/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13122370]

Can we put aside the Guenonposting and the poopooposting and have a discussion of the merits and criticisms of this nigga?

[Anonymous No.13122375]

>>13122370
Shankara completed the system of Aryan Idealism.

[Anonymous No.13122384]

>>13122375
Hinduism is not idealism

[Anonymous No.13122463]

>>13122370
There cannot be discussion on this board of Shankara without relating it to Guenon

[Anonymous No.13122489]

>>13122384
It most certainly is Ontological Idealism.

[Anonymous No.13122611]

>>13122375
based

[Anonymous No.13122770]

>>13122463
That's not true, there are Advaita/Shankara threads fairly often and he isn't always mentioned in them. He only wrote one book focusing on it after all, it's a good book but it's just one of many good books on Vedanta

[Anonymous No.13122784]

>>13122370
Satanic shit. Pick up a bible, weeaboo.

[Anonymous No.13122846]

How do Advaitins prove that there is something Eternal(Brahman) at all as opposed to nihilism?

[Anonymous No.13122957]

>>13122846
I exist, you exist, therefore God exists.
t. Pajeet Vri Poopooghi

[Anonymous No.13122974]

if you get anything out of shankara you didnt out plato you are retarded

[Anonymous No.13123108]

>>13122974
>if you get anything out of shankara you didnt out plotinus you are retarded
fixed

[Anonymous No.13123115]

>>13123108
Shankara is like Plotinus but with a dialectic and the heavy use of logic instead of feels > reals

[Anonymous No.13123146]

>>13122846
First and foremost they accept it on the basis of the scriptures but they also examine and take apart almost every single argument either for or against it to show that it's indeed the most logical conclusion

[Anonymous No.13123346]

>>13122489
Most definitely not. Have you read any Hindu philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13123401]

>>13123115
>but with a dialectic and the heavy use of logic
which he plagiarized from Madhyamika buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13123618]

>>13123401
No he didn't you absolute brainlet, he uses dialectic constantly in all of his commentaries including when he discusses many dozens of topics that the Buddhists never talked about. The Madhyamika were not the first people in Indian philosophy to use dialectic but it appears in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads such as Yajnavalkya's discourses in the Brihadaranyaka. The Madhyamika were the ones who were accused of being crypto-Vedantins by the Theravada

>n his writings he comments on early Vedanta, and also addresses Hinayana (Theravada) accusations that Mahayana Buddhists are "crypto-Vedantins".[5][6]

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

You're just posting that as cope because it's upsetting to you that he btfo hinayana and mahayana doctrines left and right in his works but the Buddhists were unable to write a single comprehensive refutation of Advaita

[Anonymous No.13123734]

>>13123146
>they also examine and take apart almost every single argument either for or against it to show that it's indeed the most logical conclusion
Care to give some examples?

[Anonymous No.13123740]

>>13123401
this

[Anonymous No.13123750]

>>13123346
I have. Not sure how you can disagree with the fact that Shankara believes in epistemic realism and ontological idealism.

[Anonymous No.13124158]

>>13123618
Advaita, aka Neo-Buddhism
>Scholars such as Belvalkar, Hiriyanna, Radhakrishnan and Thibaut state that Advaita's and Buddhism's theories on True Reality and Maya are similar,[7] and the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta has been significant.[8]
>Frank Whaling states that the monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Advaita_Vedanta

>Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.[57] Usually two levels are being mentioned,[58] but Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels.[59]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Shankara exposed as a Crypto-Buddhist
>According to S.N. Dasgupta (respected Sanskrit scholar): 'Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded'.[107]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

Gaudapada, Shankara's great guru caught plagiarizing Buddhism
>One school of scholars, such as Bhattacharya and Raju, state that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness ..... Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into the philosophy of Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".[67][note 7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada

>According to Advaita scholar Chandradhar Sharma, 'Gaudapada's Karika bears many doctrinal and terminological similarities with Nagarjuna's Karika and with the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Besides, there is the methodological similarity in the employment of the dialectic between Gaudapada and the Madhyamika Buddhists. The fourth chapter of Karika, known as the Alatashantiprakarana, exhibits a strikingly Buddhist tenor and has been a "problem child" of Gaudapada for the interpreters.'
(The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy, pp 144)

notice the similar ontology/dialectics
>Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise (MMK 1.1, Nagarjuna 3rd century CE)
>No given thing (vastu) whatsoever is born either from itself or from another. No given thing whatsoever is born existent, non-existent, or both existent and non-existent". (GK 4.22, Gaudapada 6th century)

notice the similar terminology
>prakrter anyathābhāvo na hijatupapadyate (MMK 15.8, Nagarjuna 3rd century CE)
>prakṛter anyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati (MK 4.7, Gaudapada 6th century CE)

[Anonymous No.13124441]

>>13124158
>hurr durr maybe if I try to overwhelm someone with a bunch of citations they won't see through my bullshit
Your cope is obvious, it's really amazing how bad Shankara triggers you clowns, you must not be practicing Buddhist teachings very well, I'll take your allegations in order

