If we are discussing philosophy, all participants must disclose their stand and
define it. This is being transparent.

In post no. 27668 I have already clearly stated my stand, on advaita, siddhanta,
siddhantin, the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement. I call my
siddhanta as Monistic theism or Advaita Isvarapada. This advaita encompasses the
threefold relationship of god and the soul. It is derived from the Tirumantiram,
backed by the Tirumurais, consistent with the upanishads, and in my view does
not necessarily differ from the Siva Jnana Bodham, although the way we explain
it is different. (It may differ from the rest of the Meykandar shastras as it
seems to take a different turn and become more dualistic.)

Ganesalingam says, "this aspect of relationship in three states (onraai,
udanaai, veraai) is the *Advaita* relationship mentioned in Siddhanta
philosophy". (Which is what I said anyway.)

And he mentions, "the second Aphorism of Sivagnanabodham speaks of the *Advaita*
relationship in Siddhanta philosophy" and he further states, "*The Advaita*
relationship of God with us *always exists*".

In post no. 27352 Ganesalingam then says, "saying 'Siddhanta is Advaita' is like
saying 'table is chair' (because both are made of wood)".

Dr. Loga now says, " I don't agree at all with Pathma's claim that Siddhanta is
Advaita. The one-ness that Siddhanta talks about is suddhadvaita and which means
the absence of alienness".

Chandra says, "My conclusion....it is pluralism all the time from Sumerian times
right up to Meykandar.".

Can everyone now see the confusion in siddhanta? They are not really sure how to
characterise themselves, are averse to using the term advaita due to its
association with the mayavada philosophy which they despise. Well the word
'advaita' does not belong to the mayavadins.

In his article on Siddhanta Mukti, Dr. Loga says:
"It gives an account of *advaita* without annihilating the psyche in the
process."

"The Siddhanta Mukti is not annihilation of the subject,...it is a transposition
into an *inseparable unity*, a supremely blissful *oneness* with the Deity
Himself. Most certainly we cannot think of anything higher than that
*homogeneity*".

In that same article Dr. Loga characterises the oneness of god and the soul 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, 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'.

Now what is that? Just look at it. This is advaita! This is what we monists have
been saying all along! This is a long winded, wordy, roundabout rhetorical way
of saying 'advaita'. This is not dualism or pluralism. The above description of
the union with God is what we simply, clearly and unambiguously call 'merging
with Siva'.

Well at least we have finally after 700 years, established clearly that
Meykandar's Siddhanta is suddhaadvaita. Fine, that is acceptable to me. Whatever
the qualifications and prefixes are, it is still advaita. The qualifications are
just hair splitting and which I think is not necessary.

Whereas all these 700 years siddhantists have not been clearly defining
themselves, rather they have been calling themselves pluralists, or avoiding
every sort of definition and ducking any attempt at categorisation. That was my
point. One reckless writer even hastily wrote a book called 'There has Always
been a Pluralistic Saiva Siddhanta'.

When we call them pluralists, they immediately point to the oneness and say they
are advaitists. When we tell them that what they are saying is advaita, they
immediately point to the three eternal realities.

In the threefold relationship, when I highlight the oneness (ondraai), they
highlight the twoness (veyraai). When I say that the cup is half full, they say
the cup is half empty! This is exasperating.

It is not for no reason that the very FIRST WORD in the 3,000 verse Tirumantiram
says, 'onRavan thAnE (The One is He only), clearly stressing its importance, and
of the One Reality ONLY.

Gordan Matthews explains even all deities other than the Agent of Dissolution
are themselves necessarily involved in the universal dissolution. All evolutes
and dieties too permanently and irreversibly *dissolve in Him*. Anything that
evolves, dissolves.

He further clarifies, "God's relation to souls is *advaita, non-duality*; this
relation is understood as a synthesis of three relations, abheda or identity,
bheda or difference, and bhedabheda, a combination of these two.

In para 7 he says, "God, the Real, does not know Pasa, the *non-real*; for the
non real cannot appear in the presence of the real, even as darkness cannot
exist in the presence of light. And even if God did know Pasa, He would not know
it objectively, because *it does not exist apart from Him*".

"..Conversely, Pasa, the *non-real*, which includes Maya and its evolutes.."

In other words, pasa is non real and has no ultimate reality, and dissolves in
Him at Dissolution.

Satyam which means 'the ultimate truth or reality' means, "that which exists in
all the three periods of time (past, present and future) without undergoing any
change; and also in all the three states of consciousness (waking state, dream
state and deep-sleep state)." This is therefore the absolute Reality —
birthless, deathless and changeless — referred to in the Upanishads as Brahman
or Siva, and to jivas (souls) too.

This does not mean that the world of maya is unreality, rather the world is
relatively real, relative to brahman. Relative Reality, pasa, is not eternal.

But I take it further; whatever exists after Dissolution, after time and space
have ceased to exists, is the Only Reality. For time, space and causation starts
at the point of creation and ends at dissolution. Where there is no time and
space there is no eternity, no existence, and whatever is there cannot be
described.

He further states, "..the soul achieves its escape from anava, the principle of
individuation, through its union with God. It is not enough for the soul to know
God; because even when it knows Him there is the illusory thought, `I know Him'.
The soul, to destroy this illusion of `I' and `mine', must not only know Him but
*be one with Him*".

Again Matthews says there will be no 'I' and 'my' upon dissolution. All separate
identity will disappear.

What all this means is that pasa is a non-Reality, an evolute, and the souls
union with Siva is outright merging with permanent and total loss of identity,
with the annihilation of the psyche, for as long as the psyche remains the 'I'
and 'my' remains.

This is advaita. And I have shown it clearly even from the Siva Jnana
Bodham/Raurava Agama. This is what Meykandar says! This is what the
Sivajnanabodham says.

If one can abandon the fixations with the rest of the 13 Meykandar Shastras, one
can begin to see what Meykandar actually said.

It is for these reasons that I say that insofar as the relationship between God
and souls and its ultimate merger, we, all siddhantins, are advaitists, and we
have no differences.

Let us use this term.

But all these are rationalisations of the mind, whereas there is an area beyond
time, space and causation where there is consciousness but no mind, and the laws
of mind and matter don't apply. This is the area of the tattva no. 1-5 and
beyond tattva no. 1 (parasiva).

Regards.

Pathma