/lit/ - Literature

>>18114441
eastern philosophy is equivalent to platonism, alchemy and scholasticism

start with the upanishads then in the buddhas words and then the essential shinran
fast path to enlightenment my brother

>>18114457
Start with the Gita, which more or less summarizes Upanishadic thought. Then go for the Upanishads themselves.

>>18114464
>vyasa
just war
>chanakya
political pragmatism
>shang yang (chinas carl schmitt?)
legalism
>bahu ullah
bahai philosophy (peace justice on global scale)
>ali ibn abi talib
sufism, pretty based, already know that.

its not that many people at all, i thought east asia would have more philosophers. i know there is the kyoto school of japan, they do stuff but they are not there in the list. maybe they didnt put more modern people there in.

>>18114441
>What do you know about Eastern Philosophy?
eastern philosophy is based on buddhism
true self philosophy = brahmin philosophy = buddhist philosophy, the only difference is that the true self is brahman for the brahmins and it's the buddha for the buddhist philosophers.

The trick is to never forget that buddhism is not buddhist philosophies. In buddhism, there is no true nature, no primordial mind, no nonduality, no true self, no buddhanature.

Then all these philosophies was taken up by the chinese, who have even less understanding and just want to fetishize their ancestors, so their turned the true self as a manifestation of their ancestors, so for them their ancestors were buddhas. This is how they moved from the sutras about bodisatvas [beginning of mahayana] to sutras about buddhanature and nonduality, where the put an essence onto the buddha and this essence is called ''emptiness''.
Again none of this is buddhism, the buddha rejected all this emptiness crap.

The brahmins did the same, but right after they heard about buddhism, so they just created an essence which is the true self, and they call it brahman.

Brahmins didn't have any karma, rebirth, ignorance before the upanishads and the buddha starting to dab on the poos and their brahmins. The only creation of the hindus so far were rituals, mantras, useless ceremonies and sucking kings' cocks to live life on easy mode . The brahmins were seething and they included of the buddhist teaching in their upanishads and kali yuga where they sworn to kill all the buddhists once and for all.

>>18114464
>No Nagarjuna
It's like you are trying to lead people astray

>>18114441
yes

>>18114441
they're gook niggers they can't have platos or kants

>>18114577
This is mostly wrong, the Upanishads predate Buddhism, Buddha took a lot of his teachings like karma, avidya, transmigration and so on from the Upanishads

>>18114464
>BCE
every single time. all orientalists do this

what is the common denominator? this is the most stupid and dishonest thing in intellectual history. why dont you just start another counting system instead? don't try to pretend we live in 2021 not because of christ but due to another false denominator.
>it is not sensitive to non-christians
oh yeah then start counting by the olympic games or another marking point you sensitive dishonest pseud

>>18115569
>>BCE
who flipping cares. i think its a stupid distinction too, but not stupid enough to feel the need to comment about it on an infographic. especially on a religo-philosophic one which makes at least some degree of rational. im christian, but i think being upset about that is petty and not worth the time of day.

>>18115627
yes my comment was not directed at you but at the infographic maker

it annoys me because in most writings relating to platonism and greek philosophy they retain bc/ad system but when you go slightly to the east they all of sudden consciously drop it

>>18114441
You should start by not including anything west of the Indus as eastern.

>>18114441
>Like, what is their dialectics called?
There is no umbrella term for eastern dialectics. The earliest dialectical discussion in Indian philosophy is found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, predating Plato and Socrates. Later on, Hindu and Buddhist thinkers engaged in dialectical argumentation in their writings against other schools of their own religion and against schools from opposing religions.

>Who is their Plato, Kant and so on?
The Plato of eastern thought would probably be Adi Shankara, he is one of the first historical figures in the tradition to have a large body of writings surviving to the present day which lay out a ‘mystical theology’. With Kant’s it’s a little harder, eastern philosophy doesn’t really share Kant’s skepticism about the possibility or validity of doing metaphysics, and when they do share this skepticism like with Nagarjuna they tend to also espouse positions which Kant reject. The basic premise of critical idealism predates Kant and its found in both Buddhist Yogachara and in Hindu Vedantic writings.

