/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13486248]

What does Advaita offer that Buddhism does not?

[Anonymous No.13486260]

>>13486248
Clear metaphysical explanations and no crypto-nihilism.

[Anonymous No.13486964]

>>13486248
Superifical phil and superifical self.

[Anonymous No.13486973]

>>13486248
I thought I improved in my pratices when I noticed feeling more attached towards my surroundings and my life but it turns out I have severe depression.

[Anonymous No.13486974]

>>13486248
>What does Advaita offer that Buddhism does not?
wrong view

[Anonymous No.13486982]

>>13486973
*feeling less attached
Freudian slip.

[Anonymous No.13486995]

>>13486973
the practice is improved by keeping only good thoughts

[Anonymous No.13487047]

>>13486248
Can someone summarize the primary differences between them please?

[Anonymous No.13487211]

>>13486260
stop reading schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.13487235]

>buddhism
soulless
>vedanta
soul

[Anonymous No.13487352]

Where to begin? First off Advaita as this poster notes >>13486260 has a coherent metaphysical system that lucidly bridges together all of its different teachings without relying on "w-well the Buddha only was concerned with practice and not metaphysics". Any one is free to disagree with Advaita and some of it must be accepted on faith but it is a complete and coherent system without any serious logical faults or contradictions, the other Vedanta schools have been trying to critique it for over a thousand years (the Buddhists were unable to even mount a serious attempt at doing so) and the academics generally agree that the Advaitins have successfully refuted each critique. Buddhists will try to tell you that the Buddhism in the PC is a complete system too but start to stammer when you ask them about dependent-origination. Buddha never explained why dependent-origination existed and it really fails as a satisfactory explanation for existence. There are many flaws with it such as the unanswered questions of how and why it exists in the first place, how it could proceed so orderly and smoothly without an exterior organizing/intelligent influence and so on. Not being hamstrung by the taboo of "bald man say answering abstract questions bad!" Advaita was free to come up with a brilliant system of metaphysics.

There is also the point that the 'base' or 'original' material of Advaita is way more interesting than Buddhism. Buddhism never comes close to reaching the philosophical depth and profundity of Advaita until they started to make up Buddhist scriptures and falsely attribute them to Buddha (this includes Madhyamaka, Yogachara and virtually all other Mahayana), with Advaita you can be confident that the pristine goods are right there at the beginning instead of trying to rationalize "well uh these later scriptures not taught by Buddha are like TOTALLY legit bro". Also, the early Upanishads that Advaita gets its ideas from long predate the life of Buddha (who was clearly influenced by them).

A third point is that Advaita has not degenerated into the intellectual disarray of a bunch of competing and irreconcilable interpretations like Buddhism has. Shankara explains things with such clarity that there is little room for these to arise, the differences between the sub-schools of Advaita mostly amount to semantic arguments over a few concepts. With Buddhism nobody is even really sure what his ideas were, the Pali Canon is already material that has been edited and most experts agree it differs in subtle ways from pre-sectarian Buddhism; you have a wide range of Buddhist schools with hugely different interpretations because of the lack of clarity in the first place; just pop into any Buddhist thread to see them at each other throats with Theravadins attacking Mahayanists for having faked scriptures and Mahayanists attacking Theravadins for various reasons.

[Anonymous No.13487404]

Advaita was created by Mohammad Guenon (pbuh) in Paris as a revival of the true radtrad hyperborean aryan islamic theosophy and is thus better than Buddhism insofar as it supports the caste system (which means less brown people thinking they are our equals and women will know their place and be pure virgins like me)

[Anonymous No.13487430]

>>13487047
>>13487352
Can you please bullet-point the fundamental commonalities and distinctions for me? Do you have to follow one or the other, or is there room to syncretize ideas together?

[Anonymous No.13487445]

>>13486248
Advaita relies on dogma. Buddhism relies on experience.

[Anonymous No.13487462]

>>13487352
>guenonfag writing pure fantasy
Gtfo the board and do some yoga, faggot

[Anonymous No.13487480]

>>13487404
actually the hindu caste system places outsiders as lowest of the low

[Anonymous No.13487484]

>>13486974
>wrong view
Which Buddhists are unable to prove or argue for without relying on circular logic involving references to Buddhist teachings; which wouldn't be accepted by a neutral 3rd party observer evaluating both.

[Anonymous No.13487486]

>>13487484
Advaitans use circular logic with recourse to vedas and upanishads. What's the difference retard?

[Anonymous No.13487502]

>>13487352
>and the academics generally agree that the Advaitins have successfully refuted each critique.
Citation needed
>Advaita has not degenerated into the intellectual disarray of a bunch of competing and irreconcilable interpretations like Buddhism has
That's because advaita is a singular school you absolute moron. Hinduism itself has as many competing views as Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13487514]

>>13487486
>>13487502
You're not Abrahamics, please be kinder to eachother.

[Anonymous No.13487558]

>>13487486

Even if this were so, circular Logic is still better than no Logic, "co-dependent" nonsense and such.

[Anonymous No.13487605]

>>13487462
>unable to refute anything in that post because you know that it's true
>>13487486
>what's the difference retard?
I never said that Buddhism was the wrong view, I was just pointing out that Buddhists don't have any ways of arguing against Advaita that don't involve circular logic. On the other hand, Shankara refuted various Theravada and Mahayana teachings on the basis of them being logically inconsistent without relying on circular logic (pic related). Less of his criticisms apply to "original Buddhism" although if it were even possible to know what this was he would still probably have criticized certain aspects of it like dependent origination.

[Anonymous No.13487769]

>>13487502
>and the academics generally agree that the Advaitins have successfully refuted each critique.
>Citation needed
See pic related for a summary of how all the major arguments against Advaita by the other Vedanta schools have been refuted by Advaitins. Please don't pretend though that you are either familiar with these arguments or that you can defend them. If there is anything that unites internet Buddhists it is their bitter disdain for and their utter ignorance of the schools of thought that they criticize.

>Some of the other main charges levelled by the Madhvites against Advaita are the same which have been raised by Ramanuja and Verikatanatha and have been replied to by the Advaitins in the same way. The defence of difference and of the reality of the empirical world by the Madhvites collapses against the attacks of the Advaitins. Even Dr. S.N. Dasgupta, who is all admiration for the Madhvites and in whose opinion ‘Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha present the highest dialectical skill... . almost unrivalled in the whole field of Indian thought’ has to admit that ‘This defence of difference appears however, to be weak when compared with the refutations of difference by Chitsukha in his Tattva-pradipika, Nrsimhashrama Muni in his Bheda-dhikkara, and others. . . . Vyasatirtha does not make any attempt squarely to meet these arguments.’

[Anonymous No.13487828]

>>13487352
>Buddha never explained why dependent-origination existed and it really fails as a satisfactory explanation for existence.
papanca


Fantasies are worthless to anybody who is not a puthujjanas addicted to thoughts.
The idiotic idea of the first cause, the first mover and so on is just papanca and all this disappear once the infatuation with ideas stops.

Also, the major failure of the Advaitins is that they fail to see that Vinnana is conditioned. They make the usual mistake by brainlets of claiming nibanna is some wrong samadhi they invented.

[Anonymous No.13487960]

>>13487828
>the problem disappears when you stop thinking

[Anonymous No.13488100]

>>13487352
What is dependent origination?

[Anonymous No.13488327]

>>13486248
faith in conceptual metaphysical principles.
Somehow calling what is supposed to be unconditioned 'eternal, creative'...etc, ie conditioned qualities

[Anonymous No.13488351]

>>13487352
>Buddha never explained why dependent-origination existed and it really fails as a satisfactory explanation for existence. There are many flaws with it such as the unanswered questions of how and why it exists in the first place
Why does Brahman exist mate?
Where did Brahman originate?
You just added an extra step to explain existence, and it's effectively as satisfactory as "well there's no discernible beginning to dependent origination and samsara."

[Anonymous No.13488362]

>>13486260
>crypto-nihilism
What do you figure is nihilistic about Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.13488423]

>>13487352
>A third point is that Advaita has not degenerated into the intellectual disarray of a bunch of competing and irreconcilable interpretations like Buddhism has.
That tends to happen when your guy is able to write all of his ideas down instead of having to pass them down orally.
Also
> Buddhism never comes close to reaching the philosophical depth and profundity of Advaita until they started to make up Buddhist scriptures and falsely attribute them to Buddha (this includes Madhyamaka
The Madhyamaka that matters (Nagarjuna, Aryadeva..etc) didn't require fake scriptures (or sutras' to express their ideas. Nagarjuna's and Aryadeva's works are clearly their own, and served only to restate the teachings of the suttas. There is nothing in the works of Nagarjuna that cannot be found in the suttas of the Pali Canon - his purpose for writing what he did was to restore contemporary Buddhism to alignment with the suttas from all the confused and competing nihilistic, atomist and idealist schools that were cropping up.
There is nothing in early Madhyamaka that cannot be found in texts like the Uraga sutta, Bahiya sutta, Kaccānagotta Sutta, Kalaka Sutta, Atthi Raga sutta

[Anonymous No.13488433]

>>13488327
What are Brahman Saguna and Brahman Nirguna? What are the vyavaharika and paramarthika perspectives?

[Anonymous No.13488501]

>>13487828
>papanca
>Fantasies are worthless to anybody who is not a puthujjanas addicted to thoughts.
>The idiotic idea of the first cause, the first mover and so on is just papanca and all this disappear once the infatuation with ideas stops.
This is all just more of the same idiotic circular reasoning that Buddhists like to substitute for rational arguments. First off, Advaita Vedanta acknowledges that the truth can only be fully known and experienced through direct spiritual realization, the Upanishads themselves make this point and it comes up again and again in Shankara's writings. Their arguments about causation and related metaphysics is just to round out their teachings and to provide a logical basis for the school of thought without depending upon those arguments for anything, all of them are secondary or even optional to the central teachings of Advaita. It's circular reasoning plain and simple to say that anything past what Buddha taught is useless conceptual proliferation, it's the same brainlet-tier argument without any basis as when people say other religions are objectively wrong because the Bible says so; and it's doubly wrong because Advaita acknowledge that ones has to move beyond such discussions to proceed to a higher level (although Advaita isn't limited by an autistic opposition to these discussions).

Also, to even make that point is hypocritical because many Buddhist thinkers came up with elaborate and convoluted arguments and metaphysical discussions in an attempt to prove the correctness of either their or Buddha's teachings. Nagarjuna is the example of one such person that so many of you love to cite as important or worth reading despite his use of fake scriptures like the prajnaparamita sutras which the Buddha never taught, one cannot call the teachings of Advaita 'papanca' without also condemning Nagarjuna's ideas as such (and Nagarjuna's magnum opus MMK relies on shitty inconsistent logic which is easily btfo btw, see the pic attached to this post). However you want to try to spin it, the Buddha's giving of dependent-origination as the reason for existence without elaborating on the why and how is not a satisfactory answer and it appears inferior to many people when compared to the lengthy metaphysical discussions on existence and causation that are found in Vedanta.

>>13488100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

>>13488327
>Somehow calling what is supposed to be unconditioned 'eternal, creative'...etc, ie conditioned qualities
Thats wrong, creativeness is only applied to Saguna (conditioned Brahman) not the unconditioned Brahman. Eternality is not a condition, something can 'exist' eternally without beginning and without end and be unconditioned at the same time.

[Anonymous No.13488503]

What is the primary difference between:
>Advaita Vedanata
>Pandeism
>German Idealism

These all seem very similar from what I've read. Is it possible that they've actually converged on the truth of the matter?

[Anonymous No.13488544]

>>13486248
Question for Advaitabros:
Do you think that if one were to do the practices of Advaita conducive to wisdom and direct realization, but were to not study the metaphysical system and teachings of causality within the school, that they would come to the same conclusions as Shankara?
Is the conceptual framework necessary to come to those conclusions? Or can one realize the wisdom of Advaita and have it match up afterwards with the metaphysics, with the practices only?

[Anonymous No.13488576]

>>13488501
>Nagarjuna is the example of one such person that so many of you love to cite as important or worth reading despite his use of fake scriptures like the prajnaparamita sutras
The prajnaparamita sutras that came before Nagarjuna do not relate in content to his important teachings (emptiness, his work with the tetralemma, everything found within MMK). The prajnaparamita sutras which DO relate to his teachings of emptiness and so on, originated after Nagarjuna's time.
>one cannot call the teachings of Advaita 'papanca' without also condemning Nagarjuna's ideas as such
Nagarjuna's ideas were to propose the relinquishing of all views, to not take a stance on objectivity - that was half the point of MMK.

[Anonymous No.13488591]

>>13488501
>Eternality is not a condition, something can 'exist' eternally without beginning and without end and be unconditioned at the same time.
Eternity implies time, conditioned by perception of phenomena accompanied by conceptual proliferation in regards to said phenomena. 'Existence' is conditioned by the same.

[Anonymous No.13488608]

>>13488591
>Eternity implies time

Not really.

[Anonymous No.13488614]

>>13488591
>Eternity implies time
retard

[Anonymous No.13488677]

>>13488433
>What are Brahman Saguna and Brahman Nirguna?
Ah. So as I understand it, and please correct me if my understanding is wrong, you have a principle for the creative force of manifestation and maya, ignorance, without discernible beginning or cause preceding it, which in itself is not ultimate.
Then you have the unconditioned absolute, without qualities, unrelated to manifestation and creativity.
How is Brahman Saguna somehow more satisfactory than dependent origination? It still comes down to 'without discernible beginning.' With no explanation of its origin.
It seems comparable to dependent origination if 'ignorance' (the first link in the chain) became the second link, with the one preceding it being 'Brahman Saguna.' Seems to me like one extra step with the same issue - why does it exist? What is its origination? Where did it come from? Almost like putting a name on the fact of there being ignorance in the first place and going 'much better.'

