/lit/ - Literature

in English please

>>18008944
The religious roots and philosophical basis Buddhism is more ancient and fundamental than the basis and development of Hinduism.

Dualism is good

>>18008985
booooo

the ancient Rishis were non dualists

>>18008930
so your main reasons for it being better is just becuase its older? are ya dumb?

>>18008930
the pali canon is even older and truer

I'm older and truer than all you fags

>>18008944
The Hindu tradition of loving God is older than the Hindu tradition of being a coping crypto-Buddhist. The former is primordial, the latter is an aberration and an embarrassment.

>>18008976
>>18009216
I keep seeing shit like this everywhere. Buddhism definitely split from Hinduism, and has its roots in Hinduism. Why does it matter to you so much though? It’s a fine philosophy in it’s own right.

>>18009240
Followers of Shankara claim that being a crypto-Buddhist is the real meaning of Hinduism when it is not.

>>18008930
>Vishishadvaita came before Advaita historically
Yeah, no. Historically we don't know which came "first", but Advaita clearly had the first organised lineage school with Gaudapada and Shankara. Dvaita and Vishistadvaita established themselves as official schools a bit later and did so with a great emphasis on rejecting Advaita's positions.

>>18009240
That depends entirely on what you mean by "Hinduism". The religion as practiced by people in India today is quite different from the religion as practiced by people three thousand years ago. Indeed, many would say it's not even fair to say that the Buddha's clan were Hindus at all.

The Buddha was certainly engaging with an intellectual milieu and tradition that would go on to become today's Hinduism leading to the likes of Ramanuja and the various Dvaita Vedanta schools. But "split" implies that Buddhism was ever Hinduism, which is simply not the case. This isn't about MUH PRE-SIDDHARHTA BUDDHAS or whatever, it's just a simple fact. There's no point where Hinduism and Buddhism are the same thing. At best, you can say that a historical progression towards an intellectual milieu that leads to Buddhism (and Jainism and a bunch of other stuff, much of which folds back into Hinduism) occurs, and I would certainly agree with this. But then, that's not a "split".

I don’t understand anything ITT. what do I read to get it?

>>18009286
More texts teach vishishadvaita than advaita. Simple as. Shankarists will cope and seethe, because they are about dogma not truth.

>>18009305
Read this.

OP is saying that the original Hinduism taught the distinction between the worshipper and God, and believed that this was real and you should follow a path of loving reverence to get salvation, which will still preserve your self, rather than be annihilated. Ramanuja and Aquinas are major proponents of this school.

Advaita, which is a later degeneration, albeit first school that formally organized and preserved its commentaries, teaches that everything is of the same ultimate essence, which is itself completely without limitations, and once you realize this through what is essentially religiously oriented-philosophical dialectic, you will have fused with that which is beyond limits. This group, non-dualists/advaitins, call this the Absolute, but it's really no different than the Buddhist void. Shankara and Rene Guenon are major proponents of this school.

>>18008930
>Vishishadvaita came before Advaita historically.
There is no record of any Vishishtadvaitin thinker before the 5th century Advaitin Gaudapada
>Absolute non-dualism is a lower degeneration of the primordial tradition which is bhaktic modified non-dualism.
To the contrary the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras barely mention bhakti at all, a focus on bhakti is characteristic of the later Smriti texts which were crafted by man and not God, and which are meant for the masses, which cater to their inclinations. The Brahma Sutras predominantly focus on discussing upasana (meditation) which Ramanuja interprets as actually referring to bhakti. Unqualified non-dualism is harder for most people to grasp, and is meant for an intellectual elite, qualified non-dualism is the more accessible version thats more suitable for the masses and that is more compatible with their lifestyle. People who naturally be suited to one approach or the other.
>>18008976
>Buddhism is more ancient and fundamental than the basis and development of Hinduism.
That’s nonsense, the basis of Hinduism are the Vedas and early Upanishads which predate the existence of Buddha.
>>18009070
this
>>18009216
> The Hindu tradition of loving God is older than the Hindu tradition of being a coping crypto-Buddhist.
That’s wrong, the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in verse 1.4.10. compares people who believe that God is separate from their Self to dumb animals: “ While He who worships another god thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know. He is like an animal to the gods”. This isn’t Buddhistic since Buddhists deny both the Self and God.
>>18009266
>Followers of Shankara claim that being a crypto-Buddhist is the real meaning of Hinduism
No, they reject the notion that Advaita is crypto-Buddhism, that’s just a dumb ad-hominem that you have to rely on because Vishishtadvaita’s arguments against Advaita don’t have any weight to them and are easy to refute.
>>18009305
Essentials of Indian Philosophy - Hiriyanna

>>18008930
hare krishna detected

>>18009513
>More texts teach vishishadvaita than advaita.
Do you have any examples of this? The Primary Upanishads mention grace and devotion only a few times, they spend most of their time talking about the attainment of Brahman through knowledge or jnana and not through devotion.

>>18009541
> which will still preserve your self, rather than be annihilated.
Advaita doesn’t teach that the Atman is annihilated
> you will have fused with that which is beyond limits.
Wrong, it’s a recognition of the eternally (pre)existing union. If it wasn’t already true and needing to be merely discerned then it would have a beginning, and that which has a beginning cannot be eternal.
>This group, non-dualists/advaitins, call this the Absolute, but it's really no different than the Buddhist void.
Wrong, the Buddhist void is not sentient and self-revealing like the Atman (consciousness) is

>>18009606
>To the contrary the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras barely mention bhakti at all, a focus on bhakti is characteristic of the later Smriti texts which were crafted by man and not God, and which are meant for the masses, which cater to their inclinations. The Brahma Sutras predominantly focus on discussing upasana (meditation) which Ramanuja interprets as actually referring to bhakti. Unqualified non-dualism is harder for most people to grasp, and is meant for an intellectual elite, qualified

None of this is true.

>>18009679
It's annihilated. There's no personality in the advaita after-life. Coomaraswamy and Guenon, as well as Shankara and Ibn Arabi are clear about this. It's a will to annihilation.

>>18009933
What you regard as the personality is for Advaita actually the individuality and not the personality (= purusa = all-pervasive person). The attributes that western thought assigns to the personality are actually those of the individuality. The personality i.e. purusa i.e. Atman is eternal and can never be annihilated.

Consciousness (the purusa, i.e the personality) is non-individual or supra-individual, only the distinctions which appear within it are individual; they accordingly belong to the individuality and not to one’s personhood. You, the person, are that by which individual distinctions are illuminated and known. This personhood is uncreated and eternal, it transcends all the distinctions and qualities which belong to the individuality while appearing to the person. This person is never annihilated.

>>18010228
Yes, it's a will to individual annihilation.

>>18010228
Why call it personhood when it clearly doesn't pertain to an identifiable person? Sounds like a cope to fluff Buddhism and make it sound less nihilistic then it is.

>>18010483
The soul, the spirit, you, the person, consciousness, all of these denote the same thing for Advaita, and this thing is not annihilated because its eternal. That which ceases to appear as an existing separate thing was already a separate thing from you to begin with.

>>18010517
So nothing can be "you" because what is eternal is beyond any limits and essence.

>>18010502
>Why call it personhood when it clearly doesn't pertain to an identifiable person?
Because Advaita follows what the Upanishads teach, and they present the Purusa (which means person) as being synonymous with Brahman and they say that this Purusa-Brahman transcends worldly qualities and consists of undifferentiated self-revealing consciousness. Why would it not pertain to an identifiable person if one's underlying consciousness is the person in question?

>>18008930
Semantics

>>18010539
No, that is incorrect, because this eternal thing in question is a self-aware entity. The "you" is this awareness which reveals itself without depending on any other thing for its revelation.

>>18010548
Because it's clearly implying the "person" is an illusion. Instead of just facing this honestly you move the goal posts and start talking about how Personhood is a name for the Absolute.

Again, admit that there's no personality in the Absolute. Every major non-dualist thinker does.

>>18010628
>Because it's clearly implying the "person" is an illusion.
Only if you are understanding person in a contrary sense to how the Upanishads use it, that is in the western sense; which wrongly lumps together both one's consciousness as well as the mind and its attributes that appear as objects to that consciousness. If you understand person in the sense that the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta uses it then the person is not an illusion.
>Instead of just facing this honestly you move the goal posts and start talking about how Personhood is a name for the Absolute.
I'm not moving goal-posts, I'm simply pointing out that the Upanishads use the term "person" in a different sense than westerners understand it; and that your argument fails to take this into account.

>>18009606
>That’s nonsense, the basis of Hinduism are the Vedas and early Upanishads which predate the existence of Buddha.
You have missed the point entirely. The Buddha was returning religious thought of his region to it's more natural original thought before the corrupting thought of the Vedas and Upanishads. Of course he is a product of the emerging hinduism, and his teachings nare this colored by the thoughts a available to him. But his revelation was not an offshoot or even a reaction to Vedic thought, but a restoration of what existed before.

>>18009240
Because it is true. The current character of Hinduism would be entirely different if not for the corrective thought of Buddhism. They try and claim Buddhism as an offshoot but it's entirely backwards in reality.

>>18009924
>None of this is true.
Yes it is, the words "bhakti" (devotion) and "kripa" (grace) don't appear once in the entire text of the Brahma Sutras.

Upanishad verses like Svetasvatara 6.15: "Only by knowing Him does one pass over death, there is no other way to reach the Supreme Goal." are typical of the Upanishads which consistently present knowledge of the Self or knowledge of Brahman as the means to liberation.

>>18010770
>The current character of Hinduism would be entirely different if not for the corrective thought of Buddhism
Buddhism had no corrective effect upon Hinduism. Practically every Hindu school attacked it as wrong

>>18009933
Again this same retardation. Put it in your head you sick freak: the Absolute has ALL personalities because ALL things exist solely in Its divine Absoluteness. How can you be "annihilated" by realizing you are not just yourself, but yourself and everything else? You'll still EXIST - you have always existed and will forever exist, as a matter of fact all infinite versions of you exist equally in the mind of God, it's just that right now you zoomed the camera in a bit too much so you actually think you are a movie character's pov

>>18010796
Zoom in more and find out you don't exist at all, just illusion.

