/lit/ - Literature

Reminder if you practice Brahmacharya, everything else is permissable. All that matters is purity of mind and abstaining from sexual thoughts, actions, and lust. Do this and anything is permissable. Beef was reserved for the brahmacharies in the past, eating raw heart and liver.

>>22130896
Will reading this nigga get me laid?

प्रातः स्मरामि हृदि संस्फुरदात्मतत्त्वं
सच्चित्सुखं परमहंसगतिं तुरीयम् ।
यत्स्वप्नजागरसुषुप्तिमवैति नित्यं
तद्ब्रह्म निष्कलमहं न च भूतसङ्घः ॥१॥

Prátah smarámi hrudi samsphuradátmatattvam
saccitsukham paramahamsagatim turèyam
yatsvapna jágarasussuptamavaiti nityam
tadbrahma niskalamaham na cha bhutasañgha.

At dawn I remember the Reality which is the Self, shining brilliantly in the heart, existence-consciousness-happiness, the goal of Paramahamsasannyasins (sages), the Fourth; That which knows always the states of dream, waking and deep-sleep, that Brahman which is partless I am, not the cluster of elements.

प्रातर्भजामि मनसा वचसामगम्यं
वाचो विभान्ति निखिला यदनुग्रहेण ।
यन्नेतिनेतिवचनैर्निगमा अवोचं_
स्तं देवदेवमजमच्युतमाहुरग्र्यम् ॥२॥

Pratarbhajámi manasá vacasámagamyam
vacho vibhánti nikhilá yadanugrahena
yanneti neti vacanair nigamá avocam-
stam devadevamajam achyutam áhur agryam.

At dawn I sing the praise of That which is unattainable by mind and speech, but by the grace of which all words shine. That which the scriptures declares through the words `not this', `not this'- That God of gods, they say, is unborn and un-changing.

प्रातर्नमामि तमसः परमर्कवर्णं
पूर्णं सनातनपदं पुरुषोत्तमाख्यम् ।
यस्मिन्निदं जगदशेषमशेषमूर्तौ
रज्ज्वां भुजङ्गम इव प्रतिभासितं वै ॥३॥

Prátarnamami tamasah paramarkavarnam
pürnam sanátanapadam purushottamaakhyam
yasminnidam jagadaseshamaseshamurtau
rajjvaam bhujamgama iva pratibhasitam vai.

At dawn I bow to that which is called the Highest Self which is beyond darkness, of the hue of the Sun the ancient goal which is the plenum - That, the residuless form (i.e. the whole) in which the entire universe is made manifest like a serpent in a rope.

श्लोकत्रयमिदं पुण्यं लोकत्रयविभूषणम् ।
प्रातःकाले पठेद्यस्तु स गच्छेत्परमं पदम् ॥४॥

Slokatrayamidam punyam lokatrayavibhusanam
pratahkale pathedyastu sa gacchetparamam padam.

This meritorious triad of verses, the ornament of the three words - he who reads at the time of dawn goes to the supreme goals.

>>22131262
>Will reading this nigga get me laid?
It can help do so indirectly by eliminating the source of fear and insecurities that would get in the way of successfully flirting or socializing in general

ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय ।
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।
मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥


Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||


1: Om, (O Lord) Keep me not in (the Phenomenal World of) Unreality, but make me go towards the Reality (of Eternal Self),
2: Keep me not in (the Ignorant State of) Darkness, but make me go towards the Light (of Spiritual Knowledge),
3: Keep me not in (the World of) Mortality, but make me go towards the World of Immortality (of Self-Realization),
4: Om, Peace, Peace, Peace.

>>22131778
Thanks, anon-sama. I will surely be reading him now

>>22130896
ॐ सहनाववतु
सह नौ भुनक्तु
सह वीर्यं करवाव है
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषाव है
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः


Oṃ saha nāvavatu
Saha nau bhunaktu
Saha vīryam karavāvahai
Tejasvi nāvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai
Oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ


Oṃ, may He protect us both [guru and śiṣya by imparting knowledge]; may He protect us both by feeding us [on knowledge]; we can contemplate vigorously together; that our intellect be enlightened; that between us there can never be otherness.
Oṃ, Peace, Peace, Peace

It's obvious, from simple observation, that God is completely indifferent to our fate.

