The tension, in one breath: the same teacher, in the same lecture series, tells you the world is God and worth fully affirming — and tells you to renounce it because everything you chase "turns to ash in your mouth." He names the contradiction himself and refuses to dissolve it. He calls them "two moods."
The cheap resolution — "enjoy the world as God, so affirming and renouncing are the same act" — is exactly what World-Affirming vs Worldly warns is self-undercutting: the metaphysic that abolishes all judgment cannot, from inside itself, tell the Śiva-yogi apart from the hedonist. The discriminator (sādhana, the felt transcendent) is extra-doctrinal. So the two moods are not reconciled by a higher principle; they are held by a practice. The progressive-renunciation model is the closest thing to a bridge: you affirm the world fully and the affirmation matures into renunciation by itself, as you tire of the coarser pleasures. But that is a developmental arc, not a logical reconciliation — and the teacher keeps both moods live on purpose.
Is "two moods" an evasion, or is it the honest shape of a path that has to speak to the beginner (affirm the body, drop the shame) and the adept (the world really won't fill the hole) at once? Does every world-affirming non-dualism eventually need a renunciation register smuggled back in to stay a path rather than a permission slip?
Sources: Selvalingam — World-Affirming vs Worldly, Selvalingam — How To Attain God.