>Advaita's and Buddhism's theories on True Reality and Maya are similar,[7]
In the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, it already says Brahman is the 'truth of truth' (2.1.20. & 2.3.6), and most of the Upanishads describe Brahman as the ultimate reality in various ways, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also already mentions the doctrine of Maya by name (2.5.19) which also appears throughout the Upanishads. Thus, the idea of the Absolute as ultimate reality and of this being obscured by Maya predate Buddhism, Buddha took these from the Upanishads, or if we are to mirror your style, Buddha 'plagiarized' these

>Frank Whaling states that the monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.[8]
Again, in the Brihadaranyaka it talks about and enjoins monasticism (4.4.22 & 4.5.2), the emperor Yajnavalkya is described as renouncing the world and becoming a monk as part of his enlightenment, this predates Buddhism

>Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.[57]
Again, in the Brihadaranyaka, Brahman is described as the 'truth of truth', also Shankara's is different from Madhyamika's anyways. The idea of there being a higher reality to be realized is implicit in the doctrine of Maya which predates Buddhism, you can't have Maya obscuring the truth of something without necessarily separating those concepts into "that which appeared due to Maya' and 'that which appears after Maya is overcome', the idea of two truths is just an elaboration of Maya, again all this predates Buddhism

>'Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists
WRONG, Sharma notes "technique between Gaudapáda on the one hand and the Mádhyamika and Vijñánávádí Buddhists on the other should not be taken to mean that Gaudapáda has borrowed these from the Buddhists. Gaudapáda flourished at that when Maháyána was prevalent and he was fully conversant with the Maháyána philosophy. Terms are the heritage of language and like current coins can be used by anyone who writes in that language. The dialectical method though developed in the Mádhyamika school did not originate with it or even with Buddha. Its origin is found in the Upanisads and its first exponent is the sage Yajñavalkya. The doctrinal similarities, as pointed out by Gaudapada himself,are due to the fact that Buddha himself took these doctrines from the Upanisads and these were developed in the Maháyána schools."

>His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna
lol, Shankara just accepts the Upanishad descriptions of Brahman and lets them speak for him and takes them literally, this is completely retarded

[Anonymous No.13124452]

>>13124441
>The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated.
WRONG, the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka describes the Atma as self-luminous in (4.3.6.) - "When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya and the moon has set and the fire has gone out and speech has stopped, what serves as light for a man?" "The self, indeed, is his light, for with the self as light he sits, goes out, works and returns." This line is pre-buddhist and it was more likely the Vijnanavada's who ripped it from the Upanishads, following the example of the master plagiarizer Gautama Buddha

>state that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness
WRONG, Gaudapada did not have to take this from them because the Aitareya Upanishad directly states "Consciousness is Brahman" (3.1.4.), and according to the 1998 review by Olivelle and other scholars the Aitareya is pre-Buddhist, again this wasn't even taught by Buddha but predates him nonetheless, the later Buddhist schools probably ripped it from the Upanishads

>'Gaudapada's Karika bears many doctrinal and terminological similarities with Nagarjuna's Karika and with the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Besides, there is the methodological similarity in the employment of the dialectic between Gaudapada and the Madhyamika Buddhists
That same author in the exact same book (which anyone can download on lib-gen to verify) ends up correctly concluding based on the evidence that Gaudapada's ideas and the dialectic comes from the Upanishads you retarded pseud, your own source argues against you here

>notice the similar terminology
>prakrter anyathābhāvo na hijatupapadyate (MMK 15.8, Nagarjuna 3rd century CE)
>prakṛter anyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati (MK 4.7, Gaudapada 6th century CE)
This is just saying the immortal doesn't become mortal and vice versa which a basic statement of how X can't become the opposite of X without it being a contradiction in terms, hardly a unique insight of Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13124460]

>>13124452
>notice the similar ontology/dialectics
>Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise (MMK 1.1, Nagarjuna 3rd century CE)
>No given thing (vastu) whatsoever is born either from itself or from another. No given thing whatsoever is born existent, non-existent, or both existent and non-existent". (GK 4.22, Gaudapada 6th century)

Gaudapada already explains his reason for non-origination in the 3rd chapter of his karika by citing the Upanishad verses which logically point to it:

III-23. The sruti favours equally the creation in reality and through Maya. That which is settled by the sruti and supported by reasoning is true, and not anything else.
III-24. Since the sruti says, "There is no multiplicity here", "the Lord, owing to Maya, (is seen diversely)", and "The Self, though unborn, (appears to be born in many ways)", it becomes obvious that He is born through Maya.
III-25. By the censure of (the worship of) Hiranyagarbha is negated creation. By the statement, "Who will cause it to be born?", is denied causality

All of the above are Upanishad verses pointing to that creation isn't real, which leads to non-origination. The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka already states that Brahman is unborn 3 separate times (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). When you have the same text saying that Brahman is the highest truth, that it is unborn, is only falsely seen as manifold/mutiplicity and that really there is no diversity in It, that leads directly to the concept of non-origination, because Brahman itself could never originate because the text says so but the text also negates the alleged creation/origination by stating that it's false and only appears due to Maya.

