/lit/ - Literature

>>22026017
There's no need whatsoever of making such ontological and realist interpretations.
Shankara IS a realist with regard to empirical reality, that's a major reason why he criticizes and refutes the subjective idealism of Yogachara Buddhism (and of SSS by extension), for Shankara this realism consists of the fact that the world is not wrongly projected by one individual's ignorance but it is present as a relative reality that is exterior to one's own mind and assumptions, as Chandradhar Sharma correctly observes:

Shankara believes in epistemic realism and ontological idealism. He is equally opposed to subjective idealism (exterior world is absolutely non-existent) and ontological realism (exterior world is ultimate reality). For him, the empirical reality of this world of subject-object duality cannot be denied nor can its ultimate reality be upheld. The world is empirically real and transcendentally unreal. It would be absurd to suppose that Shankara, while criticising Buddhist idealism, compromises with his own idealism or becomes a realist or uses the arguments of realism in which he himself does not believe. Shankara accepts and defends only epistemic realism as it is not incompatible with his absolute idealism. His criticism is directed mainly against subjective idealism. He also carefully distinguishes his Vedantic idealism from the Buddhist idealism which he criticises.

>This reification and literalization of mere (provisional)concepts led to the split of the Vedanta sampradaya and the development of various sub-sects (Bhamati, Vivarana, etc) and to the completely deviated schools of Ramanuja and Madhva.
This is a completely moronic thing to say, that you think that entire schools of Vedanta like Ramanuja's and Madhva's developed solely or even mainly in response to some obscure point of interpretation about Advaitic writings. These schools were motivated by a primary concern for devotional worship and for a theology based on devotion, that you think it was because of this debate over an Advaita concept really shows the extent to which you have uncritically assimilated nonsensical Neovedanta talking points where you think everything in India revolved around this one obscure issue. Even Shankara noticed strains of others types of Vedanta already present before his time and critiqued them.

>Look at what those preconceived views leads to >>22025347 , "actual nothingness", "pure non-existence", this is the pinnacle of samsara, being involved in complete mental abstractions of the worst type.
As I have already said, Shankara doesn't assert that pure nothingness exists but he contrasts it with falsity, it has already been explained here >>22023154
why he doesn't consider maya-phenomena to be non-existence, namely he says that non-existence lacks name and form and is indistinguishable everywhere, neither of which is true about samsaric phenomena.

>>20292795

>It is said that, animated by jealousy and ill-win on hearing such glorious praise of Sankara's commentary, some followers of Gautama's Nyaya philosophy inhabiting some region of the Ganga's banks, once went to Sankara for a controversy. They held the view that inference is the only way to knowledge. Their confrontation with the Acharya was excelled in stupidity only by the attack of moths against fire. Such controversies and attacks of critics only helped to highlight the excellence of his commentaries.

>For, see how the lustre of gold is only enhanced when subjected to heating and hammering. The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge.

>The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life. The holy Ganga issued only from the feet of Vishnu, whereas these commentaries flowed from the mouth of Siva.

>The former only drowns the earth and its inhabitants in its floods, while the latter saves men drowning in the flood of Samsara. The sage Vyasa offered to the world a collection of golden beads of Vedic wisdom strung together with his Sutras (meaning 'string' as also 'aphorisms') into a necklace. But scholars could not go in for it, as its Artha (signifying 'value' as also 'meaning') was beyond their capacity. But today these have been brought within their reach through the liberality shown by the Acharya in writing his commentaries on them. The sage Vyasa, too, must be happy to see the necklace of the Sutras made by him on the necks of so many scholars. Wonderful is the benevolence of this great teacher!

>>18718702

It is said that, animated by jealousy and ill-win on hearing such glorious praise of Sankara's commentary, some followers of Gautama's Nyaya philosophy inhabiting some region of the Ganga's banks, once went to Sankara for a controversy. They held the view that inference is the only way to knowledge. Their confrontation with the Acharya was excelled in stupidity only by the attack of moths against fire. Such controversies and attacks of critics only helped to highlight the excellence of his commentaries. For, see how the lustre of gold is only enhanced when subjected to heating and hammering. The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge.

The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life. The holy Ganga issued only from the feet of Vishnu, whereas these commentaries flowed from the mouth of Siva. The former only drowns the earth and its inhabitants in its floods, while the latter saves men drowning in the flood of Samsara. The sage Vyasa offered to the world a collection of golden beads of Vedic wisdom strung together with his Sutras (meaning 'string' as also 'aphorisms') into a necklace. But scholars could not go in for it, as its Artha (signifying 'value' as also 'meaning') was beyond their capacity. But today these have been brought within their reach through the liberality shown by the Acharya in writing his commentaries on them. The sage Vyasa, too, must be happy to see the necklace of the Sutras made by him on the necks of so many scholars. Wonderful is the benevolence of this great teacher!