/lit/ - Literature

>>20333090
>Even less, for it has no nature other than being flame, the quality of emission of light is the principle of shakti.
So, considered in itself it is insentient? That’s not that different really from a materialist conception of awareness being *emergent* from insentient matter. Why do we not feel ourselves to have an insentient Self then? I dont feel like or detect that I have a insentient non-aware Self that has awareness as an adjunct or contingent power, my Self *is* aware, the “I” at the core of my being *is* a pristine self-luminous awareness-presence. Being aware of one’s own power is already presupposing that the one aware of his own power is intrinsically aware already.
>>How does one practically distinguish it in any manner whatsoever from awareness?
>The same way I can divide the sun as a body and the sun as a nuclear formula, for example.
That’s not a practical example of how one can actually distinguish this difference *in one’s own experience or consciousness*, it’s an abstract analogy
>In the shiva tattva the nature of who is disclosed and awareness/disclosure are absolutely identical however the result of this is the shakti tattva as dynamism which would differentiate it like this.
Saying the “the nature of who is disclosed and awareness/disclosure are absolutely identical” contradicts your statement that shiva just emits awareness and itself intrinsically lacks it, unless Shiva is something over and above his nature, which is absurd because then an additional “non-nature nature” is needed to explain what Shiva is over and above the first nature
>I experience a multiplicity and have an awareness of a multiplicity, that is shakti, I am the one who has it, that is shiva.
That’s just contrasting the subject and the phenomenal object, it’s not pointing out any difference between awareness and the non-discursive non-objective disclosure of awareness to itself
>For once more, tantra is not emanationist, the quality of having awareness is simply a further revelation of that absolute ego
Something insentient doesn’t have revelations though, that’s like describing a complicated decision-making process and then tracing it back to emerging from a rock

>>20333104
>For part and division are apara, are the maya bound form of kala tattva, you create a distinction between the conscious, perception and perceived that does not actually In conscious, in reality they all occur at once
Empirical experience contradicts this though, where emotional experiences are experienced as reactions *to things*. If we really create the distinction between the conscious, perception and perceived then we should be able to erase it, but even after projecting the conceptual overlay on everything of viewing it all as awareness, phenomenal content still behaves differently from the presence revealing them, i.e. its non-erasable.