/lit/ - Literature

>>18966911
Imagine being so brahmin broken that all you can think about is big buddhist chakra, even when you're writing your commentaries on the Upanishads. That's what Advaita Vedanta is.

>>18966999
based trips of truth

>>18967000
Y-You too

That is because Shankara's only goal was to add brahman to the end of buddhist philosophical treatises, which he loved, so he could claim they came from the vedas and thus justify the caste system. It only worked because buddhism was already declining in India for other reasons.

Its important to read the upper upanasheed commentarys by shankara before moving onto our lord Guénon the one true Buddha. (PBUH)

>>18967015
>>18966999
I see what you are doing.

>>18966911
Shankara disagreed with the buddhists of his day (which you can still find in India), he didn't knew of the original teachings of Buddha which were indeed, the same as his.

dalit cope.

>>18967104
This. The Buddhist atomist schools which sprang up were actual self-professed atheists and nothing like modern Buddhist schools nor the Buddha himself.

be very careful with shankara

Is shankara pretty much the Indian Parmenides?

>>18967475
it was just misunderstanding all along :)

>>18966911
>still believing incomplete and misguided revelations like Buddhism and Advaita
Cringe. Demonic. Repent.

>>18967665
Chad being blessed by monke vs. virgin worshipping the prepuce of the jew

>>18966911
>Shankara started a whole philosophical school of Hinduism to 'disprove' the Buddha
That's wrong, Shankara's school predated him and already existed in figures like Gaudapada, the school of Advaita was not established "to disprove Buddha" but existed for the purpose of determining the correct teaching of the Hindu scriptures. Shankara provided refutations of all the other Hindu and non-Hindu schools in India at the time, there is nothing special about Buddhism in this regard but it was just one of the many schools that Shankara penned refutations of. Shankara spends more time in his works criticizing Samkhya than Buddhism.

>while not understanding the Buddha agreed with him,
Buddha seems to have not agreed with Shankara because Buddha unlike Shankara did not affirm the eternality of the soul, the reality of the Atman, the existence of Brahman etc etc while Shankara affirmed these things

>but was simply stating it in a way to avoid it turning into a endless philosophical debate for people to waste their lives on, which is exactly what he did.
That's not true, the debates are secondary and unimportant to Shankara, the main purpose of his writings is to communicate the teachings of the Upanishads, all the debates and criticisms of other schools are totally secondary to this central goal of his writings. Also, I don't see debating philosophy as a waste but it's an interesting and important pastime, which helps people determine falsehood from truth.

>>18967015
Shankara rejected just about every premise of Buddhism, your claim is nonsensical. Shankara just provided a straightforward exegesis of the Upanishads while refuting heresies like Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhists still seethe to this day over it.

>>18967039
based

>>18967499
He is more like Plato or somewhere between both of them, Parmenides didn't have as developed of a metaphysics as Shankara, although it's not totally clear since we only have a portion of his work and not all of it.


while not understanding the Buddha agreed with him, but was simply stating it in a way to avoid it turning into a endless philosophical debate for people to waste their lives on, which is exactly what he did.

>>18967665
>not realizing bouddha was christ after the resurrection

>>18967665
Neither Shankara, Brahman nor Buddha ever ordered the murder of innocent babies.

Yahweh did

>>18967864
Brahman told you to worship your muslim masters

>>18967908
No He didn’t, Muslims are not mentioned at all in the revealed scriptures of Hinduism, Islam didnt even exist back in the era those texts come from. And right now India is ruled by a Hindu nationalist government.

>>18967039
God bless his memory.

>>18967931
The ruling class of India were muslims, they are your highest spiritual caste, far above any hindu.

>>18967908
According to Islam all older people of faith were primordial muslims so early jews, christians, hindus and daoists were believers of God and submitted to his will, hence they were all muslims. Only a small number of people exist today who could have the same status like mandaeans, non trinitarian christians or advita hindus.

Based neo-vedantin btfoing Shankara"charya"

>>18967948
And as Guenon said in his article on the letter Nun that islam and hindusim will come together at the end of the manvantara.
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Mysteries_of_the_Letter_N%C3%BBn-by_Ren%C3%A9_Gu%C3%A9non.aspx
There's also Valsan's article on Om and Amen if you can read french.
http://dinul-qayyim.over-blog.com/michel-valsan-le-triangle-de-l-androgyne-et-le-monosyllabe-%C2%AB-om-%C2%BB

>>18967983
>There's also Valsan's article on Om and Amen
Words with totally different etymologies and semantic meanings. Sounds like pseud shit in the vein of "Christ = Krishna"

>>18967983
>Guenon said in his article on the letter Nun that islam and hindusim will come together
Wow what a retard. Spoken like a true new ager, with no understanding of the things he is using for decoration

>>18968005
>>18968010
Did you read the article? Speak truthfully on your honor (if you have any at all).

>>18967665
>tfw you are receiving the Sacrament of Amrita directly from the Higher Being himself
Woah! So based! So initiaic!

>>18968094
This, my brother. Oh do I wish to be initiated into the Amritic Stream of Pure Golden Bliss.

guys... be careful!

>>18968113
based a true aryan practice

>It is precisely because Amrita has a quality so divine that it is proper to subject oneself to all that it entails and therefore also to its arduous preparation, and to put it on the table before food, so that it may be not found lacking in quality. This, of course, is perfectly in harmony with the doctrines of almost all traditional schools. Thus it is urged that the divine nectar be milked and consumed as a Sacrament by the initiated. Without dwelling on the matter any longer, we will only note that while mating, a European male can (at best) be expected to produce far less of the nectar than a Negroid male of comparable stature, and that this difference in aptitude will certainly be passed on through the generations.

>It is permissible to drink Amrita with a glass of water, but one should do so with precaution and from a small bowl that is devoid of soil or sand. To do so is not a hindrance, but is rather an offering to God and ensures good health and contentment. So serve him from a small bowl. The same rule applies to an Amrita cream or "tahini" that is prepared with Amrita mixed with any milk spilt during the preparation (which is otherwise unsuitable for transubstantiation). In the case that the Amrita has been diluted beyond what is prescribed, it is permissible to drink it, but one should do so with bitter almonds or acai, which are sweet, or with some mastic resin used as gum, but with caution. When it comes to more or less pure Amrita and the undiluted Divine Sacrament itself, the latter is to be offered with bare hands or anointed in the most potent oil obtained alongside the nectar when milking, and the proper ritualistic meaning should always be kept in mind and the ritual be performed accordingly.

>The young and the inexperienced will no doubt be misled and confused by some of the materials invoked in the preparation and some of the details concerning the milking and will be led astray to ruin, but we nevertheless advise to initiate them into the transubstantiatic "lesser circle" as soon as may be reasonably possible. If a full consumption of the Sacrament does not appear to be feasible, a simple anointing of the lips will suffice.

