/lit/ - Literature

>>14218102
>Yes he is. He absolutely hates the real world and considers it an illusion that doesn't exist.
That's not exactly true, he says it exists conditionally and has empirical validity for worldly activities, and he heavily criticizes as illogical the ideas of Yogachara Buddhists who say that the world doesn't even exist conditionally but is completely unreal. When Shankara says that the world is not totally real he is talking about absolutely real which to him means "immutably real, at all times and places for eternity", which only Brahman can be. When he regards the world as not absolutely real in the sense that Brahman is, he is just fully accepting the implications of Upanishad passages such as the following from the the story of Svetaketu in the Chandogya Upanishad.

"Just as, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification
being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is clay;
"Just as, my dear, by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known, the modification
being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is gold;
"And just as, my dear, by one pair of nail−scissors all that is made of iron is known, the
modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is iron−even
so, my dear, is that instruction".

In any case he is not recommending that everyone do this but that is really only proper in his view for people who have renounced ties to the world and become sannyasin. For people who were not renuncients he considered it more proper for them to pursue things like Bhakti-Yoga, Karma-yoga etc as outlined in the Gita.

>nihilism of real world
It's only nihilist to say that nothing whatsoever exists, not to say that the world is unreal but that our very nature is eternal Bliss and complete freedom and that all we have to do is essentially wake up to the reality of It.