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). _______________

Part 2: Interpreting the creative nature of Brahman in the light of Shaivism, Abhinav says: Brahman is one continuous whole. This is the power of bliss, which manifests itself outwardly, like the creative energy that lies within. Infinite Consciousness is revealed in all manifested existence, because the word "Brahman" means both the all-pervading infinity and the manifested world. Comparing such a Saivite understanding of the nature of Brahman with the views of Advaita Vedanta, he continues: The Brahman of Shaivism is not the same as the Brahman Advaita Vedanta, very reminiscent of the nihilistic concept of Buddhism (ibid., 221). "Isvarapratyaabhijnavimarshini" is the most significant work of Abhinavagupta, dedicated to the theoretical side of Shaivism. Reasoning in it on the same subject, he criticizes advaita-Vedanta and teachers of Buddhist idealism of vijnanavada, saying: Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity unsolvable, some thinkers (Vedantists) declare that the apparent diversity is inexplicable, since it is the primary ignorance (avidya). Others (Buddhists) say that diversity is false, because it is the result of mental activity (samvriti). Thus, both of them deceive themselves and others. ("Isvarapratyaabhijnjavimarshini" from "Bhaskari", II.131). ___________ Comparing such a Saivite understanding of the nature of Brahman with the views of Advaita Vedanta, he continues: The Brahman of Shaivism is not the same as the Brahman Advaita Vedanta, very reminiscent of the nihilistic concept of Buddhism (ibid., 221). He criticizes advaita-Vedanta and teachers of Buddhist idealism of vijnanavada, saying: Finding the contradiction between unity and diversity unsolvable, some thinkers (Vedantists) declare that the apparent diversity is inexplicable, since it is the primary ignorance (avidya). Others (Buddhists) say that diversity is false, because it is the result of mental activity (samvriti). Thus, both of them deceive themselves and others. ("Isvarapratyaabhijnjavimarshini" from "Bhaskari", II.131). In another part of the same work, he discusses this issue in detail and expresses the following opinion: If we assert that the unity of the Absolute Consciousness is a reality, and that (manifestation) of diversity is a consequence of the disturbance caused by avidya, then it is impossible to decide who is responsible for this inaccuracy of ignorance (avidya). Because, on the one hand, how could Brahman, pure knowledge, take the form of ignorance? And on the other hand, in fact there is no other being to which ignorance can be inherent (ibid., II. 201). Abhinavagupta does not accept avidya as an inexplicable entity. He claims: If avidya is considered inexplicable, we do not understand for whom it is inexplicable. On the one hand, its essential nature is manifested, and on the other hand, it is considered "indescribable." What is this? If this means that its existence can not be explained or confirmed with the help of logical conclusions, then the question arises: what is this logic that contradicts direct experience? How can an entity shining as an experience not be verified? (ibid., 202) Further, Abhinavagupta expresses an assumption about the theory of the universe of Advaita Vedanta. Brahman, pure Consciousness, is revealed as a self-existent truth in the state of nirvikalpa, a direct experience, free from conceptualization. And the diversity of the phenomenal world is determined by the process of mental conceptualization. He refutes such an argument as follows: Who is carrying out this process? If this is Brahman, then it turns out to be overshadowed by avidya. In addition to Him, no one exists. Who then can do this? (ibid.) The following argument on this question: How can one then say that nonconceptual knowledge is genuine and conceptual is false if both of them shine equally? (ibid.) Ultimately, the Advaitists can try to find confirmation of their views in authoritative Vedic texts, but Abhinavagupta warns this attempt: If we assert that the absence of difference is established on the basis of the authority of the scriptures, regardless of everyday experience, then we must say that these writings themselves have weight in the sphere of diversity, and they are also determined by diversity (ibid., 203). ___________ Abhinavagupta says: If we accept the concept of absolute monistic pure Consciousness, then it will be impossible to explain how it performs its independent activity to maintain the diversity of forms. But all this could be ascertained and explained if we consider Him as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness. So Abhinavagupta represents and considers the views of the Advaita Vedanta school of Shankaracharya. It is not difficult to understand why Abhinavagupta feels the need to distinguish between the non-duality of Kashmiri Shaivism and the apparent monism of the followers of Shankaracharya, creating in the process of polemic the term para-advaita. It should be pointed out that the main difference between the Vedantist monism, which Shankaracharya spoke of, and the para-advaita developed by the sages of Kashmiri Shaivism, most likely lies in the realm of logic, rather than in the sphere of faith. As we have already seen, Vedantic teachers believed that the source of the phenomenal existence lies beyond the limits of absolute Consciousness, and considered