/lit/ - Literature

>>14381716

>>14381716
just as predicted

>>14381633
Madhvacharya makes more sense than both Buddha and Adi Shankara.

>>14381865
>both buddha and shankara

that is redundant since shankara is basically a buddhist anyway as >>14381716 shows, but agreed

desu ramanuja is best

>>14381865
>Madhva's attempts to locate his controversial views in the canonical Vedanta texts often proved difficult. He is perhaps most famous for his idiosyncratic rendering of the Chandogya Upanisad's statement tat tvam asi or "you (the atman) are that (brahman)." By carrying over the 'a' from the preceding word, Madhva rendered the phrase atat tvam asi or "you are not that."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/madhva/

>tfw Madhva had to change the letters of the scriptures around in order to make them support his viewpoint

I feel like "trolling" on 4chan is not entirely consistent with the advaitist way of life

dammit, i wrote a long response and lost it

>>14381888
as did shankara

the difference is that at least madhva was actually hindu whereas shankara was just a buddhist

>>14381952
Shankara didn't change anything in the scriptures like Madhva did, if you make that claim you are going to have to provide proof

>>14381888
Madhva's views make more sense because they take a more nuanced view on the nature of union by acknowledging duality. To use the terminology of your own religion, union with the qualitative potentiality of a daeva is fundamentally distinct from union with an asura. The former is bliss and good whereas the latter is malevolent and bad. The former is closer to God, the latter far away. In this sense, another way to interpret "you are that" is as "you can be either this or that", which is similar to "thou art not that". One can either choose to align his or her soul with the moral laws of God or not.
To treat the good and bad as complementary, rather than being in irreconcilable conflict, brings about issues when one considers the omnibevolence of God.

>>14381970
sure, see >>14381716

just as much proof as you quoting the "internet encyclopedia of philosophy" lmao, actually much more. stop distorting scripture, pseudo-hindu.

>>14381873
Ramanuja makes more sense than Shankara, but I think Madhva is the best because he acknowledges some souls are eternally damned. In Madhva's case, there are souls that are not of Brahman, which is what I find interesting.

>>14381999
Nowhere in your image does it say Shankara moved the actual letters around like Madhva did

>>14382023
interesting, why do you think that's a good thing? i find myself torn over things like that when it comes to the metaphysical side of religion, because my tendency is always to go in a salvationist direction. but i do think you can go so far in that direction that karma becomes meaningless.

>>14382037
not my image, pseudo-hindu neo-vedantist. learn sanskrit before commenting on it.

>>14381993
>To treat the good and bad as complementary,
Shankara doesn't do this at all, all of your arguments against non-dualism seem to come back to this one strawman misunderstanding of it which I have explained to you multiple times before is incorrect. You should stop trying to view everything through the lenses of Zoroastrianism, it's causing you to misunderstand things. If you wish to criticize something you have to at least understand it on its own terms instead of criticizing your strawman impression of it, otherwise your point completely misses the mark.
>>14382023
>Madhva's case, there are souls that are not of Brahman, which is what I find interestin
You may think it's interesting, but it's not at all supported by the Upanishads which repeatedly state that Brahman is the inner Self of all beings

>>14382051
>not my image, pseudo-hindu neo-vedantist. learn sanskrit before commenting on it.
yes it is lol, you have the exact same writing style and just admitted in the other thread that you lurk /lit/ 24/7 spamming that image, you are the only one on /lit/ constantly calling people neovedantista and pseudo-hindu

>>14382051
I write both picture books and horror stories. The former is closer to Brahman, the latter is far away from Him. I am what you can call a "dualistic variant of Guenon". I interpret religions most positively when they express their dualistic tendencies strongly. If good and evil are either blurred or rejected, then this is the greatest of all evils. I actually do not significantly dislike any religious man who chooses the good over the evil. I have a serious problem with any religion which treats good and evil as illusory or complementary.

>>14382064
>the upanishads support my sect, not your sect which also claims the support of the upanishads! you have to prove your position, but mine is the default position that doesn't need to be proved because it's sooo correct!

lmao you're such a champion for the "real" interpretation of the vedas but every modern hindu in india thinks you're heretical scum, nice work neo-vedantist

>>14382079
not an argument

>>14382072
interesting, are you zoroastrian like the neo-vedanta guy said? or manichaean or gnostic?

>>14382071
ok schizo

>>14382064
I mean, I have read a lot of nondualist scriptures and writings. I did read a lot of Mahayana texts, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and a lot more.
>which repeatedly state that Brahman is the inner Self of all beings
My point is, division is fundamental between the good and the bad, and the wise choose union with the good, which is closer to Brahman, God, or whatever you wish to call it. The bad is divorced from God. The goal of a true mystic is to privilege the good over the evil and not the elimination of their division.

>>14382092
>ok schizo
you admitted here >>14381855, did you forget to take your meds today?

>>14382176
>The goal of a true mystic is to privilege the good over the evil and not the elimination of their division.
Again, to Shankara evil only vanishes and is revealed as unreal to someone who has completely given themselves up to and become absorded in the good of Brahman, there is no blurring of good and evil or accomadating evil but there is only the good. This is not the first time I've explained this exact point to you before and the last time I did you even replied to me and said "well if that's true then I have no problem with Advaita' but then here you are again repeating the same mistake. You could at least bother to read some of Shankara's commentaries to see if there's anything that you disagree with before repeating the same misplaced criticism

>>14382193
lol ok now this whole Vedanta/Madhyamaka dialectic hallening on /lit/ is getting interesting. You guys should don tripcodes so I can follow the drama more easily without having to read through your entire gay thread.

>>14382220
happening*

>>14382213
I do have problems with this view but not in a manner to become angered. I wrote a ~2000-word essay with my issue with views like yours. Will you read it?

>>14382240
sure if you want to I will, I'm pretty busy right now with work, gf, the holidays etc but I'll make sure to read and get back within 4-5 days, if you dont want to post it publicly you can send it to guenonfag@gmail.com

>>14382240
Please post publicly

>>14382290
I went ahead and emailed it. I will also post publicly for a limited time. I wrote it awhile back. Please read in full before judging:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zt6gj9eiywqaap9/Questioning%20the%20Modern%20Obsession%20with%20the%20One.docx?dl=0

Point #13 is when my point becomes most clear.

Removing the 'bad' from the good is also the dissolving of the expression of the lesser back to the greater source of all, ending your instance of the cycle back to Brahman while all the others who had failed to do so will have to be born into this world again and again perpetually damned until they eventually one day have the means to know Buddha Dhamma in one of their recent aggregate incarnations. There is avijja and vijja, but only the truth is in vijja, something that cannot be directly known from below but understood from above, removing all that is not the Self to come to know the true Self. Any non-dualism has to admit to using and recognizing some level of apparent dualism in order to reject it, which that rejection is ideal monism going against the false self of physicalism which is not Brahman. The composite psycho-physical being comprised of the soul expressed through the aggregates dies with the aggregate yet the soul removed from the psyche that craves the vices of this material world through vijja destroys the avijja of the psyche, negating self identity to the heaps which on turn is the self identity to Brahman. The whole two Brahman thing is just the state of Brahman in avijja or vijja from an inside perspective of the knower looking down on evil ignorance or from the outside perspective of the fool looking up from the state of avijja unable to see vijja. Semantic bickering among you fools that think there is no true Self is as laughable as seeing the antithesis to this in the belief that there is a false self. There is the true Self and there is no false/non-self. Only those who understands this are a true arahant, reject the notion of the false self to be true, as well as the notion of the true Self to be false.

>>14382344
So you're not going to respond to the other guy or what?

>>14382469
Respond to what, I'm responding to you that this is my second post in this thread, while I'm generally responding to the thread as a whole and the daily drama that you people are making no real substantial progress of thought synthesis other than semantic nitpicking. I am not Guenonfag nor the Buddhists, not even the guy that post the Dropbox link, and I simply don't care to respond to anyone specific for any reason at all since it is not my point to respond to anyone specific to begin with.

>>14381633
Actually, nobody except for some LARPing autists on this board (who do not really qualify as Buddhists) cares much, let alone seethes at the sight of Shankara.

>>14382554
>seethes in a post about how he isnt seething

Not even real Buddhists seethe. The only "buddhists" that seethe over this guy are the westernised/atheist/materialist kind who heard about Buddhist meditation from Sam Harris and probably dont even believe in Karma and Reincarnation.

>>14381633
Why would I seethe?
Why do you want me to seethe?

>>14382558
The same old Hindu-LARPers vs Buddha-LARPers in every thread makes me seethe sometimes. But neither position on its own does, was the point. Nor was I talking about myself.

>>14381741
kek

why does Buddhism disturb neovedantists?

pic related

>>14381716
Can some learned anon please give us the final answer to this image

>>14384260
Do Mahayanas believe in the soul?

>>14384370
It's nonsense. Everything that people accuse of being "buddhistic" in advaita appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (such as the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya) and this is easily demonstrable.

The doctrine of Maya? It's first mentioned by name in Brihadaranyaka (2.5.19) and alluded too many times elsewhere in the same text and in Chandogya. Monasticism? The Brihadaranyaka praises it and describes it as the course that Janaka follows after becoming enlightened in (4.4.22 & 4.5.2). The self-luminosity of the Self being taken from Yogachara? The Brihadaranayka describes the Self as self-luminous in (4.3.6). Advaita idealism being taken from Buddhist idealism? There are countless quotes from Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya pointing at an idealistic ontology that I can quote if you'd like but the Aitareya Up. (which according to a review by Olivelle et al is pre-Buddhist) directly says "consiousness is Brahman" in (3.1.4.).