For basically everything that you allege Shankara took from Buddhism it all appears in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, mostly the Brihadaranyaka. If anything you've just unwittingly exposed Buddha and Nagarjuna as the master plagiarizers, it's just that nobody catches on because Buddhism is more pleb-freindly and so most people don't study Vedanta and realize where it all came from. Thanks by the way for basically compiling every retarded allegation of plagiarism against Shankara into one neat post that was easily refuted, now I can screencap this and just post the image in the future when people post the same easily-debunked arguments.

[Anonymous No.13124472]

Gee, can y'all not just appreciate the literature these guys have written?! Why the competition, anons?

[Anonymous No.13124482]

>>13124460
Here's the screencap in case anyone else encounters the same pseud arguments and doesn't want to have to search online or through the archives to point out that they're wrong

[Anonymous No.13124568]

>>13124482
BASED

[Anonymous No.13124693]

Sikhism will dominate over Hinduism in the East despite the population difference. Mark my words.

[Anonymous No.13124718]

Any Sankarabros read Ramanuja? Is he based?

[Anonymous No.13124725]

hindoo shit is just the new catholicism for racist white american pedophiles on discord

[Anonymous No.13124729]

>>13124472
Nobody cares about the actual literature, only how they can use it to make their identity superior

[Anonymous No.13124746]

>>13122370

Anyone who approaches Brahman as a system of philosophy to be debated, as a system of metaphysics to be analyzed, or as a genre of literature to be read simply has not experienced Brahman and is making the task more difficult than it has any business being.

Reject the objects of sensory perception as a poison.

[Anonymous No.13124751]

>>13124746
Kek, you're obviously just a buttmad buddhist who's upset we've BTFOn you.
So far it's Shankara 5 - Buddhists 0.

[Anonymous No.13124756]

>>13124751

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
Brahman is "not this, not this".
Titles, categories, and names are for fucking queers.
Vedanta is about personal experience. Awareness. The philosophy is a supplement which cannot even possibly be properly understood without direct experience of nirguna brahman.

[Anonymous No.13124770]

>>13124751

Also, fuck right off, I basically quoted Ashtavakra Gita directly (depending on translation). Despite what the Buddhists say (and what's written in the canon), the experience of moksha and nirvana are literally exactly the same thing being poorly described by different people at different times. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a reductionist twat.

[Anonymous No.13124834]

>>13122370
Legit question for Shankara anons.
How is the self/atman justified? I can not find its existence either through ontological necessity or direct insight like meditation practices. What is it, mere presence? The non-dualism is clear, but how doe this coexist with Brahman-Atman?

[Anonymous No.13124867]

Buddhism and Catholicism converge in many aspects, perfidy being one of them.

[Anonymous No.13124875]

>>13124729
This board is no different from /pol/

[Anonymous No.13124886]

>>13123401
Is that the ruthlessly materialist form of Buddhism? Daniel Odier mentions it in one of his books on meditation. It sounded strange to me.

>>13123618
this is such a weird line to take, even if factually correct. are Western Buddhists all as testy as you? no hate, just a serious question based on what i've seen from this board

[Anonymous No.13124924]

>>13124834

Whence the question of necessity? If Brahman is positively, not negatively, perfect then this is reason enough for anything and everything to be. If Brahman is also THE Self, ever secure in Self-identity and Self-reflection, it also follows that anything and everything that might be, might do so not by separation from Brahman, but do so in Brahman, and might likewise be a Monad, as THE Monad.

[Anonymous No.13124976]

>Bhaviveka is notable in the Indian tradition for his inclusivist comments. He equated the Buddha's Dharma body with the Upanishadic concept of ultimate reality called Brahman,[4] but this view does not imply that he was a Vedantist or that he viewed Buddhism and Vedanta to be the same.[4] In his writings he comments on early Vedanta, and also addresses Hinayana (Theravada) accusations that Mahayana Buddhists are "crypto-Vedantins".[5][6]

And then people mock western buddhist...how can a man be so retarded hahahahahhahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.13125049]

>>13124924
Is Brahman a fixed principle like being itself?

[Anonymous No.13125063]

>>13122489
you're speaking out of your ass

[Anonymous No.13125244]

>>13124482
>>13124568
>screencaps his own response in case 'someone else uses the argument again' (ie expecting anyone but himself to post it)
>haha based lmao xD
imagine having your life revolved on an online image board this much

[Anonymous No.13125251]

>>13122784

God of the Bible is Moloch. Every child knows that.

[Anonymous No.13125304]

>>13124746
>>13124756
I agree, but if people refrained from barging into threads like these to say "adavita is fake and gay it all comes from X" nobody would have to descend to their level to refute them. It's silly to take the attitude that only people into Vedanta are supposed to be above debunking when people post misinformation about it, while everyone else can freely debate and defend their interests without criticism.
>>13124770
>the experience of moksha and nirvana are literally exactly the same thing being poorly described by different people at different times.
In my experience, many of the people into Hindu philosophy on /lit/ are actually totally willing to accept that premise, but it's everyone else who as soon as someone posts that view end up objecting and jumping down their throat saying "no its not reeeeeee buddha rejected hinduism!" or "you're just repeating 19th C. theosophist interpretations!" or "you're just repeating the take of guenon et al!" or "you're just repeating the reductionist neoplatonizing orientalist line" and so on. I mostly agree with that sentiment myself but don't even post about it anymore because no matter how nicely or how anodyne one phrases it there is often a very angry reaction by certain people when you say that.

