/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14372604]

So this crazy Indian nut actually thought he could become immortal by meditating? Was he NUTS? Why is /lit/ so nutty for this guy?

[Anonymous No.14372607]

[Anonymous No.14372617]

>>14372604
another victim of hypno-sissification

[Anonymous No.14372635]

>>14372607
Daily reminder that Buddha was a red-haired, blue eyed Scythian. His alleged surname, Sakyamuni, was originally Saka-muni which literally means Scythian sage

[Anonymous No.14373070]

>>14372604
>So this crazy Indian nut actually thought he could become immortal by meditating?
No, he held the view that meditation was only an accessory spiritual method to be used as a sort of preparation or for training the mind to concentrate, but that meditation itself does not lead to liberation/immortality; which is actually attained via following a spiritual regime (involving renunciation, studying scripture etc) under the instruction of a realized teacher as laid out in the Upanishads which finally culminates in the dawning of a transcendental knowledge which confers liberation. It's mostly Buddhists who think that if they just sit around and meditate enough that they will suddenly become enlightened.
>Was he NUTS?
he is about the least nuts person you'll ever read, try reading through some of his commentaries, all of the logic he uses is foolproof
>Why is /lit/ so nutty for this guy?
Because Advaita is the final red-pill, also because of Guenon becoming a meme who was a big fan of Advaita and bases a lot of his writing in it
>>14372607
seethe all you want Buddhistcuck, it won't change the fact that Shankara demolished Buddhism and vanquished it from India

[Anonymous No.14373129]

Here's some reminders:

Kashyapa and Cunda murdered Gotama because Kashyapa was a Brahmin that believed in Jainistic Asceticism lifestyle as enlightenment itself (not merely the means to spend time on samma sati and samma samadhi of what is the Buddha Dhamma for True Self liberation of the Citta from Anatta due to Avijja) which is why Gotama Buddha never recognized him as an arahant and neither did Ananda Buddha which the heir to the Order after Ananda was Dhamma itself, Kassapa/Kashyapa was never a true Buddhi. Brahmayana is "Buddhism".

The extant written text of the Upanishads are younger than the extant proof of Buddhism existing but there's no reason not to think that the oral tradition wasn't spoke in Prakrit by some before codification by the scribes into Sanskrit.

Guenon isn't Perrenialism itself, Evola and Coomaraswamy are too the first generation "Traditionalists" but just because something is traditional to a culture doesn't mean it is true, for consensus never defines the truth that can only be sought by the Self that seeks itself in the undifferentiated Absolute that sees no difference in that which is from that which becomes.

The Mahabharata is batshit insane nonsense of which only one section of it can be used in a nonliteral way that can be vaguely interpreted to mean something greater than it is, of which such commentaries itself are too commentated by other commentators up to the point where it becomes wholly distinct from the profane literal straightforward read of the source text. Epics are not true in and of themselves, which any sort of meaningful metaphysical expounding is therefore not on the same footing as conventional exoteric religions yet it ultimately is the one true religion that is not a religion although some took over and made it into one against the founders of those wise men and philosophers of antiquity.

There is no middle way, only antithesis to all antinomies, dichotomies, etc.

[Anonymous No.14373157]

>>14373129
are you people capable of talking like regular LADS or are you always into being anally specific about meaningless, inconsequential shit?

[Anonymous No.14373205]

>>14373157
Consequential Pragmatism is Deterministic Empiricism that can never perfect upon the understanding of ultimate reality because their overly self limiting logic suppresses sound intuition, only focuses upon valid logic without ever explaining nor have any real means of explaining what is logically sound without claiming to call that intuition as a form of logical insanity when creative thought synthesis is not always apparently logically valid to those under false axioms. Instead of trying to seek the right paradigm, seek what makes a paradigm right, so that you don't merely get caught in the torrent of foolish noise.

[Anonymous No.14373319]

>>14372604
The truth is that you're already immortal you just didn't realize that yet.

[Anonymous No.14373329]

>>14373070
>Shankara demolished Buddhism
How do you respond to the charge that Shankara is a pseudo-Buddhist?

[Anonymous No.14373569]

>>14373329
I respond by pointing out that everything that people accuse of being "buddhistic" in advaita appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (such as the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya) and this is easily demonstrable.

