06-08-2005, 01:12 AM
Hi <b>Ashok Kumar</b>.
Impossible to do justice to all the points you've raised! <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Following is my 2c:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly. The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.
A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox. But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. But you can extend the definition of "mysticism". In fact, for the most part, what Westerners call "mysticism" is the substance of yoga, the <i>practice</i> itself, which leads to realizations that come from outside the limits of <i>empirical</i> logic. But "logic" itself is not limited to the empirical or sensory. <i>"Mysticism" is the spiritual practice that bridges the One admissable logical gap in the founding philosophy that motivates the sincere aspirant to undertake mysticism in the first place.</i>
While gangajal and sunder have tried to explain <i>one</i> of the more well-known contradictions of kevala-advaita, they have only concealed the full extent and ramifications of this contradiction. Vivarta-vada by no means explains away this contradiction. In fact, it introduces further contradictions in Vedanta, apparently clashing with parinama-vada, etc. <i>This is a characteristic of mayavadi commentary.</i> Like one lie to another, they try to explain one contradiction with another Vedantic concept, but in <b>mis-defining (or mis-applying)</b> that concept, they create even more questions...and the chain reaction goes on. Ultimately, they are forced to deprecate and derogate large sections of shaastra, and that includes the Upanishads. (What a great service to Hinduism!)
Therefore, in tarka (Vedic logic), the rules for framing and evaluating an argument are very precise -- and it is very noteworthy that only the Vaishnava acharyas have adhered to the strictest standard of tarka. The so-called Buddhists (sunyavadis) had a highly compromised standard (a subset of these rules), and the mayavadis also have a somewhat less watered-down standard. I thought I would mention this to you since you have shown an appreciation for mathematical logic in your post.
Before I try to share my understanding of some of the questions you raised, let me also make another point, especially since sunder was all set to begin a shastric debate on Vedanta without a good idea of the sources he likes to quote from. A quote-contest without any idea of the larger picture is a scatterbrained exercise in futility! Firstly, We know from tradition that the original One Veda has been recompiled and divided progresssively into the 4 Vedas and the sub-Vedas etc as the yugas devolved. Each individual Upanishad, etc gives a partial point-of-view of the Absolute Truth, like the "blind men of hindoostan" touching different parts of the elephant. Secondly, let us also recognize the "probabilistic" occurences of higher truth in this vast ocean of shastra, because some of the quote-happy argumentators actually count the number of times words like "Indra" or "Brahman" occur in shastra to buttress their point! The majority of the Vedas proper deal with karma-kanda, which is an elaborate description of demigods, sacrificial rituals, benefits to be obtained, duties to be performed...all mostly with material motives (although there are plenty of clues thrown in that there is something higher to aspire for). Now any serious Hindu, including all mayavadis, know that by no means is this the highest branch of the Vedic tree. Therefore, the Vedanta sutra begins with the sutra "athaato brahma jijnaasa", i.e., now begins the search for higher truth, outside of the material spheres. Within this Upanishadic literature also (the jnana-kanda), the same pattern applies, i.e., in describing the Absolute Reality, a lot of time is spent on the slow ascent to the highest understanding, the most esoteric. Why is this the pattern in all of Vedic literature? This is answered many times in the Upanishads itself, and even in the Bhagavad Gita. It has to do with free-will and the <i>preparedness</i> of the aspirant to accept certain concepts. Casting pearls before an immmature audience will only lead to gross abuse.
In this same connection, it is also worth including this comment: That to understand the precepts of any great historical Teacher, avatar, prophet, etc, we <i>must necessarily</i> take into consideration the Time, Place and standard of the Recipients (desha, kaala, paatra). When one does this, one can see why all Vaishnavas maintain loyalty to Sripada Shankara (and also honour the Buddha), whereas the self-styled mayavadi popes cannot seem to admit any further expiation of Vedanta, and even begin to deprecate important sections of Hindu scripture in order to expain the open-ended "contradictions" in Shankara's philosophy.
