/lit/ - Literature

>>21406714
>Awareness is something you have of, say, objects, or of thoughts, bodies in extension, perceptions, feelings, sensations, desires etc.
Wrong, Awareness is the constant and eternal Infinite, through which all of these appear, through which they are all revealed

>Your definition of awareness, much like everything else in wonderland, is "brahman,"
Awareness is self-aware (reflexive) presence, it also happens to be blissful/peaceful and also be Brahman!

>Awareness isn't infinite because you aren't aware of all things at all times in all places.
Awareness is aware of itself, which is the only thing that actually exists, thus awareness IS aware of all that exists in all places. Since this awareness is infinite, it always knows itself as the self-knowing infinite.

Hylic: But I have an awareness of an apple which is non-finite

Anon: But how do you know the awareness which is revealing the apple is not infinite

Hylic: Because the apple is non-finite

Anon: But I didn't ask about the apple! I asked about awareness

Hylic: But when the awareness knows apple it's not knowing a banana thus it limited and finite

Anon: Remember, we are talking about Advaita where the intellect perceives objects and awareness is just the partless self-disclosing witnessing presence which is distinct from the intellect but its presence is already presupposed by the intellect perceiving objects, how do you know that this awareness which illumines the intellect is non-infinite since the intellect is what is focused on the apple and not awareness itself?

Hylic: huh when you phrase it like that I really don't know....

>>17685279
>in your last post you say say that brahman is space (the pot and air are in space).
No that’s wrong, I compared Brahman to space in that they are both formless, if you had read the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras you would know that Brahman is different from space as its cause as they say this about Him
>you also say "there is no *point* where it doesn't exist.",
You are confused, I said that about space with reference to it containing all objects, I didnt say that Brahman has points
> >can't even cope with the fact that trees exist
There is nothing to cope with because that doesn’t refute what I’m saying. That objects can be apprehended with the mind which seem to be composed of parts doesn’t prove or show that it’s no longer a violation of the law of non-contradiction for something to exist both as an incomplete part and as the complete whole at the same time, they can’t both be true at the same time because they are mutually exclusive like light and darkness or heat and cold, and so they cannot both be affirmed as true of Brahman without landing yourself in a major contradiction. When we look at trees seeming to exist with parts that doesn’t mean that the law of non-contradiction isn’t real anymore, it just means that the relation of parts and whole isn’t real but it’s something that our mind imposes on the world in an attempt to help make sense of it. If you actually followed your own reasoning consistently and made what appears in our empirical experience the ultimate criterion of truth that would be an argument against the existence of any Brahman or God or Vishnu because they don’t present themselves to us as objects of empirical experience.
> >can't explain why moksha is necessary
Necessary for what purpose? You never said what it is supposed to be necessary for. It’s not necessary for the Atman who already has it. And for the jivas its not necessary, they can keep transmigrating if they want to. It only remains to be realized by the jivas because of them being engendered by and under the influence of Brahman’s unlimited power
> here is no logical reason why brahman should care about what the jiva is thinking.
Brahman doesn’t have cares which involve a mind, but the Supreme Brahman in His non-duality is without mind (manas) and so without cares
>the jiva is maya and doesn't even really exist.
correct

>>16354954
>>16354224

You are making the mistake of attempting to define consciousness as inherently dualistic, and then saying, “well, since it’s inherently dualistic there can be no possibility of non-dual consciousness”, in other words it’s circular logic that doesn’t advance any real critique. In order to debate the subject of whether non-dual consciousness exists, we first have to agree on its parameters as a hypothetical category. If you insist on defining it in a way that precludes you from being wrong it just ends up being sophistry. It would have been more logical to say “all consciousness except non-dualistic consciousness, is inherently dualistic”. And when you consider it from this angle the point you are trying to make becomes completely meaningless.

Non-dual consciousness is consciousness that transcends the subject-object dichotomy, the knower and the known become identical as one self-effulgent infinite Self. Someone who has reached non-duality does not have non-dual consciousness as their object of knowledge, but there is instead a sentient presence which persists uninterruptedly as a continuum of pure self-revealed bliss. This bliss does not form the ‘object’, of non-duality but due to this bliss being identical with the non-dual consciousness itself this bliss thereby is sentient, or more properly, the essential nature of sentience or consciousness is itself bliss.