Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13080796]

Best books on Secular Buddhism? I've listened to some podcasts and read some articles and I'm interested in a lot of the ideas in Buddhism. Turns out there are a lot of ways to get at them without the bells and whistles so what are the go-to books for Buddhism without the incense and Buddha fanfic?
I particularly enjoy ideas around the self and coping with change.

[Anonymous No.13080804]

>>13080796
Just read Buddhist stuff and ignore the bells and whistles. I do it, it's not that hard

[Anonymous No.13080809]

>>13080796
you retards coudent tell what buddhism is if it came out your ass, the buddhism all you twats refer to comes from the Hīnayāna which is the shitty retarded version of the original doctrines compared with the Mahāyāna which stays way truer to the doctrines. You all are fascinated with a buddhism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any eastern doctrines aka not buddhism but some shit Westerners love to praise. As a student studying Traditionalism but more so the orientals i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Buddhism" its more so some-shit the Westerners took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys some chart and become a Eastern monk and maybe even understand Buddhism itself? gtfo, read guenon's first book so you can get rid of your western prejudices

[Anonymous No.13080819]

Budhhism was dealt an unreturnable blow by Shayk ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá

[Anonymous No.13080847]

>>13080819
What was his argument

>>13080809
>The absolute pseudery
I love how you praise Mahāyāna and then shit out this lovely post. Clearly you aren't studying it in enough detail, or you wouldn't be lashing out like this.
>Just don't love or hate, and it's simple and clear
--Sengcan

[Anonymous No.13080866]

>>13080819
Fuck u

[Anonymous No.13080897]

>>13080804
So what are the go-to Buddhism books?

[Anonymous No.13080899]

>>13080897
Depends. What vehicle, and then what sect, do you want to learn about?

[Anonymous No.13080905]

>>13080819
this

[Anonymous No.13080908]

>>13080796
>secular buddhism

fuck off your corporate mindfulness cult faggot, if you can't into the "incense and buddha fanfic" then don't pollute the tradition with your bugman sensibilities

[Anonymous No.13080924]

>atheists can't disprove that god exists
>you can't disprove that there's a teapot floating around Jupiter

[Anonymous No.13080929]

>Secular Buddhism

kys

[Anonymous No.13080934]

>>13080819
>A literal who
Yeah ok.

[Anonymous No.13080935]

>>13080934
It's Guenon

[Anonymous No.13080943]

>>13080796
Everyone can prove God exists, but not for others.

[Anonymous No.13080950]

this >>13080908 and this >>13080929

[Anonymous No.13080959]

>>13080796
i unironically enjoyed God's Not Dead.

[Anonymous No.13080963]

>>13080809

This isn't a subject I've thoroughly studied, but from what I understood of my time reading through the history of Buddhism, Therevada predates Mahayana Buddhism by a long shot. It would be disingenuous to call Mahayana the most 'pure' if that holds true. Therevada has not only been resistant to changing their doctrines but depending on the country we're talking about they might never have had to bend the knee to Christianity through conquest and thus weren't corrupted by Judeo-Christian memes.

[Anonymous No.13080970]

>>13080899
Not OP, but I'm assuming he means the early texts and general material

[Anonymous No.13080974]

>>13080959
you're unironically braindead

[Anonymous No.13080983]

>>13080924
>specific object with specific qualities
Not comparable to God.

Let's say God is
>The source of all being
This means that if consciousness is experienced in the Universe, in being, it must have the same source, granted there is only one source. (If there are multiple sources, there are multiple 'Gods'). So if we are to witness mass or energy, the source must have those qualities or potential for them in some other actual form.
Consciousness, mind, stories - the ever complexifying and expanding world, with more and more qualities; perhaps there was no consciousness two billion years ago? Yet the source had the potential to bring it forth, and likely in greater quantities than what we have - just on mathematical terms alone.
It makes a lot of sense for self-aware beings to be theists for this reason.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13080989]

>>13080943
What does that mean?
>>13080959
Why?

[Anonymous No.13080994]

>>13080983
>This means that if consciousness is experienced in the Universe, in being, it must have the same source
stop right there, it doesn't even need to be justified by a single source. why is the concept of randomly/inorganically arising consciousness so triggering to Christians?

[Anonymous No.13081022]

>>13080796
>google secular buddhism
>first result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism#Literature
At least do the bare minimum research yourself before making a thread.

>if you can't into the "incense and buddha fanfic" then don't pollute the tradition with your bugman sensibilities
Do you own Buddhism? Why do you get to dictate what others should do and think regarding it? What are you going to do if OP just ignores you? Stay mad?

[Anonymous No.13081031]

>>13081022
derp, forgot to quote >>13080908 for second part

[Anonymous No.13081032]

JOSH WHEATON, YES

[Anonymous No.13081044]

>>13080924
There’s no arguments for why there should be a teapot flying around Jupiter, let alone why one should believe there is. Really bad analogy.

[Anonymous No.13081060]

>>13081044
There’s no arguments for why there should be a God, let alone why one should believe there is. Really bad analogy.

[Anonymous No.13081063]

>>13081044
>There's no arguments for why there should be a God, let alone why one should believe there is. Really good analogy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13081085]

>>13081032
>Josh Wheaton: dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
We disprove all the gods man has invented. The only “god” left isn’t worshiped anywhere.

[Anonymous No.13081093]

>>13081085
Stop being so anti-religion butterfly please baby :3

[Anonymous No.13081100]

>>13080994
>stop right there, it doesn't even need to be justified by a single source. why is the concept of randomly/inorganically arising consciousness
I was actually referring to the 'material world'.

>Energy -> Quarks -> (small)Particles -> Multitude of large particles (atoms) -> atoms mix and become molecules, react and become ions and many other things -> molecules mix and become larger parts -> molecules become machines -> some machines replicate | replicants have or learn to experience the world; hunger, fear etc. -> replicants become life (rather than viruses) -> the sphere of existence for life grows -> human experience -> other, greater things
It's not quite that simple, but things get more complex and become things of their own. This means that given how math doesn't change, the Universe always had the potential to produce consciousness and life, hence the Source must always do so as well.

