i need to see a tantric (esp kashmir shaivite) response

sankara has definitely convinced me (further) that samkhya sucks

mimamsakans claim the performance of vedic duty leads to liberation (early thinkers dont even believe in liberation), but then they describe liberation as being devoid of pleasure or pain, so clearly none of them have ever experienced it

i never expected sankara to teach karma yoga (with jnana of course) but he was a vedantic and the bhagavad gita is vedanta, so it makes sense.

bhava has so many freakin meanings

certainly not all of sankaras arguments are compelling, but as a whole its helpful

its no wonder non-monists rely on the puranas, because the plain purport of the upanishads is monism.

yeah i wouldn't know what i'd do with the vedanta sutras without a commentary

i cant decide whether my favo vaisnavite sampradaya is rudra or sri (gonna ignore the maharaj libel case). i have a lot of respect for the tiruvaymoli (i guess analogous for the pustimargs would be sur sagar, which i haven't read), but shuddhadvaita is significantly closer to my views on the nature of God and the universe than vishishtadvaita is, being more monist. of course, i have significant disagreements with both. my most important disagreement is the nature of moksha.

i take back what i said. dvaiatadvaita is so goddamn milquetoast. it never truly innovates, it always takes a (superficially) descriptive-to-perscriptive position. it is the product of timid rationality. at least madhva innovated with some awful irrational shit, and at least he was myopic about vedanta in a brazen way.

every school has its own goddamn enumeration of tattvas

there is no such thing as achit!! there's no such thing as asat!!! (in the sense of falsehood, not in the sense of non-being)

mfw people ive been mutuals with for over five years unfollow me for hinduposting

I honestly dont think it matters too much whether one views the manifest reality as an expansion or contraction of God. these are just different ways of describing the same thing imo. God the Ultimate Reality never changes in the transcendental sense, except when He wants to change, becoming the immanent. while the totality of reality (God + the universe) can be said to be an expansion or emanation of just God himself (and gosh, non-monists are so fond of talking about "Gods expansions" too), the universe itself is in my opinion made by contracting/covering/discretizing the infinite immutable, imperfectly compared to light through a prism. the spanda to me causes this, vibrating the perfect into the discrete manifold.

its expected that kevaladvaitins call themselves advaitins (when other non-dualists exist) but it honestly charms me when they call themselves "vedantins".

knowing about chidabhasa theory might've changed today's effortpost just a bit. it doesn't explain the justice of karma but it does relate to the individuality of equivalent souls.

if you read the rest of the article and even the rest of the section the last paragraph is quite jarring to say the least. (note: my mom once said she feared me joining "the hare krishnas")

trika shaivism reminds me of kaballah here "Self-Experience of Lord Siva is the primary metaphysical basis of all human experiences, especially those that explain the 'ontological categories such as causality, time and action'."

i like kashmir shaivism a lot. however, i have some disagreements. trikas view consciousness (Parabhairava) as incredibly active and dynamic, in contrast with the kevaladvaita vedantins who view it (nirguna brahman) as passive and static. while i view God as "living", and the world as a play of consciousness, i also view consciousness as perfectly at rest.

"it moves--yet it moves not. its far away, yet its near at hand. its within this whole world--yet its also outside this whole world." (isha upanishad) this is my view of pure consciousness. God in His transcendent aspect thinks/knows everything all at once forever (and He doesn't merely know, He is knowledge itself, non-dual knower-knowledge-known). while ever at rest and unchanging, He may vibrate to produce the universe of changes. this is my position. its very tantric i believe. but i dont actually know that much about kashmir shaivism yet, they could have a similar view.

i see viewing the world as real even though it pales in comparison to the imperishable as more naturally allowing one to see divinity in everything (like a proper tantric) than when seeing it as an illusion. honestly i associate viewing the world as an illusion with my own mental illness, and its what i used to believe.

i agree that an effect isnt inherent in its cause. no causal relation should be taken for granted, everything is a play of pure consciousness occurring due to divine will.