Why is it that when people who shill Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji (SSS) online are asked to explain Adi Shankara's statements in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1-4-3 that they just talk in circles and spam other quotations without actually ever explaining what Adi Shankara meant in that passage? Trying to get one of them to actually offer an explanation of what Shankara meant that aligns with the position of SSS is like trying to grasp a slippery eel that wriggles out of your hand.
Is it because SSS is actually propounding his own modernist version of Vedanta that departs from Shankara's own position and which is the result of him having a received a western-style education and lacking the traditional formal training in Indian hermeneutics, logic or grammar, in combination with him wanting to present Vedanta as a rational and empirical science-like system? Is he really just a Neo-Vedantist pretending to be traditional?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
This one passage causes SSSgays to spam paragraphs of assertions and quotations that strangely enough, never actually offer an explanation for what Shankara means here in this passage
can either of you gays even explain what the practical effect it being an "illusion" even has? it's produced by Brahman, so it's obviously real. calling it an illusion is just a religious mysticism pseud meme.
it's all made up bullshit lmao
I think that Brahman and Atman are both real and that they are the same, but I think that Brahman is both the producer of the world and the result of the world, and I think that Atman is always the unification of a multiplicity, and that jivatman is totally produced by the brain. So I think that it's not made up, but that it's all under an anti-pluralistic misconception due to lack of scientific understanding of the brain.
nah
Illusions are real, but not in the way they appear to be. Think of any optical illusion. The illusion is real, but it exists in the mind and not in the image where it seems to appear.
but the mind is real, and optical illusions are different because they only exist in a minority of minds who have a limited perspective.
Are you really saying minorities are dumb you fricking bigot?
Sadly advaita vedanta is about non dualism right? So saying that there is the mind and the image (optical illusion) seems like dualism. Definetly the mind and the optical illusion are Brahman so they are indead real.
You can not say that pain, sorrow, unhappiness and fear don't really exist because they are part of the illusion wrongly projected. Atman, the illusion, the projection, and all of its contents are part of Brahman. You have to accept that the only way Brahman found to get full remembrance and self reflection was through all the negative qualities we see in the universe. So the bullshit about Brahman being full bliss and stuff like that is completely a value judgment that springs from ignorance. Brahman didn't plan it to be like it. He can't do that.
>You can not say that pain, sorrow, unhappiness and fear don't really exist because they are part of the illusion wrongly projected.
I can, see
, it is only a result of not properly knowing what one's Self is and isn't that you consider pain, sorrow, unhappiness and fear as pertaining to the real (You) at all instead of just being non-self manifested energies affecting other non-self manifested energies.
>You have to accept that the only way Brahman found to get full remembrance and self reflection was through all the negative qualities we see in the universe
Brahman doesn't "get" either, those only pertain to the intellect (buddhi) and/or mind (manas), Brahman is unthinking and without intellect and mind. There is no development or progress in Brahman but it's totally immutable.
>Definetly the mind and the optical illusion are Brahman so they are indead real.
That poster is not explaining the traditional Advaitin position (they don't say the illusion is real but rather say it's insubstantial and conjured as an illusion by Brahman)
If one assumes that the only thing that is independent and real from all phenomena in reality is Brahman then all the differences you are making between Brahman, the intellect, minds are just conceptual and verbal partitions. You well know that one can not describe Brahman through language because any time one engages in conceptualization one is distorting what Brahman really is.
I would think that any discussion of advaita vedanta is futile since apophatic theology can't be logically refuted. If you don't accept just as a practical assumption to discuss advaita that the intellect is Brahman (as another partition) then this post and all discussions of advaita could be avoided since they all spring from the intellect.
>If one assumes that the only thing that is independent and real from all phenomena in reality is Brahman then all the differences you are making between Brahman, the intellect, minds are just conceptual and verbal partitions.
Not so, because they are not on the same ontological plane or level to begin with, so the fact of difference (bheda) being unreal doesn't lead to non-difference between Brahman and the intellect, minds etc, this assumption is based on the error of conceiving of them as being on the same plane, which has the attendant consequence that if difference is unreal then all the things all that plane become automatically identified with each other, but Brahman is completely transcendent and is in Its own absolute transcendent reality/plane that is ontologically above the cosmos and its limited/changing phenomena and it only falsely seems to be interfacing with the lower plane of illusion due to the effects of the illusion so this doesn't actually occur. This higher plane is present here and now ""within"" your own experience as your own immediate and self-evident self-awareness of yourself as a sentient presence that empirical experiences cannot occur without the presence of, and everything else such as the changing contents of that empirical experiencing seems to be falsely interfacing with this higher plane of God's self-luminous unconditioned awareness due to the effects of the illusion.