Now Ashok, in your posts, just like you have not properly defined the term "mysticism", you did not define the term "God", though your usage of the term suggests certain assumptions. Another very important term you used rather loosely was "illusion". What do you understand by the word "illusion"? Illusion, or maya, is correctly defined as mis-identification, or superimposition of a wrong identity on an object. <i>Both</i>, the rope and snake exist, but misidentifying one for the other is maya. This material example should be extended upwards into the realm of consciousness. E.g., Maya is the misidentification of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul, i.e. the ultimate expression of runaway ishvara-bhaava as far as the jiva is concerned. But we'll come back to this later.
"God" has to be the biggest concept, by definition. Therefore, it is transcendental, infinite, etc. Now while tarka is very much a part of Vedic shaastra, the same Vedic shaastra says there is a place and limit for tarka. Tarka is to be applied only after certain axioms are admitted. But tarka alone <i>cannot </i>encompass Absolute Reality itself. <i>This statement itself is logical</i>, because if our admittedly finite minds could grasp the infinite Absolute Reality within a set if finite logical constructs, then that would itself be a contradiction. IOW, ONE of the axioms of Vedanta <i>has</i> to be an "inconceivable" paradox if its Absolute Reality we're talking about, and that paradox is explained by the very subject matter itself. Of course, that paradox is truly realized only through the practice of mysticism or whatever we want to call it.
Therefore it is not unreasonable that acintya bheda-abheda tattva should have a singular paradox as one of its axioms. In fact, it is very reasonable that it does. Now given that it does, it is perfectly elegant in the way it explains everything else, without any contradictions. This is an elegant theory, and has been challenged and proven so time and time again in history. OTOH, any grade of mayavada is riddled with multiple contradictions, and as I explained earlier, one contradiction tries to explain another, but only spawns new contradictions w.r.t. Vedantic assertions...finally forcing the mayavadi to either deprecate large parts of shastra, or to throw up his hands and say, "arre! we shouldn't ask all these questions because we are still in maya, so we cannot understand...Truth is beyond maya, so just become my disciple and start practicing..." Now, the important thing is that while this may seem reasonable, it is not. As the shastras state clearly, real yoga starts when the intellect is <i>satisfied</i>, and not suppressed. Otherwise why include tarka in Vedic shastra? To give the well-known allegory, when mother Yashoda tries to bind Damodara's belly to the grinding-mortar with all the rope she can find, it always falls 2 finger-widths short. That is the limitation of intellect. Finally, only when she surrendered and implored her baby boy did His causeless mercy allow her to tie Him. Therefore, satisfaction of intellect means what I stated above: Respectful admittance of One paradoxical axiom, with no other contradictions (followed by enthusiastic practice of yoga with devotion). The great chinese transcendentalist Chuang-tzu, great savant of Taoism, said "the sage does not desire to understand everything", meaning that given this much, one then dedicates oneself to the practice of spirtuality. So given its own axioms (some of which are also labelled inconceivable), mayavada still leaves us with a tangled web of contradictions. On the strength of mathematical elegance, we have to admit that acintya-bheda-abheda is far superior to any other philosophy, leave alone kevala-advaita.
To reiterate, <i>at the level of jnana</i>, there must be a paradox to begin with, if the subject matter is really Absolute Truth. To quote the Bhagavad Gita, the ninth chapter titled "the Most confidential Knowledge", verses 4, 5:
<b>"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. "</b>
There's your paradox. Similarly in other parts, Krishna says that everything created rests upon Me like pearls strung upon a thread (sutre mani gana iva). (We also have the Vedantic idea of sutraatman). We further have the Upanishadic allegory of the Spider and His web. The web is actually "part" of the Spider, but is not the spider Himself. Et cetera...
It is interesting and pertinent here to note that in the BG, Krishna says that even Brahman rests upon Him: Chapter 14, text 27: brahmano hi pratishtha-aham...
<b>"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal. "</b>
As for the material existence, it is divided into inferior material energy and superior material energy in Vedanta. The superior consists of the jivas, or living entities. Are they "one" with the supreme in ALL respects? No, not in all respects. It is a far more nuanced reality. to give just one well-known quote: BG 15:7 -- mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah..."
