Proceed with the Poos

[Anonymous No.11609082]

How do I get into Indian philosophy? Or Eastern philosophy in general.

[Anonymous No.11609783]

>>11609082
Start with Guenon's 'Intro to Hindu Doctrines' for Hinduism (somewhat helps you get other eastern doctrines too). After that there are many different choices and paths depending on whether you want a broad overview that reads only the more accessible texts or whether you want to read many thousands of pages of eastern metaphysics. The Bhagavad-Gita, Ashtavakra-Gita, Tao Te Ching, Zhuangzi, Dhammapada, Bhikku Bodhi's "What the Buddha Taught" are all fairly accessible to newcomers. You have to read the Quran and some Hadith to understand Islamic thought but once you do there are all sorts of different types of thinkerss like Averros, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi etc. Guenon's book is free here.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.280367

[Anonymous No.11609792]

>>11609082
Cringed hard.

>>11609783
Cringed even harder.

[Anonymous No.11609840]

>>11609783
Why would someone read a white French tradcon mystic to learn about Hinduism?

That's like telling someone to read a Little Caesar's coupon to learn about Neapolitan pizza.

[Anonymous No.11609888]

>>11609082
Start with the Tao. Once you understand the unity behind all dualities, concepts like postmodern deconstruction, dialectics, Jungian psychoanalysis, alchemy (as well as various other esoterically inclined occult studies) become much easier to decipher.

[Anonymous No.11609934]

>>11609840
Because all he did was explain Hinduism as orthodox Hindu themselves understand it

[Anonymous No.11609971]

>>11609934
>sheikh Guenon is the only one who can explain hinduism
ok

[Anonymous No.11610048]

>>11609971
I didn't say that he was the only one you autist, I just recommended him because he did a good job of it. Are you incapable of argueing against him without using ad hominems or putting words in my mouth? Try to name one thing he wrote about Hinduism in any of his books that was incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11610073]

>>11610048
On pp 56-57 of the English version of Introduction etc. he strawmans historians by saying they discount oral tradition and rely on manuscript dates. This isn't even close to correct, oral traditions were taken into consideration well before Guenon's day, the oral origin of the Rig Veda was recognised very early and it has always been dated to much earlier than the earliest manuscripts.

[Anonymous No.11610101]

>>11609082
>>11609783
hohohohohohohohohohoho

[Anonymous No.11610149]

You're supposed to start with the Vedas right?
I can't find the complete thing in my language, which one do you read in English?

[Anonymous No.11610154]

>>11610149
>You're supposed to start with the Vedas right?
No, they're huge collections of hymns in difficult early Sanskrit, which is why there are few complete translations. The Bhagavad Gita is usually recommended as the first Hindu scripture to read, it's been translated loads of times and is widely read by Hindus.

[Anonymous No.11610157]

>>11610154
Thank you man.

[Anonymous No.11610206]

>>11610073
Criticizing western scholarship on Hinduism has nothing to do with accurately explaining the doctrines themselves. He doesn't name any specific person who did that but was just describing a not-uncommon trend among orientalists and academics to err on the side of estimating later rather than earlier dates for texts even if they knew of the existence of oral transmission, this was especially the case for the late 19th and early 20th century scholarship that was the context in the 1920's when Guenon wrote that book. Try naming something he gets wrong about the doctrines themselves.

[Anonymous No.11610248]

>>11610206
Guys like the poster you’re responding to are just contrarians, useless parasites who see something to pounce on anytime someone gets relatively popular on this board. “Oh, Guenon is mentioned a lot in Eastern philosophy threads as a good introduction to Hinduism? Let me make fun of him.” They can’t leave anything be, there would be similar parasites popping up if you mentioned Coomaraswamy or something. I’ve seen Guenon criticizes on this board so much by such fleas and every time they never bring a valid criticism, they just object to him overall because “lol Traditionalism a larp” “lol he’s just some white guy who didn’t understand Hinduism.” Ask these posters for their own recommended introductions to Hinduism and what do you get? Likely nothing or just worse recommendations, they’re not here for intellectual discussion, they’re here to jack off their own egos.

[Anonymous No.11610281]

>>11610206
Okay, on page 191 he says uses Kanada as an example of heterodoxy, despite it being considered one of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism.

See: Swami Prabhavananda, The Spiritual Heritage of India, chapter 9

>>11610248
There are numerous better books than Guenon's, such as:

The Spiritual Heritage of India - see above
Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective - David R. Kinsley
An Introduction to Hinduism - Gavin Flood
The Hindus - Julius Lipner

More advanced books:

The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism - Gavin Flood
A Survey of Hinduism - Klaus Klostermeier

[Anonymous No.11610288]

if you started with the greeks

[Anonymous No.11610372]

You people are terribly ignorant - to call Indians terms like you have in the OP, while also seeking out the wisdom of their traditions. Disgusting, seriously. Don't even read into Eastern texts - the wisdom there is of a kind not fit for you. Stay within the egoic ignorance that is central to and at home in Abrahamism.

[Anonymous No.11610384]

What the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, and the Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad have to say about kāya?

"This ritual done now is that which the gods did then, at inception."
Satapatha Brahmana

THE COSMIC MAN:
Late Vedic depicts the creation of the world (cosmos) as the sacrifice of an anthropomorphous being.
The dismembered body constituted the ordered cosmos.
This man is Prajāpati, or Ka, in the Brāhmaṇas. The early Vedic disunited: Puruṣa, becomes the reunited to be: Prajāpati.
Puruṣa being the disunification (विद्रु vidru ) - Prajāpati being the reunification (संभू saṃbhū).
In the Brāhmaṇas, the primordial sacrifice of Prajapati is duplicated through the sacrificer’s own executions; through symbolic identifications and rituals. Each major sacrifice is the reenactment of the prototypal sacrifice.

In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, the word of the dead enters the fire (agni); the breath into the air (vata); the eye into the sun (Aditya); the mind into the moon (candra); the ear into the quarters (dis). The dead person reunites with Ka, that is the teleological Prājapati.

Prajāpati (Ka) is also the creator. He propagates progeny. It is not Puruṣa, the “Man,” anymore. It is Prājapati, the “Lord of Creatures.”

The cosmos is mutually related to the body of the cosmic man. The configuration of the cosmos is that of a man.
Prajapati presents the epitome of a man. A man as a whole.
Man and cosmos are likened on both the “outer” plane of existence (physical body - cosmos’ spheres) and the “inner” plane of existence (mind and senses - animate components of the cosmos).
The mortal and the immortal.
"At inception, Prajapati was both mortal and immortal; his vital air (prana) was immortal and his body (sarira) was mortal."
After his creation, Prājapati’s prana left sarira - Prājapati was cut off from the cosmos - and Prājapati (Ka,) became the typical example of a man.

The rituals in BU are just the way to recover the original state of unity.

The mind has a special place in that construct. It partakes in all physical experience - however it has the faculty to experience the physical experience independently.
The chief priest, for instance, partakes plainly to the sacrifice; yet doing nothing. The physical part being done by the lower priests. “Thinking” the sacrifice done by others is sacrificing by itself; at a higher level.
The higher priest gains an “unlimited” world; whereas the other priests win only one world each.