>>18967948
No that’s wrong, Muslims were outside the Hindu caste system and hence they were and are mlecchas. Some Muslims in India and Pakistan now practice their own Muslim version of the caste system.

>>18968142
Fake and you will have a long stay at lying Toll House.

>>18968183
Certainly not, brahmins kissed the feet of their muslim overlords. This is also true of the christian britons of course.

>>18968199
How old is india? And how long did the Muslims rule it?

What is the Advaitin's initiatic explanation of this practice?

>>18968199
No, they didnt. Muslims were foreign invaders who are now ruled by Hindus in India. And India has defeated Pakistan in every war they fought.

>>18966911
Why did Adi Shankara have only one leg above the other instead of the full lotus position with both legs which is famous in Yoga? He's the only one I saw in that position.

>>18966911
Uuuu! The self 'exists!'

>>18967802
aren't the upanishads like 100 pages? why did he need to distil a correct teaching from it? just take it for what it is

>>18967802
Check ur mail vedantabro

Bump

>>18966911
I’d be careful. I’d be extremely careful…

>>18969045
Kek

>>18969045
careful about what??

I don't get how all of this can perfect my love for Christ

>>18968142

Shankaracharya wasn't even enlightened by his own standards, so why trust his teachings?
If he was truly enlightened and had gained experience of the supreme, his limited self would cease to exist.
The realization of non-duality cannot simultaneously coexist with the perception of difference.

>>18969963
This. Being a teacher after "enlightenment" is just chasing pride.

>>18969963
>Shankaracharya wasn't even enlightened by his own standards
He was though, you’re wrong
>his limited self would cease to exist.
The mind isnt the limited self, the limited self has to do with the false egoistic sense of identification of the Self with the mind and with the related superimposition of the minds qualities into the self, you can end this false self while remaining a living enlightened being, abiding as the true Self
>The realization of non-duality cannot simultaneously coexist with the perception of difference.
The realization of non-duality doesn’t mean that the mind is unable to perceive the world anymore, the realization involves the ending of the false notion whereby one believed in the reality of duality/multiplicity. Shankara makes clear in his works that the enlightened man does not become blind and deaf etc but he remains the unconcerned spectator. Zhuangzi in chapter 5 describes the enlightened man in the exact same way as Shankara does in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

>The man of realisation ... lives unmoved in the body, like a witness, free from mental oscillations, like the pivot of the potter’s wheel. He neither directs the sense-organs to their objects nor detaches them from these, but stays like an unconcerned spectator. And he has not the least regard for the fruits of actions, his mind being thoroughly inebriated with drinking the undiluted elixir of the Bliss of the Atman.
- Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

>>18970512
>He was though, you’re wrong
How could anyone that realized the absolute state of non-duality still be chained to maya?
If they realized that their identity, thoughts, feelings etc were just a mere illusion, how could they still operate in this false reality? The sole reason for our existence is illusion, when you shatter the illusion - what's left?
And who is realizing all this stuff anyway? In absolute reality there's no more distinctions, thoughts or feelings. How could anyone realize this and come back? How could anyone become the Lord and then go back to being a peasant?

why does every writer guenonfag talk about say that shankara is a crypto buddhist?

>>18970675
>shankara is a crypto buddhist
Because he basically is. There's not a lot of difference between Buddha's original teachings and the doctrine of Advaita.

>>18970709
seems like most sources say shankara is copying mahayana through gaudapada

>>18970709
Shankara = Brahman exists beyond ignorance
Buddha = there is no supreme God beyond ignorance

Shankara = the soul is eternal
Buddha = there is no eternal soul

Shankara = the Atman exists and its awesome
Buddha = dont ask me about the Atman or talk about it

Shankara = here’s a wonderfully lucid and consistent metaphysics
Buddha = dont talk about metaphysics

Shankara = consciousness is by nature bliss, unenlightened people just dont realize it
Buddha = consciousness is sooofering, we must end it

Shankara = the caste system is divinely ordained and conducive to the wellness of mankind
Buddha = noooo caste is bad, noooo you have to treat everyone equally

Shankara = morality is an secondary concern to ultimate metaphysical truth
Buddha = goes around moralfagging

Shankara = consciousness is always alike as pure awareness
Buddha = people have eye-conciousness, nose-conciousness, ear-consciousness etc

Shankara = Moksha isnt annihilation because the soul continues as eternal Bliss-Awareness
Buddha = Parinirvana isnt an annihilation but I’m completely unable to explain why, just trust me bro

>>18970810
>t. never studied basic buddhism

>>18966911
why wasting your time with a watered down version of buddhism full of dogmatism and contradictory metaphysics, when you can just practice the real thing in any buddhist sangha?

>>18970810
there's only one true difference between buddhism and shankaea

shankara=brahmaloka is the ultimatae sate
buddha=brahmaloka is the last resource this existence has to trap good meditators, going beyond brahmaloka and surpassing it is the first step to reach absolute freedom

>>18970512
>He was though, you’re wrong
lol nice comeback

>>18970872
Ummm sweety... maybe because not everyone is a soul-denying NPC?

>>18970828
You must know nothing about Buddhism if you think that is wrong, can you prove any of it is wrong?
>>18970896
That's incorrect, Advaita explicitly identifies Brahmaloka as a lesser attainment than Moksha.

>>18970828
Not an argument.

Guenonfag here with some quotes from based Chandradhar Sharma.

>>18971159

"Advaitavada is found well-established in the Upanishads as their central teaching" - Chandradhar Sharma (pic related)

When Sharma says the Mahayana also elaborated their own version of non-dualism, he is saying that they took ideas from the Upanishads and made their own Buddhist version of it.

>>18971186
So you agree with Sharma that Mahayana is basically identical to Advaita, okay. Is this why you were originally a Buddhist just like Shankara?

>>18971199
>So you agree with Sharma that Mahayana is basically identical to Advaita, okay.
No I don't, I think the Mahayana have an inferior and flawed version of non-dualism. And Sharma also has a completely idiosyncratic understanding of Madhyamaka that 99.999% of Buddhists disagree with; Sharma views Nagarjuna as a crypto-Advaitin who held that the Absolute exists with its own eternal nature, but Sharma still critiques Nagarjuna in the book anyways and says that Nagarjuna's metaphysics are illogical if there is no Atman. 99.999% of Mahayanists understand Nagarjuna as denying that Nirvana/Absolute has its own independent reality/self-nature.

So, even with regard to Sharma's idiosyncratic understanding of Mahayana that most Buddhists disagree with, I still see that as a flawed understanding of non-dualism/metaphysics generally. And the Mahayana as Mahayanists understand it, and not as Sharma understands it, I see as even more nonsensical and flawed than Sharma's take on it.

>>18971239
After all your favorite Advaita experts abandoning you, now you part ways with even Sharma...

>>18966999
>>18967000
t. Chamars

>>18971251
At the end of the day, the only real Advaita expert is Shankaracharya (pbuh).