>By the Hindus, e.g., the highest freedom is declared to be persistence in the consciousness of one’s simple identity with himself, to abide in the empty space of one’s own inner being, like the colourless light of pure intuition, and to renounce every activity of life, every purpose and every idea. In this way man becomes Brahma; there is no longer any distinction between finite man and Brahma, every difference having been swallowed up in this universality.

>>22132903
great

He addresses to God as if the supreme had a personality, is hinduism not fully impersonalist after all?

>>22132996
>hinduism
There is no religion called Hinduism.

>>22133056
Nice one on parroting info from Western scholars, don't pretend the Vedas is not the heart of hinduism.

>>22132996
Traditional religious trappings associated with devotion and worship still have their own grand place in the grand scheme of things in Advaita Vedanta, because they help remove obstructing obstacles to enlightenment like impure desires/habits/motivations/doubt etc. Which is why partially they still do Puja worship etc in Advaita temples or why an Advaitin monastic might choose to start his day with prayers.

>. For the above causes (faith etc) remove obstacles to knowledge such as demerit. And the hearing, reflection and meditation on Vedānta texts have a direct relation to Brahman which is to be known, for they are naturally the causes to evoke the knowledge of Reality when the evils, connected with the body and mind, that obstruct it have been destroyed. Therefore faith, prostration and the like never cease to be the (indirect) means of knowledge.
Verse 1.4.2
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html

>>22132996
It is also accepted that lesser deities up and including the conditioned Brahman or Hiranyagarbha that are a part of the illusion of maya can place obstacles in one's path if they are displeased with one (as well as grant positive boons) or that they might do so as a part of manifesting the consequences one's own past karma, although the primary determinant of this is held to be not any deities willpower but rather one's own past karma. You don't need to first "get into the deities good graces" before embarking on the path of spiritual study or monasticism, and having a deep interest in it already suggests you are already reaping sattvic karmic fruits in the present moment, but conducting oneself in a pure and dignified manner helps ensure they dont get annoyed with you and mess with you. The highest Brahman of course does not intervene in the affairs of individuals.

>Since it is the accepted view of the Vedas, Smṛtis, reasoning and tradition that happiness, misery, and the like are the outcome of one’s past work, the gods, or God, or time by no means upset the results of work, for these depend on requisite factors. Work, good or bad, that men do cannot come into being without the help of factors such as the gods, time and God, and even if it did, it would not have the power to produce results, for it is the very nature of work to spring from many causes such as the different factors. Therefore the gods, God and others being auxiliaries to work, there is nothing to shake our faith in the attainment of its results.

>Sometimes also (in the matter of thwarting) they have to depend on the past work of men, for its inherent power cannot be checked. And there is no fixity about the relative predominance of past work, time, destiny and the nature of things etc.; it is inscrutable, and hence throws people into confusion. Some, for instance, say that in bringing about results one’s past work is the only factor. Others say it is destiny. A third group mentions time. Still others say if is the nature of things etc. While yet another group maintains it is all these things combined. Regarding this the Vedas and Smṛtis uphold the primacy of past work, as in the passage, ‘One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work’ (III. ii. 13), and so on. Although one or other of these at times gains ascendancy in its own sphere over the rest, whose potential superiority lies in abeyance for the time being, yet there is no uncertainty about work producing results, for the importance of work is decided by the scriptures as well as reason.[38]
Verse 1.4.10
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html

If Hinduism and Indian culture are so great, why is India such a shithole?
It's somewhere between an open-air sewer and a garbage dump.
Indian people are known for being arrogant, entitled, and incompetent.
Their main industry seems to be bad spam phone calls.
I hope the entire subcontinent slides under Asia and disappears forever.

>>22131743
You posts were very insightful :)
I still have this stotra memorized in Sanskrit, I should get back to chanting it every morning. It is beautiful so I memorized it

>>22133234
Plebs will be plebs no matter where you go, especially in the third world. If you understood the posts itt you would understand how little this has to do with anything.

>>22133468
अहं गोगन्धेन आत्मनः लेपयितुम् इच्छामि

>>22132903
>there is no longer any distinction between finite man and Brahma
Holy retard

>>22133583
explain yourself faggot

>>22133584
there's no Hindu tradition which asserts that finite man = Brahma

>>22133589
holy retard

>>22133589
>>22133616
There is no Hindu tradition that makes the unequivocal identification of finite man and Brahma (without the diacritical mark over the 2nd ‘a’ it means Brahman and not the lesser deity).

