/lit/ - Literature

>>15012203
I recommend the Bhavartha Deepika, a sublime 13 century commentary by the poet-saint Jnanadeva on the Bhavagad-Gita which is a considered to be a foundational work of Marathi literature and which is renowned for both its aesthetic and scholarly value. Shankara's, Ramanuja's and Abhinavagupta's commentaries on it are all great too, all 4 of these commentaries are incomparably better than any commentary or translation by a modern acad*micuck

"The Jnaneshvari is so exquisite, so beautiful, so highly poetic in its metaphors and similes, so lucid in style, so rich in fantasy, so delightful in its imagery, so sublime in tone, and so pure in taste that, not withstanding the profundity and the inevitable limitations forced upon the author whose object was to make The Bhagavad Gita intelligible rather than to add anything new, the reader is simply fascinated and floats rapturously on the crest of flow until all is thanksgiving and there is no thought." -- Professor W.B. Patwarden

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri-Jnandevas-Bhvartha-Dipika-Jnaneswari_smaller.pdf

>>14702873
>Again : “Immutable in its own nature, Brahman develops only the indefinite possibilities which are contained in itself, by means of the change from potentiality to actuality… and this without its essential permanence being affected thereby, precisely because this change is only relative and this development is a development only when it is considered from the side of the manifestation, outside of which one cannot speak of temporal succession, but only of a perfect simultaneity” (p. 36). The difficulty is the same one : this would work very well if we were able to explain how a point of view different from the absolute’s can exist and coexist with it.
Uhhh.. because of Maya? Hello? duh? I wonder if he even bothered to read Shankara before publishing this in a journal.

>But if this is not possible,
It is

>the succession, the development and the rest cannot be said to be accidental and illusory, but must be regarded as absolutely real. The only refuge from this dilemma would be the creationism as projectio per iatum of the Catholic theologians, that is the divine capacity to detach from itself distinct centres of consciousness, which can then see from outside what It comprises inwardly in an eternal mode. But even leaving aside the logical inconsistency of such a view, the fact is that it is completely unknown to the Indian wisdom.
Evola doesn't offer any explanation whatsoever for his claim that "the succession, the development and the rest cannot be said to be accidental and illusory", so I'm simply going to point out this is wrong and pass on, anyone who has read this far should be able to understand why this can quite easily be the case indeed.

>Guénon multiplies the points of view in order to explain the antinomies, and he does not realise that this is a pseudo-solution, and even a vicious circle, unless he starts from an original dualism, that is, just from the opposite of that which he wants to reach. Transposed to those points of view, the oppositions not only remain, but they become exasperated. When Guénon says (p. 44) that the manifestation cannot be separated from its principle without its being cancelled – hence the profound sense of the Vedânta and Mahâyâna doctrines, that things are at the same time real (in reference to their principle) and illusory (if taken in themselves) – he is right. It is not this separation for which we reproach him, but that of the principle from manifestation.
>From saying that if the world cannot distinguish itself from Brahman, Brahman instead can be distinguished from the world (as its free cause), to saying that “the whole world-wide manifestation is rigorously nothing in comparison with its infinity”, is a beautiful jump, that is, the surreptitious introduction of an extremely questionable concept of infinity itself.
Here in this paragraph Evola simply says "I don't like it" "I reproach him boo hoo" "this is surreptitious" without offering any real critiques

>>14631708
>Hi, first time posting on /lit/,
Welcome brother, Yes, you should read the Bhagavad-Gītā it's sublime. If you are a big-brained genius then instead of reading one of these gay ass wimpy 'academic' and 'simple' versions for retards that the plebs here so often recommend, you should instead read the Jñānēśvarī, also known as the Bhavartha Deepika; a 700 page translation of a commentary on the text (which includes the whole Gītā) written by a poet-saint Jñānadeva in the year 1290 CE. It is considered to be a milestone of medieval Marathi literature and is renowned for it' beauty and insight. You can read it at the below link.

>"The Jnaneshvari is so exquisite, so beautiful, so highly poetic in its metaphors and similes, so lucid in style, so rich in fantasy, so delightful in its imagery, so sublime in tone, and so pure in taste that, not withstanding the profundity and the inevitable limitations forced upon the author whose object was to make The Bhagavad Gita intelligible rather than to add anything new, the reader is simply fascinated and floats rapturously on the crest of flow until all is thanksgiving and there is no thought." -- Professor W.B. Patwarden

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri-Jnandevas-Bhvartha-Dipika-Jnaneswari_smaller.pdf

Just as a nose might become a fragrance, or ears might give out a melody For their own enjoyment, or the eyes might produce a mirror In order to see themselves; or just as cheeks might become a soft breeze, or a head might take the form of Champaka blossoms In order to produce a sweet scent; or a tongue might become sweetness, a lotus bud might blossom as the sun, or a Chakora bird might become the moon; or flowers might take the form of a bee, a lovely young girl might become a young man, or a sleepy man might become a bed on which to lie; as the blossoms of a mango tree might become a cuckoo bird, or one’s skin might become Malayan breezes, Or tongues might become flavors; Or as a slab of gold might become Articles of jewelry For the sake of beauty; Just so, the one pure Consciousness becomes The enjoyer and the object of enjoyment, The seer and the object of vision, Without disturbing Its unity. A Shevanti flower bursts forth With a thousand petals; Yet it does not become anything But a Shevanti flower. Similarly, the auspicious drums of ever new experiences May be sounding, But in the kingdom of Stillness, Nothing is heard. All of the senses may rush simultaneously Toward the multitude of sense objects, But, just as, in a mirror, One’s vision only meets one’s vision, The rushing senses only meet themselves. One may purchase a necklace, earrings, or a bracelet; but it is only gold, whichever one receives.

