I have made some claims to negate Advaita Vedantic philisophy. Are there any negations for this or I'm missing something

Let’s be honest philosophy, at its core, is a way of life.
Not just abstract speculation or semantic gymnastics, but the art of living: how we make sense of existence, navigate suffering, and structure meaning. Stoicism, nihilism, absurdism each offers its own lens. Eastern philosophy, especially Vedantic traditions, does too. But here’s where it collapses under scrutiny.

First flaw:
Eastern philosophy builds itself on the promise of liberation moksha, nirvana, truth. But who coined these terms? Who constructed this framework of bondage and freedom? Humans. These are not eternal realities they're linguistic architectures created to make sense of inner chaos. Liberation implies imprisonment. But show me the actual prison. Strip away the metaphor, and it’s a psychological loop dressed as cosmic revelation. It's not truth. It's a coping mechanism.

Second flaw:
The popular Vedantic line “You are not the body, you are pure consciousness” sounds profound until you meet reality. Tell that to someone with OCD. Tell that to an amputee with phantom limb pain. Tell that to a neurodegenerative patient. The self is inseparably embodied. Consciousness isn’t floating above the flesh it emerges from it. It’s not some divine essence; it’s the evolved complexity of the human brain. When the body is altered, so is the “self.” There’s no metaphysical gap only a neurological continuum.

Third flaw:
Eastern philosophy is, at best, a sophisticated belief system like any other.
It isn’t universal truth. It’s a lens one among many shaped by cultural trauma, spiritual longing, and poetic imagination. Its elegance often blinds people to its logical circularity. The entire foundation liberation, karma, rebirth, soul, detachment is based on premises that cannot be proven or even rationally defended beyond anecdotal mysticism.

So no I don’t reject it out of disrespect.
I reject it because when you strip away the poetic metaphors, it doesn’t hold up to rigorous inquiry.
It promises transcendence, but it starts with delusion.
And I’d rather live grounded in uncomfortable truth than float in comforting myth.

>>24543892 (OP)
I think the only thing more retarded than Hindoos is your post against Hindooism.
>Let’s be honest philosophy, at its core, is a way of life.
Tell that to Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, any of the Scholastics, Kant, Hegel, etc. The problem with you niggers is that you think philosophy is a 'way of life' so you don't actually study anything. Then you come along and shit up/destroy philosophy threads with your halfbaked opinions.
>But who coined these terms? Who constructed this framework of bondage and freedom? Humans. These are not eternal realities they're linguistic architectures created to make sense of inner chaos. Liberation implies imprisonment. But show me the actual prison. Strip away the metaphor, and it’s a psychological loop dressed as cosmic revelation. It's not truth. It's a coping mechanism.
They do mean something concrete and they tell you exactly what they mean. If you want to get away from thoughts and ideas that are merely human I suggest you go jump off a bridge.
>The popular Vedantic line “You are not the body, you are pure consciousness” sounds profound until you meet reality. Tell that to someone with OCD.
Do you really think Hindoos deny physical and psychological suffering?
>The self is inseparably embodied. Consciousness isn’t floating above the flesh it emerges from it.
Nice, some baseless assertions which you think 'sound good'. At least the Hindoos argue for what they think.

You are a retard, go smoke another bowl.

>>24543892 (OP)
This critique collapses under its own epistemic shallowness. It attacks Advaita for being metaphorical, yet fails to grasp that Advaita already deconstructs the very notion of language as ultimate—Maya includes the critic’s own framework. The demand to "see the prison" is a category error; ignorance, like a shadow, vanishes in light, not in dissection. Moksha isn't an escape from bondage but the realization that bondage was never real—precisely the kind of ontological inversion that low-resolution materialism can’t compute. To say “liberation is a coping mechanism” is to presume the mind as the ground of being, when that very mind is the thing being interrogated. It's metaphysical illiteracy masquerading as realism.

Likewise, pointing to brain states to refute “I am not the body” is like mistaking the code for the programmer. Advaita isn’t body-denial—it’s body-deconstruction, peeling back all phenomena to the substratum of awareness itself. Embodied experience is granted, but who is it for? That question alone demolishes the critic’s flat ontology. The self does not “emerge” from the brain—it appears to, within a framework already assuming a duality Advaita dissolves. To claim Eastern philosophy is poetry while defending the dogmas of physicalism is the final irony: it’s an aesthetic preference confused for metaphysical rigor.

>>24543931
Spoken like a true brainwashed subject
>Tell that to Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, any of the Scholastics, Kant, Hegel, etc. The problem with you niggers is that you think philosophy is a 'way of life' so you don't actually study anything. Then you come along and shit up/destroy philosophy threads with your halfbaked opinions.
It's made to make your life easier not to study a whole life course of vedaa upnishads. That's why u latch on it something mysterious and intangible lol
>They do mean something concrete and they tell you exactly what they mean. If you want to get away from thoughts and ideas that are merely human I suggest you go jump off a bridge.
This exactly this is so correct I agree with you killing yourself is the best option it's much much better than latching onto some shitty system made by best grifter of all time.
>Do you really think Hindoos deny physical and psychological suffering?
Wrong interpretation that's not what i said learn to comprehend before u talk about being lazy to read anything lol
>Nice, some baseless assertions which you think 'sound good'. At least the Hindoos argue for what they think.
Cuz there's too much of them and all they do is reproduce and shit poopjeets so that's all they have can't blame them lol

>>24543947
Kys faggot gpt

>>24543978
>It's made to make your life easier not to study a whole life course of vedaa upnishads. That's why u latch on it something mysterious and intangible lol
Some people have high IQs and actually enjoy learning complex and abstract subjects simply for the sake of learning them.

>>24543993
Lol ik u aren't one of them u didn't have to make it so obvious u can do better than that ,if in the end proving 1-1=0 make u satisfy your ego go ahead. Your response just proved u don't know jack about Advaita Vedanta it literally says to go beyond all this lol

>>24543993
> It's not even complex lil chimp just implementing is hard which is just like achieving ubermensch
Get better

>>24543892 (OP)

>1
>Who constructed this framework of bondage and freedom? Humans
Vedanta rejects this premise and says that doctrines like rebirth, karma and moksha are revealed by the divinely-originated Shruti scripture and are not the product of human speculation. You can reject this idea out of hand, but that fails to actually refute it.

>2
>Tell that to someone with OCD. Tell that to an amputee with phantom limb pain. Tell that to a neurodegenerative patient.
None of those are actual arguments
>The self is inseparably embodied.
This is just a baseless assertion and not an actual argument
>Consciousness isn’t floating above the flesh it emerges from it. It’s not some divine essence; it’s the evolved complexity of the human brain.
These are also baseless assertions and not arguments
>When the body is altered, so is the “self.”
You didnt provide any demonstration of this, another baseless assertion

Nothing in this section is even worth replying to unless you can formulate an actual argument.

>It isn’t universal truth. It’s a lens one among many shaped by cultural trauma, spiritual longing, and poetic imagination
This is another assertion and not an argument that actually refutes anything

>>24543892 (OP)
>I deny reality
Okay then. Your choice.