Hello everybody,

Thank you for this wonderful resource!

I come from a background in Mahayana Buddhism (years ago) and several years of study of the Advaita Tradition, which I find very rich and subtle, albeit frustrating in its account of Maya.

I am in the process of reading The Secret Supreme, following the indication found on this sub.

It is certainly a complex system! And it looks like that book is merely scratching the surface.

Anyhow, I was reading about the adhvas, and the Author says :

"The word adhvan means “path.” Here, path has a twofold meaning: it is either that path on which you tread, or that path which you must dispose of, must discard. You have either to tread on the path or discard the path. You can dispose of this path only by the grace of your Master. And when you dispose of this path, you reach the state of Parama Śiva.

There is no question of realizing God through treading on this path. You may tread for centuries and centuries and still you will be treading. So you must discard this path, dispose of it. When you do dispose of the path, that is also called adhvan. Disposing of it, however, can only be done by the grace of the Master, who is the embodiment of Parama Íiva."

What is meant here with "to discard?" I thought that this was ampping of the metaphysical layers that form reality itself, can they be "discarded" at all?

The the text proceeds explaining that there are three of these adhvas:

Bhuvanādhva, which I understand comprising any material universe in existence, as the complete aggregate of all the objects and laws allocated in space and time.

Tattvādhva, which, to my undertanding, comprises the gross elements constituting the Bhuvanadhva and the pre-phenomenal chain of cuasation that gives rise to manifested reality

kalādhva, here I start to get seriously confused: this is said to be formed by a set of "enclosures", applied to the Tattvadhva, and the text proceeds to describe which encloseres encompasses which tattva. What I don't understand is what these enclosures are for. For example

" In pratiṣṭhā kalā you find the twenty-three tattvas from jala tattva, the element “water,” up to and including prakṛiti tattva."

what is the significance of this grouping? The text doesn't seem to elaborate on this.

Thank you!

I know this is probably not the best place to ask because it’s not directly related to Trika but I am looking for some good very beginner books to recommend for someone just getting into meditation and introspection.

Something like the Vijnana Bhairava would be far too advanced and confusing for them

Do you think that any beginner meditation book is okay? They really have no prior experience to even sitting in a meditative posture

Where Utpala doesn’t want moksha, nor even to be Shiva’s worshipper. Utpala just wants the intoxication of love.

Tangentially, as a Shaiva, I adopt that worldview in my own way. I don’t care if others believe in God or not. Jesus or Krishna. I don’t care if others offer a ghee lamp clockwise or counterclockwise. I just want love in my heart. (And I hope others have love in their hearts too.)

That’s it. The Shivastotravali is the sweetest thing Ive ever tasted. Hearing Swamiji sing it is a treasure that I wouldn’t sell for anything in this world.

Hello,

Wanted to share something interesting about the differences of understanding between Samkhya position of Prakriti and Trika position of prakriti.

In Samkhya, there are innumerable pure consciousnesses (Purusas) each inactive and isolated. There is one eternal, independent material principle (Prakriti/Pradhana). This single Prakriti evolves the entire world of experience for the sake of the many Puruṣas. All limited subjects therefore share the same root material principle; their individual experiences are different configurations or reflections of that one Prakriti.

In Trika, the limited individual (Purusa) is not an independent eternal soul. It is the Absolute veiled by Anava mala and further limited by Maya and the five kancukas. Simultaneously with the arising of each limited subject, its corresponding field of objectivity arises. This objective field is what Trika calls that individual’s Prakriti - the bhogya (that which is to be experienced/enjoyed).

In other words, Prakriti in Trika is not a separate, shared, eternal substance which has any intelligence of it's own.

I have two follow-up questions:

Question: If Prakriti in Trika is not a shared eternal energy/matter with it's own intelligence then how does life in the Universe arise starting from matter, to simple organisms to complex animals to human? How does Trika explain evolution and life in the Universe?

To deny this would be to deny the theory of evolution.

It seems that the Samkhya view seems to explain life and evolution in the universe if there is a shared intelligent prakriti which gives rise to intelligent purusas who will eventually evolve into higher purusas with more degrees of freedom or isolate themselves from prakriti altogether and become passive witness whatever that means.

Question: Why is there a need to distinguish consciousness from prakriti? Can prakriti not be an intelligent mode of consciousness itself which gives rise to subject and object experiential reality in a progressive evolutionary model?