I agree with Sharma on 95% of the things he writes about, but I think he makes too many logical leaps and makes too many unreasonable assumptions about Buddhism because he has a soft spot for it despite often criticizing it.

>>18967015
>Buddhism opposes the caste system
Absolute Amberkarite revisionism. The Buddha was a 7th-generation Kshatriya and proud of the fact. He asserted that the "lower" castes could not produce bodhisattvas as "noble people came from noble wombs". The Buddha did not like the emphasis on ritual that was prevalent during his time. Revisionists will extend this to make it seem like he hated Brahmins or Hindu orthodoxy when his earliest followers were Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

>>18970872
Because Buddhism is just Hinduism for onions lovers. Advaita Vedanta isn't even the best school of Hinduism. Kashmir Shaivism mogs it hard

Daily reminder that Adi Shankara was a sinner and not an awakened being:

> Adi Shankaracharya traveled all around India engaging scholars in religious debate. During one such debate, Bharati, wife of scholar Madana Mishra, attempted to defeat Adi Shankara in the topic of Kamashastra – sex. To win this debate Adi Shankaracharya’s performed parakaya pravesha – enter the body of another person.
In the debate between Madana Mishra and Adi Shankara, Bharati was appointed the judge as she was a scholar by herself. Madana Mishra was easily defeated in the debate by Adi Shankara.
Bharati contented that Adi Shankara had only defeated one half of Madana Mishra. To completely defeat him, Adi Shankara had to defeat his wife too.
Bharati soon realized that she could not defeat Adi Shankara in philosophy, so turned the debate towards Kamashastra. As Adi Shankara was a Brahmachari he had no knowledge of sex.
Adi Shankara asked Bharati to give him a month’s time to debate this topic with her.
Adi Shankaracharya then used his yogic powers to enter the body of Raja Amaruka who had just died. Before entering the body of the king, he hid his physical body in a cave and asked his disciples go guard it.
For next one month, in the body of the king, Adi Shankara indulged in sexual activities and learned Kama Shastra.
A month later he returned and defeated Bharati in the debate.

Source: http://www.hindu-blog.com/2012/07/adi-shankaracharyas-parakaya-pravesha.html
Renowned Advaitin Sri Vidyarana Swami had written a biography of Sri Adi Shankara. And this instance is also recorded in it. Canto 9 of Madhaviya Shankara Digvijaya records this incident

>>18971315
>Kashmir Shaivism mogs it hard
Lol nope, Shaivism and Shaktism are more practical to follow for non-monastic householders, but when you get down to the details of the metaphysics, Advaita has much more consistent metaphysics than Kashmir Shaivism, as C. Sharma details at length in his book on non-dualism. Shaivism IMO can still get you to the Brahmaloka though, and from there to liberation.
>inb4 Sharma doesn't understand Kashmir Shaivism but I can't give specific examples of why his criticisms are wrong

>>18971341
The incident seems to be mythical, Shankara doesn't mention it in his writings; in fact he writes that such displays of siddhis are a distraction and shouldn't be pursued. Moreover, it doesn't even make sense that in a debate on Vedic exegesis and metaphysics that Shankara would think it worthwhile or relevant to debate a woman concerning sexual matters.

>it’s another thread about Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

lrn 2 get into existential post-modern philosophy of Hermetic ontology, newfags.

The three divisions in this article, incidentally, correspond to both the trikaya (three bodies) teaching of Buddhism — nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, and dharmakaya — as well as the Sarira Triya (Three Bodies Doctrine) of various Hindu yogic schools (Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya, and Tantra), where these are known as the sthula sarira (gross body), the sukshma sarira (subtle body — corresponding to the state of dreaming), and the karana sarira (the causal body).

The third body is essentially the realm of abstract thinking, thoughts — true thoughts, not just daydreams, emotions, and the like, which would correspond to the second body. The causal body (which would exist in the causal realm, if you want to call it that) could also be said to correspond, even, to Plato’s realm of the forms, being the true abstract thoughts or essential archetypes behind what appears to us in the material world. You could even make a parallel to this and Jung’s idea of the realm of the archetypes and the collective unconscious.

In Theosophical teachings, this is known as the division between gross body, the astral body, and the causal body. G. I. Gurdjieff, trained by Naqshbandi Sufis, the very esoteric Sarmouni Sufi sect (a universal school hidden out somewhere in the mountains of Central Asia which views all authentic religions as essentially having one underlying truth behind them), and who learned from and stayed at places as diverse as Orthodox monasteries, Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, and Nestorian Christian (very unconventional Christians in the region of the Near East, usually, who revere Christ but don’t view him as God) monasteries as a young man traveling to find whatever religious truth he could, gives this same teaching of man having three bodies, as recorded in “In Search of the Miraculous,” by his disciple, P.D. Ouspensky.

In Christianity, this could also known as the division between body, soul, and spirit, which was carried over into Western occult teachings which flourished during the Renaissance, for instance, such as Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, and alchemy, where this seems to correspond to the famous alchemical trinity of salt, mercury, and sulphur. Alchemy, remember, was a front for something corresponding to internal psychological and spiritual processes, as Jung pointed out. The Great Work (transmuting lead into gold) is to be done in the individual human self, the unregenerated human self turning into the perfected human being, and balancing

In esoteric Sufi teachings, this division is made as Gross Body, Jism-e-Kasif, Subtle Body, Jism-e-Latif, and Causal Body, Jism-e-Altaf.

>>18971404
>The third body is essentially the realm of abstract thinking, thoughts —
Like the platonic plane of Ideas ?

> In Theosophical teachings
Cringe
Read Guénon

the avitans ITT have the same cringe guenon posts and walls of texts but always fail on account of not having a Non Dualism chart like the chad buddhists

>>18971441
Yeah
Vedantabro, if you email me a list of books I'll make you a chart like this

>>18971422
Guenon was initiated 6 times in his life, once around age 20 through a seance he claimed put him in contact with the ancient ghost of the grand master of the Templars, and once by Freemasons.

>>18971441
guenonfag can't make a chart because all the books he recommends call shankara crypto buddhist so he would keep having to remove items from it until nothing is left

>>18971404
In Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism, another body is added over those three — the Vajrakaya (diamond body, transcendental body, the enlightened state containing the other three bodies within itself), corresponding of course to turiya samadhi, the fourth state in Hindu philosophy, pure awareness that includes and transcends physical perception, dreaming, and the state of deep dreamless sleep (which also corresponds to the causal body).

