/lit/ - Literature

>>16031380

>>16031380

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>16031400
>being this asshurt about shankara

I like Shankarachary's commentaries on the Upanishads, and it doesnt bother me that this seems to entage Hindus because they cant seem to explain why without using a bunch of esoteric gibberish words. White hands typed this post. Thanks for the rec, Schope

>>16031405
please don't call him that, it's offensive. use his real hindu name, Prachanna Buddha

>>16031419
Based

>>16031380

Think about it. What is God but a Marquis de Sade writ large?

>>16031380
based

>>16031380

>>16031380
Alfred Janny

>>16031465
She should fight goblins.

>>16031692
you are goblin

U.G Krishnamurti

Me

>>16031841
that guy

>>16031380

>>16031380
>>16031663
How many threads do you have to make about your literary father figure? I thought I had enough of the same shankara sitting on a tiger skin jpeg, until you posted it again for the 1000th+1 time.

Literally no one cares about your shitty poojeet idol, go back to quora you mong.

>>16032372
Based

>>16032372
>t. unenlightened Hylic

>>16032372
The levels of seething, relax mate

>>16032372
absolutely based

>>16032389
>>16032398
low IQ pajeets need to fuck off from this site

>>16031380
>Had to plagiarise knowledge from atheistic sect
>'held divine knowledge'
lmao

Blake

God revealed the perennial wisdom to the Jains, Spinoza, and the Mormons.

>>16032419
I dont even know if I agree with him and haven’t read shit from him I just said relax. This place sucks but we’re not /pol/ where we’re screeching every fucking minute, tone it down

>>16032592
>dude chill bro, just let him spam the board with the same tired thread glorifying some poo

>>16032617
Shankara is one of the major Indian philosophers, equivalent to Plato or Aristotle in the western tradition. Many people on /lit/ have read some Indian philosophy before, so you should stop letting yourself get upset when people post about the Indian philosophers and texts that many of them have read, it's pretty silly.
>>16032372
There are not many pictures which have been made of him, and most of the ones online and on search engines are variations of him sitting on the tiger rug, which is why most of the pictures of him that appear here happen to be that. Just like how almost every picture of Plato and Plotinus are like 2 or 3 statutes/busts

>>16032789
>Many people on /lit/

>>16032789
No I'm not saying there variations of him out there, but the vast amount of spam coupled by the few variations of his portrait makes it much more noticeable than things like Plato busts (which don't get posted that often anyway).

We get it, you love this curry muncher like a father you never had, you don't need to pollute our collective vision by shoving this shitskin in the catalog everyday.

>>16032789
Buddha or Confucius is the actual equivalent to Plato or Aristotle, literally no one has heard of Shankara except Hindu nationalists on Quora.

>many people have read him
then why is it just 1 retard that's posting him

>>16032836
>>16032886
why the long face guys?

>>16032886
meh I reckon shankara is sort of like the western plotinus, not really known in the main stream consciousness but had quite a profound impact on subsequent philosophy even though its based on older ideas

>>16032588
Please tell me more anon

>>16031400
Is there a way to filter posts using keywords? This upset anon is obsessed with “cryptobuddhism “ and he appears in every thread even tangentially related to eastern doctrines; I am quite over it and would not like to see his posts again.

The only correct answer.

>>16033022
>filter "cryptobuddhism"
>don't see any more shankara threads
>mfw

>>16031400
suck my huge veiny white cock

>>16032588>>16032980

so gigatards who love to disguise ascetism as hedonism and mental ramblings

checks out

>>16033025
we need him now more than ever

shankara sat so robert could run

>>16031380
Pannobhasa held a pizza...

>>16031663

>>16033456
>not getting one with everything

>>16032836
Your value of authors is based on their skin color? I think there’s some other board that would fit you really well, instead of /lit/

>>16033629
ok shitskin

>>16033633
Projecting or did a person of color do something to you outside of /lit/?

>Projecting or did a person of color do something to you outside of /lit/?

Any good secondary sources for Shankara? That Commentary PDF that gets shared around here is hard to parse.

>>16033672
read Maha-Prajnaparamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna

>>16033672
how about this enlightened post by one his foremost students?

>"It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals."

>>16033652
Continue.

>>16031380

>>16033022
I think you have to download 4chanx to filter posts based on words

>>16033672
The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy by Sharma is a good secondary source, he writes about Advaita more lucidly than a lot of other books on it. If you are reading it as a supplement to or preparation for Shankara you can skip the sections on Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism in that book and only read the sections on Vedanta, it's on lib-gen

>>16035023
>you can skip the sections on Buddhism
Yea skip the part in page 144 where he says

>According to Advaita scholar Chandradhar Sharma, 'Gaudapada's Karika bears many doctrinal and terminological similarities with Nagarjuna's Karika and with the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Besides, there is the methodological similarity in the employment of the dialectic between Gaudapada and the Madhyamika Buddhists. The fourth chapter of Karika, known as the Alatashantiprakarana, exhibits a strikingly Buddhist tenor and has been a "problem child" of Gaudapada for the interpreters.'

>>16035031
>you can skip the sections on Buddhism
Yea skip the part in page 144 where he says

>According to Advaita scholar Chandradhar Sharma, 'Gaudapada's Karika bears many doctrinal and terminological similarities with Nagarjuna's Karika and with the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Besides, there is the methodological similarity in the employment of the dialectic between Gaudapada and the Madhyamika Buddhists. The fourth chapter of Karika, known as the Alatashantiprakarana, exhibits a strikingly Buddhist tenor and has been a "problem child" of Gaudapada for the interpreters.'

>>16035197
That passage doesn't occur in the section on Buddhism, but occurs in the section on Vedanta, and in pic related from the same book Sharma ends up rightfully concluding that Gaudapada did not obtain any new doctrines from Nagarjuna since those doctrines were already taught in the Upanishads. Are you really going to keep making these seething replies every since time someone posts about Shankara?

>>16035201
Why did you delete your post only to post an identical copy of it again?

>>16032372
/thread

>>16033685
Is that Ken Wheeler?

>>16031380
Why does he sit on the rug?

William Cowper

>>16033025
>you don't have a choice if God talks!
He was on to something. The glowies got him. In a different age Terry would've been canonised by the church. People making fun of Terry or patronising because of "schizophrenia" are in for a rude awakening.

>>16032372
>Literally no one cares about your shitty po-

>>16035361
I don't think Ken Wheeler has actually read through many of Shankara's works, he seems to be more into Neoplatonism while claiming both are in agreement. But in his recommendation videos he only ever recommends Shankara's non-commentary works like Vivekachudamani etc, and never recommends or talks about Shankara's commentaries, other than Nikhilananda's Upanishads translation that he recommends which includes a commentary written by Nikhilananda which is based on Shankara's and which is like an abbreviated and simplified version of it. It would seem odd for him to recommend a simplified version over the primary source texts themselves if he had actually read them.

>>16031419
quadroon genes kicking in, soon he'll end up looking just like fantano

the fat man

>>16031380