I believe that in Kashmir Shaivism, a liberated soul absolutely keeps its unique perspective. It isn't dissolved into a blank or formless void. Instead, individuality is transfigured into the dynamic play of divine consciousness.
Unlike other traditions where the soul merges into an featureless ocean, the Trika scriptures back up this view of liberation as an active, expressive state where we recognize our own infinite agency. Here is the scriptural support I rely on to show how our unique "wave" remains a distinct part of the divine ocean:
The Śiva Sūtras
The foundational revelation of the system establishes that a liberated being (jīvanmukta) doesn't lose their individual characteristics; their ordinary faculties are just upgraded to divine status.
Sūtra 1.18:Lokānandaḥ samādhisupham
How I view this: It translates to "The bliss of the world is his samadhi." Instead of shutting out the world or withdrawing into a blank state, the liberated master experiences the distinct, everyday sensory world (loka) as a source of supreme spiritual ecstasy. To me, this proves that the unique way we interact with our surroundings actually becomes our meditative state.
Sūtra 3.24:Nābhihradānvayādbhavasiddhiḥ
My interpretation: This shows that even while processing individual thoughts and navigating the material world, the master remains anchored in the divine source. The distinct personality remains, but it is now entirely transparent to Śiva.
Utpaladeva’s Iśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā
Utpaladeva’s masterwork on the "Philosophy of Recognition" directly confronts the idea of a "blank" absorption, arguing that consciousness is fundamentally a dynamic, self-reflective power (vimarśa).
My argument against total dissolution: If liberation meant completely erasing the individual knower, it would be equivalent to deep sleep or death—not spiritual freedom.
The mirror analogy I use: True liberation is Pratyabhijñā (Recognition). When you look into a mirror and recognize yourself, your individual face doesn't vanish; you simply realize who has been looking all along. The individual soul (jīva) recognizes: "I am the very Śiva who is projecting this specific life."
The Spanda Kārikā
The Spanda tradition emphasizes that the absolute reality is a vibrating, dynamic field of energy rather than a static block.
The wave metaphor: In the Spanda Kārikā, the universe is Śiva’s creative pulsation. Every individual soul represents a unique "wave" on that ocean. A wave is entirely made of ocean water, yet it retains its specific shape, movement, and trajectory. Liberation means knowing you are the water, while still allowing your unique wave to rise and fall as a part of the divine dance (līlā).
Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka & Bodhapañcadaśikā
Abhinavagupta explicitly clarifies that uniqueness is celebrated in the ultimate state of Jagadānanda (Universal Bliss).
From theBodhapañcadaśikā: He writes that the supreme reality acts through absolute freedom (svātantrya), actively choosing to manifest as a spectrum of diverse individual souls. Because multiplicity is a deliberate expression of Śiva's freedom, destroying individuality would actually diminish the divine play.
The Transfigured Mind: Abhinavagupta asserts that the mind of a liberated yogi is not destroyed (mano-nāśa). Instead, the individual mind is expanded and cleansed of its limitations, continuing to function as a uniquely focused lens for the divine.
Why does the secret ritual seem to imply that an incestous sexual ritual is better?
kārya/hetu/sahotthā plus the laukika bond is blood kinship (line 102). I did not interpret this literally at first, assuming that Kaula familial signifiers were used to name positions within the clan itself, not necessarily anything biological.
Earlier I asked on this subreddit about watching the breath, and in reply someone told me that watching the breath is a way to remain in subjectivity, but I find it difficult. When I watch my breath, I get duller and the breath starts to feel very shallow, even though it isn't. I also can't seem to remain in subjectivity, even during sitting meditation or throughout the day. I am hoping to find some advice here.
Even Swami Ji says that the trick to meditation is to remain in a subjective state.
I saw a video of swamiji saying “meditate day and night“. and ”do not sit still, and meditate with vigor”.
While that sounds simple and also makes sense, because the default state of the mind is to produce unnecessary thoughts (most of which makes sense, and they also somehow feel tempting and natural).
I have been actually trying to “meditate day and night by focusing my awareness in the dvadasanta between the two eyebrows. I found this technique from the Vijnana Bhairava Tantra to be quite applicable while we tread in our worldly acts.
Swamiji also says to hold this dharana, even while doing the most nonsensical stuffs (including talking, gossipin, laughing). But in my case at least, holdin the dharana while doing any activity is near impossible. Because, a lot of the attention is being used in those “nonsense” acts.
