/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15971288]

can anyone link me to the archived discussion about shankara, this was the image, that took place here yesterday. It was an argument between buddhists and chads

[jesus No.15971297]

>>15971288
between vegetables and animals

[Anonymous No.15971296]

>>15971288
shankara is a crypto bhuddist

[Anonymous No.15971304]

[Anonymous No.15971321]

can anyone linked the archived thread from yesterday?

[Anonymous No.15971398]

>>15971288
>>/lit/thread/S15944950
I think this is the one you're talking about, it was pretty good.

[Anonymous No.15971512]

the problem of both are summed up in this
>How could there be a number among the intelligible principles, either in the completely Unified, or, even more difficult, among the principles before the Unified? The number will be neither nine nor three.
But now let us examine the other difficulties, if they are sound or unsound. First of all, we say that there is no number in the intelligible, neither the number composed of like forms, nor the number composed of unlike forms. Nor, in general, is the nature of the distinct there, nor even the nature of the continuous. Nor is there any difference, nor otherness, nor even differentiation in the absolute Unified. What, then, could be the celebrated ennead in the intelligible? It only signifies complete perfection of the triad there, which, when we are unable to comprehend it by means of discursive thinking, we divide, and so divide in three its complete perfection, its all embracing nature, its leadership of every multiplicity, its generation of every triad that has ever been anywhere in any way, and its leadership of every procession to the lowest degree of reality, the unmixed [purity] of its generative nature, and its being more than all the things that are of this nature, or rather, [it is] the one unified meta-intuition of all such intuitions, and this, only in the manner of indication, as we attempt to conceive that triad.
What, then, is this triad? It is not three monads, as Iamblichus says, but it is only the immaterial form seen without the monads. But it is surely not the form, either (for what delimitation could there be in the Unified), but it is the One itself, which is the flower of the form. But it is not even this One, which by nature blooms on the One of the forms, as for example, the triad, nor is it the One that is together with all forms (for this belongs to the differentiated one, so that the one of that which is undergoing differentiation would no longer be the one of the undifferentiated triad). But the triad again signifies the beginning, middle, and end of the Unified, but these [degrees] are still unified. And the absolute One is not the arithmetic one, but it reveals the one simplicity of all things. And after the One, the dyad that is called indefinite is not the dyad that governed over two monads, but it was, revealed as the cause of all things that belonged to the One, and it was, from the point of view of both, the Father, empowered to generate all things. Moreover, in the third place, the Unified is as it were activity proceeding from power. And therefore it is from a monad of this kind and a dyad of this kind that Being is constituted as a triad having the Unified by nature, since, when it is turned toward the One it is a dyad, and therefore it is the paternal intellect.

[Anonymous No.15971516]

>>15971512
But in saying this, we are creating three things. The Father is himself, with the power to generate all things after him, the entire triad. Therefore, the entire triad is a monad, and a monad is not the beginning of number, but a cause of every monad and every number, nor is it isolated like a form by means of a definite delimitation, but it is the unique form of simplicity that is inherent in all things.
Are the three the same thing or are they different, and is the monad a triad?
None of these things is true. There is none of this in that realm, not sameness, not otherness, not triad, not monad as distinct from triad. There is no antithesis in the intelligible.
Therefore is the Unified just the One, or is the One just the many, or are the many just the Unified?
Surely not, I shall say.
How then are all things not three?

[Anonymous No.15971523]

>>15971512
>>15971516
For the reason that it is no less true that the many are one thing, and that all things are many; nor are we speaking of different things [in speaking of the one and the many]. The One is not a unique characteristic, but it is such that it can be all things, and all things are not all things in this way, but as one, and the many are thus because the One is not one, and all things are the many in a state of perfect differentiation. If previously we said that the all signified the second principle as the all of the One, now, however, we improve our doctrine a little, and correct ourselves to say that all things and many are not the same, but the many, when they have received definition, become all things. For the many, to the extent that they are many, are indefinite. Thus the father is one, and the indefinite power of the one is many, and the intellect of the father is all things. And still all things were the many defined by the One through reversion. Yet you can observe that the many are inherently in between the One and all things; the One is simplicity only, but all things together are the unity of all things. Therefore, intellect is constituted in the Unified. And as all things are delimited in the intellective according to form, so in the Unified all things are concentrated without delimitation as One. Thus this nature is a monad, since it is simple and many (the simplicity embraces all possible indefinites), and yet it is nevertheless all things, because its many are defined by the One, since they belonged to the One. Therefore, it is a monad in its substrate, but it has three properties. But it is we who distinguish them, as we are not able to concentrate on one reality that is capable of containing three aspects. In this way, too, we desire to define other things, as well, and we say that they are many instead of one, and convert the elemental into elements. And as in the case of those, we think that we are contemplating the form that is before the elements or that arises in addition to the elements, but we arrive at it from the elements, so in this case but much more, we must release the definite properties and must return to a single simple nature, from which the division of these things below is parceled out.

