Completely independent...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté


Can you think of anyone that is completely independent ? That has has no reliance on anyone or anything?

Take a wealthy individual - one can say that he is independent. He may have enough wealth to purchase anything, have all of his needs taken care of. He could even have independent energy generation, a farm for all his food, maids and servants for all his care, fresh rivers for his water. There would not be one thing he could not provide for himself. Would this person be ~completely independent ~ ?

No matter how wealthy you are, you find support from the environment. You could not survive , no matter what wealth one has, without nature offering the supplies of existence to the individual. Think of it. The wealthy man may have the means to purchase goods and services, yet he cannot exist without these goods supporting his bodily needs. He does not have the means to actually create these goods.

But one would say if this man was truly wealthy, he could have all his own manufacturing plants and make every thing for himself. This could be, yet he could not be the producer of the raw materials - the elements (tattva) themselves that go into the products he produces. Even the breath that he takes is not owned by him and is supplied by the universe.

Now think of a being that is completely independent - does not need anything , has no support; is completely and utterly self-reliant. This is called svatantra - self-dependence , independence , self-will. And from this svatantraya (to make subject to one's own will) arises. This is the nature of the Supreme.

This Being is non-relative to anything. It cannot not be compared as being bigger then, smaller then or even infinite then something else because that would suggest it being relative to another, and hence some ~support~ of its existence or definition.


This svatantra is a key principle of kaśmiri śaivism. This does not suggest it is the only principle, but is one of great import.

praṇām

[Mana]

Namaste yajvan,

Does svatantra, co exist with the maintenance of lineage?
It would appear that doctrines/schools of thought, are often interpreted to promote the very opposite.

Thank you for your thought provoking posting.

praNAma

mana

[AmIHindu]

Namaste,

In stead of word "Complete" I like to use word "Absolute."

Whatever independence, freedom, knowledge and intelligence we have, is Relative.

We may be happy today by it depends on certain events or it is not a long lasting happiness, it may last for one day, one month or may be year but it is not permanent.

We have knowledge, today one can be scientist, one can be top scientist but he will be there for some period of time only. As soon as other person replaces him, his knowledge is no more knowledge. Again in the same scientist may be scientist for one particular subject only.

As I am talking about Absoluteness, I like to give example of Japa Mala. Thread passing through 108 beeds is Absolute and individual beed is individual knowledge. When I say the thread is Absolute and individual beeds are knowledge but I do not have list of these 108 knowledge, which cumulatively makes one Japa mala.
We do not have Absolute independent, freedom,knowledge, intelligence and happiness.

Still more to write but cant

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

Indeed a beneficially thought-provoking topic, as Mana has said. I like AmIHindu's discussion of "absolute", for though "complete" is given as a synonym for "absolute", there is a very fine difference in flavor between the two; "complete" has a common subconscious association with progression, with time- one is more likely to hear the illogical statement "My collection is now more complete" than "My commitment is more absolute"... the illogicity of the 2nd statement is more readily apparent.

"Absolute" in its literal meaning is synonymous with "unmixed", or "pure": absolute zero.

But returning to this Svatantra: To me, this concept is pointed to by the concept of Lila. In my admittedly poor and limited understanding, Lila is only possible in Svatantra- or else it could not truly be called Lila, and then we are not talking about the Divine, the Supreme- but something limited, and circumscribed easily by human minds. Hopefully yajvan and the other kind and wise souls here understand what it is I am trying to say, and forgive my clumsy stumbling about!

JAI MATA DI

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

So, is the universe svatantra?

[sm78]

So, is the universe svatantra?

The "universe" is a result or expression of the free will (svatantra/sveccha) of lord shiva.

[sm78]

But returning to this Svatantra: To me, this concept is pointed to by the concept of Lila. In my admittedly poor and limited understanding, Lila is only possible in Svatantra- or else it could not truly be called Lila, and then we are not talking about the Divine, the Supreme- but something limited, and circumscribed easily by human minds. Hopefully yajvan and the other kind and wise souls here understand what it is I am trying to say, and forgive my clumsy stumbling about!

JAI MATA DI

Yes, perhaps they are the similar concepts but in the different philosophical setting of monism. Free will or svatantra is an elegant philosophical concept which makes Pratyabhijna a very elegant monist philosophy not needing to fall back on undefined/unexplained philosophical crutch of Maya like Vedanta.

However the doctrine of recognition is not just an elegant philosophy as kashmiri masters were also realists and their thought reconciled realism easily with idealism as philosophy doesn't feed the stomach. In this regard KS overcomes the deficiencies of both vedanta and bodhi dharma.

