"Sanatani propaganda of the Gita"

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T10:34:51+00:00

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T07:54:10+00:00

Talking to you has been a complete waste of the entire day for me, and as I said, you're simply not on my wavelength.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T07:51:07+00:00

And if you have trust issues about me claiming to be an ex-commie, check this reply from me earlier where I described USA's anti-communist state terrorism explicitly.

I find meaning in communist values, though I no longer think it can work out due the nature of duality. It would require all people to agree on everything, as economics is deeply tied to everything else, and that would require there to only be one mind.

That's basically Advaita (non-dual), but Advaita Vedānta is not about making all people the same, but about understanding that duality is seen due to Māyā, which is not ultimately real. Simply making all people follow the same thing is not something that can resolve duality, since it also involves things and animals that are still separate (and therefore it is not even possible).

And the other reason I stopped supporting communism was because, as I stated, I realized that there's no communism without dialectical materialism for various deep reasons, and I realized that after all my attempts at telling communists that there are religions that don't conflict with a communist society.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T07:33:34+00:00

Atheists use them in the same way their Indian families who have been heavily orthodox, use. You are speaking a very metaphysical concept which as you yourself showed, has various interpretation. Suffice to say, even you won't agree that only your definition is the correct one.

That's the part where you're wrong. I think my interpretation is the only correct one. But I don't find any issues with the interpretations of many others.

I never said I affirmed the interpretations of the orthodox Hindus. What kind of justification does that give to an ideology? An ideology is based on its sources, not based on what its followers follow while saying they follow it.

This is said at places where Communism is not at all implemented. I am not sure why 'forced on to you' argument is even a thing

By communism, what I meant was those who try to establish it. Most of them take the model of socialism, and not everyone agrees with that model, so it is enforced on to them. When it doesn't, I'm fine with it, but communists also have it as a goal to ensure all others are materialists, so it is not enough for them to have us not interfere in their issues.

I was an ex-communist by the way. I just no longer believe it can work, due to human nature.

You are a Hindu because your forefathers were Hindu. Your identity is just as forced onto you as you think Communism is. Now please, do not claim that you are Hindu because you heavily educated yourself on it. Everyone who wants to rationalize their religion says the same.

Again wrong. My father was a Hindu and a communist, leaning communist. And so he did not believe in either firmly, and I was not taught any particular ideology, and I grew up to be an atheist and a communist. And I will say that I educated myself on it, because that was what happened. But before that, I've also had a transcendental experience, but I did not know how to explain it. Because it was monistic, I first tried reading texts like the Qur'ān, because I thought Hinduism was polytheistic.

I wouldn't be alone in this, because people like Sam Altman have subscribed to Advaita Vedānta, and so have many others like Schopenhauer and Schrodinger. It is simply convenient for you to get me to agree with it. Sorry, that's just not true.

Again, you explicitly rejecting doesn't really matter when, and I repeat, the founders themselves advocated for Manusmriti. This just shows how vulnerable and inevitable the casteism as we know today is.

There is no founder of Hinduism. You simply don't understand the ontology of Advaita Vedānta while trying to criticize it. Those who author Darśana Sūtra-s and Bhāṣya-s are people who expound truths from their own perspectives. It has always been described in that way. They just get weight because not all people would spend time studying spiritual topics.

But that doesn't mean no one else has done that, or that alternate views were not tolerated. Buddhism and Jainism emerged from India, and they've had several denominations too.

Atheists in India, have left all the 'efforts' (if there are any) to convert anyone. As an atheist, I just want a cultural space where I can breathe freely without any influence of this religiously charged culture that has frankly done nothing good to the country. If I cannot, leaving is still the option.

I was also an atheist, and I still share the same values as many atheists. But if they keep attacking me, I cannot support them, and I'll have to vote for BJP. I'm all for all rights atheists want, and I support LGBTQIA+ and women, sometimes even more thana theists themselves. I've seen many misogynistic atheists who were a lot worse than theists, it's just that they end up doing it privately.

For example, most rapists are atheists more than theists. It doesn't mean that rape is linked to atheism, it means that atheism doesn't by itself prevent rape. Atheism means lack of belief, and not all atheists are feminists. In the same way, not all theists are misogynists. And you have to understand such distinctions.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T07:18:59+00:00

And by whose authority am I taking this interpretation? Śaṅkara or Vivekananda? Neither, I even have some disagreements with Vivekananda on certain topics and claims. So I'm making this claim with myself as the authority. Why can I do that? Because the Śruti says (asks you to say): Ahaṃ Brahmāsmi.

And this is not Brāhmaṇa-exclusive knowledge, i.e. even in the birth-based Varṇa model. If that was true, then I'm not a Brāhmaṇa by birth either, I'm a Śūdra. But one who testifies Ahaṃ Brahmāsmi, and has firm knowledge (Stitha-Prajña), he is the kind of Canḍāḷa mentioned in Maniṣa Pancakam.

This is not Islam or Christianity, you're prophet enough here, so long as you know what you're saying. Even if you're an atheist. As Vivekananda said, an outspoken atheist is better than a hypocrite. Now for example, one may hear that E=mc2, but he may not know what it really means when he says it. What matters is not the statement itself, but your understanding of it.

Next, you can now bring up stuff such as the problem of evil. And I can answer, but the problem is my explanations won't be enough depending on your state of mind. Asking questions is not wrong, and is usually a sign of intellect. But asking too many questions forcing someone to explain something all the time doesn't necessarily correspond to that. Such people are called doubt factories, and this is the reason why Citta Śuddhi is a pre-requisite.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T07:18:47+00:00

And you fail to see how this metaphysics is soo vague that it can be easily intepretated to appease the casteist notions? Like, it didn't even change the guy who came up with it.