>You well know that one can not describe Brahman through language because any time one engages in conceptualization one is distorting what Brahman really is.
Indeed, but it can be indicated and pointed to (but not fully delimited) through negation (neti neti) and implication (laksana) which is why the Upanishads use both negations and metaphors and parables that are predicated on implication
>I would think that any discussion of advaita vedanta is futile since apophatic theology can't be logically refuted.
It's first and foremost a school of scriptural hermeneutics (Vedanta is also called Uttara Mimamsa since it's just a further elaboration or extension of Mimamsa really); everything else including the spiritual instruction is subordinated to this; thus even though words don't delimit Brahman discussing and teaching Advaita is still seen as important for properly understanding scripture, furthermore the verbal teaching associated with it can have positive practical results like reducing one's unhappyness in life
>If you don't accept just as a practical assumption to discuss advaita that the intellect is Brahman (as another partition) then this post and all discussions of advaita could be avoided since they all spring from the intellect.
Why? Speech and thought being inherent in the intellect and not directly inherent in Brahman Itself is not an obstacle to having fruitful discussions
Again, plane or level are arbitrary descriptions that actually have no "pointing" functionality but they are used as a way to justify a logical incongruence. If Brahman is the ontological primitive then if you want to create levels (hierarchy), the bottom phenomena that are in lower planes necessarily needs to be included in the ontological primitive since everything springs from it.
> Brahman is completely transcendent
What Brahman needs to transcend? Can Brahman transcend itself? Why would it need to transcend the "lower phenomena"? It is like saying that the king has to transcend the peasant.
>This higher plane is present here and now ""within"" your own experience
So the lower phenomena don't happen in the present here and now as an illusion?
>Speech and thought being inherent in the intellect and not directly inherent in Brahman
Back to the same thing. If Brahman is all there is and the intellect is a part of Brahman then the intellect inherently is Brahman itself. You can say that, well really is not brahman itself because it's under the veil of illusion. But now you have to explain how illusion interacts with Brahman without resorting to a pseudo dualism.
>Again, plane or level are arbitrary descriptions that actually have no "pointing" functionality but they are used as a way to justify a logical incongruence.
There only appears to be a logical incongruence if you don't understand what is being talked about, if you actually do understand you see that it is actually relatively conservative philosophically-speaking and doesn't posit anything that violates Aristotelian/classical logic.
>If Brahman is the ontological primitive then if you want to create levels (hierarchy), the bottom phenomena that are in lower planes necessarily needs to be included in the ontological primitive since everything springs from it.
That argument functions on the presumption that there are two existent things and as such that the second partakes of the same ontological status as the more fundamental one, this is not what Shankara is saying. He is rather saying that it is projected as false (mithya) appearance that does not have real existence like Reality (Brahman) does, negating difference as illusory doesn't lead to the identification of the illusion and Brahman, for the very reason that difference (bheda) is not negated in isolation but EVERYTHING aside from the Atman-Brahman is negated, so everything besides It included difference is negated, leaving only the non-dual ground/basis of the illusion existing in it's own undivided undifferentiated reality with nothing beside it that can be considered real or on the same level.
The Advaitin Madhusudana Saraswati addresses this very point in his work Advaitasiddhi:
(2) The second definition of falsity is given by Prakashatma in Vivarana which runs thus: ‘Falsity is the counter-entity of an absolute negation with regard to the substratum in which it is cognised.' This means ‘falsity is that which can be denied at all times even where it appears to exist'. Vyasatirtha objects that if falsity is true, then non-dualism of Brahma will vanish; and if falsity is false, then the world will be true. Again, appearances are said to be ‘real' as long as they appear. Now, if they are denied even at the time of perception, then they are absolute non-being like the hare's horn. Again, the falsity of the world is also treated as false. Thus the falsity of the falsity of the world leads to the affirmation of the reality of the world.
