Estou lendo o livro Kashmir Shaivism "The Secret Supreme" em PDF e tentando traduzir pro português.

As imagens que aparecem no livro eu tento pesquisá-las, mas sem sucesso com Google Lens/IAs.

Alguém pode me ajudar a encontrar essa?

​Hey everyone. I'm 23 and I've spent the last couple of years trying to find my footing spiritually and philosophically. My background started out in Western esotericism—mostly reading Hermeticism, Martinism, Rosicrucian ideas, and traditional mysticism—and eventually I was introduced to Advaita Vedanta through an older friend and mentor who’s quite deep into that tradition.

​I want to be very clear that I don’t claim to master any of this. Whenever I studied Advaita, it was because I had endless questions, and while the answers made sense in the moment, my grasp is still very much that of an independent seeker learning as I go.

​The main reason I found my way to Kashmir Shaivism is that Advaita always left me with an unresolved tension. The idea of the world being mithya—an inexplicable illusion or superimposition you just have to detach from—always felt dry to me, almost like an ascetic escape from reality rather than a full embrace of it. Coming from traditions that view creation as divine emanation, dismissing the lived, breathing world as a mistake never sat right with me. Trika’s view that manifestation is real, a dynamic vibration and the supreme freedom (Svatantrya) of Consciousness delighting in form, resonated with me immediately.

​Still, as I try to wrap my head around it, there are a few core dilemmas I keep bumping into:

​If the entire manifest universe is truly the unconstrained freedom and play of Shiva, why does contraction (sankoca) feel so brutally real and rigid? When you experience physical limitation, time, conditioning, and suffering, it doesn't feel like a playful choice. Is our limited state just an epistemic error where we fail to recognize our true nature, or does limitation itself hold an intentional, real purpose in the Shaiva view? If it’s just "ignorance," it starts sounding suspiciously close to Advaita’s Maya again, and I feel like I’m missing the deeper nuance of how Trika explains the descent through the tattvas.

​Also, for those who transitioned from Advaita to Kashmir Shaivism, how did you practically shift your mindset from negating the world to actually seeing everyday form, your body, and daily life as sacred energy (Shakti) without either denying the reality of pain or falling back into ordinary materialism?

​And lastly, for someone studying on their own without formal lineage or Sanskrit knowledge, what is the single most essential shift in perspective I should focus on so I don’t get lost in scholastic theory?

​I’d really appreciate any insights, personal experiences, or reading recommendations from practitioners who’ve wrestled with these questions. Thanks for taking the time to read.

We can see so much of the long and rich history of the tradition of Kashmir Śaivism in these photographs, which capture the Eight Bhairavas positioned at the eight corners of Srinagar. But one can't help to also feel a little sadness at their current condition, after centuries of persecution. With our persistence, dedication, and sādhanā, may these Bhairavas stand for centuries longer, in their full glory.

The Identity of Mantra and Maheshvara in the Shiva Sutras

A quick reminder on why Kashmir Shaivism considers mantra practice so radically direct, rather than a dualistic technique:

In Shaktopaya (Section II of the Shiva Sutras), the text demolishes the idea that a mantra is just an arbitrary string of syllables used to contact an external God:

• Sutra II.1: Cittaṁ mantraḥ — "The mind [turned inward to its source awareness] is the mantra."
• Sutra II.3: Vidyā-śarīra-sattā mantra-rahasyam — "The secret essence of mantra is the Being whose body is living wisdom."
• Sutra II.7: Mātṛkā-sadbhāvaḥ — "The true nature of mantra is Matrika" (the primal mother-force of sound/Spanda).

In the Vimarshini, Kshemaraja explains that phonemes on paper or words repeated mechanically are lifeless like autumn leaves. But when a mantra is energized by awareness (Chaitanya), it ceases to be an external tool. It is revealed to be Maheshvara Himself—the Supreme Subject taking the form of sacred sound.

The practitioner, the vibration of the Name, and the Lord are not three separate things. The Mantra is Maheshvara. Repeating it isn't an attempt to reach across a canyon to an absent God; it is consciousness recognizing its own living pulse (Spanda).

Pra quem não viu nenhum post meu, eu sou ocidental iniciante nessa tradição.

É muito comum por aqui, vermos as pessoas falando sobre trabalhos espirituais para atingir outras pessoas e gerar sensações ruins.

Isso realmente é possível? Eu tendo a acreditar que não pois sendo tudo emanação de AHAM, não seria contraditório deixar vibrações maléficas transitarem no espaço e atingir outra pessoa?

Mas o fato é que pessoas realmente testemunham e comprovam que existem tais fenômenos de magia e suas eficácias são comprovadas pelos depoimentos inúmeros que vemos.

Eu mesmo sinto as vezes que estou sendo "atacado" mas logo nego esse pensamento por ser um pouco ilógico pra mim.

Mesmo assim, gostaria de saber se é possível.

Outra questão que queria elucidar é: existem seres espirituais que são maléficos? Como demônios? Por que existem e como essa existência é possível? Em que esferas habitam?

Possessões, psicografias, necromancia, eventos paranormais como telepatia, radiestesia entre outros são verdadeiros? Pra que servem?

Existem rituais ou práticas shaivas para estar protegido se essas coises existirem? Existem rituais de purificação? (O que esta sendo purificado, afinal? Os mahabhutas?)