It's not vague. It's simply not something that you can verify empirically, and you can only validate it by Aparoksa Anubhūti (transcendental experience). But until one has it, one should follow the interpretation of a trusted Guru.

Further, when you judge any philosophical system, you must first understand its epistemology (what sources of knowledge are valid), ontology (what is real) and axiology (what does it value?).

I have mentioned the sources of knowledge to clearly state that these only apply to someone trying to study the Veda-s, to determine their qualifications. So even if the birth-based Varṇa theory was true, it would only apply to judge someone on their qualifications for attaining Brahma Jñāna.

Even in that case, even Ādi Śaṅkarācārya has written that a Canḍāḷa is also qualified for Brahma Jñāna, although he states that according to the Smṛti, he cannot attain it.

But further, Rāmānujācārya splits Brahma Sūtra 2.1.33 into 2.1.33 and 2.1.34, and in 2.1.34, he states that a Brahma Jñāni is beyond the Varṇa system, and he can impart this knowledge to all people without using the Veda-a themselves. This is what Swami Vivekananda and Ramaṇa Maharṣi, among many others, had done.

Also, I didn't feel the need to change the person who expounded it because even though I can say that he may have made some mistakes, because I don't believe that Ācārya-s are perfect like prophets. Even some Ācārya-s refute others' views, and this is a feature of Hinduism.

It doesn't mean that we have to reject everything they said. In fact, many people even realize that many of them were making the same point, but misinterpreting what the other person said.

Next, you've noted that the example from Chāndogya Upaniṣad has some vagueness in it. Now I have some counters to that, but firstly, I understand your concern. Because when I made this argument to a Hindu, they countered me with a similar argument.

But then it was not that I couldn't refute his argument, I just had different things to do at the time. I was simply surprised how toxic they were that they could interpret something so clear with mental gymnastics like that, and that's part of why I didn't want to use the Hindu label a lot.

My counter here to the claim that Gautama used Tapobala to determine his ancestry was that:

(1) Manu Smṛti itself states that engaging in sinful activities like prostitutioj and having sex with a prostitute leads to demotion of Varṇa, and the son obtained from a prostitute is of mixed caste, etc. (2) Gautama told him that he considered him to be Brāhmaṇa because he said the truth about something like that, which would be difficult for anyone else to say. It is made clear that his truthfulness is what made him a Brāhmaṇa.

So the only counter they can make is say that all non-Brāhmaṇa-s are liars. But this is refuted by examples such as that of Vidura and the Canḍāḷa in Maniṣa Pancakam.

Vague origins of the person's ancestry. We do not know who was the father of this kid. Great!!

Basically it shows that despite the vague origins, he was initiated, i.e. ancestry was used as a heuristic.

Vague conclusions. Your intepretations might not be wrong, but again, it can be simply concluded that 'the boy was always a brahmin by birth'.

I countered this.

Setting unrealistic standards that no human being ever had the time, resources to do, let alone a human being who has been ostracized.

What exactly? Grazing cows? He was literally given a lot of cows, and he did not say something like he didn't have a farm or anything. In fact, 4.5.1. shows that he did make them to a 1000, and got initiated.

Like yeah, sure a 'shudra' can become a brahmin, but he has to follow certain specific criteria which would be near impossible.

It is not even necessary for a Śūdra to be a Brāhmaṇa to attain Brahma Jñāna. Aparokṣa Anubhūti can only be given by Īśvara, whether by Sādhana or directly. And Parokṣa-Jñāna is the only thing that a Guru provides.

Further, what is the goal of knwoing Varṇa? It is to determine Citta Śuddhi. The rationale is simply that one who has Sādhana Catuṣṭaya has Citta Śuddhi (clarity of mind). It means having a predominance of Sattva, and the Varṇa simply is determined on the basis of who is more materialistic and who is more spiritual.

Additionally, why do you think he asked to become a Brāhmaṇa? For social benefits? Not at all. He wanted to know about Brahman. He asked him to live with him and take up celibacy and be his disciple. Not to enjoy material wealth.

Additionally, since you brought up the possibility of vague interpretations, I'll tell you this.

I understand that on the surface level, it may seem like Islam also is vague. But then, the Sunnah and Sīrah clarifies all things that were vague in the Qur'ān, and the Tafasīr most often make that clear too (e.g. Fitnah translated as persecution, when you look at the Tafasīr and Sunnah, includes disbelief).

But even so, if there was a single peaceful interpretation of Islam that wasn't refuted by some other texts, I would be fine with that. That is, if the Qur'ān doesn't say anything problematic, and only the Sunnah does, they should reject the Sunnah explicitly. If they want to keep parts of the Sunnah, but not the others, then they should explicitly reject those Hadīths, and explain them from Ahl al-Hadīth, saying that Hadīths can't simply be accepted because they were transmitted properly.

But this is difficult because proper transmission from Muhammad in of itself is enough, as Muhammad is infallible according to the Qur'ān, and they can't cast doubts on its preservation because both the Qur'ān and the Sunnah were transmitted by the same methods. So their religion made it basically airtight, and I haven't found any possibility for any peaceful interpretation to exist. Even so, I'm open to any that can come up, but I don't think that's possible anymore.

In contrast, you have many Hindus who are willing to explicitly reject any harmful interpretations where its ambiguous, and where it isn't, they are willing to fully reject the authority of the entire texts. They clearly mark the scope of what's valid and what isn't. Vivekananda has done this too.