[Anonymous No.13488680]

>>13488608
>>13488614
Depends on whether applied positively or negatively?

[Anonymous No.13488704]

>>13488351
>Why does Brahman exist mate? Where did Brahman originate?
As the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka states, Brahman is unborn and eternal, it did not originate anywhere or at any time and it needs no reason or external qualifier.
>effectively as satisfactory as "well there's no discernible beginning to dependent origination and samsara."
Wrong, its a much more satisfactory then dependent origination. The reason why Nagarjuna disagrees with the Theravadin interpretation of dependent-origination and subordinates it instead to a Sunyavadin understanding is because it's so flawed, this whole discussion is ironic because Advaita Vedanta largely agrees with Nagarjuna's criticisms of the standard understanding of it. For the most part you can't say that Vedanta is wrong to criticize it without also saying that Nagarjuna is wrong for doing so. Dependent origination results in an infinite regress with no clear explanation for how it could come into existence and can be dismissed with the reductio ad absurdum. There can be no beginningless series of cause and effect between the binary members of a series because then that would result in mutual dependence, the effect producing a cause that would produce an effect which would in turn produce its own cause, like a son giving birth to his own father. One cannot come into existence or be produced because doing so requires the other to exist already which cant happen if the cause of it hasn't been produced.

If you say it's a beginningless series of cause and effect between a series of elements it's not a complete explanation unless you explain which of the element is the cause and the other the effect, if you say that they arise simultaneously then neither is really a cause or an effect and there can be no actual relation between them. The cause in a beginningless series of cause and effect has no capability to give rise either to an effect that exists prior to its origination or to an effect that does not exist prior to its production. Nor can it be determined in such a system which is actually the cause and which is the effect which leads to a violation of the order of cause and effect. As something that as existed eternally without beginning Brahman dispenses with all these flaws found in the cause and effect model. Nor is there any explanation for why and how a series of cause and effect could rise to such intricate order such as the laws of physics and spacetime. Brahman isn't subject to these same objections because it is regarded as an infinite and eternal God or Supreme Being which through His maya is projected all of samsara and the illusion of phenomenal existence and the universe. That notion that it all comes from the magic/illusion/veil exercise by the Supreme Being is enough to explain all the order in existence, which dependent-origination has no answer for.
With dependent origination you have an infinite regress of cause and effect without explanations for "why does

[Anonymous No.13488732]

>>13488704
>reductio ad absurdum
This is meditational metaphysics not western philosophy
>infinite regress... no why...
Uncuck yourself from why, friend.

[Anonymous No.13488739]

>>13488732
Why even bother asking people to explain why dependent-origination is an unsatisfactory and flawed model if you just stick your head in the sand when people provide you with the answer?

[Anonymous No.13488752]

>>13488739
The guy who just replied to you is not me, I'm the one who asked why it was an unsatisfactory model, not him.

[Anonymous No.13488769]

>>13488362
Emptiness seems quite nihilistic to me. I know Buddhists will deny it though, but if some western philosopher started saying that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature" then he'd definitely be regarded as a nihilist philosopher.

[Anonymous No.13488802]

>>13488769
Doubt this will change your mind, but the core of emptiness that people tend to forget thus leading to such nihilistic undertones, is the interconnectedness of all things. All experiential phenomena is empty of its own independent essence/existence because all things in phenomena only exist in relation to other things, co-dependent with other things. Everything arises based on causes and conditions. Nothing exists from its own side: ex. perception requires an object of perception, the object requires the perception to perceive it. Neither can be said to exist or not-exist independently. In fact nothing can be said of the ontological state of these things because they are only ever experienced in co-dependence.

[Anonymous No.13488818]

>>13488739
Doesn't goedel's theorem support ontological incompleteness as per Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.13488819]

>>13488802
>In fact nothing can be said of the ontological state of these things because they are only ever experienced in co-dependence.
*****In fact nothing can be said of the independent ontological state of these things because they are only ever experienced in co-dependence.

[Anonymous No.13488823]

>>13488769
Kyoto school says nothingness=infinity and they combat nihilism

[Anonymous No.13488829]

>>13488501
First you say that Buddhists refuse to go any further than what the Buddha taught. Then you talk about how Buddhists made up scriptures in order to explain Buddhism further than what the Buddha taught. What's going on big guy?

Also Vedanta that you're so fond of came about from COMMENTARY on the Upanishads because the Upanishads aren't clear enough to bring about a coherent doctrine just by reading them. Same applies to Buddhism, although less so since the Buddha obviously came to create a a religion with all that it entails, which isn't true of the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.13488865]

>>13487828
>Also, the major failure of the Advaitins is that they fail to see that Vinnana is conditioned.
Advaita separates the Atma from the mind/cognition/mental activity/thoughts and regards the former as unconditioned and the later as conditioned, there isn't a single Buddhist argument against this. Buddhism is the tradition littered with contradictory and logically inconsistent teachings that got btfo by Shankara while not a single Buddhist thinker has ever successfully pointed out anything contradictory or wrong about Advaita using logic.
>>13488576
>Nagarjuna's ideas were to propose the relinquishing of all views,
Yes, but in the course of doing so and elsewhere in the work he made all these elaborate metaphysical discussions and arguments about causation etc that fall under the same label of papanca that the other retard was applying to Advaita. The point is that both Nagarjuna and Advaita take the position that such metaphysical discussions are not the highest aim/path and that they can be dispensed with once they have served their purpose, in other words it applies no more to Advaita than it does to Nagarjuna. Advaita attaches no more importance to such arguments and discussions than Nagarjuna does.
>>13488544
The main steps to realization in Advaita (sravana, manana and nididhyasana) are held to be basically impossible without studying the Vedanta writings, see pic related. You don't have to study the arguments about causation in Gaudapada's writings for example but without reading through Shankara's commentaries on the prasthanatrayi you will never really get it (unless you have personal instruction by a qualified teacher); there is no shortcut.
>>13488591
As the other posters have noted eternity does not necessarily imply time, and in any case when you write that eternity/time is "conditioned by perception of phenomena accompanied by thoughts etc" you are making the flawed assumption that the eternal X is in any way affected or made to be conditioned because of the subjective experience of samsara, which it isn't; that does not logically follow as the natural conclusion. If X is the eternal real and Y is the unreal projected by the X which all the while remains unaffected by the Y it projects there is no way that one can say that X is conditioned by Y.

[Anonymous No.13488905]

>>13488865
>Buddhism is the tradition littered with contradictory and logically inconsistent teachings
Such as? (Sticking to the Pali Canon of course and not the later teachings which deviate from it)

[Anonymous No.13488959]

>>13488802
Yeah but which nihilist philosopher denied these things? That everything arises based on causes and conditions. I haven't read all that much but I don't see why what you just said is not nihilism.

What would a nihilist object to in what you just said?
>>13488823
Well we're mostly discussing Buddhism on a grander scale than just a few 20th century Japanese philosopher that wanted to move away from eastern thinking and emulate western philosophy.

But yeah, i 've been pretty interested in the Kyoto school lately and I intend to read some of them.

[Anonymous No.13488964]

>>13488865
>The main steps to realization in Advaita (sravana, manana and nididhyasana) are held to be basically impossible without studying the Vedanta writings
It is hard to not be suspicious about if these metaphysical teachings are truly eternal truths, when one can only realize them after internalizing the conceptual framework.
Seems a lot like pic related desu, even if you say 'the conceptual understanding is insufficient and direct realization is required, but it cannot be done without the conceptual framework to guide it.'
Seems like it lends itself to having people script themselves into having their potential spiritual realizations fit neatly into Advaita's framework and match their metaphysics when that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13488975]

>>13488959
>What would a nihilist object to in what you just said?
I would imagine a nihilist would learn more towards the view that reality doesn't exist, and would reject the moral principles of Buddhism (with its emphasis on compassion for example).

[Anonymous No.13488992]

>>13488677
>Ah. So as I understand it, and please correct me if my understanding is wrong, you have a principle for the creative force of manifestation and maya, ignorance, without discernible beginning or cause preceding it, which in itself is not ultimate.
see this pic for an explanation of the relation between Nirguna and Saguna Brahman
>how is Brahman Saguna somehow more satisfactory than dependent origination?
Because it dispenses with all the flaws of dependent origination described in this post >>13488704
>It still comes down to 'without discernible beginning.' With no explanation of its origin.
There is an explanation of its origin though, the Upanishads and Vedanta describe Maya as a power of the Lord, by subordinating it to the eternally and beginninglessly existing Supreme Being there is no longer any question of how it could possibly arise or how it could be orderly or all the problems viz which steps comes in which order etc.
>>13488818
Can you elaborate on what point you are trying to make? What are you trying to say about ontological incompleteness and how do you think Advaita and Buddhism differ on that point and how are you trying to say that Goedel's theorem supports one over the other?
>>13488829
>First you say that Buddhists refuse to go any further than what the Buddha taught. Then you talk about how Buddhists made up scriptures in order to explain Buddhism further than what the Buddha taught.
Completely wrong, I never said that they "refuse to go beyond what he taught" but I just talked about the general attitude of Buddhists to be dismissive of metaphysics involving asking questions about dependent-origination and similar things, obviously when Buddhists made up scriptures dealing with that kind of metaphysics they are talking about this stuff which is exactly why I said here >>13488501 that it was hypocritical of Buddhists to throw the label papanca at Vedanta while reading these same fake scriptures talking about metaphysics
>because the Upanishads aren't clear enough to bring about a coherent doctrine just by reading them.
They clearly say in unambiguous terms that Brahman is "the inner Self of all beings" (Mundaka U. 2.1.4.) and that “He who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed“ (Mundaka U. 3.2.9); the rest is just working out the details around the metaphysics, the essential part of the teaching is stated openly and directly though.
>Buddha obviously came to create a a religion with all that it entails, which isn't true of the Upanishads.
The Upanishads are the teachings of an already existing spiritual tradition belonging to an existing religion and they describe the process and procedures for imparting knowledge of the teachings down to students who become in time the next line of teachers and so on, they aren't just a bunch of unconnected ramblings, if you think this it's only because you haven't read the commentaries which very clearly adduce the meaning.

[Anonymous No.13489002]

>>13487352
>you have a wide range of Buddhist schools with hugely different interpretations because of the lack of clarity in the first place; just pop into any Buddhist thread to see them at each other throats with Theravadins attacking Mahayanists for having faked scriptures and Mahayanists attacking Theravadins for various reasons.
You're acting as if the same isn't true of Hinduism and the variety of orthodox schools which view Advaita Vedanta as heretical.

[Anonymous No.13489031]

>>13488992
>It doesn't come down to 'without discernible beginning', with no explanation of its origin
>because the Supreme Being is eternally and beginninglessly existing

[Anonymous No.13489050]

>>13488351

The first question is pointless for many reasons, mainly:

1. Initial nothingness is not a premise of Vedanta.
2. It is wrong to ask a sharp Teleological "why" purportedly relative to the allegedly soft Buddhist "why", since although the Teleology of Brahman is indeed positive, it is not singular relative thereto, but abundant in Teleological plurality, or rather in Teleological plenitude. That is to say one, or One, Teleology not at the expense of any other Teleology which is not Brahman's, but One Teleology as any and all Teleologies' non-contradiction precisely by virtue of them being perfectly positive and distinct. That being said, it IS possible to answer the question in full, but the more pedestrian the answer, the more the Buddhist rejoices at the degradation of Vedanta, and the more complex the answer, the more he hand-waves and plays dumb.
3. Initial nothingness is, however, implicit in Buddhism. Demanding Theology to explain it, exorcise it really, is an almost Catholic perversion, ultimately unworthy of entertainment.

[Anonymous No.13489063]

>>13489050
>Initial nothingness is, however, implicit in Buddhism
Source?

[Anonymous No.13489072]

>>13488905
>Such as?
see the pic here >>13487605, you can't artificially separate those ideas from """original Buddhism""" not in the least because those same teachings are still taught and accepted by many millions of Buddhists including monks around the world. I have never claimed that """original Buddhism""" (which we will never truly know what it is or what it taught) was refuted in it's entirety by Vedanta or proven wrong but have only said that for various reasons that Vedanta has more logical and complete metaphysics and explanations for existence such as with regard to the discussion around dependent-origination that has taken place in this thread. Nevermind that adherents of those theories (including senior monks) that Shankara btfo would take objection to you claiming they're not "real Buddhism". Hence, insofar as they constitute part of the general collection of traditions and interpretations referred to as Buddhism it's not wrong to say that Buddhism is littered with ideas that got btfo as illogical; however that's not the same as saying Shankara refuted X idea propounded by Buddha which I've never claimed.
>>13488964
All of that applies equally to Buddhism and every other spiritual teaching though, it just comes down to where you accept whether enlightenment/liberation is possible in principle or the metaphysical/spiritual/divine exists instead of biological-reductionist materialism. Vedanta presumes that you've already moved past materialism and accept the valid existence of spiritual realities/truths, it doesn't care about convincing materialist skeptics and considers them to be retarded and not worth one's time. It's a question that's of little relevance.

[Anonymous No.13489099]

>>13488992
>Causality is a category of thought which has empirical validity but not final reality. It cannot be really attributed to Brahma. Creation is apparent, not real.
I hope you're aware that Dependent Arising is also apparent and not ultimate. It is an explanation of the apparent perpetuation of ignorance and objectification in one's mind, which itself is entirely dropped/broken upon realization of the unconditioned, rather than some sort of ultimate cause and effect system for objective reality.

