/lit/ - Literature

>>14293176
what the hell are hindu metaphysics

>>14293180
Fuck if I know

>>14293180
All is god. We are all god. You, me, and that guy shitting in a river.

>>14293180

>Muh many armed people control everything
>Elephant God good, god with skulls bad
>Toilets are evil

>>14293212
So literally just Spinoza or a smarter animism.

>>14293180
Not OP, but Hindu religion/philosophy (hard to separate them) historically has several branches, based on how the Upanishads are interpreted. There is also significant cross-over with Jain and Buddhist philosophies, if you want to include those. Some of the major philosophical positions are dualism, complete nondualism, and "qualified" nondualism, and there are also all shades of in-between, and various shades of philosophized polytheism in addition.

Buddhist philosophies would add things like bodhisattvas, sort of Christ-like figures who put off their own salvation (moksha) from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) in order to help others achieve the same. Since the historical records are so bad, it's difficult to tell whether Indian soteriological traditions of this kind were influenced by Christians, who possibly predating bodhisattva traditions by quite a bit and also penetrated significantly into Asia. But in any case, the bodhisattva ideal might be the closest to Christianity.

As for the metaphysics, most Christians have difficulty with radical neo-Platonizing or Aristotelianizing philosophies that reduce God to a metaphysical function or pantheistic ground-state of reality. So Shankara syle nondualism would probably be right out of the question. Qualified nondualism could work, as could dualism, depending what kind of Christianity you adhere to. The essential points are that Christianity:
>requires God to be "wholly other" than his creations, to preserve the radical divide between the "creaturely" and the creator (generally in Christianity, humans may not aspire to godhood, and God may not be denigrated by saying he has too much in common with humans)
>requires a belief in the real, personal, historical manifestation of Christ (though exactly what Christ was is disputed, because again, it's often considered heretical to say that he was "part man, part god," and very heretical to say he was some new fusion of godhood/manhood)
>requires a belief in irreducible, created souls, possessing free will

Even these are flexible. Protestants, pietists, and Hegelian Protestants/pietists tried to sidestep the need for Christ to be a real historical advent, because they didn't want grubby contingent historical contingency intruding on the atemporal perfection of God. Also, there are plenty of heretical sects and moments in the history of Christianity, so it's not hard to find "Christians" who are basically neo-Platonists and who seem to awkwardly sidestep the issue of concrete historical faith/revelation and the concrete advent of the person Jesus. They often turn Jesus into the a subordinate stage of Neoplatonic emanation and just cough uncomfortably whenever someone says "OK but, was he a real guy, irrupting into real history, or what?"

So you can make Eriugena or Pseudo-Dionysius talk to various aspects of Hinduism. But on the whole, diehard Christians won't give up a dualistic God, Christ's real advent, or non-illusory souls.

>>14293176

Catholics have no Metaphysics, only Materialism.

>>14293237
Good post

Easy, Catholics are basically polytheists.

>>14293249
Brainlet take
>>14293296
Also stupid, but easier to see where you're coming from

You can reconcile christ with hinduism but not hinduism with christ

>>14293176
By rejecting both and embrace Hellenic metaphysics exclusively.

You dont. They are the extensions of different (though related) gods (both of whom are dead.)

>>14293237
Yes, the typical Vaishnavite theology of liberation is pretty similar to Christian views on salvation, in that one is saved by devotion to God and rescued by his grace, spending eternity worshipping him in heaven. Of course the biggest difference would be Vaishnavite salvation is from repeated rebirths, not the fall from grace.

>>14293176
A Trappist monk already did and published the results under a pseudonym

Was Meister Eckhart's metaphysics similar to non-dualism?

>>14293671
Yes, very much so. Coomaraswamy's and Schuon's essays and books draw many parallels between Eckhart and Vedanta

>>14293337
>implying Platonism doesn't heavily align with the Vedanta

>>14293176
>implying they need to be reconciled
>implying Hindu metaphysics did not influence the Neoplatonists
>implying we're not all Hindus already

>>14293785
Which Platonism and which Vedanta, be more specific.

>>14293798
Brahmins didn't influence Greek metaphysics, they developed independently from each other to similar conclusions. Don't be a retard.

