Namaste Tīvra ji. You mentioned about the Mahashodashi Chakra where all triangles convert to petals and the central triangle being an upward pointed triangle. I created it here using Golden Ratio and Geogebra: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QD1DzCZmDe5hZUXKzagpj-isUIIUHBtg/view?usp=share_link I realised that this is similar to Sri Dattatreya Yantra: Bindu, Shiva Trikona, 6 avaranas of petals. Could you please throw some light and reveal any secrets related to Sri Dattatreya as you have done for the other devatas? Would you have any insights as to his Anustubh Mantra and Ashtakshari? Thank you very much for your kind guidance.

Thank you for sharing the document dear Prince. I will review it and publish it giving due credit to you and Shri Animesh ji who has also published the same in his book in Sanskrit/Hindi.

Namaste Prince, Thank you very much for this, the verses and picture are both beautiful and divine. Can you please comment more on the Nirvana Sundari Mantra, also possibly the Krama of her worship. How can one who is just starting with MahaGanapati reach there? Thanks, Bam.

thank you Prince, it is amazing

I have compiled the dhyana verses of Nirvana Sundari maha shodasi. I have also included an image to help with your visualisation. Thank u https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q4Gn_AX9w6umfUnYMVbmvHMWIiDoh355gNKcNDKFtV8/edit?usp=drivesdk

Many thanks for these notes. I should read these sources before commenting further as I’m not at all well read on this subject. I think in Abhinavagupta’s case, he is conveying that he is surely an advaitan, his is just a philosophy of advaita that does not distinguish between consciousness and its power of illusion aka consciousness and energy. While he personally finds Shankarcharya’s Advaita Vedanta incoherent, it is not the non-duality part. Abhinavagupta and Trika just have a different perspective on what is essential for complete non-duality, their Paramadvaita which subsumes both dvaita and advaita, and has not an impersonal Brahman but a dynamic and personal divine reality (Śiva). Conveyed in the words of Dr. Mark Dyczkowski, “the difference between Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Advaita, is that the latter vibrates.” I shared the Abhinavagupta stuff for anyone just beginning to explore Advaita, as an augmentation of your post, to show how variegated the ocean of Advaitin thought is, not to say one flavor is more logically sound or robust than any of the others. I apologize if it came off as otherwise. Very happy new year!!

Krishna sir thanks for providing this absolute rare spiritual gem to all of us. May kamakhya maa bless everyone in fulfilling their spiritual aspirations

Some answers for the questions raised in the books, though not answering all for a simple reason of lack of writing skills to answer in length 1 - Advaita does not position Brahman and Avidya as separate entities, avidya is something that is transcended or denied (Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankara) 2 - Is avidya eternal? Though avidya is anadi, it ends with the dawn of Jnana (Brahma Sutra Bhasya) 3 - Is Avidya real in Advaita? No, avidya is real at the vyavaharika level and not at the paramartika level. Meaning this is a construct created to understand creation but has no independent existence (Brahma Sutra Bhasya) 4 - Avidya is indescribable, so how can we describe creation? Because avidya is neither real nor unreal; for this reason creation appears (Brihadaranyaka) 5 - If something that appears cannot be truly real, what is truly real is permanent, and hence what ends becomes unreal (Mandukya Karika) 6 - Advaita does not say that Brahman becomes Ishwara, soul, and matter; meaning it does not become anything, but this appears as Ishwara, matter, etc., in ignorance 7 - Advaita does not deny Ishwara; it is there at the vyavaharika level and is not permanent and not final (Brahma Sutra) 8 - Since Advaita talks about ignorance, it is claimed that since it talks about ignorance then there is duality. But with the dawn of knowledge, avidya disappears, and so what is not permanent cannot be real 9 - So shuddha advaita better than advaita in this context? No, as anything that is created and said to be real and separate is ignored and not final, as it compromises the basics of Advaita (Mandukya Karika) 10 - Abhinava Gupta treats avidya as real in his critique, which Advaita rejects, as Advaita does not consider avidya as real (Brahma Sutra) The only reason I’m giving justification and will not provide any more responses is that Advaita is highly misunderstood. The questions asked are valid, and most of which even I had questions about over the years, but the system is developed to its logical conclusion over centuries. The basic problem with Advaita is that it is very difficult to understand and needs lots of study, hence the criticism. Any error in typing please excuse

