/lit/ - Literature

This board worships only one God

>>22348180
Cute, reminds me of Suiseiseki

>>22348173
Shaivism isn't relevant to /lit/ unless it's Kashmiri Shaivism. The highly esoteric concept of Spanda, which, perhaps, is the most sublime, direct attempt at expounding the nature of pre-material reality, is the answer to questions one may have of the apparent contradictory statements of certain nondualists, namely the Advaitins.

Kashmiri Shaivism's contribution to the understanding of the internal, unknown modulations of consciousness, i.e. Brahman manifest, or Ishwara, have been monumental.

Classical religions have been tight lipped, and mystical traditions have obfuscated the "distance" between the Will and the Act.

Spanda is the explanation. It is the fabric beneath the fabric.

>>22348648
>Shaivism isn't relevant to /lit/ unless it's Kashmiri Shaivism
If we can have all those Christian apologetic threads, I'd say that Siva Siddhanta is fine, but I honestly agree with you. Spanda is a beautiful concept which properly explains movement, instead of simply pointing to a monad. It is the truth.

Tantric rites are also fascinating, and are yet another contribution of Kashmir Shaivism. They are closely focused on Shakti, the female recipient of energies.

>>22348648
>apparent contradictory statements of certain nondualists, namely the Advaitins.
what are examples of such statements?

>>22348787
This is an interesting question as it is a confession of the following:

You, in your limited knowledge of nonduality, see no contradictions within the Advaitin's idea of Brahman without distinction, yet the implicit distinction within the the idea of Brahman and the illusory apparent world.

The ochre robe-donning sophists of the Vedanta Society of New York too would contend with such queries by strictly maintaining that Brahman alone is real, and the subjective experience of an apparent reality is purely illusion.

This throws a wrench in the idea of a quiet witness consciousness. If it were as they claim it is, a diversity of experience would not even be apparent.

So, a qualitative difference consciousness as witness and consciousness as dynamic force exists that can never acknowledged, and hence never explained by Advaita. "Brahman Sar Jagat Mithya" validates "jagat" as existing within pure consciousness, even as illusion -- or a lack of clarity. This inner modulation of consciousness, of its "movement" from quiet, still, to the rise of illusion cannot be explained, as has not been explained by a theory other than the divine Spanda principle.

>>22349252
>You, in your limited knowledge of nonduality, see no contradictions within the Advaitin's idea of Brahman without distinction, yet the implicit distinction within the the idea of Brahman and the illusory apparent world.
Advaitins only ever claimed that Brahman is *in Itself in Its true nature*, without distinctions, that is to say, without internal distinctions, so they can hardly be charged with contradiction on this account.

>This throws a wrench in the idea of a quiet witness consciousness. If it were as they claim it is, a diversity of experience would not even be apparent.
First off, the Atman is not a witness intrinsically but it only seems to be one due to It's light animating the intellect (buddhi), the Atman in Itself is beyond subject and object and without the experiencer-experience or subject-object or witness-witnessed distinction; all of these inhere in the intellect that Atman lends Its light to, making it appear sentient, like a stained glass window receiving sunlight and falsely seeming to be intrinsically luminous when its only imbued with the external sunlight. This is nothing new in Indian thought but rather it's standard Samkhya and Yoga doctrine, Advaita just happens to also agree with it and accept it as being based on the Upanishads.

Secondly, the very feeling of one's innermost consciousness being a "witness" is due to Its apparent conjunction with the intellect in the aforementioned manner that happens ultimately because of the Brahman-Atman projecting the entirety of samsara, including all intellects, through Its own power. So, there is no necessity for the samsaric objects to be real in order that one have the sensation of 'witness-consciousness' in relation to objects, because both the feeling of having an outward-directed witness-consciousness in mundane life as well as the objects themselves are just the manifest result of the Brahman-Atman's inherent power being 'actualized' and is accounted for in that way.

>>22349659
You’re back? After just getting BTFO, you have some nerve to shit up another thread.

>>22349682
>After just getting BTFO,
You must have been dreaming

>>22349710
>>22330628
The argument at the end specifically, I wasn’t around for the beginning.
tl;dr: You can’t handwave the clearly Buddhist elements in Gaudapada by posting copes written by Gaudapada without any any third party to confirm their truth. Stop ruining threads with your masturbatory ontology.
Why does Brahman even have to reflect itself? Since it permeates all things, it is far easier to believe that it generates the shifting illusion through resonance, since a perfect being should not create an illusion within its own perfection through reflecting off that perfection.

>>22349744
> The argument at the end specifically, I wasn’t around for the beginning.
tl;dr: You can’t handwave the clearly Buddhist elements in Gaudapada by posting copes written by Gaudapada without any any third party to confirm their truth.
I already wrote a large 3 or 4 part post explaining in depth why Gaudapada’s dialectic is not only relying on different arguments than Nagarjuna’s, but its also arguing for a different conclusion, and the underlying logical structure of the argument and statements that Gaudapada writes are traceable to Upanishadic passages, which he often cites.

You didn’t even engage with this in-depth post but you only tried to argue that Gaudapada adopted an idea from Buddhism based on his usage of a single word, which is just not a serious argument at all, especially when you weren’t able or willing to engage with an in-depth comparison of whether the two dialectics and their philosophical background have different conclusions and premises.

>Stop ruining threads with your masturbatory ontology.
Says the guy (southwarth) who got banned from the /lit/ platonist server for being immature and annoying, also, I was only responding to someone else’s post and wasn’t forcing my view on anyone.

>Why does Brahman even have to reflect itself?
What do you mean by reflection? In any case the ultimate reason for why Brahman does anything It does through Its power is because It has the nature of doing so.

>Since it permeates all things, it is far easier to believe that it generates the shifting illusion through resonance
There is little practical difference in that both trace the origination of everything to a power inherent in God, the Advaita conception is just a little closer to the classical theist tradition inasmuch as it says that God is raised above all change and is not Himself “modified”, “changing” or “vibrating”.

>since a perfect being should not create an illusion within its own perfection through reflecting off that perfection.
Brahman creates illusionary samsara through Its own nature of utilizing Its own inherent power, the ‘reflection’ is just a figurative way of talking about how certain aspects of this creation appear to take on God’s nature of being sentient etc

>>22349845
My entire first response vanished after posting it. What a shit site.
>first and second paragraphs
Your reading comprehension appalls me once again. If you had actually read my posts instead of regurgitating what Gaudapada said, you would have understood that I agreed that the two schools had different conclusions and premises. However, the non-dualistic framework of Madhyamaka was utilised by Gaudapada in his arguments. I chose an example to demonstrate this, which is a perfectly acceptable action. You still haven’t properly addressed how you insistences were BTFO in proper argument, since your retarded insistences fall apart under close examination.
>Says the guy (southwarth) who got banned from the /lit/ platonist server for being immature and annoying
Literally who? I have never been in a Platonist forum, nor have I ever planned to be. It seems that in addition to being an argumentative pseud, you are also paranoid.
>I was only responding to someone else’s post and wasn’t forcing my view on anyone.
You genuinely can’t handle banter. Why can’t you just agree to disagree at times like this, instead of feeling obligated to defend your view? When I am in a Buddhist thread and see a post mocking Hinduism, I rarely feel obligated to counter it, since I’m more interested in learning about Buddhist views. Your bizarre insistence on promoting your views given the slightest opportunity is likely the product of an Abrahamic background.
>Brahman creates illusionary samsara through Its own nature of utilizing Its own inherent power
Why should the illusion of conditonality be arbitrarily produced from an eternal mass? Brahman is the force which bypasses all dichotomies, including the two truths, which means that the absence of clarity is also within it. Thus, Spanda is the best way of comprehending the beauty of the Absolute.

>>22349845
Also,
>the underlying logical structure of the argument and statements that Gaudapada writes are traceable to Upanishadic passages, which he often cites.
Is unreliable as a justification due to reasons I have already explained. The similarities are too close to properly trust the independence of Gaudapada’s logic here, especially given the lack of sources. This is undeniable.

>>22349981
> However, the non-dualistic framework of Madhyamaka was utilised by Gaudapada in his arguments.
No, it wasn’t. You didnt even say what these were to begin with, I pointed out that non-dualism means something fundamentally different in both traditions and you just hand-waved that away without actually demonstrating what was the shared idea between them. You actually have to explicitly state what the shared idea is if you want to put forward a real argument. Two completely different ontologies that have similar names are not the same thing.

>You still haven’t properly addressed how you insistences were BTFO in proper argument,
Literally nothing you wrote btfo’d anything, all of your arguments were inherently circular, and the most explicit argument you made was based on citing his usage of 1 word, which itself demonstrates nothing about his philosophical intentions since his usage of it is subject to multiple interpretations, none of which are verifiable
> Literally who? I have never been in a Platonist forum, nor have I ever planned to be
There is another dishonest and petty shaivist poster it seems then
> Why can’t you just agree to disagree at times like this, instead of feeling obligated to defend your view?
You are the whole who brought up that thread here in this thread in case you already forgot, after pointing out that your argument was circular and after seeing that you weren’t willing to actually engage in a discussion of the philosopher/metaphysics in detail I left the conversation in the past thread and now you are reviving it in this thread
>is likely the product of an Abrahamic background.
my parents are both agnostic and I had little exposure to religion as a child
> Why should the illusion of conditonality be arbitrarily produced from an eternal mass?
Because It has the nature of doing so, that’s like saying “why is God arbitrarily eternal”, because He has the nature of being eternal
>Brahman is the force which bypasses all dichotomies, including the two truths
There is only two truths from the perspective of samsara, Brahman in Himself is free from all distinctions, what shines outwardly from the POV of samsara as an apparent distinction collapses into undifferentiated non-duality in Brahman Itself
>which means that the absence of clarity is also within it.
clarity is just a mental concept and Brahman is beyond all concepts

>>22350005
I already made a detailed series of posts explaining why that’s wrong and you were too scared or unwilling to directly respond to it. Gaudapada doesn’t use Nagarjuna’s argument of mutual independence (emptiness) while that’s arguably Nagarjuna’s central method, I dont think you’ve even read the MMK or Gaudapada’s whole text.
> due to reasons I have already explained.
You didn’t have a single justification that wasn’t circular (presupposing its end conclusion as its starting point)

>>22350485
*of mutual interdependence

>>22348180
Your 'God' is a dead man on a stick.

>>22350725
Indeed, anon. He died for our sins. Praise be!

>22350485
Holy shit my post disappeared again after posting it, fuck you gookmoot.
>You didnt even say what these were to begin with
I did, don’t lie. I also keep stating that I believe that AV and Madhyamaka have different ontological results. As used previously used the term, “framework” meant the use of specialised metaphysical terms with non-dualistic meanings. I used Shamvriti as my example since it was a particularly evident example. You clearly glossed over those terms in your defense, and were called out for it.
>all of your arguments were inherently circular
Keep saying that, I’m sure it’ll become true eventually (l also volunteered to provide more examples, but you ignored that). I have already countered your accusations, and you continue to conveniently ignore my reasoning and repeat the same dogmatic remarks. Also, you clearly were fine with engaging in a historiographic debate earlier, and now seem to be moving goalposts to an ontological position I never held nor wanted to hold. Perhaps you realised that there was more to an argument than reading AV texts, and are now fabricating things?
>dishonest and petty shaivist poster
You’re devolved to unironic name-calling rather quickly, telling signs of an argumentative pseud that stepped outside his comfort zone.
>You are the whole who brought up that thread here in this thread in case you already forgot
I brought it up to shut you up, but you are now fabricating a story for why you pulled away from argument without saying a word. What a convenient alibi, given that you said nothing about it so you can’t be challenged. Truly, you’ve learned well from Gaudapada.
Also, if you’re actually want to take this thread seriously, then why not post about Shaivism or lurk and learn about it from other posters?
>my parents are both agnostic and I had little exposure to religion as a child
Maybe it was a byproduct of western culture in general. But the reason you shitpost isn’t particularly important right now.
>Because It has the nature of doing so
Saying “just because” is nowhere as convincing as the theory of resonance.
>There is only two truths from the perspective of samsara
Then who’s to stop me from considering the principles of Advaita as impotent theory with no real connection to the absolute, being entirely wreathed in the illusion?
>clarity is just a mental concept and Brahman is beyond all concepts
If you want to play the philosophic game, then you have to play by its rules and acknowledge the importance of clarity.
>I already made a detailed series of posts explaining why that’s wrong
And so have I for my view. Doesn’t stop you from ignoring it and continuing to make the same rhetorical statements, when your argument could also be called circular. I have also read the karikas of Gaudapada and the Mulamadhyamakakarika, at least find a better ad hominem statement to accuse me with.

>>22350801
Who’s the artfag? Very cute art.
>>22350836
Your entire argumentation has devolved to thinly veiled personal insults and goalpost shifting, revealing you to be an exhausted pseud who is reverting to his primal shitposter instincts. Neither of us are going to convince each other at this rate.

>>22350836
>I did, don’t lie. I also keep stating that I believe that AV and Madhyamaka have different ontological results. As used previously used the term, “framework” meant the use of specialised metaphysical terms with non-dualistic meanings.
Saying that terms have a non-dualistic meaning is totally meaningless if you don't specify what you mean by non-dualism, you are still avoiding and running away from identifying the similarity, you keep falling back to vague statements about "non-dualism" without specifying what you are talking about, which is really meaningless and not a good argument.
>You clearly glossed over those terms in your defense, and were called out for it.
No, I just pointed out that the list of words you cited could be found in non-Buddhist literature 90% of the time, and I said that his use of samvriti itself doesn't disprove that he already held his ontological non-dual position and was merely using a term that was circulating in philosophical texts of his time but without changing his underlying position. Gaudapada also uses other words of non-Buddhist origin in an interchangeable way with samvriti like Vaitathya (falseness) in 2.1 and mithya (false) in 2.7, he doesn't rely on the term samvriti to express any idea which he also doesn't express with other terms that don't come from Buddhism, so there is no suggestion at all of the term samvriti being necessary or even very important for him since he uses it interchangeably with others to refer to the status of the cosmic illusion.
> and you continue to conveniently ignore my reasoning
What reasoning? lol. You never pointed out what the philosophical similarity was but have only made vague statements without elaborating
>Saying “just because” is nowhere as convincing as the theory of resonance.
I disagree and I consider "resonance" to be wholly unnecessary, also ultimately the reason why the Shaivist absolute is the way it is leads to the reason being it's inherent nature as the reason why it is the way it is, ditto for why it has freedom of will
>who’s to stop me from considering the principles of Advaita as impotent theory with no real connection to the absolute,
Like I said in the other thread, people entitled to hold dumb/uninformed opinions if they want, but I consider the Advaitist model to rightly denote how Brahman originates all.
>then you have to play by its rules and acknowledge the importance of clarity.
The longer answer is that Brahman is wholly unaffected by ignorance, and is in that sense is free of the contrary of clarity, but it's also beyond clarity as well since this distinction is at root nominal and based on samsara and not ultimate reality, ie Brahman is beyond both clarity and it's contrary, but inasmuch as 'clarity' semantically expresses a lack of ignorance it's closer to the truth to conditionally say that Brahman has inherent clarity
>And so have I for my view.
lmao, you made vague claims without identifying the real connection

>>22350970
>if you don't specify what you mean by non-dualism
The belief that there is no dualistic dichotomy between objects, I thought we both assumed the other knew the term. Both Madhyamaka and Advaita are non-dualist, but differ in claims.
>I just pointed out that the list of words you cited could be found in non-Buddhist literature 90% of the time
>90% of the time
If you’re going to move goalposts, don’t be so obvious. You were previously denying any Buddhist borrowings in Gaudapada. If a word he uses can only be found in Buddhist sources, the most likely reason for his use of it is that he read it in a Buddhist work.
>You never pointed out what the philosophical similarity was but have only made vague statements without elaborating
You’re like a broken record by this point, this is pathetic.
>I disagree and I consider "resonance" to be wholly unnecessary
Weren’t you fine with agreeing to disagree on this front earlier? Shouldn’t you stay consistent?
>it's also beyond clarity as well since this distinction is at root nominal
Advaita is required to use conditional thoughts to express its points, and the Upanishads, though revealed texts, are part of conditional reality. Thus, you have to accept the rhetorical issue of clarity in an argument if you’re going to argue in a conditional system. I don’t disagree with most of your statements here, but I also agree with the other anon’s quote >>22349252 and interpretation, since it shows how Brahman can remain non-dualistic while allowing for Spanda to arise.
>lmao, you made vague claims without identifying the real connection
I had some hope in your argumentative ability, but you really are a pseud that resorts to apelike insults when BTFO.

>>22351033
I think I was unclear in my fifth paragraph, so I’ll specify that I’m simultaneously referring to the clarity of Advaita arguments and the non-dualistic issue that Brahman cannot be free of ignorance since that itself is a dichotomy. This issue is part of the reason why Spanda is so convincing.

>>22351033
>The belief that there is no dualistic dichotomy between objects,
That's also quite vague and meaningless and a failed attempt at pointing out a similarity, both Advaita and Madhyamaka agree that various kinds of objects are different from each other and possess different characteristics that distinguish them. Neither school says that trees are actually the same as e.g. rocks. Saying that all objects belong to the same general category has nothing to do with non-dualist since even dualistic theists and materialists will agree that all objects belong to the category of e.g. 'existing things'
>. If a word he uses can only be found in Buddhist sources
I already pointed out that samvriti occurs in a Hindu poem that is dated as the same century as Gaudapada, also the use of the word itself examined by itself doesn't show anything about his philosophical intentions or whether he changed his position, but you are sophistically trying to act like it is self-evident that it does and you are using a circular logic where you dismiss all reasons for countering this contention which is never substantiated in the first place!
>You’re like a broken record by this point, this is pathetic.
Not an argument, you have still failed to identify any real philosophical similarity, your one (1) example with your attempted definition of how both are "non-dual" is so embarrassingly vague and inaccurate as to be laughable
>Weren’t you fine with agreeing to disagree on this front earlier?
Sure, I'm not criticizing the concept of spanda but I simply find it unneeded, I understand how it makes sense within the context of Shaivism
>it's also beyond clarity as well since this distinction is at root nominal
Advaita is required to use conditional thoughts to express its points, and the Upanishads, though revealed texts, are part of conditional reality.
Yes and Yes
>Thus, you have to accept the rhetorical issue of clarity in an argument if you’re going to argue in a conditional system.
Yes, but at a certain point trying to "absolutize" things which are at root nominal turns into a philosophical pseudo-problem and not a real issue, but the Advaitist can make his point about Brahman truthfully by saying It's unaffected by and indeed not even aware of ignorance/samsara

>>22351135
>Brahma is unaffected by and indeed not even aware of ignorance/samsara
Yet supposedly I am Brahma and remain affected and aware of ignorance.

Clearly a contradictory and idiotic philosophy.

>>22351135
>both Advaita and Madhyamaka agree that various kinds of objects are different from each other
Of course they are, I never denied that. However, both Advaita and Madhyamaka posit an Absolute beyond dichotomy that relates to apparent reality. This can either be Nirvana and Brahman, and while their presentation reveals the differences between the schools, both use a version of the two truths doctrine to explain themselves. Unless you want to go so far as to claim Madhyamaka is not non-dualist?
>I already pointed out that samvriti occurs in a Hindu poem that is dated as the same century as Gaudapada
And I have explained to you why this is not necessarily convincing proof that he didn’t learn of the word from a non-Buddhist source. My reasoning is feasible using the historiographic justification I gave.
>Not an argument, you have still failed to identify any real philosophical similarity
I don’t think you understand that I’m not trying to find a philosophical similarity, just state that Gaudapada borrowed certain Madhyamaka terms due to the philosophic influence of the school. There is no reason he could not have done this, especially given the free circulation of great Hindu and Buddhist texts at the time.
>I'm not criticizing the concept of spanda but I simply find it unneeded
That’s fine, then. I favour it because it connects one to Brahman in a way that Advaita cannot, bringing more legitimacy to Shaivism in terms of spirituality in my view.
>the Advaitist can make his point about Brahman truthfully by saying It's unaffected by and indeed not even aware of ignorance/samsara
This is the great weakness of Advaita. The Vedas repeatedly confirm the connection of the common people to the gods, and this theme is constantly repeated.
Just consider the Bhagavad Gita. Why would Sri Krishna, who embodies Brahman, bring solace to Arjuna through education, if he as an avatar of Brahman is not aware of his ignorance. Why were the Upanishads even revealed then? You cannot just say that Brahman is unaffected by ignorance while also believing in revealed texts that fight ignorance.

>>22351207
>Yet supposedly I am Brahma and remain affected and aware of ignorance.
The intellect (buddhi) being illuminated with the light of the unaffected-Atman-Brahman is what is affected by and aware of ignorance. Your mind/intellect (they are the lower and higher aspects respectively of the inner organ or Antaḥkaraṇa) is presently misidentifying your true self with itself, and, in a related manner, falsely attributing or superimposing its properties onto the Atman-Brahman when these properties don't actually belong to or affect the Atman-Brahman in the slightest.

>>22348648
>Spanda, which, perhaps, is the most sublime, direct attempt at expounding the nature of pre-material reality
books for this feel?

>>22351220
>Of course they are, I never denied that. However, both Advaita and Madhyamaka posit an Absolute beyond dichotomy that relates to apparent reality
Madhyamaka say the absolute IS relative reality and vice versa while the Advaitins don't, there is a fundamental difference.
>Unless you want to go so far as to claim Madhyamaka is not non-dualist?
I would personally argue that it's not non-dualist at all since they don't say that plurality isn't real or
doesn't actually exist and plurality (dualism) is never effaced/erased (it's left as basically irreducible) but is a form of pluralistic process-monism in skeptic drag. Since Buddhists define non-dualism in their own separate manner they would disagree, but this just reinforces how different it is from Vedanta.
>both use a version of the two truths doctrine to explain themselves.
This is arguably meaningless as a connection unless you specify further, almost every school of Vedanta/Shaivism/Vaishnavism uses a kind of two-truths and even Jainism, but they just attach different ontological/epistemic value to it, the bhatki and dualistic schools say that one is ignorant of oneself as intrinsically linked to Vishnu and that this default state of ignorance is a defacto kind of "lower truth" with the right viewpoint of understanding that one's Atman is part of Vishnu's body or whatever is the "final higher truth", they explain it in different ways but in each case there is the "improper view based on ignorance vs the right higher view". But the Madhyamaka version of this is as far removed from the Advaitist version of this as the Advaitist version is removed from Ramanuja's or Abhinavagupta's verson of it; it's really arbitrary to place the Advaita and Madhyamaka versions on one side of a line and the other schools versions on the other. So simply saying "there is a lower ignorant view and a higher view in both systems" isn't distinguishing them from devotionalistic Vaishnavism or Tantric Shaivism at all.
>And I have explained to you why this is not necessarily convincing proof that he didn’t learn of the word from a non-Buddhist source.
This is an inherently circular argument because there is no root substantial reason given to accept that explanation vs another viz the usage of that word, the """historiographic justification""" was pure conjecture and there are alternative explanations for the same historical facts put forward by other scholars, so it's wholly arbitrary to place that one explanation forwards as "most likely true until proven otherwise", I keep pointing out why this is inherently circular but you seem not to understand.
>just state that Gaudapada borrowed certain Madhyamaka terms due to the philosophic influence of the school.
It can also be explained via him reading the Hindu poem that contained it, and he uses it interchangeably with other non-Buddhist terms and doesn't rely on it for anything not found in Hindu writing, so that alone is not a convincing case

>>22351220
>This is the great weakness of Advaita. The Vedas repeatedly confirm the connection of the common people to the gods, and this theme is constantly repeated.
This isn't inconsistent with Advaita at all, Advaita admits both that there are lesser deities as a part of samsara who can interact with humans and grant boons in response to prayers and virtuous behavior etc, and it also admits the highest Brahman projecting messangers/avatars through maya while itself being unchanging and transcendent
>Just consider the Bhagavad Gita. Why would Sri Krishna, who embodies Brahman, bring solace to Arjuna through education, if he as an avatar of Brahman is not aware of his ignorance.
Krishna in the Advaitist view is just a display animated the Lords power and not an ignorant being/jiva if I recall correctly
>Why were the Upanishads even revealed then?
Because Brahman has the nature not only of projecting samsara but also projecting the means of release from samsara like scriptures that lead the aspirant to moksha
>You cannot just say that Brahman is unaffected by ignorance while also believing in revealed texts that fight ignorance.
I can do so easily, if Brahman has the nature of projecting samsara and *as part of that very same nature* projecting means of release from samsara, then the very same inherent Brahman-nature has already accounted for the manifestation of both samsara and the scriptures pointing the way out of samsara

>>22351297
>there is a fundamental difference.
Both are still non-dualist, this is undeniable.
>I would personally argue that it's not non-dualist at all
How is the two truths doctrine is not non-dualist? Nagarjuna eliminates all plurality as Samsara, promoting Nirvana as the Absolute.
>simply saying "there is a lower ignorant view and a higher view in both systems" isn't distinguishing them from devotionalistic Vaishnavism or Tantric Shaivism at all.
Why is this a problem? Certain Shaivite and Vaishnavi sects are also non-dualist because they use the two truths doctrine. The only difference between the Buddhist and Hindu version is ontological presentation, the doctrine remains constant but can be interpreted in favour of either view. To defend yourself, name me a single scholar who does not agree that the Buddhist two truths is not non-dualistic.
>the """historiographic justification""" was pure conjecture
And anything you say isn't? We have no idea whether Gaudapada heard the epic or not, and given theories of where he lived and the fact that the play was first popular in the south strengthen the argument that he didn't hear it. I've already pointed out how you have no idea what circular means.
>>22351324
>Because Brahman has the nature not only of projecting samsara but also projecting the means of release from samsara like scriptures that lead the aspirant to moksha
...So it can interact with ignorance? The justification that Brahman has no awarenesss of ignorance makes no sense when the way to escape ignorance is conveniently revealed by Brahman.
>Brahman has the nature of projecting samsara and *as part of that very same nature* projecting means of release from samsara
This is a simply absurd assumption and feels too axiomatic to be taken seriously. When I first read this argument I wanted to tear my eyes out from the sheer ridiculousness of it. That is the point where Advaitins have to take a leap of faith, and I am not an Advaitin so I decided not to.

Advaita is incredibly retarded and it exclusively attracts midwits.

>>22351287
From an old post, but these:
>Mahanirvana Tantra
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/maha/
>Vasugupta's Shiva Sutras with Bhaskara's commentary
https://archive.org/details/AphorismsOfSivaTheSivaSutrasWithBhaskaraSCommentary
>The Spanda Karika with four of the classic commentaries
https://akaksha.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/95421991-mark-s-g-dyczkowski-the-stanzas-on-vibration.pdf
>Pratyabhijnahridayam
https://archive.org/details/PratyabhijnahridayamTheSecretOfSelfRecognition.Kshemaraja.Tr.J.SinghDelhi1980600dpilossy
>Vijnanabhairava
https://archive.org/details/Vijnana-Bhairava-Tantra
>Abhinavagupta's Tantrasara
https://archive.org/details/TantrasaraOfAbhinavaguptaHNChakravartyBorisMarjanovic
>Devi Mahatmya
http://www.vedicastrologer.org/mantras/chandi/chandi_inner_meaning.pdf
>Devi Bhagavata Purana
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/index.htm

>>22351230
How are there higher and lower aspects if all is nondual? Sounds very dual. Moreover if all is Brahman, whence cometh Buddhi? Whyfore furthermore cometh the illusion of maya at all? If Brahma is perfect in and of itself why would any of this be necessary? Saying anything about how it is of the nature of Brahma to do so also makes it seems as though it is not self-sufficient and hence contradictory to your earlier claims which implies your hindoo poo in loo scriptures lied to you.

>>22351388
Just don't engage, he's an unironic perennialist but can't accept that 99% of muzzies will call him a lying kaffir. Pure midwittery.

>>22351393
Fuck, several links are dead now. Just search the missing ones up on the Internet Archive and you can read them.

