/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18473755]

>>18473583
>The Upanishads support qualified non-dualism, cope
Why then do Katha 2.1.10 and Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19 both say that there is no diversity and that the perception of diversity leads one from death to death?
Why then does Chandogya 6.1.4 and similar verses state over and over that change is unreal and that the unchanging basis alone is real?
Why then does Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19 say that it's only because of maya that Brahman is perceived as manifold (i.e. as a multiplicity)?
Why then does Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 say that men who worship another diety as though it were different from that man are comparable to animals?
Why then does Svetasvatara 6.5 & 6.20 say that Brahman is without parts? If there are no parts there cannot be internal distinctions composed of separate parts
Why then does Svetasvatara 6.15 say that the Paramatman alone exists?
Why then does Kena 1.9 say that Brahman is not that which people worship as an object? If Brahman comprises the material world as Ramanuja holds then whatever people worship as an object is inevitably Brahman.
Why then do the Sanskrit words for devotion (bhakti) and grace (kripa) not appear once in the entire text of the Brahma Sutras?

[Anonymous No.18473773]

>>18473755
Why then do you care about any of this?

[Anonymous No.18473798]

>>18473773
Because I saw someone in a just-deleted thread (in one where OP was asking about books) make an assertion about what the Upanishads teach and I wanted to see if they could back up their words with arguments or if all they had was empty assertions.

[Anonymous No.18474129]

Imagine giving a fuck about this meaningless, bullshit word salad instead of experiencing the divine for yourself
Pajeet pseuds are the worst posters on this board by far

[Anonymous No.18474277]

>>18473798
On board vedantic dualists are mostly of two kinds: faggot hipsters in conflict with the guenonfag (a faggot hipster himself) and neo-nazi esoteric hitlerist fags who also spam the board with the Savitri threads.

[Anonymous No.18474434]

>>18473755
You’re summoning guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.18474514]

They worship cows
They’re fucking mongs

[Anonymous No.18474525]

>AHHHHH I'M GLAD I MEMORIZED ALL THOSE INDIAN METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTS
>IMMM DISOOLLVVINNGGG

[Anonymous No.18474542]

>>18474434
I am guenonfag, I posted this thread and the scriptural citations to refute some other anon's claim that the doctrine of the Upanishads is qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita), instead of the eternal truth of Advaita Vedānta as clarified by the great sage, Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.18474648]

>>18474129
This. It's high time they get banned, or at least fuck off to another board like /int/.

[Anonymous No.18474661]

>>18474525
No no anon, you never existed, remember? You're made of Nothing except for the pure luminous self-reflexive translucent awareness that is aware of itself and does nothing but be aware of itself by virtue of its opacity.

[Anonymous No.18474693]

Does anyone take Dvaita Vedanta seriously? How can someone be so retarded like Madhvacharya to come to the conclusion of dualism, when most philosophers and sages throughout history logically came to the conclusion that monism (in one form or another) makes the most sense.

[Anonymous No.18474703]

>>18474693
Never seen someone defend Madhvacharya or Dvaita Vedanta on /lit/ desu

[Anonymous No.18474718]

>>18474661
>this strawman bullshit again

[Anonymous No.18474730]

>>18474703
I mean people in India.

[Anonymous No.18474737]

>>18474129
It's not meaningless, or at least it's your duty to prove it's meaningless. The severing of the link between man and the eternal destroyed the West and any possible route back to it must be privileged.

[Anonymous No.18474751]

>>18474730
Anon the only reason we're having these threads is because a resident schizo is obsessed with an obscure French theosophist who used a half-baked understanding of Advaita Vedanta to defend things he doesn't like not be "real". Nobody gives a shit about Hindu philosophy in any meaningful sense. The fact that Guenonfag is trying to do some kind of weird Sufi-Advaita syncreticism instead of just coming out and doing Dvaita-Sunni syncreticism (which, while stupid, is far more sensible) is a testament to this.

[Anonymous No.18474766]

>>18474693
>>18473755
Are imagination and the mental world part of this world?

[Anonymous No.18474771]

why does guenonfag need so much attention?

[Anonymous No.18474793]

>It's not annihilation because I said it's not and I'll call it another name if you don't believe me

[Anonymous No.18474802]

There's literally no reason to prefer Shankara over Buddhism aside from pajeet nationalism. Buddhism is far more consistent and doesn't have to cope and move the goalposts when people ask what it really means.

[Anonymous No.18474804]

>>18474766
How can you trust your discernment between what is real and what is imaginary in the first place? Reject the mind and intellectualism, go back to atman.

[Anonymous No.18474818]

>>18474804
lmao that's FUCKING RETARDED

[Anonymous No.18474822]

>>18474804
Go away, stupid Dvaita Vedantin. This is a non-dualist thread.

[Anonymous No.18474838]

>>18474822
answer the question from a non-dualism perspective

[Anonymous No.18474863]

>>18474838
From an Advaita Vedantin perspective everything except Brahman=Atman is made of Nothing so the "real" and "imaginary" are both not real anyways because only the self illuminating reflexivity of Brahman's opacity is real.

From a Buddhist perspective there is no distinction between "real" and "imaginary" at all. There's no such thing as "illusions", just "delusions", and delusions have causes as all things do.

[Anonymous No.18474870]

>>18474771
It's not about me, it's about the debate I was interrupted from having with another anon that I wanted to finish. If the jannies didn't delete an on-topic thread I wouldn't have had to post a new thread.
>>18474751
>Nobody gives a shit about Hindu philosophy in any meaningful sense
Many European/western philosophers, writers, etc have dedicated great words of praise for it
>French theosophist who used a half-baked understanding of Advaita Vedanta
Can you name anything Guenon gets wrong about Advaita?
>>18474802
Shankara completely rekt Buddhism as a pile of nonsense, it's explanation of the origin of the universe doesn't hold up to logic, it's denial of us having an unchanging self-revealing witness-consciousness is contradicted by our experience and logic, its most prominent thinkers engage in blatant sophistry, it has more holes than swiss cheese.

[Anonymous No.18474878]

>>18474863
but are they part of this world or not

[Anonymous No.18474886]

>>18474863
>From an Advaita Vedantin perspective everything except Brahman=Atman is made of Nothing
That's not true, Advaitins distinguish maya from nothingness
>so the "real" and "imaginary" are both not real anyways because only the self illuminating reflexivity of Brahman's opacity is real.
The mental concepts of real and unreal which inhere in the mind are not themselves ultimately real, but the Brahman-Atman is itself completely and ultimately real, Brahman isn't opaque either but rather its translucent, which is the opposite of being opaque.

[Anonymous No.18474889]

>>18474870
>It's not about me, it's about the debate I was interrupted from having with another anon that I wanted to finish. If the jannies didn't delete an on-topic thread I wouldn't have had to post a new thread.

you make 5 guenon threads a day...why do you need so much attention?

[Anonymous No.18474902]

>>18474878
Advaitins say that the mind and imagination are both a part of the world/maya-universe, they inhere in what is called the subtle body. Neither maya, nor mind, nor imagination are the Atman (pure unchanging self-revealing consciousness)

[Anonymous No.18474906]

>>18474793
they (he mostly) say
>it is not annihilation because consciousness continues!!!

but whatever they may call consciousness it is something they believe as 'beyond being and personality', 'unaware of itself'. it is asleep, an asleep god. how is that not annihilation? that is how much they hate existence

[Anonymous No.18474912]

>>18474889
>you make 5 guenon threads a day...why do you need so much attention?
I haven't made one in weeks, there are many other Guenon-(pbuh)-posters here, we form a brotherhood of basedness in our shared love of him

[Anonymous No.18474923]

>>18474878
In Advaita Vedanta the question is a meaningless one as they aren't real. Postulating about the different kinds of Nothing is pointless.

In Buddhism yes, they are part of the world, as are dreams. But again "the world" is a multiverse like seven gazillion layers deep with all sorts of shit like God realms and hell realms, so "the world" is really fucking open.

>>18474886
I'm sorry anon, but Shankara is quite clear in his commentaries on the Upanishads. I'm afraid you've been filtered.

[Anonymous No.18474967]

>>18474923
>I'm sorry anon, but Shankara is quite clear in his commentaries on the Upanishads
You haven't even read them but are lying, if you want to claim that he says things are made of nothingness then cite the exact passage.

[Anonymous No.18475024]

>>18474923
>In Advaita Vedanta the question is a meaningless one as they aren't real. Postulating about the different kinds of Nothing is pointless.

just give me an honest answer, part of this world or not

[Anonymous No.18475027]

>>18474870
>it's denial of us having an unchanging self-revealing witness-consciousness is contradicted by our experience and logic
You have experienced being unchanging? I guess Buddhism is btfo and you are a zygote

[Anonymous No.18475048]

>>18475027
>You have experienced being unchanging?
Change only ever appears *to* awareness, but in every act or instance of awareness, awareness itself is unchanging. Regardless of what is presented to awareness, the awareness which knows them is always the same identical awareness alike.

[Anonymous No.18475068]

>>18475024
>just give me an honest answer, part of this world or not
It was answered honestly already here >>18474902, the mind and imagination are a part of the world, while consciousness/awareness isn't

The imagination and mind aren't nothingness or made of nothingness because nothingness has no visible form or image whereby we could perceive it, while false appearances are visible. False appearances therefore aren't nothingness.

[Anonymous No.18475092]

>>18475068
so math is maya?

[Anonymous No.18475135]

>>18475048
>the awareness which knows them is always the same identical awareness alike
Sounds like the goalposts have been moved. So now your awareness is always the same? There is no way to substantiate this. We constantly rely on sensation to piece ourselves together and validate experience, and our awareness is not constant.

[Anonymous No.18475570]

>>18475092
Yes
>>18475135
>Sounds like the goalposts have been moved.
They haven't
>So now your awareness is always the same? There is no way to substantiate this.
It can easily, by pointing out that in every instance of knowing, whatever is know by the mind is invariably revealed by awareness, without the manner by which awareness reveals that thing being subject to any change itself, any change can only be identified in the non-aware thing which is revealed by awareness. All changes and witnessed phenomena occur to the same united awareness which is the same in every moment and which continues constantly while changes play out in front of it like a movie screen. This is why we have a unity of experience that allows disparate things to be known by the same presence.
>There is no way to substantiate this. We constantly rely on sensation to piece ourselves together and validate experience, and our awareness is not constant.
That's wrong though, awareness isn't pieced together by sensations, it's what invariably reveals them. Our awareness is constant, that you don't have memory of deep sleep or being knocked unconscious doesn't prove that awareness isn't still there, it only proves that memory isn't functioning then and so memory doesn't inform you about what your constant awareness was doing in that state. If your awareness was fully present then but you had no memory of it you wouldn't know while in the waking state, that it's present is suggested by the fact that awareness always is fully present right before and when the mind wakes up, it's not a reconstituting anew at the moment of waking, but you always feel like you are a presence "to whom" waking up occurs, this wouldn't be the case if waking up generated your awareness anew at that exact moment of waking.

[Anonymous No.18475620]

>>18475570
>It can easily, by pointing out that in every instance of knowing, whatever is know by the mind is invariably revealed by awareness, without the manner by which awareness reveals that thing being subject to any change itself, any change can only be identified in the non-aware thing which is revealed by awareness
Well now it sounds like awareness is just a faculty of the mind. We might as well say that your heart always pumps blood, because hearts do heart stuff. But you aren't about to ontologize your heart as permanent on the basis of pumping being something it does so long as you are alive. Or are you?

[Anonymous No.18475756]

>>18475620
>Well now it sounds like awareness is just a faculty of the mind.
That's incorrect, awareness is what illuminates, what is aware of the functions of the mind like thought.

[Anonymous No.18475794]

>>18475756
At this point you've turned the mind into a body and awareness is that body's mind, and now we've got yet another layer of person and nothing is more explained than it was before.

[Anonymous No.18476032]

>>18475794
>At this point you've turned the mind into a body
Yes, for Advaita Vedanta the mind belongs to what is called "the subtle body" or antaḥkaraṇa.
>and awareness is that body's mind
And this is the reasonable position, since the mind's activities like thought and memory are presented to awareness as something which is different from it, just like the physical body is. The body and the mind don't differ insofar as they are both presented to awareness as insentient things which are illumined and known by it.
>and now we've got yet another layer of person
Only the awareness is the real person (puruṣa), the body and mind aren't the person
>and nothing is more explained than it was before.
Except that I've just given an account of consciousness that is true to how we actually experience it, if you want a fuller account just open any book or article about Advaita philosophy of mind

[Anonymous No.18476105]

>>18476032
>an account of consciousness that is true to how we actually experience it, if you want a fuller account just open any book or article about Advaita philosophy of mind
Possibly you have represented the Advaita position accurately but it seems extremely removed from experience to suggest the mind/body is better replaced by awareness/things awareness is aware of [mind and body] in order to explain consciousness. Perhaps this satisfies some scholastic concern of Vedanta, adding a third layer where none was asked for.

