/lit/ - Literature

>>18485141
yes, and it was expressed best by Palama

Why is Dick so interesting? Was it all his drug use?

>>18485141
No, that would be Advaita Vedanta as formulated by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh), Panentheism comes close to it though but itsn't identical

No. they're getting there but they're only 1 third of the way. Panentheism is a result of mistaking the World Soul for the ultimate reality. The World Soul, or Logos is the imminent guiding principle of material reality but it's not the end of the metaphysical road. There's still Nous and the One beyond Soul.

>>18485167
That is cryptobuddhism.

>>18485170
Proof? You're just saying words without meaning.

>>18485181
>Proof?

>>18485176
Wrong, Shankara refuted Buddhism while clearly distinguishing his own doctrine from it. Even the few concepts which seem to shared by both schools are given different meanings by each.

>>18485188
That's just an image with some words, anon.

>>18485228
Tell that to guenonfag, he used to say that too and now even he endorses that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist.

>>18485165
I can assure you amphetamines do not make you interesting

No. Not even.

>>18485235
You just responded to guenonfag, newfag.

>>18485255
It can't be guenonfag because this
>>18485176
is guenonfag and he clearly admitted Shankara is a cryptobuddhist

>>18485235
I am Guenonfag, I have never said Shankara is a crypto-Buddhist, someone else tried to imply that because I once recommend a book which says that at one point.

However, because I'm capable of nuanced thought, I'm able to recommend books which are good for certain reasons even if they say one or two things which I disagree with. I dont have ridiculous purity tests which I subject everything to. Any debate on the actual details of doctrine will immediately show that the ontology, epistemology, metaphysics etc of Buddhism and Advaita are diametrically opposed to one another.

As the image itself notes, the notion of a difference between absolute reality and the conditional appearances is found within the Upanishads themselves already, and the Buddhist Shunyavadin version of this doesn't even admit that the absolute reality exists with its own independent nature/existence, while Vedantins do, so it's quite different.

>>18485141
How was PKD a panentheist? Wasn't he a weird kind of gnostic

>>18485264
god just leave and never return, if I see that fucking shankara picture one more time I'm gonna have a stroke

>>18485264
Sorry, you simply can't backpedal from saying the best book on Shankara is one that clearly calls him a cryptobuddhist and cites/verifies every other book that does too

>>18485236
>Prove to me the existence of the Nous and One in a 4chan post
Anon...Do your fucking reading.

>>18485273
>god just leave and never return,
/lit/ is a Guenonian Traditionalist Advaitin board, so this is exactly were I belong
>if I see that fucking shankara picture one more time I'm gonna have a stroke
Good

>>18485279
>can't backpedal from saying the best book
I said "best since the year 2000"

The ones written before 2000 are vastly better than Hirsts, and that was only ranking the ones I had glanced at, there are more books written on it after 2000 that I have not examined, so I may find some ones later also written after 2000 that I find are better, I have not had the time to glance at all the post-2000 books on it yet.

>>18485170
>Panentheism is a result of mistaking the World Soul for the ultimate reality.
I would not say that is implict in panentheism. But then again, I have seen many different definations of it, but what unifies all such definations is that the cosmos is contained within the Divine, and thus the Divine is both immanent and transcendent

>>18485311
>you can't backpedal
>backpedals

Hirst says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist. You said Hirst is the best book about Shankara. No amount of lying now can save you.

Honestly how do reddit atheists cope with the fact that nearly all of history’s greatest thinkers were deists in some capacity?
How do reddit atheists cope with the existence of the mind-body problem?
How do they cope with the fact that there is a major element of the human experience that is incompatible with scientific reasoning?

>>18485141
Are you implying that spin nose is not pantheist?

>>18485333

>>18485327
>You said Hirst is the best book about Shankara
*The best book since 2000, out of the ones I have looked at, it doesn't mean better than the ones I have not examined yet. And even the relatively best books can get things wrong.

>>18485401
So the best book on the topic according to you, a book which calls Shankara a cryptobuddhist, and majorly cites King and Isayeva, who also say Shankara is a cryptobuddhist, is Hirst?

Hirst who says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist is the best book on Shankara?

>>18485415
>So the best book on the topic according to you
No, the best are Guenon's, Elliot Deutsch's and Chandradhar Sharma's, none of whom say Shankara is a crypto-Buddhism. All of these were written pre-2000 but are vastly better than Hirst. Hirst is just one of the better ones that is post-2000, and I only said this because I've only look at 3 or 4 post-2000 ones. It was a throwaway comment and not a position I'm committed too, as soon as I find a better post-2000 one I've probably revise my opinion. I dont really care one way or another. The best books on Advaita (listed above) dont say he is a crypto-buddhist

>>18485436
But Sharma said these two quotes

>>18485447
Yea, there he is saying that Mahayana copied ideas from the Upanishads, he isn't saying in that image that Advaita took ideas from Mahayana.