>>22351360
>Both are still non-dualist, this is undeniable.
You still have not explained what you mean by non-dualism! You keep retreating to vague and inaccurate labels when pressed for examples of some shared philosophical influence, and when pressed to define those labels you give a vague and inaccurate answers, and then when this is pointed out you retreat back to those same vague and inaccurate labels! Your argument is a complete joke!
>How is the two truths doctrine is not non-dualist? Nagarjuna eliminates all plurality as Samsara, promoting Nirvana as the Absolute.
He doesn't eliminate the plurality that characterizes the universe such as the plurality that makes various kinds of qualities and characteristics different from each-other, so plurality (i.e. difference or bheda) is left intact in the world. Advaita says that not only do the plural things that plurality characterizes not really exist, but also that plurality itself doesn't really exist
>Why is this a problem? Certain Shaivite and Vaishnavi sects are also non-dualist because they use the two truths doctrine.
If you accept that any/most Hindu sect which accepts this are all non-dual then multiple Hindu sects predating Gaudapada also are non-dual and then it becomes unnecessary and question-begging to posit that Gaudapada had to obtain this from Nagarjuna instead of other Hindu sects or even from the Upanishads which openly talk about this. That removes the central plank of your argument dummy!
>And anything you say isn't?
The point is that it's question-begging to posit YOUR version of historical conjecture as something which should self-evidently be taken as true until shown otherwise.
>...So it can interact with ignorance?
The literal meaning of interaction is "reciprocal action or influence", since Brahman is not changed or influenced by anything there is no interaction since samsara is utterly dependent on Brahman in a 1-way relation of NON-RECIPROCAL dependence, ignorance only appears due to Brahman projecting samsara
>The justification that Brahman has no awarenesss of ignorance makes no sense when the way to escape ignorance is conveniently revealed by Brahman.
Brahman doesn't have to think or know about samsara to reveal the way out of it to aspirants, He has the nature of this being accomplished automatically and effortlessly (the same nature that projects samsara through His power does this *as a part of that*), you are making the mistake of anthropomorphizing Brahman and thinking of Him as a person with a mind
>This is a simply absurd assumption and feels too axiomatic to be taken seriously.
That's a subjective feeling of yours but not a real argument
>That is the point where Advaitins have to take a leap of faith
The Upanishads stress the importance of faith, anyways it's of little relevance to the actual spiritual introspective practice and is just a part of the background metaphysics which has little practical effect on anything in terms of praxis

>>22351396
>How are there higher and lower aspects if all is nondual?
It's just in reference to the characteristics of one samsaric object/phenomena as different from another, just how water and fire differ in their characteristics, its not attributing any plurality as being inherent in Brahman Itself and its also not saying the plurality absolutely exists like Brahman does
>Moreover if all is Brahman, whence cometh Buddhi?
Brahman's power projects it like all samsara
>Whyfore furthermore cometh the illusion of maya at all?
Because Brahman has the nature of projecting it, this is literally what most theistic religions and sects says in the end, either that God has the nature of causing the world, or that he has the nature of having the free-will to decide to cause the world, but both answers actually finally terminate in God having that nature (either the nature of causing or the nature of having the will to choose to cause) for no other reason than he has that nature. This is because God is not caused by anything else but if God's nature was due to an external reason/cause then there would be something beyond God influencing him
>If Brahma is perfect in and of itself why would any of this be necessary?
Because if He didn't do so that would conflict with His inherent nature
>Saying anything about how it is of the nature of Brahma to do so also makes it seems as though it is not self-sufficient
Brahman being self-sufficient means that It is not conditioned, caused, influenced or determined by anything besides Itself, but It's nature is non-different from Itself, so simply being "consistent with Its own nature" is not contradicting self-sufficiency

So what's escatology/union/moksha etc like for Kashmir Shaivism? Is it a union with distinction, akin to Ramanuja?

>>22351470
>You still have not explained what you mean by non-dualism!
I thought that we both used the term enough to assume that the other was familiar with its definition. Your insistence now out of all times is bizarre, but sure, here's a definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality_(spirituality)
Whoever wrote the article also recognises that the non-dualism of Advaita and Madhyamaka differs in presentation, but they can still be classified until the general term of non-dualist.
>so plurality (i.e. difference or bheda) is left intact in the world
Nothing in the world (including nothing itself) is true according to the Mulamadhyamakakarika, and plurality is eliminated by the attainment of Nirvana.
>multiple Hindu sects predating Gaudapada also are non-dual
Name some, since I understand that the non-dual movement only really grew large in the medieval period. Also, the use of terms specifically coined by Nagarjuna by Gaudupada strongly points to Buddhist influence. There's a reason so many theorists have compared to he two. I have said this repeatedly, and you keep dogmatically ignoring it.
>it's question-begging to posit YOUR version of historical conjecture as something which should self-evidently be taken as true
I never said that it should be taken as true, and have always maintained that it was a plausible theory. You really need to stop speaking for others.
>ignorance only appears due to Brahman projecting samsara
When Brahman revealed the Upanishads, it was clearly directly acting on Samsara there. Unless the act was completely random, it clearly displayed some concern for ignorance there.
>Brahman doesn't have to think or know about samsara to reveal the way out of it to aspirants
Then the Upanishads are a completely arbitrary creation caused by a random (and extremely axiomatic) characteristic of Brahman. This is crypto-nihilism.
>That's a subjective feeling of yours but not a real argument
Explain to me why Brahman had to reveal to the Upanishads, if not arbitrary chance. The constant emphasis of the utter detachment of Brahman from all endeavours towards the attainment of Brahman is very nihilistic. Where exactly in the Upanishads is it stated that Brahman could not care about ignorance in the slightest?
>it's of little relevance to the actual spiritual introspective practice and is just a part of the background metaphysics
The "background metaphysics" are what would Shankaracharya his fame, and are the reason Advaitins are generally shunned as crypto-nihilists by severing any connection to Brahman.

>>22351543
Kashmir Shaivites believe that all existence is a reflection of the attributes of Lord Siva, and that it is possible to attain moksha through attaining sufficient comprehension of his nature. This is possible through tantric rites or contemplation of the tattvas, or laws of reality. Thats my summarised explanation at least. If you want to learn more, I could find a western paper that explains it more thoroughly.

>>22351690
So is moksha the same for the Shaivite as it is for the Advaitin and the Buddhist?

>>22351720
I don't understand why /lit/ only knows about Advaita and Buddhism, but that's fine. For my explanation, I'll be using this lovely summary by John Hughes that summarises mokshsa in Kashmir Shaivite terms:
https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Moksha-in-Kashmir-Shaivism-by-John-Hughes.pdf
First of all, here is his explanation for the main difference between AV and Shaivism.
>Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedānta both teach nondualism, the non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from that of Advaita Vedānta. Essential to this difference is Advaita Vedānta’s proposition that this universe is untrue and unreal, that it is a false projection of the magical principle of illusion known as māyā. This theory
is completely opposed to the Kashmir Shaiva theory of reality. To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that if Shiva is real, how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real? If Shiva, the
ultimate essence of existence, is real, then His creation must also be real. For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.
This theory is expanded into a monistic vision that explains that all objects are within the consciousness of god. Everything is a reflection of Lord Shiva, and he is completely free. The world is a product of his power, and it is the goal of a practiser to attain union with his world-consciousness. There are a few methods to do this.
>Kashmir Shaivism has revealed three methods or means (upāya) to be employed to enter Universal God consciousness from individual limited consciousness. The first and supreme means, for aspirants with very refined awareness, is called shāmbavopāya, the means associated with Shiva. The second, for aspirants with medium power of awareness, is called shāktopāya, the means associated with Shakti. The third means, for aspirants with inferior awareness, is called āṇavopāya. It is the means associated with the individual and is regarded as inferior. Essentially, the method of traveling from limited consciousness to Universal consciousness depends on the ability of the aspirant, their strength of awareness.
Through success, the faithful will achieve union with the sublime godhead and achieve a state of endless bliss. I could talk more about any of the three methods listed.

>>22351763
>This theory is expanded into a monistic vision...
To clarify, that paragraph was mine. The main truth that you are expected to understand through practice in Kashmir Shaivism is that you, the you sitting here right now, are Lord Siva. The universe is a product of his carousing game, and your discovery of this fact and union with the godhead is part of the game. Pic related is Mahadeva, the highest form of Shiva. Tantric art is probably my favourite artstyle in the world because of shit like this.

>>22351543
Not the advaitafag but I think that this is precisely why Ramajuna became popular. Just because one can construct a system without contradiction does not make it true. Same with why Parmenides did not end western philosophy despite some airtight logic and perhaps according to some even innovating its development. If the world is one it is no matter for it is not one to us. Never has been, never will be. Meditation and psychedelics produce an illusion of oneness but it is transparently a mistake of brain chemicals much akin to the madmen who claim they are God. Neoplatonists themselves, penultimate western lovers of oneness, posit levels of monads. Even the lowest levels of matter are not purely illusory and still possess being and grace and goodness. But back to Hinduism, Advaita is but one school of many and while certainly historically it was renewing of scholasticism and monasticism alas now it has been mostly appropriated by occult and perennialist westerners a la Guenon, Crowley, et al. Not to mention, emphasis on love and karma as per Ramajuna is more healthy for society than intellectuals doing mental gymnastics about why we are identical to God. Absolutely advaita indeed claims no distinctions. Commonsense experience immediately contradicts this. Even an enlightened individual it would seem is still bound to his indvidual incarnation. True union w God seems only possible after death. Or if you believe in Christ then he was it and possibly also avatars (sorta?). I find the argument compelling that the relation of creator to creation is analogous to true self versus egoic self altho I find the freudian implications of ego perhaps a bit misleading here if pursued too far. That is to say, atman is not brahman. Atman is to jiva as brahman is to maya. It is analogic. Not representational. This fits in neatly w certain western mystic notions as well. Microcosm, macrocosm, mirrors but separate. Man in God's image. Sufis maintain distinction. Orthodox energies and Catholics ofc do too. Even Buddhist nondualism and interdependence and emptiness is superior. But back to topic, Tantric Shaivism is pretty cool too. Ya. A lot of yogic and tantric stuff is very cross-pollinated with Buddhism. Even advaita was influenced tho advaitafag will deny. The Upanishads and Vedas are certainly old and beautiful but I find the claim that they are divinely inspired to be even more insanely dogmatic than biblical literalism. Understanding evolves. Truth is discovered and rediscovered and lost even sometimes but there is some progress and purpose I like to think to our existence. If you really believe in Yuga cycles as well then advaita is well into Kali Yuga. As is Guenon. And it matters not. Because it's just eternal return of the same. A static infinite. Lame. Boring. Gay. Pass. Neo-Advaita is p cool tho. Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, & Aurobindo >>> Guenon and Evola and Crowley.

>>22351791
Extremely well said. I will be honest and admit that I haven't read much of Ramanuja, but I agree with everything you have said. Advaita ultimately leads to the spiritually unfulfilling view that the Upanishads are everything but also were apparently randomly generated by Brahman or some gay shit like that. It means nothing, and is reliant on the insistence that the Upanishads and Vedas are the only things that can be correct. The goal of religion is ultimately to bring spiritual fulfillment, not to satisfy the brain with logical understanding.
>atman is not brahman. Atman is to jiva as brahman is to maya. It is analogic. Not representational
Good point, this is the most lucid way of viewing them.
About Shaivism, you're mostly right. The Buddhist influence on Tantra is massive, but the theory is ultimately unique from Buddhist principles. Syncreticism is always good for spiritual health. Just look at China, they freely mix every faith that gets big!
>Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, & Aurobindo >>> Guenon and Evola and Crowley
Vivekananda in particular has had a massive influence on international thought, and essentially kickstarted the massive interest in Hinduism outside of orientalist circles.

>>22351763
>I don't understand why /lit/ ONLY knows about Advaita and Buddhism

>>22351873
Haven't read Kant but might read Hegel one day. The farthest I know of western thought are the scholastics. I also meant that /lit/ is hyperfocused on those two when looking at eastern philosophy.

Threda died when I asked this last time.
So who won?

>>22351930
guenonfag is a schizo so the other guy for keeping up with him

>>22351763
>I don't understand why /lit/ only knows about Advaita and Buddhism
The first is because there's one schizophrenic who spews his textual diarrhea everywhere and the second is because a popular podcast about Buddhism started during COVID lockdowns.

>>22348648
>is the answer to questions one may have of the apparent contradictory statements of certain nondualists, namely the Advaitins.
care to elaborate on this? i like vedanta butthe Advaita system always seemed to me full of contradictions and leaps of logic

>>22348180

yes, shiva

>>22350485
>I already made a detailed series of posts explaining why that’s wrong
not that anon, but you really did not, all you do is to say that Brahman can X because it's in his nature which is tautological and explain absolutely nothing

>>22352127
That's all he does. He just goes >its a tautology lol and can't into debate.

>>22352127
>>22352151
that's really all he does, it's incredible

>>22351871
Thank you. Keep on keeping on, sir. You seem to be on right track. Doin God's work too here in this thread providing some voices of sanity n whatnot.
>vivekananda essentially kickstarted
Indeed. Lotta history around advaita and the west that people overlook to their own detriment. Lookin into the circles and connections of like the world fair of religions and stuff is massively interesting and a veritable who's who of modern religious philosophy.
>saivism
Must confess I've never braved the Tantraloka nor Tantrasara. However I do love vigyan bhairav and shiva sutras and spanda karikas and recognition sutras. Tantra Illuminated is where most of my philosophical knowledge derives of that strain. Good book. Alas most lineages are defunct. But I believe Abhinavagupta himsef was somewhat of a revivalist of tantra who promoted transmission through books and self-initiation as well. Yano actually Ramarkishna who initated Vivekananda was a bit of a tantrika. I believe Aurobindo too.
>>22351887
Hegel is good. Kant is aiit but kinna autistic. Aurobindo actually is influenced by Hegel. And tangentially if you like nondual Buddhism, Kyoto school has neat zen on Hegel and Heidi takes as well.
>>22352067
Any philosophy can be interesting. Some would say any system is either incomplete or inconsitent. Others would say this is a misapplication of Goedel. I myself try to worry bout the spirit and not the words themselves...

>>22351617
>I thought that we both used the term enough to assume that the other was familiar with its definition.
The very first sentence of the article says it's a fuzzy concept, again you rely on citing undefined vague terms in order allege a connection, non-dualism is as vague a term as "philosophy" or "theology" unless you specify what type of non-dualism because it can be and is interpreted to means dozens of different things, so simply saying both are non-dual is like saying "Plato and the Greek Sophists were both philosophers"
>Nothing in the world (including nothing itself) is true according to the Mulamadhyamakakarika, and plurality is eliminated by the attainment of Nirvana.
He doesn't say that nothing is true, he says there is no ultimate truth, the world is conventionally true, but unlike in Advaita where the conventional illusion actually doesn't exist, the conventionally true for Nagarjuna doesn't mean "actually non-existent", so when he says that the world is conventionally true that's not negating plurality as less-than-existent but plurality remains as existent. Furthermore since he identifies the realm of empty samsara as being Nirvana itself, that essentially makes Samsara-Nirvana into what actually exists, and when someone attains Parinirvana they are vanishing from the 'what is actually existent' realm of Samsara-Nirvana, plurality is not negated except in the sense that when you lose your cognitive faculty in Parinirvana you can't perceive anymore while it continues existing (under this standard a materialist conception of death """negates plurality""" which shows how nonsense that claim is)
>Name some, since I understand that the non-dual movement only really grew large in the medieval period.
The Vaishnavite Bhagavata's were already a Pan-Indian movement in the 2nd century AD and are referenced in the Brahma Sutras which dates from possibly earlier, in the Bhagavata teaching and the Pancharatra texts which are the source of that teaching, normal people are unaware of their essential nature as being Brahman (the lower truth) and through spiritual practice this is revealed (the higher truth)

"In the niṣkala type of yoga the yogin meditates upon the ultimate reality, with the result that his own essence as Brahman is revealed to him"
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-3/d/doc209940.html

This above quote is from a discussion of the Jayākhya Samhitā which has been dated as early as 300 AD, the Bhagavata movement itself originates hundreds of years earlier than this in the BC era and the Pancharatra texts reflect their earlier teachings. There is no need for Gaudapada to obtain this from Nagarjuna when the idea of a "hidden higher truth being revealed that supercedes the earlier mundane worldview" is found in the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad-Gita, in the Puranas, and in the pan-Indian Bhagavata movement that was long before his time as well as their Pancharatra literature

>>22351617
>I never said that it should be taken as true, and have always maintained that it was a plausible theory.
You said things earlier that contradict that agnostic ambivalent attitude
>revealed the Upanishads, it was clearly directly acting on Samsara there.
The exact same power projects both, the scripture is just a part of Samsara
>Unless the act was completely random, it clearly displayed some concern for ignorance there.
It's not random because the reason is Brahman's nature, Brahman has no concerns but He has the nature of projecting Samsara such that it contains the means of release, as also karma, heaven, mahapralaya etc etc
>Then the Upanishads are a completely arbitrary creation caused by a random (and extremely axiomatic) characteristic of Brahman.
Anything that proceeds from the inherent nature of God by definition isn't random, since God's nature being fulfilled or actualized through its downstream consequences when the power is "activated" is the reason, the Upanishads teach axioms about God, it's not a bad thing
>Explain to me why Brahman had to reveal to the Upanishads, if not arbitrary chance.
If He didn't it would be contrary to His own nature, but Brahman does not violate or contradict His own nature
>The constant emphasis of the utter detachment of Brahman from all endeavours towards the attainment of Brahman is very nihilistic.
Not really, it doesn't make spiritual life and the pursuit of moksha pointless or anything but they still have great value

>>22351617
>Where exactly in the Upanishads is it stated that Brahman could not care about ignorance in the slightest?
The Upanishads consistently present the Brahman-Atman as partless pure consciousness that is beyond all ignorance, hunger, pain, sin, death etc and without mind and intellect, the Brihadaranyaka has multiple passages about the Brahman-Atman being misidentifed with the intellect and mental functions like thinking when It's really beyond these, the Mandukya verse 7 says that Turiya which represents the Supreme Brahman is "not that which is conscious of the internal world, nor that which is conscious of the external world, nor that which is conscious of both" and that It is "not related to anything" and "essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone" and "negation of all phenomena". Furthermore the Upanishads stress that Brahman is unchanging and a completely unchanging entity doesn't having changing knowledge of things and/or cares about them.
>The "background metaphysics" are what would Shankaracharya his fame
Not really, his philosophy of the Self and related doctrines of spiritual practice/introspection is just as influential if not more. The first few generations of post-Shankara Advaitins are not very concerned with the metaphysics and mainly are focused on further explaining the doctrines related to the understanding and correction of spiritual ignorance and attaining right Atma-vidya etc, which goes to show that people were fascinated by his spiritual exegesis/teachings and not just his metaphysics
>and are the reason Advaitins are generally shunned as crypto-nihilists by severing any connection to Brahman.
Realizing Brahman as wholly identical your own innermost self is such an intimate acquaintance with Brahman that it transcends relational terms, you can't get closer to God than complete and unconditional identity with Him

>>22351791
>alas now it has been mostly appropriated by occult and perennialist westerners a la Guenon, Crowley, et al.
Advaita still thrives and continues in India in traditional monasteries and Advaita temples as it has for many centuries. All of these western people are ultimately irrelevant to the actual continuation of the thriving tradition itself and they have not "interrupted" or "changed" the actual tradition itself which continues just as ever.

>>22352127
>not that anon, but you really did not,
I was talking about another thread where I pointed out that Gaudapada was both arguing for a different conclusion than Nagarjuna and with a different logical method/analysis, it wasn't about Brahman's nature.
>because it's in his nature which is tautological and explain absolutely nothing
A tautology in logic isn't automatically a bad thing, for example if the Upanishads really do reveal the ultimate truth about reality, then to say that "the Upanishads teach us that Brahman does X because He simply has that nature" would indeed reveal the truth about existence and God even if it seemed tautological.

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

—Jonathan Swift

>>22352215
>Lotta history around advaita and the west that people overlook to their own detriment
Based Bengalis won't let people forget. I was in the Howrah train station once and someone noticed the book I was reading (I think it was the windup bird chronicle) and started talking about it. Somehow he started talking about how great Vivekananda was during it.
>Must confess I've never braved the Tantraloka nor Tantrasara
Unless you really want to, it definitely isn't necessary. Also, the loss of the great northern sects under the Delhi sultanate then the Mughals truly is tragic, since we only have their ideas left.
Also, thanks for the rec, I'll look at the zen dialogues later.
>>22352225
>The very first sentence of the article says it's a fuzzy concept
I already seconded that statement. Also, you were using the term perfectly freely until you suddenly changed your mind and demanded a rigorous definition now. You know as well as I do that "non-dualism" is a convenient term used to group together both schools because of the similarity of their cosmologies, with the differences only being in presentation.
>paragraph 2
Yes, I know how neti neti works and what Nagarjuna advocates for. I don't see how the removal of samsara from the self does not remove the plurality of conditional reality in exchange for the truth of nirvana. This is a bizarre interpretation of Nagarjuna.
>The Vaishnavite Bhagavata's were already a Pan-Indian movement in the 2nd century AD and are referenced in the Brahma Sutras
Bhavagata was definitely not non-dual, they had not developed their theory enough yet and were content with worship of an inner deity. The idea of Brahman being all is obviously not unique to Advaita.
>You said things earlier that contradict that agnostic ambivalent attitude
I have never said anything more than the fact that the idea was very plausible, don't mislead.
>Anything that proceeds from the inherent nature of God by definition isn't random, since God's nature being fulfilled or actualized through its downstream consequences when the power is "activated" is the reason, the Upanishads teach axioms about God, it's not a bad thing
This is the most spiritually dead theological argument I've seen in a long time. You are only using Brahman as a tool to state that your arguments are correct, there's no real value to that. Once again, the statement that Brahman has no cause to reveal the Upanishads but does so anyways and is correct by virtue of itself is masturbatory and thoroughly unfulfilling to the mind. Advaita is crypto-nihilism because it keeps stating that Brahman simply does not care.
>>22352241
>Mandukya verse 7
I interpret that verse as depicting nothing but a craving for the true nature of the Self. Avatars of deities are the anthropomorphisation of Brahman, and if we look at the Bhagavad Gita when Sri Krishna reveals his true form, I doubt that the mentality at the time was that Brahman was uncaring of humanity to this extent.

>>22348173
>a new mediocre demon from the nethers of the literati liar class to bedazzle midwits
I am just thrilled

>>22352365
>his philosophy of the Self and related doctrines of spiritual practice/introspection is just as influential if not more
Those doctrines necessarily lead to the worthless tautological view of the world that was so heavily criticised by Ramanuja. You can't argue on spiritual terms with that other anon because you are only concerned with mental masturbation over a tautological framework.
>>22352276
>Advaita still thrives and continues in India
Are any of the four dhams Advaitin? Do most Indians even care about Brahman to the extent of Advaita? I can safely answer no to these questions. Sure, it's a well-off sect, but it is far outstripped in relevance by the aimlessness of popular piety and Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism.
>>22352369
>A tautology in logic isn't automatically a bad thing
Let me start a new religion now with the following axioms.
1. I am god.
2. Anything I say goes because I am god, there is no reason for this but my own actions.
3. You're wrong.
Seriously defending tautologies is the death of both philosophy and religion.
>>22352333
God you're insufferable, I doubt you've even read that book.
>>22352369
At least you can smoke mad amounts of weed and undergo sex rituals while you're at it.

>>22352365
>You know as well as I do that "non-dualism" is a convenient term used to group together both schools because of the similarity of their cosmologies
Not really, Shankara and Tsongkhapa both claim to be non-dualists despite their philosophies being complete opposites in like every aspect from metaphysics to theory-of-mind, there are even pluralistic Samkhya/Yoga texts where they claim that their teaching is the real non-dualism. You seemed to be saying that anyone who accepts some lower mundane POV being superceded by a higher one are non-dualists since you said this was non-dualist teaching but under this definition almost every school of Indian thought is non-dualist including Dvaita. I think the Advaita definition more closely fits the etymology of the term itself but that doesn't stop all sorts of disparate philosophies from claiming the term.
>I don't see how the removal of samsara from the self does not remove the plurality of conditional reality in exchange for the truth of nirvana
Samsara *is* Nirvana, the only difference is an epistemic shift in one's POV, Parinirvana is when the body of a arahant or Buddha dies and they lose all cognitive faculties like skandhas etc, when these skandhas are lost the plurality in the Samsara-Nirvana continuum continues existing even though there is now one less mind that is perceiving it, it's not actually erased or effaced. That's hardly different from saying when a materialist dies the world continues existing even though their mind doesn't perceive it anymore. Nagarjuna doesn't say that plurality actually doesn't exist.
>Bhavagata was definitely not non-dual,
Now you are contradicting yourself, first you said that the notion of a lower mundane POV being superseded by a higher one is a non-dual teaching, but when it is pointed out that the Bhagavata texts clearly teach this you claim they aren't non-dual, so which one is it? You can't both have your cake and eat it too, you've argued yourself into a corner.
>This is the most spiritually dead theological argument I've seen in a long time
muh empty rhetoric
>You are only using Brahman as a tool to state that your arguments are correct,
Wrong, I'm simply explaining what the Advaitist position is and correcting inaccurate claims about it, I'm not even arguing that it's necessarily true
>Once again, the statement that Brahman has no cause to reveal the Upanishads but does so anyways and is correct by virtue of itself is masturbatory and thoroughly unfulfilling to the mind
When you realize the unconditional and complete identity of Brahman and the Atman you are eternally fulfilled and don't care about muh emotional fulfillment anymore
>Advaita is crypto-nihilism because it keeps stating that Brahman simply does not care. there's no real value to that.
hurr durr needs more sentimentalism

>>22352429
>first paragraph
Ontologically, the framework of non-dualistic thought is common in the regards that it posits a lower and higher reality. Non-dualism is clearly a recent phenomenon, given that something like the Yoga Sutras are purely dualistic.
>Samsara *is* Nirvana
I don't think you understand how the Buddhist conception of the not-self works. To the Buddhists, you are deluded into the illusion of the self by conditional objects, and your separation from this delusion frees you of craving. The four noble truths apply to all humanity, and Paranirvana is attained after you have freed yourself from bondage to the objects through attaining Nirvana. This is fairly basic Buddhism.
>third paragraph
I clearly haven't. Non-dual elements in Bhagavata texts only appear after the advent of Advaita (which you already know means non-dual), and before that it was just a form of worship of a higher god that freely incorporated dualist elements. You haven't read most things you cite.
>everything else
Are you a crypto-nihilist? This is nihilism that casts aside spiritual achievement for worthless intellectualism.

>>22352365
>I interpret that verse as depicting nothing but a craving for the true nature of the Self.
That has nothing to do with anything said by the text itself but is just your own imagination (svakapola kalpita), under the Mimamsa hermeneutical rules that all Vedantins accept as the orthodox guidelines to interpreting scriptural it's not allowed to give fanciful meanings to text which has nothing to do with their surface meaning. Even if you give a figurative meaning there has to be strong reasons for this and it still has to be related in some way to the text, the Mandukya doesn't say anything about Turiya being related to craving for anything but it directly says that Turiya is the Self. If you just make up random shit which has nothing to do with the text why then even put on a pretense of having any sort of serious argument anymore?

>Avatars of deities are the anthropomorphisation of Brahman, and if we look at the Bhagavad Gita when Sri Krishna reveals his true form, I doubt that the mentality at the time was that Brahman was uncaring of humanity to this extent.
Krishna says in 4-13 that he is actually a NON-DOER (and hence never really does anything) and in verse 4.6 says that He (Brahman) is truly birthless and only appears to be born through maya, and he adds in 7.24 that only "The unintelligent ...think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest." All of this implies that Brahman never actually does anything because of its non-doership and that the avatarship of Krishna is just an apparent image crafted by maya because Brahman has not actually changed from being unmanifest into manifesting (only the unintelligent think that according to the blue man himself)

>>22352395
>Those doctrines necessarily lead to the worthless tautological view of the world that was so heavily criticised by Ramanuja.
It's not spiritually worthless because it directs the aspirant to a realization which ends all grief, unhappyness, dissatisfactions etc forever and which is incredibly blissful according to the testimony of many who have reached it including in modern times like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaja etc, if it's so useless why is so much of India enthralled with Ramana Maharshi? The purpose of spirituality is not to give some mechanistic account of the evolution of the world in a way that satisfies any and every sort of hunger for conceptual proliferation or to satisfy one's curiosity.
>You can't argue on spiritual terms with that other anon because you are only concerned with mental masturbation over a tautological framework.
Ramanuja has plenty of tautologies too, he doesn't have any reason for why Brahman arranges the world that isn't based on taking scriptural statements at face value.
>Are any of the four dhams Advaitin?
Does it really matter? Not really, there are Advaitin temples and centers in every state in India from the foothills of the Himalayas to the south. Stuff about reaching moksha through visiting specific locations is really just popular superstition and not philosophically important, a lot of what goes in the Puranas is just superstition even though they have some valuable content too. Do you bathe in cow dung and drink cow urine? That's endorsed in the Puranas too buddy
>Sure, it's a well-off sect, but it is far outstripped in relevance
They don't care amount the masses, it's an elitist teaching that excludes the masses by default in case you forgot, they are heavyweights in the Sanskrit intellectual scene though and have been since formalizing as a school, that's one reason why it's so widely studied by Indians and foreign scholars.
>Let me start a new religion now with the following axioms.
dumb and immature strawman, you're acting like a 14 year old now

>>22352478
>svakapola kalpita
Where the hell do you pull these phrases out from? I've never seen this used before.
Also, my interpretation is not fantastical. The commentaries of that mantra confirm the total independence of Turiya, and that it represents the self. It is meant to remove all falsehoods and show the Ideal, showing the reader the proper state of existence. However, while the reveals the path to attain the Absolute, it does not alienate Brahman. The reason for this is in the next response.
>second paragraph
The commentaries show that 4-13 verses emphasise the impartiality of Brahman to your individual actions and to existing systems. However, this does not prevent it from having direction, since Krishna literally states that he created those systems. How can you fail to read even the simplest commentaries?
The other verses show the separation of Krishna from temporal issues. Brahman is neutral in relation to your actions but it is also a creator and has direction, with the great texts showing its interactions in ways beyond soulless tautology.
>according to the blue man himself
Kek, you don't even know the meaning of his name.

