/lit/ - Literature

where is your brain then

>>11936483
It's in the universe

>>11936481
Based, I have not read it yet but have seen it cited a hundred times reading Shankara's commentaries on the other ones, I'm about to order his commentary on that and Chandogya. By 'brain' do you mean consciousness or the actual physical brain? That might give rise to some confusion, as far as I'm aware it teaches the universe exists in conciousness, but in the sense that conciousness precedes the entire universe including the brain, and not as though the universe exists only inside a physical brian which leads to a paradox when you ask where that brain is located.

>>11936481
tell me about it. I've read the Gita, how do the Upanishads fit in with it?

>>11936769
Well I didn't really understand it that well but I think the main idea is like how do we know that we know if that makes sense. Objects in the world are perceived through the senses so we don't have access to the objects themselves. This means we don't know if the objects exist in the universe or only in our brain.

>>11936859
Unless you're a solipsist, corroborative evidence from others would strongly suggest a particular object exists. Though we can never know anything about it beyond subjective sensory impressions.

>>11936483
>where is your brain then
It doesn't exist. All phenomena are predicated by the universe-permeating substance known as consciousness/awareness. Consciousness precedes everything and it's the only thing we can be sure actually exists. Every phenomenal experiences shares the same objective unified consciousness which is then distributed through subjective experience, this gives the illusion of multiplicity and subject/object. In actuality there is only the same unchanging witness consciousness that allows you to reflect on the fact that you have a brain.

>>11936481
>enlightened Hindus
>start out works of philosophy with horse sacrifice
Thanks I will stick with Kant and leave the dismemberment to the asians

>>11936899
This thinking is terribly crude, not thorough, and dishonest.

>>11936898
Actually bro I was just shitposting. I'm pretty sure the OP left shortly after making this dumb thread. Please don't be put off reading it because of my comment. Xoxo

>>11936962
How so, I'm not seeing any arguments there kiddo, explain why you think it's dishonest and so on.

>>11936916
yikes

>>11936899
You have the right sentiment but your thinking makes no sense

>>11937145
why?

>>11936899
>Every phenomenal experiences shares the same objective unified consciousness which is then distributed through subjective experience
distributed to whom?

>>11937096
It is stupid to say that consciousness is a substance. Awareness always begs the question: of what? This means that awareness requires some matter, else it is awareness of nothing, which is to say that it is not awareness. The matter of awareness is phenomena. But according to you, awareness is only awareness of awareness. This is what you are arguing, only you threw together different terms to make it seem like you weren't saying something contradictory and invented a conveyer belt of mechanisms whereby your uniform all-pervading substance magically exhibits diversity and change.

>>11936899
>DOOOOOD, PANPSYCHISM!!!!

>>11937315
>those lines around the eyes
trying way too hard

>>11937315
Eastern panpsychism is one of the most anti-onions systems of thought there are when you look into it deeply, everything basedboys love is deeply incompatible with it.

>>11937246
It is not distributed in an absolute sense, but falsely appears to be distributed and divided up among individual beings, but in reality it remains in it's own single and unchanging nature; with all the individual beings being illusionary. Any talk that implies a change or movement within it is only speaking on the level of conditional reality as a way of bridging the gap between terms we can conceptualize and the absolute reality beyond conception. Conditionally speaking, it appears to be distributed in that the same consciousness-awareness appears in various beings, but in reality they don't exist and there is only It.

>>11937290
>It is stupid to say that consciousness is a substance.
I'm not the poster who wrote that, it's technically incorrect but pretty much everything else in the post is right. The more specific and technical answer would be that substances and whatever one imagines as their counterparts such as empty space/void are equally unreal and don't exist, but there is only the infinite consciousness. People find it conceptually easier to visualize this if they regard it as a substance, but traditionally it's considered not a substance.

>Awareness always begs the question: of what?
Of itself, just as when in deep meditation all thoughts, sensory input and inclinations vanish but awareness remains. One can consider that on a conditional level one is aware of the illusion of phenomena, but the substratum of that illusion upon which it appears to play out is the same as the observer.

>This means that awareness requires some matter, else it is awareness of nothing, which is to say that it is not awareness.
That's wrong, and you did not at all bridge the gap required to make that unsubstantiated statement. You'll have to try again if you want to take that claim as a starting point. There is no reason at all why awareness requires matter, or why without matter there is awareness of nothing. Awareness is full-stop and does not need anything else to be aware of itself.

>The matter of awareness is phenomena. But according to you, awareness is only awareness of awareness. This is what you are arguing, only you threw together different terms to make it seem like you weren't saying something contradictory and invented a conveyer belt of mechanisms whereby your uniform all-pervading substance magically exhibits diversity and change.
That's wrong, I'm saying matter doesn't really exist, awareness is aware of itself, and it can also be aware of illusion-like false apparitions such as the universe appearing in consciousness (which is the same as this awareness), I don't see at all where the contradiction is, if you elaborate on what you mean I could respond further.

