Deeply insightful discourse👌 Grateful to the towering intellectual Jeyamohan! Suchithra and Anjum expressed brilliant reflections and elicited enlightening musings from the masterly Literateur👍
Pathma ( Malesia ) A Brief on Advaita in Siddhanta Vedanta is considered as the culmination of Vedas. Similarly, Saiva Siddhanta is considered as the culmination of Saiva Agamas. It is for this reason Siddhanta is sometimes referred to as ‘Agamanta’. Unlike the Vedanta, Saiva Siddhanta considers three kind of relationship of God with the Soul. God is one with the Soul, along with the Soul, and different from the Soul. This aspect of relationship in three states (onraai, udanaai, veraai) is the Advaita relationship mentioned in Siddhanta philosophy. The three kinds of relationship of God to the soul can be explained with an analogy. The Soul is one with our physical body. Similarly God is one with the soul. The soul is along with the body and animates it. Similarly God is along with the soul and animates it. Yet the soul is different from the body. Similarly God is different from the Soul. The second Aphorism of SivaJnanaBodham speaks of the Advaita relationship in Siddhanta philosophy as follows: “The primal Being, God, is non-separable from the souls, being one with them, different from them and making them to take births and deaths ceaselessly, experiencing the fruits of the twin karma. This is done by His Sakthy who is eternally in implicit union with Him.” (Dr. K. Ganesalingam) The above is a concise summary of the similarities and differences between siddhanta and vedanta over the term advaita. As one can readily see, siddhanta is far more sophisticated, and in fact bridges non-dual, dual and plural relationships of god, soul and the world. Siddhanta is not different from vedanta, just more sophisticated in explaining the relationship of the triad. Which is why sages and scholars say vedanta is general and siddhanta is specific. This makes vedanta dated, passe, and well, obsolete, as we have moved far forward from being mere simplistic. Additionally, the explanations of the three-fold relationships within siddhanta gives rise to monistic theism (advaita isvarapada) and pluralism, although both agree on all the points, that souls are beginningless, that there is actual embodiment (sariraka) of the soul and disembodiment. In my opinion Meykandar's philosophy, insofar as the relationship between god and soul, is not pluralism but a unique monism or advaita. Kauai Aadheenam calls it 'advaita isvarapada' or monistic theism. It is non dual. At the same time since there is Isvara, a Personal God, there is dualism, and as there is padam, there is worship which makes it outright dualism as the path or marga. In the beginning there was neither existence nor non existence. Nothing was there. Suddenly Brahma and Vishnu sprang forth from Nowhere, and were wondering who they were, and from where did they come from, what they should do, and whether they should create the world, and if so, who should do it. Then they were astonished to see an infinite linga of light arise from the Nowhere. So they decided to find its origin and ends in order to prove their own greatness. Today, like the two gods, scholars want to do the same thing. They want to 'measure' god, find the ends, figure out and map the entire route, leave no mystery behind, no stone unturned. Isn't this what all philosophers do - try and 'measure' God? We are the 'gods' searching for causes and reasons for creation, and just how exactly dissolution is going to take place, all in minute detail, step by step, frame by frame detail, with ample footnotes thrown in. Even Brahma and Vishnu couldn't and surrendered in abject humility. Only then He revealed Himself to them, and even after that, the gods could not describe it for the benefit of us all, for posterity. We better do the same thing. I propose we too surrender so that He may reveal to us. It seems like a wiser idea. There is an area, the state called parasiva, which cannot be explained. In this transcendent state no one can even say if God exists or not, or if soul exists or not, let alone the relationship is one or two. In this area, it's best to leave it as an inexplicable mystery that only Rudra the Dissolver would know. The same logic applies in that matter of creation of souls and worlds. We will only end up with very logical and rational explanations but based on non falsifiable postulates. Since creation is very difficult to explain, we *might* have a better chance at exploring dissolution. Understanding cosmic dissolution may give us some understanding on creation. We observe atrophy in this universe and its logical to infer that dissolution in the world is already taking place. We are well into mahapralaya. The texts tells us that all including the gods and all iconic forms will dissolve into that great Nothingness, the inexplicable parasiva. At that point only Rudra exists, and there will be no one to ask Him any questions, like, why? There will be no one to observe what He does after absorbtion. And how long the period of rest lasts. This does not arise as time and space too will be absorbed. And whether there will be any re-creation, and if so, how exactly Rudra does it. Nobody knows. The questions don't arise as there is no one around to ask and record for posterity, and accordingly there are no answers. The same applies on creation. This is where we must stop the 'measuring'. The ends - creation and dissolution should always remain as the mysteries of god, and not as subjects of philosophies.
![Write Your Life And Become A Better Storyteller - Mark W Travis [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xFK5Ih3CPFc/mqdefault.jpg)
Deeply insightful discourse👌
Grateful to the towering intellectual Jeyamohan!
Suchithra and Anjum expressed brilliant reflections
and elicited enlightening musings from the masterly Literateur👍
The first 3mins of jeyamohan's speech is trance. Epic, and celestial song
Wow!
