u/quantum_kalika

Something unusual happened yesterday while I was sleeping. I became lucid inside a dream, and in that dream I saw a snake. Suddenly, even within the dream, I remembered that the snake is a symbol connected with Shiva.

The moment that recognition arose, my head began to pulsate intensely. Before I could understand what was happening, I felt myself moving into an out-of-body experience. I was not fully in control, and much of my ordinary knowledge of this plane seemed to fade away.

I found myself near my father’s house. I went to the neighbouring place and turned on the TV for the people there. Suddenly, I noticed an old couple looking directly toward me, as if they could see me. I became frightened and ran away.

For what felt like almost an hour, I wandered through the old homes where we had once lived. These places felt familiar, but also distant and strange, as if I was moving through memory, dream, and another plane at the same time. Eventually, I returned.

It happens through crown chakra Sahasrara. It gets activated before you get out.

Earlier I have had OBE, having this after a long time. Still, i can just be me dreaming stuff, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Can someone help me understand if it was actually obe or just another lucid dream.

The usual explanation of quantum theory often begins with a simple wave. This wave is treated as if it has a fixed wavelength, like a neat and regular ripple. From this fixed wavelength, we are told that the particle has a definite momentum, using the relation p=h/\lambda. From there, the momentum operator and the famous quantum commutation relation are motivated.

The problem is that this starting point is only valid for a very special case: a free wave that is not interacting with anything. Such a wave has a clean, fixed wavelength. But real quantum field theory has interactions. When particles or fields interact, the wave cannot remain one neat fixed-wavelength wave. Its momentum and wavelength content must change; otherwise, there would be no real interaction, only simple overlapping or superposition.

So there is a hidden shift in the reasoning. At the beginning, the theory uses a fixed-wavelength wave to motivate the basic quantum operator. But later, to explain interaction, the theory must allow the wavelength or momentum structure to change. That means the original fixed-wavelength picture cannot be the true foundation of the whole theory.

Even if Planck’s constant h is accepted as a universal constant, the problem remains: the momentum operator cannot be fully derived from p=h/\lambda once the wavelength is no longer fixed. The relation works neatly only for free, fixed-wavelength waves. It does not by itself explain general interacting states.

Therefore, the criticism is not that quantum field theory is mathematically useless or experimentally wrong. The criticism is that its simple textbook explanation is incomplete. It first uses a special free-wave picture to motivate the operator structure, but then moves beyond that picture when interaction is needed. The deeper structure of the theory—Hilbert space, operators, commutation relations, and interaction terms—is not truly derived from the free wave. It is assumed as part of the framework.

If action is built from classical notions like kinetic energy, potential energy, mass, and path, then using action to derive quantum waves and then using quantum waves to recover classical paths is not an ultimate derivation. It is a consistency structure or correspondence bridge but not a fundamental derivation. Is this assessment correct?

The universe appears through unmeṣa and withdraws through nimeṣa. But this should not be read as a literal temporal blink of Śiva. From the absolute standpoint, manifestation and withdrawal are not separated by clock-time; they are two aspects of the same freedom of Consciousness.

But without conception of time what is the meaning of such movement.

Trump said that we are 4-5 weeks away from when oil reserves start to go empty. The strait of Hormuz is not yet solved until Israel agrees, but it won't until Netanyahu is there.

I struggled with this deeply, and perhaps that struggle itself became the beginning of this journey. There is no easy escape from what we call evil, and this is the harsh truth. Śaivism does not console us by saying that evil is unreal in a simplistic sense, or that Śiva is outside it, untouched like a distant witness who has no relation with the suffering of the world. On the level of manifestation, Śiva is not merely the enjoyer of beauty, love, bliss and freedom; He is also the one who experiences terror, violence, limitation, fear and bondage through the contracted form of the jīva. The one who suffers and the one who inflicts suffering are not outside His manifestation. This is difficult to accept, but Kashmir Śaivism does not allow us to place anything outside consciousness.

​

I am not speaking here from the level of Paramāśiva or Anuttara, where all oppositions are dissolved before they arise. I am speaking only from the level of duality, from the field of bheda, where consciousness has contracted through māyā, kañcukas and mala. Once duality is accepted, opposites cannot be selectively accepted. Good and evil, love and hate, freedom and kārma-mala, compassion and cruelty, beauty and horror — all arise as paired movements within the same contracted field. One cannot demand a world of duality and then ask why only one side of duality does not exist. If manifestation is to appear as difference, then the entire spectrum of difference must appear.