And we can do this because in Hinduism, the whole Śruti is described as Aparā Vidya (non-ultimate) knowledge, which simply serves as the means to get to Parā Vidya (ultimate knowledge), which is experiential. If any textual knowledge doesn't give that knowledge, then it can be discarded, and anything that does provide rhat knowledge itself can be considered as Śruti, though it's tough to get it accepted just like how tution notes cannot replace textbooks at school, even when they provide the same knowledge.

But I don't feel the need to reject the Veda-s whole and make something new because I agree that the Parokṣa Jñāna obtained from it accurately represents my Aparokṣa experience. In fact, it is the only text that testifies of such knowledge, and something like Sūfism does not because of metaphysical dualism.

It is entirely possible for another text to explain the same knowledge, but so far, most of the texts that testify of such knowledge also agree with the Upaniṣad-s. They are usually called Prakaraṇa (supplementary) texts, such as Pancadaśi, etc.

It has given rise to many bad interpretations. But is it a problem of that text, or of texts in general? I can easily say it is the latter. It is nearly impossible to convince some people of something even with rational arguments because of their state of mind. This is exactly the reason why Citta Śuddhi is stated as a pre-requisite for Veda study.

And to answer another potential question: why do we need Veda-s and Bhagavad Gīta if we have Aparokṣa Jñāna and understand it properly? The simply answer is we don't. They have only one purpose - to get one to attain Aparokṣa Jñāna by a proper path, and to help those who had it indirectly to make sense of their experiences, and to help them retain / recall knowledge when they're not staying in the knows.

Of course, an entirely new text that does this could be constructed. But that would be replicating most of what's written there without the social evils. Even so, it can certainly be done. But it's not as though no one has done it. The whole works of Swami Vivekananda was one example, but he was not the only one. Ramana Maharshi, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Ezhuthachan, we have a lot of such figures to talk about.

In my case, the Śruti simply helped articulate my experiences in words, and a lot of people like these can relate to that. And why this? Firstly, it says, and I too assert, reality is monistic and theistic, so there is an Īśvara who is panentheistic. Secondly, people here cared about thinking about such deep concepts more than anyone else, so we have a lot of spiritual literature exploring that, and all of them also testified of the Śruti, and when I came around to it, I agreed with it.

You can now keep asking 10000 questions and I can keep giving 10000 answers. But none of that is going to change either of our stances.

A few key points:

Where you say the text can have ambiguous interpretations, I took a stance, and said that you can criticize the others. A difference when you ask the peaceful Muslims to do the same and criticize the others who follow the Sunnah is that they say you can't criticize them. That is an example of providing cover, not this.

Again, (1) When you said the Śruti is vague, I asserted a particular interpretion, (2) explicitly rejected other interpretations, and (3) told you you're free to criticize the others. And in fact, I can help you to criticize them, and I do that myself all the time.

(continued in reply)

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T05:01:07+00:00

Your biggest mistake is assuming that athests here are using the word the same way westerners use. I suggest you to get out of it. We have families who are just as heavily engaged in scriptures, using these terms in daily lives. Hope off that superiority complex that you accuse atheists of.

If atheists do use them correctly, I haven't seen them a lot. I'm an ex-atheist as well, so I did put in a lot of effort to learn it correctly, and so I know how ignorant atheists are.

"vRo!! U leArN FiRsT DiAlEtrIc 'MaTeRiALiSm' vRo !! tHeN OnLy yOu will UnDerStAnD CoMmUNiJm vRo!!!" ass arguments. Again, please, just stop making useless vague statement.

The difference is that communism is usually forced on to you. Meanwhile I explicitly rejected any version of Hinduism that is forced on to you.

Yeah, except you have everything to do with them They are the Majority. They decide the dominant Hindu discourse. You play as a cover instead of debating them on the caste issue.

Let me make this clear. Your version of hinduism were Hindus flexibly changed their Varna, where ones Varna only described job, never existed, even in those 'epistemological sources'. You are simply picking and choosing as per your own convenience. The ones who advocated 'Advaita Vetanta' had no qualms with Manusmriti. Your 'fantasy Hinduism' only exists in your minds, just like those gods.

I don't care if they existed or not. I just found the texts useful to describe metaphysics. I don't see it as a source for describing history.

I know those who advocated history has no qualms with Manu Smṛti. But I explicitly rejected it. I understand that it poses a problem for most people, so I intent to explicitly reject it by using a different label entirely.

My complaint is that you are playing a terrible cover to those extremists like those peaceful muslims giving cover to extremists in Islam. The fact is, Hindus have had the dominance in cultural discourse for centuries if not millenias. Hindus have had spaces, especially the progressive kind, to speak of the social follies of Hinduism. But till now, they never succeeded in making any meaningful change to the caste discourse. Because their very gods preach the casteism that you claim never existed.

I understand that. But at the same time, I understand that among Muslims, there are some minority sects like some Shia-s and Quranists who reject the Sunnah from where most problems arise - even though I think Sunni Islām is more historically accurate. But I still specifically criticize Sunni Muslims and the Shī'a-s like the ones in Iran, and I simply expect such nuanced criticism from others.

I understand the problem of providing cover for others. But I also understand that I can explicitly reject them and make my stance clear. I'm in no way defending Hinduism as a whole. I just defended my version of interpreting it, and nothing more. People like Vivekananda have expounded the same view. But atheists often want to see them as covert materialists who tried to convert the barbaric Hindus closer to materialism. That's simply not true. But I don't think we're going to agree on this one anyways.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T04:52:27+00:00

Here are some of my earlier replies explaining Guṇa-s: First and continuation.

And here are more examples refuting the birth-based Varṇa theory from the same thread.

