For example, Buddhists had the no-self doctrine, whereas Sankara argued we do have a self (atman). He also argued against Samkhya, another astika school, which was dualistic (mind/matter). Ultimately, he argues that our self (atman) is to be identified with Brahman (+- God) 6/
-
Show this thread
-
So lots of interesting disagreements. Advaita Vedanta holds that Moksha attainable in this life. Brahman is the eternal, unchanging metaphysical reality. Once you understand that innermost in you is God (Brahman) you can attain liberation from samara 7/
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
But the position raises several puzzles: If Brahman is perfect bliss, why suffering? If Brahman is perfect bliss, why then did Brahman create the world? 8/
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
puzzle (2) Sankara raises is the following: 1. God created the world, seems important 2. If you do something important, there has to be a purpose/good reason 3. But God is entirely self-sufficient so a dilemma arises... 9/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Either God created the world for a good reason, but that would mean God is not truly self-sufficient Or God created the world for no good reason, but it seems the world's creation is pretty important. What's the solution here? 10/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Sankara's solution is ingenious: he says that princes often do things just for sport. They go hunting, organize parties etc not because they have to, but for fun. Similarly, our world was created just for sport. God didn't have to, but did it just for the heck of it. 11/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
This is interesting, and maybe indeed answers the question of why a perfect being would make an imperfect world but I cannot help think it sounds a little bit dismaying that we're there as some sort of sport. 12/
6 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Another interesting idea of Sankara is the rope/snake analogy, where Sankara claims that a lot of our suffering comes from illusion, a bit like when you mistake a rope for a snake at night (pic for my upcoming OUP book on thought experiments will have comment by
@NeuroYogacara).pic.twitter.com/Wgx2bz8z7m
4 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Helenreflects
I like Asaṇga’s version, which may be the first articulation of the thought experiment! (though it’s a bit more technical)pic.twitter.com/sTzHTiQn16
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
Yes I still need to reword it and get back to you w edits etc. Where can I find good versions? It seems there are so many!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Possibly of interest: Beyond South Asia, rope-snake analogy first appears in Adversus Mathematicos and Pyrrhoneae Hypotyposes by Sextus Empiricus (c. 160-210 CE), who attributes the thought-experiment to Carneades (c. 214-129 BCE), predating Asaṇga by a couple hundred years.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.