/lit/ - Literature

>>16751919
The leftist spirituality is Gnosticism.

>>16751919
They are spiritual about some things

>>16751919
There's plenty of leftists into new age shit and paganism.
If you meant Marxists it's because they believe in materialism.

Politics are their religion

>>16751919
leftists created new age, which is just mahayana vedanta globohomo humanist sex parties

Leftism is a mental defect that takes form when human beings have severed all connection to the absolute, and are therefore incapable of elevating their intellect beyond the profane. Religion to them is either inscrutable nonsense or a sinister, cynical scheme designed to distract people from engaging in banker-funded revolutions

>>16751919
What is spirituality? Is that when you pretend magic exists?

>>16751938
fpbp

>>16751919
lol where is the spirituality you talk about, it doesnt exist
>noo u dont get it its actually metaphors blablalba
they suck lol
>nooooo how could you I'm loosing my miind AAAAA

>>16753048
More like first post pseudo post

>>16751919

>Why do retards think of everything in terms of left and right?

....are... are you lonely little flower?

>>16752004
My opinion good and correct, you opinion bad and stupid

>>16753077
Ask Oppenheimer you retard

>>16753112
where is spirituality?
>ask this other dude its legit bro trust me
lmao

>>16751919
Most of the saints have been people with high openness, and pharisees are people who just uphold the status quo and gatekeep.
>>16751938
Gnosticism and Buddhism are probably the most leftist

>>16751919
Why can't you into english?

>>16751919
It should be: 'Why don't leftists understand spirituality?', you illiterate cunt.

>>16753107
My dick, been there done that
Your dick sits there with dunce cap

>>16751919
What about hippies? There is a crunchy side of liberalism that apes eastern religion and such. It's just Christianity they don't typically like.

>>16751919
Because they are materialists. Also
>>16751938
This, read Eric Voegelin's Science Politics and Gnosticism

>>16751919
I'm a rightist and I don't get spirituality either. Like I'm not as ass-blasted about it as some leftists are but I just could never understand most of the shit people talk about when they mean spirituality. Am I retarded / have I got filtered? Any good beginner lit that would at least make me understand the basic concepts?

>>16753218
interesting, pannobhasa bhikku once said that the buddhists that were inclined to the left were most westerners, this is a common inclination among them.

also this >>16751938

>>16753426
Not all Buddhists know what they're talking about. Buddhism originally was against the bloated sacardotalism and status quo of Hinduism at the time, which was corrupt and pharisitical. Metaphysically Buddhism is unique in that it uses negative terminology as opposed to positive descriptions of the transcendental. Gnosticism is essentially based on direct personal knowledge, which is essentially what meditation is about.

>>16753379
>Why don't leftists understand spirituality?
Why do leftists not understand spirituality?
Corrected

>>16753426
Not all Buddhists know what they're talking about. Buddhism originally was against the bloated sacardotalism and status quo of Hinduism at the time, which was corrupt and pharisitical. Metaphysically Buddhism is unique in that it uses negative terminology as opposed to positive descriptions of the transcendental. Gnosticism is based on direct personal knowledge, which is essentially what meditation is about.

>>16751938
Why?

>>16753509
you must be ESL

>>16753417
you already do understand it just in your own terms most likely. spirituality is simply about becoming more than you are, escaping the human condition, going beyond, transcendence, mystifying certain things in the world, defining what is good and what is bad

>>16752004
the reason that severance happened is because the elites within existing spiritual traditions and institutions became corrupted and hallowed out any connections to the absolute. One can only apologize for slavery and colonialism for so long before the violence in those actions begins to catch up with you. The left is attempting to reform that chasm. If they are working from a position of breakage, that’s because that’s what they’ve inherited. It’s sad, but it’s the natural consequence of an empire rotting from within.

As long as you identify the source of corruption in the outside, you’re refusing a more profound engagement with God on the inside.

>>16751919
>Me no speaky still maky shitthread
Why can't you Latin mongrels learn English?

>>16753417
It's an ancient way to cope with death and suffering, materialistic societies, idealist policies, over-siencetific education makes us forget, that we were happy just praying to the sun for giving us crops, fish and pussy, that though is quicker that wind, that darkness can cover the earth but not a soul, that the living are more numerous than the dead, because the dead are no longer, that ignorance is grief, that poison is desire, that I'm the opposite of myself

Also get into Socrates method, watch a movie or even play fucking assassins creed, then Marcus Aureliu's Mediation, then watch anymahabharata film, then read baghavad gita

>>16753510
>Buddhism is unique in that it uses negative terminology as opposed to positive descriptions of the transcendental.
I think this is what Pannobhasa Bhikku was at. The arrogance of westerners buddhists is exactly like that of leftists. I'm sorry to tell you, but apophatism is not unique to buddhism.