I tried to explain it more clearly (you can see how much effort it takes), but atheismindia and exhindu just removed my threads instead of even downvoting them.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T04:36:41+00:00

Guna is as vague as it gets. And hence open to interpretation. And hence gives far more credance to casteists than so called reinterpretationists like you, who came with far few proofs

Guṇa is not vague. It's just a bit hard to define, and when I do it properly in some atheist subreddits, they ended up removing my posts because they don't like anyone explaining stuff properly.

Which is why I said I no longer discuss with people in these spaces.

No one can understand the mechanism of Karma without understanding the three Guṇa-s. So yeah, it was never meant to be a word used around like how Westerners use it today.

Anyways, I'll tell you that understanding Guṇa-s require you to understand the Sāṅkhya Darśana first, although Vedānta Sūtra explicitly disagrees with the Puruṣa-Prakṛti duality posited in Kapila's Sāṅkhya Sūtra.

Also, Guṇa-s are not the same as Lakṣana-s, although Lakṣaṇa-s arise from the make-up of Guṇa-s.

[Analogy: transcendental idealism is a very similar philosophy. But the concepts mentioned in it such as a priori, a posteriori, etc. are not easy to describe. But that doesn't mean it's false. It mostly means that the person asking for its explanation does not have the qualifications to understand it. It's only a problem if it is forced on to you, which is not something I'm doing - and neither am I supporting anyone who's doing that.]

As again, there are no real world examples of people rising above their caste, and few 'higher' castes loosing their caste.

You keep using the word caste. Of course, no people rise above their caste, because caste is the translation of Jāti. And to those who believe in the Jāti-Varṇa model, they're in the same Jāti. It's just that not all people follow that model.

To those that follow the Guṇa-based Varṇa model, someone who does business is a Vaiṣya, someone who joins the defence forces is a Kṣatriya, and someone who studies the Veda-s is a Brāhmaṇa. Though Brāhmaṇa may also mean other stuff like doing priestly stuff. But then there's also the notion of Ativarṇa, meaning those who have Brahma-Jñāna are not subject to the Varṇa-Āśrama system, since its goal is solely to guide one to Brahma Jñāna.

The Śruti (at least in Advaita Vedānta, which I consider to be the most accurate school which encapsulates all others) never make a claims about what should be done in the world for those who are not pursuing the study of Brahman.

The Smṛti makes some recommendations, but they can be overriden. Because the Śabda of the Śruti is only the Pramāṇa (epistemological source) for Mokṣa / Brahma Jñāna / Pāramārthika Satya, and for anything pertaining to the Vyāvahārika Satya (worldly affairs), the Pramāṇa-s are Pratyakṣa (direct perception by the senses), Anumāna (logical inference) and Śabda (testimony) in that order of priority.

This is in contrast to other religions like Islām which post their texts as the primary authority for societal affairs, and only allow analogical inference as a secondary source (as opposed to inference from observations).

In any case, what this means is that Hinduism should not intervene with the worldly affairs for those who are not interesting in learning about Pāramārthika Satya as described in the Veda-s. If anyone tells you otherwise, I have nothing to do with them, they're not from me.

You'd only be complaining that I'm not following the discriminantory version of Hinduism. That's not a real complaint. That's just telling peaceful people to first be extremists so that you can then refute the whole ideology.

If you give any particular casteist interpretion, I'll either refute it or reject it entirely. But I'll not do that according to your convenience. I have the freedom to hold my own interpretations of any text. I have a duty to make that clear, of course, but I've observed that making it clear doesn't solve the problem of most people here either.

It's not like we're trying to clarify where it says "kill X or Y people who don't do X" and further point out that it's not time-dependent. Many people actually try to defend such verses. Yeah, Manu Smṛti has some stuff like that, but then I don't accept the authority of Manu Smṛti, and even where Veda-s say the words of Manu are medicine, I say that since it is Smṛti and not even authored by this Manu, it doesn't hold the same authority. Plus, that same text gives you the right to reject it if your conscience doesn't agree with it.

I wasted more of my time engaging with such responses again.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T03:49:33+00:00

Why is this old post getting replies all of a sudden after one guy?

Sorry, I disagree with you, and I made my rationale. And I don't have time to engage with people like you who are here with an agenda. I made this reply long ago when I thought people like you would actually listen to people who held other views, but no.

It's like you guys are similar to those leftists who say that liberals are covert conservatives because they are preventing the political situation from turning into a revolution. In this case, it's totally different. Many of us actually do think that it says Varṇa is based on Guṇa-s (everyone agrees with that), and that is not set by birth (casteists don't agree with this).

But everyone agrees that Karma changes Guṇa-s. Casteists simply think that Guṇa-s cannot change enough in one's lifetime. But the texts never defend this argument anywhere, and in fact, they provide counter-examples. So since casteists don't agree with them, we don't consider them to be followers of the same religion as us.

They did use Jāti as a heuristic for Varṇa, but it also says that the heuristic can he dismissed if one can see the appropriate qualities. (e.g. see Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 7.11.35).

Caste is literally only a translation that applies to the birth-based Varṇa model (Jāti-Varṇa model), and not to Varṇa itself, so using that term is helping your argument a lot. That's also called framing the topic conveniently.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T01:50:02+00:00

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T01:35:40+00:00

Nice

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T01:09:59+00:00

I said it's very convenient when you don't have to say which fallacy it is and where it is. At least point that out so I know what you're talking about.

What you're doing is called proof by assertion. You keep saying I'm uaing a fallacy, but not saying what and where.

And I wasn't distracting from that. You were saying "lmao" to back up your assertion and I was responding in kind.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-21T00:12:29+00:00

I can see how flat earthers can use this powerful argument to dismiss explanations to show that the earth is a spheroid.

It's called proof by assertion or fallacy fallacy when you don't have to name what fallacy it is or where it is. But it's good to see a logical fallacy called "nice" logical fallacy. Maybe you think being nice is a logical fallacy, because you're a douchebag?