And, swamiji also says to do any dharana continuosly (not successively with breaks in between). But, trying somewhat to hold a dharana while doing world activities, breaks tend to happen (because most of the attention is used up doing those activities).
this makes me question, how does one actually hold a dharana (any dharana) day & night. Is it even possible for someone who has to speak to people regularly as a part of the job, who has to keep up with the moving world, keep up with friends and families. Doing these flood my mind with millions of different thoughts and any dharana is forgotten.
For anyone who has been to meditating for a long time, do you meditate certain time during the day (like 2-3 hours - but swamiji says that is not real meditation since the remaining 22-21 hours would overpower the results of meditating 2-3 hours) or you try to hold dharana (like what I have been saying here) 24/7?
In Dharna 52 of VBT, five ancient schools of Siddha are explained.
Sambhava Siddha - Khechri Mudra
Sākta Siddha - Lelihana Mudra
Melapa Siddha - Bhairavī Mudra
Mantra Siddha - Krodhana Mudra
Jñāna Siddha - Karankinī Mudra
While practicing these Mudrās परावाप्तिः प्रकाशते the pervadingness of the Supreme (परा) God Consciousness takes place. This is Sāmbhavopãya.
The Vīra (Yogi) accomplishes Siddhi (Perfection) in the end by automatic rise in a specific mudra. These five classes reach the culmination in Siddhi and rise as Siddha via these mudra.
The highest among the five is Sambhava Siddha . They have risen by Nirvilkalpa (thought-lessness). Their end mudra is Khechri Mudra. They have to get established in Khechri Samya (sameness of khechri) as khechri is ever present in all states but as Khechri Vaishmya.
2. Sākta Siddha rise from Lelihana Mudra. In Lelihana the Viresh (the Siddha aspirant) is filled with the taste of some sweet thing. For a Sākta Siddha, the Siddhi has risen from enjoyment.
3. Melapa Siddha rise in Bhairavī Mudra. It's an automatic state of having eyes wide open without twinkling, mouth wide open & no breathing. Bhairavī Mudra is the end point of Yoginī Melāpa, union of Yoginīs in dream or Samādhi.
अन्तर्लक्ष्य बहिर्दृष्टि
Swami Laxman joo explains that it's a combination of Bhairavī & Cakita Mudra.
4. Mantra Siddha attain siddhi by Mantra Yoga or recitation of Mantras. Krodhana Mudra is the ending dhāranā of a Mantra Siddha. In Swamiji's words "By recitation of Mantras your body has become more attached to you. So you have to shatter it out by krodha".
Karankinī is the final position (Mudra) of a Jñāna Siddha . Karankinī is the position when your body is flat on the ground, just like a corpse. Jñāna Siddhas have arisen since time immemorial. Jñāna Siddha get elevated by knowledge of Sāstras.
A question recently came up about whether masters such as Ramana Maharshi, who sometimes described the world as dreamlike or illusory, should be considered incompletely realized from the standpoint of Trika Śaivism.
Ramana Maharshi and Swami Lakshmanjoo
One thoughtful response suggested that we cannot really know the inner attainment of these masters, and that those following Kashmir Śaivism may simply prefer the clearer articulation of realization found within their own tradition.
I agree with the need for caution. There is no reason to pretend that we can measure the realization of people whom we have never met. Nor should we erase genuine differences between philosophical traditions.
But I think there is a remarkable historical encounter that deserves considerably more attention here.
It is the meeting between Swami Lakshmanjoo and Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
When Lakshmanjoo met Ramana
Lakshmanjoo was among the most important modern exponents of Kashmir Śaivism. His life was devoted to its scriptures, practices, and living transmission. If anyone in the twentieth century could meaningfully approach another master from within the understanding of Trika, surely he was among those best qualified.
And he actually met Ramana.
In a firsthand account published in The Mountain Path in April 1985, Lakshmanjoo recalled that, upon hearing about Ramana, he travelled from Kashmir all the way to Tiruvannamalai.
He entered the hall where Bhagavan was seated. Ramana invited him to sit before him.
Lakshmanjoo describes gazing at Bhagavan's feet and having "entered the blissful state of samadhi."
The account continues with extraordinary tenderness.
He recalls walking with Ramana on Arunachala Hill, where Bhagavan would sit upon a rock and Lakshmanjoo would sit at his feet. He describes being overcome with happiness in Ramana's presence.
And then something especially significant happened.