​

This is why Śaiva iconography, especially the form of Bhairava, is often ugra. Bhairava is not merely frightening; He is the symbol of a reality that is beyond sentimental morality. His fierceness represents the terrible neutrality of consciousness. He does not deny the world, nor does He decorate it with false sweetness. He shows that existence contains creation, preservation and destruction together. The same Śakti that gives birth also devours. The same universe that produces love also produces violence. The same life that seeks nourishment survives by consuming other life. To live at all is to participate in injury. We eat the bodies of plants and animals. We kill insects without thought. We destroy forms daily to preserve our own form. If evil is understood as harm, then no embodied being is innocent in an absolute sense.

​

Most people do not come to this realization because they look at evil only through the lens of human suffering. But evil does not concern only humanity. The whole structure of embodied existence is built upon limitation, consumption, conflict and decay. This does not mean that ethical action is useless.

​

If you see clearly, the world is not a just place. We have to eat dead bodies of plants and animals kill them daily to survive. Where is the justice in that. Are we not evil. Evil does not just concern itself with humanity. When you kill a cockroach who is lurking beneath your feat brutally such that it's entails come out, are you not a cold blooded killer. Is cockroach not doing its dharma?

​

On the contrary, within vyavahāra, dharma, compassion and restraint remain necessary. But metaphysically, the world is not a perfectly just place. It is a field of contracted consciousness moving through limitation. Once this is seen clearly, vairāgya begins. Vairāgya does not begin with hatred of the world; it begins with the recognition that lasting peace cannot be found inside a matrix whose very structure is built upon opposition.

​

This is also the reason why such a position is dangerous to state openly. It can easily be misunderstood as acceptance of evil, whereas that is not what is being said. Śiva manifests the field so that experience may unfold in its fullness, but the manifested field is not lawless. The matrix is built upon niyati — order, sequence, limitation and rule. Until one transcends the matrix through recognition, these rules are sacrosanct. Karma, dharma, consequence, restraint, responsibility and compassion are not optional decorations inside manifestation; they are the very grammar through which contracted consciousness moves.

​

Therefore, to say that everything arises within Śiva is not to say that every action is equally permissible for the jīva. The jīva who acts violently remains bound within kārma-mala and must undergo the consequence of that contraction. The one who protects, heals, restrains violence and moves the field toward harmony participates in the movement of Śakti toward rebalancing. In human form, as Śiva under limitation, the highest practical duty is not to justify the darkness of the field but to help the field correct itself faster.

This movement of autocorrection is itself a movement toward unity. Wherever violence, cruelty, hatred and fragmentation increase, consciousness becomes more distributed, more divided, more contracted into bheda. Wherever compassion, protection, truth and dharma arise, the field begins to move back toward recognition, toward lesser separation, toward the remembrance of its own unity. Thus dharma is not merely social morality; it is the active participation of the jīva in the re-harmonisation of Śiva’s own manifested field.

​

Here lies the contradiction of saṃsāra: we, as Śiva, manifest this field, and we, as contracted beings, seek to escape from it. The same consciousness that freely expands as the universe later contracts into the jīva and experiences bondage. Through āṇava-mala, it feels incomplete; through māyīya-mala, it sees difference; through kārma-mala, it becomes bound by action and consequence. Thus Śiva becomes the paśu without ceasing to be Pati. The bondage is not imposed by a second principle outside Śiva; it is the self-contraction of Śiva’s own svātantrya-śakti. This is the mystery and the terror of manifestation.

​

When one says that the person committing cruelty is also Śiva and the victim is also Śiva, this should not be misunderstood as moral permission. At the empirical level, the doer remains bound by karma, responsibility and consequence. But from the deeper Śaiva standpoint, there is no second reality outside consciousness where evil can be transferred. The entire experience — the pain, the cruelty, the fear, the resistance, the witness, the memory, the karmic imprint — all arise within the one field of cit. The experience stretches from the most terrible to the most beautiful, but when seen as a totality, the polarity cancels itself in the neutrality of consciousness. This is why Bhairava is terrifying: He is not partial to our emotional comfort.