<b>"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts..."</b>
Only this can explain the potency and existence of maya-shakti. If there is COMPLETE identity between the jiva and Brahman, then how did the jiva beccome hypnotized by this Maya? It would mean that Maya is greater than Brahman itself. No amount of (mis-interpreted) vivarta-vada can explain this. But, to quote Bhaktisidddhanta Saraswati, a Vaishnava:
"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. <b>We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf.</b> We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity..."
Therefore, there exists a Supreme Soul, infinite and inestimable. While the jivatman is one with It in <i>certain respects</i>, we are not identical in <i>all </i>respects. But look at the convenient mis-definitions that some use. The sunyavadi Buddhists (and some previous Vaisesika people) had said that manas (mind) and the atman (soul) are one and the same thing. And that the goal of sadhana was to "extinguish" the mind (nirvana = extinguish). After that comes the great Void. Now Shankara trashed this theory and established the existence of a superconscious Brahman, and that atman is NOT the mind, but is the Soul. The soul is transcendental to body, mind, intelligence and false-ego. Now later, the mayavadis started saying that atman and paramatman are actually one and the same, just like the Sunyavadis said atman was the same as mind. The mayavadis made many such misidentifications. Brahman and parabrahman were same, etc, and they would sometimes bring in other concepts like saguna and nirguna to obfuscate the difference. But the Vaishnavas clearly explain and qualify the differences, and the necessity for having separate conceptual terms. The Vedic literature is quite precise, and the great rishis would not include new conceptual terms only to confuse things. Obfuscation and opacity is a mayavadi trait, not a Vedic characteristic.
The obfuscation extends to the link between philosophy and "mysticism". For instance, you will often find certain mayavadi writings "comparing" and contrasting "Vedanta" with "Bhakti yoga", which is more ridiculous than comparing apples to oranges. The former is philosophy, the latter is practice. They are complementary. So, because of mis-identifications and wrong definitions, they often see "embarassing" contradictions where none exist, especially the "neo-Advaita/self-esteem" parvenus of the recent colonial era. Embarassed by the heckling of inimical Westerners or Muslims, several mayavadi preachers in recent times have either been apologetic about various standard Vedic practices, and have then tried to artificially separate them from Vedanta. In doing so, they distort those practices as well as Vedanta itself. Even though they appealed to "Hindu pride", etc (a very un-Vedic trait), the ful extent of the damage they have done to Vedic religion is yet to be widely understood.
As per all shastras, all yoga must culminate in utter devotion, the essennce of which is reciprocal <i>rasa</i> at the highest level. Brahman-realization (brahma bhuta) is only the <i>beginning</i>, the <i>basis</i> of para-bhakti. There are various levels of realization after that (vibhava, vyabhicari, etc), culminating in <i>rasa</i>. This is a deep topic and too much to go into here, but suffice to say that problems arise when Brahman-realized persons have claimed that it is the last word. Paramahamsas who have gone further say this: That all the happiness in this material world is but a drop compared to the bliss of Brahman-realization...but the bliss of Brahman-realization is a drop compared to the ocean of nectar that lies beyond. Impersonalism cannot culminate in <i>rasa</i>, because it starts with false (or incomplete) sambandha-jnana -- that fundamental <b>map</b> which we use in our practice. The Absolute Truth can be realized in 3 aspects -- Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan, the last one being the Supreme Personality. This material universe has various aspects to it, but the crowning glory is personal Will, which finds its greatest expression in human personality. This, coming from "Brahman", means that it exists in Brahman. <b>How can the creation be greater than the Creator? How can the emanation be greater than the Source?</b> <i>Impersonalism, as I said, is riddled with contradictions when it denies personality and relationship in the Absolute.</i> Apparent "problems" arise when they attribute <b>material</b> characteristics to Vaishnava siddhanta, and thus make a mockery of it and then trash it. When Vaishnavism gets ito these realms, things are pretty <i>esoteric</i>, and without having a firm understanding of the basics, no appreciation is possible. As Chaitanya said, "mayavadi bhashya sunile haya sarvanaasha" -- Reading the shaastras through mayavadi commentary will lead to disaster, because it steals away and trashes the highest, most esoteric treasures of the Vedas.