[Anonymous No.13125328]

>>13122370
Is this the dude that imported Buddhist ideas into Hinduism? He’s okay I guess but his influence in Hinduism IMO is overrated. Ordinary Indians don’t really know him that much, they are more familiar with Ramanuja and Vyasa (yea I know the latter is kinda cheating but oh well).

[Anonymous No.13125336]

>>13125328
Ordinary hindus these days are shitskins. It is the duty of us Aryan white men to retake the torch of Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.13125575]

>>13124718
Yes, Ramanuja is based. I've read a bit of him in addition to a lot of Shankara and he is basically a more relaxed Advaita that says it's fine to be a householder and that you can still achieve moksha while doing so through devotion and contemplation etc. Some people find Shankara's Advaita to be a little too 'harsh' in its emphasis and to these people Vishishtadvaita is a better fit. He disagrees with Shankara's ideas and criticizes them at times, although to some extent these points seem to stem from him not exactly understanding Maya as Shankara explained it. Despite the ostensible conflict between them though they are highly similar and can quite easily be considered two different ways of approaching the same thing IMO. Ramanuja despite criticizing Shankara's Maya still uses the concept of beginningless Avidya/Karma to explain multiplicity and the 'descent of the soul' and like Shankara he admits that the immediate intuitive realization of the Absolute/Real is the only cause of liberation, but he differs in that he calls it highest (para) bhakti and says that it dawns by the grace of God. But again, Shankara in his Gita commentary talks about for those who are not ready for/capable of Jnana-Yoga that Bhakti-Yoga can still lead indirectly to moksha, so there is really not much conflict between them. Ramanuja didn't write commentaries on the Upanishads but only on the Brahma Sutras and the Gita, although he did write a fairly short ~60 page summary on his views of what the Upanishads teach called the 'Vedartha Sangraha' which is a pretty good introduction to his metaphysics if you are interested in him, some of Ramanuja's prose is really good too.

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/vedartha_sangraha_.pdf


>>13125328
From what I've read Ramanuja is more popularly known among the wider populace but Shankara tends to predominate among sannyasins, the largest monastic organization/order in India is the Dashanami Sampradaya who are advaitic and who trace their lineage to Shankara.

[Anonymous No.13125648]

>>13124886
>are Western Buddhists all as testy as you?
You're talking to a Vedantin not a Buddhist

[Anonymous No.13125679]

>>13125336
if white man had an aptitude for this kind of thing he wouldn't need hinduism

[Anonymous No.13125685]

>>13125575
>Yes, Ramanuja is based
yes he is, for exposing Shankara as a crypto-buddhist.

>Ramanujacharya, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",[1]

Still think he's based?

[Anonymous No.13125787]

>>13125304
>I agree, but if people refrained from barging into threads like these to say "adavita is fake and gay it all comes from X" nobody would have to descend to their level to refute them. It's silly to take the attitude that only people into Vedanta are supposed to be above debunking when people post misinformation about it, while everyone else can freely debate and defend their interests without criticism.
How is that silly? I except some intellectual decency from people who are invested in Vedantic philosophy, not rabid shitposting and paranoia at the slightest perturbation. Maybe we'd take them seriously if they actually didn't descend to 'their level' (which im pretty sure is mostly coming from that Shankara fanboy interjecting his autism into every thread).

[Anonymous No.13125790]

>>13125685
stop trying to stir the pot because you're butthurt. grow up

[Anonymous No.13125800]

>>13125790
ok fine, just for you I won't bait shankarafag again.

[Anonymous No.13125801]

is hinduism no-logos?

[Anonymous No.13125808]

>>13125801
hinduism is no loogos

[Anonymous No.13125875]