Would you like to go even deeper, too far out for most of our readers’ tastes, perhaps? This same division is made in Carlos Castaneda’s books about Nagual shamanism he learned under his shamanic guide, Don Juan Matus, in which they are called the first attention (ordinary, physical, waking life), the second attention (the state of dreaming), and the third attention (the state of deep dreamless sleep). Nagual shamanism is essentially about learning to do acrobatics with awareness. The second attention, for instance, is developed by lucid dreaming, which eventually turns into astral projection in the Castaneda books. The third attention is reached by (???) — unexplainable. Read the Castaneda books if you want to learn more, although, ironically, the Nagual shamans never get into the truth of the enlightened state which is beyond all these attentions, but rather is about basically living one’s life in a very specific, controlled, mindful way, including through lucid dreaming and the use of hallucinogenic drugs, to hone the higher attentions most humans don’t have control of, enter higher states of awareness, meet immaterial beings in this dreaming realm while lucid dreaming, astral projecting, having out-of-body experiences or the like.

In the modern day, some of this was even somewhat “scientifically” confirmed and looked into — as much as it can be — by Robert Monroe, the businessman-turned-unconventional-paranormal-researcher who became obsessed with OBEs (out of body experiences) then eventually claimed he learned how to do it at will by getting into trance sleeps between waking and dreaming, meeting with ghosts of the dead as Nagual shamans claimed to be able to, and so forth.

I sound batshit insane, don’t I?

>>18971449
>through a seance he claimed put him in contact with the ancient ghost of the grand master of the Templars
Source : wallah

At least he had a real initiation with a Hindu master, and he has been validated by many Hindu authorities
Not like your blavatsky

>>18970645
>How could anyone that realized the absolute state of non-duality still be chained to maya?
They are not chained to maya, consciousness isn't chained to anything, it's always unaffected by anything that appears within it, or that appears seemingly in association with it. When ignorance falls away, it doesn't destroy the physical organism, but the physical organism continues until its natural end. The continuance of consciousness in association with the body is not a "chaining" of consciousness, consciousness is always forever and ever eternally liberated. What observes the world is not consciousness, consciousness is the non-dual sentience-presence which lets the mind observe the world through it being present. Consciousness is exactly the same in waking life and in deep sleep when there is no world perceived, you seem to be imagining that the sense of seeing the world is consciousness and hence consciousness is chained by this seeing, but consciousness is not this but rather, it is the self-intuiting foundational presence which is there both when there is seeing and when there is no seeing in deep sleep. There is no difference in consciousness before, during or after liberation. Anything that you can point to as being chained or affected is not actually consciousness.
>If they realized that their identity, thoughts, feelings etc were just a mere illusion, how could they still operate in this false reality?
Consciousness doesn't act, it's non-volitional, when the mind understands that the supreme reality is the Atman-Brahman and understands that everything else is a false semblance projected through maya, that doesn't prevent it from acting, on the contrary it frees the mind from all fear, worry and suffering, allowing it to act in a carefree manner, doing whatever presents itself to be done.
>The sole reason for our existence is illusion, when you shatter the illusion - what's left?
The reality which is our actual existence
>And who is realizing all this stuff anyway?
the mind, consciousness doesn't think
>In absolute reality there's no more distinctions, thoughts or feelings.
Yes, but when consciousness is in absolute reality as that reality, the mind is still in the relative world until the body comes to a natural end
>How could anyone realize this and come back?
I'm not sure what you mean by "realizing and coming back", it's not a location
>How could anyone become the Lord and then go back to being a peasant?
they only are a peasant so long as the mind identifies the Self as being the peasant, if there is no misidentification, the Self remains the Lord, and the peasant remains the peasant, going about his activities like a man acting by the light of the unaffected and unchanging sun.

>>18971447
okay I will

>>18971308
>He asserted that the "lower" castes could not produce bodhisattvas as "noble people came from noble wombs".
I genuinely can’t believe Hindus thought this was an okay thing. If I was a medieval Indian I would have converted to Islam without a second thought.

>>18971462
Guenon never visited India, was not initiated into Hinduism and it is impossible for someone like him to be initiated into Hinduism except in rare marginal cases. He was initiated into a Sufi order, while also saying that he never converted to Islam which makes him an apostate and heretic, which in Islam makes it impossible and dangerous to practice Sufism.

>>18971404
>>18971459
> To explain these concepts I've made a three-part, uneven division of our consciousness. The smallest, the first attention, or the consciousness that every normal person has developed in order to deal with the daily world, encompasses the awareness of the physical body. Another larger portion, the second attention, is the awareness we need in order to perceive our luminous cocoon and to act as luminous beings. The second attention is brought forth through deliberate training or by an accidental trauma, and it encompasses the awareness of the luminous body. The last portion, which is the largest, is the third attention. It's an immeasurable consciousness which engages undefinable aspects of the awareness of the physical and the luminous bodies. The battlefield of warriors is the second attention, which is something like a training ground for reaching the third attention."

--don Juan Matus, The Eagle's Gift

>>18971422
Like the Platonic plane of ideas, yes, I made that connection.

Theosophy by itself is shit but it’s useful shit. Do you get what I mean? Guenon makes valid critiques of it but Guenon is a perennial philosopher coming at religious truth at a very similar angle from the Theosophists. He just had an axe to grind because he found himself to be a far deeper person than Blavatsky, who was, in many respects, an occultist quack, charlatan, and fraud who didn’t and couldn’t really lead people to enlightenment herself, but still had some surprisingly good sources and made some interesting correspondences between various religious traditions for the devoted researcher. She was a quack, but a very learned one.

Imagine investigating Sufism, Zen, Theosophy, and Yoga, then finally seeing there’s something beyond just brainy comparing, quoting, and or arguing about their similarities and differences. Do you get what I mean?

Suppose I ask you, “What in you is reading this question right now?” and this question succeeds in getting you into a state of higher awareness. This state of higher awareness is itself neither caused nor owned specifically by either Zen, Yoga, Sufism, or Theosophy, but it could hypothetically be that you could investigate all these traditions deeply to learn what you could about self-inquiry and from the self-realized people affiliated with these traditions, to get pointers about how to get into these higher states of consciousness by yourself more and more frequently, bursts of satori (instant enlightenment) which eventually coalesce into permanent enlightenment, a state of samadhi.

