Namaste
Shruti, Smruti, Agama all point to Oneness, Advaita. Many have experienced it too by the Grace (anugraha) of Brahman, this local poster included.
top-down: "It was I who became all of this, and came down multiple levels to then be surrounded by the manifested world. Originally that is who I am. TAT . TAT padArtha is what is realized."
bottom up: "I can see this in my nature, as being that of the nature of my IshTa, as being the nature of others."
The purpose is not to gain siddhis, but to abide in the Oneness of Brahman by whatever anugraha comes along in whatever time.
While, after leaving the body (i.e. death of body - dehAnta) , there is more spiritual life/journey ahead, in higher lokas (realms), which can lead to omniscience if Parameshwar wills it, or if it serves any purpose such as welfare of the world. This is optional and up to Brahman', which is God for most schools of thought.
[Previously, I always wondered -- if siddhis are actually pre-requisites to actual advaita realization in the true sense -- well apparently not for the basic moksha at least. ]
I am going to list at least a few siddhanta lines - that propound a-dvaita which are ok in their place, and at least logical, gracious and grateful.
1. VaishNav Dharma is very sweet, VishishTAdvaita is the closest school of thought to advaita, and give experience of Onenesss, and can potentially lead to omniscience (sarvadnyatA) if the ShaktimAn MahA-VishNu wills it - per VishishTAdvaita
2. Bramha-KumAris is not advaitic, it is Monotheistic, a sweet and simple path that makes no tall claims, just that "I am a peaceful pure soul" and you go in proximity of Shiv.
Again, it is theistic and includes the factor of Grace and gratitude.
3. smArta - a friendly approach that says the 5 (or 6) forms of Brahman are the same Brahman, and advaita is to be experienced via ahaMgrahopAsanA - worship via identification with your IshTa, or because of leela by the IshTa - whatever may be the case.
4. Kashmiri Shaiva - trika, other monistic Shaiva and ShAkta schools : These also say that jiva can ultimately realize oneness with Shiva by anugraha i.e. Grace of Shiva (or Devi or both / all).
Here, there is no trick involved --- you either realize you are originally of the nature of Shiva - as a peaceful AtmA
OR , after death of the body (videha mukti) -- potentially become omniscient by the Grace of Shiva-Shakti.
In these schools, Shiva is complete, with Shakti. There are no ridiculous claims like His omnipotence is an observation in Avidya etc.
While VaishNav schools are bhAvpUrNa and full of bhakti with some aiming for pure devotion (shuddha bhakti), there is gratitude in the Shaiva-ShAkta paths , be it jnana-mishra bhakti.
A few of the Shaiva-ShAkta pAths may adopt some tAmasic routes, but most do not.
At least the one who became Shiva does not toss Shiva's omnixxx under the VyAvahArika rug.
All of these schools fulfill the shruti mahAvAkyas - be it conditionally, but ultimately the potential is there.
Tat tvam asi. Aham BramhAsmi. pradnyAnam Brahman. sarvam khalu-idam Brahman.
Whether via Vedanta or Agama.
----
5. Jainism is very honest with what can and cannot happen according to them. Each jiva can become a siddha and continue to rise higher and higher even after the basic moksha.
Fair enough. Incomplete as it may appear to some, this is at least fair and gracious enough.
6. Buddhist deny Brahman but at least they are atheists up front, do not play hide and seek and claim theism by saying "BUT it is avidya"
7. Sikhism is logical, derives from Hindu dharma, sings devotional hymns to Ram, Krishna, Devi, in addition to the formless Omkar, and their oneness is similar to other theistic monist schools - somewhere between dvaita and advaita --
HOWEVER some of their latter gurus wrote offensive things just to teach emphasis on going beyond attachment to personal forms of Brahman. This was an attempt to break off from the brotherhood with Hindu Dharma the parent.
-----
Now let's see what Adi Shankara said :
Shankara in Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.1.14 states:
"Thus in Shankara's Kevala-Advaita these qualities like omniscience, omnipotence are the products of Avidya. So they do not exist in highest state." - a kevala Advaitin.
WHAT? Now just because an individual cannot do what Shiva, VishNu and Devi can, we want to call it avidyA?
Sour Grapes?
Now I understand why some say this SiddhAnta Is "veiled atheism" or "veiled Buddhism."
Then why not say "We do not believe there is any agency of Maha-VishNu involved, there is no Grace involved, no one is answering your bhakti" ? Then that is what you believe, and that is that.
Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.
What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Yes, Shankara's two-fold satya, calling SaguNa Brahman's Shakti as avidyA is extremely offensive.
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.
Shruti, Smruti, Agama all point to Oneness, Advaita. Many have experienced it too by the Grace (anugraha) of Brahman, this local poster included.
top-down: "It was I who became all of this, and came down multiple levels to then be surrounded by the manifested world. Originally that is who I am. TAT . TAT padArtha is what is realized."
bottom up: "I can see this in my nature, as being that of the nature of my IshTa, as being the nature of others."