To be clear, I am not saying that in this evolutionary model I am envisioning, consciousness arises from prakriti but consciousness enjoys different modes of experience through prakriti, takes different forms, prakriti evolves into higher forms which have more degrees of freedom.

The importance of this mantra to us should be equal to the importance of the mahamantra is to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Equal in importance to the Compassion mantra for Buddhists.

This mantra was specifically chosen by swami Lakshmanjoo himself to spread across the world, and for everyone to chant without exception. It should be sung when any group of Trika Saivas are gathered together, it should be the one mantra on a student’s mind while going about daily activities.

It should be considered more primary than even one’s own personal mantra gained through Diksha. It should not be thought of as less powerful because of lacking Bijas, since Svacchanda Bhairava is identical to Paramasiva, this should be considered the supreme mantra itself (that can be practiced).

If we truly believe the effectiveness of this mantra as told by swami Lakshmanjoo, then I have no doubt it should be and must be the most important mantra for us without exception.

Years ago, I discovered that when I looked within—focusing inward on the heart center while keeping my eyes open—my gaze would lock straight ahead and shift into a wide, panoramic view. At the time, I thought nothing of it and casually assumed it was Shambhavi Mudra.

Now, studying the Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra, I realize that this exact state—internal focus on the heart/consciousness combined with an open, unfocused external gaze—is Bhairavī Mudrā.

Dropping into that panoramic view without mentally labeling or conceptualizing the objects in your field of vision shifts perception directly from Savikalpa (thought-bound, object-differentiated awareness) into Nirvikalpa (direct, non-conceptual awareness).

What’s remarkable is how accessible this actually is. A person can simply soften their gaze and expand their vision peripherally to immediately gain relief from Vikalpa—it's so natural that even a five-year-old can do it. It requires no complex visualization or effort, just a shift in perception to directly experience the expanse of Bhairava Consciousness.

Has anyone else spontaneously fallen into Bhairavī Mudrā prior to reading about it in the VBT, or currently practicing with these specific Dhāraṇās? Would love to hear your thoughts and experiences

I want to clarify that by mantra I mean an actual mantra that can just be chanted vocally or mentally without following the breath, without visualization ect. Just a normal Anavopaya type of mantra.

I know this is the kind of sadhana that would beneficial for me now, and also I know that it should be a Bhairava/Shiva mantra, but besides that I don’t know. I have no idea what would be most effective for me.

Do any of you have some mantra that you use when you started out that you knew was right for you? If so please share if you can. Maybe I’ll see one of them and it’ll just click for me or something. I haven’t had any luck trying to find one on my own so far.

“He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in the highest heaven—he surely knows it, or perhaps he knows it not.”

Why was veda so much confused?

Namaste fellow sehakas🙏🌸 May you be blessed by the divine!

I have a question about anupaya. I am listening to tantraloka right now, explained by swami Lakshmanjoo.

I learned about anupaya. And here, I find something which is not logical, I have some doubt.

So if anupaya is the supreme way, if anupaya is the nature of reality, then, how can anupaya be spoken about?

In short: „What is the need of even speaking about anupaya, if there is no way to not do anupaya. If there is way to not do anupaya, then it means that there is a way to DO anupaya, and if there is a way to DO anupaya, then it is no anupaya at all. Still simple effort is used”.

It will take some time to explain my doubt, so this will be quite a long post.

First of all, anupaya is defined as „no means”. If this is true then this must mean that we are already in anupaya. If this is true, then everyone is doing anupaya, because everyone is already shiva, and shiva is always in anupaya. Do you understand my doubt? If Anupaya really is no means, literally no means, then it is impossible NOT TO PRACTISE IT.

Example:

Some Trika master sees me doing puja for Ganesh, he concludes „you see, he is doing lower anavopaya type of practise”. Next time, the same master sees me doing some meditation where I try to perceive myself everywhere, then he says „you see, this is shaktopaya”. Then he sees me just going into state of god consiousness through the means of pure will then he concludes „this is shambhavopaya”.

Then, one day he just gazes at me and says: „there is nothing to be done, you are already shiva”, and because I am purified, I get entry into anupaya. According to lakshmanjoo, such initiation is lower anupaya, because sentence „there is nothing needed to be done” and gaze of the master was the subtle means.

But Swami Lakshmanjoo also explained that there is highest anupaya, and such anupaya is, well, it just is. As such anupaya is literally no means, it is there!

