/lit/ - Literature

>>18282461
They can both lead you to feelings of oneness with everything, but that doesn't mean they are the same, and the respective masters of both held them to be different. This doesn't mean that both cannot be different approaches to the same truth, but as theologies and metaphysics they are distinct.

>>18282524
>>18282477
I just read the article about Upadhyaya, As the poster who made these posts >>18280825 >>18280465 >>18280395 I was only arguing against Upadhyaya's argument that will could be attributed to the Parabrahman on the basis of it being found in creation, I was arguing against the Parabrahman being conceived of in the western sense of personality where something has a mind characterized by volition, as opposed to the Hindu conception of personhood found in the word puruṣa, which doesn't necessarily have any connection with volition.

Shankara is unequivocal that there is no will (volition) in the Parabrahman, the article doesn't really mention volition, but strangely, in one section (pic related), it mistranslates ananda as will. I'm not sure why the author does this since he elsewhere correctly translates it as bliss.

I thought it was interesting that the article writes about Hippolytus using the Greek word prosopon to denote someone's distinctive individuality, this made me think of Guenon's statement that western thought has often understood as the personality what is really the individuality.

I agree that in Advaita the Parabrahman is personal if the word is taken in more eastern or Hindu sense as puruṣa, that is as a living intelligent entity. There is no room IMO to consider Satchitananda as three persons in one substance, but like how Augustine made a psychological comparison of different aspects of one person's mind to the trinity, in the same way Satchitananda can be conceived of as the personhood or supra-personhood of Brahman conceived under the three aspects that denote the nature of the undivided entity that is Brahman.

These three don't abide as separate eternal aspects united in one substance, but they designate the nature of the same entity when viewed under different angles, but this nature is ingraspable as an object of thought and can only be directly and fully experienced in immediate spiritual realization, trying to encapsulate it into language causes us to have to denote it in various ways that leads to us using multiple words like bliss and consciousness.