In that regards, it is not svatantravada but rather the concept of pure "I" consciousness or aham-bhava through which shiva expresses himself in all beings, that is at the core of the "doctrine of recognition". It is about recognizing Shiva as this pure "I" within us, like union of long lost soul mates that leads to liberation. This aspect is not just philosophy, but also matter of meditative practice. Many of later day advaita masters like Ramana seem to have purely made use of this concept in their teaching, but never made the reference to the original contribution of Somananda & Utpaldeva explicit in their talks or teachings.

Enough said, I am outta here.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

SM, if I say that your spiritual views are a puzzle to me would you be flattered or offended? :)

Could you expand? Why did you put uni-verse in quotation marks?

Yes, perhaps they are the similar concepts but in the different philosophical setting of monism. Free will or svatantra is an elegant philosophical concept which makes Pratyabhijna a very elegant monist philosophy not needing to fall back on undefined/unexplained philosophical crutch of Maya like Vedanta.

However the doctrine of recognition is not just an elegant philosophy as kashmiri masters were also realists and their thought reconciled realism easily with idealism as philosophy doesn't feed the stomach. In this regard KS overcomes the deficiencies of both vedanta and bodhi dharma.

In that regards, it is not svatantravada but rather the concept of pure "I" consciousness or aham-bhava through which shiva expresses himself in all beings, that is at the core of the "doctrine of recognition". It is about recognizing Shiva as this pure "I" within us, like union of long lost soul mates that leads to liberation. This aspect is not just philosophy, but also matter of meditative practice. Many of later day advaita masters like Ramana seem to have purely made use of this concept in their teaching, but never made the reference to the original contribution of Somananda & Utpaldeva explicit in their talks or teachings.

Enough said, I am outta here.

:)

[sm78]

SM, if I say that your spiritual views are a puzzle to me would you be flattered or offended? :)

These are not mine. :)

Could you expand? Why did you put uni-verse in quotation marks?



:)

Simply because there is no other than Shiva. Universe is a result of expansion (or contraction, both view is ok) of shiva through his power of self-reflection/self-reference/vimarsha/shakti. (according to KS not SM). The novel idea of KS is that consciousness is not a transcendental sat-chit-ananda (which is compared to Light or Illumination in KS). Because a transcendental bliss is still helpless, as Shankara's nirguna brahman is helpless in front of Maya. Consciousness is ofcourse Illumination/Light but also has the power of self-reflection, to reflect on itself, to travel across itself and thus expanding (contracting) itself into any form, shape, space or time . This is shakti or vimarsha shakti. And universe is a result of this. And Shiva can do this because he is svatantra or possess absolute free will to do whatever he wants to do with himself.

So "does universe has free will" is sort of a wrong question in this setup. Because when you ask if Universe has free will, you obviously see it as something different (at least in gradation / quality) than Shiva and I didn't want to give the impression that Universe has a separate endowment of will different from Shiva, so put it in quote to make it unimportant in this scheme. ;).

But you can remove the quote as I modified the sentence to make it clear what I was saying and quotes doesn't help.

To touch back, KS has this concept of free will among the indic systems, but while in abrahamic systems free will marks the departure of souls from following God's orders, free will here is the point of union with God.

Anyway, as I say this is good philosophy, and can give a intellectual "high" when you can drive your train of thoughts properly on this. But not that important in practice (this is my opinion), and was also not meant for such.

[Sahasranama]

In that regards, it is not svatantravada but rather the concept of pure "I" consciousness or aham-bhava through which shiva expresses himself in all beings, that is at the core of the "doctrine of recognition". It is about recognizing Shiva as this pure "I" within us, like union of long lost soul mates that leads to liberation. This aspect is not just philosophy, but also matter of meditative practice. Many of later day advaita masters like Ramana seem to have purely made use of this concept in their teaching, but never made the reference to the original contribution of Somananda & Utpaldeva explicit in their talks or teachings.


Most likely, Ramana wasn't even aware that what he was teaching came from Kashmiri Shaivism. Ramana was a great lover of the Yoga Vasishta which was basically a spiritual amalgam of Advaita vedanta, Kashmiri Shaivism and Mahayana Buddhism.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


sm78 writes,

Simply because there is no other than Shiva. Universe is a result of expansion (or contraction, both view is ok) of shiva through his power of self-reflection/self-reference/vimarsha/shakti. (according to KS not SM). The novel idea of KS is that consciousness is not a transcendental sat-chit-ananda (which is compared to Light or Illumination in KS). Because a transcendental bliss is still helpless, as Shankara's nirguna brahman is helpless in front of Maya. Consciousness is ofcourse Illumination/Light but also has the power of self-reflection, to reflect on itself, to travel across itself and thus expanding (contracting) itself into any form, shape, space or time . This is shakti or vimarsha shakti. And universe is a result of this. And Shiva can do this because he is svatantra or possess absolute free will to do whatever he wants to do with himself.