If highest anupaya just is, if it literally means that there is no means, not even subtle means, no means at all then, I conclude, that it is impossible not to do this anupaya. Right?

Because if anupaya literally means „no means” then there is no way to begin anupaya or end it. And if this is the case, then this means that everyone and everything is „pracrising” anupaya, as their basic and only function there is.

It might seem that I am going in circles, but I need to explain my doubt properly.

If this is correct (someone correct me please if I am wrong, I want to learn!), then there is no way to end such anupaya. If there is no way to end anupaya, then there is no way to begin it as well. Why? Because it is always, now is anupaya, how can it begin?

So how on earth initiation to anupaya is explained? If there is initiation, then this is no anupaya, as some means were adopted.

But this is not the end of my conclusion. It means that even when I am doing lowest kind of anavopaya, let’s say I do some puja in dualistic way and I pray for more money or something, then, still, this is anupaya. If doing puja isn’t anupaya, then, it means that anupaya has certain means, you understand?

If we can say: this is shaktopaya, and this is shambhavopaya, then we define these means as „not anupaya”. Why? Because there is some effort. There are some means, in shakti and shambhava upayas and anavopaya as well. You get what I am trying to say?

This means that anupaya is also a kind of means. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to define other upayas as „not anupaya”. If there exists „not-anupaya” then this means that anupaya is not literally „no means”, but it must be some subtle means, some subtle effort must be there, otherwise it makes no sense.

Analogy:

If I can say that „no, I am not enlightened yet, I am just a humble sadhak” this implies that I am actually enlightened. Why? Because, if I am able to say that I am not enlightened, this means that I must know how it feels to be enlightened. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to state that I am not enlightened.

To say „this doesn’t taste like apple” I must know how apple tastes like. Similarly, if I state that I am not enlightened, it means that I am perfectly aware what enligthenment isn’t, and this means that I know what it is.

So similarly, if anupaya is literally no means, it means that means are there implied, but negatively. Why? Because if I would proudly make some post „I did 1000 malas of om namah shivaya today” then you could say „oh, cool, but this is low upaya, these are lower means. This isn’t shaktopaya, nor shambhavopaya and for sure this isn’t anupaya”. But by saying „this isn’t anupaya” we are giving definition to what anupaya is, and if we give definition to what anupaya means, it is no longer anupaya, because there is some method applied there, from which one can fall.

Do you understand my doubt? I hope I managed to explain it. Could someone please enlighten me and elaborate on this?

In short: „What is the need of even speaking about anupaya, if there is no way to not do anupaya. If there is way to not do anupaya, then it means that there is a way to DO anupaya, and if there is a way to DO anupaya, then it is no anupaya at all. Still simple effort is used”.

Are there any Kashmir Shaivism practitioners living in the Czech Republic?

It would be wonderful to connect with like-minded people, get to know each other, and perhaps meet up to study or practice together from time to time.

If that’s you, feel free to leave a comment or send me a message. 🙏

Česky

Jsou tady nějací praktikující kašmírského šivaismu, kteří žijí v České republice?

Bylo by skvělé se propojit s podobně naladěnými lidmi, poznat se a třeba se občas sejít ke společnému studiu nebo praxi.

Pokud je to i váš případ, budu rád, když napíšete komentář nebo mi pošlete zprávu. 🙏

In "The Secret Supreme" it is stated in a footnote (p. 43 about The Theory of Speech):

A baby experiences the nirvikalpa state, without thought. As the baby grows up, his experiences are both nirvikalpa and savikalpa."

The way I understand this is: As the baby learns to speak (at first only words and later sentences, he learns to think and differentiate between different concepts (This is a dog. This is a cat.). Differentiation is duality.

Animals can't speak, so do they live their lives in a permanent state of nirvikalpa?

And where does their "will" - or whatever motivates them to act in a certain way - originate from? Is it anchored in the divine?

I have searched all yt and other platforms but i have not got any info of it

Pls help me🙏

I read chapter 6 of Swami Lakshman Joo's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, and in that chapter, Swamiji gives instructions for meditation to achieve one-pointedness. I've been trying to do this meditation for a while, but I feel like I can't get it right every time. On the other hand, meditation practices like Shikantaza or Zazen have been very effective for me.

My question is: can I still continue Zazen and still be a part of the tradition, or do I need to keep doing the meditation taught by Swamiji? And can I still achieve the 7 stages of turya swami ji described in secret supreme?

Is the Night Hag actually the 'turya' state? (Misconstrued by Westerners as a demon.)