The doctrine of Maya? It's first mentioned by name in Brihadaranyaka (2.5.19) and alluded too many times elsewhere in the same text and in Chandogya. Monasticism? The Brihadaranyaka praises it and describes it as the course that Janaka follows after becoming enlightened in (4.4.22 & 4.5.2). The self-luminosity of the Self being taken from Yogachara? The Brihadaranayka describes the Self as self-luminous in (4.3.6). Advaita idealism being taken from Buddhist idealism? There are countless quotes from Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya pointing at an idealistic ontology that I can quote if you'd like but the Aitareya Up. (which according to a review by Olivelle et al is pre-Buddhist) directly says "consiousness is Brahman" in (3.1.4.).

The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka states that Brahman is unborn many times in (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), and says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). The Chandogya says in line (6.1.4.) "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. Hence, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads deny that change, multiplicity etc are real and attribute it to maya and ignorance, and they say that he underlying reality which is the basis of those illusions is unborn and unchanging.

The Two truths doctrine? The Mundaka Upanishad while not pre-Buddhist mentions supreme and non-supreme Brahma-knowledge in line (1.1.4.) hundreds of years before Nagarjuna who is the first Buddhist to mention higher and lower knowledge (Buddha never did). The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka also makes an identical distinction in line (2.3.1.) when it says that Brahman should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.

That's a quick summary of everything people claim Shankara took from Buddhism, but as you can see it all appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. Scholars who claim Shankara took those ideas from Buddhism typically will studiously avoid making any mention of whether those ideas appear in the early Upanishads because they have an agenda they are pushing

[Anonymous No.14373757]

>>14373329
he can't, he just repeats neovedanta talking points like in >>14373569

he's been caught NUMEROUS times citing directly from neovedanta sources and even theosophy sources, so now he hides his sources except for the same one or two books (usually olivelle)

whenever someone mentions this he goes PROOF????? WHERE IS THE PROOF????

>>14373569
nice neovedanta, pseudo-hindu. enjoy never visiting india, where you would be considered a westernized heterodox pseudo-hindu who doesn't know his own heritage

[Anonymous No.14373816]

>>14373569
Most mainstream scholars identify Shankara's idealist framework and logicism with the traditions of Buddhist idealism predating him by hundreds of years. It's fine if you disagree with this for your own religious reasons. But at that point you're repeating dogma, and not engaging with the scholarship, which does not agree with you.

That includes Indian and Hindu scholarship, by the way. Even relatively conservative Hindu histories of philosophy acknowledge that Shankara is effectively a 6th-century Buddhist with Atman swapped in at the last step. They avoid this by saying that the Buddhists were themselves only developing the Upanishadic philosophy.

Your viewpoint is only typical among rabid Hindu nationalists in Youtube comment sections talking about how India will be a superpower by 2020. That's fine for you, but nobody here cares.

[Anonymous No.14373869]

https://youtu.be/Ianfc7PV2KI
>you can regard this as the absolute pits of academic dishonesty

Didn't know there were that many scholars on /lit/

[Anonymous No.14374260]

>>14373816
>>14373757
>muh theosophy
>muh neovedanta
>muh appeal to authority while ignoring all the scholars who disagree

You've just conceded that you don't have any real arguments or rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14374613]

What should one read to acquire a better understanding of Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.14374617]

>>14372604
He got high off of huffing the fumes from the shitting streets.

[Anonymous No.14374742]

>>14374617
>finally decide to google "shitting streets" and see if it's just a meme

Damn, it's real

[Anonymous No.14374798]

>>14373569

you know your shit, yet are you any more convinced that enlightenment is actually possible? i've had petty mystical experiences myself, and i still doubt

[Anonymous No.14375129]

>>14374798
Yes, I am convinced that it's possible

[Anonymous No.14375386]

>>14374613

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZZwozWViHtwolDHzM8GB1qgWfKbLkOh/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ORSdqJ-1LmVMgAHwYiRt0SwqeHIiRM6F/view

[Anonymous No.14375739]

>>14374742
Ah... What a truly deep culture and tradition... I feel enriched...

[Anonymous No.14375930]

>>14372635
WE

[Anonymous No.14376004]

The Buddha is literally an avatar of Vishnu. Don’t get fooled thinking he’s anything other than Hindu.

[Anonymous No.14376138]

>>14375930
I'm not a Scythian, so I'm not larping. Just stating facts.

[Anonymous No.14376162]

>>14372607
>no sources
Is this /tv/?

[Anonymous No.14376203]

>>14374742
what the fuck is wrong with india?

[Anonymous No.14376277]

>>14376203
Our women don't get raped by BBC

[Anonymous No.14376287]

>>14376277
doesn’t india have a huge rape problem? it’s something endemic over there. also you guys don’t have niggers because your an undeveloped country. niggers migrate to the developed world so they can take advantage of our resources and infrastructure. why would niggers migrate to india? so they can starve to death and inhale the ubiquitous odour of your feces?

[Anonymous No.14376326]

>>14376287
The rape "crisis" in India is vastly overexaggerated and anyway, a certain level of rape is normal in any country. Are you saying your country has no rapes?

India has very well developed infrastructure and is rich in natural resources. India has the fifth most powerful military in the world and more than 10 major cities that are all major hubs for commerce in Asia, which is why it is developing so quickly. You could even say that India is central to Asia's economy. In 10 years Europe will be a backwater the way it's declining now, and India will be at the center of the most thriving economies in the world, so it's largely accidental that people would rather migrate to the west than here. Anyway we don't even want migration really, we're prosperous enough as it is.

[Anonymous No.14376347]

>>14376004
There was no "Hindu" during Gotama's time, the Magadhan civilization wasn't the rest of continential "India" and as a reminder, there is no mention of Sanskrit in the Pali simply because it never existed or even worse, whatever accent proto Sanskrit that existed in that time was basically ebonics to Prakrit speaking scholars.

[Anonymous No.14376354]

>>14376347
can you elaborate on this more?

[Anonymous No.14376399]

>>14376277
they get raped by muslims instead
its an upgrade over niggers, well done
>>14376287
white liberal cope

[Anonymous No.14376402]

>>14376399
what part of my post struck you as “white liberal cope”??

[Anonymous No.14376403]

>>14376399
Lol we kicked all the Muslims out and have been owning them for decades.

[Anonymous No.14376410]

>>14376403
there are more muslims in india than in the entire middle east

[Anonymous No.14376423]

>>14372604
Shankara actually believed you could become immortal by meditating? And he looked like THAT? Damn, Hinduism is way more based than I thought

[Anonymous No.14376497]

>>14376354
The term Indus as wikipedia says correctly is about the Indus valley civilization, 'Hindu' is about the people tied to some aspects of that culture and not merely by genetic affiliation alone. The Magadha empire came about picking up the failing systems prior to them and they had their beginnings in the northern Indian continent. Some of the Indo-Scythians were of course among them. King Ashoka ruled it at its peak and had studied Buddhism or at the very least was inspired by some passages of the Dhammapada. I would show you the verse as to how Buddhism was meant to be taught in what language according to Gotama but I'm phonepoasting on my bed right now, sorry. You might be able to find the answer to that on your own. For whatever reason, there was also no mention of Sanskrit in the pillar edicts too which it is Prakrit written in Brahmi script. The reason the British thinks Prakrit was not older than Sanskrit is because they liked the Brahmins that were using Sanskrit and since Sanskrit was 'refined', they jumped to conclusions that Prakrit came after Sanskrit as a sort of top down corruption type of societal cultural decay which the British empire was somewhat obsessed with the nature of empires and their impending demise at that time so shit aligned and they just went with it. In reality, using extant empirical sources exclusively, no one can claim that Prakrit came after Sanskrit. Of course it doesn't negate the importance of the ideas in purportedly ancient oral traditions of the potentially old pre-Buddhist upanishads but yet again, extant copies can't be older than Prakrit even if it is because it is written in Sanskrit. (cont.)

[Anonymous No.14376500]

>>14376354
>>14376497
Also, it is dishonest in general to claim Gotama Buddha was a Vishnu avatar when Ishvara/Brahma, personal god archetype stuff, Gotama claimed that he was one in a past life, insinuating that the path to the Absolute/Brahmana-ayana/Brahmayana isn't some Bhakti level diety while nibbana is not found in them. Brahman isn't Brahma, some people get this nuance but many who claim that Gotama was a mere avatar just never properly studied what Gotama actually professes, while all the Buddhist sects Shankara dealt with were all 'not true buddhism' while the Advaitins nitpick to an oblivion as to what the Pali canon (minus the abhidhamma, that shit's like the book of mormon to the old and new testament so to speak, sectarian commentaries after the fact) says is inferior to Advaita and to some respect that claim is not justified since they rely on sectarian interpretations that twists and defiles what original Buddhism was about, probably since Buddhaghosa, humanity lost what Samma actually meant and it isn't merely 'right' in the junk translation by Max Mueller and others. Some Advaitins are right on how modern Buddhism doesn't understand that original Buddhism wasn't soul/atman/attan denialism yet they are wrong to say that some esoteric Mahayanas are crypto-Advaitins or whatever since they had sought to use Sanskrit as well as traditional Chinese to spread their sectarian versions of Buddhism, a very few of them by sheer happenstance undone the corrupt misinterpretations of he Theravadins on some key words like Citta and Atta, even Anatta which is never the denial of the soul, rather denying all that is not the soul, the true Self that is liberated by jhana/dhyana that turned into ch'an and later as zen in which from ch'an to zen the Japanese fucked it up as well as the incorporation of Taoism and some Confucianism, Zen Buddhists are basically religious atheistic soul denialism for Abrahamic rejects.

[Anonymous No.14376508]

>>14376500
Catholicism or Zen?

[Anonymous No.14376551]

>>14376508
How about neither, lol.

If you go the Traditionalist route it merely at some level in being integrated into whatever society you're in. Most Catholics are Nominal or just don't care as to what to seek, while Zen is a pile of crap unless you find some obscure 'heretical teaching' that do claim the soul is the refuge, there's no real Zen master to go to for that since all of them were replaced by soul denying annihilationists that seek to not seek type of self negating paradoxes that doesn't explain anything about what is the truth while they all promote anti authoritarianism authoritatively as something to not seek after the truth kind of retarded deal. If you want to get laid, go be a nominal Catholic with a job and some reading of the church fathers while being fed up with the nonsense of Christianity in general outside of church. Figurehead worshiping leads to no truth, Catholicism is like Tibetian Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is like the Pope structurally.

[Anonymous No.14376674]

>>14376347
Ok pajeet

[Anonymous No.14376680]

>>14376326
Ok street shitter

[Anonymous No.14376688]

>>14372635
Buddha was Nordic actually.

[Anonymous No.14376696]

>>14372604
No, meditation is only one aspect.

[Anonymous No.14376707]

>>14374613
The Great Liberation by Hearing in the Intermediate States

[Anonymous No.14376713]

>>14376326
>a certain level of rape is normal in any country.

Well said.

[Anonymous No.14376714]

>>14376688

buddha wuz achsully BLACK

[Anonymous No.14376721]

>>14376403
>we
>admitting you’re a stinky Indian

[Anonymous No.14376740]

>>14372607
Based

[Anonymous No.14376758]

>>14376399
White liberals hate Indians and niggers?

[Anonymous No.14376797]

>>14376688
>WE WUZ BUDDHA N SHIEET

[Anonymous No.14376883]

>>14376402
>you guys don’t have niggers because your an undeveloped country. niggers migrate to the developed world so they can take advantage of our resources and infrastructure. why would niggers migrate to india? so they can starve to death and inhale the ubiquitous odour of your feces?
That part.
>we are being invaded by niggers because we are better than you
White liberal cope

[Anonymous No.14376902]

>>14376551
>catholicism
>worshipping the pope
Retard
>dalai lama
>zen buddhism
This isn't standard retardation.
This is advanced retardation.

[Anonymous No.14376951]

>>14376902
You literally can't read.

[Anonymous No.14376980]

>>14376951
Prove it

[Anonymous No.14376987]

>>14376980
Well you responded to my post as if you did not understand it so I would say that is proof.

[Anonymous No.14377323]

>>14373569
>>The Two truths doctrine
lmao guenonfag is still spreading this obvious falsehood when I've already disproved him multiple times by directly quoting the Brihadaranyaka he cherishes.

>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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
>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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

[Anonymous No.14377346]

>>14377323
based anon retroactively refuting guenon

[Anonymous No.14377399]

>>14377323
>when I've already disproved him multiple time
No you didn't you brainlet. The name that people call the concept is unimportant, the distinction between higher and lower knowledge remains the same whatever label one tries to apply to it. The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranayka in line (1.1.4.) and the post-Buddhist Mundaka in line (2.3.1.) both make the distinction between absolute and non-absolute knowledge. Shankara himself doesn't refer to it as the "two truths doctrine" but that is just a label that modern academics apply to his distinction between absolute and non-absolute knowledge in order to classify it.