>>14293176
Aquinas’ God (Aristotle’s unmoved mover) is Isvara. But above Isvara there is the Nirguna Brahman (Plato’s form of the Good).

There is precedent for that in Catholic theology is Nicholas of Cusa. He maintained that since each member of the Holy Trinity was God, there must exist a principle of Godhead which the three partake. In the Hindu trimurti each member is qualified Brahman, but above them is quality less or nirguna Brahman.

The devas are angels (separate intellects, pure forms without matter).

Jesus is an avatar.

>>14293876
>never heard of gymnosophists
Laughinghindugreeks.jpg

>>14293929
>Jesus is an avatar.
That's the monophysite heresy.

>>14293940
There's absolutely zero proof that gymnosophists influenced Greek metaphysics. They have met, sure, but there is no valid claim to be made under scrutiny, much of it is unsubstantiated ill contrived ad hoc hypothesizing.

>>14293972
Every living being is an avatar of God, some are just divine and noble in comparison.

>>14293864
Plotinus, Iamblichus and Advaita concur on many points

>>14293222
toilet is a portal to hell

>>14294012
Which Advaita, the things Sri Shankaracharya written or the things hat was attributed to him that cannot be humanly possible for someone who had died at 32, he cannot possibly be the author that has made all of those commentaries on the Principal Upanishads. Sankara was a Sunnyasin neosramanic neovedantic philosopher while the Upanishads don't predate King Ashoka's edicts written in Prakrit using Brahmi script that mentions a Buddhist text and Gotama Buddha's home town. Read the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. III: Advaita Vedanta up to Samkara and his Pupils if you want to avoid the Advaitin lies on objective history.

>>14294101
Ken Wheeler can kiss my ass, I've already read all of Shankara's Upanishad commentaries; the doctrine in them, the logical reasoning, the metaphors used, even the turn of phrases and verbal expressions are the exact same in Shankara's commentaries as they are in non-commentary works like Upadesasahasri which Ken thinks are the 'real writings' of Shankara. I challenge you to find anything in his Upanishad commentaries that differs doctrinally from Upadesasahasri.
>he cannot possibly be the author that has made all of those commentaries on the Principal Upanishads.
Why not? His commentaries are only around 5000 pages in English, that's easily doable in 32 years especially if you start early by becoming a sannyasin at age 8 as Shankara is held to have done and if you've eliminated all distractions by abandoning possessions and worldly ties.
>while the Upanishads don't predate King Ashoka's edicts written in Prakrit
Ashoka lived in the 3rd century BC while the earliest Upanishads are almost unanimously dated to around 8th-7th cebtury BC, several hundred years before Buddha, there is no evidence that Buddha lived before any of the Upanishads
>Read the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. III: Advaita Vedanta up to Samkara and his Pupils
Which you're no doubt recommending because Ken listed it in his latest video of book recommendations that was posted within the last few weeks. If you'd actually read that work instead of just repeating what Ken said then you'd know that large portions of it are just translated sections from the very same commentaries which Ken believes are not genuine, these being where all of the major arguments are located as Shankara's non-commentary works spend relatively little time engaging in any dialectic and logical argumentation compared to his commentaries.

>>14293972
>heresy
We're above that here anon.

>>14294600
Prakrit came first silly, Sanskrit was refined from Prakrit. You clearly didn't read what I told you to read since every basic claim made was discussed in the first part of the book that you never referenced. Go read page 18 and 19.

>>14294600
>8 year old kid having perfect knowledge of vedanta

>>14294805
he became a sannyasin at 8 which can be done without any prior expertise and is said to have written his first major work viz the Brahma Sutra Bhasya a few years later at age 11

>>14294101
How did you come across this kind of information are you a former advaitian ?

>>14293176
Damn, Shankara was a Chad

>>14294101
thanks for this

>>14295368
No, I am just a humble Wheelerposter that actually understands his apparent madness just to mess with our resident /lit/ Advaitins.

