/lit/ - Literature

>advaita is merely a shit copy of buddhism by performing extensive mental gymnastics to claim that is was all in da vedas all along!

>Shankara didn't even understand basic buddhist doctrines like impermanence and dependent arising

>>20583820
>And you're still not trying to establish your own position of greater consciousness/soul/atman/self whatever you want to call it and how they are established logically, we can rule out experimentally since its based on shoddy logic and shoddy faith based interpetrations.
Have you forgotten what thread you're in? this is a thread asking about books mentioning arguments that refute Advaita; if you come into the thread and assert X thing about consciousness in an attempt to say that it refutes a doctrine of Advaita; then if what you say about it involves an act of faith (it did) then it can be dismissed as something that fails to refute what Advaita claims. Whether or not the initial Advaita doctrine was proven or not is not relevant to determining whether an argument refutes something thing they say.

>>20312194
>From the Buddhist pov, there's no atman or Brahman; these both contradict what we can observe about things in their momentariness;
Observing change requires and presupposes a non-momentary consciousness, because an awareness that only lasts for 1 instant has no time to observe change.

> A self for instance is inferred but if it is reified from a Buddhist perspective that causes problems because if something is enduringly permanent or eternal it cannot interact with things or have any efficacy, which makes it unreal.
A pristine Atman that simply illuminates mental-contents with it's light without itself changing is not interacting with things (which involves both parties changing or being affected) or participating in causal relations between phenomena and so there is no problem at all with a luminous unchanging eternal Self. Illuminating things without thereby itself changing wouldn't make it unreal.

>And this is actually how some of the Vedantins see their atman=Brahman, as totally aloof, with everything else being maya or illusion.
If you interpret "unaffected by ignorance and delusion" as "aloof", then yes, the Atman-Brahman is "aloof" because it's forever liberated and untouched by maya

>And this decidely anatman reading is a reading one could derive from the Asanga-Maitreya texts,
Asanga's "perfect nature" or Parinispanna is eternal, unchanging and only empty of the Paratantra and Parikalpa, it's not empty of its own nature. Asanga considered Nagarjuna's model to be insufficient (or the normative understanding of it formed by latter Madhyamakins like Aryadeva and Buddhapalita) which is the whole reason why Asanga came up with his 'three-natures' model instead