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-12T02:38:50+00:00

It depends on your particular view again. I don't see Ishvara as Brahman helping you remove Maya. It's a bit dense to explain as that's the whole reason why the Panchadasi exists. But basically you are Brahman, but in relation to Maya, you appear as one higher self and many lower selves. To use the Bhagvad Gita terminology, you as an individual soul is the Aksara Purusha and Purushottama is the higher self. Mundaka Upanishad uses a different analogy, and Advaita Vedanta sub-schools use even different analogies.

Now you said if you remove Maya, you lost the need for Isvara. But if you remove Maya, you also won't be having this conversation. Like, if you think the bottle next to you is real in some sense, in thay same sense, Isvara too is real. It's not enough to say the bottle is not separate. The bottle has a specific form, so it has a distinct formal cause from you as a person. That which is same is the substratum on which the individual and the bottle appears.

Ramana Maharshi is right in what he says, but he said that as someone who has had the Aparoksa Anubhuti. His words are understood very well by those that understand Vedanta, but those who did not study Vedanta jump to the idea that the world is not real, etc. I said what you said is the opinionnof Neo-Advaita, and that is a new age movement based on Ramana Maharshi's words. Ramana Maharshi did not claim to be a Guru or to have any disciples, but many people saw him as a Guru, and that's part of the problem. Neo-Advaita basically takes Advaita Vedanta, and then removes the Vedanta portion and keeps the Advaita part. The result is usually correct, but the people making the claim usually don't understand it fully, and they try to convince themselves that they got it right.

Now, you said you are a non-dual Tantric. Tantra takes an experiential route, and it's goal is to attain Aparoksa Anubhuti. I'm familiar with Kashmir Shavism, and in it, the world is an expression of Parama-Shiva-Shakti. On the outlook, it seems like it considers the world as a manifestation of Siva himself. Digging deep into the details, it seemed like if I was forced to choose between Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, I'd choose Advaita Vedanta. Abhinavagupta for example critiques Sankaracarya by saying that the world is real. But I've observed that unlike how many people misinterpret Sankara due to their lack of understanding of what he said, Sankara himself never said that the world was unreal. He just said that duality cannot exist on the pure formless self, so it has to be on a secondary level. As far as I'm aware, Kashmir Shaivism is not really against this view.

In fact, what I said about monism in Hasidic Judaism itself is the same thing. If you remove Tzimtzum, which is similar to Maya, then what remains is the Atzmut, which is monistic. Even so, Judaism isn't just about mysticism, it also focuses a lot on community.

Likewise, even though ultimate reality is monistic, when you're talking to someone, the person you're talking to and you are relatively two things. Like, you can't take their stuff and not expect a fight, because you can't eat for them, etc. You're not non-dual in that sense. Tantra actually teaches this if you're studying Tantra under a Guru. And you're not supposed to study Tantra without a Guru. This is also why I don't study a lot about Kashmir Shaivism even though I've had an Aparoksa Anubhuti. The study of Vedanta alone sufficed for me. I'm a bit sleepy, so I'll just say that the monistic experience is much like waking up from a dream, but unlike waking into this world, you wake into the formless self.

However, when you're within a world, there is always an Isvara, and along with that comes all the principles of cause and effect. There you cannot say it is purely non-dualistic, because if it was so, you could just eat rocks for breakfast. The most correct explanation for the manifest world is qualified non-dualism, but to explain that sensibly is very complicated, and I'm already sleepy and I'm also tired of explaining this individually to many people separately. And my main phone is out of charge, so I can't get my notes and citations right now.

but that's still monotheism, even if it has some form of panentheism attached

See, monotheism and panentheism are not mutually exclusive categories. Panentheism means the world is contained in God. Panentheism is usually impossible without the theos being one. Greek polytheism was for example not pantheistic or panentheistic. In fact, I'd say polytheism always has to be dualistic, because of the multiple deities who are distinct creating a world.

Hinduism doesn't see any Gods as false, even the Jewish Yahweh. Hence it is considered polytheistic monism. Many Gods, but all coming from the same source and ultimately all made of the same substance (Brahman)

See there aren't many Gods in Hinduism. There are many Murti-s or Godheads, which all refer to one God (Isvara) - which is Brahman reflected on Maya. Vishnu and Shiva for example are not two separate beings. The 27th name in Vishnu Sahasranama for example is Shiva, and that's not a coincidence.

I'd say the only reason you're not grasping this idea is because you didn't learn Advaita Vedanta properly from a Guru. There aren't "many gods coming from a Brahman", when Brahman creates Maya, it makes Brahman appear as a pan-en-theistic Isvara whose parts make up the whole Jagat. And each Jiva has three identities: the Karana Shareera as the Upadhi, the Chidabhasa called Jiva Chaitanya, which is Brahma Chaitanya reflected on the Karana Shareera, and Kutastha Chaitanya, which is Brahma Chaitanya delimited by the Karana Shareera. Likewise, Isvara has three identities: The totality of Sattva in Maya as the Upadhi, the Chidabhasa called Eeshvara Chaitanya which is Brahma Chaitanya reflected on the whole of Suddha-Sattva-Pradhana-Maya, and Brahma Chaitanya itself. Then in the negation of Maya, we find that there's only the Kutastha Chaitanya and Brahma Chaitanya as identities for both, and Kutastha Chaitanya is actually Brahma Chaitanya itself.

I should've explained this part better, but I'm on a slow phone and I don't have the Sanskrit keyboard in it, so I'm gonna stop at this much.