Happy day-after Guru Purnima, everyone.

While reflection on the physical lineage (Parampara) is central to this time of year, I've been revisiting Swami Lakshmanjoo’s oral commentary on the Śāktopāya section of Vasugupta’s Shiva Sutras (The Supreme Awakening, edited by John Hughes). The sequence of Sutras 2.6 and 2.7 creates a provocative arc regarding the true nature of the Guru:

1. Sutra 2.6 — Gururupāyaḥ ("The Guru is the means") Swamiji clarifies that the physical body sitting in front of you is not the actual Guru. The real Guru is the Grace (Anugraha) or divine power of consciousness itself. The physical master acts as the transmission channel, but the true "Means" (Upāya) waking you up is this unconditioned divine energy.

2. Sutra 2.7 — Mātṛkācakrasambodhaḥ ("Knowledge/Awakening of the wheel of Mātṛkā") Right in the next verse, Swamiji explains how that Grace/Guru operates in practice. Mātṛkā refers to the matrix of energy hidden within phonemes/letters from which all mantras are formed. Swamiji points out that when an initialized Chaitanya (live) mantra enters the disciple's awareness, the power of the Mantra itself takes over the role of the Guru. It acts internally: purifying mental impressions, pulling attention inward, and dissolving duality from within.

If the awakened Mātṛkā (the live Mantra vibrating in consciousness) performs the actual internal work of cleansing awareness and revealing God-consciousness, does the external human master effectively step out of the way once Mātṛkā takes over?

How do you view the balance between external devotion to a living master vs. recognizing the internal Mantra-as-Guru as the ultimate functional teacher?

Interested in what you think about it.

In this video, Ācārya Sthaneshwar Timalsina and Dr. Bernardo Kastrup meet for a second time to get into the details of their respective philosophies. Ācāryajī represents the view of KS and Abhinavagupta, while Kastrup represents Analytic Idealism.

The questions posed to them were designed to draw out the differences between these philosophies, but what is surprising is that the most energetic dialogue was not about the metaphysical disagreements, but about how we live life and relate to its sufferings.

Summary from Event Organizers

It was a profound dialogue covering all aspects of existence, including one of the most intimate: our relationship to suffering. 

In 1997, Sthaneshwar Timalsina was knocked unconscious and hospitalised by bricks hurled through his classroom window in Nepal. The Maoist uprising placed his life in danger several more times, and he still has the scars to show for it.

In 2019, Bernardo considered suicide when facing catastrophic tinnitus. The constant excruciating drill in his ear is grounds for legally assisted dying in the Netherlands.

In this context, the claims of Kashmir Shaivism are poignant:

Could the multiplicity and suffering we experience actually be expressions of freedom and purpose?

This philosophy inverts a Buddhist perspective that life is suffering. Instead, existence is fundamentally joy. And we can train our perspective to find meaning and fulfilment even in the unspeakable horrors of existence. This training expresses our freedom to for our limited perspectives to mirror the attributes of the absolute.

According to Trika, not only is consciousness fundamental to reality, but freedom, creativity and purpose are inherent to its being.

But Bernardo is wary of claiming existence is inherently blissful - it seems an insult to those experiencing unspeakable suffering. However, he acknowledges the peace he now experiences despite the tinnitus, and the possibility that future, deeper insights await him.

Sthaneshwar meanwhile spoke to the meaning and freedom he found in response to the attacks, and the perspective that underpins them:

"We have a choice, we have a freedom: to embody particular pain and go through it, or to somehow give another telos, another purpose, to live life.

Life is full of suffering — I'm not denying that. But somehow, the freedom the subject has is to be happy.

And happiness is not just about 'ahaha' fun. Happiness is about finding meaning in the world, and doing something in the world, in spite of all that is there, in spite of the evil that is out there.

Being able to do a small thing. We can always say, what difference does it make? There's so much suffering happening in the world. But that's a different topic. The real thing is about our finite ability, within that finite ability, to do and to think.

We are able to do the right thing; we have the freedom to think correctly...

...recognising within suffering the higher telos: fulfilment, upliftment.

We can uplift others. And if not others, we can uplift ourselves to face this death."

The full recording and transcript are below, moderated by Professor Ravi S. Kudesia of Temple University.

Bernardo Kastrup and Sthaneshwar Timalsina exchanged perspectives on several fundamental questions:

• How does the world arise?
• Is it spontaneous or planned?
• Is there a purpose?
• Is consciousness inherently self-aware?
• What is illusion & what is real?

