Keep up the refreshing conversation. Nice to see a “non-traditional” thread doing rather well. 
Keep up the refreshing conversation. Nice to see a “non-traditional” thread doing rather well.
Thanks, Satori. I have still not really explained why I associate the castes with the Sephiroth I mentioned. I will try to do so now.
“But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he [Brahman] caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.”
[The Laws of Manu 1.31]
The feet are symbolised by Malkuth, the lowest Sephira, on the Tree of Life; the legs by Hod and Netzach; the arms by Geburah and Chesed; and the mouth… I have chosen to associate the mouth with the non-Sephira Daath, which corresponds to the throat chakra, because the sound that comes from the mouth really comes from the throat.
By the way, it is funny that the next thing that Manu says is: “Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female” [1.32]. Might these two sides be the pillars of mercy and severity on the Tree of Life, which are traditionally said to be masculine and feminine respectively?
Also, my conception of Chokmah and Binah as the two poles of Kether is not entirely correct. For Kether pertains to the Crown chakra, whereas Chokmah and Binah pertain to the left and right eye, respectively. So they are rather poles of the Third Eye. But the third eye is simply the window down which the light from the crown chakra streams.
I would now like to introduce my “Musical Qabalah Kalender”. No, this is no joke. I believe I have “solved” the Tree of Life, i.e., filled in the gaps. The Tree of Life looks thus:
A
C_B
D
F_E
G
I_H
J
K
A=Kether
B=Chokmah
C=Binah
D=Daath
E=Chesed
F=Geburah
G=Tiphareth
H=Netzach
I=Hod
J=Yesod
K=Malkuth (=Kether on a lower plain).
My alternative to this is:
A
DCB
E
HGF
I
LKJ
M
A=Kether/crown chakra
B=Chokmah
C=third eye chakra
D=Binah
E=Daath/throat chakra
F=Chesed
G=Tiphareth/heart chakra
H=Geburah
I=navel chakra
J=Netzach
K=sacral chakra
L=Hod
M=Malkuth/root chakra
Nevermind why I called this the Musical Qabalah Kalender; that only has to do with how I figured it out.
This is interesting, for Rudra/Shiva/Bhairava always leads me to Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu. At the end of 2002, Shiva descended upon me and into me and I was redeemed from the particular crisis I was in then, and with that, from the general crisis I had been in, on and off, from the end of 1997: nihilism. My Shiva-dancing saved me, but Shiva, in turn, led me to Krishna/Narayana, whose devotee I became. Then, in the Spring of 2005, I, the embodiment of Shiva and devotee of Krishna, identified the two and became a mere man once more. This was a terrible crisis: I had killed my God! This was the first time I, who have been a student of Nietzsche since 1997, actually experienced the death of God (for I have not been brought up religiously). And again, this crisis was solved by Shiva, who again led me to Krishna. God is not dead, or rather: only the moral God is dead, the God of John 1:1, the Logos…
A good year to you all!
I have been celebrating the turn of the Sun with my family away from the buisiness of the electronic age. I have eaten well, slept well and shared the warmth of the familial home with the people I am connected to in blood. This has regenerated my heart and cleared my mind.
When I arrived back here, I have read your responses with gratitude, and, Sauwelios, yours with joy and wonder. Even more so than before, your writings are like a diamond, with many facets, each of them reflecting light in a different direction, yet at the same time each bright and strong, and together a brilliant and perfect gem. Thank you for sharing this vision. I would not know how to add to it, or which element to take out of the whole and comment on, because all elements are so keenly interrelated, and I do not have the recources to rim the entire diamond with a precious metal.
I will, however, be so free to ask one question: in what way did, the second time he came to you and led you to Kirshna, Shiva manifest himself differently from the first time?
Om Nama Shivaya
humbly,
abhi-pratapta
I wish you a very rewarding new Solar Year, abhi-pratapta.
I’m afraid your praise surpasses the things it praises; but I’m flattered. Reading it back, I see now that I made quite a few typing errors, which I will correct when I have finished this post.
Well, the second time he did not really come to me; I rather came to him. The first time, he seemed particularly concerned with me, like he descended to me from Mount Neru, whereas the second time, he just was up there, oblivious to me (and to everything else in his berserker rage).
Both times, I envisioned him not as a person, I mean, not in the form of a man, but as the picture on the No-Thingness card of Osho Zen Tarot:
“Buddha has chosen one of the really very potential words - shunyata. The English word, the English equivalent, “nothingness”, is not such a beautiful word. That’s why I would like to make it “no-thingness” - because the nothing is not just nothing, it is all. It is vibrant with all possibilities. It is potential, absolute potential. It is unmanifest yet, but it contains all.”
