/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14608662]

Leave Shankara to me.

[Anonymous No.14608680]

>>14608662
Indeed, seems Madhva shot himself in the foot.
>Madhva's attempts to locate his controversial views in the canonical Vedanta texts often proved difficult. He is perhaps most famous for his idiosyncratic rendering of the Chandogya Upanisad's statement tat tvam asi or "you (the atman) are that (brahman)." By carrying over the 'a' from the preceding word, Madhva rendered the phrase atat tvam asi or "you are not that."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/madhva/

[Anonymous No.14608724]

>>14608662
Ramanuja was refuted by Advaitins, see pic related. Shankaracharya (pbuh) and his tradition are infallible.

[Anonymous No.14608736]

>>14608724
Wrong! Advaitins were refuted by ISKCON!

HARE HARE HARE HARE

[Anonymous No.14608757]

>>14608662
I find his understanding of the Bhagavad Gita more intuitive than Shankara's. The Gita clearly has a personal God in mind as the ultimate object of devotion, I don't see Shankara's subordination of devotion to jnana in the text.

[Anonymous No.14608785]

>>14608680
The difference an a sound can make.

[indians were amateurs No.14608793]

138 ON THE ONE
delimitations. Consequently these elements remain such as they are, but they are then unifi ed in that same way with each other. But the One before all things, since it too is one, reveals a unity that is prior to every delimitation, and it is not even distinct from the others, but it is as it were the undifferentiated root of the entire hypostasis to which each thing belongs. And since this is so, the [more] familiar one is the determinate one or the formal one, which is clear from the fact that we recognize this one as one of many, at the same level of reality as the many, or the Good or the Beautiful. But as for the one that has drawn together and includes all things, this clearly is not the formal one or the determinate one in general, as is clear from the fact that such a one would be one of the included elements, just as the many be would at once differentiated and unifi ed. True, the determinate one undergoes some form of conditioning by the many, either because the many underlie it due to its inherent characteristic of being a systematic cohesion from many, or else, because the many are opposite, in the sense that rest moves and movement is still. Now the One is entirely simple. Therefore it is not even right to call it One, because the One that we conceive both is and moves and is still and is other and same, or so we think, so that the One is composed of many through participation in these forms, whereas it is one due to the subsistence of its unique character. Thus the first puzzle raised was most true, namely, that we can have no conception of the One that is both perfect and unique. And therefore it must not even be called One unless, in the same way, it should no less be called all things. Socrates to be sure proved this very point because he revealed three monads in the threshold of the One, namely truth, beauty, and proportion. The last named preserves the order among all things, the monad of beauty offers the sympathetic mingling of all things with each other, where as the monad of truth offers the true subsistence of all things. And then again the One is all things at once in an ineffable way.

[reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee No.14608802]

>>14608793
nice paint bug god damn
why does paint always do that?

[Anonymous No.14608835]

>>14608793
What book btw?

[Anonymous No.14608846]

>>14608793
>Indians were amateu-

"I never wrote anything on Plotinus, and admit that I never had the time to study him closely; but I know that there are many similarities to be made with oriental doctrines...Only there is one thing that has always shocked me: this history of states that Plotinus would have attained a certain number of times in his life, and, from which, seem to have left nothing permanent, which is poorly understood from the point of view of initiation; there would have been, in any case, something very incomplete in relation to his realization." - Rene Guenon (pbuh), letter to Dr.Duby, 14 December 1936, Cairo

Plotinus if he had ever met him would have fallen at the feet of Shankaracharya (pbuh) and begged him to accept Plotinus as his disciple, thereby allowing Plotinus to attain the permanent union with the One that had eluded him his whole life, which Shankaracharya (pbuh) attained even before reaching puberty

[Anonymous No.14608949]

>>14608835
the [final] work of Hellenic thought and the end of philosophy (causing the end times of the dark ages)
here's an intro
https://youtu.be/UprPUmOa76Q

>>14608846
pic related, you doubt this power?

[Anonymous No.14609042]

>>14608949
>Ooohhh SOOOoo Spooookyyy!!!!
Christians also have innumerable instances that they cite of alleged divine retribution involving natural disasters or records of Catholic saints working miracles, and the phenomena of yogic powers or siddhis has a very long history in Indian going back to the ancient era and which have been attested to by countless Indian writers. Similarly, Sufi saints are well known in the Islamic world to be workers of miracles, with those saints who had a special gift for miracles often attracting large followings and with people making pilgramages to their graves. All of this is a distraction from the spiritual path, special powers may sometimes unintentionally manifest on occasion as a result of spiritual progress, but if someone is spending time and effort pursuing them then one has fallen from the spiritual path by becoming distracted through devoting oneself to something other than the One, the seductive allure of magical abilities has led many a spiritual seeker astray from the path. If one is dedicating oneself to being a magician then so be it but don't confuse the spiritual road to the One with the pursuit of the lesser.