>>22352471
>the framework of non-dualistic thought is common in the regards that it posits a lower and higher reality.
So then Nagarjuna isn't a non-dualist since he argues against doing that consistently, you contradicted yourself for a second time now
>I don't think you understand how the Buddhist conception of the not-self works. To the Buddhists, you are deluded into the illusion of the self by conditional objects, and your separation from this delusion frees you of craving. The four noble truths apply to all humanity, and Paranirvana is attained after you have freed yourself from bondage to the objects through attaining Nirvana. This is fairly basic Buddhism.
I know dumbass, none of that refutes Nagarjuna's explicit statements that Nirvana is wholly identical with Samsara, and he also doesn't posit Parinirvana to be any sort of higher reality
>Non-dual elements in Bhagavata texts only appear after the advent of Advaita
I already cited the idea of a lower mundane understanding being superceded by a higher one where oneself is identified with Brahman in the Pancharatra text the Jayākhya Samhitā which has been dated as early as 300 AD which is 2 centuries before Gaudapda, according to you yourself this is a "non-dual" concept. This concept also appears in the Upanishads and Gita so if the appearance of that idea is non-dual as you already said then the Upanishads and Gita are non-dual and Gaudapada could have gotten his distinction straight from them.
>Are you a crypto-nihilist? This is nihilism that casts aside spiritual achievement for worthless intellectualism.
This is just an emotional appeal by you, it's not a serious argument at all and your claim that it's worthless is contradicted by the many non-dualist popular saints revered across India up until modern times and the beautiful texts they have composed. Intellectuality and spirituality are not opposed but they can go hand-in-hand. Knowledge is nectar.

>>22352151
>>22352210
is that the legendary guenonfag?

>>22351988
by what marks may we recognize the one true guenonfag?

>>22352523
>paragraph one
The two scholars you listed are late non-dualists who incorporated tantric practices into their teachings. The ideological emptiness Shankara was abandoned by his later students in favour of the far more fulfilling practises of Kashmir Shaivism.
>The purpose of spirituality is not to give some mechanistic account of the evolution of the world in a way that satisfies any and every sort of hunger for conceptual proliferation or to satisfy one's curiosity
...That's literally Shankara and Gaudapada.
>Ramanuja has plenty of tautologies too
I already said that I haven't read Ramanuja, so this isn't very important to me.
>Does it really matter?
They are by far the most relevant pilgrimage sites, so definitely so. You admit the importance of temples but dislike the dhams because they're superstitious?
>they are heavyweights in the Sanskrit intellectual scene
True, alongside every other major school. In addition, you ignore that there are elitist Vaishnavists as well, and that tantra has superseded stagnant Upanishadic literalism in terms of significance.
>dumb and immature strawman, you're acting like a 14 year old now
Calling me immature for disliking the tautological endpoint of Advaita is disingenuous, especially when you were previously accepting that it was a matter of faith.

>>22352537
>Where the hell do you pull these phrases out from? I've never seen this used before.
I read it in a recorded and transcribed debate of when an initiated Advaitin monk at one of the mathas BTFO some dumb modernist propounding some modernist interpretation of Advaita.
>The commentaries of that mantra confirm the total independence of Turiya, and that it represents the self.
That contradicts what you just said about that passage being about desire for the Self instead of it just directly indicating the nature of the Brahman-Atman
>It is meant to remove all falsehoods and show the Ideal, showing the reader the proper state of existence. However, while the reveals the path to attain the Absolute, it does not alienate Brahman. The reason for this is in the next response.
You're not supposed to interpret Sruti according to Smrit, your logic is backwards, Sruti supersedes Smriti, the Gita is supposed to be interpreted according to the Upanishads and not vice-versa
>The commentaries show that 4-13 verses emphasise the impartiality of Brahman to your individual actions and to existing systems. However, this does not prevent it from having direction, since Krishna literally states that he created those systems.
He literally refers to himself as a non-doer which mean literally that he doesn't act, it doesn't say anything about impartiality that's more svakapola kalpita. In the same way that Krishna says he isn't really manifested and that only the unintelligent think he is and that his manifestation just appears through maya, the same is true of all actions that can be said about Krishna/Brahman, this is the interpretation that preserves the meaning of the text without adding fanciful notions not found in the text, and it's also more in accordance with the Upanishads which the Gita like all Smritis derives its legitimacy from.

>>22352577
>by what marks may we recognize the one true guenonfag?
see >>22352333

>>22352551
>So then Nagarjuna isn't a non-dualist
Nirvana is still the Absolute, regardless of how you cope. The difference to Gaudapada is that it exists simultaneously with samsara, making it still non-dualism. I swear, every time you make a gotcha statement it's one of your weakest points.
>none of that refutes Nagarjuna's explicit statements that Nirvana is wholly identical with Samsara
You still don't understand. Nirvana is the Absolute truth with supersedes the nonexistent conditional reality through attainment of Nirvana.
>third paragraph
The fact that you force a non-dualist interpretation on that quote speaks measures to your desperation. Of course Brahman appeared in the Upanishads, but the non-dualistic interpretation of it is uniquely due to AV, which you have admitted by saying that the theory of the self was one of the great contributions of Shankaracharya. Much like Yoga, it's simply too old for your revisionism to make it into a non-dualist statement.

>>22352583
>The two scholars you listed are late non-dualists who incorporated tantric practices into their teachings.
They are both pointing to the same ultimate conclusion as Advaita and both say that the Self is truly immutable and never really does anything. Both of them fully endorsed Shankara and would read his works,
>The ideological emptiness Shankara was abandoned by his later students in favour of the far more fulfilling practises of Kashmir Shaivism.
Not at all, also that's super vague. If you mean those two modern people mentioned neither was actually initiated into formal Advaita, that they ended up teaching the same thing anyway shows how influential it is. From the 15th-16th century it's more common for Advaita to incorporate Yoga practices if anything and not KS but without abandoning its Advaita metaphysics. The monks today at the mathas accept the same metaphysics as Shankara and the Advaitins 200 or 300 years after Shankara.
>...That's literally Shankara and Gaudapada.
Except it's not you dumbass, that forms literally like 3% or 4% of what Shankara writes about, and Shankara doesn't even go into great detail on this because it's not his main focus, his main focus being spiritual introspection and reaching proper knowledge of the Self; I'm just able to extrapolate from the tiny portions of Shankara's works where he discusses this because I've read all his works. Shaivism posits a way more convoluted mechanistic-like explanation of the worlds origination that involves all these totally arbitrary lists of sub-levels and types of powers like it designed for someone with autism.
>You admit the importance of temples
Because of the tradition of learning and spiritual instruction there, not because of superstition "What indeed is here, is there; what is there, is here likewise" - Katha Upanishad 2-1-10
>Calling me immature for disliking
No I called you immature for the cheap strawman

>>22352551
>This is just an emotional appeal by you
I agree that my statement is rhetorical. Also, notable non-dualists figures who solely promote the Advaitin view are rare.
>>22352590
>BTFO some dumb modernist propounding some modernist interpretation of Advaita
Based, link it.
>contradicts what you just said about that passage being about desire
When I said "desire," I meant that increased understanding of the self drives the reader to achieve the goal of the Upanishads.
>Sruti supersedes Smriti
I accepted the independence of the self, and referenced the elaboration of this concept in the Bhagavad Gita.
>last paragraph
Let's look at that verse:
>The four categories of occupations were created by Me according to people’s qualities and activities. Although I am the Creator of this system, know Me to be the Non-doer and Eternal.
The commentary by Swami Mukundananda in the site I copied this off of, he says, "God provides the souls with the energy to act, but they are free in determining what they wish to do with it; God is not responsible for their actions." Krishna demonstrates his impartiality here, but also clearly performed the act of creating the Vedic caste system. As he speaks for Brahman, this gives direction to Brahman despite its ultimate neutrality. A connection does exist, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
I'm gonna sleep now, we can argue once I'm up.

>>22352625
>Because of the tradition of learning and spiritual instruction there, not because of superstition
One last comment before I go; this is a perfect example of one of the weaknesses of Advaita. What counts as valuable content in the Puranas can change, as the authors of those works clearly believed in the significance of bathing in cow dung. You don't and most Indians don't for the obvious reason that culture has changed, and interpretation of the texts with it. In claiming to simply extract what is evident from the texts, Shankara refuses to accept that "evident" views of a text, especially something as dense as the Upanishads, can change to extreme extents. I have already said this in that other thread.

>>22352602
>Nirvana is still the Absolute, regardless of how you cope.
He literally writes that its the same as samsara and that there is no difference between them, do I really have to cite the passages? I thought you claimed to have read the MMK...
>The difference to Gaudapada is that it exists simultaneously with samsara, making it still non-dualism. I swear, every time you make a gotcha statement it's one of your weakest points.
No dumbass, Nagarjuna says they are literally identical while for Gaudapada the Absolute is a higher unconditioned Reality that isn't identical with or reducible to samsara; it's two totally different positions
>>none of that refutes Nagarjuna's explicit statements that Nirvana is wholly identical with Samsara
>You still don't understand. Nirvana is the Absolute truth with supersedes the nonexistent conditional reality through attainment of Nirvana.
More svakapola kalpita, Nagarjuna doesn't say that anywhere and he explicitly refutes that (he says there IS NO absolute truth), you are confusing basic-bitch Theravada/Abhidharma with Nagarjuna's position. Nagarjuna never says that conventional reality doesn't exist either.
>Of course Brahman appeared in the Upanishads, but the non-dualistic interpretation of it is uniquely due to AV
No it's not, the Upanishads say in many passages that "Atman is Brahman", the word "advaita" itself appears in the Brihadaranyaja
>which you have admitted by saying that the theory of the self was one of the great contributions of Shankaracharya.
He simply did the best job of unpacking what the Upanishads had already taught, the Samkhyins already got like 75% of this right but didn't realize that the Upanishads (a) affirm a Supreme Being (b) refute a plurality of Selves and (c) refute the reality of plurality in general, and Shankara was not the first person to hold this view either and neither was Gaudapada, early Vedantins and non-Hindu sources cite thinkers and anonymous thinkers who closely resemble this

>>22352630
>Also, notable non-dualists figures who solely promote the Advaitin view are rare.
Wrong, there are plenty like Suresvara, Padmapada, Sarvajnatman, Prakasatman, Dharmaraja Adhvarindra, Chitsukha, Sriharsa, Nrisimhashrama, Vimuktatman, the list goes on. These people stretch across the centuries and almost all are significant enough that they each have their own section in Dasguptas encyclopedia of Indian thought.
>Based, link it.
https://www.academia.edu/31458932/MUlAvidya_vimarshe_A_Critique_of_Root_Ignorance
>When I said "desire," I meant that increased understanding of the self drives the reader to achieve the goal of the Upanishads.
Well if you agree that the verse in question presents the nature of the Brahman-Atman that is Turiya then that is all the more reason to accept it's statements about the Turiya being unrelated to anything and not conscious of the external world or internal world
>but also clearly performed the act of creating the Vedic caste system
That's wrongly abandoning the clear meaning of the text for an inferred one, while on the other hand reading the "acts" as just being maya has explicit support in other passages and preserves the clearly intended message of non-doership and unchanging immutability of Brahman intact. Furthermore Krishna speaks about himself (representing Brahman) being the inner Self and says that the Self is a non-doer, which further confirms that the Brahman-Atman is a non-doer. All actions are performed by unintelligent prakriti and this is equally true of the Highest Brahman and the Atman (since they are the same thing):

"The actions (karmāṇi) are performed (kriyamāṇāni) completely (sarvaśas) by the qualities (guṇaiḥ) of Prakṛti (prakṛteḥ). One who is deluded and bewildered (vimūḍha-ātmā) by (his) ego (ahaṅkāra) thinks (manyate): 'I (aham) (am) the doer (kartā... iti)'"
- Bhagavad-Gita verse 3.27

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3

>>22352649
>What counts as valuable content in the Puranas can change
What can be considered as practical value can change, but the essential spiritual value is supposed to be derived from Sruti alone and reflect the Sruti: the very classification of Smriti to which Puranas belongs mean "what is remembered", what is being remembered? What was heard by the Vedic rishis (Sruti = heard)
>especially something as dense as the Upanishads, can change to extreme extents.
According to all major Hindu theologians the Sruti is eternal, they agree with eachother (uniformity of message) and appear in every new universe after the previous mahapralaya and it's essential teaching is always the same, the idea that the view taught by the Upanishads changes because of historical changes is basically a secular modernist view and not a traditional Hindu one

>>22350485
>Nagarjuna’s argument of mutual independence (emptiness) while that’s arguably Nagarjuna’s central method
this is incredibly wrong, so wrong i doubt you even read the wikipedia article on Nagarjuna, this "argument of mutual independecne" doesn't exist and emptiness is the exact opposite, emptiness is the "interdependence" of all things as the basis of existence instead of a susbtance/substratum (svabhaba)

Also sunyata is mahayana then they realize their anti-buddhist stance and have to claim emptiness is empty. Whereas the buddha says wanting things to have a true nature in the first place is a huge mistake. Lots of newcomers in Buddhism make this mistake, mostly due to their background.
The Buddha uses the word '' empty" of a self, ie anatta, way more frequently than ''emptiness''. If emptiness was the jewel of Buddhism, the frequencies would have been the opposite.

The jewel of his teaching is not emptiness applied to the universe, but anatta applied to the senses.

It's the same situation when he uses the word ''world'', ie the senses, and the buddha doesn't give a damn about the universe or the whole world or whatever.

And by the way not caring about the cosmos, universe, the whole world is precisely what salvages buddhism over the religions.

The whole point of the buddha is that you don't have burn all your karma, nor to care about the universe, nor find out where it comes from, nor gods and whatever made up myth by the normies and intellectuals and drug addicts, in order to end suffering.

Oh neat! A shaivism thread. Something new for a change
>Checks the thread out
>It's just another BDSM vs. Advaita match

>>22352127
The Absolute must contain every single possiblity, including the ones which are not absolute by themselves.

>>22348180
God is omnipresent and infinite, therefore it's impossible to worship a God that isn't the one true God.

If you disagree, your god is neither omnipresent nor infinite

>>22353090
that's not the advaita framework tho
>>22351297
>Madhyamaka say the absolute IS relative reality and vice versa
the relative reality is,by deffinition, part of the absolute
while the Advaitins don't, there is a fundamental difference.
if there's something outside the absolute then is, by deffinition, no longer the absolute

>>22352296
>A tautology in logic isn't automatically a bad thing, for example if the Upanishads really do reveal the ultimate truth about reality, then to say that "the Upanishads teach us that Brahman does X because He simply has that nature" would indeed reveal the truth about existence and God even if it seemed tautological.
that's an argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority fallacy and circular reasoning, how do i know that brahman exist? because the upanishads said so- and how do i know the upanishads are true?- because they're the revealed truth of brahman- and how do i know that brahman exist?- and so on and so on

>>22352821
> this is incredibly wrong, so wrong i doubt you even read the wikipedia article on Nagarjuna, this "argument of mutual independecne" doesn't exist and emptiness is the exact opposite, emptiness is the "interdependence" of all things
It was a typo you dumbass, I corrected it immediately afterwards in the very next post where I wrote *mutual interdependence. But you were in such a rush to get your “gotcha” that you didnt see that i already corrected it myself. Retard.

>>22353142
> the relative reality is,by deffinition, part of the absolute
Nagarjuna writes that they are the same and not that one is a part of the other
> if there's something outside the absolute then is, by deffinition, no longer the absolute
The Absolute is the ontological basis of the non-Absolute and ‘houses’ or ‘grounds’ it in that sense, but Reality and unreality are not spatially related in the same of being in the same plane of space, that’s a very simplistic and also incorrect understanding, the illusion has no physical location, the very idea of there being distinct locations is part of the illusion. Speaking about the Absolute and the illusion as being spatially related is based on mistakenly taking a frame of reference that only pertains to the illusion and trying to apply it to the Absolute. In reality there are no locations but just undivided infinite Brahman everywhere, the illusion isn’t found at any particular “location” in this since there are no locations in reality, it is virtual. The places in your dreams don’t have any location either and a comparison can be made here.

>>22352296

it's still false and logically faulty, because you're taking the value of truth of the propositions "brahman can do x, because it'sin his nature" from something outside the argument in this case the upanishads

>>22353447
lmao dude a typo is gwtting a letter or word wrong, you went out of your way to actually type the exact opposite of what sunyata is, you can't call anyone retard

>>22348180
Reveres enlightened master(s)*

>>22353171
> that's an argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority fallacy and circular reasoning
That would only be a fallacy if I was trying to prove that Brahman exists you dumbass, but Advaita explicitly rejects that Brahman is proved by any sort of logical proofs, Advaita is meant for Hindus who already accept the Vedas and Upanishads as revealed because of them being Hindus. They give reasons for why non-Advaita accounts of the universe make less sense logically speaking but they don’t take these brief arguments as any sort of infallible proof of Brahman. When as your starting axiom as a Hindu one accepts that the Sruti is revealed and reveals the truth about Brahman and the nature of existence then to accept this is not any sort of logical or argumentative fallacy, it’s just being consistent with one’s starting axioms; those are only fallacies if you try to use them in an argument in order to positively prove a claim by citing the scripture and saying it proves the claim true, I’ve never done that and Advaita doesn’t do that. They just cite scripture when debating other Hindus who already accept the Sruti is revealed on matters of scriptural interpretation in which case it’s not a fallacy because in that case it’s a dispute about how to rightly interpret a text that both parties regard as revealed, it’s not trying to prove that the scripture reveals the truth about God in the first place. Buddhists take as their starting axiom that Buddha has supernatural insight into the true nature of reality and remembered his past lives and intuited karma and rebirth and all sorts of supernatural crap which is no different really than believing a scripture is revealed as your starting axiom.

>how do i know that brahman exist?
It’s presupposed already if you are a Hindu, this isn’t profane western philosophy, it’s not designed for or aimed at convincing a skeptic existing in his own vacuum.

>>22353456
>Nagarjuna writes that they are the same and not that one is a part of the other
citation needed
>the illusion has no physical location
but i thought brahman was beyond space and time
>Speaking about the Absolute and the illusion as being spatially related
Nagarjuna don't talk about the absolute in spatial but gnoseological terms, relative and absolute form of knowledge
>the illusion has no physical location
okey so the illusion has no location, gotcha
>n reality there are no locations but just undivided infinite Brahman everywhere
so brahman has no location either, so why we're talking about space? both brahman and maya are beyond space, so they have that in common, they're not really divided in different spatial categories, you just contradict yourself in the same sentence
>e places in your dreams don’t have any location either and a comparison can be made here.
yes but "MY" dreams are a part of me, so that just shows the problems with the advaita system

>>22353462
> lmao dude a typo is gwtting a letter or word wrong, you went out of your way to actually type the exact opposite of what sunyata is, you can't call anyone retard
No, I meant to write “mutual interdependence” but I forgot the “ter” so it came out as “independence”, I obviously meant to write “mutual interdependnece” since you can see by the timing of the post immediately afterwards that I saw the typo and corrected it in *less than a minute* of posting the post with the typo

>>22353460
see >>22353483

>>22353483
>Buddhists take as their starting axiom that Buddha has supernatural insight into the true nature of reality and remembered his past lives and intuited karma and rebirth and all sorts of supernatural crap which is no different really than believing a scripture is revealed as your starting axiom.
not really, nuddhadhamma is a shramana tradition,all you need to be a buddhist is to accept the challenge of finding how suffering molds your thoughts and find ways to achieve freedom from that, buddha himself said that speculating about past lves and karma just obfuscates the mind, there's no need for a unproven dogmatic principle, but a empirical starting point to develop self discovery, no one can do the work for yousrelf, not even a god, the fundamental principle of buddhism is your own will and hard work, that's why buddhist don't call themselves devotees but practitioners, there's a huge difference between a system rooted on metaphysical speculation and one rooted in pragmatic empirical observations

>Shaivism thread
>Guenonfag changes it do advaita general
Fuck is wrong with this retard

>>22353484
> citation needed
In on my phone so I cant search the text but see pic related, everyone who studies him is aware of this quote where he says that there is not the slightest difference between samsara and nirvana and there is not one distinct from the other
> but i thought brahman was beyond space and time
He is, which is another way of saying the Absolute isn’t bound or delimited in the terms that only characterize and pertain to the illusion alone. Brahman is beyond space and time but beyond this illusion Brahman is infinite, but there is not a “infinite physical space” containing infinite Brahman, space/locations is itself part of the illusion and not outside it.
> so brahman has no location either, so why we're talking about space?
I’m only negating space as something which does not really pertain to the Absolute as It exists in Its own absolute reality
>both brahman and maya are beyond space, so they have that in common
The manifested cosmos (what people often call maya) is really the reflection of maya on the cosmic level *as* prakriti (as opposes to the non-reflected power/potency inhering in Brahman Itself as non-different from It) but this is not a hugely important distinction that changes much. This prakriti does not have a particular location since locations are an illusory concept that is derivative of the prakriti, while having no identifiable location it’s unfolding forms the perception of all locations.
>they're not really divided in different spatial categories, you just contradict yourself
No, I didn’t, even though both have no physical location, the illusion of location doesn’t characterize Brahman while it on the other hand characterizes prakriti.
> yes but "MY" dreams are a part of me, so that just shows the problems with the advaita system
Buddhism doesn’t say to identify with the mind but Buddha says your mind is not your self, so I dont know why you call the mind “me”. In any case the example shows how something which has no physical location (the places in dreams) can be subjectively experienced and this same principle can be extended to the subjective perception of samsara, you can say “well but my mind causes the experience of the dream which has no location” and I can equally say back “yes and Brahman causes the experience of the illusory samsara which has no location”

>>22353504
> all you need to be a buddhist is to accept the challenge of finding how suffering molds your thoughts and find ways to achieve freedom from that, buddha himself said that speculating about past lves and karma just obfuscates the mind, there's no need for a unproven dogmatic principle
Buddha himself teaches karma and rebirth as dogmatic metaphysical principles, and following his system only makes sense if one accepts karma and rebirth since following Buddhism is done to end the cycle of rebirth, it’s modernist revisionist garbage to say that the point is just some “mental wellness” without a concern for future births, the dogmas of rebirth and karma underpin the justification for the whole enterprise.

>>22353527
>”Noooooo he’s done it again, somebody stop this madman” anon impotently squeals

>>22353539
knowledge of karma and rebirth are not even supramundane and not specific to buddhism, ie buddhism doesn't claim to have the monopoly of the method to acquire this mundane knowledge

>>22353547
you write lika a faggot

>>22352625
>Both of them fully endorsed Shankara and would read his works,
Of course they did, but instead of the weak conclusive metaphysics of Advaita, they turned to tantra instead. Want me to find evidence?
>The monks today at the mathas accept the same metaphysics as Shankara and the Advaitins 200 or 300 years after Shankara.
You lie and exaggerate as usual, since the medieval period led to a significant loss of written sources on many schools, especially niche ones like AV. As you often seem to do, you make silly claims without any proof.
Also, I think you have forgotten that yantra is probably the most important esoteric form of yoga…
>To give a single, surprising example: scholars have yet to provide even a rudimentary, let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita Vedanta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period, though this history is precisely what set the stage for its modern reception. Scholarship on Advaita Vedanta has tended to focus overwhelmingly on Sankara, the founding figure of the tradition, but our knowledge of the thousand-year period between the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya and the lectures of Svami Vivekananda remains largely incomplete.
From an article I can’t post because of spam filtre, but you can easily find.
>that forms literally like 3% or 4% of what Shankara writes about
Don’t try and reduce the graveness of this worldview now that I’ve criticised it. It doesn’t matter how often it appears, since an unfulfilling tautology is the endpoint of the faith.
>Because of the tradition of learning and spiritual instruction there, not because of superstition
So faith in the Upanishads is fine but pilgrimages are useless superstition? You cherrypick and ignore the fulfillment that going to Puri can bring, despite you yourself admitting the importance of introspective cultivation in a faithful soul.
>I called you immature for the cheap strawman
It’s an extreme example of a tautology, and what you get when you insist that it’s fine to use a tautology in philosophical debate.
>>22352660
>He literally writes that its the same as samsara
And you failed to understand what he meant by that. Do you know how Buddha-nature works? All beings have to ability to reach Nirvana within them, since it is omnipresent, but are deluded by impulses of samsara. It is still the Absolute, and we are only temporarily separate from it due to our samsara.
>>22352649
>you are confusing basic-bitch Theravada/Abhidharma with Nagarjuna's position
He literally talks about Buddha-nature and obviously accepts it, but keep lying.
>He simply did the best job of unpacking what the Upanishads had already taught
This statement is dogmatic, since we can’t be sure of the objective truth. For example, Shankara cuts out parts of the Puranas as superstition while keeping certain elements he considers true knowledge. I’m fairly certain the authors, who chose to include those recommendations, would disagree with him there.

>>22353596
> knowledge of karma and rebirth are not even supramundane and not specific to buddhism, ie buddhism doesn't claim to have the monopoly of the method to acquire this mundane knowledge
That doesn’t change anything since they aren’t empirically perceivable as having any effect in the post-death stage and they aren’t confirmable, and the main point is that they are only accepted on the basis of either religious dogma (taught by Buddha or another religion) or just general Pan-Indian superstition, and that one of these fills the equivalent of taking a revealed scripture as your starting axiom, it’s not substantially different. Both a revealed scripture and karma/rebirth are form a kind of a non-empirical and non-confirmable dogma.

>>22352989
It would be best to ignore the shitshow and just post about the faith. In the last actual discussion I posted a few reading recs >>22351393.
>>22352691
>paragraph 1
Wow, a bunch of literal who medieval disciples of Shankara. Want me to do the same for tantric texts?
>https://www.academia.edu/31458932/MUlAvidya_vimarshe_A_Critique_of_Root_Ignorance
I think your issue is that you spend all your time reading academic texts like this instead of properly praying as an Advaitin. So, you’re stuck with the desire to debate everything and provoke others.
>that is all the more reason to accept it's statements about the Turiya being unrelated to anything and not conscious of the external world or internal world
Brahman may be detached, but it still as a consciousness. This is one of the main principles of Shaivism.
>Furthermore Krishna speaks about himself (representing Brahman) being the inner Self and says that the Self is a non-doer, which further confirms that the Brahman-Atman is a non-doer
If you read the commentary for the earlier verse, the commentator agrees that this symbolises how Krishna-Brahman has created all, but is impartial and allows free choice to the individual. In Shaivism, this reflects the total independence and simultaneous consciousness of Siva. Brahman has a consciousness, and it is the consciousness of Siva.
>>22352701
>first paragraph
Anyone who agrees that the Upanishads are revealed texts accept its spiritual value, so the practical interpretation is all that’s left. Advaitins will say that all necessary knowledge is contained within the Vedas and Upanishads, while Kashmir Saivites claim that the texts or Vasugupta are also revealed. Two completely different practical interpretations, then consider certain things and reject others.
>paragraph 2
As I said before, philosophy is considered the steady unveiling of the truth. While the Sruti remains constant, there can be further revelations such as that of the Siva-consciousness. You are stuck within the viewpoint of one school instead of accepting but disagreeing with the views of multiple, which is poison to the mind.

>>22353527
he gets reported and banned, but resets his ip to come back and troll. fucking obsessed shitter

>>22353611
> but instead of the weak conclusive metaphysics of Advaita, they turned to tantra instead. Want me to find evidence?
Sure, you can try, both men admit that the Self is truly just as Advaita says it is. Ramana Maharshi used the teaching of drishti-shishti-vada from the Yoga
Vasistha but said that it was only for teaching purposes and didnt say it was ultimately true.
> You lie and exaggerate as usual, since the medieval period led to a significant loss of written sources on many schools, especially niche ones like AV.
AV isn’t niche but it was Pan-Indian and it dominated the intellectual scene, to be taken seriously you had to either be an Advaitin or be able to present a contrasting vision to them and argue why yours was better, that’s why Ramanuja feels compelled to seethe at them for so many pages because he considered it one of his main competitors. Also, my statement that they teach the same metaphysics is verifiable since at the Advaita Mathas they still teach Advaita based on the sub-commentaries of Advaitins who are Shankara direct students or lived with 1 generation of him. Notable Advaitins 2, 3, 4 etc centuries later still defend this same metaphysics. We have works from notable Advaitins that pop up in every century or so from Shankara’s time down to the present day and most of them defend the same basic metaphysical structure, so the point that some works were lost changes nothing.
> let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita Vedanta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period
They say that because they dont know what Advaitins in every region of India were doing in every century but if you look at the dates of when big post-Shankara Advaitin philosophers are dated whose works survive, there are ones found in almost every century between Shankara and now.
> Don’t try and reduce the graveness of this worldview now that I’ve criticised it.
It’s not grave, accepting the scripture statements is a basic part of being Hindu and every religion does this. Shaivisn isnt fucking empirically derived or reached through rational speculation, it comes from agamic SCRIPTURES that are taken as revealed by Shiva and justifying its metaphysical claims in a tautological manner, are you completely oblivious?.
> So faith in the Upanishads is fine but pilgrimages are useless superstition?
Accepting the Sruti as revealed is a basic element of being a Hindu unless you are unorthodox or a fringe atheist school that is barely Hindu, there is no similar requirement to accept everything the Puranas say and they often say contradictory things, like half of them talks shit about Shaivas and praise Bhagavatas and the other half do the opposite.
> It’s an extreme example of a tautology
Shaivism is no different, most of its ideas are taken from scripture held to be revealed.
> how Buddha-nature works
That’s not even found in Nagarjuna’s authentic works

>>22353611
> For example, Shankara cuts out parts of the Puranas as superstition
He reads Smriti in accordance with Smriti as it should be, anything that contradicts Sruti is supposed to be disregarded or treated as nothing more than the subjective opinion of the author, there is no requirement for orthodox Hindus to accept everything the Puranas say

>>22353640
> Brahman may be detached, but it still as a consciousness
Advaita agrees that Brahman is still pure consciousness
> If you read the commentary
He contradicts what the text says and explains away what is not supposed to be explained, there would be no point in Krishna saying he was a non-doer if he really wasn’t. That guy is not a very serious commentator IMO.
> which is poison to the mind
>if you don’t accept my non-Vedic scripture as revealed you have a poisonous mind
very convenient

Aurobindo fag back again.

Damn this thread's a mess.

To prompt different discussion I will ask thus...

Anyone here practice tantra or yoga?