[Anonymous No.18476741]

>>18476032
You seem to be treating awareness as something separate from experiences/sensations. Can you have awareness without being aware of anything (pure awareness)?

[Anonymous No.18476821]

whats the difference between advaita vedanta and this qualified non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.18477470]

>>18476032
Correction: the subtle body is the sūkṣmaśarīra, the antaḥkaraṇa means ‘the internal organ’ which is housed inside the subtle body, the two phrases can be used almost interchangeably though.

>>18476105
>but it seems extremely removed from experience to suggest the mind/body is better replaced by awareness/things awareness is aware of [mind and body] in order to explain consciousness.
It’s not though, since we experience the presentation of thoughts and bodily sensations/sense-perceptions to awareness alike. And just like how when we see objects in the world like a tree our awareness is different from that tree, if we infer on the basis of our observed experiences (and not contrary to them) like these it would indicate that thoughts and mental sensations are revealed to an intelligent presence who differs from them, Shankara points out in his writings:

>Now, if consciousness (of objects and thoughts in the intellect) is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it?—the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the intellect), or the one that reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that external objects such as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self), so also should consciousness (of the intellect)— although it reveals other things like a lamp—be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to be revealed not by itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that other entity which reveals consciousness is the self—the intelligence which is different from that consciousness (of the intellect).
- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhasya

Moreover, to say that thoughts are self-aware without being known by a separate presence raises all sorts of contradictions and questions, like how does a jumble of self-aware thoughts know each other and sense-perceptions and thereby give rise to a unity of experience. Shankara in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya presents arguments that refutes the claim that mental sensations are self-intuiting in his refutation of Yogachara Buddhists like Dinnaga/Dharmakirti, although thats a separate discussion.

If you’d like to read a formal academic summary of the Advaita phenomenology of consciousness and mind and how it differs from western phenomenology, you can check out these two papers here, the first paper emphasizes the differences between Advaita and western phenomenology, while the second paper focuses on their similarities, in particular between Shankara and Husserl

https://philarchive.org/archive/SCHAAT-52

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20797222.2009.11433987

[Anonymous No.18477498]

>>18476741
Advaita says yes, they consider that to be the nature of God (Brahman), into which the sentience of the enlightened/liberated man enters at death, they say that enlightenment aka realization of the Self allows you to experience this while on earth too, but in the 2nd case its not in the sense that your mind and the world around you completely vanishes, but rather that a pure consciousness reveals itself as the self-illuminating constant foundation of all mental activity and that everything else shows itself to be transient appearances coming and going within this baseline of pure awareness that is the necessary precondition/foundation which allows them to be witnessed as appearances at all.

>>18476821
> whats the difference between advaita vedanta and this qualified non-dualism?

In Advaita, Brahman is partless undifferentiated immaterial consciousness which is completely free from all change and modifications, and all effects are appearances of the primordial cause of Brahman, and consciousness is held to be not depend on its objects but is instead held to be self-revealing.

In Vishishtadvaita, Brahman is a substance that is comprised of distinct parts that undergoes change when it differentiates itself into various modalities, some of which are sentient and other parts insentient, and all effects pre-exist within and are subsequent modifications of the primordial cause of Brahman, and consciousness is intentional (object-oriented) and is held to be dependent upon its object.

I find both schools to be interesting, enough that I intend to eventually read through all of the main Vishishtadvaita theologian Ramanuja’s works in addition to the Advaitin Shankara’s. But for me the doctrines of Advaita are more philosophically sound. To give just one example, I accept as valid the principle that something is not completely eternal unless it is free from modification/change, while Vishishtadvaita is forced to deny this by maintaining that Brahman is eternal but undergoes modification.

The internet encyclopedia of philosophy has articles on both schools

https://iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/

https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/

[Anonymous No.18477515]

>>18473755
what I learned from reading hindus and their scripture is that hindus would rather worship anything else, including cows and their own idealized consciousness, before worshiping the living God who created them.

[Anonymous No.18477545]

>>18477498
>Brahman is a substance that is comprised of distinct parts
isn't this dualism tho?

[Anonymous No.18477703]

>>18477515
>the living God who created
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.18477838]

>>18477703
>I have no Creator
>I'm self-created or eternally uncreated

[Anonymous No.18477860]

>>18477545
According to Vishishtadvaita, it’s not because all the parts form a united whole. The unity of the parts makes it a monism/non-dualism, but the reality of internal distinctions involving differences between one part and another means that it’s “qualified non-dualism” instead of the “unqualified non-dualism” of Advaita. I would argue that Vishishtadvaita is actually a form of monism and that Advaita non-dualism isn’t monism despite what people commonly say because under most interpretations monism posits one substance that makes up everything, while Brahman in Advaita is irreducibly different from the world. But Advaita isn’t dualism according to Advaita either, because the world isn’t set up as an opposing and equally-real reality alongside Brahman but is taken as an appearance that ultimately doesn’t exist and is only perceived as real because of ignorance of the substratum thats the source of the appearance. So, in this view Advaita non-dualism isn’t monism or dualism but it belongs to its own category (Rene Guenon makes this point in his books) while Vishishtadvaita is comparable to a form of monism.

>According to Rāmānuja, Brahman is the Self of all. However, this is not because our individual personhood is identical with the personhood of Brahman, but because we, along with all individuals, constitute modes or qualities of the body of Brahman. Thus, Brahman stands to all others as the soul or mind stands to its body. The metaphysical model that Rāmānuja thus argues for is at once cosmological in nature, and organic. All individuals are Brahman by virtue of constituting its body, but all individuals retain an identity in contradistinction to other parts of Brahman, particularly the soul of Brahman.

“Dualism” in Indian philosophy is considered to be represented mainly by the Dvaita Vedanta school of Madhva, although he actually posits that Brahman, unconscious matter, and conscious souls (Atmans) are three completely different realities which don't blend with each other and which are all equally real. The reason they don’t call this “triadism” or whatever is that in Indian philosophy whether something is non-dual or dual is primarily determined with reference to the relation between Brahman and the individual soul, as opposed to the classification of western ontologies whereby the relation of the different parts of the universe to each other is what primarily determines the label that those systems are classified by instead of the relation between God and the human soul.

[Anonymous No.18477905]

I love Rene Guenon. I love annihilation.

[Anonymous No.18477942]

who makes these schizo hindu threads?

[Anonymous No.18477958]

>>18477942
guenonfag, he's italian

[Anonymous No.18477982]

>>18477958

[Anonymous No.18477987]

>>18477982

[Anonymous No.18477993]

>>18477958
>>18477982
>>18477987
yeah this nigga is gay af

[Anonymous No.18478018]

>>18477515
>>18477838

Yes all the sects of ''hinduism'' have a satanic element intermixed with some truths

[Anonymous No.18478042]

>>18478018
That's dumb. 'Being LIKE God' exists in both Catholicism, and to a greater extent Orthodoxy via Theosis. Being God, which is basically Advaita feels kind of different also, there isn't the arrogance or hubris that comes along with Satan's idea of 'becoming God'

[Anonymous No.18478053]

>>18478042
the hubris does exist, implicitly if not explicitly, there are people in this thread who think they ''can be like God"' and that they also have ''no Creator''

[Anonymous No.18478058]

>>18478042
CS Lewis was known for not having a fucking clue what he was talking about, anon.

[Anonymous No.18478069]

>>18478018
yeah well hindus regularly gang rape 6 year old girls...it's all just maya after all

[Anonymous No.18478082]

Is it possible that the obsession with annihilation in eastern religions stems from a profound self-loathing? Do Indians hate themselves and each other and that's why they see the ultimate goal as never having been born?

[Anonymous No.18478087]

>>18478042
being like God in true christianity (catholicism) is the lover becoming the beloved through the grace of love, it does not imply self identification. you 'become' what you love. your essence does not change. this is why some mystics express courtly language. you become what you love by the virtue of loving. this differs from the hubris of self obliteration. the mayavadin wants to cease his self

[Anonymous No.18478090]

>>18478058
seething

[Anonymous No.18478095]

>>18474661
>does nothing but be aware of itself by virtue of its opacity
When you put it this way the universe seems kinda self involved.

[Anonymous No.18478101]

>>18478087
>the mayavadin wants to cease his self
if the Atman (Self) exists forever as it does in Advaita, its not ceasing

[Anonymous No.18478103]

>>18477860
you have been very helpful, as usual

[Anonymous No.18478120]

>>18478101
they believe their personal self is illusion so they want to cease it for what they believe to be their true self identified as brahman. this god they worship is not the supreme good and beauty of the platonists, it is eternal void, unaware of himself, unconscious, asleep, beyond good, beyond being. it is a state of permanent sleep. annihiliation. nihilism.

[Anonymous No.18478132]

it was about time lit grew tired of this orientalist shilling of nihilism with exotic terms. but why do they feel compelled to shill their beliefs? they want to bring other people down with them. they want everyone to jump into the abyss of eternal void. this is the coward mentality of the mayavadin atheist who is a crypto satanist

[Anonymous No.18478147]

there is nothing weaker than the proselytism of oriental doctrines by a western man who ultimately does not believe in good or evil. why does he do it? to signal virtue? to pose as enlightened?

does he really think his liberation depends on living on the information age where he can comfortably search about oriental doctrines on the internet that preach indifference?

[Anonymous No.18478157]

>>18478132
>>18478132
I agree with everything you just said. I'd add that it's simply pridefulness. Guenonfag knows he can't stop shilling or else it will seem like he lost the argument. He can't bear to think he will leave and once he's gone people will say he's wrong and move on. He needs to feel that others agree with him and will follow him because he doubts himself.

Could just be a paid psyop though. See how Sam Harris shills advaita. It doesn't fix the world like Guenon said it would, in fact it actively ruins it.

[Anonymous No.18478171]

the western infra-man thinks he can go online shopping through the beliefs of other cultures and choose the one his individual self 'likes' the most, even though such belief might deny the substantiality of this very personal self that picked it

the infamous anon already said how HE PERSONALLY likes this stuff, how it is what appears to make more sense to HIM. so much for denial of personality

[Anonymous No.18478177]

if you really believe all you see is accidental and devoid of real substance why do you cling to a belief that appeals to your very individuality? the belief that appeals to your taste, the very belief that denies intrinsic value in everyone's thrilled path through the circumstances

the mayavadin has no answer to this

[Anonymous No.18478198]

>reality is illusion
>what is true is accidental circumstances that lead me into being shilled reality is illusion

[Anonymous No.18478332]

>>18478120
>they believe their personal self is illusion so they want to cease it
For Advaitins the real person is the purusa/Atman (Self), while the ego is the external+unreal individuality that is witnessed by the person viz. witness-consciousness
>it is eternal void, unaware of himself, unconscious,
That’s incorrect, the liberated Atman-Brahman that has no association with maya (unlike the Saksi, or witness-consiousness) is held by Advaitins to be reflexive self-awareness that is only aware of itself. It is defined as being self-aware and conscious in its awareness of itself, it’s self-intuiting conscious-presence that isn’t aware of anything aside from the self-intuiting presence which is its very nature.

In order to claim that this is the same as being unconscious or void, you have to violate basic logic, because you have to say that if awareness or consciousness is not aware of anything aside from itself then that’s the same as void, nothingness or unconsciousness. But since the Atman-consciousness still exists according to Advaita you have to then claim that awareness is itself identical with nothingness in order to substantiate the charge that awareness without any non-aware object being presented to it is nothingness/void.

But we know that awareness isn’t the same as nothingness, because nothingness is defined as the complete absence of anything, and if there is an existing awareness then there is not a complete absence of anything. Moreover, if awareness was identical to nothingness then saying “I’m aware of the doorbell ringing” would be equivalent to saying “I’m nothingness of the doorbell ringing”, and this is obviously completely nonsensical. So the charge that pure reflexive consciousness/awareness that is only aware of itself and not anything else is identical to void/nothingness violates basic logic and it can only be forwarded through sophistic reasoning that tries to make awareness synonymous with nothingness, despite this being an obvious violation of logic that even a child could easily identify as being wrong.

>asleep, it is a state of permanent sleep.
It’s not asleep either, the Atman is distinguished from sleep in the Mandukya Karika, the Atman is the fourth transcendental state Turiya, to which the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep (prajna) are presented to as appearances which are different from the Turiya/Atman. In prajna there is no duality but the Atman is obscured via ignorance, in Turiya there isn’t duality but there is no ignorance of the Atman
>annihiliation.
It’s not annihilation because the awareness which every being has as the foundation of all their mental activity is eternal+undying, their awareness would have to die for it to be annihilationism
>nihilism.
ontological nihilism means nothing exists, if Brahman exists as Advaita claims, who in the words of the Taittirriya Upanishad is “truth, knowledge, infinite” then that’s mutually exclusive with nihilism