The school that comes closest to doing so is Trika Shaivism, which is coincidentally the school that’s probably closest to Hegel. They say that both finite man and his consciousness are the Shakti (power) of Parashiva, and then say at the same time that Shakti and its products are non-different from Parashiva; but if this was really unequivocal it seems they would just say “man is Parashiva” without the big rigamarole about powers and different/distinct but non-different at the same time.

Vishishtadvaita says that finite man and his consciousness along with the cosmos, elements etc are the body of Brahman with Brahman being comparable to the soul of the body, but finite man and Brahman are still regarded as having distinct qualities despite being not being completely different entities.

Advaita doesn’t identify finite man with Brahman, they say that the Atman of all living beings including man is the highest Brahman, but as this Atman is not human properly speaking there is no identifying finite man and Brahman. Saying Atman = Brahman is like saying 1 = 1, there is no identifying two distinct things as being the same. The Atman inside man (like all beings) is not a “part of” man that is identified with the highest Brahman but it is the highest Brahman Itself appearing in conjunction with one of its many limiting adjuncts (Upādhis), like one universal space appearing in conjunction with many different pots at the same time.

>>22133718
Visishtadvaita makes the most sense.

>>22133730
I think Advaita makes the most sense.

>>22133755
To be more specific, one of the more pressing issues in Ramanuja’s thought for me personally is that he cites the soul’s transcendence and unperturbed nature relative to the body when Ramanuja wants to illustrate and defend the thesis of Brahman (Narayana) being utterly unaffected and untainted by any faults or negative qualities taking place in His body viz. ignorant beings and their suffering and sins; but then when it comes to Ramanuja’s analysis of the Atman within Humans he doesn’t consistently follow this principle of the soul being utterly transcendent but he switches course and tries to make it immanent and contingent on the objects/non-soul in some way; but this undermines his own thesis of Brahman being utterly unaffected by and not conditioned by His body because it undermines the arguments that he marshals in support of it.

>>22133718
>The Atman inside man (like all beings) is not a “part of” man that is identified with the highest Brahman but it is the highest Brahman Itself appearing in conjunction with one of its many limiting adjuncts (Upādhis), like one universal space appearing in conjunction with many different pots at the same time.

doesn't seem very consistent

>>22133794
>doesn't seem very consistent
In what regard? You just quoted it in greentext without identifying or suggesting what part you think is inconsistent.

>>22130896
Holy based
Buddhists and other kinds of atheists BTFO

Shankara was Buddhist

>>22130923
>>22130896
unbelievably based

>>22133824
Correct.

>>22133824
nonsense

22133824
>le non-x is actually x bait post

>>22133824
proof? do you have an infographic perhaps?

>>22133906
now this is asspain.

Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na ATMAAAAAN!

>>22131262
I'm telling you, when you reach moksha, you won't need to get laid.

Can someone recommend me a book to get into Hindu mythology? Do they have like a bible i can read?

>>22134445
Bhagavad Gita, a crucial religious work, is a section of the Mahabharata which is an epic poem. You can read it as a book on its own or as part of the whole.

>>22133589
doesn't that refute non-duality?

>>22133818
not that anon, but the whole text doesn't seem very consistent, you're just saying that brahman is not brahman but at the same time he's still brahman

>>22130896
discord
.gg
/4KFugWM3

>>22134845
No.

>>22133959
kek

>>22134854
> you're just saying that brahman is not brahman but at the same time he's still brahman
No I didn’t, try re-reading it again. I said the one Brahman-Atman remains Itself while appearing in conjunction with other things. Not one single sentence in that paragraph identified the Atman-Brahman with anything other than Itself.

>>22133160
Western Scholars invented "Hinduism" by applying their standards of dogma and cannon to the poo's, each small collection of poo's has their own headcannon, slight reinterpretation and ideas on the Vedas. Then there's all the different practices and exercises they might highlight and find more important over the rest for the REAL enlightenment.

>>22133234
Westerners destroyed the caste system
>Indian people are known for being arrogant, entitled, and incompetent.
In scam-call memes, but statistically Indian immigrants tend to be well educated or get higher education and do well economically.