[Anonymous No.13081101]

>>13081022
do what you want, just don't call it buddhism. they're breathing exercises with a vague eastern aesthetic. kys

[Anonymous No.13081107]

>>13081101
That is why it is called Secular Buddhism, and not Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13081115]

>>13081100
>deism
okay, glad we're in agreement here

[Anonymous No.13081120]

>>13081060
>>13081063
Purposeful ignorance. The cause of all existence is a little less arbitrary than a teapot around Jupiter, don’t you think? There’s a reason why so many people believe in a God, while no one believes in the teapot.

[Anonymous No.13081122]

>>13081115
The Universe is highly interactive, I recommend you try. Interactivity isn't one-way, either, so do keep that in mind in regards to psychedelics, prayer, belief etc.

[Anonymous No.13081129]

>>13081107
no you faggot it's a watered-down nihilist cult for overworked lumpenproles like you to get a little downtime in before you go back to making money for your jew boss

[Anonymous No.13081135]

>>13081044
Most inane fucking reddit argument of all time, jesus christ Russell was a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.13081149]

>>13081120
what if the teapot created the universe?
>>13081135
do you prefer invisible pink unicorns?

[Anonymous No.13081162]

>>13081129
>no you faggot it's a watered-down nihilist cult for overworked lumpenproles
Regardless of what flavour you choose to colour your definition of it with, you are still talking about Secular Buddhism, the definition doesn't change the identifier.

>like you to get a little downtime in before you go back to making money for your jew boss
I'm not a Secular Buddhist in the strict sense and I don't work for anyone.

You seem to be way too butthurt about this to indicate you have any deep understanding of the practice of Buddhism, secular or not.

[Anonymous No.13081164]

>>13081085
Sorry you're so full of doubt. If you watch the scene this quote comes from you might reconsider, even if just for a moment. Its a pretty inspiring movie.

[Anonymous No.13081178]

>>13081164
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91DJm0OnMw

[Anonymous No.13081192]

>>13081178
>I am so bad at having my own opinions that I need youtubers to have my opinions for me

Yikes

[Anonymous No.13081201]

>>13081178
>not Big Joel
Joel actually acknowledges what GND does right and tries to criticize it on its own terms

[Anonymous No.13081210]

>>13081201
>being familiar with 1 or more youtubers

Yikes

[Anonymous No.13081216]

>>13081162
Please stop trying to legitimize intentional misinterpretations and degenerations of the text with Capital Letters. You're a faggot. It isn't a legitimate branch if it bastardizes the most fundamental concepts of the tradition it is trying to rescue from the "superstition". Tell me, what is Samsara? What is rebirth?

[Anonymous No.13081223]

>dude a supreme being or creator fod is nonsenical and only for deluded people
>but according to the flawless logic of my magic proto-science man illusion/samsara exists as the universe and is without beginning for no reason whatever and im supposed to psychically obliterate myself because magic science man says so

[Anonymous No.13081224]

>>13081216
>What is rebirth?
A dog's asshole in ceaseless motion, teacher.
>What is Samsara?
Little birds sing and flowers bloom again, but I can still smell the frost on the morning breeze.

[Anonymous No.13081228]

>>13081192
>>13081201
Technically I didn't watch the movie, just that one review, which I found amusing. If you really want my opinion, I'll read over the plot synopsis to refresh my memory and then give my feedback. I have limited bandwidth and can't download the whole movie.

[Anonymous No.13081242]

i bought Old Path White Clouds last week, what am i in for?

[Anonymous No.13081246]

>>13081223
>trying to conflate buddhism with scientism

retard

[Anonymous No.13081256]

>>13080809
This pasta again?

[Anonymous No.13081259]

>>13081228
Im trolling, the movie is awful, but watching Youtubers unironically is even more awful.

Shame on you.

[Anonymous No.13081263]

>>13081246
half the faggots in these threads are always going on about how Buddhism is pure empiricism

[Anonymous No.13081268]

>>13081263
it is though, but not empiricism in a positivist sense, and that is not a controversial statement

[Anonymous No.13081270]

>>13080819
>tfw you google Shayk ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá

[Anonymous No.13081279]

>>13081210
>>being interested in anything I don't like
>generic expression of 2nd hand embarrassment
predictable as always

[Anonymous No.13081282]

>>13081270
>>13080819
i don't get it

[Anonymous No.13081287]

>>13081279
Honestly people who watch Youtubers need to feel ashamed and embarrassed about it.

Its disgusting. Watching television is more intelligent.

[Anonymous No.13081313]

>>13081287
it's literally the same thing as TV. the only difference that comes to mind is that YT is mostly nonfiction/criticism/philosophy, which is obviously superior to fiction, the dominant genre of TV

[Anonymous No.13081319]

>>13081216
>Please stop trying to legitimize intentional misinterpretations and degenerations of the text
Do you have any right to stop people from legitimizing the intentional misinterpretation and degeneration of the texts, assuming that is what they are even doing? You seem very attached to what other do, I suggest you work on your non-attachment.

>with Capital Letters
Technically you are right, it's incorrect to spell secular with a capital letter, but Buddhism should still be capitalized. Thanks for pointing it out.

>You're a faggot.
If you want me to suck your dick it will cost you.

>It isn't a legitimate branch if it bastardizes the most fundamental concepts of the tradition it is trying to rescue from the "superstition".
pic related

>Tell me, what is Samsara?
In short, the karmic cycle of death and rebirth.
>What is rebirth?
In short, karmic reincarnation after death.

[Anonymous No.13081336]

>>13081259
>Shame on you.
Watching youtube is by far not the most shameful thing I have done.

[Anonymous No.13081371]

>>13081336
basé

[Anonymous No.13081385]

>>13081313
WRONG

Watching Youtubers is letting a random jackass (who does not matter) tell you his opinions on things (which matter).

Watching TV is watching inane mainstream information produced in consultation with a major network.

Serious people avoid both.

Youtubers are honestly for idiots.

[Anonymous No.13081427]

>>13081385
>things (which matter)
kek, implying anyone makes YT videos about things that actually matter

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.13081498]

>>13081085
two p's you dummy.

[Anonymous No.13081501]

>>13081385
>Serious people avoid both in favor of shitposting for 7 hours a day
indeed, based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.13081559]

>>13081228
So finished reading the synopsis and did some research, here are my opinions:

I can't find a good transcript of the exact arguments used by Josh in his lectures, but one summary has it as follows: >The universe had to have a beginning, and the Big Bang sounds an awful lot like "Let there be light."
A common but flawed argument, just because science doesn't have all the answers, and by definition never will, doesn't mean you can just fill in the gaps with God. There is a good lecture on this by Neil deGrasse Tyson on youtube, search for "God of the gaps". Focus on his arguments and points, not his meme celebrity status or character.
> Scientists don't know how life came about, so God is the best explanation for it.
Same as god of the gaps.
>Radisson (the dreaded atheist philosophy professor) argues based on the authority of Stephen Hawking, but Hawking also said that "Philosophy is dead." (If this doesn't make sense as an argument, don't worry - it shouldn't.)
Not exactly sure how that unfolds in the movie but sounds like a kind of strawman.
>Some smart people are theists, so "it's not intellectual suicide" to believe in God.
Doesn't mean God exists though.
>You can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Doesn't mean God exists though.

The whole thing about Radisson being a believer all along but just "hating God" is a common doctrine taught in Christianity. I don't know exactly where this comes from but some conversations I had with some very devout Christians and how they view things pointed this out. Like all the other flawed circular logic arguments, this one presupposes the existence of God and interprets all humanity not believing in God as just hating God.

Radisson is a hypothetical strawman for Christians to frame atheistic non-belief/lack-of-faith as believing in God bat hating Him.

>inb4 this post is just a desperate cope because I hate God

[Anonymous No.13081562]

>>13080819
Nice

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13081570]

>>13081498
Is that the English spelling of “worshiped”?

[Anonymous No.13082316]

>>13081282
its some schizo anon thinking his muslim cult author 'refuted' buddhism by arguing that it is really just a corrupted form of proto-vedanta was was 'refuted' by later vedantins who actually plagiarized buddhism. Basically its one huge cope from advaitists.

[Anonymous No.13082334]

>>13081559
based, the entire post is just a desperate cope because he hates theism

[Anonymous No.13082357]

>>13082316
Buddhism is just NeoVedanta

[Anonymous No.13082361]

>>13081164
I'm a Christian and think God's Not Dead is a shit movie

[Anonymous No.13082465]

>>13082357
Neo-Vedanta is a modern movement lol, im sure you meant proto-vedanta (which it still isn't considering its rejection of the vedas and rejection of atma-brahman)

[Anonymous No.13082534]

>>13082465
The Upanishads are the original Vedanta, Vedanta literally just means 'end/summary of the Vedas', which the Upanishads themselves are. The later Vedanta schools being the direct continuation of this, Buddhism is basically just neovedanta because it took most of the existing ideas of the already existent Vedanta of the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and ran in a slightly different direction than them. And no, Buddha never rejected the Atma of the Upanishads, the Atma he describes in the PC does not correspond to the Atma of the Upanishads in any way and they are completely different things, thinking they are the same just reveals you to be a mega-pleb. Buddha only used anatta to point out that objects, thoughts, memories, emotions etc and anything else within the intellect and phenomenal existence is not the self, the Atma of the Upanishads is taught as transcendental, ineffable and beyond thought, the intellect and phenomenal existence, Buddha never mentioned this concept as atma or anatta but largely juat repackaged it as Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.13082559]

>>13082534
>largely juat repackaged it

[Anonymous No.13082565]

>>13082361
Thank God, its a horrible film. The idea that a movie like this could inspire people keeps me awake at night. God help us.

[Anonymous No.13082572]

>>13081570
This is an unhealthy relationship and you know it. It's time to go.

[Anonymous No.13082581]

>>13080796
>Secular Buddhism
Western colonialist wankery. You might as well just grab a random book from the self-help section at the local bookstore.

[Anonymous No.13082663]

>>13082534
>Neo-Vedanta, also called Hindu modernism,[1] neo-Hinduism,[2] Global Hinduism[3] and Hindu Universalism,[web 1] are terms to characterize interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century
just so you're aware of it btw

>>13082534
>And no, Buddha never rejected the Atma of the Upanishads, the Atma he describes in the PC does not correspond to the Atma of the Upanishads in any way and they are completely different things, thinking they are the same just reveals you to be a mega-pleb. Buddha only used anatta to point out that objects, thoughts, memories, emotions etc and anything else within the intellect and phenomenal existence is not the self, the Atma of the Upanishads is taught as transcendental, ineffable and beyond thought, the intellect and phenomenal existence, Buddha never mentioned this concept as atma or anatta but largely juat repackaged it as Nirvana.
Anatta is just the pali word for 'Anatman' which is sanskrit for 'not self' (an-atma). They obviously mean the same thing anon, you're essentially claiming that the buddha equated atma with Nirvana (lol).

[Anonymous No.13082684]

>>13082559
Buddha describes Nirvana in the PC as unborn, unconditioned and uncaused, transcendental to thought, and also describes it as blissful and says that people who reach/realize it are freed/liberated from phenomenal existence and misery; all of those descriptions are found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads describing Atma-Brahman

[Anonymous No.13082709]

>>13082581
Based

[Anonymous No.13082710]

>>13082663
>you're essentially claiming that the buddha equated (The Upanishadic) atma with Nirvana (lol).
Yes, that's exactly what he did, probably intentionally to obscure the source of his ideas. Just because the same word is used in both cases does not mean that they understood it as having the same meaning in both cases, first off Buddha didn't teach in Sanskrit but mostly Magadhi Prakrit, secondly among the various Hindu and non-Hindu schools (many of which existed in Buddhas time) in India such as Vedantins, Jains, Buddhists, or adherents of the schools of Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Mimansa, Samkhya etc they all have a different definition of Atma and regard it in different ways; some regard it as having inherent qualities, others as involved in thought etc while others consider it to not be. The idea that just because 'Atma' is used in the Upanishads and because Buddha's prakrit was translated to Atma in the later Sanskrit texts that Buddha was trying to refute the same Atma as the Upanishads is nonsensical, why should Buddha not have been referring to one of the many other schools of thought which all understood Atma in totally different ways? He doesn't describe the same Atma of the Upanishads and so absent any evidence otherwise there is no reason to claim that. If he was trying to refute the Upanishads he could have at least been arsed to correctly describe their ideas.

[Anonymous No.13082867]

>>13080847
>>13080963
its a pasta and ironically enough the whole thing is basically triggering orientals on how they "date" doctrines so a troll pasta post unironically proved a ironic point

[Anonymous No.13083055]

>>13082710
>Yes, that's exactly what he did
then you've just exposed yourself bigly.

