[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.16083397 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.16010998 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>They point out some such inherent logical fallacies, namely, if Brahman alone is held to be real and unique then the means of such a cognition, namely, the Vedas, that speak of Brahman and only through which one comes to know about Brahman (as for example, the Upaniṣadic passage that states: taṃ tvaupaniṣadaṃ puruṣaṃ pṛcchāmi) and which is accepted as the highest pramāṇa, will have to be held to be unreal by the adherents of Advaita Vedānta.
When Advaita says that the world is unreal, they mean 'real' in the sense of absolutely real, i.e. uncaused, eternal, undecaying, unchanging; only Brahman possess this degree of absolute reality. Hence objects and the world are not absolutely real because they are not undecaying and unchanging. Objects and the world are not simply said to be "unreal" but are conditionally real, which recognizes their appearance in awareness while denying their absolute reality. It is the nature of Brahman's power to maya to cause the inexplicable appearance of the world which cannot be classified as 'real' (in an absolute sense) due that world being composite, changing, subject to decay, but at the same time it cannot be classified as unreal like a barren women's child or the antlers of a tiger because unlike the former examples the world actually appears in consciousness as something which is experienced, hence the world/maya is anirvachaniya, inexplicable and inexpressible.

The Upanishads belong to this world of conditionally real objects and are not absolutely real like Brahman is, but this not a problem because the main purpose of the Upanishads is to completely destroy ignorance. In Advaita, liberation is both an eternally present reality and the true nature of the Self, which is obscured by Brahman's power of maya, when ignorance is uprooted by the Upanishads and the guidance of the teacher then the already present reality of the Self as omnipresent liberated consciousness shines forth of its own accord like the sun after the clouds obscuring it have passed away. It is not a knowledge which is produced by another instrument like a pramana. Shankara in bhasya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verse I.4.10. writes “It only removes the false notion, it does not create anything”. The Upanishads don't have to be absolutely real just like Brahman to eliminate ignorance, the mere fact that they are supernaturally revealed scriptures which are emanated (in conditional reality) from Brahman endows them with the capacity to destroy ignorance. An 11th century advaitin named Ānandabodha in his work Pramānamālā wrote the question "If the universe is unreal, the scriptures are also unreal, and so how can they be valid in regard to Brahmin?' to which Ānandabodha answered "Just as in a reflection, which is unreal, can indicate the prototype, which is real."

>> No.15937251 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, adi_shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15883230 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, IMG_5577.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

why choose 3 when 1 man solved all of philosophy?

>> No.15034921 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Lady and the Madam by Sir Edward Roarke
Tragedy of the Victors by Emile Thompson
Elena by Timothy Thoreau
And so I left with grace by Edgar Hampton
Neptune's Ascent by James Ramses
A night in the City of Flames by Ypres Fontaine
The Maddening by Gregory Viccelli
The time of Gods and Men by Quentin Corbucci
After the Fall by Frederick Pharon
Alone with Death by Henri de Montreuil
Hope without a Dream by Julio Sanchez
Dreams by Julie Astronne
Swansong of two dying Empires
Hubris by Hussein al Qahiri
Lol don't know
The death of man by Rafael Lusinski
Any stupid Iseaki light novel

>> No.15013159 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>lol his appearance so funneh XD!!!1

So this is the power of hylics counterarguments..

Reposting from another thread, the best way to understand Advaita is to read through Shankara's works. It's strongly recommended to read at least one and preferably two intro books to Vedanta and/or Indian philosophy before doing this.

Good intro books:
The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy by Sharma
Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta by Guenon
Vedanta Heart of Hinduism

The Advaita Tradition is one of my favorites, the author covers Madhyamaka and Vijnanavada Buddhism along with Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. The author takes the unconventional position that the Upanishads, Buddha, Nagarjuna, early Vijnanavada and Shankara were more or less pointing at the same truth in different ways, he has good and bad things to say about tantra. He has some very lucid writing on Shankara's ideas which explain them with great clarity. The only downside is the Advaita section is maybe only a 1/3 of the book, but within that is a very good review of his ideas (and you could just read this without reading the whole book)


Man and His Becoming is a good intro to and review of some of the key concepts that reappear again and again in Shankara's works, although some of it is a little obtuse/dense with lots of footnotes. It's recommended but not needed to read Guenon's 'Intro to Hindu Doctrines' first before this. Coomaraswamy called it the best book on the Vedanta in any European language. If you haven't read Guenon's first book it's best to wait to read this until after you've already read a book on Vedanta.