Any trace of Impersonalism is considered suicidal for one practicing Devotional Yoga, as any of the shastras will attest. This assertion is not a mystery, as it makes perfecct psychological sense. Acceptance of one's eternally dependent position w.r.t the supreme is a sine qua non for any level of Bhakti. <i>Bhakti is not a timeserving pretense, as the mayavadis make it out to be.</i>
Concepts like we have discussed above are not simply limited to metaphysics anymore. They are now very much a part of cutting-edge Physics, such as superstring theory (although its not yet a proven theory). Of the 11 dimensions of Reality it talks of, most of these coefficients are said to represent "illusions of perception". You may find it worthwhile to study string theory a little, since it may help infuse some confidence in your skeptical evaluation of several Hindu concepts.
What's more, I have recently come across almost identical theologies from other far-flung parts of the world. Emmanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish scientist, inventor, and finally an ecstatic preacher, wrote extensively in Latin and German in the 1600s. His theology is almost a copy of Chaitanya Vaishnavism, which he called "True Christian Teachings". Same case with a very very small school of Islam which traces its lineage back right to two of the closest companions of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Vaishnava siddhanta elegantly explains all of vivarta, parinama, etc. It is too much to go into here, but some fundamental points have been made in response to your post: (a) the legitimacy of having a singular paradox in a theological axiom. (b) the inconcivable qualified oneness and its psychospiritual necesity.
I was glad you brought in Kashmiri "Saivism" in your post. You must be familiar with the spanda karikas, and the idea of spanda and nirodha as far as the Mind (i.e. manas) is concerned. You must be thinking that this is what explains the mutually exclusive existence of duality and non-duality. Its too much to go into in this post itself, but let's just put things into perspective. There are numerous occasions where the scriptures tell us that somewhat perverted reflections of Spiritual Reality are found, fractal-like, in the material world. Now the spanda karikas are obviously speaking in terms of the gross and subtle koshas, and from the PoV of kundalini. In that sense we can put it into perspective. But also, the Vaishnava commentaries clearly posit the existence of the Original of which everything on this side of existence is the material reflection, with the brahman realization inbetween. While for the Impersonalists, merging with Brahman and annihilating identity is final. This is not supported by the great sages, for whom Brahman realization is only a preliminary step.
Impossible to do justice to all the points you've raised! <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Following is my 2c:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly. The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.
A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox. But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. But you can extend the definition of "mysticism". In fact, for the most part, what Westerners call "mysticism" is the substance of yoga, the <i>practice</i> itself, which leads to realizations that come from outside the limits of <i>empirical</i> logic. But "logic" itself is not limited to the empirical or sensory. <i>"Mysticism" is the spiritual practice that bridges the One admissable logical gap in the founding philosophy that motivates the sincere aspirant to undertake mysticism in the first place.</i>
While gangajal and sunder have tried to explain <i>one</i> of the more well-known contradictions of kevala-advaita, they have only concealed the full extent and ramifications of this contradiction. Vivarta-vada by no means explains away this contradiction. In fact, it introduces further contradictions in Vedanta, apparently clashing with parinama-vada, etc. <i>This is a characteristic of mayavadi commentary.</i> Like one lie to another, they try to explain one contradiction with another Vedantic concept, but in <b>mis-defining (or mis-applying)</b> that concept, they create even more questions...and the chain reaction goes on. Ultimately, they are forced to deprecate and derogate large sections of shaastra, and that includes the Upanishads. (What a great service to Hinduism!)
Therefore, in tarka (Vedic logic), the rules for framing and evaluating an argument are very precise -- and it is very noteworthy that only the Vaishnava acharyas have adhered to the strictest standard of tarka. The so-called Buddhists (sunyavadis) had a highly compromised standard (a subset of these rules), and the mayavadis also have a somewhat less watered-down standard. I thought I would mention this to you since you have shown an appreciation for mathematical logic in your post.
