>"We are mind and body: if mind and body (inasmuch as they belong to the world of maya) are false, how can one hope to achieve through them that which is true?" Since "it is impossible that something would be transformed into its own very contradiction."
wise men get loston a single pathNo one knows tomorrow
you are not the body but consciousness
>>23816919How can you not be the body? Did you not type that with the tips of your fingers? Are you not fuelled by food youve eaten without which you couldnt even say things like "you are not the body but consciousness?" Whatever we designate to be "you" or even "not you" is clearly nothing within the field of the body and mind
>>23816622All of this is elementary my dear Watson>>"We are mind and body: if mind and bodyMind and body are nothing more than phenomena which are made known and revealed through the presence of consciousness. Because the exterior world is made known in turn through the mind and body, they seem to be more intimate to us than other things, but this is merely a habitual and convenient assumption and they don’t differ from other phenomena inasmuch as they are something distinct from consciousness and which is revealed by consciousness, what you actually are is that stainless luminous consciousness and not any of the contents revealed by it.>(inasmuch as they belong to the world of maya) are false, how can one hope to achieve through them that which is true?" Since "it is impossible that something would be transformed into its own very contradiction."1) There is no transformation, everyone’s Atman is already wholly identical with Brahman, all that is happening is that the mind is giving up or correcting it’s mistaken notions about Self and reality, including the mental superimposition of the non-Self into the Self and vice-versa, but there is absolutely no “transformation of one thing into its contrary”.2) The universe of multiplicity being illusory means that in some aspects it’s misleading or false, it does not mean that truths cannot be expressed, affirmed or stated or understood within it. If an illusory figure inside an illusion says “2+2=4”, that remains a truth that has been expressed within the illusion, it’s not suddenly rendered untrue simply because someone within the illusion is affirming it, the same is true with the things that non-dualists affirms to be true.
>>23817074Imagine worshipping a god that is deluded by his own illusions. Oh no, brahman actually knows but maya is merely its power! So the one cosnciousness is at the same time vidya and avidya, brahman and non-brahman. Seriously, think about what you’re doing with your life, clean your room, do exercises, go to your local church.
>>23817014>How can you not be the body? Did you not type that with the tips of your fingers?This Self must be distinguished from external perceptions, bodily sensations, feelings and thoughts. It must be directly seen as the eternal witness of these activities as a king is seen watching over his ministers.When the organs of sense are in action it appears to the ignorant that it is his Self which is acting, as the moon itself appears to be moving when the clouds pass across it.The body, the organs of sense, mind, and intellect, accomplish their respective functions under the watchfulness of the Self, just as men accomplish their affairs by the light of the sun.Qualities or acts of the body and the organs of sense are attributed to our Self which is pure life and intelligence through a lack of discrimination, just as the color blue and other properties are attributed to the sky.Emotions and other faculties which belong to mind are attributed to our Self through ignorance, as one attributes the agitation of waves in water to the moon whose image they reflect.Thoughts give to by passions, desire, pleasure, or pain, dwell in the intellect whenever the intellect is present; in the state of deep sleep the intellect ceases to exist and they likewise disappear.As light is the peculiar property of the sun, freshness of water, heat of fire, so according to its nature, Self is essentially life, intelligence, splendor, eternity and purity. Self, which is being and awareness, is distinct from the intellect; when these are identified with one another through ignorance, one says “I think”, I perceive”. - Atma Bodha>Whatever we designate to be "you" or even "not you" is clearly nothing within the field of the body and mindThe mind and body are just a subset of the phenomena that are revealed to or by consciousness. Neither the body nor the acts of the mind are aware. When thoughts or sensations occur, they don’t have their own separate locus of sentience that arises and falls with them, all thoughts and sensations instead enter into, display themselves within, and then exist from the stage or space provided by the constant, unflickering and stainless light of consciousness. The thoughts and sensations and other mental functions are equally objects of consciousness just as much as the sight of an exterior tree or the sound of a horn are also objects of consciousness.
>>23817117Yes, infinite consciousness encompasses the totality of experience and is realized not worshiped.
>>23817142It is worshipped because it is an illusion itself, mere wish product. Consciousness cannot be at the same time conscious and unconscious, the rope is not both snake and rope.
>>23817117>Imagine worshipping a god that is deluded by his own illusions. I’m sure that you felt very clever when you typed that, but unfortunately for you it’s just a strawman, since in actuality Brahman is not deluded by anything and is not affected by the illusion whatsoever, not even in the slightest. The intellect of the creature (not the Brahman-Atman) is what experiences the illusion and what is deluded. The Self just provides the illuminating light that makes this possible but without being subject to or affected by the delusions of that intellect.>Oh no, brahman actually knows but maya is merely its power! Yes, the illusion is the flowering of Brahman’s inherent power.>So the one cosnciousness is at the same time vidya and avidya, brahman and non-brahman. At all times Brahman remains the unconditioned immutable infinite Brahman without any deviation. What appears as avidya or non-Brahman is Brahman falsely appearing as that thing through Its power, but under the auspices of that particular appearance It remains the immutable formless unconditioned infinite Brahman, so It’s never actually inhabiting two different contradictory status at the same time or deviating from It’s timeless nature.
