/lit/ - Literature

>>20207431
> If the world is an illusion how do you know conclusions you are coming to are not just illusions?
In Advaita, this is not a problem because you don't arrive at enlightenment through conclusions which are themselves illusions. Absolute reality (Brahman) is self-disclosing to us as our very own Self (Atman). Realizing this Ultimate is just awakening into the full awareness of yourself, which isn't an illusion. The final ultimate liberating knowledge is non-illusory by default due to it being identical with the Supreme Reality that underlies all illusion.

>>20207431
What the hell is all that nonsense

>>20207513
Also according to Shankara, scripture reveals truth :)

>>20207431
It involves an "experience" without an individual self. In Mahayana, they call it suchness (among other things), and in Advaita it's called Satcitananda (though it may be called other things).

>>20207513
>In Advaita, this is not a problem because you don't arrive at enlightenment through conclusions which are themselves illusions
but it is a problems if you're theology wants any sort of validity
>Absolute reality (Brahman) is self-disclosing to us as our very own Self (Atman).
how do you know this is true if conclusions are themselves illusions

>>20207522
>Also according to Shankara, scripture reveals truth :)
His understanding is that scripture doesn't literally reveal truth like a flashlight pointing out an object, it instead does so indirectly by eliminating and showing to be wrong all our false notions regarding the nature of existence, multiplicity, identification with non-self etc; after all these false notions are exposed as false, the ultimate reality that already is self-disclosing to us in all moments simply continues to do so, but without the false notions continuing to obscure it as they had previously done so, like the sun seeming to suddenly appear after the cloud in front of it has dissipated, even though the sun was there shining the whole time, even when the cloud was there. The Absolute is known by every conscious being in the universe at all times in a general and incomplete/incorrect way, and it's only in enlightenment that It becomes known correctly.
>But how can the scripture correct and eliminate our false views if the physical text of the scripture itself is on the level of the false conditional realm?
Because it's a supernaturally revealed text that is hence extra-ordinary

>>20207540
>but it is a problems if you're theology wants any sort of validity
No it's not, because all theology, metaphysics and ontology according to Advaita necessarily becomes provisional, there is no theology of Absolute reality because it's completely uniform, undifferentiated, partless and without any real interior or exterior relations. To speak about theology and ontology as systems with different parts being related to each other is to presuppose relations and distinctions which don't exist in absolute reality where there is just the undifferentiated Brahman alone, they 'exist' only on the level of falsity, on the level of conventionality/contingency.

The theology/metaphysics of Advaita does correctly describe what occurs at the level of conditional existence, so it's not incorrect, it's just using the language of the false world to correctly categorize and describe what goes on there, while directing us to an intuitive realization of the Absolute within ourselves. Just because the metaphysics of relations and different principles etc takes place on the level of the conditional existence doesn't prevent it from directing and leading us to the Absolute, so it still fulfills its purpose in a perfectly sufficient manner, both in terms of leading us to God, but also in terms of being descriptive of experience.

>>Absolute reality (Brahman) is self-disclosing to us as our very own Self (Atman).
how do you know this is true if conclusions are themselves illusions
The disclosure of Brahman is not a conceptual conclusion occurring to a brain/mind, it's Ultimate Reality being self-aware. According to Advaita things that are false are sublated by later knowledge that corrects them and reveals the prior conception to be false, but once we have realized Brahman within ourselves that knowledge is never sublated, which attests to it being correct. It also is self-verifying in a sense that the Atman is blissful, unaffected by things, unchanging etc, and when you realize It within yourself you feel this very unchanging bliss yourself directly and you are forever freed from sorrow, desire etc.

>>20207431
Consciousness of itself, prior to sensory input, is the fundamental reality.