Before I try to share my understanding of some of the questions you raised, let me also make another point, especially since sunder was all set to begin a shastric debate on Vedanta without a good idea of the sources he likes to quote from. A quote-contest without any idea of the larger picture is a scatterbrained exercise in futility! Firstly, We know from tradition that the original One Veda has been recompiled and divided progresssively into the 4 Vedas and the sub-Vedas etc as the yugas devolved. Each individual Upanishad, etc gives a partial point-of-view of the Absolute Truth, like the "blind men of hindoostan" touching different parts of the elephant. Secondly, let us also recognize the "probabilistic" occurences of higher truth in this vast ocean of shastra, because some of the quote-happy argumentators actually count the number of times words like "Indra" or "Brahman" occur in shastra to buttress their point! The majority of the Vedas proper deal with karma-kanda, which is an elaborate description of demigods, sacrificial rituals, benefits to be obtained, duties to be performed...all mostly with material motives (although there are plenty of clues thrown in that there is something higher to aspire for). Now any serious Hindu, including all mayavadis, know that by no means is this the highest branch of the Vedic tree. Therefore, the Vedanta sutra begins with the sutra "athaato brahma jijnaasa", i.e., now begins the search for higher truth, outside of the material spheres. Within this Upanishadic literature also (the jnana-kanda), the same pattern applies, i.e., in describing the Absolute Reality, a lot of time is spent on the slow ascent to the highest understanding, the most esoteric. Why is this the pattern in all of Vedic literature? This is answered many times in the Upanishads itself, and even in the Bhagavad Gita. It has to do with free-will and the <i>preparedness</i> of the aspirant to accept certain concepts. Casting pearls before an immmature audience will only lead to gross abuse.
In this same connection, it is also worth including this comment: That to understand the precepts of any great historical Teacher, avatar, prophet, etc, we <i>must necessarily</i> take into consideration the Time, Place and standard of the Recipients (desha, kaala, paatra). When one does this, one can see why all Vaishnavas maintain loyalty to Sripada Shankara (and also honour the Buddha), whereas the self-styled mayavadi popes cannot seem to admit any further expiation of Vedanta, and even begin to deprecate important sections of Hindu scripture in order to expain the open-ended "contradictions" in Shankara's philosophy.
Now Ashok, in your posts, just like you have not properly defined the term "mysticism", you did not define the term "God", though your usage of the term suggests certain assumptions. Another very important term you used rather loosely was "illusion". What do you understand by the word "illusion"? Illusion, or maya, is correctly defined as mis-identification, or superimposition of a wrong identity on an object. <i>Both</i>, the rope and snake exist, but misidentifying one for the other is maya. This material example should be extended upwards into the realm of consciousness. E.g., Maya is the misidentification of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul, i.e. the ultimate expression of runaway ishvara-bhaava as far as the jiva is concerned. But we'll come back to this later.
"God" has to be the biggest concept, by definition. Therefore, it is transcendental, infinite, etc. Now while tarka is very much a part of Vedic shaastra, the same Vedic shaastra says there is a place and limit for tarka. Tarka is to be applied only after certain axioms are admitted. But tarka alone <i>cannot </i>encompass Absolute Reality itself. <i>This statement itself is logical</i>, because if our admittedly finite minds could grasp the infinite Absolute Reality within a set if finite logical constructs, then that would itself be a contradiction. IOW, ONE of the axioms of Vedanta <i>has</i> to be an "inconceivable" paradox if its Absolute Reality we're talking about, and that paradox is explained by the very subject matter itself. Of course, that paradox is truly realized only through the practice of mysticism or whatever we want to call it.
Therefore it is not unreasonable that acintya bheda-abheda tattva should have a singular paradox as one of its axioms. In fact, it is very reasonable that it does. Now given that it does, it is perfectly elegant in the way it explains everything else, without any contradictions. This is an elegant theory, and has been challenged and proven so time and time again in history. OTOH, any grade of mayavada is riddled with multiple contradictions, and as I explained earlier, one contradiction tries to explain another, but only spawns new contradictions w.r.t. Vedantic assertions...finally forcing the mayavadi to either deprecate large parts of shastra, or to throw up his hands and say, "arre! we shouldn't ask all these questions because we are still in maya, so we cannot understand...Truth is beyond maya, so just become my disciple and start practicing..." Now, the important thing is that while this may seem reasonable, it is not. As the shastras state clearly, real yoga starts when the intellect is <i>satisfied</i>, and not suppressed. Otherwise why include tarka in Vedic shastra? To give the well-known allegory, when mother Yashoda tries to bind Damodara's belly to the grinding-mortar with all the rope she can find, it always falls 2 finger-widths short. That is the limitation of intellect. Finally, only when she surrendered and implored her baby boy did His causeless mercy allow her to tie Him. Therefore, satisfaction of intellect means what I stated above: Respectful admittance of One paradoxical axiom, with no other contradictions (followed by enthusiastic practice of yoga with devotion). The great chinese transcendentalist Chuang-tzu, great savant of Taoism, said "the sage does not desire to understand everything", meaning that given this much, one then dedicates oneself to the practice of spirtuality. So given its own axioms (some of which are also labelled inconceivable), mayavada still leaves us with a tangled web of contradictions. On the strength of mathematical elegance, we have to admit that acintya-bheda-abheda is far superior to any other philosophy, leave alone kevala-advaita.
