/lit/ - Literature

>>21023218
A thread died for this.

>>21023237
/thread

>>21023218
start with the neets

>>21023218
I did. It's interesting how the Greeks took certain concepts from them.

>>21023218
based

>>21023463
this book should be added to the chart

http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english/english_books_toc.php?book_id=007&type=english&book_title=Misconceptions+About+%C5%9Aa%E1%B9%85kara

Start with a axial age

Cow worshipping mongs

>>21023218
Krishna and Arjun approved.

>>21024477
>Buddha and China 404 orange
Wut

>>21023218
Where to start with the jeets?

>>21024442
I disagree, the author of that book (S. Saraswati) claims fall apart when analyzed as far as I can tell. His interpretation of Shankara's metaphysics leads to a position that Shankara himself already refuted. According to S.K. Arun Murthi Shankara does not mention adhyaropa apavada nyaya once in his entire Saririka-Bhaysa and S. Saraswati's central quote that he falls back upon is only in the Gita Bhasya! This is a major red flag as Shankara would never have left out mentioning it in his longest and most complex work if that really was the whole basis of his teaching or method. S. Saraswati has a very protestant-like attitude to Advaita where he is claiming to recover muh long lost truth from the text without relying on the tradition and he is in fact going against the time-honored tradition. It's absurd to think if his claims were true that it would have taken over a thousand years for anyone to notice until him; Shankara's direct disciples and their students would be on much better grounds to understand him than someone in the modern era. S. Saraswati's vision is basically just a new modernist sub-school of Advaita; it would be fitting to place his books into a comprehensive "post-Shankara Advaita" chart as a work representative of one of the various type of Advaita sub-schools but it doesn't belong on the Shankara chart because that would be unnecessarily privileging a new modernist sub-school of Advaita that was not playing any role in Indian philosophy for all of history until just this past century.

>>21023463
>very first book is Guenon

>>21023218
Only Indian culture I care about is Tamil. My time in Singapore made me grow close to them, all of them act like Apu the frog

>>21023463
sirs do not redeem advaita it is cryptobuddhism

>>21024580
adhyaropapavada is everywhere, from the upanisads to gaudapada's karikas to shankara's commentaries, there's no other method
https://www.advaita-vedanta.in/adhyaropa-apavada

>he is claiming to recover muh long lost truth from the text without relying on the tradition and he is in fact going against the time-honored tradition
the upanisads, gita, brahma sutras, gaudapada's karikas, shankara's commentaries and suresvara's works are not enough for you?
and he's not recovering anything as everything is already laid out in the texts themselves

> It's absurd to think if his claims were true that it would have taken over a thousand years for anyone to notice until him; Shankara's direct disciples and their students would be on much better grounds to understand him than someone in the modern era.
completely irrelevant, that's just your personal opinion,
also, the modern 'historical method' is not a valid means of knowledge (to vedanta)

> S. Saraswati's vision is basically just a new modernist sub-school of Advaita
and what about inovative (and nonsensical) doctrines like mulaavidya, supposed brahmas's shakti, etc by post-sankara advatins being atributed to Shankara? all fruit of a misunderstanding of paramarthika and vyahaharika and adhyaropa-apavada


seriously that's just bad faith,
to assume that the swami founded a 'sub-school' or was a 'modernist' when he spent his life criticizing these same innovations and deviations from the true tradition

>>21025265
>adhyaropapavada is everywhere, from the upanisads to gaudapada's karikas to shankara's commentaries, there's no other method
>https://www.advaita-vedanta.in/adhyaropa-apavada
There is nothing from the Brahma Sutra Bhasya cited in that whole page which reinforces my main point that it's not focused on or explicitly mentioned in Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya but if this concept was central to his method he would say so clearly in multiple places in what is supposed to be his magnum opus and the fact that he doesn't do so is a hint that S. Saraswati is misunderstanding his intentions. And the rest of the citations on that webpage from the Upanishads etc don't literally mention adhyaropa-apavada but can be interpreted any number of ways; in his bhasya on those passages it cites Shankara doesn't consistently mention adhyaropa-apavada when explaining the text but it's something he only mentions on a few rare occasions.
>there's no other method
That's demonstrably incorrect, if you actually read Shankara and not later figures you clearly see him using multiple methods as well which is correctly noted in the Stanford article on Shankara and which provides citations of instances of him using those methods eg:

>Śaṅkara embraces particular verbal methods to understand propositions affirming nonduality crystallized in pithy Upaniṣadic sentences. (Post-Śaṅkara Advaitins focused on four such “great sentences” [mahāvākyas]). These methods include continuity and discontinuity (anvaya and vyatireka), secondary indication (lakṣaṇā), and negative language (neti neti)..... Anvaya and vyatireka is a method of discriminative reasoning to determine the relationship of what persists and what does not persist between two things ..... Lakṣaṇā’s indirect implication employs a theory of metonymy which distinguishes between literal denotative meanings and implied connotative meanings. ...... Neti neti negates all properties, conceptions, limitations, and identities attributed to brahman
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/#TripProcMeanNondKnow