>>18971492
>was not initiated into Hinduism and it is impossible for someone like him to be initiated into Hinduism except in rare marginal cases
Wrong
All his biographers acknowledge that he was initiated by a Hindu master early in his life

>Even more than the unity of the work, it is the precocity of this unity that has struck commentators: from his very first writings, when he was only 23 years old, all the most important notions of his discourse are present and will hardly evolve thereafter [PC 2], [PS 1], [JR 1]. Guénon acquired the answers to his questions and all his certainties, from which he never deviated, around his twentieth year by meeting Hindus, including at least one master of the Vêdânta[11]

(1/2)

>>18971492
>>18971514
>Most biographers acknowledge that the encounter that most marked his life and work was with Hindus, at least one of whom acted as an instructor if not a spiritual master. This meeting took place very early in the period 1904-1909, probably from his arrival in the occultist world if not before [LE 15], [PC 7], [CC 1], [JR 2], [QS 4], [LS 2]. In particular, André Préau and Paul Chacornac remembered having seen in Guénon's flat in Paris, rue Saint-Louis-en-l'Île, a painting described as mediocre depicting a Brahmin's wife, which Guénon told them was that of his "Guru's" wife [LE 22],[LS 16]. Also, various witnesses report that Guénon wore on one hand a "ring" or "signet ring" engraved with the monosyllable AUM, which could be related to his master(s) and which he kept until the end of his life [PC 20],[17]. He never revealed the name of this 'Guru', even in his correspondence with his friend Ananda Coomaraswamy who was a Hindu himself [AS 1]. But it was necessarily a master of Advaita Vedanta in the lineage of Adi Shankara [LE 23]: Guénon always considered Hinduism as the tradition closest to the primordial Tradition (explicitly identified by Guénon with the Sanâtana Dharma of Hinduism [EH 1]) and Adi Shankara's doctrine as the purest formulation of metaphysics [IDH 1], [LS 17]. According to Jean-Pierre Laurant, his presentation of Shankara's doctrine in L'homme et son devenir selon le Vêdânta "confirms the quality of the master who had the determining influence on him"[LE 24]. From the importance given to the Sâmkhya in his presentation of the Vêdânta, scholars have recognised a reformulation coming from a late school of Shankara's Vêdânta, either that of Vallabha or that of Vijnanabhikshu[CH 1]. The Hindu master therefore probably belonged to one of these branches. Thus, Jean-Pierre Laurant wrote that "all his life, René Guénon claimed to have based his certainties on the communications of a Hindu master of the Vêdânta, around 1906, in his twentieth year [11]". Several authors believe that Guénon underwent a very important spiritual transformation during the period 1904-1909 without necessarily referring to the individuality of the Hindu master, which was voluntarily kept secret by Guénon [JR 3],[GI 5],[LE 25],[R1 1]. His family found in his personal belongings after his death "poems of thanks to Hindu masters[w 3]".

And he has had more recognitions from Indian metaphysical authorities than your new age cult will ever have

>>18971477
Deal

>>18971481
You will never be a woman

>>18971492
>and it is impossible for someone like him to be initiated into Hinduism except in rare marginal cases.
That's a common misconception but it's not actually true.

The Vaishnava Agamas (Pancharatra) that Vaishnavas follow say that anyone irrespective of caste, birth etc can be initiated into Vaishnavism
The Shaivist/Shaktist Agamas that Shaivists and Shaktists follow say that anyone irrespective of caste, birth etc can be initiated into Shaivism/Shaktism

It's mainly orthodox Advaita monasticism and Vedic rites like Upayanam which you cannot be initiated into if you don't have a caste or are not high enough caste. And there are different Advaita monastic lineages, some of which don't care as much about caste (like the Advaita-following nagas). Guenon could have been initiated into many different schools of Hinduism in truth, but he never traveled to India because the British turned down his application for a visa.

>>18971481
Indian Muslims have caste too you retard. There have literally been Dalits murdered by Muslims for attempting to consort with them while not being of high enough caste. Just recently, I read of a case where a Dalit boy was murdered by a Muslim family for asking to marry their daughter. When questioned by the police, the said "the would have given the union their blessings if he was a Brahmin". Even Sikhs have caste. Caste is a cultural feature of the Indian subcontinent. It isn't unique to Hinduism.

>>18971379
What are some of Sharma's arguements? Can you tell me why the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta is superior to Kashmir Shaivism

>>18971481
The only people who like the caste are system are coping mulattos like Guenonfag who would have been classified as dirtslaves under it, and expat brahmins with fake posh accents who say they don't like it but secretly brag that their background is brahmin.

>>18971552
It was probably introduced by Aryan invaders who were already assimilated into the local ethnic varieties within a hundred years.

>>18971563
According to Sharma it's nearly identical to Mahayana Buddhism >>18971159 so that is one benefit, you can study Mahayana texts and just add Brahman at the end and you are studying Advaita. That's very convenient.

>>18971574
Yeah, but does he give any specific points as to why Kashmir Shaivism is flawed?

I am really curious to know how one could harmonize or not Advaita Vedanta, Platonism, and Neoplatonism
I see striking similarities (The One = Brahman, the Demiruge = Ishvara) but these are rough intuitions
Are there any books on the subject?
But Plato is more concerned, in the Greek tradition, with objects than with the subject. So he talks about ideas, universals, etc., and less about the subject
The one who will unify the best of Greek (object) and Indian (subject) thought will be the thinker of the century

>>18971593
And Aristotle of course
Who already recognised that the Absolute is a self-luminous consciousness (noeseos noesis)

>>18971449
>>18971459
A seance, incidentally, would also correspond to the subtle/second body, and to certain practices in shamanism, but also could be a dangerous potential realm of deception not necessarily at all about reaching full spiritual enlightenment. All this occult nonsense could lead to full-blown schizophrenia, possession, mystification by false spirits/demons pretending to be “the real thing”, and so forth. This is also prevalent in modern “channelerism” (“I’m channeling aliens, the ghosts of various figures, and the like”). Think Edgar Cayce, for instance, with all his stuff about Atlantis, reincarnation, clairvoyance, and channeling stuff from the “Akashic records” while in a higher state. He at least didn’t wreck his own life while doing so, but, like Blavatsky, he made a sort of New Age mishmash futile dead-end spiritual road for people — maybe the best they can do in this lifetime and what works for them, sure.

It’s probably better to be a half-assed researcher of this stuff and not go into it full-blown unless you want to blow your brain circuits and end up in some type of spiritual mumbo-jumbo state of being led around the nose by paranormal phenomena. It’s better to be a crank or quack who doesn’t actually experience this stuff, for most people. It’s a potentially very aberrant road.

But you look at Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, and you actually have some stuff that corresponds to modern “seance”-like phenomena, such as making what Theosophists called “tulpas”, a topic much-loved on /x/, and which they stole from Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhist teachings of these lamas being able to genuinely project these thought forms, as it’s called in Evan-Wentz’s translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

You look at the Tibetan Book of the Dead, what is that about? The states of awareness one goes through after death, the lights one sees, colors, sounds heards, entities that are met — all quite similar to shamanism. Probably from the influence of the native Tibetan Bon shamanism on it.

Basically, there’s a difference between shamanism/sorcery/occultism/paranormal phenomena, and enlightenment, but sometimes these are closely tied in quite interesting, unique ways. On the road to enlightenment you can and maybe even SHOULD experience these things at times. In Buddhism and Hinduism, it would be called the development of siddhis (miraculous abilities). In Christianity, it would be gifts of the Holy Spirit and miracles performed by saints.

When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, how did that happen? Think about it. Assuming you as a faithful Christian believe it happened, do you just think, “It’s because He was God, no other explanation is needed”? Or are there interesting magical laws and ramifications behind this phenomenon?

These saints and prophets in the Bible were doing amazing things like fasting for weeks and weeks on end in solitude and the like.