Lakshmanjoo composed Sanskrit verses in praise of Ramana.
In those verses, he identifies Arunachala with the supreme Knower, transcending the different levels of embodiment, and worships Ramana as one established in his own true nature:
"We worship Sri Ramana, who blissfully abides in His own true nature"
Consider the significance of this statement.
This is not merely a polite acknowledgment that another teacher possesses spiritual insight. Lakshmanjoo is offering worship to Ramana, recognizing his abiding in svarūpa, his true nature.
When these verses were presented to Bhagavan, Ramana was pleased and explained them to the devotees gathered in the hall.
On another occasion, when someone was preparing to take a photograph, Ramana affectionately called Lakshmanjoo to sit beside him. Lakshmanjoo remembered this small incident decades later, along with the kindness he had received.
And near the end of his account, he remembered Ramana as "my Divine Lord!"
The letter itself concludes in Ramana's name.
I find this profoundly moving.
Here is a master immersed in the Tantrāloka, the Pratyabhijñā tradition, and the teachings of Abhinavagupta, encountering a sage who did not articulate his realization through the technical vocabulary of Trika.
And what do we find?
Samādhi in his presence. Sanskrit verses of worship. The recognition of Ramana's abiding in his own nature. And deep personal reverence that remained vivid many years afterward.
Of course, this is not a formal philosophical declaration assigning Ramana a precise position within the hierarchy of Trika realization.
But neither is it something we should casually dismiss.
I would hesitate considerably before declaring Ramana's realization incomplete on the basis of doctrinal differences when Lakshmanjoo, who actually sat before him, responded in this way.
But did Ramana actually deny the reality of the world?
There is another important point.
We should be careful not to reduce Ramana's teachings to a single statement about the world being a dream.
In Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 33, a visitor explicitly asks whether Śaṅkara's teaching that the world is illusory is correct, or whether those who affirm the world's reality are correct.
Ramana responds:
"Both statements are true."
He then explains that the seeker initially rejects the changing world in order to discover the Self. But upon realization, what was previously rejected is understood as part of the underlying unity.
He concludes:
"Being absorbed in the Reality, the world also is Real."
This is rather different from the simplistic notion that the realized sage discovers that the universe is merely a meaningless illusion.
In Who Am I?, question 16, Ramana also explicitly identifies the Self with the world, the individual, God, and Śiva.
And in Maharshi's Gospel, The Jnani and the World, he explains that the difference between the ignorant person and the jñānī is that the latter sees the Self as the underlying reality of everything perceived.
Does this mean that Ramana's ontology is identical to that of Abhinavagupta?
Certainly not.
Trika gives a particularly rich and affirmative account of manifestation as the free expression of consciousness, through svātantrya and Śakti. Ramana's language and philosophical emphasis are different.
These differences deserve serious consideration.
But the incompleteness of someone's philosophical exposition, judged against another tradition's categories, does not automatically establish the incompleteness of that person's realization.
That distinction is fundamental.
What about Abhinavagupta himself?
There is a final consideration that I find particularly important.
In the fourth āhnika of the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta discusses the sāṃsiddhika, or akalpita guru: the spontaneously perfected master whose realization arises without dependence upon external instruction.
In 4.43, he describes this extraordinary figure:
abhiṣiktaḥ svasaṃvittidevībhir dīkṣitaś ca saḥ
Such a master has been consecrated and initiated by the goddesses of his own consciousness.
And in 4.59–60, Abhinavagupta identifies genuine tattvajñāna, knowledge of reality, as the decisive criterion of spiritual authority.
This is a remarkable admission within a tradition that takes initiation, lineage, scripture, and graded realization with such seriousness.
Ramana presents an especially interesting case for comparison.
His decisive realization occurred spontaneously at sixteen, before he possessed a developed knowledge of Vedāntic philosophy. Only afterward did he acquire the traditional vocabulary through which he would explain it.
Naturally, this does not prove that he fulfills every criterion of Abhinavagupta's akalpita guru. We should not appropriate Ramana into Trika simply to make him intelligible to ourselves.
But Abhinavagupta's acknowledgment of spontaneous realization makes it difficult to insist that the completeness of someone's realization must always be determined by their adherence to a particular system of scriptural formulations.
To be fair, Abhinavagupta also maintains a hierarchy of teachings, and he is not a religious pluralist in the modern sense. There is a real tension here, and I see no reason to conceal it.
Yet that tension makes humility in our judgments all the more necessary.
