Exploring consciousness, ethics, meaning and the great questions of human existence
The three great schools of Vedanta each claim to be the most faithful reading of the same canonical texts. This essay argues that Advaita's reading is the most faithful — because when the Upanishads are read in their own voice, the conclusion they most consistently reach is the one Advaita takes as its foundation.
Read MoreThe “one formless supreme God” of modern Hindu apologetics is not an ancient conception — it is a nineteenth century construction shaped by colonial encounter. The devatas are complete in themselves. They always were.
How Shankara and Ramanuja read the same Upanishadic texts and arrived at different universes — and why one reading is more philosophically honest than the other.
On neo-Advaita, borrowed deities, and the Hindu roots that cannot be amputated without killing the tradition. Why placing Jesus and Allah alongside Shiva is not philosophical generosity — it is philosophical carelessness.
On the hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism, and why Advaita’s answer was never an answer — it was a dissolution of the question itself.
Gaudapada, Shankara, and whether Advaita ever actually changed its mind — confronting the radicalism gap and the Buddhist question directly, and arguing for continuity.
Why Advaita speaks of liberation as a destination, when its own philosophy says there is nowhere to go — adhyaropa-apavada, the tenth-man parable, and the discipline behind goal-language.
How Shankara proved that knowledge alone destroys ignorance, then spent his life building institutions to keep everyone else performing the rites.
Why even a formless, personal God is still a vyavaharika reality — and why worship and realization are not the same path.
Maya, Avidya, and the question Advaita cannot fully answer — on Gaudapada's radical non-origination and the honest limits of philosophical explanation.
Ishvara, the deities, and why Advaita never lets one god keep the throne.