its creative power as dependent on the external element, which they called ignorance (avidya). Teachers thru their Sadhana (meditation) were convinced that this creative force is the essential nature of absolute Consciousness and the source of the entire manifested world. Teachers of the Vedanta, such as Shankaracharya and Gaudapada, could apply the dualistic approach in their logical argumentation, but their views and practices were significantly different. Both were devoted theists, as did the authors of the Shivaite monism; Both applied various forms of spiritual practice close to the Shakta Upaya of Tantric Shaivism, and used tantric methods in their spiritual practice (sadhana). At the same time, since these teachers were interested in refuting Buddhist logic, they carefully studied it, and in so doing partly fell under its influence. Since the aforementioned flaws in their philosophical approach were revealed in the logic of their main opponents - the Buddhist logic - the Advaitists ignored these shortcomings and made no attempt to eliminate them. In the end, the participants in the debate do not have to pay attention to mutual incongruities. It should also be noted that Shankaracharya did not live long enough for his logical thinking to reach full maturity. One of the reasons for the appearance of inconsistencies in the works of Shankaracharya in logic, pointed out by Abhinavagupta, may be the fact that most of them were written at the age of twenty-odd years. In the future, most of the outstanding advaitists who lived after Sankara did not turn to the works of the great Vedanta teachers, devoted to the practical side of philosophy, but mostly paid attention to polemics and logic, instead of practicing the teachings and actually experiencing the real realization of Brahman. Sriharsha, one of the most famous authors of the logical school of the Vedanta, even brags about his preference for logical practice disputes. The tendency to concentrate on the complexities of logical disputes brought Advaita Vedanta very close to the Buddhist nihilism. It is thanks to this trend of Advaita philosophy that Abhinavagupta felt the need to clarify the theistic and absolutist monism of Kashmiri Shaivism, which was previously discovered and described by Somananda and Utpaladeva. Although there is no doubt that the grains of such nihilistic thinking are to some extent present in some important works of Shankaracharya in logic, yet his outstanding works on the practical Vedanta deserve due attention. It is also necessary to take into account the young age in which Shankara wrote a commentary on "Prasthanaatrai" ( Upanishad, Brahmasutra, Bhagavad Gita). Without a shadow of prejudice against the views of other philosophical schools, Abhinavagupta says in the Ishvarapratyabhijna-vivrittivimarshni that: "if the follower of Vedanta identifies avidya with maya and accepts the last for the divine power of Brahman, he can also attain the highest perfection" (IPVv.vimarshni, III 405). He also makes similar remarks about the teachings of Lord Buddha and shifts responsibility for logical confusion to later commentators (ibid.). According to the supreme monism of Abhinavagupta, absolute I-Consciousness is the only thing that exists. It is unlimited, eternal, perfect and pure Consciousness, full of divine creative energy. This creative energy is inherent in vibration, and it actively participates both in the manifestation of relative unity and diversity. (The term "relative unity" is used here because the manifested unity is only relatively one in comparison with the absolute unity of the boundless I-Consciousness, in which, as it is believed, there is an absolutely real universe). A real yogi who has established himself in the Sadhana (meditation) , sees one Absolute God in all diversity and oneness. Kashmiri Shaivism does not consider diversity as an illusion to such a "son of a barren woman", but perceives it as real as a relative unity. Absolute reality shines in manifestations of relative unity and diversity. According to Abhinavagupta: "No one says that diversity does not exist at all in such (understanding) non-duality. Variety is manifested even in that it is devoid of all sorts of division." (Malinivijayavartika, I.108). This divine creative energy is the basic essential nature of the monistic I-Consciousness. In their studies of consciousness during deep meditative states, the Shivaite yogis discovered that this divine essence is full of infinite bliss, playfulness and vibration. Due to its divine and playful nature, ancient thinkers called it God, and Shaivites - Paramashiva. Creation, preservation, dissolution, defilement and unfoldment are the five basic actions in the divine game of Paramashiva. He creates, preserves and absorbs all that exists. In this process, He hides his true nature and is disguised as limited beings, forcing them to become more and more identified with a limited ego. Passing through countless births and deaths, He finally realizes his true nature as a lord, thus completing the divine game. All this is a manifestation of His divine energy and is not different from Himself. So, the limited being is not different from God, just hiding in this form. Abhinavagupta says: But the almighty Lord, capable of accomplishing even the impossible and possessing undivided freedom, skillfully hides his real self. ("Tantraloka", IV.10). __________

