/lit/ - Literature

File: 118 KB, 768x512, buddha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:04:24 2019 No.13911537 [Reply] [Original]

What does advaita vedanta assert that is at odds with Buddhism? Their obvious difference is that Buddhism goes to great lengths to assert the nonexistence of a Self (anatta), as conceived by the hindus. To me, the non-self seems indistinguishable from the idea of a transcendent, inaccessible self, though.

I realize the vedas deify "awareness", though. This is a difference I can't reconcile with buddhist thought as they explicitly view the phenomenon of awareness as a result of the skandhas. But that doesn't deny that an inaccessible and transcendent "self", devoid of describable experience is indistinguishable from a non-self to anyone not having experienced it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:15:06 2019 No.13911605 Advaita Vedanta developed out of an interaction with Mahayana and thus the 2 schools share a lot of similarities. But by creating this thread you will have summoned the crazy nationalistic Neo-Vedanta Hindus, so enjoy the shitfest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:17:22 2019 No.13911619 >>13911605 Such is the story of the man wanting to engage in philosophical discussion online. Though there's really no better forum than this one, it has some gold nuggets within the festering shit pools.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:28:29 2019 No.13911682

>>13911537
They seem to end up at the same spot to me. Just take Advaita focuses more on metaphysics whereas Buddhism focuses more on epistemology. Not sure which one is superior though.

Buddhism seems to have been basically 2500 years of trying to say Brahman while not saying Brahman. But then again there are so many different Buddhist schools and I've only scratched the surface.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:33:37 2019 No.13911720

>>13911682
The reason for this is methodological. What Buddhism wants to avoid is the formation of the idea of something eternal, which leads to grasping of the self and delusion. Whenever we speak of Brahman or God, this is what happens to the conventional practitioner. The closest thing you get is the Buddha mind and Buddha nature of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, especially in Zen one often talks of self-realization or realization of true self.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:34:54 2019 No.13911724 >>13911682 >Buddhism seems to have been basically 2500 years of trying to say Brahman while not saying Brahman. lmfao

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:39:01 2019 No.13911749 >>13911537 >transcendent, inaccessible self lol you neither know what buddhism (originally) is nor advaita vedanta. study more

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 13:52:24 2019 No.13911827 >>13911537 Really only modern Buddhism goes to such lengths to totally deny the self or soul, Buddha just said that speculating about it was pointless

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:02:23 2019 No.13911876 >>13911724 unironically

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:04:19 2019 No.13911887 >>13911827 Do you enjoy just talking out of your ass? Modern Buddhism readily and freely embraces talk of "true self" and in fact is often watered down syncretist trash.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:09:15 2019 No.13911906

>>13911605
People who say that are typically unfamiliar with the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. When one reads the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads one finds clearly expressed all the most important principles of Advaita Vedanta, in a series of monologues and dialectical discussions , Brahman is described as the inner unborn Self, the apparent world of creation is described as not absolutely real, the ideas of transmigration/rebirth and maya are mentioned, renunciation, monasticism and virtuous behavior are praised, the cause of rebirth is described to be ignorance and desire with the overcoming of all desires described as the path to ending the cycle of transmigration; the list goes on. Many of the major teachings of Buddhism appear in them before they did in Buddhism. If all these predate Buddhism, then that would disprove the claim Advaita comes from Mahayana, which is which certain people prefer to omit this highly relevent point. By making a wide-ranging claim about the origins of Advaita and by besmirching potential opponents who might disagree with your take as crazy neo-Hindus, you appear to be making a bad-faith claim out of personal animus, which unfortunately seems to happen too often on /lit/.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:09:33 2019 No.13911910 [DELETED]

>>13911720
Yeah that has been my thought too. Buddhism is very careful to not affirm anything that would imply Eternalism. But like you said, when one reads about various Mahayana schools talking about Buddha-nature, Buddha-mind or Dharmakāya etc it definitely seems very similar to how Advaita understands Atman/Brahman. In my experience Buddhism is a much more difficult philosophy to understand than Advaita. Just because they are so careful. I guess in the view of Buddhism it is better to cut away a lot of delusion but because of its strictness a lot of people wont' be able to do it fully than it would be to be a bit laxer and accidentally add a deluded understanding of Self.

Although me thinking Buddhism is more difficult to grasp might just be because i'm a westerner and western philosophy have actually had a lot of philosophers that sits quite close to Advaita ever since Parmenides. Whereas when it comes to Buddhism...? Heraclitus and then basically nothing until the Existentialists?

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 14:37:09 2019 No.13912048

>>13911720
Yes, Buddhism seems to be very careful to not affirm anything that have the potential to add a new delusion. Seems like in their mind it is better to cut away much of a person's delusion but most will not fully get to the end because of its difficulty and the hard work it demands than it is to accidentally add another Wrong-View of the Self. Buddhism; to me at least, has been more difficult to try and understand.

Buddhists talking about Buddha-nature, Buddha-mind or Dharmakāya is basically just Atman/Brahman copypaste though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:12:20 2019 No.13912232 >>13911887 Theravada is the most prominent and implicitly denies the self try reading a little more before you talk out of your ass idiot

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:13:22 2019 No.13912237

>>13911537
>What does advaita vedanta assert that is at odds with Buddhism?
It's mostly that the Upanishads and Advaita are willing to combine positive descriptions of the absolute with apophatism, whereas Buddha with few exceptions stuck to apophatism with regard to his type of absolutism.

>Buddhism goes to great lengths to assert the nonexistence of a Self (anatta), as conceived by the Hindus
anatta means not-self not no-self, Buddha only uses it as an adjective in the PC which he applies to various things pertaining to the phenomenal world and the psycho-physical aggregate. Buddha does not accurately describe or state that he disagrees with the Upanishadic type of Atma once in the PC but only uses anatta with regard the other non-Upanishadic types of self, namely the ego or an individualized eternal soul- substance.

>to me, the non-self seems indistinguishable from the idea of a transcendent, inaccessible self, though.
The Atma in Advaita is only inaccessible to normal thought but is held to shine forth as the self-luminous reality during non-dual spiritual realization.

>I realize the vedas deify "awareness", though. .... Buddhists explicitly view the phenomenon of awareness as a result of the skandhas.
they still admit that even Buddha still had some consious awareness of what was going on after attaining nirvana, otherwise he wouldnt have been able to even have converstaions, they just don't like to describe this consious experience of nirvana in positive terms, because there is supposed to be no trace of the skandhas left, it is really this kind of awareness that Advaita is pointing to and not normal awareness.

>But that doesn't deny that an inaccessible and transcendent "self", devoid of describable experience is indistinguishable from a non-self to anyone not having experienced it.
Correct, in both moksha/nirvana is held to be indefinable, transcendent to thought, both explicitly state the need to go beyond verbal descriptions, you can't actually know what one system is reffering to unless you've directly experienced it, hence when people say any sort of positive affirmation of the absolute is a wrong view that leads to clinging they are ignorant of what they are speaking of, being limited to disagreeing with the exterior verbal descriptions and ontological classifications which are transcended in realization

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:18:40 2019 No.13912260

>>13911720
Advaita holds Brahman to be eternal in a totally different way than the universe, it's held to be beyond both existence and non-existence and is transcendent to thought, that really doesn't lead to clinging. Aphophatic negation is used often in the Upanishads and Advaitic texts that to even presuppose an object to cling to means ones didn't pay attention to their message. By granting a conditional level of positive existence to Nirvana as something which can be realized and experienced Buddha granted a conditional level of reality to it hardly different from how the Upanishads describe Brahman.

>The closest thing you get is the Buddha mind and Buddha nature of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, especially in Zen one often talks of self-realization or realization of true self
The early Yogachara of Asanga says that there is an eternally existing pure consiousness alaya-vijnana, the attainment of which is nirvana. Several Vajrayana schools such as Jonang and Kagyu also hold shentong views that the Absolute/Tathagatagarbha/Nirvana is not empty itself but has its own innate nature and positive essence and is only empty of all that is false.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:20:36 2019 No.13912271 >>13911906 And there the local Vedanta fetishist is. You have this same argument with many Anons every time there is a thread like this. Don't you get tired?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:20:38 2019 No.13912272 >>13912260 >eternally existing pure consiousness alaya-vijnana Parinispanna is what I meant to write, the alaya-vijana is not held to be ultimately real while Parinispanna is

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:22:58 2019 No.13912283 >>13912271 No, I never get tired because I'm perpetually immersed in infinite bliss from my studying of Vedanta

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:26:35 2019 No.13912295

>>13912283
Just to be clear, I'm not a professional 'quote maker'. I'm just an Orientalist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and Hindu fetishism over any silly religious tradition existing for 2,500 years. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.

'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony Buddha's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.'"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 15:37:46 2019 No.13912369 >>13912295 I hope that you are eventually able to overcome whatever the source of discomfort is that drives you to project onto and insult anonymous strangers on the internet

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 16:50:12 2019 No.13912768 >>13911876 yeah i got it

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 17:54:20 2019 No.13913173

>>13911537
Advaita and Buddhism are literally saying the same thing but with different language. Shankara and Buddha would have been absolute bros had they ever been able to meet in person without relying on text/oral transmission of their doctrines. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 19:28:51 2019 No.13913665 >>13913173 More importantly would they gang up on Plotinus if he came along?