​

Karma, therefore, should not be understood as perfect justice in a human moral sense. It is not a court where every event is neatly compensated according to our expectation. Karma is more like the self-correcting tendency of the manifested field. It is the way action, impression and consequence rebalance the contraction of consciousness. When imbalance accumulates, the field generates corresponding movements of correction. This correction may appear as suffering, rebirth, limitation, loss or transformation. But it is not sentimental justice; it is the internal regulation of the matrix of manifestation.

​

As the yuga-cycle proceeds, karmic density increases. The more action accumulates, the more kārma-mala thickens around the jīva. Swātantrya-śakti, which is originally absolute freedom, appears increasingly veiled under repetitive karmic patterns. The system becomes heavy with its own impressions. When the matrix is overloaded by accumulated karma, saṃhāra becomes necessary. Dissolution is not destruction in a merely negative sense; it is reset, re-absorption, the withdrawal of excessive differentiation back toward equilibrium. Creation expands, karma thickens, freedom becomes concealed, and then dissolution clears the field for renewal.

​

Therefore, in this vision, there are ultimately two honest possibilities. One may seek to move beyond the contracted matrix through recognition, pratyabhijñā, and recover one’s identity with Śiva. Or one may live in the world with the clarity that this field is not designed to give permanent peace. To live truthfully as a Śaiva is not to deny suffering, nor to escape into moral softness, nor to pretend that the world is just in a simple way. It is to see the whole field as Śiva’s own terrifying play of contraction and expansion, bondage and freedom, darkness and illumination. The first step is to accept the truth: this contradiction will not be solved inside duality. It can only be recognized, transcended, or lived through with terrible clarity.

As in the earlier part, I will not try to debate the answers presented.

The empirical world is not presented as a random illusion. It has continuity, karma, rebirth, prārabdha, śāstra, moral causation, spiritual practice, bondage, liberation and the distinction between jīva and Īśvara. Such a structured appearance cannot be treated as a simple perceptual error like mistaking a rope for a snake. It behaves more like a lawful matrix.

Advaita answers this by introducing Īśvara. Īśvara is Brahman associated with māyā, the cosmic regulator of vyavahāra. Īśvara governs karma, gives śāstra, sustains order, dispenses karmaphala, and maintains the continuity of the empirical world. This makes the empirical order intelligible. But it also creates the central problem: if the world continues as an ordered appearance, then some ordering principle remains operative. If that principle is Īśvara, then Īśvara is structurally necessary within the system. If Īśvara is structurally necessary, then Advaita has already entered the domain of positive ontology at the vyāvahārika level.

The counterargument would be that Īśvara is not ultimately separate from Brahman. Īśvara is only Brahman viewed through māyā. From the pāramārthika standpoint, there is no separate Īśvara, no separate māyā, no jīva, no jagat and no bondage. Īśvara is valid only within vyavahāra. The purpose of Advaita is not to describe a final metaphysical structure of reality, but to remove superimposition. Therefore, the fact that Īśvara functions within empirical reality does not make Īśvara ultimately real.

This counterargument is valid only if Advaita is understood as a theory of negation. But it does not work if Advaita is projected as a positive ontology. If Īśvara is invoked to explain order, karma, rebirth, śāstra, prārabdha and liberation, then Īśvara is not merely an optional teaching device. He is doing real explanatory work within the system. Once that explanatory work is accepted, the ontological status of Īśvara and māyā cannot simply be dismissed by saying that they are sublated ultimately.

The difficulty becomes sharper when we ask: does Īśvara produce māyā, or does māyā produce Īśvara? If Īśvara produces māyā, then Īśvara must already exist prior to māyā. But Advaita defines Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā. If māyā produces Īśvara, then māyā becomes more fundamental than Īśvara. If both are beginningless, that may avoid a temporal problem, but it does not solve the issue of explanatory priority. The question is not “which came first in time?” but “which explains which?”

The same problem appears at the individual level. Does avidyā produce the jīva, or does the jīva possess avidyā? If avidyā produces jīva, then avidyā cannot belong to jīva before jīva exists. If avidyā belongs to jīva, then jīva has already been assumed before avidyā explains it. Thus, Advaita faces parallel circularity at both levels: avidyā explains jīva but is located in jīva; māyā explains Īśvara but is governed by Īśvara.

It may be counter argued that realization does not destroy māyā as a cosmic entity; it only sublates māyā’s ultimate reality for the knower. The jñānī does not remove the matrix; he knows it as mithyā. This is compared to seeing a mirage even after knowing that there is no real water.