>>23817154Some vedantins admit they must posit a second kind of consciousness that is the field for this illusory consciousness to take place in order to protect Brahman/Pure consciousness as pure, as absolute vidya. So we have a dualism of two different consciousness they can’t explain.>the illusion is Brahman’s inherent powerSo he doesn’t know his own power? Or he knows and is conscious of the illusions as well? How does he partake in both pure consciousness and illusory consciousness?
>>23817153>>23817171Consciousness is not individual, only the individual is deluded. Everything happens according to the will of the infinite intelligence. Just as the objects in mans control like his limbs, tools and machines lack total awareness.
>>23817171> Some vedantins admit they must posit a second kind of consciousness that is the field for this illusory consciousness to take place in order to protect Brahman/Pure consciousness as pure, as absolute vidya. I’m not defending unidentified and unknown “some Vedantins” with unsourced statements, I’m just speaking from the position of the classical Advaita of Shankara. What you describe is entirely unnecessary in the original classical Advaita of Shankara since in his model, just as in the Samkhya and Yoga Darshanas, the intellect (buddhi) is the faculty of sensation and thinking. And when the intellect is the faculty of sensation and thinking, you don’t need any other additional element besides the intellect and the pure untainted consciousness of the Atman-Brahman (or alternatively, of the Purusha), since the intellect is what has the delusions and experiences multiplicity while the Atman-Brahman provides the necessary light for this to take place while at the same time remaining peacefully in its own freedom and fullness while not being affected itself by any delusion. Shankara does speak in a few places of “reflected conciousness” but by this he does not mean an additional consciousness that is different from the untainted consciousness of the Brahman-Atman but he specifies that it merely refers to how the intellect itself seems to falsely mimic and take on the traits on consciousness due to the illumination which it receives.>So we have a dualism of two different consciousness they can’t explain.You have not identified who teaches this, and it’s not taught by the classical Advaita of Shankara, so that’s basically irrelevant and is not any sort of problem for the regular classical Advaitin’s position since they don’t teach that, although I would not deny that all sorts of confusions may abound in this regard in various modern Neo-Vedanta teachers or even some late-medieval Indian thinkers who mix Advaita with other doctrines and engage in all sorts of novel speculations.>the illusion is Brahman’s inherent powerSo he doesn’t know his own power? Brahman is self-luminous and hence is one eternally-free, pristine, perfectly peaceful self-knowing awareness. Brahman does not exist with any sort of dualistic knowledge of the flowering of Its power, but inasmuch as the inherent ability or potency that is the source of this flowering is inherent in Brahman’s own nature as non-different from Itself, Brahman in knowing Itself also knows the power that is the source of the universe of appearances, but not in a distinct mode of dualistic knowing, that is to say, in knowing Himself Brahman knows the essence and the source of power/energy that the illusion flows from, but without being subject to the illusion of the subjective experience of that power in its mode of diversification/flowering as the appearance of multiplicity.
>>23817189Your post doesn’t answer any of the difficulties nor the questions posited in mine.
>>23817209*take on the traits OF consciousness due to the illumination
>>23817211Your individual delusions are your own problem. If you could understand anything I wrote you'd already be enlightened.
>>23817209>I’m not defending unidentified and unknown “some Vedantins” with unsourced statementsWow, you haven’t read Chandradhar Sharma.>classical advaita of ShankaraShankara is immensely influenced by Gaudapada, he is not the only proponent of classical advaita.Again, maya, brahman’s power, illusion, is just as beginningless, indefinite and indefinable as Atma, Pure Consciousness and demands just like it a beginningless non-empirical consciousness as its basis, on which the ignorance plays. This is sakshi.>maya is the source of illusion>maya is inherent in brahman’s own nature>by knowing his own nature brahman knows maya>but he still doesn’t know the effects of this power which is illusionWew
>>23817218I’m merely pointing the logical inconsistencies in this belief, I would find no problem if you guys just admited there’s no logic involved, but poetry, faith. But is that the case?
>>23817241> Wow, you haven’t read Chandradhar SharmaI have read his book “The Advaita Tradition” and enjoyed it although I didnt agree with 100% of it. I don’t recall that Sharma writes about the reflected consciousness or chitabhasa as being another literal second consciousness, and if he did this would be a misunderstanding by him since Shankara specifies that its not this, however it may also be the case that you simply misunderstood Sharma, regardless of which one it is that idea is not taught by Shankara either way.>he is not the only proponent of classical advaita.I know, but his formulation is the most influential and is the one that the Advaita initiatic monastic tradition largely follows, which is why I am speaking about and defending that one alone, also because it doesn’t have the flaws that some alternative formulations have and is more consistent, there is a reason why it’s taken as “the gold standard”.> and demands just like it a beginningless non-empirical consciousness as its basis, on which the ignorance plays. This is sakshi.The unconditioned Brahman-Atman can equally fulfill the role of this basis without being itself subjected to or affected by illusion, sakshi is itself arguably just that same unconditioned Atman-Brahman but viewed from the POV of being within the illusion. I believe that it was Padmapada or Chitsuka who says something to the effect that “Brahman spoken of by itself is called Atma and when viewed in association with maya is called sakshi”.> WewYes, it is the natural and logical correlary of Brahman being ever-free and untainted in complete non-duality and freedom that It does not have dualistic knowledge of the illusion. This is not any sort of problem since there is no logical reason why Brahman has to have such dualistic knowledge, so strictly speaking that is nothing but a pseudo-problem.
