/lit/ - Literature

Couple hundred years before buddhists and vedantists were also having this discussion

>>21964604
Damnit, wrong picture. Post ruined. Must leave and never post again

>>19707166
the last image, this one is from his Brihadaranayaka-Upanishad-Bhasya, while the prior two are from his Brahma-Sutr-Bhasya

>>18326668
>there's no internal inconsistency in buddhis-

>>18310759
from his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhasya

>>17290089
>>17290094
Pic related is also a lengthy section (translated by Madhavananda) from Adi Shankara's commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad wherein he explains how Buddhist theory of mind fails to align with how we actually experience our consciousness and perception, and he explains why the denial of the Atman (Self) made by Buddhist schools is incorrect.

>>16778496

>does it have to do with shankara refuting theravada?
If the east Asians could have read Shankara's arguments against the proto forms of Theravada he attacked like Sarvastivada and Sautrantika they would have simply became Hindus instead of going for a slightly less bad form of Buddhism, since in refuting anatta or no-self (pic related), Shankara also refuted virtually every school of Buddhism which holds to anatta except for the few ones which smuggle in the Atman under other terminology

/thread

>>16656515
Shankara rekt Buddhism by pointing out the contradictions in the various schools and how none of their metaphysics makes sense, and how Buddhism is wrong to deny that we have a consciousness which is different from and which observes the activity of the mind.

Buddhists are NPCs who don't have inner consciousness or who are blind to it. In pic related Shankara BTFO's every single school of Buddhism which denies the self (including Madhyamaka) by showing how we have a consciousness that is different from the contents of thoughts, and by debunking all the sophistic arguments that Buddhists typically use to deny this.

>>16200703
>Explain please if you’re not just meming.

>and your sense of self is an illusion
The personality may be considered an illusion. The Self (Atman) according to the Advaita philosopher/theologian Shankaracharya is the self-luminous, unchanging and attributeless awareness to which all sensory and mental experiences are manifested. Mental phenomena like thoughts arise in consciousness and vanish, sensory data arise in consciousness and vanish; but this abiding consciousness to which these datum are presented never itself ceases, even in deep dreamless sleep there is simply an absence of exterior objects for that consciousness to illumine. Nothing becomes known without that thing manifesting itself to consciousness, but the witnessing consciousness to which things are presented and known never itself changes or witnesses itself as its own object but always hovers there just out of sight illuminating everything like an invisible sun. You can doubt many things, but only a fool would deny that there is a witnessing sentience observing their thoughts who is the same abiding presence at this moment that it was when you began reading this post (if it's not, why was there not an interruption of your awareness? etc). Here in this picture from his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad you can see an example of Shankaracharya refuting the claims of those (in this case B*ddhists) who deny that there is this Self of unchanging witnessing awareness which is distinct from mental actions like thoughts, memory etc
>everything is already nothing and this existence isn’t really here and nothing is really here all just an illusion
Shankaracharya refutes this by noting that illusions cannot have nothing as their basis; people don't perceive illusory snakes in empty rooms, but only do so when there is a rope on the ground that we can mistake to be a snake. All illusions necessitate by default an existing substratum for that illusion to inhere in. If there was nothing whatsoever, we would not have conscious experience, because nothing doesn't produce anything, much less produce the illusion of being a conscious human being. And in any case, if nothing in this hypothetical scenario become "nothing, but possessing the capacity to cause illusions", than it would cease to be nothingness by virtue of being delimited and assigned a unique character by that qualification.

>>16020771
Here in this photo is Shankara BTFOing the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, now try to find any source where Shankara says Buddha taught that there is a self, you can’t because it doesn’t exist

>>15974837
>The man claimed that the Buddha explicitly reified the existence of Selfs.
No he didnt you moron, Shankara BTFO'd Buddhists in his writings for their nonsensical doctrine of no-self (pic related for example)

>>15974382
even more from another work

>>15807106
>If the self is an illusion
This is a moronic claim which was refuted by Shankaracharya (pbuh) in pic related

>refutes anatta

nothing personal hylic

>>15482318
>But thoughts do not necessarily have to be attached to any Self. It is possible that there exists nothing but a void in which random thoughts appear as quickly as they disappear and nothing more happens. Thoughts are themselves momentary glimpses of consciousness, they can be a witness to themselves, and therefore need no external 'Self' to experience them.

This is incorrect and was refuted by Adi Shankara in pic related

>>15412414
>what his position is on meditation?
Obviously, he endorses it
>then what is the point of contention?
There are very little, this is why I said there is nothing for me to refute, because he doesn't take a stand on enough metaphysical positions or claims for there to be any semblance of any position for me to refute. How can I refute someone if I don't know what their position is?
>all you're saying is " i disagree because I think its foolish"
Incorrect, that's not "all I said", I added that I think Hindu and Tantric philosophers have refuted the 'no-self' position, which is why I think it's foolish. The obvious implication here is that I read some of their writings, evaluated their logical arguments against the 'no-self' position and decided that I agree with their reasoning. Here in this picture for example is one Hindu philosopher explaining why the 'no-self' doctrine is illogical and how it's contradicted by our actual experience.
>I'd trust the words of an enlightened being to one of none enlightenment.
If Buddha truly denied that there was any self or Atman whatsoever then he wasn't truly enlightened
>buddhism isn't general meditation or asceticism
I agree, that's why I described it as a 'set of spiritual teachings' there are things beyond meditation included. These teachings about meditations, desire, suffering etc are what the Nikayas are mostly about though, if you want to assert otherwise you are free to give examples.
>there is though you clearly haven't read them.
Beyond the broadest similarities such as the 3 characteristics, 8-fold path, dependent-origination etc you are unable to explain what these "systems" and "positions" are without ending up describing something that is just the conclusions of one specific school of Buddhism that the other schools disagree with
>no this isn't why different Buddhist schools arose
I think so, the early Buddhist schools and the later ones were in a constant series of debates with each other and were constantly trying to refute one another out of a perceived need for proving each of their respective schools was actually what Buddha had actually taught.

>>15371017

>>15309650

>>15284833
>There is no self, no soul, no mind, no psyche, no "I"

Retroactively refuted by Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>>15132435
>no such thing as Sel-
that utterly foolish claim was retroactively refuted by Shankaracharya (pic related)

How can Buddhists still believe in the foolish and nonsensical doctrine of "no-self" after it was completely destroyed by Śaṅkarācārya?

>B*ddhism

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>15029561
more refutations of Buddhist doctrine, this time from his Brihadaranyaka bhasya