>>18010842
That's wrong, because illusions like mirages and other unreal things don't have any sentience or self-awareness, but we are sentient, self-aware.

>>18010796
List things capable of belonging to personhood that carries over into the Advaita after-life.

>>18010842
>>18010853
>everything is god
>everything is void

You guys are just restating your primary positions ad nauseum at this point.

>>18010860
That which is its most essential aspect, and lacking which in something nobody would feel comfortable in applying the label of person to: consciousness

Man can make a golden image and call it god and worship it. Man can make images of himself into a golden gods and worship that. All that remains are images.

>>18010933
>All that remains are images.
so who is perceiving them? images aren't self-apprehending

>>18010948
How do you know? Have you ever been one?

>>18010948
Have you ever seen light rippling in the waters of a stream? How the light can reflect off many ripples at the same time, pass through many ripples at the same time. All this reflection and refraction of light between the sun and your eye. It's arrogant to look at this and declare that you have seen anything, because you have not. Your eye, the sun, the path of the light, the ripples on the water. What arrogance to say that "you" exist distinct from these things or separate in any way. You absorbed radiation, this does not make you a god.

>>18009513
>more texts means they were the first
So this is the mind of a vishistfag. Fitting.

>>18011003
nice cope, dork

>>18011037
You're being far more retarded than it's necessary, and there are already multiple anons in this thread blasting your ass off with reality checks. Go wank to archived guenon threads and leave the board for the sane of us.

>>18010842
No, all that is left is the Self, which is everything but the Self, which is actually being piloted by Brahman, as it is made of nothing. It's luminous, and lights itself, like a lamp that is transparent, because it is opaque.

What part of this don't you understand?

if guenon/vedantabro is here, please listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE
you will be shocked at how he arrived at a position identical to advaita by reason alone

>>18011081
he speaks clearly of the atman, brahman and maya

>>18010790
>Practically every Hindu school attacked it as wrong
Buddhism lives rent-free in India, even to this day!

>>18011078
You speak of the lamp that lights itself, but you dont understand how the illusion can observe itself? The illusion of self reflects itself in everything.

>>18010968
I know because the meaning of image is appearance and appearances require an observer to exist. In the absence of any observer, there is no appearance shown to anyone, the very concept of an appearance only gains meaning and significance by virtue of it co-existing alongside a being who gives it meaning as the observer of that appearance.

>>18010790
Medieval Hinduism was heavily influenced by buddhism

>>18011107
That seems to be the main attitude I pick up everytime. Hindus can't stand that before they could even figure out all their admittedly beautiful and intricate ethnic caste control system version of a religion one guy sat under a tree and took the very best ideas they had and made a far better and simpler religion that is both far more univers and helpful. It's like they are forever trying to catch up and always being second best.

>>18011151
You cannot observe anything more than your own concept of your self or your "being". Everything else is shadowed by that enormous illusion you cary with you. You are simply seeing a shadow and thinking "that shadow is me". But that shadow touches everything.

>>18011210
>You cannot observe anything more than your own concept of your self or your "being".
If I observe it then Im not that concept but a separate thing (the Self) which exists and which observes the unreal concepts

>>18011223
If you were really separate from it then you would not be able to see it at all. You are touching and connected to everything you are "conscious of" in one way or another. This does not make you or your concept of self a distinct entity.

>>18011179
It's an even more pronounced attitude among internet converts to specialist schools of Hindu philosophy

>>18011300
I don't know why I even come into hindu threads, I just remember so many years of having every single buddhism thread bombed by atmans and guinonfags and so now I am all to happy to remind them how trapped they are by those religion. But it's not good for me anymore so I will stop. I can't beat them at their own game. Not a single one has ever learned anything.

>>18011273
>If you were really separate from it then you would not be able to see it at all.
Why not? We find in the world that eyesight shows only other things and not itself. It's accepted as a matter of course that people can see faraway objects which are different from the person seeing them, why should it be different in another context?
>You are touching and connected to everything you are "conscious of" in one way or another.
There is no reason to assume that is universally true, when we look at a star that is billions of lightyears away through a telescope, we have no affect upon it. We generally find that just seeing objects is not enough to usually affect them and that we have to take additional measures like action to produce some sort of change in them or impact upon them. We see that fire leaves no impact upon the formless expanse of three-dimensional space in which it is situated despite that fire occupying the same position as it, why should it be different with awareness and that which appears as its contents?
>This does not make you or your concept of self a distinct entity.
Awareness or consciousness is formless, self-revealing and without distinctions, it is qualitatively different from the objects that appear to it as the non-conscious phenomena within consciousness and in that sense can be considered distinct from the non-self, in itself though the Self or consciousness is pure and free of mental distinctions.

>>18011365
>>18011081

The more I visit this board, more convinced I become that none of these fags are gonna make it.

Why does Buddhism and Hinduism get compared continuously.

Buddhist believe in non self.(Annata)

Hinduism believe in self (Atman)

This alone sets them apart. All interaction here are taking place in bad faith and will never amount to any intellectual conclusions.

>>18008930
What does this have to do with chanting the nenbutsu?

Let the men who believe in Atman/Brahman find and live in it/him.

Let the men who believe in void find/live in void.

>>18010749
>>18010770
>>18011107
>>18011168
The amount of Buddhists seething in this thread is unreal. Go suck void's cock or something.

The concept of atman/brahman has existed in Chandogya Upanishad way before the birth of Buddha himself

अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिर्दीप्यते विश्वतः पृष्ठेषु सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्वनुत्तमेषूत्तमेषु लोकेष्विदं वाव तद्यदिदमस्मिन्नन्तः पुरुषो ज्योतिस्तस्यैषा

Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than everything, in the highest world, beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man.

—Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7

>Do NoT TRuST THoSe PaGaN, DeMoNiSTiC CuLTS; TRuST THiS oNe!


...

>>18010796
Nice personal interpretation. However Advaitins are clear in stating that the individual personality is an illusion and like a dream.

>>18012350
Again, you jerking to sissy porn because of your fucked up childhood doesn't constitute "the self or Atman". It however does constitute your made up "personality" but it's just an illusion. The only real thing is self.

Buddhist on this board are not real neither the Advaitins are real ones.

This is a board of I'll read degenerates

>>18012382
>that much projection
The beautiful mind of an Advaitin everyone

If Advaita Vedantins are crypto Buddhists why do they keep fighting against each other?

>>18012404
Seethe more. I see no refutation.

>>18012447
They are not and they don't. These threads are filled with western corporate cucks who adopted these aestethics to appear different and now wage wars on a basket kneading forum. In real life India there is no such hostility and there never was, except at the highest levels of scholarly debates, where it was just that, scholalry debate.

>>18012340
How can you say that and also like Savitri Devi who revered Hinduism?

>>18013850


I LIKE SAVITRI DEVI FOR HER ARYANISM, NOT FOR HER HINDUISM.

>>18013979
WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS YOU CAPS LOCK DUMBASS

Shaivism is the original Indo religion. Kashmir Shaivism is superior in its metaphysics (neither life denying nor crypto-buddhist-dualism like Advaita retardation) and historically is more ancient and original to India. End of discussion.

>>18015338
>Kashmir Shaivism is superior in its metaphysics
Not at all

>>18015435
It is by far. It is much more profound admitting prakashavirmashamaya, sciring consciousness (it’s true nature) and more complete since it does not reject contradictions nor the world as accidental, utterly contingent and illusory making Brahman powerless, unconscious and dead.

>>18015446
>prakashavirmashamaya
tf is this word

>>18015446
advaita non-dualism is better that multiple arbitrary first principles

>>18015476
Advaita vedanta is contradictory as fuck and makes Brahman a literal retarded God who knows nothing and can’t control his own nature and power. In a gnosticist mentality Brahman is the demiurge and a god below the very demiurge for it can’t even defeat maya.
>arbitrary
Read a book on Kashmir Shaivism.

>>18012337
>I can't seem to counter their points...

>seething!
>suck void's cock
>cope
advita fags everybody!

>>18015516
But in the same way Kashmir Shaivism turns god into a synonym for consciousness

>>18013817
This. Not a single person on this board speaks Sanskrit and they all larp about muh based religion.

>>18015615
Redditors need to go back now

>>18015338
>Kashmir Shaivism is superior in its metaphysics (neither life denying nor crypto-buddhist-dualism like Advaita retardation)
Advaita is neither crypto-Buddhist nor dualistic. Chandradhar Sharma makes a good case for Kashmir Shaivism having much less logically consistent metaphysics than Advaita in his chapter on KS in his book “The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy”, I have never seen any serious attempt by any Kashmir Shaivism proponent to offer a rebuttal to the many arguments that Sharma provides against KS metaphysics.

Kashmir Shaivism is also a dead tradition, the lineage did not survive to the modern day, there are only various self-promoting new age hacks with websites selling their multi-thousand dollar courses who claim to be masters of it. Abhinavagupta condones a form of self-initiation but I doubt that this bestows the same initiatic connection and depth of instruction that one would obtain from a real qualified instructor. Historically, Kashmir Shaivism was in fact supplanted by the Shaktist Sri Vidya tradition, which includes Adi Shankara in their Guru Parampa and whose main thinkers like Bhaskararaya heap praise upon Shankara in their works.

>and historically is more ancient and original to India. End of discussion.
There is no evidence for that, one cannot reasonably allege the existence of a metaphysic doctrine purely on the basis of statues or engravings that people interpret as Shiva. The Agamas which are the earliest known textual source of Shaivism post-date the Vedas and early Upanishads.

Also, if Kashmir Shaivism is so great why do you not make threads to have discussions about its metaphysics, do you only post about Indian philosophy when you want to seethe about Advaita?

>>18015446
>making Brahman powerless, unconscious and dead.
None of those are true about Brahman in Advaita

>>18015615
>counter their points
what points? No arguments for Buddhism have been posted

>>18015516
>Advaita vedanta is contradictory as fuck
No, it’s not. It’s easy to get filtered by it if you have never read through Shankara’s works and have merely read one-sided presentations of it by other people. I suspect this happened with you.