Madhusudana Sarasvati refutes all these objections. To the objection that if falsity is true, then non-dualism of Brahma will vanish, Madhusudana replies that falsity is not true for it is set aside by knowledge and therefore non-dualism of Brahma is not destroyed. Moreover, as the world-appearance and its falsity are simultaneously removed by the same Brahma-knowledge, non-dualism remains in tact. And as falsity is not absolute unreality but only apparent reality, its falsity does not make the world real. To the objection that the falsity of the falsity of the world does lead to the affirmation of the reality of the world, Madhusudana replies that negation of negation in all cases does not mean reaffirmation. Negation of negation leads to affirmation only in those cases where the thing negated and the negation enjoy the same status and have identically the same scope. But when a negation negates both the thing and its negation, then negation of negation does not lead to affirmation. True negation is always a cancellation of illusion. Only the apparent can be negated and that which is negated must be false, for the real can never be negated. Negation is rooted in the real which is the negation of that negation and in itself is positive. If the object negated and its negation remain in the same ground, then negation of negation does not re-instate the object negated but only the ground (Brahman).
>> Brahman is completely transcendent
>What Brahman needs to transcend?
Brahman doesn't "need' anything but It is totally self-sufficient, desireless and complete. It is said to be transcendent relative to samsara, since Brahman forms an independent absolute reality of Its own that is unaffected by samsara/illusion.
>Can Brahman transcend itself?
That would invovle positing contradictory attributes in God, which would violate the LNC, which Advaita rejects, therefore they would reject the premise of the question itself as mistaken or as nonsensical/invalid.
>Why would it need to transcend the "lower phenomena"? It is like saying that the king has to transcend the peasant.
It doesn't "need to" it just happens to be that way via its own nature as truly existent, independent and non-illusory while samsara happens to be the opposite of those things
>>This higher plane is present here and now ""within"" your own experience
>So the lower phenomena don't happen in the present here and now as an illusion?
What is really known in each moment is the self-disclosing absolute reality of Brahman that is ontologically above everything, this immediate self-disclosure of sentient presence is non-illusory. What the mind normally thinks of as constituting the "here and now" is part of the illusion, but to say that the absolute reality is also present "within" that in a sense is a way of indicating to someone how reality leaves signs of its underlying presence even within the illusion despite being on another level. The mind has its own conception of the "here and now" predicated on the illusion while the immediate self-disclosure of one's Self as partless awarenesss is the real "here and now" which the false "here and now" appears to be intermeshed with like a crystal ball appearing to take on the colors of a cloth that it is placed next to.
and thought being inherent in the intellect and not directly inherent in Brahman
>Back to the same thing. If Brahman is all there is
Brahman is the only thing that truly exists, but that is not the same as saying all false appearances are Brahman, far from it in fact
>But now you have to explain how illusion interacts with Brahman without resorting to a pseudo dualism.
"Interaction" literally means "reciprocal action or influence", because samsara and Brahman is a one-way relation of non-reciprocal dependence where one party is totally unchanged it does not meet the definition of "interaction". They *appear* to interact (this only appears to the mind and not Brahman itself) as a result of the effects of the illusion.
>can either of you gays even explain what the practical effect it being an "illusion" even has?
For ignorant persons, the world is experienced as just the same way. For people with spiritual insight, realizing that there is one undivided divine consciousness inside all living beings as their true Self, and that the whole world of plurality is just a false display projected as this numinous consciousness, which is unharmed and unaffected by any of it and that this Divine Being is instead always free and untouched by sorrow, pain, hunger, death etc; it leads to the total end of all fear, dissatisfaction, sorrow and unhappiness, that is the practical effect.
*projected BY
>it leads to the total end of all fear, dissatisfaction, sorrow and unhappiness
Except it… doesn’t.
>Except it… doesn’t.
It does, but not if you understand it at a purely verbal level
Fear of harm comes from the perception that one can be harmed, if you understand that you are the ever-present undecaying background of all things then you no longer have fear because nothing can harm you.
Dissatisfaction comes from feelings of incompleteness, when you understand that you as the Self are already complete, self-sufficient and without need of anything, and that you are already free from desire and that it is only the mind (non-self) that desires, then you no longer have dissatisfaction.
Sorrow and unhappyness similarly comes from dissatisfaction and more generally from considering oneself as an actor/agent who engages in things and who suffers bad results of past actions and fails to achieve other actions, similarly just as above, understanding that you are already complete and a non-agent, and there is nothing else existing besides the one (You) inside all beings that is ever satisfied and complete, it removes any cause for sorrow or unhappyness.
It's not real but the suffering caused by believing it's real is real.
If the suffering is real, is the sufferer real?
