This becomes a description of Kaula-yogi, who perceives the world as Divine and enjoys Shakti-tattva through women and wineOriginally Posted by TruthSeeker
This becomes a description of Kaula-yogi, who perceives the world as Divine and enjoys Shakti-tattva through women and wineOriginally Posted by TruthSeeker
The "delight" is the very reason classical advaita does not favour creation theory because Brahman is always self satisfied and as Mandukya states - Brahman is AptakAma, who has no desires. What desires can the blissful Brahman have, and ever have a need to create anything?Originally Posted by Arjuna
I have no problems with "non illusion" forms of advaita, however. But you must realize the polemical strength of Shankaran advaita with a never ending stream of great vedantins who have been able to answer many criticisms, especially against Dvaita.
With such high credentials in its favour, I dont see any point in debating with not so well established forms of advaita. I am not the right person for a debate either. If you think yours is the actual monism, you can try defending it it some advaita forum like
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
In all probability, you can't defend a case against Mayavada, which has the genius of the likes of Shankara, Madhusudhana and Appayya in it. Advaita has dozens of commentaries and elaborations of all major upanishads, the Brahma sutras and the Gita.
Namaste,
I have no wish for useless debates and arguements for their own sake
If U bring some people here and start a meaningful discussion, then we can examine which Advaita is real Monism. However, i am afraid this will result in another tremendous discussion thread, which i am not interested in.
In any case, before discussing about Paradvaita U have to get a basic idea of it. Believe me, it has no less geniuses!
Namaste Arjuna,
Despite the recent popularity of Kashmiri Shaivism in western academic research, Kashmiri Shaivism is not the only valid interpretation of Shaiva Monism.
Ajativada is firmly based on Shruti (the Upanishads) and logic.
Ajativada does not consider “reality” or “unreality” ~ only eternity and non-eternity.
Advaita cannot consider that Maya is “some kind of outer entity thought of as separate from Brahman”. And you mention the separation of Purusha and Prakriti, which comes from Samkhya and NOT from Ajativada or Advaita.
It is provocative (and false) to claim that “Paradvaita” is the only true Monism.
Namaste Sarabhanga,Originally Posted by sarabhanga
Could U please tell more on Ajati-vada?
My expression about Maya was figurative; is it considered to be different from Brahman (Sat), but not Asat either — consequently Shankara's Advaita describe her as "inconceivable". I really see no logic in this. If U follow Shankara's darshana, i would be glad to hear its explanation from U.
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad can be cited as an example of Shaiva monism, though its teachings do not appear to be entirely in accordance with the Advaita Vada. The Veera Shaivas of Karnataka manage to combine Advaitic doctrines with an emphasis on bhakti as to some extent does Tamil Shaivism. I think one can say that Shaiva ideas are closer to Advaita than those of the Vaishnavas, though they are never identical.
Virashaivas have a ShaktivishishtAdvaita-vada and not a pure Monism.Originally Posted by kimtadbrahma
While there are at least two monistic Vaishnava traditions: Kashmiri one (perhaps lost, only texts like Samvit-prakasha survived) and Vallabha's (not 100% sure about this one, since never studied it, but it claims to be ShuddhAdvaita).
That depends on the kind of Vaishnavism you are looking at. There are monistic Vaishnavas with beleifs close to Shaivas, except for names and terminologies. Again, it also depends on what aspect the philosophy is trying to project itself as. Take for instance Vishsitadvaita-Originally Posted by kimtadbrahma
If you are viewing jiva to be part of the Brahman, and enjoying equal bliss to God, it cannot be called very far away from monism. (deha-dehi)
If you are viewing jiva to be dependent on Brahman in the above relation as master-servant, it is closer to dvaita.(shesha -seshi)
But they have chosen to give more importance to the second one for practical reasons( perhaps historical or perhaps to emphasise bhakti and saranagati over jnana). Taken in the first way, I dont see it very different from most Shaivas or even monists, though they will claim significant difference to protect thier unique identity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks