/lit/ - Literature

>>18488717
>Let there be tens of changes on the natural level, hundreds of changes, thousands of changes. What is that to me, who am unattached consciousness? The clouds never touch the sky. I am that non-dual God, who like space is subtle and without beginning or end, and in whom all this from the unmanifest down to the material is displayed as no more than an appearance. I am that non-dual God who is eternal, pure, unmoving and imageless, the support of everything, the illuminator of all objects, manifest in all forms and all-pervading, and yet empty of everything. I am that non-dual God who is infinite Truth, Knowledge and Bliss, who transcends the endless modifications of Maya, who is one's own reality and to be experienced within. I am actionless, changeless, partless, formless, imageless, endless and supportless - one without a second. I am the reality in everything. I am everything and I am the non-dual beyond everything. I am perfect indivisible awareness and I am infinite bliss.

>>18474434
I am guenonfag, I posted this thread and the scriptural citations to refute some other anon's claim that the doctrine of the Upanishads is qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita), instead of the eternal truth of Advaita Vedānta as clarified by the great sage, Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh).

>>18465205
>If there is no conscious relation and revelation
Consciousness had no relation with itself, only with other things. What you are saying makes no sense, you are trying to introduce a division where none exists.

The subjective experience of presence (being conscious), is by definition, knowledge of oneself as presence, that it is "subjective" refers to us having knowledge of it at all. The subjective experience of presence is the same thing as presence having knowledge of itself, but you are wrongly acting like they are different and that one has the revelation of the other, they can't when both are identical and refer to the same exact thing.

We had an hindu thread earlier where the idea that the two are the same were posted. I was banned in another thread so I couldn't answer to some anon defending it. Hence I create this thread in order to clarify this confusion.

If you read about this subject in the hindu or christian tradition you are welcome to help us find the truth. And if you know where traditional autorities talk about this too.

You could also know about the litterature in india or somewhere else talking about that.
Brahmabandhav Upadhyay, in favor of this confusion because he was a "catholic hindu" was quoted in the previous thread ; do you think Rabidranath Tagore held the same opinion about the christian trinity ? Do you know if he talks about that ? Apart from these suspect movements of interreligious confusion (Brahmoism in this case) do you think traditional hindus talk about that and refute (or eventually accept) it ?

Link of the thread : >>18277938

My original post
>>18282800
The idea wast that the Trinity has a logic of dependance, or causality, of one person to another, but not Saccidananda. That's one of the main difference.

Back to answering the anon :
>>18289873
>For there to be bliss (ananda) there must be consciousness (cit), for there to be consciousness (cit) there must be being in the first place (sat).
>The two are the same

How you can say it means a lot :
>to be bliss (ananda)
>to be
That means bliss must be in order, well, to be. That means bliss is an existence in itself.
But you still try artificially to distinguish it from being.
Hence if you can't distinguish, you can't put any causality (or procession) between the two.
In fact, Blissfullness is Being, and Consciousness is Being. Being is conscious by definition ("enjoyement of being"), or else it would be ignorance and it would be void.
So there is no reason to distinguish between three different ways of naming the same essence because by definition they can't be caused by one another. The causality, in the christian trinity is based on the "levels of participation" of the same essence (I will quote some fathers of the Church latter).

>>18281000
>What am I to do??
repent and accept that you are the eternal unchanging Self

>>18270300
>that's an unpersonal type of awareness tho, it has nothing to do with "the self" since lacks any form of individuality,
It only doesn't resemble the western conception of the self (which is often simply the ego or sense of individuality), but it perfectly corresponds to the conception of the Self or Atman taught by the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, which is the correct definition of the Self. The Self of Advaita is non-individual, and it is the light by which "personal" traits like personality characteristics are known, it is the innermost presence and light compared to the "outer" things which it knows, it is the innermost Self to which all else is presented as objects. That Advaita and the Upanishads have the correct definition of Self is shown by the fact that if you regard the ego or "personality" as the self then since those are inevitably known by an awareness who differs from them, this western conception of self amounts to saying that there is a presence inside you (awareness) who is not you (as it is not your self, being 'impersonal' and so it's foreign to you) but which knows your self as its object, this is obviously completely incoherent since the self should be the fundamental core or essence of the being instead of a mental object known by some alien foreign entity who is inside you observing you for some reason despite not being you.

>such a general type of awareness almost denies the idea of self and goes in line with the interbeing theory in wich we're all the same consciousness experimenting itself in different ways, pretty much the mahayana school of thought
This is actually the position of Hinduism, although Mahayana was influenced by Hinduism it still largely rejects this position. Nagarjuna denied that there was a self-revealing awareness at the core of living entities. Asanga accepted that there was, but later Yogacharins like Dharmakirti and Dinnaga rejected this and instead came up with an incoherent theory of self-knowing thoughts/sensations but without any separate self or consciousness who knows them (this was refuted by Shankara). Later Mahayana/Vajrayana schools mostly reject the position of Asanga and often even the later watered-down version propounded by Dharmakirti. When Mahayana and Vajrayana schools speak of a general/infinite/non-dual consciousness they usually interpret it as symbolically denoting the lack of intrinsic existence i.e. the sunyata or voidness of consciousness since their anti-foundationalist autism usually prevents them from affirming the reality of the most self-evidence thing ever, their own consciousness.

>Alas, how unfathomable, inscrutable, and variegated is this Māyā, that every creature, though in reality identical with the supreme Entity, and is instructed as such, does not grasp the fact, "I am the supreme Self", while even without being told, he accepts as his Self the non-selves, viz the aggregate of body and senses, under the idea, "I am the son of such a one", though these (latter) are objects of perception (and are hence not his selves) like pots etc.! Verily, it is through the Māyā of the supreme Being, that every man moves, again and again (through birth and death). There is this Smṛti on this point: "I am not revealed to all, being veiled by my Yoga-Māyā" etc. (G. VII. 25)

>>17683019
>how something can exist while being neither a point nor multidimensional
Because dimensions only pertain to space and Brahman is not included within space but Brahman is transcendental to space, so Brahman is not subject to things which are predicated on space like dimensions
> How can a tree exist if it’s made up of leaves and branches and whatnot?
That you are asking this shows that your conception of Brahman contains inherent contradictions which you are unable to resolve. That something may seem empirically real doesn’t make illogic logic.
> So then why should there be any reason whatsoever to seek moksha? Why study the upanishads?
Because until the Jiva overcomes their indiscrimination they don’t realize the Self and its eternal liberation and though its always existing
>You are already liberated, and the blind man seeing or not seeing doesn’t affect the sun whatsoever, and the blind man actually doesn’t even exist in the first place. So why bother?
If someone like a jiva is desirous of being liberated or knowing the liberation of the Self, that contains the impetus for them to seek it. Liberation is not produced by anything but is the very nature of the Self, that’s why when ignorance is overcome the Self is right there waiting for you so to speak. Liberation is the end of all sorrow and eternal bliss, but until the jiva overcomes its indiscrimination it wont know the liberation of the Self.
> Why do you keep making these walls of text that barely even relate to the text in question?
“To be a master of metaphor, is the greatest thing by far. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others, and it is also a sign of genius.” - Aristotle, poetics

>>17641027
pbuh

>>16528303
>When our physical beings die, the bit of consciousness we have is absorbed back into the Greater Soul, or the web

Ah but you see, if we had bits of consciousness which were parts of the greater whole of the Greater Soul; then, were this Greater Soul to exist anywhere, then it must necessarily exist in the parts of which it is made, because if it did not exist within its parts then it wouldn't exist anywhere else and would be non-existent. But if the Greator Soul is the whole, then it cannot exist within its parts, because the whole, by definition, cannot be contained within individual parts which are incomplete components of the whole; because then the same Greator Soul would be both the complete whole and the incomplete non-whole, violating the law of non-contradiction.

Therefore, the relation of parts and whole is false and without any basis in reality; there being only the one undivided and partless totality. The existence of our consciousness being undeniable, our consciousness is this undivided and partless totality, which is God, Brahman, Tao, etc. There are really no conscious "parts" of a greater sentient "whole", but there is only one undivided and partless infinite Sentience which uses Its power to project within Itself the false appearance of multiplicity and distinctions. If you accept the premises of your post but apply logic to them, it leads to the conclusion that the position of Advaita Vedanta is correct.

>Based off my beliefs, what should I read to confirm my views?

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>>14770282
>Everything is really advaita, advaita is orthodoxy, real Hinduism is advaita
Holy based....

>>14737257
>I have established a monastery for Guenonians (pbuh) in a barn near my house.
Holy based... Shankaracharya (pbuh) would be proud. We need to establish Guenonian (pbuh) ashrams in sacred formations in every sacred place on this world.

>>14723289
>The great Śaṅkarācārya summarized the nonsensical nature of Buddhism in a timeless passage in one of his works that still rings true today
Holy based...
(pbuh)

Why yes, I am a Shankarian (pbuh) non-dualist, how could you tell?

>>14702846
(2) Liberation can be obtained by devotion and action and not by mere knowledge. Even all illusions do not vanish by a mere knowledge of them. A jaundiced person continues to see white things ‘yellow* even after knowing the truth and can be cured only by taking medicine. If mere knowledge of unity-texts leads to liberation then all those scholars who know their meaning should have obtained liberation.
The advaitin replies that illusions can be removed only by knowledge and by nothing else. Let there be no illusion about this. If a person knows that he is suffering from jaundice and the ‘yellowness’ belongs to the bile and not to perceived objects, then certainly he is not laboring under an illusion, though suffering he might be from a disease. Again, Brahma-knowledge is not verbal knowledge but knowledge which has culminated in immediate experience through removal of avidya.

(3) If the world is false because it is knowable, then Brahma too, being knowable, would be equally false. Again, if the world is false there is no sense in saying that it is negated by right knowledge.
The reply is that the world is false because it is indescribable either as real or as unreal. Everything which is knowable as ‘object’ of thought is false in this sense. But Brahma is the transcendental ground of all empirical knowledge and stands self-luminous and self-proved. It is not ‘knowable’ as an object of thought Again, it is only the false that can be negated.

>>14698477
>>but only the self-luminous non-dual awareness left
>you’ missing the whole point of the other anon’s arguments. There can’t be a non-dual awareness because awareness is always awareness of something, so it’s necessarily dual. The expression “non-dual awareness” is an oxymoron, hence logically contradictory.
Already addressed above, you are saying "I know of no instance in which awareness can exist as undifferentiated awareness which is one without a second and beyond the subject-object duality, therefore it cannot exist", but what you are not realizing is that there is no reason why Brahman, or God, could not have such an awareness (because He is formless and does not have a brain or an intellect etc which are the unreal limiting adjuncts responsible for the normal subject-object nature of our awareness), and that in such a case it would not be valid to extend the limitations of Brahman's creation to Brahman Himself and assume that He is limited by them.

>>14698724
>I'm going to retroactively refute all of that
Holy based......

>>14675608
>We cannot escape from the subject object dualism
Repeat yourself.

>>14669463
>>14669697
>>14669720
>>14669782
>>14669833
Absolutely based...