/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17873822]

Ask me anything about Purva Mimamsa. I can also provide book recs.

This can also serve as a dharmic general.

[Anonymous No.17873842]

>>17873822
I can confirm the validity of vedic metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.17873870]

>>17873842
What?

[Anonymous No.17873902]

>>17873842
It is not grasped through the senses or reason.

[Anonymous No.17873940]

Can I follow both Purva Mimamsa and Kurwa Mimamsa?

[Anonymous No.17873958]

>>17873902
Man this is all so tiresome.
Fuck this vague bullshit. But fuck precision too.
I don't know, fuck this world.

[Anonymous No.17873966]

>>17873822
Why this over Vedanta?

[Anonymous No.17873969]

>>17873958
>filtered by the ineffable Brahman
NGMI

[Anonymous No.17874059]

>>17873940
You mean Karma Mimamsa? They're synonymous.

>>17873966
Depends on which Vedanta you're talking about. In general, I think Mimamsa has a much more consistent epistemology. Advaita in particular is vulnerable to the same kind of criticisms Kumarila throws at the Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.17874174]

>>17874059
>Advaita in particular is vulnerable to the same kind of criticisms Kumarila throws at the Buddhists.
Do you have examples?

[Anonymous No.17874460]

>>17874174
Well, they're both idealist systems, something which Kumarila's entire epistemology is designed to undermine. But Shankara often tries to have it both ways when appropriating elements of the Mimamsa epistemology in order to critique Buddhism. Like Dharmakirti, he privileges "pragmatic efficacy" as an epistemological category, which Kumarila would say is unwarranted, since that is just another cognition which is itself in need of confirmation. Advaita, like Buddhism, also appeals to yogic perception, something which Mimamsa rejects as a source of knowledge of dharma; only sruti can convey knowledge of dharma. The Advaita view of universals is also open to similar critiques as those given by the Mimamsakas against Buddhism. Neither Advaita monism or Buddhist nominalism are able to explain causality or our distinct universal conceptions.

[Anonymous No.17875452]

>>17874460
>Like Dharmakirti, he privileges "pragmatic efficacy" as an epistemological category, which Kumarila would say is unwarranted, since that is just another cognition which is itself in need of confirmation.
Do you have a source from his writings where he does this?

[Anonymous No.17876513]

>>17875452
>>17874460
>Like Dharmakirti, he privileges "pragmatic efficacy" as an epistemological category,
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, "pragmatic efficacy" is not one of the pramanas accepted in Advaita. How is Shankara supposed to privilege it if its not one of the pramanas which he accepts?

[Anonymous No.17876553]

>not being a Nyaya-Vaisheshika logician
You guys ain't gonna make it

[Anonymous No.17876664]

>>17876553
>Nyaya-Vaisheshika
retroactively refuted by Śrīharṣa (pbuh) in his work The Sweets of Refutation (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍanakhādya)

[Anonymous No.17876784]

how do I reincarnate as a hot girl

[Anonymous No.17876953]

>>17876784
That’s a step down karmically.

[Anonymous No.17876996]

does anyone have the buddhist political compass meme? In the bottom left corner there was a soijak that said he didnt read any suttas and a tranta guy in the bottom right.

[Anonymous No.17877354]

>>17874460
>>17876513
continued
>Advaita, like Buddhism, also appeals to yogic perception, something which Mimamsa rejects as a source of knowledge of dharma
Shankara in his writings defers to the Upanishads and he tends to cite yogic perception by analogy only on a few rare occasions. He doesn't cite yogic perception as an essential part of his arguments against the other schools and it doesn't play an important part in his epistemology
>only sruti can convey knowledge of dharma.
Shankara doesn't claim that yogic perception overrules the what the śruti convey about dharma
>The Advaita view of universals is also open to similar critiques as those given by the Mimamsakas against Buddhism.
Can you elaborate on why specifically the Advaita view of universals is wrong? Are you familiar with it or only the Buddhist view that Bhatta criticizes?
>Neither Advaita monism or Buddhist nominalism are able to explain causality or our distinct universal conceptions.
Advaita Vedanta is non-dualism, not monism which is something that is separate. Monism doesn't necessarily exclude the reality of multiplicity and difference. Similar to how the infinite (non-finite) means the complete negation or absence of all finiteness or limits, non-dualism is the complete negation or absence of all duality, multiplicity, difference etc. Monism would more accurately characterize qualified non-dualism like Vishishtadvaita and other schools of Hinduism who conceive of Brahman as substance that differentiates itself in various modes, i.e. parinamavada etc and not vivartavada.

Advaita says that Brahman is abides forever as the eternal Supreme Lord and He is the uncaused origin of the causation which characterizes the relations between the different things and beings within maya. Brahman is held to be beyond and untouched by causation as the transcendental reality which is the source of the perception of causality by living beings and His power maya is the force that is responsible for maintaining it continuously, and this power is always what causes beings to perceive various things through the intellect and so on. What exactly are the issues that the mimamsakas take with this? How does this not explain causality or how concepts arise in the intellect?

[Anonymous No.17877831]

>>17876953
does that mean i was hot girl with good karma in past life

[Anonymous No.17878057]

>>17877831
not necessarily

[Anonymous No.17878172]

>>17874460
>Buddhism lives rent-free in intra-Hindu metaphysical debates

[Anonymous No.17878198]

>>17878172
The amount of seething Buddhism produces in the minds of Advaita fags is unreal. Check the Sri Kalki Purana, in the very first chapter when discussing the Kali Yuga it explicitly highlights how Kalki will reincarnate and first start killing Buddhists

[Anonymous No.17878208]

>>17878172
The Advaitin Shankara and the Mimamsaka Kumarila Bhatta both refuted Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17878221]

>>17878198
>explicitly highlights how Kalki will reincarnate and first start killing Buddhists
holy based! That would be quite the fitting end for nihilists such as themselves, to be killed by the very Lord that they so foolishly deny.

[Anonymous No.17878243]

>>17878221
Do you really expect anyone to believe you are enlightened when you act like bratty children?

[Anonymous No.17878247]

>>17878243
it’s just one guy anon. guenonfag literally talks to himself in these threads

[Anonymous No.17878292]

>>17878243
who said anything about me being enlightened? I sure didn’t

[Anonymous No.17878912]

>>17874460
>Buddhist nominalism are able to explain causality or our distinct universal conceptions.
good, it's not the goal of buddhism

[Anonymous No.17879025]

>>17878198
Based Kalki

[Anonymous No.17879496]

>>17876953
Did I stutter?