/lit/ - Literature

>>19154962
>Post books to BTFO whimpering weak self-hating faggots who deny the spark of divinity within
Check out the collected writings of Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh), wherein he BTFO's the arguments of materialists and buddhists alike who both deny the divine innermost spark

read in the following order from top to bottom

https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ShankaraAtmaBodha.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda
http://www.tbm100.org/Lib/Jha42.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.ShankaracharyaN.pdf
https://archive.org/details/brahma-sutra-bhasya-of-sankaracharya-swami-gambhirananda
https://www.gita-society.com/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Vivekachudamani.IGS.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri%20-%20Swami%20Jagadananda%20(1949)%20%5bSanskrit-English%5d.pdf

>>18966911
>Shankara started a whole philosophical school of Hinduism to 'disprove' the Buddha
That's wrong, Shankara's school predated him and already existed in figures like Gaudapada, the school of Advaita was not established "to disprove Buddha" but existed for the purpose of determining the correct teaching of the Hindu scriptures. Shankara provided refutations of all the other Hindu and non-Hindu schools in India at the time, there is nothing special about Buddhism in this regard but it was just one of the many schools that Shankara penned refutations of. Shankara spends more time in his works criticizing Samkhya than Buddhism.

>while not understanding the Buddha agreed with him,
Buddha seems to have not agreed with Shankara because Buddha unlike Shankara did not affirm the eternality of the soul, the reality of the Atman, the existence of Brahman etc etc while Shankara affirmed these things

>but was simply stating it in a way to avoid it turning into a endless philosophical debate for people to waste their lives on, which is exactly what he did.
That's not true, the debates are secondary and unimportant to Shankara, the main purpose of his writings is to communicate the teachings of the Upanishads, all the debates and criticisms of other schools are totally secondary to this central goal of his writings. Also, I don't see debating philosophy as a waste but it's an interesting and important pastime, which helps people determine falsehood from truth.

>>18967015
Shankara rejected just about every premise of Buddhism, your claim is nonsensical. Shankara just provided a straightforward exegesis of the Upanishads while refuting heresies like Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhists still seethe to this day over it.

>>18967039
based

>>18967499
He is more like Plato or somewhere between both of them, Parmenides didn't have as developed of a metaphysics as Shankara, although it's not totally clear since we only have a portion of his work and not all of it.


while not understanding the Buddha agreed with him, but was simply stating it in a way to avoid it turning into a endless philosophical debate for people to waste their lives on, which is exactly what he did.

>>18943280
>As I have said several times consciousness for me is always consciousness of content, content is never "unconscious content" as you say (I mean the psychological concept might make sense but we are not talking about that now). Now I'm conscious of the screen, I look up and I'm conscious of the wall, my consciousness changed together with its contents, but the continuity of the change provided me with the continuity of experience.
This is wrong, because the only thing which has changed is the object-contents. You are wrongly conflating consciousness with observed contents without any good reason for doing so. In each cognition, pure awareness which lacks any parts and distinguishing features meets or exists in an association with the content, which I call "unconscious" because it has no awareness, unlike the pure awareness which knows it. It is easy to demonstrate that this is true, when you see a tree, the tree doesn't know itself, the visual data the eye produces of the tree doesn't know itself, so who knows it then? The content (image of tree) is unconscious, it has no awareness and doesn't know itself, it's known by awareness which is different from it. We know that this is true, because among other reasons if the content knew itself then a bunch of disparate self-knowing contents would not be able to give rise to a unity of experience because they would have no center and no way to communicate with and integrate with each other. The self-knowing tree image has no way to know that it is supposed to link up with other visual images or sound etc in a unified experience, nor does it have a way of doing so. Content is always unconscious because the content has no consciousness, it's not self-knowing, you yourself have already admitted that objects are objects *of* awareness instead of being awareness themselves, but then you seem to forgot what this entails a moment later.

When you say "Now I'm conscious of the screen, I look up and I'm conscious of the wall, my consciousness changed together with its contents", all you have done is describe two different insentient contents occurring as presented objects to the same consciousness, you have not actually identified any change in consciousness itself, which as I have explained already would necessitate pure consciousness/awareness ceasing to exist, which didn't occur in the example you gave.

>>18885581
Adi Shankara (pbuh)