>>18971586
See this thread
>>/lit/thread/S18562066

>Chandradhar Sharma is a good scholar on Advaita, but he is too biased, thus I suggest anyone to refrain from getting knowledge, even basic knowledge, concerning Kashmir Shaivism from him. He fails to address in good faith many doctrines of Shaivism like the recollection, he presents and attacks a caricature that does not exist in the school. He fails to understand even the basic dialectical relation in Shaivism. Dialectics, that which the advaitins fear so much and fail to explain their crypto-dualism.

>>18971552
Casteism in Sikhism and Islam is a corruption of their faith and can/should be rooted out. It is my understanding that it is baked into Hinduism, it is an integral part of the faith. If that is not true, it’s news to me.

>>18971620
this thread is better, trikanon raped guenonfag >>/lit/thread/S16873327

The people against vedantabro are really crazy
on EVERY thread they post the same arguments over and over that he has already answered
wtf

>>18971667
If he would just be careful then the discussions could move on

I respect guenonfag but I just hope he has moved beyond the intellectual game and actually practices what he preaches here

>>18971614
Ever heard of animal magnetism? What the Taoists call Qi? Or Hindu yogis call kundalini shakti? What Sufis call the baraka, blessing?

How do you think such energy is accumulated?

How do you think Christ raised Lazarus from the grave?

Sorry to sound like MANTAK CHIA or some corny New Age universalist master, now. This is all more fit for /x/. If anyone is bothering to read this and wondering why I’m even bringing it up, it’s to make the point that everyone here is so sure they’re some enlightened master for brainily discoursing on Vedanta vs Buddhism, but none of them can:

>raise people from the dead
>walk on water (as Christ, Sufis, AND various Hindus and Buddhists were claimed to have been able to do after meditating enough, somehow)
>telepathically communicate with others (again, an admitted possibility in these traditions)
>levitate (ditto)
Etc.

But levitating doesn’t necessarily bring spiritual enlightenment. This is even admitted in Buddhism and Hinduism — yet, enlightened Buddhists and Hindus supposedly did things like that.

I can’t levitate or walk on water myself.

How do you consider this? Could it be that we’re half-assed Westerners? How come you all keep pulling all these dense Hindu philosophical tracts out of your ass, but neither you nor I can see into the future or fly, as is an admitted possibility in these traditions?

Could it be that you and I are actually stupid unenlightened assholes with nothing really going on for us?

>take meds, schizo

No. Think about it right now, you cocky asshole. Where are your siddhis? Where’s your genuine enlightenment and miracles instead of half-assing shit on /lit/? There’s Hindu monks in India and Sufis in the Middle East probably doing this crap right now while you and me are writing our little blog-posts and essays. Why don’t you go kneel before one with devotion and ask for his (or even her) blessing?

As for me, I increasingly dislike ranting about religion online and arguing with pseuds who are NOT my guru and not qualified to be so, neither am I qualified to be anyone’s guru. You’re not here getting darshan from Ramana Maharshi. You’re just learning to bullshit more and more efficiently and sound like a wise-ass. Some of these Hindu and Buddhist saints were so fucking advanced, they literally saw miracles as unimpressive and unnecessary. You and I are so UNadvanced, as brainy cynical Westerners, that we’re not even sufficiently enlightened enough to be unimpressed by miracles.

Ramana Maharshi literally told some guy who bragged to him about his guru’s miracles, “Though a man can enter ever so many bodies, does it mean that he has found his true Home?”, but the guy who experienced the guru’s miracles is still in more advanced incarnation than either you or I, and Ramana Maharshi was even more advanced than him still.

Thanks for reading my blog.

I have difficulty with the ontological status of maya
I see no other option than being and non-being
even when Guénon talks about this he plays with words, what he calls being is the manifested, so even his non-being (the unmanifested) exists in a form, it is not strict non-being
the whole of advaita vedanta is based on the existence of maya, without that it is incoherent
and maya rests on something for which we have no proof or argument or evidence supporting it, and absolutely everything against it, namely the existence of a thing neither true nor false, neither existing nor non-existing
and don't give me the example of an illusion, an illusion exists

>>18971777
this version is better

>>18971563
>What are some of Sharma's arguments?
You can read all of Chandradhar's Sharma's arguments against Kashmir Shaivism in this picture here in pic related, which includes the entire chapter wherein he argues against it. It's from the book "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy" which can be found on lib-gen and archive.org. In Sharma's view Advaita is more logically consistent because it doesn't have the same logical contradictions which Sharma says Kashmir Shaivism has.

>>18971574
>According to Sharma it's nearly identical to Mahayana Buddhism
That's not true, Sharma's book points out dozens of important ways in which they differ

>>18971620
That anon has never presented a half-way decent or detailed refutation of any of C. Sharma's arguments, all he ever does is just make vague claims about Sharma not understanding it but he never gives examples or explains why Sharma is wrong. Even the green-texted paragraph you cited is characteristically vague.

>>18971643
Lol nope, "trikanon" has never refuted Advaita, in fact he doesn't even seem to understand that in Advaita "being" and "non-being" are not exhaustive, most of his arguments consist of going in circles trying to classify everything as being or non-being and getting confused when this doesn't work out, but he has never refuted or presented an argument against the Advaitist premise that there are 3, "absolute being", "indefinite relative being" and "non-being"

>>18971667
It's both funny and strange, but in doing so they are causing more people to become aware of the glory of Advaita and Sri Shankarcharya (pbuh), so I've come to not mind it at all.

guenonfag began as a buddhist just like shankara and only likes advaita because it's mahayana plus brahman

>>18971841
>in fact he doesn't even seem to understand that in Advaita "being" and "non-being" are not exhaustive, most of his arguments consist of going in circles trying to classify everything as being or non-being and getting confused when this doesn't work out
see
>>18971777

>>18971777
>I have difficulty with the ontological status of maya
>I see no other option than being and non-being
Have you tried reading Shankara's commentaries? It wasn't something I ever considered before but when reading them I found that he explained the concept in a way that for me made it perfectly logical and consistent. Instead of looking for neat explanations elsewhere, if you really want to understand the concept it would probably be best to go straight to the same source which in all likelihood was what led Guenon to accept it as valid.

Also, something that I don't understand is that it seems to be people with their views shaped by Thomism or Aristotle who don't accept the 3rd status inbetween absolute being and non-being; but at the same time, these are the people who say that God is infinite and different from the world, while at the same time saying that the world is real, non-illusory. But if there is only being and non-being, how can an infinite thing with being be different from a finite thing that also has being? If both are in the same category of being, how can the infinity of one not include the finiteness of the other?

In trying to square this circle do they not end up adding qualifications to being that make it not so simple after all? If they say that it's not a problem because God can do anything and allow apparently contradictory things to happen via omnipotence, is that not taking a bigger logical leap than accepting the indefinite as a valid 3rd category between absolute being and non-existence? I have not studied Thomism enough to know the answer to this question but would be curious to see what someone knowledgeable about Thomism would say.

