
Kashmir Shaivism is a non-dual tantric tradition in which Pratyabhijna or ‘recognition’ is the goal. In Kashmir Shaivism, the absolute is termed ‘Shiva’ and the relative world of people and objects is termed ‘Shakti’ (which means energy or power). Shiva and Shakti are given equal status and are said not to exist apart from each other – where one exists, the other also exists.
In Non-Dual (Advaita) Vedanta, the Self (Atman) is the Absolute (Brahman) and it is said to project Maya-Shakti which in turn projects the world of people and objects. Maya is said to be dependent on the Absolute Self and not vice-versa, so the two are not given equal status.
This obviously causes confusion in some seekers, so here Ramana explains them both:
The following is an excerpt from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 288:
Explaining Maya of Vedanta and swatantra [tantra] of Pratyabhijna (independence of recognition), Sri Bhagavan said:
The Vedantins say that Maya is the sakti of illusion premised in Siva. Maya has no independent existence. Having brought out the illusion of the world as real, she continues to play upon the ignorance of the victims. When the reality of her not being is found, she disappears.
‘Recognition’ [ie. Kashmir Shaivism] says that Sakti (power) is coeval with Siva. The one does not exist without the other. Siva is unmanifest, whereas Sakti is manifest on account of Her independent will swatantra. Her manifestation is the display of the cosmos on pure consciousness, like images in a mirror.
The images cannot remain in the absence of a mirror.
So also the world cannot have an independent existence. Swatantra becomes eventually an attribute of the Supreme. Sri Sankara says that the Absolute is without attributes and that Maya is not and has no real being. What is the difference between the two? Both agree that the display is not real. The images of the mirror cannot in any way be real. The world does not exist in reality (vastutah).
Both schools mean the same thing. Their ultimate aim is to realise the Absolute Consciousness. The unreality of the cosmos is implied in Recognition (Pratyabhijna), whereas it is explicit in Vedanta. If the world be taken as chit (consciousness), it is always real. Vedanta says that there is no nana (diversity), meaning that it is all the same Reality.
There is agreement on all points except in words and the method of expression.
Tom: note that in both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, the essential teaching is the same – ie. one is advised to turn within, that is turn away from objects, and realise the Pure Consciousness, the Self Within, devoid of objects. Only the conceptual framework and superficial aspects of the teachings vary.
Well, I am not so sure. A famous quote of Nissagadarta is: Wisdom tells me I am nothing, Love tells me I am everything, and in between that my live flows. That would be the shive and shakti aspect. The Aspekt of emptyness and fullness.
And so I understood Ruperts teachings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, there are many issues with the types of teaching given in a book such as ‘I Am That’ by Nisargadatta Maharaj, as different teachings were naturally given for different levels of seeker and the tendency is for the seeker to selectively disrgard teachings they (their ego-mind) disagrees with, and selectively cling to the teachings/quotes it likes.
Did not Nisargadatta essentially give the same instruction to attain liberation as Sri Ramana and the like? Even if we disagree on various matters, is not that the key? – ie. what is the advice given by these sages on how to attain liberation? And do we actually follow that advice or do we do something quite different?
See here for Sri Nisargadatta’s advice on how to attain liberation if you want to:
And here where the entire teaching is given in 4 simple quotes from I Am That:
Let me know what you think
Wishing you well
Namaste
Tom
LikeLike