/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16777277]

Ramanuja > Madhva >>> Shankara

Thomistic metaphysics is also more than adequate and does not need supplementation from vedanta.

inb4 muh guenon mothafucka

[Anonymous No.16777378]

redpill me on Aquinas
how is he related to nondualism?

[Anonymous No.16777402]

>>16777277
You ought to know that it’s poor form to inb4 as op.

[Anonymous No.16777488]

>>16777277
Yes. Indeed.

[Anonymous No.16777659]

>>16777488
How is Thomistic metaphysics related? Genuine question

[Anonymous No.16777847]

The post-Shankara non-advaita Vedantins have been criticising the doctrine of maya or avidya and have been rejecting advaita. The advaitins have not only answered these objections, but have also attacked and refuted the views of these Vedantins. Most of the objections against maya or avidya are based on the famous seven charges (anupapatti) levelled against it by Ramanujacharya (1017-1137).

All these charges of Ramanuja are based on the misunderstanding of the meaning of avidya or maya. The advaitin admits that it is a self-contradictory category which defies all logic. Avidya is transcendental Ignorance which is the source of all empirical thought and logic and so cannot be explained by it. Ramanuja mistakes it as a ‘real entity’ and demands a seat and a pramana for it. The advaitin says that Brahma is the support of avidya and as avidya is not real, Brahma remains the only reality and nondualism is not destroyed. Some advaitins maintain that jiva may be taken as the support of avidya in the sense that they go on determining each other in a beginningless cycle. Ramanuja himself, when he fails to explain the cause of bondage of the pure soul, falls back upon the notion that the relation of karma and avidya with the individual soul which is treated as intrinsically pure is beginningless. Avidya does not really affect Brahma even as a rope-snake does not affect the rope. Avidya does not really conceal Brahma even as a cloud does not conceal the sun, though it may hide it from our vision. Again, avidya is called positive to emphasise the fact that it is not merely negative. In fact, it is neither positive nor negative. There is no point in saying that indescribability of avidya either as real or as unreal is self-contradictory, when the advaitin himself admits it. But its self-contradictory nature is realised only when one rises above it by realising Brahma and not before, just as the unreality of a dream or of an illusion is realised only on waking or on knowing the ground on which the illusory object is superimposed. Again, ‘real’ and ‘unreal* in advaita are used in the absolute sense. Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahma alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal* in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower* or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is.

[Anonymous No.16777857]

>>16777847

And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Caw of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real* to which belong all world-objects. Again, since avidya is only a superimposition it vanishes when the ground-reality, the Brahma, is immediately realised, just as the rope-snake vanishes for good, when the rope is known. Avidya can be removed only by the immediate intuitive knowledge of Reality, which is the cause of liberation. Removal of avidya, Brahma-realisation and attainment of moksa or liberation are one and the same, the self-luminous Real. Ramanuja himself admits that immediate intuitive realisation of the Real is the only cause of liberation, though he calls it highest (para) bhakti which dawns by the grace of God.

Venkatanatha, also known as Vedanta-deshika, a great follower of Ramanuja has made a vigorous attack on advaita in his work Shatadusani (‘Century of Defects’). Most of these charges are either repetitions with minor variations or deal with minor points of detail or are of theological and sectarian interest carrying little philosophic or truly religious value. These objections have been successfully answered by the advaitins. Even in our times, Mahamahopadhyaya Pt. Anantakrisna Shastri has written his Shatabhusani (‘Century of Merits’) in refutation of Shatadusani. We present here some of the most important charges of Venkatanatha and their replies by the advaitins:

(1) If Brahma is qualityless and indeterminate then there can be no inquiry into its nature, for all inquiries are possible about qualified objects only. No knowledge, whether general or specific, is possible about an unqualified Brahma. Again, if Brahma is beyond thought and language, the Vedanta-texts would not reveal it and this.knowledge of Brahma would be false and would not lead to liberation.
The advaitin replies that the opponent is confusing between the relative and the absolute standpoints. The Vedanta-texts do not say that Brahma can be known as an ‘object’ of thought; they reveal Brahma as transcendent to thought and language and teach that Brahma being the self-luminous Self is realised through immediate experience. Thought, language and the Vedanta-texts are transcended only on Brahma-realisation, not before. They work efficiently on the empirical level and point to immediate experience as the ultimate goal.