>Any books and important philosophers?
Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines by Rene Guenon = Intro to Hinduism from the view of the Traditionalist school
Essentials of Indian Philosophy by Hiriyanna = A short overview of the major schools of Indian philosophy by an Indian scholar of Sanskrit
Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy by Sharma = a book by an Indian scholar which overviews Indian Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, the author has an idiosyncratic or less typical view of Buddhism but the book is worth reading regardless

>Who should I start with?
The Bhagavad Gita, if you mean which historical personage then either Shankara or Nagarjuna depending on if you want to explore Hinduism or Buddhism more first

Studying Indian thought before Chinese/Tibetan/Japanese thought can be helpful as there was a largely one-sided influence of Indian thought upon the others

>>18115568
Except this is incorrect, the earliest Upanishads aren't concerned with that stuff, the later ones postdate the Buddha by centuries, and the Buddhas teachings are very much different than those found in the Upanishads (the Buddha's ideas of Karma are very different than the multiple contradictory views of Karma in the Upanishads).

>>18115569
If we just used AUC you'd throw a fit about the evil PAGANS trying to base everything around when Rome was founded.

>>18114441
Depends on what you mean. "Eastern Philosophy" is a meaningless term.

For Buddhism, it's the Buddha. The next most important figure in Buddhism is Nagarjuna (if you get into Theravada you should still read Nagarjuna because the Theravada tradition still grapples with the same stuff that he brings up, albeit independently). For Confucianism, it's Confucius. There's plenty of important people in between him and the "Aquinas of Confucianism", a dude by the name of Zhu Xi. For Taoism, start with Laozi and move to wherever you feel drawn to. At some point read The Art of War to get an understanding of what "applied Taoism" entails. For Hinduism, Ramanuja is one of the most important Hindu thinkers, but so are Nimbarka and Bhaskara; Madhvacharya is also really important. The problem is that "Indian Philosophy" is like "European Philosophy", so it's a problem-within-a-problem to even lump Hindu philosophy in with Buddhist or Chinese philosophy.

>>18114441
Avoid wasting your time on nonsense and just read the Holy Bible.

>>18114464
Iran and India are European

>>18114441
"eastern philosophy" has nothing to do with modern european philosophy, read Guenon

>>18115989
i dont care if you use auc, olympiad, hegira, year when budda sat under the tree etc as long as you concede 2021 refers to christian calendar and not a common era.

>>18115989
> Buddha took a lot of his teachings like karma, avidya, transmigration and so on from the Upanishads
>Except this is incorrect, the earliest Upanishads aren't concerned with that stuff
That’s simply incorrect anon, I recommend that you read the early Upanishads or a book on them instead of posting such nonsense.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which predates Buddha by a century or two talks about all three of these; it contains a discussion of transmigration in
section 4 of chapter 4 where the transmigrating soul is compared to a leech that moves itself from one blade of grass to the next.

The Brihadaranyaka also discusses spiritual ignorance, its causes and consequences in such verses as 1.4.7. where it talks about people being ignorant of the Self because they confuse it with the mind, or in verse 1.4.10. where people who view God as different from the Atman are said to be ignorant and are compared by the Upanishad to animals.

Mentioning of karma in the Brihadaranyaka can be found in verse 1.6.1. where the differentiated universe is said to consist of name, form and karma (trayaṃ vā idam—nāma rūpaṃ karma) and later in the same Upanishad it mentions peoples future transmigrations being effected by what they do.

>the Buddhas teachings are very much different than those found in the Upanishads (the Buddha's ideas of Karma are very different than the multiple contradictory views of Karma in the Upanishads)
Contradictory in what way? Also, just because Buddha interprets Upanishadic concepts like karma differently than the texts do doesn’t mean he wasn’t influenced by them, the Upanishads and the earlier Vedic layers like the Brahmanas are the only known texts that existed before Buddha which talked about Karma before Buddhism and as Buddha was raised in a Hindu family he would have been exposed to these concepts.

bump

>>18114441
Plato is not important. His relevance is renaissance revisionism.

>>18114464
>Ali ibn Abu Talib
>Sufism
?

>>18117196
who is more important in your view?

>>18117196
Why? His ideas echo throughout all of philosophy in the west, how can he not be important?

bump

>>18118262
Plato is important to have a career munching off academia. intellectuals, both atheist and theist, have been trying to find truth for at least 2000 years and they all failed lol. it doesnt means that there is no truth, but that intellectualism is not the way to truth.
Those people have no method to separate true claims from rumors and fantasies. All they have to show for their work and all the money they take as salary to their long career is the ''the justifiable believes'' lol, which is just a glorified rumor. Philosophy is a dead end.