Many thanks for edifying us on advaita Shri Jayanth! This enlightening piece jogged my memory of another gem which is perhaps somewhat in contrast, regarding the Paramadvaita of Shri Abhinavagupta. If it is alright, I will paste it here for purposes of broader edification of advaitic thought. Part 1: Abhinavgupta on Advaita Vedanta ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Monism is one of the central concepts of most schools in India, but is interpreted differently by their representatives. Advaita Vedanta Sankaracharya is considered the most famous monistic school. Despite this, many Indian thinkers have expressed their disagreement with the concept of monism Advaita-Vedanta. For example, Vallabhacharya, the Vishnuite thinker of antiquity, calls his doctrine "pure non-duality" (shuddhadvaita), because in his opinion, Advaita Vedanta explains the problem of phenomenal existence, relying on two, mutually different entities. The first is known as Brahman, pure consciousness, the second is avidya, or inexplicable ignorance. It is believed that both entities have no beginning. For this reason Vallabhacarya, considering maya as the building material of Brahman, does not consider advaita-vedanta to be pure monism. Abhinavagupta, an outstanding thinker of the 11th century Kashmiri Shivaism, also finds some logical and psychological shortcomings in the school of Sankara's Vedantic monism, and therefore calls the monism of his school "absolute non-dualism." He specifically uses this term to distinguish himself from the monism of Advaita Vedanta, which he carefully studies and criticizes in some of his works. An example of this can be found in the Ishvarapratyabhijnavivrtivimarshini, where he says that : "the concept of the absolute existence of Brahman, together with avidya as his upadhi (a side element adjoining Him) can not be taken as the exact representation of pure monism", since this implies the eternal existence of two entities - Brahman and Universal ignorance. (Isvarapratyabhijnavivrtivimarshini, III.404). This is equivalent to duality. Criticizing the concept of avidya as the source of the universe, Abhinavagupta says: The apparent contradiction is in the words that avidya is indescribable and (at the same time) in describing it as an entity that takes the form of all infinitely diverse manifestations. The assertion that limited beings are deluded by virtue of the original ignorance caused by avidya, or divine energy, means that such energy can be fully described, and this is how it is described. In addition, the unreal essence is not capable of creating such a grandiose presentation. If she is really capable of creating, then she is without a doubt a real entity, not an apparent and indescribable one (ibid., 80). At the very beginning of his enormous work, he also criticizes one more of the theories of the universe, namely the concept of illusion (vivarta-vada). This theory has two aspects. First, it refers to the phenomenon of a non-existent phenomenon, such as, for example, a dream or a mirage. According to this view, the universe does not exist, but only seems to be an existing reality. Vivarta can also refer to some phenomenon, which in fact is not what it seems, as, for example, a rope can be mistaken for a snake, or a shell for silver. In accordance with this aspect of the vivartas, Brahman exists, but falsely appears as God, a limited soul and inanimate matter. According to Abhinavagupta: It is said that the vivarta is a manifestation of a non-existent entity. How can it be unreal, when it is manifested? No one paid proper attention to this discrepancy. (ibid., 18). Abhinavagupta observes that the essence that clearly manifests and creates the universe must be something real and significant, and should be described accordingly. In his commentary on Paratrishika, Abhinavagupta insists that his view of the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of the Samkhya or Vedanta, since this is an exclusively Shivaite view (Paratrishikavirana V.181). _______________