>>11937315
Logical positivism is the nu-male default view. If you're going to meme, then meme accurately.

>>11937414
>illusionary
illusions can't exist without somebody to be fooled by them

>>11937521
>illusions can't exist without somebody to be fooled by them

Exactly, you are just explaining my point for me. Vedantists use that exact same argument to argue against various nihilist and quasi-nihilist groups like certain sramanics and Buddhists who argue there no witness or being. The reality of the witness is a necessary pre-condition for an illusion to be witnessed, if there were no conscious witness we would not be cognizant of ourselves sitting at our computers at this very moment. However, the key point here is that this does not require a flesh-and-blood organism with a brain to act as the person who can be fooled by illusion, pure unconditioned awareness is sufficient for the observing of something (either of itself or of illusion); and it is this same pure awareness (which is the only thing that exists) which is the witness of the illusion in the Vedantist view.

>>11937414
You are making a terrible error. You think that because, in mediation, or in sleep, all sense impressions vanish, that therefore I must have created all of them, and when I wake up I will begin creating the whole universe anew, which I have just apparently destroyed in meditation or sleep, and it happens that I will manifest the same sort of world and the same sort of body which I previously imagined?

This is idiotic. Waves travel through a medium, but the medium cannot impart them to itself. But I suppose that if you have already decided everything is one consciousness, you can have it abide by whatever rules you decide, since you have done away with the need for all rules, and can invent fantastical mechanisms whereby the all-pervading, all-powerful awareness devises comets for itself, and has it that awareness becomes aware of some of its own awareness and then decides by the powers of awareness to become aware of its whole self this time, and is now entirely aware of all of which it might be aware, and so forth and so on.

This is all stupid and arbitrary.

>>11936806
upanishads are part of the vedas, the holy scriptures of hinduism

the gita is part of the mahabarata, a sanskrit epic

>>11937625
>You are making a terrible error. You think that because, in mediation, or in sleep, all sense impressions vanish, that therefore I must have created all of them, and when I wake up I will begin creating the whole universe anew, which I have just apparently destroyed in meditation or sleep, and it happens that I will manifest the same sort of world and the same sort of body which I previously imagined?
Ummm, that's wrong sweetie, I simply used that as an example of a state where one can experience pure awareness, without anything else. I did not take the existence of that state reachable through meditation as a logical argument for the ideas I am explaining; it was used only to illustrate an idea I mentioned. The logical basis for these ideas are explained in Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika among other texts, if you want I can explain it and how you can logically arrive at these conclusions beginning with starting principles, but that's a separate topic than the explanation of the final understanding itself and how it's coherent and internally consistent.

>This is idiotic. Waves travel through a medium, but the medium cannot impart them to itself.
There are no waves in a real sense, but only the unchanging, unconditioned and infinite medium.

>invent fantastical mechanisms whereby the all-pervading, all-powerful awareness devises comets for itself
They don't exist, but exist only as unreal dreamlike illusions such as a mirage in the desert or a rope perceived as a snake.

>has it that awareness becomes aware of some of its own awareness and then decides by the powers of awareness to become aware of its whole self this time, and is now entirely aware of all of which it might be aware, and so forth and so on.
I'm sorry anon but this is all wrong, the awareness of which I am speaking is omniscient and omnipresent, it is neither not aware of anything, nor only aware of one thing in particular. The illusion of being aware of one specific mode such as a human being is itself as unreal and non-existent as the example of the comet you gave. It does not 'decide' anything, and there is not any contracted locus of awareness whose object of awareness changes. There is only the infinite unchanging awareness which is omniscient in its complete knowledge and awareness of it's own eternal and unchanging essence. This can temporarily seem to be obscured through ignorance, but this illusion and ignorance are themselves unreal and equivalent to 0 in the total scheme of things.

>>11937708
>its not aware of anything
>its aware of its essence
>and its complete knowledge
>and the fact that its unchanging
>but there aren't separate things just awareness
>so awareness is aware of awareness
This is fucking stupid and you know it. Here I will write your next answer for you.

>W-well it's not awareness per say, more like how if you see a snek and its really rope it wasn't really snek so therefore both rope and snek are illusions, get it?
>It's infinite, etc, unchanging, etc, eternal, etc, everything is a lie, etc

>>11937746
Your post is essentially conceding that you have no argument left to make anymore, and that you are angrily trying to mock me to sate your own injured ego. Everything that I've said has been logical and consistent, and I've gone out of my way to spoonfeed you and make it easier for you to understand. If you have any specific objections to anything I've written than state exactly what it is and I will answer. Take an hour or two to cool down and come up with the best response you can, and then you can post it and pretend that you are a separate poster with a really good argument who just popped into the thread; and then I will respectfully and satisfactorily answer it fully.