Guenongay, please stop winning so much
Leave some intellectual victories for the rest of us!!
That’s it, SSSbros, I’m throwing away all of my SSS books now. I’m embarrassed that I ever took him seriously.
I already threw them into the trash. How could a traditional samnyasin who wrote thousands of pages of pure vedanta in Sanskrit, was recognized by the major Shankaracharya's Peethams, who has translated and commented all the works of Sankara and all other major vedantic works and was recognized as a new Shankara ever compete with Guenongay's wisdom? SSS must be wrong of course, as guenongay cannot be mistaken
guenongay mogs SSS
>SSS must be wrong of course
Obviously, since he was refuted by Shankaracharya (pbuh) in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1-4-3 that OP’s image is about (and in countless other passages too), that why the online fans of SSS refuse to discuss or offer any explanation of BSSB 1-4-3, it is their kryptonite, it makes their heart race, their palms become clammy, and their knees start to tremble and knock together upon seeing mention of it.
>by the major Shankaracharya's Peethams
At the traditional Advaitin peethams they dont teach the ideas of SSS, none of them follow SSS’s ideas and they still teach the traditional sub-commentaries as the proper understanding of Advaita.
>How could a traditional samnyasin
Practically nothing about SSS is traditional either, all of his ideas are taken from the secular academic KA Krishnaswamy, and SSS didnt have traditional training in the Sanskrit trivium that is normally expected of serious monks and he also ended his studies early with the traditional line of initiated monks because he disagreed with them, he only stuck around long enough to create a superficial link to them and to adopt a title and then ran away to start his own center that republished the ideas of the secular academic already mentioned.
>ideas of SSS
what ideas? his statements are mere repetitions of Shankara and gaudapada
here's some references for all that he's saying (on adhyaropapavada, avasthatraya, sakshi, etc)
https://adishankaracharya.net/Supplement_to_the_Essential_Adi_Shankara_Final.pdf
https://adishankaracharya.net/BhAshya_VAkyas.pdf
> BSSB 1-4-3
this excerpt is just stating what SSS always stressed: Brahman is the only cause (efficient and material) of this world, differently from post-advaitins who said that some Avidya-shakti is the cause. I don't know what you're attacking.
Now, the shruti according to Shankara has no purpose of teaching any creation or evolution, it's purpose is to teach Brahman as the only reality, therefore, all those discourses on creation are mere adhyaropas, provisional teachings, this is said also by Gaudapa ("creation is taught for those who fear the unborn", etc). So the whole thing of a world being created is on the domain of relations(vyavahara), but Brahman is relationLess, and creation is not ultimate, thats the apavada.
And the same excerpt mentioned by you clearly says: "the potential power of the seed IS OF THE NATURE OF NESCIENCE", if it's of the nature of ignorance then it's vyavahara, not ultimate.
If you cannot distinguish between those two "steps" you'll never understand vedanta.
This is no attack whatsoever on SSSS, you're literally advocating for his position, against post-advaitins who resurrected the old Samkhya pradhana on vedantic field.
>what ideas? his statements are mere repetitions of Shankara and gaudapada
False, they are a repetition of the ideas of secular academic KA Krishnaswamy as found in his book "Vedanta or Science of Vedanta" (omg I love science lol), and he was not initiated, the only difference being SSS modified the scheme of the book (where avidya is present in sleep) to the modified form presented by SSS where avidya is totally absent in sleep, even though Shankara explicitly refutes this with a combination of logic and Sruti citations in BSSB 2-3-31
>just stating what SSS always stressed: Brahman is the only cause (efficient and material) of this world, differently from post-advaitins who said that some Avidya-shakti is the cause
Shankara says that Brahman through using his power is the cause of everything, that's not different from what most post-Shankara advatins say, many of them talk about Brahman causing the world *through* his power.
>I don't know what you're attacking.