[Osho, Take it Easy, Volume 1, Chapter 5.]
I wonder: how would you translate shunyata? - In any case, I think the association between Shiva and the Buddha is a good one, as Zen Buddhism has its roots in Dhyana Yoga; and the “wrathful deities” portrayed on Vajrayana-Buddhist thangkas are really forms of Shiva and Parvati.
Om Nama Shivaya!
Hello Sauwelios, thank you for your good wishes.
It is interesting that you relate Shiva to shunyata. I have not seen him in this way yet. Many words are being used for shunyata, such as void, emptiness, vacuum, and even zero. But I find your own translation quite fitting to what I have experienced in meditation. I have had the good fortune of experiencing the withdrawal of my mind from what I will now call ‘thing-ness’ to, indeed, a ‘no-thingness’. When I stepped out of this meditation, I had the impression that I arrived back from a place before all beings and things. In the way of no-thingness, I could translate shunya as before-ness. But this would not be clear, because it could indicate a moment before any moment. Perhaps, then, before-thingness is a fitting translation. But of course, this is not a beautiful term at all. I will have to seek further for a translation.
The purpose of the type of meditation in which I have experienced shunyata is to depart from the state of mind where all subjects and objects are separate from each other, but not to arrive somewhere else. Once the student arrives somewhere, there is a student and a place of arrival. But until then, there is only an experience. This is the experience of experience. Unfortunately, this is the most accurate translation I can create. I hope this does not disappoint your expectation, I am not a linguistic expert, therefore my translation is taken from what I have learned and experienced, and very likely has no connection with the origin of the word.
If I may come back to Shiva now, I would like to mention that shunyata has been taught to be closest to Brahma. This has been explained to me to be so because Brahma is the first being. I see now, when I ponder this as I am writing, that, indeed, this is no reason to connect shunyata with Brahma, but rather to separate it from him. This does not mean that i understand exactly why you relate shunyata to Shiva, but I will meditate on this.
Now the Hebrew system of the Tree of Life, to which you and Jakob have brought my attention, is called to my mind. I have not at all studied this system in detail, because I was, to be honest, overwhelmed by the complexity of a system with ten divinities, because I am used to three divinities. But I have seen that there are similarities, because at the top of the tree is a source. When I saw this, I automatically related this source with Brahma. This allows me to think that, if I were to use the Tree of Life in a practice of meditation, my purpose would be to go even beyond the source. I fear I am making a great mistake here, and that I should not attribute an element of my own tradition to the Hebrew tradition. But on the other hand, you have allready made some connections, so perhaps this fear is not entirely founded. Therefore my question is this: Does the Hebrew system include the idea of ‘shunyata’ before the source?
Om Nama Shivaya,
abhi-pratapta
The system of the Tree of Life does indeed include the unmanifest you describe. It’s called the three layers of negative existence. The source, Kether, which I think you correctly link to Brahma, even though Sauwelios has linked it to Daath, which I do not entirely understand so cannot refute, is supposed to concentrate the unmanifest potential into a point of energy.
There is a strange linguistic trick the Hebrews pulled with these layers that shrouds this negative existence in mystery for all those who are not intuitive Hebrew speakers. The first layer is called ‘ain’ which means ‘no’ or simply denotes negativity. The second is ain soph; soph meaning ‘limit’ - ain soph meaning no limit. The third is called ain soph aur - ‘aur’ meaning light (aura?) the phrase thus constitutes ‘limitless light.’
Here is an illustration of this negative existence (which is ironic, of course)
erelim.com/sepher-yetzirah.net.html
From this negative existence the clearly defined source of energy Kether comes into existence, somehow. Much suggests, among other things your own experience, that this happens by the light becoming aware of itself as (a) being, instead of simply bein-nor-non-being as Zen poets call it.
This is confirmed by the God name attributed to Kether - Eheieh Asher Eheieh - I am that I am. (not I am what I am)
Well, it does speak of the “three layers of negative existence”, which are Ayn, Ayn Soph, and Ayn Soph Aur (“Nothing”, “No Limit”, and “Limitless Light” respectively). But I, or rather Osho, do not associate shunyata with Ayn, but with the fifth Sephira, Geburah. In Osho Zen Tarot, No-Thingness is the fifth card of the Major Arcana, which is associated with Geburah. I already associated Shiva (or rather Rudra - I will explain this distinction next) with Geburah; this association is pretty conventional. But Osho replaced the Hierophant or High Priest, the fifth card of the Major Arcana in traditional Tarot, with No-Thingness. And this figures, for me, as I envisioned Rudra as pitch-blackness on both those occasions I told you about.