This is a very good offer for one to consider ( when thinking of kaśmir śaivism ). There is an extention to this idea that sm78 offers. In kaśmiri śaivism the '3rd brahma' or tṛtīyam brahman is considered. What can this be ?

It is a standard point of reference that brahman is considered as oṁ-tat-sat in vedānta. In trika ( or kaśmir śaivism ) it is called the 3rd brahma. That is , in oṁ-tat-sat it is the 3rd defining idea or sat that is considered. Yet this brahman is considered vast ( bṛhat) , all pervading (vyāpaka) and is completely in union with śakti.

In vedānta one may call out brahman as oṁ-tat-sat or as sat-cit-ānanda. In kaśmir śaivism this whole concept can be related with one word sauḥ ( sa +au + ḥ) and is considered amṛtbīja, the very heart (hṛdaya) of bhairava ( paramaśiva).

So we find this brahman in kaśmiri śaivism yet more tightly coupled with śakti. It is called the 3rd brahman as there is more alignment with śiva ( or bhairava).

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Now think of a being that is completely independent - does not need anything , has no support; is completely and utterly self-reliant. This is called svatantra - self-dependence , independence , self-will. And from this svatantraya (to make subject to one's own will) arises. This is the nature of the Supreme.
This svātantrya is from sva-tantra (as mentioned ), the following of one's own will , freedom of the will , independence . Anytime there is 'flow' there must be energy. Now we can call it svātantrya-śakti, the energy (śakti) of one's free and independent will.


His (śiva's) svātantrya-śakti can be seen in his icchā-śakti; His energy of will. Now what is interesting (to me) is that this icchā-śakti is purportedly non-different from soma-śakti. This soma finds its etymological roots in umā saha. Let's see how this unfolds.


We know śiva is shown with a moon over His head. The moon is also called soma. Here is the beauty of this word: The Supreme by another word is sat ( or sattā - Being, or Truth), brahman. And umā is śrī devī we call pārvatī. When sa(t) comes together with umā what is created ? so+ma ( once again the rules of grammar apply for this addition). What do we call the moon? soma.

When śiva and pārvatī are joined together we get soma (delight). Hence for amāvāsya or the new moon, śiva and pārvatī come together, are enveloped and become moon/soma/delight.

We see the significance of the moon above śiva's head. Hence delight = soma = icchā-śakti = svātantrya-śakti.

http://www.muraliramanathan.com/images/siva.jpg

praṇām

[veena]

Yajvanji,

When sa(t) comes together with umā what is created ? so+ma ( once again the rules of grammar apply for this addition) and because of this we call the moon soma.

I have never heard this before.

I have heard of OM tat Sat.

OM

tat
(that or at that time) http://telugudictionary.org/search.php
http://vedabase.net/t/tat

Sat
becoming/cause/result/truth/eternal/six/perfect
I mean which one is it?

What does OM Tat Sat really mean? And where does it come from?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Yajvanji,

When sa(t) comes together with umā what is created ? so+ma ( once again the rules of grammar apply for this addition) and because of this we call the moon soma.

I have never heard this before.

I have heard of OM tat Sat.

OM

tat
(that or at that time) http://telugudictionary.org/search.php
http://vedabase.net/t/tat

Sat
becoming/cause/result/truth/eternal/six/perfect
I mean which one is it?

What does OM Tat Sat really mean? And where does it come from?
Let's see if we can answer your questions satisfactorily and will out too much detail that can ( at times) complicate the matter.

tat = tád. Now what of this tád ? It means 'that'. In our scriptures tád refers to brahman, sometimes called tattva or that-ness, the essence (sāraḥ) of all. Yet there is more ( as you would expect); tád also means ( or is applied to define) thus , in this manner , with regard to that.
So, I can say tad etau ślokau bhavataḥ or 'with reference to that there are these two verses'

sat , there are two things you are thinking.... lets do both.

sat = sat ( some may put an accent mark on the a, like this sát ) = being, existence. We know this to be 'that which really is' , or existence , essence , true being or reality in its purest ; in vedānta we know it is brahman.
ṣaṭ = ṣaḍ
Now this ṣaṣ becomes ṣaṭ before hard letters , ṣaḍ before soft letters ;there are addional rules but we need not go further. This ṣaṭ = ṣaḍ = 6, like ṣaḍ ṛtavah or the 6 seasons.om̐
om̐ is considered praṇava and on occasion oṃkāra. What is praṇava? Praṇava is to praise, and that which rennovates throughly.
It is also praṇa+ va which we can talk of later.

om̐ is also composed of three sounds a , u , m . This is considered a (viṣṇu) , u (śiva) , m̐ (brahmā) .