>>13125049
Ultimate Reality, according to Shañkara, is Átmá or Brahma. It is pure Consciousness (jnana-svarupa) or Consciousness of the pure Self (svampa-jnana). Átmá here does not mean the individual self (jivátmá), which is an appearance generated by maya, though ultimately the jiva shorn of its limitation is Brahma itself. It stands for the Absolute, the foundational Self which is eternally self-shining and self-proved. Brahma means the Infinite, the innermost being of the individual selves as well as of the objective world. The Real is as certain as the self and as infinite as universal nature. It manifests itself as the subject as well as the object and transcends them both. Átmá and Brahma are one and the same. ‘This Self is really the Absolute' (ayam átmá brahma); That thou art (tat tvam asi) ‘I am Brahma (aham brahmdsmi) and ‘All this is verily Brahma (sarvam khalu idam brahma) are the great sayings (mahá-vákya) of the Upanisads. Brahma manifests itself in two forms which in fact are its two poises; in itself it is unqualified (nirvishesa) , indeterminate (nirguna), transcendent or acosmic (nisprapaficha) and indefinable (aniruachaniya), but associated with its own power Máyá it appears as qualified (saxnshesa), determinate (saguna), immanent or cosmic (saprapañcha) and Lord (Ishvara) of this universe, its creator, preserver and destroyer and its inner controller. It should be remembered that the acosmic view neither denies nor opposes the cosmic view; on the other hand it includes and transcends it. This distinction is at the root of the celebrated distinction made by Shañkara between God and the Absolute. God, the creative self-Consciousness or Knowledge-Will, the causal principle manifesting Himself as the creator, protector and destroyer of this universe as well as the immanent self (antaryámí) running through and controlling the universe from within is the lower Brahma (apara Brahma), while the Absolute, the transcendent in itself, independent of and unrelated to creation is the Supreme Real (para Brahma). These are the two phases or poises of the same Real. This has been explained by the Upanisadic sage Yajñavalkya, who shines forth as the first exponent of Absolutism in the world, in his answers to the questions of Uddálaka Áruni and of the learned lady Gargi at the court of King Janaka, and in another context in his teaching to his wife Maitreyi.

[Anonymous No.13125877]

>>13125875
Shankara makes a distinction between ‘description’ (tatastha laksana) and ‘definition' (svarupa laksana) of a thing. The former gives only the accidental qualities or modes of a thing, while the latter reveals its essential nature. Brahmasutra (1-1-2) says that Brahma is the cause of the creation, preservation and dissolution of this universe. Shankara explains that this is merely a description of Brahma and is not its definition proper. Being the cause of this universe consisting of individual selves and external objects is an accidental quality of Brahma and not its essential nature. Causality is a category of thought which has empirical validity but not final reality. It cannot be really attributed to Brahma. Creation is apparent, not real. The Acharya points out that as the Brahma-sutras are based on the Upanisads, the above sutra refers to the text of the Taittiriya Upanisad which says that Brahma is the cause from which the entire universe arises, by which it is sustained and into which it merges again. The Acharya explains this text as follows: This text gives a description (tatastha-laksana) of conditioned (apara) Brahma or Ishwara who is the creator, preserver and destroyer and the inner controller of this universe. He is the material cause (upddana karana) as well as the efficient cause (nimitta karana) of this universe. There can be no other cause except apara-Brahma or ishvara who is the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient Lord. Para-Brahma, the unconditioned and impersonal Absolute, through its power Maya, appears as conditioned and personal and it is to this personal God that causal agency is attributed. And this causal agency is treated as an accidental quality of the Lord. The Taittiriya Upanisad further gives the essential definition (svarupa laksana) of Brahma that ‘Brahma is Bliss' (ananda) and clearly says that it is certainly from Ananda itself that this entire universe arises, by which it is sustained and into which it merges again.

[Anonymous No.13125882]

>>13125877
Brahma is called the cause of the world because without Brahma the world would not even appear. It is the cause in the sense of being the ground-reality (adhisthana) on which this world-appearance is super-imposed. The cosmic Brahma or Ishvara is also the immanent inner controller (antaryami) of this universe of individual selves and objective world. The acosmic Brahma is the non-dual eternal Absolute, the transcendental Self, self-luminous and self-proved which is beyond space, time and causation. It must be remembered that the distinction between the lower and the higher Brahma is the distinction in thought and not in reality; in fact they are one. Brahma is defined in the Upanisads as pure Being (sat), the eternal unchanging reality, pure Consciousness (Chit), the undeniable Self and pure Bliss (ananda), which is eternal and unmixed and beyond empirical pleasure and pain, all in one. These are not three, but one. And these are not qualities, nor essential attributes, nor even aspects or phases of Brahma, but the very nature of Brahma or rather Brahma itself. ‘Brahma is Being, Consciousness and Infinitude’ (satyam jnanam anantam Brahma). Here ‘Infinitude’ (anantam) means ‘Bliss’ (anandam) because, as the Upanisads say, ‘the Infinite alone is Bliss, for there is no joy in the finite’. ‘Brahma is pure Consciousness and Bliss (vijndnam anandam Brahma). Or simply, ‘Brahma is Bliss’ (anandam Brahma) because Bliss includes Consciousness and Being, as only a conscious being can enjoy bliss. It should, however, be remembered that Brahma is not a self-conscious person enjoying its own bliss, but Bliss itself. The self is not a synthesis of the subject and the object, for such synthesis is logically impossible. The unity of the self is not abstract identity or the empirical category of unity. It is transcendental and real, but not synthetic as is supposed by Kant and Hegel in order to made it ‘concrete’. Vedanta admits that the notion of the self as the unity of the subject and the object is necessary for empirical life and may be taken as the highest synthesis available in thought, yet, in spite of all this, it is not real in itself. The identification of the subject and the object is a result of avidya, though it is the presupposition of all empirical life. The transcendental unity of the self is beyond thought and can be realized only in immediate spiritual experience.