Note that the Brahmanic representation of Prajapati is such, that the upper half of the body is immortal, and the lower half mortal.
This also appears in the Shulba sutra of Kātyāyana - (and also in the Mahābhārata). The word kāya (as body,) is well defined in the latter two.

Kāya also means: “relating or devoted to the god Ka”. God or man, at this point?
How does Ka, the dismembered anthropomorphous being, appear in that Brāhmaṇa - and how might this concept be attached to the Buddhist concept of body?

[Anonymous No.11610389]

>>11610384
?
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa:
2:5:2:13 Then follows a cake on one potsherd for Ka (Prajāpati); for by that cake on one potsherd to Ka Prajāpati indeed bestowed happiness (ka) on the creatures, and so does he (the sacrificer) now bestow happiness on the creatures by that one-cup cake: this is why there is a cake on one potsherd for Ka. Atha kāya ekakapālaḥ puroḍāśo bhavati | kaṃ vai prajāpatiḥ prajābhyaḥ kāyenaikakapālena puroḍāśenākuruta kamvevaiṣa etatprajābhyaḥ kāyenaikakapālena puroḍāśena kurute tasmātkāya ekakapālaḥ puroḍāśo bhavati.

13.5.3.[2]
kāyasya vapāyāṃ hutāyām tadanvitarā juhuyuriti ha smāha inānyathādevatam
prīṇātīti śailāliḥ prajāpatirvai kaḥ prajāpatimu vā anu sarve
devāstadevainānyathādevatam prīṇātīti
13:5:3:33. ‘When the omentum of the (victim) sacred to Ka has been offered, they should thereupon offer the others,’ said Sailāli; ‘for, doubtless, Ka is Prajāpati, and behind Prajāpati are all the gods: it is in this way he gratifies them deity after deity.’

Note that Kāya, as “relating or devoted to the god Ka” (ṚgVeda - Śukla Yajurveda [Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā] - Krishna Yajurveda [Taittirīya saṃhitā]) and the “body” (Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā - Katyayana Śrautasutra [Śukla YV] - Śvetāśvatara U.) - have the same ideograph, namely काय (Devanagari) and (Brahmi).

What does the pre or post Buddhist, Isha Upaniṣad - but definitely around the time of Buddha - has to say?


The Pure Self pervades all. It is bright and is not bound by a body. There are no wounds in it; no veins run in it. It is pure. Sin cannot come near it. It is a seer. It knows all. It is above all and is self-begotten. This Principle duly allots to the eternal creators their various duties.
Sa paryagācchukramakāyamavraṇamasnāviraṃ śuddhamapāpaviddham kavirmanīṣī paribhūḥ svayambhūryāthātathyato’rthān vyadadhācchāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ
Again, kaya is just the Vedic counterpart of the god Ka. Ka is the self made actual. Ka is Prajapati made selves, like you and me.
That is to say a self to be felt through the fields (ayatanani) of senses (salayatana).
It is just what is called in philosophy “the actualization of a potential”.
It retains the same meaning in Buddhism - with a major difference.
In Vedism, kaya (lit. “what belongs to Ka”) is continuous and blissful (brings happiness).
In Buddhism, it can’t be. (anicca and dukkha).

As far as what are the particularities of" what belongs to Ka" are concerned, it can be summarized as follows, and holds both in Vedism and Buddhism:

Kaya is an organ (like eye, ear,… brain). It has the particular function of “gluing” the other organs together. It is very close to prana (breath), which is the chief of the organs in Vedism.

[Anonymous No.11610393]

>>11610389


Kaya is not like a mere mano - that is to say - a mere “orchestrator” of the organs - but the “glue” that holds the all body and its organs together.
Its vital function is also “touching”.
It is therefore the all shebang of the sensuous realm of a personal self.
But it is also Ka as Prajapati, Brahma and Atma. It also deals with the (liberated) citta, out of this (world of senses) - within the different higher spheres.

In Buddhism, this actual form of the Atma>Brahma>Prajapati, as seen by the Vedist, as continuous and blissful, is a wrong view. Even in the higher spheres (like the Brahma world, for instance).

There can’t be continuity and blissfulness in paticcasamuppada.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (the Vedic view of a continuous and blissful Ka) is just a wrong view.
All actualisations (sensuous or not), of the organs or the khandhas, are impermanent and dukkha.
It seems that in Buddhism, consciousness is divided per se. Why?
Because it first comes from the three pairs in the sankhara nidana of paticcasamuppada (bodily, mental and verbal). Then in the object/subject division in salayatana (the world of sense).
It is an old upanishadic concept also. See below (you can jump directly to the “The Upanishads” paragraph.
Buddhist pre and contemporary Indian philosophy
I will try to stick here to the Upanishads that Olivelle and most of the scholars consider as pre or contemporary to Buddhism. Yet this is in any case an attempt in chronology. And sorry if I forgot the diacritics along the way.

Late Vedic era saw the springing up of a universal being, apart from the nature-gods of the early Vedic age.
Late Rig Veda (10:129) talks about a creation of the world in which desire (kama-काम) is the primal seed of mind (manaso-मनस).
Also, in the auspicious part of the Atharva Veda, attributed to Atharvan, there is this hymn: Hail to that greatest Brahma, who, born from toil and austere zeal (tapas), pervaded all the worlds, who made Soma for himself alone.

Here Brahma is the ultimate being that oversees past and future. That Skamba is depicted as all that breathes, moves, flies and stands. This Brahman is also the creator of the gods. And the mortal gods became immortal once pervaded by Brahman.
For once, the idea of a God, above the gods overseeing the diverse parts of nature.
Brahman (Prajapati) became not only the creator of man and animals; but also of the gods of nature.

However, Brahman remains an external deity. He is the creator and ruler of the cosmos. He is not yet the inner controlling entity behind our sensual, bodily and mental powers.
The spirituality of this Brahman is not intellectual thought, nor perception , nor feeling. All our powers are derived from this Brahman; yet He transcends these powers.

This is the god to which the late Vedic crowd was still sacrifying; until the Upanishadic philosophy laid that god directly in man. Something that the Buddha (and the Saṃkhya philosophy,) denied on different grounds later on.

[Anonymous No.11610397]

>>11610393

Even if the pre-Upanishadic period still had a Brahman that was an external deity, the idea of sacrifices dear to the early Vedic age was profoundly transformed by the new idea that the magical value of the ancient sacrifices, could also be attained through meditations.
Just as a man could attain whatever he wanted through properly done sacrifices; he could now achieve the same result by the performance of tapas (self-mortifications) and meditation.
Even the power of the gods of nature were looked upon as lower ranked.
The late Vedic Rishis (sages) conceived an ultimate Being, whose creative activity was either their self-sacrifice, or their ardor of tapas.
Yet, both these sacrifices reanacted by men, were looked upon as immoral. One could perform tapas, and attain his immoral goal. Therefore these karmas were considered as magical, and therefore unethical. It is only later, that the law of karma becomes a moral law (Rig Veda 10,121).

Whatever this ultimate Being was called, Prajapati, Skambha, Visvakarma, Brahma or even Time; he was not yet one with the moral nature of man. This Brahman had not yet revealed itself in the self of man. He was still external to human nature.