Now what one does not ususally hear is om̐ = āṃ , a word of solemn affirmation and respectful assent , sometimes translated as 'yes , verily , so be it'


You ask, what does om̐ tat sat really mean ? It is 3 dimensions of the same Reality, Brahman.

Yet if we use the words above one could consider om̐ tat sat saying: so be it (om̐) , that reality (tat), that truth (sat)


praṇām

[veena]

I just read AUM represents Bhur Bhuva Suvah
Entire creation manifested in three planes, earth, mid region and the heaven.

So then It is okay to think of AUM also as

Shiva

Vishnu

Brhm

We in HInduism associate these Gods or these Gods manifest at the three levels I described above. Shiva -- earth. Vishnu -- higher planets. Brahm -- with Heavens, expansion of the heavens .

[veena]

Here is the link where it is written as Brahm:
http://www.jagatgururampalji.org/worship_puran_brahm.html

[veena]

Om Tat Sat (Sanskrit: ओम् तत् सत्, Aum Tat Sat) is a mantra in Sanskrit which literally means All that is the Truth. Essentially meaning the 'Supreme spirit of God (OM) that is (tat) Absolute Truth (Sat).

Om refers to the Supreme Infinite Spirit or Person. Om represents the Shabda (sound of) Brahman.

Tat refers to 'that', or 'that is'

Sat refers to 'the absolute truth', that which is and that which is not, the most fundamental and universal symbol that encompasses all knowledge. Sat is the one and only reality.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If you wish to know more of this om̐ (anujñākṣara¹) please consider reading/studying the chāndogya upaniṣad & māṇdūkya upaniṣad.

om̐ iti etad akṣaraṁ idaṁ sarvaṁ - this syllable om̐ is all this... māṇdūkya upaniṣad || 1

praṇām

words
anujñākṣara - permission giving syllable

[veena]

Here is something on what you had said:
http://iksvakave.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/verse-on-om/

I actually found the this verse in Gita: Om iti etad askaram idam sarvam .....

If you could summarize in one paragraph what can you say about madukya Upanisad. I know usually it is impossible to summarize these things, I was wondering if you could in few words tell me what it is.

Thank You.

[Necromancer]

http://www.muraliramanathan.com/images/siva.jpg

praṇām

So beautiful! Jai Lord Neelakantha! :bowdown:

It is almost impossible now for one to be fully 'independent' because of the restrictions governments and society as a whole places on us (as well as those we place upon ourselves)...taxes....yeah, taxes...the only assurance other than death.

I briefly considered the idea of moving into the middle of nowhere and building an 'eco-house' but it was still unsustainable as a free-standing unit no matter what I did.

Pretty much like humans too, I guess. Although, in a few months I am moving onto a shareholder farm with lots of opportunity to grow things and make things, but we need the company of other people....despite living on my own in a small country town for 10 years and the only thing I required was public utilities....but honestly...public utilities!!!

Anyway, we can almost be like that, but not quite...not quite.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[smaranam]

Namaste,

But returning to this Svatantra: To me, this concept is pointed to by the concept of Lila. In my admittedly poor and limited understanding, Lila is only possible in Svatantra- or else it could not truly be called Lila, and then we are not talking about the Divine, the Supreme- but something limited, and circumscribed easily by human minds.

JAI MATA DI

:iagree:

praNAm _/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[Viraja]

The rishis of olden times seem to have been independent of any needs, except for the need to experience absolute bliss. We see that many of them did tapasya without food, sometimes even without breathing. Some examples that come to the mind are Mandhaata (he did tapas for supposedly 10,000 years under water) and Chyavana (did tapas covered by a thick bush for many, many years). They did not have socio-economic or physical needs. So can they be considered as having existed completely independent?

Also how can paramatma, god, is able to be completely independent at the same time be able to manifest, at his will, in a full-fledged human form and present himself for lilas? Does he, even being god, have a need to experience the bliss of satsang? It is also said, god only created the world and populated it with humans because he had the need for company.

Sorry if my questions are ignorant or in some way, a meaningless diversion to this thread.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté
The rishis of olden times seem to have been independent of any needs, except for...

I offer the following just for perspective, to compare and contrast ideas. Any time there is an exception , then is it not of the full quality of perfectly free or svātantrya.
Now according to kṛṣṇa-jī taking care of the needs of the body, one does no harm with eating, breathing and the like. Why so ? Because it is the 3 guna-s acting within the field they are responsible for.

So, what then can be perfectly free ? It is Self, ātmā; it is stainless. We are none other. Yet there is this body that operates within the field of the laws of nature, and according to the laws of nature.

We are also taught that this svātantrya is also śakti - perfectly free. Why so ? more on this at another time.

iti śivaṁ