/lit/ - Literature

>>11345436
>>11346706

part 2

>If what is good is a closer union with Brahman, both "ignorance" and "truth" equally lead to Brahman.

Good does not exist in an absolute sense but only conventionally from our perspectives, from the perspective of reality/Brahman itself dichotomies such as good/bad don't exist as anything more than subjective value-judgments in the minds of the ignorant (ignorant of the highest truth not necessarily meaning stupid people , i.e. you can have a wise sage who has not reached the final stage of realization who teaches valuable lessons about what is good to the masses but all this becomes meaningless from the perspective of Reality). Thus, speaking in an absolute manner the statement 'good is closer to Brahman' has no reality. It's neither good nor bad, Brahman just is. 'Ignorance and Truth both lead to Brahman' is flat out wrong both conventionally and absolutely, Brahman is the truth and reality which is by definition opposed to Ignorance (which implies being unware of the truth). You can't be unaware of truth/reality and be Brahman; there is no distinction between knowing and being, Being ignorant of truth automatically means does not know Brahman which means one is not Brahman.

>If what is true is a more accurate conception of Brahman, both "ignorance" and "truth" are equally true conceptions of Brahman.

Based on what I've explained already it should be clear at this point why this is not the case. The truth is Brahman and not ignorance. The only way in which this would be considered valid would be to say within the infinite and eternal truth of Brahman that there are conventional realities arising from perpetual ignorance but that these are a part of Brahman, in no way contradict it, are suspended in are a minor part of the all-pervading truth/reality and that are a tiny portion of Brahman and blip in the limitless expanse of its existence