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 22:10:17 2019 No.13914393

>>13911537
Buddhism deals with things purely phenomenologically and so they like to avoid any discussion of ontology or metaphysics at all (by not denying nor affirming the ontological status of anything).
If Advaita is truly describing the same thing as Buddhism, the main difference would seem to be their insistence on asserting any kind of ontological essence to their form of ineffable Awakening (realization of Brahman) while the farthest Buddhism will go (pre-Dharmakaya/Buddha-nature) is to call it “suchness” which is somewhat of a nonsense word anyways. Buddhists feel that saying something is ineffable but then discussing it in ontological terms is misleading/contradictory, and discussing things in terms of existence or essence is just going to stoke the flames of the already existing delusion that people have with their perceptions of conventional existence/self-nature (ex “this table objectively exists independently in and of itself, this awareness objectively exists independently in and of itself”...etc)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 30 22:25:00 2019 No.13914490 >>13911537 to the non-dualist chads who I know will be looking through this thread: do you have any good sources for Islamic/Sufi non-dualism? I’m very curious to see how they express it in their traditions compared to something like Advaita Vedanta

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 22:28:58 2019 No.13914508

>>13912237
>they still admit that even Buddha still had some consious awareness of what was going on after attaining nirvana, otherwise he wouldnt have been able to even have converstaions
there are many suttas on this, about how only conventionally, to others, there is truly a Buddha as a person walking around and aware, but the ultimate truth is that he is nowhere to be found, and that no designation can be ultimately made about the state of the Buddha/Tathatagata because he is ‘gone to suchness.’
The Heart Sutra of Mahayana covers this sort of thing a lot. Conventionally there are beings, Buddha’s, Bodhisattvas, but ultimately these are just empty designations, hence the ‘no beings, no suffering, no cause of suffering, no path to end suffering’....etc.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 22:37:14 2019 No.13914536

>>13914393
Buddhist metaphysics is a process ontology. They only appear to be anti-metaphysicians because the phenomenological approach entails to deal with phenomena in their givenness, without attributing an essence to them, understanding them to be dependently originated.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 23:03:09 2019 No.13914622

>>13914536
>Buddhist metaphysics is a process ontology
Not true. That may be the case for Theravada tradition Abhidhamma realists, but even Anicca is only a conventional teaching, not an ultimate one. The only ultimate truth is ineffable Nirvana. Anicca is merely a meditative strategy to make the mind realize how its own fundamental perceptions of reality contradict each other (it simultaneously perceives objects as stable, lasting, while at the same time clearly perceiving sense data as transient, constantly in flux). Anicca has no more meaning for an Arahant. It is only true for the non-liberated person who still perceives the world of consciousness and name-and-form as stable/real, subject to the Three Characteristics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 23:16:22 2019 No.13914675

>>13911537
aight bitch ass nigguh, Buddhism basically said that there aint no motha fucking Atman (with a capital A). They said its acutally Anatman, which is the no-self.

There is a nigguh-notthingness, look up this dope ass word: Sunyata (sanskrit version is better, Pali is ugly). But basically, dis sunyata thing and Atman thing are basically the same thing.

You know like shieeet, Emptiness bro.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 23:28:14 2019 No.13914728

>>13914622
Given its emphasis on the impermanence of all conditioned phenomena, the whole of Buddhism could be broadly considered a form of process philosophy. In particular, the texts of the Huayan school have been the subject of comparison to Whitehead's process metaphysics. Steve Odin, for instance, wrote a book entitled Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism. It was through this book that I was introduced to Whitehead and then pursued his major works. As a Chinese school that interfaced with Chan and whose philosophies were often silently absorbed by the Chan school, Huayan is a long-term interest.

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 23:43:41 2019 No.13914788

>>13914728
>impermanence of all conditioned phenomena
all conditioned things are considered like an illusion in Buddhism, so to whatever extent it resembles process philosophy, it does so insofar as it uses the phenomenological flux and 'process' of sense data as a conventional truth and means of realizing the ultimate truth (unconditioned, Nirvana). Even the Dharmas (smallest unit of experience according to Buddhist abhidhamma) are considered ultimately empty/like an illusion/without true self-nature (with the exception of a select few realist schools).

Anonymous Mon Sep 30 23:48:04 2019 No.13914805
File: 38 KB, 329x278, caia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>tfw reading comfy heterodox buddhist schools like the personalist/pudgalavada
>tfw reading about the sramana period and imagining i'm a wandering sage listening to every school and teacher i come across but keeping an open mind

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 00:31:44 2019 No.13914993 >>13914728 >process philosophy it depends on the point of view; phenomena is processual within the phenomenal realm but all phenomena is simultaneous in Pure Being where it comprises all indeterminate possibilities of manifestation.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 00:47:15 2019 No.13915039

>>13912295
Hey teenanon, let's shoot the shit.
Lots of statements there pointing towards the nirguna. Is the saguna found there as well? I am filled with wonder!
Curious that one who has attained unbound awareness would still cling to the ego-identitifier of intelligence. Free from being and non-being, unbound, limitless, how is one enlightened "by" something? Even more curious that one who has come to supreme bliss in nirguna would not identify themselves as awareness alone, and instead solidify themselves in the objects of the senses (as in study).
Why, O my son, knowing yourself as the observer of That, would you offer insult?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 00:48:58 2019 No.13915049 >>13914675 Based enlightenedposter

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 01:25:02 2019 No.13915167 >>13914728 >Whitehead He was retroactively refuted by Guenon and Parmenides, he simply couldn't contend with the Eleatic doctrine

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 01:51:04 2019 No.13915247

>>13914393
>Buddhists feel that saying something is ineffable but then discussing it in ontological terms is misleading/contradictory, and discussing things in terms of existence or essence is just going to stoke the flames of the already existing delusion
This is not a problem whatsoever from the perspective of Vedantists and other Hindu schools though because they regard the Sruti texts (or their teachings) as being essentially emanations of Brahman that act as signposts pointing the way to Him, and so there is no problem that the Upanishads use positive ontological descriptions because they only do so (in combination with apophatism) to the degree needed to point the way to liberation and as they come from Brahman they are infallible and hence wont cause delusion much like Buddhists regard Buddha to be infallible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 01:51:55 2019 No.13915250 >>13911537 >What does advaita vedanta assert that is at odds with Buddhism? Everything

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 02:10:41 2019 No.13915312 File: 6 KB, 454x520, 1555103044260.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13915167 >He was retroactively refuted by Guenon and Parmenides, he simply couldn't contend with the Eleatic doctrine

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 02:30:39 2019 No.13915376

>>13911537
>What does advaita vedanta assert that is at odds with Buddhism?
AV basically plagiarized Buddhist talking points in order to argue for an Atman/Brahman. Anyone who thinks the Buddha was trying to describe Atman-Brahman in some obscure way is either a maximum brainlet or a coping hinduboo.

tl:dr Sunyata =/= Atman

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 02:32:59 2019 No.13915381 File: 77 KB, 645x729, 1559029097491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13914675 >Buddhism basically said that there isn't an Atman >But basically, Sunyata and Atman thing are the same thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 04:23:38 2019 No.13915674 >>13915376 Anon, anon... who experiences sunyata? that's right

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 07:25:06 2019 No.13916102 >>13915376 >AV basically plagiarized Buddhist talking points in order to argue for an Atman/Brahman such as? >Sunyata =/= Atman the two are totally opposed to one another, you are the real brainlet here

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 08:19:34 2019 No.13916223 >>13914805 >>13914805 people ready had no idea what was the buddha talked about already a few decades after his death. They created their various schools and now it is a mess

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 08:53:16 2019 No.13916320 >>13916223 idk they were pretty autistic about preserving oral tradition

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 08:54:18 2019 No.13916324 >>13915674 maximum brainlet

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 08:58:43 2019 No.13916349

>>13916223
This is wrong. The EBTs are consistent along all traditions there are, with only minor differences. The greatest differences we know of are between the Anguttara Nikāya and the Ekottara Āgama, with the latter likely being the result of an early revision and possibly losing the original teaching, due to comparative efforts with other sources we have (and internal consistencies). We actually have a fairly good idea about what constitutes original Buddhist teachings, and most of the revisions that took place seem to have made to make the teachings more pedagogical for a greater audience (such as collecting teachings under the Noble Eightfold Path, The Five Precepts etc. pp.).

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:08:32 2019 No.13916386 >>13916324 why

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:16:07 2019 No.13916415 >>13912295 >over any silly religious tradition existing for 2,500 years. Hinduism and the Upanishadic tradition is much older, Buddha was fairly late to the scene

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:45:13 2019 No.13916511

>>13916415
Hindu copers please leave. Both Hinduism and Buddhism have their origins in the Indo-Aryan traditions and the Vedic tales they brought with them. Buddhism at the time existed along side a multitude of Vedic traditions and philosophies, most of which are extinct today. What you call Hinduism did not exist. Hinduism is a label which Hindu schools retroactively apply to the Vedic traditions that they see their origin in, and happened as a response to the success of the Buddhist and Jainist schools a few hundred years after their origin. The result was a synthesis of Brahmanical and Sramanic ideas into the Vedic traditions, leading to the classical age of Hinduism. The Vedanta movement only arose to prominence out of this background.