[Anonymous No.13489115]

>>13489002
Which is irrelevant to the question asked by OP which was a comparison of Advaita Vedanta specifically and Buddhism generally, not of Hinduism and Buddhism. The point remains true that regardless of Hinduism writ large Advaita Vedanta has a better idea of what it's most important individual thinker taught than Buddhism does.
>>13489031
While there is superficial similarity, that same post that you posted a reaction image to instead of an argument explains and links to other posts that explain why the Supreme Being answer is very different from and a more satisfactory/logical answer than a beginningless series of cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.13489130]

>>13489072
>All of that applies equally to Buddhism
Not really. Pali Canon Buddhism maintains that just careful examination of the Three Characteristics through the Six Sense Doors (ie the basis of practice), combined with concentration practice and development of morality/virtue is sufficient to realize Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.13489157]

>>13489115
>Which is irrelevant to the question asked by OP which was a comparison of Advaita Vedanta specifically and Buddhism generally, not of Hinduism and Buddhism. The point remains true that regardless of Hinduism writ large Advaita Vedanta has a better idea of what it's most important individual thinker taught than Buddhism does.
To list lack of contention as an advantage Advaita Vedanta has over Buddhism is unfair. It is like if OP had asked "What does Madhyamaka offer that Hinduism does not?" and a Buddhist said "you have a wide range of Hindu schools with hugely different interpretations because of the lack of clarity in the first place."

[Anonymous No.13489231]

>>13489072
>it just comes down to where you accept whether enlightenment/liberation is possible in principle or the metaphysical/spiritual/divine exists instead of biological-reductionist materialism.
There's a difference between being hesitant to accept Advaita's metaphysics because it contradicts materialism, and being hesitant to accept it because it requires just as much faith as belief in materialist metaphysics. One cannot discover the truth of the matter either way whether it's materialism of Advaita metaphysics. Unless you're trying to tell me that through direct spiritual realization independent of faith in the conceptual framework, one realizes that existence, creation and maya comes from the Supreme Being.

[Anonymous No.13489237]

>>13489231
>materialism of Advaita metaphysics
**materialism or Advaita metaphysics

[Anonymous No.13489257]

>>13486248
Honest question for Vedantins here:
Do you personally think that Nirvana as described by the Buddha is the same as moksha/realization of Brahman, just with different frameworks, or that Shankara elaborated on the questions the Buddha thought were irrelevant? Do you think the Buddha was some sort of cult-leader with no real profound spiritual understanding?

[Anonymous No.13489277]

>>13489099
>I hope you're aware that Dependent Arising is also apparent and not ultimate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Theravadins disagree and view Dependent Arising as non-conditional and non-relative, that is to say not existing as a "real force" but nonetheless an accurate description of how and why samsara and subjective experience as a human being occurs?
>rather than some sort of ultimate cause and effect system for objective reality.
Even so, that doesn't change or refute the criticisms made by Vedantins that dependent-arising is a poor explanation for existence. The argument which has been discussed in this thread is that Vedanta has a more in-depth metaphysics that does a better job of explaining existence etc. If dependent arising is relative and not ultimate then the only thing that changes is that instead of having an incoherent and unsatisfactory explanation for existence instead Buddhism doesn't actually have an explanation but only an unsatisfactory theory meant to be understood as apparent and not as a literal explanation for existence, in which case the point that Vedanta does a better job of explaining it still remains true to the same degree if not making it even more true. That dependent-origination isn't meant to actually explain the origin of samsara just proves the Vedantists point that the Buddhists do a poor job of explaining the reason for existence.

[Anonymous No.13489354]

>>13489277
>don't the Theravadins disagree and view Dependent Arising as non-conditional and non-relative, that is to say not existing as a "real force" but nonetheless an accurate description of how and why samsara and subjective experience as a human being occurs?
Some do, namely those that still subscribe to the Sarvastivadin perspectives. It is well established that Theravada does not always line up with the Pali Suttas.
>>13489277
>If dependent arising is relative and not ultimate then the only thing that changes is that instead of having an incoherent and unsatisfactory explanation for existence instead Buddhism doesn't actually have an explanation but only an unsatisfactory theory meant to be understood as apparent and not as a literal explanation for existence
Dependent arising is an explanation for the suffering perpetuated by ignorance, (clinging to and identifying with the psycho-physical, objectifying phenomena, reifying the subject-object dichotomy). It's not meant to be an explanation for existence.
The view is that experientially, this ignorance allows Samsara for a being to continue, fuels it.
The literal interpretation of Dependent Arising being the cause for objective existence, or of true Nirvana being realized after an Arahant's death, does not line up with the Pali suttas. Arahants are said to realize Nirvana in its completeness while living, and they obviously don't drop dead or disappear when they make their attainment.
>What was it that they regarded impossible to be realized? The cessation of existence, or bhavanirodha. How can one be certain here and now that this existence has ceased? This might sometimes appear as a big puzzle. But all the same, the arahant experiences the cessation of existence as a realization.
That is why he even gives expression to it as: Bhavanirodho Nibbānam, "cessation of existence is Nibbāna".
>It comes about by this extinction of influxes. The very existence of ‘existence’ is especially due to the flowing in of influxes of existence.
>What is called ‘existence’ is not the apparent process of existing visible to others. It is something that pertains to one’s own mental continuum.
>For instance, when it is said that some person is in the world of sense desires, one might sometimes imagine it as living surrounded by objects of sense pleasure.
>But that is not always the case. It is the existence in a world of sense desires, built up by sensuous thoughts. It is the same with the realms of form and formless realms. Even those realms can be experienced and attained while living in this world itself.
>Similarly, it is possible for one to realize the complete cessation of this existence while living in this very world. It is accomplished by winning to the realization that the influxes of sense desires, existence, and ignorance, no longer influence one’s mind.

[Anonymous No.13489397]

>>13489130
>HOW CAN YOU KNOW ITS TRUE?!?!?!
>BUDDHISMS LIKE SO DIFFERENT BECAUSE WHEN YOU PRACTICE BUDDHIST TEACHINGS AND METHODS YOU REALIZE ITS TRUE
lmao
>>13489157
Maybe its unfair, but regardless it's not an irrelevant point to consider for someone trying to decide what to study or for someone trying to evaluate the comparative merits of both; which is the reason I mentioned it. OP asked what Advaita offered in contrast to Buddhism and regardless of all other contexts it remains true that Advaita is way less internally divided than it.
>>13489231
Part of the reason people take it seriously is that when you actually read through Shankara's works he offers a lot of good arguments for why it's true that conform to basic epistemology and one's personal day-to-day experience in combination with thoughtful critiques of materialism and other opposing views. In my personal opinion once you've read a lot of him it becomes clear that it's a more logical and likely explanation that requires less faith than materialism, but that's only something someone would understand if they take the time to carefully read through him. There is an element of the teachings that can be personally validated in the sense that once you understand it enough you find that it conforms to one's immediate sensory/empirical experience and appears both logically and intuitively to be true but again you have to read through most of his works to reach this.
>>13489257
I wouldn't describe it as "the same" but I consider it possible that they could be two very different ways of mapping out how to reach moksha, especially when you consider how much is unknown about what Buddha actually meant about certain points. As a general rule Vedantins are much more open to this idea than Buddhists are, because Buddhism emerged out of the context of Hinduism, it unfortunately seems to instill in many Buddhists the attitude that Buddhism's legitimacy is predicated on the illegitimacy of Hinduism and that if one was to admit the validity of Advaita then Buddhism would be wrong. This is why you see so many Buddhists posting incredibly bitter and spiteful things about Vedanta/Hinduism whereas many (but not all) people into Vedanta seem to be more open to accepting Buddhism as having some validity.

[Anonymous No.13489440]

>>13489397
>>BUDDHISMS LIKE SO DIFFERENT BECAUSE WHEN YOU PRACTICE BUDDHIST TEACHINGS AND METHODS YOU REALIZE ITS TRUE
You just said that realization in Advaita is impossible without internalizing the conceptual metaphysical framework to accompany the practices. Buddhism proposes that its practices are sufficient without the conceptual framework. So yeah, it would seem that it is different.

[Anonymous No.13489491]

>>13489440
Buddhism's practices involve some level of accepting a certain metaphysical framework and rejecting others though so not really. Rejecting of 'wrong views' in the 8-fold path is indirectly saying you need to have the 'right views' and so on.

[Anonymous No.13489531]

>>13489491
>"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.

>"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.

>"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.

>"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
- Satipatthana Sutta
With no mention of Right View to be found in the full Sutta.
Practice is easier when you have right view, eg are not an eternalist or materialist, since you'll be disappointed or disturbed upon realizing insights that contradict such views, but those views will not stop the insights if you do the practices, which don't care what you think conceptually. The Eightfold Path is the most expedient, but even just practicing the Satipatthana alone is enough, regardless of whether it might be more emotionally difficult and slow.

[Anonymous No.13489560]

Advatiabros,
How do you practice? I always thought you had to be initiated into a proper tradition in India? Is this the case for the Advaita-posters here? Do you practice Advaita Vedanta in ways additional to reading?

[Anonymous No.13489668]

>>13489531
>The Eightfold Path is the most expedient, but even just practicing the Satipatthana alone is enough, regardless of whether it might be more emotionally difficult and slow.
Okay, but to what end? what is the argument being made? That Buddhism is better because it doesn't require you to believe in it being true before you reach enlightenment? Then you still have no good answer to what if your brain is deluding you, what if all the meditation is just lobotomizing yourself through the disturbing of normal brain activity into thinking you are enlightened or an arahant when you really aren't and are just a highly-evolved monkey who threw a wrench into the workings of his brain? For all you know Buddhist practices could be Buddhist practices in the first place because they trick the brain into wrongly thinking X Y and Z. You or someone else say here >>13488964 that you are 'suspicious' of Advaita but don't offer any good argument against it other than speculating that someone who believes in and practices it could be wrong about it. However, the idea that someone could subjectively seem to themselves to be realizing something as true when it really isn't applies just as much to Buddhism as it does to Vedanta or anything else. There is no inherent reason why "realizing Nirvana" is more likely to be true than someone who practices Vedantic teachings and "realizes Moksha", in each case there is a claim to experience bliss and the end of suffering etc, in each case it cannot be proven that such a thing has actually occurred.

[Anonymous No.13489749]

>>13487480
only if you're a cuck of manu slurping faggot

[Anonymous No.13489942]

anyone else feel like advaitafag comes across like a pajeet who uses rambling indefinitely as a tactic until you get tired and give in?

[Anonymous No.13489965]

>>13489942
I don't know if I agree with that entirely, but one thing is for sure: he cannot sum up his beliefs in a simple or effective way on his own. It always comes down to "if you read x and y Advaita texts this would make sense to you."

[Anonymous No.13489985]

>>13487352
>the academics generally agree that the Advaitins have successfully refuted each critique.

It's always interesting to watch an oriental try to justify his religion. He'll pretend to be very "Western," appealing to ecumenism, and the right to dissent and critique, generally avoiding appeals to authority. But he'll always slip up and include some line that reveals how non-Western his thought processes are, like
>... and everyone agrees that it is correct, even when they pretend they don't agree!
or
>... and it's verified as true because my teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher was Muhammad himself! Can't refute that.

They reveal that they're fundamentally reliant on appeals to authority and that they are willing to say anything at all as long as it convinces a gullible reader. "All academics agree on this, by the way." Not substantiated, not even really elaborated on, just said as if it's a fact. The only way I can describe this kind of behavior is "sneaky." I really do wonder whether taqiyya is an oriental instinct.

I'm a believer in advaita vedanta but seriously dude, just be openly religious. You're incapable of being philosophical. Philosophy requires honesty and openness. You want to worship your favorite dogma and promote it to others. That's not philosophy, that's religion, and that's fine. Don't ape the style of philosophy and try to make your fundamentally religious view seem objective and rigorously self-critical.

[Anonymous No.13490085]

>>13489965
Banska moment

[Anonymous No.13490127]

>>13489965
>"he cannot sum up his beliefs in a simple or effective way on his own
If you asked me a simple question about my beliefs I would have no trouble answering them, I just can't succinctly communicate to you over 4chan everything that it will take for you to completely understand Shankara's works without reading them yourself. Can you really blame me? Most people wouldn't expect to fully understand the ideas of Aristotle or Kant from reading summaries of them on an imageboard.
>>13489985
You are going to inordinate lengths to complain about relatively inconsequential and inoffensive things that I've written, it's a little weird.
>He'll pretend to be very "Western," appealing to ecumenism, and the right to dissent and critique,
Someone made a post asking for citations backing up the notion that the other Vedanta schools had successfully critiqued Advaita, I obliged them by screencapping here >>13487769 an academic summarizing some of these debates so that other people could judge for themselves. I've read about some of the other Vedanta school's critiques of Advaita and drawing from my own personal knowledge of the Upanishads I didn't find them to be very credible, I have the right to form my own opinion about this as does anyone else.
>Not substantiated, not even really elaborated on, just said as if it's a fact
Except that I did exactly that by posting a summary of some of the debates between the Vedanta schools, you must not have been paying close attention.
>but seriously dude, just be openly religious.
I've already stated once in this thread that certain Advaita teachings are supposed to be accepted on faith

[Anonymous No.13490135]

>>13489965
I will say one thing, guenonfag has learned to be less openly vicious. It took literally a year of people explaining to him why being a borderline psychotic hateful retard was off-putting but now he tries to stay pretty level.

He used to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat and start going LMFAO LMAO ROFL NICE TRY!!!! TRY AGAIN!!! LMFAO!!! It gave me really spooky vibes

[Anonymous No.13490137]

>>13490127
*that the other Vedanta schools hadn't successfully critiqued

[Anonymous No.13490197]

>>13487769
this is not "academic," academics don't use the word "refute" because it implies objectivity which is not impossible but is not for any one scholar to claim non-trivially. the book you're excerpting from is pic related and needless to say it is not peer reviewed or mainstream scholarly.

surprise surprise, quoting an orthodox dogmatic neovedantist saying "advaita vedanta has refuted all attempts to criticize it" in response to someone asking for proof that advaita vedanta has refuted all attempts to criticize it, is begging the question

[Anonymous No.13490199]

>>13490127
What does your practice as a Vedantin consist of? Do you have a guru? Are you an autodidact?

[Anonymous No.13490228]

>>13490197
The author has a masters degree and taught at several universities, how is he in any way not an academic? Also, where is your proof that he is a Neo-Vedantist? Neo-Vedanta is a very specific movement with it's own teachings and tenets, none of which the author mentions or promotes in the book. You are so eager to cast aspersions on him that you aren't fully thinking about what you're posting. Can you dispute the factual content of anything that he wrote in the book? Do you know more than him about the debates between Advaita and Vishishtadvaita/Dvaita? I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.13490263]

>>13490228
yep, advaitafag and guenonfag are definitely the same person

[Anonymous No.13490271]

>>13490263

[Anonymous No.13490308]

>>13490228
speaking as an academic who researches a peripheral subject (mostly southeast asian topics though), "academic" in this context generally means peer reviewed and vetted by other scholars on the basis of scholarly merit alone. it's shorthand for, is this just some fucking guy saying this? or is this something that a community of scholars, all with differing beliefs and priorities and maybe even religious affiliations, could at least agree is a fair and rigorous treatment of the subject?

academia is shit in many ways but that basic ideal, that no one viewpoint is self evidently correct, and dissent and criticism between different views ought to be encouraged, is a good one.

speaking off the record and casually, my field is full of quacks mainly because it's full of crystal healing pseudobuddhist retards and foreigners, who don't really understand western scholarly standards, or only understand them superficially. you give off every sign of that type, as does the thing you cited. put it this way, if you had cited that book in a paper, you'd be gently and politely encouraged not to enter western academia. the assumption of everyone in the room would be that you are a first and foremost a devotee of the thing you're writing about. when you say things like "refute" people would assume this even harder.

again, it's not that you can't believe one thing is objectively correct, it's that you can't just sit there and say, ah, but your view has been REFUTED by mine! because the other guy can of course just say "no u." that's the point of scholarly neutrality: avoiding the "no u" problem.

anyway, anyone can write a book and publish it in a small press, and getting an MA nowadays is literally so trivial that i've been an MA steward and overseen two dozen people per year getting their worthless MAs. MAs and PhDs from foreign countries aren't necessarily bad, just like being a sincere devotee isn't, but they're a warning sign that the degree holder might just be some quack from a locale that doesn't give degrees based on mainstream western academic standards.

sharma appears to be neovedantist in the loose sense that is used by most scholars to refer to people like you. as in, great, another neovedantist at the conference, writing things like "Shankara proved that ..." or "Rene Guenon conclusively refuted the view that..." without realizing everyone is laughing at him. AGAIN: the problem isn't whether or not it's true, it's whether it BECOMES true just because you say it enough fucking times. the answer to that is "no."

which is why it's tedious to argue with neovedantists. no matter how much you try to encourage them to adhere to scholarly neutrality they will always sneak in another "but it's just correct though."

[Anonymous No.13490323]

>>13490271
not meant to be one my guy

[Anonymous No.13490470]

>>13490308
Nice post, but you failed to prove or offer any evidence for that 1) Sharma isn't credible 2) that anything he wrote in the book is wrong or 3) that the Advaita didn't successfully refute the attacks made against them by other Vedanta schools. I already know that some academics are not credible, I don't need to read some blog post to tell me that. And yes, this is the sort of thing one can say has been 'proven' or 'disproven' because the attacks of the other schools almost exclusively revolve around finding areas where there are purported logical inconsistencies and paradoxes in Advaita, if Advaitins were able to explain how there isn't actually a inconsistency/paradox in a clear enough manner that a neutral observer can agree that they exposed the original charge as incorrect, then it's fairly reasonable to say that the argument in question was refuted.

[Anonymous No.13490543]

>>13490470
onus of proof is on the claimant. the original request was: prove your claim that your position has been decisively proved and has refuted all its opponents. (never mind the fact that this is epistemologically impossible and meaningless, i guess.)

in response to that request, you linked someone else.. making the same claim. there are three or four reviews of the book on JSTOR if you're interested in its reception.

the heart of the problem is evident right in this post:
>any evidence for that 1) Sharma isn't credible
you conceive of correctness/incorrectness as dependent upon "credibility," which is a very common asian and religious perspective on the nature of truth, and at the same time, you assume he is correct because he is stating your position (which you already assume to be correct) categorically, and then demanding that your opponents "refute" it, no doubt so you can handwave away their refutations as insufficient and wrangle disingenuously over it until they give up, as >>13489942 says.

>And yes, this is the sort of thing one can say has been 'proven' or 'disproven'
again, it's quaint that you think the history of thought works in such a way that you can pronounce on its objective movements, and be simply and transparently correct/incorrect. but no scholar would agree with you. and you were asked to provide scholarly backing for your position, which you still haven't done.

>a neutral observer can agree that they exposed the original charge as incorrect
there is no "neutral observer." what you are doing is claiming that "a" hypothetical neutral observer would agree with the manifest and self-evident correctness of your position. as i said above: this invokes the "no u" problem, as people will simply say, "no, the neutral observer would agree with ME, not you."

i won't reply again, but if anyone other than you bothered to read this exchange i hope they see how pointless it is to argue with someone like you. extremely dishonest, as you've always been on this board. at base, all you do is assert that you are correct and that the writers you favor are correct. no matter how much you pretend to do otherwise, that's always lurking behind it.

[Anonymous No.13490581]

>>13487352
Are you a practicing Vedantin?

[Anonymous No.13490603]

>>13490543
Okay, if you have specific things that Sharma wrote which you think are wrong I'll reply but everything else you are writing amounts to snide posturing, Sad! many such cases.

[Anonymous No.13490608]

>>13488769
>seems quite nihilistic to me
>seems
That's on you then, not buddhism

[Anonymous No.13490636]

>>13490543
Not him, but why must there be such hostility even between non-dualist theologies, and ones sharing much of their foundation with eachother? I mean, there's no eternal hell at stake for picking and promoting the less-correct doctrine of the two, or which either group is claiming the other will be heading towards. There's a shared ethos of renunciation, common practises like meditation - why, then, are these discussions always so hostile between Buddhistbros and Advaitinbros? Can't they proceed without such an element? It makes it seem like literally every religious tradition in the world is at the throat of another, even for the most peaceful ones.

Is human nature simply irredeemable, always bent towards enmity even where it concerns conversations on spiritual enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.13490678]

>>13490636
you never heard of hindu warrior ascetics of different lineages who have huge battles with each other? or the monks who burn down/kill monasteries of other orders?
you think dharma was some pussy business, it's as high test as any other high endeavor

[Anonymous No.13490735]

>>13490470
>let me just side step everything you presented and go back to repeating the same bullshit i've been spewing

[Anonymous No.13490742]

>>13490636
Advaita-posters will claim that Buddhism is just a retarded form of Vedanta which lacks any coherent explanation for existence, and that it should be dispensed with, that Advaita Vedanta should be pursued instead.
Buddhist-posters will argue that aiming for anything but realization of the highest goal, the unconditioned without description or qualities, is pointless, and that referring to the unconditioned in which there is no ground for views as True Self or Atman is arbitrary, potentially misleading.

[Anonymous No.13490752]

>>13490735
>still no arguments or specifics

[Anonymous No.13490761]

>>13490742
>replies to a post asking about why can't there be more friendliness and charitableness in discussion with anti-Vedanta jabs

[Anonymous No.13490771]

>>13490761
>and with anti-Buddhist jabs

[Anonymous No.13490797]

>>13490636
I can't speak for the Vedantins but as someone on the Buddhist side, engaging with criticisms of other traditions' ideas helps me to understand the one I follow even better. I consider Advaita Vedanta to be the most sophisticated system to contend with Buddhism, and so it is helpful to consider their critiques to refine my own understandings and stances on things.

[Anonymous No.13490828]

>>13490742
Instead of letting these doctrines be frozen in their formulations, can they not be reconciled by modern seekers like those of this thread? Might there not be areas where ideas from each can be coherently incorporated into a syncretic doctrine? Maybe both have flaws, which each doctrine helps to plug-up in the opposite one.

[Anonymous No.13490836]

>>13490797
Critiques are great, but these discussions always result in hostility between parties, and that's what I myself am critiquing here.

[Anonymous No.13490852]

>>13490828
Syncretism is shite. You'd have to take some sort of perennialist or Traditionalist approach but that sacrifices some nuance no matter how much someone might deny it.
A lot of contemporary figures from both traditions maintain or imply that Advaita and Buddhism are pointing at the same thing though. Some Thai Buddhists teach of "the one who knows" which is comparable to conceptions of Pure Awareness. I know there are Vedantins as well who see the "luminous mind" of Nirvana similarly.
I suppose in that case it would all depend on which tradition you think would be most immediate or effective/efficient at reaching the goal of enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.13490892]

>>13490752
>read this entire book i've read right now in the middle of a thread and rebuke it at on academic level
i've got no skin in this game, but why don't you see how that seems silly?

[Anonymous No.13490897]

>>13490852
By "syncretism" I simply meant allowing for both Brahman and Dependent Origination to be placed together, for example, assuming they can be - one being the necessary, eternal ground of existence and the other being a necessary, eternal mechanism of casuality which affects it. Is it not possible to reconcile Pure Consciousness with Anatta, whereby the Consciousness is not changing, and is a unity, but the elements within it do change, and are disparate? Allowing for there to be a unitary, unchanging core alongside a series of changing phenomena? Keep in mind I haven't read these doctrines properly, but from the outside I find myself agreeing with both and seeing ways to combine them together.

[Anonymous No.13490934]

>>13490897
Keep in mind even describing the mind of an Arahant as "luminous" is merely conventional, and with the realization of Nirvana there is no ground for any views, existence, non-existence or anything. I think this is even the case with Brahman Nirguna - any descriptions of it are conventional. So I think "Pure Consciousness" would be a bit misleading, possibly for both doctrines.

[Anonymous No.13490978]

>>13490934
My mistake anonpai, as mentioned earlier I'm not properly learned in these philosophies yet, and it feels bad to imagine I have to pick one or another rather than finding common ground between two great spiritual theologies.

[Anonymous No.13491041]

>>13486248
Idk but taoism is the most based

[Anonymous No.13491048]

>>13490892
I'm just asking for one or a few examples of something that he got wrong, not a refutation of the whole book. I see no reason to regard him as not credible until proven otherwise. He taught at a college level, was proficient at reading Sanskrit, and wrote and published multiple books on both Buddhist and Hindu philosophy in Hindi and English.

[Anonymous No.13491060]

>>13490897
>>13490978
If you are interested in a viewpoint which can be seen as (unintentionally) providing a synthesis of them both, check out Jonang Buddhism and one of its main thinkers Dolpopa. His main work 'The Mountain Doctrine' is on lib-gen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolpopa_Sherab_Gyaltsen

[Anonymous No.13491186]

>>13489560
>I always thought you had to be initiated into a proper tradition in India?
The only initiation in traditional Advaita is exclusively reserved for sannyasa, there is no side-system for laymen; you either take up the life of a possessionless monk and are initiated by a teacher, or you don't and are never initiated. If you desire to take the plunge and be initiated as a sannyasa (which is not temporary and entails remaining one until you die) you'd have to learn one of the more common Indian dialects like Hindi along with some Sanskrit and then travel to India to meet with the Dashnami Sampradaya. They trace their lineage to Shankaracharya and are one of the largest monastic groups in India with tens of thousands of sannyasin according to some counts. They have no caste requirements whatsoever for initiation, you might have to meet and interact with a few different members first, but before long you'd undoubtedly find one willing to be your guru and initiate you providing that you could fluently converse with them, demonstrate your knowledge of the Sruti, display the requisite personality qualities etc. The Dashnami Sampradaya congregate in large numbers at religious festivals, which would be a good time to approach them.

That being said, one can still massively benefit from reading through Shankara's works without being initiated, even to the point of having life-changing and earth-shattering spiritual realizations just from reading them. Some people take the view that one can even combine a deep knowledge of and belief in Advaita with other religious traditions or while being a member of another religion, I don't disagree with them. If you desire to be initiated into a non-dualistic Hindu tradition though without becoming a sannyasin your best bet would probably be Lingyatism, also known as Veershaiva. It is a non-dual Shaivite Hindu tradition going back to at least around the 12th century. Its metaphysics has been described by some scholars as a combination between Shankara's Advaita and Ramanuja's Vishishadvaita. The Linyatists/Veershaivists reject any form of caste+social discrimination and the sect is known to accept converts from all other religions and from any social status. They are active in the US and other western countries, you can research online whether there is a local chapter near you can contact them, they'd most likely welcome you warmly. I do know that they have some form of initiation as well involving instruction in the teachings. The sage Nisargadatta Maharaj was initiated into both the Nath and the Lingyatist traditions.

Here is the website for the Veershaiva Samaj of North America, you can look up on it if they are near you (I think they have sites for Europe etc too)

https://www.vsna.org/

[Anonymous No.13491192]

>>13491186
>Do you practice Advaita Vedanta in ways additional to reading? How do you practice?
There are numerous practices described through the works of Adi Shankara, I have to go to bed to get enough sleep for my job tomorrow and don't have the time or interest in summarizing them right now. It wouldn't be of much use even if I were to do so though, because they would only make sense or be applicable/useful if you'd read most of Shankara's works and understood EXACTLY what he was talking about when he mentioned them. If you tried to do it based on reading someone's 4chan posts or through wikipedia etc it'd be hardly better than larping. I would also add again that merely reading through Shankara can induce states of gnosis/jnana/realization if you pay close attention to him, and that for me at least some of this has always remained with me afterwards as a constant and blissful understanding/awareness which is never lost, and that this itself constitutes something roughly equivalent to a 'practice' or the result of a practice; although I sometimes follow the practices Shankara talks about as well.

>>13490199
>Do you have a guru? Are you an autodidact?
No Guru, I'm self taught, you can be too it's not that hard. Just prepare by reading several books on Vedanta and Indian philosophy and then spend a year or two reading through all of Shankara's works.

[Anonymous No.13491330]

>>13491186
>demonstrate your knowledge of the Sruti
arent you supposed to get it from them

[Anonymous No.13491495]

>>13491330
There is a new documentary I saw recently. And it didn't seem like they needed to know anything but English before coming there. You were taught Sanskrit there. Can't remember where I saw it though because I can't find anything but the trailer.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQwFZtHxYtk
And here is the article about it
>https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/gurukulam-hindu-documentary-interview/

And this isn't one of those new age hippie places. The guru in the documentary(dead now) was the guru of Modi.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayananda_Saraswati_(Arsha_Vidya)
His organization is part of the traditional Advaita-Vedanta school of teaching. But there were some western monastics there too.

[Anonymous No.13491531]

Why Vedantins fail to see Consciousness is conditioned?

[Anonymous No.13491558]

>>13491495
yeah we saw this full movie the other day
but you have to ask yourself is this better than living with the tibetans up in the cozy mountains among their aesthetic paintings and deep chants

[Anonymous No.13491578]

>>13491531
>>13491558
Without the Self, to what would a potential qt submissive devotee direct her religious love songs?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nqFS-CPdOU

[Anonymous No.13491579]

>>13491495
>nationalgeographic
So fake news

[Anonymous No.13491645]

>>13486248
To be honest I was really disappointed when I started reading Shankara's commentaries on the Vedas.
I should have known, but while it's memed as a coherent logical system, the commentaries aren't really convincing to someone who doesn't take the Vedas as gospel truth in the first place.
Moreover, it seems like he took a lot of the verses out of context and reads in meanings that were obviously not intended by the authors.
He has this whole weird thing trying to justify the renunciate lifestyle on the verses about karma and advarna? (I forget the exact words) that seem to be clearly about other topics altogether that are more straightforwardly and obviously just about a typical ancient society ranting against outsiders instead of really being secret phrases promoting aescetism.
Advaita solely rests on the Vedas and doesn't rest well on the Vedas.

For all that a lot of Shankara's ideas did seem very interesting to me but it seemed to me as if he was reaching to justify conclusions he already had.
So I can't really recommend Advaita as a full and coherent philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13491647]

>>13488362
>What do you figure is nihilistic about Buddhism?
Tiredpepe.jpeg

[Anonymous No.13491669]

>>13491558
Yeah that would be pretty comfy. Dunno how welcoming they are of foreigners though.
>>13491579
cringe

[Anonymous No.13491700]

>>13491669
i would assume very since foreigners everywhere have been welcoming to them ever since the occupation

[Anonymous No.13492298]

>>13490308
>>13490543
>NO NO NOOOO! YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY AGREE WITH ANYTHING! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REMAIN COMMITTED TO AN EMASCULATED AND INCONSISTENT IDEAL OF ACADEMIC NEUTRALITY!!! HOW WILL THE PYRAMID SCHEME OF ACADEMIA CONTINUE IF PEOPLE DON'T TAKE US SERIOUSLY AS GATEKEEPERS ANYMORE!?!?!?! NOOOOOO!!!

[Anonymous No.13492407]

>>13491645
If you want a systematic presentation of Upanishadic teachings the Brahma Sutra Bhasya is the thing to read instead, but it helps to have read some of the Upanishads first. With regard to the question of asceticism, have you read the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad? In that Upanishad an emperor of Videha named Janaka converses with the sage Yajnavalkya, and near the end of the Upanishad Janaka abandons his emperorship and takes up the monastic life, the reasons for doing this are clearly explained in that Upanishad. Shankara doesn't spend a lot of time reviewing every little aspect of this but just quotes some of the pertinent lines.

>Advaita solely rests on the Vedas and doesn't rest well on the Vedas.
I assume you mean soley rests on the Upanishads? In any case one of the Upanishads (I believe the Brihadaranyaka but can't remember at the moment) states that Brahman is to be known only from the Upanishads so that's not really a problem from the perspective of Advaita that the Vedas don't focus on the same stuff as the Upanishads. On that point though Coomaraswamy's book "Perception of the Vedas" argues with copious citations from the Vedas that there is a streak of non-dualistic thought already present in the Vedas before the Upanishads, I found it to be interesting.

[Anonymous No.13492507]

>>13488802
thanks anon, you clarified a lot

[Anonymous No.13492543]

>mfw watching dharmabros of all stripes fighting one another
we're all on the same team bros. let's focus on our real enemies, the abrahamists and modernists

[Anonymous No.13492556]

>>13486248
>What does Advaita offer that Buddhism does not
aroma

[Anonymous No.13492559]

>>13492543
materialists as well

[Anonymous No.13492919]

>>13487430
>>13487047
Well, to put it as simply (and maybe even reductionistically) as possible, the gist of Buddhism is “there is no self”. The gist of Advaita is “There is a Self — only ONE Self, and it is divine, residing in everything and everyone.” However, ironically, both thus come to the same conclusion of non-duality (there is no difference between “you” and “other”). Both offer self-inquiry as a means to such enlightenment, both conceive of an enlightened state as being tranquil if not outright joyous constantly in realization that there is no self/there is only one Self.

[Anonymous No.13492974]

>>13492919
"There is no self" itself is a view unique to certain Theravadin traditions. Anatta is more accurately translated to "not-self" than "no self," since in the entire Pali Canon, that term "anatta" is only used in relation to other things, as an adjective.
The Buddha clearly pointed out the lack of self-hood/doer/agency to be found within experiential phenomena (Five Aggregates, the psycho-physical...etc), but never categorically said "There absolutely is/isn't a self." He never really denied or accepted the Vedantin Atman, as he would say any designation regarding Nirvana can only ever be mere convention, empty, not Ultimate (since Nirvana is beyond all convention, unconditioned).
Some take this to mean that the Buddha was teaching of the Atman and Brahman via negativa. Some take this to mean that he was teaching of neither the Atman nor denial of the Atman. I say read the primary texts yourself and decide what you think.

[Anonymous No.13492998]

>>13492974
I would also say that if the Atman is true, then any ardent Buddhist who practices for the disidentification with the Five Aggregates should logically discover it, since it would be all that remains. Perhaps because the Atman is unconditioned and any designation is conventional even in the Advaita Vedantin perspective, this could actually be the case but Buddhists don't call it the Atman because they did not approach things in a True Self manner and therefore have no reason to call it that.

[Anonymous No.13493244]

>>13492998
>>I would also say that if the Atman is true, then any ardent Buddhist who practices for the disidentification with the Five Aggregates should logically discover it, since it would be all that remains.
yes, but the atman is not true. once there is no clinging there is nothing else.
so first step is lack of sakkaya ditthi, which is the cessation of the wrong view of taking ''acquisitions'', clinging, ''taking up'', fuel, upadana, as self. All those aggregates and things conditioned are just ''acquisitions'' and calling them self is pure stupidity.
then the next step is to kill whatever upadana is left, ie whatever clinging to the sensual stuff and the becoming stuff (ie whatever happens in the jhanas), and then there is really nothing else.
People who love Advaita do not see that. Even the people who love Mahayana do not see that.

[Anonymous No.13493261]

>>13488802
>but the core of emptiness that people tend to forget thus leading to such nihilistic undertones, is the interconnectedness of all things.
that's cute for yoga moms posting on FB, but dependent origination is about the 5 aggregates and craving only.

[Anonymous No.13493347]

>>13493261
Everything in Dependent Origination arises in pairs, co-dependently. Consciousness and name-and-form are codependent.
>Nāmarūpanirodhā viññāmanirodho,
>viññāmanirodhā nāmarūpanirodho.
>"From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness,
>from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form."

Birth is codependent with decay-and-death, is paired with it, inseparable from it.

And of course 'all things' are included in the Law of Dependent Arising:

>“It is in this very fathom- long physical frame
>with its
>perceptions and mind, that, I declare lies the
>world, the
>arising of the world, the cessation of the
>world, and the path
>leading to the cessation of the world”
- Rohitassa Sutta
So yes, all things arise dependent on other things. The links of the Law of Dependent Arising, arise co-dependently on each other, not independently - essentially they are interconnected, only ever experienced as interconnected, not independently.

[Anonymous No.13493430]

>>13493244
>yes, but the atman is not true. once there is no clinging there is nothing else.
Yes, we all know that according to the interpretation of Buddhism that you take, there is no Atma, however you don't actually have any real arguments against it but are just repeating dogma. If there was nothing else left there wouldn't be a concious presence that was aware of the experience of Nirvana, Buddha would have remained in catatonic stupor and died of starvation soon after reaching enlightenment if there was nothing left. You just have a mental hangup about describing that pure awareness which remains as self. Buddha never even specifically denied the Vedantic Atma for your information, he doesn't accurately describe the Vedantic conception of Atma once in the entire Pali Canon. Each school of Indian philosophy has their own totally different undertanding of what Self/Atma means, if Buddha had wanted to deny the existence of the Vedantic Atma he would have but he never did, everytime he uses the word atma or anatta its always with regard to things which Vedanta would classify as the mind/intellect/ego etc but never the Atma.

[Anonymous No.13493432]

>>13493261
>dependent origination is about the 5 aggregates and craving only.
distinguishing between the Five Aggregates + craving to be one thing and 'all things' another is a problem as well:

>Thus have I heard. Once the Fortunate One was living at Sāvatthi, in the monastery of Anāthapiṇḍika, [situated] in the Jeta's Grove. Then the Fortunate One addressed the monks: "O, monks!" They responded: "Yes, O Venerable One!" and the Fortunate One spoke thus: "Monks, I will preach to you 'everything.' Listen to it. What, monks, is 'everything'? Eye and material form, ear and sound, nose and odor, tongue and taste, body and touch, mind and concepts. These are called 'everything.' Monks, he who would say, 'I will reject this everything and proclaim another everything,' he may certainly have a theory [of his own]. But when questioned, he would not be able to answer and would, moreover, be subject to vexation. Why? Because it would not be within the range of experience.
- SN 35.23

[Anonymous No.13493458]

>>13493244
>yes, but the atman is not true.
Not a Vedantin but denying the Self categorically is not in line with Buddhist teachings. The Buddha refused to categorically deny or affirm the Self, and only spoke of Anatta (not-self) in reference to the Aggregates. Saying "There is no Self" was a annihilationist view that the Buddha would have rejected. He also rejected saying "There is a Self." because in the unconditioned reality of Nirvana there are no distinctions.
To argue "there is No Self, period" is not in line with what the Buddha taught. A more nuanced approach in line with the Buddha's teaching would be to say that any descriptions of Nirvana must be ultimately arbitrary, conventional, not representative of its true nature, and so calling Nirvana 'True Self' or 'Pure Awareness' has potential to mislead people into falling into the trap of thinking that concentrative experiences of a non-localized self is Nirvana, even if that is not what is intended by the phrases.

[Anonymous No.13493524]

>>13493430
>If there was nothing else left there wouldn't be a concious presence that was aware of the experience of Nirvana
To be fair, how is this not just a subtle extension of dualism, of subject-object dichotomy? - The suggestion of there being the Conscious awareness on one hand which is experiencing what you described as effectively an object, the experience of Nirvana, on the other hand.
I'm pretty sure even Vedanta's 'Pure Awareness' is supposed to go beyond such a dichotomy, not dissimilar to the transcendence of it described by the Buddha:

Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24

[Anonymous No.13493583]

>>13492543
>>13492559

Not really. Vedanta and Christianity (not Paulism) are very much alike, and distinct from Buddhism and Catholicism, respectively, which are in turn alike.

[Anonymous No.13494269]

>>13489942
advaitabro is one of the best posters on this board

[Anonymous No.13494288]

>>13494269
this he's opening my eyes

[Anonymous No.13494847]

>>13493583
>Christianity (not Paulism)
So... Something that never existed anywhere and is not even a thing and therefore not at all Christianity.

You can't just go around saying that Vedanta is similar to the brainghosts in your head. People will laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.13495053]

>>13493524
>To be fair, how is this not just a subtle extension of dualism, of subject-object dichotomy?

Dialectic.

[Anonymous No.13495528]

>>13493524
>To be fair, how is this not just a subtle extension of dualism, of subject-object dichotomy?
Not that guy but the Atman wouldn't experience an object that is Nirvana. It would be just be pure Consciousness without any Objects, and this would be the state of Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.13495535]

itt faggots

[Anonymous No.13495558]

What does Advaita offer that Taoism does not?

[Anonymous No.13495574]

>>13486248
>Advaita, originally known as Puruṣavādha,[1] is a school of Hindu philosophy, and believed to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in Hindu tradition.[2] The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman). The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins or Mayavaadis,[3] and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā
I want vidya

[Anonymous No.13495654]

>>13495574
Rise up gamers.

[Anonymous No.13495789]

>>13488769
>I know Buddhists will deny it though, but if some western philosopher started saying that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature" then he'd definitely be regarded as a nihilist philosopher.
Can you not just think for yourself and read the definitions instead?

[Anonymous No.13495932]

>>13495789
>he believes it's possible to have original ideas

[Anonymous No.13495950]

>>13495558
>What does Advaita offer that Taoism does not?

Do you mean Daoism in general? No doctrine of semen retention or poisoning yourself with Mercury to create the elixir of life. Or do you mean "real philosophical Daoism" as practiced by weed smoking college bros in the west?

[Anonymous No.13495980]

>>13495950
I mean "real philosophical Daoism" as practiced by the people who would never have called themselves Daoists and were only shoved into the same group centuries later.

[Anonymous No.13495990]

>>13495950
If there is a single anon in this thread who is not a weed smoking college bro, it is only because they are not able to be one.

[Anonymous No.13496044]

>>13495980
Oh, so a tradition that only existed in ancient times and then thoroughly died out? I wonder why people don't find that compelling...

[Anonymous No.13496056]

>>13496044
What is this retardation? It's head-crackingly stupid on every level. You think original Daoism isn't found compelling? You just mentioned how supposedly weed smoking college bros practice it. You think ancient, dead traditions in general haven't been found compelling? You mean like Platonism? Apply yourself.

[Anonymous No.13496066]

>>13495950
Alchemy is alchemy. You don’t condemn the hermetics for doing the same shit

[Anonymous No.13496132]

>>13495990
anyone dedicated enough to obsessively read and cite the source texts for an Eastern religion is probably not the college stoner type

[Anonymous No.13496175]

>>13496132
It's funny to me that you think that.

[Anonymous No.13496397]

>>13496175
I've never met a stoner type into Eastern philo/religion beyond a youtube-summary/facebook quote level

[Anonymous No.13496648]

if brahma atman is so great why isn't every ambitious high iq autist taking refuge and aiming for it?

[Anonymous No.13496668]

>>13488503
No answers? hmmph

[Anonymous No.13497106]

>>13496648
Because it was never memed into popularity beginning with the 1960s (and subsequently used for marketing and latched onto by all sorts of materialists etc like Buddhism has been) and so it still remains almost entirely unknown among the larger public in western countries. Also, the barrier to entry is a little higher intellectually.

[Anonymous No.13497222]

>>13497106
>barrier to entry is a little higher intellectually.
what happens if you try and fail? how will you support yourself
those organizations cannot keep you around forever they mostly run on charity
in india sanyasi is sometimes analogous with beggar, that's the joke on inner knowledge in materialistic times

[Anonymous No.13497281]

>>13497106
There are a lot more western cults that are neo-Advaitins than are Buddhist though for example. Realizing all is one, getting naked and sliding in and out of huge human piles of naked hippies like some sort of oiled up amphibious rodent isn't that difficult of a doctrine. see >>13491578

[Anonymous No.13497346]

>>13497281
>There are a lot more western cults that are neo-Advaitins than are Buddhist though for example.
I had meant that actually studying traditional Vedanta in the sense of learning what it entails, studying Shankara's works etc presents a higher barrier than traditional/real Buddhism. If you want to call Mooji a cult then popular western presenters of Buddhism who turn it into a new-age message like Tara Brach and so many like her qualify as well, and because of this I would say that dumbed down feel-good "buddhist" cults are more popular than the occasional figure like Mooji.
>Realizing all is one, getting naked and sliding in and out of huge human piles of naked hippies like some sort of oiled up amphibious rodent isn't that difficult of a doctrine
That has nothing to do with traditional Advaita. I don't know if you were trying to say that because of this Advaita doesnt really present a higher barrier to entry because if so that's incorrect. With Buddhism even the traditional/real/standard types you just are supposed to meditate and learn some of the basic practices/teachings to follow, preferably supplemented by some reading of suttas etc. With Advaita you have to learn a vast forest of Sanskrit philosophical/metaphysical terminology and then wade through thousands of pages of dense writings dealing with those subjects before you can even really begin to get a sense of what traditional Advaita is.

I see the Buddhists on /lit/ often contorting themselves into human pretzels trying to convince us all why it's so easy and beneficial to get into, why it's not hard to meditate everyday, about how you don't even have to believe in it to become enlightened, why you can even do Buddhist meditation and follow another religion etc, so many of them spend a lot of time trying to convince us all how accessible it really is, but then when someone says Vedanta has a higher barrier of entry intellectually you don't like the sound of that and then try to deny it, you can't both have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.13497377]

>>13488503
>>13496668
German Idealism consists of a bunch of different systems, it would be too tiresome to make a huge post comparing how all of them relate to Advaita, the closest IMO is probably Schelling followed by Hegel. On a related note is this interesting thread where someone posted a bunch of material from a book where a Vedantist criticizes Hegel's ideas.

>>/lit/thread/S13208492

Advaita Vedanta is not Pandeism because Pandeism equates God or the Supreme Being with the universe whereas Advaita does not (although some other ontologically realist Vedanta schools do); with Advaita there is a hierarchy of manifestation with the unmanifest at the top and the manifested universe and the elements at the very bottom, the Supreme Being Brahman is nowhere to be found in the hierarchy because the whole hierarchy is ultimately an illusion stemming from maya, Brahman remaining undivided and never actually entering into manifestation. This is why you see lines in Vedantic literature like " I am that non-dual God, who like space is subtle and without beginning or end, and in whom all this from the unmanifest down to the material is displayed as no more than an appearance - Vivekachudamani 512". There is a cosmic entity called Prajapati/Virat/Hiranyagarbha according to the Upanishads which became the universe, but one of the main themes of the Upanishads is that this entity is not really the unqualified Para-Brahman and that the attainment of union with it isn't real liberation.

[Anonymous No.13497603]

>its another guenonfag having a mental breakdown against buddhists episode

[Anonymous No.13497611]

>>13492543
>let's focus on our real enemies, the abrahamists
yep fuck Sufiism

[Anonymous No.13497757]

>MAHAMUDRA
>When you understand this, and actually experience the calm state and movement as being the same, or as aspects of the same indivisible prin-ciple, that is the real Mahamudra. It does not mean only being in a state of emptiness.
>When we speak of being in the state of Mahamudra, this means that we find ourselves in the state of transformation, in the state of clarity in which we are no longer judging, thinking, creating, or blocking any-thing. In this state we have the complete capacity to remain integrated in whatever movement arises, whether we are walking, working, or car-rying out any kind of activity. All our activities become Mahamudra.

What is the difference between Dzogchen and Advaita

[Anonymous No.13497790]

Both are self denying and life denying.
Discarding the glory of each uniqueness.

[Anonymous No.13497795]

redpill me on other realms

[Anonymous No.13497962]

I just made this; what do ya niqqaz think?

[Anonymous No.13498041]

>>13495950
amazing...completely wrecked

[Anonymous No.13498047]

Advaita is just superior. It's for high IQ guys, daoism and buddhism are for pretentious white teenagers who don't understand the pernicious effect of western orientalism.
Advaita BTFOs them all; I fucking laugh at all the dude weed buddhist retards ITT. Face it, your shit is all kinds of retarded. Guenonbro btfos you bitches on a freaking dailllyyyyy.

[Anonymous No.13498052]

>>13498041
He's right. Taoism is fucking retarded, it's either dead shit or shitty hippy stuff that white mum's like
"duuuude just be like water lmao, be kind to others!"
Fuck that, it's for dumb pussies.
Advaita is for Aryans who aren't afraid to put the boot on LGBT degenerates, and to realise that metaphysics are only for the true initiates, not retard laymen

[Anonymous No.13498122]

>>13487352
What should I read? Besides the obvious

[Anonymous No.13498145]

>>13497962
You better not be that guy that have been talking about doing a Vedanta chart for months now.

[Anonymous No.13498162]

>>13498122
You can begin by reading the Ashtavakra Gita which is a very high-quality short Advaita text that doesn't require any preliminary reading

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

After that, the best way to understand Advaita is to read through Shankara's works. It's strongly recommended to read at least one and preferably two intro books to Vedanta and/or Indian philosophy before doing this.

Good intro books:
The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy by Sharma
Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta by Guenon
Vedanta Heart of Hinduism

The Advaita Tradition is one of my favorites, the author covers Madhyamaka and Vijnanavada Buddhism along with Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. The author takes the unconventional position that the Upanishads, Buddha, Nagarjuna, early Vijnanavada and Shankara were more or less pointing at the same truth in different ways, he has good and bad things to say about tantra. He has some very lucid writing on Shankara's ideas which explain them with great clarity. The only downside is the Advaita section is maybe only a 1/3 of the book, but within that is a very good review of his ideas (and you could just read this without reading the whole book)

https://archive.org/details/TheAdvaitaTraditionInIndianPhilosophyChandradharSharma

Man and His Becoming is a good intro to and review of some of the key concepts that reappear again and again in Shankara's works, although some of it is a little obtuse/dense with lots of footnotes. It's recommended but not needed to read Guenon's 'Intro to Hindu Doctrines' first before this. Coomaraswamy called it the best book on the Vedanta in any European language. If you haven't read Guenon's first book it's best to wait to read this until after you've already read a book on Vedanta.

https://archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1925%20-%20Man%20and%20His%20Becoming%20according%20to%20the%20Ved%C3%A2nta#mode/2up

Vedanta Heart of Hinduism is another good primer that focuses mostly on Shankara, with additional chapters on Ramanuja et al, and later 18th-19th century figures on Ramana Maharshi, Vivekananda etc. Like 'The Advaita Tradition' this book is consists of the author's explanations of their ideas and not long passages of Shankara's etc works. It's translated from German, but still good.

https://archive.org/details/VedantaHeartOfHinduismHansTorwesten/page/n7

[Anonymous No.13498170]

>>13498047
Those Buddhists aren't really Buddhists though, since none of them have actually "taken refuge". Nor do I doubt they keep the precepts. I've heard some monks saying that a lot of those meditation retreats and shit actually straight up despises monks and really do not even want them around.

Same can't be said about all the hippie dude we're all one lets smoke weed and have group sex Advaitins you find in all the self-realization retreats. You can't really make the argument that they aren't Advaitins since there are no rules or requirements set up. It's basically just self-realization.

[Anonymous No.13498171]

>>13498162
pt 2.

Here are Shankara's works. It's best to begin with the 8-volume Upanishad commentaries. The more of his Upanishad commentaries that you read first the more you'll understand his commentaries on the two smriti texts the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad-Gita. The Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka commentaries are dense and best read after his shorter Upanishads ones. The Chandogya is also central to the ideas of the Brahma Sutras, it's not necessary but nevertheless a good idea to read Shankara's Chandogya bhasya before his Brahma Sutra Bhasya. The secondary works can be read alongside his commentaries, but are best understood/appreciated after you've already read some of his Upanishad commentaries

>Prasthanatrayi commentaries
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda
https://archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English
https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraSankaraBhashyaEnglishTranslationVasudeoMahadeoApte1960
https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya

>non-commentary works
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri%20-%20Swami%20Jagadananda%20%281949%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
https://gita-society.com/pdf2011/vivekachudamani.pdf
https://archive.org/details/SankaraOnTheYogaSutrasTrevorLeggettMLBD2006
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-AtmaBodha%20%28and%20Other%20Stotras%29%20-%20Swami%20Nikhilananda%20%281947%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Aparoksha-Anubhuti-by-Sri-Shankaracharya.pdf
https://www.swamij.com/shankara-vakya-vritti.htm
http://shiningworld.com/site/files/pdfs/publications/books/1_Knowledge_of_Truth_Tattva_Bodh.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SIVANANDALAHARI.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SOUNDARYALAHARI.pdf
http://theheartofthesun.com/Nirvana.pdf
http://jagannathavallabha.com/pdf_engl/prasnottara%20english%20for%20amazon.pdf

>>13498145
Lol, I'm the guy who's making the chart, that guy who posted that isnt me. Its getting closer to being done, every time I see one of these threads it inspires me to work on it more. The chart will cover Hindu philosophy in general but Vedanta has some of the most translated material and so it will feature prominently in it

[Anonymous No.13498215]

>>13497346
Well I was mostly joshing with you but I think it is easier to make the argument that Tara Brach is not a Buddhist than it is to say that Mooji is not an Advaitin. Like I said here. >>13498170 And I know you're technically supposed to learn all Advaita terms and all that in Classical Advaita but this is definitely not true in Neo-Vedanta and especially not true in Neo-Advaita.

But anyway dunno why i'm trying to pit you against Buddhists or imply the Advaita pipeline to cults especially since I mostly study Advaita these days anyway. Maybe it's because i've grown disillusioned a bit by it since it feels like without the cultural context of Hinduism and all its history it is severely lacking. In the words of Nietzsche, "without the fragrance of Hinduism".
>The Parmenidean escape was not the flight from the world taken by the Hindu philosophers; it was not evoked by a profound religious conviction as to the depravity, ephemerality and accursedness of human existence. Its ultimate goal, peace in being, was not striven after as though it were the mystic absorption into one all-sufficing ecstatic state of mind which is the enigma and vexation of ordinary minds. Parmenides' thinking conveys nothing whatever of the dark intoxicating fragrance of Hindu wisdom which is not entirely absent from Pythagoras and Empedocles. No, the strange thing about his philosophic feat at this period is just its lack of fragrance, of color, soul, and form, its total lack of blood, religiosity and ethical warmth. - Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.13498249]

>>13497962
Is Edwin F. Bryant any good? I did a quick wikipedia search and it looks like the guy released a book doubting the Indo-Aryan migration/invasion. Which to me calls into question how bright he really is, and if he is bright then he have definitely been bought off on that subject.

That the migrations/invasions happened is basically as settled as it can get. Just as there is really no doubt that Indo-Europeans migrated/invaded Europe.

[Anonymous No.13498260]

>>13486248
Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism come out of a complete misunderstanding of Buddhist concepts and a brainlet understanding of how memory works.

[Anonymous No.13498274]

>>13497757
>>What is the difference between Dzogchen and Advaita
plesae respond

[Anonymous No.13498280]

>>13498260

[Anonymous No.13498295]

>>13498260
>a brainlet understanding of how memory works.
How and why does it relate to Shankara/Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.13498325]

>>13498280
>>13498295
"Memory and recognition imply consciousness of at least three moments - the first moment in which something is experienced, the second moment in which its past impression is revived or it is again experienced and the third moment in which the first and second moments are compared and the thing remembered or recognized as the same."
>>13487605
He says this is proof against momentariness, or transience of things. This is very idiotic to say because memory is itself a momentary thing, it is a reconstruction - in the present moment - of what was believed to have occurred in a past moment that has ceased. Rather than it being three moments, it occurs in a single moment under the illusion of some previous past moment which no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.13498343]

>>13498325
>hhaha he didn't btfo momentarieness because uhhh.... memory's an illusion lol!

[Anonymous No.13498349]

>>13498343
>memory is bringing the moment back! The moment is there!!
die retard

[Anonymous No.13498354]

>>13498343
based retard

[Anonymous No.13498413]

>>13491578
I feel so happy seeing those types of pwople, even if they are following a diluted form of spirituality. They seem so personally fulfilled, as if they have found where they truly belong. I want nothing but the best for them. Nobody should ever make fun of them or belittle them - even if they are following an inferior spiritual path, it's better for them, and that's all that matters.

[Anonymous No.13498426]

Shankara's criticisms of dependent co-origination and its relation to momentariness are damaging only to specific schools of Buddhism, particular ones that could be characterized as atomist. You can't really blame him for that though because that was the religious landscape in his time. His gripes don't apply to later developments in Buddhist thought. For instance Dogen's concept of Being-Time illustrates a sort of dynamic flow of existence that rejects a sort of unity moment of non-momentariness that Shankara charges with the Buddhist school.
>imb4 autistic and assblasted chink shitpost about Dogen
you will never read the shobogenzo because you are too ashamed to admit he offers a more sophisticated understanding of zen than was ever formulated by chinese ant people

[Anonymous No.13498435]

>>13498052
>LGBT degenerates
On the contrary, LGBT people are Brahman as much as anyone else. I think an Abrahamic tradition will suit your views more.

[Anonymous No.13498462]

>>13498325
>of what was believed to have occurred in a past moment that has ceased. Rather than it being three moments, it occurs in a single moment under the illusion of some previous past moment which no longer exists.
You misunderstand his argument, he is not saying that every single instance of memory can be divided into three discrete moments all taking place in short succession, he is saying that three separate moments are necessary for memory to occur, these moments can be separated by any distance of time. In order to have a memory of a past instance there has to be a continuity between the initial experiencer of it and the conscious presence that later remembers it. That there is this continuity indicates that the theory of momentariness is false. You write "what was believed to have occurred in a past moment", so are you saying that it didn't really occur? That everyone has memories that perfectly account for and explain empirical life and for how they arrived at the place they happen to be at but that they're all false? You offer no evidence to support such a ridiculous proposition.

Furthermore there are a bunch of other holes in momentariness that Shankara points out that you haven't addressed either. Among them are that it's completely incompatible with other Buddhist teachings like dependent-origination, there can be no links between the steps of dependent-origination if everything is passing away into oblivion each moment, if one link lasts long enough to causally affect the next stage it's not momentary. Also, there is no explanation for how the universe that replaces the one that passes away is able to perfectly replicate the one that vanished. According to the standard Buddhist theory of momentariness everything passes away into nothingness and at the same moment an identical universe with identical sensations emerges from nothingness/void to replace that which previously vanished, only for that momentary emergence to in turn pass away and be replaced too (yes it actually is this stupid, this is not a strawman). There is no reason why a couch should emerge from nothingness to replace the couch that previously vanished instead of a hippopotamus emerging instead. The non-existence of X, Y, Z and all other objects/variables is the exact same, nothingness being nothingness. There can be nothing according to momentariness ensuring that things are replaced in an orderly way, if there is some residual force/affect remaining that ensures that the things emerging from nothingness are identical to what they replace, then the continuance of that force violates momentariness, and that stabilizing/ordering effect cannot have its locus in nothingness or it wouldn't be true nothingness. The whole thing is one big clusterfuck and one of the dumbest ideas ever propounded by Buddhists. Also, Nagarjuna tore apart momentariness too, do you disagree with him for doing so or do you just complain when Shankara does it?

[Anonymous No.13498467]

>>13497757
Vajrayana is often basically Quasi-Hinduism so there probably isn't much difference

[Anonymous No.13498469]

>>13498170
As someone who likes Buddhism a lot and has been trying to reorient my life around spirituality, with Buddhism as my primary tradition (though I'll certainly follow the wisdom in Christianity and other traditions too), but literally have no decent Sangha anywhere from near me, what do I do? I've been to every available Buddhist temple closeby, and all were lacking in some manner. One was a Chinese temple that is oriented around Chinese culture and for Chinese followers, another was simply terribly smelly and unclean and had rather disinterested and unkind monks for staff, another is without authentic Buddhist foundation but simply teaches the meditation and discusses Buddhism's relevance in the modern world - I am already practising the 5 Precepts because I gave up alcohol a long time ago, I am asexual, I would never hurt someone or steal, and always try not to lie (but sometimes do, unfortunately). How do I take "refuge" if my region of living does not provide me suitable options for it?

[Anonymous No.13498489]

>>13498426
>m-muh Dogen...

Dogen stole the Zen teachings without receiving mind seal from a Chan patriarch. he made up his Satori event and there is zero verification of it by Rinzai masters in china. Totally made up from a made up lineage. all Japanese Zen is illegitimate and fake. It has nothing to do with chan. Dogen is a fucking christfag Shintoist who dressed up Zen for Shoguns and the Emperor. It has nothing to do with Chan. Do not get into the meditation cultist Soto zen and do not use Rinzai shit from japan. They literally write down pre-made answers to Koans and have a system of attainment set up which is 100% in contradiction to what the Tang masters (who all legitimacy in all zen lineages, comes from)

Dogen is famous for faking his mind seal session and making up an entire lineage of poorly attested masters in Southern china who themselves did not have legitimate ancestry going back to Lin-Chi, the great founder of the Rinzai sect. You should never read Dogen unless you are interested in shinto-buddha jesus syncretism with christianity, because that’s what the Shobogenzo reads like. All of those other people are religious figures and have nothing to do with Chan. Alan Watts was a naive, sensitive man who was one of the first people to come into contact with the Tang masters who wasn’t a Nip faggot. The Nips took Chan and first turned it into a meditation-Buddhajesus cult with Dogen as the Pope basically and then the Shoguns took it and transformed it into a Bushido-Military psychopath cult with pre-written answers to the Koans and a strict military-religious hierarchy. The masters of China did not do this and had nothing to do with this kind of thinking or behavior. Do not insert your own shit into another tradition unless you don’t give a shit about it.

[Anonymous No.13498493]

>>13498469
Taking refuge is a formal ceremony done at a proper temple or monastery.
Read this
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel076.html

[Anonymous No.13498499]

>>13498489
>Dogen is a fucking christfag
A Japanese christcuck in the 13th century? I seriously doubt that.

[Anonymous No.13498537]

>>13498489
>Dogen stole the Zen teachings without receiving mind seal from a Chan patriarch. he made up his Satori event and there is zero verification of it by Rinzai masters in china
Because he trained with Soto (caodong) masters you nonce. He received patriarchal succession from Rujing in 1225.
>Caodong is a made up lineage
what are you talking about?
>Dogen is a fucking christfag Shintoist who dressed up Zen for Shoguns and the Emperor.
Absolutely wrong you idiot. I have heard soto be called farmer zen, because he stressed accessibility to all walks of life, but never heard it been criticized for being dressed up for nobility.
> They literally write down pre-made answers to Koans and have a system of attainment set up
You are referring to Hakuin, a completely different person from a different school.
>he Nips took Chan and first turned it into a meditation-Buddhajesus cult with Dogen as the Pope basically and then the Shoguns took it and transformed it into a Bushido-Military psychopath cult with pre-written answers to the Koans and a strict military-religious hierarchy. The masters of China did not do this and had nothing to do with this kind of thinking or behavior. Do not insert your own shit into another tradition unless you don’t give a shit about it.
Chinese ant lies, if not a severe mental fuck up due to retardation or possibly aneurysm

[Anonymous No.13498612]

>>13498493
But if I have no suitable institutions near me, what could I do? Go out of town for that specific ceremony? I wanted to have a local Sangha I could visit regularly just like Christians have their Church, but none near me seem very nice.

[Anonymous No.13498640]

>>13498612
Go become a monk for a few years then come back and start your own sangha. A sangha for well-bred Evropeans. A clean sangha. A pure sangha. For the saving of Evropa through the Damma.

[Anonymous No.13498654]

>>13498462
>he is saying that three separate moments are necessary for memory to occur, these moments can be separated by any distance of time. In order to have a memory of a past instance there has to be a continuity between the initial experiencer of it and the conscious presence that later remembers it
That past does not exist, for the moment has ceased, having given way to the present moment. The continuity you talk about is only the continuity of one moment arising and the next ceasing. I will deal with your linkages later.
> You write "what was believed to have occurred in a past moment", so are you saying that it didn't really occur?
It did not occur and has no bearing on the present moment. We only believe that it does because it sustains a false idea of a Self. The Self is bound simply by illusions of inclinations of what it is based on moments that have already passed. The past doesn't occur simultaneously with the present, that is foolish.
>You offer no evidence to support such a ridiculous proposition.
The only evidence for the past having occurred is things that exist in the present that suggest it. Where is the past but in memory, which is biased and false? It cannot be recalled, because it is gone. Where is the proof for Atman?
>Also, there is no explanation for how the universe that replaces the one that passes away is able to perfectly replicate the one that vanished. According to the standard Buddhist theory of momentariness everything passes away into nothingness and at the same moment an identical universe with identical sensations emerges from nothingness/void to replace that which previously vanished, only for that momentary emergence to in turn pass away and be replaced too (yes it actually is this stupid, this is not a strawman). There is no reason why a couch should emerge from nothingness to replace the couch that previously vanished instead of a hippopotamus emerging instead
You are seeing things from an atomical perspective, where momentariness is phenomenological. A hippo would not appear because the arising of one phenomenon is dependent upon the cessation of the previous one. You are indeed straw-manning the concept because you have taken out the 'dependent' from 'dependent origination'. It is saying in essence the universe is all together in constant change. Really, there can be said to be only the present moment from a phenomenological perspective (not ultimately, mind you), separating past 'moments' is conceptual.
>Also, Nagarjuna tore apart momentariness too, do you disagree with him for doing so or do you just complain when Shankara does it?
Because Nargarjuna agreed with it, and only attacked it insofar as it was used by Mind-Only schools of Buddhist thought. Shankara does it to embrace an Ultimate Soul which is a silly concept he unconvincingly talks about.

[Anonymous No.13498817]

>>13498469
>w
since you already do better than most people and if there is sangha, then stay alone...

the next step is right effort, doing sati and sampajañña, which is the bridge between sila and samadhi.
This is the hard step since it is done 24/7 or rather the day is divided as sati and sampajañña, then trying for samadhi, then sati and sampajañña, then samadhi and so on, like bikkhus are supposed to live..., ie you have to keep track of thoughts and sensation and remove the bad thoughts, keep only the good thoughts, ie sammāsaṅkappa, then you do that with sensations, remove the bad sensations (ie the senses) and keep only the good ones which is the pleasure and rapture that they talk about with the jhanas.

[Anonymous No.13498874]

>>13498817
Thank you so much anon. I don'r know what you meant by those things, as I'm not learned on all the Buddhist concepts, but I'll keep those in memory and look into them later. Meanwhile, I'll keep trying to orient myself in alignment with the generic spiritual path.

[Anonymous No.13498885]

>>13498654
>That past does not exist, for the moment has ceased, having given way to the present moment.
not a rebuttal but only a restatement of your perspective
>It did not occur and has no bearing on the present moment. We only believe that it does because it sustains a false idea of a Self.
Same as above and you offer no evidence to support this notion
>The only evidence for the past having occurred is things that exist in the present that suggest it.
And how and why do those things suggest it? You are trying to handwave away the empirical validity of past events because like *hits blunt* it's like always "now" man, whoa! Absent an explanation of how the present moment came about with all its coherence you are trying to deny the obvious without an alternative explanation to fill the gap or evidence to support your claims, which is foolish.
>Where is the past but in memory, which is biased and false?
circular reasoning, your argument here depends on memory being false which is a unproven claim
>Where is the proof for Atman?
The witnessing awareness of every individual stands self-proved, it is you and certain Buddhists who don't realize that Buddha never denied there was an Atma who face the hurdle of trying to deny that there is any inherent existence or reality to this concious witness, it does not need to prove itself. That you admit to being aware of and having this conversion is an implicit admittance of the conditional existence of the self, you haven't shown or proven that this conditional existence is illusory and that the self in question doesn't actually exist.
>because the arising of one phenomenon is dependent upon the cessation of the previous one.
You have failed to answer how there can be any continuity without violating momentariness, how can there be "dependence" is all is momentary? There can be no dependence or causal relation between A and B if they don't exist at the same time, if A lasts long enough to affect B or for B to be dependent upon A then A is necessarily non-momentary.

[Anonymous No.13499023]

>>13498874
the full sutta is here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
what you claim to be already doing is this
>"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.
now you have to do the rest

[Anonymous No.13499052]

How do you guys cope with the fact that Advaita still believes in a caste system by birth

[Anonymous No.13499259]

>>13499052

Source?

Far as I know, the Bhagawat Gita (a major Vedanta text) preaches the varna system, not the rigid caste system.

[Anonymous No.13499416]

>>13498885
>not a rebuttal
It is a rebuttal because you are failing to see the fault in your own argument. Is the past still here? Where is it, then? We agree, I would think, that memory is not the past. We agree that the past doesn't happen simultaneously with the present, I would hope. All there is is this moment. If the past did not fade away, where is it then?
>*hits blunt*
kill yourself, brainlet. You only resort to this criticism because thinking too hard hurts your head.
>here depends on memory being false which is a unproven claim
Do you mean to say memory perfectly 'revives' the past? That is the unproven claim. Memory is completely biased and often wrong because it is a construction of what the past was thought to be, in the present. What would a 'proof' be for you?
>The witnessing awareness of every individual stands self-proved
Just saying anything is 'self-proven' is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed of yourself. If you go to sleep, does Atman dissipate? Then it is not eternal. Does it remain? Then it is not witnessed, and cannot be 'self-proven'. You suck off Shankara when he himself couldn't explain his Atman without inserting revelation, which he hypocritically criticizes others for doing. If Atman is self-proven, then what is death to you but the ultimate rebuttal to your claims of eternal self? There is no self to cling to but your own imaginations.
>You have failed to answer how there can be any continuity without violating momentariness
There is continuity because there only Is. There is dependence between perceived phenomenon because what Is is mutually in flux. What is the alternative you are proposing?

