/lit/ - Literature

>>20327743
I don't have the time in these next few days to write the same lengthy and detailed replied that I have been, but I enjoyed exploring with you the subtleties of how the two systems understand things differently
>That awareness is shakti, thus the transcendental ego is the flame, the luminous disclosing/awareness is the light.
You've said though that the flame both consists of and emits awareness, does the flame have any other nature about it other than the nature of awareness in that case? How does one practically distinguish it in any manner whatsoever from awareness? If someone asked you in the street to directly point out to them in a few sentences how their awareness is different from the disclosure of that awareness to itself, do you think you could do so? And how would one even do it?
>Your error is in conception of shiva as awareness and not as the one who has awareness, shiva is not simply conscious or awareness but he who is (possesses) conscious, and that conscious awareness is shakti, thus the difference is between one who is conscious and the conscious itself, which can be constituted as both one and two.
If Shiva is not himself awareness/sentience, that is, if you are positing another category of entity above awareness that lacks awareness despite possessing awareness as an accessory or something otherwise distinguished from itself, I don't see how that doesn't amount to saying that an insentient or unaware thing possess awareness. Trying to say that something that is not awareness itself possesses awareness, but yet that this thing is not insentient despite not being aware itself, seems to me to be like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Why not just say awareness possess its own nature of being aware, like all things possess their own nature that distinguishes them from other things?
> in my opinion the systematic study is superior to these modes of dialogue, but that’s a personal preference.
Texts sometimes have a tendency to ignore and not always directly confront the natural questions that a someone has when confronted with apparent discrepancies. Someone who is knowledgeable in the system can draw upon their knowledge to supply the answers to these questions that the text won't always anticipate.
>There is no such thing as downstream for emotion is simply a revelation of shakti, it’s nothing more than shakti’s opulence revealed in a certain manner,
How are emotions not downstream if we require knowledge of what we are reacting emotionally to in order to have the appropiate emotional response, so that we are not feeling grief at a wedding, or joy at a funeral?