/lit/ - Literature

>>20286848
All the arguments in this thread against Advaita, especially those of the very dishonest ESL-anon, have amounted to strawmen, blatant sophistries, or circular reasoning.

You are welcome to try to provide an example of an argument which wasn't one of those.... but I won't hold my breathe waiting.

>>20121786
>Other way around. A permanent awareness would be stuck on its object forever, like a frame in a film reel.
Wrong, because the mind is what grasps objects and changes in response to them, awareness is just the constant unchanging luminous presence that reveals what the mind is doing, awareness doesn't have to change in any way in order to reveal or illuminate changing objects. The awareness is constant, and as soon as a new mental configuration arises in the mind this mental content is instantly revealed by the same unchanging permanent awareness-presence that reveals each and every mental-content, no difference whatsoever can be found in the awareness of one moment and the next but all differences can only be found in the objects of awareness, so there is no epistemic or logical basis to say awareness changes in any fashion ever.

>>20121845
>Did Hinduism disappear from modern day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Goa, Southeast Asia because the Brahmin priests there were out-argued by Islam, Christianity and Buddhism?
Religions are strongest in their homelands, but Hinduism defeated Buddhism in what was their mutual homeland.

>In all the eastern and southern regions the tÏrthikas (non-Buddhists) prospered and the Buddhists were going down . . . there lived two brothers who were the acaryas of the tÏrthikas. One of them was called Dattatrai (Dattetreya). He was specially in favour of samadhi. The second was Śaṅkarācārya, who propitiated Mahadeva. He chanted spells on a jar placed behind a curtain. From within the jar emerged Mahadeva up to his neck and taught him the art of debate. In Bhamgala he entered into debates. The elders among the bhikshus said, ‘It is difficult to defeat him. So acarya Dharmapala or CandragomÏ or CandrakÏrti should be invited to contest in debate.’ The younger panditas did not listen to this and said, ‘The prestige of the local panditas will go down if a debater is brought from somewhere else. We are more skilled than they are.’ Inflated with vanity, they entered into debate with Śaṅkarācārya. In this the Buddhists were defeated and, as a result, everything belonging to the twenty-five centres of the Doctrine was lost to the tÏrthikas and the centres were deserted. About five hundred upasakas (buddhist monks) had to enter the path of the tÏrthikas.
- Taranatha, “dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho” (History of Buddhism in India)

>But one might go further and ask the Nihilist why he does not feel thoroughly ashamed to go on recognizing himself as the agent in every successive cognition right up to his dying breath, and to remember all his past cognitions from birth on as having had himself as agent, while continuing to adhere to his doctrine that everything goes to destruction the moment it arises? He might perhaps rejoin that all this comes about through similarity. One might then reply to him that the notion ‘this is like that’ shows that similarity involves two entities. But as the Nihilist cannot admit that there is a single perceiver who could perceive the two similar things, his claim that recognition is based on similarity is just babble. If, on the other hand, there were really a single perceiver able to perceive the similarity of two moments, then there would be one person persisting during two moments, which would contradict the principle of universal momentariness.
buddhabros....

>>19869787
That post didn't contain the word 'self', you were unable to refute the argument in that post and so your sophistry has been defeated. Now leave 4chan and reflect on the perfect eternality and fullness of pure Being, and then you might make it someday.

Just then Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara also arrived, and he entered into arguments with Śaṅkara on philosophical and theological doctrines. Quoting many authors, each was bent on defeating the other. That controversy was unique for the subtlety of arguments employed, for the skill evinced in refuting the thesis of the opponent, and for the splendid eloquence and mastery of language they displayed. None could know in the least, on what side victory lay. Gradually, before the moonlight of Śaṅkara's dialectics, the lotus of Bhaṭṭa's intellect began to shrink and close, and at last he fell into a confused state of mind. Finding it difficult to defend his own thesis and desirous of avoiding utter defeat, Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara started an attack on the doctrine of Non-dualism, the light of Vedic wisdom. He said: "Your position is that it is prakṛti or māyā that causes the distinction between Īśvara and the jīva. Now, prakṛti must be resting either on Īśvara or jīva, and this will require the pre-existence of the distinction between them.