Why does /lit/ waste time discussing Indian theory when the whole shtick of oriental religions is that theory exists to go with practice, and that practical experience helps with the mysticism? None of you have ever practiced anything otherwise you wouldn't waste your time shitposting about
>but is it really dualism?

>>22135533
>Why does /lit/ waste time discussing Indian theory when the whole shtick of oriental religions is that theory exists to go with practice
Discussing the doctrine can be interesting and rewarding in its own right, which is more than enough to justify discussing it and to have that not be a waste of time, furthermore in certain eastern doctrines when you deeply study and contemplate them it can lead to intuitive realizations and subsequent spiritual benefits even without any sort of formalized practice, although this is by no means guaranteed for all. Also, plenty of people here have practiced yoga, meditation etc before.

>>22130896
me me me

>>22135607
does english translations capture to true meaning of indian metaphysics?

>>22135624
As long as you have studied Indian philosophy well enough to be familiar with the range of contexts and meanings that certain untranslatable words have (or rather words with no direct equivalent), then it’s not difficult to understand what people are talking about in Sanskrit philosophical writings, even though you may still be missing out on certain things like play-on-words and some of the symbolism naturally present in the language itself. The better translations leave the more important and technical Sanskrit philosophical terminology untranslated in a romanized form amidst the translation of the other words in the sentence into straight-forward prose, this way you can understand the author but also you will remain aware yourself of the range of semantic implications or interpretations of their usages of certain technical vocabulary without having to rely on the translator picking some English term he thinks is most appropriate.

>>22135649
>As long as you have studied Indian philosophy well enough to be familiar with the range of contexts and meanings that certain untranslatable words have (or rather words with no direct equivalent)
ok books to get on this level?

>>22135657
Any overview or introductory book/textbook can get you started. It’s good to not uncritically accept as gospel what any one secondary source says but to read a range of secondary (and of course primary) sources, and as you read more of them you naturally start to passively absorb a lot of the information and start to get a sense of what’s widely agreed upon and what may just be the idiosyncratic viewpoint of a particular scholar.

Surendranath Dasgupta, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Karl Potter each published their own respective multi-volume encyclopedias/histories of Indian Philosophy.

If you want something shorter and in one book, there are shorter. overviews of Indian Philosophy published by Mysore Hiriyanna or by Swami Prabhavananda. And if you want to focus on a specific school first there are numerous secondary sources books focusing exclusively on that school. Even Guenon in the latter part of his first book gives you the basic rundown of the Hindu schools and basic Hindu concepts/perspectives and then treats various miscellaneous topics in Hinduism in more detail in his “Studies in Hinduism” book.

>>22130923
>Beef was reserved for the brahmacharies in the past
You're retarded. Please stop posting.

bump

how does hindoo metaphysics btfo modern western metaphysics? is it because of practices beyond the theorizing? the techniques to transcend the limitations of humanly knowing?

>>22137467
I saw a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda exactly on this topic which in brief was "been there done that thousands of years ago". He covered Schopenhauer's will and representation as the beginning bridge, Wittgenstein's word games, Gödel's Incompleteness and he kept going.

>>22137467
Because it lines up with actual physics before physicists realize so


Also shitpost P.S.
"Western" "metaphysics" is Christian good goy asspulls like Descartes dualist error and wives tale bullshit like purgatory

>>22135433
WE WUZ
WE WUZ
WE
WUZ
W
E

W
U
Z

ARYAN MAN SIPPIN SOMA

>>22133234
Kickin ass and bossing bitches ain't the karma dharma ahimsa way.
Islam however... clean streets. Taj Mahal.

>>22130896
I just ordered a different translation of the Bhagavad Gita. I’m not an organized religion person but I like some of their texts including that one

>>22135533
>when the whole shtick of oriental religions is that theory exists to go with practice,
This theory-practice distinction does not apply to Advaita Vedanta, at least not to Shankara's Vedanta.

