>>24091628
>Exactly, but what destroy the intellect? If it's Brahmans then that means Brahman Is acting, thus moving, thus changing
Brahman orders samsara without moving or changing in any way, because it's naturally in Brahman's nature that samsara plays out in the way that it does. This requires Brahman to do nothing but remain Itself immutably just as it always does, the ordering is automatic and effortless and proceeds spontanously from Brahman's nature. It is the nature of samsara that once an enlightenment man dies, the elements making up that man's intellect dissipate into a more rudimentary state and don't form another intellect, this doesn't require any active intervention by Brahman each time it happens but it's just following the pre-ordained pattern that Brahman naturally makes samsara follow, the pre-ordaining is natural to Brahman and is not an action that has a beginning or end.

>What establish that "default"?
That question has already been answered, can you read? The default pattern of samsara is established through it being Brahman's inherent nature to make samsara function in that way.
>Since Brahman can't stop casting the illusión that new state must in some way contradict the previous form of Brahman
1) Brahman doesn't have different forms except in a figerative sense.
2) There is no new state, Awareness remains intrinsically free without beginning or end, and samsara remains samsara. When an intellect becomes enlightened and stops transmigration, that just involves a change in samsara and nothing more, and this is nothing incongruous as samsara is full of constant changes, none of which have any bearing upon Brahman whatsoever.

>And that state of affairs arise from Brahman, so we have no reason to think it will not happen again
That's false, there are two reasons why that's wrong. The first is that in uprooting ignorance, the individual is ending the only thing that was perpetuating further transmigration. The second is that Brahman naturally orders samsara in such a way that freed individuals are never bound again. This second part is just as much a componant of the doctrine as the part about Brahman being the origin of samsara to begin with, so you are simply committing a strawman fallacy if you are going to pretend that only one of these are true and not the other. This is a strawman fallacy because you are attacking an invented false notion which you made up which is not actually taught by Vedanta, i.e. that Brahman only causes illusion and does nothing to ensure that freed souls are not bound again, Vedanta doesn't teach that so its an obvious strawman fallacy for you to pretend that this is their view and then to attack it.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

What are some good introductory texts on Hinduism for a Western audience? Almost all the literature about Dharmic religions focuses on Buddhism.I…

What are some good introductory texts on Hinduism for a Western audience? Almost all the literature about Dharmic religions focuses on Buddhism.
I…