[Anonymous No.16777872]

>>16777857

(2) Liberation can be obtained by devotion and action and not by mere knowledge. Even all illusions do not vanish by a mere knowledge of them. A jaundiced person continues to see white things ‘yellow* even after knowing the truth and can be cured only by taking medicine. If mere knowledge of unity-texts leads to liberation then all those scholars who know their meaning should have obtained liberation.
The advaitin replies that illusions can be removed only by knowledge and by nothing else. Let there be no illusion about this. If a person knows that he is suffering from jaundice and the yellowness’ belongs to the bile and not to perceived objects, then certainly he is not labouring under an illusion, though suffering he might be from a disease. Again, Brahma-knowledge is not verbal knowledge but knowledge which has culminated in immediate experience through removal of avidya.

(3) If the world is false because it is knowable, then Brahma too, being knowable, would be equally false. Again, if the world is false there is no sense in saying that it is negated by right knowledge.
The reply is that the world is false because it is indescribable either as real or as unreal. Everything which is knowable as ‘object’ of thought is false in this sense. But Brahma is the transcendental ground of all empirical knowledge and stands self-luminous and self-proved. It is not ‘knowable’ as an object of thought Again, it is only the false that can be negated.

(4) If the world is false because it is indescribable either as real or as unreal, then Brahma too should be false because it also is indescribable either as real or as unreal.
The reply is that Brahma is ‘indescribable* in the sense that being transcendent to thought and language, it cannot be grasped by any category of thought. But as the ground of all experience it shines as the only self-proved Real.

(5) Differences cannot be denied. The so-called ‘absence of difference’ is itself different from ‘difference’ and therefore establishes the reality of difference. Moreover, without difference there can be no identity also for the two terms are relative and inseparable.
The advaitin replies that difference cannot be real for as a category of thought it is a projection of avidya on the transcendental unity. So ‘absence of difference’ does not establish difference but only the transcendental unity. The advaitin admits that identity and difference are categories of thought and are empirically relative terms and so bare identity and bare difference are mere abstractions. He also admits that identity-in-difference is the highest category for thought, but it is not the highest reality, for the Real is beyond all categories of thought. ‘Advaita* does not mean formal identity; it means, on the other hand, ‘transcendental unity’, which is beyond all categories of thought including the category of unity and shines as their ground-reality.

[Anonymous No.16777882]

>>16777872

(6) The falsity of the world is proved by logical proofs which are themselves false. The distinction between the empirical and the absolute standpoints is a distinction within thought itself and therefore by its own logic false. So the falsity of the falsity of the world establishes the reality of the world.
The advaitin replies that the world is false because it is superimposed on the ground-reality of Brahma. And so the falsity of the falsity of the world does not reinstate the reality of the imposed world but the reality of the ground. Again, the distinction between the two standpoints is ultimately transcended, yet on the phenomenal sphere it reigns supreme.

VI. DIFFERENCE REFUTED AND ADVAITA ESTABLISHED

Mandana refutes difference by means of dialectical arguments:

We do not perceive any ‘difference'. Three alternatives are possible regarding perception: (1) perception may manifest a positive object; (2) it may distinguish an object from other objects; and (3) it may manifest a positive object and may also distinguish it from other objects. In the third alternative again there are three possibilities: (a) manifestation of a positive object and its distinction from other objects may be simultaneous; (b) first there may be positive manifestation and then negative distinction; and (c) first there may be negative distinction and then positive manifestation.