>and makes Brahman a literal retarded God who knows nothing and can’t control his own nature and power.
Brahman always knows Himself in Advaita, His nature is immutable and eternal and needs no control. His power is always under His constant and unchanging control.
>it can’t even defeat maya.
Maya is not a problem for Brahman to be defeated, His power of maya naturally and effortlessly proceeds from Brahman as an expression of the plenitude of His nature. He is not affected or overcome by it so there is no question of him defeating it, the sun does not need to defeat the light it emits.

>>18016083
did u see the kastrup itw?

>KS in his book “The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy”
is it a good book?

>>18016083
>Advaita is neither crypto-Buddhist nor dualistic
Well, Advaita Vedanta is just a shitty way at sneaking Buddhism into Hinduism, which means that it is in indeed Crypto-Buddhism, and it posits that the world is made up of two substances (Atman=Brahman and Nothingness), so, by its own admission, it is indeed Crytpo-Buddhism and Dualist.

The problem you're getting hung up on is what "dualism" means. In the West, "dualism" refers to a substance dualism (Good vs Evil, White vs Black, Fire vs Water, etc), but in India "dualism" refers to Man's relationship to Brahman. You can totally have a non-dual form of dualism. Advaita Vedanta does literally that, suggesting that Man and Brahman are made up of the same substance but also holding that there's a separate substance (that everything else is made up of).

>>18016092
They have none.

>>18016155
Not true anon. The basis for Advaita Vedanta has been laid in various Upanishads, and concept itself predates Buddhism.

Here is the example
>>18012337

The Chandogya Upanishad has been heavily mentioned by Shankaracharya in his original sutras. And these Upanishads predate Buddhism by almost 400-500 years.

>>18016155
>>18016189
Here is a relevant Wikipedia article about the Chandogya Upanishad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandogya_Upanishad

>>18016136
I was aware of Kastrup’s book and planned to read it eventually, I had not yet watched the interview but I’ll probably watch it sometime this week.
> is it a good book?
Yes, it’s quite good. Sharma has an idiosyncratic reading of Buddhism and Madhyamaka that most Buddhists disagree with, but the sections in his book on Mahayana, Vedanta and Shaivism are well-written and informative. Instead of simply engaging in rhetoric as one sometimes finds in other books Sharma actually lays out his logic for why he finds the various positions of each system more or less logical so the reader can evaluate it for themself.

>>18016155
>Well, Advaita Vedanta is just a shitty way at sneaking Buddhism into Hinduism, which means that it is in indeed Crypto-Buddhism,
That’s nonsense, practically every doctrine of Buddhism is rejected and heavily criticized by Advaita. The main premise of Advaita, the Atman, is diametrically opposed to the Buddhist view of Anatta. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads already talked about the non-duality of the Atman and Brahman
>and it posits that the world is made up of two substances (Atman=Brahman and Nothingness), so, by its own admission, it is indeed Crytpo-Buddhism and Dualist.
That’s incorrect, Advaita doesn’t say that the world is made up of two different substances, they say that there is only Brahman really existing, who uses His own dynamic power to cause the appearance of multiplicity, without that appearance existing as a separate substance; so it’s not dualistic.

>Advaita Vedanta does literally that, suggesting that Man and Brahman are made up of the same substance but also holding that there's a separate substance (that everything else is made up of).
That’s incorrect, they distinguish the real (consciousness) from the unreal (phenomena within consciousness), but they don’t classify the unreal as an existing separate substance alongside Brahman; ergo it’s not dualistic since at a certain point the unreal is sublated leaving the non-dual Real alone.

>>18016189
>>18016431
Based and Advaita pilled.

>>18016431
>I had not yet watched the interview but I’ll probably watch it sometime this week.
Can't wait to get your feedback on this. Obviously it's not pure advaita, but he got to an incredibly close position by reason and arguments alone, it's amazing.

>>18016083
>Chandradhar Sharma
Ah obviously you will make reference to an advaitin. His exposition of Kashmir Shivaism is really unreliable and makes naive mistakes, represents principles in such a wrong way I believe it could only be out of bias.

>lineage did not survive to the modern day
I don't care about the practical side to be honest, that is why I said how superior it is in their metaphysics. But I'm sure some people into it could show how wrong you are again.

>>18016652
>I don't care about the practical side to be honest
Obviously cur you're just a LARPER

>m-muh extinct lineage beats your alive one!!!
It's not a RPG you virgin

>>18016431
what do u think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayananda_Saraswati_(Arsha_Vidya)

>>18016126
>filtered
Oh the power of advaitins's intellect. I have read some of Shankara's works, Guénon's Man and His Becoming (this is the best exposition of advaita vedanta from a westerner), Ashtavakra-Gita, etc.

>he always knows himself... his power is always under his constant and unchanging control
he is aware of maya's illusion, he is aware of the world as neither real nor unreal, he is aware of all of this emergeing from him without ascenting nor dissenting?

>he is not affected
illusion upon it, jivas being deluded by brahman's own illusory power, who can't see brahman neither a thing out of him as from himself

>>18016155
this is true, even guenonfag agrees

>>18016431
>That’s nonsense, practically every doctrine of Buddhism is rejected and heavily criticized by Advaita. The main premise of Advaita, the Atman, is diametrically opposed to the Buddhist view of Anatta. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads already talked about the non-duality of the Atman and Brahman
Read your Sharma, he literally admits Gaudapada's employing buddhist concepts and terms in his doctrines which will be passed to Shankara and form Advaita Vedanta.

>they don’t classify the unreal as an existing separate substance alongside Brahman; ergo it’s not dualistic since at a certain point the unreal is sublated leaving the non-dual Real alone.
So it is from Brahman. Where is the difference then? Why is not the world and the single consciousness of each jiva as real as atman?

>>18016667
i'm not a hindu you schizophrenic

is there a less intellectual religion than buddhism?

no, there is not.

>Brahman is never deluded
What is jiva if not deluded Brahman?
>jiva is just an illusion (bro)
Then you just admited that the jiva is annihilated, which you were denying before. Advaita is an annihilationist (therefore cucked) philosophy.

>>18010784
>knowing Him
>knowledge of the Self

>>18016431
is
>>18016703
it true?

>>18008976
The Rg Veda was composed a thousand years before Buddha was born.

Advaitards want to have their cake and eat it too. They try to defend the glaring logical flaws of their system by appealing to authority:
>but but Shankara says x
Yeah, he CLAIMS x, but claiming x is different from x being a logical conclusion from your system. You can claim that Brahman is never deluded etc. (because that sounds better), but if your system is non-dualist it means there is only one thing. Everything that you can predicate is necessarily predicated of that one thing. If there is delusion there is one thing that is deluded. Which? The only thing there is: Brahman. Therefore Brahman is deluded.
To deny it because you don't WANT it to be the case is childish. It's like saying: there are only quadrupeds. Then someone comes along and says: oh, so you mean there are no bipeds, etc. Then saying: nooooooo, I didn't say that! I said that there are only quadrupeds. But surely there are bipeds too (!). In other words, it's retarded.

>>18016862
>They try to defend the glaring logical flaws of their system by appealing to authority
This thread is full of explanations and argumentations for Advaita's positions that appeal to no authority, yo're just a low effort faggot.

>>18016818
The Rg Veda is a henotheistic collection of ritual horse magic rituals that contradict nondualism at every turn.

Hindu nondualism came from Buddhism directly a thousand years after Buddha lived. Non-vedic Indian sramanas influenced the earliest Upanishads too, contributing to the break away from sterile brahman ritualism and atheistic manipulation of rta that vedic ritual had become.

>>18016985
Not a single explanation at all. All the advaitabots do is to repeat the exact same thing over and over again incessantly.

>>18016985
I’ve read the entire thread and all such explanations amount to
>Shankara says x
But as explained earlier, merely claiming something doesn’t amount to much If said thing does not logically follow.

>>18016652
>Ah obviously you will make reference to an advaitin. His exposition of Kashmir Shivaism is really unreliable
If Sharma’s exposition of Kashmir Shaivism is unreliable, then it should be easy for anyone familiar with Kashmir Shaivism to explain why Sharma is wrong. I have never seen anyone do this though, which makes me think you are just pulling this claim out of your ass without any basis for it. Are you able to explain why Sharma is wrong? Can you refute any of his arguments against Kashmir Shaivism?
>and makes naive mistakes, represents principles in such a wrong way I believe it could only be out of bias.
Do you have any examples of this?

>>18016698
>Oh the power of advaitins's intellect. I have read some of Shankara's works, Guénon's Man and His Becoming (this is the best exposition of advaita vedanta from a westerner), Ashtavakra-Gita, etc.
You reading those texts is not mutually exclusive with you getting filtered; you have repeated multiple false claims and misconceptions about Advaita which indicates that you didn’t understand the works you did read.
>He is aware of maya's illusion,
Wrong, Brahman does not have maya as the content of his awareness according to Advaita.
>he is aware of the world as neither real nor unreal, he is aware of all of this emergeing from him without ascenting nor dissenting?
Brahman is not aware of the world/maya, He is just aware of the non-dual infinite reality viz. Himself.
>illusion upon it, jivas being deluded by brahman's own illusory power, who can't see brahman neither a thing out of him as from himself
This is not proper English, your grammar is so wrong here that I can’t even tell what you are asking or implying

>>18016713
> Read your Sharma, he literally admits Gaudapada's employing buddhist concepts and terms in his doctrines which will be passed to Shankara and form Advaita Vedanta.
That’s wrong, Sharma in his book says that the doctrines of Advaita are already contained in the Upanishads and that Gaudapada engaged with the contemporary Buddhist thought of his time in order to distinguish the position of Advaita from it; using some of their terminology when its relevant to Gaudapada’s discussion of and criticism of Buddhism ; Sharma does not claim that Gaudapada/Shankara adopted doctrines from Buddhism which were not already contained in the Upanishads.

> So it is from Brahman.
It is not a material part of Brahman which emerges from Brahman, Brahman is the cause of it being perceived as other than Brahman. Advaita follows the Vivartavada doctrine. You say you’ve read some of Shankara but you are for some reason asking entry-level questions about Advaita.

>>18017316
>Where is the difference then?
The difference is that Brahman (consciousness) is eternal, self-revealing sentience and is what’s truly real; the unreal and insentient phenomena within consciousness are neither a separate existing substance nor identical with Brahman. They are the false appearance of Brahman. The appearance does not exist as its own substance, nor is the appearance identical with its source.
>Why is not the world and the single consciousness of each jiva as real as atman?
The world isn’t as real because its subject to change and destruction, the Atman is subject to neither. Consciousness is the Atman.

