Namaste,
There are two aspects of understanding, bauddha (intellectual) and paurusha (spiritual). The first one relies upon Sattarka (right logic), which is based upon anubhava (experience). Second one is purely related to experience.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Paradvaita as a darshana (metaphysical vision or doctrine) represents the intellectual aspect, a projection of Truth into semantic field. Such kind of explanation is not "perfect" in a sense in which Anuttara, Concsiousness or Love is perfect, for it is not a whole; but it is perfect when based upon pratyaksha-anubhava.
Another reason for stating that Monism is supreme darshana is that it's divinely revealed in Bhairavagamas and supported by Siddhas. However this is a matter of belief until one gets the needed inner experience and develops right logic to see accuracy of this view directly.
Advaitin can and have to understand the relation of Brahman and Maya, for upon this depends his state: if he rejects Maya as illusion separate from Brahman he cannot rise above sushupti level. Only when Maya is seen as inherent potency and freedom of Brahman, one goes into Turiya and attains Paramapada.
Of course, such understanding is not a product of mental speculation or reading of books; but of direct realisation of I-Consciousness and applying right logic to it. Prakasha and Vimarsha that are two non-separate aspects of Parasamvit are not different from Prakasha and Vimarsha of the Consciousness of a Yogi. Thus having known his Atman a Yogi understands a relation of Brahman and Maya (Shiva and Shakti).
If one thinks that he knows Truth, verily he doesn't know it. The Truth isn't an object of thought-process.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
This is inaccurate. There are different schools of Shaivism and Vaishnavism, dualistic and non-dualistic, as well as compromising. Monistic Shaivism (Paradvaita) holds the world as REAL exactly because it is in Consciousness only. And this Consciousness is not one of some three attributes of Brahman, but the very Absolute. Brahman (in a sence of a static Being) is it's one aspect, and another is Maya (Shakti, to be precise).Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Anantatva is merely an attribute of Parasamvit, as well as Satyata and Jnana. Consciousness is the Truth (the only Reality), it is the Knowledge (thus it is Self-aware and not insentient void) and it is Limitless (i.e. Unbound and Free, Svatantra). This is exactly what Monistic Shaivism teaches.
Mayavada as a theory of Maya being not one with Brahman and the world being an illusion is rejected by virtually all schools of Shaivism, monistic and dualistic.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Shaktism holds the same view as Monistic Shaivism does. In fact there is no separate metaphysics of Shaktism — it is a Monistic Shaiva metaphysics only (we may recall Krama system which is the only strictly Shakta school, but its doctrine is not different from a Shaiva one, just terms vary).
Again, there is a school of monistic Vaishnavism which has the same doctrine as that of Kashmiri Shaivism. And Vaishnava Sahajiyas are close in their views to Shaktas and even to Tantric Buddhists.
This kind of generalisation U incline to is quite dubious.
BTW there is no term "Shaktaism", but "Shaktism."
By educated mysticsOriginally Posted by TruthSeeker
Sri Ramakrishna, Kabir or Lalla didn't develop any darshanas, though no doubt they were mystics!
Charm, command or scholarship themselves prove nothing. Hitler had a command over people, Pope of Rome does have it, etc. Of course everything exists in Parasamvit only, but we cannot say that these qualities are proofs of divinity manifested.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
There may be various paths (methods) intended for different kinds of people. But there may be only one true metaphysics, for all other theories are at best something partly true. If we see some people opposing the Monistic doctrine (which may take slightly different forms, but its essence is always Advaita), that happens due to four reasons:
1. Lack of experience;
2. Defect of logic (experince may be there, but a person is unable to interpret it properly);
3. Ego (one understands that his theory is inaccurate, but continues to preach it for getting status, fame, money etc.);
3. Particular circumstances (one explains a "lower teaching" for people of little understanding).
Details may and do differ, but never essence. Consciouness is one.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
There are three criteria of true knowledge: Sattarka (right logic based upon yogic experience), Sadagama (Divine Revelation) and Sadguru.Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
There is a proof of a darshana being superior over another: if the whole of experience can be consistently explained with one system and cannot be explained with another, the first one is verily superior (as a metaphysical system).Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Mathematics has proved that there cannot exist any kind of system which explains everything and yet is not self-contradictive. Thus there must be either some contradiction or innuendo. Since contradiction is against logic, the second choise has to be accepted — a mystery. And there is a mystery of one perfect and independent Consciousness producing in itself the whole variety of objects. Here comes a point which is inexpressible. But this mystery is verified by yogic experience, which is referred to by Kashmiri Shaiva authors.
We may recall an indescribable Maya of Advaita-vedanta; but in that case it is in fact described (as being a cause of triple avidya) and that leads to two self-contraditions: 1. claimed indescribable entity is described; 2. this entity is held as different from Brahman, and thus Advaita-vada is refuted.
Bookmarks