/lit/ - Literature

>>14035011

Good luck

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>>13367443
The two books I mentioned in this post can be found for free online along with most of Shankara's works including all the ones considered to be authentic by academics

https://archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1925%20-%20Man%20and%20His%20Becoming%20according%20to%20the%20Ved%C3%A2nta
https://archive.org/details/EssentialVedanta.TheANewSourceBookOfAdvaitaVedantaSeeAdvaitaVedantaAPhilosophica_201701

>commentaries
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda
https://archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English
https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraSankaraBhashyaEnglishTranslationVasudeoMahadeoApte1960
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.ShankaracharyaN.pdf

>non-commentary works
https://gita-society.com/pdf2011/vivekachudamani.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri%20-%20Swami%20Jagadananda%20%281949%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-AtmaBodha%20%28and%20Other%20Stotras%29%20-%20Swami%20Nikhilananda%20%281947%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Aparoksha-Anubhuti-by-Sri-Shankaracharya.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SIVANANDALAHARI.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SOUNDARYALAHARI.pdf
http://theheartofthesun.com/Nirvana.pdf
http://jagannathavallabha.com/pdf_engl/prasnottara%20english%20for%20amazon.pdf
https://vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/Others/DrgDrsyaViveka1931.pdf

>>12680065
>but a weeding out a sorting and assessing of us, by the consiousness that has instilled some of its reflections into us.

Both Advaita Vedanta and Sufism more or less teach that individual beings are in essence the reflection of the awareness/consciousness in the inert body and that when you remove or see through the transient and ultimately unreal body/universe there is just God alone

>>12043401
>It is an alluring and subtle bias whose modus operandi finds that the parts of the chariot are more fundamental than the whole
uhh what? That's like the opposite of what Vedanta teaches, it's all about how there are no parts, they are not fundamental, there is only the whole.

>To the degree to which the particulars are grounded, contained, established, or circumscribed by the universal - the inverse is true as well.
That's wrong though, maybe not initially (which Vedanta doesn't deny) but it is possible for the universal to abide in itself without particulars and without being grounded, contained in, established by or circumscribed by them or their proposed hypothetical existence; and this is itself reality.

>This is the subtle point of emptiness.
The "shoehorn nagarjuna and sunyata into the discussion and claim all eastern philosophy that doesn't agree with them is incorrect" posters are tiresome desu. The failure to understand or properly conceptualize the relation between universal and particular does not mean it is all ultimately empty. You nowhere proved the assertion that the universe is equally conditioned by particulars, you'd have to begin with that before you could proceed but you can't because all you have is a clown like Nagarjuna whose unfalsifiable reductio ad absurdum arguments relying on ideas lifted from earlier Hindu texts apply equally to his own assertions and even more so since these assertions negate themselves and result in contradictions.

>This is the difference between transcendence and immanence.
In your post that you quoted you mistakenly appear to be under the perception that Advaita posits an transcendent Ultimate-Other which is completely wrong because the whole point of it is that there is only the Ultimate-Now where there is no distinction of self or other and no distinction of transcendent or immanent. Advaita non-dual realization is both immanent and transcendent, both collapse into eachother and what remains is distinctionless and neither. Attempting to label it as one or the other reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it's getting at.

>12043401
>It is an alluring and subtle bias whose modus operandi finds that the parts of the chariot are more fundamental than the whole
uhh what? That's like the opposite of what Vedanta teaches, it's all about how there are no parts, they are not fundamental, there is only the whole.

>To the degree to which the particulars are grounded, contained, established, or circumscribed by the universal - the inverse is true as well.
That's wrong though, maybe not initially (which Vedanta doesn't deny) but it is possible for the universal to abide in itself without particulars and without being grounded, contained in, established by or circumscribed by them or their proposed hypothetical existence; and this is itself reality.

>This is the subtle point of emptiness.
The "shoehorn nagarjuna and sunyata into the discussion and claim all eastern philosophy that doesn't agree with them is incorrect" posters are tiresome desu. The failure to understand or properly conceptualize the relation between universal and particular does not mean it is all ultimately empty. You nowhere proved the assertion that the universe is equally conditioned by particulars, you'd have to begin with that before you could proceed but you can't because all you have is a clown like Nagarjuna whose unfalsifiable reductio ad absurdum arguments relying on ideas lifted from earlier Hindu texts apply equally to his own assertions and even more so since these assertions negate themselves and result in contradictions.

>This is the difference between transcendence and immanence.
In your post that you quoted you mistakenly appear to be under the perception that Advaita posits an transcendent Ultimate-Other which is completely wrong because the whole point of it is that there is only the Ultimate-Now where there is no distinction of self or other and no distinction of transcendent or immanent. Advaita non-dual realization is both immanent and transcendent, both collapse into eachother and what remains is distinctionless and neither. Attempting to label it as one or the other reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it's getting at.

>>11277902

VASISTHA continued: When gold is not recognised as such, it gets mixed up with the earth; when Brahman is not thus recognised, the impurity of ignorance arises. The knower of Brahman declares that such a great one is himself the Lord and Brahman; in the case of the ignorant the nonrecognition of the truth is known as ignorance. (Or, it is the opinion of the knowers of Brahman that the very same Lord or supreme being is regarded as ignorance in the ignorant.) When gold is recognised as such it 'becomes' gold instantly; when Brahman is recognised as such it 'becomes' Brahman instantly. Being omnipotent, Brahman becomes whatever it considers itself to be without any motivation for doing so. The knowers of Brahman declare that Brahman is the Lord, the great being which is devoid of action, the doer and the instrument, devoid of causal 'motivation and of transformation or change. When this truth is not realised, it arises as ignorance in the ignorant, but when it is realised, the ignorance is dispelled. When a relative is not recognised as such, he is known as a stranger; when the relative is recognised, the notion of stranger is instantly dispelled. When one knows that duality is illusory appearance, there is realisation of Brahman the absolute. When one knows 'This is not I', the unreality of the egosense is realised. From this arises true dispassion. 'I am verily Brahman'— when this truth is realised the awareness of the truth arises in one, and all things are then merged in that awareness.

When such notions as 'I' and 'you' are dispelled, the realisation of the truth arises and one realises that all this, whatever there is, is indeed Brahman. What is the truth? 'I have nothing to do with sorrow, with actions, with delusion or desire. I am at peace, free from sorrow. I am Brahman'—such is the truth. 'I am free from all defects, I am the all, I do not seek anything nor do I abandon anything, I am Brahman'— such is the truth. 'I am blood, I am flesh, I am bone, I am the body, I am consciousness, I am the mind also, I am Brahman'—such is the truth. 'I am the firmament, I am space, I am the sun and the entire space, I am all things here, I am Brahman'—such is the truth. 'I am a blade of grass, I am the earth, I am a treestump, I am the forest, I am the mountain and the oceans, I am the nondual Brahman'— such is the truth. 'I am the consciousness in which all things are strung and through whose power all beings engage themselves in all their activities; I am the essence of all things'—such is the truth. This is certain: all things exist in Brahman, all things flow from it, all things are Brahman; it is omnipresent, it is the one self, it is the truth.