>>18017316
>maya is brahman’s power
>brahman is only aware of reality, himself
>brahman is not aware of maya
Either brahman and maya are one or they are separated for brahman is only aware of himself and not aware of maya. The more I talk to advaitins the more they prove how illogical and sloppy their pseudo-metaphysics is. This is what happens when you posit an indifferent, dead god as ultimate reality.

>>18016795
>What is jiva if not deluded Brahman?
The jiva is an image of Brahman that is engendered by His power. Brahman does not have a mind which thinks and conceptualizes so Brahman can never be ignorant
>>jiva is just an illusion (bro)
>Then you just admited that the jiva is annihilated, which you were denying before. Advaita is an annihilationist (therefore cucked) philosophy.
That’s wrong, annihilationist philosophies propound the extinction or annihilation of the soul or consciousness; the jiva is neither so Advaita is not an annihilationist philosophy, since its not talking about annihilating yourself, it’s just talking about distinguishing the eternal reality that is yourself from the things confused with it, like realizing that you are not actually the video game character inside the game but you are the living person who is conscious of the game occurring. When this happens you are not annihilated.

>>18008930
Someone isn’t a Hegelian who can imagine both alternatives at once in a coincidence of opposites!

>>18017531
>>realizing that you are not actually the vg character but the living person who is conscious of the game occuring
You just said Brahman is only aware of himself and not of the illusion, hence not aware of maya.

Is this the advaita=cryptobuddhism thread?

>>18017322
Ok, we got that there are different things, you can stop repeating this all the time and just answer: from where comes this exact difference, what is the differential matter?

>>18016862
>You can claim that Brahman is never deluded etc. (because that sounds better), but if your system is non-dualist it means there is only one thing. Everything that you can predicate is necessarily predicated of that one thing.
That’s incorrect, because the one thing has the capability to cause the false perception of multiplicity etc, and so different things can be predicated of reality vs what is predicated about the appearance without any contradiction. Advaita says that there is one thing that truly exists, not that what falsely seems to
exist is part of what truly exists, you seem to be confusing the former for the latter.
> If there is delusion there is one thing that is deluded. Which? The only thing there is: Brahman. Therefore Brahman is deluded.
This is wrong, because Brahman has the power to cause the contingent existence of maya, it means that the delusion can inhere in maya without making Brahman deluded. Brahman is not the only thing in which delusion can reside because Brahman’s dynamic power provides an alternative place for it to inhere.

>>18017441
>Either brahman and maya are one or they are separated for brahman is only aware of himself and not aware of maya.
Brahman and maya are not identical, they are separate. They are not separate in the sense of being two separate existing entities though, but one is the existing entity, and the other is a false semblance.
>The more I talk to advaitins the more they prove how illogical and sloppy their pseudo-metaphysics is.
Do you have an example of this? All you have done so far is spew rhetoric and repeat your own misconceptions about Advaita while asking me to clarify. You haven’t shown an example yet of anything taught by Advaita which is inconsistent or illogical. Also, I’m still waiting on you to attempt an explanation of why Sharma’s refutation of Kashmir Shaivism is wrong. Are you even capable of doing so?

>>18017560
>You just said Brahman is only aware of himself and not of the illusion, hence not aware of maya.
I know, that which is aware of maya is the Saksi, which is not the same as the Atman-Brahman. This is a subtle distinction which many people are unfamiliar with. The Atman appears to be the Saksi in relation to the maya-objects. From the perspective of the ignorant jiva the Atman is the Saksi (witness) who witnesses the modifications of the intellect while remaining unaffected; when complete illumination happens its revealed that the Self was not actually the observer of the contents/modifications of the intellect but that the Self has just been disclosing Itself to or revealing Itself to Itself forever without any observing of any separate thing, and that the sense of being the Saksi or the sense that the Self was the Saksi arose out of the ignorance that superimposed the false content and then took the luminous basis of self-revealing awareness to be the witness in relation to the superimposed content.

>>18017592
>from where comes this exact difference,
from Brahman’s inherent capacity to cause the perception of it as such
>what is the differential matter?
the semblance of content that is falsely conceived in lieu of correct knowledge of the basis

Who would think /lit/ would be the site of the first person in history to truly defy the principle of non-contradiction? Where do we go from here bros, now that guenonfag has shown us the way to thinking X and not-X simultaneously?

>>18017833
>now that guenonfag has shown us the way to thinking X and not-X simultaneously?
Advaita doesn’t violate the principle of non-contradiction. This is explained in Shankara’s works or in any decent book about Advaita.

>’real’ and ‘unreal’ in advaita are used in the absolute sense. Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahma(n) alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal’ in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower’ or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is. And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real’ to which belong all world-objects. Again, since avidya is only a superimposition it vanishes when the ground-reality, the Brahma(n), is immediately realised, just as the rope-snake vanishes for good, when the rope is known. Avidya can be removed only by the immediate intuitive knowledge of Reality, which is the cause of liberation. Removal of avidya, Brahma(n)-realisation and attainment of moksa or liberation are one and the same.

>>18017880
"Relatively real" is not a third option, it is a subset of real as opposed to a subset of unreal. If brahman interacts with it in any way, which it does since brahman undergoes illusion with respect to it, it has even more status.

This is basic stuff. Advaita fails philosophy 101. This is really your whole metaphysics? You can't draw any conclusions from mystical experiences other than that brahman exists and is deluded about itself (but also isn't)?

>>18017818
Ok nice that you are admitting brahman’s necessary (since it is inherent and potential) causal agency of maya, illusion, wrong perception. So since it comes from his own nature, and brahman is conscious of himself, he is conscious of maya. But you said earlier he is not. The concept of power involves both potentiality and actuality, you see again that brahman mustneeds be conscious of the whole inherent process within him, so he must be aware of that which comes from himself.

>>18011118
>how the illusion sees itself
jfc, Self is not an illusion. You literally have a perfect analogy for what maya means every night when you dream. A dream is not an illusion it is absolutely real, you are having an experience. But it has no carry-over to the instance you call reality, it is a "life" that lasts an hour at most. At the end of it you wake up. Advaitins will say that "personality" does not carry over to the after life, that is not annihilation of the self as much as waking up doesn't "annihilate" you, but yeah you will not return to the world (and perspective) of that particular dream because it is over

>>18016673
I have not done much research into them. From what I can tell the Arsha Vidya organization was started by Hindus who were initiated into sannyasin in the traditional manner, but I don't know exactly the details of how it worked out. I have read that the Chinmaya Mission or another group affiliated with Chinmayananda differ from Dayananda's Arsha Vidya in some of their teachings, apparently the Chinmaya Mission place the location of vasanas in the causal body while the Arsha Vidya place them in the subtle body.

>>18016811
The same Upanishad establishes the non-duality of Him and the Self in verses like

"Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being" - Svetasvatara 3.2.

"He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man" - Svetasvatara 3.12-13

>>18017011
>Hindu nondualism came from Buddhism directly a thousand years after Buddha lived.
Nonsense, Hindu non-dualism rejects the nihilistic conclusions and sophistication reasoning of Buddhism to reach totally different conclusions, and these conclusions derive from pre-Buddhist Hindu scriptures and they have been a part of Hinduism ever since then. There are dozens of quotes in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talking about non-dualism, it has long been a part of Hinduism before Buddha.

>>18018317
>repeating my discredited position that nobody agrees with but me (not even CD sharma) makes it right

lol

>>18018317
both buddhism and advaita vedanta are nihilism

>>18017903
>"Relatively real" is not a third option, it is a subset of real as opposed to a subset of unreal.
That's incorrect, because the relatively real is in the final analysis false, and what is ultimately false cannot be considered as being included within what is real, by it requiring qualification as relative it excludes itself from being reality or realness unqualified, which alone is truly the real. Reality is one, its not divided up into degrees.
>If brahman interacts with it in any way, which it does since brahman undergoes illusion with respect to it, it has even more status.
Brahman does not interact with maya in any way, its relative existence remains contingent upon Him existing but He does not interact with it. It should be noted that the actual meaning of 'interaction', from inter (between) means 'reciprocal action or influence', it doesn't mean 'one-sided influence', so even if Brahman was constantly changing, sustaining, impacting maya in different ways while remaining unaffected it would not constitute an interaction because there would be nothing reciprocal between the two parties, but Brahman does not even do this and instead the maya does not even ultimately exist as a second entity which Brahman could interact with, and instead Brahman remains as the only reality and entity while sustaining the semblance of otherness out of its own nature to have that capability or power.

>>18018457
You are using gradations of reality (subsets of "real") to establish what is and isn't real again. You've switched now to maya=unreal. But then it wouldn't have any existence, contingent or relative or otherwise. Instead it has some existence, and that existence depends on brahman. So brahman is the cause of maya, which is not brahman, so brahman is not the only thing (even if it is the cause of everything).

This is why advaita is such a mess. You mistake Buddhist negationist epistemology for ontology.

>>18018457
>Brahman does not interact with maya in any way
He does insofar as it is Brahman that actualizes Maya. The effect inherints in the cause and the cause is in the effect, there can't be a total separation, otherwise it would be dualism. But if so, Brahman must be aware of Maya, being aware of Maya he is aware of illusion.

>Reality is one, its not divided up into degrees
This is absolutely retarded, there is no brute transition from potentiality to actuality otherwise they would have no causal nexus. Consciousness manifests itself in many different degrees, conscious of phenomena, conscious of itself, conscious of its own relation to itself.

>>18018317
>apparently the Chinmaya Mission place the location of vasanas in the causal body while the Arsha Vidya place them in the subtle body.
who du u think is right?

>>18017924
>Ok nice that you are admitting brahman’s necessary (since it is inherent and potential) causal agency of maya, illusion, wrong perception. So since it comes from his own nature, and brahman is conscious of himself, he is conscious of maya.
Brahman is the origin of maya, from His own nature, but He is not conscious of maya as the object of His consciousness, it just seems to be so from the jivas unenlightened perspective.
>But you said earlier he is not.
Yes, it is actually what is called by Advaita the saksi (witness) which witnesses mental distinctions. When consciousness or the Self is conceived of as the witness of mental states, that's not truly expressing through language the self-revealing non-dual nature of consciousness as such, but is indicating it through the aid of another thing like pointing to a certain tree branch to indicate to someone else where the moon is that can be seen emerging from around the edges of where that branch is. Absent the jivas delusions there isn't any sense of secondness in infinite effulgent Consciousness. The Consciousness's sense of non-secondness or non-duality which is eternal occurs at the same time as the jivas false sense of secondness, even when the jiva can't perceive it. If you isolate pure Awareness from all of its contents there is just Awareness alone; both before and after you do this it always has been and will be Awareness alone, it's just that other things are interpolated upon it but this isn't revealed until Awareness alone flashes forth to you.
>The concept of power involves both potentiality and actuality,
That distinction of potential and actual doesn't exist in non-dual absolute reality which is beyond time and change, it only applies to the relative universe which is subject to the delimitations of things like time, God is infinite, not limited, so He is not subject to these delimitations and so dualistic concepts which are inextricable from the delimitations of time, space etc like potentiality and actuality, and before and after don't really apply to Him.
>you see again that brahman must needs be conscious of the whole inherent process within him, so he must be aware of that which comes from himself.
Why would Brahman need to be conscious of the whole inherent process? I'm missing where you provided an argument for that, I don't see it.

>>18018317
https://www.youtube.com/c/ArshaBodhaCenterSwamiTadatmananda/videos he comes from that lineage and I love his teachings

>>18018599
>Brahman is the origin of maya, from His own nature, but He is not conscious of maya as the object of His consciousness, it just seems to be so from the jivas unenlightened perspective.
Here is where your advaita fails miserably (I will not even address the fact that in advaita Avidya, Ignorance and Saksi or the false Consciousness to which this ignorance is given, are beginningless and therefore coeternal with Brahman, thus blatant dualism). Let's see:
Capacity means an internal relation to some substance/nature, this is Brahman's essence, his nature. Brahman is, as we know and you yourself said and negation of which would destroy all the system, aware of himself. Therefore Brahman must be aware of all what he is, all his nature/essence and this means its own internal relation within his nature/essence which will imply knowing all its potentialities and all its actualities (here the successive distinction can be dismissed, it will still hold that the actuality will presuppose its potentiality, that is, their nexus is held in its own essence/nature). So even if brahman, as a dead god, has no will and is like the atheistic substance of spinoza, expressing its nature by necessity (its own essence) it follows that maya will be manifested by the same necessity of its natural/essential reality.

Advaita vedanta is refuted thus.

>>18018681
>Therefore Brahman must be aware of all what he is,
i think in bernado kastrup system, the equivalent of brahman is aware/sentient but not self-aware/metacognated

>>18018599
>Why would Brahman need to be conscious of the whole inherent process? I'm missing where you provided an argument for that, I don't see it.
I explain it here >>18018681

>That distinction of potential and actual doesn't exist in non-dual absolute reality
I also addressed this here >>18018681, the distinction is relative to our temporal/successive realm, but this will not negate the fact that there is the nexus of its power and its actualization that is brahman's nature/essence, both maya and brahman's (actual) existence/essence/nature is within brahman. Dismissing the distinction between potential and actual will only make the brahman-maya dualism even more evident. The necessity of brahman's nature will be the same necessity of maya, both will be as real as the other held by this very essential necessity.

>>18018477
>you are using gradations of reality (subsets of "real") to establish what is and isn't real again.
No I'm not, for Advaita the relatively real is ultimately unreal, its relatively excludes it by its very nature from being accepted as reality which is the Absolute alone.
>You've switched now to maya=unreal.
I have always used it in that sense. Unreal isn't synonymous with nothingness, the meaning of unreal allows for false experience while nothingness doesn't. Unreal content/ideations or ignorance isn't mutually exclusive with there being an existing reality, but nothingness is.
>But then it wouldn't have any existence, contingent or relative or otherwise.
False, because unreality isn't the same as nothingness, that would only be true if it was. Nothingness contains no and gives forth to no false experience, on the other hand reality can serve as the basis of unreal experience which is a kind of false understanding or perception of the existing reality.
>Instead it has some existence, and that existence depends on brahman.
unreality or false understanding/perception of reality, to the extent that it can be considered as existing in a relative manner, is contingent upon the existence of reality
>So brahman is the cause of maya, which is not brahman, so brahman is not the only thing (even if it is the cause of everything).
Brahman has the ever-expressed capacity to sustain the false semblance of the production of a second thing, without a second thing ever being produced and that semblance is itself neither Brahman nor a second thing. So in the final analysis Brahman remains as the only existent thing.
>This is why advaita is such a mess. You mistake Buddhist negationist epistemology for ontology.
That's wrong, Advaita rejects Buddhist conclusions on pretty much everything. Epistemic non-dualism is practically wistful thinking that skepticism produces enlightenment anyway. You can keep it.

>>18018599
See also how you dodge everytime from your own flaws:
>That distinction of potential and actual doesn't exist in non-dual absolute reality
You were the one to bring the distinction between capacity and actuality here >>18017818
>Brahman’s inherent capacity

>>18017699
>That’s incorrect, because the one thing has the capability to cause the false perception of multiplicity etc,
False perception to whom? Who is perceiving (falsely)?

Remember, according to your system, you have only two options:

a) Brahman;
b) all of the above.

;)

Advaitards destroyed by the superior wisdom of the Buddh... I mean if purely secular reason.

The Victor conquers all with Supreme Omniscient and Perfect Wisdom. Advaitins never had a chance...

>>18018517
>He does insofar as it is Brahman that actualizes Maya.
One thing actualizing another without itself changing is not an interaction, because if there is no reciprocal effect that the thing actualized has upon the actualizer then it's not an interaction since interactions are by definition reciprocal.
>The effect inheres in the cause and the cause is in the effect, there can't be a total separation, otherwise it would be dualism.
Maya is not a production or a separately existing effect, it is the beginningless image or appearance of the Lord who is outside/beyond time. The image of something is not a second existing entity that is produced from the first nor is it identical with the entity or thing itself.
>But if so, Brahman must be aware of Maya, being aware of Maya he is aware of illusion.
I see you attempted to explain why you think this is so here >>18018681 but your argument is wrong,

Before I address that let me point out another mistake you made in that post when you wrote:

>coeternal with Brahman, thus blatant dualism
Saksi isn't co-eternal because its only perceived during transmigration but when liberation is attained and the cycle of transmigration ends there is just Brahman alone without Saksi, Saksi only exists from the view of the jivas. So something which can come to an end like the sense of Saksi isn't co-eternal because the eternal never ends. Hence it's not dualism.

To address the main argument you made in that post though, you're wrong because when you say:

>Therefore Brahman must be aware of all what he is, all his nature/essence and this means its own internal relation within his nature/essence which will imply knowing all its potentialities and all its actualities
You make the mistake of assuming that Brahman's nature has an internal relation with things, it doesn't because Brahman is inseparable or the same as His own nature, Brahman is infinite, undivided and non-dual. That which is infinite, undivided and non-dual cannot have internal relations because there are no internal distinctions which can be the terms of the relation. Brahman's inherent and eternal nature (which is inseparable from Himself) to have maya as His power is not identical with the transient (non-eternal) manifestations of maya, so Brahman being self-knowing does not automatically lead to Brahman having knowledge of maya because the actual maya is the unreal and transient phenomena and not Brahman's eternal nature to wield maya. Knowing one thing does not automatically lead to the knowing of something that is not identical with the first thing already known.

>>18018990
>>Reality is one, its not divided up into degrees
>This is absolutely retarded, there is no brute transition from potentiality to actuality otherwise they would have no causal nexus.
That argument would only be true if you accept the apparent world of matter and change as being identical with reality unqualified, which cannot be attempted without recourse to circular argumentation that lacks any force. If reality unqualified lacks change and the apparent world is the false perception of reality unquailed, then there is no longer a problem.
>Consciousness manifests itself in many different degrees, conscious of phenomena, conscious of itself, conscious of its own relation to itself.
All of these are mental distinctions occurring within the mind which don't denote the nature of Consciousness as such. Consciousness as such is impartite and non-dual in its immediate self-revealing of Itself to Itself, saying "conscious of itself" is already to introduce a dualistic distinction which doesn't inhere in Consciousness as It really is.

>>18018721
>>That distinction of potential and actual doesn't exist in non-dual absolute reality
> but this will not negate the fact that there is the nexus of its power and its actualization that is brahman's nature/essence, both maya and brahman's (actual) existence/essence/nature is within brahman.
Wrong, Brahman is "without interior or exterior" - Brihadaranyaka Up. 3.8.8. there can be nothing outside Brahman because Brahman is all-pervasive, infinite, and there can be nothing inside Brahman because there is nothing else existing aside from Brahman that could be considered as being inside Brahman. That which is falsely imagined as existing inside something doesn't exist either inside or outside it.
>Dismissing the distinction between potential and actual will only make the brahman-maya dualism even more evident.
Why? How would denying that distinctions time potential and actual which involve dualistic distinctions are inapplicable to absolute non-duality result in a form of dualism? That doesn't make any sense
>The necessity of brahman's nature will be the same necessity of maya, both will be as real as the other held by this very essential necessity.
No, that's wrong, just because maya is a consequence of Brahman existing doesn't endow it with the same reality that Brahman has. That which is contingent upon something else doesn't have independent existence, but reality, the Real, is independent.

>>18018745
>You were the one to bring the distinction between capacity and actuality here
I used it loosely there, perhaps it was a mistake to choose that word, what I meant there was Brahman's timeless immutable nature to give rise to that, rather than capacity as in the capacity vs actual distinction.
>>18018780
>False perception to whom? Who is perceiving (falsely)?
The false perception is the maya that is the manifested power of Consciousness, Consciousness itself is non-dual and doesnt observe the false perception. The false perception can seem to be experienced and observed despite it not being witnessed by Consciousness, because from the jivas perspective the unreal interposed content intermingles with and occurs alongside Consciousness, from the perspective of Consciousness though, there is just the non-dual Self. Consciousness while remaining unware of false content by Its power allows for there to feel like there is a conscious observer of false content.

>>18018990
>>18018999
You make everything laborious with your nonsense, all the time repeating the same vain, empty things that in most cases have absolutely nothing to do with what people address to you.
When you say ''Maya is a beginningless image'' (you always confuse appearance with illusion, they are different things) it is as you yourself said, but this appearance is not unreal, or not wholly appearance (we can discern the properties of something reflected and see how they are coherent with the thing itself). The appearance, the image must also inherit part of what the imaged/reflected is otherwise it will not be an appearance/image.
But then when we attach Maya to Brahman, making support of the world as partially real and partially unreal (not as in the doctrine of ajativada, which is really retarded absolutism which will deny everything, even maya and the world, negating illusion, jiva and ending up affirming everything) you deny it and separate both, and when we point to this two different things, ignorance and its consciousness being beginningless, you deny this separation and bring them together again.

>Saksi isn't co-eternal because its only perceived during transmigration
What transmigrates and is engulfed by this Saksi, false consciousness being ignorant? Saksi will be anterior to transmigration, otherwise nothing could transmigrate to it (implying this is where the ''self'' falls, since you are positing a dualistic distinction between a the liberated place and the place from which a thing is liberated).

>Saksi only exists from the view of the jivas
Holy fucking shit you change the definition of things all the time. Saksi is the very view of the jivas, the very apprehension of beginningless maya/ignorance without which there would be no ignorance apprehended.

Anyhow, I see you are here spewing the same nonsense for years, it doesn't matter if you will move on from your beliefs or not, just acknowledge that, despite being noble affirming God, it is very contradictory and can end up in terrible nihilism (if you know you are Brahman, what are you doing here on this place all so often, why do you need to do anything you do here, why do you need to take the world, these messages as real?).

>>18018999
>Wrong, Brahman is "without interior or exterior"
Where did I say this? Are you really missing a qualitative property expressed in metaphorical spatiality as in, within, literally? You can't be this dumb, I know you are just dishonest as hell.

>How would denying that distinctions time potential and actual which involve dualistic distinctions are inapplicable to absolute non-duality result in a form of dualism?
Because there is simply the manifestation of something that is not Brahman, that is Saksi, Ignorance, Maya, and which will be as actualized as Brahman itself. You are failing basic logic now (understandable insofar as your entire system is illogical).

> just because maya is a consequence of Brahman existing doesn't endow it with the same reality that Brahman has
See above. If you deny potential-actual distinction their existence/manifestation will be both actual. If you admit the distinction then we are back to my point here >>18018681 and here >>18018721.

Easily refuted, but your insistence makes it longer than it needs to be.

Oh no Buddhabros we got too cocky!

>>18018990
you need to open a blog
you have too much content that gets lost in the meanders of lit

at least posts that summarize the classic answers to the most common objections
books you recommend and why
etc

>>18008930
>older is more righter!!!!

Damn I've never seen such sheer dedication as these Advaitins. Buddhism get BTFO

Guenonfag wears down another set of debaters with his repeating the same contradictions again and again kek. He'll still be here in 2030 doing this. You can't win.

>>18018317
>nihilistic conclusions and sophistication reasoning of Buddhism
You are retarded.

>>18017785
>Writes a comprehensive answer
>Receives no counter argument

I'm beginning to think that retards on this website aren't interested in a scholarly debate.

>>18019156
>When you say ''Maya is a beginningless image'' (you always confuse appearance with illusion, they are different things) it is as you yourself said, but this appearance is not unreal, or not wholly appearance (we can discern the properties of something reflected and see how they are coherent with the thing itself). The appearance, the image must also inherit part of what the imaged/reflected is otherwise it will not be an appearance/image.
This is only true of ocular images, maya is synonymous with avidya or ignorance in Advaita and is a beginningless status of being ignorant of reality. Advaita correctly identifies the fundamental nature of illusions as involving the superimposition by ignorance of the unreal on the real and the according appearance or presentation of the real as the unreal semblance which is not identical with the real as such and correct knowledge of it. Maya in this sense does not need to inherit something from Brahman in order in the sense of something that makes a transition from Brahman to maya, that is passed from Brahman to maya, maya is just contingent upon Brahman without there being any production or emanation involved. Ignorance of something does not need to have already inherited knowledge of that thing in order for there to be ignorance, we dont find that this is true in our experience of the world, we regularly come into contact with new things and encounters which we were ignorant of until that moment with no indication we already knew about it.

>But then when we attach Maya to Brahman, Brahman making support of the world as partially real and partially unreal (not as in the doctrine of ajativada, which is really retarded absolutism which will deny everything, even maya and the world, negating illusion, jiva and ending up affirming everything)
I'm not sure what you are talking about, Advaita does hold to ajativada, which for it expresses the same concept as the Vivartavada causation doctrine, you described your view of Advaita here, but then said "not as in ajativada" as if Advaita didn't follow ajativada which it does. You tend to ramble on without clarifying what you mean, but you dont elaborate on the underlying logic of how one thing you are saying supports the next. Brahman is absolutely real, not partially real and partially unreal, He is the support of the world as its origin perception viz it being superimposed out of ignorance of Brahman, He does so while remaining as the only existent real thing.

>>18020136
>you deny it and separate both, and when we point to this two different things, ignorance and its consciousness being beginningless, you deny this separation and bring them together again.
I deny what about them and separate them in which way? Can you elaborate? These are not arguments until you can string them as supporting one another. I don't deny that consciousness and ignorance are separate and then contradict myself by saying they are the same, it's only seemed that way if you haven't been paying attention, they only seem to mingle in any way or have any connection if you subject to ignorance, from the perspective of formless, undifferentiated, impartite, infinite, self-revealing non-dual awareness it has no connection with or relation with ignorance. This is the non-dual absolute reality, which is obviously not identical with conditional reality and the ignorance that belongs to it. To acknowledge that awareness is eternally like this even when the mind is ignorant of it is not to contradict anything else that Advaita says.

>>Saksi isn't co-eternal because its only perceived during transmigration
>What transmigrates and is engulfed by this Saksi, false consciousness being ignorant?
The subtle body of the jiva transmigrates, the ever liberated Atman does not observe this transmigration as the object of its awareness, those who are subject to ignorance naturally attempt to relate the superimposed false content to the underlying non-dual awareness which in itself doesn't have any real connection or relation to the false content being conceived of by the mind as the objects of the Atman's awareness.
>Saksi will be anterior to transmigration, otherwise nothing could transmigrate to it (implying this is where the ''self'' falls,
Saksi and beginningless transmigration both belong to the realm of ignorance, the non-dual Atman-Brahman is without either. Saksi is not the Self, but is the aspect of the experience of samsara where there is the co-existence as it were of samsara within Awareness as the particular phenomena flashing forth as its objects (really the objects of the Saksi and not the Atman). The intellect of jivas acts a receptacle for the light of the Self to be reflected in, this reflected consciousness (chidabhasa) in the intellect. Subject-object distinctions inhere here in the reflection of consciousness in the intellect, Consciousness itself is separate from them. Ignorance of the Self makes people identity it with the subject of subject-distinctions. Consciousness is formless, immediate, partless and non-dual and hence free of subject-object distinctions. So your whole point about Saksi being anterior to transmigration is inane because Saksi and transmigration are equally maya/ignorance. It seems like you may have reified Saksi as an ultimately real thing which observes the unreal maya, if this is so its wrong and its missing the whole point.

>>18020141
>since you are positing a dualistic distinction between a the liberated place and the place from which a thing is liberated).
I'm not positing a dualistic distinction between a the liberated place and the place from which a thing is liberated. Awareness is beyond conceptions of place and is eternally liberated already, liberation is the correct perception or realization of That which has always been. This is not its own separate place but It exists everywhere as the only existing thing which is infinite, that which seems to be other than It is the false content superimposed over it as the appearance of the Real as the unreal.

>>Saksi only exists from the view of the jivas
>Holy fucking shit you change the definition of things all the time. Saksi is the very view of the jivas, the very apprehension of beginningless maya/ignorance without which there would be no ignorance apprehended.
There is no contradiction in what I'm saying, your response here just shows that you aren't putting in the minimum of effort to understand the implications of what I'm saying.

Yes, Saksi is the very apprehension of beginningless maya/ignorance, this apprehension of maya/ignorance as an existing thing which is separate from Brahman only seems to occur to the beings endowed with intellects who are ignorant and within maya. From the non-dual perspective of Atman or Consciousness who doesn't have buddhi or manas the Atman doesn't have any apprehension of ignorance because It is unchanging and non-dual. Thus there is no contradiction in saying both that the Saksi is the view of the jivas and that saksi only seems to exist for the jivas, from their view or perspective, because the jiva attempts to relate the unreal phenomena to the non-dual effulgent Consciousness that is the basis of that phenomena, is what makes Consciousness seem to the jiva to be Saksi, the witness of that jivas thoughts, intellect etc, even when Consciousness isn't really the witness since in non-duality Its free of the sense of witnessing separate things. Thus, a false distinction arising from ignorance only exists for the jivas and not for the Atman, and it is what is responsible for the seeming apprehension of maya through Saksi.

>>18017989
This example.

>>18018681
Lmao retard.

>>18020155
>(if you know you are Brahman, what are you doing here on this place all so often, why do you need to do anything you do here, why do you need to take the world, these messages as real?).
I'm infinite, I exist everywhere and I am unchanging. The mind and body posting on 4chan about Advaita right now are not me. Regardless of me knowing that I am Brahman the mind and body continue to function in their own sphere, they weren't me to begin with. I don't posses volition and I don't make decisions about what to do or not to do, the mind does.

>>How would denying that distinctions time potential and actual which involve dualistic distinctions are inapplicable to absolute non-duality result in a form of dualism?
>Because there is simply the manifestation of something that is not Brahman, that is Saksi, Ignorance, Maya, and which will be as actualized as Brahman itself. You are failing basic logic now (understandable insofar as your entire system is illogical).
Just because you deny that that the dualistic distinctions of time, potentiality and actuality exist in absolute reality, doesn't automatically mean that maya is just as actual as Brahman, you accuse me of failing basic logic but then insist in the same breath that if two distinctions are unreal that one is them is actually real! If it's unreal that precludes it from being something which as a result of its own unreality can be correctly affirmed about both Brahman and maya!

>> just because maya is a consequence of Brahman existing doesn't endow it with the same reality that Brahman has
>See above. If you deny potential-actual distinction their existence/manifestation will be both actual.
That's wrong, what you are stating is a contradiction in terms, If A (potentiality) & B (actuality) are both unreal, it doesn't logically follow that B is then accordingly real, because that has already been ruled out as a possibility by the starting terms of the situation under discussion.

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of eternalism, who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos1 on four grounds. And with reference to what, coming from what, are these honorable contemplatives & brahmans adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos on four grounds?

1. “There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that in his concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement2—he remembers many past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundred thousands:3 ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes & details.

“He says: ‘The self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity. Why is that? Because I—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touch an awareness-concentration such that in my concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement—I remember many past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundred thousands: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I recollect my manifold past lives in their modes & details. By means of this I know how the self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity.’

>>18020193
“This is the first basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos.

2. “As for the second: With reference to what, coming from what, are honorable contemplatives & brahmans adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos?

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that in his concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement—he remembers many past lives, i.e., one eon of cosmic contraction & expansion, two eons… three… four… five… six… seven… eight… nine… ten eons of cosmic contraction & expansion.…

“He says: ‘The self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there is still that which is for eternity. Why is that? Because I—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touch an awareness-concentration such that in my concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement—I remember many past lives… By means of this I know how the self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity.’

“This is the second basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos.

3. “As for the third: With reference to what, coming from what, are honorable contemplatives & brahmans adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos?

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that in his concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement—he remembers many past lives, i.e., ten eons of cosmic contraction & expansion, twenty… thirty… forty eons of cosmic contraction & expansion.…

>>18020200
“He says: ‘The self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there is still that which is for eternity. Why is that? Because I—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touch an awareness-concentration such that in my concentrated mind—purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement—I remember many past lives… By means of this I know how the self & the cosmos are eternal, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And although beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity.’

“This is the third basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos.

4. “As for the fourth: With reference to what, coming from what, are honorable contemplatives & brahmans adherents of eternalism who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos?

“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is a logician,4 an inquirer. He states his own improvisation, hammered out by logic, deduced from his inquiries: ‘The self & the cosmos are barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And even though beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity.’

“This is the fourth basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are adherents of eternalism, who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos.

>>18020209
“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is a logician,4 an inquirer. He states his own improvisation, hammered out by logic, deduced from his inquiries: ‘The self & the cosmos are barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar. And even though beings transmigrate, wander on, die, & reappear, there still is that which is for eternity.’

“This is the fourth basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are adherents of eternalism, who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos.

“These, monks, are the contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of eternalism, who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos on four grounds. And whatever contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of eternalism, who proclaim an eternal self & cosmos, they all do so on one or another of these four grounds. There is nothing outside of this.5

“With regard to this, the Tathāgata discerns that ‘These standpoints, thus seized, thus grasped at, lead to such & such a destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond.’ That the Tathāgata discerns. And he discerns what is higher than that. And yet, discerning that, he does not grasp at it. And as he is not grasping at it, unbinding [nibbuti] is experienced right within. Knowing, as they have come to be, the origination, ending, allure, & drawbacks of feelings, along with the departure from feelings, the Tathāgata, monks—through lack of clinging/sustenance—is released.6

>>18008930

All paths lead to the one truth.

Yours will be slower than others if you're going to be focused on what others are doing. I would say thats the definition of a lower path.

Now I have better things to do. Good luck.

>>18020219
There are some contemplatives & brahmans who are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists, who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos on four grounds.7 And with reference to what, coming from what, are these honorable contemplatives & brahmans partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos on four grounds?

5. “There ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahmās). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time. Then there ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos evolves. When the cosmos is evolving, an empty Brahmā palace appears. Then a certain being—from the exhaustion of his life span or the exhaustion of his merit8—falls from the company of the Radiant and re-arises in the empty Brahmā palace. And there he still stays mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“After dwelling there alone for a long time, he experiences displeasure & agitation: ‘O, if only other beings would come to this world!’

“Then other beings, through the ending of their life span or the ending of their merit, fall from the company of the Radiant and reappear in the Brahmā palace, in the company of that being. And there they still stay mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

>>18020248
“Then the thought occurs to the being who reappeared first: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer & Ruler, Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be.9 These beings were created by me. Why is that? First the thought occurred to me, “O, if only other beings would come to this world!” And thus my direction of will brought these beings to this world.’ As for the beings who reappeared later, this thought occurs to them: ‘This is Brahmā… Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be. We were created by this Brahmā. Why is that? We saw that he appeared here before, while we appeared after.’ The being who reappeared first is of longer life span, more beautiful, & more influential, while the beings who reappeared later are of shorter life span, less beautiful, & less influential.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that in his concentrated mind he recollects that former life, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘We were created by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’

“This is the first basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos.

>>18020219
Stop copy pasting your faggy answers.

>>18020256
[wrong view 51] “There are, monks, some contemplatives & brahmans who are annihilationists,23 who proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being [sant satta]24 on seven grounds. And with reference to what, coming from what, are these honorable contemplatives & brahmans annihilationists who proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being on seven grounds?

51. “There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is of this opinion, this view: ’When the self that is possessed of form, made of the four great elements,25 engendered by mother & father, is—with the breakup of the body—annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death, it’s to this extent that the self is completely exterminated.’ This is how some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being.

52. “Another says to him, ‘There is, my good man, that self of which you speak. I don’t say that there’s not. But it’s not to that extent that the self is completely exterminated. There is another self—divine, possessed of form, on the sensual level, feeding on material food. You don’t know or see that, but I know it, I see it. When this self—with the breakup of the body—is annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death, it’s to this extent that the self is completely exterminated.’ This is how some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being.

>>18020284

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of eternalism proclaim an eternal self & cosmos on four grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos on four grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are finite-ists or infinite-ists proclaim a finite or infinite cosmos on four grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who, being asked questions regarding this or that, resort to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling on four grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are fortuitous-arising-ists proclaim a fortuitously-arisen self & cosmos on two grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

>>18020299
“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are theorists about the past hold views about the past, approve of various beliefs with reference to the past on 18 grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of a percipient after-death proclaim a percipient self after death on 16 grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of a non-percipient after-death proclaim a non-percipient self after death on eight grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are adherents of a neither percipient nor non-percipient after-death, proclaim a neither percipient nor non-percipient self after death on eight grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being on seven grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are proponents of unbinding in the here-&-now proclaim the highest here-&-now unbinding of an existing being on five grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are theorists about the future hold views about the future, approve of various beliefs with reference to the future on 44 grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are theorists about the past, theorists about the future, & theorists about the past & the future hold views about the past & the future, approve of various beliefs with reference to the past & the future on 62 grounds, that comes from contact as a requisite condition.

What books do I need to read to understand the autism ITT? I've read a few basic books in Buddhism and Ch'an (Bodhidharma), I also tried to read fundamental wisdom of the middle way, but got filtered.

>>18020322
m'y diaryana by anonymicharya

>>18020322
The quotes I spammed selectively are from the Brahmajala Sutta in Long Discourses.

Vadiraja, a sixteenth-century Kerala poet-philosopher who championed Madhva's dualism, believes that he has reduced Shankara's non-dualist Vedanta, particularly as it has been shaped by its later proponents, to absurdity at a crucial point. It is this refutation - and it is but one of a number that I might have selected from those developed by dualist thinkers - that we will examine here.

The intent of Vadiraja's argumentation is clear. What in each of us, sins and suffers? Is it the antahkarana (inner mental organ)? Impossible; for material, non-intelligent matter cannot sin - as even the non-dualist is forced to admit. Furthermore, even if per impossibile it were somehow the seat of sin, the law of karma would become unintelligible; for the antahkarana is but a series of thought-moments, or buddhis, each lasting only as long as the thought itself: it would flout the karmic law if one thought-moment were made to pay the sin of an altogether different one.' Is the sinner and sufferer, then, Atman, the spiritual principle limited by the adjuncts of body and karana? If so, then, since the Atman is identical to Brahman, Brahman would have to sin and suffer. And that, of course, is unacceptable by anyone's standards regardless of what he precisely means by Brahman.

What then sins and suffers? Must it not ultimately be one or the other - either the antahkarana or the Atman? If the non-dualist, looking for an answer, were to the point to the jiva (worldly soul) in contradistinction to the Atman (supreme Self) as the sufferer, that would amount to an evasion; for the jiva, as he conceives it, is nothing but the Atman in association with the body and antahkarana, or, as M. K. V. Iyer puts it 'Brahman in empirical dress'. And since the intelligent or conscious aspect of the jiva is the Atman, it is clear that the jiva's pain is ultimately the Atman's. The only remaining alternative, it would seem, would be to hold that the experience of pain can exist without an experiencer, but this Buddhist answer Shankara himself forcibly rejects.

no one finds it curious how blavatsky et al adopted shankara as if non-dualism was the only or the orthodox tradition

>>18020393
The argument may be counter-argued in three ways: (1) the sinner need not be a concrete being as Vadiraja seems to presuppose; (2) we need not confine our attention to the internal affairs of a single individual; (3) it need by no means be 'by definition' that sinners necessarily suffer.

In responding, I shall start with the commonsense assumption that pain and suffering exist. It is a widespread experience - indeed a phenomenological fact - that we feel, 'feel so'. And it seems to me inevitable that we should be able to identify some kind of conscious experience as having conceived pain as its object. So far as the pain itself is concerned, however, there is no need to be specific about the kind of conscious experience that endures it. That is not to say that this experience might not have a kind of object: it could. But that that object need be a conscious 'I' would have been self-evident even had we been dealing with a non-conscious 'I'. (Similar objections to the view I oppose can be found in H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press, 1976, pp. 305–313.)

To speak of a sinner and sufferer who is in no sense concrete may be acceptable but it is to talk in generalities. It is to say that people sin and suffer; but that it is only their bodies - the non-intelligent part - that are affected.

Is it, then, with the concrete person that we are concerned when we ask what sins and suffers? On Vadiraja's showing it cannot be; for whatever we are considering - antahkarana, Atman, or jiva - is ultimately identical with Brahman. So if any one of them does sin and suffer, it follows that Brahman does so as well. That is to say, Brahman's evils are Brahman's own.

But if Brahman suffers in no way from His own actions, then its dual structure is no longer intelligible. There can be no such thing as a non-conscious entity capable of sin and suffering, which would involve such an entity being part of the whole structure of the universe. Indeed there could be no such dual structure

Guenonfag walks into a bar. The bartender says "What will you have?" Guenonfag replies "Give me one beer for every illusion that exists aside from brahman." "Great so you want one beer then" replies the bartender. "No that's wrong" replies Guenonfag. "So you want no beers" the bartender says. "No that's wrong" replies Guenonfag. Guenonfag is still ordering a beer and no beer to this day.

>>18020709
He will be given all beer there could possibly be in all of time-space, but in one dose. He gets the infinity of beer, but also one beer. Here, my final argument for Advaita.

>>18021703
Based. Buddhist cucks BTFO.

>>18021703
>He gets the infinity of beer, but also one beer.

>>18022149
Which Upanishad was this one again?

>>18020322

https://archive.org/details/TheAdvaitaTraditionInIndianPhilosophyChandradharSharma

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>>18022157
Taittirīya

>>18020616
>On Vadiraja's showing it cannot be; for whatever we are considering - antahkarana, Atman, or jiva - is ultimately identical with Brahman.
This is what Vadiraja’s whole argument hinges on and as I explained already once to you in another thread once that’s incorrect, the jiva is not the Brahman-Atman but an image of it, so Vadiraja’s argument fails because the requires the jiva be identical with Brahman

B.S. II, 3, 50
And that individual soul is to be considered a mere appearance of the highest Self, like the reflection of the sun in the water; it is neither directly that (i.e. the highest Self), nor a different thing. Hence just as, when one reflected image of the sun trembles, another reflected image does not on that account tremble also; so, when one soul is connected with actions and results of actions, another soul is not on that account connected likewise. There is therefore no confusion of actions and results. And as that 'appearance' is the effect of Nescience, it follows that the saṃsāra which is based on it (the appearance) is also the effect of Nescience, so that from the removal of the latter there results the cognition of the soul being in reality nothing but Brahman.

>>18020181
You are an imbecile. You denied the transition from potential to actuality, all i’m saying is that without this distinction, this transition from them, all will be already there, already actual. You are so dishonest you change what you say and what even i myself want to convey. The absolute state, you are brainwashed.

>>18022176
Thanks

>>18022317
That wasn't me, I haven't made any other posts in this thread besides that one, and it was completely computer generated. I just copied your post into a GPT-3 AI to see if it would make any sense and that was the output. I can post more AI philosophy if you like.

Someone needs to archive these debates. It is bad enough that these highly interesting conversations take place in a basket weaving forum, but if nothing is done to preserve them tall the effort will be lost.

>>18022358
> all i’m saying is that without this distinction, this transition from them, all will be already there, already actual
That’s wrong, because the unreal doesn’t possess actuality (what is actually existing), so maya cannot be considered as being actual.

Seriously even a barely edited, half-assed e-book or blog would be interesting:
[Buddhanon says: blahblahblah]
[Advaitanon says: blahblahblah]
I only don't offer to do it myself because I only checkout 4chan a few times a day and on occasion.

>>18022422
Stafford Betty elaborates on Vadiraja’s argument in his article ‘ A Death-Blow to Śaṅkara's Non-Dualism? A Dualist Refutation’, on page 287 of that article he quotes Vadiraja as saying “ But it is always the Atman or Self whose nature it is to actually experience the affliction, your doctrine says (in effect), while the buddhi is only the impression of the external datum”; this is wrong and shows that Vadiraja did not really understand the Advaita position on consciousness and its status in relation to observed phenomena because the Saksi is what observes other things and not the Atman. The Atman is not the experiencer of affliction, this notion or sense is superimposed on the Atman like doership, action, birth, death, etc.

>>18022645
It can insofar that it is something addressed by advaita. The ignorance, the illusion is there, otherwise there would have nothing to dispute, to correct, to be liberated from, etc. Now you deny the very existence of Maya, Ignorance, Saksi. This is a miserable cope, holy shit.

>>18022788
>It can insofar that it is something addressed by advaita.
To acknowledge an unreal appearance is not to grant to it the status of what has actual existence
>The ignorance, the illusion is there, otherwise there would have nothing to dispute, to correct, to be liberated from, etc. Now you deny the very existence of Maya, Ignorance, Saksi
No, I’m saying that it has no actual existence in Absolute reality (Pāramārthika) this is not mutually exclusive with acknowledging its seeming appearance within conditional reality (Vyāvahārika); just like when a mirage appears as a pool in a desert, to deny that it exists as an actual body of water in that location is not denying that it empirically appears to be such.

>>18022852
Again making the same mistake of asserting either absolute reality or absolute unreality to an appearance. An appearance needs to inherit in the thing it appears as to be what it is, it needs the reality of being something (appearance) otherwise it would be nothing and there would be no appearance at all.
If there is acknowledgment of a beginningless appearance, without potentiality, then it simply is something there as much as its reality (what it appears as). You are literally saying that a person in front of a mirror has no reflection and later says that this reflection is not actual, does not exist!

>absolute reality
Yes, the problem is that advaita posits partial reality (APPEARANCE, IGNORANCE), its ground (saksi) without which there would be no apprehension of ignorance, as just as actual/ an existing thing as absolute reality.
There is your dualism, absolute reality for advaita ends up not being absolute. Thus its nondualism is refuted as crypto-dualism.

Holy shit bros! Lord Shiva really did a number on the atheists, incarnating as Shankara and teaching them the demonic doctrine of Mayavada for their own destruction!

PS: when is this shit website going to allow embedding of images via URL instead of having to uploading them from your machine every effing time? This site never evolves.

>>18022986
If you hadn't posted the Image of Lord Shiva I'd have called you a retard.

But since you did, Om namah Shivaya.

>>18022915
> Again making the same mistake of asserting either absolute reality or absolute unreality to an appearance
This is not a mistake, it allows you to speak without contradicting yourself by wrongly attributing real existence to appearances, which are representations of the actually existing real thing.
>An appearance needs to inherit in the thing it appears as to be what it is, it needs the reality of being something (appearance) otherwise it would be nothing and there would be no appearance at all.
Appearances are indeterminate rather than real, they belong to the relatively real alone, which is in the final analysis not identical with absolute reality and hence not actually real.

We dont actually consistently find that appearances have to inhere (reside) in that which they are an appearance of, the reflection of heavenly bodies in water inheres in the water and not in the body which is their source. Only visual images need to carry over or receive (inherit) the traits of their source but not all appearances are visual ones occurring to the eye. In the case of superimposition the false idea is not the visual image being carried to the observer by light, the superimposed concept is projected through ignorance of the real thing onto where that real thing is, without that superimposition receiving anything that is transferred to it by the entity which it is an appearance of. The thing has no causal relation with the false notion superimposed upon it. Brahman is the reality which appears as maya, the appearance possesses neither the reality of its source nor is it complete nothingness.

>>18023792
>If there is acknowledgment of a beginningless appearance, without potentiality, then it simply is something there as much as its reality (what it appears as).
That’s wrong, because it vanishes while the reality that sustains it doesn’t. And when it vanishes its revealed that it never
existed as such but was superimposed out of ignorance. Before the the rope is wrongly seen as the snake, while its seen and after its no longer seem, at all three times the appearance is unreal and indeterminate: the snake doesn’t exist.

>You are literally saying that a person in front of a mirror has no reflection and later says that this reflection is not actual, does not exist!
No I’m not
>>absolute reality
>Yes, the problem is that advaita posits partial reality (APPEARANCE, IGNORANCE)
Wrong, there is no such thing as partial reality, the relatively real i.e. conditional reality is ultimately unreal, this is not to deny that it is wrongly apprehended or to equate it with complete nothingness because as Shankara says “when we deny the unreal it is with reference to the real”
>There is your dualism, absolute reality for advaita ends up not being absolute.
No it doesn’t, it only seems this way because you wrongly insist on considering the relatively real (i.e. absolutely real) as partially constituting reality, but its relativity means that it can never be reality.
> Thus its nondualism is refuted as crypto-dualism.
You seem to be obsessed with finding dualism everywhere like your life depends upon it

>>18023792
They are determinate since they are such appearances. They appear as something and not as anything, otherwise they would appear like nothing, anything indeterminate does not appear as anything for any thing must be a determinate thing. You twist everything, you don’t care about logic this is the fourth or fifth time I have to correct basic logical mistakes from you.

>reflection of heavenly bodies in water inheres in water
Just as ignorance inheres in Saksi. Maya is beginningless and eternal (remiding you your denying of potentiality in brahman, making maya, saksi and ignorance already there but even this you contradict).

>>18023803
So now there is potentiality in realizing the ignorance and realizing Brahman? If there is no potentiality then both again are given at the same time. You really need to start reading basic metaphysics and textbooks on logic.

>the rope as snake
The fact is that denying potentiality both the consciousness of rope as rope and rope as snake are already given. In this way consciousness of rope as rope is a potential in the ignorant consciousness.

Saying that the ignorance does not exist again makes everything fall down. Advaita posits ignorance and maya as eternal, but then deny their existence (denying potentiality making them actual, since it is eternal too).

To say that the ignorance/illusion/snake does not exist is to say also that the knowledge of brahman/rope as rope also does not exist for one can only be realized in detriment to the other, that is, even the illusion as illusion must be acknowledged, realized, otherwise there had never been an illusion.

>No I’m not
Yes you are and you can’t even justify your assertions.

>the relatively real is unreal
Not insofar as it is actualized as relatively real. Take the metaphor of a man and his reflection. Insofar as he stands in front of a mirror there will be his reflection. But here in this metaphor there is succession and potentiality (both man’s capacity of being reflected and mirror of reflecting - the mirror, as Saksi, will be already given, already there and as actual as man/brahman) but since you deny potentiality the relatively real being there already will be as real as the absolutely real. Without potentiality-actuality distinction, dependence, potency, relation vanish.