In pic related Sharma writes: Gaudapada (not Shankara) agrees with some Mahayana doctrines, because these HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE UPANISHADS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BUDDHA OR BUDDHISTS.

>>18485459
No he says Mahayana "developed" and "elaborated" the doctrines and that Gaudapada was then "influenced" by Mahayana

This is complete cope

jesus fucking christ

What is happening with guenonfag lately? He can’t win a single discussion anymore, I think this is proof advaita vedanta has many insuperable holes.

do actual indian advaita followers care about any of this being influenced by Mahayana shit? or is it just guenonfag?

>>18485141
No, the final redpill is realizing that God is nothing more than a word symbolizing where we feel the greatest source of power to be emerging from. Those who "believe" or "pray" to God feel God to be external to themselves, and therefore unconsciously admit in their beliefs and prayers that they are weak.

>>18485537
Here is what actual advaita followers think. They admit it's basically buddhism.

>>18485512
Sharma says that the extent of the influence was the way in which Gaudapada phrased some of his arguments, he doesn't say that Gaudapada took doctrines from Buddhism which were not already in the Upanishads, this latter point is what Sharma explicitly denies.

in this pic >>18485459 Sharma states that Gaudapada brings out the philosophical soundness of Vedanta over buddhism, and in pic related Sharma says that Advaita Vedanta is the central teaching of the Upanishads

>>18485550
Who cares what Sharma thinks? He says Mahayana "developed" and "elaborated" the philosophy of the Upanishads hundreds of years before Gaudapada or Shankara lived. He says that everybody other than advaita (very small minority sect) thinks advaita is cryptobuddhist and has called it that for a thousand years.

Showing that even Sharma, the advaita shill and literal who, still basically agrees that advaita is cryptobuddhism is just the icing on the cake.

The cake is Hirst, the book you said was "the best book on Advaita," saying advaita is cryptobuddhism. That's one hell of a cake you've baked for yourself guenonfag. A big advaita is cryptobuddhism cake.

>>18485537
>do actual indian advaita followers care about any of this being influenced by Mahayana shit?
The official representatives of Advaita in India today are the heads of the monastic orders, and they all deny that Advaita is influenced by Buddhism

>>18485548
That picture contains important omissions which refute the main claim it presents, Sriharsa in his writing points out that the essential difference between Vedanta and Buddhism is that Advaita admits that consciousness is absolutely real and eternal, while Buddhists deny this which changes them into very different systems.

>Shriharsa then points out the fundamental difference between Buddhist Shunyavada and Advaita Vedanta. Shunyavada, he says, regards everything including even consciousness to be indefinable either as real or as unreal and therefore relational and false; as Buddha has declared in the Lahkavatara (II, 175): All things which can be known as objects by thought have no reality of their own. They are therefore said to be indescribable (either as real or unreal or both) and so relational and false. But Vedanta makes an exception in favour of consciousness and the Brahmavadins declare everything except pure consciousness as indescribable and false. For Vedanta, says Shriharsa, consciousness is pure, eternal, non-dual, self-shining and self-proved and is the undeniable foundational Reality. He also says that the momentary vijnana (of the Vijnanavadi Buddhist) cannot be treated as self-luminous because it is known as an object by the pure Self which alone is the self-luminous Reality. Advaita Vedanta alone, says Shriharsa, can be called Svaprakasha-Vijnanavada which upholds the reality of the self-shining and self-proved consciousness.
- Chandradhar Sharma

>>18485562
>He says Mahayana "developed" and "elaborated" the philosophy of the Upanishads hundreds of years before Gaudapada or Shankara lived
Yes, he admits the Buddhists stole from the Upanishads but then says that Shankara elaborated and explicated the full Advaita truth of the Upanishads and that this Advaita is more logical and true than any Buddhism

>>18485580
>I used to be a Buddhist myself before I became bitter and dedicated my life to denying Shankara is a cryptobuddhist while reading books that say he is a cryptobuddhist
- Guenonfag

What did he mean by this?

>>18485589
But wait, every single Hindu for a thousand years has called Advaita cryptobuddhist, meaning Advaita stole from the Buddhists... And every modern book, including several YOU recommended, says the same thing... And even Sharma says that Gaudapada got his "developed" philosophy from Mahayana

Is it really just you guenonfag? One man in the whole world who denies Shankara is cryptobuddhist? Even the books you recommend agree, Shankara is cryptobuddhist.

>>18485589
Wrong. There is no proof at all of any buddhist caring the least about upanishads, but we have even hindu nationalists admitting advaita's being developed from buddhism.

>>18485141
Pantheism is a belief widely shared by savages that has come into vogue as globohomo prepares us to accept a lower state of civilization that is easier to control.

>>18485610
Why are right-wingers so retarded?