>>20207673
>No it's not,
well it is. why should anyone take it seriously if it can't justify itself
>all theology, metaphysics and ontology according to Advaita necessarily becomes provisional, there is no theology of Absolute reality because it's completely uniform, undifferentiated, partless and without any real interior or exterior relations. To speak about theology and ontology as systems with different parts being related to each other is to presuppose relations and distinctions which don't exist in absolute reality where there is just the undifferentiated Brahman alone, they 'exist' only on the level of falsity, on the level of conventionality/contingency.
if they 'exist' only on the level of falsity how do you know that statement is true?
>The disclosure of Brahman is not a conceptual conclusion occurring to a brain/mind, it's Ultimate Reality being self-aware
but we only know this in our brain

I always took it as
>Some people make far more convincing illusions than others. This is easily demonstrated by literature that is more engrossing than other literature. Of course, it's not just words that create illusions but rather "that which reads" and "that from which that which reads comes from" and so on, with fundamental differences rather than purely space time ones.

>>20207673
>The theology/metaphysics of Advaita does correctly describe what occurs at the level of conditional existence
So you just spend all day thinking that your awareness of being aware of awareness of awareness is God and the entire world is an illusion you've created by your power of illusion making, just to flex on yourself and everyone else?

>>20207731
>well it is. why should anyone take it seriously if it can't justify itself
It does justify itself, because following the practices it recommends leads to one becoming completely freed from all sorrows, which is self-evident to you when it happens and so it doesn't need further confirmation by anything else. It's confirmed experientially. You cannot confirm something (like any other theology or philosophy in existence) other than through experience because if you are supposed to confirm it solely through logical arguments that will never be absolutely certain because there will always be people who disagree with the underlying axioms and logic of the arguments and who will always find endless objections to raise against them.
>if they 'exist' only on the level of falsity how do you know that statement is true?
I'm just explaining the perspective of Advaita and I'm not trying to insist that I can prove every single claim of theirs to be true. There *IS* no system or philosophy that proves every single one of its tenets to be true using logic, logical positivism was a failure. Even Aquinas takes plenty of things on faith like the Trinitarian nature of God, there is no theologian in existence who doesn't take certain things on faith in their systems without proving them to be true.
>but we only know this in our brain
Incorrect, Advaita teaches that the Brahman-Atman is our own indwelling Self, metaphorically said to be seated within the heart, which really stands for the intellect. It's the luminous presence which reveals the intellect from within while remaining separate from it. When Brahman-Atman is revealed, it involves the Brahman-Atman inside our intellect being disclosed or known to itself directly and without the involvement of any intermediary or our brains/mind/intellect, and then this has secondary trickle-down positive psychological benefits for the brain/mind, it does not involve the brain/mind itself directly knowing the Atman-Brahman which Advaita says is impossible, only God knows Himself directly.

>>20207911
>So you just spend all day thinking that your awareness of being aware of awareness of awareness is God and the entire world is an illusion you've created by your power of illusion making
No, because I'm not a sannyasin and so I live a normal life with a home and career and think about mundane things instead of being content with being occupied with the Self alone. Studying Advaita has just meant that I don't suffer from the same degree of sorrow and stress that other people do, because even though I'm not enlightened I still have a sort of constant background awareness of the truth of non-duality and the pristine pure unconditioned nature of the self/consciousness, even when I'm going about daily activities and thinking about mundane things and desiring things, which means that I don't react with the same sorrow or stress to situations that most people typically would react with.

>>20208426
>It does justify itself, because following the practices it recommends leads to one becoming completely freed from all sorrows, which is self-evident to you when it happens and so it doesn't need further confirmation by anything else. It's confirmed experientially
but if the world is an illusion how do you know the practice is working and not just another illusion

>I'm just explaining the perspective of Advaita and I'm not trying to insist that I can prove every single claim of theirs to be true
so you don't know?