But this answer does not fully solve the problem. A mirage may continue to appear, but a mirage does not govern karma, rebirth, śāstra, moral order, prārabdha and liberation. Advaita’s empirical world is not merely a visual illusion; it is a structured and law-governed order. Therefore, if the appearance continues after realization, the question remains: who or what is maintaining this ordered appearance? If the answer is Īśvara, then Īśvara-māyā continues to function. If Īśvara-māyā continues to function, then the jīva has not negated the whole structure; he has only negated his identification within it.

This creates a serious tension in the doctrine of mokṣa. If mokṣa is merely removal of individual avidyā, then the jīva has not transcended the entire Īśvara-māyā framework. He has only ceased to identify with body-mind within an ongoing cosmic order. But if mokṣa is realization of nirguṇa Brahman, then even Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā must be sublated. Nirguṇa Brahman is Brahman without māyā-upādhi. Therefore, realization of nirguṇa Brahman should negate not only individual avidyā but also the Īśvara-māyā structure. If that structure is truly negated, the whole jīva-jagat-Īśvara matrix should collapse from the standpoint of truth. If it does not collapse, then māyā has not been fully negated.

The counter argument that the collapse is epistemic, not empirical looks weak. The matrix does not disappear as appearance; only its claim to ultimate reality disappears. But again, this works only if Advaita is understood as a negational theory. It means Advaita is not explaining the positive origin or structure of reality. It is only denying the ultimate reality of whatever appears. That is a coherent soteriological position, but it should not be presented as a complete positive ontology.

Therefore, Advaita can maintain Īśvara, māyā, jīva, karma and the world as provisional categories within vyavahāra, and then sublate them through knowledge. But it cannot at the same time present these categories as a complete final explanation of reality. If Īśvara is needed to maintain order, then Īśvara has functional ontological weight. If māyā is needed to connect nirguṇa Brahman with Īśvara and the world, then māyā has functional explanatory weight. If both are ultimately denied, then Advaita remains powerful as a method of negation, but strained as a positive ontology.

​

Advaita can say that Īśvara, māyā and the empirical order are ultimately sublated, but then it must accept that its explanations are provisional and negational, not final positive ontology. Once it tries to explain the ordered matrix positively, Īśvara and māyā become unavoidable, and their ontological status becomes the central unresolved issue.

Īśvara and an issue with negation

This creates difficulty even for the negational reading. If the jñānī merely negates his private identification with the matrix, then he has not negated the entire structure. The structure still continues under Īśvara-māyā. In that case, mokṣa becomes individual de-identification within an ongoing cosmic order, not full transcendence of the entire jīva-jagat-Īśvara structure. But if mokṣa is realization of nirguṇa Brahman, then even Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā must be sublated, because nirguṇa Brahman is Brahman without māyā-upādhi.

Therefore, the problem is this: if māyā remains operative at the level of Īśvara, then the jīva by himself cannot negate the whole structure. He can only negate his own identification within it. But if māyā is truly negated at the Īśvara level, then the entire matrix of jīva, jagat, karma, prārabdha and Īśvara should collapse from the standpoint of truth. If the matrix continues, then māyā has not been fully negated. If māyā has not been fully negated, then realization is not full transcendence of the Īśvara-māyā structure, but only a change in the individual standpoint.

A response may be given that Īśvara, māyā and the world continue only from the vyāvahārika standpoint, while from the pāramārthika standpoint they are sublated. But this again raises the same issue. If the ordered empirical structure continues, then some ordering principle continues. If that principle is Īśvara, then Īśvara has continuing functional necessity. If Īśvara has continuing functional necessity, then the negation is not of the whole structure, but only of the jīva’s mistaken relation to it.

So the issue is not simply that Advaita fails as positive ontology and succeeds as negation. The stronger criticism is also that Īśvara creates pressure even within the negational model. If Advaita says that only individual avidyā is negated, then mokṣā is individual de-identification, not full negation of the cosmic structure. If Advaita says that nirguṇa Brahman is realized, then the Īśvara-māyā structure must also be sublated. But if that structure is sublated, the ordered matrix should no longer retain validity. Advaita preserves the matrix by shifting it to vyavahāra, but that means the negation is standpoint-specific rather than structurally complete.

