Namaskarams, I think no one here is actually critical of advaitam per se. In fact the greatest process of thought that has ever emanated from human intellect is undoubtedly the advaita philosophy. The anxiety expressed by me was about the inaction amongst the Hindus. It is only advaitam that can unite the Hindu, when the philosophy propounds the existence of only one truth, the petty squabbles on account of caste, creed etc., have to vanish. If the atheist in Nietsche has to say that if you are not having a god you have to create one, we had to start moving ahead from gothra cults and multitude of gods and demigods . Ultimately advaita was the final summit of Indian thought and I doubt whether we can proceed further to anything more sublime. However, just as Sankara and Sri Narayana Guru both understood, the votaries of our religion developed unnecessary prejudices and divided themselves into groups where the sense of belonging to that group was more pronounced than the pride of being a part of Hinduism. At present the social inequities have more or less been ironed out. Why cant we go on to strive for the benefit of the religion as a whole? It is a very painful truth that we Hindus have never risen above our group identities. We will not even hesitate to think of various advaitas like Sankaras advaita, Chinmayas advaita and Narayana's advaita. If this delusion does not disappear, we will never make any progress. The ethos of Hinduism are noble. I dont believe elitism of being born in a caste, or even in a religion will make any sense or serve any purpose. When the very roots of the religion are rotting we should never be complacent professing from pulpits about the greatness of philosophy alone. Poet Bharatiar could see the blackness of Krishna in the wings of a crow, the green colour of that wayward urchin in all trees and he could even feel the euphoria of embracing the eternal lover when he put his hands onto fire. Sarvam Krishnamayam.That is advaita But the same person roared like a lion.. If a single individual is not having means to get a single meal we will give him the entire world...he had the foresight to understand that only individual welfare will lead us to collective happiness. The hungry stomach carries in it the seed of rebellion and mere philosophy will never quench the fire of protest. When the proletariat French asked for bread, the arrogant queen quipped that" if they have not bread let them eat cakes"..The result?