[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lit/ - Literature



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



>mfw everyone starts with the greeks but the greeks started with the indians
>>
>>11453072
They are the same Aryan tribal stock, retard
>>
>>11453080
what the fudge does ethnicity have to do with metaphysical doctrine
>>
>>11453072
>mfw the pseuds here have never heard Aramaic spoken
>which is where the Greeks actually started
>>
This thread is retarded. The West and The East both had vibrant philosophical traditions during the ancient era. If anything, both stole from Egypt andd Ur of which much less literature remains...
>>
>>11453100
What did he mean by this?
>>
File: 1525967703992.jpg (64 KB, 638x558)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>11453100
don't you have to make another larp thread on /his/ or something
>>
>>11453072
I thought the Greeks started with the Egyptians?
>>
Actually the Indians started with the Central Asian('s raping them) who started with the Lumerian God-Men of the arctic circle. The Greeks started with the Egyptians who started with the Atlanteans who also started with the Lumerian Arctic God-Men.
>>
>>11453072
the indians managed managed to turn gold into shit in creating indian buddhism, which later became Mahayana and varjayana
>>
>>11453160
tell me more of the gold in this scenario
>>
>>11453160
Other way around. Buddhism was the flowering of Indian thought, the logical conclusion devoid of superstition.
>>
>>11453160
So Buddhism is shit because it developed over time? How does that make sense?
>>
>>11453100
Literally everyone who watched The Passion if the Christ had heard Aramaic speech.
>>
>>11453171
>buddhism is so rational and scientific!!!!

lmao
>>
>>11453150
This is actually unironically true but it's only the Hindus who actually preserved the metaphysical and philosophical traditions of the Arctic Aryans. Also the pre-IE inhabitants of Greece were raped too like basically all peoples in the path of the IE peoples.
>>
>>11453534
It's rational than greeks
>>
>>11453165
the pre-Buddhist Hindu texts
>>
not really, they both started with a question about experience, and then tried to answer it by their own means.
the indians were good at it and managed to do it by themselves, the greeks managed to hang on but then needed some help.

thats what one needs to do for their texts to be of any real use. if you go directly to the text without knowing what to look for theyll be useless.
>>
>>11453171
It only seems that way if you think Hinduism is all about rituals and worshipping crazy-looking statues but when you actually study the metaphysical doctrines underpinning it you realize that Hinduism resolves the contradictions and faults of Buddhism while also sufficiently answering the questions that Buddhism leaves unanswered.
>>
>>11454450
>Hinduism resolves the contradictions and faults of Buddhism while also sufficiently answering the questions that Buddhism leaves unanswered.
Any examples?
>>
>>11453093
Because it isn't a stretch to acknowledge that they may have all extracted their doctrine from the same primal, cultural source
>>
>>11453109
Sorry sweety. This is an Indo-European board
>>
>adi Sankara
Ma nigga
>>
>>11453150

where can I read more about this?
>>
>>11454501
/Pol/
>>
>>11454469
what the fudge does metaphysics have to do with culture?
>>
>>11454671
culture as in religious traditions that inform philosophical outlooks as a society progresses intellectually
>>
>>11454501
This article discusses the evidence at length and cites Indian texts like Vedas and Mahabharata which describe the arctic:

https://www.systematics.org/journal/vol1-3/SJ1-3c.htm

It's also known that 11,000 years ago the solar energy at the arctic was 9% higher than the present