Vedanta Heart of Hinduism is another good primer that focuses mostly on Shankara, with additional chapters on Ramanuja et al, and later 18th-19th century figures on Ramana Maharshi, Vivekananda etc. Like 'The Advaita Tradition' this book is consists of the author's explanations of their ideas and not long passages of Shankara's etc works. It's translated from German, but still good.


>> No.14843713 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14819960 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> and move on to finer things. Where will this quest take me?

Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh)


>> No.14784700 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14702838 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>B. The satras teach that Brahman is satchitananda (being‐consciousness‐bliss)which (i) has no meaning unless its constituent terms have meaning, but (ii) the constituent terms have no meaning unless they are differentiated from their opposites, that is, non‐being, non‐consciousness, and non‐bliss. (BS, 50‐53)
Advaita doesn't disagree, Ramanuja's confusion over the Advaitic use of the term 'differentiation' has already been discussed.

>Another objection from a more contemporary view point would be this. So Brahman is Being, Consciousness and Bliss. Consciousness of what? There is no such thing as consciousness unqualified. Consciousness is consciousness OF something. Therefore Brahman is non-dual. But but it's consciousness of himself. The same. Even consciousness of oneself implies a duality
"There is no such thing as" is not a sufficient argument to say the Upanishads cannot possibly instruct about the existence of an unknown and supersensuous thing since Ramanuja already accepts that the Upanishads are a valid source of knowledge regarding the supersensuous, i.e. Brahman and moksha. You cannot simultaneously say without contradicting yourself that the Upanishads are the source of knowledge of Brahman and moksha which are not known from anywhere else but at the same time that Brahman cannot be unqualified consciousness because we do not know any example of that in the world. In Svetasvatara Up. 6.15: "the Supreme Self alone exists" is denied any other that can be the object of Brahman's Consciousness (as He really is in His true state, and not viz the objects that the Jiva appears to observe because of maya).

Lastly, Ramanuja is making the mistake here of trying to extend analogies from the empirical world to Brahman and assuming that He is subject to the same rules and patterns of this world when Ramanuja himself admits that Brahman is the creator of this world, is superior to it and is not tarnished by the faults that appear in it like evil, suffering etc, if Brahman is not tarnished by those faults or affected by anything in the world at all why should He be limited by the analogies that we draw from it and be subject to the limitations of the creatures which He himself created?

>> No.14666355 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Where to start with Shankara and why is his system better than Theravada?

>> No.14599153 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Adi Shankara - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>> No.14568905 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Where to start with Shankara and why is his system better than Theravada?

>> No.14426311 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

‘I Am of the Nature of Seeing’: Phenomenological Reflections on the Indian Notion of Witness-Consciousness


1. Introduction

Irrespective of the often considerable differences between their metaphysical doctrines, many of the major philosophical schools of India agree in their basic assumption that, in order to become aware of one's own true nature, one has to inhibit one's self-consciousness in the usual sense, namely one's ‘egosense’ (ahaṃkāra, literally ‘I-maker’). The normal way we are aware of ourselves—that is, our self-awareness as a distinct psychophysical entity with particular characteristics and abilities, formed by a personal history, standing in manifold relations to other things and persons, etc.—is in this view really the construction of a pseudo-self that obscures what we really are. One has to come to realize with regard to all aspects of one's personality that ‘this is not mine; this am not I; this is not the Self of me’, as the Buddha puts it (Saṃyutta Nikāya XXII.59, Rhys Davids/Woodward 1972–79, vol. III: 60) and as, for example, Advaitins and proponents of classical Yoga could affirm without reservation.

Yet, whilst for Buddhism this means that the spiritual aim is to realize that it is an illusion that something like a self exists at all, for ‘orthodox’ schools such as Advaita Vedānta or Sāṃkhya and Yoga, liberation lies, on the contrary, in becoming aware of the true self (ātman or puruṣa). In this paper, I would like to cast, from a phenomenological point of view, some reflections on what this overcoming of the ego-sense strived for by these traditions could possibly mean, and will try to vindicate the view of Advaita Vedānta that it does not amount to a dissolution of oneself into a mere flux of substrate-less transient phenomena, but rather to a realization of one's self as something that changelessly underlies this flux. [1]

1 Although my main point of reference is the Advaitic understanding of the self, I will primarily focus on
aspects it shares with Sāṃkhya/Yoga and many other Indian schools, i.e. independent of its monistic
commitments. (For an attempt to make sense of the Advaitic idea that ultimately only one self exists,
cf. Fasching 2010.)

