/lit/ - Literature

>>15014056
it's better to just stop replying to him, he obviously has some weird disorder where he gets a dopamine rush everytime people reply to him to argue, the less we reply to him the more posts we'll have for actual good conversation before we reach the bump limit

>>14702867
>The world would be the manifestation of this presupposition – God or Brahman. Now, the concept of manifestation according to the Vedânta is extraordinarily ambiguous.
Much of what follows in the next few paragraphs is based on Evola's lack of understanding about vivartavada and maya. At times he seems to confuse the position of Advaita with that of Vishishtadvaita and Bhedebheda Vedanta

>It is said in fact that Brahman in manifestation remains what it is – immutable, motionless – and also that manifestation itself (and, therefore, all that is particularity, individuality and Becoming) are, in comparison with it, something ‘rigorously null’. They are a ‘modifying’ of it, which does not alter it in any way.
Yes, they are null in that they are unreal in an Absolute sense, however they are not a "modifying" of Brahman at all in Advaita, but only a false appearance via Brahman's power of maya. The other non-Advaita Vedanta schools consider manifestation to be a modifying of Brahman.

>Let us pay attention to the fact that, here, there is not the Catholic loop-hole of the ex nihilo, in which the nihil becomes a distinct and, in its way, a positive principle, from which the created things could be materialised so that they would be and, at the same time (in that they are made of ‘nothing’, of ‘privation’), would not be. Brahman, instead, does not have anything outside itself : not even ‘nothing’. Things are its modifications: so how can it be said that they are non-existent?
Wrong, things are not its modifications as explained already. Maya and the manifested world are not said to be "non-existent", but rather anirvachaniya which in Advaita means undefinable either as completely real or as completely unreal. They are undefinable as completely real because they are illusory and are sublated, but they cannot be defined as completely unreal because they appear as empirically real to us in our consciousness unlike the skyflower or the son of a barren women which are actually completely unreal; they are ultimately unreal in an Absolute sense from the perspective of Absolute reality, but from the perspective of our conditional/seeming reality within maya they are anirvachaniya.