One may gather a handful of ripples, but it is only water in the hand. To the hand, camphor is touch, to the eye, it’s a white object, to the nose it is fragrance; nonetheless, it is camphor, and nothing but camphor. Likewise, the sensible Universe is only the vibration of the Self. The various senses attempt to catch their objects in their hands. For example, the ears try to catch the words; but as soon as the senses touch their objects, the objects disappear as objects. there’s no object for one to touch; for all is the Self. The juice of the sugarcane is part of the sugarcane; the light of the full moon belongs to the full moon. The meeting of the senses and their objects is like moonlight falling on the Moon, or like water sprinkling on the sea. One who has attained this wisdom may say whatever he likes; the silence of his contemplation remains undisturbed. His state of actionlessness remains unaffected, even though he performs countless actions. Stretching out the arms of desire, one’s eyesight embraces the objects she sees; but, in fact, nothing at all is gained. It is like the Sun stretching out the thousand arms of his rays in order to grasp darkness. He remains only light, as before; just as a person, awakening to enjoy the activity of a dream, finds himself suddenly alone. Even one who has attained wisdom may appear to become the enjoyer of the sense objects before him; but we do not know what his enjoyment is like. If the Moon gathers moonlight, What is gathered by who? It is only a fruitless and meaningless dream.

>Then, saluting them all with a final namaskar, a heavenly inebriation shining on his face, Jnandeva entered into the small hut-like crypt. Seating himself on the deerskin in the yogic posture, and placing his beloved Jñāneśhvarī close by, he sat quietly, repeating the name of God within his heart; then he signaled to Nivritti, and the heavy stone door was closed in place.

dis nigga entombed himself to be reunited with God faster, that's some real shit

>>13432649
In my opinion it's because once you reach a certain point intellectually and spiritually it eventually becomes undeniable that all dualism is subsumed into a higher unity. Not all schools of non-dualism trash dualism, some integrate it beautifully and with great care into their metaphysics, only to smoothly lead to something beyond it; Jnanadeva's works are a great example of this.

Just as a nose might become a fragrance, or ears might give out a melody For their own enjoyment, or the eyes might produce a mirror In order to see themselves; or just as cheeks might become a soft breeze, or a head might take the form of Champaka blossoms In order to produce a sweet scent; or a tongue might become sweetness, a lotus bud might blossom as the sun, or a Chakora bird might become the moon; or flowers might take the form of a bee, a lovely young girl might become a young man, or a sleepy man might become a bed on which to lie; as the blossoms of a mango tree might become a cuckoo bird, or one’s skin might become Malayan breezes, Or tongues might become flavors; Or as a slab of gold might become Articles of jewelry For the sake of beauty; Just so, the one pure Consciousness becomes The enjoyer and the object of enjoyment, The seer and the object of vision, Without disturbing Its unity. A Shevanti flower bursts forth With a thousand petals; Yet it does not become anything But a Shevanti flower. Similarly, the auspicious drums of ever new experiences May be sounding, But in the kingdom of Stillness, Nothing is heard. All of the senses may rush simultaneously Toward the multitude of sense objects, But, just as, in a mirror, One’s vision only meets one’s vision, The rushing senses only meet themselves. One may purchase a necklace, earrings, or a bracelet; but it is only gold, whichever one receives.

One may gather a handful of ripples, but it is only water in the hand. To the hand, camphor is touch, to the eye, it’s a white object, to the nose it is fragrance; nonetheless, it is camphor, and nothing but camphor. Likewise, the sensible Universe is only the vibration of the Self. The various senses attempt to catch their objects in their hands. For example, the ears try to catch the words; but as soon as the senses touch their objects, the objects disappear as objects. there’s no object for one to touch; for all is the Self. The juice of the sugarcane is part of the sugarcane; the light of the full moon belongs to the full moon. The meeting of the senses and their objects is like moonlight falling on the Moon, or like water sprinkling on the sea. One who has attained this wisdom may say whatever he likes; the silence of his contemplation remains undisturbed. His state of actionlessness remains unaffected, even though he performs countless actions. Stretching out the arms of desire, one’s eyesight embraces the objects she sees; but, in fact, nothing at all is gained. It is like the Sun stretching out the thousand arms of his rays in order to grasp darkness. He remains only light, as before; just as a person, awakening to enjoy the activity of a dream, finds himself suddenly alone. Even one who has attained wisdom may appear to become the enjoyer of the sense objects before him; but we do not know what his enjoyment is like. If the Moon gathers moonlight, What is gathered by who? It is only a fruitless and meaningless dream.