BTW the earliest Upanishads are around 600 BC ish, but it was written down in Sanskrit much later, just get that book via Library Genesis as well as this PDF by Ken Wheeler on his Dhammapadanapali: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuU4emvXrgGevFKVCqyBVVTsB-HcaN1U/view I do adhere to the notion that Buddhism wasn't original so to speak, yet much of it is wholly misunderstood by both Advaitins and Buddhists alike. Sanatana Dharma existed for a very long time. Shankara only dealt with sectarian forms of Buddhism and never spend his time reading the source text which the Theravadins misinterprets various key terms. Indian Monism is a dead end self imploding on sectarian nonsense, but it is worth reading Advaita Vedantic literature over sectarian nonsense of Buddhism.

>>14293180
>not reading Guenon, the patron saint of /lit/

>Religions dont all emanate from the same sour-

>>14293176
I really don't get why people are so attached to Christianity. There are constant threads on /lit/ about how to fuse Christianity with x or how to change it into this or that.

If you find Christianity and its metaphysics to be false, why not fucking throw it away completely? What the fuck is the appeal for this false religion, even for people that do not believe in its dogmas?

Christian myths and narratives are absolute shit, and if you swap out its philosophy/metaphysics then all you're keeping are these myths.

>>14297226
>i want to completely change the esoteric essence of Christianity but keep pic related
Why? Do you all still live at home and you're too afraid to tell daddy you don't want to go to church anymore?

>>14297226
>i want to completely change the esoteric essence of Christianity but keep pic related
Why?

>>14297226
It isn't a matter of true or false but skillful means

>>14297375
What makes you say such a thing

>>14297226
>why people are so attached to Christianity
Because Jesus died for our sins, you heartless demon.
Given the fact that catholics were always willing to learn and incorporate good philosophy, it is entirely plausible that they will take hindu metaphysics if they are true.
Protestants are even more likely to do so, because they can pretty much do whateverthey want.

>>14293176
There is no need.
The highest form of hindu practice if Bhakti, which is devotion to God.
Catholicism is all about devotion to God and Jesus, who is God. The difference between hinduism and catholicism is that hinduism keeps the older and more outdated forms of worship around, while catholicism is pragmatic and only focuses on the highest form of worship.
Metaphysics are interesting, but concerning your average mortal in great need of salvation,they are completely unimportant compared to religious practice, which catholics get very right. I understand the intellectual need to have a unified metaphysical philosophy, but the truth is that devotion to God is more important, and catholics already share that with hindus.

>>14297544
>Because Jesus died for our sins
cringe
>it is entirely plausible that they will take hindu metaphysics if they are true.
Yeah Catholicism just so happened to get its metaphysics wrong for 2000 years even though it was supposedly set up by God himself. But it's still true though! Catholicism is the one true faith, outside of which there is no salvation! Jesus died for your sins! Repent or burn in hell for all eternity.

You have an unnatural attraction to Christianity. Which is weird because just a quick gloss over history reveals that it has been the most destructive force in human history, so just a hint of it not being 100% undeniably true should be enough for people to reject it in its entirety.

>how do we reconcile an archaic belief system with another archaic belief system?

How about you just forget about them?

>>14294805
>still acquiescing to bestial materialism and historicism and not getting the point that the rational is literally real

>>14297544
>Because Jesus died for our sins

This is a Pauline fever dream.

>>14295505
The ‘original buddhism’ myth is just a traditionalist interpretation of the suttas using deliberate mistranslations and mental gymnastics to fit their preconceptions. Also Indian monism is only dead because Advaita was already refuted by Ramanuja and later dismantled by Madhvacarya.

>>14297597
Dude it's 2019

>>14297592
Catholicism has no official philosophy, the minimum requirement is that it doesn't contradict the dogmas however one interprets them, the magisterium guarantees that what the church teaches it sufficient for salvation.

One sees in the history of the church Christians who have assimilated various philosophies and methods.