[Anonymous No.13126010]

>>13124725
>Hindu thought is the new catholicism for right-wing/traditional-minded white people
and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.13126209]

>>13125882
>The self is not a synthesis of the subject and the object, for such synthesis is logically impossible

why

[Anonymous No.13126274]

>>13125875
What does self-shining and self-proved mean? Doesn't seem self-proved to me.

[Anonymous No.13126304]

>>13126274
I'd wager its to do with the tautology of being. Brahma as the ground of being which projects and contains maya which would be the becoming of being, or the phenomenal world.

[Anonymous No.13126314]

How do I experience non-dual awareness?

I can't be bothered reading redundant philosophical treatises on metaphysics

[Anonymous No.13126387]

>>13126314
You most likely won't be able to reach it without either instruction by a teacher or through reading texts which describe and explain it unless you are the one in a million person who can just by chance happen to reach it through meditating or whatever despite not having any foundation in that kind of thought. However, not all texts on non-dualism are dense philosophical treatises on metaphysics, there are also poems which can communicate the concept intuitively. There are several Gita (song) texts in Hinduism which do this, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Ashtavakra Gita, the Avadhuta Gita and the Ribhu Gita. Here are some of them. Also, there are a lot of poems which intuitively communicate non-dualism in Sufism so you could try checking some of those out as well. To an extent one finds this in other schools of thought also although I personally find the Hindu and Sufi stuff to be the most direct.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

http://www.anandavala.info/miscl/Avadhut-Gita.pdf

[Anonymous No.13126402]

>>13125787
Only a moron or someone with little self-awareness would care about having someone they've enjoyed reading being 'taken seriously' by anonymous shitposters most of whom don't even read. The majority of people on /lit/ are just here to amuse themselves shitposting and occasionally talk about stuff they like reading with people who've also read said material, if people rudely make accusations against or attack any writer/thinker they can expect to receive non-polite replies, that applies for everyone without exception. Intellectual decency is not saying 'uh there's no point talking or debating about X because it's transcendental to thought' but rather if one is going to debate something the intellectually decent way is to do so on the basis of facts and through the use of citations.

[Anonymous No.13126520]

>>13126387
Yeah ok, i"ll just stick to Sam Harris, he explains non dualism bettet than any guru/swami/yogi/sri/sri sri/sri sri sri poopooji mahadeviyanandanapadavadandabandana

[Anonymous No.13126545]

>>13126402
>if people rudely make accusations against or attack any writer/thinker they can expect to receive non-polite replies
Lmao....

[Anonymous No.13126556]

>>13126209
The below is not my writing but is roughly adapted from a book, I agree with it though.

Objectivity necessarily means otherness. The object is that which is different from or other than the subject; and this difference of the object from consciousness is the fundamental difference to which all other differences among the objects may be traced. No trace of the object can be ultimately retained in the subject. If the ‘union of subject and object' is the subject (which is what is alleged if it's held the self is the union of the two), there can be no objectivity in it; and if it is an object, it cannot be the unity of subject and object. Real unity cannot be ‘union of the two’, for if the two are equals they are two independent reals which cannot be related; and if one of the two is primary and the other secondary, this dependent ‘other’ will be found to be dispensable and will glide away into the principal which alone can be called real.

[Anonymous No.13126579]

>>13126520
Isn't non-dual atheism basically just atomism though?

[Anonymous No.13126602]

>>13125063
>Shankara believes in epistemic realism and ontological idealism. He is equally opposed to subjective idealism and ontological realism. For him, the empirical reality of this world of subject-object duality cannot be denied nor can its ultimate reality be upheld. The world is empirically real and transcendentally unreal. It would be absurd to suppose that Shankara, while criticising Buddhist idealism, compromises with his own idealism or becomes a realist or uses the arguments of realism in which he himself does not believe. Shankara accepts and defends only epistemic realism as it is not incompatible with his absolute idealism. His criticism is directed mainly against subjective idealism. He also carefully distinguishes his Vedantic idealism from the Buddhist idealism which he criticises. Vijnanavada condemns the subject and the object as totally unreal; they do not enjoy even empirical reality.

Shankara's Advaita is ontologically idealist since it views pure Consciousness as the ultimate reality upon which the phenomenal world is superimposed through avidya/maya, but is epistemologically realist, even if conditionally since it accepts that we can infer from our self-evident conscious existence and from the nature of the world that there is an existent reality upon which the unreal is predicated; and that this world is evidence of its existence. There is never any dream without a dreamer and a rope is never wrongly perceived as a snake without the rope being there first in the same spot, one never has the mistaken perception of an unreal object being in the middle of a brightly-lit empty room.

[Anonymous No.13126624]

>>13126314

Christological contemplation of the coincidence of Incarnation and Docetism. Very Dialectical and very cool.

>No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

[Anonymous No.13126760]

I just want to become well-versed in Advaita so I can dunk on all the Christians. What books should I read?