Now, in the first alternative where only a positive object is manifested, no ‘difference* is perceived. The second alternative is untenable because, pure negation is an impossibility. Perception always manifests some positive object; it does not negate anything. Hence perception cannot reveal mere difference. Possibilities (a) and (c) of the third alternative are untenable, for positive manifestation and negative distinction can be neither simultaneous nor can there be first negative distinction without positive manifestation. Negation is necessarily rooted in affirmation. Difference or distinction is a relation between two positive objects which it presupposes. Even the negation of a non-entity like the sky-flower is only a denial of the false relation between two positive entities, the sky and the flower. Possibility (b) of the third alternative is also untenable, for perception is one unique process and there cannot be two or more moments in it.

[Anonymous No.16777892]

>>16777882

Further, Mandana points out that unity and difference cannot be combined like light and darkness. And, to say, like the Buddhist, that difference alone is real and unity an appearance, is highly absurd, for if difference be the very nature of things, then there would be no difference among them at all. Again, difference being ‘formless’, the objects themselves would* be ‘formless*. Again, difference being of the nature of negation, objects themselves would be of the nature of negation. Again, difference being dual or plural, no object would be the same single object for the same thing cannot be both one and many. Hence, it has to be admitted that unity alone is real and difference is only an appearance. Difference in qualities does not imply difference in reality. Just as the same fire has diverse activities of burning, cooking and illuminating, similarly it is the extraordinary potency of the one.supreme Brahma that enables it to appear as this diverse phenomenal world. Vimuktatma in his Ista-siddhi, Shriharsa in his Khandana-khandakhadya, Chitsukha in his Tattva-pradipika, Madhusudana in his Advaita-siddhi and Nrsimhashrama in his Bheda-dhikkdra have entered into a trenchent dialectical refutation of difference and have established advaita. The essence of their arguments is as follows:

Brahma is non-dual transcendental unity which is beyond all thought-categories. The manifold world is an appearance of Brahma and there can be no relation between them, neither that of unity nor that of difference nor that of both. The world therefore is false and with it all its ‘difference’ is also false. Neither perception nor inference nor any other means of cognition can prove ‘difference’ nor contradict non-duality of Brahma because Brahma or the pure Self is the foundation of all means of cognition and all proof, disproof, doubt and denial. Difference is due to avidya and its empirical validity is not questioned; only its ultimate reality is denied. To contradict advaita, therefore, is impossible.

[Anonymous No.16777924]

>>16777847
>All these charges of Ramanuja are based on the misunderstanding of the meaning of avidya or maya

wrong and cope

[Anonymous No.16778473]

>>16777924
>>All these charges of Ramanuja are based on the misunderstanding of the meaning of avidya or maya
>wrong and cope

Yes, they are and I can explain how. If someone wishes to correctly point out a logical contradiction or internal inconsistency in Advaita doctrine then they actually have to critique the doctrine as it is explained by Advaita, but the moment you start giving certain words and metaphysical concepts your own definitions which differs from Advaita's as Ramanuja and other Vedantins do then you are at that point only critiquing your own strawman hybrid interpretation of Advaita instead of the actual metaphysics of Advaita as formulated by Shankara. Ramanujacharya's 7 charges or anupapatti are as follows

>(1) Ashrayanupapatti: There is no locus or support (ashraya) of maya or avidya. It cannot reside in Brahma for then the non-dualism of Brahma would break down; moreover, Brahma is pure consciousness, then how can avidya or ignorance exist in it? Again, avidya, cannot reside in the jiva or the individual self, for the jiva himself is said to be a creation of avidya; then how can the cause depend for its existence on its own effect? Hence, avidya cannot exist anywhere. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of the advaitin who has imagined this wonderful pseudo-concept, this logical myth.
Maya/Adviya (Shankara uses them interchangeably and does not introduce a bifurcation between them) does not need a support because it is a power that Brahman possesses. It does not reside in Brahman as something tainting Brahman but is a power retained by Brahman who is omnipotent. Avidya/maya does not really exist as a second entity within the pure consciousness of Brahman, but it is through the fact of it being Brahman's power that it is able to have a contingent virtual existence which does not affect or taint its wielder. With this first part answered, it becomes unnecessary to answer the latter part of this critique.