bump

>>16753510
>Buddhism originally was against the bloated sacardotalism
If you don’t even believe in God or Brahman, why would you whine about that as though it were bad? Having a traditional authority who passes down and safeguards the meaning of a religious tradition helps prevent it from degenerating into something which has lost the essential spiritual content like Protestantism or western “mindfulness-buddhism”
>which was corrupt
no it wasn’t lol, the usurers proliferated in the wake of Buddhism after formerly being held in ignominy by the Brahmanical priests
>and pharisitical
no, it wasn’t, even by Buddhas time there were a wide range of spiritual practices and interpretations prevailing among the Brahmanical priests, which was why multiple of the primary Upanishads had already been composed before Buddhas time and why in the PC it mentions Vedic Brahman priests living as possessionless monks in several instances

>>16754777
The majority of modern Hindu theology, asceticism and monasticism is derived from Mahayana buddhism

>>16754807
Hindu theology, monasticism and asceticism all trace back to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, which Buddha ripped his whole shtick from

>>16754807
if it is Hindu it follows and is sustained by the Vedas, and the Vedas predates buddhism by a millenium

Marxism, following in the footsteps of Hegel's idealism, is as much of a religion as Christianity. Every philosopher is Christian.

>>16754862
>>16754847
sorry, patrick olivelle disagrees

>>16754868
Well I’ll be.

Why rightoid doesn't understand spirituality? Right wingers, especially neonazi larpers, are the biggest materialist cunts around.

>>16754889
You'll be what? Cringe? Based?

>>16754883
Hinduism is not only advaita, retard. Upanishads is part of the Vedas, therefore whatever follows the Vedas is Hinduism.
And since you cite Olivelle, I'll post this for you:

>Patrick Olivelle gives the following chronology for the early Upanishads, also called the Principal Upanishads:[53][21]

>The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[54][22]
The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.

This proves Buddhism was immensely influenced by Upanishads.

>>16754883
>academic who is trained to follow the critical “”historical method”” ignores as a possibility (and doesn’t offer any good arguments against it) that the texts are revealed and thus do contain a consistent theology because saying such things is not acceptable in (((academia)))
imagine my shock

>>16754945
Advaita is the culmination of Hinduism and its only important theology. The rest are just imperfect versions of Advaita.

The rest of your post is nonsense, ignoring.

>>16754945
cope.

>>16754959
cope. olivelle is a great interpreter of the upanishads and he says advaita is not the theology of the upanishads. are you a better authority than olivelle?

>>16751919
Spirituality is just human botnet
Socialism is also human botnet, just with materialist language instead of metaphysical language
Socialist doesn't understand metaphysics. They "understand" con artistry portion fine

>>16751919
Not autistic enough.

>>16754966
>olivelle is a great interpreter of the upanishads and he says advaita is not the theology of the upanishads. are you a better authority than olivelle?
No, but Shankara is an even greater interpreter of the Upanishads than Olivelle, and Shankara logically proves that the Upanishads do have a consistent theology in his works. Academics by default have less authority on religious and textual interpretation than people who belong to that religious tradition, in this case Hindu pandits. Shankara is the greatest interpreter ever of the Upanishads, hands down. All modern academics are but insignificant specks of dust compared to the brilliant genius that was Shankara.


Olivelle and every other modern academics are all significant specks of dust compared to the great Shankara, reviver of Hinduism, vanquisher of Buddhism

>>16755048
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>16751919
Pop a perc like my back hurt, ooh
Fuck her, make her back hurt, ooh
Pop a perc like my back hurt, ooh
Fuck her, make her back hurt, ooh
Pop a perc like my back hurt, ooh
Fuck her, make her back hurt, ooh
Pop a perc like my back hurt, ooh
Fuck her, make her back hurt

>>16751919
why rightists don't understand leftists?

>>16754961
Tantra/Kashmir Shivaism is much more sophisticated. Vishishadvita and some other Bhakti doctrines were older and still subsist to this day. The majority of Hindus were NEVER advaitins. Vaishnaivism has always been the mainstream.

You have no idea about what you are talking, thank you for admitting this is buddhism. A false, coping, brainwashing cult.

STOP CONFOUNDING THE SPACE MARKS
STOP
STOP IT

>>16751938
This is pretty spot on. They both exist for the gratification of delusional NEETs and contrarians.

>>16755127
Vishishtadvaita is like the training wheels version of Advaita.

