/lit/ - Literature

>>18856105
>I am writing a piece refuting Advaita Vedanta.
an impossible task, as Advaita Vedanta is irrefutable

>Could someone provide a short description of its main thesis concerning non-dualism so I could include it as a quotation?
"The ultimate reality for Vedanta is the non-dual, unconditioned, indeterminate and highest Brahma which is transcendent to senses, thought and language and is the non-dual eternal Self which is self-shining as Immediate Experience-Bliss and self-proved as the undeniable foundation of all knowledge, of all assertions, denials and doubts."
- Chandradhar Sharma, 'The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy"

You're not going to "refute" Advita Vedanta. There is no "thesis" for a tradition that is inherently beyond conceptuality. Just give up.

>>18856105
>I am writing a piece refuting Advaita Vedanta

>>18856105
You must ask yourself this: do you understand the perspective of advaita vedanta, and if you do not, why are you trying to refute it? And by understand by I mean do you understand what these believers believe from their own point of view, or do you look at advaita vedanta from an outside point of view, such as a christian or materialist one, which would inevitably stop you from refuting it?

>>18856205
>>18856328
>>18857453
Why do you still reply to this retard? Is a waste of time, he is lost.

>>18857453
>do you understand the perspective of advaita vedanta
Yes - pray to an idol of krishna and you will know that you were actually epically god all along.

>>18856105
Easy: if Brahman is distinct from Maya,it implies duality. And if it's only "distinct" in quality, what's the difference to vishistadvaita?

>>18856105
Non-dualism in the eastern tradition is the idea that peepee and poopoo are not separate entities and both should flow freely in the streets

>>18857911
>Yes - pray to an idol of krishna and you will know that you were actually epically god all along.
That’s wrong, it’s not taught in Advaita that prayer produces spiritual awakening.
You say you understand but you clearly dont.

>>18857925
>if Brahman is distinct from Maya,it implies duality.
That’s wrong, because maya doesn’t truly exist like Brahman does, maya is contingent on Brahman and can be sublated, while on the other hand Brahman is independent, unending and immutable. So that’s not dualism since dualism involves dividing reality/existence into two independent principles.

>>18857988
>maya doesn’t truly exist
Really. So you truly do not exist? Neither does the Advaitic text you use as a tool to achieve enlightenment?

>>18857988
>So that’s not dualism
Is Brahman really distinct from maya? This is dualism. Even if you try to cope by saying that maya does not exist. Brahman is still distinct from it.

>>18857988
>because maya doesn’t truly exist like Brahman does
If it is not truly existing, then illusion must be seen as something distinct from Brahman and that would imply duality.
And if you are arguing for absolute non-duality, illusion/concealment must then be an inherent part in the qualities of Brahman.

>>18856105
>I'm refuting non-dualism
>can someone please tell me what non-dualism is?

non-dualism is refuted by going outside and touching grass

>>18858559
Such a demonic image...

>>18858647
When asuric people gaze upon the lord, they typically see their own ego reflected back.

>>18858647
>Christ-tard scared by foreign iconography
“demonic” as that might seem I’m fairly certain shiva doesn’t demand foreskins

>>18858681
He demands your soul

>>18858880
Shiva is the super soul and doesn't demand anything.

>>18858880
Shiva is the innocent Lord. He accepts everyone and showers those with a pure heart with blessings without asking anything in return. Har Har Mahadev

where to begin with indian philosophy and spirituality?

>>18858674
But I am a person, not an evil demon...
>>18858896
>is the super soul
What do you mean by this?
>>18858941
Then why does he look like a demon?

>>18858963
Start and end with the buddhists, ignore the rest

>>18858963
Bhagavad Gita, it contains all the major teachings and philosophy from the Vedas and Upanishad. Read it without commentaries first, then pick up a non-dual interpretation, a qualitative non-dual and a dual interpretation.
Then you read the major Upanishads, with commentaries from the Vedantic branch you feel at most home in.
If you want to read about the shenanigans of the god's, you read their respective Puranas. They are basically mythology with a lot of symbolism.

>>18858975
Demons are not a distinctive race or entity, it's a mentality. There's no difference between the Devatas or Asuras, only in the matter of how their energy is moving. If your energy is self-centered and ego-driven, it's demonic and if your spirit is moving towards the divine and in the benefit of others, it's angelic.

>What do you mean by this?
Everything is one with Shiva, he is the super soul that projects, underlies and transforms the universe. You are Shiva!

>>18858941
Om Namah Shivaya

>>18858987
thanks

>>18856105
>I am writing a piece refuting Advaita Vedanta
Already been dine

>>18856105
What? You don’t even know what it is and you’re trying to refute it?
>I’m currently disproving something
>oh btw can someone tell me what it is that I’m disproving? thanks

>>18859019
>You are Shiva!
But I dont look like a white demon with multiple hands. I looked into the mirror and I do not see this evil thing staring back.

>>18859203
>what is archetypes

>>18859019
>>18859281
>>18858987
>>18858559
>>18858674

>You are Shiva!
How is this demon me?

>>18856105
your ignorance of what your ego feels the need to refute without understanding is my ignorance at the absolute uselessness of feeling the need to be mean to you on an anime board.

>>18858090
t. unsubtle one

>>18859400
Shiva is less an actual God and better understood as a quality of energy continually manifesting in the material realm, so when you partake in all things which Shiva represents you are partaking in Shiva.

>>18859019
>>18859021
Lord Shiva has been following me as of late. can someone possibly explain to me why he is manifesting in several ways?

>>18859499
You have opened up your heart to demons and some of them seem to be trying to make you fall deeper.

>>18859463
>a quality of energy continually manifesting in the material realm
But why do people pray to this demon? Why do you say that I am this quality of energy? I'm a person, not a quality. Also why does Hinduism condone chanting things like
>>18858941
>Har Har Mahadev

>>18858987
>then pick up a non-dual interpretation, a qualitative non-dual and a dual interpretation.
Which one is true though?

>>18859518
>But why do people pray to this demon?
Why do Christians pray to different saints despite being monotheistic?

>Also why does Hinduism condone chanting things like
like what? Christians chant nonstop. Ever been to church?

>Why do you say that I am this quality of energy? I'm a person, not a quality.
No youre not. Your personality is inherently an illusion to the fact that you are your awareness and the energy of your awareness. You only exist in moments of time, the only thing being static being your awareness of your awareness.

>>18859505
have you ever actually met a demon (not everything is a demon btw)? I'm asking because pretty much every single person I've ever seen say this stuff is a christian that was either scared of them without ever having met any (and unironically tried to scare non-Christians into converting by saying shit like this), or had one experience interacting with something that wasn't an actual demon ended up being like the first type. I've never interacted with anyone adhering to a faith that wasn't Christianity say stuff like this (even very religious muslims and jews only "warn" one about these things when they've got good reason to and don't try to scare anyone by threats of eternal damnation)

>>18859505
faggot this is so fraught with errors i don't even know where to begin. Hinduism makes sense because it actually provides an adequate basis of illusion and perception where the Christians just call everything not following their narrow precepts as "demonic."

>>18859550
Saints are not demons. They pray to them so that God may bless them through the saints prayer.
They do not chant about abstracted qualities which claim to be every person in existence. They chant about Christ and about God and about the saints. Not about Shiva.

>No youre not.
Oh really? How so?
>you are your awareness and the energy of your awareness
What is the "your" that is "aware" of being "your awareness"? Are you saying I am sort of a bug-man trapped in a body/soul and that I am the awareness of this soul?
What is the energy of awareness? Why am I both this awareness and the energy?

>>18859551
> I've never interacted with anyone adhering to a faith that wasn't Christianity say stuff like this
Because any non-Christian implicitly or explicitly serves demons. I have seen demonic people myself, people who are energized by demons.
>don't try to scare anyone by threats of eternal damnatio
This is because the demons behind their ideology have their goal of leading you away from Christ and don't really care how that's accomplished. You could be a muslim or a buddhist, but Satan still wins regardless.

>>18859567
>because it actually provides an adequate basis of illusion and perception
How is a framework built on worshipping demons an adequate basis for reality? How is noticing that your awareness is a static function of your being insightful or epic?

Stop fighting with christcucks. If they had enough brain cells to understand Advaita, they wouldn't be engaged in dick cutting jewish cult. Leave them be.

>>18859605
t. western hinduist fast-food religion practicioner
Have you been enlightened already? For all the people worshipping Advaita here I have yet to see even one 4chan "jnani".

If I am my awareness, what/who exactly is perceiving this illusion of personality?

>>18859584
>Saints are not demons. They pray to them so that God may bless them through the saints prayer.
>They do not chant about abstracted qualities which claim to be every person in existence. They chant about Christ and about God and about the saints. Not about Shiva.
this is splitting hairs. Every Saint possesses some abstract quality independently of all other saints. If this is not chanting about abstract qualities which "claim to be every person in existence" then what is it? You pray to Saints for the particular powers they possess so you can find that particular gateway to God within yourself, were that gateway not within yourself already you would not be able to find God through those Saints.
Every time i argue with you fools I have real trouble determining if I'm being trolled.
>What is the energy of awareness? Why am I both this awareness and the energy?
Unable to give it a name I am forced to call it Tao

>>18859602
>How is a framework built on worshipping demons an adequate basis for reality?
Its impossible to convince you of anything. You're so trapped in your dialectic prison that anything I say to you will inevitably be deflected as "but demons."
It is just notable that Hinduism in particular offers a system of analysis which fully explains why people fall victim to illusion and fear, whereas in your case the system you use justifies all mistakes by appealing to fear. Demons! oh no!
I'm not even supposed to be arguing with you. I know jnana is dangerous and you are full evidence of that point. Knowledge and illusion can be misused as is apparent from this entire thread.
>>18859605
good advice brother

>>18859650
your awareness you idiot. All i hear you saying is "if i am the Hindu conception of being than how can I simultaneously be the Christian conception of being?" There is no argument here

>>18859642
It ज्ञानी (jyani). Madarchod at least learn how to pronounce shit before engaging in debates on a lemon farming forum.

>>18859672
>your awareness you idiot.
But what is realizing that I am my awareness? This thing is an illusion. So how is it reaching true realization?

>>18859668
>If this is not chanting about abstract qualities
You said that Shiva is not a person but a quality. A saint is a person, not a quality. So chanting about a saint does not make it chanting about qualities who you also claim are every person in existence, who you claim are actually illusory. So is this Shiva also illusory? Why pray to it? What function does it accomplish?

>>18859686
your awareness is only possible through illusion just as your illusion is only possible through awareness. This is not dualistic bc true awareness unites with ultimate illusion instead of fighting it.
>>18859693
>So is this Shiva also illusory? Why pray to it? What function does it accomplish?
the illusion is that I am at any moment separate from Shiva. He serves the function of my particular spiritual path, whatever that may be.
>A saint is a person, not a quality.
Yet they somehow are understood and remembered wholly as independent qualities which you pray to to possess. its fucking idolatry by your own standards. Why are some mystical beings better at reaching God than your prayers can do alone? It's because they represent qualities which you do not possess within yourself. Go pray to St. Gerry, saint of not knowing things and retreating into your self when the truth is presented to you

>>18859686
The answer you're looking for is this.
When describing the exact composition of the living beings(Jiva), Shri Krishna informs they're made of 8 distinct elements. Of these the 5 are purely physical and rest 3 are non-physical(you can't touch it). Among the non physical lies buddhi(brain, specifically the faculty for logical reasoning) , Aham(Ego, a kind of container which fills with physical happening/incidents and gives rise to "individuality") and lastly Atman(soul i.e the source of divine Krishna, Shiva, whatever you want to call Him). The realisation you experience happens due to your buddhi i.e the logical faculty. Hence the predisposition for every man woman and child to call themselves a "logical being". The source however is only the Atman(soul).

>>18856105
Why did catholics turned Marry into an idol?

>>18859683
>It ज्ञानी (jyani). Madarchod at least learn how to pronounce shit before engaging in debates on a lemon farming forum.

>>18859893
Under the non-dual view, is this a picture of Brahman drinking himself?

>>18860073
Quite accurate!

>>18860103
Why do hispanic catholics worship this?

>>18860137
Isn't it just a case of local deities/beliefs mixing with an unfamiliar religion (Christianity) in order to be more palatable to the locals?

>>18860137
because native mexicans worship death

>>18860137
Because they play too much Shin Megami Tensei.

>>18856105
How are you gonna go about refuting it if you don't understand it well enough to generalize it for yourself?

>>18857925
>Easy: if Brahman is distinct from Maya,it implies duality
pretty much this

>>18857988
>maya doesn’t truly exist like Brahman does
then they're two different entities, thus being a dualistic paradigm
you want to have your cake and eat it too
>. So that’s not dualism since dualism involves dividing reality/existence into two independent principles.
wrong, all dualist philosophies have one reality above the other, the problem is the bridge youneed to build to conect the two, you can0t just say, one is superior so that just free me from thinking how both of them relate to each other, that's just a metaphysical cop out

>>18860498
advaitafags do the same with buddhism

>>18856105
WOW! hot a what baabhabhiat

>>18856205
>an impossible task, as Advaita Vedanta is irrefutable
this rigth here is the best way to start a critic of advaita vedanta, their absolute dogmatism
their whole mataphyisical corpus is build on this dogmatism, most of the ocr teaching of advainta rest on a bunch of petitio principii fallacies

>>18858090
>Really. So you truly do not exist?
I truly exist, because I, qua immediate pure consciousness, am the Atman-Brahman in my essential and true nature, like all beings. The psycho-physical aggregate consisting of body and mind etc, which livings beings naturally and instinctively identify with, does not truly exist, and it is not who I really am. So, I truly exist, but everything that is in maya, which isn't me, doesn't truly exist.

>Neither does the Advaitic text you use as a tool to achieve enlightenment?
That also doesn't truly exist.

>>18858111
>Is Brahman really distinct from maya? This is dualism.
You have to provide a definition of exactly what dualism means according to you in order for this to have any meaning. You never define dualism but just give it your own arbitrary meaning divorced from any historical usage of it. That's not a real argument or a refutation of Advaita when you give dualism your own arbitrary meaning which most people don't consider it as, and then try to attack Advaita for not adhering to your own make up conception of the term which was never accepted as a valid standard to begin with.

In one sense, in Indian philosophy "dualism" and "non-dualism" are used with reference to the relation between God and the soul or consciousness. In this sense Advaita is non-dual because the Atman of living beings is identical to Brahman. In another sense, "dualism and non-dualism" are used with reference to whether Brahman is characterized by internal differences, multiplicity etc, or whether Brahman is free from them. Brahman is non-dual in Advaita Vedanta since Brahman as He truly is in His own nature in absolute reality, is completely free of multiplicity, change, differentiation, etc. And maya does not exist in absolute reality as something opposing Brahman.

The defining characteristic of dualistic ontologies is that they divide existence or the universe into two or more principles which exist independently of each other and which are equally as real as the other, examples include Zoroastrianism and Samkhya. Advaita Vedanta doesn't do this because maya is contingent (not independent) and false (not absolutely real), so it's not a dualistic ontology, and nor does Advaita posit a difference between Brahman and the soul, so it's not dualistic in that sense either. Brahman and maya don't exist as two existing different principles or entities. And nor are they identical. The very thought categories of difference, multitude etc are themselves creations of maya, they don't apply to the supreme transcendent reality shining beyond maya.

>>18858111
>>18861514

You are making a common but subtle mistake, you are thinking that the answer can only be either
A) Brahman is identical with maya
B) maya and Brahman are two separate and existing entities

But this is wrong, since Brahman is the basis of notions like identity and difference, of existence and non-existing, of being and non-being. The relation of Brahman to maya cannot be accurately grasped in notions like difference, being and non-being, etc because those notions are products of maya; they only apply to other things within maya and they don't apply to Brahman and how maya is contingent on Him; because that would be taking the maya-notions, and trying to apply them outside maya, in a sphere where they lose their validity. It's the same sort of mistake that people (often materialists) make when trying to conceive of God in spatial or temporal terms, imagining his nature and energy as subject to and confined by them.

The true answer is:

C) Brahman is not identical with maya, nor are they two separate entities or principles which both exist. Instead Brahman remains as the only truly existent principle, and in doing so acts as the substratum or basis of the false notion of difference and multitude. This maya, does not actually exist as a second entity, but the very notion of secondness and other notions derived from or related to difference are a false understanding, and they don't actually truly denote the relation of maya to Brahman. There is no argument that can disprove this or demonstrate a contradiction in this position, because in order to argue against it the opponent to it has to assume on faith that God cannot be the basis of the notion of difference while being not encompassed by it; but this cannot be logically demonstrated or proven.

>Even if you try to cope by saying that maya does not exist. Brahman is still distinct from it.
Brahman being distinct from something that doesn't ultimately exist leaves Brahman alone as the only ultimately and absolutely existing undivided supreme reality, and hence non-dual.

>>18857925
>>18858111
>>18858559
>>18858090
Actually good points

"Maya neither exist nor don't exist"
That ontology don't exist its bs
We need a proof to believe in such nonsense
It's contradiction

>>18858559
>If it is not truly existing, then illusion must be seen as something distinct from Brahman and that would imply duality.
Only if that illusion actually truly existed, which it doesn't. The relation of maya to Brahman cannot be captured in binary A/B terms like identity/difference, existence/non-existence, etc, since maya is the very source of the human mind perceiving those categories as being valid to begin with. Brahman is beyond and the basis of all dualities, including identity/difference and existence/non-existence. It's explained at more length here >>18861517 why it is a mistake to take this assumption about Brahman as being valid.
>And if you are arguing for absolute non-duality, illusion/concealment must then be an inherent part in the qualities of Brahman.
Wrong, because Brahman absolutely exists, while the illusion doesn't. From the perspective of absolute reality wherein there is Brahman alone, there is no maya or illusion. There only seems to be maya from *within maya* and not in absolute reality. Moreover non-duality in the most basis sense means "absence of difference", and parts amount to internal divisions (= difference), non-duality must be partless to be truly non-dual. Moreover, if you say that God or His nature is comprised of parts, you have to hold to either, 1) God existing only inside the parts or 2) God existing inside and also outside the parts too, the latter position makes portions of God into a "partless part" which is an obvious contradiction, and the former position violates the law of non-contradiction by saying that the same thing exists in two mutually-exclusive states at the same time—as the complete whole and as the incomplete part itself; so either way ascribing parts to God or His nature violates logic, unless you say God is beyond division, difference etc, in which case you lose all basis for arguing against Advaita on this point.
>>18858982
cringe
>>18858987
good post
>>18859527
I think the non-dual one is, and the qualitative non-dual ones being lesser approaches to this, and the dual approach being the false approach that still has validity by inspiring people to moral behavior and spirituality who otherwise are not ready for a more subtle conception. Several medieval Indian doxographies such as those written by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Appayya Dīkṣita frame the relation between the different schools of Hinduism in this same way, as being differently ranked approaches which all progress upwards in a hierarchy that culminates in non-duality; although of course various other medieval Hindu thinkers disagreed with this and had their own takes.

>>18861578
Please write on buddhism and dolpopa
I don't understand why in theravada consciousness is an aggregate
And in tibetan it's a non-dual primordial awareness (in some schools)

>>18859650
>what/who exactly is perceiving this illusion of personality?
The sākṣī, which means witness. The pure consciousness of Brahman as It truly exists in absolute reality has no association with maya, illusion etc, It's not aware of anything else aside from It's own non-dual presence. For living beings within maya, this pure consciousness of Brahman provides the foundation for their conscious experience, while within maya, it seems as though their underlying foundational consciousness is associated with and is hence the witness of maya, multiplicty etc, hence for the jivas, what is really pure undivided non-dual consciousness seems to become witness-consciousness or saksi. In absolute reality alone though, there is nothing else existing that Brahman's consciousness acts as a witness in relation to, and when a being attains liberation and their body dies, there is no longer any seeming association of their underlying non-dual consciousness with phenomena and its remains as pure consciousness and not as saksi anymore (and it was only ever 'seeming' to be saksi to begin with, for the beings within maya, but not actually in absolute reality)

>Sākṣī is the unchanging (kūṭastha) and unaffected witness of the jīva and its actions and it is pure consciousness appearing as associated with avidyā or antaḥkaraṇa and is distinguished from the empirical and individualised consciousness of the jīva or pramātā which is limited (avachchhinna) by the internal organ (antaḥkaraṇa). Sākṣī is associated with (but not limited by) indeterminate and undifferentiated Ignorance (avidyopahita) and is not individualised.
>Sākṣī, like Brahma, is pure eternal consciousness, self-luminous and self-proved being the presupposition of all knowledge and experience, unqualified (nirguṇa) and indeterminate and is the pure subject unknowable as an object. But while Brahma is unconditioned (nirupādhika), sākṣī, unlike it, is sopādhika as it appears in association with the upādhi (limiting adjunct) of māyā or avidyā or antaḥkaraṇa, though it is not involved in or limited by this upādhi. It appears to be associated with upādhi (upahita) and is not limited by it (anavachchhinna). It is called the witness Self, a disinterested looker-on illuminating itself and everything presented to it as an object. Īshvara is full of qualities and is immanent in māyā as its controller, but sākṣī, unlike Him, is the pure self devoid of qualities and uninvolved in upādhi.

>>18861514
>I truly exist, because I, qua immediate pure consciousness, am the Atman-Brahman in my essential and true nature, like all beings

>>18861745
>which means witness
What did he witness? He does not witness anything substantial, since what he witnessed (the change in realizing that you/distinction are an illusion) is illusory.

>>18859686
>But what is realizing that I am my awareness? This thing is an illusion. So how is it reaching true realization?
For Advaita Vedanta, the Self is always and forever known to Itself, not in the sense of knowing itself as its own object, but as non-dual immediate presence where knowing and being are one, where the self-intuiting or self-revealing of Its own presence to Itself is the very nature of Its presence Complete realization is this timeless knowledge shining forth, once "mental blockages" and false understandings (which never affected this knowledge of the Self, it only affected the mind) of various sorts to it are removed, when this happens, there is no change in the Self and the realization is something which has always been with you your whole existence suddenly revealing itself, this very "revealing" appearing as such due to the removal of the obstacles to grasping it, and not due to any change in the Self of pure awareness Itself.

It's almost like a distant sun which is self-aware shining on a row of colored glass bottles or stained glassed, that glasses seems to glow with colored light, and to people who have never seen the sun, it may appear that those glasses imbued with luminosity are the actual source of that light, even thought its the sun. When those same people walk outside and see the sun that was the source of that light, there is no change in the sun. In this metaphor, the colored glass is the mind characterized by change which people normally consider to be the source of their awareness, instead of pure awareness (the sun).

Daily reminder that in Advaita Vedanta the Brahman who is supposed to be the Ultimate Consciousness is in fact blind
He does not perceive the world or anything else, since perception is a relationship that presupposes two terms (the seer and the seen)

>>18860696
>then they're two different entities, thus being a dualistic paradigm
>you want to have your cake and eat it too
That's wrong, since the only two alternatives are not only A) Brahman and maya being the same and B) Brahman and maya being two different existing entities. The correct answer is C) that Brahman is the only existent principle or entity and is non-dual, but is the basis of the false conception of difference/duality, but this false conception doesn't have any validity beyond the false which it belongs to, and it doesn't actually exist as something that is either identical with Brahman, or a separate entity that isn't Brahman.
>Wrong, all dualist philosophies have one reality above the other,
Not really, they attribute moral and spiritual importance to one over the other, but in actually dualist ontologies such as in Zoroastrian or Samkhya the dual realities are both independent, one is not prior to or more fundamental than the other.
>the problem is the bridge youneed to build to conect the two, you can0t just say, one is superior so that just free me from thinking how both of them relate to each other, that's just a metaphysical cop out
It's foolish to say that I or Advaita has not thought about this. By making these posts I am thinking about this and Advaita has many writings with this sort of topic. Nothing I am saying is a copout. I'm not just saying "one is superior to the other", that's a gross simplification of what I'm saying.
>>18860703
That's not true, Advaitins from Gaudapada and Shankara onwards have seriously engaged with and criticized Buddhism.

>>18861839
>He does not perceive the world or anything else

Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known-through what, oh Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?
- Brihadaranyaka Upansihad 2.4.14.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117950.html

Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing else. But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’.
- Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239404.html

>>18861910
You just repeated what I said

In all mysticisms you hear about salvation of the soul, mystical love, union with the Absolute...

In Advaita Vedanta, liberation is realizing that you are not your person (your ego) but your True Self.
Except that your True Self has always been God.
So there is never any mystical union or salvation: your True Self was always immortal, and your mortal person in search of salvation remains mortal and damned.
This is a mysticism that literally saves no one: God (the True Self) remains God, unites with nothing and no one, and suffering people in search of salvation remain mortal, nothing changes.
They can only console themselves by saying that deep down, a True Self, different from them, has always been saved while they were suffering.
Isn't it beautiful?

How can we not see the nihilism of this metaphysics? This is what happens when one denies any real (and not illusory) otherness between God and creatures: no union, no salvation, no love. God remains God, persons remain persons, nothing changes, nothing saves.

>But no, the atman stops its false identification with the ego and does not suffer anymore!

The atman perceives the false identification and the suffering, he does not suffer and does not identify himself. So the atman has always been the brahman, and the jiva will always remain the jiva. No one is saved.

>>18856105
>I am writing a piece refuting Advaita Vedanta
>I cannot come up with a description of it's argument on my own.
understand what you want to refute first

>>18861928
No, you made the mistake of treating perception (a relation involving a subject and an object) as equivalent with consciousness, but this is wrong since consciousness means the fact of being present or conscious, independent of any consideration of subject and object. This presence is not itself a relation, and all subject-object distinctions presuppose it. Being conscious is different from being blind, as evinced by that fact that blind people remain conscious and can still communicate with others, so to treat pure consciousness as equal to blindness is just stupid.

The Upanishads in those passages just cited attribute subject and object distinctions to duality, finiteness etc and speak about how the non-dual Self of pure consciousness itself remains present and ever-conscious, yet while being above and beyond distinctions like "seer" and "seen".

>>18861638
>Please write on buddhism and dolpopa
I don't want to speak at length on Dolpopa till I've read his main work cover to cover, which I haven't yet. I've read some portions of it though, I don't think he ever read Shankara based on what he writes about Hinduism (like he criticizes the Hindu Atman for being supposedly volitional, which for Shankara it's not), but I remain open to the idea that he reached a highly compatible position through another avenue, I have to investigate his work more to be sure though.

>I don't understand why in theravada consciousness is an aggregate
Neither do I, it doesn't make much sense to me. I suppose one possibility is that Buddha had a poor understanding of the nature of consciousness. I'm not so committed to perennialism that I've ruled out this possibility from being true. It seems a lot to suppose that so many schools misinterpreted him to such a degree if that's what occurred, why would he speak of consciousness as being part of the samsaric-apparatus to be "abandoned" and list it as an aggregate if he actually accepted and knew to be true the non-dual awareness of later Vajrayana etc?

>And in tibetan it's a non-dual primordial awareness (in some schools)
Yes, they take different approaches to it, some schools and teaching lineages take it more as upaya or metaphor and not as something that's actually going on, although others disagree. Sometimes it seems like they are coping because they intuit that non-dual awareness is true but their commitment to madhyamaka won't let them fully embrace it as true, like when Mipham says that consciousness being self-revealing is "obviously true" but then he says this is only conditionally or relatively true and not absolutely.

>>18861949
the arguments against Advaita in that post were already refuted line by line in that thread where you posted it as the OP

https://i.warosu.org/lit/thread/S18573962

Advaita Chads can't stop winning.

>>18861839
I take it you've never seen yourself.

>>18861772
>what did he witness?
Sākṣī reveals itself, and also reveals what is within maya, which it witnesses.

"Sākṣī is self-luminous and illuminates all objects presented to it. Everything, known or unknown, is an object for sākṣī. Svāmī Vidyāraṇya compares sākṣī with the lamp burning on the stage which illuminates equally the stage-manager, the actress and the audience and shines even in their absence"

>He does not witness anything substantial, since what he witnessed (the change in realizing that you/distinction are an illusion) is illusory.
This is not a change in observed objects of awareness which is witnessed by consciousness, Enlightenment in Advaita is supra-intellectual, everything within the intellect is witnessed by sākṣī, the unveiling of sākṣī to the living being is not something that occurs in the intellect, the revealing of the transcendental ground of awareness cannot be observed as an object in a subject-object relation.

Pure consciousness reveals itself as the transcendental ground of the intellect, of thought, of the senses etc. As this transcendental presence is always immediately self-intuiting its own presence prior to and during thoughts etc as well as in the gaps in between them (thoughts occurring at the same time as this don't interrupt it), the revealing to the living being that there is this sākṣī there as this self-intuiting constant presence, occurs independently of the intellect, the intellect is used in grasping essential doctrine prior to this, but at the key moment, the teaching of the scriptures simply eliminates ignorance of what has always been there.

Because the revealing of the sākṣī does not occur in the intellect, its not witnessed like how sākṣī witnesses maya, this non-witnessing as an object of itself of the sākṣī does not mean that living beings cannot realize and know the sākṣī, because all living beings by virtue of being conscious have some intuitive but incomplete sense by being aware of the fact of their own consciousness of things, the "realizing" is the unveiling of the timeless truth of what this actually is and what it has always been. It's not the production of an effect or the creation of anything new. If it was, it would have a beginning, and liberations and salvations that have beginnings are not actually eternal and would be liable to end, because eternal or timeless things have no beginning.

>>18858963
Bhagavad gita Incredibky based and redpilled book

>There are still people arguing against Advaita who unironically think "non-dualism" implies that "dualisms" don't exist

>>18862594
What do u think of yogic practices (patanjali, buddha, etc.) and of meditative states?
That's the path that interest me

>>18863458
Meditative states like jhanas, samadhi etc.
Pic rel

Bump

>>18856105
>I am writing a piece refuting a thing I have no idea about

>AAAAAUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMM
So this is the power of non-dualism?

Reminder that /lit/'s Shankara and Advaita expert, Guenonfag, repeatedly admitted that Advaita is crypto-buddhism

There is simply no need to refute Advaita after Guenonfag refuted it so many times.

I even saw Guenonfag break down and cry that he had spent so long denying that Advaita was crypto-buddhism when he knew it in his heart and everyone else knew that he knew it. He said it was humiliating.

>>18856205
>>an impossible task, as Advaita Vedanta is irrefutable
buddhists have been destroying jainism, bhraminesk buddhism, ie Mahayana, and vedanta crap for 2500 years

>>18864608
Name one buddhist refutation of advaita vedanta
The only I know of is Tattvasaṃgraha and it's not conclusive

>>18864654
Advaita vedanta is just mahayana buddhism so how could buddhism refute itself?

>>18864662
The famous Mahayana Buddhism which believes in the Atman-Brahman and the True Self

>>18864668
The famous Mahayana Buddhism with Brahman tacked on at the end which turns it into annihilationist nihilism.

>>18864680
What?

>>18856105
>Could someone provide a short description of its main thesis concerning non-dualism so I could include it as a quotation?
How about you read the fucking book, pseud.

>>18864654
>Name one buddhist refutation of advaita vedanta
>The only I know of is Tattvasaṃgraha and it's not conclusive
The Tibetan Buddhist Mipham also tried to come up with a refutation of Upanishadic non-dual Absolutism in his commentary on the Madhyamakalankara. But like Kamasila and Santaraksita in the Tattvasamgraha he makes a number of crucial mistakes that undermines his arguments, none of them attempt to formulate any response to any of Shankara's many written arguments against Buddhism.

Among the mistakes Mipham makes is thinking that Advaita is some sort of solipsism or subjective idealism whereby the liberation of one jiva leads to the liberation of all, which isn't actually what Advaita teaches, since Brahman is taught to be the Lord who is ontologically above maya, Brahman is said to effortlessly provide for the continued transmigration of all beings. The central attack that Mipham, Kamasila and Santaraksita all make against the Advaita conception of consciousness involves a mistake where they wrongly believe or assume that Advaita teaches that the objects of consciousness like colors, objects etc are consciousness itself, then, on this false basis they say "how can consciousness be eternal and unchanging when it transforms into witnessed sensations", which doesn't refute anything in Advaita, since they don't even teach that.

Instead, Advaita teaches that the thoughts of the mind and sensory perceptions, other mental modifications etc are essentially subtle forms of unconscious material objects which inhere in the subtle body, as the subtle extension of the corporeal body; and that consciousness is entirely qualitatively distinct in nature from the whole assemblage of the material psycho-physical aggregate which it illuminates with its unwavering and immaterial light.

The Buddhist writings never address any of the Advaita arguments showing how awareness is different from observed objects, and the arguments pointing out how change, sorrow, pain etc can only be detected in the non-conscious phenomena presenting themselves to consciousness, that it's impossible to demonstrate that they are inherent to the nature of consciousness itself. And nor for that matter, did they ever provide a response to Shankara's demolishing of their attempts to explain how a unity of conscious experience takes place without a witnessing self.

You can see the refutation of Mipham's argument on a line by line basis in this thread.

>>/lit/thread/S17461767#p17466352

>>18864927
Do u have an answer to Tattvasaṃgraha?

>>18863458
>>18863463
Bump

>>18865084
>Do u have an answer to Tattvasaṃgraha?
Yes, the arguments against Advaita in Tattvasamgraha are refuted line by line in this thread

>>/lit/thread/S16894953#p16904797

>>18865141
Thanks anon
Please answer >>18865091
And how do you understand ishvara ?
Is the atman ishvara or Brahman ?
Is it useful to pray Ishvara ?

>>18865202
>asking a man who has posted about advaita on the internet for 5 years without ever practicing hinduism or seeking initiation about hinduism
anon go to a real practicing hindu

>>18865202
>Is the atman ishvara or Brahman ?
I ask because I hear different things about it
For example, I have a freemason metaphysician friend who identifies his True Self with Ishvara (which is Lucifer in his system: the manifested and personal face of God)
Interestingly as Ishvara/Lucifer is personal he considers his atman to be not just a point of consciousness but also a direction/will, that decides his destiny
I also heard a YouTube channel of advaita vedanta say that the atman is Ishvara
And here I read that he is Brahman (meaning not just his manifested and personal side)
So I would like to have your opinion on all this

>>18861949
You are implying Jivas cannot save themselves. Why? The most notorious example of going out space/time/matter is Siddharta, among many others considered "saved" (Jesus for western thought).
Why is people on this thread acting like they don't know what the fuck metaphysics is? Of course dualism exists, but this "reality" is limited by space/time/matter.
>>18856105
You cannot refute neither non-dualism nor dualism since both are Realities of the Self (based on Parmenides).

>>18865813
>You are implying Jivas cannot save themselves
In advaita vedanta yes cuz they never become the atman

>>18856565
kek

>>18859596
So what do you think of people that never hear of the gospels? If you are born a Muslim or something and stick to that faith because you've been threatened with damnation for leaving THAT one why should they be punished for doing so?

>>18861578
>Only if that illusion actually truly existed, which it doesn't.
If the illusion doesn't exist, how do we become entangled in it's net? What is the first cause of it?
Also, if it's not part of Brahman's inherent nature to project this non-existing illusion, where did it come from? And how could it not be deemed as duality if it's not emerging from Brahman in the first place?

>the latter position makes portions of God into a "partless part" which is an obvious contradiction
And Maya both existing and not existing wouldn't be a contradiction?

>>18860137
I believe it is because of deeply ingrained ancestor worship.

Bump

>>18865813
>You cannot refute neither non-dualism nor dualism since both are Realities of the Self (based on Parmenides).
What

>>18866170
>>Only if that illusion actually truly existed, which it doesn't.
>If the illusion doesn't exist, how do we become entangled in it's net? What is the first cause of it?
There is no “becoming” from prior non-entanglement whereby one enters into the status of entanglement, the individual soul and its seeming status as a transmigrating being are both beginningless (but not endless) as the Brahma Sutras point out. “First” works within the framework of temporality, there is no cause for temporality that can be located within temporality, temporality itself and everything located with temporality are contingent on something that is atemporal, which is beyond temporality.

>Also, if it's not part of Brahman's inherent nature to project this non-existing illusion, where did it come from?
It is Brahman’s inherent nature to do so

>And how could it not be deemed as duality if it's not emerging from Brahman in the first place?
If you separate God into the source of emanation and then emanated, that’s creating a difference, a duality, trying to make it go away by saying both are God leaves you violating the LNC by ascribing the mutually-exclusive roles of the emanator and the emanated to the same entity, if in response to this you say only a portion is emanated, you face the aforementioned logical contradiction involving parts. Moreover, something that is eternal doesn’t change and wouldn’t emanate anyway, nor would something that is infinite not already be in some yet-unoccupied space which it would then expand or emanate into, if there is room to expand into, it’s not infinite in the first place. Advaita’s model is not a duality because only one principle truly exists and is independent, the other doesn’t exist as an actual independent principle in relation to the first, and its semblance of having independent existence is contingent on the truly exist principle.

>>18866170
>>18867004
>>the latter position makes portions of God into a "partless part" which is an obvious contradiction
>And Maya both existing and not existing wouldn't be a contradiction?
Take a moment and look back over what I wrote and try to find a single instance of where I said this was true, I never did claim this once, you are attacking a complete strawman. Saying that the very concepts of sameness/difference, being/non-being have no real validity outside of maya and only have validity with regard to specific things within maya is not saying that maya both exists and doesn’t exist.

I am saying that Brahman remains as the only truly existent principle, and Brahman projects maya which leads to the assumption in the human mind that all existence, God etc can be filed under such concepts as sameness/difference, existence/non-existence etc. But in this scenario this is wrong, since these are false understandings imposed by maya. Maya/avidya are taught by Advaita to be anirvachaniya, which means they can be described as false, but not as real or unreal; this position is mutually exclusive with saying maya both exists and doesn’t exist. The former is not making any contradictory claims, the latter is violating logic by attributing two mutually exclusive states to the same thing. Please try to understand the difference before putting more false words in my mouth which I never said. Maya does not both exist and not exist, it occupies a position whereby it seems to exist as something different than Brahman, and at the same time is the source of false conceptions like difference, multiplicity etc. If that maya turns out to be ultimately unreal and not actually existent either as A) something identical to Brahman or as B) something existing which is not Brahman, and if the very notion of difference etc turn out to be false, then it leaves Brahman alone as the sole reality without any difference and multiplicity. Saying that there is a transcendental reality which is the basis of notions like sameness/difference or being/non-being and that this reality is not delimited by them is not violating the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle. Whereas on the other hand those who say God is comprised of parts do end up violating the LNC

>>18866161
Who says they will be punished? God will judge them particularly, within their own context.
Read Gregory of Nyssa - on soul and resurrection.

>>18856105

why did schopenhauer like the upanishads? i imagine they are not pesssimistic in the slightest

what is the whole life is an illusion(maya) element that he liked?

>>18867805

was it the whole life*

shit my brain is degenerating

Why does Maya develop according to some laws?
Why is logic and human awareness capable of capturing them, they're not so simple that we figure everything out instantly, yet not so complicated that we won't fully grasp them eventually.

>>18864927
This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

>>18867805
westerners love indian doctrines because they are exotic compared to their jewisms

>>18864662
mahayna is not buddhism. Both hinduism and Mahayana say the buddhist sutras are the wrong teaching and not the real truth.

>>18868480
You've been on the internet too much

>>18867974
What does that means and how consciousness could be empty?

>>18865202
>>18865225
Bump...

>>18870178
...

>>18860137
That's just mexicans

...

....

>>18870178
Sorry that I wasn't able to answer earlier, I have a busy life and with all the work I do I cant always answer every question.

>>18863458
>What do u think of yogic practices (patanjali, buddha, etc.) and of meditative states?
I think yogic practices and meditation, along with bhakti and also rituals (when combination with meditation) are a more practical and fitting spiritual path for people who live in homes and who have familiars and careers than the path of renunciation and knowledge elaborated by Advaita. The path elaborated by classical Advaita is arguably incompatible with being a householder. I have not studied the Samkhya-Yoga or Buddhist meditation etc as much as I have studied Advaita though because the latter for me is just more fascinating. I have done yoga and meditation before though and done classes/retreats etc. I plan to explore deeper the primary source classical and medieval literature on these topics in the future but have not had the time to do a deep dive through them yet.

>>18865202
>And how do you understand ishvara ?
Shankara uses Ishvara and Paramishvara interchangeably to both refer to the Supreme Brahman in his works, just like how he also uses "Atman" and "Paramatman" to both refer to the same thing. Shankara does also write about Prajapati, the Saguna Brahman, etc as being the lesser "within-maya" appearance of Brahman, I can't remember at the moment if he specifically uses "Ishvara" to refer to this lesser Brahman or God. Sometimes you have to figure out which from the context but usually its pretty clear. I understand this lesser God as being an appearance or indirect representation of the actual underlying Supreme Lord, but that doesn't rule out it being a being with subjective experience and an inner Atman though, as jivas are said by Shankara in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya to be appearances of Brahman.

>Is the atman ishvara or Brahman ?
Atman is Brahman

>Is it useful to pray Ishvara ?
I only remember Shankara speaking about Vedic rites producing effects like rewards etc, and also positive karma leading to these things, I can't ever recall him writing about prayer producing these sorts of "useful results", so I can't say for sure.

>>18873248
What about the will ?
It too seems transcendant in some way
And is associated with the awareness of the true self in some metaphysics
Rationality too
Seems more than physical
The Absolute itself is rational, the logos
The world is ordered

>>18873248
Is the jiva free or determined ?
Is his will his or does it come from the atman ?
His deep will, his destiny

>>18869004
if consciousness is not empty how can interact with the world? it needs to be empty, to not posses substance and be beyond material existence to be able to be that which contextualise existence itself, if it has anytype of cause or categorie then it's not really conciusness but a contingent atribute
parmenides said the same in respect to being, being itself must be empty of words, since words exist in the realm of nonbeing
conciusnes is not a thing but a matrix of relationships, the context in whch things happen

>>18864262
guenonfag inanutshell

>>18864927
>and that consciousness is entirely qualitatively distinct in nature from the whole assemblage of the material psycho-physical aggregate which it illuminates with its unwavering and immaterial light.
>entirely qualitatively distinct

so it's actually a dualistic religion in the end

>>18873606
>if it has anytype of cause or categorie then it's not really conciusness but a contingent atribute
Like emptiness?

>>18873427
>What about the will? It too seems transcendent in some way And is associated with the awareness of the true self in some metaphysics, Rationality too.
I agree with the Advaitic arguments that these systems are wrongly attributing the functions of the mind to transcend pure consciousness which these acts presuppose. That doesn't mean that such systems cannot bring one to elevated states of rapture and tranquility, but from the Advaita view they don't have the full correct account of the nature of consciousness, just as these systems disagree with the Advaita conception of consciousness.
>Seems more than physical.
In the Indian traditional world view of Hindu philosophy the objects are formed out of elements which themselves inhere in the all-pervasive and partless ether, ākāśa, so, all non-conscious phenomena that is "within manifestation", which is taking place within the universe, is all made up of a 'material' in a sense, even the ākāśa itself isn't nothingness. By placing the mind, thought, volition in the subtle extension of the body, it explains how consciousness can be transcendent at the same time that the mind has a two-way causal relation with the exterior world without any contradiction. Usually, when people posit a transcendent soul and assign volition etc to it the problem that western philosophy tends to become hung up on is how does that volition then impact the world or change in response to it and so on. This problem doesn't arise if the transcendent consciousness doesn't itself engage in the changing acts of the mind.

>>18873427 >>18874017
This quote from an article about Advaita explains this, it's talking about Sankhya-Yoga here, although Advaita agrees with like 99% with the conception of mind presented in the following quote, Advaita mainly differ from Sankhya-Yoga on the question of whether the transcendent purusa is infinite and supra-individual or whether there are a plurality of purusas, and on whether the purusas bondage is real or false.

>The unfolding of thought forms is an integral part of the evolution of prakṛti, and mental processes are simply the result of appropriate transformations of unconscious material substance. It is perhaps worth noting at this point that the Sāṅkhya-Yoga (and Advaita) view thereby avoids one of the most serious pitfalls of Cartesian dualism, since on the Indian account, mental causation does not violate any physical conservation laws. By including mind in the realm of matter, mental events are granted causal efficacy, and are thereby able to directly initiate bodily motions. And, conversely, material objects are able to have genuine mental effects, as required by normal accounts of, say, the flow of information involved in perceptual awareness of the environment. The representational content of sensory experiences, such as those which attend perceiving the blueness of the sky or the pungent flavor of espresso, can now be treated as straightforward consequences of the physical environment's causal impingements upon the mind. This is because, in contrast to standard Western dualism, there is no longer a causal/ontological gulf separating mind from matter

>The Absolute itself is rational, the logos, The world is ordered
For Advaita, Brahman is the ultimate principle which is the underlying foundation of all order, regularity and equilibrium in all things, but He is at the same time transcendent, impartite, indeterminate, and free of all details and particulars. The Brahman that can be spoken of as rational is not the Brahman.

>>18873433
>Is the jiva free or determined ?
it has the experience of free will, but this is only as real as all experiences within maya
Is his will his or does it come from the atman?
The jiva properly understood refers to the jivatman, which is two things in a configuration, the 3 bodies (gross, subtle and causal) and the illuminating Atman, or to use the metaphor of the Taittirya Upanishad, the 'pancha-kosha' of the 5 sheathes and the innermost Atman or Sākṣī contained as it were within them like a seed, even though it is really all-pervasive. Volition for Advaita comes from and inheres in the component that corresponds to the 3 bodies and the 5 sheathes, it's not something that the Atman consciously directs.
>His deep will, his destiny
The destiny of all creatures is to be united with God, past this if you are talking about more specific and detailed 'destinies' for individual beings that is propelling their transmigrations in any direction, then that is just the product of a confluence of conditions and causes extending into the past which led to that momentum manifesting itself as such.

>>18873679
>and that consciousness is entirely qualitatively distinct
>so it's actually a dualistic religion in the end

Recognizing that there is a fundamental difference between consciousness and non-conscious phenomena like rocks and sound isn't the same as propounding a dualistic ontology where reality or the ultimate truth of existence is characterized by an immutable and unreconcilable difference or the division of that truth into multiple co-existing principles/factors. The former position is simply recognizing the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness phenomena without making any explicit statements about the latter; one can agree with the former while attempting to adhere to either position om the latter question.

>>18873606
>if consciousness is not empty how can interact with the world?
Where is the proof that it interacts with the world? If consciousness simply observes the world and the mind, then that isn't an interaction. Interaction means mutual, observations aren't mutual since we don't change a tree, the mountain or a distant star by looking at them. The mind can interact with the world while being observed by consciousness without logical contradiction, and indeed, this is how we actually experience things.
>it needs to be empty, to not posses substance
That just shows that it is empty of material substantiality and nothing more because consciousness is non-physical, this isn't the same as being empty of inherent existence unless you're a materialist and consider matter itself to be inherent existence.
>and be beyond material existence to be able to be that which contextualise existence itself,
To contextualise mundane existence it only has to be different from mundane existence, but that doesn't require it to be empty of inherent and/or transcendental existence, because transcendental existence is different from mundane existence.
>parmenides said the same in respect to being, being itself must be empty of words, since words exist in the realm of nonbeing
empty of words =/= sunyata
>consciousness is not a thing but a matrix of relationships, the context in whch things happen
That's wrong, consciousness is not a relationship or formed out of a matrix of relationships because it is partless and devoid of any internal distinctions. In order for consciousness to be relationship or for it to be formed out of relationships, these would have to be constituents of consciousness itself, but we find no such parts or constituents in consciousness, since the awareness which knows thoughts and sensations cannot be described as anything more than awareness, since whenever you impart more to it you are actually describing an object of your awareness. If if wasn't an object of your awareness in the first place, you wouldn't be able to list in in speech as something which is supposed to be a constituent of awareness itself. Thus, it cannot be shown that consciousness has parts or is formed out of relations. Analyzing awareness into its distinct constituents or relationships is impossible because its impartite fullness of presence has none, the more you try to do so the more you just end up listing changing objects and sensations that are presented as appearances to unchanging awareness.

>>18859736
>Of these the 5 are purely physical
how is fire and akasha a purely physical element?
Brain and ego are physical things dependent on the physical reality. Ego is the wiring of your nerves into a coherent personality.

There are only 5 elements, and intelligence, ego and soul arise from these elements.
Intelligence is the air element.
Ego is the earth element.
Soul is akasha = consciousness. Akasha is the quintessence of the 4 elements, and the first matter from which all things are created.

>>18858559
you are a retarded monkey brain nigger if you read even a little bit of Vedic philosophy you'd know that Maya is a result of Avidya or wrong knowledge and not anything distinct, it exists within the all encompassing Brahman. an example used by sankara is that a rope in the dark is confused for a snake too but on gettig a better look you see it for what it really is, its the same with Maya

>>18875631
>you'd know that Maya is a result of Avidya or wrong knowledge and not anything distinct, it exists within the all encompassing Brahman
So there is avidya in brahman
So there's two things

>>18859441
If our soul is One, its kind of funny how we all seem to get angry at each other all the time.

>>18875775
Boomer but based

>>18859672
You shouldn't be mean to him fren.