu!" In our beliefs Anu, Shiva, Shakti, it's all the same yet themselves! ParaParaShakti, ParaShakti, and AparaShakti are all the same yet themselves! Aham (heart) is our core ideal. Shakti is the way, and Aham is the catalyst!

Om Namah Shivaya!

 

[godnotgod]

Well... glad to see only one person's definition is the "true" one. To me Brahman, or Maya, or any of these other concepts aren't necessary as we're starting to learn more about the brain from a purely neuroscientific viewpoint. I was hoping we'd find some common ground here, but this really resembles preaching more than conversation at this point.

'Brahman' is just another word for what science calls 'The Unified Field', a term I probably should have used in my discussion with you. Brahman is not anthropomorphic.

So, for you, is the self created by the brain?

As for the world being 'maya', or 'illusion', Quantum Physics is now telling us two things about what we thought to be a 'material' reality: one, that it is instead a 'superposition of possibilities', and two, that what we previously thought to be solid material 'particles', are actually standing waves, created by the field in which they are found, and appearing as 'particles'. IOW, there is no such 'material' reality. It's an illusion. Maya.

 

[Liu]

It's all about consciousness, but not a self that is conscious. Who we are is that very consciousness, which creates an agent of consciousness we then call 'I'. IOW, 'I' is a self-created principle, but it isn't real. It's just a frozen reality.

The attributes we give to the self are real, but the self created from those attributes are not.

Yes, awareness itself exists, but awareness itself does not constitute a 'self'.

The subject/object split is a concoction of the mind as well. It does not actually exist in reality. It takes it's form in the notion that there exists an 'experiencer of the experience'. It is the spiritual experience that dissolves this subject/object split, and we realize that we are the experience itself. IOW, we are not an entity called 'I', but an action, or set of actions as experience.

If 'self' is real, can you point it out? And while doing that, who, or what, is it that is pointing it out? Then, of course, we have the 'self' that is aware of the self being pointed out and of the self that is pointing, on and on into infinite regression.

Oh, so it's mostly a matter of terminology.
What you call consciousness I call self, and what you call self or I I call I or ego.

Seems like we have quite similar beliefs then (at least regarding that point).

I encountered some (mainly Buddhists) before claiming that even consciousness doesn't exist, so I assumed that you were of that belief.

If, as I claim, that we are the experience itself, then this idea is not off-topic, as, in Deidre's case, she would be the fear itself.

Yes, in that regard it's not off-topic, but still we are in Same Faith-Debates, and this thread is only open to LHPers. Not that I really care as long as your input is helpful. It just looked like we might go off a longer tangent.

Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial.

Yup, it is trivial in hindsight, but that's how I always understood "cogito ergo sum", that's how it was explained to me when I was a child - as the logical proof of consciousness, not of an I or whatever. Are you and Kierkegaard saying that Descartes meant that differently? oO I haven't read much of Descartes if anything at all, so I truly don't know.

EDIT: And sorry for interrupting the discussion of you two, only noticed the last page after posting.

 

[godnotgod]

Look, I'm only responding and debating to make clear where I stand and what my religion says .I have no interest in arguing what religion is "right". If you are trying to say that my as a whole religion is wrong, just outright say that instead of trying to find some internal reason in it to contradict it. You won't because you keep showing a lack of fundamental understanding of the belief system, and that it also has ironclad of internally consistent theology that has been refined over thousands of years of sect lineage.

I'm not saying your religion is right or wrong; I'm saying your view of the self is still a religious belief system's view of the self. You see the self only in terms of your beliefs and not as it actually is. You claim that your belief system provides a universal view of the self, but that is contradictory. Beliefs are not reality. So, are you capable of speaking about the self in generic terms, or not? Let me put it to you this way: before your belief system came into existence, did self exist, and if so, what is it?

For the record (and I just double checked) I never once in either post capitalized "self" or any compound word with "self". The commentaries on the Shiva Sutras did, but then it also in that quote didn't capitalize it at one point and in the book it doesn't at other points.

In the Shiva Sutra Commentaries, you quoted the use of the term 'Self' several times. For example:

The liberated Self in Samkhya-yoga is only Saccit (existenceconsciousness). The Self or Purusa is freed of all pain and suffering, but he has no positive bliss. In Vedanta, the characteristic of Self is saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). There is positive bliss in liberation. But it is only atmananda, the delight of Self. In Siva-vyapti, the entire universe gleams as the wondrous delight of I-consciousness.

Really I think you are just being nit picky and using that as an argument proves you don't have much else to stand on.

In Hinduism in general, the capitalized Self is the Supreme, or Universal Self, while the lower case self is the individual self. 'I-consciousness is how Brahman is manifesting itself, as all of the various forms of the Universe. But these manifestations which appear as the Universe come and go. Brahman does not come and go.

Nit picking? The difference between Self and self is crucial.

More to follow.....

 

[godnotgod]

Oh, so it's mostly a matter of terminology.
What you call consciousness I call self, and what you call self or I I call I or ego.

If you sit and meditate, you can be conscious without thought. When you are in that state, where is 'I', or 'self'? It only arises when you begin to think, and by think, I mean conceptualize. Thought, of course, is the function of mind, not consciousness, though you must, of course, be conscious before mind can come into play. So what I am saying is that 'self' is purely a matter of thought, and when you are conscious without thought, there is no 'self'. Or is your experience different than what I am describing?

 

[Liu]

If you sit and meditate, you can be conscious without thought. When you are in that state, where is 'I', or 'self'? It only arises when you begin to think, and by think, I mean conceptualize. Thought, of course, is the function of mind, not consciousness, though you must, of course, be conscious before mind can come into play. So what I am saying is that 'self' is purely a matter of thought, and when you are conscious without thought, there is no 'self'. Or is your experience different than what I am describing?

As I said, just terminology.
I fully agree, I just normally understand "self" as another word for "awareness" and not for "I".

 

[godnotgod]

As I said, just terminology.
I fully agree, I just normally understand "self" as another word for "awareness" and not for "I".

Can awareness exist without 'self'? Is 'self' a product of thought, or is it intrinsic? If intrinsic, where is it?

I contend that 'self' only exists when it is thought about. This can be proven via your own direct experience.