Firstly, some of it is spot on ... but only at the deeper Advaitic levels.
Om Shanti.
Simplistic advaita, or neo-Advaita espouses the end goal, and that alone. It has little or no practical teaching on how to get to that point. So it's a dangerous slope, as morals and ethics can be cast by the wayside in favour of spouiting high-falutin philosophy that was really only intended for the beings living in jnana who understand this from that much deeper level.
For me, this is why Brahma exists, with his Manu giving laws.
It is why Vishnu exists, to prepare you for the possibility that this can happen to you - especially through Krishna.
Perhaps this is where we differ? I see the whole pantheon as culminating in Shiva, I see the others as aspects of him.
For me, "towards union", or "unifying" is the ultimate moral or ethic... consider the consequences!
Can you think of a single law, moral or ethic that is divisive?
The very basis of a law is to unite around a standard.
The other problem on forums is when someone enters and just automatically assumes the role of teacher, without looking or listening to whomever is already there. This is the height of egocentric behaviour, and is rarely taken seriously. Any true teacher would never do that, unless invited.
I am not taking the position of teacher, I am just not presenting doubt.
For me, there is a huge difference!
The union of humility and arrogance is to be natural.
"Listen up, everyone, I'm here, I'm here. I have valuable knowledge about life and everything else, and I'm right about everything. So listen up. Don't say anything back because it will be wrong, I say. I'm the only one that knows anything about anything."
No, I invite criticism.
Perhaps this is the nature of my approach?
I want to find a union, hence membership on an interfaith forum. If you present divisiveness I will push against it, if you show understanding of what I am saying, I will celebrate it.
Ultimately, I am not here for my entertainment, I am here to share.
Pretty tough not just to ignore it, but I feel obliged to give a more orthodox POV.
Again, this is your prerogative.
It is another reason I choose this medium for sharing!
You can ignore, you can shrug it off, there is no need to become antagonistic.
Yet, it is there if you choose to engage.
I assure you I am not this way in everyday life, I simply enjoy what comes. I have specifically chosen an interfaith forum though because for me the highest attainment of inter-whatever is finding union.
For me, this is Yoga in action.
As for Siva as the 'decay' element of Brahman, for Saivites like me, Siva is all 3 aspects and more. In the mantra Na Ma Si Va Ya, there are 5 powers ... emanation, sustaining, dissolution, and two graces ... revealing, and concealing.
Yes, as Transcendant God, Supreme Being, he is all.
I have actually communicated this, Shakti comes from Shiva, Vishnu takes Shakti form in Mohini to become subordinate to Shiva, Brahma comes from Vishnu's navel. Krishna is the avatar and savior of Vishnu.
Thus, Shiva is the goal.
I also find his personal form interesting however, despite understanding his transcendental reality. I do not think we disagree.
So for Saivites, Siva is God. The Supreme God, two manifest aspects (with form) and one unmanifest, termed Absolute Reality, or Parabrahman.
Om shanti.
Anyone can say or think whatever the heck they want ... it's a free world, but most of what has been said here has little of no resemblance to Saivism.
I have not claimed to be a Saivite, to be fair.
I am a Yogi, and thus am devoted to Shiva as Adi Yogi.