[Anonymous No.16778478]

>>16778473

>(2) Tirodhananupapatti: How can avidya act as a veil and conceal (tirodhana) the nature of Brahma? Brahma is said to be self-luminous consciousness, then how can Ignorance cover or conceal it? It is as absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act as a veil on day.
Maya/Adviya does not conceal Brahman from Himself, but it only only conceals Brahman from the Jivas who are not self-luminous. The Innermost Atman (i.e. Brahman) of each Jiva is already eternally liberated and aware of Itself, It's vision never covered or obscured. It is only the Jiva which is not self-luminous consciousnesses which is subject to effects of concealment, so to ask how Brahman as self-luminous consciousness can be concealed or covered is a meaningless question. The Jiva is a beginningless complex of ignorance which involves the maya-caused association of the inert mind and body with the formless self-luminous already-liberated Atman and the related superimposition of doership etc onto the Atman by the Jiva which does not actually possess those attributes. When liberation is attained it's revealed that the Atman was never obscured to Itself but the Jiva was rather more like a non-effulgent blind man different from the sun who could not perceive the ever-effulgent sun shining in his face.

[Anonymous No.16778483]

>>16778478

>(3) Svarupanupapatti: Avidya has no nature (svarupa) of its own. Is it positive or negative or both or neither? If it is positive, how can it be absence of knowledge? And how can it be removable by right knowledge as no positive entity can be removed by knowledge? And then the nondualism of Brahma will be thrown overboard. And if avidya is negative, then how can it project this world-illusion on Brahma? To say that avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self-contradiction. And to admit that it is neither is to give up all logic.
Avidya is anirvachaniya, undefinable as either real or unreal, similar to the status of dreams in relation to waking life and on the other hand to things which we don't ever experience. And this definition of things as Anirvachaniya is sometimes a necessary way to describe things, because there are still things which we experience and believe to be real despite them being unreal like optical illusions and dreams, so unless we bring in the concept of anirvachaniya we have no way to distinguish between the difference between the unreality of dreams etc and the unreality of impossible things which we never existence, which have complete non-existence. It is not a positively existing thing in the same way that consciousness, the Atman, exists unconditionally and absolutely. So the attacks against Avidya as a positive thing are mistaken. To ask if avidya is negative how can it project world illusion is once again to introduce a false bifurcation into maya which does not exist in Shankara's Advaita. In classical Advaita maya includes all the other factors like prakriti, jagat, buddhi etc within itself, there is no further sub-division or bifurcation of maya, nor is there any sub-emanation from it. Everything within maya is inseparable from maya. So to ask how can avidya can project is a meaningless question because Shankara uses them interchangeably, and so as avidya is really the power of the omnipotent Lord of everything it can do whatever it is His nature to make it do. There can be self-contradictory things which have a conditional seeming existence through their contingency on their cause Brahman who is not self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.16778488]

>>16778483

>(4) Aniruachaniyanupapatti: Avidya is defined as indefinable; it is described as indescribable (anirvachaniya). To avoid this self-contradiction, the advaitin says that ‘indescribable’ means that which cannot be described either as real or as unreal. But this is absurd because reality and unreality are exhaustive and exclusive. They are contradictories not contraries. A thing must be either real or unreal. To maintain a third alternative is to violate the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle.
This post >>16777857 already explains why this attack is not valid and why the Advaita doctrine of avidya does not violate the law of contradiction or the law of excluded middle. "Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Caw of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real' to which belong all world-objects."

[Anonymous No.16778495]

>>16778488

>(5) Pramananupapatti: There is no pramana or means of valid cognition to prove avidya. It cannot be perceived, for perception can give us an entity or a non-entity. It cannot be inferred, for it lacks a middle term or a valid reason. Nor can it be proved by scripture, for it declares maya as God’s real power of creation.
Avidya/maya does not need to be demonstrated by a pramana since the Upanishads and the teachings contained in them are authoritative sources on it when they talk about it, such as in passages like "He who meditates on Him grieves no more; liberated from the bonds of ignorance, he becomes free" - Katha Upanishad 2.2.1, and "The Lord on account of Maya is perceived as manifold" - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.19., in the same way that they are authoritative sources about Brahman. If the scriptures declare maya to be real creation instead of only a virtual appearance, why do they negate the reality of multiplicity in many sruti passages such as:

"Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena." - Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.10.
"Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. " - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10.
‘Through the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There is in It no diversity. He goes from death to death who sees in It, as it were, diversity.’ - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19.
"What is here, the same is there and what is there, the same is here. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here." - Katha Upanishad 2.1.10.
"By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words,(existing) in name only. But earth is the reality." - Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4.