>>21025265
>the upanisads, gita, brahma sutras, gaudapada's karikas, shankara's commentaries and suresvara's works are not enough for you?
Again, there are not any citations of the brahma sutras on that whole page, which is the only reason I brought it up in the first place, and the other passages can be read any number of ways. Lastly, Suresvara doesn't even agree with S. Saraswatis's view of Advaita so I don't know why he represents Suresvara as doing so. S. Saraswati says that there is no ignorance present in dreamless sleep and says this is an invention of post-Shankara Advaitins; but Suresvara disagrees and argues in verse 3:58 of his work naishkarmya siddhi that avidya is present in dreamless sleep (see pic related). Also, Shankara explicitly mentions ignorance being present in dreamless sleep when he says in his bhasya on Chandogya Up. 8.3.2 that avidya drags away the jiva each night in dreamless sleep. S. Saraswati engages in really selective citing of stuff and ignores the passages that contradict what he says

>completely irrelevant, that's just your personal opinion,
I thinks it's pretty obvious and logical that you are on better grounds to understand someone if you actually met and spend long amounts of time with them and were initiated and taught by them etc compared to if you never met them n

>doctrines like mulaavidya, supposed brahmas's shakti, etc by post-sankara advatins being attributed to Shankara?
There is no problem with mulaavidya so long as you don't assign it positive existence like a few (not but all) later Advaitins did; Shankara in his works presents the whole avidya-maya complex being primordially projected timelessly by Brahman while at the same time having this avidya-maya being neither existence nor non-existence but falsity which can be sublated; this obviates any question of a real duality since there remains only one thing truly existing even when the illusion is appearing; S. Saraswati abandons this basic position of Shankara in response to the excesses of a few later medieval Advaitins. Shankara also consistently refers to maya and anything related to avidya as being a power of Brahman or as an energy of Brahman and as something caused by Brahman, there are several dozen passages where he does so and he often also clearly states that he is referring to the Supreme Brahman having this power and not just Brahmā. S. Saraswati also abandons this basic position of Shankara and thinks that Shankara is lying in all of these passages and teaching the exact opposite of what Shankara ACTUALLY says on paper (and which Shankara forcefully argues for); all because of one quote from the Gita Bhasya! It's laughable! It also goes against Shankara's own textual interpretation method which explicitly advises against taking one verse out of context as some absolute rule to guide the interpretation of everything else (i.e. what S. Saraswati does with that one Gita Bhaysa verse he erects his whole theory on)

>>21023218
i fucking hate jeets and will NEVER read anything written by them. vermin

>>21023218
I will never respect a Nation so completely devoid of nautical prowess. No good can come from a people to whom the seas are so antithetical. Even Belgians make better sailors.

>>21023237
A post died for this.

>>21023237
Fpbp

>>21025457
>>21025265
Also, in addition to S. Saraswatis other claims about Shankara being questionable and/or contradicted by Shankara's writings here is yet another example: S. Saraswati says that maya and avidya are different and that Shankara never equates them but in pic related from Shankara's mandukya-karika bhaysa verse 3.10 we see Shankara clearly equating maya and avidya as being synonymous, he writes 'māyā avidyā tayā pratyupasthāpitā'

bump

>>21025457
>>21025534
>>21025452

its irrelevant to say 'look at this or that passage' as you have to specify if its from the empirical or absolute standpoint, Sankara talks about creation for example at many places but its all from the empirical standpoint.
so are you gonna deny this distinction too?

you have to be blind to deny the method of adhyaropa-apavada (you probably didnt even look at the link that i posted which shows that the method is present in the upanisads, etc; swami just extracted something that was naturally put into practice)

what do you think the neti neti is for?
from the absolute standpoint there's no avasthas, jiva, jagat, avidya, maya, knower, known, knowledge, witness, vyavahara-paramartha and not even adhyaropa-apavada!.

so the question is: are the innovative doctrines mere provisory devices viewed from the empirical standpoint? if it is so, its probably okay (as long as it doesnt contradict Vedanta), but if its not (and it sure looks like that) than it goes against not only Sankara or Gaudapada but the Upanisads also.

the whole problem is that you can't differentiate between vyavahara and paramartha

>>21023218
Nigger with the kikes

>>21027139
>its irrelevant to say 'look at this or that passage' as you have to specify if its from the empirical or absolute standpoint, Sankara talks about creation for example at many places but its all from the empirical standpoint. so are you gonna deny this distinction too?
It's not irrelevant because the passages I cited flatly contradict what S. Saraswati says and trying to vaguely reference the vyavahara-paramartha distinction does not allow you or S. Saraswati to wriggle out of this. S. Saraswati says ignorance is not present in dreamless sleep and that maya-avidya are different while Shankara (and Suresvara) blatantly says the opposite without any equivocating. Carrying water for S. Saraswati's position by saying 'but muh vyavahara-paramartha!' is a non-sequitur response because the conversation was never about whether avidya exists at the absolute level it's about whether it's *present* in deep sleep which is obviously a question pertaining to the level of vyavahara. Saying that also doesn't rescue S. Saraswati from being in disagreement with Shankara on avidya-maya but it's another non-sequitur because avidya-maya itself comprises everything within vyavahara and does not exist in paramartha (avidya-maya isn't the same thing as Brahman's inherent nature that is responsible for avidya-maya appearing, this inherent nature is non-different from Brahman itself and hence is present at paramartha level) and so any question about avidya-maya 'as it is occurring' is going to be about something within vyavahara as well and so here in addition to the topic of sleep S. Saraswati is also departing from the traditional position of Shankara without proper justification by saying they are different. Shankara only negates things like any real causal relation and any real ex-nihilio or parinamavada creation but he never once negates the Supreme Brahman being inherently responsible for our perception of the illusion (avidya-maya) of creation of the elements by casting it like a magician (to deny this is fully incompatible with his other thought)

