Causality is the explanation for two events in succession. The prior event is termed as “cause” and the next event is termed as “effect” with the assumption that the “cause-event” necessitates the “effect-event”.

But what exactly is the nature of this necessity? Is this necessity an imposition/deception/illusion of the mind or an something more? What could the nature of this necessity look like? Another cause? But then that creates the same question, what is the relationship/necessity between those two explanations? Does the cause actually determine the effect? Modern science is shockingly undecided as of now.

In our capacity to think about causes and effects using science and reason, can we ever come to clarity of why an effect comes after a cause? To me it seems like all we can ever think about is a never ending resolution of discrete thoughts which we can label as cause and effect that are in succession but we can never really answer the question of why those discrete thoughts should be in that sequence.

Az kofro ze Eslām borūn sahrā'īst, Mā rā be miyān-e ān fazā soudā'īst.*
*Āref cho bedān resid sar rā benahad Nah kofro nah Eslām o nah ānjā jā'īst.*

Beyond infidelity & Islam, there is a desert. In the midst of that space, we have a passionate longing.

When the mystic reaches that place, they lay down their head. There is no infidelity, no Islam & no "place" there at all.

~ Rubai 157 , Rumi.

Is Rumi seen as unorthodox and hence respectable by ex-Muslims for Rumi’s more spiritual rather than sectarian religious view?

अनित्यदुःखशून्यत्वं पदार्थानां ब्रुवन्स्फुटम् ।।
बुद्धोऽपि रागापुच्छित्तौ यतते नाऽऽत्मनिहुतौ ।।

Buddha by explicitly declaring the impermanence, sorrowfulness & emptiness of all objects, strove to destroy attachment, not to deny the existence of the Self.

~ 1.4.410 , Brihadaranyaka bhāsya Vartika.

This defence of Buddha by Sureshwaracharya, the author of this sloka, is possibly the oldest defence that aims to dispel the common misunderstanding that Buddha denied the Self.

Sureshwaracharya was disciple of Adi Shankara, often described as his foremost disciple.

This goes to show that the rift between post-Shankarites and Buddha is a later development which simply did not exist among Adi Shankara or his disciples.

Hence it’s not a modern syncretic attempt by Neo-Vedantins to bridge the gap between Advaita and Buddha, it’s quite an ancient attempt.

Az kofro ze Eslām borūn sahrā'īst, Mā rā be miyān-e ān fazā soudā'īst.
Āref cho bedān resid sar rā benahad Nah kofro nah Eslām o nah ānjā jā'īst.

Beyond infidelity & Islam, there is a desert. In the midst of that space, we have a passionate longing.

When the mystic reaches that place, they lay down their head. There is no infidelity, no Islam & no "place" there at all.

~ Rubai 157 , Rumi.

Swami Prakasanandendra Saraswati belongs to the lineage of Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati school of thought in the post-shankarite Advaita Vedanta schools.

This video is part of a playlist called Misconceptions About Sankara https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMddRSWoHnQZEddh4sOOXn-1SL4dnXCKL&si=7Ibd0hFym1pxoHaC based on the book titled Misconceptions about Shankara authored by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a noted Advaita scholar-monk of 20th century.

In this video, Swami Prakasanandendra Saraswati, delves into complex Advaita Vedanta concepts, specifically addressing the nature of Brahman, the status of the empirical world, and the misconceptions held by post-Shankara schools regarding these teachings.