>> No.14317510 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I am the supreme Brahman which is pure consciousness, always clearly manifest, unborn, one only, imperishable, unattached and all-pervading like the ether and non-dual. I am, therefore, ever-free. ॐ. Pure and changeless consciousness I am by nature devoid of objects. Unborn and established, in the Self I am all-pervading Brahman in the front, oblique, upward, downward and all other directions. I am unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, immortal, self-effulgent, all-pervading and non-dual. Perfectly pure, having neither cause nor effect and contented with the one Bliss I am free. Yes.

No perception whatever in waking, dream or deep sleep belongs to Me but it is due to delusion. For these states have no independent existence nor an existence depending on the Self. I am, therefore, the Fourth which is the Seer of all the three states and without a second. As I am changeless the series producing pain viz., the body, the intellect and the senses are not Myself nor Mine. Moreover they are unreal like dream-objects, there being a reason for inference that they are so. But it is true that I have no change or any cause of a change as I am without a second. As I do not possess a body I have neither sin nor virtue, neither bondage nor liberation, neither a caste nor an order of life.

Beginningless and devoid of attributes I have neither actions nor their results. Therefore I am the supreme One without a second. Though in a body I do not get attached on account of My subtleness like the ether which, though all-pervading, does not get tainted. Though I am the Lord always the same in all beings, beyond the perishable and the imperishable, and therefore the Supreme, the Self of all, and without a second. I am considered to be of a contrary nature on account of Ignorance. Not distanced by anything from Itself and untouched by Ignorance, by false conceptions and by actions the Self is very pure. Without a second and established in My real nature like the immovable ether I am (thought to be) connected with the powers of seeing and other perceptions. There is the saying of the Sruti that one who has the sure conviction about oneself that one is Brahman is never born again. There being no delusion, there is no birth. For, when the cause is not there there cannot be any effect.

>> No.14273001 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Adi Shankara, Guenon being merely one of his notable modern-day disciples

>> No.14197045 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Where to start with Shankara and why is his system better than Theravada?

>> No.14157302 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Ātma

>> No.14139552 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is he actually worth studying or is lit shitposting again?

>> No.13953572 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Raja_Ravi_Varma_-_Sankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

and why should I follow him instead of Christ, the son of God?

>> No.13952548 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Christianity is THE complete, perfect syst-

>> No.13927808 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi_Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>*solves metaphysics*
>*solves philosophy*
>*solves the problem of evil*
>*solves the hard problem of consciousness*
>*uses impeccable logic in all his works*
>*destroys atheism*
>*destroys materialism*
>*destroys dualism*
>*destroys Buddhism* (except for the real essence of Buddhism which is the continuation of the Upanishadic tradition and which is most fully expressed in the Shentong teachings of Jonang and Kagyu)
>*destroys Samkhya and the other darshanas for being logically inconsistent and partially unorthodox while at the same time rescuing and retaining the valid content from them*
>*perfects platonism without even knowing about it*
>*revives Hinduism and rescues the masses from ignorance*
>*is a prolific writer of phenomenal sanskrit prose and a master dialectician*
>*indirectly inspires Traditionalism*
>*is the king of no-fap*
>*does all this in only 32 years*
>*comfy aesthetics*

Is he /our guy/? Why isn't this genius more widely read?

>> No.13761277 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Can someone recommend me some books to read (or to avoid) to really understand nondualism
The best writing on non-dualism is by far Adi Shankara's translated works, everything else is more or less derivative of him and he is regarded as the school of thought's most prominent thinker, nobody else explains it quite like he does. If you are new to him it's best to begin with his shorter Upanishad commentaries which can be read online here. They presuppose being familiar with basic Hindu philosophic/metaphysical terminology, if you dont have that already I'd recommend reading a short intro book to Hindu philosophy to prepare. Shankara's works are so good that they blow out of the water most other stuff that you read without any prior knowledge so its worth reading an intro book first if you don't already have that. One Indian scholar Sharma wrote about Shankara's writing "He is gifted with extra-ordinary intelligence, a deeply penetrating mind, critical insight, logical reasoning, philosophical analysis, religious purity, sublimity of renunciation and profound spirituality. His literary excellence makes him shine as a writer of exemplary Sanskrit prose and soul inspiring philosophico-religious verses"


>short intro books (any one of these 3 would do)

>> No.13733397 [View]
File: 457 KB, 705x958, Adi Shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Spinoza is really the best there is to philosophy. There's nothing either before or after him as precise and well-built as his works. His vision of God, the world, and the affects of the soul are the best metaphysics and psychology we'll ever get to see.
*blocks your path*

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]