"Although the importance of concentration is evident from the early Upaniṣads (BU 4.4.23), a form of yoga practice leading to the absorptive state of samādhi is only in evidence in the later texts. We have seen that Śaṅkara does speak of a type of concentration upon the Self which is akin to yoga insofar as there is the withdrawal of the mind from sense objects, but he does not advocate more than that and he does not put forward the view that we find in classical Yoga about the necessity of total thought suppression. We have seen that he has used the word samādhi very sparingly, and when he has used it, it was not always in an unambiguously favorable context. It should be clear that Śaṅkara does not set up nirvikalpasamādhi as a spiritual goal. For if he had thought it to be an indispensable requirement for liberation, then he would have said so. But he has not said so. Contemplation on the Self is obviously a part of Śaṅkara’s teaching, but his contemplation is directed toward seeing the ever present Self as free from all conditionings rather than toward the attainment of nirvikalpasamādhi. This is in significant contrast to many modem Advaitins for whom all of the Vedānta amounts to “theory” which has its experimental counterpart in yoga “practice.” I suggest that their view of Vedānta is a departure from Śaṅkara’s own position. The modem Advaitins, however, are not without their forerunners, and I have tried to indicate that there has been a gradual increase in samādhi-oriented practice in the centuries after Śaṅkara, as we can judge from the later Advaita texts."

https://realization.org/p/misc/comans.samadhi-advaita.html?fbclid=IwAR3MwZBrs-7nQJh12Jm2YxFzjcOnaQt93dyC9xdS7vWZFZdx66O_UkuPqKI

>>22133415
based

>>22137467
Western Metaphysics got pigeonholed into shit like Hermeticism and Kabbalah because the Abrahamic faith only let you do your own mysticism if it still involved YHWH somehow. Everything else got burned, setting the west back pretty far in that regard.

>>22136004
You're retarded and have no counter in your post, indicating a strong moralfag pleb cope reaction. Anything is permissable if you're without lust and retaining seed. You are separated from your body and have authority over yourself, other humans and animals alike.

>>22139107
whats some good books about brahmacharya besides the one by swami Sivananda?

>>22138723
Chandradhar's Sharma book 'The Advaita Tradition' is superb, probably my only quibble with the section on Vedanta within it is that he talks about Nirvikalpa Samadhi being the goal without clarifying the point that Comans rightfully makes about it. There is little else in it that I would take issue with.

>>22139548
I have not read this one, but if he talks about samadhi "being the goal", he probably has other misconceptions, because he could not have arrived at such a conclusion otherwise. I'll take a look.

>>22139773
I just checked again and I misremembered and had spoke too loosely, Sharma technically doesn’t say that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is “the goal” but he rather equates it with the Asparshayoga that Gaudapada writes about in two verses.

This seems to be a reasonable enough interpretation so long as one understands Nirvikalpa Samadhi to be an undoing of the mind’s tendency of grasping (at objects) and projecting (false views) and not as a forcible suppression of all thought whatsoever. And this does seem to be how Sharma interprets it.

There is one questionable passage where he says that the mind “is completely controlled, is stopped from functioning and is totally annihilated along with its source avidya”, but he doesn’t seem to be speaking of a literal annihilation of the mind here but rather annihilating its mistaken tendencies/beliefs and all which flows from this; since he elsewhere writes about the jnani still perceiving the world after enlightenment which would be impossible if the mind was utterly annihilated in the sense of no longer even being able to perceive the world or interact with it. With some of the things he writes you have to read between the lines a bit and place it in relation to what else he writes.

There is a good section in the book on post-Shankara Vedanta which talks about how post-Shankara Advaitins refuted the arguments of other schools against Advaita.

>>22139962
I have skim-read through the section on Shankara, and could find some mistakes, what I mean by mistakes is some notions attributed to Shankara that in truth pertain to later advaitins instead.
But I don't think that presenting everything here would be really feasible. Have you read Srinivasa Rao's "Advaita A Contemporary Critique" ? In the second chapter he talks about the later advaitins' departure from Shankara's vedanta in some specific matters (the need of samadhi is not the only one).
If you're interested, I think that it's a great read and it would be useful to compare with Sharma's work.
https://www.scribd.com/document/401516274/Advaita-A-Contemporary-Critique-Srinivasa-Rao-OUP-pdf

>>22140903
>I have skim-read through the section on Shankara, and could find some mistakes, what I mean by mistakes is some notions attributed to Shankara that in truth pertain to later advaitins instead.
I find that in many cases when people say this in fact later Advaitins are just making explicit what Shankara seems to have been conveying implicitly or which he even says explicitly on a few occasions and that this is the most reasonable interpretation of him. The first few centuries of post-Shankara Advaitins like Padmapada, Prakasatman, Suresvara, Sarvajnatman, Vimuktatman, Chitsukha etc are actually quite conservative and faithful interpreters of Shankara; the need for Samadhi is way latter than all these people and is typical of 14th century Advaita and later like Vidyaranya.