It's a bit baffling that this desire to usurp Buddhism in its authenticity and originality persists to this day. Sometimes I wonder if these threads are being haunted by neo-Vedanta curryposters or if it is just Guénonfags.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:51:37 2019 No.13916537 >>13916511 but Sramana is native to the subcontinent, with possible origins in harappanian society.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:55:53 2019 No.13916554 >>13916324 emptiness and self-contradiction are neither self-illuminating nor self-comprehending, the self-contradiction in thought-catagories can only be realized by the witnessing self

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:57:26 2019 No.13916559 >>13916511 well those curries are the offspring of indo aryans so they are them

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 09:58:38 2019 No.13916568

>>13916537
Yes, Sramanic customs were around just like there were Brahmanic customs. The Buddha most likely grew up in an environment where the two were in heavy dialectical discourse with one another and formulated his teachings as a response to these specific circumstances. I'm not sure what this has to do with the supposed ancient authenticity of the Hindu movements however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:00:10 2019 No.13916574 >>13916559 And so are billions of people in Christian and Muslim countries, yet you don't see us sperging out in these threads.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:02:34 2019 No.13916583

>>13916511
The Upanishads long predate Buddha, there is barely anything original in Buddhism that isn't already in the early Upanishads. Buddha essentially took the metaphysical framework already established in the Upanishads and them tweaked it a bit and added in some things from Jainism and Samkhya, both of which also predate Buddhism. The Buddhist canon mentions that Buddha studied under various teachers including a teacher of Samkhya. Buddhism is essentially the Christianity of eastern religions, similar to how Christianity is a mix of Judaism, greek thought, various recycled near-eastern myths and motifs, in the same way Buddhism was just a grab-bag arranged out of the Hindu Upanishads and Samkhya and the sramanic Jainism. Everyone knows this and the academics all agree about the dates of which came first, Buddhists find this upsetting though and prefer to ignore it and believe in the fantasy that Gaitama just sat under a tree and figured it all out on his own.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:03:36 2019 No.13916589 >>13916574 lol fuck no and even if they were they are not the ones who conserved the tradition so they don't get to put labels on it, the ones who preserved it do

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:12:15 2019 No.13916621 >>13916589 Keep coping shitskin

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:14:05 2019 No.13916629 >>13916621 not feeling so aryan now huh

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:22:37 2019 No.13916663

>>13916583
>The Upanishads long predate Buddha
only 4-5 out of the 108 Upanishads (and half of all primary upanishads) predate Buddhism, with the lowest estimate being 100 years apart. Buddhism is quite unique even among other known sramanas and introduced quite a few new ideas into Indian philosophy that are not found in the Upanishads such as Nirvana and 2 truths doctrine (the latter of which was later appropriated by Shankara in his system).

It's quite telling that scholars use buddhism as a reference when dating the upanishads (pre-buddhist/post-buddhist), it speaks to the influence of this dharma to the overall dharmic substrate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:29:15 2019 No.13916687 >>13916511 guenonfag is a curryposter btw, he revealed himself once in /pol/ when guenon was being shat on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 10:38:54 2019 No.13916727 >>13916663 it speaks to the influence of buddhism on western scholars

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 11:00:50 2019 No.13916819 >>13916727 cope

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 11:07:57 2019 No.13916855 >>13916629 hello my aryan differentlyskinned brother :)

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 11:29:57 2019 No.13916964

>>13916663
>only 4-5 out of the 108 Upanishads
predate Buddhism
Yes, and in those 4 or 5 Upanishads appear most of the major teachings of Buddhism *before Buddhism*, also included in these are the two largest Upanishads
>Buddhism is quite unique even among other known sramans
wrong, point to any centrally-important concept or teaching in the PC that you think is unique and I can probably show you which earlier non-Buddhist school it came from
>and introduced quite a few new ideas into Indian philosophy that are not found in the Upanishads such as Nirvana and 2 truths doctrine (the latter of which was later appropriated by Shankara in his system).
Nirvana is hardly unique, Buddha describes it with the same adjectives that the Upanishads already used for Brahman, the only difference being that Buddha didnt refer to it as a 'Being' and refused discuss its ontological status. The Two truths is just an elaboration on Maya, which predates Buddhism and appears in the early Upanishads. You can't have the veil or illusion of Maya obscuring reality/truth without separating existence into "that which is the reality hidden by Maya" and "that which appears because of Maya, but which isn't absolutely real" (because its an illusion); the concepts of Maya and two truths are inseperable from one another, Nagarjuna's "two truths" is not a unique insight of his or Buddha's. Furthermore, Shankara's is different as he includes a third level of truth prathibhasika. Also, the Mundaka Upanishad which predates Nagarjuna mentions a higher and lower knowledge, the Brihadaranyaka describes Brahman as the "truth of truth" etc. The notion of an apprent truth of phenomenal existence that is sublated by the realization of the absolute truth of Brahman is contained in almost every Upanishad including the pre-Buddhist ones.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 11:52:16 2019 No.13917071

>>13916964
>Nirvana is hardly unique
It cannot be found in the upanishads (only terms but not meaning)

>Buddha describes it with the same adjectives that the Upanishads already used for Brahman
lmao now you're saying Nirvana is the same as Brahman. Absolute cope.

>the only difference being that Buddha didnt refer to it as a 'Being' and refused discuss its ontological status
so its not the same then? you just refuted yourself

>The Two truths is just an elaboration on Maya, which predates Buddhism and appears in the early Upanishads.
An elaboration that wasn't formulated until after the Buddha's death.

>You can't have the veil or illusion of Maya obscuring reality/truth without separating existence into "that which is the reality hidden by Maya" and "that which appears because of Maya, but which isn't absolutely real" (because its an illusion)
this is just complete word salad without coherence.

>the concepts of Maya and two truths are inseperable from one another, Nagarjuna's "two truths" is not a unique insight of his or Buddha's
Two truths is completely unique to Buddhism since the upanishads literally mentions that there is only 1 truth without a second.

>Furthermore, Shankara's is different as he includes a third level of truth prathibhasika
he still plagiarized it, adding his entry to the mix doesn't absolve him.

>Also, the Mundaka Upanishad which predates Nagarjuna mentions a higher and lower knowledge
Mundaka is post-buddhist. 2 truths doctrine comes from the Buddha.

>the Brihadaranyaka describes Brahman as the "truth of truth" etc.
....and?

>The notion of an apprent truth of phenomenal existence that is sublated by the realization of the absolute truth of Brahman is contained in almost every Upanishad including the pre-Buddhist ones.
It isn't. The upanishads LITERALLY says the opposite.

>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12

You are grasping at straws.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:12:17 2019 No.13917765 >>13916554 this

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:17:41 2019 No.13917785 >>13917765 Unity of self is not necessary for a witnessing being. It could exist as a self-interacting multiplicity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:22:02 2019 No.13917812 >>13917785 It doesn't though, because everyone's locus of awareness is experienced as a single continuum and not as multiple interacting awarenesses, the notion of selfhood as a multiplicity doesn't accord with our immediate experience

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:29:33 2019 No.13917855 >>13917812 Can't argue with that. I stand corrected. Unless you assume all of reality as a process that is a valid solution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:47:19 2019 No.13917948 >>13916554 Could you say this one more time but this time for us brainlets?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 14:58:17 2019 No.13918007 >>13917948 You need a self to experience lack of self

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:07:14 2019 No.13918043 >>13911537 >Buddhism Dude no self, no self-essence, no universal self. >Advaita Dude no self, yes self-essence, yes universal self.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:14:08 2019 No.13918074

>>13918007
But we do not experience through the Self. We experience through the 5 skandhas or whatever the equivalent is for Advaitins.

If anything you would need a Self to experience the experience of lack of self but not the experience of lack of self. No?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:21:22 2019 No.13918112 >>13918074 I'm not >>13916554. Just summarized his reply as I understood it. Though the equivalent for the hindus would be the Atman, which counter to Buddhism is a unified and transcendent self, that merely observes.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:36:34 2019 No.13918203

>>13918112
But why wouldn't you be able to just have a combination of aggregates of which individually there can be found no self-essence but which together makes for a conscious observer which also therefore lacks a self-essence to be able to experience lack of self?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:44:57 2019 No.13918250 >>13918203 I'm not sure, but see >>13917812

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 15:45:33 2019 No.13918256 threadly suggestion to meditate and find out for yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 16:32:53 2019 No.13918543 >>13918256 What if I find out I'm dead

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 17:11:47 2019 No.13918751 File: 20 KB, 493x122, 7986.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] why do most buddhists here insist on delusion?

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 17:58:11 2019 No.13919008

>>13916583
Maybe some people are as attached to Buddhism as you claim. Most talking about it on /lit/, though, are just the average Westerner finding something of interest in (an) Eastern religion(s) to their own self-realization and spiritual progress. So this endless repetition of, “Buddhism stole everything from Hinduism and Hinduism is clearly superior!” is pretty useless and annoying. Besides, thinking truth itself can be encapsulated in one specific set of words or historical tradition as opposed to some other set of words or historical tradition is a type of petty dogmatism not worthy of “enlightenment” itself or the quest after it. I think we should happily and secretly plunder what wisdom there is to be found in Buddhism (Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada, Zen, and otherwise), Hinduism (Samkhya, Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita Vedanta, and otherwise), Sufism, Hermeticism, Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalism, and, hell, even Theosophy and other aberrant (but still somewhat useful) Western occult traditions like Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Crowley, etc.

SHIVOHAM

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 18:09:46 2019 No.13919068

>>13919008
Sure lets not debate anything. There is no objective truth and everything goes. Performing Crowleyan butt sex magic is a valid spiritual path too.

Sorry sweetie but only eastern(east of Persia), pre-Christian European and ethnic(African and American etc) spiritual paths are valid. I'm with you on that the Buddhist/Advaita shit flinging is cringe though.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 18:17:47 2019 No.13919105

>>13919068
You can LEARN from something without rigidly ADHERING to it. And ultimately, there’s no such thing as a path. There’s just you doing whatever you’re doing, whether it’s reading certain books, wearing certain beads, following this or that teacher, having certain pictures in your home, and so on. All this is just cultural, direct realization transcends all.

There’s a story of a typical dedicated confused seeker going to the Middle East to find a teacher to lead him to enlightenment. He eventually finds one, a wandering mendicant, who amazes and delights the student and puts him on the path to enlightenment. “This is wonderful!” says the student. “Before this, I was just spinning my wheels in the mud, unable to go either forwards or backwards! This is real yoga.” “Yes,” the teacher agrees, “but what the fuck is this ‘yoga’ you’re always talking about?”