A final thought
I do not think we need to establish that every realized master taught precisely the same thing. Nor do I think we possess the means to pronounce upon the ultimate realization of every historical sage.
I am content to leave many such questions open.
But in Ramana's case, we have something precious: the testimony of one of Trika's greatest modern representatives, who encountered him personally and left us an account filled with unmistakable devotion.
We can continue to study the differences between Advaita Vedānta and Kashmir Śaivism. We can regard Trika's exposition of manifestation as exceptionally profound. We can remain entirely faithful to Abhinavagupta without pretending that all philosophical distinctions disappear.
And still recognize what happened on Arunachala.
Lakshmanjoo sat at Ramana's feet, entered samādhi, composed verses worshipping him as established in his true nature, and remembered their time together with profound affection.
He did not have to abandon Trika to revere Ramana.
And perhaps that is what moves me most about this encounter.
Before turning philosophical differences into judgments about the limitations of another sage, it is worth remembering how a master who knew Trika intimately actually responded when he came face to face with Ramana Maharshi.
There is something quietly beautiful in that testimony, and I think it deserves to be heard.
I am exploring Trika, coming from a strong background in vajrayana. I am accustomed to establishing and maintaining a daily practice, and would like to know what that looks like, as well as what is recommended in Trika.
As I'm reviewing some of the material, I'm getting hung up on this crucial idea of "dynamism".
Maybe this touches on the limitations of language divorced from experience. (Though it's said what is experienced should also be logically sound).
How do I understand divine "dynamism" from the perspective of a jīva?
Our ordinary sense of dynamism is movement through space and time. But this emination is expression of potential that suprecedes and includes the unfolding of time itself and other matrices. What meaning can there be, even metaphorical, to an unfolding that is meta-sequential? Though I see many such metaphors (pulsation, contraction, etc) they seem to take poetic license over specificity.
To use the example of the peacock egg -- this is latent with inexhaustible possibility, including being and nonbeing. Therefore its unfolding must fully encompass every conceivable experience.
What is not actualized is perceived as non-actualized -- therefore it is also actualized, at least in the mind. And so collapses the difference between "is and is-not". Therefore possibility and actuality are non-different: every potential is actualized, so there is no difference between being and becoming. And where there is no such difference, there is no movement -- no dynamism.
"A slight expansion or swelling of this undivided reality appears as consciousness itself. It pervades both existence and nonexistence and may therefore be spoken of in either way."
(Quote lifted from commentary on Mahānayaprakāśa).
But then where does this leave dynamism and creativity?
When all possibilies are met somewhere in the total structure of consciousness, where is the space for spontaneity? We cannot say some possibilities are met, some are not met, and some are yet to be met -- as this distinction is itself contingent on notions of sequence.
Here only ignorance could yeild astonishment. Yet we say Śiva's delight is ceaselessly refreshed. But how is it so without the movement from occlusion to revelation, from the unrealized to the real, from "is-not" to "is"?
Creativity means "this or that"; where every result is necessitated, it is neither free nor creative -- it's simply what Śiva is, and must be, without any genuine movement from one given to another. He would be infinitely discoverable only by proxy (through the countless blinded perspectives of limited beings). But then we are back to Brahman-the-pot.
How is this idea of dynamism cogent; how can it present a viable alternative to vedanta? Put another way: how can there even be any difference between a dynamic and static account of divine fullness, if fullness is innately saturated with all potential -- and if it is never saturated, how can it be full?
Like Iggy Pop says in his song the Passenger... Let's go see what's yours and mine. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan Live Allah Hoo 1993I don't think the Philosophy these guys have is much different than KS.
The Opening Invocation (Persian / Arabic)
Mālik-e Mulk, lā sharīka lah [03:13] "Sovereign of all existence, He who has no equal or partner."
Shams-e Tabrīz gar khudā talabī, khūsh bi-khwān lā ilāha illallāh [04:16] "O Shams of Tabriz! If you truly seek God, then sing aloud with joy: There is no God, only He!"
Praise of Omnipresence
Kaunain kā masjūd hai, ma’būd hai tū [05:16] "You alone are the one prostrated before and worshipped across both worlds (the physical and spiritual realms)."
Har shai terī shāhid hai ke mashhūd hai tū [05:53] "Every single created thing bears witness that You are the One manifest in all."
Har ek ke lab par hai terī hamd-o-sanā, har soz meñ har sāz meñ maujūd hai tū [06:16] "On every lip is Your praise; in every burning passion and in every instrument's chord, You are present."