The condemnation of the perception of multiplicity in the Brihadaranyaka and Katha Upanishads are made without any reservations or qualifications in the passages. Ramanuja's explain of Jivas as being parts within the greater whole of Brahman is directly refuted by sruti passages which explicitly say that Brahman is partless like Svetasvatara Upanishad verses 6.5. and 6.20.

[Anonymous No.16778502]

>>16778495

>(6) Nivartakanupapatti: There is no remover (nivartaka) of avidya. The advaitin believes that indeterminate knowledge of unqualified Brahma removes avidya. Now knowledge is essentially determinate and there can be no indeterminate knowledge. Also, reality is always an identity-in-difference and Brahma, the highest reality, can never be an undifferentiated and unqualified Being. Hence the supposed indeterminate knowledge of unqualified Brahma being impossible, there can be no remover of avidya.
The purpose of the Upanishads is to reveal Brahman/Atman, when the disciple is properly instructed in Brahma-vidya by a qualified teacher the Brahman/Atman removes avidya by dawning to the jiva as the self-luminous Real, the destruction of ignorance through the Upanishadic knowledge imparted by the guru leaves the Real shining in its wake, just like the sun shining just as it ever was after the clouds obscuring it have dissipated. That there can be no indeterminate knowledge is false because consciousness itself is self-luminous knowledge and consciousness as such (as opposed to the contents of consciousness) is absolutely indeterminate and attributeless because it is formless and ungraspable as an object. The subject cannot become its own object. The Upanishads themselves say that Brahman is undifferentiated such as in Svetasvatara Upanishad verse 4.1 which says when speaking of Brahman "He, the One and Undifferentiated (also translated as colorless)", and in Mandukya Upanishad verse 7 "(It is) unseen. not related to anything, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone, negation of all phenomena, the Peaceful, all Bliss and the Non-dual."

>(7) Nivrtyanupapatti: There is no removal (nivrtti) of avidya, for avidya is said to be positive and a positive entity cannot be removed by knowledge.
This objection has a faulty basis since avidya/maya is anirvachaniya, not positive, only Brahman is positive. But in any case it is also refuted by the words of the Upanishads themselves in passages where they explain how Brahma-vidya removes ignorance:

"Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena." - Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.10.
"He who meditates on Him grieves no more; liberated from the bonds of ignorance, he becomes free" - Katha Upanishad 2.2.1

[Anonymous No.16779521]

bump

[Anonymous No.16781227]

>>16777659
Dunno about thomism.
But fuck monists.

[Anonymous No.16781252]

>>16778502
>only Brahman is positive
If the effect is bad the cause is bad. Ergo your brahman is evil, fucking gnostic.

[Anonymous No.16781293]

>>16777378
he expierenced the divine just as many other christians have see, whats described by many st's of god is similar in nanture to the nonduealist aspect and concept that these rishis have expiernced, these are the original proponents of the christian faith, but as time goes on, the lesser devout take over and speak of the words in the bible as literal in a 'Gross' sense as apose the the subtle here is a list of those
Albertus Magnus the great
Bernard of Clairvaux
Basil of Caesarea (st basil the great)
Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Gregory of Nazianzus
Dionysius the Areopagite

[Anonymous No.16781308]

>>16781227
dont talk shit if you dont know of him, hes as monothiest as you are ahem 'brahman' read his works he comes to the same conclusion and hes based so did many other christians, its just their ideas have been washed out due to the popular notion of the modern/common man view of sky daddy but that isnt the real view of the church fathers the church fathers came to the similar conclusion of non duelism and the true nature of god

[Anonymous No.16781359]

>>16781308
I said I don't know him.
Fuck.
Monists.
If you're implying he's a monist, fuck him too.