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000673

That anon was connecting it to another alt/fringe-history hypothesis, namely the Graham Hancock one (that a relatively advanced ancient civilization traveled around spreading tech to the Incas, Egyptians, Babylonians etc). It's not clear whether the two theories are connected. The incas described these tech-spreaders as white and bearded but that doesn't prove anything itself.
>>
>>11454469
>Le genetic memory/culture/hivemind/meme
Y'all know World of Warcraft isn't real life right?
>>
>>11454809
Ah, you are so very right! There is no possible way that cultural artefacts existing in year X could warp/change and get passed down for a few hundred years only to influence some other concept in year Y even within the same cultural strain. Fucking mongoloid.
>>
>>11453080
>Greeks are almost entirely Old European with a trickle of Indo-European ancestry
>muh Aryan brothers!
Should I not bother reading Schopenhaeur since he's the same Aryan stock as Tolstoy?
Your argument is both wrong and invalid and just an attempt to insert /pol/ autism into this thread. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>>
File: 1531406327112.jpg (32 KB, 657x527)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>11454851
>trickle
>MFW when I'm an anglo with 53% R1a haplogroup
>>
>>11454863
People don't have percentage haplogroups, they have one. Collective ethnicities have differing haplogroup which are described as percentages of a whole.
The trickle is the case with peoples such as the Greeks. Northern Europeans such as yourself are going to have much more Indo-European. Did you not understand this from my comment or is your comment about something unrelated?
>>
>>11453100
It's an ugly language, but very fun to speak.
>>
>>11454888
yes I misunderstood.
>>
>>11453072
comfy thread
>>
>ITT
Clueless retards
>>
>>11454809
>>11454671
>>11454458
>>11453150
>>11453093
I'm less lazy, for not getting out bed and posting this from my PC so that I can share with you one of those black hole brainlet memes, than you are at basic logic
>>
>>11454458
There was a lot of stuff that Buddha would refuse to talk about when people asked him about it, which is noted among other sources in the parable of the poisoned arrow. He did not provide any coherent explanation for why samsara and nirvana exist as they do, no explanation for the source of why anything exists/does not exist on its own, why things are illusionary and devoid of a concrete nature, no explanation for why the aggregates arrange themselves in the manner that they do without any organizing influence like Brahman/Isvara, no explanation for why we by default suffer from illusion, very little in depth discussion of nirvana other than lol 2deep4you.

With these questions and pretty much everything else Buddha left unanswered Hinduism has clear and coherent answers that can be found in the Vedic texts and are discussed at length by Vedanta and other Darshanas without having to resort to Aquinas-tier sleight-of-hand because the answers are found in the oldest texts which form the core of Hinduism, they don't need to rely on non-Hindu sources for them. Almost all of these sources are pre-Buddhist too, some are post-Buddha but there isn't anything important in them not also found in the pre-Buddha portions.

First off it's hard to even compare the two because there is way more disagreements among Buddhists about what Buddhism is and what is orthodox. There is nothing like the common basis of the Vedas providing a consistent orthodoxy, one would think the Pali Canon would be enough but despite this there are huge disagreements, for example sunyata is central to some schools while others reject it, dependent origination is held as true by some schools others reject it.
>>
>>11455027
>>11454458

Hinduism and especially Vedanta resolves the contradictions and faults of Buddhism by providing a step-by-step coherent, cohesive and consistent explanation of the nature of god and existence, of life and death. It has an in-depth terminology and cosmology to explain why and how manifested beings came about, why and how we suffer from illusion, the exact nature of this illusion, it's source and so on. It also extensively discusses god in its manifest and unmanifest form, Brahman in it's absolute sense is extensively discussed and all sorts of questions about it answered. I also see non-dualism as way more logical and intuitively right than the Buddhist conception of just an empty/illusionary house of cards (in the sense of the aggregates and false sense of self) falling down and nothing remaining when you are enlightened. Even with the addendum of nirvana/samsara confluence the notion that this is just all an illusion we are supposed to snuff ourselves out from is pretty silly, why would it be that way out of all possibilities? The vedic doctrine seems more correct, there is only the non-dual brahman, ignorance can be superimposed on it like the false sense of water is with a mirage but the only absolute reality is One.

I think there is something to the view Buddhism started as heterodox Hinduism and that Buddha taught the same doctrines essentially as the Upanishads but with a different emphasis but in any case I think the original Hindu texts and especially Vedanta do a much better job of explaining it.
>>
>>11454851
I said tribal, aka cultural. India is muddied racially by dravidians and negritos and punjabs and Bhutanese and so on, but the culture that is dominant and superior is Aryan.
Aryan is not a race, it's a social organization. The Varnas are division of labor and the ashramas divisions of behavioral programs.
Aryan is cultural. Tamil and Bengali and Teuton and Celt are ethnicities, I'm talking about culture, the supreme indo-european culture.


Fag
>>
>>11455027
Let me disclose that I'm a literal brainlet who hasn't read a single eastern anything first.

Wasn't the Buddha a random dude that happened to find enlightenment? Why would he have the answers to those questions? Had he answered them with whatever shit came to mind would those words be considered canon in the religion or something?
>>
>>11454478
>tfw my name is Shanker

feels enlightened man
>>
>>11453072
That Shankara looks more smug than then other paintings
>>
File: IMG_4200.jpg (58 KB, 220x455)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>11455124
>Wasn't the Buddha a random dude that happened to find enlightenment?