>>11937848
You haven't made any arguments. You've said consciousness is (magically) divided into phenomenon and that illusion (magically) arises from ignorance, which is apparently like the trough of a wave which the substance of the wave (awareness) fell into (somehow). As a result of all this, awareness is the only thing which is real, and argument which has a place but is not the end all be all which you are making it into. Furthermore, you have not explained how illusion comes about, or how consciousness becomes phenomena, or how individuality arises, or how the sea of consciousness was disturbed into wave-like activity in the first place.

>>11936481
Vedic literature is a map, there is no true understanding from reading the map. It it only found through direct experience.

>>11937928
the world only exists relative to that which is there to witness it, all experience is inherently perspectival and therefore what exists exists only as what is disclosed to self-relating centers

>>11937997
This is basic epistemology. Experience is conditioned by the mind. Great. Plaster some term to this idea, like God or Brahman and meditate on nothing else for the rest of your life otherwise you are a hypocrite and don't actually believe what you are saying.

>>11937928
>You haven't made any arguments.
I'm not the one trying to forward any idea. OP made a thread about an Upanishad which Advaita Vedanta purports to explain, someone else made a post about Advaita and I've just responded to posts attacking the ideas in those ones. I didn't need to present an affirmative argument because I already take as a given that which people were arguing against, If you would like me to though I can argue for it instead of just responding to you.

>You've said consciousness is divided into phenomenon
Wrong, consciousness is not really divided, it is undivided and unchanging, if one half of what is (falsely and conditionally) divided is not actually real, than the starting principle is itself really undivided.

>and that illusion arises from ignorance, which is apparently like the trough of a wave which the substance of the wave fell into
Ignorance and illusion are the same thing, there are various ways of constructing a conceptual model of how one leads to or is predicated upon on another etc, but at the end of the day, ignorance itself is illusionary and the illusion only persists because of ignorance. Neither are real, and when ignorance is removed both are revealed as never having existed in the first place.

>As a result of all this, awareness is the only thing which is real
'Awareness' is a shorthand here for Awareness-Consciousness-Knowledge-Bliss, but yes this is the only thing that's real

>and argument which has a place but is not the end all be all which you are making it into.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here, can you elaborate?

>Furthermore, you have not explained how illusion comes about
It doesn't, no illusion ever comes about in an absolute sense. It (in a conditional and non-real sense) falsely appears as existing. The infinite, eternal Consciousness contains within its infinity all possibilities and it is these which can falsely appear to the omnipresent Witness to actualize and manifest, but manifestation is ephemeral and unreal compared to the unmanifest, and the principle (which is the Witness) itself is beyond them both in its absolute indivisibility.

>consciousness becomes phenomena or how individuality arises,
It never does become phenomena and individuality never arises in a real sense, all sense of differentiation from phenomena, multiplicity to individuality never actually takes place and is just falsely perceived which is but an infinitesimally small portion of the eternal, so small and insignificant in the totality of things as to be nothing. The very act of act of perceiving illusion as opposed to being omniscient is itself unreal. It's a self-contained illusion, there is not a real individuality which views a false illusion, but any state and frame of reference other than the unchanging omniscient awareness is itself unreal and illusionary.

>>11937928
>>11938168

>or how the sea of consciousness was disturbed into wave-like activity in the first place.
Illusion is regarded as beginningless, and a part of the totality of things, but is so small and insignificant (to say nothing of it's unreality) as to be virtually nothing. As if there were an eternal and infinite ocean of awareness of which an infinitesimally small portion (whose very act of perceiving itself as a portion and not the whole is unreal) which falsely perceives the transient bubbles appearing throughout the ocean as something separate despite these bubbles being transient and inseparable from the ocean. This awareness witnessing illusion in no way affects the totality of things, and when illusion/ignorance vanish the awareness is left remaining in it's own non-dual nature as it really was all along.

>>11938101
no, the idea is that epistemology only confuses and complexifies this priority of witness/form over content

>>11938168
Great. Now what are you doing on 4chan if it doesn't exist?

>>11938219
Mostly amusing myself, but from a certain perspective I am helping to destroy the unreal illusion obscuring self-knowledge.

>>11938281
You utter hypocrite. According to you there is nothing to destroy, no self to amuse, nothing obscuring anything.

>>11938295
>According to you there is nothing to destroy, no self to amuse, nothing obscuring anything.

Exactly, when I say those things I accept that they are illusions existing only conditionally and not in an absolute sense. This should already have been clear to you from my previous posts.

>>11938312
Its not clear how I am supposed to cognizant anything you utter buffoon, since you have asserted that everything is unreal. Your philosophy is not even solipsism. It isn't anything.

>>11938330
>Its not clear how I am supposed to cognizant anything you utter buffoon, since you have asserted that everything is unreal

I never said that everything is unreal, but that the only reality is consciousness-awareness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda) which is Brahman; there is an extremely important distinction between the two to be made. Your above argument does not apply to the views I am elaborating but are more a criticism of (non-Mahayana) Buddhism. Cognition and the mind are both illusionary/unreal. But the Awareness which seems to observe them is real, this is what gives them their seeming reality and without this Awareness they would not be witnessed. It's quite simple I don't see what your confusion is about. The real infinite awareness is what allows the unreal to be falsely perceived. If everything was unreal including the awareness/witness you would not be reading this; I agree that's a stupid view and it's different from what I am explaining.

>>11938433
>it's different
No it's not. In order for me to be reading this there must be multiplicity, but you assert that this multiplicity is unreal, and therefore I am not really reading it. To say that there is an indivisible, uniform substance is to say that nothing can be witnessed because there is no way to stand apart from oneself in order to witness oneself, which is why I say that awareness of awareness is nonsense. For the same reason, illusion could not be witnessed, and therefore, if we are to posit an absolute and uniform substance, illusion does not arise either. Analysis, which we are engaging in this very moment, according to you, is not only unreal, but *impossible*, because to analyze anything is to sunder it, and this is impossible if the all-pervading substance is indivisible. Therefore, what you and I are doing right now is impossible, and if you refuse to acknowledge this then you want to violate the possibility of truth itself, which you claim to defend. Awareness ceases at death when the mechanism supporting it, whose existence is not merely phenomenal, falls into discord and disintegrates into its elementary components, and the same fate will befall everything else in the universe.

>>11938584
This is wrong and suggests you misunderstand what I mean. The mind and its cognition are processing the sensory data and observing multiplicity, you are not them, you are immutable, eternal and birthless awareness which observes the mind and its process (which are not you); this awareness is separate from and remains unaffected by contingent and illusionary things such as these. You are not the 'real personality', witnessing something non-existent but the real awareness observing illusions (which includes personality and mind) which are unreal from the perspective of reality. You are that same rope upon which the illusion of snake is superimposed. This rope (which is non-different from the witness) is omnipresent and the only thing which exists. The all-pervading real provides the substratum which allows for illusions to be falsely perceived, just as one does not perceive a snake on the floor in an empty and brightly-lit room.

>No it's not. In order for me to be reading this there must be multiplicity
This is correct, in order for you to (seem to) be witnessing multiplicity (which itself is unreal)

>but you assert that this multiplicity is unreal, and therefore I am not really reading it.
That depends on whether you mean you are reading it conditionally or in an absolute sense. It's true that in an absolute sense this is unreal but the real witness still registers this unreal illusion seeming to play itself out. If you are implying that by my reasoning you are not reading it even conditionally that's wrong and the second half of your sentence does not logical follow the first. Mirages in the desert are not real objects but one still seems to see them. Dreams are not real but during the dream one believes they are awake etc. The reality of the witness is what allows unreal things to be falsely perceived as real. I don't know why this distinction is escaping your grasp, I'm trying to help you get it. To summarize: In an absolute sense phenomena don't exist and actions don't take place, but they can falsely appear as such to the Witness which is the only real thing, without the conscious observing of them by the Witness they would not even be conditionally experienced as illusion.

>To say that there is an indivisible, uniform substance
First off it's not a substance. Substances don't exist (in absolute sense) and neither does whatever one imagines as their counterpart.

>>11938584
>>11938959

>is to say that nothing can be witnessed because there is no way to stand apart from oneself in order to witness oneself, which is why I say that awareness of awareness is nonsense.
False, your example only applies to hypothetical ocular vision and falls apart when you mention hearing your own speech etc. It is true that the eye cannot see itself, but if the awareness is omnipresent and the only thing that exists than there is nothing else it can be aware of other than it's own 'not-nothingness' consisting of conscious awareness (which is bliss). Awareness is not confined to a single point in space like an eye is but all-pervading (space and time not even existing in a absolute sense as anything other than illusions within it).

>For the same reason, illusion could not be witnessed, and therefore, if we are to posit an absolute and uniform substance, illusion does not arise either.
As explained above, the previous sentence which you take as justification for the current one is itself based on faulty reasoning and faulty understanding of what I am talking about. Just as the real basis of the rope provides the basis of the unreal illusion of snake, in the exact same way the absolute and uniform awareness provides the basis of false illusion/multiplicity, in both cases one seems to subjectively experience them despite them not actually existing.

>Analysis, which we are engaging in this very moment, according to you, is not only unreal, but *impossible*, because to analyze anything is to sunder it, and this is impossible if the all-pervading substance is indivisible.
The mind is engaging in analysis, but the mind is separate from Awareness and the mind is equally as unreal as objects. Just because it is unreal does not make it *impossible* for it to be subjectively experienced as real; the statement about the mind sundering things is inapplicable because the mind and its contents are equally part of the same self-contained illusion. Awareness observes the mind, objects, sensory data, thoughts and so on from outside from them; they are constitute part of the same illusion which Awareness remains untouched by but aware of; this witnessing (on a conditional level) of the illusion by Awareness is what allows it to be subjectively experienced, without the Awareness nothing would be. You seem to think the mind is one with or part of awareness when it's not, this is a key point.

>Therefore, what you and I are doing right now is impossible,
As explained in these two posts, the reasoning that you built up to lead to this conclusion is based on misunderstanding what I am talking about, you confused the mind and Awareness (Atma) and you also confuse the concept of conditional reality/truth and absolute reality/truth. What we are doing is not impossible, it has no basis in reality but reality is the Witness which allows it to be falsely experienced like a dream.

>>11936481
GET OUT MY HEAD!!!

>>11936492
Did you fucking have to read a book to know that?

>>11938965
You can continue to deny the reality of phenomena but you have not supplied the mechanism by which pure awareness becomes phenomena. You will say "it doesn't", but then I will reply, then how does it arise? You will say, "it doesn't", but then I will reply, then what is phenomena and wherefore have you experienced anything but pure bliss? If you say, I haven't, then you are lying, but I think you will say that your act of experiencing phenomena is unreal, and now we are going in circles. Essentially, you refuse to provide an argument explaining how multiplicity arises from pure awareness, because for you "it doesn't", but then you continue on, talking about illusion and objects, and sense data, all things which do not exist, as though pure awareness has, of its own power, all these things (which are not real) lying within itself, but not really.

>>11938584
>Awareness ceases at death when the mechanism supporting it, whose existence is not merely phenomenal, falls into discord and disintegrates into its elementary components, and the same fate will befall everything else in the universe.

Gaudapada already BTFO this view

>>11939068
>You can continue to deny the reality of phenomena but you have not supplied the mechanism by which pure awareness becomes phenomena. You will say "it doesn't"
All correct, I mentioned it earlier in another post but illusion is regarded as without beginning, it never came into being at a certain amount of time; it's equivalent to the foam on or the bubbles within an ocean which is inseparable from the ocean, and can only been seen as separate from the ocean because of ignorance.

>but then I will reply, then how does it arise? You will say, "it doesn't"
It doesn't arise but as I explained earlier the illusion itself is without origin and so there is no need to explain how it arose in the first place. The reason you subjectively seem to experience illusion right now is because of the momentum and effects of past lives observed by Awareness (which is you); specifically, the reason you are not remaining in your own natural non-dual omniscient state of awareness without phenomenon is because you have not realized the truth before in a past life, and were drawn in your ignorance to another illusionary subjective experience of phenomena through the prism of an (illusionary) living being; the sense of there being a living being and the illusions it experiences are part of one and the same illusion itself; when the truth is realized both are obliterated and there is just pure Awareness remaining in it's own state, the reason you perceive yourself as sitting here right now is because you have not realized this before.

>but then I will reply, then what is phenomena and wherefore have you experienced anything but pure bliss?
The answer to both questions is an illusion which subjectively appears to be real, but which is only real conditionally and is unreal in an absolute sense.

>If you say, I haven't, then you are lying, but I think you will say that your act of experiencing phenomena is unreal, and now we are going in circles.
I admit that I have subjectively experienced an illusion as though it were reality, it's only going in circles if you refuse to understand or acknowledge the distinction of conditional vs. absolute.

>Essentially, you refuse to provide an argument explaining how multiplicity arises from pure awareness, because for you "it doesn't",
I explained why it falsely appears to arise in this post

>but then you continue on, talking about illusion and objects, and sense data, all things which do not exist, as though pure awareness has, of its own power, all these things (which are not real) lying within itself, but not really.
Yes, you finally got it, that's it!

>>11939175
This is intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning. It does not account for appearance, and denies any need to do so, whilst constantly referring to it in its system, and half-heartedly proposing reasons why it might arise, but in the next moment coming to the rescue of its own possible deficiencies by accusing the recipient of ignorance which it simultaneously asserts is unreal... The sophistries are manifold and offensive to critical thought and I shall take my leave of it.

>>11939263
>This is intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning.
nice unsubstantiated assumptions

>It does not account for appearance, and denies any need to do so,
To the contrary, it establishes an elaborate explanation for their exact nature and why they appear to us as such

>whilst constantly referring to it in its system, and half-heartedly proposing reasons why it might arise,
not half-heartedly, the explanations are consistent with everything else in the concept

>but in the next moment coming to the rescue of its own possible deficiencies by accusing the recipient of ignorance
I've specifically pointed out the exact misunderstandings that you had in multiple posts

>The sophistries are manifold and offensive to critical thought and I shall take my leave of it.
Okay, so you've run out of arguments. It was amusing to debate you, I hope to see you next time.

Does Alan Watts have a good understanding of Hinduism? (that is what you're discussing yeah?)

>tfw now understand that the universe is in your brain and not the other way around

idealismus RAUS

If this thread is an accurate representation of the Upanishads I will never consider reading them

>>11939371
This thread has largely been a discussion of Vedantic ideas, but only one of the major sub-types of Vedanta. Most schools of Hindu philosophy ranging from schools of epistemology and naturalism in one way or another stem from them too though. Furthermore this has been a discussion of some of just the basic principles underlying that one subset of Vedanta, which goes way beyond what was discussed here, as do the Upanishads.

>>11939347
It wasn't awful, but he was not the best western writer/speaker on Hinduism. Listening to him is not bad in itself and you can acquire a basic familiarity with many eastern ideas from him but not a deep understanding (which it's best to read the primary texts for).

>>11937290
>It is stupid to say that consciousness is a substance
Consciousness can refer to itself.

>>11939068
>You can continue to deny the reality of phenomena
Where can "the reality" of phenomena exist outside of a conditional experience?

>You have not supplied the mechanism by which pure awareness becomes phenomena.

What you're asking, once truly understood, reads something like, "You have not supplied the mechanism by which this rope that I thought was a snake becomes a snake."

Phenomena can only exist conditionally, there is no absolute phenomena. You witnessing the phenomena is the only evidence you have ever had that the phenomena actually exists. Ultimately, there is no subject/object distinction, there is only eternal awareness.

>>11939716
>You have not supplied the mechanism by which this rope that I thought was a snake becomes a snake.
I am asking someone to explain whereby the rope came to mistake itself for a snake.

>>11939411

>>11937564
>pure unconditioned awareness is sufficient for the observing of something
what went wrong with the pure unconditioned awareness that it can be fooled by itself?

>>11937521
nope
>>11937564
brainlet

>>11940764
Wow what an incredibly well thought out refutation! You sure showed him.

>>11940764
>t. thinks dependent origination is a satisfactory explanation but is unable to come up with any logical arguments for why that's the case and how so you simply take it on faith """because buddha said so"""" making you no different in essence from a Hindu or Muslim thinking their scriptures are infallible.

bumping to save thread while I write a response

>>11940751
The answer to that question is that it was never fooled in an absolute sense. The awareness is considered changeless and actionless unfathomable awareness inhering in its own immutable nature; despite it observing non-real illusions it forever remains unaffected by them. An illustration that might help you get this is that of a translucent crystal placed in front of a red cloth which appears to take on the characteristics of the cloth despite remaining unchanged in its essence. The 'being fooled' is one with the illusion, the awareness which is unchanging watches the collective of the mind, ego-sense and so on which believe themselves to be an individual in the midst of multiplicity, rather than being fooled the Awareness just observes all this; but when the illusionary individual learns through the scriptures and from a teacher how to transcend/reabsorb/see through(there is an elaborate step-by-step process which is taught but that's another subject) the illusion than the pure Awareness is left in the state it was always was in and always will be in; but it is no longer observing illusion.

You also have to understand that the illusion itself (under which is included our present perspective as unliberated beings) is equivalent to 0 in the totality of things. Although in an absolute sense Atma is undivided, conditionally it's separated into the manifest and unmanifest. The unmanifest contains literally infinite possibilities of all possible configurations, the (illusionary) actualization of these in manifestation is considered 0 in comparision to the unmanifest; it's considered both less real in the sense that it's a transient modification which dissipates and has no eternal/immutable nature, and also less real in the sense of being at the very bottom of the hierarchy of reality descending from the supreme principle itself. In comparision to the manifest, the unmanifest is immeasurably more real; because it's unchanging, eternal and closer to the state of the undivided One itself. Then you have to understand that both of these only exist conditionally and that the supreme principle (which is Atma/Awareness/Bliss/Brahman) is in an absolute sense undivided.

>>11940751
>>11943057

So asking 'how does perfect awareness get fooled' makes no sense under this view. It requires you to combine several concepts at once in your minds eye but once you put togather all this you see that your question is equating the illusion (0) with the supreme principle itself (everything) as if Brahman in it's entirey was fooled. In actually it's like an infinitesimally small portion of an infinite ocean observes an illusion which is but a blip in the eternity of the ocean and this in no way affects the ocean itself. If if you prefer the one Atma is the moon, with the reflections of it in many puddles being the illusiona of individuality, these puddles are fooled into accepting multiplicty but the moon remains in it's own nature.

Once the root has been destroyed it cannot arise again and so once the Absolute or liberation is reached Awareness remains as pure Awareness alone. The implication being that for someone who had this happen while alive they could still perceive objects and so on but they would be reaveales in their true nature as superimpositions of conciousness upon itself. Read the various books of recorded talks by Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargdatta Maharaj for examples and vivid descriptions of this.

>>11943057
>>11943062
then is spiritual striving towards clear view meaningless as consciousness already perfect as it is?

>>11937928
>the mechanism

You're confounding parts of several Ideologies with Idealism. The One is not a negation of the many, the many do not emanate from it or become distinct in relation to it, but are contained by it in all of their potentiality and actuality.

>>11940751

Perfection is so not by exemption from arguments to the contrary, but in spite of them. The freedom it allows itself, or the freedom it IS, is likewise perfect. It subsumes its own transgression, fragmentation, oblivion.

>>11937315
P A N S O Y C H I S M

>>11937928
>>11943417

More specifically, Phenomena arising, that is developing their plurality of parameters either from nothing or from nothing resembling them as they are in your experience; this is not their exclusive Ontology. It's silly and futile to even contemplate it as such, never mind in regard to God. Imagine a cube with telescopic surfaces, you've only extended one of them.

>>11943119

It's not meaningless, because from the present perspective the truth is obscured. The Awareness is present inside us and 'is' what we are in an ultimate sense but in a state of ignorance (which is one with the illusion) we mistakenly believe ourselves to assume the attributes of the unreal. Everything is already perfect, but you have to wake up from the dream to fully realize and experience it. The Awareness is already established in its own state, but the illusion just needs to be collapsed into itself for the Awareness to not witness it anymore. The Awareness remains unaffected by illusion, but so long as ignorance remains than illusion will remain the object of attention for Awareness. In response to the question of how an illusion can collapse itself without relying on the real (which is unchanging and incapable of action in a real sense); one Advaita text uses the example of a bamboo forest grating togather in the wind until a spark from the friction starts a fire which burns down the whole foreat until neither fire nor forest remain. No amount of illusion or ignorance will ever disrupt the immutable indivisibility, equanimity and perfection of It, but to experience that directly right here right now you have to eliminate ignorance.

>>11937504
This, most soi-boys are ardent atheists and get offended or act rudely if you claim the divine is real, even a """pan-psychist""" one

>>11937975
This is correct.

>>11939347
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnukBxWH-2uMg1__OJBMKvtYYpuJCGsHq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwsn9N3U59c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr1oIATudD4&t=1163s
People call Watts a charlatan/fraud because he smoke, drank, cheated on his wife, etc..
But, if you listen to a lot of his lectures, you can gain a lot of insight into oriental thought in general. His view, as I perceive it, is aligned with the ideas conveyed through the perennial philosophy.

I sincerely advise you not to discount Alan Watts as a way to start understanding Eastern philosophy.

>>11936481
the conclusion of Wallace Stevens' "Tea at the Palaz of Hoon" helped me crystallize that revelation for myself, to be honest:
>Not less because in purple I descended
>The western day through what you called
>The loneliest air, not less was I myself.

>What was the ointment sprinkled on my beard?
>What were the hymns that buzzed beside my ears?
>What was the sea whose tide swept through me there?

>Out of my mind the golden ointment rained,
>And my ears made the blowing hymns they heard.
>I was myself the compass of that sea:

>I was the world in which I walked, and what I saw
>Or heard or felt came not but from myself;
>And there I found myself more truly and more strange.
lots of things I was puzzling over a few years ago brought me to a similar conclusion. Lichtenberg's short essay no. 89 in book L of the Waste Books was even more instrumental to me.

>>11940850
you're not worth anything to me so why would I care what you think? You're wrong and both of you are brainlets
>>11941806
There is no god you fucking retard, Buddha was right in that consciousness is an illusion and the world is largely in flux and this is the source of finite things and thus suffering. He's wrong in that there is no escape. Have a good evening brainlet

Why do you even bother with this utter garbage! Hell, I'm an Indian and I won't waste my time with the Vedas and the Upanishads.

>>11946296
>I'm an x and . . .
Why do you think you being brown and smelly means any of us care about your uninformed opinions?

>>11946296
what kind of philosophy do you subscribe to

>>11943497
>The freedom it allows itself, or the freedom it IS, is likewise perfect
sounds like christianity now

>>11946309
euphoric atheism

>>11946230
I'm sorry snookums but Vedantic thinkers already BTFO your nonsensical edgelord views over a thousand years ago. One can't perceive an illusion without there being something real underlying it. One does not perceive a snake if there is no real rope. Secondly if nothing is real at all and awareness is an illusion then there would be no witness of the unreal in the first place.

>>11946296
Bragging about being disconnected from the spiritual heritage of your people by globalization and westernization on a Laotian foot-fetish forum

ISHYGDDT

>>11946396
how so?