>>21027139
>>you have to be blind to deny the method of adhyaropa-apavada (you probably didnt even look at the link that i posted which shows that the method is present in the upanisads, etc; swami just extracted something that was naturally put into practice) what do you think the neti neti is for?
I did look at the link, how else could I have noticed that it didn't contain anything from the Brahma Sutra Bhasya? In Shankara's commentaries on those Upanishad verses he often DOESN'T interpret them to say what that website is wrongly claiming they mean; I don't deny the method of adhyaropa-apavada is one tool in his arsenal but it's just a part of his process of negation or neti neti which is itself only one of many methods he uses and not the ultimate or central one. He is a more subtle thinker than S. Saraswati makes him out to be. Shankara repeatedly states that the whole purpose of the Upanishads is not muh adhyaropa-apavada but rather their purpose is to eliminate ignorance (see Shankara's intros to his bhasyas on the Isa, Kena and Katha Upanishads for example as he says this in all three without framing it in a context of adhyaropa-apavada), and this is because that once one's false conceptions are finally all erased then Brahman is naturally self-revealed because Brahman is already known to us already in every moment but this is partially obscured and confused with other things because of indiscrimination; once the indiscrimination vanishes what was already known always in all moments shines clearly without any longer being covered up with false conceptions. Shankara NEVER says you need to make a positive attribution to Brahman and then retract it to truly know Brahman but just says in certain contexts its helpful in other words he never says it's essential to have what S. Saraswati frames as this crucial 2-stage process of attribution and removal. All of Shankara's methods whether anvaya+vyatireka, lakṣaṇā or neti neti are all subordinated to this process of eliminating wrong understanding and they all come from the Upanishads.

>>21027139
>from the absolute standpoint there's no avasthas, jiva, jagat, avidya, maya,
At the Absolute standpoint there is Brahman alone which includes his magician-like nature of having the capacity and 'behavior' of always in his liberation casting avidya-maya like the sun has the nature of being responsible for light but this does not mean that the avidya-maya itself that is casted exists absolutely or is anything other than the falsity that isn't existence or nothingness (to allege this is another non-sequitur response). Shankara rejects any notion that any illusion could appear and fool people without it being dependent on something like Brahman when he argues against Buddhism and other schools and he explains why this is logically incoherent; saying "but its just a pedagogical device to introduce you to Brahman" doesn't work because then there is no coherent reason why we are even experiencing samsara at all and the resulting modal is metaphysically incoherent. The whole purpose of the vivartavada model Shankara holds to at the ultimate level (and not at the empirical level where parinamavada is viewed as conditionally true) means the effect (maya-avidya) is an appearance caused or cast by its cause (Brahman) without there being a real causal relation between two actually existing things; as Dyaneshwar says in agreement with Shankara: "The Almighty God, viewed in proper light, is without any activity and yet, he moves and is the author of everything in the vast universe. If it be said that he does anything, he is never touched even by the actions, since the hands and feet of this Neutral Being never get sullied by actions. The restful repose of his Divine Yoga is never disturbed; nor does his position as a neutral inactive author ever totter. Yet, it is He who raises this array of the five gross elements. He is the very life of the universe, and yet does not get controlled by anyone. He has indeed not even so much as awareness that the universe is ever created or it ends." As Shankara says in his Gita Bhasya 15.17 Brahman does all this "by merely being present in His own nature"
>but if its not (and it sure looks like that) than it goes against not only Sankara or Gaudapada but the Upanisads also
I already posted citations of where Shankara openly disagrees with S. Saraswati on 2 important topics and where Suresvara disagrees with him on one; in the citation and picture I posted from Shankara's mandukya-karika bhaysa it also shows Gaudapada disagreeing with S. Saraswati since Gaudapada in his verse 3:10 says maya creates/produces the illusory bodies that are compared to pots while S. Saraswati disagrees and says maya is only the illusory objects perceived by us while avidya is a separate thing that is responsible for us perceiving objects as a result of said superimposition or indiscrimination
>the whole problem is that you can't differentiate between vyavahara and paramartha
a complete non-sequitur

>>21024485
>>21025473
Don’t confuse modern Indians with their Vedic ancestors (who came from modern-day Russia and Ukraine). India is a cautionary tale against race mixing.