>>18114441
Unironically pick up Guenon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, it's great and will point you toward all of the relevant materials. If you like that then look into Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta

>>18116008
is the holy bible really THAT big?

>>18117299
Most Sufi tariqahs (orders) draw their lineage from Ali to their historical masters. The Sufi conception of what Ali was like was different in general.

>>18120389
Any books or articles on the subject? I've never heard of this before

>>18114489
intellectuals, both atheist and theist, have been trying to find truth for at least 2000 years and they all failed lol. it doesnt means that there is no truth, but that intellectualism is not the way to truth.
Those people have no method to separate true claims from rumors and fantasies. All they have to show for their work and all the money they take as salary to their long career is the ''the justifiable believes'' lol, which is just a glorified rumor. Philosophy is a dead end.

>>18116299
Based

>>18116299>>18121318

The damage control has started. The vedas are the core of Hinduism and all the vedas are is a recipe for killing animals and dancing around a fire in order to please some blue gods.

Yeah that's right, hindus are ok with killing animals for zero reason beyond hoping some ghosts will like them.
It's jewish and islam and pagan tier.


And then the upanishads are just very late commentaries on the vedas where the hindus choke on their own rage stemming from the buddhists and jains talking about morality and karma.
And the hindus are so jealous they have to make the buddha and the jain patron some avatar of a blue hindu god.

Again, zero karma, zero rebirth, zero meditation in the vedas. I know you seethe just by reading this and you can't accept the truth.

Even the Purusharthas were 3 initially. And guess which one of the late 4 Purusharthas was missing. Yeah that's right, it was moksha. Literally a late invention in the upanishads by the hindu out of seethe from the jains.
The core of Vedism is not karma, nor rebirth, nor moksha.. That's a fact.

So you have to choose: are the vedas important or not, are they more important than the upanishads?
Per the hindu dogmas, only the vedas matter the most.

And by the way, dating a full text like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad can't be done. A full texts has a layer of early and late material all over.

>>18120187
>>18120890
There is no way to prove a metaphysical truth, inductive reasoning alone doesn't allow for it by logical fact. If you think all there is to Philosophy is looking for some Truth then yes its a dead end. What a good philosophy does allow is a coherent metaphysical view or outlook. Its value most often lies in its practical application, how much its use benefits a person or society that puts it into practice.

Nietzsche put forward that it does not matter how false an opinion may be, but how much it is life furthering or species furthering that is actually of value. - Beyond Good & Evil, prejudices of philosophers no.4
I am reminded by this idea every time someone talks about finding "Truth"

Everything that supersessionist Mahayanikas say about Theravada, Vajrayanikas say about Mahayana. The Mahayanikas get it just as hard as they give it. Mahayana is the "shared teachings" for the "general population" of spiritual non-specialists. It is the grueling long path for those of dull faculties, the Shravaka path being conceived of as for those with even duller faculties. Vajrayana sees itself as "Special Mahayana," as opposed to "Common Mahayana" practiced by the plebeian masses. So-called "Common Mahayana" is characterized by its co-mingling of the provisional and ultimate. In contrast, the Tantras are framed as from exclusively the ultimate truth, with no provisional watering-down for the sake of the sensibilities of practitioners.

Now this brings us to secrecy. In his commentary to Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, if I'm not mistaken, it is Venerable Kunzang Pelden who states that "The possessions of the triple gem are dangerous." Why are they dangerous? To damage, destroy, or to steal the possessions of the triple gem is a far greater crime than destroying, damaging, or stealing any other kind of possession. This is not to say that most stealing is fine and only really stealing from the samgha is bad. That is not the lesson to get from this idea, regardless of if we agree with it. Malignancy towards the triple gem has greater consequences than most general malignancy. The Tantras, being framed as the highest summits of the Saddharma, are similarly dangerous and moreso.