Now as for the distinction between Shiva and Rudra. When I first discovered him, I simply called him Shiva. But I should rather have called him Rudra, I think, because it was rather the storm-god of the Rig Veda that came to me than the nice, smiling god you often see on pictures. Also, according to Mrs. Chalier, the god Rudra only became a god of the totality “by symbolically incorporating the opposing apex of the triangle” [Mitra-Varuna and the niravasita-Bhairava]. I associate some of the Indian gods with the Sephiroth as follows:
_Brahma (Kether)
Varuna (Binah)___________________Mitra (Chokmah)
Rudra (Geburah)_________________Vishnu (Chesed)
The King (Tiphareth)
If we draw a triangle whose angles (apexes) are Mitra, Varuna, and the King, we may see Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra as the sides of this triangle. Thus we can indeed see Vishnu and Rudra as the “vectors”, i.e., the lines, connecting the King with the two poles of Brahma (Brahma being also a line, whose two ends are Mitra and Varuna - like the two poles of a battery). Thus Rudra himself is not a god of the totality, but only one third of the totality. But if he “symbolically incorporates” the opposite angle, i.e., the Mitraic, then he becomes Shiva, who is a god of the totality. Shiva, then, is the Mitraic (white) Rudra, whereas Krishna is the Varunic (black) Vishnu.
Cross posting. But I do not link Brahma (Brahmâ) to Daath, but the Brahmin (brahmana) - who, according to the Laws of Manu, sprang from the mouth of Brahmâ. There is a difference between 1) Brahman (Sanskrit Brahma, with a short “a” at the end), who, I think, corresponds to Ayn Soph Aur; 2) Brahma (Sanskrit Brahma-a or Brahmâ, which means “(born) from Brahma(n)”), the first created being, who is also called Narayana and is represented, I think, by the entire Tree (but his Self is Kether, which is why I associate him with that Sephira above) - he is the Creator God of the Hindu Trinity -; and 3) the Brahmin (Sanskrit brahmana) - also written as “Brahman” in English, to make things even more confusing -, a member of the highest caste, the class of priests and philosophers.
“Brahma is regarded as the Supreme Being, the God of gods; of whom Brahmâ, Vishnu, and Siva are manifestations.”
[W.J.Wilkins, Hindu Gods and Goddesses, part II, chapter II, opening sentence.]
"“This universe was enveloped in darkness - unperceived, undistinguishable, undiscoverable, unknowable, as it were, entirely sunk in sleep. The irresistible self-existent lord, undiscerned, creating this universe with the five elements, and all other things, was manifested dispelling the gloom. He who is beyond the cognizance of the senses, subtile, undiscernible, eternal, who is the essence of all things, and inconceivable, himself shone forth. He, desiring to produce various creatures from his own body, first created the waters, and deposited in them a seed. This (seed) became a golden egg, resplendent as the sun, in which he himself was born as Brahmâ, the progenitor of all worlds.”
[ibid., chapter III, quoting Muir, O. S. T., iv. 31, whatever that means.]
The Tree of Life actually consists of triads - three triads, in fact (the tenth Sephira is the first on a lower plain). We might equate the highest triad, also called the Supernal Triangle, with Brahmâ, Vishnu, and Shiva, but only if we conceive of these as “gods of the Totality” (thus Shiva belongs to the Supernals, whereas Rudra does not). We may also invoke the three gunas, Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. According to Vaisnavas, Vishnu rules Sattva, Brahmâ rules Rajas, and Shiva rules Tamas; but according to other sources, Brahmâ rules Sattva, whereas Vishnu rules Rajas. It seems that Vishnu has “usurped” the place of Brahmâ in the course of Indian history; thus the name Narayana was transferred to him, and he was conceived - by the Vaisnavas - to be Brahma (not Brahmâ) himself, from whose navel Brahmâ was born.
“…all the symbols are interchangeable, for each one containeth in itself its own opposite. And this is the great Mystery of the Supernals that are beyond the Abyss. For below the Abyss, contradiction is division; but above the Abyss, contradiction is Unity. And there could be nothing true except by virtue of the contradiction that is contained in itself.”
[Aleister Crowley, The Vision and the Voice, 5th Aethyr, my emphasis.]
P.S.: Note that Crowley says "interchangeable, not “identical”. To me, Shiva and Krishna are like Yin and Yang: the one, black with a white core, the other, white with a black core.