I have already looked through Rao's book before and nothing in it seemed to be really damaging at all to the views of people listed above, if you've read and understood Sharma's book cover to cover it actually becomes obvious that Rao makes a lot of basic mistakes and this made me write off most of what he says IMO, it's certainly not damaging to the views elaborated by the people above.

The whole chapter on Sadasadvilakṣaṇa and Asat by Rao for example is marked by confusions that actually already addressed in Sharma's book.

>>22140903
>>22141377

Sharma's understanding of Advaita is largely consonant with Coman's who you already cited as an authority btw

Here is an example of Rao's evident confusion from the chapter on Sadasadvilakṣaṇa and Asat

>Thus it would turn out that at the empirical level, since objects do exist, there is duality. If this duality must be rooted out at the highest level, it has to be ensured that there just cannot be any object of any kind at that level. This means that there cannot be anything like what is called “other than sat and asat” (sadasadvilakṣaṇa) at that level. Therefore if the highest level alone is true, the traditional Advaitin must necessarily hold that what was earlier considered by him to be actually existing at the empirical level and was also very definitely regarded as the sadasadvilakṣaṇa is, in reality, absolutely non-existent. That is, in fact, it is no different at all from asat. Hence, the onto-logical status of what is regarded as sadasadvilakṣaṇa must now be retrospectively modified and changed to the status of asat. In short, the traditional Advaitin must effect a reduction of all sadasadvilakṣaṇa into asat. There is absolutely no escape at all for him from effecting such a final reduction. This reduction necessarily means that the very distinction between asat (absolute non-being) and the sadasadvilakṣaṇa (not absolute-being or absolute non-being) should now be regarded as completely invalid, untenable and as having been (p.115) wrongly conceived.

Rao thinks that acknowledging that maya is false entails an automatic reduction of it into nothingness or absolute non-being, because of the reason that falsity and non-being both differ from Absolute reality that is the Real, but maya is not the same as nothingness or non-being because maya can actually falsely appear in experience while non-being has no capacity to appear to us in experience. Rao's justification for this is that "Therefore if the highest level alone is true, the traditional Advaitin must necessarily hold that what was earlier considered by him to be actually existing at the empirical level and was also very definitely regarded as the sadasadvilakṣaṇa is, in reality, absolutely non-existent. That is, in fact, it is no different at all from asat." His crucial mistake here is to treat "non-existent at the absolute level" as consequently entailing "non-existent at the empirical level" when this doesn't logically follow at all, Madhusudana Saraswati correctly already refuted this centuries ago by pointing out that these are separate orders of reality entirely and so there is no contradiction in their simultaneous affirmation or simultaneous denial, since the affirmation of one as such doesn't contradict the affirmation of other as such.

>>22139207
The one by Dada.

>>22141422
Rao's claim of "This means that there cannot be anything like what is called “other than sat and asat” (sadasadvilakṣaṇa) at that (highest) level" is actually complete and utter nonsense, not because the contrariwise is true but because he is completely misstating the issue at hand and thereby setting up a contrived non-issue.

He is misstating it because there is only Sat at the highest level of absolute reality, which is nothing other than Brahman, therefore, there is not even a question of analyzing sadasadvilakṣaṇa at the level of absolute reality because it's not present in absolute reality and so it's meaningless to talk about analyzing the ultimate status of the sadasadvilakṣaṇa in absolute reality as though it were present there alongside Brahman. In Rao's mistaken understanding they are blurred into one and therefore to affirm sadasadvilakṣaṇa about samsara is mutually exclusive with affirming absolute reality is Sat, but this is not an accurate representation of Shankara's thought because Shankara affirms both of these simultaneously since each pertains to its own sphere and thereby doesn't contradict the other unless you are making the error of collapsing them into one and placing them in the same sphere or level.