No, Nibbana isn't Atma-Brahman. The Buddha rejected any notion that it is a primordial unchanging reality from which is the cause of change.

[Anonymous No.13083084]

>>13083055
>The Buddha rejected any notion that it is a primordial unchanging reality from which is the cause of change
I never said that it was the exact 100% same thing in every aspect and in every description, just that they are equated and mostly the same, as I pointed out here >>13082684 they are almost entirely the same except that Buddha didn't say it was the cause of existence and refrained from describing any abiding X or bliss inside Nirvana, and he didn't describe it as the inner self, but other than that it's almost identical. Like the pre-Buddhist Upanishads he repeated that it was unborn, unconditioned, transcendental to thought, to be realized through immediate experience and was liberation from bliss and transmigration; also I'm pretty sure that he either states or strongly implies Nirvana is free from change. Much of Mahayana and Vajrayana thought adds elements that make it even more like the Upanishads teachings on top of the heavy existing similarities.

[Anonymous No.13083120]

>>13080924
All teapots are man made objects, they're not found in nature, so the only way a teapot can get into orbit around Jupiter is if man put it there. There are no records of man ever launching a teapot into Jupiter's orbit. Show me proof man did if you have it. Otherwise, gtfo with your shitty argument, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.13083129]

>>13083120
>only humanity can do X thing because god isn't omnipotent

[Anonymous No.13083163]

>>13083084
>they are almost entirely the same except that Buddha
Except they aren't. They are fundamentally different. Nirvana is cessation of dukkha. Atma-Brahma is the primordial essence. The only thing binding them together is that they appear to be absolutes (which is debatable given the negation aspect of Nibbana). Other than that they are diametrically opposite. At best the buddha didn't attempt to identify it with any sort of 'Atma' both in the atma brahma sense or in just the atma sense (actually he describes it as anatta in the canon). The buddha, who was obviously exposed to upanishads in his upbringing (as were all of his contemporaries in that time) simply rejected their premise and forked his own philosophy/line of thought.

So of course there are bound to be similar in some aspects but differ in the core aspects. It doesn't help your case that Gaudapada straight up ripped from buddhist material in order to argue what you're arguing, which was then forwarded to Shankara (who was then accused of being a crypto buddhist). It is far more likely that Advaita ripped from Buddhism than Buddhism ripping from Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.13083166]

>>13083129
wtf I'm a teapot now!

[Anonymous No.13083189]

>>13083163
>which was then forwarded to Shankara (who was then accused of being a crypto buddhist). It is far more likely that Advaita ripped from Buddhism than Buddhism ripping from Upanishads.
Not who you were talking to, but Shankara always referred to the shruti and smriti in his commentaries. Every piece of his commentary can be traced back to those Hindu texts, which makes none of his thoughts on the matter original.

[Anonymous No.13083278]

>>13080809
Ohhhh, this is pasta.

[Anonymous No.13083288]

Wasn't Buddhism just a philosophy in the begging and then it got transformed in a religion later on long ather the Budda was gone ?

[Anonymous No.13083589]

>>13083189
Shankara used Gaudapadan dialectic which was ripped from Buddhism (sometimes word for word). You’re essentially saying buddhists were the ones who were ‘crypto-advaitist’ all along despite the major vendantins emerging centuries/millennia after the fact. Where exactly were these advaitist during the upanishadic times if they were merely referencing the upanishads? Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it?

[Anonymous No.13083605]

>>13083189
not him but how would his (shankara's) interpretation of vedanta (advaita) not make his thoughts on the matter original? There were a plethora of schools that made differing claims on the shruti and smriti material. Were those schools all wrong?

[Anonymous No.13084230]

>>13080796
>Secular Buddhism
>I'd like one Buddhism-lite book, for my luke-warm western palate.

[Anonymous No.13084581]

>>13083163
>Nirvana is cessation of dukkha
Yes, and Moksha (which is realization of Brahman) is the cessation of suffering, you are trying to make mountains out of moleholes of minor differences in how they are ontologically quantified; it's quite clear though Nirvana is a variant of an Upanishadic idea
>It doesn't help your case that Gaudapada straight up ripped from buddhist material in order to argue what you're arguing
Gaudapada does not rip anything from Buddhism, he carefully reviews some of the Buddhist arguments and ideas of his time and agrees with some of them where they align with the Upanishads, and cites the Upanishad passages when he does agree to show that these ideas themselves come from the Upanishads, but he also disagrees with them in others areas and makes sure to explain the differences. His Karika is the first work that established the correct relationship between Mahayana and Buddhism and it forwards Advaita as superior to Buddhism. If you can't point to something specific he took from Buddhism that can't already be found in the Upanishads, then don't claim he did, that's what pseuds do is make accusations without backing them up.
>>13083589
Buddhism did not invent the use of dialetic you retard, it's used in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads
>You’re essentially saying buddhists were the ones who were ‘crypto-advaitist’ all along despite the major vendantins emerging centuries/millennia after the fact.
Yes that's correct
> Where exactly were these advaitist during the upanishadic times if they were merely referencing the upanishads
Shankara references something like 99 previous vedantins in his works, they have just been lost to history, earlier texts like the Gita and the Brahma Sutras which center around Upanishadic ideas come from these same sort of people who existed in this period. The word 'Advaita' itself comes from the first Upanishad
>not him but how would his (shankara's) interpretation of vedanta (advaita) not make his thoughts on the matter original?
Some of his ideas were, but many of his ideas come from a long line of Hindu thinkers before him, he is moreso renowned for being a great synthesizer and for his insight and rigorous logic and less so for inventing everything. He didn't claim to have invented it and refers to himself as a knower of the Tradition in his writings and he praises the people who came before him.
>There were a plethora of schools that made differing claims on the shruti and smriti material. Were those schools all wrong?
Not entirely, in many cases some of their ideas were absorbed into Vedanta, it's generally agreed among scholars though that Shankara's is the most logical and straightforward interpretation of the Sruti:

[Anonymous No.13084585]

>>13084581
*between Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita

[Anonymous No.13085463]

>>13084581
>Yes, and Moksha..
if semantics weren't enough, now you're moving goalposts. Jesus do you ever get tired of being this dishonest...

>Gaudapada does not rip anything from Buddhism
he literally rips sunyavada and vijnanavada arguments from their respective schools (madhyamika and yogacara) and assimilates it in chapter 4 of his karika. It's already well accepted that he ripped from them so much so that the only explanation from scholars was that he had a ghost writer.