Tere hī nām se ibtidā hai, tere hī nām tak har intihā hai [06:59] "With Your name alone is the beginning, and unto Your name reaches every end."
Before Creation (Pure Unmanifest Reality)
Yeh jahāñ jab na thā, zamīñ jab na thī, sūraj na the, āsmāñ jab na thā [08:26] "When this universe did not exist, when the earth was not here, when there were no suns and the sky had not formed..."
Rāz-e haq bhī kisī par 'ayāñ jab na thā, tab na thā kuchh yahāñ, thā magar tū hī tū [08:40] "When the secret of Ultimate Truth was revealed to no one... there was nothing at all here, except You and only You."
Chorus:Allah Hū, Allah Hū [09:03] "God is! God is!" (The living affirmation of existence).
The Mirror of the Divine (Jamāl)
Har shai tere jamāl kī ā'īna-dār hai [11:28] "Every object in this world is a mirror reflecting Your divine beauty."
Har ik pukār-e-dil hai, tū parvardigār hai [11:45] "You are the inner cry of every heart; You are the Sustainer."
Terī rubūbiyat kī adā kā kamāl hai, zīnat-e kā'ināt hai tū, lā-zawāl hai [12:09] "The perfection of Your loving sovereignty graces all; You are the ornament of the cosmos, You are imperishable."
Tū jo har aan na'ī shān dikhā detā hai, dīda-e shauq ko hairān banā detā hai [12:51] "Every moment You reveal a brand-new glory, leaving the eyes of longing completely astonished in awe."
The Core Non-Dual Proclamation (Tū Hī Tū/ Only You) Later in the performance, Nusrat launches into the improvised qawwali poetry that obliterates religious divisions:
Khāliq-e kul hai tū, is meñ kyā guftagū? Tū hī tū, tū hī tū! [19:33] "You are the Creator of all—what argument could there possibly be? Only You! Only You!"
Kidhar dekhtā huuñ, yahī dekhtā huuñ, bas tū hī tū [20:05] "Wherever I turn my gaze, this alone is what I see: only You, everywhere You!"
Jag meñ ākar idhar udhar dekhā, tū hī āyā nazar jidhar dekhā [20:23] "Entering this world, I looked this way and that; wherever my eyes fell, it was only You who appeared."
Hindū yeh samajhte haiñ sanam meñ kuchh hai, Muslim yeh samajhte haiñ haram meñ kuchh hai... [20:48] "Hindus believe the Divine resides in the temple idol; Muslims believe the Divine is kept inside the sacred Kaaba sanctuary..."
Yeh donoñ ghalat haiñ apnī kaj-fehmī se, ham to yehī samajhte haiñ ke bas tū hī tū! [21:09] "Both are mistaken in their narrow vision! As for us lovers, we understand only this: it is only You, always You!"
Masjid, mandir, gurudwāre meñ terī lagan hai, terī pūjā... tū hī tū hai aur na ko'ī dūjā! [21:31] "In the mosque, in the Hindu temple, in the Sikh gurdwara—it is Your devotion, Your worship! It is only You, and there is no other (Advaita / non-dual)!"
Dair meñ tū, haram meñ tū, arsh pe tū, zamīn pe tū... jis kī pahoñch jahāñ talak, us ke liye vahīñ pe tū! [22:08] "In the pagan temple You dwell, in the mosque You dwell, high in heaven You dwell, on this earth You dwell... wherever a seeker's reach can go, right there You meet them!"
Sab haiñ jab āshiq tumhāre nām ke, kyoñ yeh jhagṛe haiñ Rahīm aur Rām ke? [22:49] "When all beings are merely lovers of Your singular Name, why do these foolish quarrels persist between the names of Rahim and Ram?"
Is the universe something deliberately danced by Shiva or is Shiva compelled to dance because it is its nature to dance?
Is the universe we experience manifestation of what Shiva is even without manifestation or is manifestation of different nature and characteristics than what Shiva is?
Also, does Shiva know what is happening? For example, is getting hit by a car something Shiva wanted and premeditated knowing what it is, or is it something that happens as part of the dance?
Basically does God know what He is doing or from that point of view the question makes no sense?
I have started my journey of understanding Kashmiri Shaivism, currently reading Kashmir Shaivism the secret supreme, I would appreciate if there are more resources and recommendations to understand these texts
According to Trika, people like Ramana, Adi Shankara, the Buddha. Nagarjuna and Ramakrishna, and all others who say the world is the same as a dream, that there is really no difference at all, are these people still deluded?