Key Concepts Discussed:

• Brahman and Ishwara (0:42-14:57): The Swami explains that Brahman and Ishwara are synonymous in Shankara's Bhasha. He critiques post-Shankara interpretations that categorize Ishwara as a 'lower' level of Brahman or as a causal entity possessing qualities. He clarifies that causality is merely an adhyaropa (superimposition) or a teaching method used to lead the seeker toward the realization of the non-dual Brahman.
• The Empirical World (15:01-35:00): The video explores different schools of thought regarding the reality of the empirical world (vyavaharika). It contrasts the views of Siddhantalesha Sangraha and other Advaitin scholars who propose competing theories, such as Ishwara-srishti-vada (God as the creator) and Jiva-srishti-vada (the individual as the creator, often illustrated by dream analogies).
• Critique of Post-Shankara Divisions (17:13-20:00): A significant portion of the discussion focuses on how later commentators created artificial divisions—such as drishthi-srishti-vada—that do not exist in the original texts of Shankara, Gaudapada, or the Brahma Sutras. The Swami emphasizes that Shankara himself never differentiated his teaching from that of his predecessors.
• The Need for Reconciliation (35:00-49:51): The Swami argues that many later Advaitin schools retained contradictory, parallel doctrines without reconciling them, leading to intellectual friction. He emphasizes his own approach, which seeks to drop 'extreme' and illogical stances that contradict Anubhava (experience), logic, and Shankara's own writings, aiming for a unified, coherent understanding.

Vedanta Dindimah verse 12 :-

न वर्णाश्रमसंकेतैर्न कर्मोपासनादिभिः ।
ब्रह्मज्ञानं विना मोक्ष इति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ।।

Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati tika :-

Regarding this statement, it has already been established that liberation is attained through knowledge, regardless of which kaast or stage of life a person resides in. Now, the text establishes that liberation cannot happen through mere rituals and other external practices alone if knowledge is absent. When the verse says that liberation is not achieved by the symbols of kaast and stage of life, it refers to the four indicators of kaast , which are Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, as well as the four indicators of life stages, which are the student, the householder, the forest dweller, and the renunciant. Merely relying on or adopting these external statuses does not lead to final liberation.

Furthermore, when the verse mentions that it cannot be achieved by rituals, worship, and so forth, it means that liberation does not happen through actions, religious rituals, meditations, austerities, the self-study of scriptures, or acts of charity. This is because any result achieved through such actions and material means is temporary and manufactured, whereas true liberation is completely eternal. What more is there to say on this matter. Without the direct knowledge of Brahman, liberation is simply not possible through any other means whatsoever.

*And thus sounds the drum-beat of Vedanta, echoing the ancient scriptures which state that this Atman cannot be attained by intellectual discourses, nor by human intelligence, nor by much hearing of the scriptures. The scriptures further declare that it is not reached by rituals, nor by progeny, nor by wealth, and that only by knowing Him does one pass beyond death, as there is no other path available for the final journey* .

I recently got to know about the Alevi and Alawite sect of Shia Islam. They mostly exist in Syria and Turkey.

I found the Alevism theology fascinating, it has close parallels with traditions of non-dualism like Sufi, Advaita Vedanta, Gnostic Christian mysticism, Buddhist sects and other eastern ancient traditions.

I especially find the secretive initiation into the final stage of teaching fascinating.

Interacted to know how Muslims across sects view them and what problems if any do you see with their culture and theology.

Thank you.

Vedanta Dindimah verse 12 :-

न वर्णाश्रमसंकेतैर्न कर्मोपासनादिभिः ।
ब्रह्मज्ञानं विना मोक्ष इति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ।।

SSS tika :-

Regarding this statement, it has already been established that liberation is attained through knowledge, regardless of which caste or stage of life a person resides in. Now, the text establishes that liberation cannot happen through mere rituals and other external practices alone if knowledge is absent. When the verse says that liberation is not achieved by the symbols of caste and stage of life, it refers to the four indicators of caste, which are Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, as well as the four indicators of life stages, which are the student, the householder, the forest dweller, and the renunciant. Merely relying on or adopting these external statuses does not lead to final liberation.

Furthermore, when the verse mentions that it cannot be achieved by rituals, worship, and so forth, it means that liberation does not happen through actions, religious rituals, meditations, austerities, the self-study of scriptures, or acts of charity. This is because any result achieved through such actions and material means is temporary and manufactured, whereas true liberation is completely eternal. What more is there to say on this matter. Without the direct knowledge of Brahman, liberation is simply not possible through any other means whatsoever.

