Counters to Buddhist philosophy

[Anonymous No.13814462]

Could anyone please share any literature that counters Buddhist thought from a Hindu perspective? Any works by Shankaracharya would be appreciated too. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.13814500]

>>13814462
There is no counter to Buddhist philosophy you fucking midwit. This is as retarded as asking "Could anyone please share any literature that counters European thought from an American perspective?"

Madhyamaka, Yogachara, Huayan… there are many Buddhist schools and all with different approaches to philosophy, some contradictory, some not. And there are also Hindu schools, such as Advaita Vedanta, who are very similar to Buddhist schools. The biggest differences are usually of pedagogical, and not philosophical, nature.

[Anonymous No.13814510]

>>13814500

Buddhist thought rejects the Vedas completely, while Hindu thought holds it in the highest regards. Buddhism can be summarised in a few key principles, and you can critique those principles, you stupid imebicile.

Buddhism is similar to Advaita, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.13814628]

>>13814510
Hinduism practically follows Buddhism, not precedes it, and what Gautama Buddha, not the various Buddhist schools that followed, rejected were some of the philosophical schools at the time (which are no longer in existence), not the Vedas.

[Anonymous No.13814637]

>>13814462
OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.13814805]

buddha vs shankara
who would win in a fistfight

[Anonymous No.13814838]

[Anonymous No.13814942]

>>13814628
are you mentally challenged kek

[Anonymous No.13815004]

>>13814805
did shankara even have siddhis? buddha is said to have them

[Anonymous No.13815071]

>>13814805
Buddha would win as a chad.

Sankara is an incel.

[Anonymous No.13815306]

>>13814628
Hinduism is an ancient pagan religion that far precedes buddhism and has very different philosophical roots and ideas

[Anonymous No.13815348]

Buddha would worship Christ if they met.
Shankara is probably in hell for idolizing himself as God.

[Anonymous No.13815408]

>>13815071
They were both incels.

>>13815306
Buddhism follows from Hinduism.

>>13815348
He has never idolised himself as god, he only realised the divine self. Buddha would hate Christ because Christ was a flesh eater. Buddha despised slaughter.

[Anonymous No.13815421]

>>13815004
Shankara didn't require siddhi to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.13815438]

>>13815408
Buddha ate meat, dude.

t. Buddhist

[Anonymous No.13815513]

>>13815408
>prince of shakya kingdom
>spends all youth surrounded by chicks and hoes
>destined to be the greatest imperial in all of history or the greatest sage
>incel

[Anonymous No.13815546]

>>13815438
You are wildly misinformed.

[Anonymous No.13815565]

>>13815546
Nah, it's in the Pali scriptures. He ate meat. He wasn't a vegetarian.

[Anonymous No.13815574]

>>13814838
wat mean

[Anonymous No.13815579]

>>13815565
Mahayana school of Buddhism is the only one to be taken seriously and they say Buddha strictly forbids it. They don't consume meat either.

[Anonymous No.13815591]

>>13815513
he literally was an incel.

Shankara is still the greatest metaphysics philosopher in all of human history so theres that.

[Anonymous No.13815602]

>>13815579
>Mahayana school of Buddhism is the only one to be taken seriously
LMAO okay sure whatever dude

Buddha's cousin Devadatta asked the Buddha if Buddhists should be vegetarian. Buddha said no. Buddha ate meat. He, in fact, died when he got the shits after eating some meat.

And before you start with the rules about only eating meat that comes from an animal that hasn't been killed for you, recall that those rules are for monastics only, and even then they'll eat meat if it's offered to them.

[Anonymous No.13815624]

>>13815602
That is only according to Theravada teachings, which is BS distortions. Buddhism is the cult of ahimsa, animal slaughter is strictly forbidden in his teachings.

[Anonymous No.13815630]

>>13815591
shankara was a fucking university nerd

[Anonymous No.13815634]

>>13815348
lel Wrong View is the worst "sin" in Buddhism so all Christians(if they believe in the Christian dogmas) will have a bad rebirth.

[Anonymous No.13815643]

>>13815630
he was a sanyassi you fucking idiot, no he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.13815649]

>>13815634
Yes they will.

[Anonymous No.13815651]

>>13815624
That's just your opinion and you're welcome to it. But I don't agree. The earliest scriptures discuss the Buddha eating not just goat, but also chicken flesh. When a Brahmin chastises him, he responds with a lengthy discourse that can be summed up as:

>"It is evil actions which constitute Amagandha, and not the eating of fish or flesh."

Eating meat is fine. Buddha ate meat. Buddhists don't have to be vegetarian, but you're free to be vegetarian if you wish.

[Anonymous No.13815670]

>>13815651
Let's say you are right, this is why Buddhism is absolutely horse shit.

Eating meat is an evil action because meat requires an animal to be slaughtered, slaughtering something is a sin. How can you seperate the product from the process? Absolute horse shit.

[Anonymous No.13815692]

>>13814462

>ctrl + f "Mimamsa school"
>tfw nobody mentioned the school that annihilated Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13815693]

>>13815670
if eating meat is strictly evil then how will you survive in a desert

[Anonymous No.13815698]

>>13815692
Please give me some information regarding it.

[Anonymous No.13815722]

>>13815693
I wouldn't know, but North Indians live in dry and arid areas and are vegetarian. I've never lived in a desert so I haven't thought about it.

[Anonymous No.13815773]

>>13815670
All creatures consume others to survive. This is the nature of samsara, to consume others to prolong our own existence. This is why we seek to end the churning cycle of birth and rebirth and to enter the Deathless/Nirvana where such actions are not necessary.

As the Buddha said, if we had to be absolutely 'sinless' to achieve Nirvana, absolutely no one would ever get there. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has planted unwholesome seeds of karma in their past. If we needed perfect karma to be enlightened, enlightenment would never occur to anyone. So hyper fixating on being 'sinless' isn't helpful towards our goal of exiting samsara. Instead, it's more helpful to focus on skillfulness. For some people that involves not eating any meat, and that's fine. For other people it doesn't matter so much.

Not eating meat isn't going to guarantee enlightenment, and eating meat isn't going to prevent it, either. There were murderers and thieves who achieved enlightenment under the Buddha's guidance, which emphasises the fact that anyone can become enlightened with the proper skill and management of circumstances.

This isn't to say we should go around killing willy-nilly, but it does discourage us from fixating on external circumstances. So I'm somewhat sympathetic to vegetarians, but I recognize that ultimately diet isn't the deciding factor.

Again, you're free to disagree. If you wish to be vegetarian and it helps you, go nuts. But someone who eats a burger can achieve the heights of Nirvana, too.

[Anonymous No.13815925]

>>13815773
>someone who eats a burger can achieve the heights of Nirvana, too
>t.fatass

[Anonymous No.13816007]

>>13815773
If you are on the path of moksha, sin should be minimised and that means you aren't supposed to consume flesh. It is unnecessary sinning.

>>13815925
kek

[Anonymous No.13816161]

>>13814942
No I am one of the few people here who actually read and don't just follow what they see written on 4chan or Wikipedia

>>13815306
No it is not. What we call Hinduism nowadays is typically classical Hinduism which started a few hundred years after the rise of Buddhism. At the time of the Buddha the Vedas were written down, but these are not the 'scripture of the Hindu religion', but as the name implies, it was the liturgy of the several Vedic religions at the time. Buddhism (and Jainism) themselves derive from from the sramana movement, which traces its origin to pre-Vedic systems.