Therefore, Īśvara is not a minor issue in Advaita. Īśvara is the point where even the negational defense becomes complicated. The moment Advaita accepts a lawful empirical order, it needs Īśvara. But the moment it needs Īśvara, it also needs māyā. And the moment māyā remains operative, the jīva cannot be said to have negated the whole structure by himself. This shows that Advaita is powerful as a method of de-identification, but even as negation it must carefully explain whether mokṣa negates only individual avidyā or also the cosmic Īśvara-māyā framework.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvaitaVedanta/s/S8GNNs4qmT

Someone posted this a long time ago. Why I am pressing on this is, many people are beginning to understand they have realised brahman, saying nothing will change, understanding the logic, I just want to point out what guru ji said, it's darshana, experience, until it's experienced it's just logic. This dry logic without experience is leading to nihilism. People writing on the thread that nothing happens when the error is removed, without own experience, this is something which shouldn't be the way. Point is not about negative or positive, it's always have to be experience.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते। पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः॥

Sorry to be posting this on this thread, the mods on the other thread removed the content. I request if mods here can allow. I have seen many people are common. It's not a KS Vs Advaita post. I have reverence for Advaita too. .

The empirical world is not presented as a random illusion. It has continuity, karma, rebirth, prārabdha, śāstra, moral causation, spiritual practice, bondage, liberation and the distinction between jīva and Īśvara. Such a structured appearance cannot be treated as a simple perceptual error like mistaking a rope for a snake. It behaves more like a lawful matrix.

​

Advaita answers this by introducing Īśvara. Īśvara is Brahman associated with māyā, the cosmic regulator of vyavahāra. Īśvara governs karma, gives śāstra, sustains order, dispenses karmaphala, and maintains the continuity of the empirical world. This makes the empirical order intelligible. But it also creates the central problem: if the world continues as an ordered appearance, then some ordering principle remains operative. If that principle is Īśvara, then Īśvara is structurally necessary within the system. If Īśvara is structurally necessary, then Advaita has already entered the domain of positive ontology at the vyāvahārika level.

​

The counterargument would be that Īśvara is not ultimately separate from Brahman. Īśvara is only Brahman viewed through māyā. From the pāramārthika standpoint, there is no separate Īśvara, no separate māyā, no jīva, no jagat and no bondage. Īśvara is valid only within vyavahāra. The purpose of Advaita is not to describe a final metaphysical structure of reality, but to remove superimposition. Therefore, the fact that Īśvara functions within empirical reality does not make Īśvara ultimately real.

​

This counterargument is valid only if Advaita is understood as a theory of negation. But it does not work if Advaita is projected as a positive ontology. If Īśvara is invoked to explain order, karma, rebirth, śāstra, prārabdha and liberation, then Īśvara is not merely an optional teaching device. He is doing real explanatory work within the system. Once that explanatory work is accepted, the ontological status of Īśvara and māyā cannot simply be dismissed by saying that they are sublated ultimately.

​

The difficulty becomes sharper when we ask: does Īśvara produce māyā, or does māyā produce Īśvara? If Īśvara produces māyā, then Īśvara must already exist prior to māyā. But Advaita defines Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā. If māyā produces Īśvara, then māyā becomes more fundamental than Īśvara. If both are beginningless, that may avoid a temporal problem, but it does not solve the issue of explanatory priority. The question is not “which came first in time?” but “which explains which?”

​

The same problem appears at the individual level. Does avidyā produce the jīva, or does the jīva possess avidyā? If avidyā produces jīva, then avidyā cannot belong to jīva before jīva exists. If avidyā belongs to jīva, then jīva has already been assumed before avidyā explains it. Thus, Advaita faces parallel circularity at both levels: avidyā explains jīva but is located in jīva; māyā explains Īśvara but is governed by Īśvara.

​

It may be counter argued that realization does not destroy māyā as a cosmic entity; it only sublates māyā’s ultimate reality for the knower. The jñānī does not remove the matrix; he knows it as mithyā. This is compared to seeing a mirage even after knowing that there is no real water.

​

But this answer does not fully solve the problem. A mirage may continue to appear, but a mirage does not govern karma, rebirth, śāstra, moral order, prārabdha and liberation. Advaita’s empirical world is not merely a visual illusion; it is a structured and law-governed order. Therefore, if the appearance continues after realization, the question remains: who or what is maintaining this ordered appearance? If the answer is Īśvara, then Īśvara-māyā continues to function. If Īśvara-māyā continues to function, then the jīva has not negated the whole structure; he has only negated his identification within it.