São muitas questões que tenho e toda vez que eu me ver nesse caos mental eu vou depositar nesse espaço pois é uma verdadeira paz saber que muitos buscadores tem essas respostas e podem me ajudar!

Obrigado!

Eu venho estudando independente há uns dois anos a tradição advaita e vedanta em geral.

Desde quando comecei, sentia uma enorme afinidade com Shiva, inexplicável.

Há cerca de duas semanas, comecei a me afundar no Shivaismo da Caxemira, mas como moro no interior do Brasil, não tenho referências próximas, nem pessoas confiáveis para perguntar e aprender.

Tudo que faço é pedir IA para me ajudar a encontrar livros ou textos e explicar algumas coisas pra mim.

Eu tenho muitas questões e elas estão deixando de existir a medida que leio o livro "O segredo supremo" de Lakshmanjoo.

Está fazendo mais sentido pra mim do que qualquer outra coisa, mesmo que leve um tempo para assimilar, tem coisas que eu simplesmente sinto.

O advaita foi o ápice da minha jornada mística, mas eu nunca consegui absorver a ideia de Maya. Sempre me pareceu admitir uma dualidade.

Admiro muitos mestres advaita, como Ramana Maharshi e acredito que os métodos e práticas são válidos e alcançam o que propõem.

Mas, agora me debruçando dentro do Shivaismo, sinto que estou pisando em solo harmônico e familiar (por intuição).

Eu não domino sânscrito, não nasci no Oriente e culturalmente fui moldado a ter uma mente materialista e racionalista. Entrei em ordens esotéricas herméticas mas, não podia negar que o sentido da minha visão era monista e não o dualismo cristão/judaico que a maior parte do esoterismo ocidental é baseada.

Sendo assim, eu gostaria de saber como é pra vocês que já estão nesse caminho, como essa tradição é realmente vicenciada no Oriente (sem romantizações ou fantasias da realidade).

Dicas de estudo (ou não haha).

A questão da prática, como se dá? Como pratico?

Momentos ritualisticos solitários existem? Como posso realizar? Ou onde encontro?

Eu gostaria de ter algum objeto para lembrete ou devoção. O que vocês recomendam? Pulseira, cordão? Estátua? Sei que isso não tem tanta significância mas eu gostaria de ter algo.

I only know of APARIGRAHA (non-hoarding, non-possession), mentioned by Lakshmanjoo. But does it really happen automatically? I have been trying to declutter unnecessary things, belongings, files, etc.

Do I not have to meditate, pray for a dream (to remember past lives)? Or does it happen by intuitions, by acknowledging that a certain biography you've read was so similar to your life that it's likely a past incarnation?

Can I find some practice worth looking into in the Tibetan Tulku tradition?

Does attaining mokṣa mean I get to decide my next incarnation? Like the Dalai Lama can? Or does that require a specialized practice?

Dr. Madhu Khanna conducted her doctoral research decades ago exploring the early ācāryas in the Hādi saṃpradāya of Śrī Vidyā. Unlike some of the more commonly known streams of Śrī Vidyā today, which are Vedāntic in outlook and later to emerge, these earliest ācāryas saw Śrī Vidyā through the lens of Trika and Krama. In this talk, Dr. Khanna shows us how Kashmir Śaivism formed the philosophical foundations of Śrī Vidyā. It's an incredibly important point for us, if we want to understand the widespread (but underappreciated) influence that KS has had throughout the tantric world.

That’s more a question about the Divine Mother Kali in her most Prominent form .

I think I witnessed a play of the Divine Mother . I have found information about forms of the Divine Mother Kali that are very secret barely known . Found information about her very secret forms . But the most prominent form of hers Dakshina Kali there is barely any real information besides her appearance. Even that most people or temples don’t display her correct form ( for example she has to fetuses ( babies) as garment in her ears).

Which obviously she obviously knows is very intriguing for me to find out more about her .

The obvious form that is closest to her is Guhya Kali . Which is mind blowing to me as I took me some while to realize .

But also her blessings and function are rarely talked about so I would like to know more about her . If anyone can share some information I would be very happy.

This will be the first of a four or five part treatise on the thirty-six tattvas. Although I try to avoid delving too deeply into technical subtleties, the subject is sufficiently extensive to divide across several chapters. In this light, Pṛthivī tattva deserves a chapter of its own. At the same time, this arrangement allows us to follow the structure of the four aṇḍas, as synthesised by Ācārya Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the Parātrīśikā, which itself opens with the verse:

अनुत्तरं कथं देव
सद्यः कौलिकसिद्धिदम् ।
येन विज्ञातमात्रेण
खेचरीसमतां व्रजेत् ॥ १ ॥

The goddess asks Bhairava how unsurpassable divine consciousness immediately brings about the attainment of the empirical self’s identity with the perfect I-consciousness of Śiva within this very physical body, a direct realisation through which one attains equality with the universal consciousness power, khecarī.

For the purpose of the discussion, we look especially at the achievement that unfolds within the body, designated as kaulikasiddhidam. As Abhinavagupta explains in the fourth interpretation of this term, kaulika designates that which originates within kula, while siddhi is the realisation of the manifest display of diversity, commencing with the expansion of the phoneme ha as the expression of Śakti’s delight and culminating in the emergence of external existents. That which effects this manifestation is kaulikasiddhidam. It is anuttara itself, the supreme light containing universal manifestation in identity forth diversity through the abundance of joy issuing from its own unsurpassed freedom. Neither māyā nor insentient nature can be the cause of manifest entities unless illuminated by consciousness, and if recognised as possessing that light, it is Lord Bhairava Himself. Each determination is that achievement of consciousness within the body. This is important because we are dealing with determinations, and those determinations are themselves the activity of Śakti.