Here's just one example:
>Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise (MMK 1.1)
>No given thing (vastu) whatsoever is born either from itself or from another. No given thing whatsoever is born existent, non-existent, or both existent and non-existent". (GK 4.22)

No amount of mental gymnastics will make his plagarism untrue. Shankara furthers these arguments himself in his commentary of Gaudapada's work and he must have known that it was buddhist in origin, given his knowledge of buddhism, but skewed it anyway.

>Buddhism did not invent the use of dialetic you retard, it's used in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads
There are so many things in pre-Advaita buddhism that are not even found in the pre buddhist-upanishads such as fourfold negation and 2 truths doctrine, both of which were exported into later upanishads (notably the buddhist-esque mandukya upanishad which was the inspiration for Gaudapada's Karika) and were subsequently incorporated into Advaita (eg the viveka doctrine of Shankara).

Again it's just so convenient that buddhistic ideas spring up BOTH in later upanishads and vedanta, all the while the advaitins claim they are merely deriving from the main upanishads and that buddhism is just a 'corruption' if you just look close enough.

[Anonymous No.13085550]

>>13083166
Teapots shouldn't browse 4chan

[Anonymous No.13085913]

>>13085463
> rips sunyavada and vijnanavada arguments from their respective schools and assimilates it in chapter 4 of his karika.
No he doesn't, he cites the mahayana by name, and then carefully evaluates their arguments, specifying where he agrees and disagrees with them. He specifically states on multiple occasions that X arguments is used by Buddhists. The 4th chapter critiques Buddhist doctrines as incorrect in multiple areas. His doctrine of the non-dual unborn Atma is opposed to both schools, he is an epistemic realist and an ontological idealist, the Yogachara are epistemic idealists which he criticizes them for
>It's already well accepted that he ripped from them so much so that the only explanation from scholars was that he had a ghost writer.
no it's not, a number of scholars have rejected this reasoning and concluded that the entire karika is authentic as did shankara

>Here's just one example:
>No given thing (vastu) whatsoever is born either from itself or from another. No given thing whatsoever is born existent, non-existent, or both existent and non-existent". (GK 4.22)
That's not ripping the MMK, the unborn/non-origination doctrine predates Buddhism and appears in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad directly states that Brahman is unborn and infinite and only falsely appears as manifold because of maya, and then the Chandogya further negates creation and says nothing is ever created. If you like I can cite the exact passages. In the third chapter Gaudapada explains his reasoning for accepting non-origination and in doing so cites a bunch of Upanishad passages which support it (most of them pre-buddhist) and explains how they logically lead to non-origination:

III-22. How can the entity that is immortal remain unchanged according to one to whom a thing that is immortal by nature can be born, since it is a product (in his view)?
III-23. The sruti favours equally the creation in reality and through Maya. That which is settled by the sruti and supported by reasoning is true, and not anything else.
III-24. Since the sruti says, "There is no multiplicity here", "the Lord, owing to Maya, (is seen diversely)", and "The Self, though unborn, (appears to be born in many ways)", it becomes obvious that He is born through Maya.
III-25. By the censure of (the worship of) Hiranyagarbha is negated creation. By the statement, "Who will cause it to be born?", is denied causality
III-26. On the ground of non-apprehension (of Brahman), all the preceding instruction (for Its comprehension) is negated by the sruti, "This Self is that which has been declared as ‘Not this, not this’". Hence the unborn Self becomes revealed by Itself.
III-27. Birth of that which exists occurs only through Maya and not in reality. He who thinks that something is born in reality, (should know) that that which is already born is (re)born.

The Upanishad passages quoted above are mostly from the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya

[Anonymous No.13085920]

>>13085913
>There are so many things in pre-Advaita buddhism that are not even found in the pre buddhist-upanishads such as fourfold negation and 2 truths doctrine,
This is also completely wrong, the two truths doctrine predates Buddhism, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad all of phenomenal existence, the elements, the vital force, the universe etc are all described as the 'truth', and then immediately afterwards Brahman is described as "not this" (referring to the previous truth) and then Brahman is described as "the truth of truth", this is the source and earliest textual example of the two truths doctrine which was later assimilated by Buddha and ported into Madhyamika. I'm not sure what you mean by Gaudapada or the Karika taking the 4-fold negation, if you are referring to the 4 states of the Mandukya Upanishad and how they imply a transcendental 4th state via negation there is already a discussion of them as such in the Brihadaranyaka.

[Anonymous No.13086097]

>>13085913
>he is an epistemic realist and an ontological idealist
what mean

[Anonymous No.13086107]

stephen batchelor - buddhism without beliefs

[Anonymous No.13086123]

its hilarious how bitter buddhist threads on /lit/ and r/buddhism can get.

not very enlightened

[Anonymous No.13086127]

>>13086123
tru

[Anonymous No.13086163]

>>13086123
>its hilarious how bitter buddhist threads on /lit/ and r/buddhism can get.
That is a good thing. Shows that they actually care and genuinely believe their faith to be correct.

Too often these days every fucking Buddhist is a ecumenical bugman that uses Jesus, Allah and Buddha interchangeably like they're all the same. We need some fucking fervor in Buddhism, we need dharma zealots to sweep the lands bopping people on the head with club sized prayer wheels.

[Anonymous No.13087269]

>>13086097
>The Advaita philosophy holds the position that the consciousness is attributed with the functionality of perception only with regard to the waking state wherein the objectivity is merely projected and thus appears in various names and forms. This figurative intentionality of consciousness is merely a mental simulation caused by the apparent conjugation of Self and the non-self. The objectivity provided by the mind attributes the intentionality to the consciousness. Thus consciousness acquires varied degrees of functionality in terms of intentional acts such as perception, memory, imagination and the like. In reality, however, suspending the objective world constituting the universals and particulars, the phenomenological residuum is the pure supra-Consciousness that does not stand in any causal relation with the objective entities; nor does it have any intentionality and hence is apodictically transcendental. Though the consciousness is the substratum for all cognitive experiences that precipitate out of subject-object interactions, it in ‘actuality’ remains untouched by any of these transactions.

>Gauḍapāda uses the simile called ‘fire-circle’ (alāta cakra) in order to explain the onto-phenomenology of consciousness. When a stick with a fire tip is waved (alāta spandita) during the night, it forms different appearances in accordance to the movement of the fire-brand and so does the vibration of the consciousness that appears to exist in terms of known, knower and the like, (grahaṇa-grāhaka) in accordance to the nature of limiting adjuncts (kārikā IV.47). Just as the same fire-brand when not in motion is free from all appearances, the consciousness too when not vibrated remains in its true intrinsic nature is free from all names and forms. Gauḍapāda insists that, even when the fire-brand is in motion the appearances that seem to exist do not come from anywhere and they do not go anywhere. Appearances do not originate from the fire-brand and they do not dissolve into it. There is no causal relation between the resultant products of appearances with the seeming cause. Similarly, the entire universe that exist in pairs of dualities are not products of consciousness and nor is the consciousness a product of the physical universe. The existence of cause-effect result, according to Gauḍapāda , is a mental pre-occupation (phala-āveśaḥ) which is a mere projection (phala-udbhavah). In the domain of ignorance these mental pre-suppositions manifest as multi-fold appearances, which is purely due to concealment (samvṛtya – samvaraṇa) of the nature of absolute self as pure consciousness.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/gauḍapad/

Some of the best explanations/summaries of Gaudapada's ideas are in 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' and 'The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy' both by Sharma, the former is on archive.org and latter is on lib-gen

[Anonymous No.13087328]

>>13086163
>That is a good thing.
no. it is not. You may be confused.

Right speech and right action are good things.

Shitposting on 4chin or reddit is not a good thing (arguably lurking and posting on sites like 4chin or reddit at all are not "good" things")

[Anonymous No.13087537]

>>13087328
cope

[Anonymous No.13088530]

>>13087328
I doubt anyone here is a practicing Buddhist, just like anyone in the Christian threads pretend to go to weekly church/bible study

[Anonymous No.13088959]

>>13087269
>No he doesn't, he cites the mahayana by name
It's one thing agreeing with them, its another appropriating them and then dismissing the whole system which you've plagiarized. This is something that Shankara does as well, he plagiarizes concepts, damns his opponents as 'nihilistic' etc and then argues that he dindu nuffin because 'its actually from old upanishads'. They were literally the niggers of ancient India.

>Some of the best explanations/summaries of Gaudapada's ideas are in 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' and 'The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy' both by Sharma

The author you cite actually says that Gaudapada in page 144 of the latter book:
>Gaudapada's Karika bears many doctrinal and terminological similarities with Nagarjuna's Karika and with the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Besides, there is the methodological similarity in the employment of the dialectic between Gaudapada and the Madhyamika Buddhists. The fourth chapter of Karika, known as the Alatashantiprakarana, exhibits a strikingly Buddhist tenor and has been a "problem child" of Gaudapada for the interpreters.

Although he goes on to say it ultimately derives from upanishads, there is no doubt that even the author you cite agrees with me that Gaudapada takes doctrinal, terminological and dialectical concepts from Madhyamika (something you objected to earlier). Even if we suppose that the claim it was derived from pre-buddhist upanishads to be true (which I doubt), it still amounts to plagiarism. And no he doesn't directly cite them, he doesn't say 'Nagarjuna said this', he just copy and pastes them straight up. It is only Shankara that names vijnanavada in his commentary (and gladly subsumes them). There is just no way around this apparent appropriation.

Here's another example of the terminology he ripped
>prakrter anyathābhāvo na hijatupapadyate (MMK 15.8)
>prakṛter anyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati (MK 4.7)

>no it's not, a number of scholars have rejected this reasoning and concluded that the entire karika is authentic as did shankara
The fact that there are even scholars who conclude that chapter 4 had a ghost writer poses tons of problems for Advaitins. The influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada however still remains uncontroversial.
> Modern scholarship generally accepts that Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that Gaudapada was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.[3]

>That's not ripping the MMK
Yes that is, that's straight up ripping from MMK. The upanishadic formulation you posted does not correspond with the Nagarjunian formulation, the pre-buddhist upanishads do not support the sunyavadadic samutpada. It simply doesn't.

[Anonymous No.13089139]

>>13085920
It literally says in chapter 2 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. The truth that succeeds is that correlative, integrating principle, Satya, which is, again, a manifestation of the ātman. ātman is truth, and ātman is Dharma. So, Satya and Dharma are identified as it was mentioned earlier in a preceding passage.

The convoluted interpretation you posted is not the two truths doctrine. The two truths doctrine was developed to explain the paradox of the truth of sunyata (empty of essence) with the truth of conventional appearances, something that isn't (and wouldn't even need to) be applied to a thing Brahman (which, as shown in the Br Upanishad, is a singular integrating truth).

However Shankara does it anyway with his development of the viveka principle where he posits two levels knowledge, the higher knowledge (Brahman) and lower knowledge (multiplicity). It is clear as day that he took this epistemology from Nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.13089149]

>>13088959
meant to quote this too
>>13085913

[Anonymous No.13089306]

>>13080796
>Secular Buddhism
bugman detected

[Anonymous No.13089389]

>>13089139
>>13088959
> Shankara does as well, he plagiarizes concepts,
Again, no he doesn't. There isn't a single important idea in his system that he doesn't base on Upanishad citations.
>literally the niggers of ancient India.
By that reasoning Buddha was a nigger for taking his whole shtick from the Upanishads
>Although he goes on to say it ultimately derives from upanishads
why even continue past this point? the rest is semantics
>there is no doubt that even the author you cite agrees with me that Gaudapada takes doctrinal, terminological and dialectical concepts from Madhyamika (something you objected to earlier).
I objected to the notion that he took things from them and used them in his own doctrine, because he didn't; all of the ideas that are he puts forward as Advaita in his karika he backs up with Upanishad citations (not everything in the Karika is Advaita and he doesn't agree with everything mentioned in it). As the author himself said those other ideas and arguments were not the exclusive property of the Buddhists and were part of the general philosophical parlance or currency of the time; how was Gaudapada supposed to try to critique or evaluate Buddhist arguemnts without repeating or explaining them for his reader? You're not making any sense. When certain Advaitic ideas like non-origination are in agreement with the Buddhists Gaudapada provides Upanishad citations to back them up.
>it still amounts to plagiarism. And no he doesn't directly cite them, he doesn't say 'Nagarjuna said this', he just copy and pastes them straight up.
That's because it's generally the standard to not name people by name in classical sanskrit philosophical texts, you should know this already; I shouldn't have to explain it to you. It's the exception when people are named, in many many schools and thinkers its the usual practice to say "some say ..." and then to explain the opponents ideas in such a way that it's clear who they are; especially in a non-prose text like the Karika. He already mentions the Mahayana Buddhists a half-dozen times, it's abundantly clear he is referencing them. a very concise text like the Karika is not the sort of thing where you would preface each individual statement with a "he said", its designed to be very concise like the Brahma Sutras.
>The upanishadic formulation you posted does not correspond with the Nagarjunian formulation,
What are you even saying here? Gaudapada cites the exact pre-Buddhist Upanishad passages that say Brahman is unborn and that creation is unreal, i'm not sure why you are even trying to argue this point it's plain as day, there is no ambiguity in the Upanishad passages he cites. Nagarjuna is irrelevant to this point, he didn't need Nagarjuna at all because the Upanishads directly say so.

[Anonymous No.13089394]

>>13089389
The convoluted interpretation you posted is not the two truths doctrine.
That's because you made an amateur mistake and cited the wrong passage kiddo! I wasn't talking about that one I was talking about this one:

in chapter 2, section 3, verse 6

"Now therefore the description (of Brahman): 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this.' Now Its name: 'The Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth and It (Brahman) is the Truth of that.

this occurs right after section 6 of chapter 1 which says the universe consists of name, form and action and then says that these three are but the vital force. The import of the above passage is that the universe consisting of the vital force under its various aspects is the truth, but that Brahman is the truth of the truth; the absolute truth behind the conventional truth of the phenomenal universe

>The two truths doctrine was developed to explain the paradox of the truth of sunyata (empty of essence) with the truth of conventional appearances, something that isn't (and wouldn't even need to) be applied to a thing Brahman
Except that's literally what it's doing, the Brihadaranyaka already states that in the beginning there was but the Self, and that this Self/Lord is only perceived as manifold because of Maya (both chapter 1), it also says Brahman is unborn in multiple chapters. Then, in the end of chapter 1 and right after in the above passage it says that this universe/vital force is the truth but that Brahman is the truth of that truth. It's the exact same principle, it's talking about how despite the conventional truth of appearances and the universe that Brahman is actually one and unborn and that this is the ultimate or absolute truth; all of this predates Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13089493]

>>13089389
>Again, no he doesn't. There isn't a single important idea in his system that he doesn't base on Upanishad citations.
He literally ripped two-truths and sunyata from Nagarjuna, I don't know how much evidence I need to give by now to convince you otherwise (on top of what I've given you). It is no coincidence that multiple people around him (including his contempararies Ramanuja and Madhvacharya) saw what was so obvious a plagiarizer.

>As the author himself said those other ideas and arguments were not the exclusive property of the Buddhists and were part of the general philosophical parlance or currency of the time
then why did he highlight the fact that Gaudapada used 'buddhist doctrines, terminology and dialectics' if he was convinced they were actually upanishadic? This is something you cited for yourself, yet you can't seem to agree on the author your siding with (but somehow im the one the making sense....)

>That's because it's generally the standard to not name people by name in classical sanskrit philosophical texts, you should know this already
cope

>What are you even saying here? Gaudapada cites the exact pre-Buddhist Upanishad passages that say Brahman is unborn and that creation is unreal, i'm not sure why you are even trying to argue this point it's plain as day, there is no ambiguity in the Upanishad passages he cites. Nagarjuna is irrelevant to this point, he didn't need Nagarjuna at all because the Upanishads directly say so.
he cites Upanishads but uses Madhyamika ontology instead, that is the whole point you brainlet.

>he didn't need Nagarjuna at all because the Upanishads directly say so.
again hindsight is a wonderful thing,

[Anonymous No.13089517]

>>13089394
>That's because you made an amateur mistake and cited the wrong passage kiddo!
I wasn't referring to your passage, which made no sense (hurr if you look back yada yada), didn't apply to what I was saying and is just a red herring. I was referencing another passage which completely says, in plain language, that there are no two-truths and therefore debunk your claim that Madhyamika's two-truths doctrine is found in the upanishad (when its completely the opposite)

>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. The truth that succeeds is that correlative, integrating principle, Satya, which is, again, a manifestation of the ātman. ātman is truth, and ātman is Dharma. So, Satya and Dharma are identified as it was mentioned earlier in a preceding passage. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.12)

>It's the exact same principle, it's talking about how despite the conventional truth of appearances and the universe that Brahman is actually one and unborn and that this is the ultimate or absolute truth; all of this predates Buddhism.
Again that isn't the two-truths doctrine, re-read my previous response.

[Anonymous No.13089664]

>>13080796
To actually answer OP's question: this book is by a non-Buddhist psychologist who accepts a lot of Buddhist ideas about the mind.

[Anonymous No.13089690]

>>13089493
Ramanuja and Madhva weren't contemporaries of Shankara. He was late 8th to early 9th century, Ramanuja was 11th century, Madhva was 13th century.

[Anonymous No.13090853]

>>13089493
>He literally ripped two-truths and sunyata from Nagarjuna
No he doesn't you absolute brainlet, the Brihadaranyaka directly says Brahman is unborn and that it is the truth of truth, Nagarjuna is lame and got completely btfo by a literally who college professor who showed how his MMK relies in shitty logic, the Upanishad passage you posted does not refute the two truths mentioned in the same Upanishad, it's just saying that the Atma (Brahman) is the absolute truth, which is the same as the only truth; conventional truth is untrue from the perspective of veiwing only the absolute truth as real, which is why the sruti constantly says that things to do with the phenomenal universe are unreal and only appear because of Maya. You evidently have little experience with the Upanishads

>buddhist doctrines, terminology and dialectics' if he was convinced they were actually upanishadic
He evaluates and criticizes and praises some of them, but the only ones he accepta into Advaita he provides the Upanishad basis for to show that they actually come from the Upanishads and not from the Buddhists, how hard is it for you to understand this?

[Anonymous No.13090949]

>>13080924
Bad analogy Russell

[Anonymous No.13090958]

>>13090853
>>13089493
>>13089517

>yfw the magnum opus of the most revered thinker in Mahayana Buddhism collapses like a tower of Jenga blocks when prodded

how utterly embarrassing, imagine unironically thinking that Nagarjuna somehow discerned the truth of things with such pseud logic, lmao

[Anonymous No.13091113]

>>13090853
>Nagarjuna is lame and got completely btfo by a literally who college professor who showed how his MMK relies in shitty logic
Are you talking about the same college professor you posted in above pic? the same college professor who is a practicing buddhist? why isn't he a 'superior' advaitist then? lmao....

>the Upanishad passage you posted does not refute the two truths mentioned in the same Upanishad
I don't know how much clearer it can be, it "What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths". Even a toddler can figure this out.

[Anonymous No.13091156]

>>13080989
>something that is only true for yourself
>What does that mean?
The technical term is "delusion"

[Anonymous No.13091506]

>>13082684
>>13083163
>>13084581
>>13085463
Since you're taking the PC as authoritative (in this post >>13082684 ) in order to argue that Buddha never rejected the Atma of the Upanishads and that Nirvana is just a repackaged name for Atma, lets check out some other selections from it:

>14. 'Then you say, Vāseṭṭha that none of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahmā face-to-face. And that even the Rishis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down-even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmā is[12]. So that the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: "What we know not, what we have not seen, 'to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: 'This Is the straight path, this is the direct way which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmā!
>'Now' what think you, Vāseṭṭha? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk?

>In sooth, Gotama, that being, so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!'
- DN 13.14

>He recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

>Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable’?”
>...
>"When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
- SN 23.4

[Anonymous No.13091592]

>>13091113
I can tell that you're really butthurt and are not being intellectually honest and are just trying to score points, but out of my benevolence I'll give you a serious answer. When the Upanishads (especially in the same text) give two separate contradictory statements it's for a reason, it's because they are pointing to a third conclusion to be reached through inference; they do this all the time. The Brihadaranyaka says in one portion that the vital force/universe is the truth, and then it says in the same stanza that Brahman is the 'truth of truth'; that it is the truth of the preceeding truth. This is clearly and unambiguously stating that there is two truths, and that the truth pertaining to the absolute (Brahman) is the superior of the two truths. Then later in the Upanishad it says that there cannot be two truths. When you have two contradictory passages like that, you cannot just take one as overruling the other without qualification, that is not how the Upansihads work and by positing the second passage as the ultimate determinant of the Upanishads teaching you are making an arbitrary judgement with no basis to it, there is no reason for accepting one over the other. The 3rd conclusion to be reached through inference which is obviously hinted at throughout the entire text is that in reality there is just the absolute truth, in which all other truths are subsumed. The conventional truth is called as such because it isn't truth in reality but just appears to be so with regard to everyday life and for the purpose of conventional discussion. That this is what the Upanishad is hinting at is obvious from other passages which say that conventional existence is unreal (e.g. Brahman is only perceived as manifold because of maya etc and many others). If the conventional truth is unreal there is only the Absolute truth *in actuality* which is what the point of the second passage is, this is why it specifies that this one truth is 'the one that succeeds' and is the 'integrating principle'; it is described as succeeding with reference to the other conventional but ultimately unreal truths that it succeeds over, it is described as the integrating principle becauase it integrates the other conventional truths through how they are subsumed in the Absolute truth, which is from the perspective of absolute reality the only truth there is. This is obviously the import of the passages and is plain to anyone who has read the entire text. You are just taking one passage out of context in an anger-driven attempt to prove your argument because it's upsetting to you that your precious Nagarjuna or Buddha wasn't the first to come up with the concept.

Sad! many such cases

[Anonymous No.13091678]

>>13080924
but THERE IS a teapot floating around jupiter. It was left by some careless Finn

[Anonymous No.13092753]

>>13091506
>The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
This is not the teaching of the Upanishads, that corresponds to acheiving union with hiranyagarbha or virat, which is still part of manifestation and subject to misery, one of the main lessons of the Brihadaranyaka is that such attainment of hiranyagarbha leaves one still subject to transmigration, and that this is greatly inferior to genuine libertion, which pertains to the transcendental Brahman who is prior to and beyond the distinctions of manifestation and the unmanifest. The same rebuking of the idea of acheiving union with the cosmos is found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Up. Brahman is something considered to be very different from and much more subtle than this.

[Anonymous No.13092880]

>>13092753
how about the other two

[Anonymous No.13093515]

bump

[Anonymous No.13093533]

>>13089664
Which Buddhism(s) does he write about?

[Anonymous No.13093563]

buddhists are total bitches. lol. Infighting #DRAMA
lol

all that energy you expend moaning about the divergent intricacies of whatever buddhist doctrinal bullshit could be targeted at the FUCKING Jains.

lol

[Anonymous No.13093566]

>>13093533
Secular buddhism. He just used Buddhism in the title so sell the book. Really the subheading should be the headline, because he's not advocating for Buddhism or even think it's the truth.

[Anonymous No.13093577]

>>13080943
That's feeling or intuition, not knowledge. You can believe that God exists, but you can't know it. There is no logical justification for belief in God. This is where science has religion totally boned.

[Anonymous No.13093634]

>>13080796
Fuck is that movie ridiculous. This quote is absolutely idiotic. "I will dedicate my life to hunting Sasquatch, which is totally reasonable because nobody can prove that he doesn't exist." The only reasonable thing is to live according to the truth as close as you can approach it with as much rigor as you can. Josh is choosing passion over wisdom, which is about as far from good philosophy as it gets. Religion is a system of beliefs with absolutely no rational for believing that they are true, and all they can do to justify it is to say "well, you can't prove it's FALSE!"
Absolutely braindead.

[Anonymous No.13093689]

>>13093566
Which secular Buddhism(s)?

[Anonymous No.13093708]

STEPHEN BATCHELOR, NIGGER

[Anonymous No.13094085]

>>13091592
>This is obviously the import of the passages and is plain to anyone who has read the entire text
if it's plain you wouldn't have to employ the kind of mentally gymnastics you're presenting here. The truth is there is nothing out of context with Br Up II.12, it literally says there are no two truths, I honestly don't know what more to tell considering you won't accept the very text you praise so much.

>I can tell that you're really butthurt and are not being intellectually honest and are just trying to score points
>"Sad! many such cases"
lmao

[Anonymous No.13094093]

>>13093689
>secular Buddhism
There is no such thing.

[Anonymous No.13094109]

>>13093689
Radical Californianism