>>11945626
T.b.h. he is hated on by /lit/ mostly because reddit likes him, yeah he doesn't dive into the deep end of the metaphysics although he gets pretty much all of the basics right

>>11946223
>Lichtenberg's short essay no. 89 in book L of the Waste Books
going to type this out right now so anyone interested can understand where I'm coming from

>>11948354
I would be interested in reading it

>>11946223
>>11948354
words in brackets were italicized in the original:
>With just the same degree of certainty with which we are convinced that something occurs <within us> we are also convinced that something occurs <outside us>. We understand the words <inside> and <outside> very well. There can be no one in the world, or who will ever be born, who is not sensible of this <distinction>; and for philosophy that suffices. It should not seek to transcend it; to do so would be to toil in vain and to waste one's time. For whatever may be the nature of things, it seems to have been arranged and settled that we can simply know nothing of them except that which lies in our ideas of them: and from this point of view, which I believe to be correct, the question whether things are really present outside of us, and are present in the form in which we see them, is truly totally without meaning. Is it not strange that man absolutely demands to have something twice when once would have been enough, and necessarily has to be enough because there exists no bridge between our ideas and the causes of them? We cannot think that anything can exist without a cause, but where then does this necessity lie? The answer again is <within us>, inasmuch as it is completely impossible for us to go out of ourselves. It truly matters little to me whether or not one wishes to call this idealism. Names are of no account. It is at any rate an idealism that recognizes through idealism that there are things outside of it and that everything has its causes: what more do you want? For there is no other reality for men, at least not for the philosophical. In ordinary life we are rightly satisfied with a less exalted situation. But I believe with full conviction: one must either completely abstain from philosophizing about these matters or philosophize <thus>. In the light of all this it is easy to see how right Herr Kant is to regard space and time as mere forms of perception. Nothing else is possible.

this is the worst thread on /lit/ right now it should be on top

What is the advaita Vedanta view on the free will of the jiva? Do they think Maya is fully deterministic? If not, what is the source of free will? Is it Satva?

Tied to this, where do vasanas come from if they can be resolved? Also Is enlightenment an experience or knowledge?

>>11936483
That's like saying where is the universe

>>11936898
Particular objects? No. A reality that isn't arbitrated by you? Yes. Different things

>>11936481
>The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins,[3] and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā, meaning knowledge.

>>11948464
Why do you think it's the worst thread on /lit/?

>>11948501

Microcosmically, free will exists within the confines (and influence) of karmic bondage, more or less depending on personal circumstance.

Macrocosmically, free will also exists totally, fully limitless, eternal and beyond the confines of time and space, as absolute truth. This is realized when all unreal things such as ignorance and maya are dissolved into the great self, or the one, singular knower.

Enlightenment is both experience and knowledge. Vasanas come from divine will, or Maya, one of her names being Lalita, which translates to "one who plays."

This makes sense when one's ability to understand is no longer clouded by Maya. Keep in mind this level of understanding is not intellectual, rational or conceptual. It is purely energetic and fulfilling... there is immense satisfaction and meaning or purpose fulfilled, which is beyond any possible counter arguments to the contrary. It is the highest reality, fully eternal, all-encompassing, and unmoving. Nothing compares, there is no two, just one. This is what Advaita translates to: "not two."

>>11948436
this kind of problem has meaning for me because I was trying to understand what this idea of independently existing forms, separate from perception, would imply. it implies a kind of disembodied, impartial observer whose existence I've come to regard as fanciful and unjustified, spawning philosophical monsters and causing strife instead of clarifying perception and solving problems.
the reason I conceived this problem is because I was constantly coming into conflict with other people about trivial matters, and it mattered whether there was an independently existing reality, or if it was all down to our often subjective interpretations of reality, where it was the <interpretations> that took precedence. not that there wasn't an exterior, existing reality, but that the collision of our subjective interpretations of that reality predominates in our day-to-day existence.
the way I conceived of this problem was trying to imagine if it was possible to see or approach something from no direction at all, in a kind of abstract manner.
I found that this was a sort of impossibility - perception is essentially directional and embodied, and so to start by positing an independently existing reality first, instead of from our attempts at perceiving and understanding it from our own side first and then comparing notes so to speak with those around us, we'll be attacking the problem of determining what we're talking about from a place where disagreement is all too likely. it assumes too much to think everyone around you perceives reality the way you do, or that they notice the things that you do. it's like the blind men and the elephant quandary: they're all perceiving the same phenomenon, but they're located at different spots around it, and perceiving them as different phenomena.
(what does size, dimension, distance or time mean to something that lacks consciousness? does time and size even exist without a living being to experience them? these are only meaningful quantities in relation to something living. otherwise, a nanosecond and a millennium are equally arbitrary distinctions, divided for no reason. these are basic bitch "if a tree falls in the woods..." notions, but since trees presuppose other forms of life, it's a purer form of the problem to say: "in a universe void of life, and an asteroid crashes into a planet, does it make a noise?" fuck no. for whom or what would these vibrations in the air exist to be perceived by? nothing and nobody.)

gentle bump

I cum on your momma. I cum on your momma big time!

>>11937290
Neutrinos vibrate to create mass. Look into water memory research, the double slit experiment, etc...
It's all about Good Vibrations, man. Shit is only so bad because you feel it is, you think about it, manifesting darkness in your reality, since, as we know it, reality is completely informed by our language, The Light, The Word.

Praise Shiva!