Yes

Why would he have the answers to those questions?

In the Buddhist understanding enlightenment presupposes having them but they believe he chose not to explain them because he considered them unimportant or distractions

>Had he answered them with whatever shit came to mind would those words be considered canon in the religion or something?

Yes pretty much. In Buddhism the Buddha is taken as a 100% infallible source and all arguments of orthodoxy essentially revolve around whether something follows or is part of his teaching, sometimes people try to stretch it by claiming their ideas were part of the stuff Buddha knew but chose not to teach.

Hinduism differs in that its orthodoxy is rooted in what it refers to as the Sruti which are the 4 Vedas and their layered additions like the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads. These are regarded as being of non-human origin, that wise sages composed them by receiving revelation of a pre-existing doctrine sort of like tuning into an eternal radio station, they are considered infallible sources of doctrine; not in the sense that every little hymn describing the gods messing around is 100% true but infallible insofar as they teach a doctrine (which is not to say Hinduism doesn't actually believe in gods, they do) The eternal and only test of orthodoxy in Hinduism is whether something is in accordance with the Vedas. When something seriously conflicts with them it is regarded as heterodox.
>>
>>11453093
What's the metaphysical doctrine of a berry bush? Biology has a lot to do with it.
>>
>>11453546
>it's only the Hindus who actually preserved the metaphysical and philosophical traditions of the Arctic Aryans
>what is Christianity
JESUS CHRIST = SUN GOD OF HYPERBOREA
>>
>>11455084
>Hinduism and especially Vedanta resolves the contradictions and faults of Buddhism by providing a step-by-step coherent, cohesive and consistent explanation of the nature of god and existence, of life and death.

Does Hindu philosophy acknowledge that one's sense of self is a persistent illusion?
>>
File: 567788322.jpg (466 KB, 2000x1333)
466 KB
466 KB JPG
>no starting with the wakandans
you aint gunna make it nigga
>>
>>11455403
Okay it makes sense, thanks.
>>
>>11455118
>tribal, aka cultural
The back peddling begins here
>Aryan superiority
Prove it... without using the phrase "glorious" to describe the Aryans and "resentful" to describe non-aryans.
>reading Greeks is the same as reading the Aryans
You still haven't addressed this initial bullshit point you made. Do you really believe that reading the Vedas is equivalent to reading the presocratics?
>the supreme Indo-European culture
These migrants from modern day Iran domesticated some horses thousands of years ago and now autists like you act like they've received some celestial blessing, imbuing them with massive iqs and some vague culture that you people never bother to define, a culture that's somehow better than all the others but is also constantly being tainted and "cuckolded" ad infinitum.
I hate to use this world, but it's just cringe, man.
>>
>>11453150
It's Lemurian not Lumerian you hylic
>>
>>11455480
Read
The Horse, The Wheel, And Language
Mitra-Varuna: An Essay on Two Indo-European Representations of Sovereignty
How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics
The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies
The Poetic Edda, then The Principal Upanishads (vedas)

Here's easy trip: Veda means knowledge (sacred), you know what the word for "knowing" is in Swedish? Veta.
>>
>>11455556
>>11455480
oh
and this
>Indo-European Poetry and Myth
>>
>>11455027
>There was a lot of stuff that Buddha would refuse to talk about when people asked him about it, which is noted among other sources in the parable of the poisoned arrow. He did not provide any coherent explanation for why samsara and nirvana exist as they do, no explanation for the source of why anything exists/does not exist on its own, why things are illusionary and devoid of a concrete nature, no explanation for why the aggregates arrange themselves in the manner that they do without any organizing influence like Brahman/Isvara, no explanation for why we by default suffer from illusion, very little in depth discussion of nirvana other than lol 2deep4you.

He did this deliberately so that frankly people would not get caught up in speculating on them as you are frankly doing right now and instead focus on actually returning to the same ontological reality that he experienced. It's one thing to intellectually "get" the divine workings of the cosmos, it's another thing entirely to actually become them.
>>
>>11455733
> It's one thing to intellectually "get" the divine workings of the cosmos, it's another thing entirely to actually become them.
Wouldn't "getting" them, you know, help a little with the whole process?
>>
>>11455742
would it?
>>
>>11455742
They can give you a vague "sense" of what you're aiming for, but they can never and will never match the true, undefiled experience of realising them for yourself.