Now you are just playing dumb, just as the meme in OP's image points out, you are totally unwilling to confront and explain the actual statements of Shankara in that verse and are ignoring it
Shankara says here
that denying any inherent creative power in Brahman results in two illogical and untenable consequences, namely that:
1) There would be no emergence of samsara into manifestation from an unmanifest state, and thus no samsaric experiences for any bound souls anywhere, ever
2) That there would then be no logical reason why liberated souls cannot be bound once again
This refutes you and SSS, since asserting that Brahman's sakti is vyavahara-only results in these two illogical and untenable consequences. Your whole post was just a bunch of talking in circles which didn't address these two points that Shankara raises against the position of SSS, just like in the meme at the top of this thread SSS doesn't address it directly either. Stop running away from those two arguments like a scared b***h and just try to explain Shankara's motivations for writing them, for once, which you have never done. Replying further without addressing this point directly is just discrediting yourself
All the claims of SSS and Krishnaswamy are founded on the bhashyas, particularly the mandukya and the older ones (chandogya, brihadaranyaka)
SSS was literally initiated by thee Jagadguru of Srngeri, the sleep matter was already dealt with on the other thread, is just a question of changing standpoints
your contention against Shakti being vyavahara only is untenable because the illusion is unsubstantial, there's no real going or coming out of anything, this preconception of you (of illusion having some kind of reality, when its only a false notion without a corresponding object(artha)) inhibts your understanding and makes you look as if its "talking in circles", "running away". Thats why you cannot accept that its vyavahara, because you think that it has some reality , when its mithya-jñana
So its useless to go on with this, without rooting out this basic misunderstanding
>All the claims of SSS and Krishnaswamy are founded on the bhashyas, particularly the mandukya and the older ones (chandogya, brihadaranyaka)
Nonsense
> the sleep matter was already dealt with on the other thread,
No, it wasnt, you avoided providing any explanation for why Shankara insists that avidya is present in deep sleep and why he backs this up with logic and Sruti in BSSB 2-3-31:
पुंस्त्वादिवत् त्वस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् ॥ ३१ ॥
puṃstvādivat tvasya sato’bhivyaktiyogāt || 31 ||
31. Rather because that contact (with the intellect etc.) which remains latent (in sleep and dissolution) can become manifest (during waking and creation) like manhood etc. (from boyhood etc.)
Shankaracharya Bhashya on that verse: We see in the world that manhood etc. though existing all the time in a latent state, are not perceived during boyhood etc. and are thus treated as though non-existent, but they become manifest in youth etc.; and it is not a fact that they evolve out of nothing, for in that case even a eunuch should grow those (moustaches etc.). Similarly, too, the contact with the intellect etc. remains in a state of latency during sleep and dissolution and emerges again during waking and creation. For thus alone it becomes logical. Nothing can possibly be born capriciously, for that would lead to unwarranted possibilities (of effects being produced without causes). The Upanisad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible because of the existence of ignorance in a seed form (remaining dormant in sleep): "Though unified with Existence (Brahman) in sleep, they do not understand, 'We have merged in Existence.' They return here as a tiger or a lion" (just as they had been here before) (Ch. AT ix. 3) etc. Hence it is proved that the contact with the intellect etc. persists as long as the individuality of the soul lasts.
You never explained why he wrote this passage which explicitly refutes SSS
>your contention against Shakti being vyavahara only is untenable because the illusion is unsubstantial, there's no real going or coming out of anything, this preconception of you (of illusion having some kind of reality, when its only a false notion without a corresponding object(artha)) inhibts your understanding and makes you look as if its "talking in circles", "running away". Thats why you cannot accept that its vyavahara, because you think that it has some reality , when its mithya-jñana
You are not even paying attention, I am saying that the Shakti is paramartha and non-different from Brahman (viz Gita-Bhashya 14.27) but that the illusion projected by this is vyavahara and non-existent and insubstantial. Shankara explicitly refutes the notion that the Shakti is vvayahara in BSSB 1-4-3 by describing the unacceptable results that happen when you deny an inherent shakti in Brahman, you still are running away from and have avoided explaining why he wrote this, just like the meme at the top of this thread points out.
theres no shakti independent of the illusion, obviously, so it makes no difference, understand that Brahman as a creator is not real. Ajata (non-causality) is final truth,
>You have never explained
yes , i have, look at the older posts
brahman itself as cause , with its shakti is all under the assumption of causality, which is due to adhyasa, so its all vyavahara. period.
>theres no shakti independent of the illusion, obviously, so it makes no difference, understand that Brahman as a creator is not real. Ajata (non-causality) is final truth,
Again, this was already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3 where he explains that denying an inherent paramarthic sakti in Brahman results in the two unacceptable consequences, you are still afraid to directly confront this.