According to the Tantric self-narrative, when the Buddha taught the Tantras, he opened up a great pit of hell. This is not something Tantrikas say about their own religion. This is how I am categorizing it. The Tantras, and unlike "opened up a great pit hell" this is not just my characterization, have the power to send you directly to the Avici Hell if they are not practiced properly and if the wrong person practices them. They are seen as "dangerous" in a way similar to how the possessions of the triple gem are "dangerous." If you mess up in Tantra, you go to "special Tantrika hell," which is just a place in the standard Avici Hell, but still nonetheless that is the reason, or at least one, for the secrecy. The other, supposedly, is conserving the teachings and conserving the lines of transmissions for these Tantras, which are seen as too subtle for words beyond a certain point. Not all Tantra can be written down, according to the Tantric self-narrative. Tantras, therefore, are not properly "scriptures," but rather continua of transmission from teacher-to-student that use books incidentally

>>18114464
>Mao Zedong
>Chinese philosophy
Why don't we stop pretending that Western philosophy done by people who aren't European isn't Western philosophy?

>>18122136
Because Mao wasn't a Western thinker, he was a Chinese one. He was constantly drawing on Chinese philosophy. For fuck's sake, the man said that Hegelian Dialectics was just dumb round-eye's misunderstanding of the Tao and Taoist thought. All Mao was doing was the same thing that the Chinese have always done: taken foreign ideas and interpreted them through a Chinese lens.

All you are doing is the "China is too Chinese therefore it's not the Real China; Taiwan is the Real China because it's a shitty Liberal Democracy with fags and stronk womyn covered by a thin veneer of chopsticks and chink" bit.

>>18121518
>So you have to choose: are the vedas important or not, are they more important than the upanishads?
They are the same text you dumbass, the Upanishads are the 4th and final layer of the Vedas and they appear interspersed throughout the other layers like the mantras, brahmanas and aranyakas. The Vedas and Upanishads are all part of the same revealed Sruti scripture. There is no contradiction between what the Upanishads and Vedas teach but they impart information with regard to human motives, for people seeking worldly results like sons or heaven the earlier portion of the Vedas prescribe rituals in order so that people may attain those results through them, this is the karma-khanda. For people who have overcome desire for results and who seek nothing else but liberation or moksha the last and final portion of the Vedas in the form of the Upanishads prescribe knowledge of the Atman-Brahman. This does not contradict the earlier part of the Vedas since those parts don’t say that rituals produce moksha.

> zero karma, zero rebirth, zero meditation in the vedas.
Those are all found in the pre-Buddhist Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads, which are part of the Vedas. Buddha probably took his ideas about karma and rebirth/transmigration from the Upanishads.

>>18122196
>the man said that Hegelian Dialectics was just dumb round-eye's misunderstanding of the Tao and Taoist thought
Uhh, based department?

>>18122196
No. Marxism and Nationalism are both the product of Western philosophy, and did not exist in China before they were imported. The whole point of the Chinese literary, cultural, and intellectual movements from May 4th, 1919 until the creation of the PRC in 1949 was to obliterate actual Chinese philosophy and replace it with Western philosophy.
>For fuck's sake, the man said that Hegelian Dialectics was just dumb round-eye's misunderstanding of the Tao and Taoist thought
What you'll find, if you read more broadly in modern non-Western intellectual history, is that people like Mao essentially reject and destroy local intellectual traditions and supplant them with Western ideas while attempting to indigenize them. The easiest way to do this is to pretend that your thinkers said the same thing that Western thinkers said a long time ago. Naturally, if any of that were true, the Confucian academies of Japan, Korea, and China would have themselves come up with nationalism, popular sovereignty, Hegelian dialectics, and Marxism. They did not. That alone tells us that any attempt to pretend that these people are anything other than Westerners without European heritage can succeed only on the basis of obfuscation and the most superficial comparison.

>>18122196
nationalism started out as a left wing movement believe it or not. Many states were either small regional nations or alternatively large multi ethnic empires. Nationalism served as a way of uniting people with a shared history, often an imagined one, allowing the formation of states based on that rather than on hereditary monarchy.

However over time nationalism became tied up with tensions over areas with minority populations, and the whole competition between European powers for status and resources, which blew up in their faces a few times, which is why it is not as popular today.

>>18122335
>Which is why it is not as popular today
"Nationalism" is unpopular. Nationalism is unquestioned.