[Anonymous No.15971529]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
The common element that belongs to the three as triad should be conceived as the one of the triad, but not the arithmetic triad, but that triad as a whole, which just now we reconstructed as the triad of the highest elements, since it was also not an arithmetic monad, but the monad of all things, in which the all is anticipated, just as in the monad all number is anticipated. To say it simply, just as we use the specifically defined for the illustration of that which is beyond form, so we use the arithmetic properties as symbols of the innumerable and entirely indefinite. In fact, we must use an image for the illustration of that which we wish to say, even if we are not able to say it, namely, that the one is the center of all things, whereas the distance from the center is the second principle, which is a flow from the center, and the perimeter and the nal circumference after the distance is a reversion toward the center, the paternal intellect, and the entire thing is one circle or, to speak more in accord with nature, a sphere. And it is clear that it is not a form, but is rather a nature that is more like the One than any form. And what more could one say about the One itself? For this is what gives form to the immaterial circle. To summarize, let us not attempt to count the intelligible on our fingers, nor corrupt it with our distinct ideas, but let us concentrate all thoughts simultaneously, and closing our eyes, open up the one great eye of the soul, by which nothing differentiated is visible, (although it is not the One itself in reality that becomes visible with this eye, but only the Unified, nor is this the Unified that is opposed to the differentiated, but that which also contains the differentiated) and look there with this kind of eye, even if from afar and, as it were, from the outer limits, nevertheless, let us see the intelligible, except that what will appear in us, if one can put it this way, is the simplicity of it, and the plurality of it, and the completeness of it. The intelligible is one, many, and all, to explicate its single nature with three aspects.
And yet how are the one and the many a single nature? Because the “many” are the indefinite power of the One. And how is it One and all? Because “the all” is an activity of the One that embraces all things. But the word “activity” must not be said in the sense of the extension of the power into something outside [the One] nor a power that is an extension of the subsistence remaining within, but again, it is [meant] in the way that we speak of three instead of one. For there is no one name that can be adequate for the clarification of those realities, as we have often given ample evidence.

[Anonymous No.15971540]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
Is it the case, then, that these realities are undifferentiated? And how might one more easily venture an explanation about them? For we say that there are three principles in succession to each other, father and power and paternal intellect. But in truth, they are not one or three, but it is necessary for them to be revealed by us through these names and concepts, since we lack ones that are appropriate for them, or rather, in our eagerness for clarifications that in no way are appropriate. For just as we call the One both many and all things, and father and power and paternal intellect, and again limit and unlimited and mixed, so we call it monad and indefinite dyad and the triad composed from both of these. And just as was the case with those names, so with these, by purifying our conceptions insofar as possible, we subject them to a strict accounting and they fall short when we fit them to the realities themselves. Therefore, let the intellective triad be called, to the extent that it is possible to call it anything, a triad, in the sense of, “the one of the triad,” with that triad apparently composed from the three first principles. But concerning that unity we could not make progress by continuing to speak.

[this is too difficult for poo (...) No.15971547]

>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
>>15971540
Concerning the order of the three triads, if someone, having established the triad that we spoke of in the one of the intelligible triad, to the extent that it can be a triad, could see this one as perfect and as constituting the triadic nature of itself at all levels, just as in each of the three monads there is an indwelling triad (for, in fact, among numbers the three monads of each number are not without difference with respect to the monads of the other numbers, but the monads that belong to the triad are somehow triadic, and those that belong to the tetrad are somehow tetradic) if someone, just as I was saying, could understand that the monads of that all encompassing triad were such as to be not absolute monads, but monads unique to the triad, then perhaps he would comprehend the whole procession of the intelligible into three triads in the one of that triad, and that this procession would not even so have departed from its original unity. And yet if this is so, then neither will the first Unified be before the second one, as the argument seemed to object, for each monad will have the triadic in its own order, being by itself alone. The One will manifest itself as triadic before the others, the many will be second to be triadic, and third after these is the Unified, and the father as a whole will be coordinated together with the whole intellect by means of the intermediary whole of power, the unique father with the unique intellect by means of his unique power, and again the threefold father with the threefold intellect, by means of his threefold power. Nor, certainly, is the Unified to be torn and dispersed from itself into three monads, since it remains unified in the same way, even if the triadic unified begins to be manifested in it, and a fortiori, the One remains one, all the while containing the triad, and the power likewise, even if it is manifested as three natured.

