/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19001295]

>Solipsism... but BETTER

[Anonymous No.19001303]

stop making shankara threads you're as bad as the shankara spammer

[Anonymous No.19001328]

>>19001295
Ok hylic

[Anonymous No.19001400]

>>19001295
>Satcitananda = existence, consciousness, bliss.
>Maya is born from Brahman but is not considered an essential quality of Brahman. It is even considered false.

The real question anybody should ask an Advaitin is: where did maya come from? If it's emanating from Brahman it must be considered as a quality of Brahman. If it's not emanating from Brahman you are really arguing for duality.

[twilight of the tripgods !!jSL0eMzLPNK No.19001406]

>everything is one
>so just ignore suffering and everything else
>relax bro :^)

[Anonymous No.19003810]

>>19001400
Levels of truth/being you retard

[Anonymous No.19005514]

>>19003810
I like how "advaitins" never give an answer to this, they just throw random meaningless words "levels of truth/being" mixing up epistemology and ontology like the uneducated retards they are, and then they still got the nerve to insult you

[Anonymous No.19005572]

>>19005514
>"advaitins" never give an answer to this
That's because it's unexplainable in rational terms; there simply isn't a philosophical answer.
>mixing up epistemology and ontology
This is done deliberately to guide a student towards a suprarational realisation.
I don't find it particularly convincing either, anon, but Advaita operates in a different epistemic framework from Western philosophy. You're not gonna get a rational ultimate answer.

[Anonymous No.19005599]

>>19005514
As for the philosophers and masters of thought among the ancients and the mutakallimun in their discourse on the self and its whatness, none of them stumbled on its reality, and logical speculation can never provide it. He who seeks knowledge of it by means of logical speculation, swells himself up and boasts without vigour or substance. “They are those whose efforts in the life of this world are misguided while they suppose that they are doing good.” (18:104) He who seeks the matter by other than its path will not achieve its realization.

from Ibn Arabi

[Anonymous No.19005722]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19005794]

By having given my reverences to Brahman, the primal cause, I may speak to thou.
All souls are part of Brahman, as everything is, there's no doubt about that.
Nonetheless, some souls are dispersed and long-distant from the center of Brahman, that's why they should seek the path of liberation in order to get closer.
Once liberated, such distance becomes nullified.
Why doesn't Brahman just gather all of them by his will?
Because it doesn't have to, as it has eternal patience, so Maya has been imposed to them as a trial.
Just as we expect our body cells to do their duty, Brahman expects all souls to liberate themselves by their own, some may take infinitesimally amounts of time, some may approximate an eternity, but, in the end, everyone of then will be absorbed into the source.

May the peace be with you.

[Anonymous No.19005801]

>>19001400
Maya was never brought into being because Brahman is the only thing that, in truth, exists.

[Anonymous No.19005978]

>>19001295
>solipsism
Advaita doesn't deny that the consciousness of living beings is unreal, or deny that anyones mind is having the empirical experience of thoughts, sensations etc.
>>19005801
this
>>19001400
>The real question anybody should ask an Advaitin is: where did maya come from? If it's emanating from Brahman it must be considered as a quality of Brahman. If it's not emanating from Brahman you are really arguing for duality.
This is easy to answer: Advaita teaches that there are 3 categories into which everything is divided 1) absolute being/existence which alone is truly ‘real’ 2) relative being or appearance, which is considered not unreal but ‘false’ (mithya) and 3) absolute non-being which is equal to complete non-existence, existing not even as appearance, for Advaita this third and not the second category is ‘unreal’. Hence, real =\= false =\= unreal. Maya belongs to the 2nd category of false, not the 3rd category of unreal.

Your question is ignoring that Advaita explains things in these three divisions and is compacting everything into a binary of existence and non-existence. This is perhaps one of the most persistent errors people make, both in medieval India and today, when attempting to refute Advaita. All these attempts involve two things A) the implicit rejection of the 3-way division provided by Advaita and B) the pointing out of the contradiction that would result *IF* Advaita taught a binary being/non-being scheme instead of their three-fold distinction.