>>23817267>sakshi is itself arguably just that same unconditioned Atman-Brahman but viewed from the POV of being within the illusion>Brahman spoken of by itself is called Atma and when viewed in association with maya is called sakshiYes, finally you understand the point here. But you cannot evade from either of the only two options: either there are two consciousness or they inhere in Brahman and Brahman is also conscious of illusion.Either is the only logical step from the principles posited by advaita vedanta.
>>23817287> Yes, finally you understand the point here. But you cannot evade from either of the only two options: either there are two consciousness or they inhere in Brahman and Brahman is also conscious of illusion.This is nothing more than a false dichotomy, since “Brahman being viewed as Sakshi from the POV of being within the illusion” simply means that from the deluded point of view of the creaturely intellect, the limitations imposed upon that intellect cause it to wrongly view or interpret the omnipresent presence of the unconditioned Atman-Brahman which is illuminating that intellect (along with all other intellects) as being a ‘witness’ of samsara, but this perception of the Atman-Brahman as being a witness or sakshi is merely an incidental and subjective perception of that intellect and does not mean that 1) there are two conciousnesses or that 2) the one Atman-Brahman is deluded by or directly aware of the illusion. You have not provided any logical reason why this explanation cannot be the valid and coherent one.
>>23817318>simply means that from the deluded point of viewWhich is as beginningless, indefinite, indescribable, as the other point of view, hence not merely individuated in jivatma.> this perception of the Atman-Brahman as being a witness or sakshi is merely an incidental and subjective perception of that intellectBro, not even the quotes and your own affirmations in your previous post say that. And logically it doesn’t follow, since this deluded, illusory consciousness inheres in brahman’s power which is also beginningless inhering in beginningless nature of brahman etc.I’m literally being patient and explaining the logic behind my position, whereas you contradict yourself and keep repeating the same thing without addressing the issue logically.
>>23817348> Which is as beginningless, indefinite, indescribable, as the other point of view, hence not merely individuated in jivatma.1) Nothing Sharma says is the bible of Advaita. I dont agree with him on some points, quoting him as some authority is not any argument against the stated position of Shankara as explicitly expressed in his works, if you have to rely on this then you’ve already lost.2) Sakshi is used loosely in Shankara as a figure of speech and isn’t formalized as a distinct metaphysical principle like how you are referring to it, it was later Advaitins who tried to formalized it into the system, from the POV of Shankara he can simply stick to his unconditioned Atman + Buddhi model and reject any other element, there is no necessity for a classical Advaitin to admit “Sakshi” as a formal principle, so this whole argument is really a pseudo-problem which is not applicable to Shankara’s model since in his doctrine its not a formal principle but is simply another way of referring to the One Brahman from a particular point of view, namely that of the embodied creature.3) Let us say for the sake of argument that there is an illusion or false misrepresentation that is a part of maya and which is present independent of the subjective delusions of any one intellect, even if this be admitted as true then that doesn’t mean that it exists as a real 2nd consciousness because it’s still a false illusion brought about by Brahman’s power, simply being independent of a creature’s intellect is not sufficient to give it the status of being non-illusory or non-false because it’s still a false appearance brought about by Brahman’s power, so there exists no logical necessity whatsoever why there has to be another real 2nd consciousness besides the unconditioned Atman-Brahman which is not deluded.> Bro, not even the quotes and your own affirmations in your previous post say that. And logically it doesn’t follow, since this deluded, illusory consciousness inheres in brahman’s power which is also beginningless inhering in beginningless nature of brahman etc.All of samsara and not just sakshi has its essence in Brahman and can be considered to have a kind of virtual, latent pre-existence in Brahman as non-different from Brahman. That doesn’t mean that when it’s brought forth and diversified as the universe that it’s not still illusory. >I’m literally being patient and explaining the logic behind my position, whereas you contradict yourself and keep repeating the same thing without addressing the issue logically.I have not contradicted a single thing that I have wrote and I have answered each and every one of your points directly.
>>23817410>1) Nothing Sharma says is the bible of AdvaitaThat is not Sharma’s position, he quotes and explains the positions of advaitins like Gaudapada. You haven’t read the book.>it was later advaitinsNo, Gaudapada teaches that already.> its not a formal principle but is simply another way of referring to the One Brahman from a particular point of view, namely that of the embodied creature.Not embodied creature, I already told you this makes no sense, since this illusory consciousness is inherent in Brahman’s own power maya.> even if this be admitted as true then that doesn’t mean that it exists as a real 2nd consciousness because it’s still a false illusion brought about by Brahman’s powerThis power and its effects are beginningless, its effects, illusions, must inhere in a deluded consciousness, not stand by themselves which doesnt even make sense.> it’s still a false appearance brought about by Brahman’s powerThe false appearance must needs appear TO a consciousness. Appearances can’t be synthesized as such without consciousness.
>>23817432> That is not Sharma’s position, he quotes and explains the positions of advaitins like Gaudapada. You haven’t read the book.I have read it multiple times and was the very first person to ever post on /lit/ about it, that you are aware of that book at all is likely the result of my past posting. I have also read Gaudapada and Shankara and I noticed that sometimes Sharma is drawing more from post-Shankara Advaitins in his explanations than he is drawing from Shankara and Gaudapada. If you have not read Gaudapada and all of Shankara then you won’t be able to notice yourself when Sharma is doing this. Sakshi is not formalized as a distinct principle in Gaudapada either btw.> Gaudapada teaches that already.Okay then cite the exact verses of the Mandukya-Karika where Gaudapada claims that Sakshi is a formal metaphysical principle that is distinct and separate from the Atman-Brahman, you can’t because there are not any such passages in his writing. I don’t think you have even read Gaudapada but you are just taking second-hand information from some book (which you may not even have properly understood) to make your claims.> I already told you this makes no sense, since this illusory consciousness is inherent in Brahman’s own power maya.And, as I already explained, this doesn’t make it any less illusory or less false than any other part of maya or samsara. The latent existence of Brahman’s power within Brahamn Itself is completely and utterly non-different from Brahman and is hence non-dual, partless, formless, without division, opposition or differentiation and this logically precludes a second real consciousness from also existing in addition to Brahman, this seems to be the critical point, or one of them, and you still are not understanding.> This power and its effects are beginningless, Yes, but remember that time is also an illusion and not a real sphere or real container where illusory things are happening.
>>23817432>its effects, illusions, must inhere in a deluded consciousness, not stand by themselves which doesnt even make sense.The greater illusion of the universe or samsara can be present as such on its own independent of any one intellect who is aware of or experiencing it, because the only thing that is required for this to be so is that Brahman’s power makes it be so. As a consequence of Brahman’s power flowering, individual intellects of living beings manifest and subsequently have their own respective delusions that inhere in those intellects. This is partly why Advaita is not the same as subjective idealism or solipsism, because the greater illusory universe is projected and sustained by Brahman’s power and is not the delusion or imagination of any one individual. There is no logical necessity whatsoever for a deluded consciousness for the illusion to inhere in, because remember that it is the buddhi which is the faculty of sensation and experience and not consciousness, assuming that “the illusion needs a deluded consciousness to inhere in” is based on the false assumption that it is consciousness and not the intellect that is the faculty which experiences. Since the buddhi experiences the delusion and not consciousness, there is no reason why a deluded consciousness has to be the basin in which the deluded intellects rest as opposed to them reposing in the undeluded pristine ever-free conciousness of the unconditioned Atman-Brahman itself.> The false appearance must needs appear TO a consciousness. Appearances can’t be synthesized as such without consciousness.This is again repeating the false assumption that it is consciousness which is the faculty of sensation or synthesis, which it’s not. Advaita rejects this, it’s not something that follows from Advaita’s own doctrine. In Yoga, Samkhya and Advaita, the intellect is the faculty or sensation and what synthesizes all mental and sensory phenomena into an experienced unity. The Purusha or Atman is the unobjectifiable light which the buddhi requires to be constantly and uninterruptedly present in order that the buddhi carry out this function, but the light of the Self is not actively knowing in a dualistic manner what the intellect does, it’s merely providing the illumination that the buddhi requires in order to do this, hence there is no requirement for that consciousness to be deluded, since from the perspective of that consciousness there is no discernible difference whether it’s associated with and illuminating intellects versus not doing so at all, since neither results in any change for that consciousness.
>>23817117Brahman isn’t worshipped, that would be delusional.
>>23817508>I don’t think you have even read Gaudapada but you are just taking second-hand information from some book (which you may not even have properly understood) to make your claims.Lol, the gall to make such a claim when I am literally correcting your assumptions about the book and all the time “refreshing” your memory about it. You literally though minutes agi that it was Sharma’s own position instead of his explanations of and quotes from Gaudapada.>cite the exact verses of the Mandukya-Karika where Gaudapada claims that Sakshi is a formal metaphysical principle that is distinct and separate from the Atman-BrahmanI’m not saying Gaudapada follows the logical steps I’m positing here from what is implied in Brahman-Maya duality, but that we can find these implications in his and other advaitins’ doctrines.> The latent existence of Brahman’s power within Brahamn Itself is completely and utterly non-different from Brahman and is hence non-dual, partless, formless, without division, opposition or differentiation and this logically precludes a second real consciousness from also existing in addition to BrahmanAnd the patent existence of his power, its effects, is completely different from this untainted, pure consciousness, but it is as beginningless as Brahman itself. That’s the point of the dualism. Maya’s effects must play upon consciousness, in which jivatmas partake and hence can be deluded.> remember that time is also an illusion and not a real sphere or real container where illusory things are happening.So? This touches no point in my position.
>>23817512>The greater illusion of the universe or samsara can be present as such on its own independent of any one intellect who is aware of or experiencing it, because the only thing that is required for this to be so is that Brahman’s power makes it be soThis is illogical, nonsensical. Illusions are not what they are by themselves, but how they are related in modifications for a perceiver. There is no representation without that to which it is represented.>As consequence of brahman’s power individual intellects manifest and then have their delusionsLol, individual intellects manifest within time, they are discrete, have a startung point. Maya and its effects/illusions are beginningless and thus the conscious field on which they play equally beginningless.
