/lit/ - Literature

>>22726703
>then shankara is right.
Of course, I never said otherwise

>>22698849
Adi Shankara's of course

I prefer Gambhirdananda's translation of it but there is this other translation of Shankara's commentary free online by G. Jha

https://ia800301.us.archive.org/29/items/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English.pdf

>>20023644
He redpilled me on Buddhism

>>19491498
'ate nihilism
'ate obscurantist pseudery
'ate sophists

luv Atman
luv me Immutable
luv me Tradition

Simple as

>>19304426
>that creates a new problem, by diving mind and awarness, awarness loses his propierties, then what the difference between the awarness of suject A and subject B?
The first point is that awareness doesn't lose all its properties but it retains it's central property of being sentient presence, even in the absence of extraneous divisions superimposed upon it. The second point is that this is not a problem but it is an ultimate truth—there is no difference in awareness but all awareness is everywhere completely alike, immutable and identical, regardless of whom it belongs to. This fact is fully reconcilable with the claim of the Upanishads that there is but one undivided Atman residing in the hearts of all beings at once.
>what's the difference between a moment A of awarness and a moment B?
None, there are no moments in awareness because its continuous and uninterrupted, there are only moments in the changing world of objects and energies, these moments are an abstraction by the mind, since time is continuous as well and not comprised of building blocks of tiny slices of time.
>thus how awarness conects with this world at all?
Everything about how the universe works flows from God's energy being manifested as the universe.
>the fact that i'ma war isn't prof enough since my personal awarness is different from your, and the moments of awarnes i had are different form the future moments of awarness i will have
Once you isolate these instances of awareness of any (unaware and insentient) object, there is just identical awareness alike in all instances without any differentiation.
>a pure awarness separated from the mind has no way to conect with this world
It does when that awareness is Brahman, through whose energy the world takes place, as the Upanishads explains. If you approach it from the beginning with a materialist attitude, then that's one reason why it might not make sense at first.

>>18114804
very based

>>14914137
his teacher

>>14702809
>B. “Brahman is one only without a second” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.1) means that Brahman alone is the efficient cause of the universe and the highest reality because Brahman has “excellent auspicious qualities,” by virtue of which he is differentiated from everything else.(BS, 49, 50‐51).
The notion of Brahman's real nature/form being characterized by excellent auspicious qualities is contradicted when the Katha Upanishad indicates that Brahman is different from both righteousness and unrighteousness (if Brahman had excellent auspicious qualities it would be wrong to say Brahman is other than righteousness) when Nachiketa asks Yama about Brahman by saying:

Katha Up. 1.2.14: "Nachiketa said: That which you see as other than righteousness and unrighteousness, other than all this cause and effect, other than what has been and what is to be−tell me That."

>C. Tat Tvam Asi– Thou are That! (Chandogya Upanishad 6.13.3) does not mean (as Shankara maintains) “thou Atman art identical with that Brahman, but Thou Jiva art the body of Brahman.
How can the Jiva be the body of Brahman when both the Isha Up. 8. and Svetasvatara Up. 6.8. (both quoted above) say that Brahman is without a body?

>So the relation between each individual soul and Brahman is one of part to whole and thus only a partial identity.
How can there be such a relation of parts and whole in Brahman when the Svetasvatara Up. in verses 6.5. and 6.20. both state that Brahman is without parts?

>>14697819
>V. The Philosophical Argument from Sources of Knowledge: Ramanuja argues that our sources of knowledge do not permit a proof that Brahman is non‐differentiated pure consciousness.
Which is funny because Ramanuja himself accepts the Sruti as a valid source of knoweldge and they state in Svetasvatara Up. 4.1 that Brahman is undifferentiated and in Aitareya Up. 3.1.4. that Brahman is consciousness.

>A. Experience: Only objects can be experienced, but objects are qualified by some difference; therefore we cannot experience a non‐differentiated object. (BS, 20)
Only objects can be experienced in a subject-object duality, but the Upanishads repeatedly instruct that the same Brahman which they say is "not this", "without parts" "without a body" "incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable" is to be realized nevertheless, i.e. Svetasvatara 1.8: " The jiva by realizing the Supreme Self is freed from all fetters." So why would the Upanishads instruct us to realize Brahman if it is beyond the range of our experience? Because Brahman is directly realizable in a spiritual realization which transcends the normal subject-object duality, "He who knows the Supreme Brahman verily becomes Brahman." - Mundaka Up. 3.2.9.

>>14616497

>>14620004
you are

>>14492730
https://discord.gg/wSzFjSU
Picture related

>>14472613

>"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.

>>14449377

"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.

>>14436046
For the full collection.

>>14433319
just read shankara senpai

>>14382119
>Is there a feeling more sublime?

>>14267778
yeah hes p based

>*solves theology*
nothing personal mleccha

read Adi Shankara

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf

>>14095543
Adi Shankara