Many Hindu schools today grew out of an already present and developed culture that was deeply familiar with sramana ideas, especially that of reincarnation. At the time of the Buddha reincarnation or rebirth was actually a controversial stance to take, and he was met with philosophical responses from all directions.

I don't have a problem with Hinduism, but people need to stop acting like Gautama Buddha reformed 'Hinduism' similarly to how Jesus reformed Judaism. That's just not the case.

[Anonymous No.13816166]

>>13815698
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumārila_Bhaṭṭa

>Kumārila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored (apauruṣeyā). In particular, his defence against medieval Buddhist positions on Vedic rituals is noteworthy. Some believe that this contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India,[5] because his lifetime coincides with the period in which Buddhism began to decline.[1] Indeed, his dialectical success against Buddhists is confirmed by Buddhist historian Taranatha, who reports that Kumārila defeated disciples of Buddhapalkita, Bhavya, Dharmadasa, Dignaga and others.[6]
Coupled with Shankara's logical refutations of various Buddhist doctrines they never stood a chance

[Anonymous No.13816199]

>>13816161
The earliest known text that mentions "sramanic" ideas like transmigration and asceticism is the 9th-8th CE BC Hindu Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Chandogya Upanishad from around the same time or shortly after. The idea that "sramanistic" and Buddhist-like ideas originated from the "sramanic movement" and aren't a part of early Vedic thought was just an arbitrary assumption by the early orientalists which hasn't been supported by much evidence. For all we know, most sramanic doctrines, Buddhism, Jainism etc all got their ideas about karma and transmigration, suffering etc from the early Upanishads and the Vedas because those are the earliest texts we known of that talked about that stuff.

[Anonymous No.13816201]

>>13816199
9th-8th century BC

[Anonymous No.13816822]

how does shankara justify hindu autism with respect to cows

[Anonymous No.13817154]

Please post more pics of sex badass Buddha

[Anonymous No.13817902]

>>13814462
Shiva looks so handsome in that pic..

[Anonymous No.13818030]

>>13816166
based

[Anonymous No.13818091]

>>13814462
I want to personally have Shiva's hair desu.
Hopefully in 4 more years or so.

[Anonymous No.13818264]

>>13815579
Mahayana turned buddhism from a philosophy into a religion, and that's a bad thing

[Anonymous No.13818455]

>>13816199
They didn't get those ideas from those early texts. The ideas where already part of their preliterate culture/religion. Those early texts are just the earliest snapshots of them in one form.

[Anonymous No.13818498]

>>13815408
>They were both incels.
Buddha had a son. Shankara likely didn't.

[Anonymous No.13818617]

>>13815546
Buddha literally died from eating spoiled pork. My god, you're so retarded. You're more pathetic than Nargarjuna shill.

[Anonymous No.13818654]

>>13814462
There a bit of Buddha hate in this

[Anonymous No.13818685]

>>13815670
See >>13815602
it is okay to consume meat when it is offered, but it's not okay slaughter for meat nor have any part of it or desire it.

[Anonymous No.13818702]

>>13814500
>"Could anyone please share any literature that counters European thought from an American perspective?"
William James btfoing Kant

[Anonymous No.13818735]

>>13816199
earliest known isn't really much of an indication since those texts were passed down/transcribed much later than estimated dates of composition. Most scholars agree though that shramanism was a distinct development arising out of India during the Vedic era. The most likely scenario was that the shramana movement was a Harrappanian synthesis that diffused into the vedic substrate (which was much more influential in the subcontinent at the time) and traces were therefore apparent in the main Hindu text (for example the rig veda barely mentions them in a few verses making them distinct from the sacrificial priest hierarchy, while in the Upanishads they occupy a more important role).

[Anonymous No.13818789]

>>13818455
>>13818735
None of this contradicts the fact that Hinduism precedes Buddhism and has the earliest mention of sramanism. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.13818802]

>>13814510
>Buddhism is similar to Advaita, not the other way around.
Buddhism was there centuries before Advaita (which didn't exist before the brahma sutras and certainly not as a full fledged system before Shankara/Gaudapada).

>Frank Whaling states that the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, it includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.[8]

[Anonymous No.13818826]

So if you just wanted an introduction to Hinduism do you read the Vedas or the Upanishads?

[Anonymous No.13818839]

>>13818826
The Upanishads then the Mahabharata, Duh.

[Anonymous No.13818849]

>>13818826
Neither. The Ramayana and Mahabharata before anything for hinduism in general.

[Anonymous No.13818977]

>>13818789
>None of this contradicts the fact that Hinduism precedes Buddhism and has the earliest mention of sramanism
Vedic Hinduism did indeed precede Buddhism, no one is contending this. But just because it was 'mentioned' in a section of the Vedas/Upanishads, doesn't necessarily indicate that it was a Vedic-based movement. Some scholars think it was an outgrowth of Brahmanism while others believe it was a per-aryan movement separate from it.

>According to some scholars, such as D. R. Bhandarkar, the Ahimsa dharma of the Sramanas made an impression on the followers of Brahamanism and their law books and practices.[134]
It is still likely that the shramana movement was unique to the subcontinent.

[Anonymous No.13819056]

Does Shiva tolerate gay tops

[Anonymous No.13819091]

>>13819056
No one tolerates gays

[Anonymous No.13819196]

>>13819056
>>13819091
Gays are only tolerated in evil cults.
Hinduism probably has some of those.

[Anonymous No.13819199]

>>13819056
Read 'Shiva and the Primordial Tradition' by (gay) Alain Danielou

[Anonymous No.13819202]

>>13814462
Which Buddhist school is "right"?

[Anonymous No.13819204]

>>13819196
Faggots are real dude. I've seen 'em.

[Anonymous No.13819240]

>>13819196
I'm pretty sure homosexuality is adharma.

[Anonymous No.13819284]

>>13819091
your dad does

[Anonymous No.13819287]

>>13814462
OP, this picture is a summary from a book of some of Adi Shankaracharya's critiques of Buddhism, he mostly pointed out where certain schools have logically inconsistent teachings that are either illogical or contradict other Buddhist teachings.

[Anonymous No.13819411]

>>13815630
>Shankara was a fucking university nerd
Far from it, Shankara was a brilliant and fearless child-prodigy. From a young age he displayed an interest in spiritual matters, one day when 8 year old Shankara was at the river he was seized by a crocodile in front of his mother. Using it as an opportunity, he cried out to his mother for permission to be free to renounce life and join the ascetic Hindu sannyasa, when she gave her permission the crocodile released Shankara and he left home and become a sannyasa at age 8, which he remained until he died. He is reported in the various biographers to have written his magnum opus Brahma Sutra Bhasya by age 12. He lived a short life and died at age 32 but in that time left behind a voluminous literature and traveled all across India debating and establishing monasteries. Buddha decided to finally leave the palace he had always comfortably been living in luxury in at age 29. Shankara at that same age had already been living as a traveling monastic for more than three quarters of his whole life and had only 3 years left to live.

[Anonymous No.13819441]

>>13819287
>>13819411
why is shankara so big brained?

[Anonymous No.13819486]

>>13819411
>Shankara was a brilliant and fearless child-prodigy.

>*resets IP*

>>13819441
'BASED BTFO COPE LMAO'

[Anonymous No.13819492]

>>13819441
I have no idea myself, some Hindus venerate him as an incarnation of Śiva though

[Anonymous No.13819499]

>>13819486

[Anonymous No.13819505]

>>13819411
If Shankara was so good, why was he discredited by his own successors so easily? Why did Buddhism (even after the decline) become far more popular in the east than Advaita?

Literally no one except 5% of university pajeets ever heard of the name 'adi shankara', while 90% of humanity knows of the name 'Buddha'.

[Anonymous No.13819514]

>>13819499
>s-see, I'm not doing anything bro!
>gets caught
>i-it's the fucking phones man they keep reconnecting during my 'errand'

[Anonymous No.13819515]

>>13819505
>why do certain teachings appeal to the masses while others don't?
If anything this disproves buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13819524]

>>13819515
it doesn't lol, it just means shankara is an irrelevant nobody

[Anonymous No.13819590]

>>13819505
>If Shankara was so good, why was he discredited by his own successors so easily?
He wasn't really 'discredited', Advaita and Vishishadvaita have generally remained the two most popular types since the advent of Vedanta as a formal school. Vishishadvaita in the modern era has slightly more popular support, but there are still Advaita temples and centers of learning all over India; also Advaita tends to still predominate among many of the sannyasin/ascetics. The other Vedanta schools have never been as popular. A few later thinkers had various criticisms of his ideas, but the Advatins from Shankara's time onwards have written replies to all of their attacks and attempted refutations.
It's not really a problem from the perspective of Advaita that it's not extremely popular among humongous masses of people, in fact Shankara himself writes in his about how only certain people will be intelligent enough to fully understand Vedantic/Upanishadic teachings and that it's not meant for everyone. Advaita doesn't really care about proselytizing at all because they prioritize quality over quantity. Vishishadvaita is much more compatible with a householders life anyway so it's hardly surprising that it's more popular.
>Why did Buddhism (even after the decline) become far more popular in the east than Advaita?
Because Advaita as a school never really proselytized to foreigners like Buddhism did. Nevertheless before eventually converting to Islam and Buddhism the vast majority of south-east Asia and western Indonesia were Hindu first. Also, its popular because a lot of Buddhism schools and meditation etc can be baby-tier simple whereas to even begin to have any sort of meaningful interaction with Advaita you have to read through some pretty dense writings on metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.13819602]

>>13819524
>if more people believe in it it's better or more likely to be true
That argument by extension is really an argument for Christianity and Islam over Buddhism, and for the views of the middling-IQ masses over the highly intelligent

[Anonymous No.13819606]

>>13819514
>schizoposters

[Anonymous No.13819607]

>>13819590
>b-b-but you see it was never meant to popular only le IQ ppl will understand!
lmao this much cope just because his discredited fringe ideology is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.13819621]

>>13819524
for an irrelevant nobody the Buddhists on /lit/ sure seem to let him live rent-free in their minds

[Anonymous No.13819636]

>>13819607

'The sadhana catustaya or fourfold discipline of Vedānta is clearly not one that any merely rational person can follow. It requires a radical change in the natural direction of consciousness, leading one to a dispassionate involvement with the things of the world. Advaita Vedānta is explicitly aristocratic in its contention that, practically speaking, truth or genuine knowledge is available only to the few who, by natural temperament and disposition, are willing and able to undertake all the arduous demands that its quest entails.' - Eliot Deutsch

[Anonymous No.13819637]

>>13819602
>le 'highly' intelligent face.jpeg
Advaita literally had hundreds of years to establish itself, on top of plagiarizing established philosophy (madhyamaka), yet it STILL isn't taken seriously anywhere but a few ashram's in new delhi and bombay. What's the point of subscribing to an ideology that only appeals to hairy gurus and stinky siddhis? Lmao loser.

>He lived a short life and died at age 32 but in that time left behind a voluminous literature and traveled all across India debating and establishing monasteries
Meanwhile Buddha towers over the sky's of Asia.....

[Anonymous No.13819642]

>>13819621
>haha RENT FREE xD

[Anonymous No.13820404]

>>13819637
you are trying to hard to bait people and only succeed in making a fool out of yourself

[Anonymous No.13820433]

>>13814462
All that matters is that they were aryans and not dravidian poo

[Anonymous No.13820461]

>>13819411
child prodigies are fucking gay

[Anonymous No.13820466]

>>13820433
i think nagarjuna was dravidian bro

[Anonymous No.13820469]

>>13815773
can buddhists skillfully justify suicide
how did they justify honor suicides in old japan

[Anonymous No.13820550]

>>13818802
>Buddhism was there centuries before Advaita (which didn't exist before the brahma sutras

Lol, Advaita predates Buddhism and is clearly talked about in the early Upanishads. While Advaitas formalizing into a school with Shankara happened after Buddhism there is still a very clear stream of Advaitic thought in the Upanishads, which had a very obvious influence on Buddhism. The word 'Advaita' (without-duality) itself appears in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishads:

"An ocean, a single seer without duality becomes he whose world is Brahman, O King, Yajnavalkya instructed. This is his supreme way. This is his supreme achievement."

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.32

[Anonymous No.13820555]

>>13820461
What's more gay is psychically showing your penis to people like Buddha did according to the PC

[Anonymous No.13820609]

>>13820404

[Anonymous No.13820656]

>>13820550
>While Advaitas formalizing into a school with Shankara happened after Buddhism
That's what I meant, Advaita as a standalone system didn't exist at the time so in that regarded the Advaita of Shankara is similar to the already established Buddhism of Buddha.

[Anonymous No.13820666]

>advaitafag wakes up again and resumes shitposting
lmao does this loser have a life outside 4chan...

[Anonymous No.13820694]

>>13820656
>the Advaita of Shankara is similar to the already established Buddhism of Buddha.
The main reason why that's the case though is because Buddhism was influenced by the Upanishads, and so since Shankara based his system on the Upanishads they are both taking from the same sources. For all the things that people say is "buddhism-like" about Advaita is actually is found in the Upanishads first. Pic related for example shows that one can find most of the main tenets and key teachings of Buddhism already expressed in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads such as the 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics etc. The Brihadaranyaka was enjoining monastic renunciation hundreds of years before Buddha.

[Anonymous No.13820704]

>>13820666
it's guenonfag, he posts 24/7 because he has no job, typical immigrant

[Anonymous No.13820730]

>>13820694
That still doesn't validate your earlier statement. Buddhism basically did it first, Advaitins cannot retroactively claim to be the progenitors of such a system and say others are similar to them when they weren't even a thing until hundreds of years after the fact.

[Anonymous No.13820751]

The Advaita coper is seething in every thread about Buddhism. Imagine spending your free time following threads on /lit/ to set everybody straight about what supposedly everybody else got wrong. I don't even understand why. Did a Buddhist fuck your wife or something?

[Anonymous No.13820753]

>>13820730
>That still doesn't validate your earlier statement. Buddhism basically did it first,
Did what first, reveal Upanishadic teachings? In that case the Upanishads and the groups who came up with and who spread them would be the first and not Buddha
>Advaitins cannot retroactively claim to be the progenitors of such a system and say others are similar to them when they weren't even a thing until hundreds of years after the fact.
They don't claim that they are the 'progenitors' of a system, they say that Advaita is the system of the Upanishads and were the system of the Upanishads at the time of their creation, before Buddhism existed; and that there has been a tradition of learning and instruction in the Upanishads esoteric component from the time of their creation which has been preserved down to the present in the form of Advaita. Shankara and other early Vedanists quote the works of many earlier Vedanta thinkers who also wrote commentaries and Vedantic texts but whose works were lost to time; some of these earlier thinkers are described as Advaitic.

[Anonymous No.13820767]

>>13819240
It can still be swa-dharma though.

[Anonymous No.13820831]

>>13819056
shiva doesn't tolerate jack

[Anonymous No.13820845]

>>13820753
>Did what first, reveal Upanishadic teachings? In that case the Upanishads and the groups who came up with and who spread them would be the first and not Buddha
you're going off on a tangent. The original statement was that Advaita was similar to Buddhism, which is true since Advaita only became a thing hundreds of years after the Buddhism established itself (regardless of whatever lineage advaita claims to have).

[Anonymous No.13820852]

>>13820845
ad populum

[Anonymous No.13820937]

>>13820845
>you're going off on a tangent. The original statement was that Advaita was similar to Buddhism
I agree that Advaita and Buddhism are similar to each other, I was just disputing that this can be attributed to Buddhist influence on Advaita as some people maintain, and was instead talking about how the evidence indicates that Buddhism was the one influenced by Advaitic or 'proto-Advaitic' teachings in the early Upanishads, and that this is mostly why the two are similar

[Anonymous No.13821117]

bump

[Anonymous No.13821331]

I wondered to myself, why have some Buddhist posters been acting even more unhinged and bitter than usual lately, and then I remembered...

[Anonymous No.13821359]

>>13821331
I don't think I have ever seen a buddhist poster on /lit/, but Hindu posters are a bunch of schizophrenic nutjobs, every single time without fail.

[Anonymous No.13821418]

>>13821359
The simple reason for that is that Hindu posters are either:
1) Hindu nationalists, whose official philosophy is usually neo-Vedantism
2) Guenonian perennialists living in the West

Group #1 comes with all the problems you normally get with Indians, like that subtle uncanny valley sensation you get from how they can almost speak proper English but it's subtly "off," or how they seem to be dealing with complex ideas but there's a subtle hint that they're mildly retarded. It's just plain weird to a fully conscious and self-aware westerner to see someone seemingly speaking coherent English, but being completely unable to deal with criticism, or resorting to literally childlike argument tactics, and somehow actually thinking they would be effective. It's like realizing you're speaking to a child who was just tricking you into thinking he's an adult, but you can't quite dispel the illusion of adulthood.

Group #2 is similar in that a lot of expats are inbred Pakis/Arabs, often second-generation westernized immigrants who want to go back to their roots (but not actually go home to their own country). You still get that subtle sense that they're mildly retarded, but there's an extra layer of viciousness added to it. The native Indians usually reveal themselves through the childlike behavior just mentioned, but the westernized ones, for whatever reason, just get eerily vicious instead. It's like a car salesman who doesn't know he's a car salesman, and who hates you to the point of insanity for disagreeing with him about anything.

Many South Asians are also very cult prone, they love to worship gurus and basically have the mentality of a medieval peasant. Perennialists are the worst for this. For some reason, white perennialists can be perfectly chill, but ethnic Hindu and Arab perennialists are usually fucking nuts.

So basically, all the real deal everyday Hindus and practicing yogis from India aren't on 4chan. The occasional Hindu nationalist is, and a few insane, belligerent paki expats are.

The Buddhists I've seen on /lit/ have been overwhelmingly chill. Maybe a few butthurt ones, but never the outright insanity or outright "is this dude retarded..?" vibe you get from the political neo-vedantists.

[Anonymous No.13821546]

>>13821418
>all the real deal everyday Hindus aren't on 4chan
lol, try going on /pol/ and seeing all the flags, there are many. India is actually the 2nd-largest country of English speakers by population after the USA with around 125 million people in India who know it. Also your post reads like one big ad hominem

[Anonymous No.13821554]

>>13821546
What do you think ad hominem means?

There's that vibe again.

[Anonymous No.13821586]

>>13821554
You are disrespectfully attacking the character of Hindu posters and/or people interested in Hindu philosophy instead of talking about anything to do with their ideas or Hinduism, or their relation to Buddhism etc which was ostensibly the subject of this thread. Schizos like you show up all the time in eastern philosophy threads and write these elaborate posts bitterly attacking people and being quite rude, it's childish and tiresome

[Anonymous No.13821617]

>>13821586
I didn't create the thread. I was responding to a specific post with my own take. I'm not beholden to the OP.

Ad hominem specifically refers to discrediting someone's statement by attacking their credibility, for example by saying that their statement is false because they're a shitty person. I was not saying Hinduism is false because certain Hindus (like you) online are insane and come across as mildly retarded. I was just saying: you are insane and come across as mildly retarded.

My post was definitely autistic but yours has that subtle "edge" I was talking about. You're overreacting, and scrambling for a justification to go on the attack. For once in your smelly Indian life, just chill. Don't tell me more facts about India's up-and-coming space program. Don't feign civility while in the very same sentence being a weird aggressive retard. Just chill the fuck out you poo.

[Anonymous No.13821757]

>>13821617
>My post was definitely autistic but yours has that subtle "edge" I was talking about.
nah, I think that's just projection

[Anonymous No.13822513]

>>13818091
You have dreds?

[Anonymous No.13822520]

>>13818826
Modern Hinduism read Gita + Mahabharata + Ramayana

[Anonymous No.13822539]

>>13821757
lmao India pls go

[Anonymous No.13822548]

>>13820433
Dravidians have consistently produced some of the smartest people on the planet

[Anonymous No.13822568]

hello litizens

I'm currently reading the bhagavad gita, with hopes to read the upanishads afterwards. I've also read the dhammapeda. I was wondering if there's a flowchart or recommendations for where to go next with dharmic religions? complete novice to this, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13822576]

>>13821617
>>13821757
You are acting exactly how you described the poos as. Anyway both you retards need to go.

[Anonymous No.13822582]

>>13822568
Mahabharata and Ramayana

[Anonymous No.13823456]

>>13821546
not all indians are practicing/knowledgeable hindus though and pol only attracts retards

[Anonymous No.13823579]

what's the difference between what Sankara said and what Parmenides said

[Anonymous No.13823581]

>>13814462
Buddhism is okay, but its literally a weak offshoot of Aryan philosophy that completely misunderstands how the world works and the meaning of life

[Anonymous No.13823627]

>>13820433
dravidian and aryan theory is all horse shit i hope you realise

[Anonymous No.13823781]

>>13823627
History is all horseshit, its a total fabrication, why believe anything

[Anonymous No.13823820]

>>13818091
how do you even pull off long hair without looking like a degenerate?
all those days of imperials and scholars having free flowing hair and beards to tap into the higher phenomenon are gone

[Anonymous No.13823832]

>>13823820
You need to look really good. Have a chiseled face and body, and you can wear long hair with no problem.

[Anonymous No.13823891]

>>13823832
yeah that's the degeneracy i was talking about

[Anonymous No.13823911]

>>13823579
Parmenides BTFO'd himself, that's the difference

[Anonymous No.13823918]

>>13821331
What do you mean anon? Is the book shit?

[Anonymous No.13824059]

>>13814628
This is easily discredited by looking at the dates as to when the various texts were written, even Jainism predates Buddhism. In fact if you read the Upanishads you'll even come across the very same allegory of the royal who escapes his materialistic world to transcend it all through asceticism and meditation, there are at least two royals who come to realize the meaninglessness of their lives and seek to escape or transcend it, one is in the Maitreya Upanishad, mind you I've just read 12 of the full 100-106(?). The allegory of Siddhartha's life is an extremely ancient one not unique to Buddhism. This isn't to take away from Buddhist philosophy or practice as I am very much inspired by and influenced by and find kinship (in its philosophy) in it.