Part 3: According to the absolute non-dualism of Śri Abhinavgupts: " He, and only He exists in the ever-changing scenes of his presentation. All creation is endowed with a real and eternal existence within God in the form of the divine energy of His pure Consciousness. As soon as the universe becomes manifest as a manifest phenomenal existence, it inevitably has a beginning and an end." Realized yogis see the presence of the Absolute God both in the world of manifestation and in the pure noumenal existence of absolute Consciousness. The Shivaite yogis should not only know this truth, but also truly feel it. Only then can they achieve a perfect and complete realization. God remains God in His noumenal and phenomenal aspects. A poet is a poet even in a deep sleep. The supreme lord, whether he is involved in worldly affairs or is restlessly resting, remains the lord. In the same way, God remains himself perfect in his divine power, even if He appears in his noumenal aspect. Therefore He is God because of his nature, and not because of his connection with the phenomenal world. This is the main difference between the advaitic (non-dual) view of Shankaracharya and Abhinavagupta. Manifesting himself phenomenally, God is not subject to any change and transformation that the Vedantists who lived after Shankaracharya called parinama(result). According to Abhinavagupta, all phenomenal manifestations occur according to the principle of reflection. He preaches realism (satkaryavada), but his realism is not materialistic and does not imply the process of parinama. All creation is only an outward manifestation of divine energies. His energies shine in Him as "I", and their external reflection appears as "this." This is the secret of the reality of all phenomena. In this sense, Satkaryavada Abhinavagupta can be considered a form of spiritual realism. All creation is the materialization of the divine will of God. This is a tremendous divine transformation, carried out by God's own free will. In the playful nature of God there is nothing missing, for He is not only full, but full (papour). All external manifestations of divine power are poured out of this blessed abundance. God projects his energies outward, not because there is a need for this, but because of his nature and unlimited divine ability to do so. One may ask why the nature of God is such, but it is useless to question the essential nature of anything. It would be absurd to ask why the fire is hot, or why it shines, or why it burns, etc. the fire deprived of these qualities would immediately cease to be fire. Unburned coal is just a piece of coal, and it can not be confused with fire. In the same way, God, devoid of the vibrant manifestation of His divine creative power, would be reduced to the position of an inanimate object. According to Abhinavagupta: If Almighty God always kept the same form, He would have to lose His Consciousness and creative power, thus turning into an inanimate thing like a clay pot(Tantraloka, III 100-101). The manifestation of mutually contradictory concepts such as cohesion and liberation, relative unity and diversity, ignorance and knowledge are just parts of the divine drama. Abhinavagupta says: These related concepts of cohesion and liberation are inalienable characteristics of the Almighty Lord, since the concept of differences is essentially nonexistent in Him (Boddhapanchadaśika, 14). Another difference between the views of Advaita Vedanta and Abhinav (śaiva - Paradvaita ) is that the (Śankara) advaitist can survive oneness only in the standing of samadhi, while śaiva yogis experience it in everyday life. Therefore Narasimhagpta, the father of Abhinavagupta, called this the doctrine of pratyakshadwaita, or direct (immediate) non-duality. According to Abhinavagupta: The great teacher Narasimhagpta, who has attained perfection of the mind with the help of the art of correct contemplation, calls this the non-dual perception. (Malinivijayavartika, I. 763) Abhinavagupta applies a special kind of logical argumentation, which he calls the Sattarka. The conventional system of logic (tarka) is based on beliefs built on the everyday experience of people who think in the ordinary mind and emotions (maya). Sattarka also relies on intuitive experiences of yogis that go beyond bounded existence and perceive reality at the level of unity in diversity (vidya). Abhinavagupta shows that an inanimate object can not by itself affirm its existence, it needs help from outside the living entity, in order to say that such an object exists. This is reminiscent of the famous Berkeley dilemma about the tree falling in the forest. If the animate person is not present, does this noise produce a falling tree? The Kashmiri Shaivites would say: "Yes, there is noise, because all this occurs within the Absolute Consciousness and is attested by Him." This teaching believes that only a conscious animate beginning has an independent existence. It goes to some inanimate object, takes its form and appears in the form of this object. Thus, the manifested inanimate object is considered real. Nevertheless, it seems that such an object has a more real and pure form when it shines inside the consciousness of some living being, where, it can be said, it actually exists. Finally, the inanimate object is eternal, and therefore absolutely real (paramarthasat) only within the most infinite Consciousness. Both ultimate and unlimited consciousness can manifest