[Anonymous No.15971566]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
>>15971540
>>15971547
And yet how will the One be threefold?
[We reply that] it is threefold because although it is one, nevertheless it is sufficient for the three of the Unified. Let this Unified be tripled, as has been said, with a certain unified triplicity. But the One turns this triplicity toward itself, so that the One as the One begins to manifest itself as triple. And yet the power, which is a dyad, becomes like the One by agreeing with the One, and by agreeing with the Unified, it also appears as triple. Therefore the dyad is in the middle of the One and the triad. The Unified as third by nature is a triad, and what comes before the Unified is [three] in a more transcendent way. Therefore, it is not surprising or difficult to conceive the One as becoming triadic in this way, not because it is subject to number or definition, but because it anticipates in itself the triplex of the Unified, and because it is a triadic one, as if it were in the triad as a whole. Whatever one conceives this kind of One to be, let him conceive [anything] rather than [imagining] the differentiation of the One. Unless it is also more suitable to hypothesize a descent from the One, so that the one father is also three, with the same father being one and trimorph, or rather, one but manifesting something triadic, and I mean not divided into three, but the partless one of the triad.
If the one is triadic, how is it absolute?
This was a previous difficulty with the argument, and rightly so. [Didn’t the argument go as follows, that is,] hypothesizing the One as absolute and the many as absolute and all things as absolute in the Unifi ed, from these absolute monads we made an absolute triad, as we thought, so that also the triad belonged to the absolute One, to the extent that the absolute One anticipated that entire triad and, as it were, realized itself in it and was numbered together with the other absolute principles, as the first principle ruling over the second and the third? Therefore the absolute One in reality is without number, and it is necessary to say more clearly, that it cannot become either a triad or a monad. For neither is it monadic, when it is not One in truth, and is only called one for the sake of illustration. And so it is with the absolute Unifi d. But the many are in the middle of these in a unique way without any distinction and without any addition.

[Anonymous No.15971579]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
>>15971540
>>15971547
>>15971566
Chapter 118. On the Language of the Absolute
They therefore must no longer be called three when their being three is added to them, since no otherness is manifest in that realm. Yet unless we speak in a human dialect concerning the most divine principles, we are otherwise not able to conceive them or to name them, except as we are compelled to use reason on behalf of the realities that turn out to be beyond every intellect, life, and substance. Indeed, even the gods thus instruct some of us occasionally concerning these and other realities, [though] not in the way that reveals the nature of the realities that the god themselves contemplate. Just as they speak to Egyptians, Syrians, or Greeks using the language appropriate to them, else it would be fruitless to speak to them, so they are eager to transmit to human beings that which belongs [to the divine] and they will use a human dialect, as is right. Yet this dialect is not only composed of verbs and nouns, but it is also composed from conceptions that are suitable and adjusted to human beings. If, therefore, we also get off the track of that truth as we attempt to chart the intelligible abyss, to see how great and what its nature is, and we are carried toward the lower and divided realities, as we are by necessity dragged along with or dragged down by our own meager nothingness, nevertheless it is necessary to endure missing and drifting [from the goal]. Otherwise, it is not possible, in our present state, to have any conception concerning these things, and we must be content even if only with a far-off and obscure glance or glimpse or trace suddenly fl ashing before our eyes, however small and not very luminous, but nevertheless a signpost for us that is an analogue of that superluminous and vast nature. But this much we can accept in our discourse, that it castigates itself and agrees that it is not capable of looking at that unifi ed and intelligible light.

[Anonymous No.15971592]

Whose got the nude pic of the 6’5 Portland hunk guenonfag? I’m gonna marry that man we have so much in common

[Anonymous No.15971595]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
>>15971540
>>15971547
>>15971566
>>15971579
>Therefore, we speak of the triad in that realm, in the sense that it signifies an undifferentiated multiplicity, and again the dyad signifies the cause of that multiplicity, and the monad is related to these as the One itself, as that which is beyond this very multiplicity. And this is the celebrated intelligible triad, which, wishing to explain by means of different configurations, we are unaware that we render it more complex in our accounts, and especially when we make it an ennead, reckoning it as the complete leader of all things from the first until the lowest, observing it as if in a mirror, and seeing it in the third, since it is by nature trimorph, and seeing the triadic principles before it that appear to illuminate brilliantly its three ubiquitous forms, as if in a cloud that has three reflecting surfaces, the single color of the sun appears as an apparently polychrome rainbow. And so also Socrates in the Philebus was unable to gaze in the face of that One, and clarified its nature by means of the triad stationed at its threshold, as he says, because he caught a glimpse of that triad quivering with the single ray of the henad, in a completely unified vision.
zenith

[Anonymous No.15971628]

>>15971592
I miss flirting with him everyday ;(
I’ll be such a loyal 3D gf guenonfag

[s10241875 No.15971879]

>>15971288
>>15944950

[jesus No.15972298]

>>15971579
who can read this shit without glass of vodka?

