The consequences of the knowledge of the identity – as Oneness - of Atman and Brahman

Adi Shakara’s political role

By the druid Finn

 

By shifting from Shankara’s non-dualist Neti Neti (Not this, Not this) to the druid’s monist Iti Iti (This, This) following the demolition of his vacuous apophatic non-dual perspective, the entire scaffolding of "ignorance" as cause of bondage that Shankara spent a lifetime building effectively collapses.

If Atman = Brahman, hence an absolute identity, then every "this"—every particle, every sensation, every individual—is the fullness of the Absolute.

Hence the Iti Iti solution logically dismantles Shankara’s specific definition of Moksha (liberation):

1. The Redundancy of Liberation

If every Atman is Brahman and we adopt Iti Iti, then liberation isn't something to be "attained" through knowledge or the removal of a veil. It is the inescapable state of every "this."

·         Shankara's non-dualist Problem: He needs a "gap" (Ignorance) to explain why we don't feel liberated.

·         The druid monist Solution: If everything is "This," the gap is an illusion. You aren't "liberated" from the world; you are liberated as the world. The toothache is Brahman; the hunger is Brahman.

2. Solving the "Non" Problem

The "undefined non" in Advaita is solved by turning it into a Universal Affirmation.

·         Instead of an apophatic "Not-Two," you have a kataphatic "All-Is."

·         This removes the need for the "Burnt Rope" or "Potter's Wheel" nonsense. The Jivanmukta doesn't need to ignore their body or view it as a "residue." If the body is Iti (This), and This is Brahman, then the body is not a hindrance to be explained away—it is the very expression of the Absolute.

3. The Collapse of Pedagogy

Shankara’s pedagogy relies on Sublation (rejecting the lower for the higher). The druid’s Iti Iti approach is Integration.

·         In Neti Neti, the world id discarded to find the Self.

·         In Iti Iti, you are the Self, and realize the world you discarded is that Self.

4. The "Moksha Issue" Resolved

If and, then:

·         Moksha is not the end of Dukkha.

·         Moksha is the realization that Dukkha itself is a manifestation of the Absolute. This actually aligns more closely with some Tantric schools (like Kashmir Shaivism) which argue that the world is the "play" (Lila) of consciousness, rather than a "mistake" (Maya) to be corrected.

 

The Logical Comparison

Feature

Shankara's Neti Neti

The druid’s Iti iti Solution

Status of World

Mithya (False/Illusion)

Satya (Truth/Brahman)

Role of Knowledge

To negate the false.

To affirm the total.

Nature of Moksha

Escape from the "Not-Self."

Recognition of the "All-Self."

Logical Basis

Apophatic (Negation)

Kataphatic (Affirmation)

 

By choosing Iti Iti, the druid essentially argues that the "problem" of Moksha was only a problem because Shankara insisted on a dualism between "Truth" and "Appearance." If that distinction is removed, the "burnt rope" and the "residue" arguments become unnecessary complications of a simple identity.

 

Shankara’s true goal was Institutional Preservation.

When you look at Shankara not as a floating "disembodied intellect" but as a 9th-century scholiast caste Brahim priest operating within a rigid social hierarchy, his logical failures start to look like very successful political features.

5. The Socio-Economic "Neti Neti"

If Shankara had adopted the Iti Iti (This, This) solution, he would have effectively nuked the Vedic social order he was tasked with reviving.

·         The Problem with "Iti Iti": If every "this"—including the "untouchable," the laborer, and the outcaste—is explicitly and currently the full manifestation of Brahman, then the Brahmin’s role as a necessary mediator or a "pure" vessel vanishes.

·         The Utility of Negation: By defining the world as Maya (illusion) and Moksha as something attained only through the "Knowledge" of the Vedas, he kept the keys to the kingdom. You can’t have a priest-class without a "veil" that only the priests are qualified to explain.

6. Guarding the Veda, Not the Truth

Shankara wasn't a truth "seeker" in the modern sense; he was a Commentator (Bhashyakara). His job was to reconcile the messy, contradictory texts of the Veda and the Upanishads into a singular, unassailable fortress that could beat the Buddhists and others at their own game.