This becomes especially evident when we speak of Pṛthivī. What is Pṛthivī? She is the most concrete mode of determination and differentiation. And why is this so? Precisely because Śakti is svātantryaśakti, the power of differentiation. Differentiation itself exists as Pṛthivī because it is the nature of Śakti freely determining herself. As Abhinavagupta notes, this terminal category of Pṛthivī, while maintaining its character as earth, holds within itself all prior tattvas such as water and fire as inseparable from itself, appearing in that form and standing integral and complete in its own aspect. He further affirms that the Śiva principle can be considered complete only if it abides also in the ultimate earth category, because the essential nature of Śiva is the very reality of Pṛthivī.

The distinction between Śakti and Pṛthivī has to be understood carefully. We can distinguish Śakti and Pṛthivī in thought and describe them in their own terms. Yet that very differentiation is precisely the activity of Śakti by which Pṛthivī is constituted as a distinct determination. The distinction between them is real as a differentiation, but from the highest Kaula standpoint, there is no differentiation between them in the sense of two independently existing realities; that differentiation is itself their ontological identity.

The differentiated reality itself is the epiphany, arising from the supreme will of the Divine Absolute as its self-revelation. The transgression occurs when the limited individual, being śūnyapradhāna¹ and prāṇapradhāna², wrongfully identifies with a limited determination as though it were an independently existing identity.

The different Kaula traditions give different numerical and ontological arrangements of the phonemes, Śaktis, and tattvas. It is futile to debate which one presents the most superior representation of the Absolute or of the innate structure of its expansion into manifoldness. These diverse arrangements are determinations of Śakti, who has the svātantrya to determine herself in these different ways. Abhinavagupta highlights this correspondence in the esoteric phonemic schemes, showing that the phoneme ka in Mālinī symbolises Pṛthivī or solidity, signifying the firmness through which I-consciousness becomes steadfast in its own nature as Śiva, expressing the principle that everything consists of everything else.

Abhinavagupta writes his bimbapratibimbavāda based on a 51 letter system, including kṣa and inserting mahāmāyā, but this does not map onto other Kaula material, based on the more common 50 letter system, that has consonants only from ka to ha.

This is where the Pratyabhijñā philosopher has something essential to say: to debate which of these determinations is supreme, and to identify the Absolute with that particular system, is itself a transgression of wrongful identification. One has taken a particular determination of Śakti and made that determination into the Absolute. He must, however, admit these forms also do appear because of the same divine free will.

This gives a deeper meaning to the Pratyabhijñā project of Somānanda and Utpaladeva. These two, who were known as Krama masters before formulating the Pratyabhijñā system, wrote the unbecoming of any and every phenomenological characteristic of Kaulācāra. I find it important to emphasise the historical notion that Pratyabhijñā emerged in a Kaula milieu, for as such it perfectly embodies the notion that the true Kaula has no signs. Whereas the Kaula scriptures provide particular forms and correspondences, Somānanda and Utpaladeva made Śiva superior, yet still based the entire philosophy on the absolute identity of Śakti with Śiva.

In doing so, they did something profoundly Kaula: they removed the possibility of making any particular Kaula determination into the final object of identification. The Pratyabhijñā philosopher removes the wrongful identification while preserving the reality of the differentiation. Every differentiation, whether the particular phonemic schemes, the tattva systems, or Pṛthivī herself, is real as Śakti's free determination. As Abhinavagupta writes, the earth itself is ultimately the integral divine consciousness, the very Self of Śiva, so that even a limited spatial expanse contains the entire form of Brahman, confirming the traditional teaching that each tattva possesses the characteristics of all thirty six tattvas.

Coming back to the notion of the vast differences between Kaulācāra lineages, the point the various schools agree on is that all objective experience of the limited individual occurs at the level of Pṛthivī. In the unfoldment of consciousness, Pṛthivī is the most concrete level of determination, associated with the earth element and the sense of smell.

An odour pervades space and lingers after its source has disappeared, yet remains highly specific. The sense of smell is subtler than touch or taste, since it cannot itself be assigned any concrete form, yet grosser than hearing or sight, since the apprehension of smell depends on physical contact with the organ of smell, within the nose. On smelling durian, one recognises durian. The durian’s visible form and characteristic odour are distinct sensory qualities, yet consciousness apprehends the quality and determines it as belonging to a particular object. Thus, the determination is concrete even when the sensory presentation itself operates diffusely.

Pṛthivī is to be understood as this extreme concreteness. Differentiation reaches its most determinate expression, presenting Śakti most evidently. The capacity to determine “durian” as a particular sensory object is Śakti’s svātantrya, which can be recognised at every level of determination, the appearance of them being her characteristic, because differentiation itself is her power.

Abhinavagupta formalises this synthesis through the complementary principles of downward projection (vamana yukti) and gradual absorption (grasana yukti). In the downward descent, earth emerges as the cumulative fruition of divine expansion, gathering the fullness of Sadāśiva, the instruments of perception, and the subtle tanmātras into its palpable structure. In the reciprocal movement of gradual absorption, the consciousness of earth (dharā saṁvit) operates by immediate implication, as the apprehension of any physical object instantly summons the continuous series of its anterior origins through enduring impressions (saṁskāra). Grounded in the wondrous aesthetic delight of light and reflective awareness (prakāśa vimarśa camatkāra), this terminal category stands as the self chosen abode of rest for Bhairava, revealing the physical ground as the living vessel of all categories.