To reiterate, <i>at the level of jnana</i>, there must be a paradox to begin with, if the subject matter is really Absolute Truth. To quote the Bhagavad Gita, the ninth chapter titled "the Most confidential Knowledge", verses 4, 5:
<b>"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. "</b>
There's your paradox. Similarly in other parts, Krishna says that everything created rests upon Me like pearls strung upon a thread (sutre mani gana iva). (We also have the Vedantic idea of sutraatman). We further have the Upanishadic allegory of the Spider and His web. The web is actually "part" of the Spider, but is not the spider Himself. Et cetera...
It is interesting and pertinent here to note that in the BG, Krishna says that even Brahman rests upon Him: Chapter 14, text 27: brahmano hi pratishtha-aham...
<b>"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal. "</b>
As for the material existence, it is divided into inferior material energy and superior material energy in Vedanta. The superior consists of the jivas, or living entities. Are they "one" with the supreme in ALL respects? No, not in all respects. It is a far more nuanced reality. to give just one well-known quote: BG 15:7 -- mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah..."
<b>"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts..."</b>
Only this can explain the potency and existence of maya-shakti. If there is COMPLETE identity between the jiva and Brahman, then how did the jiva beccome hypnotized by this Maya? It would mean that Maya is greater than Brahman itself. No amount of (mis-interpreted) vivarta-vada can explain this. But, to quote Bhaktisidddhanta Saraswati, a Vaishnava:
"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. <b>We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf.</b> We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity..."
Therefore, there exists a Supreme Soul, infinite and inestimable. While the jivatman is one with It in <i>certain respects</i>, we are not identical in <i>all </i>respects. But look at the convenient mis-definitions that some use. The sunyavadi Buddhists (and some previous Vaisesika people) had said that manas (mind) and the atman (soul) are one and the same thing. And that the goal of sadhana was to "extinguish" the mind (nirvana = extinguish). After that comes the great Void. Now Shankara trashed this theory and established the existence of a superconscious Brahman, and that atman is NOT the mind, but is the Soul. The soul is transcendental to body, mind, intelligence and false-ego. Now later, the mayavadis started saying that atman and paramatman are actually one and the same, just like the Sunyavadis said atman was the same as mind. The mayavadis made many such misidentifications. Brahman and parabrahman were same, etc, and they would sometimes bring in other concepts like saguna and nirguna to obfuscate the difference. But the Vaishnavas clearly explain and qualify the differences, and the necessity for having separate conceptual terms. The Vedic literature is quite precise, and the great rishis would not include new conceptual terms only to confuse things. Obfuscation and opacity is a mayavadi trait, not a Vedic characteristic.
The obfuscation extends to the link between philosophy and "mysticism". For instance, you will often find certain mayavadi writings "comparing" and contrasting "Vedanta" with "Bhakti yoga", which is more ridiculous than comparing apples to oranges. The former is philosophy, the latter is practice. They are complementary. So, because of mis-identifications and wrong definitions, they often see "embarassing" contradictions where none exist, especially the "neo-Advaita/self-esteem" parvenus of the recent colonial era. Embarassed by the heckling of inimical Westerners or Muslims, several mayavadi preachers in recent times have either been apologetic about various standard Vedic practices, and have then tried to artificially separate them from Vedanta. In doing so, they distort those practices as well as Vedanta itself. Even though they appealed to "Hindu pride", etc (a very un-Vedic trait), the ful extent of the damage they have done to Vedic religion is yet to be widely understood.