>>14297687
Retard

>>14297592
cringe
God didn't give us metaphysics he gave Himself.
We merely developed metaphysics, like the hindus did, and if their system is better we will take it.
>Jesus died for your sins
Yes.
>Repent or burn in hell for all eternity.
Yes.
>You have an unnatural attraction to Christianity.
No, I have a supernatural attraction.
>it has been the most destructive force in human history
It's the exact opposite though.
>if something is not 100% true it must be entirely rejected
Why? What if you get some minutia wrong? As >>14297571 points out, spiritual practice trumps philosophy every single time. Even if catholicism has a flaw, it's devotional practices are sufficient to reach salvation by the grace of God though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If philosophy moves foward and hindu metaphysics prove to be true over catholic ones (not that there isn't a huge overlap) Christianity will just adapt and overxome as it always did.
Furthermore you will never get genuine christians to convert,because they are devotees. They believe in a personal God that forgives their sins, so if they get a bit of philosophy wrong? They are forgiven because they surrender to God in humility.
Your post reeks of being a pseud btw, you never studied christian, let alone catholic, theology.
>>14297612
>muh gnosticism
>>14297711
This. There are several branches of catholic metaphysics, Aquinas being the most well known, but knowledge of metaphysics is not neccessary for salvation.

>>14297226
>unironically uses the skydaddy and the jewish fairytale tropes
cringe

>>14297673
>Also Indian monism is only dead because Advaita was already refuted by Ramanu-

>>14297852
Fuck off Abrahamcuck

>>14297978
>t.seething fedoralarper

>>14295505
>Indian Monism is a dead end self imploding on sectarian nonsense
Indian non-dualism has a more refined metaphysics than anything Greek, and unlike Neoplatonism etc there is still a living tradition practicing it that one can be initiated into

>>14298007
Is non-dualism == monism though?

How are Eliott Deutsch's books on Vedanta?

>>14298007
>living tradition
A tradition corrupted by new age and profiteering greed. Even in India itself it's already omnipresent.
Hinduism will die in half a century and all that will remain of it is Eat Pray Love and some nice cloaks.

>>14298011
I think non-dualism is less restrictive.

>>14298011
No, since (unqualified) non-dualism admits of no difference, distinction, multiplicity etc whatsoever (in absolute reality), whereas monism in itself doesn't. There is also the point that Advaita isn't monism (Vishishadvaita could be characterized as monism though) because in Advaita Brahman is not strictly equated with objects and the universe but these things are only appearances in Brahman who is beyond them. It would be monism if Brahman were regarded as actually transforming into and forming the material substance of objects and the elements etc but this is not the case according to Advaita

>>14298017
>Hinduism will die in half a century and all that will remain of it is Eat Pray Love and some nice cloaks.
don't hold your breathe waiting

>>14298062
>implying this is not done by capitalism and materialism speading in India like a cancer

>>14298012
I can't speak for all of them but his "Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction" is quite good, it's one of the better recent books on Advaita from someone in academia

>>14298062
SUPERPOWER BY 2020!!!

>>14298070
>millions of Hindus gathering for the religious festival of kumbh mela is caused by capitalism and materialism

14298070
Ignore the Abrahamkike

>>14298081
DAS RITE

we foolish westerners have much to learn from these nobles sages!

>>14298163
yes indeed, these philosophical giants are too advanced for us...

>>14297711
>the minimum requirement is that it doesn't contradict the dogmas however one interprets them
Yeah and that is quite a lot. Stop pretending you can actually believe in monism/non-dualism and also be a Catholic.

Highly subversive behavior from the Christians yet again!

>>14298213
>dogmas
>however one interprets them
lel I missed that one. You are a sneaky lot!

>>14298213
I agree with this guy. Stop trying to mix christkikery with good metaphysics

>>14298163

>>14298318
Just looking at this photo gave me ebola. Thanks.

>>14298337
>>14298332
>>14298326
>>14298318
>>14298313
>>14298308
>>14298303
>>14298298
>>14298293
>>14298289
>>14298285
>>14298281
>>14298277
>>14298273
>>14298266
>>14298263
>>14298260
>>14298256
So this is the power of advaita vedanta..

>>14298345
more like the power of people coping with not having any real arguments

>>14298363
what vedic ritual is this?

>>14298363
we westerners just didn't use enough logical arguments to shit in pit

>>14298377

>>14298381
>guenonfag justifies street-shitting, the caste system, and advaita vedanta in the very same post

At last I truly see... All is one in Atman...

>>14298084
>implying that festivals are not driven by commerce

>>14298169
w-what is that?
n-no
Anon tell me that it's not what it seems like!
t.hindu westerner

>>14298213
>>14298221
>>14298228
Samefag
Also christians will do as God wills and you will continue to seethe as always.

>>14298363
>implying this was ever a debate and not a shit-flinging match
>t.westerner projecting "muh reason" to pajeets
Pathetic.

>>14298213
>implying that Christianity is dualistic.
No

>>14298228
>how dare you combine good things!
>:[

>>14297571
>highest form of hindu practice if Bhakti
yikes no fren that is not right
it's actually one of the lowest

tantra is highest in every yuga but in kaliyuga path of knowledge is the most clear

>>14298520
>>14298070
this is true
kumbh mela is turning into a hipster fest

>>14299038
It's actually the opposite of what you said. Knowledge is the highest path in every yuga but Tantra is especially suitable for the conditions of the Kali Yuga. The Svetasvatara Upanishad states that the only way to liberation is through Knowledge of the Self.

>>14299038
>yikes no fren that is not right
Actually it is right,
Bhakti is about utter self-surrender to the divine.
The other path is Knowledge, but when Arjuna asks whether Devotion or Knowledge is the better path, the answer is basically that they take you to the same place, however the Bhagavad Gita also emphasizes that action that springs from devotion is better than contemplation, which means that Loving action is the superior path.
The path of the devotee is a humble one because it seeks not to rise higher or to glorify itself, but instead to glorify the One, and give all it is in a selfless act of charity. As such it is free of all selfisness and all ego, unlike the path of Knowledge, which is motivated by a lack of knowledge.

>>14293176
We can't. They are diametrically opposed.
Hindusim is stupid anyway. It's the belief that god spontaneously exploded into a million separate pieces and forgot who he was.

>>14301803
>It's the belief that god spontaneously exploded into a million separate pieces and forgot who he was.

No it isn't, it is the belief that all things lack ontological self-sufficiency and are dependent on god. Nothing can exist without god. Christians believe this. It is also the belief that the true nature of man is one with the true nature of god, Christians have both imago dei and theosis which comport with the Hindu's Brahman-Atman and bhakti leading to moksha.

>>14298829
It clearly is. Creationism is dualism. And God and human souls are definitely not the same undivided thing.

>>14301803
>forgot who he was.
That'a wrong, they maintain that He is completely unaffected

>>14293176
>/b/ros

>>14293180
Caste system and warriors control everything. It's based and redpilled X 100.

>>14299217
>Tantra is especially suitable for the conditions of the Kali Yuga
retard
>>14300376
BG is not the end all be all of hinduism
maybe you read some hare krishna interpretation

>>14293180
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXFLSj7qsDa_4NVEdQDRkCu61CdVRcmTe

>>14303109
>BG is not the end all be all of hinduism
Im well aware.
>>14302235
>Caste system and warriors control everything.
Not anymore.
Its the age of the merchant now.
>>14302000
>implying that creation is not the unfolding of God's will
Also what exactly do you mean by dualism?
>>14301944
This man knows his stuff.
>true nature of man is one with the true nature of god
What do you mean by "one with God"?
>14301803
Dumb post.

how do i get started with th hindus?
>inb4 guenon
They say in intro to hindu doctrines he wasnt really talking about Hinduism for most of the time tho

>>14303869
Start with the Bhagavad-Gita or the Upanishads. Only about one half of Guenon's first book is about Hinduism, but the first half of the book where he talks about Traditionalism in general contains a lot of stuff that's still applicable to understanding Hinduism. I read it before starting to read Hindu scriptures/writings and I found it to be helpful.

>>14303869
>for most of the time

>>14298277
>8memes
>Facebook post
>Polish

>>14293176
Hinduism is unbelievably trash and being replaced by Islam albeit very slowly, as long as western powers remain strong the muslims cant randomly genocide hindus.

>>14305495
Hinduism is the ultimate pleb-filter, it looks like you got filtered

>western powers remain strong the muslims cant randomly genocide hindus.

Muslims are only like 14% of India's population, if they start anything they will just end up getting genocided or expelled themselves. The Pakistani military got their ass kicked by India in the wars they fought what chance do random muslim civilians have? none