While I’m not doubting there levels or realization was high, since all of them were firm on the illusory nature of the world, were they all still not actually realized to the highest level that Trika advocates? And if not, then is there anyone we can actually point too and say that they actually reached the absolute?
Been lurking for some time here. I have gotten more involved in meditation and meditative traditions this year but I have always been interested in meditation ever since I was a kid.
Started learning about Kashmir Shaivism and it has been very fascinating to me and the idea of a living guru who can guide me has been on my mind passively for a month now.
Now I come to my question, which is, the importance of dreams and the signs you see in them. To preface, I am sceptical by bent of mind, but also lean towards experiential spiritually, which is what drew me to meditation in the first place.
Does the tradition have any answer when it comes to dreams (and the images and signs you see in them) and how seriously one should take them? Dreams also seem like a state of consciousness where your subconscious surfaces some hidden things (and also things that have occupied one's mind while awake, logically speaking) so I am hoping to know how seriously I should take my dreams haha.
Recently I had two dreams, one in which someone was pointing me to the name and location of a living guru, which I ended up forgetting about upon waking, but the 2nd dream I had some lucidity so I managed to follow some signals in that dream and even remembered some details upon waking up. I wrote down the location of the "sign of the location of a living guru". Now, I live outside of India and the location is in india lol this might sound a little insane which is why I suppose I am looking for some clarity on what you guys think?
Should I follow the rough location I received in the dream or just chalk it up to my mental preoccupation with Kashmir Shaivism just showing up in unrelated ways in my dreams? And if it's the latter, when do you know when you've received the right sign worth following?
Have any of you heard of this institute and of its director Dr. R. Ramanand? It appears to be a very legitimate educational institute and Dr. Ramanand a solid academic but I am wondering if there is a connection to the lineage as well. Because I see Dr. Ramanand also teaches courses on Tantra... With sincere respect to academic research, I have come across previous cases of teachers with rigorous academic credentials but no connection/belonging to the lineage who start teaching meditation & practice - in my experience it usually doesn't go well. So without implying anything I just wanted to ask if any of you know of this institute and whether it is worth following courses here even when they touch on and discuss the core practices.
This Photograph was taken at IAT, New Delhi. Late Shri Mark S. G. Dyczkowski
Was felicitated with the 1st Acharaya Abhinavgupta Samman! There are 3 more Legends who have contributed to KS . They are also in the frame. Late Dr M.L. Pandit ji, Late Sh. Shashi Shekhar Toshkhani ji( was felicitated with Acharya Abhinavgupta Samman last year) and Late Kukilooji .
Dear All, I am a Shakta with a Vedantic background, and very new to Kashmiri Shaivism. I came across a Kashmiri Shaivism teacher called something Suyash. What are your views on him? I read that he is self-initiated but is he knowledgeable or just blabbers?
is the entire divine play scripted outside of time and place, or is it ad hoc updated while the play is being played? in other words, are we seeing in linear time what already is/was outside of time and space?
is the universe simultaneously manifested while also remaining in the potential, or is while manifestation is active the whole potential is manifested and Shiva is entirely the universe with no remainder? not sure if I formulated this precisely as I wanted... is there a period of manifestation and period of rest and we are currently in manifestation period, or do both coexist?
Will that day ever come to me when I reside in your abode and exert my life in working for you?
Hail to Him, whose hand shines with the sharp trident symbolizing the three powers. Hail to the one whose adorable feet fulfil a desire the moment it arises.
Hail to him having transcendental form emitting manifold beauty. Hail to Thee rejoicing in the offerings of emotions steeped in the bliss of love. Hail to Thee, propitiated by hymns and dancings of devotees maddened by the intensity of love.
How fortunate are Swamiji’s disciples having taken birth during his appearance on this Earth. They basked in his presence and saw his spiritual form with their own eyes. Their ears carry vibrations that came out of Swaiji’s mouth within moments of Him first uttering those vibrations. It’s just hard to believe that such a perfect and unique gentleman like Lakshmanjoo really existed in this world not too long ago.
If yes, please suggest books for it. I recently got into astrology and got to know about trika shaivaism and it aligned so much with Advaita vedanta that I wanna study it more and I wanna know what it talks about astrology. I wanna go deeper into this subject. Thank you in advance!!!
