Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Completely independent...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Completely independent...

    hari o
    ~~~~~~~

    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.

    praām
    Last edited by yajvan; 13 January 2012 at 01:35 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #2

    Re: Completely independent...

    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Rep Power
    287

    Re: Completely independent...

    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
    Namaskar,

    AmIHindu ?

    यज्ञानां जपयज्ञोऽस्मि ।

    नाम्नोऽस्ति यावती शक्तिः पापनिर्हरणे हरेः । श्र्वपचोऽपि नरः कतुँ क्षमस्तावन्नकिल्विषम् ।।

  4. #4

    Re: Completely independent...

    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
    || जय माता की ||

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Completely independent...

    So, is the universe svatantra?

  6. #6

    Re: Completely independent...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    So, is the universe svatantra?
    The "universe" is a result or expression of the free will (svatantra/sveccha) of lord shiva.
    What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.

  7. #7

    Re: Completely independent...

    Quote Originally Posted by JaiMaaDurga View Post

    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.
    What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Completely independent...

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by sm78 View Post
    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.

  9. #9

    Re: Completely independent...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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.
    Last edited by sm78; 15 January 2012 at 12:14 AM.
    What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Completely independent...

    Quote Originally Posted by sm78 View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12 October 2011, 11:22 PM
  2. Practical Advaita
    By atanu in forum Advaita
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 03 September 2010, 05:26 PM
  3. "Gurunathan to me"- Some teaching of my Guru
    By brahman in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16 February 2010, 12:07 PM
  4. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
  5. Gautam Buddha is indeed a Hindu
    By PrimeDirectives in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 255
    Last Post: 30 July 2009, 12:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •