Except for restating earlier known positions as well as tangential comments by
Ganesalingam and Chandra, respectively, and the usual tirade against vedanta by
Dr. Loga, as well as repeated stressing on ontology, triadism, hermeneutics,
axiomatic truths, DS and SS - all of which is not necessary as we all know it
very, very, well, but there have been NO line by line rebuttals of my arguments
on Siddhanta is Advaita, and on siddhanta mukti or merging.

This is what I expect in a discussion; one party puts forward a proposition
backed by arguments, inductive and deductive reasonings, and the other party
rebuts along the same lines and not launch a tirade, lecture or assume I'm a
lost soul. I need a line by line deconstruction for me to proceed further. Else,
I have to assume consensus.

But I am neither disappointed or surprised. Thats because my arguments cannot be
refuted as it is based on the Siva Jnana Bodham itself! I simply lifted the
lines from the Meykandar Karuttural in the explanation of the SJB. The
translations are not mine at all, but by Gordon Matthews (Oxford, 1947). I can
provide further references by S. Shivapadasundaram (1934) where he too explains
siddhanta as advaita (but distinguished from mayavadin advaita) in explaining
the Siva Jnana Siddiyar.

In the absence of rebuttals and deconstruction of my arguments, which now stands
for all time as it has been published in this respectable international forum,
my position that siddhanta is advaita and on siddhanta mukti then stands,
unchallenged. And it is in accordance with the Siva Jnana Bodham insofar as
mukti. If in future someone wishes to rebut it, then we can take it from there.
Meanwhile we agree to disagree.

Which then allows us to proceed to the next stage of discussions, if the
participants so wish, on the areas of disagreement, viz, creation or non
creation of souls, and on triadism.

Before that one issue needs to be clarified:

On Ekan anekan, Dr. Loga says, "The point is that BEING discloses Himself in
countless number icons or deities leading the souls to think that is Many " Siva
VishNu Muruka Ambal etc but where as a matter of fact He is really One. "

You have limited anekan to mean just the various iconic forms, the various gods.
Whereas we take Anekan to mean not just iconic forms or gods, but include souls
and the world. This is our different understanding. Why do you restrict? Where
is the qualification on anekan? Ekan, Anekan is followed by Iraivan, meaning
Lord or Ruler. What would He be a Lord of? Souls and the world of course, and
not just the various iconic forms. Why would He need to be a Lord of His own
iconic forms?

This remains another area of disagreement. We agree to disagree.

Now to proceed to the issue of creation or non creation of souls, I would need
the questions raised in my post no. 27745 to be responded to.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/27745

These questions must be 'positively' answered by the participants in this
discussion. They have to say and commit themselves before we proceed further. I
need a 'yes', 'no' or 'I don't know' for each question, line by line. Needless
to say that commitment will show their understandings on the subject, and
whether their position stands or falls.

The reason is it would become obvious to the discussant that I have already
deconstructed Meykandar's siddhanta (which I feel Dr. Loga already suspects).
For the first time in 700 years in a public fora, meykandar's siddhanta has been
demolished, in that fateful post no. 27745. This is why I said that in the past
few weeks we have really moved siddhanta forward. I hope this development is
welcomed and pondered over, and not criticised. Rebut, don't criticise. It
requires a line by line refutation for my post to be trashed.

Meanwhile, while responding to this post and my earlier questions, consider this
from the SJB which relates to the issue of creation, dissolution and triadism.

"Nothing can come into being except out of the dissolution into which it
dissolved; for it dissolves there."

"That which dissolved is produced (again) from that into which it dissolved."

"That which is produced must be that which dissolved."

"If thou sayest that that which dissolved is in (the Agent of preservation),
then the whole
world has not dissolved. (The Agents of) preservation and production dissolve
there (viz.
in the Agent of dissolution)."

"Darkness cannot exist in the presence of light." (When light appears, the
darkness recedes without a trace. Where is the darkness then?)

The above are not my words or translations. Please dont blame me or anyone for
mistranslations or misunderstandings because these are lifted straight from the
Siva Jnana Bodham, from the Meykandar Karutturai and from the interpretations of
the 18th century commentary by Siva Jnana Yogi in the expository notes. Its your
own shastras, not mine.

Dissolve into something, then later emerge from that something. That is creation
and dissolution. If the gods (iconic forms) dissolve in Him, if the worlds
dissolve in Him, why would the mere souls not dissolve in Him with total
annihilation of identity when they already enjoy a oneness relationship with Him
anyway, all along? These are the axiomatic truths, on the laws of emanation or
causation.

The deconstruction of triadism is clear, as all that undergoes changes,
including fettered souls and the worlds *dissolve* in Him.

Regards.

Pathma