The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka states that Brahman is unborn many times in (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), and says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). The Chandogya says in line (6.1.4.) "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality" and then repeats the message with the example of clay, gold etc in other lines. Hence, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads deny that change, multiplicity etc are real and attribute it to maya and ignorance, and they say that he underlying reality which is the basis of those illusions is unborn and unchanging.

The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge? The Mundaka Upanishad while not pre-Buddhist mentions supreme and non-supreme Brahma-knowledge in line (1.1.4.) hundreds of years before Nagarjuna who is the first Buddhist to mention higher and lower knowledge (Buddha never did). The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka also makes an identical distinction in line (2.3.1.) when it says that Brahman should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.

That's a quick summary of everything people claim Shankara took from Buddhism, but as you can see it all appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. Scholars who claim Shankara took those ideas from Buddhism typically will studiously avoid making any mention of whether those ideas appear in the early Upanishads because they have an agenda they are pushing. Most of the books cited in that image are from very old and outdated books with sloppy scholarship or are from the writings of Buddhologista pushing an agenda who've never even studied the early Upanishads. Shankara is the Plato of Indian thought and so you can find every sort of interpretation and take on him if you look hard enough.

>>14384415
holy shit thanks for the response, i'm new to advaita and non dualism and metaphysics in general i guess so i appreciate your response, i will save this and read it when i wake up, cheers

yep buddhists surely love to seethe with their zero acknowledgment of the shankara

"smokes blunt"

Isn't it all just one universe striving towards Enlightenment brehs?

>>14381913
Why not?

>>14384466
>with their zero acknowledgement
That's not true anon. Buddhists were so angered by Shankara's refutation of Dharmakirti's ideas that they made up some myth about Dharmakirti debating and defeating Shankara (pic related), despite that Shankara lived a century or two after Dharmakirti, it's found in a collection of Buddhist myths and parables cited in this book linked below. The Buddhists were unable to ever provide any sort of reply to Shankara's criticisms or defend Dharmakirti's ideas from them though but could only make up myths.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Comparative_History_of_World_Philosophy.html?id=1xXJBZLn04IC

Shankara is also mentioned by name along with other people as someone who taught wrong ideas in some Dzogchen text but there as well there is no actual attempted criticism or refutation of his ideas.

>>14381633
You niggers need Jesus. Holy crap.

>>14381633
why does this depiction of shankara bear more resemblance to a hindu bride

>>14384613
they claim that Jesus is Isvara

>>14384595
>Dharmakirti
He was already btfo by Candrakirti though

>>14384842
Neato

>>14381741
The argument relies on the existence of the subject as part of the definition of "illusion". In other words, it presupposes what it seeks to prove.

The problem of these discussions is that eastern thought is based upon being free from Karma and rebirth, not analyzing any single details. These are practical philosophies.

It really is amazing how angry Buddhists get at him. You can post him without any context in a meme of all things and hoards of enlightened Buddhists will come seething with foam at their mouth just from his very utterance. They feel an unrelenting urge to retort with the same pathetic Nagarjuna image every time, yet it is painfully obvious that no one cares. When was the last time you saw anyone discuss Nagarjuna on here, never mind in real life?

>>14384996
how would you define an illusion without a subject? who's getting fooled?

>>14385036
then they should argue karma even exists

>>14385121
the word "Illusion" in its normal linguistic sense, insofar as language denotes a subject, is used metaphorically. Material reality and the subject-object dichotomy can be said to be "illusory" in that they obfuscate no-self. It is framed in these terms to aid in understanding.

>>14385277
who's understanding and who's having his vision obfuscated?

>>14385359
Any description of no-self taken literally is categorically flawed because of how language functions on the presupposition of a subject. To put it in trendy materialist terms, the illusory self is an emergent property with no eternal reality in itself. That this property experiences is not sufficient to affix a soul or a priori subject to itself.

>>14385450
then what's wrong with reality that illusion arises?

>>14385123
>>>14385036 (You)
>then they should argue karma even exists


Find a Guru, If he is a true guru he will show you the truth of what is beyond the the phenomena with Shaktipat.

>>14385550
i'm afraid of getting anally raped

>>14384464
That's guenonfag. Ignore him. Buddha was obviously a clear precursor to Sankara though both are excellent (Sankara came later and obviously knew of him even if he disagreed with his sectarians). Pre-modern hinduism was also hardly as unified as religion in the west (think pagan europe) and as far as meditation goes check out Patanjal and Abhinavagupta (yogi and tantrik "platos of the east")

>>14385508
Nothing's wrong with reality

>>14384913
Yes but Candrakirti's criticisms of his ideas are pretty different from Shankara's criticisms as they use Madhyamaka reasoning, whereas Shankara uses reasoning that involves things like arguing for the Self and for the conditional reality of the external world and how Dharmakirti's ideas are contradicted by our actual experience with regard to these things. Shankara was arguing from the perspective of people who accept the Vedas anyway, the audience he was writing for wouldn't have been reading Candrakirti so for both of those reasons it still made perfect sense for Shankara to criticize his ideas. Also, if Candrakirti brfo Dharmakirti why is Dharmakirti still widely taught in Tibetan monasteries as an important part of their curriculum? I thought most Tibetan sects accepted Madhyamaka

>>14385036
based

>>14385592
You realize you're responding to guenonfag himself?

>>14386363
t. seguro

>>14385359

>>14385450 This anon is correct. This post and you are imposing your own philosophy of language and ontology on a philosophy which distinctly opposes it. Poesis helps reveal the truth of emergence not contradict itself.

>>14385946
Dharmakirti is apart of the curriculum in the way that colleges still teach most medieval philosophers, they are important to contextualize the arguments. While Yogacara is seen solely as idealist, people like Jay Garfield who have worked extensively with Tibetan temples and their scholarship has said, it is very fruitful to engage it as a treatise on phenomenology with Madhyamaka teachings. Dharmakirti isnt wrong about everything and has some important points to contribute that needed adumbrating. Yogacara helps expose the conscious processes that we are engaged in.

>>14382344
what do you think of gaudapada?

>>14385450
how not? it is what sustains every valuation and makes all emergent processes arise and fade (for this is their nature, ego, etc.) the person you were 10 years ago and the one you are now, neither are you but what is that that sustains these emergent ''I''s

>>14386907
not him but Gaudapada is based and red-pilled, I recommend Shankara's bhasya on his karika if you haven't read it already

>>14384996
>The argument relies on the existence of the subject as part of the definition of "illusion".
Which is the normative position for everyone who doesn't accept Buddhist dogma and is a reasonable assumption to make until proven otherwise. Our self-evident conscious awareness as sentient beings is sufficent evidence of us being consious and witnessing subjects. To imply as you do that the subject doesn't exist is a completely unsubstantiated claim which contradicts our immediate experience, and hence it should be rejected.
>>14385277
>>14385450
>the illusory self is an emergent property with no eternal reality in itself.
There is no evidence to support this unfalsifiable claim. The notion that consciousness is an emergent property is trendy among materialists but remains an unproven hypothesis. When we look to the world to see if this aligns with common sense and logic we find no examples whatsoever of illusions such as mirages being sentient like we are. From start to finish the theory you advocate is incoherent, contradicted by our experience, and without any examples or compelling arguments to support it. If you say the subject doesn't really exist you look foolish as you are calling into question your ability to participate in this conversation, if you say this 'subjectness' isn't real but nevertheless appears real you are advancing an unfalsifiable claim that is contradicted by all possible examples that we can look to, and it's also incompatible with your claim of emptiness. If nothing has a real abiding existence or nature there is no reason why it would give rise to the continuum of conscious awareness that we all experience. Emptiness is not self-aware, self-illuminating or self-comprehending. There are no examples to be found whatsoever of anything, illusory or otherwise arising from emptiness but upon further analysis all transformation, change and appearances whatsoever all depend without exception upon a previously existing substatum which acts as the medium through which they arise or make themselves known to the observer

>>14387558
i have read some excerpts from gaudapada's mandukya karika and i really liked it but i think he dismisses a quite remarkable piece of the whole with his ajativada doctrine; as if the experience within maya were sterile (i know it is in comparison to the Absolute in itself).

>>14385054
ok guenonfag

>>14387558
>Gaudapada is based and red-pilled
he plagiarized Buddhists though, sorry to say

>>14387998
ok ken

>>14388004
no he didnt, see >>14384415, in his karika he comments on and evaluates various Buddhist doctrines, noting the soundness of Vedanta over them, in the very last like of his karika he states that what he is writing about was not taught by Buddha (but is the doctrine of the Upanishads).

>>14384415
>The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge?
oh you mean the two truths doctrine? the same one where you were proved wrong time and time again and now you rephrase this copy pasta to avoid me proving you wrong again.

>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

>>14388045
It's a misnomer to refer to it as the two truths doctrine, Shankara never refers to it as such and only talks about higher/absolute knowledge and lower knowledge, Shankara doesn't say there are two truths which is why he says the world is unreal. That line does not in any way disprove the point that the Mundaka and the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka both make the diatinction of absolute and non-absolute knowledge hundreds of years before any Buddhist thinker did (Nagarjuan may have stole it from the Mundaka). That line you are quoting is not relevant because such a distinction was never considered by Advaita to be a doctrine of 'two truths', the label is the invention of modern scholars. I've explained this to you before but you are a seething schizo and just pretend that it never happened. There is no two truths because only absolute knowledge/reality is absolutely true, the empirical and non-absolute is ultimately false.