[Anonymous No.13824293]

>>13814462
Mostly other Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13824321]

>>13824059
Of course Buddhism wasn't something entirely new and major ideas were already around and influenced Gautama Buddha, but what we refer to as Hinduism today came to prominence with classical Hinduism several hundred years after Jainism and Buddhism, and developed in unison with them. The Vedic religions of the Buddha's time are sometimes called ancient Hinduism, but this is merely because both trace their origins to the Vedic texts and Upanishads, not because there is an unbroken tradition from Brahmanism to the Hindu schools.

[Anonymous No.13824331]

>>13820469
There is no literal rebirth in Mahayana Buddhism. They don’t justify suicide. Zen practice is largely free of morality besides in monastic practices where monks vow to follow the precepts.

[Anonymous No.13824384]

>>13824321
>not because there is an unbroken tradition from Brahmanism to the Hindu schools.
and who are you to assert that there isn't?

[Anonymous No.13824632]

>>13824331
then where does the stuff about remembering past lives come from

[Anonymous No.13824685]

>>13824331
rebirth is definitely literal in most Mahayana, but they don’t see it as an ultimate truth since it is only convention. They don’t have a literal infinite-chain-of-cause-and-effect view of dependent arising and rebirth like some Abhidhamma-based traditionalist Theravadins do, but they still accept rebirth and the experience of continuity throughout and between lives for puthujjunas as conventional truth

[Anonymous No.13824716]

>>13814510
It doesn't really reject them, Buddha himself taught the Vedas contain the truth it's just been corrupted. Buddhism doesn't even reject the cosmology of Hinduism, it merely subverts it by making the God's themselves bound up in the system of rebirth and temporary. The God's exist but they are only temporarily in office, eventually having their office filled by another being as they fall back to lower births.

[Anonymous No.13825100]

>>13822513
No, why?
>>13823820
From my personal experience, don't wear degenerate stuff like a tranny or a neckbeard would do, i.e., no anime or atheist stuff, keeping your hair clean and well-trimmed, doing the bare minimum to groom yourself as to not look like a metro but still being a clean person, etc.
The only problem for me its that my hair is not that long and I have to trim it often in order to not have a girl hairstyle.

Trannies surely have killed the long hair fashion though, not even the local metal heads want to seriously have long hair and instead opt for bald.

[Anonymous No.13825176]

>>13825100
>metal heads
they're the bigger faggots

[Anonymous No.13825394]

>>13818264
Why is that bad? Honest question.

[Anonymous No.13825459]

>>13815306
Hinduism starts and ends in various contradicting places, no? There are numerous things which have altered or splintered the course of its development, such as the interaction between religious and philosophical sectors. The course of hindu religion has largely followed developments in hindu philosophy, partly because there was the religious class was economically dependent on the academic class, and so the religion was continually adapted to be compatible with academia. Hinduism continued to exist past the origin of Buddhism, and Buddhism was a tremendous philosophical and religious influence - it stands to reason that Hinduism would have taken some cues.

[Anonymous No.13825460]

>>13815574
It means the process is more important than the goal, because the process is self-perpetuating. In other words, the process becomes the goal.

[Anonymous No.13825463]

>>13815408
Buddhism and Hinduism influenced and continue to influence each other. Buddhism is ultimately the inheritance of Hinduism, they are not disconnected, and >>13814510 does not indicate that they are incompatible.

[Anonymous No.13825468]

>>13825394
simple: religion is cringe

[Anonymous No.13825967]

>>13815591
t.poo

[Anonymous No.13825972]

>>13823781
it's been disproven by DNA analysis many times over and over again.

[Anonymous No.13825984]

>>13825468
I agree, Buddhism should just go and announce themselves as a Hindu cult.

[Anonymous No.13826584]

>>13825972
Only Hindutva retards dispute the aryan invasion nowadays
>inb4 muh migration
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.13826596]

>>13814500
>This is as retarded as asking "Could anyone please share any literature that counters European thought from an American perspective?"
This is all of analytic philosophy though

[Anonymous No.13826611]

>>13826584
Aryan invasion is not real.

[Anonymous No.13826682]

>>13823918
the author claimed to be enlightened and marketed himself as proof that the teachings in the book worked but was recently exposed as having secretly been cheating on his wife with hookers

[Anonymous No.13827391]

>>13826611
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.13827803]

>>13827391
The Aryan invasion theory was originally propagated by white supremacists because they could not believe that brown shitskins from India could build such complex structures and have such complex culture.

[Anonymous No.13827816]

>>13814462
What's his Stand, /lit?
Nirvana, of course

[Anonymous No.13828179]

What I'm interested in is whether the crazy Hindus here are mentally retarded curries or mentally retarded Guénonfags.

[Anonymous No.13829486]

>>13828179
rent free

[Anonymous No.13830610]

>>13829486

[Anonymous No.13831899]

>>13827803
The cope is real
Bet you cant offer a single text refuting

[Anonymous No.13831923]

>>13814462
Modern psychology. Nirvana is just optimizing your brain for the production of happy chemicals.

[Anonymous No.13832003]

>>13814462
Taoism and its derivatives, in general.

[Anonymous No.13832032]

Hindus tremble before Anatman.

[Anonymous No.13832149]

>>13815773
You are correct, ignore these other people, they are not ready for the truth.

[Anonymous No.13832213]

>>13823579
They're very different from one another, to such a degree that criticisms and attempted refutations of Parmenidean monism don't actually apply to Advaita. Śaṅkara's explanations of Advaita are much more sophisticated and subtle than On Nature, although this may have to do with that we don't actually know the full extent of Parmenides because our surviving copies of his poem is incomplete. There is an element similar to monism in Advaita and so because of this people sometimes link it with Parmenides. His monism can be seen as agreeing with Advaita on some points, it remains possible that if we learned what the rest of his poem was that he would have agreed with Advaita even more. Śaṅkara's Advaita contains various phenomenological and epistemological aspects which include a critical idealist analysis of the mind similar to Kant where all knowledge is presented to the mind as representations; this takes place in a sort of mind-body dualism where there is something called a 'subtle body' that exists formlessly and which closely corresponds to the body and also houses the mind. Where Śaṅkara differs from these thinkers is that taking his cue from the Upaniṣads he makes an important separation made between this mind and the Self/Atma, which is both the Supreme Being and the inner consciousness and awareness who is the ultimate recipient of all the sensations of the mind, the seer of sight, the hearer of sound, the thinker of thought etc. The Atma actually exists in a 'monistic' undivided, uniform, immutable, infinite and boundless state of bliss; but is mistakenly identified with the mind that it illuminates with its awareness. The illusion of individuality and the appearance of the Universe come from the Supreme Being's power of Maya (illusion/divine art) which the Atma/Brahma exercises while remaining unaffected by it. A causation theory called Vivartavada is held to where the effect (the universe, samsara etc) is not a creation or a duplication but an appearance of the cause, causation is only apparent as a category of thought but isn't ultimately real.