Śaṅkara: "No. Prakṛti can create the distinction between jīva and Īśvara resting on Pure Consciousness, wherein there is no such distinction, Take the example of the mirror which causes. the distinction between an object and its image. No image exists before the mirror is held before the object. The image only succeeds, and not precedes, the mirror, Thus, prakṛti can be said to be of Pure Consciousness without there being the jīva, Hence the pre-existence of the distinction between Īśvara and jīva is not necessary for accepting prakṛti as the common upādhi of both. Though prakṛti is an upādhi (adjunct of Brahman), it does not affect Brahman, just as the mirror does not affect the object. The image, however, is affected by the adjunct; the mirror. So also is jīva, the image of Brahman, in the reflecting adjunct of prakṛti ."

Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara: "It is irrational to say that prakṛti, which is inert and of the nature of ignorance, has got its locus in Brahman who is Pure Consciousness. For, how can Pure Consciousness and pure unconsciousness co-exist in one and the same entity? So it must have its locus only in jīva who is ignorant."

Śaṅkara: "Do not conclude like that. The fact is otherwise. There is no authority to support the view that prakṛti has its locus in the jīva, who is qualified by the internal organ (mind)."

Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara: "In individuals, there is the feeling 'I am ignorant'. This direct experience is itself the authority for the thesis that the jīva, qualified by antaḥkaraṇa (mind), is the locus of prakṛti."

>>19465163
>pic
>has never debated a single buddhist
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

>In all the eastern and southern regions the tÏrthikas (non-Buddhists) prospered and the Buddhists were going down . . . there lived two brothers who were the acaryas of the tÏrthikas. One of them was called Dattatrai (Dattetreya). He was specially in favour of samadhi. The second was Śaṅkarācārya, who propitiated Mahadeva. He chanted spells on a jar placed behind a curtain. From within the jar emerged Mahadeva up to his neck and taught him the art of debate. In Bhamgala he entered into debates. The elders among the bhikshus said, ‘It is difficult to defeat him. So acarya Dharmapala or CandragomÏ or CandrakÏrti should be invited to contest in debate.’ The younger panditas did not listen to this and said, ‘The prestige of the local panditas will go down if a debater is brought from somewhere else. We are more skilled than they are.’ Inflated with vanity, they entered into debate with Śaṅkarācārya. In this the Buddhists were defeated and, as a result, everything belonging to the twenty-five centres of the Doctrine was lost to the tÏrthikas and the centres were deserted. About five hundred upasakas (buddhist monks) had to enter the path of the tÏrthikas.
- Taranatha, “dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho” (History of Buddhism in India)

>>19417110
>Brahmin? Brahmin

>>18455104
>the monist reduces all to spirit/atman
The funny thing is that Advaita rejects this and says that Brahman is different from the material world, and all the people who seethe at Advaita and who tell you to read Vishishtadvaita and Kashmir Shaivism instead apparently don't understand that these schools make physical objects identical to God in a monistic sense while Advaita rejects this and says objects are different from Brahman in every way.

>>18385472
>it's not self revealing because it needs phenomena to be revealed,
1) there is no empirical proof for this, because in order to have empirical proof for this you would have to be aware of consciousness being non-revealed in the absence of phenomena, but if you are knowing this empirically there is not in fact a non-revealing of consciousness but since you are directly knowing this in empirical experience there is in fact something being revealed to consciousness.

2) In the absence of your ability to give empirical evidence of it being non-revealing, you point to what you allege is my inability to give an example of it being revealed without any association with phenomena, however this doesn't prove or demonstrate that consciousness isn't self-revealing, for the reason that the observable absence of examples of something doesn't prove that things non-existence, just because for example in ordinary human experience the self-revealing of consciousness is accompanied by phenomena, doesn't disprove the possibility that when liberated that same consciousness couldn't abide forever as self-revealing but without any phenomena.