Part 2: Interpreting the creative nature of Brahman in the light of Shaivism, Abhinav says: Brahman is one continuous whole. This is the power of bliss, which manifests itself outwardly, like the creative energy that lies within. Infinite Consciousness is revealed in all manifested existence, because the word "Brahman" means both the all-pervading infinity and the manifested world. Comparing such a Saivite understanding of the nature of Brahman with the views of Advaita Vedanta, he continues: The Brahman of Shaivism is not the same as the Brahman Advaita Vedanta, very reminiscent of the nihilistic concept of Buddhism (ibid., 221). "Isvarapratyaabhijnavimarshini" is the most significant work of Abhinavagupta, dedicated to the theoretical side of Shaivism. Reasoning in it on the same subject, he criticizes advaita-Vedanta and teachers of Buddhist idealism of vijnanavada, saying: Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity unsolvable, some thinkers (Vedantists) declare that the apparent diversity is inexplicable, since it is the primary ignorance (avidya). Others (Buddhists) say that diversity is false, because it is the result of mental activity (samvriti). Thus, both of them deceive themselves and others. ("Isvarapratyaabhijnjavimarshini" from "Bhaskari", II.131). ___________ Comparing such a Saivite understanding of the nature of Brahman with the views of Advaita Vedanta, he continues: The Brahman of Shaivism is not the same as the Brahman Advaita Vedanta, very reminiscent of the nihilistic concept of Buddhism (ibid., 221). He criticizes advaita-Vedanta and teachers of Buddhist idealism of vijnanavada, saying: Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity unsolvable, some thinkers (Vedantists) declare that the apparent diversity is inexplicable, since it is the primary ignorance (avidya). Others (Buddhists) say that diversity is false, because it is the result of mental activity (samvriti). Thus, both of them deceive themselves and others. ("Isvarapratyaabhijnjavimarshini" from "Bhaskari", II.131). In another part of the same work, he discusses this issue in detail and expresses the following opinion: If we assert that the unity of the Absolute Consciousness is a reality, and that (manifestation) of diversity is a consequence of the disturbance caused by avidya, then it is impossible to decide who is responsible for this inaccuracy of ignorance (avidya). Because, on the one hand, how could Brahman, pure knowledge, take the form of ignorance? And on the other hand, in fact there is no other being to which ignorance can be inherent (ibid., II. 201). Abhinavagupta does not accept avidya as an inexplicable entity. He claims: If avidya is considered inexplicable, we do not understand for whom it is inexplicable. On the one hand, its essential nature is manifested, and on the other hand, it is considered "indescribable." What is this? If this means that its existence can not be explained or confirmed with the help of logical conclusions, then the question arises: what is this logic that contradicts direct experience? How can an entity shining as an experience not be verified? (ibid., 202) Further, Abhinavagupta expresses an assumption about the theory of the universe of Advaita Vedanta. Brahman, pure Consciousness, is revealed as a self-existent truth in the state of nirvikalpa, a direct experience, free from conceptualization. And the diversity of the phenomenal world is determined by the process of mental conceptualization. He refutes such an argument as follows: Who is carrying out this process? If this is Brahman, then it turns out to be overshadowed by avidya. In addition to Him, no one exists. Who then can do this? (ibid.) The following argument on this question: How can one then say that nonconceptual knowledge is genuine and conceptual is false if both of them shine equally? (ibid.) Ultimately, the Advaitists can try to find confirmation of their views in authoritative Vedic texts, but Abhinavagupta warns this attempt: If we assert that the absence of difference is established on the basis of the authority of the scriptures, regardless of everyday experience, then we must say that these writings themselves have weight in the sphere of diversity, and they are also determined by diversity (ibid., 203). ___________ Abhinavagupta says: If we accept the concept of absolute monistic pure Consciousness, then it will be impossible to explain how it performs its independent activity to maintain the diversity of forms. But all this could be ascertained and explained if we consider Him as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness. So Abhinavagupta represents and considers the views of the Advaita Vedanta school of Shankaracharya. It is not difficult to understand why Abhinavagupta feels the need to distinguish between the non-duality of Kashmiri Shaivism and the apparent monism of the followers of Shankaracharya, creating in the process of polemic the term para-advaita. It should be pointed out that the main difference between the Vedantist monism, which Shankaracharya spoke of, and the para-advaita developed by the sages of Kashmiri Shaivism, most likely lies in the realm of logic, rather than in the sphere of faith. As we have already seen, Vedantic teachers believed that the source of the phenomenal existence lies beyond the limits of absolute Consciousness, and considered its creative power