>>20208581
>but if the world is an illusion how do you know the practice is working and not just another illusion
Because it's experientially confirmed via you becoming completely freed from suffering and desire, when you are freed from suffering and desire that's something which is immediately self-evident to you when it occurs. This is not measured or realized *only through* some experience taking place via the illusory world but rather the Self is directly revealed to you as a pristine Entity that is yourself, you discover your non-false and non-illusory Self to be spotless and totally free of suffering. The revealing of the Self to itself is not part of the illusory false world, but it's the nature of absolute reality and is always going as the nature of that Self, since the Self by nature is self-disclosing to itself always.

One can always ask "what if that too is an illusion" about every philosophy and religion, like "what if you go to the Christian heaven but that's an illusion etc", it's kind of a pointless question. In this specific case of Advaita when it's self-evident to you that you have realized yourself and overcome all suffering etc there is no reason to assume this is false, since what is dawning on you is Reality itself and not something false.

>so you don't know?
I don't know if it's true because I don't have empirical confirmation of super-sensuous metaphysical matters beyond the range of my sense organs, I'm just explaining that this is what the doctrines of Advaita are, and they consider this to be taught by the divinely-revealed scriptures of the Upanishads, which are held by Hindus to be a means to knowledge of super-sensuous truths. If indeed Absolute reality is completely partless, undifferentiated, etc and is exactly as Advaita says it is, then it would follow as a logical consequences of this that anything pertaining to the cosmos etc and any sort of theology/ontology relating different things to each other is going to be on the level of the conventional and not absolute reality.

>>20207431
Bump
Heres a guess
Catsukoti
All of them are right the fourfold image is the only caviat perspective.
Look at the sun. You are looking at it because your blood allows your consciousness. Buddha is like the infinite n divisions of Reiman sums to dissolve all reality with dependent origination. Is Shankara then the absolutist of its integral?
Is matter a particle? Is not the particle a wave? Is not the proton and neutron but a shell? Isn't the majority of being hollow? Is absolute zero similar to the heat death of the universe? Then are the 3 states of matter then inhabited by the state of "matter" that defeats its own conception and definition? Is death similar in primordial pre-existence that it neither asserts nor denies? If matter and energy were to seperate such that particles move so slowly they stop existing would it be similar to energy moving so fast particles stop existing? Who is to say this is not happening in the void now? Who is to say creation has finished creating? Who is to say cessation of being?
Is it like an informative candidate running for election yet losing the argument yet his ideas triumph in office, is this office like an instance of being in samsara? Is candidacy like the self? Is winning the election like birth? Energy nor matter cannot be created nor destroyed and so life only begets life.
Japs and Mexican native religion has a similar vibe.


Bump, readers. Avuso respect

>>20207431
this image sums up the retarded, neverending Buddha vs Shankara debates that plague this website. They literally both have good and bad points. There is no clear winner.

>>20207514
You should read more

>>20209745
That is the joy of the most marvelous dialectic. The only thing Hey is for Horses Girl pic related got right was bitchy arguments ruling the will of the world SOVL

>>20207513
im so glad im not an advaitin imagine having such a convoluted worldview

>>20209782
Therefore historiographically, Advaita maps to Hegel and Buddha maps to Schopenhauer

>>20209785
makes sense since Advaita and Hegel are cringe and Buddha and schopie are based

>If the world is an illusion how do you know conclusions you are coming to are not just illusions?
In Buddhism, by definition, the world cannot be illusionary as there are no illusions, you simply have delusions. If you see something, but did not understand it, you correctly saw it, you just failed to process the sensory information correctly. To that end, the question is not
>how can you tell that your senses aren't lying to you?
because they can't, but rather,
>how can you tell that the views that you hold correctly reflect reality?
To that end, Buddhism has an enormous tradition of logic based and dialogue based on figuring that out, alongside meditation techniques to dissect the views that you hold. One of the end goals of being a monk is to achieve a state of "having no views", which isn't thoughtlessness but rather a sort of state of constant fact-checking an dissecting views on the fly.

>>20209118
>Because it's experientially confirmed via you becoming completely freed from suffering and desire, when you are freed from suffering and desire that's something which is immediately self-evident to you when it occurs
but doesn't this jus beg the question that if the world is an illusion then how do I know I'm freed from suffering and desire?