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 18:21:19 2019 No.13919127

>>13919105
Cringe. Either you adopt it fully and feel the fervor of an absolute and fully engulfing zealotry burning within you which leaves you no other path than to with a club-sized prayer wheel spread the Dharma BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY... or you just go and buy some sort of chastity device.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 18:25:16 2019 No.13919149 >>13919127 The zeal for the divine is itself what produces results, not one’s conception of the divine taking on the name of Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, or the Buddha-mind.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 21:03:27 2019 No.13919945

>>13919008
Its almost always the Buddhists who start shit-flinging and who then get upset when people reply back with counter-arguments. Case in point, the very first post in this thread insulting Hindus in an unprompted manner and accusing Advaita of stealing from Buddhism. Many Hindus or people into Hindu philosophy have an appreciation for Buddhism, its invariably the Buddhists who as a rule always need to shit on Hinduism to feel better about themselves

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 23:02:17 2019 No.13920576 >>13919127 >using chastity-device as an insult when Buddhism demands chastity of bhikkus

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 23:02:57 2019 No.13920580 File: 5 KB, 211x239, 1558328854691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13918751 >nirvana is absolute

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 23:04:20 2019 No.13920588
File: 31 KB, 293x369, Nagarjuna17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13915376
You are a fool!
http://the-wanderling.com/sunyata.html

"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. Since absolute inconceivable truth is also Sunya, Sunyata or the void is shared by both Samsara and Nirvana. Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood."

NAGARJUNA IS BASED!

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 23:32:21 2019 No.13920694

>>13917071
Is English not your first language? You appear to have misunderstood several fairly simple points that I made

>lmao now you're saying Nirvana is the same as Brahman. Absolute cope.
No I'm not, I said that Nirvana is "hardly unique" which means "not unique". Saying X is not unique is not the same as saying X is the same as Y. I said that Nirvana is not unique because Buddha mostly describes it in the same ways as the pre-Buddhist Upanishads describe Brahman/Moksha with a few differences, which I pointed out already

>so its not the same then? you just refuted yourself
If you had paid attention I never said they were the exact same to begin with, but that like much of early Buddhism Nirvana is evidently based on Upanishadic concepts, in this case Brahman/moksha but with a few changes

>this is just complete word salad without coherence.
Since the meaning appears to have went over your head I'll explain it once more:

1. The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka describes the principle of Maya as causing the appearance of multiplicity and it also mentions truth being covered by a veil in the same text. Chandogya and the other pre-Buddhist ones use all sorts of metaphors to describe illusion and ignorance as well
2. An illusion is a false appearance
3. When we analyze the nature of illusion, we have to admit that the reality underlying the illusion on which the illusion is predicated is alone truly real, when we misperceive a rope to be a snake, only the rope is actually real
4. Nevertheless, the snake (or dreams etc) still appears as empirically real to us and we believe that the illusion is real until that knowledge is sublated by knowledge of actual reality in this case the rope
5. The illusion of snake or dream cannot be said to be absolutely unreal like a sky-flower or the son of a barren women because then it would not falsely appear to us as empirically real to begin with.
6. The difference between absolutely unreal and illusion naturally leads to the classification of illusions as "conditionally real", "apparently real" etc as it is the only way to accurately describe them that is free of internal contradictions and the only way that accords with how we experience them

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 23:33:51 2019 No.13920705

>>13920694
7. The Brihadaranyaka clearly indicates that the phenomenal world is an illusion when it says that Brahman appears as manifold because of Maya in line 2.5.19, and also when it says that there is no difference (multiplicity) in Brahman and that people who perceive difference/multiplicity go from death to death in the cycle of transmigration, "There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It." - (Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19.). The usage of the phrase "as it were" in that line is to emphasize that there is no real difference/multiplicity in reality, but only "as it were".
8. When we apply the logic listed above to the lines from the Brihadaranyaka describing the phenomenal world as unreal, there is no logical and internally-consistent way to understand the text other than to interpret it as saying that the phenomenal world of multiplicity is only apparently- or conditionally-true, while the Brahman alone that is devoid of difference is the absolute truth; hence the notion of two-truths is implicitly contained in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads

>Mundaka is post-buddhist. 2 truths doctrine comes from the Buddha.
Buddha does not mention the two truths once in the entire Pali Canon, Mundaka is the earliest text that I'm aware of that explicitly contrasts a higher and lower knowledge

>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12
This amounts to a denial of the ultimate reality of the conventional truth of appearances, the same text describes Brahman as the "truth of truth" multiple times to emphasize that it is the absolute truth underlying the apparent truth of phenomenal reality and then goes on to deny the ultimate truth of multiplicity to indicate that Brahman alone is truly real. In the final analysis all conventional truth is ultimately unreal or untruth.

>It isn't. The upanishads LITERALLY says the opposite.
When the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad line 6.1.4. says: "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality" and then repeats the message with the example of clay, gold etc in other lines, what could the Upanishad possibly be saying other than to indicate that there is an ultimate reality and truth to be realized which underlies the conventional world of multiplicity? It's obvious that's what the import of the text is. There are many such lines throughout the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:26:17 2019 No.13920846

>>13920694
Good morning guenonfag, shall we continue the discussion?

>Is English not your first language? You appear to have misunderstood several fairly simple points that I made
'hurrr u no spek engrish durrr' lmao you're such a simpleton aren't you.

>I said that Nirvana is not unique because Buddha mostly describes it in the same ways as the pre-Buddhist Upanishads describe Brahman/Moksha with a few differences, which I pointed out already
Brahman and Moksha is not the same as Nirvana, you haven't pointed anything worthwhile.

>Since the meaning appears to have went over your head I'll explain it once more:
there's no meaning in your nonsensical babble, you just continue to speak in tongues for some reason.

>Buddha does not mention the two truths once in the entire Pali Canon, Mundaka is the earliest text that I'm aware of that explicitly contrasts a higher and lower knowledge
Not explicitly for sure but the Buddha does mention 2 kinds of truths in the PC, enough for the earliest schools of Buddhism to take note and formulate it explicitly. Also Mundaka is post-buddhist and likely influenced by buddhism according to scholars.

>This amounts to a denial of the ultimate reality of the conventional truth of appearances, the same text describes Brahman as the "truth of truth" multiple times to emphasize that it is the absolute truth underlying the apparent truth of phenomenal reality and then goes on to deny the ultimate truth of multiplicity to indicate that Brahman alone is truly real. In the final analysis all conventional truth is ultimately unreal or untruth.
lmao the cognitive dissonance you are showing when confronted with DIRECT quotes from the Upanishads you speak highly of and contradict your statements is absolutely astounding.

"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12
"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:39:07 2019 No.13920872 >>13920694 >>13920705 dude just let this miserable retard perish, why are you offering help to someone who doesnt want it

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:42:17 2019 No.13920885

>>13920872
yea you're right, guenonfag is way to stubborn to have an insightful conversation with. I'll desist I guess but i'll just remind him one more time:

>"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:46:06 2019 No.13920896 >>13920885 shut the fuck up you insufferable brainlet, insofar as you seem to be a literal down syndrome retard and not to understand english properly i tell you that you are not worth helping

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:47:52 2019 No.13920904
File: 254 KB, 785x1000, 1548279224892.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13920896
>shut the fuck up you insufferable brainlet, insofar as you seem to be a literal down syndrome retard and not to understand english properly i tell you that you are not worth helping

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 00:52:46 2019 No.13920919 >>13920588 based nagarjuna truly the end game of Buddhist philosophy tbqh everything afterwards was just unnecessary

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 01:10:14 2019 No.13920976 >tfw improperly applied idea of dependence of things has heightened my sense of self doubt and misery

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 01:21:24 2019 No.13921005 >>13920976 well it’s shit if you try to understand dependent arising and emptiness conceptually but not directly. Meditate and ease off with obsessing over the “idea of dependence.” Do mettā practice

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 01:32:38 2019 No.13921044 >>13920919 Dolpopa goes deeper into the truth then Nagarjuna

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 01:50:43 2019 No.13921085 File: 64 KB, 1024x798, 8c6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13921005 too late

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 02:20:05 2019 No.13921155 >>13914675 cringe

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:01:25 2019 No.13921238 >>13921005 Lol meditation is literally lobotomization

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:13:43 2019 No.13921269 >>13921238 Laziness cope https://opentheory.net/2018/12/the-neuroscience-of-meditation/

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:25:48 2019 No.13921286

>>13920846
I
>you haven't pointed anything worthwhile.

In the Pali Canon in {Iti 2.16; Iti 37}

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html

The Buddha describes Nirvana this way:

The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] - is unfit for delight.

The escape from that is calm, permanent, beyond inference, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications, bliss.