itself as a cognizing subject, as all instruments of cognition, and as a cognizable object. This proves two things: This approach to truth through the intuitive vision of unity in diversity (sattarka) explains the non-duality of Consciousness endowed with divine power, and shows that this Consciousness is able to take the form of unconscious beings, shining through them. As Abhinavagupta says: Therefore, only the Self (I) shines (everywhere), taking the form of the whole objective existence known as the universe, and continuously unfolding like a universe. The object, having the nature of consciousness, is also completely immersed in the light (consciousness); because the main truth is that only this light (of consciousness) is shining, what difference can there be between omniscience and its absence? ("IPVVV" from "Bhaskari", I.51) So Abhinavagupta shows that the supposed difference between a limited and infinite consciousness is usually based on the phenomenal existence of objects of consciousness, such as the body, the senses and the brain. However, since these objects owe their existence to Consciousness, or arise from it, they can hardly have any sensible judgments about this Consciousness. Instead of relying on conventional logic, sattarka relies on the authority of the intuitive experience of higher monism realized in yogic practice. The views and teachings of Abhinavagupta at first may seem illogical to some scholars who are engaged in Western philosophy, but getting acquainted with this method can also lead them to a more careful look at the essence of their own logic, dependent only on the mind and its constructions. As already mentioned in the introduction, there is a significant difference between Indian Darśana and Western philosophy. The Indian philosophical system (darśhan), basically derives from an intuitive comprehension of truth, while books about truth in the form of darśhan are of secondary importance. In the philosophical systems of India, logic is used only in the writings of such a secondary kind of darshan to present for discussion the revelations obtained as a result of yogic experience. In the west, on the contrary, philosophy is a tradition of world wisdom and logic, developed with the help of ordinary intellectual abilities. Since no kind of yoga practice in Western philosophy is applied, its only main method of comprehension remains the use of the mind. Abhinavagupta clarifies the concept of the Para-advaita of Kashmiri Shaivism in his main works, and considers it from different points of view. In his opinion, the texts devoted to this concept do not necessarily have to apply the included / excluded (bhoga-tyaga lakshana) meaning as a comment or explanation. He says: As disciples who are not familiar with certain synonyms, they are taught as follows: "padapa (tree) is bhuruka, and ghata (pot) is kumbha, so we say that the Almighty Lord is the entire universe. (Malinivijayavartika" , I.929). By this he means that the "definition" of God does not introduce a complementary new predicate, but merely substitutes a synonym, just as we say that "palas" is a "carpet". Paradvaita does not accept and does not deny diversity completely. Although diversity is not an absolute reality, yet its roots are in it. According to Abhinavagupta: Absolute monism is a concept that neither denies nor affirms diversity. (Malinivijayvartika, I.621). Adhering to the view of higher non-duality, Abhinavagupta says that parade is a doctrine in which monism, dualism and monodualism are equal manifestations of the same divine reality: True non-duality is a philosophical view that sees only the Truth in various statements such as "This diversity, this is not diversity (that is, unity), and this is diversity and unity " (ibid., I.626). Abhinavagupta believes that a yogi who has established himself in the understanding and experience of higher non-duality sees only one reality shining in all mutually exclusive entities, such as pleasure and pain, connectedness and liberation, animality and inanity, and. etc., just as an ordinary person perceives both ghat and kumbha as one object (pot), described in different words ("Tantraloka", I.92). Further explaining this concept, Abhinavagupta notes that the Lord Himself shines as 1) a naked Truth manifested in different ways, 2) as a hidden Truth and 3) as a partially hidden Truth (ibid., 93). Further, emphasizing the absolute theistic nature of monistic reality, he asks: How can the tank fill with little water? Only abundant (source) can throw jets (water) in all directions(Malinivijayvartika, I.245). Focusing on the principle of higher non-duality, Abhinavagupta says that only the Absolute Consciousness, endowed with an independent creative power, appears in the form of various phenomena (ibid., I.86). In addition to the differences with the advaita Vedanta, discussed earlier, the concept of the observance of Abhinavagupta should also not be confused with the theory of bheda-abheda visishtadvaita of the Shivaite and Vishnuite schools in southern India. The reasons for this are the following: The Para-advaita maintains an absolutist view in its metaphysics and ontology, and such a view is not shared by Shuddhadvaita supporters such as Vallabha, or followers of Visishtadvaites such as Ramanuja, Shrikantha, etc. Nimbaraka and Chaitanya, adherents of bheda-abhedavada, as well as followers of saivasiddhanta, are also not adherents of