as dependent on the external element, which they called ignorance (avidya). Teachers thru their Sadhana (meditation) were convinced that this creative force is the essential nature of absolute Consciousness and the source of the entire manifested world. Teachers of the Vedanta, such as Shankaracharya and Gaudapada, could apply the dualistic approach in their logical argumentation, but their views and practices were significantly different. Both were devoted theists, as did the authors of the Shivaite monism; Both applied various forms of spiritual practice close to the Shakta Upaya of Tantric Shaivism, and used tantric methods in their spiritual practice (sadhana). At the same time, since these teachers were interested in refuting Buddhist logic, they carefully studied it, and in so doing partly fell under its influence. Since the aforementioned flaws in their philosophical approach were revealed in the logic of their main opponents - the Buddhist logic - the Advaitists ignored these shortcomings and made no attempt to eliminate them. In the end, the participants in the debate do not have to pay attention to mutual incongruities. It should also be noted that Shankaracharya did not live long enough for his logical thinking to reach full maturity. One of the reasons for the appearance of inconsistencies in the works of Shankaracharya in logic, pointed out by Abhinavagupta, may be the fact that most of them were written at the age of twenty-odd years. In the future, most of the outstanding advaitists who lived after Sankara did not turn to the works of the great Vedanta teachers, devoted to the practical side of philosophy, but mostly paid attention to polemics and logic, instead of practicing the teachings and actually experiencing the real realization of Brahman. Sriharsha, one of the most famous authors of the logical school of the Vedanta, even brags about his preference for logical practice disputes. The tendency to concentrate on the complexities of logical disputes brought Advaita Vedanta very close to the Buddhist nihilism. It is thanks to this trend of Advaita philosophy that Abhinavagupta felt the need to clarify the theistic and absolutist monism of Kashmiri Shaivism, which was previously discovered and described by Somananda and Utpaladeva. Although there is no doubt that the grains of such nihilistic thinking are to some extent present in some important works of Shankaracharya in logic, yet his outstanding works on the practical Vedanta deserve due attention. It is also necessary to take into account the young age in which Shankara wrote a commentary on "Prasthanaatrai" ( Upanishad, Brahmasutra, Bhagavad Gita). Without a shadow of prejudice against the views of other philosophical schools, Abhinavagupta says in the Ishvarapratyabhijna-vivrittivimarshni that: "if the follower of Vedanta identifies avidya with maya and accepts the last for the divine power of Brahman, he can also attain the highest perfection" (IPVv.vimarshni, III 405). He also makes similar remarks about the teachings of Lord Buddha and shifts responsibility for logical confusion to later commentators (ibid.). According to the supreme monism of Abhinavagupta, absolute I-Consciousness is the only thing that exists. It is unlimited, eternal, perfect and pure Consciousness, full of divine creative energy. This creative energy is inherent in vibration, and it actively participates both in the manifestation of relative unity and diversity. (The term "relative unity" is used here because the manifested unity is only relatively one in comparison with the absolute unity of the boundless I-Consciousness, in which, as it is believed, there is an absolutely real universe). A real yogi who has established himself in the Sadhana (meditation) , sees one Absolute God in all diversity and oneness. Kashmiri Shaivism does not consider diversity as an illusion to such a "son of a barren woman", but perceives it as real as a relative unity. Absolute reality shines in manifestations of relative unity and diversity. According to Abhinavagupta: "No one says that diversity does not exist at all in such (understanding) non-duality. Variety is manifested even in that it is devoid of all sorts of division." (Malinivijayavartika, I.108). This divine creative energy is the basic essential nature of the monistic I-Consciousness. In their studies of consciousness during deep meditative states, the Shivaite yogis discovered that this divine essence is full of infinite bliss, playfulness and vibration. Due to its divine and playful nature, ancient thinkers called it God, and Shaivites - Paramashiva. Creation, preservation, dissolution, defilement and unfoldment are the five basic actions in the divine game of Paramashiva. He creates, preserves and absorbs all that exists. In this process, He hides his true nature and is disguised as limited beings, forcing them to become more and more identified with a limited ego. Passing through countless births and deaths, He finally realizes his true nature as a lord, thus completing the divine game. All this is a manifestation of His divine energy and is not different from Himself. So, the limited being is not different from God, just hiding in this form. Abhinavagupta says: But the almighty Lord, capable of accomplishing even the impossible and possessing undivided freedom, skillfully hides his real self. ("Tantraloka", IV.10). __________