>yes , i have, look at the older posts
More lies, you have never addressed his point about the two unacceptable consequences and are lying about having done so. If you really had an explanation you could just provide it now instead of lying and posturing with non-answers. You are still proving the meme true that is the first post of this thread.
so you're saying that Ajata is not final truth? or that its possible to have ajata (non-causality) and some creation(causality), illusorily or not, (it really makes no difference) taking place simultaneuosly?
i already pointed out that you have a misconceived view, a preconception that obscures your thought and can't make you see how something like 'Brahman having its power' is vyavahara only. Without taking this into account you think that i'm running away when in fact i already replied to this "contention" (more of a misunderstanding) of yours
**
I'll point out once more (and this is useful for everyone here discussing the nature of "illusions"):
1. There's ONE thing, vastu, padartha, or reality called Brahman. Upon this reality false notions (mithya-jñana) are superimposed. Now, there's a fundamental superimposition,false notion called adhyasa (mutual superimposition of Self and not-self) that makes you think you're an individual, jiva.
2. Its the same when you look at a rope and see a snake, Theres ONE thing (rope) upon which false ideas are superimposed (snake, garland, etc)
3. Being false notions(mithya-jñana) they have no corresponding false-objects (mithya-padartha), the padartha being only One: Brahman. Just like there's no false-snake-object, only a false-snake notion upon the rope.
4. If you think that there is some false-snake-object then you HAVE to seek for it's cause, effect, locus, etc. But being in reality only an unsubstantial, false notion, there's no room for that (the snake never went anywhere neither came from anywhere)
5. So, among these false notions that happens due to Avidya, the most basic of them are the very notions of time, space and Causality, and the further notions (derived from these basic ones) like that of a Creator(cause) and a world (effect), souls, states, powers, liberation , bondage. This is called vyavahara, the world of relations, samsara.
6. Those are all dependent on the fundamental superimposition (adhyasa). Thats why shankara said : " all human behaviour, whether secular, vedic or employing means of valid knowledge are in the realm of avidyA. "
7. Avidya/adhyasa being merely a false notion (mithya-jñana), it can be "removed" by a 'True Notion' i.e. Knowledge (jñana).
(this is all taken from shankara's adhyasa bhashya)
Unaware of this warning (that everything depends on Ignorance) some people think that there's a real Brahman with some Power out there projecting illusions at his will.
>so you're saying that Ajata is not final truth? or that its possible to have ajata (non-causality) and some creation(causality), illusorily or not, (it really makes no difference) taking place simultaneuosly?
"Creation" doesn't mean the same thing in every place you idiot, only someone who has never read multiple complete works of Shankara from cover to cover would think that every time he uses a word or term that it means the exact same thing in every instance.
>i already pointed out that you have a misconceived view, a preconception that obscures your thought and can't make you see how something like 'Brahman having its power' is vyavahara only.
This is already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3 where he criticizes the denial of Brahman having a paramarthic Sakti inherent in Itself and he says it results in two illogical consequences, you are advocating nonsense that Shankara already explicitly refuted
>"the potential power of the seed IS OF THE NATURE OF NESCIENCE", if it's of the nature of ignorance then it's vyavahara, not ultimate.
Not so, because Shankara doesn't explicitly identify the potential power of the seed with the power that he says is "inherent in the highest Lord", he refers to the power of the seed as "having the highest Lord as its basis" while he says the creative power is "inherent IN the highest Lord". Saying "inherent in" and "having as its basis" have two totally different meanings, this suggests that one possibility is that the creative power is the maya-sakti that is non-different from Brahman (viz. Gita-Bhashya 14.27), while the seed that has as its basis the highest Lord is project by this sakti or conjured up as a false illusion by it. Furthermore, EVEN IF Shankara means that the seed is the exact same thing as the power inherent in Brahman, which is not his obvious intent, this doesn't mean that it's vyavahara either because he could just be talking about a non-subjective power of (casting) ignorance and not a subjective ignorance belonging to minds on the vyavahara level.
now this is just your own mental masturbation. And my point is that all this is on empirical vyavahara domain, I can't understand why you keep pushing this as if shankara was a cosmologist. Do I have to provide the quotes showing how creation is a provisional teaching, not ultimately real, and the purpose of shruti is not to teach this? it seems you forgot those or is just ignoring it (probably this) . Listen, there's no creation or projection on paramartha, as causality is not real, so your shakti is ruled out. this is only on vyavahara, the field of ignorance. even a child can understand this
>now this is just your own mental masturbation.
ad hominem
>And my point is that all this is on empirical vyavahara domain
No way to prove that, and in fact it's refuted by Shankara describing in BSSB 1-4-3 the two illogical consequences that result of denying any inherent sakti in Brahman (you are are still avoiding addressing directly)
>I can't understand why you keep pushing this as if shankara was a cosmologist.
