/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18970046]

>>18968403
>it doesn't matter what the "relation" between them is. the fact is that brahman is undifferentiated and homogenized. that means every part of brahman is identical to any other part. it actually doesn't even have 'parts' in the first place because it's all so identical to itself. to say otherwise would imply differentiation, which brahman does not have.
Yes, that’s true, none of what you said here in this quoted paragraph is incompatible with anything I said. Everything I said is perfectly compatible with Brahman being completely undifferentiated, unchanging, homogenous and impartite.
> they're never going to really be correct no matter what we say.
What I said is correct, but you have to understand that it refers to a transcendental reality beyond language, certain idea have to be communicated through symbolism, metaphors, negation etc
> your true self is already liberated. stop being such a loser.
>why are you even here in the first place? you're eternally liberated.
Im here because I’m not a sannyasin, it wasn’t my destiny to be one in this life. If it was I would have either been born into a devout Brahmin family or otherwise would have been imbued with a burning desire to become a monk, which I dont have. I’m not a loser either but I have a great life.
> no, it is very clearly a contradiction. by definition this is a contradiction.
If “difference” is a false category, and if maya only has apparent and not real existence, then there is no contradiction. In order for you to claim there is a contradiction; you have to presume that a certain way humans perceive things is ultimately valid and accurately denotes the ultimate truth/reality of existence, but this cant be empirically established or proven through logical argumentation. In order to demonstrate a contradiction in Advaita doctrine, one would have to show an internal contradiction in the hypothetical explanation Advaita provides of existence etc, but simply disagreeing with this premise from the beginning is not demonstrating an internal contradiction in it. The premise itself is completely consistent.

>just because you say "duuuude the notion of contradiction is a flawed concept, bro"
That’s not what I’m saying, try paying closer attention; I’m fully admitting the rules of logic as valid including the LNC, and I’m saying that Advaita provides a logical and coherent explanation of how not everything is reducible to either being or non-being because there is a third alternative between the two when they are used in the absolute sense, the admittance of this third category removes any apparent contradiction.

[Anonymous No.18970047]

>>18970046
>the false appearance of the mirage and the existence of the desert can both take place at once without contradiction
>except a mirage is caused by the interaction between multiple differentiated parts. that's what a mirage is. without multiple differentiated parts you can't have a mirage.
The only purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate how a falsely imagined or falsely perceived thing can seemingly exist at the same time that its real substratum exists, its not meant to be a mechanistic explanation of how it arises. Maya forms all objects, space and time etc and can differentiate itself in any way it needs to while Brahman remains undifferentiated.

>so, in order to keep your system of advaita from totally falling apart you have to outright deny the most fundamental and verifiable axiom that exists: that this experience of ours (e.g being a human on 4chan at the moment) is happening
No I’m not, I’m admitting that the consciousness in which it takes place is real, which is undeniable. There is no way to know or verify that anything presented to consciousness is absolutely real, but consciousness has to be admitted as real since its the foundation of everything else and a non-existent consciousness would not have subjective experience. The most fundamental and verifiable axiom is not that the experienced contents exists, its that the experiencer who is different from that experienced content exists, I’m not denying the latter.

>- to call it a dream or illusion is fine, but it's still a thing that is happening, clearly.
Consciousness exists as awareness-presence, clearly, but it cannot be infallibly proven that the contents presented to consciousness are real; we are mistaken about this all the time like when we think dreams are real life.

>you have to say it's not happening to any extent. this is maximum denialism.
No I’m not, because I’m admitting the experiencer to be real

[Anonymous No.18970062]

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18970221]

Honest question:

Brahman is described as existence, consciousness and bliss. If Maya is not separated from Brahman, then why isn't illusion/concealment included?

[Anonymous No.18970523]

>>18970046
>be me
>scrolling through catalog
>see geunonfag autism
>shitpost in his shitty thread

[Anonymous No.18970998]

bump

[Anonymous No.18971100]

>>18970221
>If Maya is not separated from Brahman, then why isn't illusion/concealment included?
When the physical body of the liberated man (jivanmukta) dies, their consciousness remains as timeless infinite bliss-awareness, without any maya, completely identical with the totality of the unconditioned Brahman. Since there is no maya here in absolute reality, it makes no sense to speak of maya as something which is inalienable from Brahman like awareness is.

[Anonymous No.18971153]

>>18970523
Based. I have never read a guenonfag post.

[Anonymous No.18971252]

>>18970046
POO IN LOO

[Anonymous No.18971291]

>>18971100
Feels like your just picking your favorite traits then. If maya is not separated from brahman, it must be an integral part of the absolute. How could it not be if your arguing for absolute monism?

[Anonymous No.18971321]

>>18971291
>If maya is not separated from brahman, it must be an integral part of the absolute
That argument was already refuted in the last thread here >>18965888

[Anonymous No.18971380]

>>18971321
Nothing in that post explains how illusion is to be allowed to occur in Brahman. Why can't the relatively real existence/maya be included as an integral quality of Brahman?
If this objective reality is the gatekeeper to the the supreme reality, how could it be any lesser? And if it's not really part of the absolute, how are you not really arguing for duality?

[Anonymous No.18971488]

>>18970046
You seem very wise where do I start to be as wise as you?

[Anonymous No.18971676]

>>18971380
>Nothing in that post explains how illusion is to be allowed to occur in Brahman.
Illusion occurs because it is Brahman's uncreated nature to be the transcendental basis for the seeming existence of the false categories of duality/multiplicity/change/difference etc, without those categories ever emerging into existence as truly exist things/entities. Brahman's nature as the basis isn't the same as the thing which Brahman is the basis for (maya) being the very nature of Brahman himself though.

When ignorance is ended though and the physical body of the Jivanmukti dies, there is just Brahman left alone as infinite Bliss in absolute reality without any experience or semblance of those false categories.

>Why can't the relatively real existence/maya be included as an integral quality of Brahman?
Because it can vanish, if something is alienable from Brahman or alienable from a seeming association with Brahman than it can't be integral. Moreover, the things that comprise that maya are mutually exclusive with Brahman, like Brahman is soundless, colorless, changeless, etc and maya is the opposite of all these things, an entity cannot posses mutually exclusive attributes as its inherent/integral nature.

>If this objective reality is the gatekeeper to the the supreme reality, how could it be any lesser?
Because it can vanish, leaving the supreme reality of infinite consciousness alone. Something which is contingent on something else can never be exactly equal to it.
>And if it's not really part of the absolute, how are you not really arguing for duality?
Because not everything is reducible to being/non-being, the third category of the indefinite allows for the seeming false existence of something without that seeming false existence ever being or becoming a real existent thing (if it did become a real existent 2nd thing, it could potentially be argued this is a duality, but it never does)

[Anonymous No.18971738]

>>18971488
>You seem very wise where do I start to be as wise as you?

Optional beginning: read Guenon's 'Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines'
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.280367

1) Read Guenon's 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta'
https://sufipathoflove.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/1925-man-and-his-becoming-according-to-the-vedc3a2nta.pdf

2) Read Shankara's 8 Upanishad commentaries translated by Gambhirananda
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

3) Read Shankara's remaining Upanishad commentaries, and then his remaining writings, and then whatever other medieval Advaita texts until you feel like you understand Advaita very well.

>The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge. The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life.
- Shankara Digvijayam