​

This creates a serious tension in the doctrine of mokṣa. If mokṣa is merely removal of individual avidyā, then the jīva has not transcended the entire Īśvara-māyā framework. He has only ceased to identify with body-mind within an ongoing cosmic order. But if mokṣa is realization of nirguṇa Brahman, then even Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā must be sublated. Nirguṇa Brahman is Brahman without māyā-upādhi. Therefore, realization of nirguṇa Brahman should negate not only individual avidyā but also the Īśvara-māyā structure. If that structure is truly negated, the whole jīva-jagat-Īśvara matrix should collapse from the standpoint of truth. If it does not collapse, then māyā has not been fully negated.

​

The counter argument that the collapse is epistemic, not empirical looks weak. The matrix does not disappear as appearance; only its claim to ultimate reality disappears. But again, this works only if Advaita is understood as a negational theory. It means Advaita is not explaining the positive origin or structure of reality. It is only denying the ultimate reality of whatever appears. That is a coherent soteriological position, but it should not be presented as a complete positive ontology.

​

Therefore, Advaita can maintain Īśvara, māyā, jīva, karma and the world as provisional categories within vyavahāra, and then sublate them through knowledge. But it cannot at the same time present these categories as a complete final explanation of reality. If Īśvara is needed to maintain order, then Īśvara has functional ontological weight. If māyā is needed to connect nirguṇa Brahman with Īśvara and the world, then māyā has functional explanatory weight. If both are ultimately denied, then Advaita remains powerful as a method of negation, but strained as a positive ontology.

​

Advaita can say that Īśvara, māyā and the empirical order are ultimately sublated, but then it must accept that its explanations are provisional and negational, not final positive ontology. Once it tries to explain the ordered matrix positively, Īśvara and māyā become unavoidable, and their ontological status becomes the central unresolved issue.

My criticism is not only that Advaita becomes strained when projected as a positive ontology. The deeper issue is that even when Advaita is defended as a theory of negation, the role of Īśvara still creates a problem.

​

The usual Advaitic response is that mokṣa does not destroy the world as an empirical appearance; it only removes the false attribution of ultimate reality to it. The jñānī does not physically remove māyā or collapse the universe. He knows the world as mithyā. The collapse is epistemic, not empirical. On this reading, Advaita is not trying to explain how the world positively arises, but only to negate its independent reality.

​

Īśvara and a issue with negation

​

This answer is not fully sufficient once Īśvara is introduced. The empirical world is not a random illusion. It is an ordered system containing karma, rebirth, prārabdha, śāstra, moral causation, spiritual practice, bondage, liberation, and the distinction between jīva and Īśvara. Such an ordered appearance requires an ordering principle. Advaita provides this through Īśvara, who is Brahman associated with māyā and functions as the regulator of the empirical order.

​

This creates difficulty even for the negational reading. If the jñānī merely negates his private identification with the matrix, then he has not negated the entire structure. The structure still continues under Īśvara-māyā. In that case, mokṣa becomes individual de-identification within an ongoing cosmic order, not full transcendence of the entire jīva-jagat-Īśvara structure. But if mokṣa is realization of nirguṇa Brahman, then even Īśvara as Brahman associated with māyā must be sublated, because nirguṇa Brahman is Brahman without māyā-upādhi.

​

Therefore, the problem is this: if māyā remains operative at the level of Īśvara, then the jīva by himself cannot negate the whole structure. He can only negate his own identification within it. But if māyā is truly negated at the Īśvara level, then the entire matrix of jīva, jagat, karma, prārabdha and Īśvara should collapse from the standpoint of truth. If the matrix continues, then māyā has not been fully negated. If māyā has not been fully negated, then realization is not full transcendence of the Īśvara-māyā structure, but only a change in the individual standpoint.

​

A response may be given that Īśvara, māyā and the world continue only from the vyāvahārika standpoint, while from the pāramārthika standpoint they are sublated. But this again raises the same issue. If the ordered empirical structure continues, then some ordering principle continues. If that principle is Īśvara, then Īśvara has continuing functional necessity. If Īśvara has continuing functional necessity, then the negation is not of the whole structure, but only of the jīva’s mistaken relation to it.