[Anonymous No.15972445]

You mean the thread in which azadfag told guenonfag to fuck off?

[Anonymous No.15972621]

>>15971512
>>15971516
>>15971523
>>15971529
>>15971540
>>15971547
>>15971566
>>15971579
>>15971595
tl;dr?

[Anonymous No.15973569]

>>15971592

[Anonymous No.15973939]

>>15971595
Wow, that was so interesting and illuminating, I see why people find Neoplatonism so interesting, I'm ordering my copy of the Enneads now

psyche naw! lmao

[Anonymous No.15973971]

>>15972621
last post

[Anonymous No.15974010]

>>15973569
Nice. Here I come Lindsey

[Anonymous No.15974147]

>>15973939
One should know that Aristotle considers that rarity accompanies fineness of texture and density coarseness. That is why he takes fire to be at once rare and fine, speaking of what is ‘denser than fire and finer than air’ (187a14-15), assuming that air is coarser and denser than fire. Plato too says that air is coarser than fire, and that simply the lower elements nearer the centre are coarser-textured than the upper nearer the periphery. That is why they are hard to displace, e.g. earth. Further, he says that they are denser, because he considers that the rare and the dense are defined by the positions of their parts, as Aristotle said in the Categories. If that is so, where the parts are larger the distances between them must be larger, hence the whole must be rarer, since it is looser-textured and not a single thing, but like a pile of stones or nuts. But where the parts are smaller the distances are smaller, hence the whole is denser, being a quantity like a pile of sand. Alexander says that, ‘According to Plato the principles of everything, including the Forms themselves, are the One and the indefinite dyad, which he called the great and small, as Aristotle also reports in his “On the Good”’. One can get this information also from Speusippus, Xenocrates and the others, who were present at Plato’s lecture on the Good; all of them wrote down and preserved his view, and they say that he treated those as principles.

[Anonymous No.15974177]

>>15974147
Why don't you just make your own threads instead of spamming walls of Platonism text in every Shankara/Hinduism thread?

[Anonymous No.15974229]

this is the guy who says buddha plagiarized him, despite being born like 1,500 years after buddha died, right?

[Anonymous No.15974306]

>>15974229
No, Shankara had this to say about Buddha:

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

[Anonymous No.15974342]

>>15974306
that's it? "yeah i know he demonstrated it wasnt nihilism, but its still nihilism"

idk why you retards meme about this guy, this is pretty lame

[Anonymous No.15974372]

>>15974342
If you want a detailed BTFOing of Buddhism then here you go

[Anonymous No.15974382]

>>15974372
part 2

[Anonymous No.15974393]

>>15974382
even more from another work

[Anonymous No.15974449]

>>15974372

Hinduism > Buddhism

Hilarious it even needs to be said

[Anonymous No.15974490]

>>15974177
because so many peddle harmony between shankara and neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.15974521]

>>15974490
Could you describe how Neoplatonism refuted Advaita without several walls of texts? I dream of a world where Shankara is refuted but I am also a working man.

[Anonymous No.15974557]

>>15972621
>>15973971
I coom

[Anonymous No.15974655]

>>15974490
Well then write a book refuting the claims of Coomarasamy etc who wrote that stuff, spare us the autism please

[Anonymous No.15974687]

>>15974372
>>15974382
>>15974393
this is incredibly cringe, holy shit. at least the buddhafags meditate and stuff.

like i said, lame.

[Anonymous No.15974760]

>>15974521
here you go

Does the One know? No: knowledge belongs to differentiation. So then is the One not known? This too is a mark of differentiation, if the following is true, namely, that “knows” is opposed to “is known.” None of these predicates accords with that, nor yet does the designation “One” accord with that, nor the designation “all things.” For these things all imply opposition and they divide our consciousness. For if we look at the simple, that is, at the One, we completely dissolve the vast and complex totality of the One. And yet if we conceive of all things together simultaneously, we obscure the One and the simple. The reason is that we are ourselves divided and that we focus on discreet characteristics, and, although we nevertheless yearn for any knowledge of the One, we tend to confuse everything, thinking that we might in this way get hold of that great nature. Nevertheless by keeping watch over the plurality of all things which is [an aspect of the One that] is present together with the confined uniqueness of the One, and by taking joy in the simple and the first, with a view to the mark of the highest principle, in this way surely we can apply the [designation] “One” to that reality as a kind of symbol of its simplicity, as in fact we apply the [designation] “all things” as a symbol of its containing all things, whereas we can neither conceive or name that which is before or above the One and all things.
Is it surprising, therefore, that we have this experience in regard to the One, when even the most distinct knowledge of the One proves to be unitary, a knowledge moreover that we cannot apprehend? Yes, and even with regard to Being itself, our experience is similar. For in trying to apprehend Being we must let go of it, and run after its constituents that are known as limit and the unlimited.30 Yet even if we think about Being more truthfully, that is, as a unified pleroma of all things, then its aspect as all things carries us into multiplicity and its unified aspect obscures its completeness.