It's the difference between hearing about the taste of chocolate and studying it in-depth for years, learning all about the benefits and changes that occur after tasting chocolate, and actually just tasting chocolate for yourself.

Even the mightiest chocolate scholars would have their whole lives changed in the simplest instance of a single taste of chocolate.
>>
>>11455759
But you're assuming you're not doing both at the same time, which you would. Being told how everything works by the absolute highest 100% correct authority of your ideology would help, how is this even a question.

In other words, it's a cop out to not admit shit's all made up.
>>
>>11455766
Well, sure, perhaps in order to taste chocolate you had to learn how to grow cocoa beans first, and as a result makes up an integral part of your chocolate-tasting journey.

The primary goal, however, was always to taste the chocolate, and if you refuse to taste it until you've perfected the art of cocoa growing, or learn how to make the chocolate "just right", then you'll have never actually achieved the one thing that all of these years of instruction and speculation were leading to. In fact, you might get so caught up in the specifics of chocolate-growing that valuable time to actually just sit down and taste some tasty fucking chocolate is passing you by.
>>
>>11455448
Yes, in Advaita Vedanta specifically. Shankara wrote in the Upadesasahasri and the Vivekacudamani how people confuse the non-Atman for Atman and how one can distinguish between the two.
>>
>>11455441
Jesus arose out of Judaism anon...
>>
>>11455766
>>11455742

What you are saying is true and valid although Buddhists or people who identify with Buddhism will feel the need to argue against it, because admitting that point would be to concede that Buddha was even a little bit lacking compared to Hinduism.

>But you're assuming you're not doing both at the same time, which you would.

To add to this (which is correct) Advaita Vedanta explicitly teaches that it is knoweldge in its complete or absolute sense (directly and immediately experienced complete knowledge of the absolute non-duality of Brahman) which leads to liberation, or rather is liberation itself. The Upanishads make it clear that at this level there is no distinction between knowing it and being/experiencing it; to know Brahman (completely) is to be Brahman and to reveal all as Brahman. As Shankara notes in his works it is only knowledge which can lead to liberation because it is only knowledge which is mutually incompatible with ignorance, as one can commit action while remaining ignorant. This does not mean you read the texts and become liberated but rather it is considered that after careful preparation, instruction by a teacher, training of the mind and body, meditation on the truth etc one attains this knoweldge.
>>
Everything the Hindus have to teach is implicit in the tension between Parmenides (all is one) and Heraclitus (all is flux). Aristotle excels them both, and thus excels the best of the East, by his metaphysics of change, which illuminates the contingency of finite being, grounded in potentiality, without reducing it to ‘illusion.’

This, combined with the Christian affirmation of God’s love of the world as his creature, culminating in the Incarnation which is the confirmation of the final harmony between divine and created being, is the fount of the difference between Western dynamism and Eastern torpor. Aristotle and Plato lay the best metaphysical groundwork for appreciating this, precisely because they so greatly excel other pagans.
>>
>>11453072
wrong, they started with the egyptians.
>>
>>11456105
>Aristotle excels them both, and thus excels the best of the East
>Aristotle is better than two meme Greek philosophers and so we can infer from that fact that he excels over Vedanta, Sufism, Daoism, Zen, Tantra etc

I didn't realize this was a YLYL thread
>>
>>11456105
The fact you'd even so foolishly compare these doctrines, rather than recognizing all of these to contain portions of Truth, is a sign that you clearly need Eastern teachings in your life, specifically those pertaining to the ego and its reduction. I'd suggest starting with the Bhagavad Gita, it's my personal favorite.
>>
>>11456105
Are you saying . . .
Read Plotinus?
>>
>>11456458

I didn’t deny that the East has something to teach, I just said that Aristotle excels them. Everyone is trying to solve the problem of the One and the Many, and what that means for human existence. Eastern doctrines, whether discursive or mystical, tend to teach dissolution into the One and transcendence of the finite, contingent and changeable, the latter of which is negated as illusion by transcendence. It falls into the old Parmenidean dichotomy of being and its negation, which is not. There are Eastern traditions which emphasise negation of what is innately empty without the positive doctrine of the One: Buddhism for instance, and in a different key, Taoism which teaches submission to the Logos as might flow from Heraclitus, absent the active implications of Aristotelian form.

