Is advaitic debating worth it?

Some schools argue satkāryavāda, like the Saṁkhyas, or we have asatkāryavāda, like that of Vaiśeṣika. Asat kārya means an unreal effect; satkārya means a real effect. Some Saṁkhya believe in a very real and solid cosmos, and asatkāryavādins believe in a false cosmos that is not here. Very interesting.

And so they fight and fight for thousands of years, each negating the other. Likewise, the other negates them.

So these two schools have negated both types of creation. Asatkāryavāda was very well negated by the Saṁkhyas, and satkāryavāda was very well negated by the Vaiśeṣikas. Then what does the Vedāntin do? Simply smile and nod.

Does the Vedāntin argue against satkāryavāda or asatkāryavāda? He doesn’t need to. They already defeated each other. They have inadvertently supported Vedānta’s true conclusion, which is that creation doesn’t happen. So why would a Vedāntin argue? The job was already done. We should probably congratulate them both on their very good work.

We can also translate this to other effects such as duality, qualified duality, monism. All these other schools negate themselves, so what cause is there for a Vedāntin to debate? Some other school already negated you, and you already were negated by them. Why should I participate?

And this is why, for me personally, Vedānta is the highest philosophy. Because we say there is no creation at all. You have proven my point by negating all possible theories of creation, thus inadvertently, accidentally, supporting Advaita Vedānta. The dual schools all arguing and negating each other. And now I will climax in why Vedānta is superior.

Because the scriptures are actually designed to have these interpretations for a reason. The scriptures are a graded material. They want to lead us from this to that, finally to reality. The truth should be able to house all idea’s and people, from Christian to qualified dualism, we can accept and understand all of them — everything can fit under the vedāntic umbrella.

So we accept duality. We accept monism. We accept everything. Anything that anyone says to us, we can nod and smile and say, “Yes, that is true.”

Yes, the world is Brahman. You want to say there are individual souls? Sure, go for it. You want to say qualified non-duality is the truth? Please go ahead and do it. I have absolutely no need or reason to argue with you because it has been done.

And not only that, the Gītā and śāstra teach from all these angles also. They teach at various levels for various types of adhikārīs. There is dual teaching. There is qualified non-duality. There is tantra and everything. All those are there. But the thing is, the truth has to be able to be home for all walks of life.

Vedānta is the seat in which any philosophy can comfortably take a seat and talk with us, and they can feel accepted and heard and understood. Īśvara is the upādāna kāraṇam. I love this story. Come talk to me about it, please. A Vedantin is equipped with the ability to do this, and even we can talk to them about God at their level. We can pretend reality is qualified non-dualism. We can pretend it is duality. We can pretend there is bahavaḥ ātmānaḥ — that is, many ātmā.

Because we understand adhikāritvam. Seekers come in different levels, different walks of life. And the very, very simple fact is that each leads to a higher understanding, if we can extract the complete benefit.

A dualist who extracts the complete benefit will eventually begin to ask more questions and see holes, so they may start to look at qualified dualism and then see flaws there, and so in this way we are supposed to progress. That is why in Chapter 12 of the Gītā, Krishna guides us from ekarūpa Īśvara bhakti to aneka rūpa to arūpaḥ.

It’s not many paths. It is one path. It’s one path with many facets and ways to live that will eventually, finally, culminate in nonduality.

They can’t argue with us about creation because we don’t accept it. We can’t be argued with by any of the weaknesses of the other schools, because to us they are mithyā only. In fact, these weaknesses are why we are not in their school. Vedānta is immortal. There actually is no weakness. Its philosophy is perfect. The technical name given by Gaudapada in the G.K is “avivādaḥ“

So when someone is posting or asking about things that appear to be at a lower level, it is hiṁsā to start preaching Vedānta. And even within Vedānta and Advaita itself, there are gradations. The entire system is built on adhyāropa-apavāda.

Then we have a user, someone new, come in and ask a beginner question about clay and pot, and we have people delving into the thickets of mithyātva and throwing around technical words and confusing people. If someone asks a question in here, it should be answered at their level. It is hiṁsā to speed them up or offer them advice you think is better or more Vedāntic.

They will navigate on their own, but only if you answer the question at their own level. If they ask you a question about Krishna or karma, and you start giving answers about Brahman, then you’ve committed hiṁsā. And also, you have shown you don’t trust Bhagavān and think His laws of karma are not adequate.

So let people explore. Nod your head, shake their hand, live and love them. Your job is not to fix them or beat their philosophy. It is to let them feel Vedānta as it manifests through you. A Vedantin need not argue or debate with these other schools.

The only time debate becomes fruitful for a Vedāntin is when it becomes about technical points on Vedānta itself. And even then, we require two adhikārīs at the same level of readiness, due to the graded nature of Vedānta. One Vedāntin can be talking about the highest aspects of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, and the other arguing sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, or arguments about technical usages of words such as māyā or upādhi. This is a helpful type of debate, so long as it remains reflective and reasonable and does not get heated, because this acts as a form of manana.

However, it is not manana if someone who is a beginner asks someone advanced a question about God from the perspective of eka-rūpaḥ Īśvara, and the advanced practitioner starts giving them pāramārthika answers and tries to lift them up in Vedānta. This is pure hiṁsā. Let them navigate. Adhikāri-bheda is employed in Vedānta, so answer at their own level.

But still, these are academic pursuits. The goal of Vedānta is to be. It is to take the śāstric scope and use it to view reality through, so we can be free.

TLDR;

All other philosophies contradict each other, Advaita Vedanta contradicts not a single thing.