>>18972032
>>18971777
>even when Guénon talks about this he plays with words, what he calls being is the manifested, so even his non-being (the unmanifested) exists in a form, it is not strict non-being
For Advaita, manifested maya and the unmanifested maya both belong to relative being/indefiniteness and not absolute being or non-being. For Advaita, there is really no such thing as non-being, anywhere, because nothingness doesn't exist, the closest one can get to it is the relative being of the unmanifested. They cite non-existence to contrast it to that which differs from it without making non-existence into an existing principle or realm in their cosmology. Guenon doesn't exactly replicate the exact language of Advaita so sometimes there are minor discrepancies, but in principle he is almost always on point.

>and maya rests on something for which we have no proof or argument or evidence supporting it, and absolutely everything against it, namely the existence of a thing neither true nor false, neither existing nor non-existing
Advaita distinguishes "false" from "unreal", the latter equals non-existence and nothingness while the former doesn't; this is why they say that maya is "neither real nor unreal" but they do affirm that it is false. The existence of the 3rd category cannot be infallibly proven with a logical demonstration like a math equation but in Advaita works like Shankara's commentaries it's explained how it's a logical and internally-consistent concept with many different examples that come up naturally, and objections from the purvapaksin are refuted, it's on the reader to choose to accept it or not. There is no one "master-argument" that establishes it irrefutably, but in the course of the question being addressed from every angle and being subjected to every objection which are all answered, it gradually dawns on the reader that the concept is completely valid, or that was at least my experience and the experience of many others.

>>18972032
>But if there is only being and non-being, how can an infinite thing with being be different from a finite thing that also has being? If both are in the same category of being, how can the infinity of one not include the finiteness of the other?
it is addressed in the article that I emailed you
extract :

>However, in De Smet's view, the one topic of Samkara's teaching that provides the key to the whole of his thought, one that likewise intersects with Aquinas and is the basis for Samkara's understanding of nonduality, is his concept of relation. [61] Again, the agreement between Samkara and Aquinas is striking. Though they use an entirely different frame of reference, both theologians end up with a similar vision of the link between the world and the Absolute. According to De Smet, Samkara's negations in describing the world must not be understood in an absolute sense, as if Samkara were denying the existence of the universe. Samkara's point of reference in speaking of finite existents is the infinite brahman; his language is therefore implicitly comparative and value-oriented. The Advaitic master, then, must be regarded as "a radical valuationist who measures everything to the absolute Value, the Brahman, and declares its unequality to it rather than the degree of its participation in it. This manner of thin king and speaking is legitimate but it has misled many into acosmistic interpretations of his doctrine." [62]

>By contrast, De Smet went on to say:

>St. Thomas generally prefers the language of participation. A participated being is in its own deficient way that the absolute Esse is without any restrictions. This Esse or Being is not a logical genus but the ontological Reality of God. And its participations are not parts of that partless Reality, nor accidents, complements, explications or developments of it, nor in any way additive to it. [63]

(1/2)

>>18972032
>>18972078
>That is to say, both Aquinas and Samkara attribute the same ontological status to the world; for both of them the world enjoys a relative reality and is entirely dependent on its transcendent source. Their description of the world in either more negative or more positive terms is due to their center of reference and chosen emphasis.

>The relation of the world to its source for both Samkara and Aquinas may best be described, according to Sara Grant, a student and colleague of De Smet, as a "non-reciprocal dependence relation." [64] In this understanding, the creature's very existence is constituted by its relation to or dependence on its source, whereas God or brahman -- the cause of the creature's existence -- remains unchanged in its own perfect Being even while creating. [65] De Smet drew on Aquinas's theory of relation when he summarized this by saying that the relation "is real on the side of the creature but merely logical on the side of the Creator." [66] Samkara, he said, "does not deny the universal causality, lordship, etc. of brahman -- for they are logically entailed by the true fact of the world's ontological dependence upon it -- but only that they affect the simplicity of its essence." [67] The relations of brahman to the world as cause, Lord, and so forth "cannot be ontological but logical only. They are not intrinsic attr ibutes (visesana) but extrinsic denominators (upadhi)." [68] The relation between creator and creation, then, is true; it is in no sense an illusion. However, this relation in no way defines the ontological status of the Absolute. This is what Samkara appears to have meant when he stated, "Names and forms (that is, the world's multiplicity), in all their states have their atman in brahman alone, but brahman has not its atman in them." [69]

I will point out that it is also possible to define metaphysical infinity in different ways

(2/2)

>>18972032
>>18972041
>>18972078
>>18972084
+ https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/303491/Dissertation%20complete.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

>>18972041
what do u think of Śuddhādvaita of Vallabha Ācārya?

In this metaphysical system, the combination of Mâyâ (temporal illusion power) with Brahman (universal soul) is removed; the Cause of this world is not Brahman veiled by Mâyâ. But it is pure Brahman and only pure Brahman that is the Effect and Cause of this World (Creation is the Play of God).

it's even more non-dualistic

>>18972186
. Vallabha cites the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad account, that Brahman desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual souls and the world. Although Brahman is not known, He is known when He manifests Himself through the world.

I don't see how a mind can not be personal
a consciousness also for this matter, since it is a point of view
but the brahman is more than a simple conscience, since with the maya it is like a conscience and its mind which "dreams" the world
so it is necessarily personal, in one form or another
that's why guénon had to invent the personal / individual dichotomy and recognize that the brahman is the supreme individuality
it cannot be totally impersonal like an object

also, did you get interested in the debate analogy of being vs univocity of being vs equivocity of being?

I wonder which side adi shankara would fall in
the analogy I imagine

>Both the Hindu acarya and the Christian magister, further, apply the method of analogia nominum (analogy of names or terms) to attain a correct understanding of the Absolute, and they make divine revelation the starting point of this analogical method (laksana). [58]

>The three steps of via affirmationis, via negationis, and via eminentiae employed by Christian scholastics closely correspond to Samkara's use of the triple method of (1) adhyasa or adhyaropa, attempted predication of brahman using ordinary meanings of words; (2) apavada, negation or elimination of the finite meanings of these terms; culminating in (3) paramartha-laksana, a legitimate, supreme indication of brahman. [59] Analogy, then, is capable of indirectly indicating the supreme reality without formally or properly defining it. Both Samkara and Aquinas are also practical in their orientation; they make spiritual liberation the ultimate goal of their teaching, a liberation defined by De Smet as "the blissful intellectual experience of the Godhead and the complete cessation of [human] ignorance." [60]

>>18972186
Excuse me. Have you ever experienced a miracle?

I’m not schizophrenic. I don’t browse /lit/ often. I’m a young Western seeker of the miraculous doing this as an experiment while drunk. I’ve experienced a few miraculous occurrences — not necessarily even while drunk or high. I think these came about from something religious or supernatural. Anyone who wants to jump in — let’s talk. Let’s bring /x/ into /lit/. Let’s make a point that brainy reading and writing is not the same as religious experiences.