>>16755127
That anon was actually trying to mock Advaitists, he wasn't writing that unironically but you replied to him like he was
>Tantra/Kashmir Shivaism is much more sophisticated.
Really, can you please elaborate with an example of this? When people say that they often seem to become characteristically vague when pressed for details. Can you provide a convincing logic-based argument against the doctrine of Advaita used by Shaivites, in clear reasoned steps which anyone can follow?
>Vishishadvita and some other Bhakti doctrines were older and still subsist to this day.
The jury is out on the question of how earlier the various Vedanta schools existed as more informal groupings of thinkers because in the Brahma Sutras and in the writings of various 1st-century CE Hindu thinkers are a maze of reference to other earlier likely 1st-century BC Hindu writers/thinkers whose works are lost to the present day, with many of them it's not clear what their views are but each of the Vedanta school claims some of them. Ramanuja was the first to formalize Vishishadvaita as we know it, but before Ramanuja there were only Advaita and Bhedabheda commentaries written on the Brahma Sutras as far as I know.
>The majority of Hindus were NEVER advaitins.
Duh, the majority of Hindus do not become ascetics as well but it is only a small minority, you can't fully practice/follow Advaita in an orthodox manner without taking on the status of sannyasa so it's designed by default to remain the exclusive province of a limited spiritual elite who are capable of enduring monasticism, that is not an argument against it; if anything it speaks to its ability to remain uncorrupted by the popular demand of the masses.
>Vaishnaivism has always been the mainstream.
Shankara in his main authentic works (i.e. the major commentaries) when not describing the Supreme Being as Brahman or Indra (Lord) tends to use Vaishnavite names like Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa and Vasudeva; very rarely does he refer to Shiva. He did not really see himself as different from mainstream orthodox Hinduism which tends to prefer to worship the Supreme Being in the form of Viṣṇu; in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya when he critiques some of the theology of some of the earlier Bhedabheda Vaishnavites who regarded Viṣṇu to be the indwelling self, Shankara writes that their teachings are actually not completely different from his but that they still differ in some subtle areas where they don't completely adhere to the Upanishads as Shankara claims to do in the fuller proper sense which they don't.

>>16756410
>Can you provide a convincing logic-based argument against the doctrine of Advaita used by Shaivites, in clear reasoned steps which anyone can follow?
Prakashavimarshamaya. Advaita has the Brahman-Maya duality problem. Brahman's power must be willed otherwise it is not his power and does not come from him.

>Duh, the majority of Hindus do not become ascetics as well
Yes, this is one of the fundaments of my point, and also for ''mainstream'' Hinduism always existing, from before upanishads to the current times.

>>16751919
you think you do? lmao fucking lol.

>>16756521
>Advaita has the Brahman-Maya duality problem.
Until you explain what the exact premise is of the so-called "Brahman-Maya duality problem" and show how there is some logical contradiction in the doctrines of Advaita Vedanta, there is no problem. To be clear Advaita never said "there are no dualities anywhere" but they have a multi-leveled ontological hierarchy in their metaphysics, duality is accepted up to a certain point, but not at the level of absolute reality. When Advaita says they are non-dual, they mainly mean it in the sense of the identity of the Atman and Brahman as the same entity. And secondly, they also use it in the sense that at the level of absolute reality there is Brahman alone without any duality.

Advaita holds to the principle that a person who attain liberation continues on as the already eternally liberated and omnipresent Brahman without anymore experience of duality/samsara; so māyā is sublated for that person, it no longer exists as something which is a separate "dual" from them, but they attain non-duality without any remaining duality which contradicts that. Ergo there is no duality at the level of absolute reality, especially since Advaita also teaches that the Atman/Brahman was never affected by māyā/samsara to begin with but that the subjective experience of samsara accrues to the jiva as a result of it superimposing doership, actorship and enjoyership onto its own inner consciousness or Atman, which as space-like boundless luminescent unchanging awareness is really a non-doer, non-actor and non-enjoyer which is ever-blissfull and unaffected by the jivas superimposition.

So you have to be very clear on
1) What does Advaita claim
2) What is the specific thing which contradicts that which is also taught by Advaita

Because when I encounter these "duality problems" they often seem to rely on strawman versions of Advaita which are supposed to follow some made-up completely arbitrary standard of what "real non-dualism" is which ignores the openly propounded hierarchical ontology which admits of contingent and conditional duality at lesser levels of reality.

>Brahman's power must be willed otherwise it is not his power and does not come from him.
Does the sun need to engage in an act of willing in order for light to emerge? No, the light just streams off in every direction by the sun being there. Does consciousness as we experience it will itself to be aware of things and then direct that awareness to end? No, awareness or sentience is the very nature of consciousness, without that trait being willed into fruition by the entity possessing it. In the same way, māyā is a power which Brahman possess, with it being Brahman's inherent nature to always effortlessly wield or manifest this just as the sun always emits light, it being totally inconsequential to Brahman Himself who is desireless. I would agree with Jnaneshwar that Brahman is truly unaware of māyā in His absolute non-duality.

>>16756860
oh no no no guenonfag is on the "it's dualistic but nondualistic but dualistic but nondualistic but dualistic but nondualistic" thing again

>>16756873
Trying to redefine your opponents terms into a meaning which they don't use it in, and then pointing to a contradiction which results from that misinterpretation as a proof of the flaw of the opponents position is not actually a logically sound argument. It's what's known as sophism, a favored tactic of Buddhist philosophers.

By their sophistry was no match for the great Adi Shankara...

>>16756916
>2000 words about how brahman is differentiated
>but it's not ultimately differentiated
>2000 words about how brahman has qualities
>but it doesn't ultimately have qualities
>2000 words about how brahman has parts
>but it doesn't ultimately have parts
>2000 words about how maya is real
>but it's not ultimately real
>2000 words about how maya must emanate from brahman
>but it never really does emanate from brahman

t. guenonfag, known mexican and wikivedantist

>>16756917
It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals.

>>16754945
>Upanishads is part of the Vedas
lol

>>16756860
According to the theory of Maayavada of Shankara, the silver perceived in illusion is neither real (sat) nor unreal(asat), but is Anirvachaniiya, inexplicable object, which is an a product of Ajnaana (ignorance). During the illusion we perceive that the object is real but afterwards we realize that the silver in the shape of shell that we have perceived is no where and is unreal. It is not correct to imagine that the objects are neither real nor unreal as it is contradictory to our experience. To say that such a new object (which is neither sat nor asat) is born at the time of illusion is very strange imagination. It is everybody’s experience that only unreal object is perceived, when Bhrama occurs but not a new object that is created. Hence the object which is perceived in Bhrama is not an inexplicable object that is created. In addition, it is neither a real object that exists somewhere. Nor it is an object in the form of knowledge inside us. It is only the unreal object, which is perceived as a real object, which is actually in front of us. This is the only logical conclusion and in tune with the experience. 8. Ajnaanavaada: Those who say that this world is Vyaavahaarika (transactional) and anirvachaniiya (inexplicable) accept Ajnaana, which is treated as positive (bhaava vastu), and that it is the cause of the Jagat and its illusion. The world, jagat is the transformation of Ajnaana just as the pot is the transformation of clay. The existence of clay and the existence of pot are not different. Similarly, as Ajnaana is Mithyaa (unreal), the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, should also be Mithyaa. When Ajnaana is destroyed by the realization of Brahman, the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, also gets destroyed. This is the theory of Maayaavaadins. In any case, Ajnaana is the cause for the creation of this world. Where is the proof to say that there is a positive Ajnaana, which gets transformed into this world? Where does this Ajnaana exist? What is the object that it covers? Knowledge of what or whom, we do not get because of Ajnaana? The Aatmaa is self- effulgent, in the form of knowledge (caitanya swaruupa) and ever illumined by it. How is it possible to say that though Aatmaa is selfillumined, his many attributes are covered? According to Advaita, Aatmaa is embodiment of knowledge (caitanya swarauupa) but has no attributes (nirguNa); self does not have any attributes and qualities. It is the pure self with out any taint. Because it is self-luminous and hence is always known. What is the role of Ajnaana when there are no attributes and qualities in the self? What object is there that Ajnaana can covers?

>>16756917
It's all consistent unless you confuse between what's subjectively true for the jiva still subject for samsara and between what's true for the eternally liberated Brahman. They are not the same.

The self possesses some superimposed qualities but has no real qualities of its own. It is also not correct to say that Ajnaana is covering these qualities for us to perceive. There is no existence for imagined qualities. It is mere imaginations of Ajnaana. Only when the existence of Ajnaana is proved, we can imagine all other attributes projected from it. Right now Ajnaana itself is imagined. Why should we accept Ajnaana? What is its function? What does it cover? No answer is available for these questions. Neither Ajnaana nor its byproducts are proved. No answer to the question of what is that object that Ajnaana can cover. All these questions remain unanswered. It is not possible to say that Ajnaana can cover Jiiva, which is different from attributeless consciousness, or jaDa (inert matter). According to Advaita, the jiiva and the jaDa, which are different from attributeless consciousness are also an products of Ajnaana. Why should we accept Ajnaana to cover the objects, which are the imaginary products of Ajnaana? The same objection that was raised earlier is applicable here also. Moreover the JaDa padaartha (inert matter) is not self-illumined like chaitanya. JaDa can be perceived when senses have contacts with the objects. When that contact is not there, the inert objects are not perceived. One does not have to bring Ajnaana to explain this non-perception of objects. In order not to recognize the self-illumined Aatmaa, which is the embodiment ofknowledge, Ajnaana is required. Therefore other than for Aatmaa, for jaDa padaartha there is no need for Ajnaana. This is the theory of Advaita. There is nothing to cover in the self. In that case, what is that that the Ajnaana covers? What is the object for Ajnaana to cover, since self is embodiment of knowledge? Where is the need for Ajnaana? Because we are unable to answer all these questions, we should discard this Ajnaana. It is argued that the world is unreal because it is the product of Ajnaana. When the foundation itself has collapsed, how is it possible to claim that the jagat is unreal? The Ajnaana need to be examined also from an another angle. Those who claim that this Ajnaana transforms itself into the unreal world, cannot say that Ajnaana is real. If Ajnaana is considered as real then how is it possible for the world which is the transformed product of Ajnaana be unreal? The pot, which is the transformed product of clay, is as real as the clay. In the theory where the world is accepted as real, Ajnaana, which is the cause for illusion, is not accepted that it transforms as an object which is perceived in Bhranti. When the rope is mistaken for a snake, there is no material cause for the snake that is perceived. Either silver in the shell, or snake in the rope is not a transformed object of any source. Because we don’t have proper knowledge of the shell and the rope, we perceive unreal silver and snake there. To perceive such unreal objects, there is no necessity for a positive Ajnaana.

According to Mayaavaada, which accepts unreal and inexplicable (anirvachaniiya), the silver and snake are products of Ajnaana. In order to perceive these unreal objects which are in front, Ajnaana is accepted as the root cause. According to Mayaavaada this Ajnaana alone transforms into silver, snake and the world. If Ajnaana is considered as real, then this world which is its product should also be real. If Ajnaana is also unreal, for its appearance don’t we require Ajnaana? Again for this Ajnaana there should be Ajnaana as its source. According to Advaita to perceive unreal objects and their forms Ajnaana is required. Without Ajnaana the silver in the shell cannot be formed or perceived. In this way, to imagine Ajnaana requires another Ajnaana which itself requires for its perception another Ajnaana and so on. Thus the chain of Ajnaana will have to be invoked against one’s experience. Some philosophers have tried to prove the positive Ajnaana in tune with direct experience such as, “I am ignorant, I do not know anything” etc. They also say that they do not know the supreme object (parama prameya) of Shaastraas or scriptures. According to Advaita this is how Ajnaana is recognized. This is only the recognition of the absence of knowledge and not the recognition of positive Ajnaana. When you do not know the particular object, one should have some knowledge of it. Even when we don’t know the supreme Brahman, we should have some knowledge of that Brahman. Without knowing the object we cannot negate any of its aspects. Thus the knowledge of Brahman and the negation of the knowledge of Brahman, these two cannot co-exist. “I am ignorant and I do not know Brahman” – in this way one recognizes Ajnaana. Then in this Ajnaana, the Parabrahman is perceived as an object. Jnaana and its absence cannot co-exist. Similarly object (bhaava) and its absence (abhaava) cannot co-exist. But only Jnaana and Ajnaana can co-exist. In any case, in this Saakshi perception (I do not know Brahman), knowledge of Brahman and ignorance about Brahman can co-exist. When we get Tatva Jnaana (knowledge of the truth) by means of Vedanta, this ignorance of Brahman (Ajnaana) gets destroyed. Only because of one’s experience, the positive Ajnaana has to be accepted. This world is the product of this ignorance, this is what the explanation of Ajnaana by adviatins. By the experience that “I do not know”, “I do not know supreme objects discussed in Shaastraas”, we can say that only the absence of knowledge is recognized.

There is no need to bring positive Ajnaana to account for this experience. When one says there is an absence of knowledge of an object, it has to be identified. This is true and acceptable. We Samsaariis are not having realization of Brahman. We are ignorant of Brahman. Still, we have some knowledge of Brahman because of statements of the wise and the scriptures. But we do not have direct knowledge of Brahman. We do not have realization of Brahman. We have only indirect knowledge. It can also be said that we only have some common knowledge (saamaanya Jnaana) of Brahman but not particular knowledge (visheshha Jnaana or viJnaana). With the either of these two meanings in mind, we can say that we do not have the knowledge of Brahman. When I say “I do not have knowledge of Brahman”, the Brahman is recognized as an object in general (saamaanya reeti) and his particular knowledge is negated or the direct knowledge of Brahman (aparoksha) is negated. If it is accounted this way, where is the contradiction? (meaning there is none). When it is said that positive Ajnaana is destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman through Vedanta, it is accepted that Jnaana and Ajnaana are antagonistic to each other. If that is so, “I am ignorant” and “I do not know the supreme Brahman” in these two experiences the positive Ajnaana and the objective knowledge of Brahman, how is it possible for them to coexist at the same time? This is how we have to question the advaitins? The Advaitins say that only the knowledge gained by Vedanta is antagonistic to Ajnaana and Saakshi Jnaana, which can co-exist with Ajnaana. This cannot be accepted, because Saakshi Jnaana is more powerful than any other Jnaana. When Saakshi recognizes happiness and sorrow, we do not have the ignorance of them. Hence it is everybody’s experience that Saakshi Jnaana is antagonistic to Ajnaana. We cannot say therefore that Saakshi Jnaana of Brahman and Ajnaana can co-exist.

Thus there is no proof to accept the positive Ajnaana. Therefore the theory that the world is product of Ajnaana collapses. Hence the positive Ajnaana is not proved by direct experience. The light destroys darkness. Many philosophers view darkness as some positive object. Knowledge is also an illumining object like light. As the darkness is destroyed by light we have to accept some positive object which is destroyed by knowledge. That object should be Ajnaana. This is how they prove positive Ajnaana by logic. Light and knowledge though they have quality of illumination and called light of knowledge, they do not belong to the same category. It is not correct to argue that just because they are called by the same name, the knowledge need not destroy the positive object like the light destroys darkness. In Sanskrit the same word has different meanings. When we say Hari it may mean Bhagavaan or lion. Can we imagine the attributes of a lion on god because of the Hari shabda. In Sanskrit branches of trees are called Shaakhaa. Also different divisions of some institutions are also called Shaakhaa. Because of this word of Shaakhaa, can we prove the qualities of tree on institutions. Hence giving example of light and by twisting the words, positive Ajnaana cannot be proved as opposite to knowledge. There should be some base for experiencing different illusions. Without mud there is no pot. No object can be created without a material cause. Therefore positive Ajnaana has to be accepted as a root cause for illusions. Even this argument is not correct. The illusory perceptions are also a kind of knowledge. Knowledge is also a modification of AntahkaraNa (mind) just as happiness, sorrow and desire. All these are born as waves in the mind. As water is the root cause of waves, AntahkaraNa is the root cause for knowledge, desire, joy and sorrow. Therefore we do not need positive Ajnaana for the creation of them. Just as waves, born of water are as real as water, the illusion born in AntahkaraNa is as real as AntahkaraNa. A question may arise that if illusion is real, it can become Yathaartha Jnaana and hence PramaaNa. Though illusion is real, it is not yathartha. It cannot be considered as PramaaNa. Any knowledge can become PramaaNa only when knowledge and its object are real. Even though the knowledge is real, if the object is unreal that knowledge is Ayathaartha or ApramaNa. It is said in illusory perception objects are unreal, but it is not said that Bhrama itself is unreal and has not occurred. It is said that there was no snake, which is perceived in the rope. But it is not said that the illusory perception of the snake has not occurred. It is everyone’s experience that there was no snake, but its illusory perception was there. Hence illusion is real, but only its object is unreal. Thus we should understand the difference between illusion and Yathaartha Jnaana.

Hence the illusion like other things born in AntahkaraNa are real only. A positive Ajnaana need not be imagined as the root cause for all this. There is no existence for the objects which are perceived in illusion. They are only imagined. There is no need of any root cause. The object, which is perceived only out of imagination, is not the result of transformation of some other object. Hence we need not accept a new positive object like Ajnaana for illusion to occur.

>>16756938
In what way are they not? They were all part of the same orally-transmitted Vedic text.

>>16757067
no, Upanishads were just inserted into the Vedic oral records at a much later date. For a long time hardcore Hindus considered the Upanishads to have been composed during early Vedic age which they even more mistakenly put at 5000 BCE (not even kidding, mainstream hindus think this way). Lucky for us 19th century western indologists noticed this pattern, they saw what clearly was a transition period away from Vedic Yajnaism into Upanishadic Yogaism and the texts bear this both in language and in content. However the Hindus still persist with the exact falsehood you just posted, because of religious sectarianism and simply because they cannot bear the thought of their medieval commentators being wrong.

Current leftist thought views religion as part of the problem, a structure that promotes oppression. They're not wrong, the Abrahamic faiths have oppressed LGBT+ people, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument against LGBT acceptance. However, religion is embedded in every aspect of culture. I feel that leftists are too eager to reject religious tradition without thinking about the consequences. Those of us living in the first world have been living pretty easy lives for a while: no major war in decades, we live in safe cities, have easy access to food, etc. Hardships push us to look to tradition and religion. I think I kinda rambled here.

>>16753218
>buddhism the most leftist
Is this why the most buddhist nations have strict hierarchy and most of them still have monarchies in place? Buddhists have to be monarchists.

>>16757021
>According to the theory of Maayavada of Shankara, the silver perceived in illusion is neither real (sat) nor unreal(asat), but is Anirvachaniiya, inexplicable object, which is an a product of Ajnaana (ignorance). During the illusion we perceive that the object is real but afterwards we realize that the silver in the shape of shell that we have perceived is no where and is unreal.
correct

>It is not correct to imagine that the objects are neither real nor unreal as it is contradictory to our experience.
This objection is invalid as in fact we have examples of this being true in our experience when you have a dream, you believe that dream is reality; but then when you awake you sublate that dream and no longer regard it as having any reality. This dream was not real, because it was sublated and discarded as a unreal thing which we typically forget. But the dream was also not completely unreal, because it was something he had subjective experience of. The distinction of anirvachaniya is in fact necessary in order to establish a clear boundary between 1) unreal things we subjective experience and believe to be real and 2) completely unreal and non-existent things which we never experience, perhaps because they may be a contradiction in terms or physical impossibility etc. Without this distinction we only have a single term "unreal" to apply to both which obscures the fact that they are obviously of a different nature.

>To say that such a new object (which is neither sat nor asat) is born at the time of illusion is very strange imagination.
It is preciously because the essential nature of all illusions is that of superimposition, or imagination, that it can be so without any contradiction. All illusions involve an existing conscious observer who superimposes a false understanding onto an existing basis for that. These objects are not born but appear as the variations of existing objects, substituted for the normal appearance of that object which we would have otherwise seen.

>>16751938
Facts

>>16757584

>It is everybody’s experience that only unreal object is perceived, when Bhrama occurs but not a new object that is created. Hence the object which is perceived in Bhrama is not an inexplicable object that is created. In addition, it is neither a real object that exists somewhere. Nor it is an object in the form of knowledge inside us. It is only the unreal object, which is perceived as a real object, which is actually in front of us. This is the only logical conclusion and in tune with the experience.
Here, they are arguing for the adoption of the incorrect use of the term "unreal", as I explained above. If we accept this definition then the word unreal doesn't distinguish between things we never experience and things we do experience and believe are real without them being real; and this is a major flaw which makes Advaita reject using unreal in that blanket sense.

>Those who say that this world is Vyaavahaarika (transactional) and anirvachaniiya (inexplicable) accept Ajnaana, which is treated as positive (bhaava vastu), and that it is the cause of the Jagat and its illusion. The world, jagat is the transformation of Ajnaana just as the pot is the transformation of clay. The existence of clay and the existence of pot are not different. Similarly, as Ajnaana is Mithyaa (unreal), the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, should also be Mithyaa. When Ajnaana is destroyed by the realization of Brahman, the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, also gets destroyed. This is the theory of Maayaavaadins.
No it's not, there are actually a complex web of different positions of the exact relation between these various cosmological factors among all the various post-Shankara Advaitins and their sub-schools, but none of this stuff actually a necessary component of Advaita. One of the reasons so many attempted critiques of Advaita on alleged logical inconsistency grounds in Indian philosophy are not actually real critiques of Advaita is because they are the critiques of ideas which are not found in Shankara's works where he makes it into a consistent theology, but are the views of later post-Shankara Advaitins, some of whom adopted ideas Shankara himself disagreed with. It's because of this that we don't actually know with any reliability whether Ramanuja or Madhva actually read Shankara's works or one of the various post-Shankarite Advaitins of various flavors.

>>16757584
>>16757589
Biden won, get over it.

>>16757589

Shankara in his works uses Avidya and Maya practically interchangeably, there is no complex relationship where Avidya and Maya and the Jiva and the material Jagat all interface in a complex network. Instead, there is just Brahman and His power of maya. And maya includes everything else within itself without any further sub-division or bifurcation. The Dvaitist Madhva makes the same mistake where he introduces this false bifurcation into maya and then criticizes as proof of contradiction were none actually exists in Shankara's Advaita. In Shankara Advaita being liberated in the body allows one to experience the residual awareness of the physical world for the duration of one's last remaining embodiment (i.e. until the death of that body), but samsara persists for everyone else.

And all of these sorts of criticisms which attack these cosmological factors, miss the more subtle but perhaps more fundamental point that, as a contingent thing which is sublated, the maya universe never has to have an interior clockwork making it clank along by it's own self-sufficient machinery of internal factors, instead the entire thing is directly sustained by God or Brahman through His limitless power, similar in a way to Islamic occasionalism. So asking "how does the maya universe power itself through these mechanisms" is like asking "how does the false-snake we imagine the rope to be capture and digest food and then excrete out those remains"; the question is ultimately irrelevant if the thing is question is A) has its existence/appearance directly sustained not by its own parts but through being completely dependent on God (or on the superimposition of the viewer in the example of the snake-rope) and B) it is eventually sublated as non-existent

>In any case, Ajnaana is the cause for the creation of this world. Where is the proof to say that there is a positive Ajnaana, which gets transformed into this world? Where does this Ajnaana exist? What is the object that it covers? Knowledge of what or whom, we do not get because of Ajnaana?
These criticisms are all actually meaningless and inapplicable to the Advaita of Shankara for the reasons I have explained

>>16757596
based

>>16757597

>The Atma is self-effulgent, in the form of knowledge (caitanya swaruupa) and ever illumined by it. How is it possible to say that though Atma is self-illumined, his many attributes are covered?
The Atma is not covered for the Atma, for the Atma His light is always shining, those who cover the Atma are like the blind who cannot see the light of the sun, though it is there right in front of their face. The Jiva is the one who covers the reality of the Atma, but the Atma is unaffected by this. The mind of the Jiva is endowed with activity merely by the presence of the Atma's luminescent awareness, which as the indwelling Self animates it, all the while that same Atma in that Jiva remaining completely non-different in every way (i.e. not as a part of a greater whole, but the same undivided whole itself) from the Atma everywhere else in the universe and inside all other Jivas; all bondage, multiplicity, agentship, difference, divison etc all being false conceptions of the Jiva being imposed onto the omnipresent Atma which illuminates them all alike as the invisible sun, the same undivided absolutely unlimited and eternally free entity everywhere.

>According to Advaita, Atma is embodiment of knowledge (caitanya swarauupa) but has no attributes (nirguNa); self does not have any attributes and qualities. It is the pure self with out any taint. Because it is self-luminous and hence is always known.
Self-revealing or self-manifesting knowledge is more accurate, but yes
>What is the role of Ajnaana when there are no attributes and qualities in the self? What object is there that Ajnaana can covers?
Ajnana, or Avidya, (same thing), are something the Jiva experiences, not the Atma, so this question has no meaning because its asking the question of the Atma and not of the Jiva. The Jiva under the influence of the beginningless avidya due to its status as a Jiva (i.e. more broadly due to it being within maya) superimposes doership, enjoyership etc onto the Atma, and also on an empirical level superimposes optical illusions onto things within the physical world within maya.

>>16757604
>>16757027

>The self possesses some superimposed qualities but has no real qualities of its own.
The Atma only possesses them to the perception of the Jiva
>It is also not correct to say that Ajnaana is covering these qualities for us to perceive. There is no existence for imagined qualities.
This goes back to the misuse of the word "unreal", and "non-existent" and has already been explained.

>It is mere imaginations of Ajnaana. Only when the existence of Ajnaana is proved, we can imagine all other attributes projected from it. Right now Ajnaana itself is imagined. Why should we accept Ajnaana? What is its function? What does it cover? No answer is available for these questions. Neither Ajnaana nor its byproducts are proved. No answer to the question of what is that object that Ajnaana can cover.
This is just more criticisms of the "parts within maya" type I mentioned above which are more or less meaningless

Okay, as far as I can tell these, posts

>>16757027
>>16757034
>>16757039
>>16757046
>>16757051

Then after the points I have mentioned all mostly deal with the "avidya/ajnana" as a positive thing tenet and the alleged contradictions which result from this. But this is not even something Shankara fully subscribes to and is only associated with one specific later Advaita sub-school. And all of these criticisms and attempted refutations are completely irrelevant non-criticisms and non-criticisms of the classical Advaita of Shankara, which does away with the whole problem by making Maya one un-bifurcated thing which is completely contingent on and directly sustained by the omnipotent power of the omniscient God, as it is His nature to do so eternally without that expending any effort, requiring any action or involving any deviating from His nature, just as the sun always emits light while not doing any of those things. If there are any remaining criticisms which are not subsumed under that topic which has already been dealt with and put aside; which you think I may have missed then you are free to bring them to my attention.

>>16757596
screencapping for the Supreme Court win

>>16757643
>muh supreme court
sorry, Trump is going to prison like your buddy Bannon. You're an american election tourist who's into guenon and shankara, you will never be eastern.

>>16757651
ouch...

>>16757651
>you will never be eastern.
because you're such a neurotic wreck you can't even remember that I'm not even supposed to like them or want to be them because according to you and your constant bitching about Indians they are stupid and worthless etc, Sad! get help!

>>16751919

It's because materialism and political correctness is their religion. CNN and other leftist corporations are their preachers, celebrities are their saints, and LGBT, BLM and Feminism are their various sects of belief.

bump

>>16757129
Yes the Upanishads have a difference of some hundreds of years from Rg Veda for example. But by Vedas it is to be understood the main shruti Scriptures of Hindu religion, not that they were all composed at the same time. This way, the Upanishads is part of the Vedas.

>>16756860
Yes the sun will always persist willing to be the Sun and do what it does. If it didn't it simply would stop being what it is.
The power of Brahman is indeed natural but it is not unwilled and much less unconscious, irrational. Things are the way they are because of a Law and this Law point to Him.

>>16758683
> Yes the sun will always persist willing to be the Sun and do what it does.
False, the sun is an insentient object and doesn’t will anything, but light still proceeds from it nonetheless. Only living beings with sentience can will things.

>The power of Brahman is indeed natural but it is not unwilled
Why not? It involves more contradictions to say that it is willed than that it is not, if its willed you have to explain why the Supreme Entity who is desireless would engage in any action as though the Supreme Being had a desire in need of fulfillment. Additionally, if the Supreme Being wills things into being and then later changes His mind and doesn’t will that into being then this is a violation of His immutability which makes Him non-eternal. Under the Advaita model God is not wielding maya to fulfill any specific goal or desire and it is something always going on so they don’t face these two predicaments.
>much less unconscious, irrational.
Just because it is unwilled doesn't make it irrational
>Things are the way they are because of a Law and this Law point to Him.
There no reason why you can’t say the same about the model proposed by Advaita, they similarly regard the cosmos, karma, the castes and ashramas as all being a part of the eternal law or sanatana dharma which is predicated on Brahman’s power. To deny that God can bring about the whole universe merely through God possessing the inherent power and nature to do so, without the involvement of an act of will or rational thinking, is to deny the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

>>16759721
>the sun is an insentisnt object...
Quite a materialistic view for a supposed idealist. As Aristotle and Plato say, all things are what they are and their energies, will, entelechy, will be in accord to their idea, nature, essence.

>it involves more contradictions putting a will
It does not, it is like the Intellect, intelelction and intelligibles are one and the same. The will is not at odds with the nature that wills, nor the what is willed by the nature that wills.

I’ll answer the rest when I get home

>>16757027
>>16757034
>>16757039
>>16757046
>>16757051
interesting posts, sorry the other guy didnt really respond to them

bump

>>16760114
Because they are not actually criticisms of the Advaita of Shankara, those posts are all talking about the notion of holding ajnana or avidya as a positive entity and then the consequences which are associated with this. But Shankara himself never classifies avdidya/ajnana as a positive entity and instead says that they are anirvachaniya. The only positive entity in classical Advaita is Brahman

>>16751919
Leftist here. I'm Catholic.

>>16751938
The midwit take. The "leftist" (modernist) project of this-worldliness and transformation of the world is the opposite of Gnostic. It's better.

>>16753107
yes