/lit/ - Literature

>>21025265
>the upanisads, gita, brahma sutras, gaudapada's karikas, shankara's commentaries and suresvara's works are not enough for you?
Again, there are not any citations of the brahma sutras on that whole page, which is the only reason I brought it up in the first place, and the other passages can be read any number of ways. Lastly, Suresvara doesn't even agree with S. Saraswatis's view of Advaita so I don't know why he represents Suresvara as doing so. S. Saraswati says that there is no ignorance present in dreamless sleep and says this is an invention of post-Shankara Advaitins; but Suresvara disagrees and argues in verse 3:58 of his work naishkarmya siddhi that avidya is present in dreamless sleep (see pic related). Also, Shankara explicitly mentions ignorance being present in dreamless sleep when he says in his bhasya on Chandogya Up. 8.3.2 that avidya drags away the jiva each night in dreamless sleep. S. Saraswati engages in really selective citing of stuff and ignores the passages that contradict what he says

>completely irrelevant, that's just your personal opinion,
I thinks it's pretty obvious and logical that you are on better grounds to understand someone if you actually met and spend long amounts of time with them and were initiated and taught by them etc compared to if you never met them n

>doctrines like mulaavidya, supposed brahmas's shakti, etc by post-sankara advatins being attributed to Shankara?
There is no problem with mulaavidya so long as you don't assign it positive existence like a few (not but all) later Advaitins did; Shankara in his works presents the whole avidya-maya complex being primordially projected timelessly by Brahman while at the same time having this avidya-maya being neither existence nor non-existence but falsity which can be sublated; this obviates any question of a real duality since there remains only one thing truly existing even when the illusion is appearing; S. Saraswati abandons this basic position of Shankara in response to the excesses of a few later medieval Advaitins. Shankara also consistently refers to maya and anything related to avidya as being a power of Brahman or as an energy of Brahman and as something caused by Brahman, there are several dozen passages where he does so and he often also clearly states that he is referring to the Supreme Brahman having this power and not just Brahmā. S. Saraswati also abandons this basic position of Shankara and thinks that Shankara is lying in all of these passages and teaching the exact opposite of what Shankara ACTUALLY says on paper (and which Shankara forcefully argues for); all because of one quote from the Gita Bhasya! It's laughable! It also goes against Shankara's own textual interpretation method which explicitly advises against taking one verse out of context as some absolute rule to guide the interpretation of everything else (i.e. what S. Saraswati does with that one Gita Bhaysa verse he erects his whole theory on)