>>23817512>the intellect is the faculty or sensation and what synthesizes all mental and sensory phenomena into an experienced unityYou’re just adding an individuated faculty for this act of synthesis, the point is that its products must be presented to that to which representations are represented. The illusions are concomitant with their field of manifestation which is consciousness otherwise illusions would be impossible to manifest as such.
>>23817512>>The greater illusion of the universe or samsara can be present as such on its own independent of any one intellect who is aware of or experiencing itInaubstantial nonesense, if youre not experiencing it then thats that, youre basically saying a pink elephant is real for you right now even if you do not experience it, idealist rubbish. In deep sleep there is no active notion about samsara.
>>23817512>Atman is the unobjectifiable light which the buddhi requires to be constantly and uninterruptedly present in order that the buddhi carry out this function, but the light of the Self is not actively knowing in a dualistic manner what the intellect does, it’s merely providing the illumination that the buddhi requires in order to do thisThis is utter nonsense. The buddhi requites it because it is upon which it inheres, and buddhi’s/intellect’s products must be presented to it, the final product of representation is the work of buddhi/intellect but not to itself, but to a consciousness that receives it.
>>23817604>The illusions are concomitant with their field of manifestation which is consciousness otherwise illusions would be impossible to manifest as such.Right in advaita isnt it said that there is no manifested illusion in deep sleep?
>>23817604>The illusions are concomitant with their field of manifestation which is consciousness otherwise illusions would be impossible to manifest as such.Why does this moron consider this to be subjective idealism? When advaitins literally accept this as implicit when they talk about deep sleep and the world being false, or dissapearing upon moksha, all they mean is that the former divided appearance as such of the world dissapears, also there is plenty of evidence in the vedas of advanced yogis creating worlds and objects by their magic powers. When the world is said to be false only the "kalpana" or vikalpa aspect is, which is only baseless imagination, like pink elephants. They say the world is an illusion but that it has a real basis the word for that is bhranti, that real basis is nothing but sat in other words the world is brahman, Maya is Brahman. Avidya is "not-knowledge" in the same way as someone is a "not-friend" this is covered by vyasa, in otherwords avidya is not the negation of vidya, the "unknown" illusory world avidya actually conceals only being which is the eternal friend, maya is brahman.
>>23817680Also the dream world is false understandably, but the power that generates the dream is actually not false, so the world is actually not false. However all that I am saying is false on its own side, just like a dream. However the will churning the dream is infact true.The dream is also true because its root power is true, however apart drom that root power it is infact false (that is no contradiction)
>>23817574> I’m not saying Gaudapada follows the logical steps I’m positing…., but that we can find these implications in his and other advaitins’ doctrines.The classical Advaita of Gaudapada and Shankara does not hold that so it doesn’t apply as a valid critique to their formulation. They both say repeatedly (like almost all Advaitins) that Brahman which is already ever-free without beginning or end is alone real and that all else is illusion, that precludes any attempt to say their doctrine results in another thing being real unless you are severely mistaken or going to absurd lengths to strawman them.>And the patent existence of his power, its effects, is completely different from this untainted, pure consciousness, but it is as beginningless as Brahman itself. That’s the point of the dualism. Being beginningless has no necessary logical implication about its reality or unreality because time is part of the illusion so all that means is that X part of the illusion is characterizing Y part of illusion which proves nothing about their reality and indeed many parts of the illusion are interrelated. So that’s not an example of a real dualism of two real/existing things.>Maya’s effects must play upon consciousness, in which jivatmas partake and hence can be deluded.already addressed here in this post >>23817512>>23817585> This is illogical, nonsensical. Illusions are not what they are by themselves, but how they are related in modifications for a perceiver. So this can be answered directly by pointing out that Advaita means “illusion” in the pure sense of “that which is not truly and completely real/true” and not in the anthropocentric meaning of “an optical or mental etc confusion or mistake experienced by a person, so they have logical or philosophical requirement to adhere to the latter sense of the term (another pseudo-problem),But if you want to follow the thread of where the point about the perceiver goes the answer is that just as in Yoga and Samkhya, the perceiver is the Buddhi, and for Advaita its not pure nothingness but an illusory form with a specific data or content, and the Buddhi and its experience are just two different forms or contents, one subtle and the other gross, in a relation with each other, neither are consciousness. >Maya and its effects/illusions are beginningless and thus the conscious field on which they play equally beginningless.Since the Buddhi is what experiences them playing out and not consciousness (for whom there is no experienced difference in it playing out or not playing out), there is no logical reason why that consciousness has to be deluded by them unless you making the mistake of superimposing the attributes of the intellect onto consciousness or vice-versa.
>>23817604the point is that its products must be presented to that to which representations are representedrepresention is in experience which is the faculty of the Buddhi>The illusions are concomitant with their field of manifestation which is consciousness otherwise illusions would be impossible to manifest as such.Yes, correct, but as Shankara points out in a later part of his Gita-Bhashya, in order to establish that the self-evident, immediate and direct awareness that is the ground/field of illusions/forms is *Itself* in a subject-and-object relation with those forms such that Itself actually experiencing them or aware of them, you have to stand outside of this awareness and witness both itself and its relation with the forms to confirm this, and this is impossible because awareness is unobjectifiable and cannot become an object of itself and so we can never do this, making it impossible to presuppose or justify that supposition on the evidence on experience, and even if you could observe this relation this would necessitate an additional chain of confirming awarenesses of that knowledge and so on that would involve an infinite regress making confirmation or experienced knowledge of this impossible.