As per all shastras, all yoga must culminate in utter devotion, the essennce of which is reciprocal <i>rasa</i> at the highest level. Brahman-realization (brahma bhuta) is only the <i>beginning</i>, the <i>basis</i> of para-bhakti. There are various levels of realization after that (vibhava, vyabhicari, etc), culminating in <i>rasa</i>. This is a deep topic and too much to go into here, but suffice to say that problems arise when Brahman-realized persons have claimed that it is the last word. Paramahamsas who have gone further say this: That all the happiness in this material world is but a drop compared to the bliss of Brahman-realization...but the bliss of Brahman-realization is a drop compared to the ocean of nectar that lies beyond. Impersonalism cannot culminate in <i>rasa</i>, because it starts with false (or incomplete) sambandha-jnana -- that fundamental <b>map</b> which we use in our practice. The Absolute Truth can be realized in 3 aspects -- Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan, the last one being the Supreme Personality. This material universe has various aspects to it, but the crowning glory is personal Will, which finds its greatest expression in human personality. This, coming from "Brahman", means that it exists in Brahman. <b>How can the creation be greater than the Creator? How can the emanation be greater than the Source?</b> <i>Impersonalism, as I said, is riddled with contradictions when it denies personality and relationship in the Absolute.</i> Apparent "problems" arise when they attribute <b>material</b> characteristics to Vaishnava siddhanta, and thus make a mockery of it and then trash it. When Vaishnavism gets ito these realms, things are pretty <i>esoteric</i>, and without having a firm understanding of the basics, no appreciation is possible. As Chaitanya said, "mayavadi bhashya sunile haya sarvanaasha" -- Reading the shaastras through mayavadi commentary will lead to disaster, because it steals away and trashes the highest, most esoteric treasures of the Vedas.
Any trace of Impersonalism is considered suicidal for one practicing Devotional Yoga, as any of the shastras will attest. This assertion is not a mystery, as it makes perfecct psychological sense. Acceptance of one's eternally dependent position w.r.t the supreme is a sine qua non for any level of Bhakti. <i>Bhakti is not a timeserving pretense, as the mayavadis make it out to be.</i>
Concepts like we have discussed above are not simply limited to metaphysics anymore. They are now very much a part of cutting-edge Physics, such as superstring theory (although its not yet a proven theory). Of the 11 dimensions of Reality it talks of, most of these coefficients are said to represent "illusions of perception". You may find it worthwhile to study string theory a little, since it may help infuse some confidence in your skeptical evaluation of several Hindu concepts.
What's more, I have recently come across almost identical theologies from other far-flung parts of the world. Emmanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish scientist, inventor, and finally an ecstatic preacher, wrote extensively in Latin and German in the 1600s. His theology is almost a copy of Chaitanya Vaishnavism, which he called "True Christian Teachings". Same case with a very very small school of Islam which traces its lineage back right to two of the closest companions of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Vaishnava siddhanta elegantly explains all of vivarta, parinama, etc. It is too much to go into here, but some fundamental points have been made in response to your post: (a) the legitimacy of having a singular paradox in a theological axiom. (b) the inconcivable qualified oneness and its psychospiritual necesity.
I was glad you brought in Kashmiri "Saivism" in your post. You must be familiar with the spanda karikas, and the idea of spanda and nirodha as far as the Mind (i.e. manas) is concerned. You must be thinking that this is what explains the mutually exclusive existence of duality and non-duality. Its too much to go into in this post itself, but let's just put things into perspective. There are numerous occasions where the scriptures tell us that somewhat perverted reflections of Spiritual Reality are found, fractal-like, in the material world. Now the spanda karikas are obviously speaking in terms of the gross and subtle koshas, and from the PoV of kundalini. In that sense we can put it into perspective. But also, the Vaishnava commentaries clearly posit the existence of the Original of which everything on this side of existence is the material reflection, with the brahman realization inbetween. While for the Impersonalists, merging with Brahman and annihilating identity is final. This is not supported by the great sages, for whom Brahman realization is only a preliminary step.