​

This is why the mirage analogy is insufficient. A mirage may continue to appear after one knows there is no water, but a mirage does not govern karma, rebirth, moral law, śāstra, prārabdha and liberation. Advaita’s empirical world is not merely an optical illusion; it is a lawful and intelligible order. Once that order is accepted, Īśvara becomes necessary. Once Īśvara becomes necessary, māyā also becomes necessary. And once māyā remains necessary, the claim that negation has fully crossed the structure becomes difficult.

​

So the issue is not simply that Advaita fails as positive ontology and succeeds as negation. The stronger criticism is that Īśvara creates pressure even within the negational model. If Advaita says that only individual avidyā is negated, then mokṣā is individual de-identification, not full negation of the cosmic structure. If Advaita says that nirguṇa Brahman is realized, then the Īśvara-māyā structure must also be sublated. But if that structure is sublated, the ordered matrix should no longer retain validity. Advaita preserves the matrix by shifting it to vyavahāra, but that means the negation is standpoint-specific rather than structurally complete.

​

Therefore, Īśvara is not a minor issue in Advaita. Īśvara is the point where even the negational defense becomes complicated. The moment Advaita accepts a lawful empirical order, it needs Īśvara. But the moment it needs Īśvara, it also needs māyā. And the moment māyā remains operative, the jīva cannot be said to have negated the whole structure by himself. This shows that Advaita is powerful as a method of de-identification, but even as negation it must carefully explain whether mokṣa negates only individual avidyā or also the cosmic Īśvara-māyā framework.

​

​

I respect AV, but I think there is this difference in thinking what AV actually is. I had a long discussion with one of the learned member of this group. I thought let me put this out in open for a more structured response. I will not respond to the answers I will just read them, since I don't want to argue, the intention is to learn. Please take this in positive light.

Advaita appears extremely powerful when it is used as a method of negating mistaken identification, but it seems to become more difficult when it is asked to explain the structure of appearance itself.

In Advaita, nirguṇa Brahman is too indeterminate to generate or explain the structured appearance of the world. Therefore avidya is introduced to carry the burden of manifestation. But because avidya itself is neither clearly grounded in Brahman nor independent of Brahman, it becomes a hidden second principle. Functionally, it appears more active and explanatory than Brahman, while ontologically it is denied full reality. This creates a serious tension in Advaita’s metaphysics.

Avidya does not require an ultimate anchor because it is not ultimately real is not a valid argument. Avidya seems more functionally powerful than Brahman. Brahman is silent, inactive, attributeless; avidya explains multiplicity, experience, hierarchy, bondage, karma and the appearance of the world. Therefore avidya becomes more important than Brahman within the theory.

The argument that avidya is unreal works only if avidya is treated as simple perceptual error. But Advaita uses avidya to explain the entire experienced universe, individuality, karma, birth, death, scriptures, liberation, and even the need for teaching. That is too much explanatory weight for something whose own status is left indeterminate.

Also, treating it to be both real and unreal at the same instant is contradictory.

Avidya functions like the storage-place for every unresolved contradiction: multiplicity, jīva, bondage, karma, world-appearance, īśvara-jīva difference, prārabdha after realization, and the persistence of experience. But when we ask what avidyā itself is anchored in, Advaita avoids giving a clear ontological answer.

Even a provisional hierarchy must obey its own internal logic while it is being used. If the hierarchy explains the difference between jīva, īśvara and Brahman, then the removal of avidyā should also have consequences within that explanatory system. If the levels are not just treated as explanatory tools from the mistaken standpoint, then Advaita should admit that it is not giving a positive ontology of reality. It is giving a method of negating mistaken standpoints. Once it tries to positively explain why the world continues, why jīvanmukta remains embodied, why other jīvas continue, and why īśvara knows more than jīva, it has already entered structural ontology.

If avidya is the cause of Jiva, then the destruction of avidyā should destroy jīvatva absolutely. Since Brahman is not private but common and non-dual, realization should not leave behind a plurality of other valid viewpoints. Therefore, Advaita can preserve jīvanmukti and other jīvas only by keeping an empirical plurality that it ultimately denies. This makes Advaita coherent as a method of negation, but strained as an ontological explanation.If Brahman is the same in all, and jīvatva is only due to error, then once the error is truly removed, there is no principled basis for preserving separate unresolved viewpoints. To preserve them, Advaita has to treat the plurality of jīvas as functionally real. If realization truly removes avidyā, Advaita must explain why empirical continuity remains for the jīvanmukta without making avidyā partially real again.

So Advaita creates two levels of answer:

From paramārtha:

Yes, unity alone is real. No jīva, no other, no separate observer, no world, no multiplicity.

From vyavahāra:

This particular jīva’s avidyā is removed, but the appearance of other jīvas continues for those still operating under avidyā.

This looks like Advaita is having it both ways. It says avidyā is not real, yet it distributes avidyā across many apparent jīvas so that the matrix does not collapse for everyone.

In my conclusion, advaita is internally powerful as a soteriological method of negation. But when it explains the persistence of empirical reality after realization — especially through jīvanmukti and prārabdha — it risks giving positive ontological status to the very structure it wants to negate. Therefore, Advaita is more logically secure as a path of de-superimposition than as a complete metaphysical model of reality.

I am sorry. But this is a likely scenario. The way things are going oil prices will explode in a week or so even without war. With war it will accelerate.

Currently, india is hanging on subsidies. Food subsidy to 80 cr people. Fertilizer subsidy, gas subsidy, cash to public. However, soon this will become difficult. Also, they have no alternative.

In this scenario, when they will realise that the things are getting out of hand, they will try and create war like conditions. This will be just to enforce financial austerities onto people of India. But on the face of it, it will be covered by nationalism.

This will happen soon! Remember india is not politicians. There is no choice between politicians. The choice given to us in democracy is a fasaad. Anyone in this postion would have done so.

This is also written in malika that during the meen shani yoga. There will be war in india. India will be attacked from all sides. Foreign forces will enter puri.

Also, situation at border is worsening, Pakistan is doing elections in Gilgit Baltistan, which is POK. It's our territory and therefore Pak should not hold elections. Hence cause is evident and just.

Respect Indian army, they will fight for us.

Be ready! Prepare for the worst live with the best. If it doesn't happen then Shiva is very gracious to us.

Something about these videos, I don't know, you will feel it.

This is a bit different from what I usually post. This is for people who are spirituality oriented and usually find themselves disconnected from the material world.

Not that I am role model, or very successful, but still, I will share what I have understood till now.

When you are close to Shiva, he gives you various lens of perceptions. This in our world is also equated with delusions. People close to Shiva and Kali will always have delusions. This is because extra rational knowledge always comes to mind. It may be relevant it might not be.

Earlier I thought, it's just me and a few others who actually deal with this issue, but as the time has passed I have felt it's there in all humans only the ratio changes. So, when I say that world is going through a change, a section of people will say that I am delusional.

Now, what actually may make me delusional would be the fact if I ignored those voices to say that I am correct. I understand that mind is another organ and it can be incorrect. I respect all those voices.

Overtime, i have realised that people who are venturing into irrationality have to be careful of this. There are a few things that I do, inspite of what my mind or gut says, i respect some people that are with me, and I work on those advise.

So, even with me being kind of sure that world is found through a transformation, I am building my house. This is not because I don't trust myself, but the karma should go on. I trust people besides me. I keep playing the part of a good husband a good father a good son.

All the actions and thoughts, ultimately have to be truth, if what I say doesn't come to pass I must humbly accept that I was wrong. The field of irrationality has huge potential. However, it has the power to take away your sanity.

So, when you venture in fields like this, there is just one rule to govern that all, truth is evident. If it's not evident then it's not the truth.

It remains a seperate case if even the evident truth people are not able to see. To judge that be with good people. Nowadays AI is a big help, ask it to criticize critically and see if you are right. Accept if you are wrong.

All the things that I do or think are Shiva and Kali, i bow down before them.

Om namah shivaya! Om Kalikayi Namah!

I was very tired, so this may be a work of a tired mind.

I) I saw start of world war it was either 04.06.2026 2AM or 06.06.2026 2AM. Just randomly saw the time

II) I saw I am visiting a shiv temple in some mountainous area and there was a massive volcanic explosion. When I say massive, the threat was unbelievable.

I wrote what I saw, i am not oracle. It just could be a tired mind.

Edit : Earthquake in Himachal, but what I saw was not this small. I will not delete the post even if it's wrong, as a reminder.

Edit :Edit - Iran israel war restarted, 8.6 earthquake in Phillipines expecting a small tsunami