>>20209829
>since Advaita and Hegel are cringe and Buddha and schopie are based
Schopie actually studied extracts of Shankara's Upanishad commentaries that were included in the Latin Oupnekhat translation of the Upanishads, the original Persian edition commissioned by Dara Shukoh that was later translated into Latin was itself prepared with the help of Indian Advaitin Pandits, and summaries of portions of Shankara's commentaries were included in the text along with an additional layer of Sufi commentary by Dara. The Latin text of the Oupnekhat contains the Upanishadic text, portions of Shankara's gloss, and Dara's additional gloss all as one uninterrupted text, and Schopenhauer painstakingly compared it page-by-page with other translations of the Upanishads alone while annotating his text of the Oupnekhat, so that he could distinguish which layers were Shankara's gloss from the original text, and he further distinguished the extracts of Shankara from the Sufi commentary. The presence of selections from Shankara is why Schopenhauer continued to ardently defend the Oupnekhat over other translations of the Upanishads that just had the text of the scripture itself, i.e. Schopenhauer was a fan of Shankara.

https://download.uni-mainz.de/fb05-philosophie-schopenhauer/files/2020/03/2012_App.pdf

>>20207513
So toxic (not you, the satanic belief system)

>>20207688
He said, thereby asserting a statement which he intended for us to regard as true.

>>20209927
>but doesn't this jus beg the question that if the world is an illusion then how do I know I'm freed from suffering and desire?
Not really, you know or believe that you are experiencing suffering and attachment to desires in the very first place because you experience these things, when you subsequently find in your experience that you have ceased to suffer and cease to be impelled by desires, then it would be consistent and logical of you to accept this to be true, just as you had previously also accepted on the basis of experience that you were suffering. It's logically inconsistent to trust your perceptions as accurate when they tell you that you are suffering, but then no longer trusting these perceptions when they are telling you that you are free from suffering. If you accept the first on the basis of experience than it's consistent with that to accept the second on the basis of experience. If there is nothing telling you or indicating that you are actually still secretly suffering, then there is no basis to assume that you are.

Moreover, complete realization of the Atman-Brahman entails the realization and consequent attainment of something which transcends the world, so what is true of the world (metaphysical falsity) is not going to true of what transcends the world (the Atman-Brahman).

>>20207431
the world is far too malleable to be anything less
-even perceptions

>>20210457
Truth is entirely independent of your regard, you egomaniacal twit.

>>20207431
buddhism doesn't see the world as an illusion, but as a existencial dynamic to be overcome, since it's in the same nature of reality to transform into something else, the greatest thing conciousness can do to honour it's nature is to transform into something beyond even transfomations, be something beyond being itself

It’s all part of the process

>>20207513
>you don't arrive at enlightenment through conclusions which are themselves illusions

but at some point you have to conclude that you need enlightenment, if conclusions are illusions, the very fundament and pourpose of your path is illusory, you can't trust the doctrine on his most fundamental basis

>>20207431
Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy recently observed that it is preferable to translate 'māyā' as 'art' rather than 'illusion', as is done most commonly. This translation indeed corresponds with a point of view that might be called more principal. He who produces manifestations by means of his 'art' is the divine architect, and the world is his 'work of art'; as such, the world is neither more nor less unreal than our own works of art, which, because of their relative impermanence, are also unreal if one compares them to the art that 'resides' in the artist. The chief danger of the use of the word 'illusion', indeed, is that one risks too often making it synonymous with 'unreality', understood in an absolute fashion, that is, considering things said to be illusory as only being a pure and simple nothingness, whilst it is only a question of different degrees in reality; but we shall return later to this point.

René Guénon - Studies in Hinduism, chapter: Māyā

>>20207431
Because there's no conclusion to begin with. There's nothing to understand.

>>20207673
How do you know this moment of awareness isn’t an illusion lol