He is a metaphysician and a component of his teaching but not all of it refers to the cosmological level, similarly the Upanishads function on both levels
>Do I have to provide the quotes showing how creation is a provisional teaching, not ultimately real, and the purpose of shruti is not to teach this?
You are interpreting those passages incorrectly, Shankara says that a inherent sakti CANNOT be denied as being inherent in Brahman in BSSB 1-4-3 because of the two absurd consequences
>it seems you forgot those or is just ignoring it (probably this) . Listen, there's no creation or projection on paramartha
Already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3 since he says that results in the two absurd consequences of:
1) There would be no emergence of samsara into manifestation from an unmanifest state, and thus no samsaric experiences for any bound souls anywhere, ever
2) That there would then be no logical reason why liberated souls cannot be bound once again
see here
if you are confused or don't know what passage Im talking about
see
i already responded on this and the other thread your contentions, specially the one of SB1.4.3
but you cannot understand because one misconception of you
its the same mistake of the post-shankara advaitins: you think that a false notion requires a false object
thats why you cannot accept shakti being vyavahara only
>i already responded on this and the other thread your contentions, specially the one of SB1.4.3
No you didn't, stop lying. You have never explained why Shankara said that denying an inherent paramarthic sakti in Brahman results in two unacceptable consequences, if you really had an explanation you could just provide it now instead of lying and posturing with non-answers.
>thats why you cannot accept shakti being vyavahara only
this is already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3
how are you Guenongay? did you manage to get initated into a tradition?
>brahman casts maya for no reason whatsoever
>source: uhhhh it was revealed to me in a divine revelation or whatever
Upanishads be like
-''verily Brahman exists
-verily atham exists
-verily atman is Brahman"
over and over and over.
Those ad nauseam dogmas are what passes has the deepest spirituality in brahmin circles for the last 3000 years.
it was probably for oral memorization
This was my experience as well.
>and now the parable of Prince Ramajunyanyatasruyatana
>who journeyed out one day and saw his reflection in a puddle of cow piss
>and thence realized that atman is brahman and became enlightened
>the end
>repeat for 400 pages
>op so buttblasted he had to make a new thread
stop shitting the board poojets. religion is for IQfy.
How brown do I need to be to understand any of this? It just looks like a massive wall of text and I feel I have better things to do. I'm sure if I was indian and "outside" was just the third world, or some diaspora curry and had no community, it'd be fascinating to mentally jerk off to all of this.
Indians don't care about any of this, Indians meditate. This is exclusively for whites and diaspora pajeets to argue over minor details for eternity. It's like if Indians in India were on internet forums debating the filioque clause for 20 hours every week but never went to church or prayed.
>It's like if Indians in India were on internet forums debating the filioque clause for 20 hours every week but never went to church or prayed.
Oh, I get it now. That's actually a good comparison. Maybe we should organize deathmatch cage fights between Western Ortholarpers, Tradcaths, Currylarpers and those Muslims PUAs pimps. Just have a free for all and settle things out.
It's not even real debate, it's homosexuals who got into the subject via twitter suspiciously obsessing over hot button meme issues and only those issues.
Buddhism is just nonsensical pessimistic death-worshipping cult garbage. Once the metaphysical implications of Buddhist thought are dispensed with, the only logical action for a Buddhist to take is to commit suicide.
This is an advaita vedanta thread tho, why you got triggered by buddhism all of the sudden?
Buddhism and Hinduism share the same core of autistic metaphysical debates which serve only to confuse those hearing them and obfuscate the ultimately meaningless core of what is being said. Buddhism takes it to a new level with the concept of Nibbana and the lionization of a singular prophet as the center of the dogma, leading to a more cultlike idealization.
>Buddhism is just nonsensical pessimistic death-worshipping cult garbage. Once the metaphysical implications of Buddhist thought are dispensed with, the only logical action for a Buddhist to take is to commit suicide.
Yeah and it's a good thing. Also better than the stupid dogmatic and ritualistic cope by hindus.
55 posts into this thread and not a single SSSgay has explained what Shankara meant by pointing out two illogical and unacceptable consequences of denying any real power inherent in Brahman, and why he would attack his own position if he truly agrees with them as they claim.
guenongay won another thread
Sophistic solipsistic simpleton (SSS)