[Anonymous No.15974831]

>>15974760
okay but how does any of that related to Shankara?

[Anonymous No.15974859]

>>15974831
>For if we look at the simple, that is, at the One, we completely dissolve the vast and complex totality of the One. And yet if we conceive of all things together simultaneously, we obscure the One and the simple.

[Anonymous No.15974868]

>>15974859
okay but how does any of that relate to Shankara?

[Anonymous No.15974877]

>>15974687
Religions that feature meditation but despite not being buddhism:
catholicism(lectio divina, contemplation)
eastern orthodoxy (hesychasm)
hinduism (all branches)
Islam (suffi traditions)
sikhism
Jainism
capitalism (mindfullness)

[Anonymous No.15974887]

>>15974868
monism

[Anonymous No.15974903]

>>15974887
and? your point is? how does that relate to Shankara? He wasn't even a monist

[Anonymous No.15974924]

>>15974903
>He wasn't even a monist

[Anonymous No.15974933]

>>15974924
Yes, if you want to claim otherwise then please explain how Shankara was a monist according to your understanding

[Anonymous No.15974975]

>>15974877
actual hindus meditate, yes

hipsters dont

[Anonymous No.15975045]

>>15974760
god turns into himself, contemplates his own abyss and the awareness of himself is his Word uttered, his Word is god's Wisdom, the Son is the image of the Father (image of the invisible, hidden).
why do you like lloyd so much?

[Anonymous No.15975119]

The Damascius fag and Shankara fag are trying to discursively engage in nondiscursive intuition, funny.

[Anonymous No.15975134]

>>15971288
Buddhism and Advaita are both life-denying, so disregard both.

[Anonymous No.15975240]

Shankara is a crypto buddhist

[Anonymous No.15975293]

>>15975134
What is the chad life-affirming alternative?

[Anonymous No.15975296]

>>15974924
Shankara's ideas are not substance monism, existence monism, priority monism or any other kind of monism. Brahman is not simply the sum of all Its contingent aggregates but is transcendentally beyond them, and endows them with their existence through It's power or sakti. Brahman is pure consciousness, whereas within the world sustained by Brahman's power is admitted to be both conscious souls and non-conscious physical objects which are made of the elements. But Brahman Itself cannot be classified as 'One' because It is the prior cause of concepts of 'single' and 'multiple' and Itself cannot be encompassed by those categories which are not absolutely real in the same way that Brahman is. Any attempt at classifying Advaita as monism ends up papering over the numerous distinctions and ontological hierarchies existing within it which admit enough different principles constituting our experience of the world so as to not classify as monism.

[Anonymous No.15975333]

>>15975296
>Shankara's ideas are not substance monism, existence monism, priority monism or any other kind of monism.

this, shankara isn't getting his monism from the varieties in the vedas, he is famous for ripping off mahayana (buddhist) illusionism and spuriously claiming it is the philosophy of the vedas

in practice it's still just monism though, since the buddhism he's stealing from is an epistemological and skeptical doctrine but he wants it to be a vedic realist doctrine. the result is that he ends up being way more nihilistic than any buddhist ever was, ironically.

when questioned about this advaitins will say that it's not illusionism because it has necessary emanations and a necessary dualism between brahman and maya, because advaita is actually terrible philosophy. if you want mahayana, read mahayana. if you want the upanishads, read ramanuja. advaita tries to be both and accomplishes neither. that's why it's considered heretical in india

[Anonymous No.15975362]

>>15974933
>Shankara's Kevala Advaita is above all dualism. In his monism, there is no room for relative things, relative values, the pair of opposites, for all these come and go, appear and disappear. What is eternal is the Transcendental Brahman. Ekam eva advitiyam, "That is one without a second."
or is this another case of "this doesn't mean what it says".
>>15975045
He has proven the harmony of Aristotle and Plato.
That the Neoplatonists had the correct interpretation of Plato.
And that Naturalism is irreconcilable with ethics and values.
And he shows that it is all in Plato he covers all metaphysics, proving the dictum that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato, going so far as to say that Philosophy itself is platonism, any step away from true platonism (neoplatonism) is a step away from truth. And in the coming decades, it will be Gerson that people meme (and the Platonist obviously), not Kant or Hegel or Hume or Heidegger or Deleuze or Spinoza or Aquinas or Schopenhauer or Husserl or Ponty or Derrida or Reid or Berkeley or Whitehead or fucking Shankara... Except by the ignorant fools here who do not read.