This is indeed some of the truth: contingent existence is nothing considered in itself. The One is such that relative to it, nothing has absolute existence, and it alone, in virtue of the absolute plenitude of its being, is ultimately desirable. But the East has not effectively navigated these truths: it has aspired either to a self -destructive attempt to become God, or more conservatively, a self-destructive attempt to escspe one’s own contingency, the very principle by which one is at all.

Aristotle, by carving out an ontological middle ground fit for creaturely habitation, excels the East. He gives us the metaphysical tools to see that creaturely being, even if it does not approach the fullness of the One, nevertheless truly is, and is therefore good. He realises that nevertheless the rational creature desires the One, and is therefore suspended in a kind of existential tension (see the end of the Eudemian ethics). That he doesn’t resolve that tension prematurely is to his credit, since apart from divine intervention man has no option but to be such a paradox.

I do make an exception for dvaita vedanta, which is theologically superior to Aristotle in some respects in its emphasis on grace (though it does not affirm divine simplicity, which is a black mark), though it has an inferior metaphysics and philosophy of nature to Aristotle.
>>
>>11453072
cryptics again
>>
>>11457086

Plotinus’s existential solution is premature. While it is true that contemplation is the highest faculty, and that which takes us up into the divine, the body and the world are also bound up with our happiness, and cannot finally be separated from it.
>>
>>11454766
thanks.
>>
>>11455886
INCORRECT, JESUS CHRIST PREDATES "JUDAISM" BY ABOUT 500 YEARS MATERIALLY, BUT AT LEAST 10000 METAPHYSICALLY
>>
>>11457182
>the body and the world are also bound up with our happiness, and cannot finally be separated from it.
Are you a materialist?
>>
>>11457229
The only thing Aryan at all about Christianity is that most of it's doctrines come from Zoroastrianism (filtered through the modes of thought of the Jews). Even with that though it's still irrevocably bound up in the Semitic mindset. If you are interested in something Aryan/Indo-European just study Hinduism.
>>
File: 1530886333880.jpg (28 KB, 300x300)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>11457562
>>
>>11457138
This is interesting. Do you have somewhere I can read more about this in general terms before diving into primary sources? I've read a good chunk of the Pali Canon and some Mahayana sutras, and am making my way through the Upanishads but am less familiar with Aristotle. I read something by him as a teenager but didn't fully absorb it.
>>
>>11453072
The Greeks would have started with the Greeks too if they had that option.
>>
File: 1527239193295.jpg (3.78 MB, 3264x2448)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
>>11457138
>self -destructive attempt to become God, or more conservatively, a self-destructive attempt to escspe one’s own contingency, the very principle by which one is at all.

Suggesting the eastern doctrines are self-destructive is a sign of fundamentally misunderstanding them, the only thing destroyed is ignorance. Also the contingency is not the principle by which one is all, rather the opposite actually. The non-contingent is that in which there is unity.

>He gives us the metaphysical tools to see that creaturely being, even if it does not approach the fullness of the One, nevertheless truly is, and is therefore good.

I sense Christian theology underlying your post tbqh. It's not a question of good or bad. Any possible sense in which conventional existence could be considered 'good' is nil in relation to the Absolute, which is reality.

> since apart from divine intervention man has no option but to be such a paradox.

Or you know... He could just fully realize and actualize the truth and be liberated.
>>
>>11457585
>le based man would be upset therefore its wrong

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable
>>
>>11457631

>Christianity
I make no secret of it. Christianity is the fulfilment of the dialectic of being; the contingent is not negated, but fulfilled and perfected and harmonised as what it is, in relation to and in dependence upon the divine. Thus, it is truly good, in and through God.

>contingency is not the principle by which one is

Only if one lacks the Aristotelian categories. Aristotle’s articulation of the principle of potency between actuality and nothingness stakes out the ground in which a positive account of contingent being is possible. From this perspective, which reconciles ordinary experience with all that might be truly said of God, the Hindu attempts at liberation from their contingency in the name of ‘liberation’ are obviously self-destructive.

>fully actualise the truth

The problem of course is that no finite agent is pure actualty, hence full actualisation is impossible for the finite agent. The Hindu solution is to deny that there are finite agents, and double down on that denial as a means of attaining the Absolute. But this denial of creaturely being, because it is false (as Aristotle shows) entails only self-destruction in the end.

