/lit/ - Literature

>>15047935
this appears to be a ~1800 page complete translation of it, although it's pricey

https://www.amazon.com/Mahapurana-Introduction-Translation-Photographs-Archaeological/dp/8171102980/

>>14992860
>they've already been refuted (pic), next
No you didn't, you barely addressed any of his arguments and instead just nit-picked over a few points, you offered no convincing defenses and you didn't show that any arguments he wrote were wrong.

>The Buddhist view in contrast resolves causality into the invariance of succession where the cause is devoid of any motion or influence. The Buddhist model of causation is not the production of commonsense objects like pots, but the infinitesimal process of becoming, as illustrated in the stream of consciousness.
This doesn't rescue it from being illogical

>Static commonsense objects need to be replaced by continuous processes or flux. The identity of an object is defined by its characteristic function which must express itself instantaneously and cease. As a new function emerges a new object must be held to have been produced. However, the indiscernibility of similar successive moments and functions leads to a sense of persistent identity in sequence. It seems that Shankara criticism did not follow through to the end result which I suspect he presupposed in the beginning.
This is wrong, you completely missed the point of his criticism and you didn't refute him at all, it is precisely this attempt to say there is a continuous flux that results in inexcusable contradictions. Momentary atoms and ideas cannot unite into the two types of aggregates because if they last long enough to move from one position to another they are non-momentary. If momentariness is true there can be no causation of any sort and so causation and the 12 links of dependent-origination fall apart "because no effect can arise without imbibing the nature of the cause and to admit this is to admit the continuity of the cause in the effect which would overthrow the theory of momentariness. Again if the preceding moment is admitted to last till the arising of the succeeding moment, cause and effect will become simultaneous; and if the preceding moment perishes before the arising of the succeeding moment, then the effect would arise without a cause. Hence, either momentariness or causation is to be given up."

"If it is urged that the antecedent moment when fully developed (Parinispanndvasthah) becomes the cause of the subsequent moment, it is untenable, because the assertion that a fully developed moment has a causal efficiency necessarily presupposes its connection with the second moment and this repudiates the theory of momentariness."

>>14964777
checked, this thread is blessed with Shiva's grace. I am planning to eventually read through much of the important Shaivite philosophical literature like Abhinavagupta, Jnanadeva, Srikantha, Veerashaivism etc