>>22141465
>Shankara affirms both of these simultaneously since each pertains to its own sphere and thereby doesn't contradict the other unless you are making the error of collapsing them into one and placing them in the same sphere or level.
And I would add, almost all post-Shankara Advaitins consistently adhere to this same metaphysical understanding, which is the same as Shankara's. The areas where they sometimes vary widely are often inconsequential and typically amount to differences in heuristic strategies or in the cosmological explanations of various secondary factors that's downstream of the underlying metaphysics that they all agree on.

>>22141377
To be honest, I referenced Rao's book mainly because of the first two chapters (that's why I mentioned specifically the second chapter) because his delineation of Shankara's teaching and the later advaitins' understanding is quite good. But I'm not a fan of the much speculative thought and the mixing up with analytical philosophy that he does later. It's the same reason with Comans, while I disagree with some of his statements (on his "method of early Vedanta"), in this article his conclusions are quite right.

Having said that, I have to disagree with you, I think that the differences between Shankara and later advaitins (with the exception of Sureshwara and Totakacharya (translated by Comans btw)) are not simply questions of "making explicit what was implicit". If you look into it you'll see that for example, Padmapada's interpretation of Adhyasa-bhashya is simply a deviation. His splitting of mithyajñana as mithya + ajñana is a novelty, Shankara never interpreted the compound this way. And his statement of adhyasa having been brought about by some powerful efficient cause is, again, an original interpretation, that goes against Shankara. Why he did this and why most advaitins followed him, I don't know. So in my opinion, I don't think those advaitins were really faithful to Shankara. From this early mistake they started building, one after another, a monument of philosophical speculation that never even passed by Shankara's mind. Tainting, in my opinion, a very simple and straightforward doctrine.

>>22141631
>Padmapada's interpretation of Adhyasa-bhashya is simply a deviation
I don't think so, in what way do you consider it a deviation?

>His splitting of mithyajñana as mithya + ajñana is a novelty, Shankara never interpreted the compound this way.
That's not an actual philosophical difference but is a mere analysis of a word so it's really an insignificant example to support your contention, do you have a real example of an actual philosophical difference between them or is that the best you have? Padmapada affirms that ajnana/avidya is mithya just like Shankara does.

>And his statement of adhyasa having been brought about by some powerful efficient cause is, again, an original interpretation, that goes against Shankara.
No, it's not, Shankara explicitly says that the "material cause" of the mind is the subtle elements (tanmatras) in Katha Bhashya 1-3-10 and the tanmatras like all changing phenomena originate from and are a part of name and form, and Shankara explicitly affirms that the unmanifest name and form are of the nature of ignorance and are Brahman's power in Brahma Sutra 1-4-9 and 1-4-3. This means that Brahman's power makes the unmanifest name and form manifest (appear) and everything else besides this like superimposition and mistaken views held by the mind is a downstream consequences of this. Shankara further says in Brahma Sutra 1-4-3 that without this being a power of the Highest Brahman that liberation would be untenable: "But we understand this antecedent (not yet manifest) condition of the transitory world to be dependent on the Highest Lord and not independent in any way. It must necessarily be so understood, because it is only in this way that it can have any meaning, as without such supposition, the creative activity of the Highest Lord is not established. And in the absence of any such power inherent in the Highest Lord, neither his proceeding to create, nor the non-liability of those who have already attained Final Release to be born again, would be reasonably sustainable." - Shankara. This eliminates any possibility to seriously claim that Shankara did not consider it Brahman's power to make name and form and subsequently samsara manifest because otherwise he wouldn't say its denial makes permanent liberation untenable.

>Why he did this and why most advaitins followed him, I don't know.
I just gave you a source

If you saying this because you are an SSSfag (lmao) here is a transcript of an SSSfag debating a traditional Advaitin in 1976, the SSSfag loses the debate, and then renounces his former views and admits the traditional Advaitins are correct:

https://www.academia.edu/31458932/MUlAvidya_vimarshe_A_Critique_of_Root_Ignorance

>>22141631
>Tainting, in my opinion, a very simple and straightforward doctrine.
Also, this is simply modernist bullshit

Shankara never calls it simple or straightforward but he repeatedly affirms that
a) stupid people won't understand it
b) you have to be intelligent to understand it

>>22141781
He also repeatedly refers to it as subtle which in that context is the exact opposite of simple.