>>14387690
I can see why you would think that, although I'd add that his karika is really only aimed at sannyasins who have already renounced the transient world and who no longer harbor any attachments to anything, and also that this casting aside of the world is tempered by his descriptions of the supreme bliss of the Self and the one who knows It

>bruh maybe the plebs will buy this shit religion that has them sit quietly like machines when they aren't producing capitol.
Buddhism is a bugmen/whiteKid religion. BEEP BEEP. You can only clear your mind by sitting still in a mind charging station. BEEP BEEP. So enlightened.

>>14388129
based

>>14386907
Gaudapada is a pretty cool guy. Eh awakens from dreams and doesn't afraid of anything.

I don't think he was exposed to "Original Buddhism" which was only been tried while Ananda was alive and before the formation of the Abhidhamma while Buddha Dhamma was not in the Sarivastivadins though they did preserve the Pancanikayas in Pali script which is undeniably older than the other scripts used in Prakrit. Original Buddhism itself is a Neovedantic Neosramanic movement that had some obvious ties to the Sannyasins that sought nibbana and moksha and whatever one might call sammasamadhi. Gaudapada isn't original and neither is Gotama, yet they both have come to similar conclusions in original ways and the whole Buddhist notion of reincarnation was even at Gotama's time was a fringe theory which his own realization of is personal and not based on some maybe pre-Buddhist Upanishads(oral traditions are usually exaggerated, question everything, never take any swami or guru or bhikku at face value). No person owns the truth, they merely tap into the truth through neti-neti. It doesn't matter as to what kind of analogy is used to describe reality whether it be through an ancient vedic doctors' method of disease diagnosis or through dream metaphors based off of older dream metaphors from someone before you, both are the same with different nuanced elaborations in different ways.

Mahayanas are wrong to say that atman is sunyata when what is Anatta is know by what Atta is not. X is not Y, not Y isn't Y, Y as X is not Y but is Y in X, that Y in X perishes with X unless Y in X finds Y in Y in X as Y is Y despite Y in X is still in effect, Y cannot know Y without first being in the state of not Y which is the attribute or quality of Y as not Y yet Y is never directly participating in Y in X nor is Y as X by any means is Y. Gaudapada and all the other Advaitins never speak well of any form of Buddhism, valid or invalid and all invalid excuses are simply due to how Original Buddhism was taken over by soul denying Brahmin Jains LARPing as Buddhists that succeeded in murdering Gotama, namely Kashyapa/Kassapa and Cunda.

Buddhism had failed because of the lying scribes mistranslating various key words while some "Sola Scriptura" direct meaning for meaning translation and revival of Original Buddhism requires serious nonsectarian Buddhologists like Ken Wheeler, Caroline Rhys Davids, and Ananda K. Coomaraswamy who not only understands Pali but also ancient metaphysics in ancient Greek and a bit of Latin to translate certain abstruse terms into English by way of analogy of one idea with another in different cultures into the current English speaking world. A few Advaitins grasps the truths in the five nikayas but they're of course more invested in their own successful tradition, which is oddly why we will never see a non biased translation of the five nikayas any time soon in its full glory.

t. superior Ken Wheeler poster

>>14387680
see >>14386813
Approaching no-self with anything resembling a Cartesian framework is naturally going to fall apart. You can cling to a "common sense" ontology or you can choose to reflect critically on what you obstinately hold to be absolute.

>>14381633
literal who

>>14388872
The position you are advocating lacks any compelling arguments or supporting examples for why it's right and it also fails to stand up to critical scrutiny, which is a strong indication that it's wrong

>>14388994
Guenon's main influence

>88 replies
>28 posters
Why hasn't jannie done something useful in his life and actually ban guenonposter

>>14381741
>t-t-this is all wrong you just haven’t meditated enough
Buddhists unironically always fall back to this or...
>t-t-the Buddha wasn’t illogical he was just using expedient means!

>>14389463
>h-help me Jannie! Seguro is retroactively refuting me and I need you to censor him, please, y-you're my only hope...

>>14389647
kek, based

>>14389647
>>14389781
t. seguro

>>14389848
t. Ken

who is seguro people keep bringing up

>>14390423
t. literally who?
>>14390454
I want to know this too.

>>14387680
>Our self-evident conscious awareness
You mean puthujjana bias? Ask a realized Buddhist next time.
>The notion that consciousness is an emergent property is trendy among materialists but remains an unproven hypothesis.
Existence of brain proves it. Read Thomas Metzinger.
>When we look to the world to see if this aligns with common sense and logic we find no examples whatsoever of illusions such as mirages being sentient like we are.
So you need something similar to humans to say they are conscious? Why rocks can't be conscious? You don't know what consciousness is.
>If nothing has a real abiding existence or nature there is no reason why it would give rise to the continuum of conscious awareness that we all experience.
It's a perception produced by a mind. You don't know the difference between consciousness and perception.
>Emptiness is not self-aware, self-illuminating or self-comprehending.
These are the properties of a mind, that cannot arise without information processing and memory - and they're all empty.

>>14390614
based

>>14390614
>You mean puthujjana bias?
There is that famous Buddhist compassion
>Ask a realized Buddhist next time.
Like the arahant of escorts, Culadasa? kek
>Existence of brain proves it.
completely wrong, because the brain can still be observed and illuminated by the Atma which is not an object in space like the brain is. You are using thesame flawed reasoning as when people say brain damage disproves idealism without realizing that's like saying breaking the radio device shows that the radio waves only exist inside the radio
>So you need something similar to humans to say they are conscious? Why rocks can't be conscious?
There is no evidence whatsoever that they are and it would contradict what we know about the association of consiousness with organic life and so it should be rejected as a ridiculous hypothesis until evidence emerges for it
>It's a perception produced by a mind.
that's an unfalsifiable claim offered without any supporting evidence, like most Buddhist dogma I'd add
>These are the properties of a mind, that cannot arise without information processing and memory - and they're all empty.
You are simply restating Buddhist dogma without offering any evidence to support it or arguments for why it's correct, there are no good arguments whatsoever for your position but they all involve circular reasoning and ridiculous unsupported hypotheses which collapse like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil when subjected to scrutiny as Shankara noted in his Brahma Sutra commentary.

>>14391276
>There is that famous Buddhist compassion
One "compassionate" post is still better than painting half of the board with Guenon.
>Like the arahant of escorts, Culadasa? kek
Still better than Advaitins without practice and realization
>because the brain can still be observed and illuminated by the Atma
Unfalsifiable hypothesis.
>radio device
Nice, completely unsubstantiated /x/ tier hypothesis.
>it would contradict what we know about the association of consciousness with organic life
All we know are reports about perceptions. We don't know anything about consciousness, because it's essentially subjective.
>that's an unfalsifiable claim
Perceptions are certainly falsifable. They can be reported and confronted with causal chain of brain activity that brought them to existence. No one will report perceptions without working brain.
>You are simply restating Buddhist dogma without offering any evidence to support it
Working human brain is enough of an evidence. Why would I want to add self-aware, self-illuminating and self-comprehending soul onto a dumb brain?

>>14391716
See >>14381741

bump

>>14390454
??????

>>14390454
>>14390463

>>14393400
>bumping his dead thread
ok guenonfag

>>14393445
ok ken

>>14391716
>Unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Yes, but the point is the Vedantist openly admits to accepting the existence of the Atma on the basis of scripture while the Buddhist pretends that there are good or even foolproof arguments for his doctrine, when in actuality there are none and all the ones that are advanced collapse like a jenga tower, and they all contradict and are disproved by our actual experience. When confronted with their lack of any good arguments for Buddhist doctrine Buddhists like to fall back upon arguing for a materialist understanding of consciousness but this is fundamentally incompatible with the Buddhism they were arguing for a moment before.
>We don't know anything about consciousness
Than how could you possibly assert with any certainty that it's illusory?
>Nice, completely unsubstantiated /x/ tier hypothesis.
No not at all, it's a very simple point. You said that the existence of the brain proves that consciousness is an emergent property. This is completely wrong, the existence of the brain and related studies only show that the brain is involved in cognition and awareness, but that in itself does not in any way show that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, anymore than breaking a radio allows us to say that the music that came from it is an emergent property of the radio box. The only thing we can say is that the brain has a relationship with awareness/cognition, but this is hardly a refutation of the Atma as Advaita says that the Atma is separate from cognition, sensory data, memory etc. The connection of the brain with cognition doesn't disprove that there is an immaterial soul or Atma that has some sort of association or relationship with the brain as the charioteer does with his chariot.

Anyways, if you are arguing for a biological reductionist view of the brain and consciousness then Buddhism can't also be true, if consciousness is an emergent property of the electro-chemical processes in the brain then there is no way rebirth or karma or nirvana can be true, illusory emergent properties of nerves cannot be subject to karma or be reborn in another body.

>>14393436
Kek, I'm the first reply in that image, but Seguro was more zealous than I. There is more than one "guénonposter" but I don't make threads about traditionalists, I'm just happy to discuss whenever one pops up but this spamming of late is getting out of hand.

>>14389450
What are the arguments then? Which ones lack the coherence that you seek? If you're going to assert this position, then prove it. What objections can't the no-self doctrine rebut?