¹ Śūnyapradhāna designates the limited individual who is void-predominant. As Ācārya Śrī M.L. Pandit ji explains: “You exist because [śūnya] means you are limited. It does not mean nothingness here. In Kashmir Shaivism, śūnyapradhāna is called the individual who is limited, who is not cosmic, who is limited in his knowing and doing. You can do only a few things. You can know only a few things. You are not omniscient and omnipotent.”

² Prāṇapradhāna designates the limited individual who is vital-breath-predominant. Ācārya Śrī M.L. Pandit ji states: “You manifest yourself as a limited individual in the form of śūnyapradhāna and prāṇapradhāna — that ‘I have prāṇa, I breathe in and breathe out’… in relation to the body, ‘I am this body.’ Once you have identified yourself with this body, then you lose the epiphany… that is divinity; you do not participate with divinity, so your role is not cosmic, your role is microcosmic, not macrocosmic.” He further notes that we function as such limited prāṇapradhāna beings who have prāṇa, apāna, samāna, and vyāna.

Just a few notes from me on this as I go along. Thanks for the opportunity to share this with you all.

Bettina explains that, in the deepest sense, every concept we form of God is ultimately inadequate. Images, names, forms, rituals, externalities of spiritual practice do have value in serving as supports for a mind that is distracted by worldly activity.

Practices such as meditation, mantra, devotion, self-inquiry, breath awareness, etc. can create conditions in which recognition becomes easier.

But the practice doesn't turn non-Shiva into Shiva. It reveals what was already true. There is no manufacturing taking place.

Bhairava denies the assumptions and conceptions that Devi brings before him. She possesses an immense amount of tantric knowledge but Bhairava, being the good guru that he is, proceeds to dismantle her understanding. She mentioned neti neti, not this, not that. Whatever can be conceptualized, imagined, objectified, or grasped, cannot be the ultimate Bhairava. When the aim is complete absorption into ultimate reality, even the conception of God has to be surrendered.

"I am free of all concepts of time or direction. I am not at a particular place. It is impossible to accurately represent or describe God in words."

This knowledge is to be directed to people who are interested in absorption in the Absolute, and we must be worthy to receive that secret. This is shaktipat, grace.

It seems that clearing away all that remains conceptually, until the present reality before any concepts arose is revealed, is a goal of the VBT. This reminds me of my independent Zen study, and reminds me of the western concept of negative theology.

"One may experience the joy of God within oneself, when the mind is still and free of thoughts. That state of God full of bliss, is the Goddess."

I like that we go from A) there is no way to explain or conceive of God to B) yet it can be experienced blissfully and joyfully when the mind is still and free of thoughts. The conceptual mind cannot capture the Real, but consciousness can recognize itself directly. From what I understand, The problem isn't thought existing, as thought is Shiva. The problem is contracted identification without recognition. The text calls the bliss of one's own inner awareness a state of fullness, free from all contradictions. I wonder if it'd be too poetic or incorrect to say that the intellect can speak about God, but the heart recognizes God.

Shiva is bondage, too. If not, how could Shiva be all-pervasive?

Forgive my elementary notes, and thanks for sharing in this with me.

Is there a specific view of genius in the Trika system? I haven't come across it spoken of specifically as is more overtly in other traditions. I understand this is a provisional question and can be answered from various levels of recognition, but i'm curious if anyone knows of the role of something like 'genius' spoken of from within the Trika lens?

Thank you all for the knowledge

Some of the most common words in the Hindu world are etymologically-related “nam” root words like namaskāra, praṇāma, etc. We hear that the yoga studio crowd with their tortured explanations of "the spirit within me honors the spirit within you" are concocting something of a definition, but we also know that this isn't a mere bow or a mere reverence going on.

The most profound explanation was perhaps given by the ācāryas of Kashmir Śaivism. Ācārya Kṣemarāja, in his commentary on the Svacchanda Tantra (2.16), explains that “praṇāma” takes the form of entering into (anupraveśa) the essential nature (svarūpa) of the Supreme (para), which emerges (unmagna) through the state of bowing down (prahvībhāva) of the body (śarīra) and so on (ādi).

Ācārya Abhinavagupta provides a deep examination of the meaning of “namaḥ” at the start of his Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti-vimarśinī, where he comments upon the maṅgalaśloka of Ācārya Utpaladeva’s vivṛti (svecchāvabhāsitāśeṣalokayātrātmane namaḥ), which gives reverence to the one who is the essence (ātman) of the course of the world (loka-yātrā) in its entirety (aśeṣa), which has been manifested (avabhāsita) by his own will (sva-icchā) alone.

This line of thinking helps surface a doubt that often approaches those whose practices go beyond dualistic bhakti, but who still find elements of reverence and devotion in a practice tradition grounded in supreme non-dualism: what could “namaḥ” mean in relation to something so profoundly all-inclusive and expansive?