[Anonymous No.16781376]

Since when is /lit/ becoming more and more like my local temple

[Anonymous No.16781479]

>>16781359
a monist in the same way a hindu is a monist in that brahman is the ultimate reality that encompassases all things then yes a monoist but inreality a non-duelist

[Anonymous No.16781625]

>>16781376
>tfw no local temple so I have to come to /lit/

[Anonymous No.16782247]

>>16777847
>>16777857
>>16777872
>>16777882
>>16778473
>>16778478
>>16778483
>>16778488
>>16778495
>>16778502
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.16782401]

What is the difference between a monist and a non-dualist?

[Anonymous No.16782784]

>>16781252
>Ergo your brahman is evil
The Brahma Sutras explain that Brahman cannot be charged with causing evil since He is the impartial cause like rain and whether beings are destined for heavenly and bliss-filled realms or misery-filled hellish realms is entirely dependent upon them and their own actions, just as the rain rains upon all equally and it is the type of seed and soil composition etc which determine the extent of growth of the plant or tree from that seed.
>>16782401
Monism says there is a single substance making up all of existence, whether that substance is fire, water, atoms or the Spinozan Substance etc. Advaita Vedanta's non-dualism is not monism because they say there is a fundamental and irreducible difference between on the one hand the matter etc comprised of form and name which belong to the world and which are composite and transient, and on the other hand consciousness, Atman, Brahman, which is formless, uniform, unborn and eternal. God using his power of maya endows with a contingent and virtual existence the elements etc which as insentient transient objects are not God. Because the phenomenal world and the transcendent reality it is anchored in are qualitatively different in every way, it's not monism.

[Anonymous No.16782808]

>>16782784
I see, thank you anon

[Anonymous No.16783441]

>>16782784
>The Brahma Sutras explain that Brahman cannot be charged with causing evil since He is the impartial cause like rain
Which makes it a machine without will or love. This is not the Good. Which means our soul has no reason seek that for it does not pull at our hearts. Disgusting.
You can't impartially cause something not meant to be. Like Gnosticism your ontology falls apart at the root.

[Anonymous No.16783463]

>>16782784
Where did the matter come from?

[Anonymous No.16783471]

On a scale of 1 to Completely Assblasted, how assblasted do you think it makes guenonfag that everybody on /lit/ now knows that real hindus think Shankara is a crypto-buddhist?

[Anonymous No.16784168]

>>16783441
SED CONTRA:
>But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
>That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
(St Matthew 5:44-45)

[Anonymous No.16784894]

>>16783471
Have you read Robert Bolton's work refuting Shankara?

[Anonymous No.16784901]

>>16784168
That's post emanation, I'm talking about willing the emanation and the emanationing being the same as his will, which is love. That we then can misuse or refuse Providence is our Will, for he allowing us freedom is Good. You make the Good bound by Necessity who is posterior to him.

[Anonymous No.16785295]

>>16784901
I'm not that poster, but how is
>That we then can misuse or refuse Providence is our Will
Different from
>whether beings are destined for heavenly and bliss-filled realms or misery-filled hellish realms is entirely dependent upon them and their own actions
?

[Anonymous No.16785314]

>>16783441
why are you posting plotinus, isn't he guilty of the same errors as shankara?

[Anonymous No.16785330]

>>16777277
Madhvacharya is to this day YEETING all over the rest in eternal transcendental distinction from everything else

[Anonymous No.16785628]

>>16785314
no, it's a hint of what is a part of the correct vision >>16784901

>>16785295
Because it doesn't refer to why we exist in "illusion" in the first place, or if dissolution into Brahman like a drop in the ocean, losing our individuality, is the goal how did we come to be if we're meant to not be? The error here is that you make Brahman enter into a bad state as ourselves: when Brahman shouldn't even recognize the existence of different states to deluded himself within, they shouldn't even exist since he's beyond plurality and difference according to you, the mere existence of illusion contradicts your claims about Brahman.

[Anonymous No.16787024]

>>16785628
This is why Madhva is superior