>>14393772
>What are the arguments then?
It depends on the Buddhist school of thought people argue from, and they often jump between the arguments of one to another and from those to materialist arguments as well, it would be a long and tiresome task with no reward for me to summarize all of them for you now, but here for example is an excerpt from Shankara's commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad where he demolishes common Buddhist arguments for no-self one after another.
>Which ones lack the coherence that you seek?
just about all of them, they all either are completely contradicted by our immediate experience and/or are logically inconsistent
>What objections can't the no-self doctrine rebut?
see pic related

>>14393891
>he DEMOLISHED and DESTROYED and DUNKED on him, logically
can you rephrase that to make it less cringey?

>>14394074
either post something that he wrote that you think is wrong, or post what you believe to be a good argument for no-self that he doesn't address, otherwise I don't care

>>14391276
>that's an unfalsifiable claim offered without any supporting evidence, like most Buddhist dogma I'd add
>completely wrong, because the brain can still be observed and illuminated by the Atma which is not an object in space like the brain is.

>>14394186
If you'd read a little more before replying you'd have seen I wrote here>>14393549

"Yes, but the point is the Vedantist openly admits to accepting the existence of the Atma on the basis of scripture while the Buddhist pretends that there are good or even foolproof arguments for his doctrine (of no-self), when in actuality there are none and all the ones that are advanced collapse like a jenga tower, and they all contradict and are disproved by our actual experience."

Also, our self-evident conscious awareness can be accepted as a placeholder self for the sake of argument without even bringing in the concept of Atma, the onus is on the Buddhist to argue why the self doesn't exist, not for the other side to prove that it does; because our undeniable experience as sentient beings many people would accept as selfhood, it's already a mark against the Buddhist claim right from the beginning.

>>14394233
The argument is that the Self is illusory, not that it isn't real. And by illusory it is meant that it is ever-changing and cannot be pinned down. What we call the self is made of what Buddhists call the 5 Aggregates: our sense experience, our bodies, our perceptions, our consciousness, and acts of will. (It's probably made of much more than that now that we have an even deeper understanding of the human body and mind). All these come together to create our idea of our selves, and because these things are constantly in flux our self is in flux. The term used is "empty" because nothing has a nature in itself but is made of many other substances and actions (which bring the substances together).
Now the counter-argument to this could be that what Buddhists call the self may be more accurately called the ego, and maybe our consciousness is what the Self is.

>>14394310
Thank you for the clarification but I'm already aware of everything that you wrote, the issue is that no arguments or reasons for why it's right have been offered though which is what I was asking for

>>14394098
nah that anon is right, he sounds like a stupid retard.

>>14394413
Your question was for an argument for why the self didn't exist. My response was to say that you did not understand the Buddhist perspective. And your response was "I already know this" (which you don't) and restating your desire for an argument to a perspective which is not held.

>>14394233
See >>14394310
You don't understand the view of the Buddhist. If you did, you would find your conscious awareness to be a piece of the aggregates. It isn't that the Buddhist denies the existence of consciousness but Madhyamaka especially denies the view of essentialism. There is no essence (substance) to us as a Self that is permanent and not subject to space and time, this is emptiness.

>>14394897
Yes, I'm already aware *what* the Buddhist dogma is as I have stated, I'm simply asking whether there are any arguments to be made for it in support of it.

>>14394461
cope

Fuck it I'll just wiki "metaphysics" and figure it out on my own you cunts

>>14395940
did you have a question that you wanted answered?

>>14396007
Yes, briefly, "Hinduism vs Buddhism", specifically Advaita vs Mahayana. I'm not into "worshiping" but rather more into "understanding". I want to know what different ideas there are about reality and I want to compare it to whatever fragmented notions I have of my own. But these threads get annoying as do almost all discussions about unjustifiable claims.

>>14396095
If you could narrow down your question to something more specific I could answer more in depth. Advaita Vedanta says that there is an absolute reality which is the unborn, immutable, eternal Supreme Being and that what we observe as the phenomenal world is really an appearance cause by said Being's power of maya. Advaita is a single school of thought though whereas Mahayana Buddhism has a wide range of schools each with different positions on the subject of 'reality'. A popular position is the sunyata of madhaymaka which holds more less that there is no absolute reality and that everything is empty of inherent existence/self-nature and that one is supposed to attain nirvana by realizing the inherent contradictions of thought and giving up all views, and that by doing so one ends all rumination and attachments etc and becomes freed and stops being reborn. However in Mahayana there also exists almost the complete opposite and you find some schools and teachers teaching there is an absolute reality which they identity with Nirvana/Tathagatagarbha/Dharmakaya etc, these often come very close to the position of Advaita (i.e. the early Yogachara of Asanga, Tibetan Jonang, the Chan Buddhism of Huangpo etc).

You also have a lot of schools which combine elements from both of these positions. Nagarjuna's works are generally terse and somewhat cryptic, and also there are many works bearing his name which seem to hold different positions, this has allowed Buddhist thinkers supporting just about every position to cite him as supporting their position. You can find dozens of commentaries on Nagarjuna's works each saying that he is teaching very different things. Sometimes people on /lit/ try to claim that actually everyone in Mahayana fully accepts and adheres to the madhyamaka understanding of emptiness but this is just sectarian posturing that's plainly wrong and is contradicted by many examples such as the ones I named above, not for the least because there are dozens of interpretations of what this actually means. Even the early thinkers and disciples in the school Nagarjuna established are not free from the confusion, the Buddhist scholar David Kalupuhana in one of his books accuses the important madhyamaka commentator Chandrakirti of being a 'crypto-Vedantist' for example.

>>14381633
based Sankara

>>14395663
see>>14394467

>>14395663
>>14397409
Also the argument is available in this post: >>14394310. The Buddhist assertion is that the Self is illusory. The argument is in the 5 Aggregates and how they are constantly changing.

>>14397409
Okay fine, if you want me to restate my question then I'm asking for an argument for why the Buddhist position on the self is correct. Also, do you realize how completely meaningless and obnoxious it is here >>14394897 when you say "If you did, you would find your conscious awareness to be a piece of the aggregates"? That's what everyone else can say with equal justification. The Vedantist can say "if you just examined your own consciousness you would find that your Self is the pure awareness in which everything else appears" or the Abrahamic can say "if you just understood the notion of X you would see you have an immortal soul made in God's image" etc. That's just circular logic without any real foundation, "if you understood the doctrine I agree with you'd see that it's right" wow, these are some ironclad arguments pal

>>14397519
>Also the argument is available in this post:
No it's not. You've merely restated Buddhist dogma without giving a single reason why we should accept it as true. If you don't have any reasons then just admit it already

>>14397563
I didn't write >>14394897.
But to say that consciousness isn't a piece of what we call the self would be outright incorrect.
However, I guess it would matter what you assert the self to be: the ego or the Self. In Buddhism the idea of self is more aligned with ego, or the image that we portray to the world, the idea of who we are. It seems that in Vedantist philosophy the self is associated with the higher, immutable self that lies beyond just the workings of our mind.
And Buddhism doesn't necessarily disagree with the idea of a state (of the person and the world at large) that lies beyond the illusory. That's what Buddha-nature is. Or Sunyata. Or Dao (which is used in Zen). Again this comes down to a miss-understanding of terms. Emptiness does not mean "not there", but "that which is filled to create the world". In all honesty I don't think there's much of a difference between Buddhism and Vedantism (in fact Advaita Vedanta has influenced Zen to some degree), but a miss-understanding.
And I harp on this miss-understanding because you have been making a dishonest effort at arguing against Buddhism throughout this thread. You've made the assertion that Buddhism holds a view that it does not, and are still insisting on an argument that is not there. I didn't hop into the conversation to make arguments for the view, but to clarify the view.
And to circle back around to the question of consciousness: I don't feel as though my consciousness or awareness is my absolute self. However I'm not saying that that isn't at-all the case. In fact one of the good things about Buddhist philosophy is the acceptance that my views will inevitably change and I will be a new person. After all, I am not the same person as the me from five years ago, and I certainly won't be the same me five years from now.
>>14397605
Come on, dude, you're just being rude here. We're having a discussion. It should be fun.

>>14397563

Not him, returning to this thread after a day.

Your argument for an absolute subject is just as circular.

>It is so because it is self-evident from my world view.

As in Aristotle's cave your clinging to "common sense" prevents you from considering that anything else could be possible. To be sure, we live so deep within the Cartesian hangover that it is difficult to conceptualize anything other than an indivisible subject.

Here I will detour a bit. The Freudian tradition is helpful in that it destabilizes the notion that we are self-regulating, self-composing, self-understanding cogito.
If you really sit and think, how sure are you that your thinking "I" exists? Where does it start and end? Is that "I" the same medium you experience in your dreams?

None of this is the empirical proof you are looking for but you must confront your own biases before you conclude that your own view is correct just because you can't see anything wrong with it.

does anyone else find that guenonfag argues like a woman? it's just a vibe i get

i showed his posts to a friend and he had the perfect word for them: 'catty'

>>14396284
>>14396095

This anon is correct about Nagarjuna. There are debates as to what books, verses, etc. are his. Stick with the Mulamadhymakakarika if you're interested and branch out to the Vigrahavyavartani. There are many good commentaries and each ascribe different views to Nagarjuna. Earlier (pre-1950 esp) interpretations called him a nihilist, this is deniably false. However, some have said he is similar to Pragmatists (Kalupahana), Hegelian Idealism (Radhakrishnan), or Phenomenologists (Garfield). If you are interested Jan Westerhoff and Guy Newland do a good job explaining it to complete newbies, after that Kalupahana, Ruegg, and Garfield will be a lot clearer.

Anon is right that Madhyamaka is not fully agreed upon in Mahayana and nor was it really ever fully accepted to other Buddhist schools. T'ien-tai, some Chan, and Zen can be seen as partial heirs to Madhyamaka, each with a differing take.

But to clarify: Abandoning all views means the forms of metaphysical speculation that people readily engaged in. Not simply any doxa or position on any matter. Madhyamaka is not Zen and does not fully undermine reason. It can be interpreted as anti-philosophical but the collapsing of the two truths into one still leaves an individual asking: What is Nirvana then and how does one get to it? These are philosophical questions that remain rooted in our living and reason is needed to arrive at proper answers just like using reason is needed to conclude the emptiness of all things.

What Nirvana ends up being and how one achieves it is up for debate. There are some which purport a more eudaimonic virtue ethic (Mackenzie, Kweon), a virtue consequentialism, consequentialism (Goodman, Gatsch), or a mix of virtue ethics, consequentialism, and deontology. This requires a serious commitment to determining which is the appropriate reading of certain texts and is a very hotly debated topic.

>>14398259
What is empty of what and who is bearing witness to it and if it can be witnessed it is not empty because you are in it, for if there is no other foundation to be found, you are that foundation, that you is ultimate reality, all is one without a second, no otherness is found. The source of light is not what that light illuminates, light is in principle not its attribute, it cannot be illuminated, it is invisible. By looking towards the source of illumination as to where it converges towards one approaches the source of illumination that's right behind the veil of illumination. Light sees Self in you the illumination and welcomes Self in.

>>14398439
Ken, why do you believe Shankara didn't write the commentaries ascribed to him? I've read a good amount of both his commentaries and non-commmetary works and I didn't notice any substantial difference

>>14398439
my god you are so stupid

>>14381633
https://discord.gg/5K6hxF9

Official esoteric and exoteric lit server. In need of strong individual leaders and thinkers!

>>14398439
Emptiness is a lacking of inherent existence. That means to lack a self that isn't changed by conditions around you. Your awareness is changed constantly. You will die and your awareness will cease much like it arose, it will always be contingent and conditioned by things within space and time. Identity needs difference to exist. All things have a dependence to others for their existence.

>>14398913
X lacks inherent existence because inherent existence is inherently existent regardless of X, that doesn't mean emptiness is absolute, rather, there is nothing that is empty in and of itself without something that is not empty to be said to be empty. A lack or dearth of reality in and of itself cannot be reality, while something in relation to something else "lacks" realness in relation to it. Like a flickering flame, the principle behind the flame keeps it lit even though it appears and reappears, the avijja of the atta is what is behind the cause of samsara which that causation is itself acausal. Existential consciousness lacks absolute deathless essence because it is coordinate to the body, so it will die with the body, but that doesn't negate the atta, death only temporally severs the Self from not-Self, there is a not-Self because there is the Self. All reality, both metaphysical and physical is in totality already united in spirit and in manifold, though it isn't to say that they're by any means neutrally equivalent, rather, the very essence of the four elements is itself from one metaphysical element which can only be the Self in expression as aether/akasha/"space"/magnitude/circular radial polarized motion/"force" that phases in and out of material existence from the one metaphysical medium that is light in principle, whereas matter is a modality of that field taking on cartesian three dimensionality from two dimensionality. The very expression of duality is from the division of the One against itself without negating the One but also with the other half being more than One as well as being able to indefinitely divide all of its parts. Fractal supersymmetry cannot be proceeded without the One and the first division at golden mean proportions. https://ia800207.us.archive.org/1/items/IndefiniteDyadPlotinusMetaphysicsMysticism/IndefiniteDyadPlotinusMetaphysicsMysticism.pdf https://ia800803.us.archive.org/15/items/PythagorasPlatoAndTheGoldenRatio/PythagoreanGoldenRatio.pdf

>>14399145
>that doesn't mean emptiness is absolute
Emptiness isn't absolute, emptiness itself is empty.

>>14399357
That doesn't mean emptiness exists at all since there is something rather than nothing. What people call emptiness is in relation to something that is not empty. The aggregates are still something even though they're not the Self that doesn't mean there is no Self at all. Emptiness, nothingness, that is less real than aggregates which are the false self bound to death. Identification in what is not the immortal Self is the source of all metaphysical suffering that lead to false self identification in that which is not the true Self, while that ineffable realization ends metaphysical suffering even though psychological and physical suffering still persists after purisha, moksha, cittavimutti, samadhi, etc., nibbana must be actualized before parinibbana.

>>14399546
What is the Self then? What ground do you have to proud an ineffable Oneness that is permanent? Obviously we do not experience permanence in life and any attempt to project permanence to things is reification because it's convenient to put a term on something we have continuity of and treat as if it were the same thing.

>>14398439
>>14399145
>>14399546
Do we have to go back to definitions? You are still arguing that Buddhists believe the self or a transcendent nature doesn't exist, which is untrue.
Refer to:
>>14394310
>>14394467
>>14394897
>>14397700

>>14399145
>my /x/tier pentagram drawings affirm my faith in an absolute subject. This is all common sense anyway.
>It’s you Buddhists who don’t understand Buddhism aaaaaa I can’t hear you I won’t listen to people repeatedly pointing out misconceptions at every level of my argument

>>14399991
The Absolute is the Self. Tat Tvam Asi. That which knows eternal truths is itself eternal, there is no Platonic Forms/Intelligible Realm without the Intellect, while that Intellect which knows thyself first unknows all that is not the True Self in principle despite knowing the True Self in attribution since there is no principle without some attribute. There is a cosmological duality of the noetic and the mimetic-hylic and any distinctions are present from a bottom up logic but such illusions are destroyed from the top down perspective that is only known through neti-neti. Any positive upward descriptive anagogical allegories are meaningless to those who haven't mastered neti-neti, but if you negate everything that is both real and unreal, you have messed up. There is no positive (thought)object-proof of Self-Knowledge for it isn't a thought-object to be reference to but that doesn't mean there is no positive expressions possible, rather, it will take an eternity to explain it in total, neither does it mean proof by negation has no meaning, it just cannot be directly known, it isn't inductive nor deductive yet has elements of both. The first principle and the first attribute of the first principle are One. What is reified is any concept that has no principality and cannot exist in and of itself due to it having no attributes, it is itself an attribute of a higher, truer ontological order of reality. Shadows are a lack of illumination but that doesn't mean there is no light. Chaos is a lack of understanding but that doesn't mean there is no order. Emptiness is a lack of object(s) at a location in time but that doesn't mean there is no subject that perceives emptiness. A half empty glass of water is half filled but the water nevertheless Is, while the space that water could fill in the glass isn't done at the full capacity of the glass. All perceived emptiness is due to objectification of the space proportionally relative to the glass. That glass is not the Self/water, the relation of water to glass is perceived illusion of distinctions. There is water outside the glass of water when the glass of water shatters.

>>14400328
I don't believe that analogy works. Unless I misunderstand. Light must have darkness to be understood, chaos and order rely on each-other.
There's also a half-understanding of emptiness going on here. Emptiness simply means ever-changing. It also refers to the interrelated nature of objects like I stated just a second ago. Objects or concepts depend on other objects/concepts to exist. The glass you used in your analogy is not a cup without the empty space within it or without fluids to fill it. It is not something without the sand to create the glass of the cup, or the person to make the cup. Likewise that water (which you ascribed to being the self) is not something without its individual parts (which are in turn made of separate parts). It is also not something without other object-events to contrast it with. If the entire universe were water and there was no other thing but water, water itself could not be said to be a thing, because there would be no other thing to describe what that water is not.

If Brahman is unchanging and unaffected by Maya, how is it that Brahman/the Atman can be awakened? Doesn't Vedanta end up at the same issue Vedantists are complaining about with the no self thing where the illusion seemingly exists only to itself rather than to some real self trapped within?

>>14400434
>>14400328
This is what I said in>>14398913. This guy needs a better understanding of dependence. Dependence takes two general forms: notional dependence and existential dependence. Notional dependence is more of a conceptual relationship. For instance, the examples of an aunt and a nephew which shows that existentially there is no reliance on each other but only that the identification of one is reliant on the other. Existential dependence is an object's existence being subject to constitutive causes (pratyaya) like a seed has soil, sunlight, and water which causes its growth. Existential dependence has three varieties: causal dependence, mereological dependence, and conceptual dependence. Causal dependence is based on a reliance of causes and conditions (like the seed), mereological dependence is based on a reliance of parts to comprise a whole (pieces to a table), and conceptual dependence is a relationship shared between a designator (mind) and a designatee (things).

>>14400434
There is something called "taking the analogy too far", which in doing so, missing the point or perhaps in your case, denying the point. If you deny that there can ever be a static sublime transcendent Self that isn't a corporeal being bound to rebirth and rebecoming, you will keep on thinking how you like, I am of no help to you. Anatta is not a real doctrine, it is no different than saying "na me so atta". The aggregates is not the True-Identity(Atta/atman) of the Absolute, while the Absolute is not and cannot not be itself. Non-self is what is not the Transcendent noncorporeal noncartesian nonemergent principle behind the attribute of the non-self objectification through primordial agnosis. Illumination is expressed through material resistance of the light perturbation expressing diffraction and scattering. Light is in principle invisible. If there was an hypothetical invisible man, that man sees nothing for light to become illumination, it needs to have resistance against the material composition of the eye. It isn't that there is no light, rather, it is invisible. There is no illumination without objects but that doesn't mean there is no light in principle. Unfortunately modern science objectify everything into measurable quantities of expression treated as objects. Sound for example isn't a particle yet its effects can be measured by objects as a quasiparticle. Let's use the sound analogy without taking it too far. Imagine a hypothetical 100% transparent living being without any material body, that being cannot hear the sound because their eardrums doesn't pick up any disturbance of the air since the air pressure cannot interact with the wholly transparent body. No real Advaitin nor Neoplatonist or even Buddhists that do adhere to Platonic Realism are claiming that there's a super-corporeal psycho-physical namarupic sky daddy somewhere beyond objective reality while maintaining objective form bound to mortality. Goodnight.

>>14400640
>There is something called "taking the analogy too far", which in doing so, missing the point or perhaps in your case, denying the point. If you deny that there can ever be a static sublime transcendent Self that isn't a corporeal being bound to rebirth and rebecoming, you will keep on thinking how you like, I am of no help to you. Anatta is not a real doctrine, it is no different than saying "na me so atta". The aggregates is not the True-Identity(Atta/atman) of the Absolute, while the Absolute is not and cannot not be itself. Non-self is what is not the Transcendent noncorporeal noncartesian nonemergent principle behind the attribute of the non-self objectification through primordial agnosis.
No argument made, simply a statement of dogma. This was just word salad, dude. Don't try to hide your point under unnecessary verbosity.
Also that's not taking the analogy too far. You were stating that there is something (the water) that stands by itself and cannot be divided further. I was responding by expanding on that analogy to argue that that something (the water) is itself made of other object-events.
Also see:
>>14400538
>>14398913
>There is no illumination without objects but that doesn't mean there is no light in principle.
I am not saying that if all there was was light, then light wouldn't exist, I'm saying there would be no concept of what light even is, because no other object would exist to show what light is not. Likewise if there was no light, and only darkness, we could not describe darkness because there would be no light to contrast it.

>>14400753
>I'm saying there would be no concept of what light even is, because no other object would exist to show what light is not
Yes but conceptualization is not needed here and does not occur in Nirguna Brahman as It is free of all distinctions and thoughts. The very nature of light and awareness is self-luminous illumination; and so objects are not needed for the 'Awareness' of Nirguna Brahman to abide forever as undifferentiated and immutable Bliss-Consiousness, because by the very fact of It subsisting as Awareness, It is a consious presence prior to all objects.

buddhism is the most cringe religion

>>14401394
Why did Shankara copy it then?

>>14400501
>If Brahman is unchanging and unaffected by Maya, how is it that Brahman/the Atman can be awakened?
The Atma is not awakened because It was never asleep, It's never bound and is always and forever eternally liberated. It is the Atma's power of maya which causes the impression that one is bound, but when this ignorance is burnt up by knowledge, it is revealed that the Atma was never really bound to begin with.
>Doesn't Vedanta end up at the same issue Vedantists are complaining about with the no self thing where the illusion seemingly exists only to itself rather than to some real self trapped within?
No, because this illusion takes place within the intellect that is illuminated by the light of Atma, but the Atma is completely unaffected by that which It illuminates. The transcendent Atma who is the Lord exists as formless, unattached, unaffected Awareness and from His maya is projected all manifestation and the illusion of embodiment etc, the falling into ignorance only subjectively seems to occur to the intellect of the unreal beings projected by maya, while the transcendent awareness animating them through the illumination of their intellect which is responsible for their sentience is Itself unattached and unaffected formless blissful awareness, but this isn't immediately apparent because the Atma is identified by them with the intellect and its attributes and modifications. This is why the Atma is said by the Upanishads to remain hidden within one's consciousness like the stalk of a grain and why one is supposed to remove the sheaths (koshas) covering it. When people say "well if Brahman/Atma isn't affected why is there conscious experience of samsara?" it's because they are mistakenly identifying the intellect and its sensations with the Atma. Just as the eye cannot see itself one cannot take anything registeed by the mind and senses as a sign that the Atma is affected in any way because every thought and sensory data etc which one might use as a basis for that claim appears and dissapers within an unchanging prism of awareness which is prior to them. When you say "X thing shows that the Self is bound" then it's already too late as that very thought is witnessed by and appears to an ungraspable awareness which is prior to that thought and so the claim is baseless.

>>14401423
see
>>14384415

>>14401433
That post was refuted by another response, so you have not answered my question. Why was Shankara a cryptobuddhist if Buddhism was cringe? Even Vivekananda says he was a cryptobuddhist, that's high praise for Buddhism.

>>14401330
Now while there are certain things in your response worth addressing, I think we would just end up talking in circles.
The one major thing that I would want to address though is the idea that Nirguna Brahman and Sunyata are necessarily different. Nirguna means without attributes. Sunyata means emptiness. Both are the ultimate reality in either philosophy (which are both non-dualist philosophies) and fill the entirety of the universe and is present in all things. Also many scholars recognize Sunyata as an influence on the idea of Nirguna Brahman. So, to be frank, Nirguna Brahman is honestly a restating of an already held doctrine within Buddhism.
And since Nirguna Brahman is supposed to be attribute-less I don't see how terms like Awareness or Bliss-Consciousness can be assigned to it.

>>14401427
Well this argument does not have a basis in a phenomenology a revolving around our experience, I'd say this isn't worth the effort of engaging with.

>>14401645
>Also many scholars recognize Sunyata as an influence on the idea of Nirguna Brahman. So, to be frank, Nirguna Brahman is honestly a restating of an already held doctrine within Buddhism.
That's incorrect, like virtually every other major doctrine of Advaita that concept can be traced to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads; where the denial of all attributes and objects in absolute reality is found in such lines as in the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad line (7.24.1), where it says:

1. Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing else. But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’.

>>14402521
that doesn't negate what he said.

>>14402535
Yes it does though, because when the ideas is clearly expressed in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads it makes no sense at all to say they are restating something already in Buddhist doctrine or that this idea was influenced by Buddhism because this is a Hindu doctrine that predates Buddhism. The same idea is also found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in addition to the Chandogya as well I would add, such as in the following line:

That indeed is his form—free from desires, free from evils, free from fear. As a man fully embraced by his beloved wife knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within, so does this infinite being (the self), when fully embraced by the Supreme Self, know nothing that is without, nothing that is within. That indeed is his form, in which all his desires are fulfilled, in which all desires become the self and which is free from desires and devoid of grief. (Brihadaranyaka 4.3.21)

>criticizes others for falling on claims of revelation
>ultimately all he can back his own ideas up with is claims of revelation
Wow, great 'thinker' you have there guenonfag

>>14384415
>>14401433
It's really easy to see similarities in other writings after you've been shown the Truth by someone. I could probably go the Eddas and try to point out how it teaches non-dualism too.

You have people saying Jesus taught non-dualism too and then cherrypicking quotes from the Bible.

>>14402590
This, he is clearly a devout hindu and believes the vedas are sruti (and thus infallible) so he does what every religious dogmatist does, appeals to casuistry and generous interpretations of his scripture to prove "look look, my particular interpretation was already there all along" even though the Upanishads, let alone the Vedas, say numerous things that contradict the advaita interpretation.

Also the only two prebuddhist upanishads were still influenced by the same pre-upanishadic sramanas from which buddhist and jain communities emerged, so it's of course much more complicated than saying x influenced y.

>>14402634
This also. I mean, a real conversation about the interchange between Buddhism, sramanas, the Upanishad writers, and the brahmanic class would all be very interesting. But you can't do that from a dogmatic basis assuming your tradition is simply correct by default, when that is the thing to be proved in the first place.

>>14402658
>appeals to tradition to deny tradition to appeal to tradition
>equivocates emptiness as ultimate reality on equal footing with the Self
There is only flux in an horizontal axis, there's no flux in the vertical axis. The reason metaphysical are in utter True-Self Denial is that they cannot objectively find the subjective principle behind matter. Like a sockpuppet denying the hand, the sockpuppet is only alive in embodiment of the subject onto object, ceases to be alive with the disembodiment of the hand from the sockpuppet renders it into a mere sock, but both disembodiment and embodiment is flux and reflux. Like a person in a movie theater room seeing multiple runs of the movie over and over, projects identity onto the project image of a being, finds happiness and joy as well as sadness and despair from what the image of the body goes through, what goes on in the delusion in immersion is unreal, and the realization thereof is to leave the movie theater after the current run of the movie is finished, not preemptively before it is over for the sake of seeing a different movie in a different movie theater room thinking you haven't got your money's worth, but instead to go outside and see the natural light of the sun to never again go back into the movie theater with its man made light of the movie projector and the projected light expressed through the film roll onto the wall which that projected image is coordinate to the film but without the film the projected image also isn't there. The denial of the reality of phenomenon isn't therefore claiming the ultimate reality of phenomena is sunyata, rather the underlying noumenon behind the phenomenon is ultimate reality in total explains the illusory nature of sunyata. Advaitins are generally wrong in implying Gotama was wholly dependent on Upanishadic revelation but they are right that modern Buddhists have the wrong interpretation of the nikayas. Tradition doesn't validate anything since metaphysical truths are like perennial flowers that never fully die out from the seasons of man, but that isn't to say certain expressions of those metaphysical truths aren't better and truer than other traditions from the standpoint of the Absolute.

>>14403669
*The reason metaphysical annihilationists/abrahmanic/nominalists are...

>>14402571
He means it does not negate what was said about how similar Nirguna Brahman and Sunyata are. And the fact that if something is attribute-less it cannot be attributed awareness or bliss-consciousness.
Also, In this post >>14401330 it was said :
>It is a consious presence prior to all objects.
The issue with the idea of a consciousness standing separate or before all things is that without other objects to differentiate itself from, that consciousness/self could not even understand what it is because it has nothing to mark its own place in time and space. This is why Brahman itself is empty (Sunyata) (which is even stated in Vedantist Philosophy by the idea that Nirguna Brahman is without attributes) because it must rely on other things to even be aware of itself. Without sensory input a mind would not be able to develop an identity because an identity is the relation of said mind with the world around it. So if there were no other object-events to be recognized in relation to the mind, the mind could not know its own existence. Without something else to interact with, a consciousness essentially becomes nothing.
Again this is not to negate the idea of Nirguna Brahman but to show it does not necessarily act in opposition to Buddhist philosophy, and is almost indistinguishable from Sunyata. In fact I would say they bolster each other. Sunyata, like Nirguna Brahman, is supposed to be evident in everything. And if both are empty or, as Vedantists put it, without attributes, then emptiness is what lies at the center of all things and is the highest reality.

>>14381633
I'm not sure I want the result of meditation, or to obtain it in that way.

>>14381633
Where do I start with him?

in 2020 and beyond /lit/ will be an aztec board, all of you are getting sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli. there is no maya, only teotl, and the sun must continue to burn. guenonfag will be the first to go

>>14404022
Start here, read volume 1 first

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>>14403936
Consider the following: descriptions are never explanations. Any attempt to explain anything is not the understanding behind the words. What is English to ants that communicate with pheromones? What is meaning without language? You cannot rely on language for all types of understanding. What comes before language is communication, and before communication, the body. Any immaterial descriptions rely on material i.e. computer keyboard and an agreed upon axioms of descriptions for words which itself requires creative imaginative thinking, a capable body, and a big enough brain to process signs as meaning that cannot be described by objects alone. Even attempts to describe non-objects are through objects. To posit anything is impossible if it isn't reducible to matter if you deny the True-Self that sees the body that sees the image of the body and only posit the body that sees itself in the mirror is the only kind of self and no other selves to be spoken of. To even say that there is no True-Self presupposes its reality only to reject it later as a material figment of the imagination from molecular interactions of protein signals by neural synapses. You cannot attribute emptiness as ultimate reality when it is an attribute of matter that is in perpetuated flux, changing forms in one body to another. Neither sunyata nor brahman are real if you really take this logic to its ultimate conclusion leads to an inevitable self affirming circular reasoning in saying reason is due to matter and matter is what lead to reason, so anything that is outside this loop is wrong. Phenomenology cannot explain what is matter for it had axiomatically placed matter on its pedestal, any emptiness of flux is unreal in relation to matter which always is as long as it isn't destroyed, so emptiness isn't ultimate reality and neither is the Absolute unless one claims matter is both absolute and empty. Such a plurality is not really acceptable by Advaita Vedanta and to say otherwise is not to understand their basic doctrines even if you don't accept it. A similar case can be said to some Theravadins that deny Indian Atomism of the Jains and the later Sarivastivadins that influenced some Mahayana interpretations. Physical reality rests upon one of the following two foundations: a metaphysical substrate behind both light and matter, or matter at any and all scales from macro to micro fills all space in any location in time, thereby claiming the vacuum sealed chamber is still filled with nonclassical particles and wireless induction is too a form of wire induction but with extra steps using a medium that has matter all the way down even if classical atoms can't detect it for it is smaller than atoms.

>>14404175
Again, Buddhists do not believe that the self or transcendent existence do not exist, but that they are always changing and are made what they are by their relation to other object-events.
Again you are misunderstanding the Buddhist perspective. Emptiness does not mean: "not anything". And I do not use the word "nothing" in my last post in a literal sense, but to point to the fact that if a singular object or entity (or whatever term is appropriate because these concepts go beyond simple objects) stands alone, without anything else (whatever that anything else is) to show/describe what that "something" is not, what could you say that "something" is. This ISN'T to say that that "something" isn't there, but that it has no attributes, meaning it is empty (again, does not mean what you continue to assert it means).
Again, I'm not arguing against the idea of Nirguna Brahman, but am asserting that it is the same as Sunyata.
>You cannot rely on language for all types of understanding.
I agree with this, but you cannot use that as a way to escape my arguments.
>To even say that there is no True-Self
Never made that claim. The True-Self is Sunyata, or Nirguna Brahman.
> You cannot attribute emptiness as ultimate reality when it is an attribute of matter that is in perpetuated flux, changing forms in one body to another.
I do not believe in literal reincarnation.

>>14404371
Claiming that sunyata as no attributes as the only ultimate principle is said OF Nirguna Brahman that IS transcendent unmanifest essence that IS the Atman. You cannot have Brahman without Atman, you cannot have sunyata without Nirguna Brahman, it is Nirguna Brahman that goes through sunyata but that doesn't mean there is sunyata alone. That something having no attribute is itself an attribute of the principle as the whole, the destruction of distinction of principle and attribute, essence and expression. There can be no holism by attributelessness in and of itself.

Physical reincarnation is real, it's science. You eat plant matter, that plant matter becomes the matter your body uses, becomes a part of the body to an extent, leaving out what the body doesn't use at the back end that is assimilated into the soil for plant life to use for its own body. That's the only kind of reincarnation is to be done and is admitted to be real by materialists. There is no reincarnation of a specific instance of a living body as no two bodies are the same even with the same genes and environment but the material constituents of the body nevertheless is physically reincarnated into other bodies.

>>14404117
based

>>14404117
Aztec philosophy was retroactively refuted by Parmenides and Guenon

bump

>>14404479
Sunyata is sunnatta in Pali which depending on whom you ask, is no different than anatta. How can Brahman (both Saguna and Nirguna are ultimately "One", Whole) be Atta/Atman when Nirguna Brahman is 'empty' without attributes without denying the Atta/Atman is to say that anatta/anatman is empty of attributes since an attribute of a principle without having attributes itself means it isn't a principle either. Vinnana/Vijnana isn't Citta, but the disobjectification of the thought-object knowing of vinnana as means for thought-thought knowing of the Citta is what leads to Brahma-bhutena-atmana, that is what Self-Liberation is, liberation from the non-self impermanent yet perpetuated five aggregates. The True-Self is the deathless essence of the Atta that cannot be objectively destroyed. All the aggregates are not the Atta in principle. What is anatta is the lack of principle permanent transcendent essence that partakes not with manifold psycho-physical composite vessel animation. Emanation of essence is expression of essence, distinctions in expressions to be without essence in and of itself is true but that doesn't mean there is no essence. Anti-essentialism without attributes equal to Nirguna Brahman doesn't explain false apparent dualism without pushing for hard dualistic division without any means of return to the Absolute. Hard cosmological dualism and anti-essentialism leads to no transcendence of Self/Saguna Brahman from maya nor mara when Self in total is falsely equated to namarupa/corporeal psycho-physical being which these stupid sects are claiming without much intuition at all to see if it's logically sound and not merely treated as an epistemologically valid system.

>>14404479
>Physical reincarnation is real, it's science.
Oh i agree with that whole second paragraph. I meant I don't believe in reincarnation in the sense of transmigration of a soul from one body to the next. Of course i agree with the idea of inter-relatedness, and this goes to further my opinion that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta aren't very different.
Either way I legitimately enjoyed this thread and the discussion we had. I came out the other end understanding things a bit more and while I disagree with you still, you helped to expand my view. Best of luck to you AdvaitaAnon

>>14403936
>and the fact that if something is attribute-less it cannot be attributed awareness or bliss-consciousness.
Yes it can, you are just subordinating the other aspects to attributeless because I would assume it conforms to your preferences. Para-Brahman is immutable Bliss-Awareness without any distinctions or attributes that make It other than pure undifferentiated Bliss, and this Bliss contains Awareness by default as only a sentient entity can experience or be Bliss. The Upanishads describe the Supreme Brahman as all three, and Advaita fully accepts this. You are free to disagree that this is possible or logical, but the moment you claim that Nirguna Brahman is just attributelessness without Bliss or Awareness, you are no longer talking about actual Advaita but a Buddhist interpretation of Advaita that bares little resemblance to the real thing, hence it's inane of you to claim that Nirguna Brahman is actually the same or highly similar to Sunyata because what you are imagining to be Nirguna Brahman is completely divorced from what Advaita actually understand it to be. A more accurate rendition of Nirguna is 'without distinctions', distinctions from what? from other than Itself, which is not empty.
>The issue with the idea of a consciousness standing separate or before all things is that without other objects to differentiate itself from, that consciousness/self could not even understand what it is because it has nothing to mark its own place in time and space.
As has been explained already in this thread, Nirguna Brahman is without mind and does not need to distinguish Itself from anything or understand Itself because it is already immutable Bliss, you seem to be making the mistake of projecting the attributes, tendencies and needs of the intellect onto Nirguna Brahman which is pure Consiousness without any objects or rumination. Little to none of the common Buddhist positions on human consciousness would be accepted by Advaita as applying to Atma/Brahman (which is Itself not human

