Its a long article and I may respond to it again later. The philosophy described
is a unique advaita, but why do so many describe it as 'pluralism' beats me.

It is clear that Meykandar's siddhanta deconstructs all other existing
philosophies and establishes itself based on reductionism. It is based on
rationality.

What I pointed out earlier in discussions on tattvas is that rationality
operates within the limits of the mind and matter. Whereas God, soul (psyche)
and the primordial tattvas are beyond mind. What is beyond the mind cannot be
grasped by the mind. When one has trancended the mind in his meditations, the
mind has come to a standstill, deep freeze, while consciousness/awareness
remains. He is fully aware but the mind and the senses are not operating, there
is no knowledge of the past, no subconscious mind to relate to, and it cannot
record the experience in the subconscious, and neither has it any point of
reference to relate to (since there is no time and space in these experiences).

While in this transcended state he is aware of himself just as a point of
consciousness, and he is aware of a presence called God. There is no other point
of reference. His mind is not operating. He cannot say whether he exists,
whether God exists, whether he is one and the same with God, or different. Only
the mind can say that. Since the mind has not experienced it nor recorded it in
its memory, no one can say anything with certainty. One can only describe it as
indescribable, or 'That' or 'tat', and the relationship is 'asi' or 'not
different' or 'non dual'. One cannot say with certainty that it is 'one' or
'two'.

The soul remains and is not annihilated. I like the description as the 'soul is
in perfect harmony with the Diety, perfect synchronity, indistinguishable from
the Diety, its activities are in fact the activities of the Deity, homogeneity
with the Diety, the impossibility of distinguishing the soul from the Diety, the
soul does not do anything the Diety does not, there is total loss of free will,
the soul is the Diety as far as behaviour goes, there is an inability to
establish a fissure between the soul and the Diety, an inseparable unity of the
soul and the Diety'.

Yet soul and God is not equal as we know as the soul possesses no Power. It can
only reflect the Power of the Diety, and that too if it was granted. The soul
retains Consciousness (chit or awareness) and Love (bliss or ananda) at all
times, and this Consciousness and Love is one and the same with the Diety. It is
a absolute unity.

But the fact that the soul does not enjoy any Power means there is no absolute
Oneness. The Diety alone possesses all Power at all times. The Diety may grant
some Power to the soul but this is rare and temporary.

So there is unity as well duality.

Because these are matters that are quite indescribable, the saints of the past
like Tirumular, the many rishis, Agastya, etc did not venture into writing down
a proper philosophy. That was the best decision. All those who attempted to
write a tight philosophy ended in it being deconstructed, by Meykandar.
Meykandar's philosophy stands, but only as 'that which cannot be deconstructed'.

Thats because it has moved into the area beyond the mind, where falsifiability
or non falsifiability cannot apply! How to disprove him? Why even try? But the
beauty and glory of Meykandar still remains because it wasted all the other
philosophies! More than that I cannot say. Which means we are back to a pre-shad
dharsanas philosophyless Hinduism. Which is great. Now the agamas, vedas,
tirumantiram and yoga sutras of Patanjai can stand without being clouded and
crowded by the numerous 'opinions', which is called philosophies today.

More than that, this is what I can say.

In my view some of the Mahavakyas of siddhanta are these;

1. ondraai, udanaai, veyraai (one, together, different)

2. Ekan, anekan, iraivan ( One, not one (many), Ruler)


a. He is One, the only thing that exists and there is no other, no other entity
exists at the deepest level. At this level we are in perfect oneness with him
and souls dont exists.

b. He is not one, meaning He is many - in fact, He extends as all creation, but
giving each its own unique and distinct identity. Yet He remains together with
all of His creation (udanaai) as the devadeva - divine of the divine.

c. He is the Absolute Power and Will, Iraivan, a Personal God, who rules all the
time, and as this we are totally different from Him (veyraai).

All these three relationships co-exists at all times, except during Mahapralaya
when the second and third relationship comes to an end, or earlier if He wills
it to end, whereby He absorbs the souls. But this we'll never know. Discovering
the always existing threefold relationship is what is called self realisation.

[This threefold relationship extends to the other gods too in my view, as they
have their own distinct identity and Powers and are not just temporary iconic
forms. Temporary iconic forms would relate to Goddess Shakti, Kali, Vishnu,
Brahma, Veerabhadra, etc., but not to Ganesha, Muruga, Hanuman, Indra, etc who
are permanent dieties with Power. Inorder to be clear and not start a
controversy, temporary iconic forms are Siva Himself or 'That'. It is the same
Being in a different 'mode'. Each of those 'modes' are called Vishnu, Rudra,
Shakti, etc but the sum total of these modes is what saivas refer to in a
generic word as Siva.

It is too simplistic to say all the gods are one and the same. Yes at the
deepest level, the self of the gods is Siva Himself, and thats why He is called
devadeva - divine of the divine or soul of the soul (or god). Even in the
temporary iconic forms there is a temporary distinction. A knower can percieve
the different dieties and their different powers and personalities just as one
can distinguish one friend from another over a telephone conversation. Anyone
who thinks he can get past Ganesha or Muruga is wasting his time. Hindu myths
confirm that. Anyway, this requires a separate discussion.]

Apart from the philosophy, what we have is the testimonies of those who have
been there through these relationships in their worship and meditations, into
and out of samadhi daily. In my thousands of discussions with jivanmuktas, some
of whom are dead now, and some of whom are living, is this.

When one enters the 'white light' there is an experience of distinct
separateness of the soul and the Diety (the white light). This white light state
can be called the 'lower' saguna brahman. It is udanaai and veyraai at the same
time.

Later when one transcends the white light and enters the 'golden light' (pon
oli), then there is a oneness and no more separation. One becomes the golden
light. This state is variously called saguna brahman, satchitananda, parashakti
or simply Siva. At this stage there is absolute ondraai.

Later still one transcends into yet another higher state where there is 'The
Nothing', 'The Unknown', variously called parasiva, parabrahman or nirvana. At
this stage nothing can be said of it. The soul does not know for sure with
certainty whether the souls exists, or if God exists, or not exist, or whether
it is a oneness or twoness. Nothing can be said of this stage. Nobody knows, and
nobody has ever known or will ever know. The vedas say 'only Rudra alone knows'
and not even the other gods or iconic forms, as Rudra brings all of them (the
gods and iconic forms) to an end at mahapralaya.

On coming out of this samadhi experience, the soul moves/steps down, from
oneness to twoness and then back to 'reality' of daily live. The soul remains
intact but lives in the bliss of satchitananda which continues to flow
throughout the daily. This is what you would refer to as amutham or amrita that
heals and is pure knowledge. But no power at all.

I have checked, double checked and checked a thousand times on this issue. If I
want I'll check again tomorrow, and the next day and the next.

Regards.

Pathma