>The yogi is greater than body-disciplining ascetics, greater even than the followers of the path of wisdom (Jnana Yoga), or of the path of action (Karma Yoga); be thou, O disciple Arjuna, a yogi!

Romanian ex-guenoner
Why?

>>22142280
he fell victim to sentimentalism

Sad!

>>22130896
>supreme
>both
>us
>we
>advaita vedanta founder
i think you missed the point of the book droplet

>>22142289

Realising through Self-contemplation that Primeval God, the Supreme Being, difficult to be seen, deeply hidden in the cave of the heart, dwelling subtly within; when the wise man reaches That in meditation, he leaves behind both joy as well as sorrow.

Hearing about this and comprehending It, a mortal extracts the essence of the subtle and rejoices, having reached the source of all joy. Such an abode of peace, which is understood by comprehending this Truth, is wide open unto Nachiketas.

Tell me that which you see beyond right and wrong; beyond what is done or not done; beyond the past and the future. Please tell me.

That Word, which all the Vedas declare, desiring which, people perform austerities to attain and live the life of a religious student, brahmacharya; that Word, I will declare to you in brief. It is Aum.

This syllable aum is verily the everlasting Brahman; this syllable indeed is the highest end; knowing this very syllable, whatever one desires, that indeed will be his.

That Self, which is the knowing Self, is never born nor does It ever die. It has sprung from nothing and nothing springs from it. It is unborn, eternal, abiding and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.

It is smaller than the small and greater than the great; yet, the Self is seated in the hearts of every creature. The unstriving man, free from sorrow, through tranquility of the mind and the senses, sees the greatness of the Self.

Sitting, He moves far; lying down, He goes everywhere.

This Self cannot be attained by instruction, or by intellectual power, or even through much hearing. He is to be attained only by the one whom He chooses. To such a one, the Self reveals His own nature.

Know the Supreme Self as the Lord of the chariot and the body as the chariot. Know the intellect [buddhi] as the charioteer and the mind [manas] as the reins.

The senses are the horses, the objects of the senses are the paths through which they travel. The wise declare the Self, associating with the body, the senses and the mind as the enjoyer.

Beyond the senses are the objects, beyond the objects is the mind [manas], beyond the mind is the intelligence [buddhi] and beyond the intelligence is the Great Self [mahaan atman].

Beyond that Great Selfis the Unmanifest [avyaktam], and beyond the Unmanifest is the Spirit [purusha]. That Spirit is the final goal - that is the end of the journey. There is nothing beyond.

That Self, atman, though hidden in all beings, does not shine forth visibly. It can only be seen by the seers through sharp and subtle buddhi.

Arise! Awake! Having attained all your boons, understand them. This path that you are taking is like the sharp edge of a razor, difficult and hard to cross - so the great sages have declared.

He who knows this Self, the experiencer, the Lord of both past and present, the Living Spirit, close at hand, he knows no fear thereafter. This is verily That.

>>22142385
The Katha Upanishad is truly pure kino, Shankara’s Bhashya on it is one of his best shorter prose writings IMO.

>>22137467
>how does hindoo metaphysics btfo modern western metaphysics?
Guenon set us up for a major comeback after the minor setback from Philip IV and Pope Clement V

why do none of these people look like current day indians

>>22142423
Caste system. It was destroyed by Br*ts.

>>22142458
>implying the Mughals didn't fuck it up first

>>22142462
I'm not overly familiar with Mughal India, but from what I've been able to tell, they did not modify the pre-existing caste system much, if at all. Do you have any information?

>>22142557
>they did not modify the pre-existing caste system much
you're right, for the most part their impact was within the Kshatriya caste, as they intermarried with existing Kshatriya nobles and created new positions/titles/rulers.
that said, this indirectly led to weak successor states and infighting, paving the way for the Bongs

>>22142462
The Muslim invaders themselves were "casteists", because Islam itself is pretty "casteists" and cares a lot about bloodlines and lineage. Which is why Muslims of the Indian subcontinent even to this day retain their original caste based surnames and take pride in it.

>>22143210
>invaders themselves were "casteists", because Islam itself is pretty "casteists" and cares a lot about bloodlines and lineage.
sure, but is this really any different than the British?