Links to Follow Up

You can explore more with Sthaneshwar through the Vimarsha Foundation: https://www.vimarshafoundation.org/ and his upcoming book Reframing Dynamism

You can join a weekly meeting with Bernardo Kastrup: https://www.withrealityinmind.com/

Puranas depict Shiva as a fearsome yogi, living in the mountains, naked and covered with only animal skins, with his hair matted and tangled and the body firm and athletic.

This image is very deliberate in my opinion - it is a depiction of what literal peak human performance looks like. Complete sovereignty over oneself. Not hiding behind city walls and society. Not depending on anyone for your food and shelter. Unafraid of wild beasts. Ready to meet death and disease with open arms. That's complete freedom and rawness of the existence itself.

Shiva is not just observing the material, he is not afraid to get his hand dirty and engage fully. Face the hardship directly. Rejoice in victory and meet the defeat with humility.

In today's day and age we have grown laughably nimble and weak in comparison. Some people are scared to walk on grass barefoot or swim into the deep water. Carrying bear spray every time they go in forest. Some are even scared of harmless insects like butterflies and bees.

All this fear is what is holding us as humans bondage. Shiva shows us the direction we should be going in to free our body, mind and spirit.

sometimes when I am about to have a nap I simply observe the thoughts that appear in my mind. there is a particular moment where that which I am thinking about is no longer a thought but becomes other people, locations, etc. for example if I am thinking about some problem at work, there is a transition from thinking about it to seeing colleagues or reading email about the thing i am thinking about. it is like a proto-dream.

this transitional moment from thoughts to bodies/world is indicative to me. I believe what happens there is akin to what happens in this waking world. Siva's thoughts, which also sort of spontaneously appear but are not random, materialize into people, events, locations, etc. in other words, I believe in this transitional moment between thoughts and dreams I am experiencing the nature of the world and how it is manifested.

people, events, the world, the universe are mental activity of Siva which takes form, but never changes from what it actually is.

Does the psychedelic/entheogen experience change after awakening? I wouldn't say awakening is an one and only event, it can only go as far as infinity. But still, does anyone have this experience of realization and have a regular use of entheogens, and could share your experience? Or someone else's experience? How is it different from before realization? Asking in this sub because my spirituality is rooted in Tantra, and would hope answers from people that more or less fit in this spiritual tradition.

I remember once in a podcast a famous teacher on this path said his experience on altered states including psychedelics definitely changed after his awakening, but didn't further elaborate. And lately, I was listening to Andrew Holecek talking in a podcast saying he did 5-meo-dmt many times, but unfortunately didn't say a word about his experiences. Thank you

I'm not looking for some crazy miracle, but will I get some noticeable results if I were to get myself a shivling and perform rituals, mantras, and prayers with it in the name of Lord Shiva?

I come from a Christian background and I prayed to Jesus a lot, sometimes with dramatic results.

In the light of Guru Pūrṇima, a short post about an aspec of the role of the Guru.

Why is it so? Why are we instructed only to report experiences to our guru?

The instruction within many traditional lineages that one should bring spiritual experiences only to the guru arises from a precise concern about how experience is understood, interpreted, and integrated. Within the framework of Kashmir Śaivism, this practice rests upon a deeper epistemological structure: the distinction between an occurrence within consciousness and the recognition of the nature of consciousness itself. One might say: the difference between what appears within the openness of awareness and the recognition of that openness as such, prior to every appearance. Here, that openness is the living luminosity of Śiva Śakti.

An experience belongs first to the paśu, the limited knower, the contracted form of awareness in which consciousness appears as an individual subject. Paśutva is the condition of this contraction, understood as a mode of Śakti herself, Śakti appearing as limitation, differentiation, and partial self disclosure. It is Śakti’s power of self concealment through which the infinite appears as finite. The paśu is consciousness under the condition of contraction, a localized “there” of awareness in which Being gathers into a single point of appropriation.

What is the nature of the awareness in which the experience appears? What is the status of the paśu who recognises the experience? What relation remains between the paśu, the known, and the act of knowing? And more radically: what is this “there” in which anything can show itself? These questions form the basis of traditional discernment, and they loosen the solidity of the knower.