Until you can actually prove that A is correct though, B completely lacks force as an argument because in order for there to be a real contradiction in Advaita doctrine, then A, or the rejection of this 3-fold distinction, would have to be correct, but these arguments never demonstrate A but just rely on the unfounded assumption that its true.

In order to substantiate any argument involving B, you would first have to logically demonstrate that Advaita’s 3-way division is wrong. But, from a survey of the arguments, nobody has ever done this successfully. Vedantists belonging to other schools have tried to tackle the idea head on before, but the Advaitins replied and pointed out why their arguments fail.

[Anonymous No.19005983]

>>19005978
>>19001400

‘Real’ and ‘unreal’ in advaita are used in the absolute sense. Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahman alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal’ in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower’ or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is. And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real’ to which belong all world-objects. Again, since avidya is only a superimposition it vanishes when the ground-reality, the Brahma(n), is immediately realised, just as the rope-snake vanishes for good, when the rope is known.

…

Vyâsatïrtha, like Râmânuja against avidyà, says that as being and non-being are contradictories, which are exclusive and exhaustive, there can be no third alternative and therefore both cannot be denied. Everything must necessarily be either being or non-being. The denial of both is against the Law of Excluded Middle and also against the Law of Contradiction. Again, ‘different from being* means ‘non-being’ and ‘different from non-being’ means ‘being’; so ‘different from being and nonbeing’ means ‘both being and non-being’ which is admitted to be self-contradictory by the Advaitin himself.

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī replies that being and non-being are not exhaustive as these are used by us in their absolute sense and between the two is the third alternative, ‘the relative being’ to which belong the entire world-objects. So the Law of Excluded Middle is not violated. Again, as being and non-being belong to different orders of reality, there is no contradiction in their simultaneous affirmation or simultaneous denial. Moreover, non-contradiction is admitted as the test of truth and that which is contradicted is said to be false, so the Law of Contradiction is maintained in tact.

[Anonymous No.19005984]

>>19005978
*Advaita doesn't deny that the consciousness of living beings is REAL

[Anonymous No.19005993]

>>19005978
one day later
>advaita teaches that poop is God, therefore is satanic
Why even write this wall texts?

[Anonymous No.19006025]

>>19005993
>>advaita teaches that poop is God, therefore is satanic
Wrong, Advaita teaches that Brahman is non-identical with and transcendent to every object in the universe including poop, as well as the entire universe itself. Vishishtadvaita and monistic Shaivism both teach that the poop itself is God.
>b-b-but if God isn’t the poop, t-then that’s actually a d-duality…
This is another non-argument which relies on the rejection of the 3-fold division of Advaita without logically demonstrating why that 3-fold division itself is wrong. Until you refute the 3-fold division itself, any argument relying on the rejection of it automatically fails.

[Anonymous No.19006067]

>>19005978
>>19005983
>>19005984
Where the fuck can I find your drug dealer?

[Anonymous No.19006103]

>>19005978
>Advaita teaches that there are 3 categories into which everything is divided 1) absolute being/existence which alone is truly ‘real’ 2) relative being or appearance, which is considered not unreal but ‘false’ (mithya) and 3) absolute non-being which is equal to complete non-existence
Why was it necessary to overcomplicate Mahayana by adding Brahman to the end of it and having three levels of truth instead of two? Is Shankara a hack?

[Anonymous No.19006208]

>>19006067
It has nothing to do with drugs, there are plenty of medieval Indian philosophical writings talking about this exact subject.

>>19006103
>Why was it necessary to overcomplicate Mahayana by adding Brahman to the end of it and having three levels of truth instead of two?
Its not a Mahayana teaching you brainlet but its something else entirely. Mahayana two truths is an epistemic distinction between the same thing as it is (Nirvana) and as it is filtered through our misunderstanding (Samsara). Advaita truth-levels is an ontological distinction between different metaphysical statuses which are different from each other, which are not simply the same thing according to correct or false understanding. This is why Mahayanists say “Nirvana is Samsara” but an Advaitist would never say “Brahman is maya”. For Mahayanists, the epistemic distinction means that samsara isnt different from Nirvana. For Advaitins, the metaphysical distinction means Brahman is non-identical to maya. For people who care so much about muh epistemic teaching vs metaphysical, you sure seem to forget the distinction when its convenient. Either that or you’re dishonest.

[Anonymous No.19006322]

>>19005978
>>19005983

sometimes its hard to believe I share a board with these people

[Anonymous No.19006341]

>>19006208
It's pointless to posit an absolute non-being at all, let alone make it into a category in which things are divided. Clearly just scholastics trying to out mental-gymnast one another. Reality and appearance was fine, why add nothing? Isn't nothing merely an appearance? Or are you a nihilist after all? Since Brahman does not appear, is he in fact your third category rather than your first?

[Anonymous No.19006400]

How advaita explains the unconscious ?

[Anonymous No.19006420]

>>19005978
>This is easy to answer: Advaita teaches that there are 3 categories into which everything is divided 1) absolute being/existence which alone is truly ‘real’ 2) relative being or appearance, which is considered not unreal but ‘false’ (mithya) and 3) absolute non-being which is equal to complete non-existence, existing not even as appearance, for Advaita this third and not the second category is ‘unreal’. Hence, real =\= false =\= unreal. Maya belongs to the 2nd category of false, not the 3rd category of unreal.
The problem is that then Maya cannot explain the world, since it belongs to the same category as what it has to explain. You can't explain the existence of contingency by appealing to a contingent thing, it just pushes the problem further away: which maya-2 causes the maya-1 ? Ad infinitum. The solution must necessarily exist at the absolute level.

[Anonymous No.19006664]

Ttitititktkit

[Anonymous No.19006870]

Bmp

[Anonymous No.19007194]

>>19006341
>It's pointless to posit an absolute non-being at all, let alone make it into a category in which things are divided.
No, it’s not pointless, you are wrong; it fulfills a valid function by distinguishing things which have no existence and also no false appearance whatsoever from things which are false but which are still seemingly empirically experienced. A son born of a barren/sterile woman is not a false illusion/appearance, it’s something which is completely non-existent, it doesn’t present itself in experience. This is a different category from the false because the false can still present itself in experience. When I say “everything is divided into the three”, I’m not saying “everything that EXISTS is divisible into the three”, I’m saying “all concepts which can be entertained by the mind, even totally hypothetical, speculative, invalid ones etc, can be divided into the three”. Hence, the three-fold division of Advaita is not making nothingness/non-existence into something that exists in its own right, nothingness doesn’t exist. Acknowledging that contradictory notions like “frozen fire” dont exist and hence belong to the third category, isnt the same as saying non-being/nothingness exists as a metaphysical realm or state. Your criticism seems to wrongly assume Advaita is saying “absolute nothingness has existence”.

>Reality and appearance was fine, why add nothing?
Because a barren womans son and frozen fire do exist and do they have false appearances. If you only reality reality and appearances there isnt a proper way to distinguish between the status of an experienced mirage and a never-experienced frozen fire or a never-experienced luminous shadow.
>Isn't nothing merely an appearance?
No it’s not, that is wrong because nothingness never presents itself in experience
>Or are you a nihilist after all? Since Brahman does not appear, is he in fact your third category rather than your first?
No, that’s wrong, since Brahman has absolute existence/being which is unchanging, undecaying, timeless. Rather than being an object of knowledge or object of awareness, Brahman is the awareness which is the necessary foundation of all particular/discrete knowledge. This awareness is never Its own object though, It always exists and is simultaneous with the presentation of the false.

[Anonymous No.19007245]

>>19007194
>reality and appearances there isnt a proper way to distinguish between the status of an experienced mirage and a never-experienced frozen fire or a never-experienced luminous shadow.
Ok fine have two kinds of not-reals it's totally legitimate and relevant and definitely not an invention of scholastic debate between rival navel gazers... but Brahman is still never experienced as you're literally calling Brahman a non-object and simultaneous with presentation of the false, so brahman is the same as a frozen fire.