3) So you have no argument that proves that consciousness isn't self-revealing, and you have also not explained how its alternative wouldn't lead to an infinite regress. As it stands right now my position is the sounder one, since mine doesn't result in an infinite regress while yours does, which is a reason that yours should be rejected as untenable.

>>18385695
>the problem with all your posts is that you end up explaining that consciousness exist, which no one is denying, you have to go beyond that and explain logically, how that connects with a transcendental reality above change and impermanence
That's only a problem if you think that I'm in here in this thread to prove Vedanta to you, instead of being mainly here to simply entertain myself by refuting and demonstrating the inner contradictions of the sophistic and NPC-like arguments and positions of buddhism.

From the moment in which the superimpositions are removed the truthknower enters
immediately into that which permeates everywhere, as water in water, air in air, fire in fire.

The fulfillment after which there is nothing to desire, the happiness beyond which there is no
greater happiness, the understanding above which there is no higher understanding, may one
know that is Brahman!

The object of vision, beyond which no further vision can be desired, the being in union with
which no further birth is possible, the knowledge beyond which one needs no further knowledge,
may one know that is Brahman!

That which fills all superior, intermediate, and inferior worlds, being, awareness, bliss, one
without a second, infinite, eternal, may one know that is Brahman!

That which is designated in the Vedantic texts as the timeless being which renders illusory
all which is not Him, that permanent bliss, may one know that is Brahman!

Admitted to a portion of the bliss of that being which is eternal happiness, Brahma and the
other gods attain a partial happiness.

All things rest in Brahman and He moves all things; He is universally diffused through
everything, like butter in the mass of milk.

That which is neither small nor large, neither short nor long, neither subject to birth nor
death, that which is without form, without qualities, without color, without name, may one know
that is Brahman!

That by the splendor of which the sun and the stars shine while not being illuminated by
them, that which illuminates all things, may one know that is Brahman!

Penetrating everywhere within and without, illuminating the whole universe, Brahman shines
from afar like a globe of iron rendered incandescent by a flame.

Brahman is not of this world; nothing in reality is, but Him. If anything appears to be other
than Him, it is but a vain show, like a mirage in the desert.

All that is seen, all that is heard, is Brahman. Through understanding this, Brahman is
contemplated as the real, aware, nondual being.

The eye of knowledge contemplates the being which is life, intelligence, and all-pervading
happiness; but the eye of ignorance cannot contemplate That, just as a person who is blind
cannot perceive the shining sun.

The mind, enlightened by sacred tradition and other means, warmed by the fire of
knowledge, and freed from all impurities, becomes brilliant as gold purified by fire.

When Atman, the sun of understanding, rises in the space of the heart, it disperses
darkness; permeating all and sustaining all, it shines, and all is light.

He who undertakes the pilgrimage towards his own self, the unique Atman, going
everywhere without regard to the state of the sky, the country, or the weather, indifferent to heat
and cold, and acquiring eternal happiness; free from impurity, such a one becomes all-knowing,
all-pervading and immortal.

- Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh), Atma-Bodha

The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

>>14528849
I'm not just basing this on my subjective opinion, I simply have no reason to doubt this scholar in his book posted here >>14527138 when he summarizes the Advaitin vs. non-Advaitin debates and says that Advaita generally hasn't been logically refuted. He summarizes in that picture some of the main points of contention made by Vishishadvaitins/Dvaitins and how Advaitins have rebutted each and in some cases showed how they were based on misunderstanding; I haven't seen anything in that chapter which is wrong, nor have I seen any good argument against Advaita by those schools which was not already explained by the author in that chapter as rebutted by Advaitins. I'm not interested in personal attacks but if you'd like to post anything that you think is a rational argument against Advaita made by a school etc I'd happily engage with it. I don't think you are actually familiar with any of these arguments or schools of thought though and are just attacking Advaita because you perceive it as aligned with Guenon, although if you want to post any actual arguments I'll take them seriously and respond thoughtfully.