The paradox has no earthly solution, but only the hope that the Absolute will take up and perfect creaturely nature.
>>
>>11457979
>the contingent is not negated, but fulfilled and perfected and harmonised as what it is, in relation to and in dependence upon the divine.

Advaita does not negate the contingent and also recognizes it as dependent on god, but it does not necessarily follow from this that it is good to remain preoccupied with it. In Advaita the contingent is included inside the absolute and it only appears contingent due to us not perceiving the absolute and instead perceiving the contingent as complete reality. Transcending this does not negate the contingent, but when one understands the absolute for what it is in Vedanta everything is perfected and harmonized, not just the contingent alone. The contingent reveals itself as just one aspect of the absolute although one is no longer limited to it anymore. This is immeasurably more meaningful and worthwhile than remaining within the contingent and trying to improve it from within. There is really only the divine and one remains ever separated from it as long as one ignorantly fails to perceive things from the perspective of the divine itself, where everything is within it including what was formerly contingent. When one fully actualizes this, at the death of the physical body only the absolute non-dual reality remains (which is already present as a kernal within everyone), which cannot even be compared to remaining as a manifested being living in devotion to god, which seems nice but is actually a terrible degradation of the natural state of things.

>Only if one lacks the Aristotelian categories.

He was not in the least an authority on eastern doctrines and if you insist on debating things only within the terms he and his fans like Aquinas laid out you only box yourself in

>From this perspective, which reconciles ordinary experience with all that might be truly said of God (according to my christian/Aristotelian understanding of it) the Hindu attempts at liberation from their contingency in the name of ‘liberation’ are obviously self-destructive (by virtue of going against my etc understanding).

Your point here relies on Christian and Aristotelian presuppositions and has no debate value insofar as it's reducible to you arguing that Advaita is wrong because it goes against Christian/Aristotle's understanding instead of debating the principles themselves. You don't offer anything to respond to here but I could mirror you by saying that you fundamentally don't understand that liberation is only used by Vedanta in a relative sense and that there is only, always has been and only ever will be the non-dual Brahman and what we refer to as liberation is merely the dissipating of temporary ignorance that was superimposed on it. There can be no destruction because the only thing that ever was and will be remains as it is.
>>
>>11457979
>>11458492

>The problem of course is that no finite agent is pure actualty, hence full actualisation is impossible for the finite agent.

You should really stop trying to shoehorn eastern concepts into Aristotelian terms because you are twisting and obscuring them to the point where your idea of them is nothing like what they actually are. Actualization with regards to Vedanta refers to complete and total understanding of the truth (which is reality) which is synonymous with experiencing and being this reality, actualization is used in the sense of a doctrine that one previously considered indirectly and passively suddenly becomes something that one 'actually' experiences directly. This actualization is possible and has been attained by many throughout history.

>The Hindu solution is to deny that there are finite agents, and double down on that denial as a means of attaining the Absolute.

Only partially correct, it teaches that there is only the infinite Brahman, the concept of agentship is considered finite in that it is an illusionary perception, and by definition illusion is limiting by obscuring the whole truth. The only limitation and finiteness that can be considered to exist on any level can only be that which exists conventionally in the mind as a false perception, like the false perception of the snake in a rope makes the snake seem to exist. Hinduism does not deny finite agents, it properly realizes that the One reality which is everything is without agency. One does not 'double down on the denial of something non-existent in the first place' to attain the Absolute, but it is the proper understanding of what is real and what is not that is one of the required steps on the path to the Absolute.
>>
>>11457979
>>11458495

>But this denial of creaturely being, because it is false (as Aristotle shows) entails only self-destruction in the end.

I hope you don't seriously think Aristotle in any way showed something was wrong that he had no understanding of, that he was not specifically arguing against and which his points were not formulated in response to. I can already tell you that your understanding that Aristotle showed Vedanta to be false is wrong, It's clear that you don't really understand Advaita so I won't venture to waste my time responding to guesses of how I imagined you got it wrong but if you want to elaborate on how you exactly think Aristotle showed Vedanta wrong (instead of just claiming he did explain how and why) it will allow me to pick out and show you the points where you misunderstood it.

>The paradox has no earthly solution,

There is nothing paradoxical about it. It's clear as day once you totally understand it.

>but only the hope that the Absolute will take up and perfect creaturely nature.

Nice way to absolve yourself from being expected to have a serious response.
>>
bump




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.