The permissions are locked on the document. It would help if you can open the permissions for a limited time at least, so it can be downloaded or looked at without requesting for access.

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). _______________