>for me, it's आदि शङ्कराआचार्य

>>14231316
>it is “there is no identifiable subject so by necessity there cannot be identifiable objects”
If there is no identifiable subject, then everything remaining which is identifiable in any manner whatsoever must of necessity be an object, there being nothing left to perceive other than objects. The logic of your argument is inconsistent (which is pretty typical of Nagarjuna). You are saying that without identifying the subject (which you claim is impossible) then objects cannot be identified as distinct from the object. But, if it is impossible to identify the subject, then by extension the only things left which it is possible to perceive must be objects, which would mean everything that is identified or is identifiable is an object. The first half of your claim invalidates the second half.
> “the subject-object duality is a self-contradiction held together by unexamined perceptual assumptions.”
If you are premising the notion that it's self-contradictory on the above argument which I just dismantled than I would ask you to provide proof of your claim. But even if we grant that claim to you, it only emphasizes the reality of the subject. Self-contradictions are not self-aware or self-illuminating, but only only be intuited, experienced and realized by a subject. If you find the notion of subject-object contradictory that's only a reason to accept the subject while disregarding objects.

>>13760219
>That's not an "escape"
Well, the main criticism of Advaita that I've seen by Kantians is that the Atma-Bodha or 'Self-Knowledge' which it holds to be central to liberation and which Advaita holds to be possible only through immediate spiritual realization roughly comparably with 'intellectual intuition' is that its not possible because such a thing would conform to the categories of thought and as such be a representation and not the reality and/or noumenon. This appears to be Kant admitting that the idea of intellectual intuition is plausible in the case of a God or Primordial Being.

Hence, the teaching which forms the center focus and basis of Advaita fulfills the requirement by which Kant regarded such intuition to be plausible as the inner conscious presence in all beings is held to be that same Primordial Being; and the criticism that such Self-Knowledge would have to conform to the categories of thought and as such not be reality no longer really applies according from the possibility that Kant laid out; or at the very least a loophole is created, and this is unsurprising because to say otherwise would be to imply that the boundaries and limitations of the mind/intellect would apply to or be able to limit God, their creator. This already sort of aligns with Advaita anyways, as Shankara wrote in the 8th century that anything that appears in the intellect as an object of thought is only a representation and not the supreme reality, and that the Primordial Being is the inner Self of living beings who illuminates their intellect like light does an object as something separate from it; and this God attains liberation via a spiritual realization roughly equivalent to intellectual/original intuition which bypasses the normal workings of the mind and sensible intuition.

>>13751963
There was not any direct communication between the two schools that I'm aware of, but there were plenty of opportunities for connections that we don't know about. The Greeks mentioned some gymnosophists traveling to Athens but there is no much record of what ideas they had or whether these people communicated with any prominent thinkers. There were also various Greeks such as Pyrrho who were described by their contemporaries as traveling to India and returning to Greece, bringing back knowledge with them, Some people have also speculated that some Indians who traveled to Alexandria had met with and influenced the teacher of Plotinus, Ammonius Saccas. The early Upanishads predate all Greek philosophy as far as we know with the possible exception of certain Greek cults going way back. Although Shankara and early Vedanta texts like the Brahma Sutras were chronologically after a lot of Greek philosophy, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for Greek influence on Indian thought, the Indian texts that mention the Greeks typically describe them as good at mathematics/astronomy but otherwise unremarkable.

There could have possibly been some sort of Indo-European connection insofar as some of the Greek mystery cults and wisdom traditions a la Pythagoras, Orphics, certain mystically-inclinded pre-Socratics etc may have had some connection to some Indo-European esoterism or mystery passed down to the Greeks that way back when originated from the same or a similar tribe of Indo-Euro/Indo-Aryan steppe nomads as the same groups that the Vedas and the seeds of the Upanishads that they contained originated from, but there is no way to know for sure.

>>13527511
>tfw so big-brained that puny Buddhists have no recourse but to try to claim that you're some anonymous fan of some unrelated author who posted a year ago

>>13481933
there is no way /int/ is smarter than us, guenon posters alone raise the average iq of this board by at least 50 points

This

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

how do i get into advaita vedanta?