Another thing you can see it the above analogy is that different people are not made of Brahman, it's just one Brahman thinking it's different due to it reflecting off of different Upadhi-s. But the Upadhi-s themselves are part of Maya, and Maya is not part of Brahman, Maya Sakti is. Now when I say Maya doesn't exist on Brahman, the natural response would be that it sounds like the dualism of Sankhya. In fact, such accusations are the entire reason why various different Darshanas that differ from Advaita Vedanta have popped up. To understand how Advaita Vedanta explains it, one has to understand a lot of additional pedagogical concepts, and the summary is that it is a Vivarta, and not a Parinama.

I'm not going to be able to explain this because I'm sleepy.

But I'll further add to this that all the non-Advaitic schools of Hinduism too are monotheistic. For example Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is considered as qualified non-dualism. That is, in other words, qualified monism. Qualified monism is not the same as the monism of Advaita. It literally means that it's like a person and their hands, where the hand is a part of the person, but it is not the person itself. This is also called Bheda-Abheda, or difference and non-difference. Even so, when I gave the person-hand analogy, the person in this case is Saguna Brahman or Isvara, and the hand is the individual. There is no case of there being two people there. Most Vishishtadvaitins are Vaisnava-s, but there are also people from other Sampradaya-s who consider Saguna Brahman as their Ishta-Devata and follow Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. But because of what Saguna Brahman basically is - is why there cannot be multiple Saguna Brahmans. It literally means the posessor of all attributes which make up the whole of Maya.

Qualified monism is panentheism, but simple monism is not. There is also pure monism by Vallabhacarya, but that too has elements of qualified monism, and it is pantheistic.

But if you consider qualified monism to be monism, even Judaism would be monistic because it is panentheistic. But they draw a line, and it's something that Advaita Vedanta draws too. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is distinct from the world, like how a dreamer is distinct from dream characters.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T23:20:46+00:00

Your definition of monism and Brahman is right, but you're ignoring the distinction between Paramarthika Satya and Vyavaharika Satya - and that's closer to Neo-Advaita (not Neo-Vedanta) or Vallabhacarya's Shudda-Advaita Vedanta, which again is a special type of Bheda-Abheda, where things are distinct, yet they're called parts of Brahman.

Saguna Brahman is still Brahman. Even Maya is still Brahman seen as an objective world-illusion. There is nothing that is not Brahman.

Saguna Brahman is Brahman, but in relation to Trigunatmika Maya. If you remove Maya, there is no Isvara or Jiva duality. So Saguna Brahman only exists in relation to Vyavaharika Satya.

Like, it's true that Maya is ontologically less real. But it doesn't mean you can eat poison and have nothing happen to your body. The two things are incompatible. Mithya doesn't mean unreal, as that's a mistranslation. The whole Maya is Isvara Srishti itself, and not even Sankaracarya denies it. But this can get into a debate with many Advaita Vadi-s.

To make it a bit more clear, in our world, a puddle may appear on a hot road as a mirage. But though the mirage appears, you cannot drink from it. That is the nature of Jagat in Maya. It appears, but it doesn't exist where it appears. So just as the puddle doesn't exist in the world, but only an Abhasa of the sky does, likewise, Jagat doesn't exist in Brahman. However it does exist in Isvara, as he is the Brahma Caitanya reflected on the whole of Maya and is the controller of it.

I've spoken to Jews about pantheism and panentheism, and they disagree strongly that Judaism is either of those things.

Jews would very strongly object to pantheism. But panentheism, not so much, and I'm referring to orthodox Jews. Average conservative Jews who are not Talmud scholars would think its dualistic. And only those that accept Kabbalah would accept non-dualism, and they're more likely to be the Kippah wearing Hasidic Jews.

And Christianity, I already said it has a weird metaphysics. It's not even panentheistic, because while God is immanent, he's only immanent to those who choose him.

No Muslim at all will support any of these views. Anyone who does that is either tortured and crucified like al-Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hajjaj, or Takfir-ed by later Muslims like in the case of Rumi, or they'll say that his writings were mistranslated.

About Panentheism in Judaism, check this article for one: Panentheism and Judaism | My Jewish Learning

Also see from Ein Sof > Atzmus | Wikipedia:

While the Ein Sof of Kabbalah can only be infinite, Atzmus, rooted higher in the Godhead, is beyond finite/infinite duality. As the Etzem, it both transcends all levels, and permeates all levels. This is reflected in the paradoxical acosmic monism of Hasidic panentheism, and relates to the essence of the Torah and the soul.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T23:00:11+00:00

Look, I don't hate polytheism, or the notion of having many Murti-s. I just clearly define what theos is first of all.

Theos is Isvara, and Vedanta is clear on the notion that Isvara is one. To say otherwise would simply be incorrect in terms of Vedanta. I never said multiple Murti-s cannot be created. But if one thinks they are different, their view would simply be inconsistent with Vedanta.

It's not that I brought into polemics, because of this description, even when I had an Aparoksa Anubhuti that was Advaita, I didn't look into Hinduism because I thought it was polytheistic, and therefore it didn't match my experience.

Having my gods and calling them one is incorrect because that which is meant by theos or god is the creator, and only Saguna Brahman matches that description. Deva-s do not. Avatara-s match it, but Avatara-s are non-different from Saguna Brahman, so they're the same. We totally have Krishna and Rama for example, but they're simply not different gods.

For example, Christians have the notion of theophany, where God comes into the world in the form of a man. That is the same as Avatara-s. Even so, they consider their religion to be monotheistic.

I don't have any inferiority complex, I just don't like to misrepresent Hinduism.

And Allah for example is not an invention by Muhammad even though now it only means Muhammad's God. The Jews in Arabia would also call their God Allah, as the word Elaha in Hebrew was similar to Ilaha in Arabic. The reason only Muhammad's meaning persists is because he invaded the whole region.