[Anonymous No.19007250]

>>19007194
*Because a barren womans son and frozen fire do not exist and they do NOT have false appearances in experience

[Anonymous No.19007502]

>>19005978
>>19005983
I intellectually understand the concept of mithya but I also feel that it fails to explain our worldly experiences or how the world came into appearance in the first place. I also feel t
I think that your answer was a bit unsatisfactory, since my question was: If the only thing existing is Brahman, it must be the basis of maya. So why is maya not included in the qualities of the supreme? By using the mithy
Your answer doesn't address where it came from or how it was even allowed to be in the first place.
If the concealment was regarded as a spontaneous act/kriya of Brahman, I wouldn't have any quarrel with the philosophy whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.19007506]

>>19007502
Post got fucked up, hopefully you will be able to understand my points anyway.

>I also feel t
>By using the mithy

[Anonymous No.19007700]

>>19007245
>Ok fine have two kinds of not-reals it's totally legitimate and relevant and definitely not an invention of scholastic debate between rival navel gazers...
Unreal =/= false for Advaita. So, you are wrong in calling them “two kinds of unreal”. It is totally legitimate and relevant, as demonstrated by the fact that false things present themselves in experience, while on the other hand nothingness is never an object of experience and neither are things which are a contradiction-in-terms like “frozen fire” ever objects of experience. So, there is a clear difference between them, which calls for a different classification. If you cant refute it then you cant refute it, there is no need for the empty rhetoric.

>but Brahman is still never experienced as you're literally calling Brahman a non-object and simultaneous with presentation of the false, so brahman is the same as a frozen fire.
That’s wrong, because the Atman-Brahman is revealed in every instance of knowledge. Every instance of knowledge involves the self-revealing knowledge/presence of the unchanging reality of Awareness/Atman, and also simultaneous with this is the knowledge of the false maya-contents. Shankara in his commentary on chapter 2 of the Gita says in every moment there is knowledge of the unchanging reality and knowledge of the changing false phenomena. So, Brahman is not identical with the things which are completely non-existent/unreal like frozen fire, because Brahman is revealed to us in every single instance continuously as the very foundation of particular knowledge itself, which intuits itself or reveals itself independently of the maya-object, not in reliance upon it. Just because Brahman and the unreal both do not present themselves as objects of awareness does not make them identical, that’s sloppy reasoning, which is akin to saying because the eye does not see itself therefore the eye doesnt exist. The unreal/non-existent never reveals itself unlike Atman/Awareness, and the unreal/non-existent is never the foundation of particular knowledge, which Atman/Awareness is. So, they cannot be regarded as the same because they have different natures.

[Anonymous No.19007829]

>>19001295
solipsism is true
you are all alone
do with this information what you will

[Anonymous No.19008174]

>>19006420
Actually good answer

[Anonymous No.19009373]

>>19006420
>The problem is that then Maya cannot explain the world, since it belongs to the same category as what it has to explain.
Maya is explained in Advaita by it being Brahman’s uncreated timeless nature to effortlessly project maya without Brahmin engaging in action, although that nature to project maya is not the same as the maya which Brahman is projecting being itself Brahman’s nature or inherent quality itself, the maya is a consequence of Brahman existing. It is Brahmans uncreated ability, which is not the same as the maya itself which is projected, one way to conceive of it is that it is Brahmans omnipotence which Brahman always retains which allows maya to be projected. But maya is itself not that omnipotence. So the explanation is not just left at contingency doubling back on itself, but Brahman remains in absolute reality, and from His omnipotence there, maya is projected as contingent relative existence.

[Anonymous No.19009806]

>>19009373
What does advaita says about dukkha

[Anonymous No.19010179]

>>19009806
They recognize that short of complete realization of the Absolute/moksha, undecaying happiness cannot be found in the changing world of phenomena; and they say that jivas can ascend to a long-lasting heaven (Brahmaloka) and even attain the status of dieties and live for billions of years with immense power and happiness, but that this is all inferior to moksha. At the same time, they don't focus exorbitantly on suffering or make this big hullaballoo about moralism, as I personally consider Buddhism to do.