/2015/11/15/i-am-being-asked-to-critique-the-advaita-nexus-plus-the-advaita-movement/

I am being asked to critique the Advaita nexus plus the Advaita movement…

I am being asked to critique the Advaita nexus plus the Advaita movement. My first idiot reaction was sarcastic, but I may have hit on something: if non-duality is true then Frodo and Gollum are one…checkmate for the whole subject…first impressions often penetrate to the core…but not always…skip the above,then…(search ‘frodo’ here for the post)

I have a lot of troubles already, this one could be a cruncher…why me?

I am stopped cold by this question because the wrapper called ‘Advaita’ probably points to the mother lode of Santana Dharma, and this implies its Vedic wrapper is an impostor. Along with the confused term ‘vedanta’.
I wouldn’t rush into a critique of Advaita, therefore, but I can point to quibbles on the boundaries, to start: all these medieval spiritual experts got Vedism wrong. The later is part of the Aryan hybridization of the ancient teaching. So, first, we know that Shankara et al had no ‘historical psychic vision’ (??) and got the wrapper all wrong. That’s merely strike one: they can transmit a teaching semi-rote over many many centuries, so the objection is irrelevant, as such. Its exponents proclaim the Truth, but lived in a degenerate hindu neo-brahmanical world of caste and exploitation….Still, doesn’t touch the core of Advaita which is probably not Hindu…(in the Veda/late hinduism nexux)…
This blog has a whole book scanned debunking the Gita. Is the history correct,the debunking on target? What is the real history of buddhism and neo-brahmanism? Why would the neo-brahmins massacre buddhists?
Again, the Gita issue is irrelevant. The book as we have it may be not what it seems, but this doesn’t touch the core Advaita questions…

(Was Krishna really an Aryan? Didn’t Krishna and his cult predate the Aryans? )

As a quick judgment, the core of Advaita rings true, in the atman/brahman equation. but…

I am working with Waite’s long book…A useful book, with quibbles as above starting on page one…but the first page of the Introduction sounds almost like a quote from Schopenhauer.

It is not true to say Schopenhauer’s ideas come from Vedanta. His thinking is that of so-called (Kantian) transcendental idealism (all that phenomenal/thing-in-itself stuff) and its resonance with upanishadic psychology is a strong sign of a common vein of something, we know not what…

we will continue…