>>18485597
>But wait, every single Hindu for a thousand years has called Advaita cryptobuddhist,
The main philospher of shaktism (Bhaskararya) doens't, he prasies Shankara and says he is right

The other Hindu philosphers who say that are wrong and they probably never read Shankara

> And every modern book,
Sharma, Elliot and Guenon dont say that

> Gaudapada got his "developed" philosophy from Mahayana
Sharma says that Gaudapada didn't get any of his philosophy or doctrines from Buddhism, only that he agreed with certain buddhist arguments that can be used to argue in favor in Advaitic doctrines already contained in the Upanishads

>>18485611
Why do left-wingers think emulating backwards jungle tribes and stagnant asian societies will progress anything?

>>18485619
>The other Hindu philosphers
You mean all of them? Sharma:
>The theistic Vedantins, Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Madhva, etc., are unanimous in condemning the Advaitin as a crypto-Buddhist (prachchhanna-Bauddha) which shows that they admit the similarities between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta.

>Sharma says
No, Sharma says Mahayana "developed" and "elaborated" the Upanishads for hundreds of years and then "influenced" Gaudapada. You should stop lying, you just look retarded.

>Panentheism is a term created by Christian Krause to designate a synthesis between theism and pantheism, which is supposed to consist in the idea that everything that is, is in God and exists as a revelation or realization of God. Actually, however, this point of view is exactly that of classical pantheism, and thus it is hard to discern any utility of the term, which in fact remained unsuccessful.
– Nicola Abbagnano

This quote triggers the anglo.

>>18485542
>God is just a feeling, bro
>Sam Harris told me
Pathetic.

>>18485641
>this point of view is exactly that of classical pantheism
how classical are we talking about? soley antiquity or does that include a medieval conception as well? If so I would say such a defination might be helpful to distinguish from more modern new agey pantheism

>>18485659
When Abbagnano uses the term "classical" he usually refers to Greek and Roman antiquity.

>>18485696
I see. Does have any books highlighting a 'Greek and Roman' conception of pantheism? Sounds interesting

>>18485639
>You mean all of them?
Not all of them, since their are post-Shankara Advaitin Hindu philosophers who attack Buddhism and who see Advaita as different from it. And the main Shaktist philosopher praises Shankara and doesn't see him as crypto-Buddhism

>Sharma says Mahayana "developed" and "elaborated" the Upanishads for hundreds of years and then "influenced" Gaudapada
You are being dishonest and mispresenting him

Sharma makes the following claims explicitly and unequivocally in his main book on Advaita

1) Advaita is the doctrine of the Upanishads
2) Gaudapada and Shankara refuted Buddhism and show Advaita is logical and more superior
3) Buddhists developed some of their ideas after borrowing them from the Upanishads
4) Nothing that Gaudapada agrees with in Buddhism isn't already a doctrine contained in the Upanishads before Buddhism even existed
5) Gaudapada at most approves of certain Buddhistic arguments insofar as they are in favor or pre-existing Upanishadic doctrine, and this constitutes what the 'influence' is, that Gaudapada acceptance of these arguments led to him including a few of them in his work. And that Gaudapada did so while still refuting Buddhism and showing Advaita is superior

>>18485759
*in favor of

>>18485759
Sharma says Advaita was "developed" and "elaborated" by Mahayana before Shankara was ever born and that Gaudapada was influenced by Mahayana.

Just admit you're a cryptobuddhist. Even your own favorite authors admit it.

>>18485720
I don't think so, but I can try looking into his other works to find more indications on classical pantheism, if there is interest

>>18485792
Only if you have the time anon, it would be appreicated

>>18485789
>Sharma says Advaita was "developed" and "elaborated" by Mahayana
Yes, their own specifically Buddhist formulation of Upanishadic non-dualism, not that Buddhists developed Advaita Vedanta. The latter claim would make no sense whatever, since the central metaphysical positions of Advaita such as an eternal Atman, God being the source of the universe, a rejection of anti-foundationalism are all completely antithetical to all Buddhist schools. There is no way that Buddhists could ever develop Advaita while rejecting these positions which they always did, that's like saying they built a house with a foundation, walls or roof.

> Gaudapada was influenced by Mahayana.
Sharma clarified that he means certain of their arguments, not their doctrine, you seem to be too stupid to understand the difference

>>18485816
>>Sharma says Advaita was "developed" and "elaborated" by Mahayana
>Yes,

Thank you for admitting you're a cryptobuddhist (again)

>>18485816
*they built a house without a foundation, walls or roof.

>>18485816
So advaita vedanta emerged out of buddhism? interesting

>>18485819
>Thank you for admitting you're a cryptobuddhist (again)
You didnt understand. I'm not admitting that myself or Advaita are crypto-Buddhists, I'm just pointing out that Sharma is saying that Buddhists developed their own spinoff version of Advaita from the Upanishads, not that Advaita is itself crypto-Buddhism

>>18485825
Yes, exactly

>>18485825
No, that's exactly what Sharma denies