The title of this topic was “toward proper worship”. Little has been said about Brahman, of Which all things are manifestations. (Do I have this right?) In the West we believe God has been incarnated, and our Trinity differs quite a bit from those which you called it in the East.
Why do you not worship Brahman?
Would the other gods understand Bakti to the Highest?
Would not proper worship include the four classical types of “yoga”?
Thanks, I speak so seldom to an Indian theologian.
my real name
Hello, my real name, this is an interesting question, because the answer to this is the question. Indeed, why do I, abhi-pratapta, not worship Brahman? It is not proper worship, to not worship Brahman.
In this thread I have learned that, for certain worshippers, it is possible to transcend the worship of Brahman, the act which tradition calls ‘bathing in the fountain’ to another state of contemplation; the identification of consciousness with fountainhead itself. (The Bhakti of the God)The God Brahman is now suddenly behind the student, because this meditation is experienced as being at the root of to the manifestation of Brahman as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in causal , Brahmanic existence. At this point worship of Brahman would lead the student back instead of ahead. Who or what else than Brahman can the student properly worship at this point? Sauwelios has explained how Shiva can be worshipped more than properly. This has, to my great honour, been the fruit on this branch of this great tree of science and debate. There is a poetic proposition that forms itself in my mind at this point. I am inclinded to allow myself at this point of teaching the liberty of a thought:
When the student victoriously melts his consciousness into the source, he becomes Brahma, and in his need to worship, he sees his own consequence in Shiva, and creates a God in his own image; Krishna.
I will happily explain the reason I have for not practicing yoga as it is divided by it’s teachers, because it is a fundamental disagreement I have with most of my fellow students, and I do not often have a chance of expressing this sacrilige to my own satisfaction.
I do not believe in identification of the student with a tradition of excersise, for the purtpose of attaining enlightenment. I have come to believe this sort of training is a root of evil. The masters of yoga, the Yogi’s, are proud of the fact that they eliminate their karma, by doing mystical excersises, which involve the use of from postures, worship, mantra’s, breath breating within the chakra’s and many other acts which are in themselves meaningess. But my master demonstrates, as do all proud masters of the human race, that the only real yoga is karma yoga. My masters definition of this path of yoga is ‘the stimulation of the world of appearance.’ The only thing which stimulates tthe world of appearance is a meaningful act. A meaningful act is not an act to which meaning much be attached, but an act which is performed because it has a purpose. This includes all acts in response to the self, acts of self maintenance: household, agricultural and war, all acts in response to inspiration of others: of love, play and common art, and all response to the world: physical experiment, construction and engineering, philosophy and high art.
This is the reason I do not consider most forms of yoga to be proper worship.
I thank you for your surmise but intelligent investment in this thread.
regards with peace,
abhi-pratapta
Perhaps you misunderstood my question on yoga.
By the four types of yoga I was speaking of, I meant: karma yoga, jnana yoga, bhakti yoga and raja yoga – not hatha yoga.
But it’s understandable that one would think that a Westerner would equate the term yoga with physical exercise.
Hello, my real name,
I think I understand your confusion, even though I have allready answered your question. After all, why should I renounce Raja and Bhakti yoga and at the same time be so grateful from receiving lessons in them from Sauwelios, and relate my own experiences of Raja yoga to him? The answer to this question is this: Sauwelios’s writes his lessons not simply as a summary of theory and experience in worship, but he brings his accounts into the world as a beautiful creation. Creation, of course, is karma yoga.
As you can see, Raja and Bhakti yoga can sometimes lead to the stimulation fo the world of appearance, but Jnana yoga aims at accomplishing precisely the opposite: withdrawal from the world of appearance. Therefore, it can be seen a root of evil.
I hope you will now have received the answer to your question.
kind regards,
abhi-pratapta
As far as I know, Hinduism, if I may call it that, is the only religion whose followers allow, and sometimes even encourage, a “creative” approach.
As for Brahman, m.r.n., some Vaisnavas - for instance, those with ISKCON (a.k.a. “the Hare Krishnas”) - equate Vishnu with Brahman, or rather, they regard Brahman as the impersonal aspect, the radiance, of Vishnu. The more advanced behold also his Paramatma aspect (the “Supersoul”), which is basically “God (Vishnu) within everything”; and then, for the most advanced, there is Bhagavan, which is Krishna, i.e., Vishnu in his two-armed, human form.
Some Hare Krishnas are creative, too:
Is love of God and neighbor part of bakti yoga?
I think so
“18 years later:”
“I think so”
Peak comedy. I love the internet sometimes.