Getting real tired of all the "trad Christians" spouting essentially Monism or non-duality and think it doesn't contradict the biblical God and even more, that the arguments should actually lead to believing in Jesus.
>"Because He is the pure act of existence itself, He is present in all things innermostly because all things insofar as they are real participate in Him as their existential source which pervades through all things real" - christcuck

[Anonymous No.13126783]

>>13126314
get "The Mind Illuminated" and meditate.

[Anonymous No.13126925]

>>13126783
but that's Buddhist not Vedanta

[Anonymous No.13126952]

>>13126760
If you are honestly only getting into it for that reason it's not worth it but if you are genuinely interested in becoming well-versed in Advaita then just read through all of Shankara's works starting with his Upanishad commentaries after you've read a book on Advaita/Vedanta as preparation for reading him, he explains everything. All of his authentic commentary and non-commentary works combined are around 5000 pages.

[Anonymous No.13127079]

>>13126952
Is Vedantasara by Sadananda a good introduction?

[Anonymous No.13127229]

>>13127079
Yes, it is. If you try reading through Shankara after that and still feel confused about anything then you can stop and read book about Advaita before going back to him but Vedantasara should probably be enough

[Anonymous No.13127534]

>>13126520
cringe and blue-pilled

[Anonymous No.13128254]

>>13126624
Are there any books you'd recommend on that topic? I'm already aware of the one written by the Christian monk under the pen name monk of the west

[Anonymous No.13128311]

>>13128254
>Are there any books
>Are there any books
>Are there any books
>Are there any books
>Are there any books
>Are there any books

[Anonymous No.13128508]

GUÉNON >>>>>>> ALL

>>13128254
read Guénon faggot

[Anonymous No.13128801]

>>13128508
Guenon barely wrote anything on Christianity though, isn't his one book on Christian esoterism mostly just ruminations about the esoteric groups that existed before but which really aren't active anymore? I was more interested in books that explore the subject that poster was talking about in depth from the perspective of groups or currents still active, which he doesn't really do as far as I understand

[Anonymous No.13129197]

>>13124693
I dunno man, that sounds pretty improbable

[Anonymous No.13130253]

bump

[Anonymous No.13130833]

>>13126274
It refers to the luminous-like nature of awareness which self-evidently shines forth as existing in all conscious beings as the illuminator and witness of the workings of their intellect, mind and sensory organs

[Anonymous No.13130977]

>>13125808
underrated post

[Anonymous No.13132116]

>>13122375
this

[Anonymous No.13133185]

>>13130833
>self-evidently shines forth
>self-evidently
You keep saying that but...

[Anonymous No.13133225]

>>13133185
To deny it is to deny one's own immediate awareness, which makes a fool of the person making the denial, it is prior to any and all conceptualizations and any attempts at rationalizing it away as "unreal" or as not having "inherent existence". Denial of it occurs after the fact of it constituting one's immediate experience.

[Anonymous No.13134419]

>>13124441
I highly doubt the fact that these are coming from Buddhist, these are merely salty christian's way of delegitimizing advaita.

[Anonymous No.13135315]

>>13124729
Actually proper non-dualists are exempt from that if they take it seriously because they regard everyone else as being identical with themselves, there is nobody to appear superior to because everyone is just yourself, dualists and Buddhists who accept an existent plurality/multiplicity of beings still leave the door open for egoism but not Advaitins. Even with the non-dual areas of Buddhism (they refer to it as advaya) it's just an epistemic non-dualism of how there is no duality between samsara/nirvana as opposed to the ontological dualism of Advaita or say Sufism which recognizes that really there is fundamentally only one conscious entity. The dualists and Buddhists still regard it as there being a plurality of individuals (even if it's all just illusion/samsara) which makes them fall back into egoism and think of themselves as more spiritually advanced/enlightened which is partially why some of them become so bitter and spiteful. When actual non-dualists post it's all just tongue in cheek because they understand that they're just talking to themselves.

[Anonymous No.13135581]

>>13135315
lel what a gay thing to say. Yeah Advaitins might think their "essence" or Atman is the same as everyone else, but empirically there is obviously plurality. And when you take a shit on subhumans or "make your identity superior" you're obviously doing it through the empirical point of view.

There is nothing in non-dual belief systems that would have morally hindered the Turks from genociding the Armenians or what ever. Well at least not to the point that it would stand out from other belief systems in terms of viewing others more equal.
>fire can't pierce it, water cannot drench it and spears cannot pierce That which sustains you.
So my non-dual son... go crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Anonymous No.13135684]

>>13135581
>what a gay thing to say.
maybe if you weren't paying attention and read into my post ideas which I was never actually implying
>empirically there is obviously plurality.
Obviously, Advaita is epistemologically realist and criticizes other schools for rejecting empiricism as a valid pramana
>And when ...... you're obviously doing it through the empirical point of view.
duh, the point is one does that while understanding the reality underlying it, I never implied that non-dualism means everyone should all become pacifists or cucks, just that one is better able to reach higher states of consciousness through it than through pluralistic systems, that in itself has no bearing upon how one treats others. The mostly Advaitic sannyasin ascetics of India were known to arm themselves and fight against bandits and Islamic invaders, the Bhagavad-Gita literally is about God teaching non-dualism but at the same time telling Arjuna to go fight and kill a bunch of people with detachment knowing that they are all just the same as him, the most famous Sufi writers use much of the same metaphors as Advaita to illustrate how only God is real but that never stopped Sufis from often fighting in wars and participating in massacres. If anything non-dualism makes you fearless and better enables one to carry out whatever one is doing with detachment whether it's killing people or helping them. There is a time and a place for everything in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.13135815]

>>13135684
>the Bhagavad-Gita literally is about God teaching non-dualism
kek

[Anonymous No.13136461]

How can I trust anything my mind conceives about the nature of non-duality if thinking itself takes place in duality/maya? How do you know it's not just another delusion?