When the Upanishadic time made its way in the late Vedic era, the question that was preoccupying the Upanishadic Rishis was about the nature of that Brahman.
"What is self, and what is Brahman (ko nu ātmā, kiṃ brahma)?"
How to relate the external Purusha or Brahman to the self.
These considerations started to appear only in the Upanishads.
Brahman was not an external god anymore; but the inmost reality of man’s being.
The goal of life was not anymore a happy dwelling in the heaven of the gods of nature as before; nor an individual survival through infinite time; but a deathless and undestroyable spiritual experience - namely immortality.
It was a decisive divergence from the construct of an external creator; something that however, was still traceable in the Kena Upanishad.

The Upanishads:

Yajnavalkya, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, formulates that the self is the ultimate reality; and that everything else is true because of it. All divergences are false. The ultimate reality is the undivided consciousness (vijnana). And that vijnana is the basis of all knowledge.
The self is beyond postulation, and can be conceived only as the negation of what we know and postulate. Yet it is through it’s realisation that man gains immortality - and through it’s ignorance that he gains death.
This self as ultimate reality is unity. Multiplicity is denied.
Multiplicity is an illusion.
Yet there is a passage in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which admits the reality of the world. Here the self is seen as the inner controller of the natural forces and phenomena.
In other words, an inner self of man that is an inner controller which dwells in things and controls them; though these things do not know it.

[Anonymous No.11610401]

>>11610397

This notion of the reality of the world, we will see later, will also appear in the post-Buddhist Mundaka Upanishad.


The most important notion in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad still remains that the inner-self of man is of the nature of pure consciousness and pure bliss.
All the knowledge and all the bliss of man comes from this source, and are founded in it as their ultimate cause of reality.
By meditating upon and realising this self, everything becomes known.
It is only in the realm of dichotomy that there is a perceiver and a perceived, a hearer and a heard, a thinker and an object of thought, a knower and a known.
While this self is the invisible seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, and there is nothing else beyond it

In the self, the senses of man cease to operate. And the inherent consciousness of all knowledge remains the same.
This fundamental consciousness that is the underlying ground of all knowledge, radiates without any change, any adulteration or any limitation.
Realising this ultimate reality is immortality. The ignorance of it is death.

In Taittirrya Upanishad, the accent is put on the nature of Brahman as pure bliss; from which everything conscious and unconscious has sprung…
Hre we find some passages where Brahman creates the world through tapas (a pre-Upanishadic concept).
Brahma is also the only controller of nature.
However the question on how the cosmos sprung from bliss remains a mystery. The nature of this bliss is just unthinkable by the mind, and unatturable by speech.
The world occured out of bliss - man lives through bliss - and man ultimately return to this bliss.

There was nothing in the beginning, and it is through the ardor of tapas, that Brahma wished to be many, and created the cosmos and enter into it all himself. Anything being and non-being is all supported in Brahman.

As far as human personality is composed, Brahman divided it into five sheaths: annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya and anandamaya.
Annamaya is certainly about the amorphous constituents of the body.
Pranamaya is about the biological constituents which are permeated by the amorphous.
Manomaya is about the willing factor which is permeated by the biological.
Vijnanamaya is about the cognitive or the experiential factor. And,
Anandamaya is pure bliss.

[Anonymous No.11610405]

>>11610401

Finally, it is only when man finds relief and serenity in this invisible, unutterable, and unfathomable self, that he attains peace.

In Chandogya Upanishad, Brahman is the subtle essence of everything; conscious or unconscious.

Everything comes from Brahman; Everything returns to Brahman.
The philosopher Hegel had seen in this, an immature form of the actualisation of spirit; as he saw the necessity of a forward move until man’s sacrifice (like Christ,) as the ultimate realization of the spirit. However, Hegel never took into account the notion of tapas so dear to the Indian philosophy.
What is common to the Upanishadic philosophy and Buddhism is that it is only when all the cognitive elements and thought processes are suspended and arrested, all the powers of reasoning are paralysed, that the spiritual touch by which it can be realised is attained.
The ultimate reality is undoubtedly nothing that can be called physical and it is also nothing that can be called psychical or intellectual. Though it cannot be cognized either by the senses or by the logical powers of thought, it can yet be somehow grasped or realised.

The ultimate reality is neither subjective nor objective, but is such that both the subject and the object derive their very existence from it.

“There is a snare moving in the sky,
says Mara.
Something mental (mānaso) which moves about
By means of which I’ll catch you yet:
You won’t escape me, ascetic!”
The Blessed One:
Forms, sounds, tastes, odours,
And delightful tactile objects—
Desire for these has vanished in me:
You’re defeated, End-maker!”
SN 4.15

[Anonymous No.11610407]

>>11609783
guenonfag, please stop spamming every thread with this.

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11610594]

>>11610281
>Okay, on page 191 he says uses Kanada as an example of heterodoxy, despite it being considered one of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism.

Are you just skimming through the text looking for stuff to disagree with without reading the passage in detail? What he writes in that passage and in the one about Vaisheshika is that Vaisheshika as a whole can be included within orthodoxy although one theory of it (atomism) is heterodox insofar as it clearly contradicts the Sruti. This is not Guenon inserting his own spin but traditionally Hindus themselves regard atomism as heterodox, hence why the Brahma Sutras (itself a synthesis of the Upanishads) refute atomism and why every major commentary on them explains at length why and how they refute atomism. Atomism has never held any widespread influence at all in Hindu thought and is only a small outlier. Guenon specifically brings it up as an example of how the Hindu tradition ensures its own continued orthodoxy by ejecting ideas which contradict the Sruti, the Brahma Sutras are one example of this and elsewhere in the book he gives another perfect example by citing a Hindu text which says that only the portions of Vaisheshika which are in agreement with the Vedas are orthodox, see pic related. Atomism is directly opposed to some of the most fundamental premises of the Upanishads and if you had studied Hinduism at any length you would know this is basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.11610636]

>>11609082
>Proceed with the Poos
Can we talk about this meme real quick? The sentence "Start with the Greeks" contains no alliteration. Why do all of its spinoffs ("Resume with the Romans", etc.) feel the need to include one?

[Anonymous No.11610689]

>>11610594
Except Guenon says Kanada which refers to the entire orthodox school named after its founder. A Vedanta monk, Prabhavananda, agreed Kanada is orthodox. Also you say it contradicts shruti yet cite the non-shruti Brahma Sutras, which are specifically Vedanta texts in any case, a different orthodox school which has its own take on things.

[Anonymous No.11610721]

>>11609082
>How do I get into Indian philosophy?
Avoid guenon/evola/western mystics in general

Start with anthologies. Hindu and buddhist philosophy derives almost entirely from their scriptures which are vast and repetitive, especially the orthodox ones so try to get your hands on books that strip out the unnecessary bits and highlights the necessary bits.

If you want to continue with hindu philosophy, the Upanishads are a MUST. It basically consists of philosophical discussions surrounding the Vedas (which were mostly deity worship and mantras for ritual offerings) and hindu thought descends directly from these texts. It's a lot of meat to grind but once this is done, you're half way there.

From there move on to commentaries and schools of thought. There are 6 orthodox schools and 5 unorthodox (of which buddhism is one of them). Adi Shankara is a popular commentator and founder of the non-dualist 'Vedanta' school within hinduism. He has basically shaped modern hindu thought almost single handedly (even though he was accused of being a secret buddhist). Start with him and work your way to the other schools (note: there are also non-religious schools within hinduism)

Bhagavad gita is a also a nice piece of hindu philosophy and inspired many authors for centuries but AVOID the ISKCON translation ("bhagavadgita As it is") its a terrible translation and was produced by a new ageish cult with skewed interpretations. You might want to find a condensed version of the Mahabharata if you want to get the backstory of the BG.

If you're looking into buddhist philosophy, start with the Theravada school (IE the pali canon). Get your hands on an anthology and move on to the main Mahayana texts (heart sutra, diamond sutra, etc.). Once you're done with this, you can explore other schools like Zen and Tibetan Vajrayana schools. Madhyamaka and Yogachara is a fascinating school of buddhist thought, I recommend these if you're serious about it.

A lot of eastern philosophy is intertwined with religion since they are seen as inseparable. Ideally you don't have to get into stuff like the Puranas (a collection of stories about Gods and Goddesses that modern pajeets actually know about). But in order to understand their point of view, you can't but study the religion simultaneously (this is somewhat the case with western philosophy and how it alludes to myth and stories of ancient times but not as much as eastern phil).

[Anonymous No.11610723]

what's the best translation of the bhagavad gita? I've heard that the iskcon version, which seems to be the most common, isn't good. what should I get instead?

[Anonymous No.11610825]

>>11610372
Couldn't one just as well say that you're being unfair to the Abrahamic tradition? It's really not that serious in the first place - OP is just joking around, and I don't see why one can't appreciate something while also parodying it (or even mocking or critiquing it). E.g. I I'm a huge Wittgenstein fan, but I could still jokingly call him a faggot without disparaging him or his work. Of course, you could still say that calling Wittgenstein a faggot (or calling Indian's poos) is insulting to homosexuals as a group or Indians as a group, but then you'd be an SJW faggot, and that position needs no refutation. Moreover, if someone is unfamiliar with homosexuals or Indians, for example, becoming acquainted with their culture can increase their respect and appreciation.

[Anonymous No.11610836]

>>11610636
we should change it to "get ready with the greeks" for consistency

[Anonymous No.11610879]

>>11610836
How about "Get it on with the Greeks"?

>>11610723
I can't read Sankskrit, so I can't say for sure, but the Norton Critical Edition has a nice poetic translation and lots of useful supplementary material. It's good value for what it is.

[Anonymous No.11610909]

>>11610879
hor abuot go greek???

[Anonymous No.11610945]

>>11610909
My big fat greek backlog
tossing your salad greek-style
Bend for the greeks
Take it like a greek
Blow your mind like a greek

[Anonymous No.11610956]

>>11610407
If you think Guenon belongs on /x/ then you might as well say all eastern philosophy belongs there

[Anonymous No.11610965]

>>11609783
>actually shilling for some faggy french author

[Anonymous No.11610996]

>>11610956
>Guenon = all of eastern philosophy
jesus christ you really are this delusional are you..

[Anonymous No.11611062]

>>11610996
That's not the point you retard, it's that everything he writes about is just explaining eastern doctrines using the texts themselves as the source of what he says. All of his ideas are taken from the texts themselves, and so if you think anything he wrote is /x/ then you are assigning the eastern text that he got it from to /x/. You won't find anything in his wiritngs that are not backed up by the texts.

[Anonymous No.11611089]

>>11611062
Why is he even needed then? Why doesnt just one read the actual source material first? Its like saying you need to read Maps of meaning before reading the bible, or that you need to need to read Marx before you read about economics/history.

[Anonymous No.11611106]

>>11610372
It’s merely a thoughtless joke, relax. Your extreme offense taken is worse and indicative of an even more improper emotional state to understand such wisdom with.

[Anonymous No.11611317]

>>11610689
>when you know so little about Hinduism that you are trying to claim atomism is orthodox just to prove Guenon was wrong

the absolute state of contrarians

>Except Guenon says Kanada which refers to the entire orthodox school

Wrong. Again, if you had actually read the book instead of skimming it, in that section and in the separate chapter on Vaisheshika he is careful to make the distinction between the figure of Kannada and the darshana of Vaisheshika, there were a range of other Vaisheshika scholars and texts, and Vaisheahika encompasses a variety of ideas besides atomism which are orthodox, and he goes over some of them in his chapter on it.

>A Vedanta monk, Prabhavananda, agreed Kannada is orthodox.

Yes, and Guenon agrees that Vaisheshika with the exception of atomism is orthodox. Swami Prabhavananda was a member of the Ramakrishna order which is non-dualist. The founders of the schools of the two major types of non-dualism (Shankara and Ramanuja) both wrote commentaries on the Brahma Sutras explaining how atomism is incorrect and both cited verses from the Upanishads that atomism is mutually incompatible with. I'm pretty sure Prabhavananda did not mean atomism specifically when he said that but if he did then he is disagreeing with the founder of the school of non-dualism that he adheres to.

>Also you say it contradicts shruti yet cite the non-shruti Brahma Sutras

The Brahma Sutra is indeed smriti but out of all the smriti its the closest to the Upanishads, being a direct distillation of them. In the Vedanta commentaries on them the Sruti verses of the Upanishads are cited many hundreds of times to show that every point made in the Brahma Sutras agrees with the Upanishads. The Upanishads state that Brahman is infinite, atomism presupposes a real void that atoms fill, this is heterodox because if there was an absolute void then Brahman would not be infinite, but would be limited by not being present in the void. So any conception of a real or absolute void is heterodox by contradicting the verses where the Sruti state that Brahman is infinite. The only way this could be reconciled is if Vaisheshika said that the void was only conditionally real and was illusionary from the Absolute perspective like all of manifestation but this is generally not the view Vaisheshika takes. This is just one example among others of why its wrong that is made in the commentaries but it's sufficient in itself to show that atomism is clearly heterodox.

[Anonymous No.11611334]

>>11609934

"hinduism" is not even a thing you fucking retard. it's like saying the entirety of european folklore is a single religion

[Anonymous No.11611398]

>>11609082
http://www.krishnapath.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Srimad-Bhagavatam_By_A.C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada.epub

[Anonymous No.11611455]

>>11611398
Fuck off, ISKCON shill!

[Anonymous No.11611490]

>guenonfag has now levelled up from calling everyone "theosophists" and "kantians" and is now calling everybody who isn't him a "contrarian"
>tfw he's evolving before our eyes

[Anonymous No.11611491]

>>11610721
>recommends Shankara but tells people to stay away from Guenon
>thinks Guenon is in any way a 'mystic'

Guenon's books are largely based on Shankara's understanding and they explain 75% of the words used in his commentaries. Shankara's commentaries have so many untranslated words and unexplained/implied conceptual references that it's going to be mostly indecipherable nonsense for someone who has not read a preparatory book first, looking up the terms randomly on google or wikipedia will often leave you worse off because of how bad many webpages explain them. If anyone who was not raised a Hindu actually wants to deeply understand his commentaries they will almost certainly need an intro book. There are other intro books aside from Guenon's but his is very good and heavily draws upon Shankara anyway.

>>11611089
>Why is he even needed then?