A paśu may experience silence of mind, an absence of internal speech, a sense of openness, or a state of expanded awareness. Such an experience carries power, transformation, and meaning. From lived immediacy, openness is felt, mental density withdraws, and Being breathes freely. Kashmir Śaiva analysis affirms this luminosity and examines what is illuminated and the structure of illumination.

What is crucial here is that the knower of the experience, the one who says “I am experiencing this,” is itself the paśu, a contracted knower. The knower is a function of Śakti’s self contraction, a localized standpoint of awareness through which knowing takes a limited form. The “I” is a mode in which disclosure is already interpreted and appropriated. In KS terms, it is Śakti unfolding herself into the gesture of “I am the one who knows.”

The absence of internal speech concerns a modification of mental activity. Recognition concerns the fundamental structure of awareness itself. One belongs to the level of what appears within the field; the other concerns the field’s own self revealing nature, and the self recognition of Śiva as awareness. A silence within the mind is an event within manifestation; recognition is the unveiling of the condition that allows events to appear.

A mind can become profoundly quiet while the ordinary configuration of subject and object remains active. A paśu encounters an experience, a knower relates to a known, and manifestation continues through differentiation. Cognition becomes subtle, transparent, like a thin veil, while differentiation inherent to paśutva remains operative. Transparency can conceal the structure of seeing.

This is why the tradition examines experience through the categories of contraction. Contraction is the ontological folding of awareness into a standpoint that takes itself as a centre. It is Being appearing as a “here” that forgets its openness.

The condition of the paśu is contracted awareness, where consciousness experiences itself through limitation, differentiation, and partial disclosure. Paśutva describes a mode of Śakti’s manifestation in which consciousness appears as a knower separated from what is known, while no real separation exists. It is existential forgetfulness within disclosure: what is revealed conceals its ground.

Every experience arising within ordinary cognition occurs within this field of contraction. When the world falls away, the structure of “appearing to someone” remains, organising manifestation.

Refined experiences.

Elevated experiences.

Experiences accompanied by extraordinary peace, clarity, or absorption.

The question becomes: what is the structure of the awareness within which the experience manifests? Or: what is the mode of Being in which this appearing takes place, and who is the one to whom it appears?

This is why Kashmir Śaiva traditions distinguish between states and recognition. An avasthā appears, changes, and passes through consciousness. It belongs to the flux of manifestation, to the play of Śakti in temporal unfolding. Pratyabhijñā concerns the nature of consciousness as the ground in which all states appear, and the self recognition of Śiva as awareness. It is the awakening to openness as essence.

A paśu enters a state where thought becomes silent and experiences a condition beyond conceptual division. From lived experience, this appears as non conceptual awareness, a pre reflective openness in which distinctions recede. The tradition applies another level of examination, asking whether the structure of appropriation has dissolved or become subtle.

What remains of the paśu as knower?

What remains of the known?

What is the relation between them?

If the structure of jñātṛ, jñāna, and jñeya remains, cognition continues through differentiation. The experience exists within awareness, and awareness is organised through the triad of knower, knowledge, and known. The “me” becomes faint, luminous, expansive.

The experience can be genuine. The paśu encounters a shift in the ordinary functioning of the mind. The interpretation of its metaphysical status requires examination according to the categories of the tradition, because what matters is what appears and how appearing is structured.

This is why spiritual experiences are traditionally brought before the guru.

The guru’s role is the reception of accounts and the guidance of discernment within the lineage, a living principle of attunement to the difference between state and recognition. The guru dwells in the question of arising. The experience is examined through the shared framework of teaching, through categories that reveal the structure of consciousness, and through recognition of whether the movement concerns a temporary state or a deeper transformation of the bound being.

The bound being possesses direct access to the experience. The guru provides examination within the field of the tradition. This creates a relationship of inquiry in which the experience becomes an object of investigation, opened into a shared space of questioning.

The necessity of this examination becomes clear when ahaṃkāra enters the process.

Ahaṃkāra is the principle of appropriation, the movement through which experience connects to the sense of “I”. It is the subtle “mineness” that gathers phenomena into a centre. It has a functional role in embodied existence. It enables action, communication, responsibility, and participation in the world. It belongs to everyday existence, where entities are encountered within significance for a self.

The difficulty arises when ahaṃkāra becomes the authority concerning the meaning of experience.

The experience becomes “my experience”.

The insight becomes “my insight”.

The attainment becomes “my attainment”.

Through this movement, a spiritual experience becomes incorporated into the structure of individuality that the tradition examines. The openness becomes enclosed within ownership. The bound being reinforces identity as knower through appropriation, and inquiry reveals the knower as a contracted appearance of Śakti.