>>23817694* so they have NO logical or philosophical requirement to adhere to
>>23817662> Right in advaita isnt it said that there is no manifested illusion in deep sleep?Yes, but it continues to “”exist”” in a latent form where its withdrawn from manifestation temporarily but retain subtle illusory presence as a remaining part of the false illusion brought by Brahman’s power, and which is involved in the process of the intellect becoming manifested again and waking experience returning.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.)Commentary: 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.- Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2-3-31
>>23817687Yes, and the fact that we know dreams to be distortions, illusions makes it even more difficult to circumvent the fact that Brahman cannot know the effects of his own power.
>>23817694>Since the Buddhi is what experiences them playing out and not consciousnessWhy do you say "buddhi" as if it is a real thing which exists apart from being a false name-form designation which is infact inseperable from the so called light of awareness? You just accepted here >>23817709 that there is no manifestation apart from the awareness/consciousness, so how can things be apparent only to the buddhi and not to the consciousness, when things are only apparent when they are at the same time inseperable from the awareness/consciousness?
>>23817694> Buddhi and its experience are just two different forms or contents, one subtle and the other grossMore specifically, the buddhi and the exterior object made of the elements that forms the object, the image of which is presented through the senses and mind to the buddhi, are two objects or contents that are non-aware themselves, one is gross or made of gross forms (the exterior object) and the other subtle (the buddhi).
>>23817724>Yes, but it continues to “”exist”” in a latent form where its withdrawn from manifestation temporarilyOkay but """exist""" needs a doublecheck, if youre using these ambiguous ""'" signs clearly it shows youre not really able to clearly articulate anything of value.>but retain subtle illusory presenceThat contradicts shruti, you cannot ascertain that whilst in deep sleep. That is from a wakers perspective, you only explain the remergence or apparent controlled/ordered re-emission of the universe upon waking. In deep sleep there is no subject-object duality, so this "subtle presences" is something imputed and absolute bullshit which doesnt conform to anu text. >as a remaining part of the false illusion brought by Brahman’s power, and which is involved in the process of the intellect becoming manifested again and waking experience returning.Again something can only be remaining if itd observed dualistically, in deep sleep there is no such perception. >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.)All the stages of life are imputations, have you not seen a person in adulthood with the mental age of a 3 year old?
>>23817752> Why do you say "buddhi" as if it is a real thing which exists apart from being a false name-form designation which is infact inseperable from the so called light of awareness?Because it is what experiences samsara and understanding the proper relation between it and Atma and how one illumines the other and which one is undeluded and already-liberated and free right now immediately dispels all such pseudo-problems and mistaken notions that are being raised.>there is no manifestation apart from the awareness/consciousness, so how can things be apparent only to the buddhi and not to the consciousness, when things are only apparent when they are at the same time inseperable from the awareness/consciousness?As already explained there is no justification from experience to suppose what you are alleging here because confirming it is impossible both in theory and practice, but to answer your point directly, the Buddhi is what experiences the transition between deep sleep and waking, Conciousness is neither waking (Vaisvanara), dream and equivalent states (Taijasa), dreamless sleep and its equivalent (Prajna), but is the fourth (Turiya), which remains the same all throughout, which is the constant and immutable reality in which the others appear in succession, which is their ground of their manifestation, and which alone truly exists, the transition between the three states being only part of the illusion the buddhi is subject to and not something happening to or experienced by the ever-present reality of immediate and immaculate self-revealing awareness. The transition between deep and waking is not a real change in consciousness but another one of the three states shifting on the stage or ultimate background/ground of the 4th.
>>23817771> Okay but """exist""" needs a doublecheck, if youre using these ambiguous ""'" signs clearly it shows youre not really able to clearly articulate anything of value.I just wrongly assumed that you were following closely enough that I wouldnt have to hold your hand at every step, I was referring by that to the remaining presence in a subtle state of the illusion brought about by Brahman’s power.> That contradicts shruti, you cannot ascertain that whilst in deep sleep. Shankara in his writings cites the Upanishad verses which speak about the subtle presence of avidya or intellect in sleep, if you don’t reject Shruti the primary import of those passages should be accepted. The Brihadaranyaka emphasizes about the bliss of the soul in dreamless sleep but doesn't say there is not remaining subtle residuum but other Upanishads confirm the presence of this residuum, and indeed why Prajna is not the same as Turiya (the 4th). Also, as Shankara points out, it would involve the absurd implications of things spontaneously manifesting themselves out of nothing randomly with nothing making them which is self-evidently absurd and this is one of the arguments that Shankara uses in his Brahma Autra Bhashya to refute the subjective idealism of the latter Yogacharins who taught momentariness.
>>23817709>represention is in experience which is the faculty of the BuddhiRepresentation of illusions, and not constrained by individual jivas, since they are illusions since the beginningless power of maya
>>23817694>“that which is not truly and completely real/true” and not in the anthropocentric meaning of “an optical or mental etc confusion or mistakeThese are literally interchangeable, are you retarded?>the perceiver is the BuddhiYou can call that consciousness on which illusions inhere from Maya whatever you want, the point is that it coexists with Brahman, is just as beginningless as Maya itself.