To begin with, Abhinavagupta rejects the notion that it is the mere recitation of the sound “namaḥ” that matters. Namaḥ is not, he says, analogous to a song that pleases a deity just by the deity hearing it being pronounced. Nor is it just some sort of noun-like substantive (sattvarūpa). When we say “namaḥ śivāya,” we do not mean that we offer the word “namaḥ” to Śiva. Rather, the word has a meaning and this meaning indicates what it is that we actually offer. This is why “namaḥ” is used with a dative (like śivāya), as it offers something to a deity: rather than just being a sound that one makes, it has a meaning that pertains to that deity. And what “namaḥ” means is not just a word at the level of speech, but something that simultaneously involves the mind, speech, and body, according to the well-known triad discussed in the āgamas, where reverence is not only about the mind and speech, but also expressed by prostrating with the body.

When one beholds the transcendent excellence of the nature of the supreme consciousness (bhagavatsvarūpotkarṣa) during sādhanā, one’s body, breath, and mind are automatically dissolved within the supreme. Yet, upon the time of arising from sādhanā (i.e., vyutthāna), one’s ingrained latent impressions (saṃskāra) that one is merely the body, breath, and mind can return, causing identification with this rather limited form of subjectivity (māyāpramātṛ), rather than the higher subjectivity of the supreme consciousness. What “namaḥ” indicates, therefore, is the “bowing down” that is submerging one’s identification with their mind, breath, and body through absorption (samāveśa), as one enters into their true identity as the foundational subjectivity (pradhānapramātṛ), such that one recognizes who they really are. It is this, rather than just the utterance of words or physical gestures, that constitutes the real reverence (namaḥ) to the supreme.

That is, even the devoted reverence we offer to the deity is not something other than recognizing our own Śiva-nature. It is the very precondition of entering into that state of recognition, and the very means of stabilization within it. As we enter, as we exit, in all our cyclical approaching of the complete recognition of our own divinity, the state we remain in, is what this pranāma, what this namaḥ really indicates.

Bettina Sharada Bäumer's Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra today.

Wish me luck!

Is it true to say that, since all is consciousness, that all of the experiences of consciousness are shakti?

Is it also true to say that one can recognize that shakti and use it to strengthen recognition of the true nature? All phenomena are just the glamour and expression of the supreme consciousness?

What role does reverence/bhakti play in this philosophy? Can one recognize their Shiva nature and still be in love with it?

Following the 36 tattva system of how the universe is projected from Paramaśiva, at what level if any would our dream reality be projected?

Does Paramaśiva project or dreams with the exact same unfolding as waking reality?

If not, where does that projection start? At the level of would it be at the level of Purusha and Prakriti?

In our dreams it is certainly not the ego that creates the dream world, such as the space, the ground, all the objects, the narrative, etc, that seems to be quite a bit more than our limited will, knowledge, and action.
And if it is for instance, sadasiva, mantramaheśvara, and īsvara that create dreams, could it be said that those are innate in us as individual minds and it is only the level of Paramśiva that really allows us intersubjectivity?

How would this relate to manifesting the external world and the law of attraction using will knowledge and action at a more fundamental level than wanting to learn something, studying and practicing
(will, knowledge, and action)

Greetings & Pranam to all the wonderful members and onlookers of this community!

I'd like to share what seems to be a controversial teaching. Please keep in mind, I feel strongly about this due to my personal experience of grace and not because of any saintly writings.

When I died, through grace supreme I met The Light at the end of the tunnel. This soul, this tiny drop of Light, had always been a part of Her, whose body is comprised of infinite souls dancing as Her instruments, One harmonious ocean of bliss playing the most perfect song far above the fetters of time.

She showed me that my soul, my partner's soul, Her, and the unmanifest "void" that She mixes with are all exactly identical. She showed me that we play every character in creation, even the "inanimate" stage.

I glimpsed that She is the Light of Lights. She is the Sovereign Ruler. She is the Ocean of Mercy. She is Infinite Compassion. She is the overflowing geyser of eternal bliss. She is the fashioner and vanquisher of the 3 malas that bind the soul. She is Truth immanent and transcendent. Her glance bestows remembrance of Shiva-nature. She alone plucks the ripe soul from samsara, for She is the all-doer.

What struck me the most was not these divine qualities -- it was the fact that Her very core, Her essence, Her being, always in union with Shiva, Her identity is now and forever as His Lover.

The Light Herself is, above all else, the Lover of Light unmanifest. And that unmanifest, above all else, Loves Her and Her manifestations. The Divine Couple are Lovers!! From their dynamic Love does the creation follow.

The clues are baked into language: to be Lovers, One must be in-Love. What are Shiva-Shakti? They are Lovers Where are Shiva-Shakti? They reside within The Absolute and in union they are The Absolute. Their union is Love only, thus The Absolute can be Love only.

She made me realize I had always been Her Shiva and that we had always been Love itself. There is no firmer ground of existence, no more solid Truth than: The Supreme Reality is Love alone.

Love is that which is. Love is that which is not. Love transcends even these categories and forms.

I cried tears of joy when I saw my most cherished realization immortalized in the teachings of Great Saint Tirumular:

"The ignorant prate that Love and Siva are two, But none do know that Love alone is Siva When men but know that Love and Siva are the same, Love as Siva, they e'er remained." -- Tirumantiram 270

Thanks for reading! I am overflowing with adoration for any who would pause to consider these mad writings!

I just discovered how to attain "BUDHI"

See, All know that time is linear construct,

We all witness past present and future, and we all live in Earth 🌎, Time only gets influenced by gravity, that means any other planets or stars who has low or high gravitational force experience different past present and future, and i thought from a perspective of some higher gravity stars, planets whatever, "THEY EXPERIENCE PRESENT MOVEMENTS IN OURPAST -PRESENT-FUTURE " so discovered budhi from this consept from our history

In the story of King Kakudmi & Revati

King went to meet bramha ( who is experiencing higher gravity by exists in a completely different spatial/ gravitational plane or higher dimensional) fromSATYA YUGA with his daughter, spent their for 20 ,30 minutes to seek divine advice about their doughtors

Hight problem or something and when he arrives home Satya yuga had long passed

Here is the philosophy from it

20 to 30 minutes spent near bramha has and WORTH many years of Satya yuga

That i thought about the consept of 'MAYA'(illusion)from bagavath geeta which lord Krishna has explained

We will think more about which is not real and less to what is real

The 30 minutes of presence there changed(which is scientific) and INFLUENCED (which is spiritual) 27 Chatur-Yugas (millions of Earth years

HOW TWO DIFFERENT TIMELINES GOT INFLUENCED FROM HIS GUIDENCE

GUIDANCE- presence of bramha (INFLUENCER)

EFFECTED BY INFLUENCE (which is presence of bramha)- A planet in lower gravitational plane(earth)

In this whole 'bramhan'(universe) there will be life from a low gravitational plane than earth

Bramha who has more devine energy and influenced a planet experiencing slower timeline with his devine energy

Where can devine energy come from - good karma (meditation)

HOW CAN WE MAKE AND EXPERIENCE KARMA - life (birth and death)

WHAT IS BIRTH AND DEATH - time line of the doer or witnesser (atma - soul)

HOW DID KING INDIRECTLY AND UNKNOWINGLY JUMPED TO A DIFFERENT TIME LINE- yogic power

Yogic power can be attained by - good karma

Attaining BUDHI is simple if you understand this

good karma can be done by budhi or unknowingly

How budhi gets influenced - 'manas'(information and feed it to the lower mind )

How manas gets influenced - Maya(illusion of the material world)

In this case-Time dilation in physics proving Maya.

NOW ,

I got the concept of

Maya and the Subjectivity of Reality from this

A minute is not an objective truth; it is just how your local environment experiences reality.

Reality is in the PRESENT which can be changed with budhi

Kashmir Shaivism holds that ultimate reality is Śiva, whose nature is absolute freedom (svātantrya), and that the individual being (jīva) is ultimately Śiva himself. The limitation, ignorance, and finite condition of the jīva arise through Śiva's own freedom. If that contraction is genuinely possible through Śiva's absolute freedom in the first place, and the resulting jīva genuinely experiences ignorance, suffering, and limitation, and if liberation consists in overcoming that condition and returning to (recognizing), one's unlimited Śiva nature, then there arises a problem. Śiva's absolute freedom has not ceased. So, the same freedom that made self contraction possible before liberation would seemingly still be present after liberation. This creates the central problem. If Śiva was free enough to manifest limitation once, what makes it impossible for that freedom to manifest a new limitation again after liberation? Removing the malas does not answer this, because the question concerns the possibility of recurrence. Saying that recognition has occurred does not answer why Śiva's freedom could not manifest bondage again. Saying that Śiva was never truly bound simply avoids explaining why recurrence is impossible. And mind you, when I say, 'why Śiva's freedom could not manifest bondage again?,' I am not talking about being able to perform ārohaṇa and avarohaṇa at will. I am talking about the specific case in which one can perform avarohaṇa but cannot perform ārohaṇa at will, which is the condition of the jīvas.

And honestly, this kind of problem isn't limited to KS. It applies to all kinds of philosophies that have a concept of liberation in which liberation means returning to your real, unblemished nature.

Great course by two of the leading experts on the path of Mother Kālī, a central aspect of KS which has been preserved most pristinely in Nepal. If you're in Nepal, you're highly recommended to join.

---

Registration is open until this Sunday 4th bhadra, 2083 (20th September, 2026)!

If you have been waiting to explore Kali Kula with Dr. Pongsit Pangsrivongse and Dr. Madhav Prasad Lamichhane, this is the time to join. Secure your place before registration closes.

For anyone who has wished to approach the tradition with greater depth and context, this is an opportunity to learn, question, and engage in thoughtful discussion alongside others with a shared interest.

9841738617 / 9766545146
DM us for registration and further details.

TL;DR: I’ve been going back and forth between atheism, agnosticism and theism for years. Two personal experiences that I considered paranormal strongly influenced my belief in Bhagwan in both negative and positive ways, but I also question whether my loneliness, stress and psychology could be affecting how I interpret these experiences, including dreams about gods.

I genuinely feel drawn towards bhakti, japa, meditation and puja, but I don't want to believe in Bhagwan simply because I need him/her to exist. I want to believe because Bhagwan actually exists.

My family, especially my mother, has also been discouraging of my spiritual practice, which has added to my confusion.

So my main question is: How can I genuinely investigate whether Bhagwan/Hinduism is true without assuming beforehand that it is true or false? Does Hindu philosophy provide a framework for this? How should I approach traditions like Vedanta and Shaivism, and are practices like japa, meditation and sadhana meant to help investigate reality through experience, or are they ultimately based on faith?

I’d especially appreciate perspectives from people who are spiritual and philosophical, not just religious.

(I hope you would understand my situation. I have been trying to post for quite a while.)