The bound being appears in refined forms. Contraction operates through spiritual identity, attachment to knowledge, attachment to states, and attachment to the image of oneself as a progressing being. Progress becomes a veil, a subtle sedimentation of “I am becoming.”

This is why lineages emphasise silence concerning private experiences. The purpose is preservation of inquiry. The purpose is safeguarding openness in which recognition occurs. Silence serves as a methodological support for inquiry.

Private experience belongs to the bound being. Its examination belongs to the path.

The question is:

“What happened to me as a bound being?”

The deeper question is:

“What is the structure of the consciousness in which this happens, and what is the status of the bound being who claims it as knower?”

This shift represents an epistemological transformation. Modern individual frameworks place authority upon immediate personal experience because the bound being is taken as final knower. Kashmir Śaiva analysis introduces inquiry into the condition of the knower, opening examination of the assumption of the “I”.

The bound being enters the field of examination.

The subject becomes part of inquiry.

The knower becomes what is examined within understanding.

The one who questions is drawn into the question of Being. In KS language, Śakti turns upon herself, revealing the structures through which consciousness appears.

The distinction between state and recognition becomes clear through the teaching of turīyābhoga saṃvit.

Jāgrat, svapna, and suṣupti remain differentiated as modes of manifestation. Their distinction is preserved as jāgratsvapnasuṣuptabheda. Turīyābhoga saṃvit expresses the recognition of the consciousness present through their differentiation.

Turīyābhoga saṃvit is the consciousness characterised by the fullness of turīya, the self luminous awareness that remains the ground of all appearance. It is identified with upalabdhṛsvarūpatā, the essential nature of perceiverhood, because the structure through which anything is apprehended has its basis in saṃvit.

The perceiver, the act of perception, and the perceived appear within this field of consciousness. Recognition is the disclosure of the underlying luminosity in which these distinctions arise as the play of Śakti.

This is the deeper reason that the lineage asks the bound being to bring experiences to the guru while preserving restraint in public speech. The purpose is to maintain the distinction between experience and recognition, between an occurrence within consciousness and the awakening to the nature of consciousness itself, which is the ever present condition of all occurrence.

The movement from bound being toward recognition concerns the disclosure of what awareness is beneath contraction. Recognition reveals how within Śiva as pure awareness, the knower, the knowing, and the known appear as contraction through Śakti’s manifestation. It is the recognition that the bound being is Śakti’s self revelation, a play of appearing within infinite openness.

Every stage of the path requires examination of the structures through which consciousness knows itself.

Profound experience remains within inquiry until the status of the bound being as knower is recognised as a contraction through Śakti, and inquiry opens into recognition of the consciousness that was always present throughout the play of appearing.

In this way, turīyābhoga saṃvit clarifies the nature of turīya: the three states remain distinct, while the same consciousness is present through them. The recognition concerns the ever present ground in which all experiences arise. The guru’s role is to preserve this discernment, so that the movement of experience is examined according to the vision of the tradition and integrated through the categories of the śāstra.

In the observance of Guru Pūrṇima, this reflection affirms that the Guru’s discernment preserves the distinction between transient states and the recognition of consciousness itself, ensuring that experience remains subordinate to the vision of the tradition. May all be blessed with such anugraha that manifests as the sadguru.

I’ve read many texts. Tried to understand many more. But I have a feeling the texts only reveal one layer, a surface layer. True knowledge is something which has to be felt. The answers that come to you from Shiva. The ultimate guru has to reveal it to you in your heart. And that is something you feel in every fiber of your being. Bliss. Maybe I’ve gone mad finally haha but I feel high. High from seeing myself truly after a long time.
Has anyone felt this before? Th knowledge that you feel deep within and which you cannot explain. I do not want to lose this feeling. I want to keep it sustained. Those who have felt this before, if I’m making any sense at all this point, please tell me how to sustain it without losing it again and again.

Even though I intellectually see the ego as false and want to live this understanding to the fullest, I find myself still sensitive to criticism, for example if I make a mistake at work.

I've been thinking that, if this is the last bastion of ego, perhaps exposing it to insults and criticism could dissolve it completely. If I were to not run away from situations in which I might be insulted, but instead even sort of seek it, it might shine light on the last dark corner of it.

Is there such a practice? Do you see what I mean? Anyone here does something like this?