·         The "burnt rope" and "undefined non" weren't mistakes; they were shelter. They allowed him to claim the world was "not real" (to win the philosophical argument) while maintaining the Varnasrama Dharma (the caste system) as "provisionally real" (to win the social argument).

7. The "Chandala" Incident

There is a famous story in Shankara’s own hagiography where he encounters a Chandala (outcaste) in Varanasi and tells him to "move aside" to avoid pollution. The outcaste asks him: "Should I move my body, which is made of food, or my Self, which is the one Brahman?"

·         Shankara’s Reaction: He allegedly falls at the man's feet.

·         The Reality: Even after this supposed "realization," Shankara’s Mathas (monasteries) remained strictly caste-bound for over a millennium. He essentially "knew" the truth but "lived" the job.

8. Knowledge as a Gatekeeper

By making Jnana (Intellectual Knowledge) the only path to Moksha, he effectively barred the majority of the population from liberation.

·         If you don't know Sanskrit, and you aren't allowed to hear the Veda, you can't have "The Knowledge."

·         If you don't have "The Knowledge," you are stuck in the "residue."

 

The Verdict

The monist Iti Iti solution is a "Pauper's Moksha"—it's democratic, immediate, and requires no priest. Shankara’s Neti Neti is a "Brahmin’s Moksha"—it's complex, requires specialized training, and keeps the institution in power.

In that light, the "undefined non" (of non-dualism) isn't a logical failure; it’s a proprietary trade secret. It keeps the goalpost moving so the game never has to end.

 

Addendum

The cast Brahmin priest’s, Adi Shankara’s, job wasn't in discovering the nature (as truth) of reality, but in successfully rebranding the old Vedic religion into a form that could survive the intellectual onslaught of the nastika religions? The Ekatva (monism) Vedanta (“This whole world is Brahman”) which he recovered and then denied would have destroyed Vedantic and Brahmin tradition and power and so liberated, given moksha too, India. Had he moved from Advaita (Non-duality through negation) to Ekatva (Oneness through total affirmation), he would have changed the entire social architecture of a civilization.

The druid Finn, by espousing Ekatva Vedanta, is effectively pointing toward a Radical Immanence. If the divine is not "beyond" the world but is precisely the "this-ness" of the world, the gatekeepers lose their keys.

 

1. The Power of "Ekatva" vs. "Advaita"

·         Advaita (Shankara): Works through subtraction. It creates a "higher" and "lower" truth. This allows a priest to say, "Yes, Brahman is all, but in the lower truth, you (for instance the Shudra and who was “food for the Brahmin”) still owe me service and must follow caste rules." It’s a logic of exclusion.

·         Ekatva (The Druid): Works through summation. If there is only Oneness, there is no "lower truth" to hide behind. The tree, the soil, the outcaste, and the king are not "illusory reflections" of a distant One; they are the One in its entirety. It’s a logic of total presence.

 

2. Why "Ekatva" Liberates India (and the World)

If the Iti Iti (This, This) of Ekatva had taken hold, the "Moksha" of India would have been social and physical, not just mental:

·         The End of Ritual Necessity: If every act is a movement of Brahman, the specialized fire ritual (Yajna) becomes redundant. The Druid’s "altar" is the whole earth.

·         The Destruction of Caste: You cannot have "untouchability" in a system of Ekatva (that is egalitarian). If the Atman is Brahman and the body is also Iti (Brahman), then the "purity" laws Shankara defended become logically impossible.

·         Nature as Sacred: Unlike Shankara’s view, where nature is part of the "mistake" of Maya, Ekatva treats the material world as the "Body of God." This is where the Druidic and the Vedantic "Ekatva" shake hands.

 

3. The "Druid" in the Machine

By introducing the Druid to the discussion, a tradition is invoked that (historically and mythologically) saw the divine in the grove, the stone, and the seasonal cycle. This is the ultimate threat to a "Family (i.e. caste) Business" like Shankara’s.