absolutism. According to Abhinavagupta, Paramashiva is not a personal God living in a higher heavenly abode like Vaikuntha, Goloka, Divya-vrndavana or Rudraloka. All these places of dwelling, together with their divine masters, are just playful creatures of Paramashiva. As we have already noted, He creates these spheres of habitation by reflecting His divine energies. These creatures inevitably have a beginning and an end; Only Paramśiva is eternal. The final liberation from the point of view of Para-advaita is a state of perfect and absolute unity, much deeper than even the highest variety of Sāyujya ( merging in Lord) or Sālokya (living in the abode of Lord ) the forms of liberation known to these schools. The creation of Paramashiva does not imply any transformation (parinama) of neither God himself, nor his creative energy (Shakti). Rather, it is an amazing transformation that does not cause any change in the source. The Paradvaita of Kashmiri Shaivism does not take any form of svagatabheda, or the original variety of Paramashiva, which imposes a restriction on essential unity in the same way as with the followers of vishishatadvaita who admit the possibility of a variety of eternal truth called Narayana. The paradigm of Kashmiri Shaivism is logically built nonduality, because it perceives only one absolute reality in all phenomenal and noumenal entities. She sees perfect unity even in everyday life. The mind of the follower parade becomes double-edged. He performs daily actions with the help of the external side of the mind, and his inner side remains immersed in absolute unity. The great royal sages, such as Janaka and Sri Krishna, are examples of yogis who have established themselves in that state. It can be assumed that the pantheism of some Western thinkers is similar to the concepts of Kashmiri Shaivism, but this assumption is groundless because of the non-absolutist nature of pantheism. Western philosophers-pantheists do not see God standing behind all these phenomena. As we have already noted, in the opinion of Abhinavagupta, all phenomena are but external manifestations of the Absolute, like reflections. They arise and disappear like the ocean waves of a completely pure, independently playful and divine Consciousness, the only absolute and ever existing reality. Philosophy, concealing in itself such valuable discoveries and ideas, almost did not go beyond the small valley of Kashmir. Surprisingly, it has never won real popularity among scientists in cities such as, for example, Varanasi. Only a few Indian scientists showed interest in Kaśmir Śaivism. This fact also complicated research in this area. Most modern scholars followed the views of authors of secondary importance, which led to various misconceptions and philosophical intricacies. Other scholars began to notice some significant differences between the Vedantic form of monism and the Shivaite non-duality. However, Vedanta remains deeply rooted in the faith of most of them, and this naturally affects their work. Sanskritists mainly devote time and energy to the study of Vyakarana, Nyaya and Vedanta. Obviously, they are not attracted by the possibility of Self-realization, offered by the Sattarka of Shivaism. Thus, Shaivism awaits recognition in academic Sanskrit circles even in a place like Varanasi, the city of Shiva. --- B.N. Pandit "Kashmir Shaivism" (V.A. Dmitrieva) —————- Very blessed New Year’s Eve to everyone! ????????️

Thank you for your post. We need to remember that these theories have refined over centuries and none of the questions or criticisms are left unanswered. Simplest answer of existences and non existence doesn't mean that it cannot happen. This website answers for most of the questions that was raised in various articles also below are some of the texts that was specifically created to counter criticism against Advaita, ultimately what matters is to be faithful to your philosophy. Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, Upadeśa Sāhasrī, Pañcapādikā Vivaraṇa, Advaita Siddhi, Nyāya Makaranda, Siddhānta Leśa Saṅgraha, Śivārka Maṇi Dīpikā, Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya

Namaskaram Prince. May I ask for your wisdom and practical guidance about developing Indriya-Ozhukkam ? (particularly in busy modern life and with bad/lazy habits that have been structurally encoded to be more automatic through long periods of reinforcement)

Thank your for your Guidance respected Tivra ji, Does working with the Ishta of the Amatyakaraka lead to the development of all 4 souls simultaneously and how does one only enter with the incomplete caitya purusa will be very grateful if you could expand on these cases

Dear tivra sir , why was yhvh body destroyed? Who destroyed it's body ? How much time will it take for his body to reform? What are the angels doing for him to reform his body again? Was he truly very evil god? Why did any god or being ever attacked or reprimanded yhvh to not to be acting so evil? Why did vishnu and shiva promised not to harm yhvh and persuaded him to act good when they could forcefully do that through other means and methods?

Namaste Tivra ji. You are right. I'll follow your guidance. Is Devi Khadagmala placed in Supramental realm too?

Tivra ji how did the situation of this universe become so bad that lord arutperunjoti had to himself intervene in this matter and no other god or goddess could do anything? How did the situation become so worse?