>he who talks does not know. He who knows does not talk
The Dao de Jing

Brahman is said to be something omnipresent and omniscient, residing in everyone and everything, the Self that knows everyone and everything. So maybe by some quirk in reality “Western scientists” don’t understand, miracles such as telepathy, mind-reading, precognition, and clairvoyance can happen. I’m lonely. Could anyone help me?

I don’t feel SUPERIOR to you or anyone. I’m certain a lot of you are much more well-read and articulate than me. I have no desire to pose as anyone’s guru, seek fame, perform miracles for anyone, and the like. I simply feel DIFFERENT from many people. I just actually am here saying this is real and has happened, according my own subjective experience as a young person in a Western White body without any extraordinary qualifications such as, having a PhD, having gotten an amazing career, and the like.

Humor me. I’m sorry for bothering (you). (you) don’t have to respond if you don’t want to, this is impersonal, for anyone here if they want to respond to a possible charlatan or deluded megalomaniac. Let’s compare experienced.

>>18972224
>I’ve experienced a few miraculous occurrences — not necessarily even while drunk or high.
tell them

>>18972224
>Excuse me. Have you ever experienced a miracle?
why this question? i don't see the link with my post you quoted

>>18972084
>That is to say, both Aquinas and Samkara attribute the same ontological status to the world; for both of them the world enjoys a relative reality
This is interesting, I have read excerpts of articles comparing the two in a similar way to this way before. I would probably enjoy De Smets books too, I may end up ordering some soon. There is some PhD dissertation online on google from some university in the UK where someone focuses on this topic that I saw once, but I forget the name of it. I was vaguely aware of this in the back of my mind but sometimes I forget this point when seeing Thomism posters speak about how everything has to be fully either being or non-being.

I'll have to read the whole article this weekend when I have more free time. Is the implication here that Aquinas' metaphysics implicitly accepts the distinction between absolute being and relative/indefinite being?

Also, do you know which pages/sections in the Summa are found Aquinas' main arguments arguing that God being infinite isn't incompatible with Him being different from the world? I was trying to find them on google earlier but didn't come up with it.

>>18972186
I have not studied it, but I was aware of it. I disagree that its more non-dualistic than Advaita. There are arguments Shankara made in his works that apply retroactively against it, as is common with most of the Vedanta schools, but that's a whole other conversation I dont have the time to get into now.

These are Shuddadvaita doctrines:
>The soul is both a doer and enjoyer. It is atomic in size
> The liberated perform all karmas. The highest goal is not Mukti or liberation, but rather eternal service of Krishna and participation along with His activities in His Divine abode of Vrindavana.
To me this is clearly less non-dual than Advaita, since admitting the soul as an atomic doer and enjoyer is obviously admitting a plurality of souls who are doers and enjoyers, since when one soul is enjoying and doing something, another soul is doing something else. So this is not non-dualism (absence of difference/duality) but is talking about a plurality of real existents subsumed under a greater all-encompassing unity; to me this is monism and not non-duality. Real non-duality IMO has to be simple, impartite, undivided, not characterized by internal distinctions and differences. Also, the highest goal for the soul being the eternal service of Krishna and participation in His activities is positing a difference between Brahman, the Highest, and oneself. Even to say that we become joined to Him and participate in His activities like limbs participate in bodily activities is still rendering a difference between the Lord or head of the body and its limbs.

Vallabha started his movement as a movement which was supposed to be open to everyone and make Krishna accessible to everyone, but I have read that it has degenerated and his descendants have made it into a wealth- and status-obsessed clique where only certain descendants of Vallabha or wealthy people are allowed to participate in the higher ceremonies. I can't find the article now detailing that but this excerpt from the Pushtimarg wikipedia page is one example of it.

>The formal initiation into Pushtimarg is called Brahmasambandha. The absolute and exclusive rights to grant "Brahmsambandh" in the path of grace, in order to transform an Ordinary jiva (soul) into a Pushti "Jeev" lie only with the descendants of Vallabhacharya, known as Goswami Balaks

>>18973328
pbuh guenonposter

Bump for Adi Shankar

>>18971735
>There’s Hindu monks in India and Sufis in the Middle East probably doing this crap right now
forgive the stupid question; but, if this were really true, why is there no photographic evidence or whatever? or is there? are miracles just incapable of being recorded / scientifically verified?
i don't mean to concern troll, sincerely interested in what the answer is here

>>18973439
That grovelling way you ask if miracles are real as not to insult the deluded religious nut who believes that walking on water, levitation and raising the dead are Really happening instead of being metaphors is disgusting.

>>18967802
Take meds
Have sex
Touch grass
Dilate

>>18972032
>But if there is only being and non-being, how can an infinite thing with being be different from a finite thing that also has being? If both are in the same category of being, how can the infinity of one not include the finiteness of the other?
This critique would more-so apply to Duns Scotus, who insisted on the univocity of being and differentiated God from other beings on the basis of God's infinitude. But for Thomas, being is analogical and God simply /is/ being-as-such: the difference is not between being, non-being, and some third category individuated just as much by its relation to the latter as by its relation to former, but the 'ontological difference' between the ontic (pertaining to beings) and the ontological (pertaining to being-as-such).

DB Hart:
>God is not modally qualified by any relation to nonbeing, because he is himself the ‘is’ both of ‘it is’ and of ‘it is not’. He is the creator ex nihilo, because for him the difference between beings and nonbeing is literally nothing at all.

>>18967802
>Shankara's school predated him
Religious nuts can say things like these without blushing

>>18973466
Gaudapada (~5th century) was an Advaitin

>>18971637
>If that is not true, it’s news to me.
Glad you learned something new today

>>18971637
There are CHRISTIAN castes, anon. There are "Old Christians", from Syrian and Roman churches, and the "New Christians" whether Prots or Dalit converts into Syrian or Roman churches, with Old not wishing to mingle with the New. Inter-caste marriages are very uncommon, enough so that one would rather marry into a Hindu family than into a Dalit converts' one.

>>18973465
>DB Hart:

>>18966911
I just want a Gopi gf. Is that too much to ask? Prefer the 8th avatar's childhood to the 9th's, vastly.

>>18974427
blacked
is this peak indo-aryan mythos?

>>18973465
From your description its not totally clear to me how that would resolve the infinite vs finite issue, do you have a link to any webpage or pdf that gives a clear explanation of what you are talking about, and how that relates to conceptions of the infinite?

>>18966911
I don’t remember reading about him in The Bible. Paul has some nice letters in there that talk about similar teachings. The person you speak of has only a small fraction of the teaching.

Bad transmission I guess.

bump

>>18975121
Narrow peak 'aryan'-aryan mythos dominated by an utter want of imagination