[Anonymous No.15975371]

>>15975293
Damascius

[Anonymous No.15975414]

>>15975293
If you are not interested in asceticism there are also various non-dualist Shaivite traditions practiced by householders who have families, and which westerners can be initiated into such as the Naths and Veerashaivas, and there are various teachers who studied with Lakshmanjoo who offer instruction in Kashmir Shaivism.

[Anonymous No.15975424]

>>15975371
Could you give a good reading list, please? Damascius and anything I need to read before to grasp this absolute chad.

[Anonymous No.15975486]

>>15975362
>or is this another case of "this doesn't mean what it says
When you actually read through his commentaries he says in them that all these descriptions like "one alone", "eternal" "single" etc only function as signposts and symbols and that the actual reality indicated by them is beyond them, sometimes people forget this when writing about his ideas. Brahman is metaphysically unlimited and so any definition of It can never completely conform to It because definitions are defacto limitations.

[Anonymous No.15975489]

>>15975414
Interesting. I'll check it out.

[Anonymous No.15975537]

>>15975333
> spuriously claiming it is the philosophy of the vedas

"It is contended by some that the doctrine of māyā or avidyā is not found in the Upaniṣads and it is borrowed by Shankara from Buddhism. This contention can be made only by those who are un-informed or ill-informed about the Upaniṣadic philosophy. The term māyā can be traced to the Rigveda (VI, 47, 18) where the one Supreme is said to appear in many forms through his power of māyā. The Shvetashvatara (IV, 9-10) describes God as ‘māyī, Lord of māyā, and his wonder-working power of creationas māyā. The term avidyā is often used in the Upaniṣads in the sense of ignorance and appearance. The Mundaka (II, 1, 10) compares ignorance to a knot which is to be untied by the realisation of the Self. The Katha (I, 2, 4-5) says that worldly people live in ignorance and thinking themselves wise move about like blind men led by the blind. The same Upanisad (11,1,2) warns us not to find reality and immortality in things of this unreal and changing world. The Chandogya (VI, 1, 4) makes it clear that Atma is the only reality and that everything else is a mere word, a mode and a name. The same Upanisad (VIII, 3,3) says that worldly people are covered with the veil of falsity. It also says (VII, 1, 3) that he who realises the Self goes beyond sorrow. The Isha (7) assures us that delusion and suffering are gone for him who realises the unity of the Self. It also says (15) that the face of the Truth is covered by a golden veil and that the aspirant prays to God for its removal. It also compares ignorance with blind darkness (9).

The Prashna (I, 16) tells us that Brahma can be realised by those who have neither crookedness nor falsehood nor illusion. The Katha (II, 1,10) makes it clear that he who sees as if there is plurality here goes on revolving in the cycle of birth and death. The Brhadaranyaka (II, 4, 14 and IV, 5, 15) says ‘as if there were duality’ implying that duality is a semblance, an appearance, an as it were. The same Upanisad (I, 3, 28) has the famous prayer which runs: Lead me from unreality to Reality, from darkness to Light, from death to Immortality. This implies the distinction between appearance and reality, between ignorance and knowledge and between change and eternity. Quotations from the Upaniṣads can be multiplied where the phenomenal world of plurality and change is declared to be mere appearance due to māyā or avidyā and Brahma is said to be the only Reality, the eternal, undeniable and non-dual Self. Prof. R.D. Ranade rightly points out the origin of the doctrine of māyā or avidyā in the Upanisads and concludes that “we do find in the Upaniṣads all the material that may have easily led Shankara to elaborate a theory of Māyā out of it.. . . let no man stand up and say that we do not find the traces of the doctrine of Māyā in the Upaniṣad!”

[Anonymous No.15975704]

>>15975333
This is a major criticism of Vedanta by Orthodox Hindus. At least Buddhism allows for Gods and Devas and Asuras, Shankara just utterly decimates the personhood of God and turns him into just an arbitrary position. It's basically Hindu Spinozism, wherein the religious experience is degraded to just smugness at having it all figured out. It's literally being enlightened by your own intelligence.

It saves Brahman from Buddhism, but it does so by destroying religion.

[Anonymous No.15975713]

Ah are we talking about white male religions itt?