The purpose is not to gain siddhis, but to abide in the Oneness of Brahman by whatever anugraha comes along in whatever time.
While, after leaving the body (i.e. death of body - dehAnta) , there is more spiritual life/journey ahead, in higher lokas (realms), which can lead to omniscience if Parameshwar wills it, or if it serves any purpose such as welfare of the world. This is optional and up to Brahman', which is God for most schools of thought.
[Previously, I always wondered -- if siddhis are actually pre-requisites to actual advaita realization in the true sense -- well apparently not for the basic moksha at least. ]
I am going to list at least a few siddhanta lines - that propound a-dvaita which are ok in their place, and at least logical, gracious and grateful.
1. VaishNav Dharma is very sweet, VishishTAdvaita is the closest school of thought to advaita, and give experience of Onenesss, and can potentially lead to omniscience (sarvadnyatA) if the ShaktimAn MahA-VishNu wills it - per VishishTAdvaita
2. Bramha-KumAris is not advaitic, it is Monotheistic, a sweet and simple path that makes no tall claims, just that "I am a peaceful pure soul" and you go in proximity of Shiv.
Again, it is theistic and includes the factor of Grace and gratitude.
3. smArta - a friendly approach that says the 5 (or 6) forms of Brahman are the same Brahman, and advaita is to be experienced via ahaMgrahopAsanA - worship via identification with your IshTa, or because of leela by the IshTa - whatever may be the case.
4. Kashmiri Shaiva - trika, other monistic Shaiva and ShAkta schools : These also say that jiva can ultimately realize oneness with Shiva by anugraha i.e. Grace of Shiva (or Devi or both / all).
Here, there is no trick involved --- you either realize you are originally of the nature of Shiva - as a peaceful AtmA
OR , after death of the body (videha mukti) -- potentially become omniscient by the Grace of Shiva-Shakti.
In these schools, Shiva is complete, with Shakti. There are no ridiculous claims like His omnipotence is an observation in Avidya etc.
While VaishNav schools are bhAvpUrNa and full of bhakti with some aiming for pure devotion (shuddha bhakti), there is gratitude in the Shaiva-ShAkta paths , be it jnana-mishra bhakti.
A few of the Shaiva-ShAkta pAths may adopt some tAmasic routes, but most do not.
At least the one who became Shiva does not toss Shiva's omnixxx under the VyAvahArika rug.
All of these schools fulfill the shruti mahAvAkyas - be it conditionally, but ultimately the potential is there.
Tat tvam asi. Aham BramhAsmi. pradnyAnam Brahman. sarvam khalu-idam Brahman.
Whether via Vedanta or Agama.
----
5. Jainism is very honest with what can and cannot happen according to them. Each jiva can become a siddha and continue to rise higher and higher even after the basic moksha.
Fair enough. Incomplete as it may appear to some, this is at least fair and gracious enough.
6. Buddhist deny Brahman but at least they are atheists up front, do not play hide and seek and claim theism by saying "BUT it is avidya"
7. Sikhism is logical, derives from Hindu dharma, sings devotional hymns to Ram, Krishna, Devi, in addition to the formless Omkar, and their oneness is similar to other theistic monist schools - somewhere between dvaita and advaita --
HOWEVER some of their latter gurus wrote offensive things just to teach emphasis on going beyond attachment to personal forms of Brahman. This was an attempt to break off from the brotherhood with Hindu Dharma the parent.
-----
Now let's see what Adi Shankara said :
Shankara in Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.1.14 states:
तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वपाधिस्वरुपे आत्मनि ईशत्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते, तथा चोक्तम् - 'यत्र नान्यपश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा इति' यत्र 'त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्' इत्यादिना च एव परमार्थवस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ता ।। 2.1.14
Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Avidya; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. Thus Scripture also says, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite' (Ch. Up. VII, 24, 1); 'But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13.) In this manner the Vedânta-texts declare that for him who has reached the state of truth and reality the whole apparent world does not exist.
"Thus in Shankara's Kevala-Advaita these qualities like omniscience, omnipotence are the products of Avidya. So they do not exist in highest state." - a kevala Advaitin.
WHAT? Now just because an individual cannot do what Shiva, VishNu and Devi can, we want to call it avidyA?
Sour Grapes?
Now I understand why some say this SiddhAnta Is "veiled atheism" or "veiled Buddhism."
Then why not say "We do not believe there is any agency of Maha-VishNu involved, there is no Grace involved, no one is answering your bhakti" ? Then that is what you believe, and that is that.
Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.
What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Yes, Shankara's two-fold satya, calling SaguNa Brahman's Shakti as avidyA is extremely offensive.
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.
Last edited: