/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12198233]

Was he right?

[Anonymous No.12198252]

Great thread! High quality!

Saged! Reported! Hidden!

[Anonymous No.12198295]

>>12198252
based

[Anonymous No.12198366]

>>12198233
Why is he so white?

[Anonymous No.12198396]

>>12198366
Indians are aryan

[Anonymous No.12198578]

Well, Ramanuja Acharya attacked his idea that this world is mere illusion. I mean, this world is still the creation of maya, but that doesn't mean it's not real

[Anonymous No.12198712]

>>12198233
>Was he right?
no

[Anonymous No.12198771]

>>12198233
Yes, I'm convinced that he basically was. His arguments are to some extent addressed to a certain group of people and not for everyone, but if you understand and accept enough of the starting premises or suspend disbelief in them, he lays out a pretty solid case in his commentaries. Someone could come away unconvinced for whatever reason, but insofar as internal consistency goes his doctrine makes sense both in itself and as an exegesis of the Sruti + Smriti and is plausible and logical once you see how he explains it. Some of his ideas are not his inventions and were handed down to him by a line of Advaita teachers existing long before him, but he doesn't hide this and he presents his works as explaining the ancient and sacred tradition and he constantly praises the gurus who passed it all the way down to him.

>>12198578
>Well, Ramanuja Acharya attacked his idea that this world is mere illusion.
Ramanuja attacks Shankara for that but it's supported by Sruti verses which describe multiplicity as illusionary and the perception of it being associated with bad things.

>The Lord, through His mayas, appears manifold; for to Him are yoked ten horses, nay, hundreds. "This Atman is the organs; It is ten and thousands—many and infinite. This Brahman is without antecedent or consequent, without interior or exterior.
Brihadaranyaka U. 5:19
This verse is saying "through maya He appears manifold, but He really makes up everything and is without interior or exterior etc", there are others like this too.

>This is to be attained through the mind indeed. There is no diversity here whatsoever. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death.
Katha U. 2.1.11
Here it's basically saying someone who still perceives any diversity will continue to be subject to transmigration, given that diversity and multiplicity is the natural state that all animals and people assume by default, the Upanishads are indicating that there is something unreal or illusionary about the world; i.e. if the world is not unreal why does the Sruti say perceiving diversity (the natural perception of the world) prevent moksha?

[Anonymous No.12198861]

>>12198578
>his world is still the creation of maya, but that doesn't mean it's not real
Shankara in his writings doesn't deny that we experience the world, and he held conscious experience as an important source of knowledge, I think some of the confusion comes from people mixing up the separate ideas of unreal and non-existent. Something can exist in a sense and still not be real, Advaita just says Brahman is the Absolute reality and that maya is not non-existent but conditionally exists within Brahman as an illusion. People claim this is something they can't grasp but it occurs every night in their own life when they consciously experience dreams despite dreams being unreal, one can obviously still experience something which is unreal. Advaita takes the scriptures as a source for the unreality of Maya/creation but they also provide logical arguments for it, an important text that does this is Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika which advances somewhat similar arguments to Nagarjuna's MMK on the impossibility of (real) creation/origination but Gaudapada takes the argument a step further.

The other objections seems to come from people like Kashmir Shavism or Shuddhadvaita which are like Advaita but without Maya/unrealness, these groups sometimes criticize the Maya doctrine of Advaita as implying an emptiness to things which is incorrect; but this is really just a matter of emphasis, they are practically the same doctrines and neither deny the role of avidya. Advaita puts emphasis on the unreality on particulars and form while at the same time emphasis the boundless and ocean-like infinite fullness of the Atma underlying and pervading everything. The same text might describe the universe as empty when it's talking about a certain stage of realizations and then in the next chapter it's about how there is really just the boundless and all-pervading reality of Brahman pervading everything which one learns is their real identity.

[Anonymous No.12198872]

>>12198366
omg you cant just ask people why they're white