>>18122335
>>18122219
Right, and this is the problem: you aren't reading Chinese literature, you aren't interacting with Chinese thought. You are only viewing China (or anywhere other than China, this criticism of you applies to Vietnam, Africa, Latin America, etc) as an accessory in a worldview centered in Europe (specifically Anglo-Jewish academia). Because you entirely reject the idea of an intellectual sphere other than that Anglo-Jewish academic sphere you actually CAN'T see Mao as anything other than an accessory to the inevitable achievement of the goals and whims and theories of Anglo-Jewish academia.

I'd recommend reading up thread, there's some good recs for an introduction to Chinese thought.

>>18122213
>the Upanishads are the 4th and final layer of the Vedas
lmfao this shit is why /lit/ is always dead last in those board IQ charts.

>>18122542
You are very wrong.

>>18115569
Because Jewsus was a piece of shit, and he's in hell along with the other Semites.

>>18122561
It’s true, ask any scholar, or check any book, wikipedia, encyclopedia britannica etc, they all say I’m right

bunmp

>>18114464
That chart is wrong on all levels.

No Buddhism?

>>18120747
>>18120389
Anyone?

>>18125327>>18125327
>Buddhism

all those books are about mahayana only

>>18114441
It’s better than western philosophy.

>>18127293
it literally says select "buddhist texts" on the top of the image. come on bro this is a literature thread and you can't read.

yeah

>>18114441
none cuz there's no such thing as eastern 'philosophy'

>>18120187
Plato doesn't believe in pure logic dumbfuck. Another case of someone who's read Nietzsche or any modern thinker but doesn't read sources

>>18127293
>Dhammapada
>Gandhara Sutras
Pic related is the Pali Canon. If you want Theravada literature, anything written before 1900 will be monastic commentaries on passages of the Pali Canon.

>>18114457
>start with the upanishads
Is there like, a upanishads for dummies

>>18127293
>pali canon
>mahayana only

>>18130019
The World as Will and Representation.

>>18130039
Thanks. I've been reading a bit about the Cartesian revolution and how it changed philosophy by beginning with thought as prior to being. I have only a surface level understanding of eastern philosophy but it is my understanding that it also asserts the primacy of thought. Does post cartesian philosophy tend to resemble eastern philosophy because of this?

>>18130002
who talks about logic?

>>18130059
In a sense. Schopenhauer said Spinoza would have been revered in India, for instance. There are dualistic eastern philosophies though so the geographic generalizations are a bit broad. But on the other hand one can read any number of ancient or medieval Indian and Chinese works that sound more 'modern' than their Western counterparts.

>>18130090
>>18120187

>>18130059
>Does post cartesian philosophy tend to resemble eastern philosophy because of this?
No, intellectuals invented phenomenology and that's still intellectualism.

>>18130097
What in eastern philosophy is intellectualism contrary to?

>>18114441
>Eastern """Philosophy"""
There's no philosophy outside of The West, Eastern "Philosophy" is just random narratives SOME of which just might sound good or turn out to be true
In The East there's no argument, no logic, no reason. Only narratives.

>>18130097
Can we get a definition of intellectualism here or are you just mad that you got filtered by Husserl and co.?

>>18130118
>no argument, no logic, no reason. Only narratives
Sounds like Plato

>>18130118
more importantly, the east had no written text.
>Prior to the start of the common era, the Hindu texts were composed orally, then memorized and transmitted orally, from one generation to next, for more than a millennia before they were written down into manuscripts.

>>18130155
Isnt that how every civilization begins? Didnt Homer write down oral history?

>>18130155
Sounds like a case of the virgin scribe and the chad orator

>>18130178
>>18130187
What I'm getting at here is the fact that the people who translated and wrote down these texts were greeks who projected their culture to a different one. There's no eastern philosophy it's all just cope for orientalists

>>18130118
>>18130118
The greek philosophies are just narratives too. You understand that rationalism is debunked right?

>>18114455
hi

>>18130199
What have(n't) you read that has convinced you of a Western philosophy but not of an Eastern counterpart? It doesn't sound like you are doing away with the binary altogether, so what is the criteria for you that makes Western philosophy the only philosophy?