[Anonymous No.13499421]

>>13499052
There is no need to cope, caste systems are a good thing

[Anonymous No.13499619]

wow, I have never seen a more fierce religious debate outside of the Abrahamic religions like the one ITT.
/lit/ is truly the most religious and atheistic board.

[Anonymous No.13499636]

>>13499052

The appalling Buddhist replies in this thread alone justify castes.

[Anonymous No.13499766]

Curious about Guenon's interpretation of Vedanta, here seems like a good place to ask. To me Guenon is an inspiring thinker, but it seems like his exegesis of traditional doctrines is quite heterodox. He uses them as a foundation for justifying and expounding his conceptions of initiation, metaphysics, esoterism. More importantly, he assumes that the world's great traditions share a common interior aspect. He necessarily has to take as to take as exoteric and contingent all of the countless points on which their dogmas are impossible to reconcile, and so ends up with a kinda bizarre reading of alot of traditions, truly esoterist i suppose.

More specifically on hinduism, guenon says in introduction to the hindu doctrines that no Hindu tradition affirms in reincarnation, and that it is an artificial superimposition from the west.Now obviously his suggestion that ancient Greeks had no belief in reincarnation is nonsense, (though the spotty nature of the surviving ancient Greek corpus makes it difficult to say how far that belief extended) but I'm wondering, is this something that Hindus actually believe in? Are there any authentically Hindu Vedanta teachers who have clearly denounced this idea, or is Guenon just trying to attenuate hinduism to his universalist Sufism?

[Anonymous No.13500096]

>>13498349
>I remember my keys are in my pocket
>tfw they're actually there
dinduism btfo 4 ever

[Anonymous No.13500518]

>>13499766
>More importantly, he assumes that the world's great traditions share a common interior aspect
I can't speak for every tradition but this is very much so the case with non-dual types of Vedanta and Sufism. When you read the works of Sufis like Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi they for example often cite a Qudsi Hadith (equivalent to the direct word of Allah) where Allah says that when his slaves (devotees) draw close to Allah that He is the "the sight through which they see, the hearing through which they hear", and they take this Hadith as proof that Allah is actually the inner Self and inner awareness in almost the exact same way to how Shankara and Ramanuja cite Upanishad passages saying that Brahman is the "seer of sight" and use that to say he is the inner Self of everyone. That's just one of many instances of direct equivalencies between the two traditions.

With regard to the reincarnation question that's a point many people get confused about. What Guenon meant was that Vedanta teaches transmigration but not reincarnation, which he considered to be a western misunderstanding.

Reincarnation = Rene after death is reconstituted in another body with the same personality, mental attributes, etc in the next life
Transmigration = the subtle body continues onto the next life, although everything that formed "Rene" as a unique identity is forever lost, the subtle body being no more Rene than it was the innumerable people that it passed through previously

In 'Studies in Hinduism' Guenon clarifies exactly what his view on the reincarnation/transmigration issue is, which is basically how I described it. The Sophia Perennia edition of Studies in Hinduism also has some 150-200 pages of reviews by Guenon of different books and articles, I can't remember but it might be in these reviews where he clarifies this and not the main text of the book. Coomaraswamy also discusses this in the chapter 'the one and only transmigrant' in his book 'Perception of the Vedas' and writes about how Plato accepted transmigration but not reincarnation according to the distinction explained above.

[Anonymous No.13500539]

>>13499619
tbf it isn't mostly shitposts, insults and vitriol, but honest attempts at debate

[Anonymous No.13500543]

>>13495932
I have no idea how you got that from my post. Maybe get someone else to explain it to you.

[Anonymous No.13500699]

>>13499023
Thank you kind anon. Blessings to you.

[Anonymous No.13500878]

Look at these Godless fools. It's time for another Crusade.

[Anonymous No.13500934]

>>13500878
Friendly reminder that the crusades were caused by an influx in Germanics that influenced the Church through the Germanic warrior culture and not by any muh based Christianity. Once the Germanics had been properly (((Christianized))) the crusades stopped and Christianity went back to its natural sissified state as we know of it today. The Orthodox Church never had any crusades as it never had any Germanic influence.

[Anonymous No.13501538]

>>13499636
kek

[Anonymous No.13501853]

>>13497757
>What is the difference between Dzogchen and Advaita
bymop

[Anonymous No.13502024]

>>13498885
>The witnessing awareness of every individual stands self-proved, it is you and certain Buddhists who don't realize that Buddha never denied there was an Atma who face the hurdle of trying to deny that there is any inherent existence or reality to this concious witness, it does not need to prove itself. That you admit to being aware of and having this conversion is an implicit admittance of the conditional existence of the self, you haven't shown or proven that this conditional existence is illusory and that the self in question doesn't actually exist.

the only thing that matters about consciousness is that it is conditioned

[Anonymous No.13502105]

>>13502024

[Anonymous No.13502159]

>>13502024
repeating it like a mantra wont make it true

[Anonymous No.13502166]

>>13502024
reminder that consciousness is dependent on an object to be conscious of
it is never experienced independently

[Anonymous No.13502200]

>>13502166
You obviously are not an experienced mediator if you think that

[Anonymous No.13502203]

>>13502200
*meditator

[Anonymous No.13502228]

>>13502200
>>13502203
>you just gotta meditate more bro

[Anonymous No.13502240]

>>13499416
>It is a rebuttal because you are failing to see the fault
Still not a rebuttal,
>Is the past still here? Where is it, then?
Past events are considered to be such because happened previously, that's how time works you moron. That doesn't make them any less real, you might as well deny that other people exist because you can't see them at the present moment.
>If the past did not fade away, where is it then?
whether you want to consider time as a sequence of moments or as a flow of 'now' in both cases as time progresses what was "now" steadily becomes part of the past. I don't know why you think acting like an 8 year old asking his teacher about how basic stuff like rain works is a good debate tactic. Is this the sort of garbage that Dharmakirti writes about? If so, then mega-yikes.
>Do you mean to say memory perfectly 'revives' the past? That is the unproven claim. Memory is completely biased and often wrong
this is moving the goal-posts, I never said that memory was perfect; but that doesn't mean that memory isn't proof of the existence of past events, which you don't demonstrate or offer any evidence for other than you mentioning that memory is sometimes biased/wrong (which doesn't prove this in the slightest)
>saying anything is 'self-proven' is ridiculous
No it's not, everyone experiences a conscious awareness which stands self-proven, you can't deny that you are consciously aware of the moment without making a fool of yourself. It remains up the Buddhist to demonstrate that this awareness is somehow unreal or lacks real existence, which the Buddhist has ever done so via logic or any other means and which cannot be done.

[Anonymous No.13502243]

Alright you can shut down this thread now. Buddhists have been completely destroyed. It is done.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GDbqsPT_Y

[Anonymous No.13502247]

>>13499416
>>13502240
>If you go to sleep, does Atman dissipate?
No, as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad explains during deep sleep the functions of the organs and the mind etc are withdrawn into the Atma, there is nothing else that is seen because there is nothing else to be seen, the Atma becomes transparent like water and one without second, there being no objects that can form a subject-object duality because the organs through which all sensations are perceived are withdrawn into the Atma, that there is no memory of abiding in this state is because memory is a function of the mind/intellect that is also withdrawn and hence inactive and incapable of forming memories then. "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not see, yet it is seeing though it does not see; for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer, because the seer is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the seer that it could see" (BU 4.3.23.)
>Does it remain? Then it is not witnessed, and cannot be 'self-proven'.
'proven' involves the use of the intellect which is inactive during deep sleep, duh!
> couldn't explain his Atman without inserting revelation, which he hypocritically criticizes others for doing.
On which page of which work does he criticize others for using revelation? I've seen a lot of misinformation about him online about and unless you can provide a source I don't take that claim seriously which is incongruent with other aspects of his thought.
>If Atman is self-proven, then what is death to you but the ultimate rebuttal to your claims of eternal self?
That's not a rebuttal because the Atma is unaffected by death and continues on to observe another life in another body, the Buddhists themselves admit rebirth and you are argueing from a Buddhist perspective so I don't get why you think that was a good argument when Buddhists themselves admit that physical death isn't the end

Also, you still haven't answer the key problem of how can there be any "dependence" and causation if everything is momentary. The model you are proposing flatly contradicts basic empirical evidence and is also completely contradictory to other important doctrines taught by Buddha. There can be no dependence or causal relation between A and B if they don't exist at the same time, if A lasts long enough to affect B or for B to be dependent upon A then A is necessarily non-momentary. . Refusing to answer this is tantamout to admitting that you dont have an answer and that I'm right about momentariness being nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13502281]

>>13500934
>Catholic Crusades are pussies
>Orthodox don't need Crusades
>Expect that one time Catholics wrecked our shit

[Anonymous No.13502283]

>>13502247
Hinduism is retarded bullshit.
There's your answer.

[Anonymous No.13502289]

>>13502243
Don't know why some people can't imagine that the only alternative to soul-denial is affirmation of the soul, when the Buddha avoided both - hence the Tetralemma about the state of the Tathagata after death.
That being said, I've warmed up to Ken Wheeler somehow. He seems like an alright guy deep down

[Anonymous No.13502293]

>>13502283
never thought I'd see the day that guenonfag has better optics than a Buddhist on this board
unless you're not actually Buddhist of course

[Anonymous No.13502331]

>>13502247
>No, as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad explains during deep sleep the functions of the organs and the mind etc are withdrawn into the Atma
muh scriptures is not an argument. Why are you assuming an Atman when there is no subject-object duality in deep sleep?(without scriptures please)
>for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer
Why? oh that's right it is proven because the next line assumes an imperishable seer.

Also who have even argued this "impermanence" that the effect is without a cause? A lasting long enough to affect B and their impermanence are both true. Dependent origination and the impermanence of everything physical/mental is not contradictory.

[Anonymous No.13502428]

>>13499636
exactly, buddshits at the top, morons at the bottom

[Anonymous No.13502489]

Is Advaita even a thing outside Trad generals? I’ve spoken to tons of indians and they don’t even know what advaita is, only 1 person barely knew Shankara.

[Anonymous No.13502540]

>>13502289
>when the Buddha avoided both

Technically, yes. Functionally, no. Much like Catholicism only acknowledges Jesus as a formality, and begrudgingly so, just to avoid having no literal claim to Christianity at all, Buddhism stops short of rebuking Identity just to avoid having no claim to Philosophy at all, begrudgingly and awkwardly so.

[Anonymous No.13502548]

>>13502489
Most prefer Ramanuja, but yes, Advaita is still rather important.

[Anonymous No.13502568]

>>13502489
why would you drop heavy sanskrit terms like that on a population which is on its way to emulate burger society

[Anonymous No.13502575]

>>13502293
Buddhism is of retarded bullshit, but less than Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.13502632]

>>13502489
Most Christians probably wouldn't know who Augustine or Chrysostom were either. But from my understanding Advaita is the most popular Vedanta philosophy in India. Most people aren't Vedantist, they're basically only concerned with worship(bhakti). Although they would most likely be closer to Ramanuja or Madhvacharya, albeit unknowingly.

[Anonymous No.13502690]

>>13502243
can someone rephrase what he said about tibetan wheel thingy and what it's supposed to mean?
feel like i can't watch this guy

[Anonymous No.13503402]

>>13502331
>muh scriptures is not an argument. Why are you assuming an Atman when there is no subject-object duality in deep sleep?(without scriptures please)
A Buddhist axiom is that Buddha was infallible which is basically the same as accepting teachings from scripture. Vedanta isn't coy about it and has no problem openly declaring that it's teachings come from scripture, that the Brihadaranyaka openly explains all this is sufficient. There are additional arguments that can be made though, such as that the continuance of the Atma in sleep can be inferred from that whenever one awakes, the same conscious presence and awareness which was there before one went to sleep is there immediately when one arises. Regardless of whether one awakes and feels hungry, disoriented, cold, etc prior to all those sensations is the same awareness. That the Atma continues in sleep can also be inferred from that if people strike someone hard who is in deep sleep, that will intrude upon their sleep and they will suddenly feel that strike and awake, if there was no Atma there would no presence that could feel that strike; but even when one is in deep sleep if hit hard enough one will immediately feel it and be roused out of deep sleep.
>Also who have even argued this "impermanence" that the effect is without a cause? A lasting long enough to affect B and their impermanence are both true.
I'm sorry what? You haven't explain how there is no contradiction, according to the standard Buddhist model of momentariness everything lasts only the tiniest of moments before passing away, if that's true then there could be no causation and no dependent origination, in order to affect anything else something has to act upon it, which necessitates duration and in the case of physical objects movement. Something that flashes like a firefly for a nanosecond before vanishing into oblivion cannot affect anything because there is no time for it to affect, act upon or enter into a causal relation with other phenomena. If it lasts long enough to cause a change momentariness is violated. You are just stating that they are not contradictory without explaining how there is no contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13503457]

>>13502247
>>13503402
The Buddhist guy who is really into momentariness is the same guy as the schizo zoroastrian poster who claimed to be a Saoshyant and Maitreya Buddha and who spammed his retarded neozurvan manifesto about kids paintings for months, it's not worth it to argue with him bro he is really messed up in the head.

[Anonymous No.13503554]

>>13497377
Thank you!

[Anonymous No.13503658]

>>13498469
>(though I'll certainly follow the wisdom in Christianity and other traditions too),
No you won't Because you'd be worshipping idols.

[Anonymous No.13503746]

>>13503658
rent-free

[Anonymous No.13504178]

>>13486248
Advaita is Hyperborean