In the above passage and numerous similar ones when Buddha described Nirvana he repeated many of the same adjectives that were already applied to Brahman in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad from 200-300 years before him such as

unborn (Br. 4.4.22.) (Br. 4.4.25)
stainless/taintless (Br. 4.4.23.) (Br. 4.4.20.)
bliss (Br. 3.9.28.) (Br. 4.3.32.)
fearless (Br. 4.4.25.)
beyond pain (Br. 4.5.15.) (Br. 1.5.20.)
undecaying (Br. 4.4.25.) (Br 4.5.15.)
imperceptible (as an object) (Br. 4.5.15.)
unlimited (Br. 2.3.1)

>there's no meaning in your nonsensical babble,
If you have no response to the points I made then that's okay, but when you insist that something is nonsensical when in actuality everyone can understand it you only end up making a fool out of yourself

>but the Buddha does mention 2 kinds of truths in the PC
That's incorrect. According to the stanford encyclopedia article on the subject "Contemporary scholarship suggests that the Buddha himself may not have made any explicit reference to the two truths. The early textual materials such as Pali Nikayas and agamas ascribed to the Buddha does not make explicit mention of the distinction of the two truths. Recent studies suggest that the two truths distinction is an innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma which came into prominence originally as a heuristic device useful for later interpreters to reconcile apparent inconsistent statements in the Buddha's teachings"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/

The Mundaka Upanishad is the first text to make the distinction, and a long time before Nagarjuna at that. The notion that Buddhists or Buddha came up with it first remains an unproven hypothesis

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:27:01 2019 No.13921289

>>13921286
>Mundaka is likely influenced by buddhism according to scholars.
And where is the evidence for what? What is the allegedly Buddhist content or influence? I'm highly skeptical to say the least

>quotes from the Upanishads you speak highly of and contradict your statements
You evidently have little understanding of how the Upanishads have traditionally been understood, there are occasionally contradictory verses in them and it has been the norm in these cases to understand them in relation to one another, instead of taking one single verse as the ultimate determinant of truth

from wikipedia:

"Adi Shankara cautioned against cherrypicking a phrase or verse out of context from Vedic literature, and remarks in the opening chapter of his Brahmasutra-Bhasya that the Anvaya (theme or purport) of any treatise can only be correctly understood if one attends to the Samanavayat Tatparya Linga, that is six characteristics of the text under consideration: (1) the common in Upakrama (introductory statement) and Upasamhara (conclusions); Abhyasa (message repeated); (3) Apurvata (unique proposition or novelty); (4) Phala (fruit or result desired); (5) Arthavada (explained meaning, praised point) and (6) Yukti (verifiable reasoning). While this methodology has roots in the theoretical works of Nyaya Hinduism, Shankara consolidated and applied it with his unique exegetical method called Anvaya-Vyatireka, which states that for proper understanding one must "accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are incompatible with any".

Under such a method, taking that one line out of context as you are would not allow one to understand what the text is talking about, but rather the proper course would be to compare it to the other lines and ideas of the same text. And when we do, we clearly see that the notion of illusion and the hidden ultimately real underlying it appears all throughout the earliest Upanishads. Taking that one lines as proof that the earliest Upanishads didnt contain the concept of absolute truth and conventional truth is especially dumb because 900-800 years before Nagarjuna when the early Upanishads come from people might have called that concept a totally different name than "two truths" they may called it the concept of "absolute truth" or the "truth of truth" etc. You are basing your argument on the unlikely notion that people from almost a millennium before Nagarjuna would have used the exact same name and wording for an abstract metaphysical concept, which is a highly flawed presumption.

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:50:35 2019 No.13921335

>>13918074
>If anything you would need a Self to experience the experience of lack of self but not the experience of lack of self.
You see, to maintain that there is a distinction between experiencing the experience of a lack of self and experiencing a lack of self is really to say that the later is not actually experienced, in which case the whole point of Buddhism and spiritual practice becomes moot, hence why Buddha never catagorically denied that Atma existed because he knew that it results in absurdities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 03:56:50 2019 No.13921348 Just been reading Geunons introductory book interestingly enough he seems to be really against the idea that Mahayana Buddhism developed later on is otherwise not as if not more closer to the original teachings than Theravada Buddhism

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 05:58:27 2019 No.13921565

>>13921286
>>13921289
"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12
"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12

I rest my case

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 05:59:30 2019 No.13921569 >>13921348 Guenon is a brainlet, don’t take his words seriously

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 08:27:44 2019 No.13921978 >>13920588 redpill me on the wanderling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 10:28:24 2019 No.13922287 >>13921569 what's wrong with guenon?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 10:39:36 2019 No.13922321 >>13921565 as you were unable to provide a coherent response to any of the points that I made, I think it is safe to say that I won our little debate, better luck next time!

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 10:58:46 2019 No.13922378

>>13921044
>Dölpopa even wrote a prayer wishing that the Buddhas might take pity on those Buddhists who deem that the Emptiness taught by the Buddha is nothing more than a non-affirming negation and concerns only self-emptiness (the absence of essence in all things). Dölpopa writes on this point:

>May they [the Buddhas] have pity on those who hold that the whole of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness concerned self-emptiness alone and hold them in their compassion.
>May they [the Buddhas] have pity on those who hold that the whole of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness concerned a non-affirming negation alone, and hold them in their compassion.[20]

truly based

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 11:52:45 2019 No.13922554

>>13921269
Lol what is about this kind of articles on contemporany buddhism and scientism of this kind:
>Meditaion help you with neuronal connections
>Meditation strengths your memory
>Meditation stops emotional outbursts
Meditation has becoming just a tool to be a better worker ant less likely to complain or outright a desensitized drone altogheter, scared of "attachments" and "emotional outbursts", maybe it is because western buddhism doesn't really believe it's shit cosmogony, that the only value it seems in buddhism are this little mental devices that allow them to continue their lifes

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 11:56:41 2019 No.13922564 >>13922554 that actually doesn't happen because eventually it makes you question everything, could give you literal panic attacks if you're unknowingly holding to wrong views

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 12:09:35 2019 No.13922610 >>13922564 So scawy, maybe you didn't lobotomize yourself hard enough

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 12:27:17 2019 No.13922680 >>13921238 something both Buddhists and Advaitans do why are you even in this thread

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 12:37:00 2019 No.13922719

>>13921348
it’s a bit of a fuckfest
the closest school to the original Nikaya/Agama teachings was early Madhyamaka Mahayana. They taught what the suttas taught without revision.
Theravada is supposed to hold the Nikayas as the primary source for their teachings, but in practice they are heavily reliant on the Abhidhamma and Abhidhamma commentaries, which differ from the suttas on many of the deepest teachings, and even go as far as to posit some sort of atomistic realism (momentariness-of-dharmas theory). The Theravadin meditative and disciplinary practices do match those from the Pali Canon more closely/explicitly, but the Mahayana (specifically the schools most faithful to Madhyamaka moreso than late Yogachara) match the philosophy of the EBTs far better than most Theravada schools, which deviate from them heavily. There are some Theravadin schools who reject the realism of Abhidhamma and commentaries and they too share the Madhyamaka Mahayana view of emptiness and dependent arising (faithful to the EBTs) but they are far and few between, often called heretics by other traditional Theravadins.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 12:45:57 2019 No.13922751 File: 536 KB, 1024x681, 1528201350728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] is collective karma actually a thing

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 14:17:33 2019 No.13923125

>>13918203
Because our continuum of awareness is always experienced as a single unchanging presence. The objects and sensations appear and dissapear in the same field of consciousness which is itself never experienced as internally divided. One never experiences two totally different and unrelated thoughts or sensations at the same time but one's awareness only registers one thing at a time and only then after the one sensation or thought has been registered does the mind elaborate on it or jump to related content. It is true that it could be a multiplicity or anything else falsely "appearing" this way, but this doesn't accord with our experience, any theory that has to rely on unfalsifiable claims that contradict basic epistemology compares unfavorably to theories that actually align with our immediate experience.

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 16:10:22 2019 No.13923672

>>13922610
Bro why? I'm not sure what you're implying. I want to say:
1) I enjoy/savor the idea that, if you aren't trying to reflect on your views while racking up firsthand contradictory experience, you will have a rough/turbulent experience.
2) If you find meditation to be lobotomy, I would like to know why.
3) Even if secular workers use meditation as a productivity booster, or a spirituality-lite self help practice, they're still gaining insight. Probably why they have a bad time, but some of them may submit to the experience and seek the proper education.

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 17:13:45 2019 No.13923982

>>13911720
In my judgement, shouldn't human beings only possess the very concept of Eternality if there is a dimension of ourselves which contains it? That's my view of concepts, anyway. I don't think it makes sense for finite, changing, biological, immanent creatures like ourselves to have the concepts of Totality/All, Infinity, Eternity, etc - let alone have an attraction towards them, rather than the concepts which resemble our outward forms - except by our own nature being such. And for me personally, I identify Consciousness as having those attributes, hence how our minds were able to conceptualize them in the first place.

What do you think? Any substance here?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 17:46:05 2019 No.13924129 File: 502 KB, 1498x984, Buddhism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Which book should I read to get started with learning about Buddhism/meditation?

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 18:00:41 2019 No.13924183

>>13919105
Glad to see another person who recognizes the distinct between cultural presentations, and the universal realities underlying them - the former being historical doctrines, and the latter being the reality they are all attempting to reach. I wish people would lose themselves less in the cultural presentation, and strive instead for the colorless, experiential realization directly. As you describe. But it's far easier for the thinking-mind to simply identify with ghe concepts it's encountered and subsequently feel a false sense of gnosis for doing so. I am personally firmly of the belief that if there is indeed a Divine, to which Humanity (or any species) has access, then it should be realizable without the mediation of any scriptures whatsoever. Even the most correct of scriptures can only be symbolic approximations of a reality which never needed them to be experienced in the first place (since it is our own inextricable nature, after all). Not say that "all religions are true", but if Divine is both real and reachable, then it stands to say that one does not require any religious culture to reach it (even if some have understood its nature better than others, and the means to get there as well).

In short: meditation, not memorization.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 18:16:18 2019 No.13924243 >>13924183 all the scriptures express is that which cannot be expressed, but expression is just a means to realise the inexpressible. that is, the only means to ''attain'' it is through Knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 18:20:30 2019 No.13924262 >>13922751 Not in Buddhism, or atleast not that I know of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 18:25:25 2019 No.13924272 >>13924129 Practical Insight Meditation is good for a beginner balance it with mettā (instructions are simple enough to be found online) once you get really advanced, check out open awareness practices like Shikantaza

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 19:39:47 2019 No.13924538 >>13923672 meditation does not automatically produce insight

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 19:43:12 2019 No.13924550 >>13912232 >Theravada is the most prominent not by population it’s not. not by a long shot

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 21:05:30 2019 No.13924887 >>13924538 I agree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 21:31:11 2019 No.13925018 File: 93 KB, 645x729, 1554957605612.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13922321 >haha I won the debate! better luck again >:)

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 22:27:26 2019 No.13925264

>>13922321
>The Buddha describes Nirvana this way:
Imagine thinking Nirvana is the same as Brahman because 'it uses the same adjective'. What a silly argument, its like saying a room lamp and the Sun are the same thing because they are both bright and shiny. Next argument please.

>If you have no response to the points I made then that's okay, but when you insist that something is nonsensical when in actuality everyone can understand it you only end up making a fool out of yourself
I promise you no one understands some of the senselessness in your post, we're all laughing at you.

>That's incorrect. According to the stanford encyclopedia article on the subject
It isn't incorrect, the Pali canon makes the distinction not between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. All later schools have adopted the same analysis, it can only mean that it was derived from the Suttas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

>The Mundaka Upanishad is the first text to make the distinction, and a long time before Nagarjuna at that. The notion that Buddhists or Buddha came up with it first remains an unproven hypothesis
Mundaka makes the distinction between higher and lower knowledge, this isn't the 2 truths doctrine by the way it is perhaps a corruption of the 2 truths doctrine. The 2 truths doctrine being a buddhist invention is pretty much widely acknowledged by scholars, no amount of babble-posting will change it.

>And where is the evidence for what? What is the allegedly Buddhist content or influence? I'm highly skeptical to say the least
According to Max Mueller, "the title is all the more strange because Mundaka, in its commonest acceptation, is used as a term of reproach for Buddhist mendicants, who are called 'Shavelings' in opposition to the Brahmans, who dress their hair carefully, and often display by its peculiar arrangement either their family or their rank. Many doctrines of the Upanishads are, no doubt, pure Buddhism". And since Patrick Olivelle says "the Mundaka are rather late Upanisads and are, in all probability, post-Buddhist", we can deduce that the Mundaka was likely influenced by early Buddhism.

>You evidently have little understanding of how the Upanishads have traditionally been understood, there are occasionally contradictory verses in them
Pure cope. I'll post it again to remind you:
>"What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. -Br Up 2.12"
>"There cannot be two truths"

>as you were unable to provide a coherent response to any of the points that I made, I think it is safe to say that I won our little debate, better luck next time!
I was baiting for you to say this, it reveals quite a lot about your sad existence to 'win internet arguments for the sake of Advaita'. Guenonfag, ladies and gentlemen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 22:55:44 2019 No.13925379 >>13911537 I just wanted to say that when I thank the buddha, the dharma and the sangha after every meditation session, I think of anonymous buddhposters on /lit/. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 23:15:21 2019 No.13925452 >>13925379 godspeed buddhistbro

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 23:42:02 2019 No.13925530

>>13925264
>What a silly argument
I just quoted you the lines from the PC and the early Upanishads which show that Nirvana was basically copied and pasted from them with a few modifications, if you don't have a rebuttal that's okay

>It isn't incorrect, the Pali canon makes the distinction not between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth,
That's not the same as the two truths, and that's a way more tenuous connection than can be found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. There is not a single mention of two truths in the Pali Canon. The first text to mention a higher (absolute) and lower knowledge is the Mundaka, for all we know Nagarjuna got the idea from Mundaka. There is no proof of the concept existing in Buddhism until after Hindu scriptures mention it.

>Mundaka makes the distinction between higher and lower knowledge, this isn't the 2 truths doctrine by the way
It's not the exact same but the concept in the Mundaka is way closer to two truths than your answer about "different interpretations of the same truth" existing in the Pali Canon, as the two truths in both Vedanta and Madhyamaka make the distinction of an "absolute truth" being at a higher level than the conventional truth.

>According to Max Mueller, "the title is all the more strange because Mundaka, in its commonest acceptation, is used as a term of reproach for Buddhist mendicants
1. Mueller's 19th century research and positions are considered by modern researchers to be very dated and wrong on various things, it's telling that you are forced to quote him
2. As Mueller himself admits Mundaka has multiple meanings and so that may not be the purpose of it, and the text doesnt mention Buddhism anyway
3. Asceticism/monasticism existed in Hinduism and were promoted by the Upanishads before Buddha was even born

>And since Patrick Olivelle says "the Mundaka are rather late Upanisads and are, in all probability, post-Buddhist", we can deduce that the Mundaka was likely influenced by early Buddhism.
No, that's poor reasoning. Just because something B comes after A does not mean that B was automatically influenced by A, if we apply that same standard than you are forced to admit that all of Buddhism is influenced by the Upanishads because the Upanishads predate Buddhism, you are using a self-defeating argument here pal.

In any case I was asking for specific things in the Upanishad that are Buddhist-influenced, which you never provided any evidence for. A vague and hypothetical connection involving possible connotations of the name of the text is not good evidence

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 01:03:34 2019 No.13925760

>>13925530
>I just quoted you the lines from the PC and the early Upanishads which show that Nirvana was basically copied and pasted from them with a few modifications, if you don't have a rebuttal that's okay
quit deflecting, you're just showing me how they are both described. That doesn't mean they are the same or based off the other.

>That's not the same as the two truths, and that's a way more tenuous connection than can be found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.
You're arguing 2 different concepts, the doctrine in buddhism isn't the same as the purported 'copy' in the mundaka upanishad or otherwise. Again its highly likely that mundaka corrupted the 2 truths doctrine but made it so that it doesn't contradict Br Up 2.12.

>There is not a single mention of two truths in the Pali Canon.
Almost all schools (even pre-Nagarjuna schools such as the 3rd century Prajñaptivāda school) derive the 2 truths doctrine from the Suttas. Nagarjuna himself derived it from several suttas, such as the Kaccānagottasutta. I already admitted the Buddha didn't explicitly formulate the two truths doctrine but its all found in his suttas.

>The first text to mention a higher (absolute) and lower knowledge is the Mundaka, for all we know Nagarjuna got the idea from Mundaka. There is no proof of the concept existing in Buddhism until after Hindu scriptures mention it.
'for all we know' Nagarjuna got the idea from the pre-Mundaka suttas, just a thought.

>1. Mueller's 19th century research and positions are considered by modern researchers to be very dated and wrong on various things, it's telling that you are forced to quote him
Not an argument, the fact that mundaka contains buddhistic ideas and just to happens to be post-buddhist was never in contention. You are just upset because mundaka was highly praised by Godapada, Shankara and advaitists alike so it hinges on the idea that it should be original at all cost.

>2. As Mueller himself admits Mundaka has multiple meanings
just another deflective cope

>3. Asceticism/monasticism existed in Hinduism and were promoted by the Upanishads before Buddha was even born
Still doesn't dispute the fact that mundaka was a primarily buddhist term, adds more to my argument.

>No, that's poor reasoning. Just because something B comes after A does not mean that B was automatically influenced by A...
B only comes from A if B is similar to A. Buddhism has unique ideas and therefore could not entirely come from A, whereas mundaka satisfies both criteria of being post-buddhist and eerily similar. Obviously I'm not a dogmatist like you and wouldn't say for an absolute fact that mundaka plagiarized buddhism, but the dice isn't on your side.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 01:26:39 2019 No.13925827 can some dhammabros start a lit /sangha/ to help eachother on the path?

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 01:31:34 2019 No.13925837

>>13925530
>In any case I was asking for specific things in the Upanishad that are Buddhist-influenced, which you never provided any evidence for. A vague and hypothetical connection involving possible connotations of the name of the text is not good evidence

>Then the influence of the Mundaka upanishad is of special significance. The mundaka is the most vociferous in decrying the efficacy of the Vedic rituals, and clearly says that "those fools who consider them as the highest good (sreya) are sure to undergo decay and death again and again". They are compared to the blind led by the blind, the same analogy as given by the Buddha. Its disapproval of the existing caste-system also is implied in the significant predicate used for the Brahman viz. 'agotram', 'avarnam' i.e without family and without caste. The fundamental theory of Buddhism that man is born according to his desires in the places appropriate to him is also found state in the Mundaka. Similarly the ideas of the Mundaka III.I.10 that "whatever world (loka) and whatever pleasure a man of inner purification desires for himself, he attains them" is found amplified in M.I 33-36, 289; II. 100-103. Even the rationalistic approach of Buddha and his teaching of the middle path seem to be voiced by the Mundaka when it says "the Atman is not attainable by the scriptural discourse, nor by intellectual power nor by much hearing....nor can it be attained by one who is devoid of strength, thoughtfulness and right meditation".

We could go on and on about little tidbits like this but the fact is that the post-Buddhist Manduka (much like the Mandukya and Maitrayaniya) contain Buddhistic ideas.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 01:33:43 2019 No.13925841

>>13925760
>Almost all schools derive the two truths doctrine from the Suttas
>but its all found in his suttas
No it's not, two truths appears nowhere in the Suttas, you are unable to provide any citation demonstrating it, only a totally different concept that Buddhists want to foister the two truths onto, after probably obtaining the concept from Mundaka. I love how any connection no matter how vague you take as proof that Vedanta took something from Buddhism but when it's indisputable that a Hindu text mentioned the concept first (like with almost everything else about Buddhism such as maya, monasticism etc) than you want to plead that it's in the Suttas.

>the fact that mundaka contains Buddhist ideals
such as? I've asked you multiple times already to point to whatever the allegedly buddhist-influenced content found within the text is and you still have not provided any evidence such as citing the lines in question and explaining why you believe they are Buddhist-influenced like I have been doing in my posts.

>Buddhism has unique ideas
No it really doesn't. There isn't any significant concept or teaching in the Suttas that you can point to that doesn't already appear in the early Upanishads. The 4 noble truths, the 3 characteristics, the ethical ideals of the 8-fold path, maya, rebirth/transmigration, monasticism, meditation, and so on all are found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya alone (ask me about where any of these are found and I'll quote you the exact line). There really isn't anything new or ground-breaking in Buddhism. If you think there is than please enlighten me because I've looked hard and haven't found anything.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 01:45:02 2019 No.13925874

>>13925841
>No it's not, two truths appears nowhere in the Suttas, you are unable to provide any citation demonstrating it, only a totally different concept that Buddhists want to foister the two truths onto,
I already gave you the source of the 2 truth doctrine, Samyutta Nikaya 12.15 you just keep ignoring it.

>after probably obtaining the concept from Mundaka. I love how any connection no matter how vague you take as proof that Vedanta took something from Buddhism but when it's indisputable that a Hindu text mentioned the concept first (like with almost everything else about Buddhism such as maya, monasticism etc) than you want to plead that it's in the Suttas.
This is the third time I'm repeating this point, the 'higher knowledge and lower knowledge' is not the same as the buddhist 2 truths doctrine. Why is this so hard to grasp?

>such as? I've asked you multiple times already to point to whatever the allegedly buddhist-influenced content found within the text is and you still have not provided any evidence such as citing the lines in question and explaining why you believe they are Buddhist-influenced like I have been doing in my posts.
>>13925837

>No it really doesn't. There isn't any significant concept or teaching in the Suttas that you can point to that doesn't already appear in the early Upanishads. The 4 noble truths, the 3 characteristics, the ethical ideals of the 8-fold path, maya, rebirth/transmigration, monasticism, meditation, and so on all are found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya alone (ask me about where any of these are found and I'll quote you the exact line). There really isn't anything new or ground-breaking in Buddhism. If you think there is than please enlighten me because I've looked hard and haven't found anything.
lmao you are just sperging out right now because you've been confronted with evidence that shattered your previous views. Whatever autistic argumentation you can come up with doesn't change cold hard facts, it just makes you look foolish.

Also why are you posting from a new IP? Are you running errands again like last time?

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 02:41:44 2019 No.13925984

>>13925837
>The mundaka is the most vociferous in decrying the efficacy of the Vedic rituals, and clearly says that "those fools who consider them as the highest good (sreya) are sure to undergo decay and death again and again".
The Mundaka does not decry the efficiency of Vedic rituals but only says that they don't lead to the highest which is Brahman; this is not the same as saying they dont have their own efficiency with regard to their respective purposes such as attaining material wealth etc. In any case the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka already makes it clear that rituals are not the path to Brahman and only direct realization is, the Mundaka is just restating this.

The Brihadaranyaka instructs that "The Self alone is to be meditated on" - Br. 1.4.7. and "One should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. He who meditates upon the Self alone as dear-what he holds dear will not perish" - Br. 1.4.8. After making it clear in the beginning that direct realization is key, the Brihadaranyaka denies that there are other valid paths to Brahman, at one point Yajnavalkya announces that he is going to become a monk (Br. 4.5.2.) and states that Immortality/moksha is not reached through wealth in the next line (Br. 4.5.2.) which amounts to a denial of ritual as a valid means as wealth is both a requirement of performing and the object of many Vedic rituals. The Brihadaranyaka also says that Brahman "neither increases nor decreases through work" (Br. 4.4.23.). In one particularly long line in it says that monks wishing to know Brahman renounce their homes (and by extension vedic ritual which cannot be performed by a monk): "Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Wishing for this world (i.e. the Self) monks renounce their homes. "The knowers of Brahman of olden times, it is said, did not wish for offspring because they thought: 'What shall we do with offspring-we who have attained this Self, this world? They gave up, it is said, their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds and led the life of religious mendicants." - (Br. 4.4.22.)

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 02:42:50 2019 No.13925986

>>13925984
>Its disapproval of the existing caste-system also is implied in the significant predicate used for the Brahman viz. 'agotram', 'avarnam' i.e without family and without caste.
That does not mean disapproval of the caste system, what kind of brainlet wrote this? I'm guessing this is probably a scholar of Buddhism and not Hinduism. That passage is referring to how ultimately castes and other distinctions don't actually exist in Nirguna Brahman who is distinctionless. The very same sort of language appears in the Brihadaranyaka when it says in line 4.3.21. "As a man fully embraced by his beloved wife knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within, so does this infinite being (the self) when fully embraced by the Supreme Self, know nothing that is without, nothing that is within" and in the next line in (Br. 4.3.22) "In this state a father is no more a father, a mother is no more a mother, the worlds are no more the worlds, the gods are no more the gods, the Vedas are no more the Vedas. In this state a thief is no more a thief, the killer of a noble brahmin no more a killer, a chandala is no more a chandala" etc. That line rather than condeming a killer of brahmins is saying that he like all other distinctions doesn't really exist in Brahman.

>The fundamental theory of Buddhism that man is born according to his desires in the places appropriate to him is also found state in the Mundaka
That is not a Buddhist theory but is a Hindu concept predating Buddhism and is already found in the Brihadaranyaka in line 4.4.6. "because of attachment, the transmigrating self, togather with its work, attains that result to which its subtle body or mind clings"

>Even the rationalistic approach of Buddha and his teaching of the middle path seem to be voiced by the Mundaka when it says "the Atman is not attainable by the scriptural discourse, nor by intellectual power nor by much hearing....nor can it be attained by one who is devoid of strength, thoughtfulness and right meditation".
That passage is anti-rationalistic not rationalistic, another brainlet comment by the anonymous author you are quoting, anyways the Brihadaranyaka already makes it clear in lines quoted above that direct realization is the only means of attaining Brahman

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 02:47:45 2019 No.13925995 >>13925874 name one (1) centrally important concept or teaching in the Suttas that you think is original

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 02:55:16 2019 No.13926017 >>13925995 Pratītyasamutpāda

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 02:58:33 2019 No.13926022 >>13925984 >>13925986 >a-anyway it’s in the prebuddhist brihahdhdnayanka upanishad so there you go! Lmao the desperation oozing out of you is so apparent, you just keep deflecting and going off on tangents.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 08:35:07 2019 No.13926819
File: 452 KB, 1920x1103, Huike_thinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What are the arguments for Zen not being Buddhist? I've heard some people say it.

Have Zen rejected scripture and Buddhist ethics as a necessary step toward enlightenment?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 09:22:00 2019 No.13926990 Love you guenonfag Thanks for keeping my thread alive Best regards, OP B)

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 09:39:41 2019 No.13927057

>>13926017
try again

>Alex Wayman has argued that the idea of "dependent origination" may precede the birth of the Buddha, noting that the first four causal links starting with Avidya in the Twelve Nidānas are found in the cosmic development theory of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and other older Vedic texts. Jeffrey Hopkins notes that terms synonymous to Pratītyasamutpāda are Apekṣhasamutpāda and Prāpyasamutpāda. According to Kalupahana, the concept of causality and causal efficacy where "cause produces an effect because a property or svadha is inherent in something", appears extensively in the Indian thought in the Vedic literature of the 2nd millennium BCE, such as the 10th mandala of the Rigveda and the Brahmanas layer of the Vedas.

>A similar resemblance has been noted by Jurewicz, who argues that the first four nidanas resemble the Hymn of Creation of RigVeda X, 129, in which avijja (ignorance) leads to kamma (desire), which is the seed of vijnana ("consciousness"). This consciousness is a "singular consciousness," (Jurewicz) "non-dual consciousness," (Gombrich) "reflexive, cognizing itself" (Gombrich). When the created world, name and form, evolves, pure consciousness manifests itself in the world. It mistakenly identifies itself with name and form, losing sight of its real identity. The Buddha mimicked this creation story, making clear how the entanglement with the world "drive a human being into deeper and deeper ignorance about himself." According to Jurewicz, the Buddha may have picked the term nama-rupa, because "the division of consciousness into name and form has only the negative value of an act which hinders cognition."

>According to Gombrich, the Buddhist tradition soon lost sight of this connection with the Vedic worldview. It was aware that at this point there is the appearance of an individual person, which the Buddha referred to as the five skandhas, denying a self (atman) separate from these skandhas. The Buddhist tradition equated rupa with the first skandha, and nama with the other four. Yet, as Gombrich notes, samkhara, vijnana, and vedana also appear as separate links in the twelvefold list, so this eqaution can't be correct for this nidana. According to Jurewizc, all twelve nidanas show similarities with the Vedic cosmogeny. They may have been invoked for educated listeners, to make the point that suffering arises in dependence on psychological processes without an atman, thereby rejecting the Vedic outlook.

>According to Gombrich, following Frauwallner,[note 35] the twelve-fold list is a combination of two previous lists, the second list beginning with tanha, "thirst," the cause of suffering as described in the second Noble Truth".[16] The first list consists of the first four nidanas, which parody the Vedic-Brahmanic cosmogony, as described by Jurewicz.[note 36] According to Gombrich, the two lists were combined, resulting in contradictions in its negative version.[16][note 37] Gombrich further notes that

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 09:42:07 2019 No.13927066 >>13926022 I quoted you the exact lines that shows where all those concepts are already found in the Brihadaranyaka, that's something totally different than "deflecting and going on tangents"

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 10:25:12 2019 No.13927217
File: 119 KB, 506x425, 1417.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>indulging in retarded who did it first shitfest, not using it an opportunity to think that both systems are validating of each other
>hindus negating the possibility of gautama reaching enlightenment on his own thus negating the idea of direct experience which is also key in hinduism
is this thread going full retard or what

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 10:27:56 2019 No.13927230 >>13927057 oh so now [western] scholars are correct, only when they agree with your viewpoint. Gotcha.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 10:28:58 2019 No.13927235 >>13927066 our discussion wasn't about the Brihadaranyaka, you just made a pivot because you have no recourse to my arguments.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:10:18 2019 No.13927422 >>13926819 zen is ritualistic as shit in practice doesn’t make it bad (I personally like a lot of Chan and Zen stuff) but it’s not some “real clear cut barebones Buddhism” that people on the internet make it out to be

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:10:24 2019 No.13927423

>>13927230
If you have any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that those scholars are wrong when they say the roots of the concept of dependent origination are found in the Vedas and Upanishads, than you are welcome to post it, when I dispute the claims of certain scholars I post evidence such as textual citations to back up my claims, nobody is preventing you from doing the same

>>13927235
Our discussion was about the Mundaka Upanishad and whether there is Buddhist-influenced content in it. Highly relevent to that discussion is whether the content in question is also found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, as if this is true then that would debunk the claim that those things had to come from Buddhism. As the ideas in the Mundaka that you posted about are expressed in the Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya and the other pre-Buddhist Upanishads (as I just demonstrated with citations) it's reasonable to assume that the Mundaka Upanishad got those concepts from the earlier ones, in accordance with the general continuity of thought throughout the primary Upanishads. You have no rebuttal and are just making a bad-faith claim, what I said is obviously highly relevant to our discussion for the reason I just explained, it's just that you just have no good response.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:19:45 2019 No.13927468

>>13927423
>when I dispute the claims of certain scholars I post evidence such as textual citations to back up my claims
and your evidence amounts to nothing lol, you just keep citing random verses that do not support your argument but just serve to obfuscate hoping a coherent argument comes out of it (which it never does) while cherry picking different authors that agree with you.

>Highly relevant to that discussion is whether the content in question is also found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads
nope it's just a dishonest pivot, has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Mundaka remains a post-Buddhist upanishad with Buddhistic ideas.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:32:53 2019 No.13927534

>>13927422
Well Zen ritual could be traced just as much(if not more) from Daoism and/or Shintoism.

The question is whether Zen should even be considered Buddhism or if its a new religion/spirituality; yes grown out of and influenced heavily by Buddhism, in perhaps the same way Christianity can no longer be called Judaism.

At the very least Zen seems to have moved further from the other schools than those schools have from each other.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:36:52 2019 No.13927552
File: 21 KB, 485x443, 1540521808608.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13927217
I'm actually willing to cede that Hinduism did some things first and that the Buddha likely took their ideas and modified it (he did study under various hindu teachers so it makes sense). There's only 1 person in this thread who's actually wewuzzing about ALL of Buddhism being based on the upanishads and that the upanishadic lineage never ever appropriated obvious Buddhist innovations even in the face of textual evidence, or the fact that Vedantists themselves have pointed this out when they accuse other Vedantists of being crypto-Buddhist (Shankara et al.).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:38:02 2019 No.13927559 >>13911605 this one post triggered advaitafag love it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:48:34 2019 No.13927614 >>13927534 I’d say Zen is pretty Buddhist. Teachings on karma, Zazen, Shikantaza, the teachings of Dogen and Linji are all explicitly Buddhist.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:49:00 2019 No.13927617

>>13927217
I'm the person who has been replying to the poster arguing that Advaita developed out of Buddhism. I have no problem with and have a deep appreciation for Buddhism, I used to be a Buddhist myself and it was studying Buddhism at a young age that first got me interested in eastern philosophy although I eventually moved on from Buddhism. I don't really care about whether he took stuff from Hinduism and only bring it up when people try to claim Advaita comes from Buddhism, to point out that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If the first post in this thread hadn't determined the course of the discussion by making the first accusation than I never would have mentioned it. I don't think that Buddha 100% just repeated the Upanishads and I accept the notion that he could have had some direct realization of truth but it just seems clear to me that this was heavily influenced by his studying of the Upanishads, Samhkya etc which had a large influence on the context of his realization which is why we find the 4 noble truths and everything else in the earliest Upanishads. As the other people in this thread have noted the Suttas more or less describe the metaphysics of the previously-existing Upanishads but from the subjective and phenomenological perspective of the egoistic self that becomes annihilated rather than from the metaphysical perspective of the transcendent Self that the Upanishads take

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:55:03 2019 No.13927646 File: 18 KB, 1853x263, 1544133203454.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927552 >I'm the person who has been replying to the poster arguing that Advaita developed out of Buddhism >new IP again errands I take it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:56:06 2019 No.13927652 >>13927617 meant to reply to >>13927646

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:57:05 2019 No.13927654

>>13927614
Yeah you're probably right. It definitely stands out though in my mind. Quite the disregard for scriptures, spontaneous enlightenment often triggered by things not really connected to traditional Buddhism, koans, it being somewhat "aethical" and lel how pretty much the most famous story of its founder is how he told his student to go cut his arm off(not exactly your typical Buddhist saint).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:58:05 2019 No.13927658 File: 35 KB, 642x428, alex_jones_08062018b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927646

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 11:59:39 2019 No.13927668 File: 106 KB, 593x425, 1554586103318.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927658

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:01:33 2019 No.13927679 File: 238 KB, 1280x825, 03194634901.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927668 not sure what your obsession with Guenon is or why you think he is relevant to this thread, but in any case he is based, I like him

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:06:02 2019 No.13927696 File: 2.75 MB, 1848x5883, 1552355859435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927679 >but in any case he is based, I like him wow who would've thunk it...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:14:32 2019 No.13927732 File: 64 KB, 645x729, VD09afj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927696 >everyone who likes Guenon is this one guy who was samefagging a year and a half ago

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:22:11 2019 No.13927750 File: 123 KB, 633x758, 1538624581489.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13927732 t. seething guenonfag

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:26:18 2019 No.13927760

>>13927617
>I have no problem with and have a deep appreciation for Buddhism, I used to be a Buddhist myself and I was studying Buddhism at a young age.....UNTIL I REALIZED BUDDHA WAS A COPING FRAUD WHO STOLE FROM BASED ADVAITA
Imagine pretending to be an appreciative humble former Buddhist just to make a point...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:28:21 2019 No.13927769 >>13924262 dalai lama mentioned it once

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:28:40 2019 No.13927770 >>13927760 I know right? He doesn't even attempt to be impartial when he's posing. Definitely saving that post for later.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:32:13 2019 No.13927788

>>13927769
dalai lama is actually a top lad
he's supposed to be a bodhisattva so he tries to attract as many people as possible to Buddhism, even if that means talking about universally appealing and obvious stuff like love and compassion all the time: just attracting people to Buddhism is enough

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:38:57 2019 No.13927819 >>13927760 I never accused Buddha of being a fraud, I've only said that much of his ideas come from the Upanishads, that's not the same as accusing him of being a fraud as he never explicitly denied this but admitted he studied under various teachers

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:40:02 2019 No.13927823 >>13927788 but he says everyone should follow their own traditional religion

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:40:44 2019 No.13927825 >>13927696 Why are mods deleting his threads though? Is discussion of Guenon banned now?

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:44:45 2019 No.13927838

>>13911537
Why do the commenters here care so much for the historical cultures which produced these ideas, and not simply for the ideas themselves? Why does it matter, when all of these cultures and histories are merely abstractions anyway, and the Truth they are all discoursing on being beyond such transitory, superficial areas like a local region or a scriptural document?

Why not simply concern yourself with the nature of the metaphysical realities discussed? Not with the who, where, when or how of its transmission.

Anonymous Thu Oct 3 12:49:39 2019 No.13927858

>>13927825
Who is Guenonfag?

Once upon a time there was a little anon who stumbled upon a book from an obscure French Muslim author (Abdul Al-Wahid Yahya, formerly known as Rene Guenon). He had never read any substantial works of any author, had never started with the Greeks, and was never really introspective into metaphysical matters.

But on that day, his life was transformed. So enamored with his first and only foray into the esoteric arts, he took it upon himself to spread the word of Guenon and preach perennialism (which is basically just advaita for incels) to the four channels of the net. In an effort to unite trad minded folk, he created 'Traditionalism general' for peeps to discuss authors such as Guenon, Evola, Coomaraswamy, Schuon etc.

The discussion was initially fruitful and healthy. That was until he was *gasp* -criticized- by a supposed 'theosophy/kantian shill'. He couldn't understand this feeling for which he had never felt before. He thought to himself 'could Guenon's infinite wisdom be imperfect? Could he really have derived his framework from the German idealists?'. 'No', he uttered. It's the others who are wrong (of course). He lashed out and attacked the 'Theosophy shill' relentlessly. Several shitposters then went in to bait him. Each consecutive thread resulted in constant sperg outs, alienating the casual traditionalists that partook in those threads (including evolists, sufiists and neoplatonists). Soon he turned on the Evolists and basically anyone who looked at him funny. His momentary freak outs were so common it spilled out into other threads. The moderators eventually decided to delete traditionalism general threads, which resulted in the so called 'Trad Exodus'.

He would later try to revive trad generals by disguising it as 'eastern general', only to resort to samefagging once he realized the old trad posters had gone forever. He has since continued the shill job in virtually every thread to do with eastern philosophy and eastern religious discussion often making a fool of himself. His random freakouts still happen from time to time, often culminating in multi-thread shitposting.

This is the story of Guenonfag, the one responsible for the destruction of traditionalism in this board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 13:05:51 2019 No.13927941 >>13927838 The question I posed in OP led to discussion of influence between the two philosophical movements

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 13:08:23 2019 No.13927947 >>13927858 >t. schizo

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 13:40:31 2019 No.13928115 >>13914805 what text?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 15:40:48 2019 No.13928774 >>13928115 personalist/pugdalavada

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]