[Anonymous No.13832216]

>>13832213
Advaita holds to ontological idealist views insofar as ultimate reality is the non-dual bliss and pure consciousness of the Supreme Being but at the same time holds to epistemological realist views insofar as accepting that our self-evident conscious experience even in an ultimately unreal phenomenal universe proves the existence of some ultimate reality or noumenon. Śaṅkara also comments on Gauḍapāda's Kārikā to develop an ontological argument that explains how any type of creation/emergence is too logically inconsistent and that only the explanation for relative existence that is logical and free of paradox is that its origin is due to the (appearance via Vivartavada of the) creation/emanation of the universes through the maya of the Lord who is at the same time our inner Self. The whole system works together in such a way that neither the Law of Contradiction nor the Law of Excluded Middle are violated. In a way, it's almost what you would expect if all these modern philosophers who've been talking about panpsychism, panexperientialism etc all sat down and tried to formulate the most logical and contradiction-free way of explaining how an abstract 'monistic' awareness could successfully give rise to and maintain, or otherwise animate the universe.

>Again, ‘real’ and ‘unreal* in advaita are used in the absolute sense. Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahma alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is. And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Caw of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, ‘absolutely real' and ‘absolutely unreal are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real* to which belong all world-objects. Again, since avidya (ignorance) is only a superimposition it vanishes when the ground-reality, the Brahma, is immediately realised, just as the rope-snake vanishes for good, when the rope is known. Avidya can be removed only by the immediate intuitive knowledge of Reality, which is the cause of liberation. Removal of avidya, Brahma-realisation and attainment of moksa or liberation are one and the same, the self-luminous Real.

[Anonymous No.13832423]

>>13821418
This excellently summarizes the weird uncanny feeling I get from Indian men. Any reasons why they’re like this/why they have seemingly declined compared to the past?

[Anonymous No.13833083]

>>13832423
most of them are the offspring of muslim invasion

[Anonymous No.13833130]

So I guess I should ask here:

Regarding original Buddhism, for those who studies the sayings of the Buddha: can his position be considered the ultimate monotheism/monism in the form of absolutely negating any understanding of Atman?

As any form of understading is limited and thus not Atman; that would make Buddhist at it's core one of the most most apophatic mystical movements; an example of pure negative theology

[Anonymous No.13833162]

>>13833130
public sermons of buddha are for plebs dude
the real shit in in the sekrit teachings

[Anonymous No.13833192]

>>13833162
no, seriously, aside mahayana and other derivatives, I'm actually interested in understanding how far could the Buddha go with apophaticism regarding the concept of Anatman

It's just a little strange that in the old suttras the Buddha and his disciples don't even talk about Anatman with brahmans; it's like they organically mold on their target audience and thus I'm thinking if the extreme deconstruction of theism could be a much later focus for Buddhism instead of being so for Buddha

[Anonymous No.13833224]

>>13833130
not quite because Buddhism avoids making any ontological statements about anything at all, including Nirvana.
In Buddhism, non-objectification is Nirvana. They don’t see true existence in the manifold ‘objects’ in the world, but they also go the extra mile to say that they see no true abiding stable nature/essence in Pure Non-Dual Undifferentiated Awareness. Objectification of any perception (even peaceful/blissful/transcendental ones) whatsoever in Buddhism is seen as grasping or clinging.

[Anonymous No.13833237]

>>13833224
although it should be mentioned that abiding in non-dual Pure Awareness even if you perceive it to have stable essence, is unfathomably more peaceful than abiding in dualistic “self vs world” perception: however the emptiness of even THAT perception still needs to be realized. That’s why one of the final fetters in Buddhism is “the conceit: AM”

[Anonymous No.13833296]

>>13833224
>>13833237
As far as I recall buddhism seems to say everything is a process, and people are just bundles of processes with no essence/soul.
And it says that phenomena are transient and they gain their false-objectification through our concept-making-linguistic habits.

It's apophatic concerning Nirvana, but it doesn't shy away from making ontological claims about Maya and how it's unsatifactory, illusory, transient, empty of essence.

Buddhism is quite nominalistic if I'm reading it correctly. It rejects essences altogether, which is highly dubious and why it often leads to contradictions and "paradoxes".

It would also be nihilistic were it not for the ideal of striving for Nirvana and self-purification.

[Anonymous No.13833347]

So, this is a tangentially somewhat off topic post, but why is Buddhism and Eastern philosophy in general so prevalent in literature and philosophy while American (as in the Americas, not as in USA) intellectualism and philosophy and literature is literally who tier?

Like, yes, most cultures in the Americas were tribes and chiefdoms without written records or highly developed intellectual institutions, but there were two major cradles of highly developed civilization in Mesoamerica and in the Andes the former of which outright developed full written languages, and both had theolgians, philsophers, poets, etc.

The Spanish did burn most of their records, but many cultures/civilizations in those areas have some collections of poetry and conquest/early colional period literature left, while the Aztec in particular have outright hundreds of manuscripts and documents, to the point where there's been entire books written solely on specific Aztec politicians and philosophers, such as "Tlacaelel Remembered: Mastermind of the Aztec Empire" and "The Allure of Nezahualcoyotl: Pre-Hispanic History, Religion, and Nahua Poetics"; and some of the colonial period sources, often made by collaborations of both Spanish firars and Mesoamerican scribes, nobles, etc; are litterally hundreds to thousands of pages long and are stupidly detailed: Duran's History for example, see pic, detailed Aztec History and quasi-mythical-history down to enough detail to have the specific names and statements of various soldiers, merchants, kings, etc.

Why is all of this basically non-existent in the awareness not just of the general public, but even historians, intellectuals, etc? To some extent it's understandable since

>Less sources, as mentioned
>The cultures were historically subject to a lot of propaganda making them out to be primitive savages
>Asia has had historical contact with the West (the current dominant culture) for thousands of years allowing a greater level of respect and shared cultural exchange wheras Mesoamerican/Andean civilization is a much more recent source of contact
>Ethnically indigenous Mesoamerican and Andean people are largerly imporvished and stuck in rural areas today, with the borader Mexican, Guatamaa, Peruvian, etc populations having their national identitity more rooted in their mestizo nature, wheras eastern cultures very much still culturally identitfy with their medivial and ancient civilizations and their cultural products
>Many of the works remain untranslated

But I still think the sheer degree to which nobody gives a shit is a bit baffling even with this in mind. In fact I don't think even modern Latin American philsophy and literature is really given a shit about either.

Thoughts? What can be done to correct this and push Ancient/classical/medieval Amerindian literature and philosophy?
Also happy to to give suggestions and answer questions for anybody wanting to get into the subject.

1/2

[Anonymous No.13833354]

>>13833296
only certain abhidhamma schools of Theravada adhere to belief in the essential nature of even impersonal processes/building blocks of reality or “dhammas.” They might say “the self is a fabrication dependent on the aggregates, but the aggregates themselves are objectively real” and there is no basis for this in the suttas. Mahayana tends to go more in-depth with this level of emptiness teachings.
The Three Characteristics are not an ultimate teaching but a necessary conventional method for breaking out of the deluded Samsaric mind. You cannot talk to a being fully immersed in Samsara with the kind of language you use to describe the Ultimate. To the Samsaric mind, the Three Characteristics are a reality (since such a mind only operates within convention) and attending to them effectively shows the inherent contradictions in dualistic perception (that none of these objects we assign lasting stability to, have any such stability...etc). However, even this “transient phenomena” is seen as empty at the Ultimate level, since it still entails objectification.
It’s also worth mentioning that Buddhists don’t reject essence in an objective sense, but in a sort of phenomenological sense: since nothing within experience can be said to abide for even a moment or without dependence on other things. Emptiness of essence means lack of self-existing independent lasting essence within the world of experience.

[Anonymous No.13833384]

>>13833224
>>13833296

Well and if it doesn't make any statements about Nirvana, how can we differentiate this position as nihilistic rather than apophatic (affirming through negation?)

I know this sounds like "not taking a position is also a position" memery, but I'm seriously struggling to see where Buddha expounds the lack of essence (absolute statement, ironically) over the lack of words to reflect essence. I'm not talking here about Buddhism as a general movement; I'm talking about what the Buddha taught. You can't look at Christianity, for example, and the Church and say that is what Jesus taught purely

The Buddha seems to just cut off the roots and branches of most metaphysics endeavors as he saw them as oozing from the same source: our minds projecting. But that does not mean that the core of buddhist spirituality is left being voidness. Could he have just wanted to protect spirituality from all attempts of the mind to assimilate the spirit into it's moldings? For a mystic silence is not only emptiness

[Anonymous No.13833416]

>>13814462
Epistemology that mission creeped its way into metaphysics. And Bodhisattvas actually prolonging the Wheel of Ixion by diving back in to help others achieve Buddhahood indefinitely.

>>13833347
>to the point where there's been entire books written solely on specific Aztec politicians and philosophers
After propositioning the Spanish crown, Queen Isabella remarked to Columbus, "You are so certain, it's as though you had already been there, sir."

>the sheer degree to which nobody gives a shit is a bit baffling even with this in mind. In fact I don't think even modern Latin American philsophy and literature is really given a shit about either.
Imagine the early contact period as a premeditated looting operation secondarily for gold, and primarily for documents/information. The Smithsonian, the British Museum/Royal Society, the German Ahnenerbedienst -- it goes on to this day.

[Anonymous No.13833463]

>>13833384
the only sort of definitive statements I’ve seen about Nirvana are that it is ultimate peace, it is possible to realize, it is unconditioned (as opposed to the conditioned reality one experiences when they are lost in Samsaric objectification), it is non-objectification, it is extinction of the three poisons (greed, hatred, delusion), it is freedom from dukkha.
None of this necessarily has ontological implications. To the Buddha, knowledge of objectivity is impossible because even the most transcendental, profound states of consciousness still only occur to you as such: states of consciousness, experiences. It’s not like you break the subject-object barrier by literally reaching through reality with some transcendental samadhi to realize the objective truth beyond your subjective experience (which would be absurd because that would still only be an experience). You break it by letting go of the grasping from which the mind fabricates all these particulars and stable entities as objective and real, which cause it to take seriously this sort of horrifying cosmic drama that is the conviction/perception of really being an individual that is born, dies and suffers.
It is hard to call it apophatic because the Buddha calls “is” and “is not” both objectification based in delusion. If you still consider it apophatic even though it is not pointing to an ontologically existent thing/essence/entity which could fall under the labels “is/is not”, then fair enough I suppose. It’s just important to remember that all ontology (not just positive affirmations of existence but affirmations of non-existence as well) to the Buddha is the game of objectifying, grasping.

[Anonymous No.13833502]

why did the old indians think that poetry was the most aesthetic form

[Anonymous No.13833505]

>>13833384
>I'm seriously struggling to see where Buddha expounds the lack of essence (absolute statement, ironically) over the lack of words to reflect essence

“That monk who sees no essence in experience,
Like one seeking flowers in Udumbara trees (trees that don’t flower),
Will give up the near shore and the far,
Like a snake its worn-out old skin."
- Snp 1.1


"Just as a painter.... would fashion the likeness of a woman or a man, complete with all its major and minor parts, the ignorant ordinary person, creating, creates [assigns reality/essence to] form... creates feeling.... creates perception.... creates mental formations.... creates consciousness." - SN 22.100

".......Suppose, monks, a magician or a magician’s apprentice
should hold a magic-show at the four cross-roads; and a keen-sighted
man should see it, ponder over it and reflect on it radically. Even as
he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it radically, he would find it
empty; he would find it hollow; he would find it void of essence.
What essence, monks, could there be in a magic show?
Even so, monks, whatever consciousness —
be it past, future or
present, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
far or near —
a monk sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it
radically. And even as he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it
radically, he would find it empty; he would find it hollow; he would
find it void of essence. What essence, monks, could there be in a
consciousness ? ......”
Form is like a mass of foam
And feeling—but an airy bubble.
Perception is like a mirage
And formations a plantain tree.
Consciousness is a magic-show,
A juggler’s trick entire.
All these similes were made known
By the ’Kinsman-of—the-Sun."
- Kālakārāma Sutta

[Anonymous No.13833512]

>>13833384
the teaching of maya + annatta + transience and co-dependence basically undermine any possibility of "essences" of things.

I haven't read the canon in a long time so I can't quote you verses anymore.

[Anonymous No.13833532]

>>13833347
cont:

>>13815773
There's some interesting parallels in how Samsara and the cyclical nature of existence is viewed in Buddhism and how existence is viewed in Nahua/Aztec thought: While reincarnation of individuals isn't as much a theme (it sort of is as well but moreso in the context of the following), the cylical nature of the world itself is with it being re-created and destroyed and the the cyclical nature of time, events, themes, and natural processes (the cyclical nature of life and death and living things needing to consume others in particular is a big deal) very much is

There's likewise a similar acknowledgement that life is filled with suffering and hardships (look up Aeo.co 's articles on Aztec moral philsophy), but rather then trying to escsape the cycle, they accepted and embrace that suffering and death and consuming others is a part of life and the cylical nature of the world and it's best to simply do what one can to make the process easier for others and faclitate it, and living self-sacricing lives, both figuratively (putting others above oneself) and litterally (giving onself up to be fed to the sun or other gods and processes much like how the gods gave themselves up to make and sustain the world; the world and it's plants and animals are consumed by people to sustain themselves, etc)

>>13833130
>>13832213
>>13833224
>>13833296
>As far as I recall buddhism seems to say everything is a process, and people are just bundles of processes with no essence/soul

This is also pretty similar to James Maffie's proposed interpretations of Aztec cosmology and metaphyiscs though his findings are somewhat controversial for being perhaps overly extrapolative, in the same way that say an analysis of american cultural trends and philsophy wouldn't be describing the actual conscious views/frameworks of most americans; though what he describes might be an actual metaphysical framework some aztec philsophers had, but even that's somewhat iffy

>There exists at bottom just one thing: dynamic, vivifying, eternally self-generating and self-regenerating sacred power, force, or energy... “teotl.” Reality, cosmos, and all existing things consist of teotl and are ultimately identical with teotl

>Process, becoming, change, and transformation define teotl... Reality is characterized by becoming — not by being or “is-ness.” To exist — to be real – is to become, to move, to change. Teotl and hence reality, cosmos, and all existing things are defined in terms of becoming. They are essentially dynamic: always moving, always changing... Everything that exists constitutes a single, all-inclusive and interrelated sacred unity. This single all-encompassing unity is substantively constituted by teotl and ontologically identical with teotl...Teotl does not create the cosmos ex nihilo; rather, the cosmos emerges from teotl...The history of the cosmos is nothing more than the self-unfolding and self-presenting of teotl

2/?, need more posts

[Anonymous No.13833533]

>>13833512
hey anon if you haven’t checked them out, I recommend the Prajnaparamita Sutras.
Regardless whether the Buddha actually taught them or not, they are completely faithful to the teachings of dependent arising and emptiness from the suttas. I saw someone say once that the suttas are the Buddha explaining the teaching to worldlings so they can walk the path, and the Prajnaparamita sutras (like the heart sutra) describe how a Buddha experiences/views “reality” himself.

[Anonymous No.13833559]

>>13833532
>>13833347
>>13833130
>>13832213
>>13833224
>>13833296
cont:

>Teotl’s ceaseless self-transforming is characterized by...agonistic inamic unity. Inamichuan (pl; inamic, singl) consist of matched pairs such as male/female, life/death, dry/wet, being/non-being, and order/disorder. Inamic pairs are mutually arising, interdependent, and complementary as well as mutually competitive.... The transformation and becoming of reality consist of the... struggle between... pairs as well as the alternating momentary dominance of each... over its partner. All things — sun, mountains, humans, trees, animals, and corn — are constituted by the agonistic unity of inamichuan and as a consequence are constitutionally unstable and irreducibly ambiguous...These inamichuan are nothing more than dual aspects of teotl.

>Teotl and inamic forces circulate throughout the cosmos in three... ways...They constitute three different patterns of change, becoming, and creative-destructive...transformation. They also constitute three different ways of...power ...circulation

>Olin refers to the four-staged, oscillating, and centering transformation involved in moving within... life-death cycles. Olin-transformation is exhibited by bouncing balls, pulsating hearts, respiring chests, earthquakes, pregnant women’s abdomens expanding and contracting, spindle rods expanding and contracting with spun thread, and the daily-nocturnal movement of the sun. It is the biorhythm of the cosmic Era... as well as the biorhythm of all existing things

>Malinalli refers to the transformation involved in the transmission of energy between: olin-defined life-death cycles (e.g. from sun to corn to humans to sun [via sacrifice], etc.); non-hierarchically defined vertical layers of the cosmos (above, below and upon the earth’s surface); and different conditions of the same stuff (e.g.,,,raw cotton fiber into.. spun thread). Malinalli-transformation is typified by spinning, twisting, gyrating, and double helical spiraling. It is the energy-conveying bloodstream and foodstream of the current Era

>Nepantla refers to the middling, back-and-forthing, mutually reciprocating transformation that results in the creation of a tertium quid. It is typified by weaving, commingling rivers, reaching mutual agreement, and sexual commingling. For example, the nepantla-defined motion of weaving interlaces warp and weft threads to create a tertium quid: woven fabric....[it] metaphysically speaking the most fundamental of the three. It cosmogonically precedes and subsumes olin and malinalli. Nepantla-transformation defines and explains teotl’s continual self-generation, self-regeneration, and self-transformation.

>Reality is nothing more than the nepantla-defined self-transformation of teotl

3/4

[Anonymous No.13833576]

>>13833533
Thanks m8. But I don't have much time for buddhist reading anymore as I'm Christian now and trying to catch up on big backlog of the Saints and OT books.

[Anonymous No.13833585]

>>13833576
ah respect

[Anonymous No.13833643]

>>13833532
>>13833347
>>13833130
>>13832213
>>13833224
>>13833296
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-philosophy and http://dailynous.com/2014/05/20/pip-1-huebner-interviews-maffie/ are two writups by/with maffie which delve into this more, I also have scans of his book in the mega here >>13832723

IIRC the Maya, Mixtec, etc may have had an equailvent concept to teotl but it's hard to say since there's a lot less good surviving theological and intellectual works to look at; and as I said maffie's interperation of teotl metaphysics is thought by some to be overly extrpolative and made to be a bigger deal then it actually was; just existing as a sort of supernatural energy a la polynesian mana,, but still largerly having more traditional polythesietic pantheon and people, plants, the world etc being "things"; commoners would have seen it this way regardless.

>>13833416
Not sure what you are trying to say or imply here

4/4 for now.

[Anonymous No.13833663]

>>13833559
>>13833532
>>13833347
>>13833130
>>13832213
>>13833224
>>13833296
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-philosophy and http://dailynous.com/2014/05/20/pip-1-huebner-interviews-maffie/ are two writups by/with maffie which delve into this more, I also have scans of his book in the mega I run with precolubian shit here >>13832723

IIRC the Maya, Mixtec, etc may have had an equailvent concept to teotl but it's hard to say since there's a lot less good surviving theological and intellectual works to look at; and as I said maffie's interperation of teotl metaphysics is thought by some to be overly extrpolative and made to be a bigger deal then it actually was; just existing as a sort of supernatural energy a la polynesian mana,, but still largerly having more traditional polythesietic pantheon and people, plants, the world etc being "things"; commoners would have seen it this way regardless.

>>13833416
Not sure what you are trying to say or imply here

4/4 for now.

[Anonymous No.13833852]

>>13819287
this is just word salad

[Anonymous No.13833943]

>>13814462
So what is the reasoning for there being a cycle of reincarnation and karma? I've only read the bhagdavad gita
I've read on what on karma and samsara are, but I still don't get why they're connected.
As in why does karma cause us to reincarnate and from what arguments does the idea of samsara come from?
I've talked with a number self-described buddhists and hindus, and none of them were able to explain it other than "it just is like that"

[Anonymous No.13834071]

>>13833663
>>13833559
>>13833532
>>13833347
Also i'm pewrsonally interested in branching out from Mesoamerican history and culture into learning about south and southeast asian stuff, so suggestions would be apperciated.

[Anonymous No.13834083]

>>13827803
The reason why it took so long before getting accepted by virtually all of academy(with the exception of a few Hindu nationalists pretending to be academics) is because it was first propagated by "white supremacists" as you say. Really it shows how much evidence it is for it since even leftist academics now have to admit its true even though mean people first believed in it.

[Anonymous No.13834130]

>>13815773
best post in the thread

[Anonymous No.13834570]

How come there are so many pajeets on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.13834632]

>>13834570
They probably migrated from /g/ after the locals were pissed off that they are stealing their jobs, shitty accent, etc.
It surprises me too.

[Anonymous No.13834644]

>>13834570
because there are over a billion Indians and a lot of them learn English

[Anonymous No.13835571]

>>13815773
based response. But how do I reach Nibbana if i've also taken the /Vargpill/ and I intend to go live the comfy offgrid lifestyle. There is no undoing this pill and I will have to fish/hunt for sustenance.

[Anonymous No.13836029]

>>13832032
>Hindus tremble before Anatman.
In reality what happened was that anatman and various other Buddhist doctrines got debunked and exposed as logically inconsistent by Hindu thinkers like Shankara and Kumārila to such a degree that Buddhism was no longer taken seriously in its homeland and went nearly extinct there

[Anonymous No.13836709]

>>13836029
Hinduism got retroactively debunked by Parmenides and the Eleatic doctrine.

[Anonymous No.13836745]

>>13814462
Take a rock and smash it on the hugest niggers forehead. When he beats the shit out of you ask yourself if brahma is real or are you a dumb nigger who has mindfucked himself into believing life is an illusion when it's not.

[Anonymous No.13836763]

>>13836745
The pain isn't an illusion, the illusion is your conceptualization of it, which is conditional and arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.13836977]

>>13835571
sun diet yoga or something
just meditate and feed on sunrays bruh

[Anonymous No.13837045]

>>13819287
>buddhists having new ideas and having lively discussion
>AD: oh look the retards are fighting
come on man where does he refute madhayamaka

[Anonymous No.13837169]

>>13836763
Factually incorrect. You're a dumb nigger. Pain is as real as whatever. Indian religions are literal cope

>mmmmmy life's so shit ill mmmmeditate

No fix your life you brown gook bullshit sniffer

Literally have never met a non loser into any Indian religion. Also the women are all women who were sluts and can't cope with their poor vag choices so need meditate the thot away.

Inb4 seething incel comments.