>>23817694>Since the Buddhi is what experiences them playing out and not consciousness (for whom there is no experienced difference in it playing out or not playing out), there is no logical reason why that consciousness has to be deluded by them unless you making the mistake of superimposing the attributes of the intellect onto consciousness or vice-versa.Look at this. This is how disingenuous you are. You deny that the field upon which illusions take place is consciousness and calls it buddhi instead (even though it is also the faculty of synthesis for representations, being both active and passive) and thinks this resolves everything. Whatever you call it, it is just as beginningless and inheres in Brahman as much as a false consciousness that is not bound by time.
>>23817834> These are literally interchangeable, are you retarded?“What is not truly real” does not have any necessary connection to “someone being fooled by something.”. The first is essentially making a point about the whole or infinite being ontologically more fundamental than its derivative seeming effects and that’s a fundamentally different question than the additional point about the presence or absence of a witnessing person in addition to the original point that was a metaphysical question about dependency, independence and reality. It’s an inherently unserious argument with no basis to say you can’t talk about one without the other necessarily.> You can call that consciousness on which illusions inhere from Maya whatever you want, the point is that it coexists with Brahman, is just as beginningless as Maya itself.The Buddhi doesn’t actually exist, only Turiya the 4th that is partless, formless, soundless, non-dual and not subject to change snd which never “transitions” is what alone exists. The claim that being beginningless makes the buddhi real was already refuted by pointing out that this just means that one part of the illusion affects another, which proves nothing about its reality, being merely beginningless is not sufficient proof of something being real and its nowhere even close to being so. Each Buddhi is not present as illusion eternally either like Brahman has eternal/timeless presence because when the buddhi is a part of the subtle body which comes to a permanent end when someone is liberated and their subtle body ends (the power manifested that subtle form simple ceases to continue doing so) when their body dies instead of continuing to transmigrate.
>>23817850> Look at this. This is how disingenuous you are. You deny that the field upon which illusions take place is consciousness and calls it buddhi instead (even though it is also the faculty of synthesis for representations, being both active and passive) and thinks this resolves everything.No, I said that the buddhi and its experienced forms are both contents that appear within the ground or ultimate background (both metaphysically as ultimate reality and as the empirical ground awareness that allows for all dualistic experience) of consciousness. The faculty of synthesis is just a particular way that the buddhi relates to its object. Since all experience is just this subtle and gross form in a particular relation with eachother, there is no basis to say that it’s necessary to assign knowledge of this changing experience to the constant awareness that abides as the 4th Turiya that is the ground of these two things in a relation.
>>23817887>The Buddhi doesn’t actually exist, only Turiya the 4th that is partless, formless, soundless, non-dual and not subject to change snd which never “transitions” is what alone existsHowever, Maya is beginningless, its effects are beginningless and hence the illusory field is as well. They manifest as long as Brahman exists and gives them a ''parallel'' reality.>one part of the illusion affects anotherIt is not one part of the illusion, it is the POWER inhering in what you describe as Brahman that sustains it that gives it reality and atemporal manifestation, not the individual specific manifestations within it.>Each Buddhi is not present as illusion eternallyThis is your trick, claiming that this consciousness on which illusions take place has the name of ''Buddhi'' and then individuating it to jivatmas in order to circumvent the real issue I've been pointing out for hours here. Buddhi cannot be individual, but like a consciousness on which the illusions and all the individuals will inhere.
>>23817913>I said that the buddhi and its experienced forms are both contents that appear within the ground or ultimate background (both metaphysically as ultimate reality and as the empirical ground awareness that allows for all dualistic experience) of consciousnessThen we go back to another option which I presented here >>23817287. Now you seem to be choosing the second one, Brahman is also conscious of the effects of his own power, of illusions and individual jivas.
How do Hindoos deal with the descent of the soul in the first place, i.e. why did the soul become imprisoned in the body?Curious if they see it similarly to Plotinus. He would say the descent of the soul is a continuation of the process of emanation that begins with the One 'generating' Nous. The World-Soul is concerned with administering the cosmos based on what it understands as it contemplates Nous. The descent of the soul is when a part of the World-Soul (which is yet one with it in another way) becomes fixated on that which it is administering, i.e. the world of becoming, and comes to love it and want to go into it deeply rather than remaining in 'heaven', and so it generates a body for itself just as Nous generates Soul or One generates Nous. It's voluntary in one way, involuntary in another, because no one really desires what is bad, and coming to be in a body is bad. The final stage of emanation is matter, which is the principle of evil, the furthest 'being' (if you can call it that) from the One. The return of the individual Soul to heaven involves disengaging itself from attachment to matter, i.e. bodily pleasures and pains, and studying Plato.I'm always fascinated by how similar Neoplatonism is to Hindooism. Usually I'll get some pseud raving that Neoplatonism isn't monistic enough, or how it's all "arid speculation" because it doesn't have "muh meditation", ignorant bullshit. If you take that line I'll ignore you.
>>23817915> However, Maya is beginningless, its effects are beginningless and hence the illusory field is as well. They manifest as long as Brahman exists and gives them a ''parallel'' reality.And that reverts to my point about something beginningless being not a sufficient proof of reality if time is an illusion because it simply means one component of the illusion affects the other, there is no way to get around this fact which is why you chose to ignore and come back with a half response that doesn’t overcome the main point and rhe decisive one.> It is not one part of the illusion, it is the POWER inhering in what you describe as Brahman that sustains it that gives it reality and atemporal manifestation, not the individual specific manifestations within it.If we are talking about the the capability or inner nature or drive that is completely non-different from Brahman himself and which includes the ability and disposition to manifest the illusion, that inner nature is identical with the unconditioned Brahman itself, and is never manifested to begin with and due to being identical with Brahman and invisible, formless etc and the same as the infinite Brahman even right now. When Shankara and Upanishads speak about the subtle presence of ignorance, regardless of whether you interpret their words as referring to a subtle illusion that remains as the subtle effects of Brahman or you mean the potency that is identical with Brahman’s own nature simply ceasing to manifest the illusion of in waking for a bit, in neither cases is there a real non-illusory thing with real existence as non-Brahman that is involved so in either interpretation your objection would be moot.> This is your trick, claiming that this consciousness on which illusions take place has the name of ''Buddhi'' No, I said that the Buddhi’s experience of objects are two forms appearing within the ground of awareness but without that same awareness registering or being awareness of these two things, all relational knowledge in experience is just these two forms in a relation with the other so there is no necessary reason why a subsequent direct and dualistic knowledge of them has to be assigned to the background awareness. Our constant self-awareness that is found continuously in all our experience is just this background awareness remaining aware of itself in an immediate way, but while its doing so it’s not experiencing what the intellect is experiencing, there is not another similar relation between the buddhi and Atma as there is between the buddhi and its object. The Atma is aware of itself is like a crystal ball that remains colorness while the buddhi+object is like a cloth behind the ball that appear to color it even when its unaffected.>Buddhi cannot be individual, Why not?
>>23817927> Then we go back to another option which I presented here No, that has already been addressed and is also most recently addressed here >>23817966It doesn’t revert to the false binary that you presented earlier because there is no reason why the Brahman-Atman has to be aware of, fooled by or affected by samsara simply because of its constant presence alongside samsara, these are two different issues and different questions and its sloppy thinking to conflate them (how is it the nature of X to abide vs what is its relation with something else). As already explained when the Buddhi is the experiencer it removes any reason to additionally assign this function to the background awareness, you never actually provide a good justification for this.
>>23817927>>23817980> there is no reason why the Brahman-Atman has to be aware of, fooled by or affected by samsara simply because of its constant presence alongside samsara, these are two different issues and different questions and its sloppy thinking to conflate them .Just because Brahman has some relationship with the hearts (intellects) of all beings, it does not follow that Brahman experiences happiness and sorrow like the embodied souls; for there is a difference. There is forsooth a difference between the embodied soul and the supreme God. The one is an agent, an experiencer (of happiness and sorrow), a source of merit, demerit etc., and possessed of happiness and sorrow, while the other is just the opposite, being possessed of such qualities as freedom from sin and so on. Because of this distinction between the two, the one has experiences, but not the other. If from the mere fact of proximity, and without any reference to the intrinsic nature of things, a causal relation with some effect is postulated, then space, for instance, can as well become burnt, (it being connected with fire), - Shankara Brahma Sutra Bhashya, I, 2, 8Your argument was already refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) himself. Imagine my shock.
>>23816622you have provided a false premise , all vedantins agree to the existence of "atma" (soul) which is eternally and inextricably linked to "parmatma"(supreme soul/god) . It is beyond "being" it exists beyond the material and spiritual planes . No weapon, fire, water or wind can affect the soul. BG 2.23: Weapons cannot shred the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind dry it. Soul is transcendental to mere matter. BG 2.24: The soul is unbreakable and incombustible; it can neither be dampened nor dried. It is everlasting, in all places, unalterable, immutable, and primordial.The transformation arises from the soul acting as a reagent , that's why even shudra's can achieve enlightenment in their lifetime .
>>23817966>And that reverts to my point about something beginningless being not a sufficient proof of reality if time is an illusionThe specific illusions don’t, but Maya has reality, illusions’ power generation do have and thus makes illusions always actual for their effects can’t cease following from the cause.>Buddhi cannot be individualIt cannot be individual in the sense you are now ascribing to it as the field for the play of illusions when the individuation is already an illusion. Unless you want to be sensible and return to calling it consciousness.>>23817980>because there is no reason why the Brahman-Atman has to be aware ofIt should be aware of what inheres in that as that itself, not as that which is not what that is, which would be mere abstraction. Brahman is ignoring its own power in its effects.
>>23817966>the capability or inner nature or inner drive which includes the ability and disposition to manifest illusion… and is never manifestedWhat is manifested is the illusions, yes and this in the same atemporal way as Brahman rests in its atemporal seclusion, the point is simple that there are two atemporal metaphysical contradictory principles that are Brahman himself and this realm of illusions.>in neither cases is there a real non-illusory thing with real existence as non-Brahman that is involvedThe consciousness upon which the illusions depend must either a) be different from Brahman, although coeternal with it due to its power or b) be Brahman itself and thus not being possible for it to have knowledge of itself without of its double contradictory attributes (its own essence and power and their effects).