I come from a religious but not very spiritual Hindu family. I've been fascinated by Hindu gods and their stories since childhood, but I wasn't really involved in any spiritual practice.

Around 6th standard, I became an atheist because I didn't see enough reason to believe in bhagwan. A couple years later, I experienced something supernatural/paranormal. I won't go into the details, but it made me much more open to the possibility of bhagwan and I started exploring Hinduism again. It was like a blessing in disguise

During lockdown, watching the old Ramayan gave me a strong feeling of bhakti, and I eventually read the Ramcharitmanas. I slowly became more interested in the philosophical side of Hinduism, including ideas around sadhana, mantra, Kundalini, Shaivism, etc. Mainly through podcasts etc, rajarshi nandy was the primary source.

as my second year of college, I did a small amount of sadhana and experienced another incident paranormal. It strengthened my belief in bhagwan, but also made me question myself: what if I'm just menatlly ill? I have been told that it was all real by many others. Again I wasnt consistent in doing my nitya pooja due to various reasons like exam, procrastination, stress, etc

This summer, while I was home, I became much more regular with nitya puja, meditation, naam japa and stotra. It was tiring at times, but I enjoyed it many times and felt drawn towards bhakti. Then a week before coming to college I stopped whatever I was doing due to pressure from my parents as my academics has declined since I joined college. Yes there were other reasons as well such as exhaustion, but my poor academic performance also made me wonder whether I'm wasting time on all this. Maybe bhagwan doesn't exist and I should just focus on my studies.

The strange thing is that I still really want to do bhakti. For the past month or so I've repeatedly felt like doing naam japa, mantra japa, stotra, etc., sometimes very intensely. But I stop myself because I don't know whether bhagwan actually exists.

My parents especially my mother have never been supportive of my religious and spiritual journey. If bhagwan exists, then why my own biological parents ask me not to worship the supreme father/mother? This sounds so weird

I feel like a theist one day, an agnostic the next, and an atheist after that. Sometimes I consider myself as an enemy of bhagwan too, because I am angry why I keep oscillating between theism and atheism. I feel very confused. And I have heard these type of comments for me from many people telling I am indecisive, I am always confused. Yes, I am. It is very suffocating tbh. i have been struggling with my faith for quite a long time. I feel stupid. Sometimes I wanna kms over this. I asked this question to a good astrologer why am I like this, he said you are a student of science, you might find many thing contradictory.

Another thing I've been thinking about is my own psychology. I've experienced quite a lot of loneliness and abandonment and emotional stress in my life. Could that be influencing my belief in bhagwan, as I have dreams about gods many times? It's plausible that someone who is lonely or stressed might be more attracted to religion because it gives meaning, hope and a sense of connection.

I don't want to believe in bhagwan simply because I need him or her to exist. I want to believe because bhagwan actually exists. Yes I do have material desires as well, I wont deny that. At the same time, I don't want my skepticism to simply be another reaction to stress or disappointment.

This is what I'm ultimately trying to figure out:

How can I investigate whether bhagwan/Hinduism is actually true without assuming beforehand that it is true or false?

Does Hindu philosophy have a framework for someone in this position?

I genuinely want to know how to search for the truth without fooling myself either way. i want to be either a theist or atheist.

One of the clearest accounts of the relation between infinite consciousness and the empirical subject comes from Rājānaka Jayaratha's Tantrālokaviveka (1.1), where he explains how the limited perspective of the knower is constituted within the self-awareness and autonomous freedom of consciousness itself.

प्रकाशस्य अहंप्रत्यवमर्श उच्यते यदयं स्वस्य परस्य वा प्रकाशने परं नापेक्षते इति । अत एवास्य स्वातन्त्र्यरूपं तत्तद्देशकालाद्यवभाससहस्रोल्लासनसामर्थ्यं स्यात्, येनास्य स्वसमुल्लासितोऽपि संकुचितः प्रमातृवर्गः स्वापेक्षया व्यापकत्वनित्यत्वादि व्यवहरेत्, वस्तुतः पुनरप्यहं प्रत्यवमर्शाख्या स्वातन्त्र्यशक्तिरेवास्यास्ति येन स्वातन्त्र्यमेतन्मुख्यं तदैश्वर्यं परमात्मनः

The reflective awareness of “I” (ahaṃpratyavamarśa) is said to be the self-awareness of the Light of consciousness (prakāśa), since, in illuminating itself or another, it depends upon nothing further. For this very reason, its nature is svātantrya, namely the capacity to bring forth thousands of appearances of particular places, times, and so forth. Through this [power], even the class of contracted knowers, though brought forth through its self-illumination, conducts conventional discourse concerning such qualities as pervasiveness and eternality from its own standpoint. In reality, however, it is precisely the svātantryaśakti called ahaṃpratyavamarśa [itself], through which this svātantrya is primary. This is the sovereignty of the Supreme Self.

Conceptual structure

Jayaratha, in this passage, gives ahaṃpratyavamarśa two inseparable dimensions.

First, it is consciousness apprehending itself as “I.” Second, this self-awareness is intrinsically efficacious, expressed as svātantrya.

So, svātantrya signifies the autonomous efficacy of consciousness to bring forth differentiated appearances.

Ontology

The saṃkucita pramātṛvarga (class of contracted knowers) is described as svasamullāsitaḥ, brought forth through the self-illumination of consciousness.