[Anonymous No.14609141]

>>14609042
>Iamblichus of Chalcis, in Coele-Syria, was a pupil of Porphyry and died in the reign of Constantine (A.n. 330.) By his disciples he was credited with the power of working miracles, and was by them named "the divine" ho Theios. They narrate that in prayer he was raised into the air ten ells high; that his garments shone with golden light, and his face assumed an expression of celestial beauty.
The disasters that followed Justinian's banning of philosophy in Byzantium was an act of the god's favor for it not Damascius "magic", likewise the rise of Islam was nothing but retribution upon Rome. Everything great about Sufism are its adoptions of Neoplatonism, they have no originality.

[Anonymous No.14609308]

>>14609141
There are also writings from the time of Aquinas talking about how people witnessed him levitating in prayer, there is nothing whatsoever special about the case of the Neoplatonists, instances of alleged miracles and divine interventions/retributions are found in many different eras and cultures around the world throughout history. There were more people who witnessed the miracles of Jesus firsthand then the amount of people who witnessed Neoplatonist miracles firsthand. What you are doing is no different than a Christian saying "well Jesus cured the blind and fulfilled X prophecy therefore Christianity is true!". Also, if the Neoplatonic God is supposed to be utterly simple, ineffable and unchanging then why and how is it supposed in intervene in the events of the world and cause harm to one ruler's reign because of him persecuting Neoplatonists? And if the Neoplatonic God would intervene for such small incidents as closing the academy and exiling Neoplatonists then why would this God be content to let the tradition of worshipping him die out completely as a living tradition, instead letting it be limited to a few academics, larpers and autodidacts scattered across the world? Why would he not intervene to make it so more than .00000001% of humanity could even become aware of him and the writings that explain him as it is right now? Kind of an incoherent worldview my man.

>Everything great about Sufism are its adoptions of Neoplatonism, they have no originality.
You know, we actually have the writings of very early Persian Sufis before they came into contact with Neoplatonism and academics have an understanding of what Sufism was like before it began to be influenced by Neoplatonism, there was a lot of original and organic teachings already there in Sufism from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.14609335]

>>14609308
>Persian Sufis before they came into contact with Neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.14609366]

>>14609308
>why would this God be content to let the tradition of worshipping him die out completely as a living tradition, instead letting it be limited to a few academics, larpers and autodidacts scattered across the world?
you just gave away your ignorance

[Anonymous No.14609466]

>>14608949
Was that the Roman Gods punishing the people for having converted to christcuckery?

[Anonymous No.14609500]

>>14609366
There is no living Neoplatonic tradition, only the remnants of it that survive in Christianity, Kabbalah and Sufism which you seem to reject

[Anonymous No.14609507]

>>14608793
>But the One before all things, since it too is one, reveals a unity that is prior to every delimitation, and it is not even distinct from the others, but it is as it were the undifferentiated root of the entire hypostasis to which each thing belongs
This is no different from the Upanishads which were talking about those same ideas a millenium earlier

[Anonymous No.14609533]

Why can't neoplatonists, advaitins and mystical/apophatic christians live in harmony? They are the only ones that carry the truth.

[Anonymous No.14609575]

>>14609533
>mystical/apophatic christians live in harmony
Mystical/apophatic Christians need to stop being Christians before they themselves can live in harmony.

Believing in a personal God, original sin, jesus dying for your sins, creation, eternal heaven and hell, a moral liberation ontology, vindictive God and that Jews are the chosen people are all mutually exclusive to neo-platonism no matter the amount of Christian copes and cognitive dissonance.

Christian mystical/apophatic Christians are just cowards.

[Anonymous No.14609689]

>>14609575
>are all mutually exclusive to neo-platonism no matter the amount of Christian copes and cognitive dissonance.
what

[Anonymous No.14609714]

>>14609689
Yes. Sorry sweetie but no deep metaphysics what so ever can be compliance with the Bible.

If you want something that could fit with Christianity then I advice you to go look up the Hare Krishna movement.

[Anonymous No.14609762]

>>14609714
both old and new testament have many nondual, apophatic and mystical passages you brainlet; I just asked you how are those things exclusive to neoplatonism