> Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. > Kashmere Trika was incorporated into the Madukya Upanishad, Gaudapada and Shankara. In fact, many of the terms used in Kashmere Shaivism mean the very same thing as in the Gaudapada's karika and in Mandukya Upanaishad. In addition, with the exception of the concept of 'Maya', many of the terms used in Kashmere Shaivism mean the very same thing in the Adwaita Vedanta espoused by the Adi Shankaracharya. Kashmere Shaivism is a form of transcendental, realistic idealism; a form of absolute monism. According to Kashmere Shaivism, 'Cit' is pure consciousness - the One Reality, just like in Shankara's Advaita and in Vasubhandu's Vijnanavada.
So, the question is: How did three different Indian systems all get the idealistic notion that consciousness was the one reality, at the same time? [image: Inline image 1] MMY with Laksmanjoo - Master of Kashmere Trika (TTC Kashmere) My theory is that the Buddhist Yogacara tradition was established up in Kashmere and was adopted by the Kasmere Tantrics. Then, whan Shankara was on pilgrimage to Kashmere he came under the influence of the Yogacara and took that knowledge back to India and established the Sri Vidya. Not for nothing is the Shankara math "Sringeri" named after Srinagar! Somehow the symbol Sri Yantra went from Kashmere to India. Now I ask you - who is famous for painting yantras and mandalas on silk to hang on the wall? Go figure. Kashmere Shaivism is called 'Trika' based on the three fundamental states of consciousness: 1. ja-grat - waking state 2. svapna - dreaming 3. sus.upti - dreamless sleep And, turiya - pure consciousness, is the fourth state of consciousness, 'turiya' which is pure consciousness. These are the "three cities" mentioned in the Sri Vidya Soundarya Lahari. According to Bernard, the Vedanta doctrine contends that there is only one ultimate reality which never changes; therefore the manifest world is an 'appearance' only. Kashmere Saivism contends that there is only one reality, but it has two aspects; therefore the manifestation is real. This is based on the argument that the effect cannot be different from its cause. The world of matter is only another form of consciousness. Swami Rama on the Mandukhya Upanishad: 2) Sarvam hyetad brahmayam-atma brahma soyamatma catushpat. "Atman has Four Aspects: All of this, everywhere, is in truth Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This very Self itself, Atman, is also Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This Atman or Self has four aspects through which it operates." Work cited: 'Hindu Philosophy' The definitive sourcebook, in English, of the Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, by the author of "Hatha Yoga", "Penthouse of the Gods", and "Heaven Lies Within Us". Comprehensive, erudite, scholarly. by Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Philosophical Publishing House 1947 'Enlightenment Without God' Mandukya Upanishad By Swami Rama Himalayan Institute Press, 1982 Other titles of interst: 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism By Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Triadic Heart of Siva' Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir By Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega State University of New York Press, 1989 Notes: 1. Kashmir Shaivism resembles Hindu tantra, and both have as their key symbol the Shri Yantra, as I previously posted, which was established by the Adi Shankara in Kashmere and at the four principle mathas - Sringeri, Puri, Jyotir, Dwarka, and at Kanchi. In Kashmere Shaivism, the 'aham' bija mantra is considered to be a non-dual interior space of Lord Shiva, which supports the entire manifestation. 'Aham' in Kashmere Shaivism is the 'Supreme' bija mantra and is identical to Shakti. It's the very same thing in the Hindu Tantras. 2. Samyama is activated subconsciously in non-structured form by any thinking activity and experiencing deep levels of trance induction or meditation. 'Samyama' is the combined, simultaneous practice of dharana, dhyana, and samadhi. That's TM! On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have > read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it > shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate > traditions. > > > You read about these influences from the common arena of discourse in > India and then conclude that x causes y because of similar concerns in two > traditions. Advaita means not-two. However, that does not mean that because > the use the term "advaita" or "advaya" is used in multiple traditions that > one of these traditions has caused, created or even influenced the view of > the others. > > > Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela > Advaita. What they share is a common Indian basis for philosophizing. > > > You also know nothing about the pivitol question of causation in the > development of Hinayana dharma-pluralism, Vijñanavada Ideationism and > HwaYen's Tathata-Causation. This is a topic that was later very important > in the refinement and development of Chan/Zen/Sön - both Linji and Caodong > traditions. > > But then you must already know this because you are the professor who > discourses upon everything you've read. You must be the ultimate embodiment > of mutual-identity and interpenetration between absolute and relative. > > Hail to Professor P.Dog Willy > > > ---In [email protected], <punditster@...> wrote: > > Thanks for posting the information,but you failed to point out the > similarities: > > Shankara's Advaita claims to be based on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita > and the Brahma Sutras, but many scholars such as Sharma and Raju have noted > that Shankara shows many signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism, > Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and > Asanga. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Hindusim in order > to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. > > 1. Gaudapada adapted the Buddhist concept of "ajata", the doctrine of > non-origination or non-creation, from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Ajata is the > fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. > > 2. Advaita Vedanta also adopted from the Madhyamika the idea of two levels > of reality - "two truths" - absolute and relative. > > 3. Gaudapada and Shankara adopted almost all of the Buddhist dialectic, > methodology, arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies > and even their philosophy of the Absolute. > > 4. Gaudapada embraced the Buddhist idea that the nature of the world is > the four-cornered negation. > > 5. Gaudapada adopted the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure > consciousness. > > P.S. You also did not explain the connection between the non-dualism of > Advaita Vedanta and the non-dualism of Kashmere Tantrsim. > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:28 PM, <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > > In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. > It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for > understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate. > > Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status > in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the > eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of > all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or > celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be > final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all > encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely > logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative > and is neither final nor absolute. > > Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools > until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all > other elements of experience. > > That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized > Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in > fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his > day, particularly Vijnanavada. > > > > In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada’s > statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the > same milieu of philosophic discourse. > > > This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism > demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. > > > > As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are > fundamentally opposed in five key points: > > > > 1. Both say that the world is “unreal”, but Buddhists mean that it is > only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that > the world is merely conceptual. > > > > 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism – consciousness > is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is > pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly > continuous. The momentariness of empirical states of consciousness overlies > this continuity. > > > > 3. In Buddhism, the “self” is the ego (the “I”) – a conceptual > construct that is quite unreal. In Advaita, the Self is the only “really > Real” and is the basis of all concepts. > > > > 4. In Buddhism, avidya causes us to construct continuities (such as > the self) where there are none. In Advaita, avidya causes us instead to > take what is unreal to be real and what is real to be unreal. > > > > 5. Removal of avidya leads to nirvana/blowning out for Buddhists but > for Shankara it leads to perfect knowledge (vidya). > > > > > > > > > >