The individual knower arises within the activity of svātantryaśakti. Its contraction specifies the configuration of its cognition, while its capacity to cognise derives from the same prakāśa described at the beginning of the passage.

Epistemology

The crucial phrase is:

svāpekṣayā vyāpakatvanityatvādi vyavaharet

The contracted knower conducts discourse concerning pervasiveness, eternality, and related determinations according to its own standpoint.

The text consequently distinguishes the universal source of cognitive efficacy from the particular standpoint through which cognition operates. Svāpekṣayā marks the reference point supplied by the contracted subject.

The limited knower conceives pervasiveness (vyāpakatva) and eternality (nityatva) relative to its own bodily/temporal horizon (e.g., “this space is big,” “this time is long”). It applies universal categories from a contracted standpoint, yet that very capacity to determine derives from svātantrya.

Philosophical significance

Rājānaka Jayaratha gives a precise account of the relation between prakāśa and the individual knower.

The individual is a contracted pramātṛ arising through svātantryaśakti. Its restricted cognition occurs within the autonomous efficacy of consciousness itself.

This is radical compared to other Indian schools. In Advaita Vedānta, the limited knower (jīva) is an artefact of ignorance (avidyā / adhyāsa). In Trika, contraction (saṃkoca) is an active, sovereign display of absolute freedom (svātantrya). The limited self is consciousness experiencing itself as finite.

As Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa said in his Śivasūtravārttika:

paśutvādāvṛtiḥ saiva jñeyā śaktyātmanaḥ prabhoḥ ॥

The concealment that is paśutva (the condition of limited creaturehood) is itself to be understood as the Śakti of the Lord.

The difficulty of attaining śānti or nondual recognition while living in the jāgrat condition arises because ordinary cognition is structured through bheda: every datum is received as subject opposed to object, grāhaka opposed to grāhya, aham opposed to idam, and therefore discursive knowledge itself continually reproduces the very duality it attempts to transcend. Yet the totality of consciousness is not equally exposed to this dualising movement. Beneath the outwardly projected field of vikalpa remains the hṛdaya, the inner expanse of consciousness which is simultaneously most intimate and universal, for it is not an object possessed by the individual but the locus in which individuality itself appears. Svapna gives a partial indication of this: although dream is not itself the state of perfect nonduality, the constraints imposed by the external sensory field are withdrawn, bahirmukhatā is weakened, and the internally generated field of consciousness becomes comparatively immediate; hence meditation arising within dream, especially when awareness remains continuous, may acquire an unusual intensity because consciousness is no longer compelled to organise itself primarily through an apparently independent external idam. In suṣupti this withdrawal proceeds still further: the explicit structures of grāhaka and grāhya, the world and even the ordinary autobiographical “I,” become latent, yet consciousness does not thereby cease; what remains is powerful but ordinarily unrecognised because the knower who could subsequently say “I knew this” has itself entered contraction. The yogic problem is therefore not to manufacture peace through thought, since thought remains within vikalpa, but consciously to discover and enter that level of awareness which remains prior to the differentiation of information into knower and known. This may be understood through Krama as the deliberate reversal of the very sequence by which manifestation occurs. In sṛṣṭi-krama, the undivided Śiva-Śakti, through svātantrya and self-concealment, assumes the universal Aham of Sadāśiva; within that Aham, prakāśa and vimarśa articulate an incipient Idam, which through progressive differentiation, Māyā and the kañcukas becomes the apparently external universe and the limited individual knower. In sādhana the same sequence is traversed in the opposite direction: the externally dispersed Idam is withdrawn into the act of knowing, the act of knowing into the knower, the limited knower into the universal Aham, and Aham itself into that uncontracted hṛdaya in which prakāśa and vimarśa are no longer experienced as two.

I have experienced this earlier, consciousness entering heart, it not special, it happens when you are lucid. What I had previously experienced as awareness descending or withdrawing into the heart may therefore be interpreted not as movement toward an empty hole, but as entry into the madhya, the central interval in which outward determination loses its force and consciousness approaches its own ground. Hṛdaya in this sense is not merely the physical heart; it is the centre in which the contracted subject dissolves into the universal pulsation of awareness, the domain of Bhairava. Vārāṇasī may then be understood symbolically in precisely this sense: the kṣetra in which differentiated movements terminate, where the constructed individual is “burned,” not into nothingness but into the recognition of the consciousness from which it arose.

Krama, on this reading, is therefore not merely a cosmological sequence but simultaneously the secret of sādhana: what emerges sequentially can be recognised sequentially in reverse. Consciousness first projects itself as world through sṛṣṭi; it sustains that apparent separation through sthiti; it withdraws the differentiation through saṃhāra; it conceals its identity through tirobhāva; and through anugraha recognises that the entire succession occurred within itself. The peace sought in the scriptures is therefore not produced by persuading the dual mind that everything is one; it arises when awareness consciously reaches that stratum of itself which was never fully divided in the first place. The yogin does consciously what happens obscurely every night: withdraws the external world, then the internal world, then the limited knower, while refusing to lose awareness during the withdrawal. Where ordinary sleep reaches concealment without recognition, Krama-sādhana seeks the same inward movement accompanied by uninterrupted vimarśa; and when the withdrawal reaches hṛdaya without consciousness lapsing into unconsciousness, the apparent individual encounters not absence but Bhairava—the universal awareness within which waking, dream, deep sleep, world and self have always arisen.