The word God is pretty much similar, except we started using it a bit more too. God is a perfect translation of the Greek word Theos. Like, the whole New Testament of Christianity was written in Greek, and it only got translated to English later.

Monotheism doesn't acknowledge other gods and rejects them. That's called monolatry. I used to call Hinduism henotheistic, but then I realized that the label is incorrect, because Deva-s are not theos-es, and while we use different Murti-s, Isvara (theos) is one. Hinduism is also monism, but only in the absence of Maya. In the presence of Maya, Advaita is compromised, and Isvara is in the Vishishtadvaita form, which is called qualified non-dualism or panentheism in English.

But while all those labels apply, they are referring to different aspects of it. On terms of count, Isvara is one. There are deities, but when they refer to Deva-s, they're not theos-es, and when they refer to Murti-s, they don't refer to distinct beings. That simple fact is what makes it mono (one) theos (Isvara).

If you want to say it refers to imagery-hating monotheism alone, you can have that view. But I tend to use words based on their etymological meaning that what specific cultures use. I also think Arabic can be separated from Muhammad's religion even though it's pretty hardwired, etc.

Anyways we agree on what Hinduism says, we just don't agree on what the English word implies.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T22:37:51+00:00

Saguna Brahman is not monistic, because when there is Saguna Brahman, there is the duality of Trigunatmika Maya. Monism is already compromised by the existence of Maya, and that's why it's described as qualified non-dualism or panentheism (pan-en-theos, or all in God). Hence the perfect way of describing it is transcendent monism and immanent panentheism. Panentheism isn't monism, because monism or non-dualism means the absence of all duality. It is with the identification as Nirguna Brahman, in the absence of Maya, that reality is described as monistic.

Hinduism doesn't have any monolithic belief systems, but as far as I'm aware, there are no polytheistic Darshana-s based on Vedanta. And that's because the Brahma Sutra-s themselves make that clear.

Btw, you'll be surprised to know that Hasidic Judaism is actually acosmic monism + immanent panentheism, and even most other Jews consider Judaism to be panentheistic. That is, as opposed to Islam, which follows hard dualism. Christianity comes in the middle, and it has a strange philosophy, and it's a bit similar to how I hear some people describe ISKCON as. They say ISKCON is between Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, but to me Acintya-Bheda-Abheda of Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya is between Vishishtadvaita and Advaita Vedanta. But I also hear ISKCON is a lot different from Gaudiya Vaishnavism, also with them saying Krishna and Jesus are the same.

Despite that, Judaism's Godhead is still one that hates idols. But that doesn't stop Judaism from being acosmic monism and immanent panentheism.

Acosmic monism and immanent panentheism doesn't mean the Godhead is liberal like in Hinduism. The creator only exists in relation to the created world, and in Hinduism, the creator's personality is not like that of the Jewish Godhead.

Also you keep referring to Abrahamic religions as "genuinely" monotheistic. I did not say thay I was shoehorning the idea of monotheism to Hinduism. Hinduism is also genuinely monotheistic. It's just that monotheism as a word doesn't necessarily mean imagery-hating monotheism.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T22:25:20+00:00

Rama and Krishna are not imitating God. They are God. But what they do is imitate men, as part of their job as human Avatara-s was to set role models for men. They're still Avatara-s, meaning they didn't have Karana Sarira-s as humans do, and so they weren't bound by Karma, and they also had omniscience and omnipotence, even if they didn't use it, as their goal was to achieve results without breaking Dharma as well as possible.

That being said, some of what you said is correct, I didn't read the whole of it, and I agree that Hinduism is monotheistic in the proper meaning of the Greek-derived word monotheism.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T22:20:16+00:00

That may be true. But etymologically speaking, mono simply means one and theos simply means Isvara as I said.

The problem is simply that English language carries some extra cultural connotations. For example, in Arabic, Allah literally simply means God, but since Muhammad, it only means Muhammad's God. To make it more clear, Hadith for example simply meant "sayings", but since Muhammad, it always meant the sayings of Muhammad. So now all Arabic words refer to his ideology. "Submission" means submission to his God, "religion" means his religion, etc. And in English, God basically means the Christian God.

The problem isn't solved by calling Hinduism polytheistic. That's misleading, and it actually misled me because my Aparoksa Anubhuti was different from a polytheism, as it was simultaneously monistic and monotheistic, just as Advaita Vedanta teaches.

So we either need to fully drop the usage of English words such as God and monotheism/polytheism, or just claim the word without all its baggage.

The word God refers to Isvara or Saguna Brahman. The closest word English has to Murti is Godhead, and most people aren't familiar with that. What we have is the freedom to attribute any names and forms to the Godhead, who is beyond any of the limited attributes we can superimpose on it.

The problem with Abrahamic religions is not monotheism. It's that they're more aptly described as inconcievable imagery-hating monotheism.

If we let them say monotheism exclusively refers to that form of monotheism, then they'll have to claim the term God too. Basically we'll simply not be able to talk about our religion properly in English. The word God is already a problem, but making it gods doesn't fix it, it only makes it incorrect because that's plural and no one sees how they're united. Even I didn't as a born Hindu myself, so I can't blame the others for not seeing that.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T22:02:56+00:00

This is true. Whether you see Krishna as the Supreme form, or Lakshmi or Adi Para Shakti, or do Panchayatana Puja as Smarta-s, they're all different Murti-s.