He is not, he is just very helpful to read first especially if you are going to be reading Vedanta texts because there are dozens of Sanskrit words left untranslated in them which have no direct equivalent in European languages, and which have many layers of meaning and symbolism depending on the context in which they are used. Guenon does a good job of explaining many of the ones common in Vedanta texts. Not only is it important to learn these words and their contexts but for anyone raised in the west or a significantly westernized country its important also to not accidentally misunderstand Hindu ideas by linking them to western concepts that don't apply, examples of common mistakes made are when scholars try to explain Hindu concepts with stuff like psychology, physiology, or certain sociological theories when that's often not the case at all. He is not required but just highly recommended because he does a good job of explaining dozens of Sanskrit words, the complicated contexts associated with them and also explains how to conceptually approach texts without a modern/western unconcious bias.

[Anonymous No.11611513]

>>11610721
Thanks friend.

[Anonymous No.11611518]

>>11611317
>>when you know so little about Hinduism that you are trying to claim atomism is orthodox just to prove Guenon was wrong
This seems a bit cyclical, you accept Guenon's explanation of what Hindu orthodoxy is then use that explanation to support Guenon understanding Hindu orthodoxy.

>in the separate chapter on Vaisheshika he is careful to make the distinction between the figure of Kannada and the darshana of Vaisheshika
>Guenon agrees that Vaisheshika with the exception of atomism is orthodox
The foundational text of the entire school is Kanada's Vaishisheka Sutra. Atomism isn't separable from Vaishisheka. Ironically, you're trying to atomise the teacher and the school so they don't overlap. Scholars have even called it "the atomist school" [Flood, G. (1996) An Introduction to Hinduism, p 232]

>The Brahma Sutra is indeed smriti but out of all the smriti its the closest to the Upanishads, being a direct distillation of them
It's one school's distillation. The Vedantans argued from their advaitin interpretation of the Upanishads, their Brahma Sutra explains it, but it isn't the sole authority on what the Upanishads mean. If it's not shruti it isn't authority and is up for debate (hence the different schools). The Vaisheshika Sutra is older than the Brahma Sutra in any case, c. 5th century BC vs c. 1st century AD [Johnson, W. J. (2009) Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism, "Kanada" and Vaisesika], so any talk of being "closer" to the Upanishads is meaningless.

>The Upanishads state that Brahman is infinite, atomism presupposes a real void that atoms fill, this is heterodox
The Upanishads famously appear contradictory, that's why there are different ways to reconcile them, the Brahma Sutra is one famous reconciliation. This is my issue with your promotion of Guenon as the way to start with Hinduism: he accepted most of advaita Vedanta thought, and thus equated orthodoxy with Vedanta, and conveniently thought parts of other orthodox schools which disagreed could be excised. I have no problem with Guenon, he was a cool dude, but he had a very particular philosophy and didn't just "explain Hinduism as Hindus understand it with PRIMARY TEXTS, did I mention he uses primary texts by the way?" He was not some unbiased distiller of the entire essence of Hinduism.

The Vaisheshikas obviously had their own interpretation of what Brahman being infinite meant.

[Anonymous No.11611533]

The dumb pieces of shit who think guénon is some kind of pseud. LMAO. He's a brilliant mathematician, knows his western philosophy better than anyone on this board. He also learned arabic, chinese and sanskrit. That puts him above pretty much anyone in the western world. But that would require you braindead morons to open one of his books. The state of pseuds makes me want to vomit. I don't even larp as an orientalist or a metaphysicist or whatever.. But I actually read shit and buzzwords like "traditionalism" and other nonsensical terms don't have the slightest effect on me.

I won't even dwelve into his life as a sufi muslim.

Plebian mentality should be violently repressed. 99% of people should not get near any form of book or knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11611535]

>>11611491
But guenonfag, guenon *is* western and biased!

The root ontology of Traditionalism is a hodgepodge of late 19th century esotericism and hermetic syncretism, post-Kantian Religionswissenschaft and Protestant theology, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and its early 20th century offshoots, which also had a post-Kantian epistemology, and a healthy dose of Romantic theory on religion and myth, which has been described by Beiser and other scholars as "neo-Platonist," or as the "archetypal" strand of Kant interpretation. Read any myth-related text of Schelling and you will see Traditionalism. Actually, read Paul Bishop's book _The Archaic_ for a decent discussion of the core concept(s) from which Traditionalism sprang. Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism that involved a re-introduction of archetypal (i.e., Platonic) metaphysics with a vaguely emanationist structure -- that is, bootleg neo-Platonism.

This movement was (and remains) deliberately syncretic because when you identify the primary forms or archetypes with a symbolic and mythic structure (as ALL of the traditions I just outlined did), you get a philosophy and history of religion that makes all traditions into particular instantiations of underlying immutable principles (as all of the traditions I just outlined concluded). Just read _The Oriental Renaissance_ by Schwab, which was praised highly by Mircea Eliade, about whom both Guenon and Evola complained in correspondence that he was a Guenonian Traditionalist who wouldn't cop to the fact and that he was getting credit for Guenon's ideas especially. Eliade agreed; so Guenon, Evola, and Eliade agree that Eliade is a reasonably faithful transposition of Guenonian philosophy, and Eliade embraces Schwab's diagnosis of syncretic, Fruhromantik neo-Platonism as the basis of the Traditionalist worldview, e.g., as its syncretic neo-Platonist framework effortlessly reduces and re-appropriates Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, and everything else to be simply an emanation of its own "central, really real" myths and archetypes. That is why "Hinduism looks like neo-Platonism," a favourite line of Traditionalists -- real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing." Traditionalists did not save or invent the method of comparative religions -- they killed it, and laminated its corpse.

tldr: Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant, under which paradigms traditional neo-Platonism, and Christian and especially German mysticism were reinterpreted by the early Romantics. And it's a late-comer to the game at that.

[Anonymous No.11611542]

I find this debacle about Guenon amusing. He’s recommended a decent amount of times on this board precisely because, I think, he saw the problems Westerners could have in understanding Hinduism and wrote works precisely meant to overcome these difficulties. This is, I think, the best response to all who think, “Gee, why learn something from a stupid Westerner with his own mystical views instead of just reading the primary texts?” I’m really confused at the anti-Guenonism on this board, I’ve read his Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta and found just a scholarly text with references to the primary sources of Hinduism, no shilling of Guenon’s own personal views, no significant contradictions to or elaborations on Vedantic beliefs.

Is it the association of him with Traditionalism? People can’t imagine that a scholar can have their own views which don’t necessarily impede on good scholarship. There are books where Guenon is talking more about Traditionalism, and there are just scholarly books where he talks about Hinduism. Learn to separate what you want from what you don’t want. I didn’t get any Traditionalism from Man and His Becoming, I just got a very good introduction to Vedantic beliefs.

[Anonymous No.11611566]

>>11611542
the "anti-Guenonism" is exclusively because there there's a dude here who endlessly spams him and then freaks out autistically like a weird redditor when anyone disagrees

guenon was one of the most consistent discussion topics on the board for several years, and then this guy showed up and monopolized all discussion of him and spamming the same threads and pictures every day, and kept freaking out on everybody who disobeyed his mandates, and now people are annoyed with it

[Anonymous No.11611577]

>>11611535
I know this is pasta but

>I’ve subsumed this tradition under a lot of names and labels and claimed that it’s historically contingent on and reacting to and incorporating other movements, therefore it’s worthless!

This is criticizing the form and not the content. “It’s just lazy Neoplatonism!” Well, everything is a product of its time, but it is itself a strong claim to make that just because something is in some respects a product of various circumstances it hasn’t reached to any timeless wisdom.

[Anonymous No.11611598]

>>11611566
I’m unsure about that, it seems the opposite to me. It does look like there’s one or not too many posters consistently recommending Guenon, but it also looks like there’s a consistent group of not too many posters loudly complaining about Guenon every time he’s brought up. This >>11611535 for instance is either a straight pasta or just extremely similar to posts which have frequently been made, suggesting recurrent posters with grudges against Guenon.

[Anonymous No.11611610]

>>11611598
that's a pasta that always annoys guenonfag

the reason for the exaggerated response to you/him is that every time someone benignly posted "Kant" you/he would spam 35 pages of schuon and guenon BTFOing kant and start saying LMAO. a lot

only when the tide of irritation significantly turned against guenonfag did he start acting all contrite and "aw shucks i'm just sayin' shankara is cool and all"

[Anonymous No.11611614]

>>11611518
>The Vaisheshikas obviously had their own interpretation of what Brahman being infinite meant.

Please elaborate on how you or the Vaisheshika's think that atomism could be reconciled with an infinite Brahman with any explanation other than the void only being conditional/illusionary. Infinity is mutally incompatible with any sort of limit and an absolute void is precisely the sort of limit by which Brahman would not be infinite.

[Anonymous No.11611620]

>>11611610
also now he responds to it, but he used to just tell people to get out of his threads... he seriously used to start every thread with

>Not welcome: Kantians, theosophists, so-called historicists, materialists, ...

in a huge list that seriously had like 20+ items in it. he also thinks everybody he's speaking to is some nemesis from another forum 10 years ago

[Anonymous No.11611629]

>>11611614
Not the guy you're replying to, but it seems to be he was replying to you in pretty good faith about the nature of authority in interpreting texts, and deciding the question of which texts are mainstream and heterodox. Instead of answering him on those terms, which were your initial terms, you are shifting the goalposts in this post to an immanent doctrinal argument. That's pretty sleazy.

[Anonymous No.11611665]

>>11611614
We're discussing whether it's orthodox or not, you have failed to address the fact that atomism was an integral part of a widely-recognised orthodox school of Hinduism. We're not here to replay the debates of classical India.

[Anonymous No.11611671]

>>11611566
>everyone who recommends Guenon or refutes stupid and incorrect shitposts about him is one person

Leaving aside how dumb that is it's a non-argument relying on the strawman of "the one guenon" poster that doesn't make any specific criticism of Guenon and his ideas

[Anonymous No.11611700]

>>11611610
Yeah, I think the fallacy here is that posters with similar views are being conflated as one person. I’m pretty mild about Guenon and have posted in his defense just a few times, there are others who more passionately and angrily defend him and I’m not them. I think the goalposts of the argument have to be moved from “it’s this same stupid poster talking about Guenon!!” to engaging with critiques of Guenon’s works on Hinduism themselves. That’s the thing about 4chan, people can jump in to support other posters, what seems like one poster or a consistent poster can be many.

In fact, I regret posting >>11611598 since it does the same thing. Rather than criticizing whoever always posts what, we should talk about genuine content.

[Anonymous No.11611705]

>>11611455
Man, cut the "shill" shit.
Just because I am Gaudiya and respect Prabhupad's translations, doesn't mean I'm shilling anything. For one thing Bhaktivedanta Book Trust would kill the owner of that book collection for making all of it available in multiple formats. BBT has Vanipedia for that so you have to be exposed to their *actual* shilling.

stop screeching over a single post that males a relevant book available, just bc you think your way is the one true way.


mayavadi cunt

[Anonymous No.11611767]

>>11611665
Yes but its similar to the various sramanic sects in that it briefly arose and then mostly died out and was never popular again. Vedanta was massively influential upon Hinduism, atomism has had less then 1/100th of the influence of Vedanta on the Hinduism in its entirety. I don't disagree that atomism was an integreal part of an orthodox school, I'm just maintaining that the massive reaction against atomism in much more influential schools of thought that came to later define Hinduism is just an example of the guardians of Hindu orthodoxy rejecting and/or pushing to the margins ideas which are mostly heterodox. Atomism is an idea which its valid to talk about and debate and Vaisheshika was an orthodox school which did so but the most influential and important Hindu thinkers rejected atomism and ever since then it's not at all an important or popular concept but has rather been resigned to history like certain sramanic groups. It's totally possible for orthodox schools to sometimes come up with heterodox ideas but they tend to be ejected over time by the larger body of Hindu thinkers which is what happened with atomism.

[Anonymous No.11611825]

>>11611767
>I don't disagree that atomism was an integreal part of an orthodox school
I strongly got the impression that you did, since you stated it was an aberration that could be separated from the school. e.g.
>>11610594
>Vaisheshika as a whole can be included within orthodoxy although one theory of it (atomism) is heterodox
>>11611317
>Guenon agrees that Vaisheshika with the exception of atomism is orthodox

---

>It's totally possible for orthodox schools to sometimes come up with heterodox ideas but they tend to be ejected over time by the larger body of Hindu thinkers which is what happened with atomism.
That's very different to earlier statements where you appeared to categorically dismiss atomism's overlap with orthodox thought. But if you only meant what you just said now, I totally agree.

[Anonymous No.11611855]

>>11609934
i'd just like to say I'm a certified Brahmin, over 300 reincarnations in this caste. My family name is patel and we own several hotels in the southern US, and I must concur that Renee Guenon has the official orthodox Hindoo seal of approval, 100% all beef real hindoo-ism from this guy he really peered through the fog of the mystical orient and came to understand us orientals even better than we understand ourselves. The owl of minerva, afterall, flies at dusk.

[Anonymous No.11611895]

>>11611700
it's a good theory but there really is a guy who would post the same OP in every single thread and make the exact same paranoid-delusional schizo accusations nonstop for weeks, until the mods eventually banned his threads because he turned every one into a flamewar

it was pretty easy to tell it was him because he would dump the same 100 pictures of guenon's library and random google image searched pictures of guenon in every one of his threads, which also always started with the same OP and the same picture and same filename

i agree with you in substance about different people being conflated and the hazards of anonymous posting, but my concern is more with the literally schizophrenic islamist guenonfag here who legit has mental problems and can't escape them because he lashes out like a 12 year old having roid rage any time someone talks to him.

my main beef with him to be perfectly honest is that i felt bad for the people he was routinely abusing, usually newbies or dilettantes. he argues disingenuously (he's doing it with the above poster right now) and gives guenon a bad name, which i think is unfortunate.

[Anonymous No.11612590]

start with Evola

[Anonymous No.11612658]

Should I start with the Rig-Veda? What is a good edition for a complete beginner? Is the Penguin edition good?

[Anonymous No.11612674]

If you want to start practicing it and not just think about it, I recommend Kriya Secrets Revealed. It is a workbook that will give you years of practice for the purpose of attaining enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.11612699]

>>11612658
>Should I start with the Rig-Veda?
No. Of the scriptures read the Bhagavad Gita first.

[Anonymous No.11612708]

>>11612699
What if I've already read the Bhagavad Gita? Even though it was Prabhupada's version

[Anonymous No.11612715]

>>11612708
Then the epics I guess, or the Upanishads if you want philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11612736]

>>11612708
If you're interested in Advaita Vedanta at all this is one of the more accessible expositions of it

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

[Anonymous No.11612893]

>>11611106
>thoughtless joke
precisely.

[Anonymous No.11613033]

>>11612708
Srimad Bhagavatam and Sri Ishopanishad would be the next steps after Gita.

SB is loooong but excellent. Posted a single-volume epub of it above.
krishnapath has all the good shit

[Anonymous No.11613264]

>>11610372
Fuck you street shitter. Enjoy swimming in your holy river full of poo and corpses.

[Anonymous No.11613480]

>>11611106
>>11610825
You guys say this, as yet, as an Indian on 4chan, the majority of the time these insults are meant very seriously to ridicule and belittle myself and the larger culture I belong to. If it were truly harmless, and all ethnic groups on here were irreverently spun into their own unique, derogatory nickname, such as satirizing the pederasty of the ancient Greeks by callin them "gays" and therefore making analogous posts to the OP like "How do I get on with the Gays?", sure, I wouldn't be offended. But none of that is the case - most other ethnic groups receive a base level of respect on here. I just want people here to stop treating Indians so unnecessarily harshly, and if that can't happen sitewide, then at the very least respect can be shown in the few threads on this board that are dedicated to Indian thought, which, despite being so rare, are still filled with insults from the followers of Abrahamist traditions, mainly Christianity. Meanwhile, you never see Eastern adherents insulting the Christians in any of their own threads. This is not much to ask for, so even if the OP is sincere in wanting to study Indian thought, which I did believe he was, the joke is still tasteless and disrespectful to the group that he is seeking wisdom from. Like if he were seeking into African folk wisdom and using the N-word in the title, despite knowing how, much of the time, the people using that word here are genuinely hateful of blacks and are not merely using the term irreverently and "ironically".

[Anonymous No.11613690]

>>11613480
What is offensive about saying poo? Indians love to poo, there are numerous documentaries about it

[Anonymous No.11613806]

>>11613480
No one cares about your feelings Pajeet

[Anonymous No.11613818]

>>11613480
inb4 snatched by toilet witch

[Anonymous No.11613825]

>>11613480
Hindu philosophy is a white invention and poos are just superstitious pagans.

[Anonymous No.11613874]

>>11613690
>>11613806
>>11613818
>>11613825

Why are you guys acting like 12-year olds? Does Hinduism really trigger you that much?

[Anonymous No.11613883]

>>11613874
People being oversensitive on 4chan is blood in the water. It's fun to take people off their high horse of "you're not allowed to offend me." Normally when some person starts effeminately whining like a faggot that their little pussy baby feelings have been hurt, everyone has to go "Ah, yes.. A real shame.. No one should be allowed to say hurtful words and make this huge pus-- I mean, this nice person cry." But here, people can be honest about their genuine reaction to someone being a gigantic pussy, and call him a curry poo nigger and tell him to grow up and deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11613916]

>>11613874
Either Hinduism is so amazing and still Curry niggers are so profoundly dysgenic that they have totally failed to capitalize on its profound truths and instead choose to shit in the streets and give birth to mutant babies all day or Hinduism is shit and it's reflected in the majority of its practitioners. It would be a disservice to Hinduism to NOT insult Indians when discussing it.

[Anonymous No.11613920]

>>11613480
>as an Indian on 4chan
hello smelly subhuman, did you shit in pit today?

[Anonymous No.11613936]

>>11611700
>'y-yea you guys are just conflating that stupid guenonfag with the actual genius of guenon abdul wahid (PBUH), founder of Hinduism and supreme personality of Allah-head.'
kek

don't pretend you aren't that deluded guenonfag.

this is (You)
>>11609783
>>11611533
>>11611542

[Anonymous No.11613963]

>>11613936
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11614041]

>>11610372
>>11613480
>>11613874
I'm Indian too. Frankly you need to grow a backbone man. If things like this upset you, and I understand why they might at first, then you'd crack like an egg when seeing what's actually in people's minds. Be proud of your culture, or don't be, but either way the more you react like this -- the more you draw this kind of kind of reaction. Be a man. You're clearly a product of India's heavily matriarchal society. This board is dominated by Westerners, so if you want to come here don't act like a pussy and just leave your shell.

For what it's worth, the hate towards Muslims, Jews, and (of course) blacks is much more intense and visceral, more so on other boards of course.

Also if this >>11613806 demoralizes you, just know that this applies universally. Regardless of your race, NOBODY cares about your feelings, especially on a site that's dominated by mostly jaded, unfulfilled Westerners. It is what it is.

[Anonymous No.11614088]

>>11614041
>I'm Indian too
gross
It's better to be hated as a nigger or kike or whatever than to be laughed at for being a poo. No one takes Poo's seriously, we don't even read the posts. If you don't want to get ostracized teach your people to poo in loo.

[Anonymous No.11614115]

>>11614088
I'd rather be part of a meme race that everyone likes to make fun of than be black or an Arab, but to each their own I guess. I grew up in Iowa and became desensitized to this stuff pretty quickly, long before I visited this site.

[Anonymous No.11614124]

>>11614115
>became desensitized to this stuff pretty quickly
That's the problem with you poos, you can't even smell the shit anymore. Unable to comprehend what it's like for the outside looking in.

[Anonymous No.11614135]

>>11614124
>Unable to comprehend what it's like for the outside looking in.

I can. Growing up white-washed let's me see Indian culture more objectively. If I was white maybe I'd be making the same jokes, who knows. As it is you can't control your race and we all die the same.

[Anonymous No.11614138]

>>11614041
I call Indians poos all the time and I'm racist as fuck but that's just because it's fun to joke around. I also call Britain and Sweden Islamic countries because it's fun to make fun of Brits and Swedes, but I have no problem with those people. In fact my real opinion about that is that it's sad that their country is being destroyed by Islamic migration and I would be very happy if the trend were reversed. But online everybody take's the piss. It's just fun to call your friend a degenerate poo nigger. Sometimes I call my Asian friend a soulless chink and he threatens to gas me because I'm Jewish.

Maybe I think too highly of 4chan but I assume at least many people on this site are similar. I am pretty sure that a lot of the supposed white nationalist guys are just dudes who don't like race mixing and wish countries would stick to their own cultures, but they ham it up and joke about Nazism because it's funny and pisses off redditors who live in constant terror of getting in trouble for saying forbidden words or breaking the normie code of social acceptability.

[Anonymous No.11614145]

>>11614135
>we all die the same.

>white
>buried in a grave surrounded by mourning loved ones

>indian
> tossed into the Ganges shitter and harvested later by hindus who cannibalize your remains

[Anonymous No.11614150]

>>11614138
>kike doing the tired old "racism is satire" bit

[Anonymous No.11614168]

Medieval Hindu architecture is simply stunning. I especially love the Kailasa Temple, the whole thing is carved out of the hill side, it's one piece of rock! I'd love to visit south India some day. Luckily there are some Hindu temples in my country too, I've been to one that was 100% hand carved marble, just amazing.

[Anonymous No.11614194]

>>11614138
Yeah, there's little way of telling between jokes made with malice from those made by casually racist shitposters but I think it tends to be the latter. I make fun of my Asian friends too and they don't give a fuck. If you were disagreeing with me and told me you were Jewish I'd probably call you a kike, but I've also dated a Jew before. Everyone's an open target on the internet and if you take it personally you don't belong here. Besides, Western countries receive more immigration than anywhere else, and there's definitely a growing anti-white attitude among some segments of society (even if it's exaggerated on /pol/) so it's reasonable to expect some blowback. Whites are honestly pretty tolerant relative to other races. I still prefer the people here to the faggots on Reddit. There's no site that lets you see the unfiltered opinions of others like 4chan, for better or worse.

>>11614145
It's true though. We all die the same. If you're Westernized and dehumanize other non-Western cultures, I know this is an especially hard to swallow, but it doesn't matter what you or I think.

[Anonymous No.11614208]

>>11614168
That is pretty amazing.

Maybe someone here can help me with a question. People talk about Ancient Greece being an Axial Age, same with Ancient China and obviously India too. But obviously Greece waned and was absorbed into Rome and then the rest of the West, and both China and the West had philosophical developments throughout the ages. And then there's the Islamic Golden Age for example.

But what about medieval India? Was the age of Shankara "another age" of Axial-like ferment and excitement? Or some other period? Again, obviously the West has had several periods of philosophical development, but it only had one GREECE, the really founding moment, the philosophical birth of the West. Did India have multiple births? Or is it like the West in having a relatively continuous tradition?

I ask because sometimes Western orientalists would talk of modern India being a fallen country, but say that the period of the Vedas was like one perpetual Socratic Athens where everybody and their sister walked around discussing the highest metaphysics in perfect clarity 24/7. Obviously that's probably not the case, but maybe something like it? Maybe India really did have multiple Greece-like "age of foundation" type periods, or a much longer and continuous one, or what?

[Anonymous No.11614343]

>>11614208
The history I've read is mostly political, but there are some recognised golden ages of cultural and intellectual flourishing in India. There's the appearance of the Buddha, Mahavira and Gosala in the 6th to 5th century BC, thefounders of Buddhism, Jainism and the now-extinct Ajivika philosophy. This was a period of many smaller realms and apparently a lot of intellectual activity, as some of the principal Upanishads were written then as well. Buddha had dealings with the king of Magadha, which kingdom later expanded into the Nanda empire and Mauryan empire, with dynastic take-overs in-between. The last great Mauryan king was Ashoka (268-233 BC) and he's famously known from his rock inscriptions promoting his Buddhist philosophy of dhamma (dharma) throughout the whole empire.

Then there's the Gupta empire, which dominated the north roughly 335-500 AD. There was a huge flourishing of the arts, especially religious arts, in that period. For example, the composition of Puranas (legendary histories), Tamil sangham poetry, Sanksrit poetry like Kalidasa's,, greaterof moral philosophy vs ritual, Buddhist visual art like frescoes and sculpture, and the development of mathematics (pi was calculated to 4 decimal places!)

In the 7th to 8th centuries AD temple building exploded in the south, the Kailasa temple above is from that period.

[Anonymous No.11614353]

>>11614343
p.s. I don't know much about the later middle ages and Shankara so I'll leave that to others.

[Anonymous No.11614356]

>>11610372
OP here. When I left this thread, it was halfway down the board with 1 reply, I thought it was dead. I didn't mean anything by the title, it was just attention seeking to try and kick the thread off.

[Anonymous No.11614389]

[Anonymous No.11614973]

>>11614041
>>11614115
You're pathetic man, genuinely. I'm the guy you replied to earlier, pinning me as being from a "matriarchal society", when I've actually been born and raised right here in the West. Thank you for your little speech, and you seemed sincere with it, but if you actually read all the responses that these wonderfully intelligent posters have given to my posts and now to your own as well, and you think "that" is how a "man" behaves, and that to label it tasteless, in a thread on a board devoted to the pursuit of bettering one's mind, and in this thread specifically through pursuing the wisdom of the Indian tradition, then my friend, my fellow "Indian" friend, you have an entirely backwards concept of what it means to be both a man and a human being in general. Men, and all normal human beings, are respectful towards each other, and do not facilely condone the immature behaviors seen here as being "how things are", and any desire to have it otherwise as "matriarchal and sensitive". I'm not sure what the Indian equivalent of an "Uncle Tom", but I can say you are most certainly one.

I don't take "pride" in being Indian, just so you know - it is merely the ethnicity of my birth, which there is no sense having "pride" in. But I don't tolerate unwarranted disrespect either, and at the least, I certainly won't pretend like the comments in this thread are "normal behaviors" that I'M in the wrong for calling out.

You tell me to be prideful or not be prideful, and then call the very group you are inextricably a part of a "meme race" - clearly not possessing even a base level of respect for your own self, your own family, and the heritage that has, however small, inevitably impressed on you today whether you are aware of it or not.

Whatever man, do you. You said yourself you wouldn't want to be an "Arab" or "Black", clearly revealing yourself to have a "hierarchy of the races" in your head, in which those groups sit below Indians, and Indians, I presume, to sit below Europeans. If my deduction is correct, and you're a self-disdaining Indian, who would rather be European or some other ethnicity, well, that's your own dilemma to deal with. Just ensure that you don't go around telling others to be a "man", when you clearly have no concept of the term in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11615033]

>>11614973
You typed all this while squatting on a beach? You truly are an amazing people

[Anonymous No.11615064]

>>11614973
4chan is a epic place of redpilled irony and based cynicism, pls take your faggy sincerity POO to REDDIT LOLE

[Anonymous No.11615684]

>>11614973
Lmao you've just proven me right, and desu I think you're even less of a man after reading this. For one India is a very matriarchal society (that's just a fact) and that part of its culture is clearly ingrained into many second-generation Indian immigrants like yourself. India is the ultimate mom-culture. Being born in the West doesn't prevent you from being shaped by that.

>I don't tolerate unwarranted respect

You sound like such a faggot. This is 4chan, you can't earn respect and you can't argue against people who shitpost and don't give a fuck about your feelings like me. If you think that's disrespect you're overly defensive and have a fragile ego, and nothing I say can change that. No, what's said in these threads is rarely normal behavior, but if you can't handle it then I don't know what to tell you.

I can be a self-respecting Indian and think Indian culture is full of meme-worthy things to make fun of, the same way some blacks are self-aware about the situation of their people and hate how most other blacks act. That makes them realistic, not "self-disdaining" or a believer in some type of racial hierarchy. But that's irrelevant. You simply can't laugh at yourself, whereas I can. Even the fucking OP told you he was joking and you're still upset. You can't control your race, and maybe its a product of growing up without much Indian culture but I'm willing to look at mine in a more detached way. You obviously have trouble doing the same. Even the "first place" European whites on this board are willing to be self-critical of their own groups. You're just a pussy.

[Anonymous No.11615756]

>>11614973
>calling a redpilled non-white an "uncle tom"

You sound just like a SJW liberal faggot. Kys poonigger

[Anonymous No.11616188]

>>11610157
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0FW407FVs

[Anonymous No.11616745]

Does anybody have a handy Indian philosophy chart like the Greek and Roman stuff that always gets thrown about on here? I have no idea where to start, the Vedas, the Upanishads, no idea.