[Anonymous No.15975724]

>>15975362
nice, should i read him after reading all platonists and other secondary lit on them like sara rappe, uzdavinys or before any of these? i heard he does not consider nonbeing in plotinian metaphysics, is this true?

[Anonymous No.15975766]

>>15975424
He's "the last metaphysician" of the ancient world, his work is a response and revision/critique of the more famous Proclus; who did the same to Iamblichus who did the same to Porphyry who thought he understood Plotinus and Plato correctly, not that he was stupid he just lacked 'the gift'.
You need Plato, basic Aristotle, Egyptian and Mesopotamian myth, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus.
the cheap lazy not very virtuous route is pic related
>it's where I started 1.5 years ago, hehe
Unironically, the greatest key to understand the paradoxes, in Platonism, is the Quantum Uncertainty Principle, superposition. "The One is in a superposition as each thing, but each thing is not each other, thus they are not One."
Plotinus says exactly this but about the One-Being,
>Intellect there is actually not like that; rather, it has all things and is all thingsandispresentwiththemwhenitispresenttoitselfandhasallthings while not having them, for they are not one thing and it another. Nor is each thing separate in it. For each is the whole, and everything is everywhere. Yet they are not mixed up, but each is in its turn separate.
Yet Plotinus himself says that Inellect is 'the One in a way', that it is Simple, that it is the Monad and Dyad, Limited and Unlimited, and that it is a Principle of existence; but he keeps insisting that it is not 'The One', in that it is One-Many. Damascius is he who finally harmonizes Plotinus paradoxes and just admit the anti-logical reality of the One, Plotinus' One is Damascius' Ineffable, and Damascius 'One' is the triad shines forth as Monad Dyad and One-Being/Mixed/Unified.
>>15975486
unlimitedness is itself a finitude, another problem that Damascius and even Proclus addresses is that the reality of being "beyond" is itself a relation and thus a co-dependence, to say that the one is utterly transcendent is to affirm this and that it is not transcendent, but more than mere immanence plus transcendence. You have to affirm the reality of the distinct, the hierarchies of being are in themselves truly divided, but yet at the same time that in he Triad of the One all things are compassed. You cannot even call it One, but Ineffable.

[Anonymous No.15975801]

>>15975766
forgot to reformat
>Intellect there is actually not like that; rather, it has all things and is all things and is present with them when it is present to itself and has all things while not having them, for they are not one thing and it another. Nor is each thing separate in it. For each is the whole, and everything is everywhere. Yet they are not mixed up, but each is in its turn separate.

[Anonymous No.15975832]

>>15975766
uuh ignore that last sentence...
i'm pretty tired
>to say that the one is utterly transcendent is to affirm that this and that is not transcendent, it needs more than mere "immanence plus transcendence". You have to affirm the reality of the distinct, that the hierarchies of being are in themselves truly divided, but yet at the same time all things are compassed in the 'Triad' of the One. >>15971595

[Anonymous No.15975861]

Hinduism is white

And no amount of historical revisionism can change the fact of ancient aryan DNA existing in the upper castes of Indian society, ever. The most recent rigorous studies prove this.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-asia-india-46616574

[Anonymous No.15975893]

>>15975861
Haha wow seriously? That's great. Indians and liberals btfo again

[Anonymous No.15976357]

>>15975704
>>15975333
This

Remember to reject nihilist cryptobuddhism (advaita) and read both true Buddhism and true Vedanta (Ramanuja) for enlightenment. Don't fall for the lies of some degenerate western LARPer who openly mocks real Hinduism and follows a white Muslim sufi from France.

[Anonymous No.15976431]

>>15976357
>both true Buddhism and true Vedanta (Ramanuja)
Beyond cringe.

[Anonymous No.15976444]

>>15976431
Correct, they are both beyond advaita.

[Anonymous No.15976457]

>>15975537
>no responses when confronted with actual facts
Classic one from the fags

[Anonymous No.15976466]

>>15976431
Read the Upanishads for yourself. Stop recycling misinformed memes from guenon threads

[Anonymous No.15976472]

>>15976444
>>15976466
Wrong response

[Anonymous No.15976478]

>>15976457
people are calmly discussing the fact that everybody other than a white sufi has said that advaita is cryptobuddhism for over 1000 years

you're posting your nude body again and then samefagging appreciation of it. why don't you stop being a crazy gay guy and join in the discussion?

[Anonymous No.15976553]

>>15976478
>everybody other than a white sufi has said that advaita is cryptobuddhism for over 1000 years

Meanwhile one of the oldest Upanishads in existence (Brihadaranyaka):
4.4.17 That in which the five groups of five and the (subtle) ether are placed, that very Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman. Knowing (Brahman) I am immortal.
4.4.25 That great, birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless and Brahman (infinite). Brahman is indeed fearless. He who knows It as such becomes the fearless Brahman.