I whet my teeth on yogic meditation. Raja/ashtanga. Had a class in undergrad with a great western scholar of yoga. Master of both theory and practice. He had even been an ashram member for some years. We read the principal upanishads, baghavad gita, and yoga sutras. He also taught a great deal of asanas and pranayama techniques. And very much promoted the virtue ethic eudaimonic aspects of the yamas and niyamas. Quite a formative influence. Admittedly, however, I am mostly still Christian (Catholic) as per upbringing despite certain perennialist and universalist sympathies. I have also however dabbled in occultism and esoterica. Naturally I have read a great deal of Evola and somewhat surprisingly less so but still some of ye olde Guenon long before either of they became memes here. That is not the extent of such encounters with modern Hinduism though. By means of Crowley's Liber ABA, I came across reference to Swami Viveknanda. Crowley's Yoga for Yahoos is actually pretty good or silly but fun. Anyway that led to reading Vivekananda's works on yoga and discovering Ramakrishna as well. I find works like these just as valuable as Upanishads and Gita. Perhaps moreso. I have even recently been reading bits of the Vedas. Just the Rig really so far I suppose. Lovely but I am such that I cannot accept things as true based on appeal to authority alone. Naturally that has led me to some Buddhist dabbling. Nagarjuna does indeed claim continuity between nirvana and samsara. I have read a bit of Sankara too just to be clear though. Much akin to AV solutions, Nagarjuna's does not satisfy me. Not only is all illusion but there is not even an atman which is real. Sounds worse than AV almost, coherent but kinda bugman, unless you sneak in Buddha Nature. I find tantra superior for this reason. It gives reality to the phenomenal world. It gives meaning and purpose. Some say Ramajuna is influenced by West. Perhaps that is a good thing! Eliade says Christianity breaks cyclical time by imbuing history with meaning. I don't think we can go back however. And I have a more Benjaminian view toward history that the horror is watched by an angel who will one day turn the tides and balance the scales. Much like Hegel, tantra attempts to reconcile the absolute and the particular. As an Aurobindo fag, I think he expressed it quite well that both materia and idea as well as self are all equally real and in a sort of dialectical triadic relation. I believe this is a unique and clever position. Especially in the East. And as a westerner why except sruti as infallible?

Anyway, I have practiced meditation for about a decade. I have experienced dhyana a few times. Have considered doing some sort of retreat or seeking a living teacher to progress further but kinda anti-authority. Perhaps that is a weakness. Also what y'all do in life???

>>22353679
>first paragraph
The principle of Jnana Yoga appears in both Advaita and Shaivism, and the two theories had overlapped in visible ways. One example is the admiration of Bhakti Yoga (incorporated by Shaiva Siddhanta) by Nisargadatta, who was willing to recommend it as an acceptable alternative to the Jnana path.
>AV isn’t niche but it was Pan-Indian and it dominated the intellectual scene
We’re both revolving to cock-measuring here, but so did Kashmir Shaivism out of all the Shaivist sects in particular. Also, from what I understand of his philosophy, Ramanuja would necessarily be opposed to both Shaivism and AV, so the amount of seethe generated it a silly argument.
>my statement that they teach the same metaphysics is verifiable
I don’t disagree that they use the texts of Shankaracharya and his disciples, but we have too few sources on the development of Advaita to really determine if there were no doctrinal changes. For example, many prominent modern Advaitin like Vivekananda were very syncretic in their interests and concerned with tantra. You cannot deny this, and it is necessary to accept that modern Advaita has changed from the classical school.
>They say that because they dont know what Advaitins in every region of India were doing in every century
Because of this, you can’t easily account for the adoption of external yogic elements in Advaita, and how exactly they changed the school.
>It’s not grave, accepting the scripture statements is a basic part of being Hindu
And the Advaita interpretation of the scriptures is very grim compared to the freedom of Shaivism. Doctrinal opinion of course, but tantra is one of the most studied parts of Hinduism by academics.
>Accepting the Sruti as revealed is a basic element of being a Hindu
I have already pointed out the differences in interpretation of the Srutis by Advaitins and Shaivites. This is just one example of different practical interpretations of the same true scripture.
>most of its ideas are taken from scripture held to be revealed.
True, but when asked about it, I immediately state that it’s based purely on faith. I never try to use it philosophically, since it doesn’t count work philosophic grounds. You, on the other hand, use it to say that other philosophies are shit. How do people take you seriously?
>That’s not even found in Nagarjuna’s authentic works
Do you not know about In Praise of Dharmadhatu? The work is attributed to him by most.
>>22353686
>He reads Smriti in accordance with Smriti as it should be
What parts of Smriti are accepted is a good measure for the differences in the interpretation of Sruti by any given school.
>>22353705
>pure consciousness
I meant that it is animated by an self-consciousness and can act.
>That guy is not a very serious commentator IMO.
Oh, so now it doesn’t count. I see, so this is the true nature of the Guenonfag….

>>22353843
the jhanas are conditioned, so you have to trigger their arising.
the mechanism is here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html
and in fact this leads to the full enlightenment

>>22353879
>>if you don’t accept my non-Vedic scripture as revealed you have a poisonous mind
You misread and insult with no end as usual, what I meant was nothing like that. What I said was that you should be open-minded and try to learn the viewpoints of other schools while still disagreeing with them at points. You displayed your unabashed dogmatism yet again by refusing to try and understand the cpmmentary I just posted and immediately calling it faulty. You are clearly not arguing in good faith.

>>22353880
Cute lil text. I like enchantment > disenchantment however. Strange that a supernaturalist reigion would claim disenchantment. Methinks all samadhis and nirvanas are prolly conditioned too. But that's prolly just because I'm a hater. Are you fully enlightened? I did not ask what you believed the method or nature of enlightenment to be altho yes feel free to share but what yr practice and progress was. Thank you, sweatie :^)

>>22353920
right now you're just an hedonist who loves hedonism. the more you do jhanas, the more you stop craving for sensual hedonism anyway, you won't have say in this.

>>22353926
That seems incredibly presumptive. Once again, I ask, what is your path and practice look like? If you are not fully enlightened yourself, surely you admit that your presumptive proclamations are but flights of fancy for you have no true knowledge much like the advaita fag regurgitating the quotes of his gurus...

>>22353843
>Anyone here practice tantra or yoga?
I don’t have a guru and am too busy, so I can only pray and read the texts and hope to understand that way. Besides, I sadly dont think there are any near where I live now.
Your religious cultivation is admirable, since I mostly picked up this shit from context and stories in youth and only read the great texts when I was an adult.
>I find tantra superior for this reason. It gives reality to the phenomenal world. It gives meaning and purpose. Some say Ramajuna is influenced by West. Perhaps that is a good thing!
This is the main reason I find tantra the most worthwhile but difficult path to follow. You can increase your power and understanding until you reach the end of your path and rejoin Siva. I also love western hermetic and alchemical texts for this reason.
>Have considered doing some sort of retreat or seeking a living teacher to progress further but kinda anti-authority
At your level, if you’re really serious, then I recommend doing so to find deeper insights.
>Also what y'all do in life???
Wagie, this is just my personal interest.

>>22351763
I don't see how this contradicts Vedanta, Vedanta claims that the world is appearance, which doesn't mean "unreal". The appearance is the will of Shiva, meaning there is no doership for ahamkara.

>>22353995
The short reason is that Siva is considered to be real and the universe expands from him, instead of Brahman being a faceless principle that projects itself upon reality.

>>22354003
In Kashmir Shaivism Shiva is considered to be real and attributeless, like Brahman, and for both reality is contained in them.

>>22348712
What are some tantric rites I can perform?
>inb4 you need initiation i won't tell u the sweet stuff

>>22354010
That’s true. The main difference is perspective, since the fact that Siva contains all leads to contemplation of his attributes and their applications to reality. This process leads to a unique, and I would say more gripping group of systems (I posted the three big ones in the post you replied to) than the other non-dualisms.

Brainlet here. I wonder if you guys can help me with a problem I've been having.
I've had a sort of depersonalization going on for 7 or 8 years. The phenomena of my existence are strongly unreal to me, as are the sensations, perceptions, thoughts, and impressions that make up myself. I have come to doubt whether I'm even acting or thinking at all or if the only truely existent thing is a sort of nameless pure awareness which is experiencing something like a fully immersive movie, in which it experiences the illusion of thinking and knowing but does not actually do anything other than experience phenomena. If anything can be said to be truely 'me' it is this nameless awareness.
At the same time, my 'other' self, that which has a name and believes himself to act, think independently, and possess a will, has become immensely distressed by the situation. I have a hard time living my own life as I can't fully believe it's even happening. The taste and smell of things has dulled. My relationships have suffered because at times it's as if there's no one home in my body, so to speak.
Do the traditions discussed in this thread have any insights as to what has happened and how to resolve it? Is it better to attempt to 'reunify' myself or to separate the two things entirely?

>>22354028
You can find some information by skimming these texts >>22351393, but it really is best to have a guru to help find direction in them towards actually doing useful rites.

>>22353986
>pray and read texts
Honestly that's a lot of what I do too. And is a sort of jnana yoga as well. Writing is good too methinks. But ya.
>stories of youth
Yes. Highly underrated sources of gnosis...
>great texts as an adult
Same honestly. Just a millenial so been around the block a while.
>hermetic and alchemic texts
Great work! Hah. David Gordon White, tantra scholar not to be confused with fag pseud occultist Gordon White, has a great book on tantra and alchemy. He's a weird dude. But worth reading. I very much consider myself a sort of hermetic christian in western terms. There's a fantastic book currently OOP but supposedly revised and updated republication coming soon called Alchemical Traditions by Rubedo Press which has a wide variety of really incredible articles on hermeticism ancient through modern and also near and far eastern alchemies.
>wagie
Same. Alas.
>recommend it
That's the thing. I guess I gotta start being hermit less and become more involved with local temples and churches and stuff. I can't just like buy a plane ticket to India and show up to some random ashram and expect them to take me. Not sure I'd really want to either. Nor would a Christian monastary really just instantly accept an applicant. I had hopes for philosophy professorship as a bridge to being a sort of western sadhu but I have been discouraged regarding state of academia.

>>22354028
According to Abhinavagupta:

>>22354028
YĀGA/PŪJĀ: Worship is [in reality] offering everything (things, beings, & states) ‘into’ the Highest Divinity, in order to attain the firm understanding that everything exists within the Highest Divinity alone and there is nothing other than That. Those things that tend to spontaneously dissolve into blissful awareness are easy to offer to God, because they are delightful. For this reason, we are taught in scripture to use in external practice those things which delight the aesthetic senses that converge in the Heart, such as flowers, scented pastes, refreshments such as wine and so on.

HOMA: All existent beings, things, & states consist of the effulgent energy of the Highest Divinity. It is to attain a firm & stable understanding of this that one makes fire-offerings into the effulgent ‘fire’ that is Consciousness—the Highest Divinity—hungering for the aesthetic joy of devouring all things.[1] Such a ‘fire-offering’ is in truth the dissolution of every experience without remainder, leaving only that radiance, that effulgent energy (tejas).

JAPA: In the same way, mantra repetition has the purpose of giving rise to that state of self-awareness consisting of the Heart.[2] This practice consists of cultivating within oneself the understanding that the ultimate reality exists as one’s own essence-nature (svasvabhāva), and that remains just as it is, fundamentally unaffected by the differentiated things that constitute the objects of consciousness, whether internal, external or other.

VRATA: Disciplined observance is here understood as regarding the body, and even external objects like vases and so on, with the conviction that they they are the same as the Highest Divinity, in order to attain an identification with the Highest Divinity that continues at all times and in all circumstances without requiring any further practice to maintain it. As it is said in the sacred scripture Nandi’s Crest, “. . . the ultimate observance is seeing the equality of everything.”[3]

Thus, though the ultimate reality that inheres within as one’s essence-nature exists independently of any concept (vikalpa), it may manifest through the various forms of understanding (vikalpa) taught above, each being an aspect of the same Pure Wisdom.

YOGA: In this context, Yoga is the cultivation of a particular form of understanding: it is an investigation into the nature of our innermost being, in order to develop nothing less than its constant and uniform radiant manifestation.

>>22354047
For you problem, I think your main issue is that you think that all the selves you describe are different. According to my view (and you don’t have to take this as fact), these selves are all you, and you yourself are ultimately a manifestation of Siva. The potential for union is already in you. If you try and attain power and understanding of yourself through a method you can believe in, I think you’ll break through the confusion and loss of sensation you’re currently stuck with and will achieve something more meaningful. I honestly suggest to just start with meditation if you want to contemplate these issues and work against them.
>>22354060
>Writing is good too methinks
I actually try to incorporate themes of tantric texts I’ve recently read into my stories, it really helps envisioning their application.
>Highly underrated sources of gnosis...
I agree that it’s very important to learn some of this material from a young age through ways like this, since it allows you to face similar ideas when the time comes.
>Alchemical Traditions by Rubedo Press
Thank you for the rec, I’ll keep an eye out for this if it gets a reprint.
>become more involved with local temples and churches and stuff
This is a very good first step if you want to open your mind more. As for academia, stay far far away from that viper pit.

>>22353879
> One example is the admiration of Bhakti Yoga (incorporated by Shaiva Siddhanta) by Nisargadatta
Even Shankara writes about devotion to self-knowledge in his bhashyas, as far as Ive seen Nisargadatta’s talks are like 90% Jnana yoga with an occasional reference to love tossed in
> but so did Kashmir Shaivism out of all the Shaivist sects in particular.
They were briefly but then dropped off the scene, you can point to major Advaita philosophical works written in Sanskrit every century from Shankara till now but with KS after Abhinavas student Ksmeraja it largely fades away into obscurity as far as continuing to produce philosophical works go
> I don’t disagree that they use the texts of Shankaracharya and his disciples
both men were known to read them sometimes when not teaching
> texts of Shankaracharya and his disciples, but we have too few sources on the development of Advaita to really determine if there were no doctrinal changes.
Simply false, we can compare works from every century against those of Shankara and his immediate followers. Late-medieval Advaitins incorporate practices from other schools (which Shankara and classical Advaita isnt inherently opposed to) while defending the same underlying metaphysical structure, you can find rare exceptions but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
>For example, many prominent modern Advaitin like Vivekananda
He was a Neovedantin (a “Neo-Hindu”), he isnt representative of the tradition as continued in the Mathas which continues teaching the same metaphysics
>it is necessary to accept that modern Advaita has changed from the classical school.
The classical form is still taught in the Mathas, so whatever spinoff groups do is kind of irreverent and not representative of the core of the tradition itself
> you can’t easily account for the adoption of external yogic elements in Advaita, and how exactly they changed the school.
I can dummy, there have already been published studies of this, its easy to pinpoint, Vidyaranya is one of the points where its more obvious but he defends the same metaphysics while incorporating practice
> very grim
It’s not for people who are low-IQ or who are slave to their emotions, if you “get it” then you go beyond all and any sort of emotional needs
> but tantra is one of the most studied parts of Hinduism by academics
Not compared to Vedanta desu
> You, on the other hand, use it to say that other philosophies are shit.
I dont say everything else is shit, I agree with perennialism
> In Praise of Dharmadhatu?
mainstream academics generally consider it inauthentic
> Oh, so now it doesn’t count.
I gave reasons why his reading is questionable, you can engage with that or ignore it

>>22353915
> What I said was that you should be open-minded and try to learn the viewpoints of other schools while still disagreeing with them at points.
I’ve never said anything that disagree with that, that’s my own view
>You displayed your unabashed dogmatism yet again by refusing to try and understand the cpmmentary
I viewed his interpretation of that specific passage as faulty and explained why, which you didn’t even engage with, as far as I see he doesn’t affiliate with any traditional sampradaya and his wiki article talks about him coming up with his own 20th century “system”, it looks suspiciously like NeoHinduism, if I want to read traditional bhakti commentaries from the Medieval era I already know where to find translations of those, I dont need some 20th Neo-Hindu who writes self-help books about mindfullness to tell me what the Gita means. I consider Shankara a better authority on the Gita than medieval Bhakti theologian commentators, and those medieval Bhakti commentators are more of an authority than 20th century figures. Being open-minded does’t mean that I have to refrain from pointing out what I see as errors.

>>22348180
yes, brahma
next

>>22354299
You have no logical reason to call anything an error aside from appeals to authority of Shankara and the Vedic literature. You are also unnecessarily dismissive of different eras and schools. Not everything written in the modern era is trash too. Do you even speak Sanskrit? You do realize that most of these translations involve a great deal of interpretation since tis a dead language right? Just as there are sticky issues and divergences within Plato and Platonic followers and modern Platonic scholarship. Can you imagine if there was a Plato poster who claimed all Plato&/ works were divinely inspired and then copy pasta'd walls of text about how every other Plato interpretation was wrong even in threads that have nothing to do with Plato? That would be annoying af. Get some self-awareness. You seem possibly autistic.
>I am Brahman and perfectly blissful
You certainly don't seem enlightened yourself and don't demonstrate much compassion or insight so I would doubt it if you claimed it so I must believe your argument is totally a leap of faith and not part of the evolving enterprise of growing knowledge and philosophy at all...
>b-b-b philosophy doesn't evolve
You're a dogmatic theologian then
>av is perfect
Vedas themselves say words are less important than meaning behind

>>22354359
>You have no logical reason to call anything an error aside from appeals to authority of Shankara and the Vedic literature.
Demonstrably false, I don't know why you would blatantly lie like that when everyone can see that it's not true, doing shit like this is why I called you dishonest. I wrote that his exegesis is wrong because it involved overturning the literal statement about Brahman being a non-doer when the non-doership of God is confirmed by multiple other pieces of evidence is the Gita as well as the Upanishads. In his commentary Muktananda tries to import a meaning into the text to explain away this non-doership as referring to something else besides God being free of action even though this is not suggested at all by the text itself, but without providing any explanation as to why the non-Doership of God should not be taken literally, this violates accepted orthodox hermeneutical rules as laid down by Mimamsa and which most Vedanta schools accept and use. So, my argument doesn't rely just on Shankara and the Vedas but it cites accepted Hindu hermeneutical principles as well as the Gita itself. If you want to keep engaging on this point then reply to what I wrote instead of lying about me again.

>>22354403
>accepted Hindu hermeneutical principles
Ya. Sorry sir. It ain't medieval India. No one gives a fuck anymore. Why don't you learn some modern lingusitics and hermeneutics and comparative theology and modern philosophy?
>my rando bs says God is a non-doer
So? God is pure act according to Aristotle and Aquinas.

>>22354268
>paragraph 1
I agree with what you said, I thought you were being more extreme in establishing the ideological independence of AV.
>paragraph 2
Kashmir Shaivism is still extremely influential, this is very silly. Their tantric practices were both influenced by and had massive influence on Buddhist tantra, and the Spanda theory is still held by Shaivites, one of the largest Hindu denominations. Works produced is also not a good metric, since then the most popular schools would always win; theological influence is what matters, and I say that both had significant influence.
>Late-medieval Advaitins incorporate practices from other schools schools (which Shankara and classical Advaita isnt inherently opposed to) while defending the same underlying metaphysical structure
That was actually all I wanted to say. I thought you were going to act like you did previously for Buddhism and say that there was no external influence on Advaitin theory, which would be an absurd claim.
>He was a Neovedantin
True, misspoke here.
>The classical form is still taught in the Mathas
With some external influence, as you have acknowledged and I wanted to confirm.
>next paragraph
See what I just wrote before.
>It’s not for people who are low-IQ or who are slave to their emotions
So this is Advaita, calling someone who dislikes its views low IQ… woah…
>Not compared to Vedanta desu
Have you not read Evola? He’s obsessed with Tantra, and his followers and modern academics in general are very interested in translating and studying tantric works.
>I dont say everything else is shit, I agree with perennialism
I personally dislike the way traditionalists present perennialism, and you clearly promote why AV is better than other schools in your samefag threads through praising its ontological quality.
>mainstream academics generally consider it inauthentic
I hinted at the fact that some doubt it, but I’ve seen an equal number of academics who agree with its proposed authorship.
>I viewed his interpretation of that specific passage as faulty and explained why
Sri Krishna literally says there that he made the caste system, but is a non-doer. There shows how there is consciousness of Brahman, but impartiality to your choice. The other anon has given a good criticism of your logic, so I won’t engage here much.

>>22354442
>Ya. Sorry sir. It ain't medieval India. No one gives a fuck anymore.
My argument wasnt relying solely on that but it mentioned other passages in the Gita which confirm that too, namely passages that say Brahman is identical with the Atman and which say that this same Atman is a non-doer, the same is implied by passages saying that Brahman is immutable since the immutable never undergoes any change like doing an act it wasn't doing before. Lastly, in a discussion of the right way to interpret a Hindu text it IS worth mentioning that according to accepted Hindu practice it should arguably be taken literally, but my argument didn't depend entirely on that.

>>my rando bs says God is a non-doer
>So? God is pure act according to Aristotle and Aquinas.
This isn't a thread about Christianity, that's totally irrelevant to bring up in this thread and the current discussion about the Gita.

How different is Shiva from other hindu gods from historic persoective? I always felt he never really fit in, and his uniqueness in idea and philosophy were tainted by grouping him with other gods in current religion.

>>22354445
>With some external influence
They still closely study and teach the earlier Advaitins in whom this Yogic practice is not present, they still teach the unchanged classical form while also having lessons on other later Advaitins but without presenting these later forms as essential or necessary at all.
>So this is Advaita, calling someone who dislikes its views low IQ… woah…
Shankara says that stupid people won't get it and that it's only for the rare intelligent man who has achieved a state of readiness for the teaching after many lives of progressing to that point through accumulating good karma. It's not meant to be accessible to everyone of average insight/intelligence. That doesn't mean every other teaching is stupid or that those who follow other schools are dumb, it just means that dumb people are highly unlikely to be predisposed to fully understand it.
>modern academics in general are very interested in translating and studying tantric works.
They are but there is simply much more that has been published on Vedanta and there continues to be more published on it. Read any history of Indology and you'll see what I mean, you can see people kvetching about how Vedanta has received an inordinate amount of attention in fact.
>but I’ve seen an equal number of academics who agree with its proposed authorship
Why does he not mention dharmadhatu in his unquestionably authentic works then? It's not a strong case to interpret his ontology on the basis of a phrase which never occurs in the widely-agreed authentic works
>Sri Krishna literally says there that he made the caste system, but is a non-doer.
Yes, and you can preserve the literal meanings of both without overturning either if you combine that with the passages where He says that by the power of his maya he appears to do things like manifest when He is really immutable and unmanifest, thus He is a non-doer but through maya can be regarded as doing things, He literally says that only the unintelligent think He is really becoming manifest (sound familiar?)

>>22354507
>He literally says that only the unintelligent think He is really becoming manifest (sound familiar?)
by extension only the unintelligent think Brahman ever acts and is a doer instead of this just being maya-prakriti which is acting

The View is Self-Contradictory: The first problem with the core of Sankara’s philosophy is that it seems to be self-contradictory. As advocates of the other Hindu schools of thought have pointed out, if the only reality is Brahman, and Brahman is pure, distinctionless consciousness, then there cannot exist any real distinctions in reality. But the claim that this world is an illusion already presupposes that there is an actual distinction between illusion and reality, just as the claim that something is a dream already presupposes the distinction between waking consciousness and dream consciousness. Moreover, Sankara’s idea of salvation–that is, enlightenment through recognition that all is Brahman–already presupposes a distinction between living in a state of unenlightenment (ignorance) and living in a state of enlightenment. So this view contradicts itself by, on the one hand, saying that reality (Brahman) is distinctionless, while on the other hand distinguishing between maya and the truth of Brahman, and by distinguishing between being enlightened and unenlightened.

b. The Impossibility of Maya: A second and related problem is that ignorance, which Sankara and his followers claim is the source of maya, could not exist. According to the Sankara school, Brahman is perfect, pure, and complete Knowledge, the opposite of ignorance. Hence, ignorance cannot exist in Brahman. But, since nothing exists apart from Brahman, ignorance cannot exist apart from Brahman either. Thus, it follows that ignorance could not exist, contrary to their assertion that our perception of a world of distinct things is a result of ignorance.

c. The Lack of Evidence: A final problem is that it seems that one could never have any satisfactory experiential basis for believing in Sankara’s philosophy. Certainly, everyday experience and observation are completely in conflict with his claim, since they overwhelmingly testify to the existence of a real world of distinct things and properties. Indeed, even if we assume that the entire material world does not exist, but is merely a dream, experience would still overwhelmingly testify against Sankara’s claim: for, within our dream itself there are innumerable distinct experiences, from the experience of feeling sad to that of seeing what looks like a rainbow. Thus Sankara’s philosophy cannot even explain the world we experience as being an illusion or dream. As a result, it ends up providing close to the worse possible explanation of our experiences.

>>22354939
The only unironic argument made against these claims is that one must accept the worldview offered by Sankara and the Upanishads as a given in order for it all to work.

Advaita Vedanta, a prominent school of Indian philosophy, expounds the concept of non-dualism, asserting that ultimate reality is one without any distinctions. While it has been revered for its profound insights, some philosophers argue that it contains inherent self-refuting or contradictory elements. This has led to the need for supplementary logics and qualifications.

One of the primary critiques directed towards Advaita Vedanta is the paradox inherent in asserting the non-dual nature of reality while utilizing dualistic language and concepts to describe it. The very act of describing the ultimate reality as "one" contradicts its purportedly ineffable and non-dual nature. The use of language, which inherently relies on distinctions and differentiations, becomes problematic when applied to an entity claimed to be devoid of distinctions.

Furthermore, Advaita Vedanta's emphasis on negation to describe the ultimate reality paradoxically creates a conceptual framework that necessitates a negation of its own assertions. The assertion that the world is an illusion (maya) and that individual identities are illusory, implies that these claims themselves are also illusory. This puts the philosophy in a position where its own foundational statements lose their validity.

To address these contradictions, various scholars and philosophers have proposed supplementary logics and qualifications. One approach is the concept of "Anekantavada" from Jain philosophy, which acknowledges the multi-faceted nature of reality and encourages embracing paradoxes rather than trying to resolve them. Similarly, the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Mimamsa schools of thought in Hindu philosophy emphasize precise categorization and analysis, offering alternative perspectives that can complement or temper the absolutist claims of Advaita Vedanta.

It's important to note that not all proponents of Advaita Vedanta dismiss these critiques. Some modern scholars suggest that the contradictions are a result of the limitations of language and cognition when attempting to grasp the nature of the absolute reality. They argue that Advaita Vedanta's goal is not logical consistency within human linguistic parameters, but rather the transcendence of language and concepts altogether.

In conclusion, the self-refuting or contradictory elements within Advaita Vedanta have prompted philosophical discourse and the exploration of alternative logics and qualifications. Whether as a means to harmonize apparent contradictions or to provide complementary perspectives, these additions contribute to a richer understanding of the complexities surrounding the nature of reality and the limitations of human thought.

>>22354507
Sorry for the late response, I was busy.
>they still teach the unchanged classical form while also having lessons on other later Advaitins but without presenting these later forms as essential or necessary at all
They are non-essential but useful additions to the school, and their utilisation depends on the opinions of the guru. You know this well, and have to accept the large possibility that an Advaita sadhu may use any given one of the good medieval in his teachings.
>second paragraph
This kind of rhetoric is not unique to Shankara at all, and also appears in Kashmir Shaivism. I could use the same rhetoric towards you as well for not agreeing with Shaivist principles, but that isn’t very important right now. The point is that I’m not feeling particularly stupid after that.
>there is simply much more that has been published on Vedanta and there continues to be more published on it
Disagree with this, because tantric practices have been a major part of Indology from even the early days of the Asiatic Society.
>paragraph four
I have already said that attribution of the text to Nagarjuna is suspect, but the Buddhist scholars who have translated most recent additions are of the group who agree with the attribution.
>He is a non-doer but through maya can be regarded as doing things
I agree that Krishna is a non-actor, but his actions in maya are still made with an express purpose. Even from chapter 2 he clearly expresses that he will explain the Yogs to Arjuna. While he is ultimately neutral, his actions in maya are not unconscious. This is possible without him becoming manifest, as his ultimate nature is that of the non-actor.

>>22355101
By this point none of the things we are disagreeing over are on logical grounds, and are purely rhetorical. I really don’t know how the argument got here after two days of shitflinging, and it probably won’t get any better if we continue. The point is that you weren’t very convincing in what you said, and basically try to exhaust people with blocks of half-researched rubbish. I can do the same, this isn’t very impressive and is really just autistic shitposting.
>>22354939
>>22354964
Based, but this is a Shaivism thread anon. AV discussion should stay out.

>>22355137
>really just autistic shitposting
Thats his specialty, give him a break.

In all seriousness, I staunchly believe that the advaitafag had overstayed his welcome. He got big on /lit/ for a few years because he could apparently defend an obscure philosopher like Guénon in philosophical debates, and was so impressively devoted to shilling said philosopher that he genuinely fucked up the board for a while with his memes.

The problem is that he’s been doing the same shit for years, and more and more posters are showing up now who are knowledgeable and can argue against him. If you look over the thread, his arguments mostly boil down to saying a certain thing is correct and posting quotes to justify it. This brings the impression that he’s well read, but whenever someone tries to critically analyze his points, he basically just sucks off his preferred religious sect while claiming that it’s the only objective interpretation of the major Hindu scripture. However, he also claims that this school is entirely reliant on faith to be true, and the fact that there are multiple Hindu practices with different theories is a clear contradiction with his apparent self-confidence. While he occasionally says some good things, most of his arguments are like that; completely incoherent.

He’s lost his touch, and most /lit/izens just see him as a shitposter rather than genuinely being well learned now. If they treat him as such instead of wasting time their time arguing with a retard, then he might stop shitting up the board like he has done for years.

>>22355298
retroactively refuted by guenonfag

>>22355311
retroactively refuted by de Bofa

I understand mantras as a way of focusing the mind, and through devotion to a particular deity (saguna brahman), it would also awaken the heart chakra. But do bija mantras really work? Could someone initiated here (or non-initiated) who different types of mantras leave his understanding based on his practice?
I have a particular mantra that I'm attached to, which my mind already utters almost automatically, is it worth getting a new tantric one after being initiated with 5 bijas mantras? I find it funny that each tantric era text promises their own mantra as being the best of the best.

>>22355320
who chanted different types of mantras*

is it worth getting, after being initiated, a new tantric one with 5 bijas mantras?*

Sorry for mistakes, it's late.

>>22352865
>The Buddha uses the word '' empty" of a self, ie anatta, way more frequently than ''emptiness''.

A wild instance of someone that knows anatta is not a fucking NOUN!!!

>>22348173
Who is the western philosopher closest in thinking to Ahbinavagupta?

Guenonfag, despite your dedicated larp, have you ever even attained brahmavidya?

>>22354476
Siva is generally considered a massive outlier compared to everyone else. While the devas usually stand for forces of order, he is essentially the embodiment of destructive joy. He entertains himself by dancing around and doing drugs (no, really) all day, but is also an incredibly destructive force. He has created the universe, but the shifts in his god-consciousness disturb it. He’s the best god to actually represent the universe, because he doesn’t pretend that there’s order or morality in it and fucks around and destroys shit.
Ever since the point where the basic bitch Aryan gods of Indra and Surya were sidelined for the trimurti, the faithful have seen within him a higher form of truth contained in his irreplaceable form.
>philosophy were tainted by grouping him with other gods in current religion.
Well said. The other gods are aristocratic forces of order, while he is just chaos and wild pleasure. They cannot be so easily grouped together.
>>22355298
>I staunchly believe that the advaitafag had overstayed his welcome
I’ve only really seen his shitposts for the last two years when I stop be here, so I can’t really say much here. It seems like there’s a concensus on his sperg tendencies, which relieves me since I thought some fags here took him seriously.
>>22355319
Heh

>>22355555
>>22355555
holy get

>>22355555
Sick quints brah.

>>22355320
>But do bija mantras really work?
I would say they do. The repetition of certain symbolic words to stimulate your chakras is extremely beneficial, since it allows you to eventually transcend the weakness of word alone and come closer to god. If you already have a bija mantra you feel particularly attached to after initiation, I would say to continue focusing on it until you are certain you have went down the entirety of its depths. Only then should you move on to specific tantric mantras, since you will already have some experience with how to grasp one.
>I find it funny that each tantric era text promises their own mantra as being the best of the best.
They always do that, otherwise no one will take them seriously. Tantra is an individual path, so pick what you feel the closest internal connection to if you’re doing it without a guru.
>>22355490
Larpers like him who’re only in it for intellectual gain will never get anywhere. It’s the tragedy of the pseud.
>>22355563
>>22355567
Holy shit I didn’t see that. Sacred quints right there.

>>22355488
A mixture between Aquinas and Hegel in my opinion.

>>22355490
I remember him mentioning that he doesn't practice anything like meditation, he just reads and tries to understand it intellectually.

>>22355598
Only read Aquinas, so I can at least say that he’s a pretty good comparison to Ahbinavagupta. Might as well thrown in Heraclitus too, since he’s very eastern in thought as well.

Guenonfag flees, and the thread gets 99% better? Correlation may be causation just this once.

>>22355607
Have you read anything by Meister Eckhart or Boehme?

>>22355671
>Meister Eckhart
Know, but haven't read.
>Boehme
Read and loved. Why do you ask?

>>22355703
I'm very curious about what people who have read a lot of Eastern philosophy think about their work.

>>22355726
Well, if you're asking for specific opinions, here are a few. I personally think the Boehme presents an incredible vision of the universe as split between the father and son, while also maintaining their unity. You can spend an entire day reading even one of his shorter works, since the ideas contained within each sentence practically force the mind to contemplate them and better understand god. Only read like six of his works, but the variety of topics within them and the surprising similarity to my own faith saw at points humbled me.

>>22355770
>but the variety of topics within them and the surprising similarity to my own faith saw at points humbled me.
Can you expound a little? What is your faith?
The reason for my curiosity is that I am at the same time a Christian and also someone who has found similarity between his own experiences of consciousness and phenomena and the observations made by some Hindu and Buddhist thinkers. I'm very interested in reading what people who have deeply studied both Eastern and Western philosophy have written as a tool to further developing my own thought.

>>22348173
Shiva is Satan.
Sanatana Dharma is an anagram for Satana Dharma.

>>22355799
>What is your faith?
Hindu Shaivite (specifically Shaiva Siddhanta, but very interested in Kashmir Shaivism). Boehme's ideas of how the universe is altered by manifestations of god symbolising his will and the fact that he believes how god created the universe as a reflection of his powers both reminded me very closely of the theories behind Kashmir Shaivism. The linguistic elements of Kabbalah and the alchemical and hermetic details within also reminded me of principles like Spanda and tantra in general.

I denounce Satan and the Antichrist.
I reject Satan and his pomp.
I reject the Antichrist and his New World Order.
I reject the false prophet of the Apocalypse and his One World Religion.

>>22355799
Aurobindo fag from earlier. A lot of syncretic stuff comes more from the East nowadays. Read Life Divine for example. Very engaged in east west dialogue. Much like Chardinian theology and supposedly Chardin said he was the Hindu version of himself. Ramakrishna also supposedly achieved Christian theosis as well as Yogic samadhi. Admittedly, his is a Christianity that was within a meta-Hindu framework however. Vivekananda has a lot of fun stuff on Hindu as universal religion without relying on divine revelation but he also does some pseudo-sciencey claims. If you like Buddhism, particularly Zen, I cannot recommend Kyoto school highly enough for engaging with German Idealism and Phenomenology as well.
>Boehme
Fascinating figure. Shoemaker. Beam of light. PKD likes him. Quasi-Gnostic? But without access to original texts... Hegelian-ish theology? But before him!
>Eckhart
Shame bout the heresy charges. Glad he's getting dues. Porete is a good companion read. Vaneigem has a cute post-lefty (situationist) book on free spirit movement. I do agree with certain dangers of such views however. Lead to advaitic conclusions which I dislike.
>my faith
I made the theology thread w a hermes pic lol...
>christian but hindu and buddhist resonances
Me too. Particularly wrt explanations of prayer and theology, I find much resonance between liturgy and theurgy and yoga and tantra and alchemy. This sort of holy envy as termed is healthy and enlightening methinks. I've particularly found value in eastern forms of breath work and esoteric physiology. Syncretism is ok but one must be grounded in something however. Otherwise you create some gross metametaphysical monstrosity like Blavatsky or Crowley. Guenon is better n worse -- a product of his time. Certainly influential. Just as much neo- as anyone else mentioned despite protestations. Jung ofc does Christian syncretism. Very gnostic however. Neo-gnostic. But w access to nag hammadi discovery.

Other modern stuff... hmm. Maybe Graham Priest? Owen Flanagan? Thompson?

>>22354939
>language functions on the basis of dualistic distinctions
Agreed, but it can still be used to signify and point to a non-dual reality through negation and symbolism, this isn't a strong argument against AV unless you think that the nature of reality or God is determined/restricted by language, which is quite silly

> The assertion that the world is an illusion (maya) and that individual identities are illusory, implies that these claims themselves are also illusory.
Just because verbal speech is taking place within the illusion doesn't mean that it cannot express thoughts that accurately reflect the nature of reality as it truly is like saying Brahman is timeless, undecaying etc; this argument is like saying because you are in a dream that dream-people cannot say true things about one's waking life—but that's not actually true and they can do this, the true idea expressed within the virtual illusion does not cease to be true simply because it's said within the illusion

> "Anekantavada"
Shankara criticizes it instead of agreeing with it

>>22355843
>>22355854
Lord Siva is not explicitly evil like Satan, but I can see how you might think that from his art. If you're that scared by that, you'll shit yourself once you find out what part of him the siva lingam is an idol of.

Meant to reply to this >>22355875 post with this one >>22355875

Meant to reply to this >>22354964 post with this one >>22355875

>>22355875
You've had your shot, now no more derailing the Shaivism thread from you now that people have actually started asking questions about it.

>>22355891
>now no more derailing the Shaivism thread
My posts don't prevent anyone from talking about what they want, if someone is so mentally addled that they lose their train of thought when seeing a post about another Indian school, then that's on them. Also it's silly to write posts directed against Advaita and then complain when people who have studied Advaita reply to them.

>>22355924
>it's silly to write posts directed against Advaita
I don't think it's reading comprehension you lack so much as attention span. If you had bothered to look at the replies to those posts, you would have seen that I didn't make them and called them offtopic as well. Both those posts and yours are explicitly unrelated to the thread.

>>22354939
>The View is Self-Contradictory: The first problem with the core of Sankara’s philosophy is that it seems to be self-contradictory.
It may seem that way to the ignorant or uninformed but it really isn't when you understand what he is talking about

>As advocates of the other Hindu schools of thought have pointed out, if the only reality is Brahman, and Brahman is pure, distinctionless consciousness, then there cannot exist any real distinctions in reality. But the claim that this world is an illusion already presupposes that there is an actual distinction between illusion and reality, just as the claim that something is a dream already presupposes the distinction between waking consciousness and dream consciousness.
When Advaita says there is no distinction in reality it has 2 connotations, the first connotation is that there are no *internal* distinctions in Brahman itself except purely nominal ones that are described for pedagogical purposes, but in Brahman Itself these collapse into undifferentiated non-duality. The second connotation is that distinctions don't truely exist like Brahman truly exists. Neither of these is mutually exclusive with saying that Brahman isn't the same thing as the illusory samsara. Even though distinctions aren't absolutely real, that doesn't make samsara identical to Brahman because that samsara not present in the actually true (absolute) reality like Brahman is. Saying that "distinctions are unreal" would only have the consequence of making Brahman and samsara identical if they were on the same plane to begin with, because distinctions being unreal would then make everything on this plane identical with everything else on the same plane automatically, but since in reality there is just Brahman alone, when distinction is negated as not real it just leaves the undifferentiated Brahman free of distinctions existing in absolute reality by Itself with nothing else besides It that can be said to be different or non-different from Brahman. The person who wrote this appears to be thinking of Brahman and the illusion as two objects that are both on the same plane or are both in reality when this is incorrect.

>Moreover, Sankara’s idea of salvation–that is, enlightenment through recognition that all is Brahman–already presupposes a distinction between living in a state of unenlightenment (ignorance) and living in a state of enlightenment.
This is a nominal distinction that is part of samsara and not an ultimately real distinction. The Atman is already eternally free of ignorance and eternally free and unembodied. Moksha is when the jiva ends its delusions and stops transmigrating, but this happening is not making any sort of distinction absolutely real like Brahman is.

>>22355799
Different anon but you might find some value in Bernadette Roberts' work, she had a fascinatingly unique perspective and project with her experience and explication of non-duality/ego and no-self (which she claimed were different) in a Christian context. There are a couple talks from her DVDs uploaded on youtube. Her books can be quite dense but there's not much else like them.
Another modern recommendation is Douglas Harding. He was eclectic but much of his work is entrenched in Christianity. His most popular book On Having No Head is superficially in a Zen context but I think there's Christian mysticism in it too. If not there then definitely in his other works or talks.
>Christian mysticism recommendations in the Shaivism thread
Someone recommend me any quintessential Shaivism texts, or your favorite. My only knowledge of (Kashmir) Shaivism is minimal and by way of Advaita so I'm not well versed.

>>22354939
>b. The Impossibility of Maya: A second and related problem is that ignorance, which Sankara and his followers claim is the source of maya, could not exist.
In most of his works Shankara actually refers to maya and avidya (ignorance) as being roughly interchangeable, and as this being a power that Brahman uses to projects the illusion of samsara.
>According to the Sankara school, Brahman is perfect, pure, and complete Knowledge, the opposite of ignorance. Hence, ignorance cannot exist in Brahman.
Shankara doesnt mean that any sort of subjective ignorance exists in Brahman that makes Brahman ignorant, He agrees that Brahman has an inherent power/potency that projects the illusion, but nobody is actually ignorant or can be said to be ignorant until the minds projected by this illusion are then consequently in a state of ignorance, but Brahman Itself is not fooled or even aware of ignorance/samsara.
>But, since nothing exists apart from Brahman, ignorance cannot exist apart from Brahman either.
Brahman being the only (truly) thing existing doesn't prevent Brahman from projecting samsara/ignorance as an appearance which appears without existing; appearance =/= existence
>Thus, it follows that ignorance could not exist, contrary to their assertion that our perception of a world of distinct things is a result of ignorance.
Advaita agrees that ignorance doesn't really exist and that only Brahman does, like all samsara it appears without truly existing

>>22354939
>c. The Lack of Evidence: A final problem is that it seems that one could never have any satisfactory experiential basis for believing in Sankara’s philosophy.
Many people find his analysis of consciousness and the Self a satisfactory basis for doing so, if you pay close attention to what he writes and then investigate your own innermost consciousness it's possible to realize that it's actually peaceful, fearless and untainted by anything, and this is a liberating realization that can free you from needless anxiety and worries etc, and this is what causes some people to take other things that he says seriously. Most Hindus who follow it already believe in their tradition and scripture as a matter of faith simply because of their religion though, just like many Christians do with their scripture (this text comes from a Christian apologist); this is kind of hypocritical because there is no satisfactory experiential basis for believing in e.g. the Trinitarian nature of God like the author of this believes; so it can also be said of his beliefs

>Certainly, everyday experience and observation are completely in conflict with his claim, since they overwhelmingly testify to the existence of a real world of distinct things and properties.
No, they just attest to the fact that they are experienced, which reveals nothing about their ontological status.
>Indeed, even if we assume that the entire material world does not exist, but is merely a dream, experience would still overwhelmingly testify against Sankara’s claim: for, within our dream itself there are innumerable distinct experiences, from the experience of feeling sad to that of seeing what looks like a rainbow.
This is just a part of the nominal distinctions within samsara and thus isn't inconsistent with anything that Shankara advocates.
>Thus Sankara’s philosophy cannot even explain the world we experience as being an illusion or dream.
It does if you don't misunderstand it completely like this author does

>>22355999 and the others
Ignoring my post doesn't make these any less off-topic.
>>22356004
>Someone recommend me any quintessential Shaivism texts, or your favorite
If you want a quintessential text, then there's none better in the tradition than Sri Vasugupta. Here's a version with an excellent commentary by Bhaskara:
https://archive.org/details/RhVv_the-aphorisms-of-shiva-bhaskaracharya-commentary-mark-s.-g.-dyczkowski

>>22356028
I post that specifically because you seemed particularly interested in the Kashmir sect. It's also one of my favourite texts, both because of its importance and the fascinating content within in general.
Almost all the talk in this thread has been about Kashmir Shaivism, but has anyone read anything from another Shaivist school?

>>22355101
>They are non-essential but useful additions to the school, and their utilisation depends on the opinions of the guru. You know this well, and have to accept the large possibility that an Advaita sadhu may use any given one of the good medieval in his teachings.
Them being useful is basically only applicable if the student isn't already of enough purity, insight etc that they don't get it right away or very quickly upon being instructed, but Shankara's metaphysics is very clear that if you are qualified then anything else is totally unnecessary beyond the direct instruction and one grasping it, so in this sense yogic practices are very not different from performing Vedic rites in that both are optional forms of preliminary preparation (Shankara says Vedic rites purify the heart by wearing away sins/attachments). Of course some people due to their karma, gunas, personality or whatever may find one or another technique helps prepare them better.
>Disagree with this, because tantric practices have been a major part of Indology from even the early days of the Asiatic Society.
The first time western Indology scholars even learned about Trika/KS was reading about it in Vidyaranya's (An Advaitin) text describing different schools, most of the major 18th and 19th Indologists focused on Vedanta, Besides Arthor Avalon's early efforts Tantric scholarship only really began to take off in the 20th century and it has never caught up to the huge mountain of scholarship on Vedanta, which had already grown big long before Tantric scholarship was really a thing, and which continued onwards in large amounts in India and the West to this day even as more people began to study Tantric thought.
>I agree that Krishna is a non-actor, but his actions in maya are still made with an express purpose.
It can equally be explained as Brahman simply having the nature of causing samsara such that periodically avatars arise to help restore order caused by disorder, and this is more in line with the Upanishadic verses that present the Brahman-Atman as pure impartite immutable non-dual consciousness is just absorbed in the freedom of His eternal bliss without thinking or paying attention to the world at all
>Even from chapter 2 he clearly expresses that he will explain the Yogs to Arjuna
Just like he says he doesn't really manifest and that only the unintelligent think so, so this can also be extended to anything that appears to personify Brahman like attributing thoughts or intentions to It.

>>22355606
If you already have complete peace of mind then meditation is relatively pointless, I don't have complete peace of mind and am not enlightened but the overwhelming majority of my day to day moments are already so happy and tranquil that most of the time it feels to me like meditating as some sort of schedule or planned regime would just be a distraction from the natural perfection and tranquility of everything including the present moment that is already self-evident to me, but sometimes I still do it spontaneously.

>>22355933
>If you had bothered to look at the replies to those posts, you would have seen that I didn't make them and called them offtopic as well.
I simply post what I what and I don't feel bound to not reply to a post that I wanted to engage with because someone else said that it was off-topic, threads here are extremely loose free-form discussions and most threads on eastern philosophy typically mix and blur into discussions of multiple of them at some point. I don't care about any one's person idea of what some thread is "supposed to be about" at the end of the day.

>>22356040
>but has anyone read anything from another Shaivist school?
I recommend Dyaneshwar's works Bhavartha Deepika (Bhagavad-Gita commentary) and Amritanubhava (shorter verse philosophical work). He belonged to the Nath school of Shaivism. Some of his conclusions appear very close to Advaita at times, although he expresses things using a slightly different terminology. He was influential upon both Sikhism (the format of their scripture adopts certain literary elements first pioneered in Bhavartha Deepika)

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri-Jnandevas-Bhvartha-Dipika-Jnaneswari_smaller.pdf

https://archive.org/details/SriJnanadevasAmritanubhavaAmbrosialExperienceEnglishTranslationOfOriginalMarathiChangadevaPasashti

>>22356028
>>22356040
I'm partial to Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but I imagine there's a lot of value in Kashmir Shaivism. If even just for it being, as far as I know, a uniquely colorful or playful expression of nonduality while still being thorough. Thanks for the rec and link.

I have heard that Shiva is a pre-vedic god. How true is that? Is it too late to go back? The cosmology and mysticism(sexual or otherwise) associated with Shiva is more interesting than the strict religious rituals that now govern us.

>>22357057
There is a strong theory that Siva was pre-Vedic in origin, due to depictions of a god that closely resembles him on some Indus Valley seals. The appearance of other Vedic symbols on such seals makes it possible that they were adopted alongside the deity by the Aryans.
>Is it too late to go back
If you’re not in a Hindu country, then yes on a societal level. Muslim and foreign influence means that even those countries have fundamentally changed, so the original rites are definitely distorted. However you can easily adopt the practices individually if you want to.

>>22356053
>first paragraph
While what you say is correct, you overestimate how easily understandable the teachings of Shankara would be to a disciple. For example, I am rather unwilling to accept the endpoint of his interpretation because of my cultural background, and Advaitin students from a dogmatic background may struggle to accept it as well. For this purpose, yogic practices are very useful and non-contradictory with Shankara, so they certainly have a significant use.
>paragraph 2
Never seen the claim about Vidtaranya before. I’ve also read Sir William Jones and a few contemporaries for very early Indology, and I wouldn’t say they were focused on Advaita. Their main interest was in Sanskrit and current practices—I believe that I saw at most one text on Gaudapada and that’s it. It’s only when archaeology picked up that you see more texts on Advaita, and Arthor Avalon was active then. Also, I would say that the rise of tantric studies in the west in the mid 20th century has turned it one of the largest fields of Indology.
>to help restore order caused by disorder
This kind of logic is also present in Kashmir Shaivism, and it’s considered there as a way of showing the consciousness of Brahman as the fluctuations in the god-consciousness of Siva. I think our disagreement is ultimately just sectarian, making it pointless for either of us to keep arguing this point.
>this can also be extended to anything that appears to personify Brahman like attributing thoughts or intentions to It.
I’m not personifying the non-actor necessarily, just saying that it has direction while remaining detached. Like earlier, we just have different interpretations here.
>>22356062
At your current state, you’re essentially just doing an intellectual larp. The issue is that life will not always remain tranquil, and sometimes you need to find order in other ways like meditation.
>>22356074
I’m usually fine with discussing multiple topics in this kind of thread, but posting a refutation of AV in a Shaivism thread and then having a contestation if it feels a bit too far.

>>22356062
Truly complete peace of mind IS meditation, it's when the mind is plunged into effortlessly sustained meditation no matter the situation. Then scheduled seated meditation can become relatively unnecessary as what's available in that is now available everywhere all the time, but sitting isn't then a distraction. I assume you were referring specifically to scheduled meditation practices anyway but I say this to hopefully prevent you or someone else from making this arbitrary distinction which is a common hindrance. I'm reminded of a quote (Idk the source): "don't put your beloved in the prison of [scheduled] meditation."

>>22358015
>you’re essentially just doing an intellectual larp
Not at all, if seated meditation doesn’t give you any more peace then you already have then it’s entirely reasonable to not pursue it aside from letting it happen spontaneously on occasion. I’m at a point where seated meditation adds little or nothing to the joy that I already have, this isn’t a larp but its just an accurate description of my life/experience. Just because you may feel like you wouldn’t be happy or fulfilled with this doesn’t make it reasonable for you to assume that other people are the same as you in this regard.
>The issue is that life will not always remain tranquil, and sometimes you need to find order in other ways like meditation.
The true nature of existence is always tranquil and complete, even when the body is experiencing pain the underlying consciousness is peaceful and fulfilled already, any sort of problem or trouble is ultimately subjective and not real, from the perspective of God/the Absolute, everything is eternally perfect already. You can either be aware of this or be unaware of it and thus feel like there’s things to be done and problems to be solved as if things weren’t perfect already. If you learn to intuitively perceive or sense the presence of the pristine and sorrowless Atman shining everywhere in all experiences and hold on to that insight then you don’t need to meditate in order to rise above and not be bothered by the mundane troubles of the world but it just happens effortlessly; once you reach this point then sitting down and closing one’s eyes doesn’t add anything significant that you don’t already have at any other moment. Now, of course what I’m talking about could be considered a kind of constant introspective meditation, but at a certain point it just becomes effortless, doubtless and one’s default state which is very unlike the vast majority of what people refer to as meditation.

>>22355490
Yes

>>22354047
>doubt whether I'm even acting or thinking at all or if the only truely existent thing is a sort of nameless pure awareness which is experiencing something like a fully immersive movie, in which it experiences the illusion of thinking and knowing but does not actually do anything other than experience phenomena. If anything can be said to be truely 'me' it is this nameless awareness.
I would personally say that by regarding the nameless pure awareness as ‘experiencing’ outward things, you are still taking something that the intellect is doing and superimposing it onto the nameless awareness, that awareness really just knows Itself, always and self-evidently and without any sort of mediation or bifurcation, this forms the baseline ‘stage’ or ‘arena’ which then allows the intellect to have sensations of external and internal phenomena; the way in which they are both present in one’s lived experience can be compared to the analogy of objects floating in space. The space (the nameless awareness) Itself just actually knows Itself alone, and simply by being present in Its fullness It allows the object to have sensations without Itself engaging in any sort of subject vs object relation with that object (representing the intellect).
>I have a hard time living my own life as I can't fully believe it's even happening.
Even if it’s not truly real, why not just relax and let it play out naturally, resting content in the knowledge that whatever happens, your pristine nature is unharmed and unaffected either way?
>The taste and smell of things has dulled.
I have never experienced this and am not sure what you mean, are you saying that when you wonder if the sensation of eating dinner is truly real that it makes the food seem less enjoyable or do you literally mean that the food is less tasty no matter what you do/think? In the former case that seems like slipping into unnecessary rumination and the problem might just be fixed by going with the flow of the moment and not worrying about it.
>My relationships have suffered because at times it's as if there's no one home in my body, so to speak.
It doesn’t have to be an all vs nothing type situation, you can regard the body as your contingent ‘avatar’ or counter-image, and simply let go of rumination and ‘play along’ with its normal relationships etc despite knowing in the back of your mind that you are not reducible to the body alone.
>any insights as to what has happened and how to resolve it?
It sounds to me like a combination of excessive rumination and also possibly trying to think from a monk’s perspective while not being one, if you aren’t going to be a monk but at the same time you can’t forget the truth of non-dualism etc then it’s okay to embrace one’s worldly life as a kind of divine game or cosmic sport, like an actor enjoying play a role in a movie or play at his leisure, instead of just trying to mentally negate it while still living a worldly life.

>Kashmiri Shaivism
dead, trika is just an academic obsession

The Muslim conquests of Kashmir destroyed the institutional support for Shaiva Tantra. The temples and schools were destroyed and only a few texts were preserved by pandit families. The teachings had already penetrated the rest of the subcontinent but the source was lost and other schools adopted and adapted the teachings into their own systems. Buddhist Tantra maintained institutional support in Tibet and so continues to the present day. The Shaiva Tantra lineages were scattered and eventually died out with Swami Lakshmanjoo being the last initiate.

With no living lineage or institutional backing, it’s relegated to academic circles now.
Much of the Shaiva Tantra texts haven’t even been translated yet so they’re not very accessible. With no institutional backing, very few translated texts, and no living lineages, genuine Tantra has all but disappeared. Pretty much every popular religion/spiritual tradition is popular precisely because of institutional/political backing and without that, traditions die out or fade away.

Śakta paths like Śri Vidya, on the other hand, are very much alive, especially in south India. And Śri Vidya also has the advantage of not coming into conflict with Śankara's Vedanta on it's highest level.

>>22359835
While I accept that this is your personal view, I feel that this is closer to Taoism than any kind of proper Hindu practice. You essentially apply the view of the world as eternal and flawless as a means of life, using it to work around challenges in a beneficial way. That’s essentially Taoism as exlplained the Tao Te ching, without the weird later additions. Again, this is your view so it’s fine, but it really does feel like a larp that doesn’t have connection to Advaita. You could replace god and Brahman with Tao and your explanation would be the same.
>>22360480
>dead, trika is just an academic obsession
True, I just like to learn about it as a hobby.
>Śakta paths like Śri Vidya, on the other hand, are very much alive, especially in south India
This is very correct, and I would recommend anyone interested in Shaivism to look into south Indian sects.

>>22360480
>tantric trad is dead
The words of the prophets are immortal. Platonist writings, for example, are valuable even if one is not a Greek pagan.
>lakshmanjoo
Meme. There's surviving lineages. Not to mention, like yoga one finds tantra permeates virtually every school of Hinduism and Buddhism nowadays insofar at least as meditation praxes are concerned. Plus Neo-Tantra and New Age Tantra are emergent in contemporary era. >inb4countertrad
>muh institutions
Yet the most powerful and continuous tradition and institution (catholicism) is dead somehow according to Guenon? Make it make sense!
>advantage of agreeing w Sankara
Tantra is generally seen as nondual even if oft considered separate from sankara's advaita due to minor differences regarding the reality of illusion. I find disagreement enlightening wrt philosophy. And my gut instict, mayhaps just as westerner, lies with tantric nondualism over advaita. And I prefer qualifications to nondualism. I also like bhakti and personalism and bheda abheda. Sankhya and Yoga too which are quite dualistic in their own estimations in classic texts despite being claimed by nondualists. Your view of Indian religious history moreover sounds more like hagiography of your own sect than historiographically informed critical thinking.

>>22360836
>While I accept that this is your personal view, I feel that this is closer to Taoism than any kind of proper Hindu practice.
I view Taoism and Advaita as pointing to the exact same conclusion. Rene Guenon presents his case for this in his book "The Symbolism of the Cross", especially in the Chapter "resolution of opposites", he quotes from the main Taoist texts all throughout the book. At a surface level people understand Taoism to be about a kind of non-volitional flow state; this is exactly what is talked about in many Advaita texts as something that occurs once you actually discern/implement the teachings, and in Taoist texts they also speak about a kind of jivanmukti state where the sage is unconcerned with the world and where the final goal and summit of the spiritual path is something already present in the here and now as a kind of inner presence or spirit that you just have to discern and "cease one's previous non-abiding in it". Tibetan Buddhist texts talk about this as the "unity of path and fruit", the path is abiding in the fruit, and the fruit is already present in the path.

You can find plenty of Advaita texts that playfully disparage non-spontaneous and forced meditation as a kind of distraction from the already present spiritual summit in the way that I described like:

"The body invested with the senses stands still, and comes and goes. You yourself neither come nor go, so why bother about them? Let the body last to the end of the Age, or let it come to an end right now. What have you gained or lost, who consist of pure consciousness?

Let the world wave rise or subside according to its own nature in you, the great ocean. It is no gain or loss to you. My son, you consist of pure consciousness, and the world is not separate from you. So who is to accept or reject it, and how, and why? How can there be either birth, karma or responsibility in that one unchanging, peaceful, unblemished and infinite consciousness which is you? Whatever you see, it is you alone manifest in it. How could bracelets, armlets and anklets be different from the gold they are made of? Giving up such distinctions as "He is what I am", and "I am not that", recognise that "Everything is myself", and be without distinction and happy.

It is through your ignorance that all this exists. In reality you alone exist. Apart from you there is no one within or beyond samsara. Knowing that all this is an illusion, one becomes free of desire, pure receptivity and at peace, as if nothing existed. Only one thing has existed, exists and will exist in the ocean of being. You have no bondage or liberation. Live happily and fulfilled. Being pure consciousness, do not disturb your mind with thoughts of for and against. Be at peace and remain happily in yourself, the essence of joy. Give up meditation completely but don't let the mind hold on to anything. You are free by nature, so what will you achieve by forcing the mind?"

- Ashtavakra Gita chapter 15

>>22361049
Also, compare for example:

He has attained perfect impassibility; life and death are equally indifferent to him, the collapse of the universe would cause him no emotion. By dint of search, he has reached the immutable truth, the unique universal Principle. He lets all beings evolve according to their destinies ... The outward sign of this inner state is imperturbability: not that of the hero who hurls himself alone, for love of glory, against an army in line of battle, but that of the spirit, which, higher than heaven, earth and all beings, dwells in a body to which it is indifferent, taking no account of what its sense convey to it, and knowing all by global knowledge in its motionless unity. That spirit, absolutely independent, is the master of men; if he cared to call them all together in their multitude, they would all rally on the appointed day; but he has no desire for their service
-Zhuangzi, ch 5

with

Here is the Self-effulgent Atman, of infinite power, beyond the range of conditioned knowledge, yet the common experience of all - realising which alone this incomparable knower of Brahman lives his glorious life, freed from bondage. Satisfied with undiluted, constant Bliss, he is neither grieved nor elated by sense-objects, is neither attached nor averse to them, but always disports with the Self and takes pleasure therein. ... The knower of the Atman, who wears no outward mark and is unattached to external things, rests on this body without identification, and experiences all sorts of sense-objects as they come, through others’ wish, like a child. .... The man of realisation ... lives unmoved in the body, like a witness, free from mental oscillations, like the pivot of the potter’s wheel. He neither directs the sense-organs to their objects nor detaches them from these, but stays like an unconcerned spectator. And he has not the least regard for the fruits of actions, his mind being thoroughly inebriated with drinking the undiluted elixir of the Bliss of the Atman.
- Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

>>22355853
>Hindu Shaivite (specifically Shaiva Siddhanta
Interestingly, there is a monistic strain of Shaiva Siddhanta which also has ties to the Nath school of Shaivism that is called as a philosophical system "Shudda Shaiva Siddhanta", and they call the name of the tradition the "Nandinatha Sampradaya". The current head of the sampradaya is actually a white guy named Bodhinatha Veylanswami who is based out of a temple on the Hawaiian Island of Kauai but is apparently still recognized by Shaivists in India as the head of that particular lineage. You can see him in this photo of a meeting of Natha teachers in India that Yogi Adityanath also attended.
>>22360836
>This is very correct, and I would recommend anyone interested in Shaivism to look into south Indian sects.
There is also a still alive and thriving Shakti-Shaiva tradition in Nepal called Sarvāmnāya that integrates previous Shakti and Shaiva teachings/texts like Sri Vidya and Trika and their texts. Sthaneshwar Timalsina on his Vimarsha foundation website lists the names of the peoples/teachers that he was initiated into it by and it lists some of the affiliated teaching centers. If you follow and go through all the paid courses that his foundation teaches it says on its website that you can request that he initiate you into it at the end.

>>22353122
2 Cor 6
>14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
>15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
>16. And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them;] and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

>>22350725
Jesus is alive.

>>22353843
>I am mostly still Christian (Catholic)
Roman catholicism isn't Christian, details in the Bible (KJV).

>>22354460
>This isn't a thread about Christianity
It was from the second post and from the rest of the posts who bring it up. It is from the original post as well, indirectly, but you'll deny that.

>>22356009
>there is no satisfactory experiential basis for believing
That's not true, but it's not something I can share with you other than in word and you wouldn't believe me anyway.

>>22360937
>The words of the prophets are immortal
Try, but I think he meant it on a practical standpoint. New Age tantra isn’t really the same as Kashmir Shaivism, so I agree with him that the old tradition died off through lack of support in muslim dominated territory.
>>22361049
>>22361054
As I said earlier, I can’t bring myself to agree with the traditionalist version of perennialism. While you can find similarities in concept, I believe that all faiths and philosophies are unique interpretations of a higher truth. They each attempt to interpret this truth to bring reason in an otherwise reasonless existence, but considering them to all have the same ultimate goal is faulty since these interpretations differ and can result in different goals. Your practice of Advaita is syncretic, which I’m fine with as long as you agree that it is.
The quotes are nice and show fascinating similarity between faiths over certain concepts, but you can’t reconcile Islam and Hinduism on an ontological level, for example.
>but Sufism
It’s syncretic with Hindu ideas, but they’re different ultimately just like the other muslim sects.

>>22360937
>Yet the most powerful and continuous tradition and institution (catholicism) is dead somehow according to Guenon? Make it make sense!
He writes that this was due to a gradual loss throughout the centuries of an esoteric understanding that had earlier been present, and he connects this at one point to the suppression of the Templar order. The formalization of a lineage either in the form of a select group of authority figures and/or physical centers of teaching can help preserve a tradition's esoteric teaching but it's not 100% guaranteed to do so; there is nothing that is really illogical about this IMO. Also, he thought that Catholicism still preserved some spiritual legitimacy and still helped one genuinely progress towards the Godhead or perennial goal through the exoteric level teaching that grants access to heaven/brahmaloka, but just that the esoteric paths that are a quicker and more direct route than this had died out, but he kind of leaves open the possibility that the seeds of it remain and just have to be revived. It's unclear whether he would have thought that Vatican 2 changes any of this.

>>22361157
>It was from the second post and from the rest of the posts who bring it up. It is from the original post as well, indirectly, but you'll deny that.
Unless you are engaging in proselytism and seeking to convert people to Christianity, which nobody here on /lit/ really finds interesting at all to talk about or engage with (the act of proselytism itself and not the religion of course), then there is little to no point in saying *in a Hindu thread* that what the Gita about God says should be rejected because Aquinas says something else. That's not even an interesting philosophical point or anything.

>That's not true, but it's not something I can share with you other than in word and you wouldn't believe me anyway.
You can try and I'm willing to consider anything, but I don't see what there would be aside from a subjective claim of witnessing a miracle or angel etc that other people probably won't take seriously and which they may never experience. The Christian God is by all standards invisible when Jesus isn't standing directly in front of you and thus not readily perceivable by the senses, so it's not like you can examine your empirical experience and find something in it which directly shows that God is a triune father/spirit/son.

>>22361190
This is totally wrong.

>>22361138
>Nandinatha Sampradaya
I’ve actually heard about this before. Their organisation in Hawaii was a bit weird at first, but I’ve come around and respect them for being genuinely faithful, far more than the usual New Age crowd.
>There is also a still alive and thriving Shakti-Shaiva tradition in Nepal called Sarvāmnāya
Really? That’s very interesting, thanks for the info. I’ll have look on their website to see how they incorporate Sri Vidya into their teachings.
>>22361157
Typical autistic Abrahamic that has to shove his religion down everyone’s throats.

>>22361164
>They each attempt to interpret this truth to bring reason in an otherwise reasonless existence, but considering them to all have the same ultimate goal is faulty since these interpretations differ and can result in different goals.
It's not necessarily faulty because according to Vedantic metaphysics what direction you or your subtle body takes in the post-death state is dependent on your state of spiritual attainment and not on what you think is the end-goal is, so even in spiritual traditions that teach a different end-goal conclusion than Vedanta it still makes sense from a Vedantic perspective that they would function as routes towards the same Godhead end-goal, since even if what they say about heaven/paradise etc is technically not the full truth, you can still die while having incorrect beliefs about metaphysics/heaven/ultimate goal and still nonetheless make significant progress towards moksha in spite of those wrong beliefs if you have still attained spiritual progress/purity during your life before you had died. This is why the argument "different traditions teach different things about the soul after death" doesn't actually refute perennialism.

>Your practice of Advaita is syncretic, which I’m fine with as long as you agree that it is.
I just base my introspective/"meditative" practice on studying Advaita alone, and it's on the basis of the doing this that I have concluded that Guenon is right on this, but I personally don't do anything which Advaita texts don't talk about. So I would disagree that its syncretic because I don't adopt any practice from elsewhere, I simply view other things as often being alternative means to the same ends. Syncretism would arguably be actually taking practices from other texts and using them at the same time.

>>22361194
>This is totally wrong.
How so? Are you able to elaborate?

If logic is truly universal and God is real and equally apparent to all men and not some mere brain aberration for the latter or for the former some subjective language game based off first principles derived arbitrarily from particular canons and hermeneutic principles then there is no reason why metaphysical discusssion particularly wrt a supreme deity between any religion should be prohibited or indeed could be. Much less on a board like this.

Ironic that the advaita prosletyser is complaining about christians prosletyzing after he hijacked this thread for his own cultic sect

>>22361230
>it still makes sense from a Vedantic perspective that they would function as routes towards the same Godhead end-goal, since even if what they say about heaven/paradise etc is technically not the full truth, you can still die while having incorrect beliefs about metaphysics/heaven/ultimate goal and still nonetheless make significant progress towards moksha in spite of those wrong beliefs if you have still attained spiritual progress/purity during your life before you had died.
Also, some KS authors say basically the same things in their writings and say that every conceivable philosophical/religious position is just a different stage of Shiva expressing himself but that they all lead to him.

>>22360836
> You could replace god and Brahman with Tao and your explanation would be the same.
Yes. Why not? His description does not sound like it at all significantly differs from Advaita, either.

>>22361164
>They each attempt to interpret this truth to bring reason in an otherwise reasonless existence, but considering them to all have the same ultimate goal is faulty since these interpretations differ and can result in different goals.
Different traditions are clearly different but you have something like concept-blindness if you can’t see the intrinsic similar between the Tao and Brahman/Taoism and Vedanta. It’s an overreaction to some of the more antiquated scholars who ONLY want to see similarities to deny the intrinsic similarities.

Dogmas wear away like minerals, rocks and life-forms decomposing into sand but the supreme truth is eternal, existing hundreds of thousands of years ago when names like “Vedanta” and “Taoism” weren’t there and existing hundreds of thousands of years from hence. Even equally applicable to theoretical extraterrestrials living galaxies away (if they exist, are intelligent, have built civilizations, it’d be surprising if they DIDN’T have philosophies like Taoism, Ch’an, and Advaita Vedanta springing up in their civilizations at some point).

>>22361164
>but you can’t reconcile Islam and Hinduism on an ontological level, for example.
There are actually certain Muslim theologians and thinkers that come so close that the underlying metaphysics are largely reconcilable with some finer differences in expression and terminology. In Mulla Sadra's theology God is the only actual existent, with everything else being contingent expressions or aspects of God that are generated by him, that never emerge into becoming a 2nd existent entity besides God. Shabestari writes about plurality being an illusion. There are also multiple lesser-known Indian Sufi thinkers synthesize earlier currents of Sufi and Ishraqi thought and who in doing so come very close to Vedantic ontology in their writings.

>>22361235
>then there is no reason why metaphysical discusssion particularly wrt a supreme deity between any religion should be prohibited or indeed could be. Much less on a board like this.
Nobody is saying anything is prohibited but you aren't making any real point worth discussing when you write "the Gita is wrong because Aquinas says X", that's not interesting at all but it's just shilling and pushing your views on others. You didn't even demonstrate any real interest in learning about what you were criticizing. You aren't providing any ground for fruitful discussion.

Ironically enough Advaita is actually closer to Aquinas on this than almost any other Hindu school, inasmuch as Aquinas holds that in God His operations are identical with His essence and that operations/act of creation flows outward from this essential pure act that is the same as God's actuality and which is in itself unchanging and not changing from one "state" to another "state", and Advaita similarly holds that the Brahman's inherent nature/power/potency that projects all created illusion is basically rooted in Brahman and non-different from It, so with Brahman It's "operation" is really not different from It's "essence". In Advaita too everything is flowing outward from a God of pure numinous absolute being, but the inherent capability/power that generates this outflow is non-different from the absolute being itself, like Aquinas.

>Ironic that the advaita prosletyser is complaining about christians prosletyzing after he hijacked this thread for his own cultic sect
I wasn't proselytizing Advaita, I wasn't telling anyone to abandon their viewpoint and accept Advaita instead, I was just defending it from an argument someone made against it while also continuing a discussion about Gaudapada from another thread after the person from the last thread revived that discussion in this thread. In the course of the discussion it went into interpreting Hindu scriptures but in doing so I was just explaining the way to interpret them according to the Advaitist POV, I wasn't saying everyone should abandon their own POV/school for Advaita and by my own admission I view other spiritual paths and schools as valid approaches to God.

>>22361335
Aquinas would certainly not claim reality to be a meaningless illusion however. Hence his ideas are closer to KS insofar as they view multiplicity as lila rather than maya or as Balthasar would say "Theo-Drama".
>you aren't making any real point worth discussing when you simply assert
Yet that is what you have done...
>>22361254
Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism nor Daoism can all be true. Nor are they all necessarily false much less equally so. Reality is not so much irrational as superrational. Rationality is good and fine. Even though they all have similarities, they cannot be equally true, rather some must be closer to truth. You may call yourself universal or perennial but if you truly believed that you would not say things like "AV is an elite intellectual only club for cool kids like me as compared to those yucky chad and stacies who enjoy work and love and life over empty speculation which I admit to not having attained experimental confirmation of". Taoism like Tantra and Yoga and Sankhya emphasizes dialectical forces and reality of mind and matter albeit mediated by a neutral monism even if they are in a state of muddlement which must be corrected. Kinda like in hermetic alchemy -- the dynamic interplay of conjunction of opposites. AV claims the irreality of such movements. Buddhism is also dialectical but more monist in favor of mind or body. Emptiness and Buddha Nature however comes close to Dao and Brahman. Interdependence however does resembles Daoism and KS with their dualist dialectics. But AV's Brahma unlike Aquinas as mentioend prior excludes meaning, and being, from reality. As does Buddhism to some extent.
>>22361285
The sense of being uses for God is different than man as being. Identity between God and man is heresy in all Christianity and Islam. Maybe not Judaism tho amirite. *ba dum tiss*
>>22361249
Ya. God gave prisca theologia to the savages but Christ is the way the truth the light.
>t. What you sound like

>>22361230
>because according to Vedantic metaphysics
This is the issue. Vedanta is just one interpretation, and like I said, interpretations can differ completely between religions and philosophies. You’re just rephrasing other religions in Advaitin metaphysics, which is perfectly acceptable but not objective for obvious reasons.
>I just base my introspective/"meditative" practice on studying Advaita alone
If you say so. I just felt like it paralleled Taoism very closely, so you could have been influenced by parts of it. Even if it wasn’t direct, cultural influence is a weird thing sometimes and hard to notice unless explicitly stated by the source you got it from.
>>22361249
That’s true, but that’s the application of their metaphysics to the world as a whole. I was trying to explain my view earlier in secular terms in consideration to this.
>>22361254
I already said that I saw the similarities and found them very interesting. My point was that religions are unique interpretations of the truth, not that they can’t have overlap. I actually agree with most of what you say.
>>22361285
The neoplatonists like Mulla Sadra and the sufis both have well made metaphysics, but the Shahadah is accepted by all muslims regardless of sect and essentially puts an end to the possibility of reconciling Islam and Hinduism.

>>22361390
>Aquinas would certainly not claim reality to be a meaningless illusion however.
Advaita says that all of samsara leads back towards God and in this way has a kind of directedness or teleology to it, this is why there are revealed scriptures that direct the aspirant to Moksha, if the was 0 teleology there would be no point in Brahman propagating the same scripture in every new universe that emerges from prior dissolution.
>Hence his ideas are closer to KS insofar as they view multiplicity as lila rather than maya or as Balthasar would say "Theo-Drama".
KS admits a strong degree of change in the God that Aquinas doesn’t, so there are portions of his thought that are more closer to Advaita (which retains the notion of God as wholly immutable) and other portions that are closer to KS. Furthermore KS literally identifies the universe with God in a kind of pantheism with emanationist sequences that unfold while both Advaita and Aquinas don’t. The latter idea some Christian-posters seem to insist on misrepresenting Advaita as doing when they want to strawman it as “muh monism” when they actually don’t and it’s both Ramanuja and KS/Abhinavagupta who do so to a greater extent in fact.

>Yet that is what you have done..
Generally I try to engage with the ideas expressed in the posts that I reply to

>Identity between God and man is heresy in all Christianity and Islam
Identity between God and man is heresy in Advaita Vedanta, AV teaches identify between the Atman (which isn’t human) and Brahman

>>22361400
>but the Shahadah is accepted by all muslims regardless of sect and essentially puts an end to the possibility of reconciling Islam and Hinduism.
Not really unless you just mean reconciling every part of their exoteric explanations of their own doctrine compared to other religions, which was not what I was saying is reconcilable in the first place. The simple fact of disagreeing on a surface level as expressed in something like the shahada doesn’t negate the premise that both can be paths to the same end-goal through encouraging one to cultivate spiritual refinement which can lead to the same Godhead regardless of what name and tradition one is cultivating it under. Under course a Muslim might not agree with this but there is no logical reason why it necessarily cannot be true.

>>22361390
>You may call yourself universal or perennial but if you truly believed that you would not say things like "AV is an elite intellectual only club for cool kids like me as compared to those yucky chad and stacies who enjoy work and love and life over empty speculation which I admit to not having attained experimental confirmation of".

Lel, I don’t say that (and try not to have that attitude) but I see why you get that sense because of how many posters in threads like these come off like that, it’s easy to generalize swaths of /lit/ posters because of how, in fact, easily generalizable we are. I in fact even have tried to speak against that attitude but it’s like pissing in the ocean. No other posts in this thread are mine, that was my first post, and I don’t post much because it doesn’t seem productive. Even in saying this I’m being hypocritical, as I’ve well noticed, just as it would be to say, “Many of you are too intellectual and obsessed with juggling knowledge of how many schools of thought you know the terminology and histories of than you are with your own direct experience, and especially many of you are more concerned with the thin veneer of ‘cultural authenticity’ than you are with the supreme truth and higher experience (‘this guy is LARPing, that guy is LARPing, am I LARPing? Am I an authentic Indian Hindu? Isn’t trying to learn from East Asian philosophies without being a genetically East Asian folk practitioner LARPing? Is anyone allowed to learn from Sufism without themselves being a fully authentic Arabic Muslim? Don’t you have to be Chinese to say you learned anything from Taoism without just being a Western LARPer?’ Etc.),” because who am I to say any of this? Who? What impressive experiences or knowledge do I have? Does it help anyone? What does the criticism even help if people can’t seen this for themselves already or hear it for themselves from great spiritual literature and teachers? How often do arguments on the Internet lead to some great spiritual epiphany or life-changing experience?

Regardless, you’re heavily projecting, but it’s still a good thing to say — dent up the false egos of posters a little bit, myself included.

>Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism nor Daoism can all be true. Nor are they all necessarily false much less equally so. Reality is not so much irrational as superrational. Rationality is good and fine. Even though they all have similarities, they cannot be equally true, rather some must be closer to truth.

I don’t disagree.

>enjoy work and love and life

In the Tantric traditions like various schools of Shaivism and Shaktism, these are, notably, all potentially positive and can themselves be part of an enlightened life (seeing Shiva or Shakti even in the apparently “lowest” activities and experiences, divine bliss reflected in the grossest), or the life of the householder yogi as opposed to the ascetic renunciate.

>>22361449
I suppose my issue with perennialist AV is the notion of a static infinity versus an active infinity. Also, I find the esoteric and intellectual overemphasized in AV although that is my natural predisposition. I indeed feel much peace. Pantheism is ok w me as long as panentheist. Gods beyond God. Kabbalistic emanations... yet some confused logical priority in such stories for temporal priority. Spontaneous generation is Buddhist solution I suppose. Atheists will claim Brahma and Prime Movers are just thay. Yet. Eternity is neither here nor there. So what does it mean to stand in a potential infinity? I find AV fatalistic in a way Christianity is not for me at least. But yes. Both traditions have positive and negative theology. Both traditions have levels of reality. AV distinguishes the dream from the dreams within the dreams. But for me personally, I find my salvation in plunging into the depths of materia and physis and engagement. It is too easy to think Godly thoughts. I also feel need to help world. Help complete great work of God as Hermeticists would say. But maybe reading and writing is that on its own.
>atman is brahman
Ya. I don't believe in that. I see no reason to assume God could not creatio ex nihilo and gift being to individual souls out of love without them dissolving into some sort of hivemind at the highest level.
>>22361498
A muslim would say that the Vedas are corrupted from the Edenic religion of Islam which was rerevealed by Mohammad as his final prophet and you are deluding yourself and ought pay extra taxes plus extra cause you're not even book bros.

>>22361510
Sorry. I do not mean to mistake you for other anons. I suppose I will drop the combativeness. I dip in and out. It is funny how anonymity both weakens some forms of ego yet causes other. Nevertheless I believe in a personal God and a personal soul and the reality of personality. I find Hare Krishnas are quite similar attitudes actually lol.

>>22361498
>there is no logical reason why it necessarily cannot be true
There's no reason why it is true either. Muslim theology simply is not constructed in a way that allows it to have the same endgoal as Hinduism unless the practising sect is very syncretic like sufism. You basically have to say that the muslims are wrong and your view is correct, which is just as reliant on faith and fits into my point.

>>22361587
>There's no reason why it is true either.
I wasn't arguing that it proceeds naturally from anything taught by Islam or that it "has to" be true, just that it's both theoretically possible and plausible, that if all/most spiritual paths lead to the Godhead, and if one's progression was determined by one's spiritual progress and not by affiliation to one group or another, then this could be true of Islam as well.
>which is just as reliant on faith
like almost everything in religion, yes

>>22361655
>like almost everything in religion, yes
Agreed, there's no problem with our opinions differing here.

>>22351287

The issue with perennialists is that they have the deep craving of universalism out of their freemasonic creation of individualism. And frankly taking seriously freemasons is pathetic.

>>22361762
Naw man Hiram the widow's son it's the true abrahamism, mayne, i'm a demon conjurer like solomon brooo

>>22361762
Perennialism in itself as a concept has no necessary connection with freemasonry, there are multiple eastern thinkers/schools who never encountered freemasonry but who nonetheless arrived at a perennialist conception of all paths leading towards God. Some Trika authors write about that, similarly Kukai wrote about the entire universe being a means through which Mahavairocana teaches dharma, the Bhagavad-Gita always talks about how all beings actually worship the Supreme Brahman either knowingly or unknowingly. The Christian teaching of universal reconciliation that some Church Fathers and certain saints accepted is also very close to perennialism, albeit in a Christian-centric way. You don't need freemasonry or individualism to arrive at the conclusion of perennialism.

>And frankly taking seriously freemasons is pathetic
There is no requirement or obligation for a perennialist to do so

Frankly I can't accept perennialism on the grounds that it's self-refuting. If Abrahamic faiths posit an absolute qualitative difference between creator and created, and Vedic faiths posit that Atman is Brahman and we created things are Atman in some way, how is one to square that circle? Methinks any protestations to the contrary always tend towards undermining the position of one side or the other.

>>22362175
>Methinks any protestations to the contrary always tend towards undermining the position of one side or the other.
Many perennialists are quite open about this, that some religions mainstream/exoteric understanding is incorrect or not the full truth in certain areas but nonetheless still having value such as spiritual and moral lessons, but that most of the traditional religions nonetheless progress towards the same end or Godhead if you follow them while progressing along one's spiritual path through developing virtuous/auspicious qualities and through introspective and meditative spiritual practices etc, and even that simply living virtuously independently of religion is a kind of progress in itself, this isn't incompatible with the premise of perennialism at all since it doesn't require the surface-level description of every religion to match-up in order for the general idea to be coherent.

>. If Abrahamic faiths posit an absolute qualitative difference between creator and created, and Vedic faiths posit that Atman is Brahman and we created things are Atman in some way, how is one to square that circle?
From an Advaitic perspective this can be answered by noting that the Atman is actually uncreated, so the sentence "we created things are Atman" is incorrect, every non-Atman thing about the embodied individual as well as everything else can be seen as being created by the Atman-Brahman in a manner analogous to Abrahamic God allowing everything to manifest and giving created things their existence at every moment. God didn't create the universe once and then it rolled on as a totally self-sufficient entity, but God is always what gives phenomena their relative being and allowing them to be what they are, even when this is partially being mediated through secondary causes, this more or less also the case with the Atman-Brahman in relation to everything besides Itself including matter, time, space, individuality, mind, emotions, thoughts, perceptions, volition, sin, ignorance, birth, death etc.

>>22362285
>you are not you
>You are God
>you do not remember past lives
>You are already liberated
Why escape rebirth? Why work and be virtuous and meditate?
>you are not real
>nor is anyone else
>nor is suffering nor joy (except somehow atman is bliss???)
>you just need to see You are God and all is well
Why bother doing anything?

>>22362285
I would add, in that case the point about the Abrahamic God not being identified with created things would not conflict with the identification of one's Atman with Brahman, since that's not an identification of anything created with the Uncreated, but is more so talking about realizing the presence of the Uncreated within the created that It pervades, that the immediate light of pristine and spontaneous awareness that is one's own self-awareness and which forms the axis mundi around which all changing mental and physical sensations revolve is not another created thing, but rather is the Uncreated dwelling within Its creation, the very same Uncreated that dwells in and animates all things equally.

>>22362336
I guess Christians despite believing in supernature do not necessarily believe in the fullness of God being manifest completely anywhere in creation or nature especially in any one person except for Christ insofar as he is the exception to this rule. The idea of a atmanbrahma is utterly anathema to Abrahamics and even to many of your own kindred faiths such as most forms of Daoism and Buddhism and Shintoism. It is dishonest to present this as anything other than your personal opinion. You may have theological reasons for your beief but not philosophical ones. Philosophy admits a sort of agnosticism. For the free play of ideas. Striving but not reaching. Getting closer somehow still even so. Even if you had experienced samadhi we without having done so would be forced to give equal weight to alternative religious and scientific explanations. No one has a problem with AV. It's your attitude. Lighten up. Humility is good. Unknowing. Truth is one tho many names. Concentrate on moon not finger. Admit that there are many heavenly bodies in night sky of thought, we may be pointing at other stars. Or the space between. Why have we fingers and moons. What are they? Are they what we think? What doth life? How strange it is to be anything at all. Socratic mystic learned ignorance > dogmatic AV. All different philosophies have insights. Defend your beliefs without recourse to words of authority. Admit when you don't know things. Unless you do. But I don't believe that. Sorry. Perhaps tis my loss.
>dwells in all things
Why not jivabrahma? Prakritibrahma and purushabrahma? Pranabrahma? Ends up Spinozist (heretical! One step away from modernism)

>>22362333
>Why escape rebirth? Why work and be virtuous and meditate?
You don't need to escape rebirth, you are already completely free, perfect and complete. The intellect is experiencing samsara and it is what travels along the spiritual path until it ends rebirth, the intellect is also the subject of virtue, sin and ignorance, it is what acts and deliberates. You don't have to do anything since you already free and moreover you are not even an actor or agent, the intellect will work out its own progress on the spiritual path according to its own nature, it will pursue spirituality either in this life if it wants to or in futures ones, so you don't need to worry about what should your Self do. You never do anything else but simply abide in the free and complete peace that is yourself, the intellect acts on its own and it gradually progresses along until realization and liberation, while you on the other hand are not even bound to begin with. If it is in the karmic conditions of an intellect to pursue spirituality in any given life, then it will do so.

>Why bother doing anything?
You never do anything but you are already completely satisfied and above doer-ship, you don't need to ask yourself why you should act since you aren't even acting, the intellect acts in response that particular intellect's combination of desires, motivations and urges. Your intellect may read this, think about it, and not understand it or not consider it a satisfactory answer, or it perhaps it may understand it; but in either case it's just acting on it's one and it will continue to do so until it succeeds at ending rebirth through traveling along the path of spirituality while you are already free, omnipresent, undecaying, complete, fearless and sorrowless, and you always have been and always will be.

>>22362383
>The idea of a atmanbrahma is utterly anathema to Abrahamics
I see certain very early "Gnostic" gospels like Thomas as reflecting some circles of early Christians who had similar views.

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

His disciples said to him, "Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for
us to seek it."
He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light,
and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness."

>and even to many of your own kindred faiths such as most forms of Daoism and Buddhism
I see the spiritual/esoteric side of Taoism as agreeing very closely with Advaita, there are quotes in classic Taoist literature that are heavily suggestive of non-dualism. In Buddhism there are also are plenty of Tibetan and east-Asian Ch'an type literature that describes the Atman-Brahman doctrine in experiential and phenomenological terms as a numinous and luminous presence within oneself to be realized, but with different metaphysical ideas attached to it, but it doesn't really matter what metaphysical ideas you rely on to get there since the experiential discovery of It as oneself non-dualistically is what actually matters in the end and what is actually spiritually fulfilling and not whatever historically- and culturally-conditioned concepts that you use as an aid to realize it. Shinto doesn't seem very metaphysical but it existed alongside forms of Japanese Buddhism that are more or less non-dual like Shingon and others.
> It is dishonest to present this as anything other than your personal opinion.
It's not mine since I didn't come up with it but I learned about it from reading Traditionalist School writings and then afterwards looking at related primary sources
> You may have theological reasons for your beief but not philosophical ones
I consider it compelling both philosophically and theologically as a way of interpreting scripture
>Philosophy admits a sort of agnosticism.
NOOOO you can't just not have doubts?!? Not cool!

>>22362513
You are qualifying your beliefs now. Is AV the supreme path? Or is it just a metaphysical cargo plane to the other shore? I myself see the other shore differently. I have explained why. I admit I may be wrong. Agree to disagree. Perhaps we will meet there one day and reconvene our palaver. Perhaps we won't because all that will meet is not us but the one I of God.
>you can't just not have doubts
It's faith, man. The problem with meditation and intellectual intuition is even the people who agree that exists disagree on its meaning. I suppose however in a loose way we are comrades though. What is faith without doubt?

>>22362538
>You are qualifying your beliefs now. Is AV the supreme path? Or is it just a metaphysical cargo plane to the other shore?
I view it as both, I think it more or less accurately describes the underlying metaphysical structure while also being a route there, with some other doctrines also presenting a route there even when in the context of a different metaphysical understanding.
>What is faith without doubt?
That would be unwavering faith. I'm not saying that everyone needs to have unwavering faith, but I reject as the idea that in religion it's in some way bad to not have any doubt or that this makes you deluded or a lunatic. You can still think very self-critically and philosophically even while having a complete absence of doubt, it's not like one automatically erases the other.

faggot niggers arguing over this like its a philosophy class. Read Tantra Illuminated, after each chapter sit down, meditate and contemplate on concepts

You can build elaborate sandcastles out of logic and reasoning and base them on whichever revealed truth you like but at the end of the day it's impossible to distinguish between complete passive awareness of thinking and actually thinking for yourself. You aren't your thoughts, or the subject or object of those thoughts, you aren't your identity, you aren't anything at all but the awareness which is filled by phenomena at waking and emptied of phenomena when sleeping, like a cup being filled of water and then emptied. Again: the only thing that can truly said to exist from the perspective of the individual is his awareness, that into which all phenomena enter in order to be 'experienced' and which either ceases to exist or exists in an unknowable state when consciousness departs.
AV and Shaivism and so on seem very interesting but at the end of the day it might as well be gibberish and in fact all phenomena might as well be gibberish. Whether they are intelligible to hypothetical entities capable of verifiable free will and thought has no bearing on the situation at hand, which is immediately verifiable as far is it is meaningful to do so. What is thought is the equivalent of a very interesting arrangement of water droplets in the half-second before it hits the bottom of our imaginary glass.

>>22362562
>Read Tantra Illuminated,
the author was retroactively refuted by Koenraad Elst

>>22362333
Checking the trips but mainly wanted to address this:
>(except somehow atman is bliss???)
I didn't understand this for a while either, but this may help you or someone else intuition pump it.
My understanding of satchitananda is that sat doesn't mean Atman/Brahman is an existing thing, or has existence, or is something that creates existing things, but that Brahman is existence itself; and chit doesn't mean Brahman is certain experiences or states of mind/consciousness but consciousness/awareness itself, that which makes possible any experience at all. So ananda must be bliss itself and not a particular feeling or blissful experience, but this never made sense to me until I heard it explained as follows: satchit is necessarily limitless, complete, absolutely imperturbable etc. Ananda is this limitlessness, completeness, and imperturbability. In other words, in the stabilized realization of this very experience now as satchit it's obvious that there's nothing more to be gained or done to be ultimately satisfied, that's ananda.

Advaita boils down to empty semantics. It's goalposts shifting and semantic cope.

>>22362568
>but at the end of the day it's impossible to distinguish between complete passive awareness of thinking and actually thinking for yours-
retroactively refuted by Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh) in the very first sentence of his largest work, the Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya

>>22362681
This is not a strong refutation at all.

>>22362692
His arguments and statements often have multiple levels of unspoken implications. You can realize how different awareness is from thoughts by focusing on how awareness remains the same, stable and partless, indeterminate and effortlessly present while thoughts come and go and are determined within the span of this awareness. Saying that awareness thinks for itself involves mixing up two things that are utterly dissimilar, logically and qualitatively.

>>22362750
>You can realize how different awareness is from thoughts by focusing on how awareness remains the same, stable and partless, indeterminate and effortlessly present while thoughts come and go and are determined within the span of this awareness. Saying that awareness thinks for itself involves mixing up two things that are utterly dissimilar, logically and qualitatively.
You didn't understand my post.
It doesn't matter whether you are truly thinking or just aware of phenomena that resemble thinking because at the root of it all there is *only* awareness, which "does" absolutely nothing aside from having phenomena pass through it. Whether thoughts even exist or not has no bearing on that.

>>22362762
Yes, I misunderstood and thought you were saying that there is no reason or basis to conclude whether awareness actively exerts control over thoughts or if it's passive and just witnessing/self-aware by nature, I was contesting that and saying that there is actually a basis to argue from our experience in favor of the latter over the former, but now I see that you really agreed with me from the beginning on that.

>>22362790
But if God actively creates and sustains and transforms creation and the witness conscious is God then how can it be purely passive? I believe the sacramental view is most appropriate wherein mind matter and witness is equally real and separate from God yet divine nonetheless. Also
>you can tell its stable
Buddhist says it fluxes

>>22362839
>But if God actively creates and sustains and transforms creation and the witness conscious is God then how can it be purely passive?
That's where my line of thinking came from in >>22362568. Identifying the pure awareness with God doesn't follow from what I can perceive and reason. Maybe individual pure awarenesses are something like Leibniz' monads in that they are individually without parts and self-sufficient (not acted upon, without needs), yet what makes them possible at all - that is, the source of the phenomena which fill a pure awareness, without which it would be unconscious and indistinguishable from nonexistent - is what we may call God.

>>22362414
>You don't need to escape rebirth, you are already completely free, perfect and complete. The intellect is experiencing samsara and it is what travels along the spiritual path until it ends rebirth, the intellect is also the subject of virtue, sin and ignorance, it is what acts and deliberates. You don't have to do anything since you already free and moreover you are not even an actor or agent, the intellect will work out its own progress on the spiritual path according to its own nature, it will pursue spirituality either in this life if it wants to or in futures ones, so you don't need to worry about what should your Self do. You never do anything else but simply abide in the free and complete peace that is yourself, the intellect acts on its own and it gradually progresses along until realization and liberation, while you on the other hand are not even bound to begin with. If it is in the karmic conditions of an intellect to pursue spirituality in any given life, then it will do so.
Why isnt the intellect born with the lack of ignorance already, instead of with the ignorance of being already free?

>>22362926
Because uhhh it is in Brahman's nature for it to be so

>>22362938
It's not useful to continue explaining what is fundamental in relation to another thing ad infinitum. You have to stop somewhere, and that somewhere is that what fundamentally is does what it does because it is what it is. Why would an Abrahamic God create this world? It's in his nature to do so. Why would a purely physical naturalistic universe follow the laws it does? It's in the nature of matter/energy to do so. The same holds for Brahman. There might be more intellectually satisfying or stimulating answers, but there doesn't need to be. I don't think they add anything. For eg let's say "we're born in ignorance because Brahman wants to experience the journey of discovering itself". Ok... why does Brahman want that? Well it would just be in Brahman's nature to want that. You can't go any further than this.

>>22363190
looks like Brahman is an unnecessary assumption

>>22363460
It's unnecessary if you for eg assume physicalism is sufficient, but you can make the external physical world an unnecessary assumption too if you say all I ever experience is my own perceptions so there is only my perceptions and no actual external physical world. It's about what metaphysical framework is coherent and has the most explanatory power while making the least assumptions and isn't useless or absurd. Physicalism fails at this because it can't account for consciousness (or awareness, used interchangeably here) which cannot be physical, yet consciousness is immediately self-evident and undeniable. Everything physical can be comprehensively described and measured in quantities but consciousness can't, so to say consciousness is also physical is just hand-waving. And imo mind-body dualism doesn't work either.
If you aren't a physicalist then it might be a more involved argument as some kind of Buddhism could meet the criteria better than Advaita but you probably get the idea so I'll leave it here.

>>22362616
>Koenraad Elst
based

>>22362762>>22362839
>>22362857

>It doesn't matter whether you are truly thinking or just aware of phenomena that resemble thinking because at the root of it all there is *only* awareness, which "does" absolutely nothing aside from having phenomena pass through it. Whether thoughts even exist or not has no bearing on that.
this is exactly advaita's position, but this atman is not an individual or god, as it transcends space, time and causality which are all anatman

The idea is that Consciousness appears as though related to outer objects, owing to ignorance. - Ma.Up.Bh. 3

>But if God actively creates and sustains and transforms creation and the witness conscious is God the
in advaita, creation is taught only provisionally, ultimate truth is ajati (non-creation, non-causality)
there's only a 'creator-creation-creature' from the perspective of the ignorant, who misidentifies his atman with the intellect

But in the case of the supreme Self there is the greater
advantage that It has inactivity from Its own point of view,
but a driving urge (for creation) from the standpoint of Maya. B.S.Bh. 2.2.7

for under the aphorism, ""The effect is non-different from the cause
since terms like 'origin' etc. are met with"" (II. i. 14), we
showed that the whole creation is but Maya. B.S.Bh. 3.2.4

All talks of creation, in the primary or secondary sense, relate
only to creation through ignorance, and not to creation in reality Ma.Up.Ka.Bh. 3.23
And what is this illusion after all?

Opponent: Then there must be something real known as Maya or illusion?
Reply: It is not so. That Maya or illusion is never existent.
Maya or illusion is the name we give to something which does not (really) exist. - Ma.Up.Ka.Bh. 4.58

>>22363707
there's also the fact that the culmination of the advaitin's investigation (realization of his own self as non-dual) is beyond words, therefore the whole teaching is ultimately denied, its like wittgensteins ladder (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it. He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.)

Many, indeed, are the aspects of Brahman created by the adjuncts of name and form, but not naturally.
From Its own standpoint, forms, together with words are denied thus: 'That which is without sound, touch, form, and destruction; likewise, tasteless, eternal and odorless' (Ka.I. iii. 15; Nr. 9; Muk.II. 72).
-Ke.Up.Bh. 2.1

>>22363707
>>22363728
Doesn't such a nondual epistemology ultimately climax in paraconsistency and paradox with the beyond words bit? Hence it is misleading to say AV is perfectly logical because most consider logic proper to be a consistent logic?
>>22363573
I agree wrt failings of physicalism. But many epistemologies are equally if not more satisfying to me at least. That's the thing. I dunno why atmanbrahman would be taken on faith when it is denied by most other faiths.

>>22363800
>But many epistemologies are equally if not more satisfying to me at least. That's the thing. I dunno why atmanbrahman would be taken on faith when it is denied by most other faiths.
Yeah it's weird how brahmins really want their narrative about brahman to be true, when brahamn is not even needed to talk about reality in the first place.

>>22362175
Not a perennialist but there's weird syncretic explanations within christianity because they took over places with vedic beliefs, so there's things like Jesus is the turning point on the universe splitting, and from there on out we're in the contracting towards heatdeath of the universe half of history, the end of which will be total reunification of the illimitable nothing. Abrahamic faiths generally believe reunification with god after a terrible split near the start of mankind is the goal, so it's not really an absolute difference.

>>22363809
Christianity maintains that separation of individual souls however so is more like Vishtiadvaita or Dvaita. It is also not cylical. AV says we just do it again and again endlessly since forever till forever all over and over again and again the exact same for no reason except le brahmanature. Schizophrenic God deluding himself w multiple personalities dreaming dreams to fuck around or smthn idk.

>>22363826
>It is also not cylical.
It literally promises a new heaven and a new earth.

>>22364026
A final heaven and earth, yes. Nowhere does it say or imply that an eternal cycle will take place as in AV, that reincarnation exists, or that the end goal of things is anything other than to live in the new heaven and earth eternally rather than break out of an eternal cycle.

>>22364044
>A final heaven and earth, yes.
never specifies that it is the last

>>22364045
Read the rest of my post.
The whole point of Christian eschatology is that man may dwell in the kingdom of God for eternity at the end of time. It doesn't say "this is the last heaven and earth" because there's no concept of eternal cycles or reincarnation in orthodox Christianity and thus it would be pointless to say such a thing. You're reading something into the Bible that frankly doesn't exist.

>>22364055
I read the rest of your post. There is nothing in the bible about it being the last creation. The bible, as you admit, is very limited in scope, focusing specifically on reunion with God within the timeframe of this specific creation, and saying nothing in general about God whatsoever beyond reunification. Your saying "It would be pointless to say anything about what could happen after" is in fact you reading into it. I merely point out that Creation, followed by the destruction of the old, to make way for Creation of the new is an example of a cosmic cycle, and that there is nothing within the bible to imply that this is the end of God's acts of creation meaning that there is no actual concrete contradiction with the idea of the cycle continuing that you can level, only shrug and point to the absence of it being explicitly mentioned.

>>22363800
>>22363807
One thing is to treat it as a mere philosophical system, another is to treat it as an introspective and initiatic method for Self-realization (as intended by Śankara)

If you take Śankara's Upadesá Sahasri, there are two parts (prose and meter) and in the prose part there are two chapters, both begin with a deluded student seeking answers from the master. Interestingly the master teach the students by using different methods (first student with a kind of cosmological/macrocosmical way, the second with the notion of adhyasa and the teaching about the three states), but both ultimately arrive at the same conclusion (the intuition "I am Brahman"). This shows how vedanta is not to be regarded as a fixed and merely theoretical system but as a pedagogical approach for illuminating/liberating the seeker from his natural ignorance, using different methods adapted for each student's level. So the purpose here is not to devise some beautiful philosophical theory to appeal the intellect.

Therefore, the texts expressing creation etc. are meant simply
for generating the idea of the oneness of the Self, and they
cannot be fancied to bear other interpretations. - Ma.Up.Ka.Bh. 3.15

Thus, since the texts about creation etc. are meant for
imparting the knowledge of oneness, Brahman cannot be
possessed of many powers and hence also It cannot
reasonably be a goal to be reached. - B.S.Bh. 4.3.14

About "beyond words". As the Self is already present in everyone's experience, it's not something to be attained but merely to be determined what is it's real nature (non-dual), so there's no question of logical inconsistency or paradox as it's a matter of direct experience which is the very basis or presuposition for the beginning of the investigation itself (using different means of knowledge, logic, etc):
On the other hand, the Brahman to be inquired into here is a pre-existing entity; and It is not dependent on human effort, since It is eternally present. B.S.Bh. 1.1.1

And that the Self is non-related to anything and "beyond words" is a matter of direct experience as well (not just a matter of logical consistency or because the Śruti says it so):
In profound sleep the self, bereft of its limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, remains in its own supreme light of the Atman, free from all relations - Br.Up.Bh. 4.3.32
We, on the other hand, do want to prove that that Brahman is the lasting abode of the soul in the state of deep sleep; that is a knowledge which has its own uses, viz. the ascertainment of Brahman being the Self of the soul, and the ascertainment of the soul being essentially non-connected with the worlds that appear in the waking and in the dreaming state. Hence the Self alone is the place of deep sleep. - B.S.Bh. 3.2.7

One of the greatest impediments to understand this is probably lack of vairagya (dispassion towards the world and towards what you think you really are: body, mind, etc).

>>22364072
>final heaven and earth
>not last
I know you're probably a shitskin so prolly esl but this is just dishonest af if you have any reading comprehension -- you're purposefully distorting another tradition here to make your perennialist thesis more believable.
>>22364095
Word salad. Wall of text. You're a poof.
>muh direct experience
This is just an intuition you have. There is no proof. You admit to not being enlightened. But also that there is no enlightenment. Do you truly feel non-separate from the other anons here, from the universe, from God? Your posts seem like desperately trying to convince yourself of something without evidence desu. You certainly aren't engaging with your audience and intelocuters except insofar as your audience already accepts either AV or Guenonian Traditionalism. Many Buddhist claim direct experience of no atman. Many Abrahamist claim direct experience of union with God while maintaining division.

>>22362568
Agree with this. It's ultimately just intuition, and my personal spiritual experiences have led me to believe that Shaivism is correct. This is true for all philosophies.

The funny thing is that if you never heard of Brahman, let alone the equality atman=brahman, you would never even think of coming with the Brahman hypothesis.

>>22364172
See >>22355298
Don’t fool yourself into taking him seriously.

>>22364172
>>muh direct experience
>Do you truly feel non-separate from the other anons here, from the universe, from God?
Different anon but your phrasing made me want to share a very simple, effective, and practical non-dual investigation/meditation for whoever is willing to try.

What evidence can you actually find in the visual field of any distance or separation between where you seem to be looking from and whatever you're looking at? You see the object "over there", but do you really see anything "back here" to measure from?
Any distance or separation that you think is really there is entirely imaginary. The same is verifiable for the other senses and the mind. Initial unstable insight into this isn't liberation, in a way it's where the path truly begins, but it really is this simple.
>But also that there is no enlightenment.
If there is direct intuitive realization of "non-separation", or even just intellectual conviction, it will be rather obvious that there never could have been any real separation/duality. It becomes obvious that experience is already such that real separation is impossible. This is one possible meaning of "there is no enlightenment".
>no proof
I admit this alone doesn't prove anything metaphysically but it can profoundly inform or imply the metaphysics.

>>22365814
>muh idealism
that's not pure witnessing but the witnessed
>non-dual, no enlightenment, all is enlightened
Then would you say I am as much a rishi as you and entitled to my opinion?
>imply metaphysics
everything I experience implies I am a soul in a mind in a body in a world, I would hesitate to say any of these are the same thing, much less that I and/or everything else am equivalent to the God which created it. The fact that other people disagree with such insights disproves their immediate obviousness. There are obvious sectual differences in religions and between religions. I would also say advaita even if not believing in unreality of illusion by using term illusion rubs me wrong way insofar as according to my direct intuitive meditative insight if God exists, I say first cause yay but some disagree, just because it is Being in a different way than being or maya that is confusing however to say being is a trick or illusory for it itself is still real very real just like mind and body and soul are real ( and is/can in fact gifted eternal existenz)

>>22365902
>>22365814
>for whoever is willing to try.
Evidently you weren't, or were frustrated you didn't get it, but that's ok. I'm not willing to argue in-depth about it now, but I will clarify a few things.
>>muh idealism
Not necessarily.
>that's not pure witnessing but the witnessed
It's difficult to address this without knowing precisely how you're using these terms but I will tentatively say that the witnessed IS the pure witnessing, or perhaps that the witnessed witnesses itself. But these aren't intended as metaphysical claims, just descriptions of what it is like.
>>non-dual, no enlightenment, all is enlightened
I didn't mean that everyone's already enlightened conventionally. I meant that, phenomenologically speaking, there can never have been any real (as in non-imaginary) separation/distance between subject and object.
>Then would you say I am as much a rishi as you and entitled to my opinion?
I'm definitely not liberated, not even close, but non-separation/duality is relatively easily available whenever I remember or am reminded to look. That doesn't make me special or better than anyone. It's unimaginably ordinary, feeling conceit about it would just be a declaration that I'm "back in duality". It's somewhat frustrating trying to share this because I know just how close and available it is to everyone, but I also remember the much worse frustration of being the one not getting it.
>>imply metaphysics
By "imply the metaphysics" I mean not via mere intellectualizing but via the realization that
>everything I experience implies I am a soul in a mind in a body in a world
is at least phenomenologically an illusion, conceptual, imagination, whatever. Perhaps "imply" was too strong. To be clear, I have no investment in any particular metaphysical system. The meditation is by itself purely phenomenological, in this regard non-duality is undeniable. But I acknowledge that it doesn't confirm or deny any metaphysical system; it's not impossible that for eg there is still a God out there separate from us and many individual consciousnesses. For what it's worth, many Christian mystics have described similar or identical non-dual experiences throughout history.

>>22366336
>For what it's worth, many Christian mystics have described similar or identical non-dual experiences throughout history.
I assumed you were Christian, but I just realized that's not necessarily the case. Ignore this bit about christian mystics if it's not relevant to you.

>>22366343
I guess my main point of contention is that there are nondual systems aside from AV like KS mentioned here wherein engagement is more emphasized and world and personality are still ultimately real or many forms of Buddhism who posit things like that the ground of self is devoid of a nature and a singular observer and nothing exists eternally and the ground of being is a great zero or womb of emptiness rather than oneness of Being like Platonism or Abrahamics who may maintain nonduality between man and nature and man and god's energies or grace but not essence or fullness of being being Being.
>your experiment
I am a thought chasing other thoughts. And the space between. And a physical body and energetic body. I may be one w nature or align my will w God's will. But none of this implies atmanbrahma. Or maya. Or cyclical eternal return of same.

>>22366382
I think I more or less agree with you. I think there is a leap of faith between non-dual "experience" (misleading word but it'll do) and a metaphysical system, so for me it's more about which system is the most coherent and useful in explaining or pointing to the experience. To be honest, I don't really care all that much about metaphysics. Metaphysics can be an enjoyable topic to study and discuss but imo complete non-dual realization requires letting go of beliefs and identity including metaphysical ones anyway. I've been accused of being a (crypto-)physicalist because of this opinion and because of how I often try to avoid metaphysics, but the point is that I'm not an firm adherent of any metaphysical system, and I think physicalism is incoherent anyway.

>>22364314
No. You’re either poorly read or “concept-blind” if you think this. Parmenides came to the same conclusions as Advaita Vedanta, simply in Greek terminology as a Greek philosopher, as one example. Plotinus and the Neoplatonic philosophers are a similar example. And Taoists also came to a very similar worldview (as already noted in this thread, someone like Chuang Tzu’s writings on a man who has attained harmony with/union with the Tao are as if identical with Vedantic descriptions of the sage who has attained unity with Brahman, simply in a different Chinese cultural and linguistic framework to express this). Even early Gnostic Christian texts, as well as later Sufi mystics and theologians, are incredibly similar. Most “haven’t done their reading though,” and want to get offended by this … I dunno, like some repressive authoritarian religious bent which makes them think this is all “from Satan!” or a smug one which thinks all this is “just something Western New Agers came up with.”

>>22366878
I think that is a mischaracterization of all those philosophies. You are concept blind one here. Parmenides has no atmanbrahma in his system. Nor do neoplatonists identify the self with the one even if the self is capable of ascending to the one. It seems like Brahman is an unecessary hypothesis added to appeal to the culture of Hinduism but in fact makes the system of AV less believable than other philosophies which promote nondual insight but are less radical in monism and conform better to our presuppositionless intuitive insight into reality.
>>22366755
Fair. Ya. Reality is beyond words. But I still like to choose mine carefully. Words affect us. Paradoxically, reality can be described even if the ultimate nature is a lil beyond reach,

>>22366878
This is only if you have a surface level understanding of the texts you cite. Most Sufis are against Advaita, especially Ibn Arabi. Yet he is considered the arab Shankara by perennialists despite clearly arguing against Advaita in nearly all his works.

>>22366878
Not him, but I could say some things here.
>Parmenides came to the same conclusions as Advaita Vedanta, simply in Greek terminology as a Greek philosopher
That wasn't independently developed, there was likely Indian influence there despite the ultimate details differing. People sometimes forget how connected the ancient world was:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359732758_India_and_Ancient_Greece_similar_allegories_analogies_differences_5_April_2022
Can't disagree with Taoism. That religion was notoriously difficult to understand for Chinese, however, so it doesn't show that the idea of Brahman is evident.
>Even early Gnostic Christian texts, as well as later Sufi mystics and theologians, are incredibly similar
Similar on a surface level, but clearly irreconcilable in theory. It seems like you haven't done enough reading, rather than the opposite.

>>22364172
>Many Buddhist claim direct experience of no atman
Their epistemological accounts of how this takes place are completely laughable and unserious

>>22363800
>Doesn't such a nondual epistemology ultimately climax in paraconsistency and paradox with the beyond words bit?
Not really, It doesn't rely on any premise being true which cannot be explained with the assumptions/framework of classical logic. Language is based on duality and so it explains how Reality is beyond language and that language is used to indicate non-duality but without strictly delimiting and encapsulating that non-dual Reality in a verbal formulation, but that isn't the same thing as accepting paraconsistency or paralogic.
>>22363826
> Schizophrenic God deluding himself
God only deludes the NON-Atman-Brahman

>>22368343
That's just like your opinion, man.

Many westerners consider AV laughable and unserious. Why deny multiplicity? Why deny existence and individuality?

>>22368356
>everything can be proven with logic alone
First off, that's not true at all. Second, you would need first principles regardless and your prior is clearly atmanbrahma from the sruti which begs the question of proving the sruti's claim of atmanbrahma.
>muh mystic meditation
I can name hundreds of mystics to the contrary who did not believe in nondistinction of person or coidentity of man and God.
>God creates NPCs to delude
I can see how a delusional NPC like you would believe that.

>>22368375
>That's just like your opinion, man.
It's a well informed one, I've read the Buddhist arguments for this and none of them present a very convincing explanation of how you experience *not* having an Atman, all of them involve some description of some phenomenal content which is non-Self, and taking that phenomenal content as the absence of Self, if you know the least thing about Vedanta I shouldn't even have to point out why this is absurd. Even S. Dasgupta, who is no Advaita partisan and who both greatly respects Buddhism and suggests Shankara took ideas from other schools, clearly admits in his Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy that the Buddhist non-self model cannot account for our experience and that the Advaitic Atman makes much more sense and is highly accurate with regard to our experience.
>Why deny multiplicity? Why deny existence and individuality?
It comes mainly from the Upanishadic statements which explicitly talk about this and which other schools try to explain away the surface-level reading of by taking it as figurative, but a philosophical case can be made that in some ways it's more coherent and better preserves God's transcendence and immutability, the idea that "something truly and completely eternal is completely unchanging, because if parts or aspects of it change then its only partially eternal" is a simple one but only Advaita of the Indian schools adheres to it fully. Of course one can engage in theological speculation that tries to come up with various ways that God can change while still being rational but some people will just find this inherently less serious.

>>22368386
>First off, that's not true at all.
I didn't write that "everything can be proven with logic alone", please don't engage in dumb strawmen. Saying that an explanation can be given for something with classical-type logic that doesn't involve Paralogic isn't the same thing as saying it can be proven. It simply means that the explanation doesn't violate basic stuff like the LNC etc which isn't the same as proving it true.
>which begs the question of proving the sruti's
Advaita rejects the very notion that Brahman is proven via logical proofs
>I can name hundreds of mystics to the contrary
An Advaitist would obviously view their understanding as incomplete

>>22368406
You love derailing threads don’t you?

>>22368406
>literal who agrees with me
We could both play this. Argument to authority is useless whether vedas or upanishads or a plain old scholar. I find the notion of AV unserious. Logical leaps abound. Atman being active and passive and such. Paradoxical. I disagree with its views. So do others. How can you pretend your opinion is anything but?
>God is more real than reality
I think this is some sort ot category mistake. God and man exist in different senses. But both are real. And neither are identical. Just distnguishing jiva and maya already contradicts the oneness posited. Not to mention they are just assumed unseriously to be part or nature of Brahma on faith alone (and if so, then why unreal? how separate from atman? If maya changes how can Brahma be static if maya is part of nature of Brahma???)
>some people will find this less serious
Others find other things more serious. Process theology is popular nowadays. Evolving God. Even modern Hindus embrace similar ideas. Lotsa neuroscientists love anatman idea. And not in a negative theology sense either. Get off your high horse. Humility is a virtue.

>>22368423
So you're just saying you have no proof but just find AV most convincing in your opinion? Cool. I think that implies you are uneducated however.
>logic and para-logic
Plenty of logical systems. You seem to be basing opinions off fee fees. Many things can be possibly true even if only one can be actually true. Show respect to different beliefs! Stop steamrolling threads!!!
>their understanding is incomplete
And how do you know yours is not? They would say same of AV

>>22368406
>all of them involve some description of some phenomenal content which is non-Self, and taking that phenomenal content as the absence of Self
You clearly haven’t read Nagarjuna despite your claims otherwise, since he discussed this exact issue with the neti neti principle. Attainment of Nirvana is based on intuition rather than logic, and the Buddhists believe that Buddha achieved Nirvana. You can call this unserious, but then believing in karma and the Upanishads being revealed is unserious.
>some people will just find this inherently less serious.
See above, you’re just as reliant on faith as Buddhism. You’ve even said this earlier but conveniently ignore it now.

>>22368454
>Atman being active and passive and such.
Not really, It has the natural power that projects the world-illusion but this has no connection with actions as performed by creatures, since this projection is effortless and happens automatically and doesn't involve any change in Brahman itself or a transition from one 'state' to another 'state'. Change itself is only a product of or interior quality of this illusion and doesn't happen outside of it. So this is only an 'action' in a figurative sense that is not inconsistent with saying that God doesn't engage in changing actions. If anything it's more like a timeless and automatic 'operation'.
>Just distnguishing jiva and maya already contradicts the oneness posited.
No it doesn't, the jiva is a part of the illusion, the inner light animating the jiva is what is beyond the illusion, the mistaken notion that the illusion/samsara is non-identical with Brahman contradicts non-duality has already been addressed here >>22355999
>Not to mention they are just assumed unseriously to be part or nature of Brahma on faith alone
Every religion accepts their scripture and its teachings on the basis of faith, but in spiritual realization someone can discover their own Self as having the nature of being like how the scriptures describe the Brahman-Atmen phenomenologically, so there is an element of self-discovery and confirmation, of course that doesn't confirm 100% of what the scripture says, but since this realization at its final stage forever uproots all unhappyness, fear, dissatisfaction etc, at that point you don't really care about needing to confirm anything further since you have already reached spiritual perfection and are without any care or problem at all. If you are completely spiritually perfect and free of all desire, unhappyness, fear etc then further confirmation of scriptural claims becomes a pointless pseudo-problem.
>If maya changes how can Brahma be static if maya is part of nature of Brahma???)
The illusion that is 'virtualized' by Brahman's power changes but the inherent capacity/ability that is in Brahman's own nature that is responsible for this is unchanging.

>Process theology
>Evolving God.
>Even modern (anything)
>neuroscientists
I simply don't care

>>22368472
>Stop steamrolling threads!!!
I only mentioned Advaita in response to other posts already talking about it and in response to people's responses engaging with my posts.

>>22368482
>You clearly haven’t read Nagarjuna despite your claims otherwise
He attacks the models of Self proposed by Nyayins and Pugdalavadins, but none of his arguments present any real challenge for the Advaitist Self. Nagarjuna doesn't even refute the premise of self-reflexivity which the Advaitic Atman involves, to quote Robinson:

>Nagarjuna, incidentally, is guilty of a sheer quibble when he says that since the eye cannot see itself it cannot see another (MK 3.2). This is not seriously detrimental to his case, which can quite easily be restated without the quibble. But more serious is his failure either to accept or to disqualify the instances of genuine intransitive action that occur in commonsense experience plus the metaphysical ones that are affirmed by some of his opponents. When he denies that the lamp illuminates itself (MK 7.8), he is simply arbitrarily choosing to consider the reflexive object as if it were a nonreflexive object.

>>22368528
>AV's non-dualism does not erase distinction between creator and created/creation insofar as Brahma and Maya don't exist in same sense
I guess I would just argue against the claim that Maya is therefore non-/less existent thereby or unreal in any meaningful sense. Or that the self is identical to God. Logic and systems is an ego game. Only the ego would wish to overcome the ego. And yet one never fully phases out of existence. Rebirth says death too may not be end. Meditation is mysterious. Many have tried and while all attest to joy its nature escapes us. Dissolution into nature or nothing or God in any case is never permanent so long as the personality lives. Why abandon personality?
>when joy is reached, scripture is tossed aside
Why are you trying so desparately to wallpaper over obvious issues then? I pray you find joy.

>>22368569
>Why are you trying so desparately to wallpaper over obvious issues then?
It's really not an issue unless you are a hopeless rationalist who refuses who accept anything that isn't logically proven, and such a person is more or less spiritually barren. Not being able to prove 100% of what one's scripture teaches is not any impediment to reaching the final goal of spirituality, and when you reach it there is no desire to prove what the scripture says since the scripture has already directed you to and enabled you to reach the summum bonum and you are then free of desire.

>>22368549
>none of his arguments present any real challenge for the Advaitist Self
If you want to disprove Brahman, you simply have to refuse to accept the Upanishads, which he does with his non-dual view. This is undeniable.
You also like spamming that Robinson paper, but there are also axiomatic assertions in Shankara like the acceptance of Brahman. I don’t see why this is an issue.

>>22368637
>If you want to disprove Brahman, you simply have to refuse to accept the Upanishads,
That's not actually disproving the premise that Brahman exists though, that's simply choosing to believe another conception about the universe instead. What you said is like claiming Richard Dawkins disproved Yahweh because he chooses not to believe in him.

>>22368655
This falls into the typical conundrum, since you can’t prove or disprove that Brahman exists. The only source for its existence is in Sruti, and Advaitins accept its dogma for their interpretation. When confronted with a refutation of Advaita earlier (still don’t get why it isn’t considered a derail, but oh well), you essentially resorted to the tautological framework of Brahman created by Shankaracharya to defend it. Just saying “it’s a tautology” requires a viewpoint that only serious Advaitins have to be believed. It would be best to accept that both Shankara and Nagarjuna make axiomatic statements while not accepting the other’s dogma.

>>22361157
please, just let go of jewish thought, it will only ruin your soul

>>22368730
>you essentially resorted to the tautological framework of Brahman created by Shankaracharya to defend it.
The source of the position used to answer the charges are founded in scripture, but they still answered the charges head-on and pointed out why there is no problem or contradiction if you correctly understand the Advaitist position, however whether to accept these scriptural claims as true or not is a whole other discussion.

>It would be best to accept that both Shankara and Nagarjuna make axiomatic statements while not accepting the other’s dogma.
I agree, but if you are someone who agrees (with most of the entire classical theist tradition) that a changing plurality of transient things isn't able to account for itself and that an infinite regress is logically untenable, then that's a reason to reject the standard Buddhist explanation for why the universe/samsara exists in the first place (pratityasamutpada), and also a reason to reject not having an explanation of this at all (ie have le 'no view') while still teaching supernatural stuff like rebirth and karma. There isn't anything like a solution for this unless you get into much later Vajrayana where everything in samsara is an emanation or appearance of a primordial and eternal Mahavairocana or primordial Buddha or some other such Tantric deity, and in this sense plurality is somewhat accounted for, but at which point it gets increasingly harder to distinguish from Advaita and the differences become very blurred at times, also Nagarjuna doesn't talk about or endorse any of this in his authentic works.

P1 Brahman is pure consciousness
P2 Atman is Brahman
P3 Atmanbrahman is pure consciousness
P4 Atmanbrahman becomes self-aware and liberated from maya self-reflexively in samadhi and thereupon the limited individual becomes a jivamukti within maya
P5 Samadhi is identified with Turiya
P6 Turiya is identified as dreamless sleep
P7 Dreamless sleep is unconscious
P8 Consciousness, however pure, cannot become aware of itself while unconscious -- in fact, unconsciousness cannot co-exist with consciousness as claimed here without violating Law of Excluded Middle and Law of Non-Contradiction
C9 Therefore, AV is logically untenable
P10 ???
C11 Profit/prophet! (Vedanta is a psyop by Aryan invaders to claim to be God so they could rape and subjugate brown people previously living in India)

>>22368813
P4 and P2 are both incorrect while throws the whole argument off

>P4 Atmanbrahman becomes self-aware and liberated from maya self-reflexively in samadhi and thereupon the limited individual becomes a jivamukti within maya
The Atman-Brahman is always self-aware reflexively, It doesn't ever 'become" what It already is by nature. When the mind of an individual is soothed in Samadhi, that has nothing to do with the timeless and immutable reflexive awareness-presence of the Atman-Brahman; in a certain sense in samadhi the mind could be considered as becoming "more like" the Atman-Brahman, but the Atman-Brahman's nature of being partlessly and non-dualistically self-evident to Itself is always the case even when the mind of an individual is not in samadhi. Moksha mainly involves the removal of wrong understanding and is not reached through samadhi.

>P6 Turiya is identified as dreamless sleep
Incorrect, Turiya is the fourth which is beyond waking, dream and deep (dreamless) sleep, it is like the space in which waking, dream and deep sleep are contained, it is present in all states as their unchanging and ever-present basis. Gaudapada says in his Karika that deep sleep (prajna) is still conditioned while the Turiya is unconditioned.

>P7 Dreamless sleep is unconscious
Turiya is present and reflexively self-aware even when dreamless sleep is happening, in dreamless sleep the intellect is withdrawn into an unmanifest state so there is no evident/known cognitive activity in that state including memory and the perception of objectivity as 'this', all of which need the intellect to be present/manifested. Both Ramanuja and Advaitins in fact agree that consciousness continues in dreamless sleep.

>P8 Consciousness, however pure, cannot become aware of itself while unconscious
It doesn't 'become aware of itself while unconscious' but is eternally conscious by nature
>in fact, unconsciousness cannot co-exist with consciousness as claimed here without violating Law of Excluded Middle and Law of Non-Contradiction
They don't belong to the same thing so it violates neither law of logic, the intellect is what loses cognition and gains cognition while the Atman is always eternally consciousness. The Atman being conscious by nature is not contradictory with the intellect either having or lacking cognition at any moment.

>>22368813
>P4 Atmanbrahman becomes self-aware and liberated from maya self-reflexively in samadhi and thereupon the limited individual becomes a jivamukti within maya
kek

>>22368765
You really like debating, don't you? I can respond without difficulty, but it's tiring after a while.
>paragraph 1
The problem with your view is that Brahman is tautological in nature in the Advaitin view (like the fact it isn't affected by infinite regress since it is beyond it), which most find difficult to accept. You could say that they simply don't understand, but anyone can say that about their theological position. You can understand the bhashyas while still disliking it, like I have tried to. It's ultimately reliant on faith.
>paragraph 2
Complaining about infinite regress is strange when vedic religions don't consider it a problem. In your view, Advaita defends itself by claiming that Brahman is beyond regress, which doesn't work on the binomial logical framework you've taken infinite regress from. Language is acknowledged to be dualistic and imperfect by both Nagarjuna and Shankara. It's strange to defend this while complaining about infinite regress elsewhere. Also, Buddhism doesn't say that it has no view, just that it is the correct one. Karma and transmigration are considered facts of existence like other vedic religions, not necessarily supernatural.

>>22368813
>P7 Dreamless sleep is unconscious
in dreamless sleep atman is free from upadhis so its Consciousness itself in its true nature

For the text says, 'With that which is he becomes united, he is gone to his Self;' which means that the sleeping person has entered into his true nature.--It cannot, moreover, be said that the soul is at any time not united with Brahman--for its true nature can never pass away--; but considering that in the state of waking and that of dreaming it passes, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, into something else, as it were, it may be said that when those adjuncts cease in deep sleep it passes back into its true nature.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras-thibaut/d/doc64006.html

consciousness is unfailling and constant, while everything else (waking/dream and everything "contained" in it: world, persons, empirical life, notions of time and causality) is variable, impermanent, false

>>22369120
>The problem with your view is that Brahman is tautological in nature in the Advaitin view
Every single religious position/tradition accepts things which are tautological at the end of the day and based on scripture and/or unprovable claims of supernatural insight into supra-empirical matters, if you aren't an atheists and you accept any religion/tradition as true then you also accept tautological claims.
>(like the fact it isn't affected by infinite regress since it is beyond it), which most find difficult to accept.
Any sort of conceivable infinite regress can only conceivable in the first place on the presupposition of plurality/parts that are subject change but if Brahman is absent of both plurality and change then it becomes meaningless and nonsensical to even speak about there being some sort of infinite regress that is in Brahman or affecting Brahman, because there is nothing on account of which it can even be presupposed.
> which doesn't work on the binomial logical framework you've taken infinite regress from
Posting any sort of infinite regress in or pertaining to Brahman makes no sense for the aforementioned reason, but this isn't true of talking about the cosmos theoretically accounting for itself or pratityasampudada theoretically accounting or the cosmos because both involve the change and parts that are wholly absent from Brahman.
>Language is acknowledged to be dualistic and imperfect by both Nagarjuna and Shankara. It's strange to defend this while complaining about infinite regress elsewhere.
Nothing I said is inconsistent with that, nowhere have I said that my logic is perfect or irrefutably proves anything as true, just that it points to apparent logical issue, Shankara has this same attitude himself and uses infinite regress arguments since they have validity in indicating what is more logically coherent but without being some shortcut to infallible knowledge.
> Also, Buddhism doesn't say that it has no view, just that it is the correct one.
I said that in reference to a subset of Nagarjuna's follower who interpret him as having no view
>Karma and transmigration are considered facts of existence like other vedic religions, not necessarily supernatural.
They are still accepted as tautologies in a manner that isn't different from scriptural claims, don't delude yourself yourself that they aren't, all you've down is changed the source of the tautology to something else that is no different.

>>22369120
To clarify, Nagarjuna doesn't really acknowledge it but it is complementary to his rejection of a describable ultimate truth. You can disagree with his views, but it's ultimately a matter of belief like you said. One last clarification is that Nagarjuna considers infinite regress to be a problem, but only if vicious. His framework carefully avoids that:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
It's covered here.

>>22368912
>>22369194
Completely insane. Lol
>>22368913
It is hilarious to watch the autistic puff about impotently

>>22369202
I have no issues with most of what you said, but it doesn't solve the issue that Brahman is only confirmed by scripture. We won't get anywhere in this argument since both schools use logic but are based on dogmas that don't agree. What you said here >>22368406 isn't convincing for this reason, since restating your view doesn't make it better than the other one.
The issue with your arguments against other religious views with an Advaitin view is that it seems logical, but is ultimately just insistence one a specific truth. Being a perennialist without being open-minded to multiple views is a position that destroys itself.

>>22363826
>Schizophrenic God deluding himself w multiple personalities
You might find Bernardo Kastrup's work intriguing or amusing. His philosophy is basically unintentionally a modern rendition of Advaita Vedanta with scientific/analytic rigour and explicit refutation of physicalism et al. He suggests that consciousness/God seemingly becomes multiple personalities/individuals via a naturalistic atemporal/spatial process of dissociation, i.e. dissociative identity disorder. It's an interesting and somewhat compelling theory that could explain/resolve a lot. So while it's unfair and misleading to summarize it as follows, it is kinda funny: God is literally mentally ill.

>>22369227
> His framework carefully avoids that:
He only ‘avoids’ it by taking no explicit stand on how the universe originates, some some people find unconvincing, but his modern defenders typically defend and defer to either (1) a naturalist explanation or (2) taking pratityasamputada as originating everything, but both of these are indeed involve vicious regresses that are vulnerable to the multiple types of regress arguments raised of the classical theist tradition. If you accept that no explanation is needed for the universe at all then of course there is no issue ans no regress, but only a certain type of person agrees with this while many are unsatisfied with holding that as a worldview.

Lastly, if you interpret Nagarjuna in the same manner as Tsongkhapa does in terms of having denied reflexive awareness on a both absolute and conventional level, then there is a vicious regress in his understanding of how knowledge of empirical things occurs. You don’t have to take my word alone for it but Mipham agrees that this is the case.

>>22369300
> but it doesn't solve the issue that Brahman is only confirmed by scripture.
That’s really a pseudo-problem , that’s not an issue unless you are a rationalist who doesn’t accept anything unproven in which case you won’t accept any religion anyway and the same could be said of anything that talks about the non-empirical; you don’t need to confirm Brahman as revealed by scripture in order to reach spiritual perfection and enlightenment.

> Being a perennialist without being open-minded to multiple views is a position that destroys itself.
Not at all, because a perennialist can come to his own understanding of what spiritual approachs and understandings are subordinated to which and still have that remain perfectly coherent and explainable in logical terms. Stop trying to disprove non-dual perennialism (impossible) and just accept that some people will disagree with you lol.

The guenonfag advaita shill is so pathetic. He's so insecure he needs to argue for years about how advaita is unfalsifiable etc. Deeply insecure and doubtful about his own philosophy.

>” The guenonfag advaita shill is so pathetic. He's so insecure he needs to argue for years about how advaita is unfalsifiable etc. Deeply insecure and doubtful about his own philosophy.”

>>22369422
He doesn't have to take an explicit stance because Mahayana already has done so with the allegory of Indra's jeweled net.
>If you accept that no explanation is needed for the universe at all then of course there is no issue ans no regress
Nagarjuna accepts this and so do I, despite not being Buddhist. It ultimately is a useless intellectual exercise to try and rigorously consider, and Shaivism agrees with this as the universe is a construction of Siva; a great game. Viewing it in this way is truly fulfilling, since you can have a proper goal to aspire towards, reunification with the god-consciousness who you are.
>second paragraph
I prefer Nagarjuna to Tsongkhapa, so I tend not to support his claims.
>>22369459
>that’s not an issue unless you are a rationalist who doesn’t accept anything unproven
Or if you're not a Hindu... I think you miss the point.
>Stop trying to disprove non-dual perennialism (impossible)
The traditionalists are fags, and not every faith is ultimately non-dualist. Also, judging things based on personal spiritual experience is fine, but then you also should respect the experiences of others. I do this and it saves me far more time than arguing with internet strangers.
>>22369558
You're really not disagreeing with anything.

>>22369614
>Indra’a net
That does absolutely nothing to obviate the vicious regress, and if Im not mistaken it comes from much later texts than Nagarjuna anyway

>>22369674
Why not? The allegory claims that the universe is but one baseless thing in a world of mutually confirming things, and Nagarjuna is not concerned with the origins of the universe so as to create vicious regress.
The allegory is derived from the dialogues about Indra on the Buddhavatamsaka Sutra, which reflects this kind of thought and was slowly conceived before Nagarjuna took the pen.

>>22369718
Besides, even the Nasadiya Sukta clearly states that the origins of the universe are open to interpretation, so Hinduism doesn't claim to have absolute understanding of the creation of the universe either.

>>22369718
> Why not?
Because the components are non-eternal and arise on the basis of and presuppose some exterior cause, but there is no root source that allows this mechanism have being in the first place, and its individual components causing eachother does not account for the collection as a whole. If you say it is self-sufficient in order to avoid the regress that violates sunyata also and is hence unacceptable to or incompatible with their Buddhist root principals.

>>22369756
The same section mentions the One Brahman as before everything and hints that Brahman is responsible but lists a few ways how this could be explained, anyways the Upanishads have a definitive position about this and they are quite clear that the ultimate truth about Brahman and its relation to everything as its origin comes from the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the jnana-khanda or the section that reveals ultimate knowledge while the earlier portions are the karma-khanda concerned with karma and ritual.

>>22369783
>the components are non-eternal and arise on the basis of and presuppose some exterior cause
The original cause was never a significant concern of Buddhism, what matters is to correct the craving caused by existence in this conditional reality. Besides, we cannot be certain of Brahman either, and the Nasadiya Sukta points this out.
Also, why is it that Brahman has to be the first mover? The Sruti say it and I accept it, but we are ultimately unsure.
>>22369783
>the Upanishads have a definitive position about this
The Upanishads are commentaries and the Sruti is based on the Vedas before all else. If they admit a degree uncertainty towards how and if Brahman created existence since no one was there to see it, then so should you.

/mcyoag/ is dead
/cyoag/ won

The retard who derailed this thread has no respect, lacks religiosity and is going to suffer one thousand years in hell.

>>22369849
> The original cause was never a significant concern of Buddhism,
I understand, that was my point about it not having an answer, it’s a matter of opinion about whether this is acceptable or not.
> The Upanishads are commentaries
“””commentary””” is used extremely loosely there, they sometimes summarize the importance of previous sections but they aren’t literal verse by verse commentaries on other Vedic sections
>Besides, we cannot be certain of Brahman either, and the Nasadiya Sukta points this out.
When it comes to matters of ultimate reality the jnana-khanda completely supercedes whatever is said in the karma-khanda.

>>22369849
By the way, the interpretation I agree with is that while Brahman was the first mover and created the universe, the cycle of rebirth is without beginning and Brahman can only maintain it without interfering. Even this is subject to inquiry and might be false. The verse agrees with such an interpretation.

>>22369885
>it’s a matter of opinion about whether this is acceptable or not.
I would say it is, but this is just a matter of opinion. Sometimes too much philosophic rigour is not good for the ultimate cultivation of the spirit, which is why I choose not to press the topic in Buddhist discussion.
>“””commentary””” is used extremely loosely there
True, but they are composed in relation to a specific Veda, which signifies them as lesser.
>last paragraph
Karmakhanda is before jnanakanda in the Vedas, whic is taken by some to show its importance over the latter. I believe that you need both to understand them fully however.
>>22369876
While I would refrain from placing curses so liberally, he does have a certain lack of respect that is annoying.

>>22369918
Maybe descended from would be a better word than lesser, but otherwise you get what I mean there.

>>22369918
> which signifies them as lesser
That part is being inferred while the Upanishads explicitly say that Brahman is to be known from the Upanishads alone, so the superiority in authority of the Upanishads doesn’t have be inferred but it is rather stated explicitly. Also your claim that Brahmans creation of the world is not known to be accepted in a certain way contradicts Shaivism since they claim Shaiva scriptures revealed by same source as Vedas explain this, you are disagreeing with your own tradition and making a modernist point just to argue against Advaita, its amusing.

>>22369962
>the Upanishads explicitly say that Brahman is to be known from the Upanishads alone
They reveal the nature of Brahman, but not its role in the origin of the universe. The view Ive shared posits that the jivas are timeless and don't have to do with Brahman.
>they claim Shaiva scriptures revealed by same source as Vedas explain this
You didn't read what I wrote, I accepted the fact that Brahman created the universe but said that the Vedas themselves leave this fact very open.

>>22369981
> They reveal the nature of Brahman, but not its role in the origin of the universe.
That is naturally included in informing us about Brahman, informing us Brahman includes explaining that Brahman originates the universe and it would be lacking if it missed this since an aspect of Brahman is Its power in both Vedanta and Shaivism. The exact passage says “Brahman is to be known only from the Upanishads”, it doesn’t say “only Brahman’s internal attributes and not his operations/powers are to be known”, the general statement includes anything important about Brahman.

> I accepted the fact that Brahman created the universe but said that the Vedas themselves leave this fact very open.
That’s a modernist interpretation that disagrees with the position of Shaivism. Shaivism claims that the Vedas and Agamas are both in agreement and come from the same source and that the Agamas clarify the names and types of exact powers etc by which the Shiva-Brahman originates the universe but that the Upanishads dont disagree with this and that they present the same Supreme Entity causing the world but without going into the same explicit details as the Agamas/Tantras which are like an add-on supplement to the Vedas. In the traditional viewpoint (shiavist and otherwise) in which the entire Vedas+Upanishads agree and are consistent the one part about not knowing in the earlier Veda that you cited is nothing more than poetic license and doesn’t overrule the definitive statements about origination in the Upanishads which are taken as expressing the final metaphysical conclusion of the whole Sruti text.

>>22369885
>>22369918
brahman is not a first mover, nor a god, there's no creation and no rebirth, thats the ultimate truth

karmakanda coming before jnanakanda is just conforming to our natural standpoint (avidya, with the notions of "I" and "mine"), all means of knowledge and ritualistic activities and all empirical experience (vedanta included) presupposes this avidya for functioning, thats why it comes first

jnanakanda then uproots everything by showing how its all fruit of a mistaken/false knowledge
atra vedah aveda bhavanti

>>22370020
>the general statement includes anything important about Brahman.
Notice that I didn't disagree with you here. Brahman is to be understood from the Upanishads, but my view considers the start of the cycle of reincarnation as beyond Brahman. This is not just my view, and is supported by commentators. I could find one if you like.
>second paragraph
You unjustly speak for me yet again. The Vedas and Upanishads certainly agree with each other, and my interpretation is not contradictory with this. I acknowledge that Brahman created the universe, but details like the cycle of rebirth are beyond time. That's my view of what the uncertainty means, but actual modernists might interpret it differently and I can't really argue with them on that front.
>the one part about not knowing in the earlier Veda that you cited is nothing more than poetic license
Oh, so now you've gone to saying it doesn't count. Typical response of the Guenonfag when met by someone who can actually argue over the Vedas. Once this thread slips off page 10, it would be best to read some more and open your mind before continuing your soulless argumentation.

>>22370060
That modern interpretation of Advaita was already refuted by Shankara (see pic related) when he says its logically untenable for Brahman to not have an inherent power in itself that projects samsara, and also when he says the name and form cannot originate from nothing/non-entity

>>22370072
> I could find one if you like.
Sure go ahead
> The Vedas and Upanishads certainly agree with each other, and my interpretation is not contradictory with this. I acknowledge that Brahman created the universe, but details like the cycle of rebirth are beyond time.
Rebirth is included within samsara, when the Upanishads say the Brahman projects all of samsara that includes the cycle of rebirth
> so now you've gone to saying it doesn't count
In the way that you claim, yes, because the karma-khanda doesn’t supercede the jnana-khanda on matters on metaphysics, moreover its subject to interpretation and open-ended what that passage means, it could just be alluding to how one never really knows even if you accept the scripture, its still on faith.

>>22370060
I honestly agree with this fag >>22370086 here in that this view is a stretched reading of Shankara. If he wasn't an Advaitin, I would be fine with considering his view, but this viewpoint is strange given the circumstances

>>22370086
>modern interpretation
?
shankara says explictly, you're the one misinterpreting

But in the case of the supreme Self there is the greater advantage that It has inactivity from Its own point of view, but a driving urge (for creation) from the standpoint of Maya. B.S.Bh. 2.2.7

All talks of creation, in the primary or secondary sense, relate only to creation through ignorance, and not to creation in reality Ma.Up.Ka.Bh. 3.23

if you say that brahman is a cause then he is limited,
creation is only from jiva's standpoint

but of course this will uproot your perennialist interpretation of vedanta

shankara: "all talks of creation are through ignorance"
guenonfag: "no, no, thats a modernist interpretation"

ok

>>22370110
>Sure go ahead
https://indiafacts.org/nasadiya-sukta-vedantic-commentary/
First thing I found. It's written from a Vishishtadvaitin, but I first heard this view from a Shaivinist friend.
>the karma-khanda doesn’t supercede the jnana-khanda on matters on metaphysics
Make up as many facts as you want, but the uncertainty in the passage is clear and leads to a strong interpretation for my view in the language.

>>22370129
Wrong, he already ruled out what you’re saying explicitly, that’s why you pretend his statement in BSSB 1-4-3 doesn’t even exist and you refuse to address or explain it (he says the same thing elsewhere too, he completely and explicitly rejects the idea that things happen without any cause)

> But in the case of the supreme Self there is the greater advantage that It has inactivity from Its own point of view, but a driving urge (for creation) from the standpoint of Maya. B.S.Bh. 2.2.7
That is only in reference to how Brahman doesn’t perceive itself engaged in projecting the illusion but is rather absorbed in non-duality without any perception of samsara or the projection or virtualization of it (this is Its own POV) while we in samsara have occasion to speak of it as causing the illusion

>All talks of creation, in the primary or secondary sense, relate only to creation through ignorance, and not to creation in reality Ma.Up.Ka.Bh. 3.23
He only denying there that there is any real creation of any second existing thing, he isn’t denying that Brahman is responsible for this illusion by projecting it, which is what he explicitly affirms elsewhere many times. Projecting a false illusion that doesnt exist is not a real creation in any sense. Furthermore he identifies maya with avidya and speaks of this of Brahman’s power

>if you say that brahman is a cause then he is limited,
limitation only appears in the first place through Brahman projecting it
>creation is only from jiva's standpoint
the jivas standpoint only appears because of Brahman’s projection, he explicitly says it cannot come from a non-entity but you follow a gay modernist cult so you ignore this

>>22370086
>power
Thus, since the texts about creation etc. are meant for imparting the knowledge of oneness, Brahman cannot be possessed of many powers and hence also It cannot reasonably be a goal to be reached. - B.S.Bh. 4.3.14

no no thats a modernist interpretation Shankara, dont do it

>>22370180
>projection
creation, projection, emanation, call it whatever you want, its all the same
brahman cannot be ultimately considered a cause or projector of anything, there's no illusion from brahmans POV, only from yours, the ignorant

your mix of neoplatonism and vedanta does not work bro

>>22370138
“And in the absence of any such power inherent in the Highest Lord, neither his proceeding to create, nor the non-liability of those who have already attained Final Release to be born again, would be reasonably sustainable." - Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1-4-3

SSSfag: Shut up Shankara, no power is necessary at all, my 20th retard knows better than you

“And, no effect is perceived in this world as having been produced from a nonentity. If such effects as name and form had originated from a nonentity, they should not have been perceived since they have no reality. But they are perceived. Hence Brahman exists. Should any effect originate from a nonentity, it should remain soaked in unreality even while being perceived. But facts point otherwise. Therefore Brahman exists.”
-Shankara, Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya 2.6.1

SSSfag: Shut up Shankara, name and form CAN come from a non-entity, my 20ty century retard knows better than you

>>22370123
Honestly, I have come to understand that you shouldn't trust a word that comes out that fag's mouth, so would you mind posting something I can read more about his views? Don't know much about him besides the basics.
Also, spamming Shankara quotes is a clear sign that the discussion has devolved to an autismfest.

>>22370195
> creation, projection, emanation, call it whatever you want, its all the same
No it’s not, making an unreal appearance appear which lacks existence is not the same thing as bringing something else into existence, that’s just laughable.

> brahman cannot be ultimately considered a cause or projector of anything
That is already explicitly refuted by both Shankara and the Upanishads, see see >>22370200
>there's no illusion from brahmans POV, only from yours, the ignorant
There is no illusion perceived from Brahman’s POV because he has no knowledge or perception of it but Brahman is what projects the illusion all the same, this is what Shankara’s and Gaudapada’s position is, that’s why Gaudapada uses the instrumental form of maya to describe Brahman projecting the illusion through its own power

>>22370180
you cannot see that you're commiting the dumbest mistake while reading shankara, that is, considering multiplicity which is simply false-notion(mithyajnana) as false-object (mithyapadartha, mithya-vastu), when the only vastu is non-dual brahman, all talk of multiplicity, projection whatever is simply wrong notions superimposed on the Absolute,

that's also the difference between vedanta and sufism, neoplatonism, buddhism , and of course guenonism

shankara is very direct on those statements but you have to devise new interpretations to get in accordance with your preconceptions, you're the modernist

He's genuinely a bot, posting the same shit and holding the same opinions despite being beaten time and time again. Does he ban evade?

>>22370154
> Make up as many facts as you want, but the uncertainty in the passage is clear and leads to a strong interpretation for my view in the language.
The traditional view held is that the Upanishads are final on matters of metaphysics and its modernist to present that one line as overturning what the Upanishads say about this, even Ramanuja agrees that the Upanishads truthfully present Brahman as causing the universe, Ramanuja doesnt accept that the Vedas conclusion is that nobody knows

>>22370200
can keep spamming retard,

as i said, those notions work when considering brahman as a cause for purpose of teaching, then thats it, I already showed you that he denies it ultimately,

you cannot fathom the nature of multiplicity as i stated here>>22370212 so you're bound to think that there's some god or creation really happening, keep spreading your guenonian-vedanta