Yes Guru ji❤
Interviewer should have small compressed questions and put the focus on the author. Let them speak.
Very perceptive conversation 👏👏👏
One reason for Jayamohan’s eclectic view of life could be that he grew up in Kerala marinated in the Malayalam milieu and Tamil family background.
While Anjum was talking to her inner soul, Jeyamohan and Suchi were trying to catch the words before it went into Anjum's ears😂
Pathma ( Malesia )
A Brief on Advaita in Siddhanta
Vedanta is considered as the culmination of Vedas. Similarly, Saiva Siddhanta is considered as the culmination of Saiva Agamas. It is for this reason Siddhanta is sometimes referred to as ‘Agamanta’.
Unlike the Vedanta, Saiva Siddhanta considers three kind of relationship of God with the Soul. God is one with the Soul, along with the Soul, and different from the Soul. This aspect of relationship in three states (onraai, udanaai, veraai) is the Advaita relationship mentioned in Siddhanta philosophy.
The three kinds of relationship of God to the soul can be explained with an analogy. The Soul is one with our physical body. Similarly God is one with the soul. The soul is along with the body and animates it. Similarly God is along with the soul and animates it. Yet the soul is different from the body. Similarly God is different from the Soul.
The second Aphorism of SivaJnanaBodham speaks of the Advaita relationship in Siddhanta philosophy as follows:
“The primal Being, God, is non-separable from the souls, being one with them, different from them and making them to take births and deaths ceaselessly, experiencing the fruits of the twin karma. This is done by His Sakthy who is eternally in implicit union with Him.” (Dr. K. Ganesalingam)
The above is a concise summary of the similarities and differences between siddhanta and vedanta over the term advaita. As one can readily see, siddhanta is far more sophisticated, and in fact bridges non-dual, dual and plural relationships of god, soul and the world. Siddhanta is not different from vedanta, just more sophisticated in explaining the relationship of the triad. Which is why sages and scholars say vedanta is general and siddhanta is specific. This makes vedanta dated, passe, and well, obsolete, as we have moved far forward from being mere simplistic.
Additionally, the explanations of the three-fold relationships within siddhanta gives rise to monistic theism (advaita isvarapada) and pluralism, although both agree on all the points, that souls are beginningless, that there is actual embodiment (sariraka) of the soul and disembodiment.
In my opinion Meykandar's philosophy, insofar as the relationship between god and soul, is not pluralism but a unique monism or advaita. Kauai Aadheenam calls it 'advaita isvarapada' or monistic theism. It is non dual. At the same time since there is Isvara, a Personal God, there is dualism, and as there is padam, there is worship which makes it outright dualism as the path or marga.
In the beginning there was neither existence nor non existence. Nothing was there. Suddenly Brahma and Vishnu sprang forth from Nowhere, and were wondering who they were, and from where did they come from, what they should do, and whether they should create the world, and if so, who should do it. Then they were astonished to see an infinite linga of light arise from the Nowhere. So they decided to find its origin and ends in order to prove their own greatness.
Today, like the two gods, scholars want to do the same thing. They want to 'measure' god, find the ends, figure out and map the entire route, leave no mystery behind, no stone unturned. Isn't this what all philosophers do - try and 'measure' God? We are the 'gods' searching for causes and reasons for creation, and just how exactly dissolution is going to take place, all in minute detail, step by step, frame by frame detail, with ample footnotes thrown in.
Even Brahma and Vishnu couldn't and surrendered in abject humility. Only then He revealed Himself to them, and even after that, the gods could not describe it for the benefit of us all, for posterity. We better do the same thing. I propose we too surrender so that He may reveal to us. It seems like a wiser idea.
There is an area, the state called parasiva, which cannot be explained. In this transcendent state no one can even say if God exists or not, or if soul exists or not, let alone the relationship is one or two. In this area, it's best to leave it as an inexplicable mystery that only Rudra the Dissolver would know.
The same logic applies in that matter of creation of souls and worlds. We will only end up with very logical and rational explanations but based on non falsifiable postulates. Since creation is very difficult to explain, we *might* have a better chance at exploring dissolution. Understanding cosmic dissolution may give us some understanding on creation.
We observe atrophy in this universe and its logical to infer that dissolution in the world is already taking place. We are well into mahapralaya. The texts tells us that all including the gods and all iconic forms will dissolve into that great Nothingness, the inexplicable parasiva. At that point only Rudra exists, and there will be no one to ask Him any questions, like, why? There will be no one to observe what He does after absorbtion. And how long the period of rest lasts. This does not arise as time and space too will be absorbed. And whether there will be any re-creation, and if so, how exactly Rudra does it.
Nobody knows. The questions don't arise as there is no one around to ask and record for posterity, and accordingly there are no answers. The same applies on creation. This is where we must stop the 'measuring'. The ends - creation and dissolution should always remain as the mysteries of god, and not as subjects of philosophies.
Self advertising ,blowing own trupe trumpets ,pathetic,
Aasanji... 🙏