>>14406945
>This is why Brahman itself is empty (Sunyata) (which is even stated in Vedantist Philosophy by the idea that Nirguna Brahman is without attributes)
That's wrong, Brahman is described in the Upanishads as purna (full) and purnam (fullness), it is only empty of differentiation/modification like a still but full pond is empty of ripples
>because it must rely on other things to even be aware of itself.
That's incorrect, Advaita does not say that Nirguna Brahman needs other things to be aware of Itself but that It's very nature is unbound self-luminous Awareness. This Awareness is always cognizant of it's own nature as the primordial and all-pervasive sentient entity without being dependent on objects for that Self-Awareness.
>Without sensory input a mind would not be able to develop an identity
Nirguna Brahman is without mind and so there is no question of 'developing an entity', You are trying to build a case on arguments that are wholly inapplicable to actual Advaita doctrine. The Awareness of Brahman does not follow the same rules and patterns as the human intellect
>Without something else to interact with, a consciousness essentially becomes nothing.
Advaita completely rejects that logic as inapplicable to Brahman as the previous part of this post has explained
>And if both are then emptiness is what lies at the center of all things and is the highest reality.
Again, Advaita holds that it's not that attributelessness is the ultimate nature of everything but that an immutable and eternal Bliss (which by default includes and *is* Awareness) which is devoid of all attributes other than that which is It's own immutable self-nature, i.e. Bliss, is the highest reality, which is completely different than sunyata. I would advise you to read some of Shankara's works before commenting on Advaita further.

>>14381716
>"Even such an astute Buddhologist as Rozenberg"
Everytime.

>>14406945
>>14406949
These posts are just restatements of the beliefs and does not grapple with the arguments.
>That's incorrect, Advaita does not say that Nirguna Brahman needs other things to be aware of Itself but that It's very nature is unbound self-luminous Awareness
Ok, that may be what is believed but it does not refute the argumentation. It's a reliance on circular reasoning.
>The Awareness of Brahman does not follow the same rules and patterns as the human intellect
Can you make an argument for that without referring back to Vedantist writings.
>That's wrong, Brahman is described in the Upanishads as purna (full) and purnam (fullness), it is only empty of differentiation/modification like a still but full pond is empty of ripples.
This still does not stand in opposition to the Buddhist view of Sunyata. From the Heart Sutra (I'm not using this a way to argue for Sunyata's existence, but to simply show a belief): Here then, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form. Form is only emptiness, emptiness only form.
>Again, Advaita holds that it's not that attributelessness is the ultimate nature of everything but that an immutable and eternal Bliss (which by default includes and *is* Awareness) which is devoid of all attributes other than that which is It's own immutable self-nature, i.e. Bliss, is the highest reality
Nirguna means "distinction less" meaning it is without attributes meaning it is empty of all descriptives. I'm fine with saying that coming into union with it creates a state of Bliss or that it is the cause of awareness. But it cannot BE those things if it is without distinction.
>A more accurate rendition of Nirguna is 'without distinctions', distinctions from what? from other than Itself, which is not empty.
To say "distinctionless" means it is only without qualities it does not have creates a dualism, and Advaita is a non-dual school of thought. If something is truly non-dual it must contain all things, which would make it attribute-less.

>>14407127
>These posts are just restatements of the beliefs and does not grapple with the arguments.
I don't really see you making arguments except that "well since the word 'Nirguna' is used well then that has the implications of X Y and Z". The problem when you do this without having studied the Upanishads or Shankara's writings is that is leaves you unaware that the Upanishads also apply countless other descriptions to Atma/Brahman that are fully incompatible with Sunyata, and these all have to be accepted along with the notion of Nirguna Brahman; the idea of Nirguna Brahman does not take precedence over these and so what you are doing would be like me taking one Sutta from the Pali Canon out of context (or even a single word/phrase from that Sutta) and then using that as the yardstick to judge all other Suttas and Buddhist doctrines. The Upanishads repeatedly state directly that Brahman/Atma always has, is and will exist forever as eternal all-pervasing Bliss-Consiousness. The Upanishads never actually as far as I'm aware even use the term 'Nirguna Brahman' but only Para (Supreme) Brahman, when things like multiplicity and change etc are denied of Para-Brahman in Upanishadic passages it's never presented as having to do with an ultimate emptiness but there is always also mention of the Consiousness of Brahman in relation to this as being that Thing which while empty of everything else is still a real and eternal existent X.
>Ok, that may be what is believed but it does not refute the argumentation. It's a reliance on circular reasoning.
You misunderstand, I'm not arguing about this I'm simply stating the fact that the Upanishads describe Brahman as being that and as not being dependent upon anything else for anything whatsoever, and that Advaita agrees with this. You may think this isn't possible but if you insist that your interpretation of what is possible for Brahman is correct then you are no longer talking about the Advaitic understanding of Brahman and so you lose whatever basis you had to say that Nirguna Brahman is similar to sunyata because you're talking about something else entirely and not the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita. It would be like me promoting some fringe interpretation of Buddhism like saying "Nirvana is just the Islamic Heaven" and saying "this proves Buddhism is the same as Islam" and then accusing you of circular reasoning when you point out that countless suttas show this interpretation is wrong

>Can you make an argument for that without referring back to Vedantist writings.
The Upanishads describe Brahman as not human and as not the intellect and as not subject to the limitations of human embodiment and the intellect, Vedanta accepts these as true on the basis of scripture and has no need to prove it to others, proving or arguing for this is entirely unimportant for the sake of our discussion which is about if there is a commonality between sunyata and Brahman. I'll ask you this though, why should God's Awareness/Consciousness be subject to the same limitations as that of humans, I can't think of a single logical reason why. You are asking me to attack an illogical proposition which you never offered any good reason to accept to begin with, all you did was just project Buddhist assumptions about the Human mind onto God without justification.
>This still does not stand in opposition to the Buddhist view of Sunyata. From the Heart Sutra: Here then, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form. Form is only emptiness, emptiness only form.
Well then if form is emptiness then what is not emptiness? I assure you that whatever adjective or noun etc you answer corresponds to "not emptiness" or "not empty" you'll find that the Upanishads ascribe it to Brahman.
>I'm fine with saying that coming into union with it creates a state of Bliss or that it is the cause of awareness. But it cannot BE those things if it is without distinction.
Again, what you think is possible is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion of whether the official Advaitic understanding of Nirguna Brahman (and not your special snowflake understanding of it that Advaita doesn't accept!) is similar to the Buddhist sunyata. I'd add that awareness indeed can be without distinction though, because it can be an attributeless awareness in which other things appear if those appearances dont in any way affect the awareness in which they appear but just come and go in the transcendental and ineffable sentience that provides a substratum for them. You seem to be getting hung up on verbal definitions without actually being to conceptualize what I'm talking about.
>A more accurate rendition of Nirguna is 'without distinctions', distinctions from what? from other than Itself, which is not empty.
To say "distinctionless" means it is only without qualities it does not have creates a dualism,
I never said anything about dualism
>If something is truly non-dual it must contain all things which would make it attribute-less.
If X by its very nature includes all things within Itself in an ontological and not in a purely verbal or metaphoric sense then that fact constitutes an existent self-nature and content which renders that X non-empty

>>14381633
Am I the only one who realises that Ken Wheeler/guenonfag has a youtube channel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoiIQQIFAE

>>14408633

>>14406775
The transmigrant is the Awareness/Citta that grasps onto objects as corporeal consciousness but is that which is liberated from its desire of the grasping of the aggregates including consciousness itself is not the principle behind the attribute. The liberation of the Citta's avijja is through disobjectification (letting go of thought-object embodiment without disembodiment) or by negation or unknowing as means to subject synthesis of the Citta to Brahman. That which becomes a ghost or manomayakaya is not vinnana but rather the Citta in avijja since consciousness proper dies with the body, it is the Citta that suffers in its state of disembodied objectification remains earthbound until they burn up the fuel or will of avijja itself that keeps them here which is why ghosts don't linger in a place for more than the duration of that life if it never died early or violently against their will, but the avijja to be reborn remains for the ignorant aspect of the Citta. Saguna Brahman is not the Citta in total, rather, what the Absolute seems to be from the bottom up perspective of the Citta that hasn't been liberated from metaphysical ignorance. The Self-illumination into Nirguna Brahman is the Atta in principle, the atta in attribute is not the atta in principle yet cannot be said to not be atta without atta. There is no vinnana that transmigrates, vinnana is what the transmigrant does and cannot be destroyed by the aggregates.

>>14406985
((()))

>>14408633
Guenonfag here, I'm dissapointed that you would think Ken is me, despite the superficial similarities we have very different styles of arguing and hold different positions on various things. I would have thought that as obsessed with me as you are that you'd have been the last person to confuse us

>>14409387
What's with all the Jewish and Atheist rejects taking up Buddhism anyways, is Judaism that bad?

>>14410603
Buddhism is good at capturing dumb liberals into the capitalist system while convincing them that they're resisting it.

>>14410596
There are multiple people here who can't differentiate the two here, but I don't care anyhow.

>>14410596
>everyone is obsessed with me and everyone is the same person, i bet this whole website talks about me when i'm not around

you have that youtube guy's deluded narcissism down pat tho