You are making the retarded claim that because Brihadarayaka says that there are not two truths that therefore the same text doesn't make a distinction between higher and lower knowledge despite it explicitly doing so in (2.3.1.), that's not how it works. The distinction between higher and lower knowledge can be referred to by many names and not just "two truths", there is no reason why the Brihadaranyaka would have used the exact same terminology to refer to it as some Buddhist thinker almost a thousand years later. In any case the denial of there being two simultaneous truths is not incompatible with the distinction between higher and lower knowledge because in the final analysis only the higher knowledge alone is absolutely true, lower knowledge is conditionally true up until the dawning of higher knowledge at which point and from the perspective of which the lower knowledge becomes untrue.

[Anonymous No.14377411]

>>14377399
>more jumbled word salad etc
keep coping hinduboo

>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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

[Anonymous No.14377423]

>>14377411
>keep coping hinduboo
You're the one coping because Shankara demolished your gay Buddhism and made it dwindle to near-extinction in it's homeland because nobody could take it seriously anymore. I already explained why your reasoning is wrong, if you don't have any response to the points that I've made other than to spam the same line you're just conceding that you've lost the argument

[Anonymous No.14377429]

>>14377423
>You're the one coping because Shankara demolished your gay Buddhism

[Anonymous No.14377431]

>>14372604
No nuttier than believing that praying to a dead Jew who got nailed to a chunk of wood 2000 years ago will make you immoral. So yeah. Fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.14377434]

>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. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
the one verse that shuts guenonfag down, his achilles heel. I give it to you anons, use it at your discretion.

[Anonymous No.14377436]

>>14372635
>>14376688
>>14376714
Degenerates
>Buddha>baba>baba yaga
Obviously one of our proud proto Slavic feminist speakers who taught the truth to the disgusting barbarians in the south.

[Anonymous No.14377442]

>>14376902
You cannot read.

[Anonymous No.14377450]

>>14377429
He did though, Buddhism was fairly prominent right up until the time him and kumarila exposed it all as nonsense and then it vanished from India. Buddhists don't have any response to this other than "m-muh muslims" which doesn't explain why it vanished from southern and eastern India so quickly or to resort to made up "muh Hindus killed all the Buddhists" nonsense. The vanquishing of Buddhism from it's homeland is a traumatic episode which Buddhists have never fully come to terms with and which they fear and hate talking about. Buddhist historians like Taranatha themselves admit Buddhists lost a bunch of public debates with Hindus.

[Anonymous No.14377458]

>>14377434
Cheers. I will use it as a mantra to control his spergout just like the Buddhist monk in journey to the west subdues the monkey with a mantra.

[Anonymous No.14377522]

>>14377458
kek

[Anonymous No.14377538]

>>14377450
3 days ago
>"Buddhism was never especially popular, the idea of India being mostly Buddhist at one point is just a myth"
now
>"Buddhism was fairly prominent"

keep those freudian slips coming

[Anonymous No.14377569]

>>14377450
>"There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans" -B. R. Ambedkar, "The decline and fall of Buddhism," Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. III, Government of Maharashtra. 1987, p. 229-30

>When you consider that the establishment of Islam in the entire area from Iran to Ningxia and from Kazakhstan to Malaysia, including India, was followed by the complete disappearance of living Buddhism in each of these regions, you may wonder what Prof. Thapar’s definition of "dialogue" could be. Even Moghul Emperor Akbar, who invited representatives of many religions to his court for discussion, did not invite any Buddhist representative simply because Buddhism did not exist in India at that time. -Koenraad Elst (2002). Who is a Hindu?: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism.

>The decline of Buddhism in India was not a singular event, with a singular cause; it was a centuries-long process that unfolded in a patchwork. seeds of Buddhism’s decline began in the mid-first millennium ce, when the sangha began withdrawing into their monasteries and divorcing them-selves from day-to-day interactions with the laity. Into this spiritual void stepped Hindu and Jain sects, who revamped their ritual practices and religious architecture to more closely resemble traditional Buddhist prac-tices. In the South and West of India, Hindu and Jain sects increasingly earned the support of the political and economic elite. In the Western Ghats, the last major Buddhist temples were constructed at Ellora in the seventh and eighth centuries CE. Across South India, the sangha aban-doned Buddhist sites, many of which were later reoccupied by Hindus and Jains. While some small Buddhist centers still persisted in South and West India in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, for the most part, both monastic and lay Buddhism had been eclipsed and replaced by Hinduism and Jainism by the end of the first millennium ce. -Lars Fogelin, An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism, Oxford University Press, p. 218.