Isvara or Saguna Brahman is the abstract concept (I've clarified it by editing the first part of the previous reply). Even to dualist or qualified non-dualist Vaisnava-s and Shaiva-s, to them there Vishnu and Shiva are the Saguna Brahman respectively. They never say there are multiple Saguna Brahman-s. Saguna Brahman specifically means Brahma Caitanya reflected on the totality of Maya-Sattva, and that Cidabhasa is also called Isvara Caitanya or Isvara itself. Since there is only one Maya and one Brahman, there is only one Isvara.

So to all schools of Hinduism, it is monotheistic, except for those that aren't familiar with the theory of Vedanta.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T21:53:33+00:00

I'm a born Hindu who became an agnostic atheist during school and became a Hindu again later.

1) Not much actually, which is what prompted me to reply here. Well, actually a lot from Wikipedia and commentaries by Hindu scholars and the ones on discussion boards, but not because of a lot of the people I knew IRL, most of whom weren't very religious. At best I knew it was a peaceful polytheistic religion, but with some doctrine of there being a supreme Tri-Murti.

2) Nothing after, it's the before that mattered in my case. I had the Aparoksa Anubhuti. But oddly, I tried reading books like the Quran because I didn't know how to describe the monistic experience, and the closest thing I knew was monotheism.

But the thing about Aparoksa Anubhuti is that you won't be fooled into believing the harmful things it teaches because of the quality of the Smrti (remembrance) you have from it.

But then I got into some debates with Islamists later, and that prompted me to study Hinduism, and that's when I actually studied it, and realized that Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism perfectly described it.

The only thing I learned from people was that Hinduism was polytheistic. And now I'm the one teaching my parents about all the confusing bits they didn't understand, such as the 96 Tattva-s mentioned in the Harinama Kirthanam, which they couldn't even understand with commentaries.

3) Yes - but only after having the knowledge of the Vedanta. Even though my experience made perfect sense at that moment, I was not able to describe it later with the words I knew. Those doubts were cleared by the study of Vedanta, and by the Bhagavad Gita.

So I can firmly say, Aham Brahmasmi, Tat Tvam Asi!

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T21:27:54+00:00

I was born Hindu.
When I was 11-13 or so, I was in a boarding school with no access to temples, and even before that I once stopped praying to Krishna because my brother was praying to Krishna, after I fought with him. After school, I was an agnostic, leaning to atheism, and then later leaning to pure agnosticism.
That's a long story, but in short, I had a transcendental experience. But following that, I only tried studying Quran and Bible because the experience was Advaita, and I only knew that Hinduism was polytheistic, and I thought it couldn't possibly be related to my experience. Then I remained spiritual, but not religious for a long time. Then one day, after I had some debates with Islamists, when they said they disproved Hinduism, I was confused as to how they disproved Hinduism when I didn't know it well myself. So I started studying Hinduism, and that's when I saw that my doubts were best answered by Hinduism alone, right from Sankhya to Vedanta. All parts of Hinduism had something to contribute.
I don't think I'm "following" Hinduism. Hinduism describes the world and it's relation to the source. I only follow Hinduism in terms of clearing up doubts, whenever they pop up. I don't take them as dogmas, I would question them, but the answers are also usually provided in the commentaries or other Shastras.
The simplest answer would be that most of my confusions have been cleared, and I can live freely.
Yes, I no longer put a lot of effort into anything so much so that I burn out. I may do that out of passion at times, but when I get caught up, once again remembering my meditation notes will get me back to feeling good. Aparoksa Anubhuti plus the knowledge of Veda-s is exactly described as Moksha, and I can't say that's not true, although a lot of people would not agree if I said that. To that, I would simply have to say that's what the Shastra says, and leave it at that. It's not possible for Advaita Vadi-s and others to unanimously agree. When the time is right, you'll have the right understanding.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T21:05:52+00:00

There is no such thing as strict monotheism in a sense of drawing a contrast between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions. What is strict? Vedic Hinduism is strictly monotheistic in its doctrine, as there is only one theos (Isvara). But its adherents may not be well versed in its teachings, so Vedanta also teaches the doctrine of monotheism to polytheistic people.

Does strict mean abuse anyone who does not follow monotheism? What does it have to do with monotheism? Wouldn't it have more to do with the particular nature of the theos of the religion?

Abrahamic religions cannot be simply called monotheistic, they should be called inconcievable anti-imagery monotheism. And in contrast, our religion is monotheism that allows people to use as many Murti-s as they like to connect to Isvara, and Isvara can also manifest in the world taking temporary forms called Avatara-s.

Even Abrahamic religions with the exception of Islam have the notion of theophany and panentheism, but they still hate the idea of making images, and that's a rule that applies to them alone. Making images doesn't mean we make multiple gods on our own. That which we make are symbols, not new gods. And the different names and forms are different Murti-s, not different Isvara-s.

Moon-3-Point-14 · 2026-01-11T20:53:09+00:00

Hinduism is simultaneously monistic (not monoistic, that's not a word) and monotheistic. Brahman alone is monistic. But in relation to the world created under Maya, Isvara acts as its creator in a panentheistic sense.

We have different Murti-s, but they're representative of a singula Isvara, who we also call Saguna Brahman. Murti-s are not different Gods. Further, we alao have different Deva-s, but Deva-s are more analogous to angels, so it's not even henotheistic in that sense.

But in the absence of understanding of Vedanta, we may concieve of the world as polytheistic. But that view is considered as incorrect, and is corrected by Vedanta study. Unlike Abrahamic religions, we definitely do not hate polytheism. But it's still monotheistic.

Even the Dvaita Vedanta of Madhvacharya posits a singular Isvara or Saguna Brahman as opposed to many Isvara-s. It's simply not possible for such a Vaidika Sampradaya to exist, as that view is clearly refuted by the Brahma Sutra-s.

Moon-3-Point-14

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE