/lit/ - Literature

>>13139762
>Maya seems like a serious problem with his philosophy
You see that's the thing though, it's not a philosophy, it's not designed to satisfy the logicians; it may not even fully make sense to some people unless they already intuitively accept the existence of the divine/transcendent in general. When you read through much of the primary texts of the school such as Shankara's works it becomes self-evident that it's a coherent teaching which makes sense and you can experience the direct bliss of spiritual realization just from reading through them; it's not like other systems that prescribe a practice such as meditation or mantra-repitition that you have to do before reaching transcendence or bliss, just the simple reading of most of Shankara's commentaries can quite easily do that by itself. The Upanishads describe Maya as the power of the Lord, which is considered a sufficient enough explanation, it's really only meant to be read and studied by people who are interested in reaching bliss and not just for the purpose of evaluating it as a disinterested observer trying to categorize or rank it.