>>18130118
For fucks sake, Eastern philosophies are primarily philosophies of fitting in with world around you while western ones are based upon improving oneself

>>18130118
ogey

>>18130275
wtf?? isn't that just stoicism

>>18130275
>he doesn't know

>>18114455
couldn’t disagree more
Eastern philosophy is actually the explanation for non-eastern obsession with “universal doctrines“ and “Utopia“. You have the basic emotional gestalt for conceiving of the concept of a universal doctrine, to be applied to the individual, forming in the Warring States period / era. Western philosophy is obsessed with cosmetic details of this basic architectural pattern—what the universal doctrine should be—as opposed to asking basic questions about the existence of any universal doctrine, what their lineage is, belief as the primary activity of an individual, and so on. Western philosophy never asks basic questions about the origin & purpose of universal doctrines...the benevolence of a morality is unquestioned! Nowhere is it suggested “rules for thee but not for me” be taken outside the confines of a novel on personal qualities taking up the vain & hypocritical.

>>18130019
Radhakrishnan’s ‘The Principal Upanishads’ or the translation of them by Nikhilananda

>>18114455
What would you take as proof that belief exists? That it is possible for me or you or anyone else to believe? Feelings? Mood?
How do Emotivists deal with the criticism that understanding them requires basic emotional functionality...where does it come from?

>>18130118
What texts of Eastern Philosophy have you read that have given you this view?

>>18130178
Homer composed the poems, but they weren't written until the Greeks actually (re-)invented writing around the 800sBC. Because of just how important Homer was to the Greeks we can presume that it was written down pretty quickly after the (re-)invention of writing. Unlike the Vedas, where there was a massive system to ensure proper memorization, with people having their entire livelihoods be based around "being the guy who knows the Mahaparapeepeepoopoo Sutta so he can do the Hibbity Bibbity ritual", the poets of post-Mycenae Greece don't seem to have commanded that level of power that they could prohibit their doctrines from being written. We see something similar with the Celts, who knew Greek to read Greek texts, but refused to have their own philosophies and doctrines (which we know we had because the Greeks told us they had them) written down.

Which is really beyond the point as the people who'd memorized the texts were still doing philosophy (see: Towards an Igbo Metaphysics for a demonstration that oral traditions can have philosophy), there are ancient Eastern philosophical texts (Chinese philosophy starts around the same time that Greek philosophy does), and the people that anon believes created philosophy (the Jews) didn't even have a literary tradition until around the mid-200sBC in response to Greek intellectual conquest of the Near East so if oral tradition CAN'T be used as a source of philosophy then anon's own narrative of where philosophy even comes from is completely bogus by his own system.

>>18130352
No. No one has said literature is the start of philosophy, but a genealogy of morals does exist. Only the Greeks conceive of reason because they are actually the first to allow your rhetoric to be vulnerable to criticism so we can actually move forward. That is philosophy.

>>18130395
>t. has never read anything from the Greeks, or the Chinese, or the Indians

>>18130402
You mean all things influenced and translated by the greeks?
Also illusion of progress =/= Parmenidian static being

>>18130352
>What texts of Eastern Philosophy have you read that have given you this view?
None lmao

>>18130395
>>18130419
>using reason to critique rhetoric and existing structures
You'd love Confucianism, then. It's entire history consists of philosophers speaking truth to power, talking about how China can improve itself, and then getting shafted for it.

>>18130449
Greek philosophy was more mathematical, logical, individualistic, idealistic. Chinese wisdom was more technical, trending, collective, practical. It isn't philosophy. The Chinese centers its wisdom around politics. It isn't the same thing at all

>buddhist imagery came from Greeks ruling over Pajeet masses
the fucking state of Pajeets

>>18130474
>logical, individualistic, idealistic
You'd love Taoism, then. The entire tradition is about rejecting the political and cultural situation of the day and embracing inner spiritual development. Mohism does this too, to a degree.

>>18130547
Yea, like Zoroastrianism......... Real philosophy and not just vague analogies

>>18130547
Neo-Platonism answers the most fundamental question in philosophy, because it directly deals with abstractions both in experience and in reasoning. Taoism simply makes an observation on this stuff they call the Tao, and try to experience it.

>>18130606
Really? Which Taoist texts have you read that would give you this opinion?

>>18130689
That Was Zen, This is Tao

>>18130122
He is a Theravadin NPC retard who thinks that using your mind for anything more than annihilating your consciousness from existence is an unnecessary and useless “intellectualism”. In every thread on Buddhism and some Hindu threads you find him seething about his hated “intellectuals” and ranting at Mahayana and Vajrayana for not being “real Buddhism”