/lit/ - Literature

>>20811983
>Since when did vedanta become a benchmark to judge other philosophies?
since Guenon was refuting hylics on day one!

>>18386711
>all you know how to do is avoid arguments.
Funny because Shankara (pbuh) has dozens of arguments refuting buddhism aka crypto-materialism

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

>>18230923
>Buddha created a spiritual movement that seriously threatened the hegemony of the ancestral local religion based on hereditary classes.
Lies, Buddhism never seriously threatened Hinduism but was limited to the bugman city dwellers of Ancient India and a few wandering monks, it never penetrated deeply into the agricultural communities spread throughout the countryside where the vast majority of the population lived, the proximity to nature gave these people a natural wisdom and grace so that they could see right through Buddhism lies. Thankfully Buddhism was eventually retroactively refuted for being the nihilistic bullshit that it is by the legendary Sri Shankaracharya (PBUH), vanquishing it from the land of Bharat

>>18219430
> people who cant think outside the soul meme dont understand dependent origination
dependent origination was refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

>>16489862
>he hasn't even FUCKING READ NAGARJUNA despite claiming he BTFOs him constantly

I am able to effortlessly BTFO Nagarjuna irreparably in posts like these >>16484988 >>16485025 >>16488896 and countless others without even reading him because Shankara's writings possess such a transformative power that anyone who earnestly studies them with patience learns to detect sophistry from miles away

>>15646614

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>15555301
>>15555292
cope

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>15491846
>who was in the wrong here
Buddha was in the wrong for teaching such an incoherent jumble of views that nobody can agree what is real Buddhism

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>15254807

"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

buddhists be chantin'
the brothers be cringin'
shankarians be refutin'
retroactively rollin' up on they're Rolls Royce elephants

>>14967906

>>14746940
Now imagine the scenario where some half literate black guy stole your books and actually read them. Perennialist niggas be like:

>>14706088
>any form of Buddhism
OH NO NO NO NO NO

Okay put on your seatbelts folks! It's time for some RETROACTIVE REFUTATION!


Continuing off from these two posts >>14698282 >>14698288 in which this post >>14697808 was refuted

note: the only Upanishads I quote here in these series of posts are the primary Upanishads, i.e. Sruti
>>14697815
>A. When the sastras state that Brahman is without attributes, they mean to say that Brahman lacks all evil qualities (or qualities supervening on material nature, prakrti).
The Upanishads don't specify that Brahman only lacks evil qualities but they describe Him in His real nature as without any attributes aside from those which are His very nature as eternal Bliss-Awareness. For examples

Isha Up. 8: "without a body, without blemish, without muscles"
Svetasvatara Up. 6.8: "He is without a body or organs"
Svetasvatara Up. 6.9: "nor is there even a sign of Him by which He can be inferred"

The Brihadaranyaka Up. points to Brahman using apophatic negation through the denial of there being a more appropriate descriptions for Him other than "not this":

Brihadaranyaka 2.3.6.: "Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: "Not this, not this"; for there is no other and more appropriate description than this "Not this."

The Brihadaranyaka also states that Brahman has two forms in verse 2.3.1. and then says the gross (perceptible) form of Brahman is mortal, limited and definite in verse 2.3.2. and that the subtle (imperceptible) form of Brahman is immortal, unlimited and indefinite. in verse 2.3.3.

The Mandukya also describes the transcendental fourth state Turiya (which is identified with Brahman) as not related to anything and as the negation of all phenomena, it also says that the Turiya is the Atma which the same Upanishad says in verse 2 is Brahman:

Mandukya Up. 2: "All this is verily Brahman. This Ātman is Brahman. This Ātman has four quarters."
Mandukya Up. 7:"(It is) unseen. not related to anything, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone, negation of all phenomena, the Peaceful, all Bliss and the Non-dual."

>For example, Brahman is not perceived by senses, colorless, having no body, not grasped, etc. “Brahman is the opposite of material things.” He must therefore be differentiated. (BS, 49‐50, 52, 79)
Ramanuja's claim that Brahman must be differentiated is directly contradicted by the Svetasvatara Up. verse 4.1 which says when speaking of Brahman "He, the One and Undifferentiated".

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Adi Shankara - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Adi Shankara - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>14633944
B A S E D