And thus sounds the drum-beat of Vedanta, echoing the ancient scriptures which state that this Atman cannot be attained by intellectual discourses, nor by human intelligence, nor by much hearing of the scriptures. The scriptures further declare that it is not reached by rituals, nor by progeny, nor by wealth, and that only by knowing Him does one pass beyond death, as there is no other path available for the final journey .

Adi Shankaracharya, the celebrated Vedic saint/rishi/sage dismissed Creationism, the narrative that an Isvara/God created the Universe

Those who speculate about creation (sṛṣṭi-cintakas) think that the manifested universe, with its vast diversity and powers, is a creation of Īśvara (God). But this is not the doctrine of those who inquire into the Highest Reality (paramārtha).

- Brhdaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya 2.5.19

(Upanishads are a section of Vedas. “Bhashya” is a commentary on the source scripture.)

Sristicintakas, the people steeped in the thought (or theories) of creation consider that creation is a vibhuti, exuberance, (a demonstration of the superhuman power), of God. For people who think of the Supreme Reality there is no interest in questions regarding creation.

Those who speculate about creation (sṛṣṭi-cintakas) think that the manifested universe, with its vast diversity and powers, is a creation of Īśvara (God). But this is not the doctrine of those who inquire into the Highest Reality (paramārtha).

- Brhdaranyaka 2.5.19

Sristicintakas, the people steeped in the thought (or theories) of creation consider that creation is a vibhuti, exuberance, (a demonstration of the superhuman power), of God. For people who think of the supreme Reality there is no interest in questions regarding creation.

Those who speculate about creation (sṛṣṭi-cintakas) think that the manifested universe, with its vast diversity and powers, is a creation of Īśvara (God). But this is not the doctrine of those who inquire into the Highest Reality (paramārtha).

- Brhdaranyaka 2.5.19

Sristicinlakias, the people steeped in the thought (or theories) of creation consider that creation is a vibhuti, exuberance, (a demonstration of the superhuman power), of God. For people who think of the supreme Reality there is no interest in questions regarding creation.

Brahma Sutras have the famous “Apashudradikarana” section baring Shudras from taking up Vedanta study.

And Chandogya Upanishad in 5.10.7 says

“Those whose conduct here has been good will quickly attain a good birth — the birth of a Brahmana, the birth of a Kshatriya, or the birth of a Vaishya.
But those whose conduct here has been evil will quickly attain an evil birth — the birth of a dog, the birth of a pig, or the birth of a Chandala.”

तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां योनिमापद्येरन् ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं वा ।
अथ ये इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां योनिमापद्येरन् श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा चाण्डालयोनिं वा ॥

This particular verse challenges AP’s view of rebirth and caste together.

*Az kofro ze Eslām borūn sahrā'īst, Mā rā be miyān-e ān fazā soudā'īst.*
*Āref cho bedān resid sar rā benahad Nah kofro nah Eslām o nah ānjā jā'īst.*

Beyond infidelity & Islam, there is a desert. In the midst of that space, we have a passionate longing.
When the mystic reaches that place, they lay down their head. There is no infidelity, no Islam & no "place" there at all.

~ Rubai 157 , Rumi.

This realisation of Rumi, a Sufi master, where he found a “place” of enlightenment within himself that transcends the intellect and individuality of dualistic experience.

This realisation of transcendence is seen across all other religions like Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Buddhism, Taoism, Gnostic Christians, kaballah mystics and mystics across the world.

These mystics can unite the world of various religious cultures because their realisations of liberation is common and this liberation is found within every person and not externally in a heavenly realm post death ordained by a specific form of personal God.

The theistic form of religion divides humanity as each culture proposes a personal form a God specific to that culture and hence there will always be a a conflict between all such propositions.