/lit/ - Literature

>>13548148
>>13548903
>All I ever hear im Indian thought is the exploration of Nous
That's a stupid criticism, which is even more silly given that you evidently have not studied the main Indian writings themselves but only a 40-year old compilation of some random essays comparing them to Neoplatonism. It's blinkered and ignorant to assign value to something solely based on how closely it aligns to Neoplatonism, but secondly your criticism is not even applicable in this situation because Indian thought goes beyond the Nous and deals with subjects and concepts that align much closer to the One. If you had just read the primary Indian sources yourself this would have become clear to you.

The Nous in Plotinus' system corresponds to the Saguna (qualified) Brahman, or the cosmic being of Prajapati/Hiranyagarbha; whereas the One corresponds to the Nirguna (unqualified Brahman). Like the One of Plotinus, Nirguna Brahman is self-sufficient, passive, undivided, and is the source and contains the possibilities of all existence. Like the One, Nirguna Brahman is not itself the 'creator' of multiplicity but rather just like with how Plotinus assigns creation to the Nous the creation of multiplicity and phenomena belongs to Saguna Brahman/Prajapati which is not Nirguna Brahman.

I've noticed a few people who are into Neoplatonism get butthurt when people mention Vedanta as if they feel uncomfortable that people consider Vedanta to be on the same level intellectually. This is absurd and there is no real reason why you should be getting upset at Vedanta, but if you want to criticize it than you'll have to better than that and actually point out something specific about it that you think is wrong instead trying to make uninformed and half-assed comparisons which are themselves wrong. If you haven't read Shankara's writings or those of the other Vedantins you are in no position to pass judgement on anything without making a fool of yourself.

>consumerism stinks

books for this feel?