[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.17448734 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, D34EE57F-C44E-4ABB-B224-BFF665BB7006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries

>> No.17069978 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, 41eWIApmcVL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>it's well argued and could actually be true

>> No.16838930 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, Shankara Upanishads.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16123601 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, 41eWIApmcVL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Shrivastava develops this critique of Hegelianism in his study of Bradley and Śaṁkara—while they both speak of ultimate reality as an immediate experience which is beyond all relations, they disagree over the possibility of attaining such an experience. For Śaṁkara, the Absolute is not completely inaccessible, since it is present as the true self in everyday experiences, whereas for Bradley it is a ‘mere focus imaginarius’ which is conceivable but not actually attainable (SB, 36). Bradley’s view is, in fact, representative of the agnosticism that Western philosophy culminates into, since it relies solely on reason without the supplementation of an intuitive vision of reality. Bradley arrives at his Absolute through speculative reasoning, and his Absolute is at best an idea of reason in the Kantian sense and not an indubitable fact of everyday experience (SB, 40).

In other words, while Hegelian absolutisms provided the common philosophical vocabularies with which one could speak of the Absolute of Advaita, a fundamental assumption of these absolutisms had to be rejected, namely, the view that the deep structures of reality were amenable to discursive reasoning. For instance, N.G. Damle argues for an ‘integral idealism’ which rejects any ‘abstract or exclusive form of monism, whether materialistic or spiritualistic …’ Damle rejects the subjectivist view that one can ‘destroy the world by going to sleep’, such that one can dissolve into an impersonal Absolute which consumes everything, and also a spiritual pluralism which views the world as composed of metaphysically real finite selves alongside the Absolute.

However, the Absolute, which is a ‘concrete, spiritual whole in which all differences are reconciled’, can be apprehended not through conceptual means but through an intuition in which the duality between the subject and the object is dissolved (Damle 1936: 188–189). He presents his idealism in these terms: ‘According to our theory, reason criticizes itself, and recognizing its own limitations it points beyond itself to intuition. It implies disagreement with the view that identifies Thought and Being, Real and Rational, and thus is opposed to Pan-logism’ (Damle 1936: 192).

>> No.16087111 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, 41eWIApmcVL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Various commentaries on the Upanishads.

Of course now you have devolved into autistic screeching and demands to prove over the internet which books we've actually read instead of the actual arguments which means you've entangled yourself in the jungle of views and as such no further progress can be made. I bid you farewell.
>Advaita subscribes to the two truths doctrine
>two truths doctrine does not deny apparent reality
>gender is contained and can only be spoken of within apparent reality
>Shankara had a penis
>Shankara was male

>> No.15101762 [View]
File: 21 KB, 315x499, 41eWIApmcVL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Since you mentioned non-dualism, here is a short reading guide. You don't have to read Guénon's books to understand Hindu philosophy, but this is what I would recommend doing as I found them to be helpful and insightful. I would recommend beginning with Guénon's first book "Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines", then if you want to get into the non-dualism right away I would next read Guénon's book "Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta", this second book teaches you most of the terminology you'll need to understand translated Vedantic texts. At this point you can keep reading Guénon or you can read non-dualism stuff or you can do both at the same.

Advaita Vedanta is the Hindu school of classic non-dualism that Guénon focuses on in his writings which is what I recommend studying first, although there are other non-dual schools with good writings too. Here is an example of a short but sublime Advaita text which you can read in a half hour on your computer


Once you are ready to study non-dualism deeply, it's best to read the works of the main thinker of the Advaita school Adi Shankara. You can order English translations of his works on Vedanta.com or Amazon. I recommend beginning with the 2-part series of shorter Upanishad commentaries translated by Gambhirananda (pic related), then you can read the rest of his works in any order, but make sure you read all of his Upanishad commentaries before his Brahma Sutra commentaries. Here are links to online pdfs of most of his works in English. If I had to recommend one non-dualism text not by Shankara it would be the Yoga Vasistha

>commentaries (missing Svetasvatara)

>non-commentary works

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]