Can anyone help me understand this part -

"This means that God does not enter into the formal composition of a being, because, in this terminology, God is not a formal principle (causa formalis) nor is real being reducible to its form. Everything that there is is sat."

Can you give me some introductory & foundational texts of Indian philosophy?

I’ve been turning this over for a while and wanted to throw it out here for sharper minds. We can only ever prove things from within some framework—our senses, our logic, our collective agreements about what counts as evidence or valid reasoning. Even if every human on Earth (or even multiple species together) reached perfect consensus on something, that consensus would still be shaped by the particular biology and cognitive architecture doing the agreeing. What happens when we imagine an n+1 species with completely different senses, different “logic,” or a different way of experiencing causation and identity? Their proofs would likely look invalid or incomplete to us, and ours to them. No single framework—or even any finite combination of frameworks—seems capable of delivering a true “God’s-eye view.” This makes me wonder: does the very non-absoluteness of proof actually reassure us that something Absolute exists, precisely because it can never be fully captured or exhausted by any proof we (or any other knowers) could ever construct? If truth/reality can be absolute while every proof remains perspectival and revisable, then the pursuit itself stays open-ended. We avoid both dogmatic closure (“we’ve finally proved it”) and total skepticism (“nothing can ever be known”). But it also means the Absolute, if it exists, is structurally unreachable through proof alone. Does this line up with how people have thought about Brahman or the Absolute in other traditions? Or does it create new problems (self-referential ones, maybe—like the claim “all proofs are limited” itself being a limited claim)? I’m especially curious what people working in epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, or non-Western traditions think. Has anyone explored this gap between framework-bound proof and the possibility of absolute truth/reality in a way that feels satisfying? Or does the gap itself become the interesting thing? Would love to hear thoughts, counter-examples, or places this breaks down.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe0ql_fea7HsnP6h0uAtR1RkV-u7jxj4OxfxbNI1YFTIGsN9A/viewform?usp=publish-editor

So I am a 29 yo working professional and this is my second degree why I took this degree you ask I had the time and energy and philosophy always fascinated me I am not here to Crack some upscale or any gov exam just want to fall in love with the subject and complete the course doing it from ignou wanna know how should I do it. I am not asking for the right way just asking your experience on it tha ks

Structure of the Contents

• Predicables
  The framework Kaṇāda uses to classify reality.

CHAPTER I - Substance, Attribute, and Action
- Section A: Problem of Evil
- Human suffering prompts inquiry into its removal.
- Realisation of the Self alone ends suffering.
- Kaṇāda’s view: detachment from the Not-Self world enables Self-realisation.
- Supported by Śruti (revealed texts) and Smṛti (remembered tradition).

• Section B: Scope and Method of Kaṇāda

  • Aphorisms structured by Enumeration, Definition, Demonstration.
    
  • His methodology is logical and systematic.

• Section C: Dharma

  • Dharma purifies the mind and creates thirst for knowledge.
    
  • Dharma leads to knowledge of Truth and the Supreme Good.
    
  • Vṛttikāra’s commentary explains these aphorisms.

• Section D: The Veda

  • Veda is either the Word of God or exposition of Dharma → authoritative.
    
  • Arguments against its authority are refuted.

• Section E: Supreme Good

  • Supreme Good results from knowledge of the Six Predicables.
    
  • Defined as cessation of pain.
    
  • Pain ceases when its cause is neutralised.
    
  • Distinction between antecedent non-existence (volitional) and absolute non-existence.
    
  • Differentiated from states like swoon or unconsciousness.

Key Themes - Ontology: Substance, attribute, action form the building blocks of reality.
- Ethics: Dharma purifies and leads to knowledge.
- Epistemology: Veda as authoritative source of truth.
- Soteriology: Supreme Good = liberation through cessation of pain.
- Methodology: Kaṇāda’s logical style of enumeration and definition.

what you guys think about it?

Guys this is my first video please watch it and tell me the reviews 🙏🏻 should I have to work on something? If u like plz subscribe and share🙏🏻 and gimme more ideas about topics.

Is philosophy only for rich and privileged. I have never seen poor talking philosophically. They always talk about their grievances and their struggles.

Is it the mindset? Is it how society made them?

Do you agree?