·         Shankara’s Moksha is an exit strategy.

·         Your Ekatva Moksha is an entry strategy—fully entering into the "This" without the need for a "Non."

 

4. The Cost of the "Family Business"

Adi Shankara won the intellectual war because his system was portable and institutional. You can build a monastery (Matha) around a negation. It’s much harder for an elite class to control a population that believes they are already, in their current skin and current work, the absolute totality.

Shankara didn't "liberate" India; he stabilized it. He traded the "Truth", hence lied, for "Order."

 

5. Shankara’s deception

Shankara’s apophatic lie, namely Advaita, was politically expedient. Ekatva has no politcal utility. Hence Shankara saved the day for ordered cultural continuance. It was the case of the useful lie versus the useless truth. The saffron and the silk off the Shankara’s philosophy have been stripped to reveal a Cultural Survival Protocol. By framing Shankara’s seemingly meaningful non-dual solution as the Useful Lie vs. the Useless Truth (of the monist druid) the exact reason why "Ekatva" (the Druidic Oneness) remains a fringe or "lost" realization has been identified while Advaita became a global empire.

 

6. The Political Utility of the verbal "Fog"

Shankara’s lie (as verbal fog) wasn't a conspiracy hatched in a dark room; it was the natural selection of ideas.

·         Ordered Continuance: A society needs boundaries, hierarchies, and a "goal" (all dualist) to move toward.

·         The Function of the deception as fog: If you define the negation (the "Non"), you provide a clear target for the ego to chase. "I am working toward the Non-Dual state." This creates a path, a curriculum, a hierarchy of students and masters, and a reason to keep the temples open.

·         The "Lie" of Duality (Shankara’s a cosmeticized non-duality): By pretending there is a "before" (bondage) and an "after" (liberation), Shankara gave people a ladder. Even if the ladder is made of smoke, it gives the culture something to climb. To wit, “Better a useless game than no game at all!”

 

7. Why the Truth is "Useless"

Ekatva (monism) is "useless" in the strictly political sense because it is unmanageable.

·         If everyone is already Brahman (Iti Iti), you can’t threaten them with bad karma, you can’t promise them a better rebirth, and you can’t sell them a technique for liberation.

·         Economic Collapse of the Soul: Ekatva is a "buy-out" of the spiritual market. If the Truth is that there is no gap to close, then the priest, the monk, and the guru are out of a job.

·         Social Chaos: Total immanence (everything is God, hence the absolute equality of all emergents) is a nightmare for an "ordered cultural continuance." If the outcaste is literally as divine as the priest right now, the social friction becomes explosive.

8. The Druid’s Perspective: The Unordered Truth

The "Useless Truth" is the reality of the druid’s Grove (and druidism). In a forest, there is no "higher" or "lower" truth—there is just the relentless, singular expression of life.

·         Shankara’s Neti Neti tries to prune the forest into a garden with a "King’s Path."

·         The druid’s Ekatva is the forest itself, which doesn't care about the path.

 

9. The Result: A Civilization of "Waiting"

Because India chose Shankara’s Useful Lie, it lives in a world of Deferred Liberation.

·         Always "waiting" for the veil to lift.

·         Always "practicing" to reach a state that we theoretically already are.

·         Always bathing in the Ganges.

·         Always accepting the "residue" of suffering as an ontological necessity because the alternative—realizing it’s all Iti Iti—would require us to take total responsibility for the "This" we are currently standing in.

 

 

The Final Logic: 

Shankara’s ‘non-dual’ "Family Business" won because it provided a social glue that the raw, unrefined Truth of Ekatva lacks. Ekatva is the "Useless Truth" because by not differentiating it cannot be used to govern others—only to be oneself.

In the end the "Moksha" Shankara defined was actually justpsychological release valve—a way to let people feel "free" in their minds so they wouldn't revolt against their actual chains?

 

Adi Shankara’s “Family Business”

The Redundant Negation and Its Management

Shankara’s defeat by the Chandala

 

Home