[Anonymous No.13137416]

>>13136461
Advaita separates reality into 3 levels, the apparent reality (i.e. when you think someone called your name but they didn't or when you falsely think you see a snake), the pragmatic or epistemic reality of multiplicity where external objects and other beings present themselves, and then the transcendental/ultimate reality where the truth of the absolute unity of Brahman is revealed; each level of reality is sublated into the next higher one. The doctrine of Advaita is itself based on the Sruti passages which teach it which are considered free from that issue because they are essentially emanations of God. Maya being only a power of the Lord, it does not render the scriptures also issuing from Him useless. Thinking and the intellect indeed take place in Maya which is why all the Upanishads say that Brahman is transcendental to thought, the absolute reality and the truth of Advaita can only be experienced through direct and immediate intuitive spiritual realization and not through the use of the intellect and deliberation. When one ponders on the scriptures and mulls over their teachings in one's mind, one is not directly comprehending Brahman but is still engaged in a subject-object duality of thought which is a part of Maya (although this is an important part of approaching the realization of truth), however when one transcends thought in immediate spiritual experience this issue is no longer present and hence there is no longer any question at this stage about trusting what the mind conceives; the witnessing awareness behind the mind which shines forth during spiritual realization is itself the ultimate reality and needs no other accessory or qualifier to legitimize or complete it.

[Anonymous No.13137521]

>>13126579
yes, it's also fake and gay

[Anonymous No.13137585]

>>13126925
Experience of ultimate being the same in meditation regardless of tradition is not view exclusive to guenonfaggotry. Unless you're exceptionally talented or lucky you won't experience what you want without solid concentration and discernment.

[Anonymous No.13138262]

>>13122784
The concept of Satan existing originates from Zoroastrianism, which is itself a breakaway sect from the Indo-Europeans traditions that eventually formed into Hinduism. Calling Hinduism satanic is like taking the archenemy of a MLP-Harry Potter crossover fanfiction series and then implying that the Harry Potter of the original series was actually the MLP-fanfiction archenemy all along

[Anonymous No.13139294]

>>13126925
If you're looking for transcendental experiences through meditation but with a Vedantic context just read through Shankara's works after reading a preparation book on him/Advaita. Reading through and reflecting on his works themselves can give you transcendental experiences similar to the heights of meditation while you're just sitting there looking at the pages, it's not like other religious literature. Seated meditation isn't considered as important in his system anyways but is looked on more so only as an accessory practice that indirectly helps one reach liberation.

[Anonymous No.13139762]

>>13122370
Maya seems like a serious problem with his philosophy. Yes, it's not real in an absolute sense, but does it even arise in a relative sense if all of reality is an unchanging monad? How does illusion even appear?

[Anonymous No.13139797]

>>13137585
Idk even The Mind Illuminated emphasizes the not-self teaching and mentions realizations of a lack of agency - nothing about unity with the absolute or True Self

[Anonymous No.13139805]

>>13139797
Buddhists tend to emphasize the unity of different approaches when they're trying to get you to read their books but then they rarely say as much at other times

[Anonymous No.13139809]

>>13122370
>can we put aside th-

Let me stop you right there pajeet. Nobody says it. Literally nobody gives a shit about streetshitters or their shit infested guide books to bathing in shit and piss. Kys

[Anonymous No.13139849]

>>13139805
I suppose a book like The Mind Illuminated can be helpful in developing meditative concentration and one-pointedness, which is universal and not tied to any one tradition - but it's ideas regarding absolute and self seem to be quite different from Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.13139976]

>>13139762
>Maya seems like a serious problem with his philosophy
You see that's the thing though, it's not a philosophy, it's not designed to satisfy the logicians; it may not even fully make sense to some people unless they already intuitively accept the existence of the divine/transcendent in general. When you read through much of the primary texts of the school such as Shankara's works it becomes self-evident that it's a coherent teaching which makes sense and you can experience the direct bliss of spiritual realization just from reading through them; it's not like other systems that prescribe a practice such as meditation or mantra-repitition that you have to do before reaching transcendence or bliss, just the simple reading of most of Shankara's commentaries can quite easily do that by itself. The Upanishads describe Maya as the power of the Lord, which is considered a sufficient enough explanation, it's really only meant to be read and studied by people who are interested in reaching bliss and not just for the purpose of evaluating it as a disinterested observer trying to categorize or rank it.