As I said above, read the Upanishads yourself and drop the memes.

[Anonymous No.15976565]

>>15976478
Also the cryphobuddhist insult was addressed to Shankara, not Advaita as a philosophy which is older.

[Anonymous No.15976578]

>>15976553
See >>15971304 and >>15975240

Your cryptobuddhist are disputed not just by Hindu philosophers but by practicing Hindus, and by Western scholars of Hinduism as well. You're a Mormon quoting scripture to prove that Joseph Smith's golden tablets are legit. Obviously everybody else is laughing at your poor citations.

[Anonymous No.15976588]

>>15976565
There is no Advaita tradition in India prior to Shankara except Gaudapada, and Gaudapada was even more influenced by Buddhism than Shankara, to the point that he is usually accused of plagiarizing an entire book of Nagarjuna, as discussed extensively in >>15975240

You can disagree with this since you're a fringe Mormon crypto-buddhist, but just know that you're going against the interpretations of a thousand years of Hinduism and all Western scholarship on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15976607]

>>15976588
what about the yajnavalkya? there was a solid upanishadic tradition around that time, gaudapada and shankara might be considered even a kind of revival

[Anonymous No.15976666]

>>15976578
>>15976588
You're even worse than the wikipedia scholars we have here on /lit/. Your whole knowledge of this subject comes exclusively from the memes circulated in these threads, and you have the boldness to also insult unprovked. Read actual Upanishads or read actual scholars, which one will not make you feel like a Mormon, but for your sake, educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.15976708]

>>15976607
The Upanishads are legitimate, it's just that they are not "advaita." Advaita has no meaning aside from being a ripoff of Buddhist epistemology with vedic monism at the end. If you push on Advaita, depending on which direction you push it from, it either admits it's a realist doctrine and thus inferior to vishishtadvaita which did it better, or it admits it's illusionism and thus inferior to mahayana.

>>15976666
You have me confused for guenonfag, the guy who posts "what ever happened to guenonfag??? his sexy naked body was so hot...," then posts his own naked body in reply, then replies to that post saying "Omg :) You're so hot guenonfag."

His other notable features include posting about advaita shit he read in a white Muslim's book for 5 years without ever actually learning anything more about Hinduism or learning Sanskrit. And forcing his own crowleyan copypasta about semen retention.

[Anonymous No.15976766]

>>15976708
You can only foam at the mouth about your guenon fag and repeat the same baseless things over and over again as if that would make them true. Inform yourself before posting here, otherwise you are no better than the guenon fag.

[Anonymous No.15976802]

>>15976766
Either you're the faggot posting and reposting his nude pictures, or you're defending that faggot. Either way it has nothing to do with advaita being considered crypto-buddhist by just about everybody in history, even most advaitins.

[Anonymous No.15976827]

>>15976802
Again, you cite no actual sources, just sperg the same recycled garbage you read on this threads.

[Anonymous No.15976864]

>>15976827
See >>15971304 and >>15975240 where all sources are cited, both the authoritative and up to date scholarly sources by the leading scholars of Shankara and advaita in the world, and the opinions of venerable advaitins. Like I just told you, even the advaitins themselves agree that Shankara mostly copied Buddhism. You denying it doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.15976912]

>>15976864
Those 2 cherrypicked macros are refuted every thread by the other macros and you know it. But now you truly proved that the only knowledge you have about advaita comes from guenon thread memes. God speed and good luck anon, I won't respond anymore to this useless discussion.

[Anonymous No.15976925]

>>15976827
>>15976912
>guenonfag
>complaining about recycled images
lmfao

[Anonymous No.15976942]

>>15976912
>I won't respond anymore to this useless discussion.
Thank fuck. Could you not respond anymore to any discussion? Or at least, could you do us all a favor and get a trip so we can filter you, too?

[Anonymous No.15976976]

>>15976912
You have never even responded to those images, let alone refuted them.

This is one of your favorite things to do, just flat out lying as if there's some audience watching you, and because they don't know you're lying, you're convincing them and "winning." But there are only ever a handful of people in these threads and at this point all of us are already aware that you're a deranged liar who posts his naked pictures and samefags. So why bother with this shit?

You know you have never responded and have no response. I know it. You know that I know it, and I know that you know it. Why jerk around? Posting your naked pics got you all excited?

[Anonymous No.15977304]

Zarathustra refuted all of you 3500 years ago

[Anonymous No.15978321]

>>15977304
Alexander the Great.

[Anonymous No.15978967]

>>15977304

lol what. did you read that on /x/?

[Anonymous No.15979118]

>>15972621
go back to /r/books, anon.